Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-06-02 City Council Meeting (section 2)
Dote: Printed: 2/14/2015 nao �nenome: umoo-wu��uu �cxruuns�+000-mny-uc - I I I , / ------------------- I / I< I -----------j i I F I I -------- I —I -I `\-—__—_---- EVANGW... LINE 3a�Y. 11 11 I I �m•c•e _ n'nl _ _O—_—_T--------, I I 1 I 1 I _ I I I I I I ( c ` I ' I I I I• I I I I S a a; F I 4 I' I •; I x I � 1 L---�-----11 --- I! ----1 m I I I....a..r.. nawr�..• n raun • w.wn II w. •.x raw ��rw.x rr• rmw ur wrtw x M I •�------_ -vwe w..r. a 1-11 - uon xi Fi. I I 4A a Y14F GROVE ROAD0TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT NO 5001E .... FRANK BERMAN n1•'Ss'A'TI els s?(�) � I � I �� — , 1 AAUM014 I I ! a •0 1 WIITH s on..w. oNOw. CCdlbd 1 Y.dg. 0 40 W BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT 0123015 L A N D e 0 R M w.rr�.... h aswro •r.w r� .ann ..,•.kw.w cnr�z;n \10A, �/ Traffic Review Figure 2 11 Blake Woods Subdivision y City of Edina, Minnesota Site Plan Date: Printed: 2/14/2015 W50 Fllenome: K:\01686-630\Cod\£xhlbfts\1686-51f1g-03 - Exls ' c� C N Parkwood Rd K s d m iD A CL fax Mfadpw Ln WON .i L'1 Fax lfe�doriLr� r! FozMeodOW.Pirk-, Ln 0) rl i P 0 LnO N 440 Pine Grove Rd Yine GRxe Fd 340 'VVNON 0d4a O 0 N �dl�`"'ooa4n cc u H Ilwood or w ldyiwood Pr 5 \^' 2; Traffic Review Figure 3 °C a Blake Woods Subdivision Existing (2015) ��.� City of Edina, Minnesota Daily Traffic Volumes Cary Teague 'From: Jeff Siems Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 12:40 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: Brian Olson Subject: Blake woods housing project Hello Cary, Per our discussion today regarding the Blake Woods housing project the fire department recommends the following: 1) Road width of 24' is below fire code minimums. Residential fire sprinkler system (13D or IRC 2904) required for any building regardless of square footage. 2) Fire hydrants should be located in two areas; at the corner of Blake road and Blake woods and at the beginning of the turn -a -round along the North side. 3) No Parking Fire Lane signage to be installed along the North side of Blake Woods road and around the turn -a -round on the outside radius. Jeff Siems, Fire Marshal Edina Fire Department 4052-826-0337 1 JSiems@EdinaMN.gov �J DATE: February 19, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Community Development Director CC: Chad Millner PE — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner PE — Environmental Engineer Charlie Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: Berman Subdivision — Preliminary Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. General Comments I. All rain gardens will need to be on private property and covered by a private maintenance agreement in favor of the local Watershed District. Provide an inspection and maintenance plan that ensures future functionality. 2. A development agreement will be required for the creation of public road and utilities. 3. All maintenance for the landscaping, retaining walls and other related items located within the proposed • public right-of-ways and easements will be the responsibility of the subdivisions home owners association or individual property owners. Survey/ Plat 4. Datum for any future surveys will need to be NAVD 1929. 5. Recorded easements will be required for all public infrastructures not already in platted drainage and utility easement. Traffic and Street 6. A traffic study will need to be completed for the impact of an entrance at Blake Rd vs. Evanswood Ln. 7. B618 curb and gutter only and standard residential driveway entrances as described in city standard plate 411 and found at the following link: http://edinamn.gov/index.phi)??section=construction standards 8. Provide 5 -foot wide ADA compliant sidewalks with 5 -foot boulevards. 9. 24 -foot wide streets will be allowed only if. a. The City of Edina's largest fire truck is able to navigate the road and cul-de-sac. b. Parking is limited to one side only. Sanitary and Water Utilities 10. Describe sewer and water services and proposed abandonments of existing utilities. 11. A looped 6" DIP from Blake Rd through to the southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Ln. 12. Copper lines must be used to the curb stop. 13. Wet tap will need to be completed at night, with an approved closure plan by public works for Blake 0 Rd. 14. Water main to cross northeast at Blake Rd. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov. 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 4,, • • is Storm Water Utility 15. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: hgps:Hmaps.barr.com/edina/ and http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=engineering water resource 16. A complete stormwater management plan will need to be completed for the site. a. Stormwater system downstream of sub -watershed MD_29 is over capacity. On site extended detention will be required to control peak rate to the downstream storm system. Provide downstream analysis. b. No increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. 17. Describe and show downstream connection to public storm sewer system. Connection must remain in public drainage and utility easement on Parkwood Knolls V Addition or public right of way on Shafer Road. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide information for grading staging between the land development and individual building permits. 19. A State construction site permit and SWPPP will be required. Other Agency Coordination 20. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPCA, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 w%vwEdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371• Fax 952-826-0392 Fl3� • DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Community Development Director CC: Chad Millner PE — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner PE — Environmental Engineer RE: Berman Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. This review summarizes issues remaining from the February 19 review and March 3 drainage review memo. The reviewed plan is dated 3/18/2015. General Comments I. A development agreement will be required for the creation of public road, utilities and stormwater system ownership and maintenance. Survey/ Plat 2. Recorded easements will be required for all public infrastructures not already in platted right of way. • a. Drainage to the west is proposed in a flow concentration onto private property then into a private pond. Applicant must negotiate future public easement for: the flow path, any drainage infrastructure, or any increase in pond bounce with any affected private parties. Describe precautions against erosion and provide proof of easement on private property. • Traffic and Street. 3. Use B618 curb and gutter and standard residential driveway entrances as described in city standard plate 411 and found at the following link: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction_ standards 4. Provide 5 -foot wide ADA compliant sidewalks with 5 -foot boulevards on south side of proposed road consistent with Living Streets Policy. 5. Demonstrate fire access turning movement for attached design vehicle. 6. Limited parking to one side of street. Sanitary and Water Utilities 7. Provide a looped 6" DIP from Blake Rd through to the southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Ln. Storm Water Utility 8. Submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan that meets the following performance standard. Design to these restrictions will ensure that either east or west flow path meet level of service and level of protection for 100 year events, and risk in downstream water body MD_25 is not increased. 9. No increase in stormwater peak rate, volume or flood stage elevation to neighboring private properties, which will be demonstrated by the following criteria: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Aw • a. No increases in stormwater volumes to MD_29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100- year 24 —hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. b. No increases in peak stormwater rates to MD_29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. c. No limitations to total volume runoff (to east) aside from meeting Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site. 10. Limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event, not per sub watershed (a sub watershed basis increase to the Blake Road system is allowed, as that direction has capacity to direct stormwater) 11. Achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. Hydrology The Engineering Department contracted with Barr Engineering to review the hydrology calculations for this design. The Barr review is attached to this memo. 12. Provide justification for pre and post curve numbers and following guidance provided in attached Barr memorandum (Performance standard comment 2) 13. Provide revised survey or adjust model to describe existing on-site storage consistent with Barr memorandum (Performance standard comment 3, Other comment 4) 14. Future building sites can be limited by impervious surface assumptions though developers agreement. Previous submittal claimed 5,450 sf impervious per lot. Recommend more conservative impervious • assumptions to provide flexibility to allow for future expansion. 15. Correct modeling error in rain garden performance (Volume control, Other comment 3) 16. Provide time of concentration justification (Other comment 1) 17. Provide infiltration rate justification (Other comment 2) • Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide a State construction site permit and SWPPP at time of Final Plat. General Comments 19. Provide a private maintenance agreement in favor of the local Watershed District for all rain gardens at time of Final Plat. 20. Provide an inspection and maintenance plan that ensures future functionality at time of Final Plat. Other Agency Coordination 21. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPCA SWPPP, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department at time of Final Plat ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 wivw.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826`-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 A3( * 4( Turning Performance Analysis Additional Bumper Depth Chassis Overhang Axle Track Wheel Offset ^ —Cramp Angle —Tread Width Inside Turning Radius Parameters: 5/1/2013 Inside Cramp Angle: 45.000 Axle Track: 81.92 in. Wheel Offset: 5.25 in. Tread Width: 16.60 in. Chassis Overhang: 65.99 in. Additional Bumper Depth: 19.00 in. Front Overhang 84.99 in. Wheelbase: 258.00 in. Calculated Turning Radii: Inside Turn: 20 ft. 4 in. Curb to Curb: 36 ft. 8 in. Wall to Wall: 41 ft. 1 in. Comments: Truck 12205 Components PRIDE # Description Front Tires 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 425/65822.50 20 ply YZY 3 tread Chassis 0070220 Dash -2000, Chassis, PAP/SkyArm/Midmount Front Bumper 0123625 Bumper, 19" extended, ImpNel Aerial Device 0006900 xxxAerial, 100' Pierce Platform Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Pagel of 2 A3% Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/2013 04( 0 0 Definitions: Inside Cramp Angle Maximum turning angle of the front inside tire. Axle Track King -pin to king -pin distance of the front axle. Wheel Offset Offset from the center -line of the wheel to the king -pin. Tread Width Width of the tire tread. Chassis Overhang Distance from the center -line of the front axle to the front edge of the cab. This does not include the bumper depth. Additional Bumper Depth Depth that the bumper assembly adds to the front overhang. Wheelbase Distance between the center lines of the vehicle's front and rear axles. Inside Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle around which the vehicle can turn. Curb to Curb Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the vehicle's tires can turn. This measurement assumes a curb height of 9 inches. Wall to Wall Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the entire vehicle can turn. This measurement takes into account any front overhang due to the chassis, bumper extensions and/or aerial devices. Page 2 of 2 �43� resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants Memorandum To: Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Janna Kieffer Subject: Review of Blake Woods March 18, 2015 Stormwater Management Submittal Date: March 30, 2015 This memo serves as a summary of Barr's review of the Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed Blake Woods subdivision, as submitted on March 18, 2015 by Landform. Barr reviewed the Stormwater Management Pian for compliance with the performance standards identified in the March 3, 2015 drainage review memo from Ross Bintner, City of Edina Engineering Department, to Cary Teague, City of Edina Community Development Director. Performance Standard Regarding Neighboring Private Properties Standard- No increases in stormwater volumes to MD -29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year 24 -hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. 0 Barr's review comments: 0 1. The stormwater modeling submittal indicates that under existing conditions, 172,408 ft2 within the proposed development area drains west to the MD_29 pond, with 19,741 ft2 of impervious surface (11.4%). Under proposed conditions, 167,669 ft2 of the proposed development drains west to the MD -29 pond, with 46,664 ft2 of impervious surface (27.8%). Based on this information, summarized in Table 1, the total area draining to the MD -29 pond has been reduced under proposed conditions. However, the amount of impervious surface draining to the MD -29 pond under proposed conditions is 2.4 times that of existing conditions. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.corn Aar Date: March 30, 2015 Page: 2 Table 1. Summary of subcatchment areas draining to the MD -29 pond under existing and ro osed conditions Subcatchment Area (ft2) Impervious % Impervious area Proposed Difference in Runoff Subwatershed 4S: To Pond MD -29 95,550 16.05 15,336 Raingarden B (Pond 15S) 9,748 35.73 3,483 Raingarden C (Pond 14S) 22,318 53.92 12,034 Raingarden D (Pond 12S) 6,167 83.49 5,149 Raingarden E (Pond 11S) 14,352 36.32 5,213 Raingarden F (Pond 17S) 9,847 32.24 3,175 Raingarden G (Pond 18S) 9,687 23.49 2,275 Total 167,669 28 46,664 Existing 1,742 Subwatershed 4S: To Pond MD -29 172,408 11.45 19,741 2. Table 2 summarizes the runoff generated under existing and proposed conditions in the subcatchment(s) draining to pond MD -29, per the March 18, 2015 submittal. Note that the runoff generation summarized in Table 1 does not reflect volume reduction achieved by routing runoff through the rainwater gardens. • Table 2. Summary of runoff generated per March 18, 2015 submittal Event Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Difference in Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Volume (ft') Depth per Volume (ft') Depth per Generated acre (in) acre (in) (ft') 2 -year 20,258 1.41 22,237 1.60 1,979 10 -year 37,762 2.63 39,906 2.87 2,144 100 -year 80,280 5.59 82,022 5.88 1,742 Given the significant increase in impervious surfaces draining to MD -29 pond, the increases in runoff generated under proposed conditions seem low. We recommend the following revisions to the modeling approach to ensure that the increase in impervious surface are being properly reflected in the modeling analysis: - Use a pervious curve number for proposed conditions that is the same as or higher than existing conditions to reflect likelihood of compacted soil conditions resulting from construction. When using a pervious curve number of 82 for proposed conditions (consistent with existing conditions), the volume to MD -29 increases under the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events, and the performance standard for the 2 -year and 10 -year events are no longer met. 0 Date: March 30, 2015 Page: 3 - Use the distributed curve number method, which calculates runoff separately for impervious and pervious areas. 3. Under existing site conditions, there is a low, depression area located south of the existing driveway on the Berman property. Based on the MnDNR's 2011 LiDAR, it appears that stormwater from an area of approximately 30,000 ft2 drains to this low area, where runoff pools to a depth of approximately one foot before reaching the surface overflow and flowing southward and eventually west to the MD_29 pond. Based on the MnDNR's 2011 LiDAR elevation data, there is approximately 4,000 cubic feet of storage in this low area. Rough estimates indicate that during the 2 -year, 24-hour event, all runoff from the direct tributary area would be stored in this low area without a surface overflow to MD -29. This low depression area south of the existing driveway is not included in the current existing conditions model. Including the existing low area in the modeling analysis would result in lower runoff volumes to MD_29 under the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. The low area should be included in the modeling analysis for comparison of existing and proposed runoff volumes to the MD -29 pond if field survey verifies the presence and characteristics of the low area. Standard- No increases in peak stormwater rates to MD_29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events), as compared with existing conditions. • Table 3 summarizes the peak runoff rates to the MD_29 pond, as identified in the March 18, 2015 stormwater management plan. Based on the modeling, the proposed rainwater garden storage and infiltration/filtration results in peak flows to the MD -29 pond that are lower than peak runoff rates from • existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. Table 3. Summary of peak runoff rates to MD -29 pond Event Existing Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Runoff Rate (ds) 2 -yr, 24 -hr (2.87") 8.46 6.08 10 -yr, 24 -hr (4.29") 15.61 10.9 100 -yr, 24 -hr (7.47") 32.11 25.08 Performance Standard(s) for Overall Site Standard- limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour Atlas 14 events. Table 4 summarizes the peak runoff rates from the overall site, as identified in the March 18, 2015 stormwater management plan. Based on the modeling, the proposed rainwater garden storage and k4{ Date: March 30, 2015 • Page: 4 infiltration/filtration results in peak runoff rates from the overall site that are lower than peak runoff rates from existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. Tahle 4_ Summary of peak runoff rates from overall site Event Existing Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Runoff Rate (cfs) 2 -yr, 24 -hr (2.87") 9.08 6.66 10 -yr, 24 -hr (4.29") 16.82 11.9 100 -yr, 24 -hr (7.47") 34.72 27.9 Standard- Applicant must meet the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District's (NMCWD's) stormwater management rule requires retention onsite of one inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces of the parcel. The proposed site has a total of 54,638 ft2 of impervious surface. One inch of runoff from 54,638 ftz of impervious surface is 4,553 ft' of runoff. Soils on the proposed site have been identified as Hydrologic Soil Group D, indicating poor infiltration capacity. As such, the proposed rainwater garden designs include installation of a drain tile to collect • runoff that infiltrates through the approximately two feet of planting soil. The proposed rainwater gardens include a gravel bed below the drain tile to store and infiltrate runoff. Based on the combined area of the gravel beds, an infiltration rate for the native soils of 0.03 in/hr, and a 48-hour drawdown time, the volume of runoff retained and infiltrated from the proposed rainwater gardens, collectively, is 979 ft'. While compliance with the NMCWD's volume control requirement will ultimately need to be assessed by the NMCWD, it does not appear that the volume retention achieved by the proposed rainwater gardens will meet the NMCWD volume retention requirement. Standard- Applicant must achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. The NMCWD's stormwater management rule requires that runoff from the parcel be treated to provide at least sixty percent (60%) annual removal efficiency for phosphorus, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids. Compliance with the NMCWD's water quality treatment requirements was not assessed as part of this review, and will need to be evaluated by li•IALr0"1 Other Review Notes 1. The time of concentration values for the Existing Conditions Subcatchment 4S (10 minutes) and Proposed Conditions Subcatchment 4S (10 minutes) are low when considering the flow length, site topography and ground cover. • AC - a Date: March 30, 2015 isPage: 5 2. An infiltration rate of 1.6 in/hr was used in the model to reflect infiltration through the planting media of the rainwater gardens. Based on the 50% sand soil mixture identified in the plan set, we recommend using a lower infiltration rate of 0.8 in/hr to provide a more conservative estimate of filtration rates. 3. It appears that the method used to account for infiltration through the planting media and infiltration through native soils below the gravel bed is calculating filtration/infiltration using a surface area larger than appropriate. The exfiltration rate through the planting soil should be assigned an invert elevation slightly below the bottom of the rainwater garden's surface storage area. The infiltrated volume will then be calculated based on the surface area of the ponded water, rather than the combined areas of both the surface storage and the underground gravel bed. The exfiltration rate out of the system (through the native soil below the gravel bed) should be assigned both an invert elevation slightly below the bottom of the gravel bed and a maximum elevation slightly below the bottom of the surface storage area. The infiltrated volume will then be calculated based on the surface area of the gravel bed rather than the combined surface areas of both the gravel bed and surface storage. 4. There is a low depression area on the south side of the property at 5311 Evanswood Lane, which • is located just north of the proposed roadway of Berman property. The MnDNR LiDAR elevation data indicates that under existing conditions, stormwater runoff will pool in this low area until an elevation of 946.4 feet MSL, then flow west via surface overflow. 0 Review of the grading plan included with the March 18, 2015 submittal (sheet C3.1) indicates that the proposed site design includes a surface overflow between 5311 Evanswood Lane and the Berman property to the west at elevation 945.9 feet MSL, lower than the existing surface overflow (based on MnDNR LiDAR). 44-3 • 0 0 r7 hA A�� resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and anviroomental consultants Memorandum To: MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics — Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Project: 23/62 1050 MIDS Standard engineering practice during design of stormwater systems usually employs Curve Number methodology. Curve Number methodology is often required by municipal stormwater ordinance due to its wide and historic acceptance as an appropriate rural and urban hydrologic method. Curve Numbers are determined according to the ground cover and soil type, and are used to approximate the varying infiltration, interception and storage capacities of different land covers. A high Curve Number (such as 98 for impervious pavement) indicates low infiltration/abstraction and high runoff, while a lower Curve Number (such as 30 for certain wooded areas) indicates high infiltration/abstraction and low runoff. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual defines Curve Number as "an index combining hydrologic soil group, land use factors, treatment, and hydrologic condition. Used in a method developed by the SCS to determine the approximate amount of runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area." (MPCA 2005). History of Curve Number Method Curve Number methodology as it is now used was developed beginning in the 1950s and updated in the decades since. It is an event -based empirical model developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly SCS) based on outflow data collected from relatively uniform agricultural landscapes at a watershed -wide scale, using larger precipitation events and larger flood flows. It was originally developed to estimate stream flow based on calendar day storm/rainfall data. Curve Number methodology forms the theoretical basis for NRCS (formerly SCS) TR -20 and TR -55, where various regions of the nation are assigned varying intensities of design storms and varying recurrence event precipitation totals. The method was originally developed to calculate the anticipated runoff volume from a watershed and was later adapted to estimate runoff discharge rate. The typical application is to apply a constant, dimensionless Curve Number to calculate runoff volume from rainfall volume. An assumed typical hydrograph (flow as a function of time) and calculated time -of -concentration (the time of flow from the farthest point on the watershed to the outlet) are used to calculate runoff rates. Curve Numbers generally vary from 30 to 98; the higher the Curve Number, the greater the volume of runoff is generated. Table 1 lists Curve Numbers for common Minnesota land covers (NRCS 1986). 0 Barr Engineering Co. 4700 Wast 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952 832.2600 www 6arr.com 4+s • MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 2 Project: 23611050 MIDS Table 1. Curve Numbers for Selected Land Covers' Land Cover Hydrologic Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil Groups Condition A B C D Predevelopmentz Woods Good 303 55 70 77 Prairies, no grazing Good 30 58 71 78 Developed Impervious Surfaces NA 98 98 98 98 Turfgrass, cover < 50% Poor 68 79 86 89 Turfgrass, cover < 50 to 75% Fair 49 69 79 84 Turfgrass, cover > 75% Good 39 61 74 80 Agricultural Fallow, bare soil NA 77 86 91 94 • Fallow, crop residue Good 74 83 88 90 Row crops, straight row Good 67 78 85 89 Small grain, straight row Good 63 75 83 87 Pasture, grazing Good 39 61 74 80 These Curve Numbers supplied by TR -55 are forAntecedent Runoff Condition 11 (ARC 11). 2The Curve Numbers listed for Predevelopment are considered appropriate for native soil and vegetation conditions. 3TR-55 specifies a Curve Number for Woods 'A"Soils as 30 for runoff calculations, while acknowledging that the actual Curve Number for this condition is lower (unspecified). Minnesota Storrnwater Manual lists a presettlement Curve Number of20 (Table 8.3). Application of Curve Number Method The Curve Number for each soil type and land cover dictates the expected maximum storage of the soil, S, where S is in inches. P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDS\WorkFiles\PerformanceGoals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.docx A 1000 _ S CN — 10 Abstractions,I,, (interception, depression storage and evaporation) are generally considered to be 20% of the soil storage. IQ = 0.2 * S Runoff volume is then calculated using the following equation: (P — IQ)2 Q (P + 0.8 * S) The runoff calculated in the above equation is then applied to a rainfall frequency distribution to determine the runoff hydrograph. The NRCS method dictates a Type U 24-hour frequency distribution for Minnesota, however, the runoff volume generated can be applied to other storm durations and intensities. Curve Number methodology is even used in conjunction with continuous rainfall data to determine runoff on an annual basis, but as will be discussed later, the applicability of the Curve Number method for small • storms is suspect. Curve Number Method Advantages The primary reason that Curve Number methodology is popular today is the ease of use (Lamont 2008). It is used in TR -20 and various software models for hydrology estimates, including water quality models (such as P8) to attempt to estimate pollutant loadings and sediment yield, and flood hydrology models (such as HydroCAD). Curve Number methodology is frequently used to estimate peak runoff flow, runoff volume and runoff hydrographs for precipitation events of all sizes. Only limited site data, such as location, soil type, land use and slope are required to complete calculations. The method is believed to be relatively accurate for larger scale planning efforts, such as regional flood storage ponds and other flood control facility sizing. Other common hydrologic methods, including Green-Ampt and Horton Infiltration methods, do not share the advantage of ease of use, and thus are not used as often as Curve Number methodology in stormwater regulation or by developers in sizing storm sewer systems and rate and volume control storrnwater best management practices (BMPs). Curve Number Method Deficiencies Despite its advantages and widespread acceptance, the Curve Number method presents certain disadvantages for some modeling and estimating applications. In general, these deficiencies are the result P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621050 NIIDS\WorkFilcs\Performanceooals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.doca 41-1 MIDI Wank Group From* • Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics -Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 3 Project: 23611050 MIDI 1000 _ S CN — 10 Abstractions,I,, (interception, depression storage and evaporation) are generally considered to be 20% of the soil storage. IQ = 0.2 * S Runoff volume is then calculated using the following equation: (P — IQ)2 Q (P + 0.8 * S) The runoff calculated in the above equation is then applied to a rainfall frequency distribution to determine the runoff hydrograph. The NRCS method dictates a Type U 24-hour frequency distribution for Minnesota, however, the runoff volume generated can be applied to other storm durations and intensities. Curve Number methodology is even used in conjunction with continuous rainfall data to determine runoff on an annual basis, but as will be discussed later, the applicability of the Curve Number method for small • storms is suspect. Curve Number Method Advantages The primary reason that Curve Number methodology is popular today is the ease of use (Lamont 2008). It is used in TR -20 and various software models for hydrology estimates, including water quality models (such as P8) to attempt to estimate pollutant loadings and sediment yield, and flood hydrology models (such as HydroCAD). Curve Number methodology is frequently used to estimate peak runoff flow, runoff volume and runoff hydrographs for precipitation events of all sizes. Only limited site data, such as location, soil type, land use and slope are required to complete calculations. The method is believed to be relatively accurate for larger scale planning efforts, such as regional flood storage ponds and other flood control facility sizing. Other common hydrologic methods, including Green-Ampt and Horton Infiltration methods, do not share the advantage of ease of use, and thus are not used as often as Curve Number methodology in stormwater regulation or by developers in sizing storm sewer systems and rate and volume control storrnwater best management practices (BMPs). Curve Number Method Deficiencies Despite its advantages and widespread acceptance, the Curve Number method presents certain disadvantages for some modeling and estimating applications. In general, these deficiencies are the result P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621050 NIIDS\WorkFilcs\Performanceooals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.doca 41-1 To: MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company • Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 4 Project: 23611050 MIDS of the nature of the method's empirical development in large non -urbanized watersheds, in contrast to the differing conditions encountered in urbanized areas. Put simply, the Curve Number method was not originally developed for the urbanized land uses where the method is now most -frequently employed. Developed for Agricultural, Not Urban Watersheds Classification of variable urban soils under specific Curve Numbers remains in question. The Curve Number method was developed on uniform agricultural watersheds and later adapted for urban watersheds (Peters 2010). The model performs well on rural landscapes, but was not developed to consider the complexity of a small urban site with many different land covers and BMPs (Reese 2006). Abstractions The Curve Number method poorly estimates initial abstraction/losses, as the method was developed focusing on the long-term conditions for daily rainfall. Initial abstraction is calculated as a function of the Curve Number, as 0.2*S. This does not often account for variation and complexity of smaller, flatter sites and soils within stormwater BMPs. Recent research has suggested that a value of 0.05 or 0.1 may be more appropriate than 0.2 (Reese 2006, Lamont 2008, Eli 2010) and most modeling packages allow the user to • adjust this value; however, changing the abstraction value from the standard 0.2 requires the creation of new Curve Numbers for all land cover types and antecedent runoff conditions (Lamont 2008). • The most common application of the method uses a constant Curve Number and antecedent runoff condition (ARC) for an entire precipitation event, although some modeling packages allow the Curve Number to vary with time and ARC. The possible inaccuracy concerning the lack of early -event variation of Curve Number (initial losses, infiltration, etc.) and the inability of the method to account for varying antecedent moisture content are deficiencies of the method (especially for small precipitation and first flush water -quality scale events). Small Precipitation Events and Continuous Modeling Curve Number methodology has difficulty accurately determining runoff for small precipitation events (less than 3"), and especially for events less than V2 inch (Peters 2010). In the Twin Cities, storms less than '/2 inch account for 65% of all precipitation events greater than 0.1 inches (MPCA 2005 — Appendix B). The method is believed to be more accurate for larger precipitation events. The method was not originally developed to model snowmelt or continuous rainfall/runoff simulations, nor was it developed to describe the hydrologic communication between rainfall, soil, soil moisture, subsurface flow and stream flow, therefore has severe limitations in being used for these purposes. Even though it is sometimes used as such, it was not developed to be used for non -point source water quality modeling calculations, such as variable infiltration rates, making a distinction between P.\ 4pls\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDS\WorkFiles\PerformanceGoals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.doca To: MIDS Work Group • From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1 ) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 5 Project: 23611050 MIDS disconnected impervious surfaces and pervious surfaces, etc. Modelers have observed inaccurate prediction of runoff volume for small precipitation events, and corresponding inaccurate estimation of pollutant/sediment delivery using this method. Inaccuracy is heightened when only a portion of the real watershed is actually contributing runoff. Composite Curve Number Deficiencies 1 A composite Curve Number is the areal -weighted average Curve Number of multiple areas with different Curve Numbers, aggregated into a single area with a single curve number. A distributed method differs from a composite Curve Number in that it separates pervious and impervious areas, calculating their runoff independently to avoid undesired approximations that occur in composite Curve Number calculations. Results differ if a composite Curve Number is used in the calculations or if a distributed approach is used. Peters calculated that for a theoretical 20 -acre, 30% impervious site, and a 1.3 -inch rainfall event, using the composite Curve Number approach generated only 30% of the runoff volume that a distributed Curve Number approach would generate (0.17 acre-feet versus 0.55 acre-feet). The distributed Curve Number method is generally more accurate because each land cover type is considered, enhancing the resolution • of the analysis (Peters 2010). Employing the composite Curve Number method can lead to inadequate sizing of water quality and rate control stormwater 13MPs. Composite and distributed Curve Number methods generate more similar results for larger storms (5 -year, 100 -year, etc.); however, when evaluating small storms, composite Curve Numbers for Commercial, Industrial, and varying impervious densities Residential Sites are not recommended for use even though they are listed by the NRCS, in various models, and in Table 8.4 of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. References Eli, Robert N. and Samuel J. Lamont. Curve Numbers and Urban Runoff Modeling — Application Limitations. Proceedings from Low -Impact Development 2010: Redefining Water in the City. 2010 ASCE. Garen, David C. and Danial S. Moore. Cun�e Number Hydrology in Water Quality Modeling. Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. April 2005. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010: http://www.wsi.nres.usda.gov/products/w2Q/H&H/docs/H&H papers/curve number/garen moore C N abuses.pdf Lamont, S. J.; Eli, R N.; and Fletcher, J. J., 2008. "Continuous Hydrologic Models and Curve Numbers: A Path Forward," Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. July 2008. P:\Mp1s\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDS\workFiles\Performance•Goals\CNs\C N Memo - Final.doex ha q • • To: MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 6 Project: 23611050 MIDS Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005. Minnesota Stormwater Manual, v2. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR -55. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydraulics and Hydrology — Technical Information. Curve Number Archive. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010: htip://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products/w20/H&Hltech info/topics/CNarchive.html Peters, Erik G. Improving the Practice of Modeling Urban Hydrology. Stormwater. March -April 2010. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010: htti)://www.stormh2o.com/march-april-2010/improving_practice- modeling 3.aspx Reese, Andrew J. Voodoo Hydrology. Stolmwater. July -August 2006. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010: http•//www stormh2o.com/iuly-aus;ust-2006/urban-hydrology-methods.aspx P:\Mp1s\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDS\WorkFiles\PerformauceGoels\CNs\CN Memo - Final.docx AS -0 • From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 March 17, 2015 City of Edina Attn: Ross Bintner Environmental Engineer 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Response to City Drainage Review Comments Dear Mr. Bintner: E Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net We have received and reviewed the City of Edina drainage comments dated March 3, 2015. We have revised our plans, drainage report and calculation based upon those comments and below are a list of our responses address your comments. It is our intent that the changes made to the documents have addressed the City's concerns and we ask for the staff support at the March 251H planning commission meeting. Storm Water Utility 1. Submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan, and development plan that meets the following performance standard. Design to these restrictions will ensure that either east or west flow path meet level of service and level of protection for 100 year events, and risk in downstream water body MD 25 is not increased. We have revised our plans and calculations based upon your comments below. We do not have the capacity or data to analyze downstream catchment areas outside of our property. Our development shows both a decrease in offsite storm water rate and a decrease in offsite storm water volume. 2. Applicant must not increase stormwater peal, rate or volume to neighboring private properties, which will be demonstrated by the following criteria: a. No increases in stormwater volumes to MD_29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100- year 24 —hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. The hydrocad analysis of the existing and proposed conditions shows a decrease in storm water volume to the MD -29 pond in the proposed conditions. b. No increases in peak stormwater rates to MID _29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, I0 -year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. The hydrocad analysis of the existing and proposed conditions show a decrease in stormwater rate to the MD -29 pond in the proposed conditions c. Summarize direct offsite drainage to the south property line separately. The revised plans indicate a swale on the south property line. This drainage will be routed to the existing MD -29 pond. tardimn', S�y&'a�f aiN 9M b Fiislr ale �epteeree seNce� a lanmmn PNeaatuW SeMcee, LLC. r is 1.7 9 d. No limitations to total volume runoff (to east) aside from meeting Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site. The hydrocad analysis shows a reduction in storm water volume to the east in the proposed conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -yr and 100 -yr, 24-hour storm. 3. Limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 - year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour- Atlas 14 event, not per sub watershed (a sub watershed basis increase to the Blake Road system is allowed, as that direction has capacity to direct stormwater) The hydrocad analysis shows a reduction in storm water rate to the pond in the proposed conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -yr and 100 -yr, 24-hour storm. 4. Achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. a. The submittal indicates that the site is primarily comprised of D soils and the rain gardens will primarily serve as stormwater filtration. Given the limited infiltration and presence of drain tile in the bottom of the rain gardens, the TP removals sited in the submittal seems high. Our initial calculations were based on Hennepin County Soils data which indicated Silty Sandy soils. We have since completed a geotechnical report that shows Clay (D) soils and our models have since been updated to reflect those. Our project will meet/exceed the watershed requirements for water quality as we will be required to obtain a permit through the watershed prior to final plat recording. 5. Recorded easements will be required for all public infrastructures not already in platted drainage and utility easement. a. Drainage to the west is proposed in a flow concentration onto private property then onto a private pond. Applicant must negotiate future public easement for: the flow path, any drainage infrastructure, or any increase in pond bounce with any affected private parties. The applicant and Landform have been in contact with the two property owners through the design process. Both owners have indicated support for continual storm water drainage to the pond. We will continue to work with the owners to establish any required easements during the final platting process. 6. Road grade blocks drainage from proposed lot and private property to the north. Provide positive drainage to low area to north. Summarize any flow through areas separately in hydrology calculations. After further analysis, the low point in the neighboring property is 13 feet outside of our property. We think it is unreasonable for the City to require the applicant to fix this existing off site condition. The proposed road is set at the elevations in the existing condition and the roadway elevations are not higher in the proposed elevation so the outlet elevation is not changing in the proposed condition. Our plans have been modified to swale our eastern drainage to a rain garden on our site which is then directed to the offsite pond. 7. Use NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation frequency The hydrocad models use the Atlas 14 rainfall data for this local. Ross Binbw March 17, 2015 �Sz N C 0 8. Provide justification for pre and post curve numbers. Previous submittal claimed curve number reductions in post development condition. Curve and drainage numbers should make conservative assumptions about activity that will occur to develop custom graded lots. a. The curve numbers used for the pervious areas in the existing conditions model (Woods, and Woods/grass combination) reflect "poor" conditions, whereas the curve numbers used for the pervious areas in the proposed conditions models (Woods/grass combination, >75% grass cover) reflect "good" or "fair" conditions. The selection of "poor" conditions in the existing conditions model results in generation of higher stormwater volumes under existing conditions than likely appropriate. The inconsistency in curve number selection for pervious areas should be corrected in future submittals to ensure an appropriate comparison between existing and proposed runoff volumes. The original curve numbers were selected based on the existing site conditions and anticipated future conditions. The existing site has very little established vegetated ground cover and the curve number of "Poor" was selected. We anticipate the future homes to have established grass in the full build -out so "Good" and "Fair" conditions were selected. However we have revised the existing model to show similar "Fair" conditions similar to that in the proposed model. This will give conservative assumptions for the future condition. • 9. Future building sites can be limited by impervious surface assumptions though developers agreement. Previous submittal claimed 5,450 sf impervious per lot. Recommend conservative impervious assumptions provide flexibility to allow for future expansion. The applicant feels comfortable that 5,450 SF of impervious surface per lot is sufficient for the development. Reducing impervious area will help protect trees and other natural topographic features which has been a priority of the applicant and land owner. 10. Model results contain a significant continuity error. Correct this error. a. This may be a result of the model duration, time step or improper routing. Model duration has been extended to show equal volumes. The net changes were very minimal and still below the existing conditions. We hope this letter answers the outstanding concerns. Additionally, we have a few items that have been discussed previously in our memo to you that are pretty important to us for the development. We would like to have the City staff weigh in on these items as they greatly impact our development. • Item 7 requests B618 curb and gutter only. Our plans propose to use B618 curb and gutter in most locations throughout the development including the north side of the new road and the cul-de-sac, however, we are proposing a flush ribbon curb on the south side of the street as part of our overall storm water management plan. The storm water from the new road will sheet drain north to south over this ribbon curb and will be pre-treated through a grass filter • strip prior to entering the proposed rain gardens. Pretreatment is required for the rain gardens and we feel strongly that non -concentrated storm water, pretreated by grass filter Ross Bintner March 17, 2015 X53 x 0 strips is the best choice for this application. We strongly request the City to consider our proposed ribbon curb and grass filter strips on the south side of the road for the best long term function and performance of the rain gardens. We ask that the ribbon curb on the south side of the new road be allowed as shown on the plans and incorporated in the conditions. Item 8 requests a 5 -foot sidewalk be installed with a 5 -foot boulevard. While we can revise our plans to provide this sidewalk on the north side of the street, the Planning Commission noted a number of concerns about this item. Commissioners noted that the living streets policy would not necessarily require the sidewalk on a cul de sac such as this, that the drainage issues and tree preservation should take precedent over the sidewalk and that alternative designs be considered. We would like to discuss the need, location and design of the sidewalk with you or receive written feedback so that we can prepare a plan that responds to the Commissions noted concerns. • Item 11 requests a looped 6" DIP from Blake Road through to the Southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Lane. It is very common to have a water main dead-end in cul-de-sacs in subdivisions. We understand this was approved by the City Council in the Morningside/Acres Dubois development in 2013. Installing a looped main between lots 6 and 7 would cause the unnecessary removal of at least 13 mature trees that • all parties wish to preserve. We believe that we can show that the required water pressure can be provided as designed and request that this condition be removed. • Our hope is that this letter, the revised plans and reports have addressed the outstanding Engineering comments as outlined in your memo. We ask for your support at the March 25' Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Landform Reid Schulz Project Lead COPY: Frank Berman Cary Teague, City Planner Chad Millner, City Engineer Ross Bintner March 17, 2015 R5$ • • • eDINk UN FRANK BERMAN mtsrANpuootEt• lDw,nR� ,•ltM1tR.P BLAKE WOODS . ....... .. EDINA, MN 0 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION EOINA. MN s•nRn vR.Ywµ eR+wa wr Cw .t IY mr•¢ a•RnoR © xore eRrt� ••cea PfaPna q.t X1R1FS,EEt ft, VREIWRWI . ttt fNfeGRDRnI •ti u.Fe .1>R� ••r •tvRm x f fo4r E1svA,ew �I cRwer / oe•v.e � t.Rw..cccvwrc ro to etca•to pei t,eecP--. neOP. �er.lvx court. ro.lSnre. w. .t.a uca2sc ro ire ¢tcoae¢ wr ec. i/ve r••.... ce t LP1Pe1 nrf1°0f a .we `HP aRw oevu4 a4cf tvt P,M W� vAM� QtfmE •4`r/C '��'t .0 e is uRc vW w❑ _ P rtlprq! • POwe I¢aAro — 6•Pit. c.ew. {r..rgR V� nrr p twn Van, lu H.N 0��� ry Peeowr.� Dom_ CCYs�• q.f. y.f MR016 • • L A N O F O R M • # eM rOeA•rrr taw 9nvty Ct ttiNDlY,i) ..••e—»� sYfitn .d1F VN.VE ID 4 M w ua p xv.eenl O aeunM� li6C � Nk �P ClM u IC e..... $Mier. rlpeC �.i uarr to o el rw� m ra! ue rnrtu! FRANK BERMAN mtsrANpuootEt• lDw,nR� ,•ltM1tR.P BLAKE WOODS . ....... .. EDINA, MN 0 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION EOINA. MN s•nRn tut•nw rw acamx mr•¢ a•RnoR © xore eRrt� ••cea PfaPna q.t X1R1FS,EEt ft, VREIWRWI . ttt fNfeGRDRnI •ti .1>R� ••r •tvRm x f fo4r E1svA,ew �I cRwer / oe•v.e � t.Rw..cccvwrc ro to etca•to pei t,eecP--. neOP. �er.lvx court. ro.lSnre. w. .t.a uca2sc ro ire ¢tcoae¢ wr lt! rivvtac�vE IXtea �1 V.t f tWR �lltnll {ill't�R R cow/avmwc 0 LP1Pe1 nrf1°0f a .we — —_ � ..Gmnw fmc,we � cwtc¢sn �� ccrcwn atro —![� �P vfyhRur ® nwlf..'>- -.bvfl..-. a •— oevu4 a4cf tvt P,M W� vAM� QtfmE •4`r/C '��'t .0 e is uRc vW w❑ _ P rtlprq! • POwe I¢aAro — DDel40..D uRRAGWD tYcrRq 149E SPE Ov1cIM nrr p twn Van, lu H.N 0��� ry Peeowr.� Dom_ .•nt �09if�1f�Y• fiOT 2v[1 ttuer•e m�tw r.".ewanTr� ».or wan. m ff.w MR016 • • L A N O F O R M • # eM rOeA•rrr taw 9nvty Ct ttiNDlY,i) ..••e—»� sYfitn .d1F VN.VE ID w ua p xv.eenl O aeunM� II VfRe fwi-er vAty! —ylc--- rlpeC �.i uarr to � a.. owe sr.Rts¢ rw� m ra! ue rnrtu! Di re rmanr • ® vA+e! vu.ve wweo ew feeror QI erm xReta (dl) t•RsunD Duron fR) om.txe re¢ ¢tcPao aer !n•a ararox FRANK BERMAN fn,Ewwawure nyuterpsu mr•¢ a•RnoR © xore eRrt� ••cea PfaPna q.t X1R1FS,EEt ft, VREIWRWI . ttt fNfeGRDRnI •ti Oveett fret Caftr ® t.¢R 9reer ares ANI at e¢AptC eRAMw.[f 1AaIW 'rINL at Oceaw.re tan cR� ® evaorr uevvowt txueM erc_ (�^`-.JwJ} .m• trw oul W unmis.sronlw tx, w Erauu RxurRmu CIA xC0N91RUC,lOND[rWl wRcaesmucraxaru�s G� wxccu�sam nia�ionturxus GA OW <annvcrne IXr.Wf U.t aEE ME9EM.IRM Vdl[ .K a w ¢h n.y. ,r q. �, t.Rw..cccvwrc ro to etca•to pei t,eecP--. neOP. �er.lvx court. ro.lSnre. w. .t.a uca2sc ro ire ¢tcoae¢ wr lt! rivvtac�vE IXtea �1 V.t f tWR �lltnll {ill't�R R o�11 FE.n M> e'M opo W c nrr p twn Van, lu H.N 0��� ry Peeowr.� REVISION ffi-CITY COMMENTS ttuer•e m�tw r.".ewanTr� ».or wan. m ff.w MR016 • • L A N O F O R M ¢� waa. ry sf.ei v-Qrs-.w tatR.w tR•A.... rt •txts•m tErm ..� ex-Q1R•on R•w•r.txtrAa ssv RRM•tnewl rnitn•E con,mnnns RwEcrxo. mttfn aRe the i o°Lia; `w�vw� r'�"mlw iw i xi`ri. -xxaxn so. fr.Ug _ br 1, YPY t ewuv AWIIW ]�4q f6 fi. PAW K�at54 rmu v�Y Pmex riax _mM♦ sa`fr. �J1 saes a r uesu, Kxtsu muxrr. maor�i.�e xccoawe rv�o neP ercx�'o 1 Kr WWS 116IOW. C011 b f" yw ao. • FRANK BERMAN Btll cvuuxcoo WIf BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA. MN c�NS�P� REVISION N2 - CRY COMMENTS L A N D F O R M fmn SM1fIDFlWA 1d1sw RFMr T[ /12.ildpJO w513 Ac 02-M 9x) IM�W WiM1 Wt YIIMInM RLNki 0>�R PRELIMINARY PLAT ^/ CO.2 I ` L1 — — —— — i ----� 3 I ---------------� t--------- I I I I I I I I EVANSWOOD LANE. I r I 3 _--_-__-____�____ 1 t I I I I t 191.1'p•"".I.L � � I g ' 27— .: J�;:}�LTI;^••a:? t r r tl t t 9 _ .__�._ i .?ND !` L.�"�— — — t 7iie�ic'-- .3,(7�i '1+•__ o - ! � •16.71 �\— — — / � I I 115.9S(P) A' S6.91'IP 3I B.00(N) I t•� � — — — •P — 65.50 I • —PT'A' �� _ I /' O I --, I10.16 r ------ /• � I / a; ' � � ��I't li it ✓� 4 ti it 9 !° li it � li I 1� I 21 — "-' — — —' 1 � 1 1 1 I 1 ! `------- -------i------� P!NE GN??'!E fiQAi? ---------- �---------- L------- ----' �--- I I3+.In w.w----- o— — I NtM'81'6B'f I ��.95() I I iiA: ill � :i II�K:! .AaI1:TIa\I i I I I I I 1 i II � II s I I I I s I I qa I I I j I I i o°Lia; `w�vw� r'�"mlw iw i xi`ri. -xxaxn so. fr.Ug _ br 1, YPY t ewuv AWIIW ]�4q f6 fi. PAW K�at54 rmu v�Y Pmex riax _mM♦ sa`fr. �J1 saes a r uesu, Kxtsu muxrr. maor�i.�e xccoawe rv�o neP ercx�'o 1 Kr WWS 116IOW. C011 b f" yw ao. • FRANK BERMAN Btll cvuuxcoo WIf BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA. MN c�NS�P� REVISION N2 - CRY COMMENTS L A N D F O R M fmn SM1fIDFlWA 1d1sw RFMr T[ /12.ildpJO w513 Ac 02-M 9x) IM�W WiM1 Wt YIIMInM RLNki 0>�R PRELIMINARY PLAT ^/ CO.2 • F= I i I 1 I I 1 I I 1 • I I I------------------- I i I — ----------- Ir L _ — — — — — — — — ( I .I _____-- EVANSWOOD LANE -----_ rsa•sa ,..�. _A — — — — — 1 -------- --- ---- I ' f� t L 5( M I araa- --— -- — — — — —— �'---rPl----- I . I ) I. I I. .2•.::LiTliii•i 1 BY4.95(F), I 11 I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I �I k "' i I I� I `FINE ORO`iE ROAD FRANK BERMAN wt��"im aoe�m�rwaaa .`"o,K�as."e SD9, EV.WVNOU LWC :ttGMRLY. ce o,9sn¢ LrGwta9 9wu tt ¢Vcei[9 ro n< [+eR4[R ��lx,M.�m BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E=�INii. MN Qe��o`Fo��eoN REVISION #2 -CFfY COMMENTS L A N D F O R M e: fnn H•11MM _. ' m ti z P•IRCi HD RI,g11 EXISTNGCONDMONS F= I i I 1 I I 1 I I 1 • I I I------------------- I i I — ----------- Ir L _ — — — — — — — — ( I .I _____-- EVANSWOOD LANE -----_ rsa•sa ,..�. _A — — — — — 1 -------- --- ---- I ' f� t L 5( M I araa- --— -- — — — — —— �'---rPl----- I . I ) I. I I. .2•.::LiTliii•i 1 BY4.95(F), I 11 I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I �I k "' i I I� I `FINE ORO`iE ROAD FRANK BERMAN wt��"im aoe�m�rwaaa .`"o,K�as."e SD9, EV.WVNOU LWC :ttGMRLY. ce o,9sn¢ LrGwta9 9wu tt ¢Vcei[9 ro n< [+eR4[R ��lx,M.�m BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E=�INii. MN Qe��o`Fo��eoN REVISION #2 -CFfY COMMENTS L A N D F O R M fnn H•11MM _. ' aJ11619 c 12-]9•P2] 9[..�JL.1Y1 8101 Vl,t I.I111•w91.1 inl NMIE C,01)ID� P•IRCi HD RI,g11 EXISTNGCONDMONS NORTH K,w••.ws Below. CON bef—YW do. o 40 80 SHEET N0. 3118 t --------------"I ,:1 I _-----� I 5 A_ .I f I I — Idris ia�'.?Ui?ii?A! 4 I I I i I I I I I c I r I I I i I I i I I � II _ ma,o-mr I} Se kn[Ul.•. c�[ra'A.MN'S�µia;w«� °NY�.P o a ammnx°r�• � Ew.asimiww *`°°Rc+'w"u `n iam i c: �"n�"� �a.•, , i>bi.Y C COC, vmar�,5, r�eM,+e`� °c�,Y4w°�vYa�.�X«1MC. ,aW.'liuE.. LMos[4Mc, Mo Sf.sr.Yi rnM ,w caro«.n ew.r, xucrmt rreew.,or xn w-ine a esen• .•r.w soma ..n w ruwaes wr« ne� .�1°x.�s. ace s, � �r±'.cco a'-aos4 cwsn wuwc'rtau wu •---_—_ `�;�-.um.wR p,.s �.ea ., ..k .war an ncwrmrwn aware s:Ee.,r�s e. n «w, °Qei,� ,ro wnnis aT«ainnoNit`asmw`.°�.u'n°i«orcu.r �. a. caesenn aaoc.,a. o rue •°«r -w -r.. suuo wa an a ea«a r � m m.ea ran cnom ro. � 3 �1�c) r� 1 a P;H!: OROVE ROAD X.nee ewvu. - w°u ro sae, w 1 NORTH Knew wW. Below. 11 CCll0•(onyoutl9. 0 e0 e0 0 FRANK BERMAN =M., BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION y@sEvlF®G,�®p� GO�S��� REVISION 92 -CRY COMMENTS rmes:•a NwN ,ai9oli�a..• T& azaszamo srsn ca aez�•nn MMm•Or•k W iia° we YnN•ma•: OEMOLMN C1.2 �I C] I � / I I I -----------IY i I I I I ------ I I w I I a: -----I I i I I -------------------� I i I I 5 iI I I \ 1 I \ +----- --—VANSY000 LAN "- —.—T — — — — — — — — - I I I I :: L:^v�-• :iiia I i I 1.•••;•, P.iiiiiTiOii. 1 I 1 I i 1 1 I I n I 1 I I — I I 1 • °�"" "'. , or .� _b Y « , . •b FRANK BERMAN O c0xx x.a- 0+rn0wi reeR e BLAKE WOODS — SUBDIVISION E�INA. MN ftt ZZ i�r. a w• a ti • 5 w:. � ebvxex -c.rf5+,wr +rc wwY ,ae ov:n • � recwe000P - 4USSx M H. 0.501 -'t49bi 50 H. iOTK - bxA50 9a M. .A I.Rlf N'6' mINF. nRo.e ROA^a TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT HOSCALE 10 NORTH Kr WW's BeIOW. romlm� C011Wter•ywdg. 0 40 80 REVISION M2 - CITY COMMENTS 07!1&2015 L J F O R M r•wx5emre.a, , M3 r+nAS... ue cuaaxamo ar•tx Pac naxoan 1�. W 00101 1Wh Yri141nM1 $REPLAN ............. , C2.1 II�il�lrr��a�l 0 ► �"""" FRANK BERMAN I • I! `••� •, :.� I ... I E•a, aR,B... a,t,s ..:, r,ow.E �.t]B, •�,�:..oa 1 •" _: :: :, i r----------------- I > a,�l,�aKt ��a�.,mnaa,l.�..,,, �,l.a�.• ,n,�k,� I n xr --- � xnw I o I � I I .- ( "1a19"�° o °m.�w�'r�.� FE. d•r .., .•.aw, � E, a y I I «t,• •. .i�° .w. cao�'saaav a+uE ,e.am. • � I f` ► I M,E a ------------------- BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION I ► I I 1 I I I E�INA- MN ,. I I ' ► I 1 ► ( �_ ,� aa,,.a„E. ],a.,>ro E.B ala,• s ]II.�E a.Ea„ o� I-�------- EVANEWor,D LANE �- -' -- --- I- ---=------ I �r � x. _ • u„ m. I ,; .. I I . � ,..>�... n•E,..ae .Ea,.,a,,, ,�• .�. E.«,Ea E]r..,laaw,. ' �°O' «n.ai... •'j: •r.:�Ei I ' � xaalre.o,wa�r mnE,s cuw wu..w sw a.u,rw,.. D " a,ltio� gal YktCF �f .a..lO I ` ^::: I I I ow�ac°�n I l Ba•Meb V ]Y,Ol Br- �- o p -V t �1- r 1 ceartCYN a w xe u.wn n m rww, R•RF Ib ]M W! =0 r W mmmrz1r_W_ =1 I •" _ a a ,1'7R m= of a ' — avae we .at {�# �s � .-`. �..... � +' •rat lacEc,na ,mcnc �0, p, •� a o . q •e 0 otFa``r ym, mi a ww - �I I Bw0 B cEa¢ utv„ml, w,�FYI Vrt VV INZ i4 3 2 I • + n` — — — ' .,.-imwa.,x PAD DETAIL REVISION R2 -CIN COMMENTS SItND DRD§E n00.DJ NDSCAE .Ea ✓ `• o9;18f2075 1 II ► A D, F O R M 1 ;•••• A. i:Di.•ii);,i I i en..r.ono 0► I Em.almnr c 1 1 1 I i�8 I I arw TA 4 040M I 1 i r I ►Isl rl.ounwem ws( rrr.w { i c , ► 5��^ I � • paw cmt�lr 1 1,: 1 5 I I ' I � � No•otxu anuv I I i I h NORTH I 1 I 1 — — — — — — - ► Know wnal'3 1361OW. I I _�--.------ 1 Cdllb•I«•roualp. 0 40 Bo �� vm C� I 1 , , 1 I I I I ;.--------------- a•� 1 i I 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 I • r -------------------I I C] FRANK BERMAN srm, Hurn or -r ac. ""^'.,iwm crd �E axA. n. ax ---------� ! .. now:rtw+wru>wrsrewo,rnwwwrwucerrwgrouucf. Ii i I b war >,.�,,..> ,a ,.,, ow. ,,.� �. �.,..,� ...�•r.,,> o coaau,e vne carne mvr.>..w Douce au v.arr _ � I wue euv.ra I 1 L�/� erooa I i � rfr�..., ..., i u• a c..� vu.n --- ------------------- ---------- r; I, BLOG14-I------------------- `-------------------- � I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i ' J 11 I I LR:IiE i:RO r: ROAD Z- uowwwrsBelow. Call wta• you afl. NORTH 0 40 so BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION Eo�Nsa, avrna 10,11 Qe�No�Fo�`��oN G REVISION #2 -CRY C061MM 03/1812015 L A n o a O R M Ds•sI•mr+•N " a,w sn a esaasamn ssw.•r,wen+ wr rr•re.,r UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER AND WATEMAIN C4.1 t I I - - - - - - - - - - - i i I I I I ;I I I r.i I I , I ; I I "� I-1-----------� I I r-------- I\ EVANSWC)Q> LANE I-- i_______________________i_ gy I I i ' �ia•^-v41$yf.9 I w.anw I 14 � _,; -_ _, rwaaA«°1'"Dt.,•'� ' �/ \\ �. IgA « ' w?aliae � I II 1 I I '• a•.ss—.-- — ' -------- ---------------- r � • m , r ---- " 1� taWtwt cne wMecAta(Ytsnrwt P�b.N� oXie. 4 rM w� o l.sslt D.w.M oMH, t eecil �'��tYO�urtAssn �o wmbcr >D,raxr aortm, wn Duun a �„a. nN c'a lo.o:.wr.r rou.:c w a axrte a s,wx,w s a a,r� ,> ar. Imms w �a:wrc..D» °fo,ar« art, ,to larsn:w,. r wao`,•n°Ye cor w•c voas, t, uaaxom r°D rsu,a: uo avnv 4 ; i 3L- - — v . aLOG L_L ;H,-: ROVE UfEvVE R6AU I --------------------- __________________ ^ a I 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I q ._ 1'�,'a.:•...•-..s..:'r...rvw*..1+�..n...�...-^>..w..A.....�•...o^..:�...,a,�n........aa.r-�..,•+..t'..., �.r. I...•�..r`.+�.o.R...•w....ti_,s....t•,.r,.,.�!,.,r.,.,.�1 ^,,.,.•...= � .. � I I "'"r"'"'.. I � I I I I Knowwhal'sBelow. Call beim y- dg. • FRANK BERMAN •11 EYIH•aODDy F wtla MUNICIPALITY INS! BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION EOINA, MN GONs�� REVIS W N N2 - CrrY COMMENTS 037182075 LD F O R M rw.lvmFmMl 1D3.1w1•it•i A'.�r. Tt0 NY253iD10 9•r 617 F¢ 01]]9Y]P MITES t•�,ti, Wl6101 W k Yr�41nm1 NIt WdL G'�ibtlll vw.ECINu. rulr,I] NORTH STORY SEWER �P� 4 0 40 00 SHER NO. &,8 1 917.60 I .. v' 1 I I • FRANK BERMAN .p k am El pr.00: nm....m99. I ...... �^° ' BLAKE WOODS Tj SUBDIVISION I NA. M�1� (� iw a nn,, -e / �5� �o •Y ,,....� F5 \ 913.00 ?15.00 •� I 560_. 955 950 945 940 960 955 950 9-05 9a0 89.15 100.00 ".50 101400 101.50 102.00 102,50 103100 103.50 104.00 104450 105100 105125 lmn Slleb r,N�M1 ••• •• ,mmn wnn.... r.r alx-xsxaa�o ® sir sla r« elxar0mn 1w�.wssal w.e: wexm.iw � rncrule �laav 9/ NORTHSTREET PLAN PROFILE EETA Know whars Below. � 1 . Call wm you aF 0 30 60 SIiEf NO E,19 0 0 9 STANDARD SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE _ _ . _ _ . ........: NO ev,LE A..... __ . .......... SANITARY DROP MANHOLE raxae T,,. e .ay - _. � •aarxxrwra.q M1•s �n wwwrr .enx rlr N � M� a^„, w.a •u•er • F.. �t �o CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK j' si•a�in _ 20 •1 720 CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS 'arvF x�r.. e,e,�xxn,ax..aawe..,. 777��1r _CCC C OF EOYIA A �� y•��yy�,�Exa.oEex�xa HYDRANTANDGATE VALVE �v�x100 .n on.a HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE wscae T FRANK BERMAN 6 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION C�1 Nf�, MN coNs.��,o RFVICIl1N L7_11 -f' —PNTC L A N Q F O R M rrrswrRin • _. _. 1065oM F•NA—r Tol: 61t�252-8010 9Me510.-'_„`N. F¢ Bt2Y2598011 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DFILS C7.1 ram lOILYY . s[rm.e.a ww FLARED END CTION eem •furs 240 .......... FLARED END SECTION __. .__............: ao•craE FRANK BERMAN 6 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION C�1 Nf�, MN coNs.��,o RFVICIl1N L7_11 -f' —PNTC L A N Q F O R M rrrswrRin • _. _. 1065oM F•NA—r Tol: 61t�252-8010 9Me510.-'_„`N. F¢ Bt2Y2598011 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DFILS C7.1 0 fs-TIOD ass 16 II U lJ (AK, ROADWAY SKMGE ROADWAY SIGNAGE NO 9CAIE OUM T— �021 PIPE BEDDING NO SCAM TER SERVICE CONNECTION 1110 TRACER WIRE AccEss Box RESI-DENTUC15RIV AY RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE NOSCXE F -w INLET PROTECTION FRANK BERMAN Allo, REVISION K2 -CIN COMMENTS F 0 R m CiVICONSTRUCTION 1 DETA LS C7.2 Mnu�IFra cams .I cosl.xs •p�ipi+ w sigwrEMS roc .�T.� SILT FENCE ,na ND VAE / wxw essxo Mxw«m �I all —ewc�[ all na nsx. lrtP) - -v �i-n'.bwc Vvt x mens r CLEAN-OUT STRUCTURE NOSCNE L PLAN - w v caf e a .� ansuE a SECTICIN A -A 0 STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN MANHOLE NO ECHE T vxerrt ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRANSITION NOSCAIE Illn a can 1'--1 r PJ.AN a a NOSE DOWN CURB NOSCAE A do o..mx! awe. ,rarro rv,. n xz� 24" CONCRETE RIBBON CURB Mostar • FRANK BERMAN �T4 P—ECT A TWO 6-111 -.1 b SHEET W. QR�No�Fo`��0� REVISION M2 -CITY COMMENTS r s�rmra+n !osewi wnn.... r< elzanzmro CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C7.3 =(n'Cof sql Li.� M fta rtRIM rtle Ivo µ1N 6 M lrn.) gat' Y, •n w.an euo�. a•w \i\�\ wx .ocsac .uv crel n1-rrx a vacs RAIN GARDEN No SCALE A VEHICLE TRACKING PAD No swt cl 5Ecr1aN •e -e• L cw•nCIW NN! J L—A -- A CONCRETE APRON NO SCALE csEmuae a"`,.y nmEal.E rove LTrTTI_R11 O 1 L w BOULDER RETAINING WALL NO swe v04osµ'' axxr�mre wen resl.c Iwrx is as TREE PROTECTION NO srue FRANK BERMAN SLt P'�IISY•'O"AIttiE EgNq GNSIZ BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA, MN REVI��q u�51�RY REVISION R2 -CITY COMMENTS 0011=015 L n N; F O R M r+s•mNSldr � ,, ' DEU LS s�Erna I�Ie .... .. . ........ -41- NYLOPLAST DRAINAGE BASINS WLOP"PRAMIKSINIMT-STAWASIDINATE ..... ...... . a FRANK BERMAN PROJECT •EETINOFk REVISION #2 -CITY COMMENTS 0 It M Tt .12 - CML CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C7.5 21110AG IV CUSTOM DRAM SAM ... ... . ....... 23, I . ..... ..... ..... . ....... ......... = NYLOPLAST DRAINAGE BASINS WLOP"PRAMIKSINIMT-STAWASIDINATE ..... ...... . a FRANK BERMAN PROJECT •EETINOFk REVISION #2 -CITY COMMENTS 0 It M Tt .12 - CML CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C7.5 I -- I —" -----—.� n: -------------- I i I I I } > BSa9 ..a I1 na 7 qr! 1 I �x+ \ - /' eror�•-Mrs .eev � i X l n1 -•'.Y' "I ��. Ij pua"n cxr a'.w.yf / w„ °°i. 6 e.z�l' •a�r e.aoJ ./u ` iaw `I —.ti"� ' 47 1...DITIG i eer> 1 ...... 'r:i•s^Li.S 1.3:::: ....::, can I � I - 1 i 1 L — 1 �. Pi.7F.":4C•U^ ROAD mn Know whd', BQ1OW. 1 I Call orlon you dig. I I I i I NORTH m0 FRANK BERMAN m, n.Nrnm�uv PR—CI Q��� tFo�opt� CO S�PV REVISION M2 -CITY COMMENTS 0711&2015 SANDFORM —fm mem tO5°ri/r Feo AK.. rt eu-2s2�oro ,Yet, Foe NZffiYO» Mn1o.. W ee.m w( lenelvmnet —E „E,21I9 TREE PRESERVA110NPLM :L L�.Ii A .'— -..-•Y , vl"Fi_LI NU ^., t�'lAx • TAG. OW DNI e063MON NAME gEAP7yFD SAVED 8407 15 Arboryllae % 8523 8205 13 pmcrianElm X Moo 8408 30 Alt, -1. % 20 B20G 1G BRlernpt Nkkory % 8 8/09 13 ArbmKtae % Ooveider 820) 12 Whtb Spruce X l9hite O:/: 8430 8 AAmvicae % 82"7 8611 AmerinnEim % X 8411 ]0 A,b—,,., % X8612 82M 36 Red Oak l 028 8412 ]6 Alb -1. % 8613 8210 22 Whited, % 7 8422 14 a.mcbr 8614 X .I, 33 Whip Spruce x Whil Oak 8423 14 e0xNder % Black Ch«ry 8212 7 Ammick. 1. X 8424 I6 WN.Oak X % 8313 9 WhReSmuce N x all ]5 Boxelder X 8533 8214 B ArboMlae X MIS 841fi 14 Boxelder 8539 x 8138 7 AN— 8619 n MI) ll Whlb Oak 8 X .16 6 Alb.— % VMlb Oil 6128 6 Boulder elm, Chet, It .11 20 Sugar Muk % X 6139 33 Bock Wlbw x X B21g 6 Arborvitae It .538 8430 7 BneWer It % 8219 7 ArboMba % 40 8431 9 8-1c., 862411 x 8220 8 ArbpMbe 7 Whie Spruce 8432 12 0t-Ch«ry 16 % 6221 Ig White Sprpce X X 8433 9 Black Cherry White Oak X .22 16 WNb Spruce % 8434 2B Whhe OakX X 8543 8244 14 Whl.$W ce X M28 8035 9 Rlack Chmry 11"11 X 8245 X Bm4tler X ) M36 M --k 9 X 83 11 11 paper gkch 17 X M7 6 Black Cherry —lder X .,a 13 milc SWne Bill. Cherry X MS 18 Whit Oak k 0319 22 Whib Spruce x X 8439 ID .OXNtler X.33 X 8320 u Will. Spun 8550 % Ma. 6 Bock— ock 8321 26 W It, Oak G Bleck Cherry 8441 26 1iOak G Boxeker 8322 26 Whib Oak Black Cherry X 8442 26 White WF White Oak % M2319 13 White Oak % 8443 u Wa. Cherry x % 8324 15 Su6m Map" X 0.38 8444 30 White Oak .3 X 6325 36 Wh1. Oak R. % 8445 B Bitternut Hickory 22 X .26 27 White Oak 11 x 8446 A Ditbrmat Nkbry Black Cherry X 8333 9 Colaado5prun BIM Cherry X 844) 10 :..1 % X 8334 ] Eclern RM Cad. X x .48 10 BoxNd« % 8648 0335 9 1,— Red Cetlar MR 8 BM9 9 Bouldm X 8336 15 I Mapk 22 X 8450 10 BoxMder % MR.0 k 833) 30 Sugm Mapk Black Cherry % 8151 9 Boulder "",`,10 X 8339 21 Sug«Map" % 8452 1D Oo40n X 8573 8340 26 White Wk x X 8483 17 Asp. 85]4 X 8341 Z2 White Oek 8720 27 8484 8 8oxeltler X 8343 7 Whib Sprue M % 8085 8 Boulder WNte Okk x M. 26 W.. bk WMeOak x 8486 20 C9lmado Spruce % 834510 10 White Oak X 6576 648) 6 Oitternut Hkkory X % 071 26 White Wk 8579 X 8486 li Amerkan EM 8739 x 0]2 14 --hE. 11 % 6189 19 A.Wk I4 Red Oak M71 6 Whge SINun WNto Oak X 6490 I4 WM1i4 Wk Boxek« x .74 AS WRIIe Wk x —1 n WNIe Wk X 8583 83)5 12 Bomber % SM8 8492 33 Whl4Wk 8584 x 83)6 11 Boxeber % 8 8493 it White O. 12 % 8))7 13 AkoMtx. X WhR.Spruce 8494 21 Red Wk WNte Oak % 83)8 16 Boxelder X X a" 20 mi. Ulk X OM 10 Smear klo4 X X M96 6 Black Chmry X 83M 6 Sugar Map, 8589 X 849) H WWk 8896 X 8382 19 Black Walnut 15 It 6498 14 B,.k Cherry 14 X ON 13 .pxel4r Retl NorvrN Rkle X8499 10 Gro..E Wlske Ash Whge Space X 8)85 G Hackbmry X X BSOI 8 ANmviue X 1 8386 12 -ch Ekn x % 8502 17 Amefcan E. 8594 X 838] 0 Arborvitae 8929 14 8x03 8 Arborviuo 8 X 8380 30 ArboMlae L BIa*Ch IN 8504 11 Dasswpod Ocxelder % 8389 8 'I,Squb 11 —o'859] X DID, 20 Red Wk X 1390 8 Whge uc X x 8506 11 Slat—, X M33 8391 8 AftN. 8599 % M07 14 Black Cherry 8930 X 092 8 ArbOM"e 10 X 8508 30 Black Cherry 33 Retl Oak 093 16 AAorvilae BoxNder X 8509 11 W. Cherry Retl Wk X 094 6 Adr - x .10 ) 6bet Cherry % x 839510 WMe— Aroorviue X % 8531 7 Arbor - MOI x 8396 18 "kh"I Nkkory 0939 % .11 23 W111O4k 14 X 8397 9 BOWMr X 8513 11 Aspen 8398 6 Adson X M14 17 Asp. x 8399 N will. Oak x 8515 SO Wh45pr«c x 8400 10 Whib Spruce % 8516 10 Whke Okk X St01 20 Whib Cl,', X 8517 21 Whge Wk X .02 9 Whib Smuce X I. 9 Black Cheng X 0404 17 Bil—ka Hkkory % B519 9 Dlad Ch«ry X 8405 9 ArOOMIs X7 7 Black C-1 x U. 14 A.crvlbe X :531 7 BpxNtler x 8522 10 Olsck Cherry % g6D] 23 WNte Oak % 8523 9 Ell -id, X Moo 23 will Oek x 8514 20 Black Cherry X 8609 8 BIa. Cherry 8525 B Ooveider x8610 22 l9hite O:/: x .11 9 Bo.eider % 8611 8 bM Ch— X 852) 9 WNte Oak X8612 19 Wmtte Oak % 028 10 A.—k. X 8613 14 RIM C., x 8529 7 Blatk Cherry x 8614 le Blad Cheny x 8530 15 Whil Oak x M159 Black Ch«ry x 8531 39 pad Oak x M16 19 While Oak % 8532 7 Hitt«mat Hktpry x 86177 Bur Oak % 8533 I1 NM -1 % MIS 26 Pcd Oak X 8539 8 Black Ch— 8619 n MI.Oak x 8535 8 Aed Mep" x 86206 VMlb Oil X 0536 16 elm, Chet, x .21 8 BIa. Cherry X 853) 11 Bovtlds x 8522 6 Bb. Cherry % .538 8 Black Cherry It 0633 29 White Oak X 8539 40 Ccit. old % 862411 Ola. Ct X 8540 7 Whie Spruce x 8625 16 White Oek % 8541 8 Whit Sprue X 8636 16 White Oak % 8542 R WMe brut X 8622 20 White Oak X 8543 6 BoxNtlmx M28 12 5ugar h4ple x 11"11 BoxNder X 8629 ) Sugar Maple X 8545 9 8. Ill, x 8030 17 at.. Cherry x 11555 6 —lder X 0631 9 Bill. Cherry x 8556 19 WNb Oak % 8632 23 WNlll, Oak x 855> 8 &ad Cherry X.33 8 1 xiker % 8550 9 Black Cherry11 BIe.CherI, % 8559 G Bleck Cherry x 0635 G Boxeker X 8560't Black Cherry X 86. 12 White Oak % 8561 13 dick Cherry XM 7 24 Mlte Oak x 8562 6 III -Cherry X 0.38 ) Bla. Cherry X .3 7 BI«k Cherry R. 16 White Oak X 6564 22 WMte Oak % 8615 11 &ttemut Hkbry X 6565 6 Black Cherry 8646 10 BIM Cherry 8566 8 e"ck Ch«ry X BW7 8 BIM Cherry X .56] 17 WMe Oak x 8648 9 Bb. Z'X MR 8 Wed Cherry X —9"1 DIMerry Ch x 8569 22 Rld Wk x MISS 16 MR.0 k X .11 9 Black Cherry x8654 16 "",`,10 It 8522 9 BI..Derry x 9655 19 White Oak % 8573 8 Na. Chong x 870 7 Ped Oak x 85]4 10 DouNcr % 8720 27 Whke Oak x 85757 B.xCltl« x 0)11 M White OaX x .576 17 WNte Okk x 8722 26 WMeOak X 8577 6 BoxNdcr 18737 10 G-1111WNle Ash X 6576 6 Stick Cherry X 8730 0Petl Oak X 8579 30 111,Oak 8739 14 PM Oak X 6580 11 WNtI'll N 8740 I4 Red Oak % 8581 20 WNto Oak x 8814 14 Boxek« It .502 30 With. Oak N 8015 7Gmen l,d WNIe Ash X 8583 9 810ck Ch«ry x SM8 Whge Spmce % 8584 9 Black Cherry x 8857 8 White Sprvce X 8585 12 BI.. CW % 8858 ]4 WhR.Spruce % Will n WNte Oak % 8.59 6 WhitSpruce X 135676 Cokrado5yrun % BB60 ] Wh8e 6pnrce X ... it Whit Spruce X 8897 & Bpaetlm % 8589 8 Whit Spruce x 8896 8 till. C- X .590 15 PWN—W pile I, 8899 14 eb. Chmry % B591 13 Retl NorvrN Rkle % 8900 7 Whge Space x 8592 SO Ped NowNp4e X 8901 6 Whke Sprvce X 8593 10 Muldee x 8926 I8 Sugar Rb p" x 8594 16 Aapen % 8929 14 BIa. Cherry X 8595 8 BoaNdm % 8930 L BIa*Ch IN X 659611 Ocxelder % 8931 tD —o'859] 6 Arn«kan Eke % 8931 7 Gnenand Whib Ash X 6.598 11 OoaN6N X M33 17 NTite Oak X 8599 1] Mwkan E4a x 8930 10 Amerlun EM x 8600 10 BoxNdm x .35 33 Retl Oak % 8601 6 BoxNder X 8936 13 Retl Wk X mi 31 WINte Wk X 893] 29 Ped Oak % 8603 24 WMe— X 8938 8 Boxelder % MOI 20 WMe Oak % 0939 6 Rox0lder X un6 14 t O^a-a v 6940 0—kler x C: FRANK BERMAN >bl Evxx5A0. UNE �¢x WMma T�r 41 A ti'r, BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION EOINA, MN O'A D�p�1 cONs REVISION X2 - CITY COMMENTS AAr1AnDi5 ka �., F O R M fine5il¢Nbah .. 1ObwfirAaenw TA Zi RISaN0 B41a610 ac .3W894OP IgNlar.4b.W65101 11kk IariMWnllal TREE IG ES E RV AT1-TAB1E L1.2 A discussion ensued on the merits of the proposal including ceiling height. Questions were raised on if the figures represented in the plans were correct, and if the variance was approved to ensure that all figures are the same. It was further pointed out that engineering supports the request subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. Public Comment Chair Platteter asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Olsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Scherer stated she supports the project as presented. Commissioner Forrest said she agrees adding this is the time to "fix" the flood plain issue. Forrest also commented in this day and age an 8 -foot ceiling height is not unreasonable or excessive; adding the Commission has viewed and approved projects with higher ceilings. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Forrest offered an amendment to the motion stipulating that all figures match. Commissioner Schroeder commented that an easy way to ensure compliance is to stipulate that the first floor building elevation be met as established by staff. Commissioners Olsen and Scherer accepted those amendments. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Olsen, Carr, Forrest Platteter. Nays; Lee and Hobbs. Motion carried. C. Subdivision. Frank Berman. 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane and 5320 & 5324 Blake Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Frank Berman is proposing to combine and subdivide his properties at 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane, and 5320 and 5324 Blake Road seven lots. The existing home at 5331 Evanswood Lane would remain, and the home at 5324 Blake Road would be removed. The other two parcels are vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 -foot wide cul-de-sac off Blake Road within a 40 -foot right-of- way. Two lots would access of Evanswood Lane, and the remaining five off the new road. The applicant has attempted to minimize tree loss and address drainage issues in the area by locating the roadway along the north lot line, and the stormwater retension areas along the street. • Planner Teague noted that to accommodate the request preliminary plan approval isis required. r 5 Continuing, Teague explained that all seven of the proposed lots meet the City's minimum lot size requirements. Minimum lot size, width and depth is determined by the median of all lots within 500 feet of the subject property. Based on the surveyors calculation of the medians, the minimum lot size is 21,842 s.f. in size; 166.4 feet in depth; and 120.8 feet in width. Concluding, Teague stated that the city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does have some concern given the existing drainage issues in this neighborhood. The stormwater system downstream is over capacity. The applicant will be required to meet all minimum Minnehaha Creek Watershed district standards, as they are the regulatory authority in Edina in regard to grading and drainage. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. Teague further stated that at the time of this report, the issues raised by engineering have not been met. If the applicant has not addressed by the time of the meeting, staff would recommend continuing action on this request to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ross Bintner, from the engineering department will be at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss any revised plan that is submitted, and the issues regarding the proposal. Teague also stated since interested residents may be present to address the proposed subdivision that the public hearing be opened this evening to allow testimony and left open so that testimony could continue to the tabled meeting date per engineering recommendation. Appearing for the Applicant • Kendra LY ndahl Discussion Commissioners acknowledged the recommendation from the engineering department to table the request until drainage issues are resolved; however offered the following: Commissioner Carr asked Planner Teague if the recently approved Tree Preservation Ordinance would apply to this subdivision. Planner Teague responded that he believes so, adding the Tree Preservation Ordinance goes into effect on July I, 2015. Teague further noted that the applicant is very mindful of the trees on the site. Commissioner Scherer stated that while she understands the significance of Edina promoting "Living Streets" in this instance drainage concerns have been identified and in her opinion a sidewalk just adds more hard surface; reiterating engineering has requested that this request be tabled until all parties reach an agreement. Chair Platteter said he agrees with that comment, adding he's a huge proponent of sidewalks, however, when drainage issues are identified additional hard surface could exacerbate the issue. Applicant Comments Ms. Lyndahl told the Commission the property owner generally supports the conditions of approval. Continuing Ms. Lyndahl said that their first priority was tree preservation and second; creating a project C 6 *71 that complies with city ordinances. Concluding, Lyndahl stated they would work with engineering on resolving the drainage issues prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Carr pointed out that the sidewalk was considered in the engineers review, adding if engineering finds that drainage can be managed (with sidewalk) she would be in favor of the sidewalk. Concluding, Carr stated she encourages sidewalks for Edina. A brief discussion ensued on the proposed location of the sidewalk with Commissioners suggesting that the sidewalk may work better on the north side; not south as proposed. Commissioners asked Mr. Bintner if he believes the drainage issues can be resolved. Mr. Bintner responded he believes so; however, at this time the issues are still unresolved. Commissioner Forrest asked when the subdivision project goes before the Watershed District. Mr. Bintner responded the Watershed District hears the request between preliminary and final review. Commissioner Hobbs suggested if the project moves forward with a sidewalk that the sidewalk could be constructed with pervious materials, reducing drainage impact. Public Comment Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. The following spoke expressing reservations on the 7 -lot subdivision proposal: • Rebecca Wallin, 6208 Parkwood Road. • Charles Gits, 5311 Evanswood Lane. Olaf Minge, 5225 Evanswood Lane. Amy Minge, 5225 Evanswood lane Chris Johnson, 5308 West Highwood Drive. Chair Platteter commented that since the recommendation is to table the subdivision request until the next meeting of the Planning Commission the public hearing will remain open. Motion Commissioner Carr moved to table the request for preliminary plat for Frank Berman 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane and 5320 & 5324 Blake Road to the March I I, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. r , � • • Legend •_-= _ E)dsting ---- Future .... Future - - -- Future .... Future Sidewalk State -Aid Sidewalk Active Routes City Sidewalk Nine Mile Creek To School Sidewalk Regional Trail N P PF ._._ W+ City of Edina F� �o 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Sidewalk Facilities pal ,. 169 10 Eff 6� "1101 1 Legend •_-= _ E)dsting ---- Future .... Future - - -- Future .... Future Sidewalk State -Aid Sidewalk Active Routes City Sidewalk Nine Mile Creek To School Sidewalk Regional Trail N ._._ W+ City of Edina F� �o 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Sidewalk Facilities Engine ing Dept November 2014 ,. • Living Streets Policy Introduction Living streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina's vision for Living Streets and the principles and plans that will guide implementation. The Living Street Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving, reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such as the "do.town" effort related to community health, and the Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Street Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. For example, the Living Streets Policy will support the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which addresses mandates established under the Clean Water Act. The Living Streets Policy provides the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Plan will address how the Policy will be implemented by providing more detailed information on street design, traffic calming, bike facilities, landscaping and lighting, as well as best practices for community engagement during the design process. Lastly, existing and future supporting plans such as the Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to Schools, Sidewalk Priority Pian and the Capital Improvement Plan will help to identify which projects are priorities with respect to this Policy. Living Streets Vision Edina is a place where... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Living Streets Principles The following principles will guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making 0 public and private land use decisions. k7C • r� All Users and All Modes The City will plan, design, and build high quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users (pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly, and disabled) while enhancing safety and convenience for all users, and providing access and mobility for all modes. Connectivity • The City will design, operate, and maintain a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel. • The City will seek opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation. This includes preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way, and adding new rights-of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. • The City will prioritize non -motorized improvements to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas. I• The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development. • Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Application • The City will apply this Living Streets Policy to all street projects including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation, or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • The City will act as an advocate for Living Street principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. • Living Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. • The City will draw on all sources of transportation funding to implement this Policy and actively pursue grants, cost sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • All City departments will support the vision and principles outlined in the Policy in their work. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving, and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of the project proposal. 4Z-7 2 • Exceptions: • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway, or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands, or other critical areas. Desi n The City will develop and adopt guidelines as part of the Living Streets Plan to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines will allow for context -sensitive designs. The City's design guidelines will: • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared -use pathways on all arterial and collector streets and on local connector streets as determined by context. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, • community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid -block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The design guidelines in the Living Streets Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update the Living Streets Plan. Context Sensitivity Although many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood, adjacent land uses, natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate these differences, the City will: • Seek input from stakeholders; • Design streets with a strong sense of place; • Be mindful of preserving and protecting natural features, such as waterways, trees, slopes, and ravines; • • Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character; and 47� • • Coordinate with business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts. Benchmarks and Performance Measures The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this Policy. Benchmarks demonstrating success include: • Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling; • Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely; • Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably; • An active way of life is available to all; • There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries; • No unfiltered street water flows into local waterways; storm water volume is reduced; and • Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. The City will draw on the following data to measure performance. Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. • Number of crashes or transportation -related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post -project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Speed statistics of vehicles on local streets. Implementation The goal of this Policy is to define and guide the implementation of Living Streets principles. Several steps still need to be taken to reach this goal. The first step will be to develop a Living Streets Plan to guide the implementation of the Policy. The Plan will: • Identify and implement standards or guidelines for street and intersection design, universal pedestrian access, transit accommodations, and pedestrian crossings; • Identify and implement standards or guidelines for streetscape ecosystems, including street water management, urban forestry, street furniture, and utilities; • Identify regulatory demands and their relationship to this Policy (ADA/PROWAG, MPCA, MNMUTCD, MnDOT state aid, watershed districts); • Define the process by which residents participate in street design and request Living Streets improvements; and • Define standards for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to ensure access to key public, private • and regional destinations. 4 A -7R Additional implementation steps include: • Communicate this Policy to residents and other stakeholders; educate and engage on an ongoing basis; • Update City ordinances, engineering standards, policies and guidelines to agree with this Policy; • Inventory building and zoning codes to bring these into agreement with Living Streets principles as established by this Policy; • Update and document maintenance policies and practices to support Policy goals; • Update and document enforcement policies and practices to ensure safe streets for all modes; • Incorporate Living Streets concepts in the next circulation of the City's general plans (Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to School Plan, etc.); • Incorporate Living Streets as a criteria when evaluating transportation priorities in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); • Review and update funding policies to ensure funding sources for Living Streets projects; and • Coordinate with partner jurisdictions to achieve goals in this Policy. 5 Av Cary Teague From: Joan Bonello <joanbonello@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:30 AM To: Cary Teague; Edina Mail Subject: Blake Woods Subdivision Mr. Teague, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed Blake Woods Subdivision project. My husband and I live on Westwood Court (6312). Our backyard abuts the Berman property on the northwest corner. I am concerned about the effects of development on the water table in the neighborhood. We recently completed a fairly large and expensive landscaping project in our back yard which included removal of large mounts of buckthorn and replacement with more desirable species. During periods of ground saturation, as we saw last summer with large rainfalls, the south portion of our yard becomes flooded. Our neighbors south of us also experienced flooding and water in their basement last summer. The water table is very high already and building on seven new lots and the addition of a new street will create significant run off of storm water. I attended the meeting with Landform on February 3rd at Highlands Elementary School. Reid Schulz presented the project to neighbors and answered questions. I know there are some plans for water management put forth by Landform, however I would like to make sure the city is also looking at this issue and has done due diligence to ensure Ve plans for water management are adequate. I would like to know how the city is planning on ensuring that this new development will not create problems with flooding and groundwater issues for the existing neighbors. Will the neighbors have support from the city to resolve any water management issues that may arise post development? Please consider the existing ground water issues in our neighborhood and the effect this new development will have on existing water table levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joan and Robert Bonello 6312 Westwood Court Edina, MN 55436 952-926-9057 0 Cary Teague From: charles.j.gits@ubs.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:21 AM To: Ross Bintner Cc: Cary Teague; Charlie Gerk Subject: 5311 Evanswood Ln/ Blake Woods Subdivision —resending my 1/29 email here in better format Attachments: Legal Disclaimer.txt Ross Thanks again for spending the time answering some of my questions about the impact on our home at 5311 Evanswood Ln from the proposed sub division. I'm sending you this email and copying Mr. Gerk and Mr. Teague at your suggestion. I will briefly recall our conversation here. We built and moved into our house 15 yrs. ago in Aug 1999. At that time there was an existing water culvert next to the telephone pole running underneath the gravel road on the southeast part of our yard. In spring 2000 we laid sod and created a small rocky dry pond catch area in the south end of our yard and repaired our side of the culvert. Upon seeing the culvert Frank and Toby Berman plugged it up on their side and sent us a letter telling us we were diverting water onto their property. At that time I called and spoke with an Edina city engineer. He replied although there was an existing culvert before we built our home, there was nothing we/he could do and suggested we pump water up to Evanswood Ln. We then installed a sump pump in the dry pond with an underground Dose that runs north and empties onto Evanswood Ln. (water then flows east, crosses street and runs south to Blake Rd ewer) I also have an active basement sump pump that is drain tiled into the dry pond and then this water is also pumped north to street. Every Spring melt, and after heavy rains our backyard floods, often with 20' x 60' pools that stretch into Berman's lot. (Similar to your attached screen shot area) Idle water pools are also created on the other side of the gravel road. The water appears to run west from Blake road and east from Berman's house and south from Evanswood Ln. So in addition to the sump pump running, I also roll out a 200 ft 4" hose with an extra pump to clear the water from our yard and runoff from Berman's side lot at these times. Sometimes it takes days to empty with two pumps. I have done this for 15 years. The water on the south side of the back lane (Berman 5320 and 5324) sits idle till evaporated. (Last spring green algae formed on the Evanswood Ln curb because we moved a lot of water) Our lower level is completely furnished with hardwood floors. It has never flooded, and the grass and trees survive after we move the water. However, as I explained to you, I am very concerned about the existing proposal. The displaced water from any house built on 5321 (west lot) will be more than we can tolerate. I can show you photos and I have plenty of history. Please keep me involved and informed about possible solutions and the project. As I told you, the first time we had heard anything about the project was when we received a 1/21/15 letter from developer Landforms about an open house. hanks, Charlie Gits 952-933-5845 h 952-921-7920 w Oharlie Gits Senior Vice President -Wealth Management UBS Financial Services Inc. 8500 Normandale Lk Blvd. #210 Bloomington MN 55437 (952) 921-7920 (877) 894-2418 toll free direct (877) 540-0597 toll free fax charles.i.gits@ubs.com http://financiaIse rvicesinc ubs.com/team/gitsoldendorf/ • Is To: Mayor and City Council From: Joe Abood Braemar Golf Course General Manager Date: June 2, 2015 Subject: Braemar Golf Course Master Plan Agenda Item #: VIII.A. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: ➢ Select a Master Plan concept from Richard Mandell Golf Architecture's Renovation Business Plan. ➢ Direct staff to enter into contract negotiations for design and construction documents and to oversee bidding and construction administration for the golf course renovation. ➢ Approve contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to complete the wetland and water • resource services for the proposed golf course modifications. ➢ Direct staff to include a Braemar Park Master Plan in its 2016 budget and Work Plan. ➢ Conclude service with gratitude of the Braemar Master Plan Task Force. Information / Background: March 18, 2014 - City Council approved a motion to immediately start the master plan for Braemar Golf Course with funding from the Braemar Memorial Fund. April 22, 2014 - City Council passed a motion to form a Braemar Master Plan Task Force to begin the Braemar master planning process. June 17, 2014 - City Council approved the selection of the Braemar Master Plan Task Force appointments. Rick Ites, Pacy Erck, Joseph Hulbert, Dick Brozic and Paul Presthus were selected by an application and interview process as well as Brenda McCormick and David Deeds who were appointed by the Park Board. The task force has been meeting on a weekly basis since July 2014. Rick Ites was selected as the chairperson to lead the Master Plan Task Force through the process. July 28, 2014 - Request for Proposal for a golf course architect for the Braemar Golf Course Master Plan was advertised. Aug. 22, 2014 - Twenty-eight (28) consultants from all over the country submitted proposals in response to • the Braemar Master Plan RFP. Five were selected by staff to be interviewed and evaluated by the task force. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 • August 2015 - An NGF - GolfSAT Survey was conducted. There were 739 Braemar Golf Course patron responses. This survey helped structure the Master Plan Task Force objectives and mission statement. Key findings are below. Sept. 8 — 10, 2014 - Master Plan Task Force conducted golf course architect interviews. Sept. 16, 2014 - City Council selected Richard Mandell Golf Architecture to complete the Master Plan. October 2014 - Mandell conducted multiple site walks with community residents (over 75 residents participated), environmental agencies and the Master Plan Task Force as well as held an open house to gather feedback for the Master Plan. January 2015 - Mandell once again met with community residents (over 100 residents participated), environmental agencies and the Master Plan Task Force to discuss preliminary concepts for the future of the Braemar Golf facility. Jan. 13, 2015 - Mandell presented the Park Board preliminary concepts for consideration. Feb. 17, 2015 - Mandell presented the City Council preliminary concepts for consideration. April 14, 2015 - Mandell submitted the final Renovation Business Plan for Task Force and staff review. • May 6, 2015 - Master Plan work session with City Council, Park Board, staff and Master Plan Task Force. May 12, 2015 - Staff recommended Option #5 of the RMGA Renovation Business Plan to the Park Board. The Park Board members all voted in favor of the staff recommendation. MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE INFORMATION The following Master Plan Task Force information was provided to staff by the Master Plan Task Force for inclusion in this document. Master Plan Task Force Mission Statement: To create a premier Minnesota public golf course that provides access to a friendly, enjoyable, and playable golf experience for golfers of all ages and abilities, now and for future generations. MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS Decision Making Attributes • The Task Force looked at several important attributes when evaluating a 27 -hole or 18 -hole option. o Accessibility •• Golf Leagues - Braemar has one of the largest league programs in the state for both 18 and 9 -hole men and women golfers. ■ Youth Program - Braemar is grooming future golfers with one of the most developed youth golfing programs in the state. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3 •0 Special Needs Programs - Braemar has a very successful program for special needs golfers. ■ Nine -Hole Golfers - Braemar has a very high percentage of 9 -hole golfers. The 9 - hole rounds last year (29,153) exceeded the number of 18 hole rounds (26,158). o Financial - We looked at how course utilization, expenses, cash flow and profitability might be impacted by the different options. o Environment - Braemar is a unique urban golfing experience because of our beautiful parkland property. We looked at how our re -design options could enhance the current park environment now, and also how it could impact future generations of golfers. 27 -Hole Option • Accessibility - Accessibility is best addressed by a 27 -hole option. Golf leagues, youth programs, special needs programs would not only be maintained but would also have room to grow. • "Fix Clunie" - The number one request by most golfers in our listening sessions was "Fix the Clunie Nine!" When existing golfers avoid the Clunie Nine, it creates all kinds of problems financially and operationally for the staff. We believe that the planned re -design of Clunie is such a significant improvement that it will drive higher course round utilization than what staff has forecasted (68%). • Nine -Hole Golfers - These golfers are often seniors, couples, and parents playing with a child. To some people, golf is too long a process and 9 holes is all the time they can afford from a busy lifestyle standpoint. We believe that with the 27 -hole option, course utilization increases with maintaining and growing these 9 -hole rounds rather than losing them. • Financial - Clearly, the 27 -hole option is more costly and would never reach the profitability of an • 18 -hole course option. It takes more staff and resources to manage 27 holes. • Pace of Play - The re-routing of some holes on I - 18 will equal out the yardages which should speed up pace of play on those nines. In addition, the re -design of Clunie significantly speeds up pace of play on this nine by eliminating some of the forced carries and correcting problem holes. • Corporate Events - The 27 -hole option gives Braemar the ability to stage more corporate events and tournaments to increase course utilization. 18 -Hole Option • Financial - The 18 -hole option would have higher utilization resulting in improved profitability and reduced financial risk. Expenses with 18 holes would be lower because of reduced labor and supplies. • Premier Course - A re -designed 18 hole course would be one of the best municipal courses in the region. Edina residents and patron card holders would be given preferential treatment in terms of tee time availability. • More Amenities - This option would leave more room to provide other amenities like a nature center and other practice amenities. • Accessibility - With increased utilization of an 18 -hole course, tee time availability to league, youth, and special need golf programs could place some of these programs at risk. • 9 -Hole Golfers - An 18 -hole option would force staff to financially favor 18 -hole over 9 -hole golfers. We would most likely lose most of these golfers. 0 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION • Braemar Golf Task Force -'ey considerations B-.:ri-13 I 7rte eMpe>xed cilli anon dSte more is e.perte:90 ae apps.- 55.300 turn¢ for bats 2?-tlole and 15 -hole oation. - The 27 hoe mptcr, assumes zrn ar le el ar p";:50% 12 hof_ 153% 9 hWel, nwtich is not then = L Iirient re.ert.e coir. - The L's roe aptcr assumes a srirt Tam 9 hale rc7.lttrl: too mcre wvfmale 18 tale roar= ii . mu Owfe -moilrw-1 : in a mmre Feot'tabe meenue mode,, t - -t requires to eape pat, tirirg at j wix t-einin;. et:. 11 'Fe historical tigh &Sr -um ter ce rcLrc= vx= E7,033 -Ti: is n7s eopetted to Dw r agpin. m we ChouEht Ent' MouC rlebv.Ind to tinese Ie.elS.. the 13 rile opts woLbd oat be as:e t7 aocaTmomte tr- oel anc. W Tris review' does n= =rcicer ':he'.iaa it. ar tr- Dr -.in; Fzrrx'--r 5 =raiect x t•r- e.pwz-e a2:3datet witt the X20-ocfe :prin►1er rr:osn la Una: to 3e n®irtener.+l IV Ire finance reAX71 s tigntf demNJelvr. an t^r_ uti niton. pri=ing and etperse a.trn77otlt. Based on FiluMes sone the 18i•.ale option is test S.ertime. zoM option: -Neve a ba ae4`LZe e+pense: are aUrvx to -MW ftrtL- than rev"Lles. »e: khade .'.= tm� 27 hale ;13.51 !I hole 3Z3 29 r The 27 hole model r..-errrrta'. Capaal Re•:F.ired $ Ea% WACC = eft, uuL-D.r Anr.yrt ..a 16I h Annul Prkkra Shalt Ealwrnr k+r Nn Ili F1..rtc wi Ar vWb)r Free Cash Row 2027 I.W. CaM ity Vtilizzb2n % 23 role mpaci y T1T1 SCAM S4,SW 6d% 7%F36t Yt I 18 n7Ce 53.300 27, -WC 33% 3% Fkal YR / 9 toe 33.300 27, 13M, 93% is KWe 2% GS)Wt1 $.C50 85% 46 JSKLI[ISM)U)%. is hoe 45.300 io AQG By% move. i9 male 23.30) =-.00C 73% CUM eomB sauoc 65► is hope 30= 27330 3111% 9 hole 30000 Z73130 9^ 11 'Fe historical tigh &Sr -um ter ce rcLrc= vx= E7,033 -Ti: is n7s eopetted to Dw r agpin. m we ChouEht Ent' MouC rlebv.Ind to tinese Ie.elS.. the 13 rile opts woLbd oat be as:e t7 aocaTmomte tr- oel anc. W Tris review' does n= =rcicer ':he'.iaa it. ar tr- Dr -.in; Fzrrx'--r 5 =raiect x t•r- e.pwz-e a2:3datet witt the X20-ocfe :prin►1er rr:osn la Una: to 3e n®irtener.+l IV Ire finance reAX71 s tigntf demNJelvr. an t^r_ uti niton. pri=ing and etperse a.trn77otlt. Based on FiluMes sone the 18i•.ale option is test S.ertime. zoM option: -Neve a ba ae4`LZe e+pense: are aUrvx to -MW ftrtL- than rev"Lles. »e: khade .'.= tm� 27 hale ;13.51 !I hole 3Z3 29 r The 27 hole model r..-errrrta'. Capaal Re•:F.ired $ Ea% WACC = eft, uuL-D.r Anr.yrt ..a 16I h Annul Prkkra Shalt Ealwrnr k+r Nn Ili F1..rtc wi Ar vWb)r Free Cash Row 2027 The 18 hole model rcemtetltal Capital "erred $ •'SSB WACC = 5% lasaatfr. A.I.W lirkin a lbhtit Amttnl P kite" -L Eapnnr M N P% IFI) F6a.rcz.11V A.61. Free Cash Row 20Z 0 I.W. 3.e. Bat �� 4kxhr.a. Eamrulle T1T1 'lx 6d% 7%Fi-0 YNj 7%F36t Yt I i%not 7'kj 3%.—AW 3%.nnrrR fta. dh 3% Fkal YR / 3% Feat Ylt / 2% not t'k 2%.r.wdh' 1%a®nud! 17G �nru.lh 2% 274 l74 5 15jiml 46 JSKLI[ISM)U)%. S 1.`fiv:} C% NA aA move. leo No 231" 3E Iiol The 18 hole model rcemtetltal Capital "erred $ •'SSB WACC = 5% lasaatfr. A.I.W lirkin a lbhtit Amttnl P kite" -L Eapnnr M N P% IFI) F6a.rcz.11V A.61. Free Cash Row 20Z 0 The 2? -tale cpjbn 3 orly vtlble i• fitKver'.dlLaitm can oe zt=Tned a)ar{,'wiCn rwe su.•tatney armL W mr-ce irmrmG. 7h-- bpten pmwc•c mere ^. Wsu7• itt and lea [tare sen the bolt rtatm -- or the c.Wjcr-ers is reeded_ The 15 -hale option is less riskylinanoalry, btt regtarec a chwr.-e in -ntrer habit: at t1e dura- the Oovonside is aim less risky'-gW ut ilatior drops aR. This o3dor does not promoe neubitty it 6otr reivrKf; a more -c/Sts c xic he seared bi%-n the s3%asanea ttiiwelon rate. Page 4 I.W. seal[ Cat. at.�c lar A&% a5% 66% 7% Flim YR; 1%Fnat Yk; 1%Flat t-k� 1%arawtlly 1%...-% fta. dh 5%fbm YB; 1%Fuat Yke 1%F1nt-.k lx .nnudk 1%tnnwA lYrnru�t. 2% 274 l74 11,2x31 C8.48rJ S 1.`fiv:} C% 4% KA ort ka.abr No 376 306 26 The 2? -tale cpjbn 3 orly vtlble i• fitKver'.dlLaitm can oe zt=Tned a)ar{,'wiCn rwe su.•tatney armL W mr-ce irmrmG. 7h-- bpten pmwc•c mere ^. Wsu7• itt and lea [tare sen the bolt rtatm -- or the c.Wjcr-ers is reeded_ The 15 -hale option is less riskylinanoalry, btt regtarec a chwr.-e in -ntrer habit: at t1e dura- the Oovonside is aim less risky'-gW ut ilatior drops aR. This o3dor does not promoe neubitty it 6otr reivrKf; a more -c/Sts c xic he seared bi%-n the s3%asanea ttiiwelon rate. Page 4 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION • TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS The written conclusions of the task force are included as attachment G: to this document titled "Master Plan Task Force Comments". The task force did not reach a consensus on an option, but all provided valuable feedback along with their recommendation. Task Force Recommendation Summary: 27 -Hole Option #1 — Richard Brozik 18 -Hole Option #4 — Rick Ites, Paul Presthus, Pacy Erck 18 -Hole Option #5 — Joseph Hulbert, Brenda McCormick PARK BOARD CONCLUSIONS Page 5 At the May 12, 2015 Park Board meeting, the Park Board received a presentation from Joe Abood, Braemar Golf Course General Manager regarding the Braemar Golf Course Master Plan, including a recommendation from staff. The Park Board also received statements from several members of the Master Plan Task Force. Members Paul Presthus, Pacy Erck, Joseph Hulbert and Brenda McCormick were all present, stated their opinions about the process and renovation options and answered Park Board questions. Since the City Council will take final action on the selection of a renovation option, the Park Board was asked to provide review and comment. Chair Gieseke asked each member to comment on a preferred option. All eight Park Board members present recommended Option S. The unapproved minutes are included as an attachment to this document titled "May 12, 2015 Park Board Item VI.C. Braemar Golf Course Master Plan." • STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends the 18 Hole Option 5 — New 18 -Hole Regulation Golf Course with minimal disturbance. This is the 18 -hole option that stays within the 27 -hole footprint of the existing golf course, with an alternate use for the remaining park property. Staff believes that an exceptional 18 -hole course can be constructed within the 27 -hole footprint, without expanding the footprint of golf at Braemar Park. The alternate use park concepts include, but is not limited to, year-round multi -use recreational trails, an environmental education area, winter sport use, a four/six-hole practice course, a putting course, a putting and chipping area, a foot golf course, a disk golf course, grass fields, a playground and the like. The ability to reinvest profits for future capital improvements from within the golf enterprise is a substantial reason staff recommends the 18 -hole option. While Richard Mandell has shown an option for renovating and improving the Clunie Nine that would expand into the hill on the east side of Braemar Park, due to the decline in golf locally and nationally, staff is reluctant to recommend expanding the footprint of the golf course. Staff findings are based on the directive for 100% cost recovery of the Golf Enterprise facilities and provide the City of Edina the least amount of financial risk. A 27 -hole option is potentially viable; however, there is substantially more financial risk involved based on the state of the golf industry and Braemar historical information. • Along with the financial considerations, staff believes that reasonable accessibility can be maintained with an 18 -hole option. In 2014 there were 55,311 rounds played on the Braemar 27 -hole regulation course. With proper tee sheet management, these rounds can be accommodated on the 18 -hole regulation course with REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6 iadditional room for growth. Additionally, staff believes that an 18 -hole regulation course and par 3 course will provide ample opportunities to continue its extensive league participation and continued junior development programing. Edina residents would be given priority tee times so that access can be achieved by residents. The renovation of the Braemar Executive Course to a brand new par 3 course is also expected to provide an exceptional amenity for golfers of all ages and abilities. The course will be redesigned to provide fewer forced carries, fewer bunkers, wider fairways, larger greens and several tee boxes on each hole to better match player ability for success. Staff also intends to provide two pin placements on each green, one of which will likely be a larger cup for younger or less experienced golfers to have more success and a more fun golfing experience. Future Schedule: July 7, 2015 — Driving Range Expansion/Par 3 project will begin. Construction will be approximately 10 months and at its conclusion will make Braemar the premier practice and instruction facility in the Twin Cities. The Driving Range will almost double its practice turf area and the new Par 3 course will mimic some of the more attractive features of the Fred Richards course. Wider fairways, larger greens with the ability to utilize two flags and fewer forced carries are just some of the improved features of the renovated course. Approximately 30,000 rounds were played on the Executive Course and Fred Richards in 2014. Once construction is completed, all these rounds can be accommodated on the new Par 3 course with additional room for growth. Upon conclusion of the Braemar Golf Course Master Plan process, staff recommends completing a Master Plan of the entire 450 -acre Braemar Park site. Staff requests the approval of an agreement with SEH to provide wetland delineation and permitting services. These services include wetland delineations, wetland permitting, wetland mitigation design and watershed district permitting. SEH's fee for this work is not to exceed $23,300. This includes the time to complete the field work, prepare the reports, complete Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) assessments, coordinate with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, complete the mitigation design, complete the permit applications, and facilitate the agency review. Equipment, travel, and document preparation costs are included. Action Requested ➢ Select a Master Plan concept. Concepts were provided to the Master Plan Task Force, staff, Park Board and City Council by Richard Mandell Golf Architecture (RMGA) within his Renovation Business Plan. ➢ Direct staff to enter into contract negotiations to provide design and construction documents and to oversee bid and construction administration for a renovated golf course on the current Braemar • Golf Course property. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7 ➢ Approve contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to complete the wetland and water resource services for the proposed golf course modifications. These include wetland delineations, wetland permitting, wetland mitigation design and watershed districts requirements. ➢ Direct staff to include a Braemar Park Master Plan in its 2016 budget and Work Plan. ➢ Conclude service with gratitude of the Braemar Master Plan Task Force. ATTACHMENTS: A: Staff Pro Forma B: Customer Demographics and Survey Information C: Ehlers Report D: Renderings E: Brenda McCormick, Braemar Master Plan Task Force — Key Considerations F: Master Plan Task Force Comments G: May 12, 2015 Park Board Item VI.C. Braemar Golf Course Master Plan H: Braemar Golf Course Wetland Service - SEH I: Richard Mandell PowerPoint Presentation i • • ATTACHMENT A: Staff Proforma Summary Regulation 27 - Status Quo Preliminary 2014 Projected 2015 4YearAverage (2011-2014) Projected 2016 Projected 2017 Projected 2018 Projected 2019 Projected 2020 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Total Operating Revenue $3,229,349 $2,647,477 $2,961,655 $3,148,405 $3,197,592 $3,247,803 $3,299,062 $3,351,398 $3,404,837 Total Operating Expense $3,217,426 $2,840,765 $2,995,444 $3,118,824 $3,283,886 $3,350,674 $3,419,238 $3,486,587 $3,555,74 Operating Income (Loss) $11,9231 $193,2891 $33,7891 $29,5801 $86,2931 $102,872 $120,1761 $135,189 $150,91 Estimated Annual Cash Flow $1,433,9261 $71,004 $3,7211 $112,0401 $150,2831 $1654,8371 $87,041 $202,0541 $217,777 Regulation 27 - Renovation Preliminary 2014 Projected 2015 4 Year Average (2011-2014) Projected 2016 Projected 2017 Projected 2018 Projected 2019 Projected 2020 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Total Operating Revenue $3,229,349 $2,647,477 $2,961,655 $2,513,014 $2,553,7712,595,405 $ $3,432,067 $3,485,598 $3,540,239 Total Operating Expense $3,217,426 $2,840,765 $2,995,444 $2,570,558 $2,771,482 $2,973,756 $3,719,238 $3,843,550 $3,877,126 Operating Income (Loss) $11,9231 $193,289 $33,7891 $57,5451 $217,7111 $378,351 $287,170 $357,953 $336,88 Estimated Annual Cash Flow $497,5741 $227,991 $66,2791 $88,0851 $246,3011 $404,9161 $311,635 $382,418 $361,35 Regulation 18 - Renovation Preliminary 2014 Projected 2015 4YearAverage 2011-2014 Projected 2016 Projected 2017 Projected 2018 Projected 2019 Projected 2020 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Total Operating Revenue $3,229,349 $2,647,477 $2,961,655 $1,136,974 $3,225,529 $3,276,089 $3,327,703 $3,380,400 $3,434,206 Total Operating Expense $3,217,426 $2,840,765 $2995444 $1,408,805 $2,882,726 $3,094,915 $3,151,049 $3,208,668 $3 267,81 OperatingIncome(Loss) $11,923 $193,289 $33,789 $271,8311 $342,8031 $181,174 $176,6541 $171,7321 $166,395 Estimated Annual Cash Flow $1,433,926 $71,004 $3,721 $189,3711 $180,7131 $178,6091 $269,1891 $164,2671 $158,930 • ATTACHMENT B: • Customer Demographics Survey Data (739 responses / 61% of which are Edina Residents / 76% male & 24% female / 50% below retirement age) Satisfaction Factors (What our customers would most like to see improvement in) 1. Pace of Play 2. Overall Quality of Practice Facility 3. Condition of Bunkers 4. Amenities 5. Food & Beverage Service 6. Condition of Tees Competition (Who we are being compared to) 1. Baker National Golf Course 2. Braemar Customer Demographics 3. 12,685 12,000 Dwan Golf Club 5. Bluff Creek golf Club 6. Deer Run Golf 10,000 8,000 6,000 3, 919 4,000 2,000 1.462 1,044 768 510 351 326 182 170 155 151 144 139 109 102 102 101 87 87 62 0 � ��\\e,z e� �e of e o �a a t t c K\ \��� �•��\ \rs�2 cay�' y��aJa¢Oa�o� �\�` \o��a� pyyz a�tia �rayE \Qap!\C, �tos� 4§� \Io Jt` Survey Data (739 responses / 61% of which are Edina Residents / 76% male & 24% female / 50% below retirement age) Satisfaction Factors (What our customers would most like to see improvement in) 1. Pace of Play 2. Overall Quality of Practice Facility 3. Condition of Bunkers 4. Amenities 5. Food & Beverage Service 6. Condition of Tees Competition (Who we are being compared to) 1. Baker National Golf Course 2. Chaska Town Course 3. Brookview Golf Course • 4. Dwan Golf Club 5. Bluff Creek golf Club 6. Deer Run Golf r: • Attachment C ia EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE O To: Ann Kattreh and Eric Roggeman, City of Edina C From: Nick Anhut and Mark Ruff, Ehlers WG Date: February 26, 2015 21 Re: Braemar Golf Pro Forma Review The City of Edina Parks Department and Finance Department have requested that Ehlers review pro forma financial assumptions for the City of Edina's Golf Enterprise (the "Enterprise") as prepared by City staff and offer comments regarding the financial projections. The basis for our comments are actual historical revenue and expense results for the Enterprise, review of planning documents from peer municipally managed golf courses, and our experience with budgets for municipal recreational enterprises. Generally, we find the City's projections to be based upon reasonable assumptions with the caveats and clarifications raised below. General Pro Forma Models In preparation for reviewing various capital investments proposed within the Braemar Golf Course Master Plan, City staff prepared baseline annual financial projections through 2020 to update the City's 2014 Golf Operations Study to incorporate recent changes to the Enterprise with the closing of Fred Richards and new contract with Tin Fish. City staff included reductions in revenues related to concessions and greens fees, with more modest adjustments to reflect streamlined expenditures within retail operations, commodities, personnel and contractual services. The City then created three additional models to incorporate the impact of selected Master Plan changes to the course- - Adding $2.4 million course, driving range and par 3 renovations in 2015, - $8.4 million 27 -hole course renovation with the new driving range and par 3, and - $6.4 million 18 hole full course renovation in 2017 with the new driving range and par 3. It should be noted that these models do not assume any substantial price or fee increases and do not include any cash transfer support from external funds. Our evaluation also does not incorporate review of the proposed construction costs, related contingencies, or time horizons. Status Quo Model The status quo model's projected revenues for 2015 of just over $2.9 million are adjusted from recent history for the closure of Fred Richards and outsourced grill operations with Tin Fish. Revenues for concessions and alcohol sales are conservatively reduced to reflect the contract in effect starting in the summer of 2015 which shows lower revenues but also lower expenditures. Green Fees revenue in 2015 reflects a onetime modest increase in number of rounds of 10% for 9 -hole rounds and 25% for executive course rounds to offset the closure of Fred Richards. These baseline revenues assume no change to current pricing levels. In general, 2016 to 2020 year -over -year projected general revenues assume 3% growth in combined pricing/usage and green fee and range utilization revenues assume a 1 % growth, which are reasonable assumptions. See the detailed chart below which also shows a baseline comparison to recent historical operating performance: 0 -1-800-552-1171 1 www.ehlers-inc.com ,;. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Excluding debt service and non-recurring capital expenditures, the status quo projected 2015 budget for expenditures is over $360,000 less than recent historical levels. This is primarily due to reductions in commodities, staffing, and contractual services spending related to Fred Richards, along with contracting with Tin Fish for operation of the Grill. Including 2015, the City's projected expenditures include 2% inflationary factor for all line items except for personal services at 3% to be consistent with the City's budgetary practices for other departments. The City's 2015 status quo budget has a sound basis given the City's experience and is in line with the level of expenditures of similar municipal golf enterprises within the metro area. Despite the projection of a slight positive operating performance in 2015, aging of the course will likely create larger negative cash flows in the short term prior to payment of non-operating expenditures like existing debt and capital replacement needs. For example, the status quo scenario will require at least $2,000,000 in irrigation improvements by 2017 plus annual improvements of over $200,000 per year which exceed projections for depreciation expense. Status Quo Status Quo Model 2016 2017 Revenues 2011-2014 Compiled 2015 Proposed 2020 Stabilized Concessions/Sales $ 580,974 $ 303,075 $ 260,760 Golf Dome $ 326,276 $ 332,801 $ 385,808 Green Fees $ 1,534,510 $ 1,468,535 $ 1,543,445 Driving Range $ 243,625 $ 246,061 $ 258,613 Miscellaneous $ 559,437 $ 582,000 $ 632,178 Total Revenue $ 3,244,821 $ 77, 2,932,472 $ 3,080,804 Expenditures 2011-2014 Compiled 2015 Proposed 2020 Stabilized Cost of Goods Sold $ 313,477 $ 180,024 $ 171,700 Personal Services $ 1,521,625 $ 1,340,175 $ 1,553,630 Contractual Services $ 544,356 $ 493,703 $ 545,088 Commodities $ 337,851 $ 288,945 $ 319,018 Capital Outlay $ 3,355 $ 3,422 $ 3,778 Central Services $ 134,809 $ 137,505 $ 151,817 Depreciation $ 411,470 $ 456,000 $ 556,000 Total Expenditures $ 3,266,942 $ 2,899,773 $ 3,301,031 Operating Income (Loss) $ (22,121)1 $ 32,699 1 $ (220,227) Excluding debt service and non-recurring capital expenditures, the status quo projected 2015 budget for expenditures is over $360,000 less than recent historical levels. This is primarily due to reductions in commodities, staffing, and contractual services spending related to Fred Richards, along with contracting with Tin Fish for operation of the Grill. Including 2015, the City's projected expenditures include 2% inflationary factor for all line items except for personal services at 3% to be consistent with the City's budgetary practices for other departments. The City's 2015 status quo budget has a sound basis given the City's experience and is in line with the level of expenditures of similar municipal golf enterprises within the metro area. Despite the projection of a slight positive operating performance in 2015, aging of the course will likely create larger negative cash flows in the short term prior to payment of non-operating expenditures like existing debt and capital replacement needs. For example, the status quo scenario will require at least $2,000,000 in irrigation improvements by 2017 plus annual improvements of over $200,000 per year which exceed projections for depreciation expense. Status Quo 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenues $ 2,932,472 $ 2,897,815 $ 2,942,181 $ 2,987,452 $ 3,033,652 $ 3,080,804 Expenditures $(2,899,773) $ 32,699 $(2,937,050) $ (39,236) $(3,000,475) $ (58,294) $(3,165,583) $ (178,130) $(3,232,419) $ (198,767) $(3,301,031) $ (220,227) Operating Income Add: Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 456,000 $ 456,000 $ 556,000 $ 556,000 $ 556,000 Less: Existing Debt $ (84,215) $ (971490) $ (95,540) $ (93,590) $ (96,565) $ (94,465) Capital Expense $ (849,500) $ (191,000) $(2,208,000) $ (298,000) $ (293,000) $ (200,000) New Debt $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ (158,400) $ (158,400) $ (158,400) Annual Cash Flow, $ (445,016)1 $ 128,2741 $ 94,166 $ (172,120) $ (190,732) $ (117,092) • Page 12 0 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Driving Range and Par 3 Improvement Model Projections for revenues adding the impact of improvements to the range and par 3 during the summer of 2015 build upon the status quo model. Key differences are the impacts of proposed construction starting in July, 2015. This event is expected to limit utilization of the range and executive course for the remainder of the season. Upon completion, staff expects increased driving range and par 3 stabilized revenues, and modest increases in membership revenue due to improved amenities. The proforma anticipates range revenues nearly doubling from historical levels once stabilized after construction, and Par 3 green fees recovering by 2017 to a stabilized level 14% higher than the status quo projections. Conservatively, the model does not assume any increase in 9 -hole or 18 -hole regulation course utilization during Par 3 construction, nor any increases above status quo levels afterward. New Driving Range & Par 3 Model Revenues 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Concessions/Sales $ 303,075 $ 260,760 Golf Dome $ 383,953 $ 385,808 Green Fees $ 1,30b,486 $ 1,577,118 Driving Range $ 77,960 $ 433,740 Miscellaneous $ 582,000 $ 641,636 Total Revenue $ 2,647,477 $ 3,299,062 Expenditures 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Cost of Goods Sold $ 180,024 $ 171,700 Personal Services $ 1,297,597 $ 1,552,192 Contractual Services $ 493,703 $ 545,088 Commodities $ 272,515 $ 318,662 Capital Outlay . ...................... $ 3,422 $ 3,778 Central Services $ 137,505 $ 151,817 Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 6761000 Total Expenditures $ 2,840,765 $ 3,419,238 Operating Income (Loss) $ (193,289) $ (120,176) Expenditures are expected to decline slightly in 2015 compared to the Status Quo model due to reorganization and temporary closure of the range and Par 3 during construction. However, City staff expects to carry forward this level of expenditures with only inflationary, adjustments mentioned above, as well as a projected $120,000 increase in an accounting depreciation expense directly related to the new capital improvements. Not including depreciation, the projections for total operating expenditures are at or below Status Quo projections. Page 13 • i '. FREERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Range/Par3 2015 2015 Proposed 2016 2017 $ 2018 $ 2019 Golf Dome 2020 Revenues $ 2,647,477 $ 2,961,655 $ 3,148,405 $ 3,197,592 $ 3,247,803 $ 3,299,062 Expenditures $ (2,840,765) $ (193,289) $ (2,995,444) $ (33,789) $ (3,118, 824) $ 29,580 $ (3,283,886) $ (86,293) $ (3,350,674) $ (102,872) $ (3,419,238) $ (120,176) Operating Income Add: Depreciation $ 456, 000 $ 516,000 $ 576,000 $ 676, 000 $ 676, 000 $ 676, 000 Less: Existing Debt $ (84,215) $ (97,490) $ (95,540) $ (93,590) $ (96,565) $ (94,465) Capital Expense $(2,649,500) $ (191,000) $(2,208,000) $ (298,000) $ (293,000) $ (200,000) New Debt $ 2,400,000 $ (190,000) $ 1,810,000 $ (348,400) $ (348,400) $ (348,400) Annual Cash Flow, $ (71,004) $ 3,721 $ 112,040 $ (150,283) $ (164,837) $ (87,041) 27 -hole Regulation Course Renovation Model The next model builds upon the range and Par 3 improvements, and includes projections for revenues assuming 27 -hole renovation to occur in three 9 -hole phases from 2017-2019 to allow for continuous 18 -hole operations during construction. City staff expects green fee, cart rental and retail revenues to temporarily decline due to 33% reduction in utilization during the construction period. Revenues return to stabilized levels in 2020, with green fee revenues recovering to a level 5.7% higher than the status quo projections. Membership revenue also declines during course renovation, but does not fully recover to stabilized levels immediately afterward. Similar to the previous model, the model conservatively does not assume any increased utilization of the Par 3 course during construction of the 27 -hole regulation course. 27 Hole w/ New Driving Range & Par 3 Revenues 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Concessions/Sales $ 303,075 $ 260,760 Golf Dome $ 383,953 $ 385,808 Green Fees $ 1,300,489 $ 1,651,666 Driving Range $ 77,960 $ 433,740 Miscellaneous $ 582,000 $ 653,188 Total Revenue $ 2,647,477 $ 3,385,161 Expenditures 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Cost of Goods Sold $ 180,024 $ 171,700 Personal Services $ 1,297,597 $ 1,552,192 Contractual Services $ 493,703 $ 545,088 Commodities $ 272,515 $ 318,662 Capital Outlay $ 3,422 $ 3,778 Central Services $ 137,505 $ 151,817 Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 976,000 Total Expenditures $ 2,840,765 $ 3,719,238 Operating Income (Loss) $ (193,289) $ (334,076) The proposed 27 -hole renovation model builds in reduced operating expenditures related to limited operations during the 2017-2019 phased construction, however stabilized expenditures are expected to be identical to previous models save for the added depreciation expense related to the over $8 million project. Page 14 • FREERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 27 -Hole Ren. 2015 2015 Proposed 2016 2017 $ 2018 $ 2019 Golf Dome 2020 Revenues $ 2,647,477 $ 2,961,655 $ 2,513,014 $ 2,553,771 $ 2,595,405 $ 3,385,161 Expenditures $ (2,840,765) $ (2,995,444) $ $ (2,570,558) $ (2,771,482) $ $ (2,973,756) $ $(3,719,238) Total Revenue $ 2,647,477 Operating Income $ (193,289) $ (33,789) $ (57,545) $ (217,711) $ (378,351) $ (334,076) Add: Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 516,000 $ 576,000 $ 726, 000 $ 876, 000 $ 976,000 Less: Existing Debt $ (84,215) $ (97,490) $ (95,540) $ (93,590) $ (96,565) $ (94,465) Capital Expense $ (2, 649, 500) $ (191, 000) $ (8, 556, 383) $ (98, 000) $ (93, 000) $ $ New Debt $ 2,400, 000 ` $ (190,000)1"$ 8,158, 383 `'$ (864, 000) "$ (864"000)v$ (864, 000) Annual Cash Flow, $ (71,004) $ 3,7211 $ 24,915 $ (547,301) $ (555;916) $ (316,541) 18 -Hole Regulation Course Renovation Model The final revenue model exchanges the 27 -hole renovation for an 18 -hole renovation that includes the elimination of 9 holes from the golf facility. Construction is expected to occur in 2017 and cause a full shutdown of the regulation course that year. In addition to zero 18 or 9 -hole green fee revenue, City staff expect 90% reductions to rental and retail revenues during the year-long construction period. Revenues return to stabilized levels 2018, with green fee revenues recovering to a level 7.8% higher than the status quo projections. Membership revenue also declines.during course renovation, but stabilizes immediately afterward with modest increases. As with prior models, the pro forma conservatively does not assume any increased utilization of the Par 3 course during construction of the regulation course. 18 Hole w/ New Driving Range & Par 3 Revenues 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Concessions/Sales $ 303,075 $ 260,760 Golf Dome $ 383,953 $ 385,808 Green Fees $ 1,300,489 $ 1,679,416 Driving Range $ 77,960 $ 429,445 Miscellaneous $ 582,000 $ 670,508 Total Revenue $ 2,647,477 $ 3,425,937 Expenditures 2015 Proposed Stabilized 2020 Cost of Goods Sold $ 180,024 $ 171,700 Personal Services $ 1,297,597 $ 1,241,754 Contractual Services $ -.493,703 $ 436,070 Commodities $ 272,515 $ 254,930 Capital Outlay $ 3,422 $ 3,778 Central Services $ 137,505 $ 151,817 Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 891,000 Total Expenditures $ 2,840,765 $ 3,151,049 Operating Income (Loss) $ (193,289) $ 274,888 The proposed 18 -hole renovation model also assumes reductions in expenditures related to the regulation course closure in 2017 for construction. Upon reopening in 2018, City staff expects a reduction in stabilized expenditures related to personnel, maintenance and commodities attributed to the Page 15 LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE elimination of 9 regulation holes. The leaner operating budget is estimated to be $480,000 less than that of the 27 -hole models prior to inclusion of depreciation. 18 -Hole Ren. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenues $ 2,647,477 $ 2,961,655 $ 1,136,974 $ 3,321,826 $ 3,373,349 $ 3,425,937 Expenditures $(2,840,765) $ (2,995,444) $ (1,408, 805) $ (2,882,726) $(3,094,915) $(3,151,049) Operating Income $ (193,289) $ (33,789) $ (271,831) $ 439,101 $ 278,435 $ 274,888 Add: Depreciation $ 456,000 $ 516,000 $ 576,000 $ 733,500 $ 891,000 $ 891,000 Less: Existing Debt $ (84,215) $ (97,490) $ (95,540) $ (93,590) $ (96,565) $ (94,465) Capital Expense $ (2,649,500) $ (191, 000) $ (6,566,179) $ (98, 000) $ (93, 000) $ - New Debt $ 2,400, 000 -'$ (190, 000) ` $ 6,168,179 ' $ (704,000)1,}$ (704,0 1 00) '$ (704,0 . 00) Annual Cash Flow $ (71,004) $ 3,721 $ (189,371) $ 277,011 $ 275,870 $ 367,423 Revenue Considerations: Coupled with national trends in declining golf participation, the marketplace for golf in the metropolitan area during the limited spring, summer and fall seasons is fairly competitive with the majority of pressure coming from alternative recreational activities. Regional weather patterns also induce volatility into annual golf enterprise revenue performance. While price is an important factor, the most significant a risk of flight from core users is to a superior product because of limited supply with recent course closures throughout the metro area. Within its relative control, maintaining Enterprise revenue levels will primarily depend upon the ability of the City to provide a competitive product to maintain a variety of core golf users and successfully market the product to ultimately grow utilization. It is our understanding that the majority of miscellaneous and sales revenue projections also reflect limited year round use of the golf amenities. The City expects to explore opportunities to promote more year round use of the facilities in the future. Also, it is assumed Golf Dome revenues will stabilize at current levels due to recent improvements and performance. We are relying on statements from staff that there is capacity available within all models to support current utilization levels while reducing from a 27 to 18 -hole regulation course. However, the City should consider its reliance on increases to green fees revenue within the renovation models. While it may be reasonable to set an expectation of no drop off in rounds purchased once operations are stabilized, it is inconsistent with the City's overall conservative approach to rely on the higher levels of projected revenue within the 18 -hole model without engaging in a more detailed market analysis to validate it. Expenditure Considerations While the City models project a reduced operating footprint from historical levels, it is reasonable to assume a sustainable level of reductions can be obtained due to recent changes within the golf enterprise. The pro forma also includes a 3% inflation on personnel costs, despite its reliance on part- time and seasonal labor whose costs may not historically increase at that rate. One consideration is de- coupling when reductions in operating costs will occur relative to reductions in course use during periods of construction. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that commodity, goods, some personnel and maintenance expense will be reduced during these time frames, however a cash.flow consideration Page 16 .,-EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE should be given to whether a lag will exist between when reductions in revenues and expenditures are realized. Non -Operating Pro Forma Considerations In addition to the operating assumptions, City staff has also anticipated non-operating expenditures for existing debt on the Braemar Golf Dome, new debt service related to the proposed Master Plan improvements, and planned capital outlays to evaluate annual cash flow activity. The City has incorporated a long-term plan for capital improvements for the golf enterprise within its 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan. The plan includes detailed line item expenses identified for equipment replacement, repairs and facility renovations. Prior to any renovation, the status quo capital outlays average $674,000 per year primarily identifying major irrigation upgrades needed within the 3-5 year horizon. Under a special legislative authority, the City has considered the issuance of General Obligation Bonds to finance major capital improvements to selected recreational enterprises like the Golf Dome and Braemar Ice Arena. This debt requires a pledge of existing enterprise revenues, but is backed by the City's levy authority which ensures low interest costs relative to other forms of debt. The City's existing golf debt service averages $94,000 per year. Using current market "AAA" rates inflated by half a percent, Ehlers estimates annual debt service at $190,000 for the range improvements, $674,000 for the 27 -hole renovation, and $514,000 for the 18 -hole renovation. These estimates are based on a 15 - year term of repayment. The City has utilized options to pay for operating deficits, capital and non-operating expenses using operating cash, capital reserves, Braemar Memorial Funds and transfers from either of Liquor or General Fund surpluses. These projections do not assume any income related to transfers or potential interest earning, and are included for illustrative purposes. The City should consider funding long-term capital improvements through use of a capital reserve for the Enterprise. Future capital costs are difficult to predict, but additional attention should be placed on maximizing revenues and/or reducing operating expenses in order to accrue additional funding for this Enterprise's capital reserve. Comparison to Peer Municipal Golf Operations When comparing the Enterprise to similar municipal golf operations, the total projected revenues are achievable but are on the higher end of what we see within the metro area. Comparable golf facilities operated by municipalities in the metropolitan area perform in the range of $2.0 to $2.8 million in annual gross revenues. However, Edina's Golf Enterprise is larger than most due to operating a domed golf practice facility, driving range and 36 -hole golf course. Other like municipally operated facilities typically contain only a single 18 to 27 -hole course and outdoor range. Operation of the Golf Dome alone enables Edina's revenues to be potentially $300,000 higher than a typical municipal golf operation. We have no reason today to doubt the ability of the City to achieve $3.0 to 3.4 million per year revenues for its operation, but we believe that examining revenues from other facilities is helpful to provide context for risk and sensitivity analysis. Page 17 FREERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Likewise, comparable golf enterprises share recent history of operating expenditures at or exceeding operating revenues. Typical operating margins range from levels of -10% to 4% of revenues due primarily to reduction in rounds purchased and the inability to adjust costs commensurate with reduced utilization. . Background on Ehlers Ehlers is a financial advisory firm experienced in assisting local governments with the financing of a variety of assets, including recreational facilities. Ehlers is not an accounting firm nor was this report prepared by certified public accountants or according to general accepted accounting principles. This report is not intended to be construed as an appraisal, a feasibility study, nor as a review of the City's capacity/business plan for the Braemar Golf Improvements. We are engaged in a limited scope primarily to raise questions about the proposed operating and capital budget, and offer insights given our experience with the City's finances generally and with operating budgets for other recreation enterprises. 0 Page 18 NATIVE ROUTING OPTIONS e3:r•na:u A lion• M V ANCA, AVA?/.VA RA770v LC1:rM • OPTION I - THE BEST 27 REGULATION HOLES POSSIBLE Option 3 Is Richard Mandell Golf rlrchitecntre s effort to create the three best possible nine hole loops for Braemar t Golf Course. Ut&ing the entire property to rite bast of its ability, rite 3011 objective is to create three equal runes to r change die current sentunent of iiracmar Golf Course as a solid and enjoyable original eiRhtcen Im4s widT a third nine "naceeprable to the majority of golfers. Vrom our efforts, it is opp;trenr dell if a subsru;dal dwage To the rltird nine is nor made, then any smaller effort to 49-)ve du. C,lunic nirw will fall short of cslTccrations. \Ytth that thought, tie oxuToy :ryTut on anything Icss «ill be nhaoey lx,udy spear. Caption I is i.tnided to drruly ereate three equal nioea, 710 LI I= e ; SCALL' 1" = 440r - Ce" Cantle to T-Tn..r 1 72 1 640 1 6171 1 5533 ( 5024 4347 Flays ahI T2 Granit 16593 15783 1 5335 4Nr) TZ Clunle. as CAstlc I 72 1 6771 16726 5488 14965 43U far • LEGEM ■ 'Csn Czrrri �.u�, Hianax i'hR.iX7 ■ •f1TJD.r'{11 ® A'aTsa Occn• ■ (1ur.r.]tra Llhn:et+t�:u+. Ha;aur�car, l7.G6 Mr¢a mA'+uirn:c'IL,n. 70 OPTION 2 - THE BEST 87 REGULATION HOLES POSSIBLE WITH MINIMAL DISTURBANCE The dLffixeuee bete eez cut brt ef_'oat of Opd— t and Opdoa y ii that =mktx rxo &--et am anv art: hek; sEthen the esi:sns n .,odmd% an either rme eats L= seta:idC. !a.tc � . up`�'•"r–u she beta pasihie t+neai, seven ho8e2`neca9-off=e trnd ds a reailt, tbh opt>wns: mr sbor'u:thw the e.= a°s€°E than Option t bni :tiID �r :.iperix m tae thm ris_zent nice: cew" I s% 1area C'sstle ar. Mwp n 6iZ1 42 w u Ft m N ��R 0 0 0 man 2 -1-1101 [R14JIMI-T 3 0 • A • ZEGEND ■ I"m: ® i.iFCt Al3i l34^.:laM ■ trAlaCAY ■ S}iCALVr SV�itl:A t:Y..fiY ■ r:ai.'RfAl1:�. �TARICPYA`:AL S Dia: 4aSnt.T,p RSiiiiigxnt 36.87 A tlCwxn.'c "liven. r as OPTION 5 NEW EIGHTMEN HOLE REGULATION GOLF COURSE AND FOUR - HOLE PRACTICE LOOP WITH MINIMAL iD15TURBANCE O?tiem S is it :hor:emed e1glrt� L" to wake w c m Rata four -We pcwtwe lc ,p, The pocdee loopiscominiendrloci_dAtthe+aeetheattcetaaerof*&Qolftantetokit a.cc :ibleftmatheEackwg I= at mtatriple jrtdiat Set it a::a ;ta:- and &n:1ut ri�i;a'• >E cG:tjmce aS tLt chahhaatte Al t aF oro hate: remaia c-itFu: the =umg $olt ware Lipp :mitlsvm tmaer&dng =i:h the tc�-a3amd area: to the east audnest :idea c,f the Fa,- Tear. MR I VAIMS r s .11A 3 183 >7t a .avr C RAE Aram, 2015 PROPOSED COMXncMS LEGEND 0 • -ft. - - - - -VALX l--4(lW.Cr C. • • Attachment E Braemar Golf Task Force Key Considerations 8 -Apr -15 I The expected utilization of the course is expected to be approx. 55,000 rounds for both 27 -hole and 18 -hole option. The 27 hole option assumes similar level of play (50% 18 hole / 50%9 hole), which is not the most efficient revenue mix. The 18 hole option assumes a shift from 9 hole rounds to more profitable 18 hole rounds. This mix change will result in a more profitable revenue model, but requires changes to league play, timing ofjuniors training, etc. II The historical high for number of rounds was 67,000 -This is not expected to occur again. If we thought golf would rebound to these levels, the 18 hole option would not be able to accommodate the demand. III This review does not consider the viability of the Driving Range/Par 3 Projector the expense associated with the upgrade sprinkler system (assumed to be maintenance) IV The financial return is highly dependent on the utlization, pricing and expense assumptions. Based on Finances alone the 18 -hole option is best. Overtime, both options have a loss because expenses are assumed to grow faster than revenues. Joe's Model 2020 2025 2030 27 hole (185) (401) (604) 18 hole 328 89 (341) The 27 hole model Incremental Capital Required $ 6,556 WACC = 5% Utlizatio Annual Pricing 18-hol Annual Pricing 9-hol Expensein NPI IRI Financially viable Free Cash Flow 2025 Capacity Utiilzzation % 27 hole capacity 80,000 54,500 68% 18 hole 50,000 27,500 55% 9 hole 30,000 27,000 90% 18 hole 65,000 55,050 85% 18 hole 45,000 40,050 89% 19 hole 20,000 15,000 75% Current 80000 52000 65% 18 hole 50000 25000 505/ 9 hole 30000 27000 90% II The historical high for number of rounds was 67,000 -This is not expected to occur again. If we thought golf would rebound to these levels, the 18 hole option would not be able to accommodate the demand. III This review does not consider the viability of the Driving Range/Par 3 Projector the expense associated with the upgrade sprinkler system (assumed to be maintenance) IV The financial return is highly dependent on the utlization, pricing and expense assumptions. Based on Finances alone the 18 -hole option is best. Overtime, both options have a loss because expenses are assumed to grow faster than revenues. Joe's Model 2020 2025 2030 27 hole (185) (401) (604) 18 hole 328 89 (341) The 27 hole model Incremental Capital Required $ 6,556 WACC = 5% Utlizatio Annual Pricing 18-hol Annual Pricing 9-hol Expensein NPI IRI Financially viable Free Cash Flow 2025 The 18 hole model Incremental Capital Required $ 4,358 WACC=5% Utlizatio Annual Pricing 18-hol Annual Pricing 9 -hob Expenseln NPI IRI Financially viabli Free Cash Flow 2025 Best Case Joe's Joe's Best Case Moderate Estimate 78% 71% 68% 7% First YR/ 7% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 3% annually 3%annually 1%annually 3% First YR/ 3% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 2% annually 2% annually 1%annually 2% 2% 2% $ (5,034) (6,358) (7,505) -10% NA NA Maybe NO NO 237 56 (101) The 18 hole model Incremental Capital Required $ 4,358 WACC=5% Utlizatio Annual Pricing 18-hol Annual Pricing 9 -hob Expenseln NPI IRI Financially viabli Free Cash Flow 2025 Best Case Joe's Worst Case Estimate 85% 8s% 65% 7% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 1% annually 1%annually 1%annually 5% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 1% First YR/ 1% annually 1% annually 1%annually 2% 2% 2% (11283) (1,808) $ (2,027) 0% -4% NA OK 1 Maybe NO 376 304 26 The 27 -hole option is only viable if higher utlizaiton can be assumed along with more sustained annual price increases. This option provides more flexibility and less chane in the golf habits of the customers is needed. The 18 -hale option Is less risky financially, but requires a change in golfer habits at the course. The downside is alos less risky if golf utilization drops off. This option does not provide flexibilty if golf rebounds a more rounds could be secured given the 85% assumed utilization rate. ATTACHMENT F Braemar Golf Course Master Plan Task Force Member Comments James Hovland — Mayor Ann Kattreh - Parks & Recreation Director Susan Faus - Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Joe Abood - Braemar General Manager Brenda McCormick - Park Board Member Members Rick Ites - Citizen Advisory Group Pacy Erck - Citizen Advisory Group Paul Presthus - Citizen Advisory Group Richard Brozic - Citizen Advisory Group Joseph Hulbert - Citizen Advisory Group Rick Ites What an opportunity as well as a challenge for the BGC master plan task force. Our mission statement was to evaluate options to provide a golfing experience for all ages and abilities. The experience is to be accessible, affordable and challenging to all golfers. Our goal is for Braemar to recapture its position as a premier destination golf course. After an extensive written and verbal process, Richard Mandell was selected as the golf course architect. He is also a certified arborist which I believe will assist us in our environmental issues. This Oarticularly concerns the Oak Savannas. Many options were given to the task force to evaluate. Some of these were 27 holes, 18 holes, practice loops, etc. and varieties of each. An important consideration was the opportunity to create a new experience on what we now refer to as the "Clunie 9". This will require the removal of a few acres of trees while at the same time restoring the remaining acreage. For me the two choices became 27 holes vs 18 holes both including the removal and management of the trees on the "Clunie". To choose between the two required me to consider these important factors: • accessibility to our league play that currently supports the golf course • our commitment to our golfing programs such as our youth groups and outside( special needs) groups which have contributed to our brand • financial considerations i.e. 18 holes would certainly appear to be more responsible • the opportunity to provide the city of Edina more community amenities at Braemar. With the 18 hole design we can now recapture some of what is now in the golfing footprint • Increased management of tee time allotments. We now have more than 50% of our rounds that are 9 holes. My recommendation is Option 4. This is an 18 hole option with removal and management of the trees. This is confirmed also by Richard Mandell as one of his two "best options" for our site. • BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 • Fax 952-903-5751 • Edina has a special opportunity to develop the premier golfing experience to compliment the current redesign of the driving range and renovated par 3 course. I thank the Edina city council for having me serve on the Braemar Master Plan Task Force. I have been involved at Braemar for over 25 years. I have served as president of the Men's Club four times and I am currently president of the Braemar Golf Association. I have enjoyed working with the other members of task force and sense the high commitment our group had during this process. Paul Presthus & Pacy Erck The Mission Statement of the BGC MP Task Force was to recommend the "Best" MP golf option for the renovation of BGC. Richard Mandell defines "Best" as options that allow for maximum design potential with minimal reasonable constraints. For example, unreasonable constraints could be trying to preserve trees for reasons other than golf. Constraints also can be wetlands and maximum wetland buffer, which RMGA has already managed successfully under Options 4 and 1. Our Task Force Vision was that the MP option should offer an accessible, playable, and affordable golfing experience for golfers of all ages and abilities in a welcoming and enjoyable atmosphere; now and in the future. Our goal is to position BGC as a premier •destination golf course for local and regional golfers, with special opportunities and privileges for Edina residents. All of the MP golf options proposed by RMGA were evaluated on 3 criteria; 1) Golf 2) Environment and 3) Financial. Six (6) options were originally considered, including the 2 the "BEST" Options 4 & 1. Based on the Mission Statement and our Task Force Vision, I recommend the 18 hole option, Option 4, as proposed by Richard Mandel (RMGA) as the Master Plan (MP) for the renovation of the Braemar Regulation Golf Course (BGCI. I like both the 27 and 18 hole options, Options 1 & 4, as proposed by RMGA. However, I am recommending Option 4 because I believe it offers the best MP for the renovation of BGC and is also the more fiscally responsible and less risky option for the desired performance of BGC, especially in the short term. • I believe Option 4 has the possibility to be one of the best, if not the best, public regulation 18 hole golf courses in the Metro and the State. o However, I am concerned about accessibility for Edina residents and others under Option 4. Accessibility will be a challenge for management and staff of BGC, but I believe it can and will be addressed satisfactorily. • Option 1 is an intriguing option for Edina because there are only a few 27 hole regulation golf courses in the Twin Cities Metro Area and fewer competitive possibilities due to the acreage requirements for 27 holes. I believe the revenue projections of staff for Option 1 are too conservative • but I understand the conservative rationale. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.BraemarGolfcom . 952-903-5750 • Fax 952-903-5751 • Some expressed concern that Options 4 and 1 go up in to the trees (Oak Savannas). History and track record mitigate those concerns. Golf and golfers are not the enemy of the environment. Everyone associated with golf course construction, maintenance and play has tremendous respect for the environment. The environmental facts associated with RMGA's Option 4 confirm the above statements: 1.) Reduction in overall golf holes from 27 to 18; 2.) Reduction in overall footprint of 15.34 acres; 3.) Of the preceding acres, 7.50 acres are set aside for an Environmental Educational area. Additional acreage is set aside for a multi -use area; 4.) The addition of 45.1 acres of Oak Savanna restoration area (plan = remove, replace, increase and sustain); 5.) Oak Savanna restoration area includes 20.28 physical acres of Oak Canopy (the rest is open land, as defined by Savanna; 6.) Proposed tree removal: 12.21 acres, with net gain of tree cover 7.87 acres. 7.) Upon completion of Option 4, Braemar Park will have 178.14 acres of tree canopy, or 40% of the site; 8.) Preservation of all 73 acres of wetlands; and 9.) Development of architect -mandated maximum wetland buffer of 60' when many areas may require only 20' or 40' of buffer. The actions listed above are only made possible by the reduction of the golf course to 18 holes. The result is Wption 4 produces the "BEST" golf course option for the renovation of BGC and, also, the "BEST" golf course environmental option for Braemar Park. This is all contingent on using Hole #23 (Hole #11 in Option 4) which equates to a WIN/WIN for golf and the environment at Braemar Park. I believe Edina has a special opportunity to develop the premier public golf enterprise in the State. Golf has gone through challenging times in recent years. Overbuilding and the recent Great Recession contributed to golf's problems nationally. Locally, inattention and lack of investment in BGC over the last 30 years contributed to Edina's golf problems. Golf is a cyclical business, subject to the same ups and downs as other industries. Communities, like Edina, that address problems and reinvest in their facilities position themselves to do well going forward. Golf is not going away; it is just adjusting. Good golf facilities are a valuable asset to a progressive community. The available acreage in Braemar Park dedicated to golf gives Edina a tremendous advantage over other communities and golf facilities. The new Golf Dome and a recently approved MP for a premier Driving Range and Par 3 golf course are a great start for the rejuvenation of golf in Edina. We picked the right architect for the BGC MP in Richard Mandell. Now the decisions related to the renovation of the regulation BGC and related golf amenities (i.e. short game options/opportunities) are likewise, going to be key to the ongoing recovery of the Edina Golf Enterprise. Option 4 becomes the centerpiece of the golf renaissance in Edina;ig ving Edina the "Best" golf option across the board...... an outstanding_ golf course, environmentally friendly, and fiscally responsible. I thank the Edina City Council for the opportunity to serve on the BGC MP Task Force. It has been a very positive experience that I have enjoyed very much. I also enjoyed working with my fellow Task Force members • BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 • Fax 952-903-5751 • and City staff. I am very proud of our Task Force efforts and contributions to the upcoming selection of the BGC MP Golf Course option for the renovation of BGC. Richard Brozic I am endorsing our golf course designer's recommended #1 design option: 27 holes. With this option, Richard Mandell has done a commendable job in meeting the number one request of Braemar golfers who attended his listening sessions: "Fix the Clunie nine!" In this 27 hole option, Richard has re-routed a few holes to make the Castle and Hays nines both equal yardages. In addition, he has redesigned Clunie so that it is more playable and has eliminated a lot of the forced carries. The re -designed Clunie nine is significantly different and should make all three of the nines equal and more playable. I know that designer's 18 hole version will be the safer financial option. However, the staff has been too conservative on their projections of usage on a 27 hole option. Golfers have avoided the existing Clunie nine because of its poor design. If Braemar had three equal nines that were all playable and enjoyable, our usage number would be significantly higher that what staff is projecting. There are only a couple of 27 hole courses in the Twin Cities metro area. Once we give up on 27 holes, it will be very expensive to try and go back to it at a later date. I believe we will have a significant access problem with the 18 hole option. We currently have an equal number Of 9 hole golf rounds to 18 hole rounds. Staff will do their best to work as many of the 9 hole golfers as they can into the less desirable tee time slots. Make no mistake - staff s number one priority is too favor 18 hole golfers over 9 golfers from a financial standpoint. All of the leagues and youth programs will have to have their tee -times adjusted under an 18 hole course option with fewer tee times available. We have a large number of non-residents who currently golf at Braemar, Although we may feel that Edina residents should be favored with patron privileges, many of these non-resident golfers may move on too other competing courses under an 18 hole option as tee -times will be much more difficult to get. Don't underestimate the marketing pull that we will get from a re -designed 27 hole course. It will make Braemar a destination golf course and take market share away from our golf competitors. I am very excited about our impending remodel of the driving range. I believe that Braemar should have the premier public practice facility in the state of Minnesota. In addition to a remodeled practice range, we also need an improved putting green, chipping green, and sand practice green. A well designed practice facility will also attract more golfers than we do now to play at a state of the art 27 hole golf course. I believe that a well-designed 27 hole golf course is the best option for the long term success of Braemar. Joseph Hulbert I've bounced back and forth between the options over the months. I've come to a decision myself. I believe the is18 hole option has more positives for the long term success of golf at Braemar BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 . Fax 952-903-5751 • The 18 hole option design is without a doubt the best 18 we can build. Richard M. will have an ability to stretch out his creativity and build a better course. I'm not focused on a number of holes anymore. I'm looking for the best that we can build. An 18 hole option is not shooting low, I've come to think of it as the best we can do. I think it's aiming to be the best. Building the Clunie 9 was a mistake and this the chance to correct that. We can build a spectacular 18 hole course on a larger track of land using part of the Clunie acreage. We'll leave behind additional unused Clunie land for expanded practice facilities to grow the game as well as more potential park amenities The biggest piece of this decision for me is the financial end. Sure, some may have a willingness to subsidize golf. However setting a path with a greater probability of needed support is a failed model. 18 holes gives Braemar golf the best chance at financial success and an ability to invest in itself. If Braemar golf cannot invest/maintain itself, its quality will slowly erode over time. I don't want to repeat past mistakes. This is the opportunity to correct those made in the past. I trust staff will address accessibility for Edina residents through programming. Priority access needs to be given to those that live in Edina. • In regards to any concern about pushback taking more golf away in Edina. I'd like to hear how these investments can be viewed as "taking". 1.8 mil in the driving range and Par 3. 500k into the clubhouse and potentially 6.5 mil into a new 18 hole routing. It can be viewed only as a huge investment in golf by our city. Clearly the city is looking to give back. I envision playing Braemar in 20 years after the dust has settled and seeing a successful golf operation and a product that people are proud to play. Brenda McCormick Thank you for the opportunity to assist with this important initiative. It's been a pleasure to be on the Task Force and I'm excited about the future of Braemar! I recommend the City proceed with an 18 -hole golf course within the current golf foot print (Option #5). This option improves the golfing experience in Edina, enhances our competitiveness with surrounding cities, and address the basic maintenance improvements needed that have been neglected over the years. • BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 . Fax 952-903-5751 • I am making this recommendation based on the following considerations regarding Capacity, Financials and Footprint. CAPACITY I believe the City will be able to meet the demands of the golfer with the 18 -hole options through better management of the facility and allocation of tee -times (overall program management). • The 27 -hole course was over -built for the community with a capacity of 80,000 rounds. Current utilization is only — 69% (approx. 55,000 rounds). The peak rounds for the 27 -hole course reached 67,000 with utilization of 84%. This was at a time that golf was growing and the Clunie 9 was new; no stigma had yet been established. • Access has been a key point of discussion with the task force and there is a concern that 9 -hole players will be turned away (current rounds are split 50/50 18 -hole to 9 -hole). I believe that with so much over capacity at the course, the programming has been inefficient over the past several years resulting in sub - optimized round makeup and league play. It is important to realize that trends suggest 9 -hole play is growing so ensuring adequate allocation to 9 -hole play in the programming structure of the new course •in essential. • New program guidelines could ensure Edina residents access. From the demographic data that Staff has, it shows there are a lot of non-residents using the course. If you look at the customer database it would indicate that Edina residents are only 43% of the course users. Mr. Abood feels that this statistic is understating the resident usage; however, if you assumed 65% of the users are residents; this would still indicate only 36,000 of the 55,000 rounds are being played by Edina residents. FINANCIAL Based on the utilization assumptions noted in CAPACITY, financially the 18 -hole option is the clear winner. This is based on the Staff's financials. They assume revenue for 27 -hole and 18 -hole are the same, but the costs and capital requirements are lower with an 18 -hole option. I think a key benefit to the 18 -hole option is that having a more financially viable enterprise enables the City to reinvest profits back into maintaining the facility. I strongly encourage the golf maintenance plan be viewed in light of this project to ensure that maintenance capital is appropriated regularly as the infrastructure ages. A few other notes that I found compelling regarding the financial: 1. Capacity assumptions are very important. After performing a high level sensitivity on the financials, the 27 -hole option starts to become financially viable with rounds 68,000 and above. As a note, the 18 -hole option provides maximum capacity of — 65,000 rounds. is BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 . Fax 952-903-5751 • 2. The assumptions that Staff used are in line with the National Gold Foundation study that was conducted for the City in 2011, which helped me to be comfortable with the revenue and expense assumptions. a. Pricing is assumed to remain relatively flat with only a 1% annual increase to partially cover expense inflation. b. Expenses are assumed to be 10% lower in the 18 -hole option which is the key driver to the improved operating profit. i. Reduced Payroll. ii. Less chemicals and fertilizer. iii. Smaller cart and equipment fleet. iv. Reduced Repairs & Maintenance on those fleets. FOOTPRINT I believe that working within the current golf footprint makes the most sense for the redesign parameters. From a non -golfer's perspective I haven't heard a compelling reason to go into the Woods. If expanding the footprint is an option the Council would like to explore, I recommend that an outside third party study be completed on We environmental impacts of those areas before a decision is made. I feel the 18 -hole option enables the City to look at integrating improved practice greens and other amenities into the course redesign, such as walking trails and connectivity to other parks and trails. The 27 -hole option minimizes the ability to provide practice areas due to space constraints on the course. is BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 6364 John Harris Drive • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www BraemarGolfcom • 952-903-5750 • Fax 952-903-5751 . ATTACHMENT G: May 12, 2015 Park Board Item VI.C. Braemar Golf Course Master Plan VI.C. Braemar Golf Course Master Plan Joe Abood, Braemar Golf Course General Manager, gave a presentation to the Park Board. Member Good asked if Mr. Abood could explain why the 27 -hole course option drives no increase in operating revenue. Mr. Abood stated it will increase eventually, but it is a three -stage process. Member Good stated he meant relative to the 18 -hole course option why would it drive no increase in operating revenue. Mr. Abood stated what they have to look at is they did 55,000 rounds in 2014 which can be accommodated on an 18 -hole golf course and they did not project out a huge increase in people coming back to the facility because there are other options out there. There are not a lot of new golfers out there so any round they would have to get would have to be stolen from different facilities around the area and other facilities are also updating their assets as well. It is a very tough market and only based on the fact that the amount of rounds they have now is similar to what would be on a 27 -hole course. Member Jacobson stated they were under the assumption that if they were going to close Fred Richards they would move the usage over to the nine -hole extra. Mr. Abood noted they will still have the nine - hole executive par three golf course and did increase the rounds over there. Between the Fred Richards and the existing nine executive holes, they did 30,000 rounds. They projected to bring half of those rounds over to Braemar. • Chair Gieseke stated that when they decided as a city to close down Fred Richards Golf Course, there was concern about having full access for everyone in trying to serve the full community. What issues would be foreseen if they decided to go with 18 holes? Will that limit them somehow in trying to serve youth, senior groups and everyone else? Mr. Abood thought they will be able to accommodate all of the golfers on an 18 -hole property. They are improving the city's golf asset and making it better and more sustainable, going into the future. Chair Gieseke asked if they were going too far with not enough capacity for the course. Mr. Abood did not think so, to get to capacity on an 18 and a nine -hole course they will need to get to 80,000 rounds so it is a long way away. Member Good asked on the six options that were shown, was there a meaning behind the "best" word in the presentation. Mr. Abood stated when they say the best 18, they are going to take the entire property and hole 16 may not be the same hole 16 that it was before because they are going to use the entire golf course to make the best 18 holes that they can. Member Cella stated they have a lot of golfers that like to play nine holes and they are going to an 18 - hole course, will that still accommodate people who only want to play nine holes? Mr. Abood stated what they are seeing right now is those nine -hole rounds are on the 18 -hole golf course. Member Cella asked if they are going to be upgrading and making the 18 -hole course better will they still be able to accommodate people who only want to play nine holes. Mr. Abood noted it's a matter of 0 programming. A Member Strother stated when looking at the 27 -hole versus the 18 -hole option, it does state that an 18 - hole option would force staff to financially favor 18 holes over nine and they would likely lose most of the golfers. Mr. Abood indicated that's one of the task force observations and he did not necessarily agree with that. He did not think they would lose those golfers. He thought it was just a matter of managing. Member Jacobson asked who would use the four -hole practice course. Mr. Abood stated it would be used heavily by the High School and people who want a quick outing of golf. He could see that being used heavily but did not see a return on the investment as much and is more of an amenity for the constituents. Member Jones stated she wanted to speak a little bit about the 18 -hole course and make sure that it does not go into the Oak Savannah. She wondered if the rest of the Park Board has gone out to see exactly what it looks like. She indicated it is a gorgeous area that is natural and if they were to do option 4, they would be cutting a swath 60 feet wide and at least 500 yards, maybe more through it, which she was against. Mr. Abood stated it is going up into the hill and is a fantastically designed golf hole and would be a great golf hole but it is up to the Park Board and City Council whether to go up into that area. Member Jones indicated she has walked up there and there is quite a bit of elevation change and felt this might be a challenge for elderly players and should be considered as not necessarily an improvement. She did not understand why that would make sense to add onto the golf course. Mr. Abood stated it's a very good golf hole that would be designed, whether it is the best use of the property is another decision to make. He thought the golf hole itself would be very nice. Member • Segreto noted from an environmental standpoint it would be a disaster. Member Jones stated there are trails there and they need to look at this property, not just the golfers that could use the entire Braemar so this is changing the use of the park that will affect the neighborhood that is currently using it as a trail. On the needs assessment, the number one item residents want is additional trails. She was not sure where the course came into play on the needs assessment but it was not anywhere near as high. She would listen to what the residents would want and recommend that they do not increase the footprint of the golf course into that area. Member Jacobson asked if there were plans to improve the trails in any of the options. Mr. Abood stated that's where the next step would be going to the Braemar Master Plan entire park area. Some trails were put into the plan but they are not that far designed out. That would need to be something that would be done in the future. Member Segreto stated the staff recommendation is option 5 and she wondered if they were looking for the Park Board to make a motion supporting one of the options. Chair Gieseke thought what the City Council was looking for was to have the Park Board take a roll call vote stating opinions so the City Council can weigh those. Member McCormick updated the Park Board on the financials on this project. Member Segreto stated on the irrigation system, she noticed on the chart there was a long distance, up to 30 years, for useful life of the irrigation system. She wondered why an irrigation useful life would vary so much. Mr. Tom Swenson, Braemar Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent, stated that is just a matter of how long they want to try to stretch it out. If they shorten the amount of time, they will use less labor and if stretched towards 30 years they will continually be replacing irrigation parts. Member McCormick stated the other thing she was going to mention was the increases they were assuming in the models. It is a one percent increase on the pricing side, which is pretty conservative but it does line up with what the National Golf Foundation suggested and the cost is actually increasing by two percent. In that model they should probably have them going up the same rate but at least it is consistent in both of the different models so the two can be compared pretty easily. Another thing she wanted to mention is they have not maintained this course and that is why they are at this stage. She looked at it as the 18 -hole is allowing them to have some cash flow that they can put back into the course so they are not in the same situation 30 years from now. Mr. Paul Presthus, member of the Braemar Task Force, gave his comments to the Park Board. He stated out of the six options he would suggest either number 1 or 4. Number 1 is the best 27 -hole option and number 4 is the best 18 -hole option. Either of these options would add tremendously to the golfing experience at Braemar and position them competitively to compete with anybody in the Metro and Regional areas. He noted he favored the 18 -hole option over the 27 -hole option because there is less risk. He felt there is more uncertainty with the 27 -hole option and with proper management they can come close to satisfying the accessibility needs. He stated he would endorse the 18 -hole option because of the financial concerns but they have two wonderful options to consider based on the work done by Richard Mandell. Chair Gieseke asked what Mr. Presthus' opinions are on the four -hole practice loop. Mr. Presthus believed that the best plan is for the city to make a selection on which option they want, 18 or 27 -hole first. Mr. Mandell has done some other options and discussed golfing and non -golfing options for that area. If they did not have the par three, he would say it is a great idea. They will not be able to get any revenue out of it and he thought it sounded quirky to him. It is worth considering but as an alternative to the four -hole, they have the opportunity to do some short game practice type things that can be welcomed to go with what is going to be a state of the art driving range and other things there and they have the ability on some of the other golf options such as a three -hole green configuration. They need to do some creative thinking while looking at the options. They can generate some revenue out of the non -golf course type amenities they will put on the course and everyone will benefit. He noted the four - hole is not a favorite of his but he is not dead set against it. Member Good asked if Mr. Presthus would use the four -hole practice round. Mr. Presthus indicated he would probably not at this stage. Member Good stated the flip side to that is if they put the four -hole loop in, the 18 -hole course would be shorter, would that impact Mr. Presthus' view if it were a little shorter. Mr. Presthus stated that's a very good question, what every option they go with they will have a new set of tees on each hole, widened fairways, fewer if any, forced carries so they have to provide a challenging opportunity for golfers of all abilities and if they do the 18 as proposed, they can have a seven thousand yard from the tips and that is going to appeal to the younger, better golfers. It is nice to have the distance option and there are certain events that could be brought to the course with the longer distance. Chair Gieseke wondered what the corporate activity and revenue generation would be from that. Mr. is Abood indicated there is a lot of potential and it goes back to how they manage the rounds they presently have. They do not have a lot of opportunity there right now based on the way they have it • programmed out and that would need to change. There is a lot of potential for corporate outings that do generate a lot more revenue than the daily fee golfers, which helps keep the greens fees down for the daily golfers. Chair Gieseke asked if they were potentially losing out on that by choosing 18 over 27 holes. Mr. Abood did not think so. He thought they will still have to limit it to a certain number of days based on the league schedules they have so they do not really have an opportunity to do it if they keep the programming they have in place. They can change the programming in any scenario. Member Jacobson asked what the pros and cons were to adding a four -hole loop in regards to corporate outings. Mr. Abood thought it helps with junior golf to have the different options. He did not think it would give them a better market advantage on any of the corporate outings. It is always good for junior golf to have more practice areas without a high cost to it. Chair Gieseke stated it was his understanding with the economic downturn and the addition of so many alternative things for the youth to do in the last 10 years, would it be beneficial to have the four -hole loop to bring in non 18 -hole youth to get an introduction into golf? Mr. Abood stated it will definitely draw people in. It will not be huge and Edina has a great junior golf program already; it is one of the largest in the state. Ms. Pacy Erck, member of Braemar Task Force, gave her comments to the Park Board. Chair Gieseke asked what option Ms. Erck would choose. Ms. Erck stated number 1 or number 4 would • be her options. She stated the Oak Savannahs have not been taken care of and would be even more beautiful if they were taken care of better. Mr. Hulbert, member of Braemar Task Force, gave his comments to the Park Board. He thought it was automatic they would be looking at a 27 -hole rerouting coming into the review of this course but when the designs came back for the 18 -hole course he thought it was really cool. He stated some of the things in the park should have been repaired years ago and now is the time to correct the issues. They should be striving to fill the tee sheet and should be hard to get on this course. If they do this, they need to go back to the way it was 20 years ago and have a resident patron card. He noted he was excited about option 5. He supported the closing of the Fred because he felt there was a give and take and this is the opportunity to get back. He thought the four -hole practice loop was a waste of parkland and money. He thought there were other things they could do with the land. Member Jacobson wondered why Mr. Hulbert chose option 5 and not option 4. Mr. Hulbert stated it is a change of use in that hill and he did not think they needed to go into that hill to create a spectacular 18 -hole routing. He did not believe the will from the public is there to do that either and he thought there were other uses that could be done in that area such as biking and walking and should not be left the way it is. Chair Gieseke agreed and thought the area is an underused gem in the city. Mr. Bob Kojetin, resident, 5016 William Avenue, stated he did a lot of research by visiting a lot of courses in the city. He gave a history of how the Braemar Golf Course came about. Chair Gieseke stated with Mr. Kojetin's special history with the city what option would he choose and • why. Mr. Kojetin stated he would go with the 18 -hole. Either option 4 or 5 are good ones. He thought if they built the 27 -hole there is not that much difference in price and the city is not going to make the money to pay for it so the residents will need to pay for it. The driving range has always been the key to making money for the golf course and the regular golf course has never made that amount of money. If the driving range is improved, people from all over the Minneapolis area will come to it. They have to look at that as a revenue maker. Member Good wondered if there was any directive they can take from the work that has been done on the strategy that would help them with this decision. Member McCormick thought there was one clear direction, which was the enterprise facilities were supposed to pay for themselves, which was one of their key financial objectives. Member Jacobson thought they need to invest in that site in general and she thought they needed to improve the walking trails. Member McCormick stated other things she has been considering are they need a separate initiative on controlling the buckthorn and other invasive species with the city parks. They should have a maintenance plan. Member Jones stated with respect to the strategic plan, one of the pieces of that would be that all of their parks would have a Master Plan. She thought this goes hand-in-hand with how they would use the entire park. Member Good liked the framework that Mr. Presthus offered up for the Task Force which was golf, . environmental, financial but as he thought about their Strategic Plan he would flip those around because he felt their charge was to think financial, environmental and golf and yet still have a golf course they are proud of as a community and better than what they have today. They have to answer to those first two items because that is where their strategy is driving them and yet still have the best golf course they can have for Braemar. Chair Gieseke stated he would echo that and hoped as part of the discussion and design with all of the groups that they can strike a pretty neat balance between those three items and they are all important and he would hate to sacrifice a spectacular golf course if they do not have to. He did lean against going into the woods or harming any trees but if there is a real reason for it and they can replace them somewhere he might be open to that as well but he thought those three elements were the key. Member Jacobson indicated she liked option 5 as part of the Strategic Plan would like to consider the woods land as one of many lands they are going to talk about across the city and address that separately and try to optimize the golf course to be as great as it can be on the land it currently is on. Member Good preferred 18 over 27 holes and felt the financial aspect of it drives the city in that direction. He preferred option 5 over option 4 because he thought it was the most environmentally friendly. Member Jones echoed everything just said and preferred option 5. She agreed with the ability to be financially prudent so they will have money to reinvest in their golf and to reinvest in the rest of the parkland so she would stick with an 18 -hole golf course and would keep within the footprint of the current golf course. She would like to consider the year-round usage of that park so making sure they have the ability to have winter activity there that would fit other people is preferred. She would also recommend that once this piece gets settled, they do a Master Plan once the golf course is even designed because it is a puzzle and they need to figure out where all of the pieces need to go and what they may be. Member McCormick stated one thing she would mention is the passion and the amount of work the Task Force has put in has been really outstanding and have really put all of their best work into this. She stated she would prefer option 5, 18 -hole, because she felt it was the best decision financially and she also felt like they should be managing the woodlands area from an environmental perspective and not a golf perspective. She felt option 5 really improves the course. Chair Gieseke stated his opinions were pretty well known and he preferred option 5 for all of the reasons previously stated. He would like to have a little more discussion on a pitch and putt. Member Cella thought the financial favor is for option 5. She thought it was difficult to promote 27 holes. She thought they needed to have a Master Plan for Braemar from a park perspective. Member Segreto stated an 18 -hole option is the most financially responsible option to take. She was it favor of option 5 because she was really concerned about going into the hillside and would like the City Council to be very careful in looking at the options with the labels the golf consultant has been putting on the options. She would like the City Council to step up its role as being a steward of the land for future generations. Member Strother agreed that option 5 would be the best option for the park. Ms. Kattreh thanked the Task Force for the hard work they have put into this the past year. She thanked • all of the members that were not at the meeting as well. 0 SEH May 26, 2015 Ms. Ann Kattreh Park and Recreation Director The City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Ms. Kattreh: Attachment H SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AGREEMENT RE: Braemar Golf Course Wetland Services SEH No. EDINA P-112233 10.00 Thank you for the opportunity to propose on your proposed plans to improve 18 -holes at the Braemar Gold Course. We understand that you are working with Richard Mandell Golf Architecture to redesign the course, which is in need of wetland delineation and permitting services. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District also has several requirements, which must be met. It is understood that the project schedule would anticipate construction within spring of 2016. In order to meet this goal, initial wetland services will be needed in June 2015, followed by completion if design, and submittal of applications on the fall of 2015. The letter agreement includes a scope and budget to complete the wetland and water resource services for the • proposed golf course modifications. These include wetland delineations, wetland permitting, wetland mitigation design, and watershed districts requirements. The following sections provide a summary of the proposed scope, approximate project schedule, and a cost estimate to complete the work. We will provide our services as described by our Scope of Services described in this letter in conjunction with this Supplemental Letter Agreement to our Agreement for Professional Engineering Services dated July 25, 1988, herein called the agreement. Our not -to -exceed fee includes reimbursable expenses. If the City accepts this Supplemental Letter Agreement, we will bill the City monthly on an hourly basis for services, expenses, and equipment to complete our wetland and water resource services. Task 1: Wetland Delineation, Functional Assessments, and Wetland Delineation Report The initial task for this project is to complete wetland delineations for the project area, and areas of potential use for wetland mitigation. This includes a reexamination if wetland delineations that have been completed in recent years, and areas within the project area that have been created as wetland mitigation for past course development. Prior to the field delineations, SEH will meet with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed to determine the extent that wetlands will need to be delineated, and which ones can use currently -approved boundaries. Wetland delineations will be completed in accordance with Unites States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Manual and the Midwest Regional Supplement. All areas meeting wetland criteria will be identified and flagged in the field. Wetland boundaries will be mapped using a sub -meter accurate Global Positioning System. The location of the wetlands will be provided in electronic format for inclusion in project plans. The wetlands will not be flagged in the field, as the flagging would not remain under current maintenance plans for the course. During field review, the flagging can be temporarily replaced, or the reviewers will be guided • using GPS. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 418 West Superior Street, Suite 200, Duluth, MN 55802-1512 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 218.279.3000 1 888.722.0547 1 888.908.8166 fax . Braemar Golf Course 18 -Hole Reconstruction May 26, 2015 Page 2 The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) required functional assessments be completed for each wetland. This is achieved through the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). A MnRAM, and corresponding quality classification will be determined for each wetland delineated. Within two weeks of the completion of the field delineation, we will provide a wetland delineation report. The report will contain a summary of the delineated wetland characteristics, wetland data sheets, representative site photographs, the MnRAM values, and the wetland delineation results. The report will be provided as an electronic delivery in PDF format. The delineation report will be provided to the NMCWD, which administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), in addition to their local requirements. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also regulates the wetlands in the project area, and will be provided a copy of the report as well. A request will be made at submittal to complete a field review of the wetland boundaries. This meeting may serve as a pre -application discussion, although it is recommended that additional meeting occur prior to the completion of the delineation review to expedite the project schedule. If the field review results in any adjustments to the wetland boundary, they will be modified by SEH, and provided in electronic format as the final approved boundary. It is presumed that the draft boundaries will serve for planning prior to the final boundary approval. Previous wetland projects at Braemar have utilized historic aerial photographs to determine the jurisdictional extent of wetlands within the course. It is anticipated that the wetlands within the 18 hole reconstruction are likely not incidental, and have previously been determined to the Waters of the United States. For this reason, • a historic aerial photograph review is not proposed. Task 2: Wetland Permitting It is anticipated that wetland impacts will occur, and that permission to impact those wetlands will be required. Permits will be required under the WCA, and for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of permitting needed is dependent on the quantity of wetland impacts, but the preliminary plans indicate that impacts will be minor. It is assumed that impacts will be sufficient to require wetland mitigation. Prior to completion of the wetland permit applications, SEH will assist the project proposers with determining the project Purpose and Need, and assisting with the sequencing process. Sequencing is the requirement to identify opportunities to reduce impacts through alternatives analysis, avoidance and minimization. Once these exercises have been completed, a Wetland Permit Application will be prepared. This application will identify the project, define the purpose and need, summarize sequencing, and a replacement plan (Task 3). Signatures will be required to be signed by the project proposer responsible for compliance with the permit conditions. SEH will act as agent to allow representation in the process. Task 3: Wetland Mitigation Plans A complete wetland permit application is required to include a wetland replacement plan. Once wetland impacts have been quantified, SEH will work with the project proposers to identify an appropriate replacement plan. The NMCWD requires replacement within the district boundaries, and prefers to have on-site replacement if possible. With that goal, it is anticipated that wetland replacement will be focused on opportunities within the existing project limits. If mitigation can be completed on-site it will be the preferred method. Mitigation plans will look for opportunities to restore, create, and enhance wetlands for credit. Upland buffer is required, and can also be counted toward the replacement credit at a reduced ratio. The wetland mitigation • plan will attempt to focus on fewer, larger opportunities, as these are more efficient, limit the protected areas, and tend to be more successful at meeting performance standards. The mitigation plans will consist of grading Braemar Golf Course 18 -Hole Reconstruction • May 26, 2015 Page 3 plans, and planting plans within the plan set prepared for the golf course design. This subset of plans will require coordination, but will use a similar CADD design to allow efficient design and presentation. The plan set will be prepared by Richard Mandell, but SEH will provide design layers, redlines, and QA/QC for the mitigation portions. If on-site mitigation is not feasible or practicable, mitigation will be pursued through wetland banking. Wetland banking can be at a very high ratio (up to 9:1) depending on the functions and values score of the impacted wetland. The City of Edina will be responsible for the purchase of the wetland credits, but SEH will facilitate the process. Task 4: Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Requirements Subtask A: Wetland Buffers The NMCWD requires that all wetlands within the project limits meet their buffer requirements. The buffer requirements are based on the functional score of the wetlands, and range from 20 to 60 feet in average width, with varying minimal widths. Buffers are required to be marked, and are intended to be composed of native vegetation. This project will determine the buffer requirements, and provide plans that will meet those requirements while maintaining the playing needs of the golf course. Subtask B: Floodplain Impacts The NMCWD requires that flood storage be maintained. Portions of the project are within the 100 year floodplain, and will require an analysis of the volume of fill placed with the floodplain, and the amount of floodplain required to be created to offset those impacts on a volume basis. This will be achieved by • comparing existing conditions to the proposed plan to determine the impacts, and providing plan adjustments to meet the watershed requirements. The floodplain elevation will be obtained from the NMCWD, but SEH will determine the cut and fill quantities from the construction plans. Subtask C: Water Quality The NMCWD requires treatment of storm water runoff for new impervious surfaces. This project is not expected to create new impervious surfaces, and it is anticipated that additional storm water treatment will not be required, but the watershed permit application will require this verification and an exploration of voluntary opportunities. Subtask D: Grading and Erosion Control The project plans will be required to include plans to address grading and erosion control. The erosion control portion will be provided by SEH to identify silt fence and other BMPs to control erosion during construction. SEH will provide a CADD layer of these features to be used within the project plans. The NMCWD reviews these plans for compliance with their requirements. Although not specific to the NMCWD rules, SEH will also prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. This is for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Additional Tasks to Consider The proposed tasks will achieve what is required for the project to be approved, and construction to be completed. Additional tasks will be required, however, as part of the long-term aspects of the project approval. These tasks are not part of the current project scope, but have been identified so that they can be planned for. Cost estimates for these vary widely, and cannot be determined at this stage of the project, but have been provided to allow for some anticipatory planning. 0 Braemar Golf Course 18 -Hole Reconstruction May 26, 2015 Page 4 Timelines We understand that timing is critical, and that construction is proposed to occur in spring 2016. With these considerations, we propose the following schedule, which makes some assumptions on the regulatory timelines. • Pre -delineation agency meeting: Week of June 15th • Wetland Delineations: Week of June 22 • Contact NMCWD and USACE to schedule project review meeting: Week of June 29 • Submit wetland delineation results to City of Edina: One week following field delineation • Submit wetland delineation report to NMCWD and USACE: Within three weeks following field delineation • Wetland delineation field review: Within 15 business days of acceptance of report by NMCWD • Complete wetland mitigation design and submit complete wetland permit application: September 30 • Attend agency review meeting: asap following submittal of complete application • Permit review period: Dependent upon each agency requirements. • Permit issued and construction can begin: For Corps, approximately 120 days from acceptance of a complete application. WCA and NMCWD, 60 days is anticipated from acceptance of a complete application. Project Staffing • We have assigned staff to complete this project based on their expertise in wetland regulations. The following team members have been dedicated to this project, along with their specific roles. Staff Member Project Title Project Role Deric Deuschle, CWD Project Manager Manage project, coordinate field work, lead permit application review, QA/QC Rebecca Beduhn, Assist with the completion of the wetland CWD, PSS -IT Wetland Soils Scientist delineations, report, MnRAM, concept plans, and permitting Ron Leaf, PE Water Resources Engineer Lead water resources engineering tasks for NMCWD requirements Bryan Tolcser, CWD, PWS GIS Analyst Complete GIS analysis and concept plans Cost Estimate Our fee for this work has been estimated to be$23,300. This includes the time to complete the field work, prepare the reports, complete MnRAM assessments, coordinate with NMCWD and USACE, complete the mitigation design, complete the permit applications, and facilitate the agency review. Equipment, travel, and document preparation costs have also been included. This fee is proposed as a time and materials with a not to exceed without additional authorization. 0 C] Braemar Golf Course 18 -Hole Reconstruction May 26, 2015 Page 5 Task Hours Costs Expenses Total Costs Task 1 Wetland Delineation, report, functional assessments 52 $ 5,210 $ 360 $ 5,570 Task 2: Wetland Permitting 70 $ 7,520 $ 200 $ 7,720 Task 3: Wetland Mitigation Design 20 $ 2,520 $ 0 $ 2,520 Task 4: Water Resources Permitting 60 $ 7,490 $ 0 $ 7,490 Totals 22$ $ 22,740 $ bbu '5 13,�uu Data Needs In order to complete our wetland delineations and design of the mitigation concepts, we request some data from the project proposers. The following are requested, to the extent possible: 1. Access to the property. We will coordinate around the course schedule the extent practicable 2. Existing survey data of the project area 3. CADD files of proposed grading plans Contact Information If you have any questions regarding this Letter Agreement please contact me directly at 651-490-2114 or via e-mail at ddeuschlena.sehinc.com. If you are in agreement with this Supplemental Letter Agreement, please sign and provide one copy in return Respectfully submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Deric Deuschle, CWD Project Manager Accepted this By: Name day of , 2015. By: Name Title: Title: drd c: Richard Madell Paul Pasko, SEH • c:\uses\ddeuschle\documents\deric\proposals\edina braemar 19 hole\braemar gc wetland services proposal 18 holed= Attachment I Braemar Golf Course City of Edina, Minnesota Alternative Renovation Options May 5, 2015 R I C H A R D M A N D E L L GOLF ARCI llTGCTURE TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Golf Course Tree Management Plan RIC It ARD Assessment of all the trees on site for possible 01F,� ��RF removal, replacement, pruning and/or further investigation. The process involves marking trees based on six primary considerations: • Golfer safety • Tree health • Environmental concern • Golf course conditioning • Strategy & playability • Aesthetics TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Golf Course Renovation Business Plan RIC I[A RD Detailed analysis with concrete solutions, timing, costs G01FACHI-WRF • Golf course walk-throughs and focus group discussions. • Detailed analysis of all aspects of the golf course (tees, fairways, hazards, greens, rough, trees, cart path, water bodies) in terms of maintenance, operations, playability, strategy, environment, aesthetics. • Prioritized solutions for each challenge identified: • Immediate (IM) • Mid -Term (MT) • Long -Term (LT) • Detailed cost estimates. • Alternative routing solutions. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE EDINA, MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR: CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA RENOVATION BUSINESS PLAN REPORT APRIL 2015 TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION 0 Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A R D September Walk - Throughs � F RMGA conducted 6 focus group discussions and course walk-throughs with: • Braemar Golf Course Renovation Task Force • Four groups of golfers of all ages, abilities, and gender. • Operations and maintenance staff. • Environmental consultants and agency officials. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A R D Walk —Through Findings GOLF ARCHrrECTURE ANDEL L • The opening holes of the Castle nine set a very difficult tone for the golfers in terms of playability. The Castle nine is almost 400 yards longer than both the Hays and Clunie nines. • The golf course is too long and too narrow for the majority of women golfers. There are numerous forced carries and the rough is too deep for the ladies as well. • The water features are surrounded by invasive species and are concealed by tall plants which create an unfair carry for the lesser -skilled golfers. • Numerous drainage issues make the golf course wet for golfers and much longer -playing than the yardage reflects. • Multiple fairways have water -holding soils and/or lack topsoil to effectively grow a proper stand of turf for golf. • Fairways are very bumpy due to drainage issues and heaving of underlying soils. • Fairways and approaches are too narrow. Fairway lines do not reflect the natural topography of the land. • Forced carries, narrow fairways, tree encroachment, and deep rough are primary contributors to slow play. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A RD Clunie Nine Walk — Through Findings GOLF A R D i LCTURE • Rounds at Braemar fell when the Clunie nine was built because golfers did not like playing it and were upset their round would include the Clunie nine and not the original 18. As a result, it became more of an overflow nine instead of a third nine of comparable golf. • The Clunie nine was not accepted by older golfers due to the difficult elevation changes and difficult walks. • The Clunie nine is much more narrow with more forced carries, especially for the women. • There are many penal bunkers that make each fairway even more narrow. • The vegetation lining the water features blocks the view of many holes and require higher than necessary shots to be played over them, creating a more difficult challenge for women and beginners. • The majority of holes are wetter than the original holes because they were built in the flood plain with little drainage over poor soils. The tees for holes 24, 26, and 27 were built with pond muck. Holes 23, 24, 26, and 27 never had a layer of topsoil added and still do not have quality grass. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline Understanding of Environmental Constraints R I C H A R D M A NDELL GOLF AFJcHTTFCM e • Review of wetlands and establishment of 60' wetland buffer worst-case scenario. • Understand that flood plain challenges can only be addressed in the grading process regardless of scope of work. • Understand previous COE permits and work to avoid those issues. • Review Oak Woodland/ Savanna challenges. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options R I C H A R D Oak Savanna Restoration G, A R p E L L C:OLF AACHITFCIVRF • Two areas within Braemar Park (totaling 29.13 acres) to the west are considered Oak Savanna. Specifically two smaller parcels within these areas (totaling 9.15 acres) known as Parcels A (3.85 acres) and B (5.30 acres) are designated as mitigation areas to be "maintained as natural areas" by the USACE as part of the permit agreement for the development of the Clunie nine in 1992. • An Oak Savanna is a wooded area dominated by Oak species in which less than 50% of the ground area is exposed to the sun at noon in midsummer. • At Braemar, much of the original Oak Savanna has transitioned into Oak Woodland due to elimination of grazing and fire. In most areas, the oak canopy has closed in and other tree species have filled in canopy gaps. • The best indicator of a former Oak Savanna is the presence of historically visible open -grown oaks found within an existing Oak Woodland. Open -grown oaks are recognized by the presence of intact lower limbs spreading to the ground. • Oaks without these lower limbs present typically have been surrounded by other trees in such a crowded way that the lower limbs were not allowed to grow as nature intended, mostly due to inadequate sunlight, and are indicative of an original Oak Woodland. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options R I C H A R D Oak Savanna Restoration C,""°' /"sOLf ARCHl7'EC'1VRF. In 1947, the 445 -acre parcel of Braemar Park included 1,843 individual trees dispersed across the site with an average spread of 40' that remained untouched from agricultural clearing. Most of the original native herbaceous layer was likely eliminated by cattle grazing. Z... ; :"e:� Braemar Park in 1947: 13.60% Tree Canopy Braemar Park in 2012: 38.26% Tree Canopy 60.65 acres of trees 170.27 acres of trees TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A R D RMGA Design Goals: Ecological Enhancements WF� • Implement Barr Engineering's Natural Resources Information Summary (Feb. 2015) as much as possible. • Restore wetland buffers as appropriate in areas that do not slow play by eliminating invasive species and establishing appropriate pollinator plantings. • Increase wetland buffers as much as possible (beyond the mandated limits) which will not negatively impact the golf course playing areas. • Restore the Oak Woodland to the east of the golf course by removing invasive species such as Buckthorn and restoring appropriate understory plantings of native sedges, (orbs, and grasses with specific areas of wildflower plantings no taller than two to three feet. • Restore the Oak Woodland to the west of the golf course by the same process. • Develop areas within the golf course to restore Oak Savanna with the planting of Bur Oaks, Northern Pin Oaks, Red Oaks and Shortgrass Woods Edge Savanna Seed Mix. • Provide a woodland and savanna maintenance budget and staff separate from the golf course maintenance budget to regular maintain these areas as part of a long-term management plan. • Develop signage within Oak Savanna areas and alongside wetland buffers available to golfers as well as others for educational purposes. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A R D RMGA General Design Goals G AR nELL 61F hRCHI'fFC'iVRF • Do not fill wetlands. • Utilize 60' wetland buffers. • Avoid SW corner of property due to poor growing conditions. • Sunlight, soils, air circulation. • Widen fairways. • Tee Shot Distance Equity. • Improve golf feature infrastructure. • Introduce additional uses: Environmental Education Area. • Multi — Use Areas for Disc Golf, Fling Golf, Foot Golf, field games, water • activities and sledding or tubing. • Picnic areas. • A walking trail network surrounding the park with sufficient safety buffers from golf course playing areas. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline R I C H A R D January Presentation of Preliminary Concepts GOLF ARCWTECTURF ANDEL L To Golfers & Park Board • Concept A — Improvements to Castle & Hays Nines with New Regulation Clunie Nine. • Concept B — Improvements to Castle & Hays Nines with Original 18t, Hole & New Regulation Clunie Nine. • Concept C - Improvements to Castle & Hays Nines with Original 18thHole & New Executive Clunie Nine. • Concept D - New Eighteen Hole Regulation Golf Course. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline Further Development of Preliminary Options • Option 1— The Best 27 Regulation Holes Possible. • Option 2 — The Best 27 Regulation Holes Possible with Minimal Disturbance. • Option 3 - The Best 18 Regulation Holes & Executive 9 with Minimal Disturbance. • Option 4 - New Eighteen Hole Regulation Golf Course. • Option 5 - New Eighteen Hole Regulation Golf Course with Minimal Disturbance. R I C H A RD M A N D E L L GOLF ARCHTrECIVRE • Option 6 - New Eighteen Hole Regulation Golf Course and Four -Hole Practice Loop with Minimal Disturbance. March Presentation of Preliminary Options To Task Force & City Council TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Renovation Business Plan Timeline Completion of Renovation Business Plan PAG E EXISTING CONDITIONS RENOVATION BUSINESS PLAN REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 GENERAL DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE ISSUES 4 GENERAL RENOVATION SOLUTIONS 7 RENOVATION BUSINESS PLAN 8 HOLE BY HOLE ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS 9 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE DESIGN STYLE 66 PROPOSED COURSE SETUP 66 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 67 TEE RENOVATION SOLUTIONS & PRIORITIES 69 SAND BUNKER RENOVATION SOLUTIONS & PRIORITIES 71 PUTTING GREEN RENOVATION SOLUTIONS & PRIORITIES 71 RENOVATION BUSINESS PLAN PHASING OPTIONS 73 RECOMMENDED RENOVATION OPTION 73 ALTERNATIVE RENOVATION OPTIONS 74 Mternative I: 74 Alternative 2: 75 Alternative 3: 75 ALTERNATIVE ROUTING OPTIONS 76 Option l: 76 Option 2: 78 Option 3: 90 Optu,n 4: 82 Option 5: 84 Option G: 86 ADDENDA 92 RENOVATION OPTIONS SUMMARY 95 RENOVATION BUSINESS PLAN MASTER QUANTITIES LIST 96 TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION R I C If A R D M A N D F I. [, GOLF ARCHMCT RF raw �4qv N U)) U) U) W U co C: 0 C� 0 ry c 0 E 0 U Ln a n z r Ln 0 M enti c\Cn 0 oo N N ja� - "r apt {S Y 4 {.m r i i pp y ♦ L.L c O M `^O W ry v i, •0 ^W CL E O U ui 11 C- 0 cz 0 ry Ev l 0 N 1006 logo loge INE 911 f LLI. ............ .......:..... ....... A, u PIN Alternative Renovation Options General Issues: Infrastructure • Tee Boxes (15 - 20 years): Original 18: 50 years; Clunie: 20 years • Irrigation Control System (10 - 15 years): Original 18: 34 years; Clunie: 20 years • Irrigation Mainline PVC (10 - 30 years): Original 18: 34 years; Clunie: 20 years • Irrigation PVC Laterals (10 - 30 years) : Original 18: 34 years; Clunie: 20 years • Irrigation Heads (10 - 15 years): Original 18: 34 years; Clunie: 20 years • Irrigation Pump System (15 - 20 years): Original 18: 34 years; Clunie: 34 years (An additional pump zeas inherited in 20 1 0) • Cart -Paths (5 - 10 years): Original 18: Ind.; Clunie: 20 years (All cart path is piecemeal and includes gravel, concrete, and asphalt) • Sand Bunkers (5 - 15 years): Original 18: 50 years; Clunie: 20 years • Putting Greens (15 - 30 years): Original 18: 50 years; Clunie: 20 years TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION R I C H A R D M A N D E 1, L GOLF ARCHMM"RE Alternative Renovation Options General Issues: Playability Forced Carries Narrow Fairways Poor tee placement — lack of Tee Shot Distance Equity. R I C H A R D M A N D E L L GOLF ARCH7TECrUM "Politely discourage the duffel: " - Warren Hyde, Edina City Manager (1964) TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options General Issues: Accessibility R I C 11 A R D MANDFI.1. GOLFARCHFTFCi W 27 holes allows for more utilization for all ages and abilities but brings more cost. 18 holes may not support enough golfers in the long-term but comes with less cost. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options Potential Scope of Work Options • Repair what is already there —just a band-aid that does not solve overlying issues: • Safety issues when widening fairways. • Forced carries for some. • TSDE • Much of current hazard placement promotes penalty more than challenge. • Complete re -build of 27 holes. • Completely new 18 hole golf course. • Repair original 18 and leave Clunie nine alone (and open). TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER 4 PASSION R I C H A R D M A NDELL GOLF ARCHMEMW Alternative Renovation Options Best 27 Regulation Holes Possible: Three Equal Nines Achieves general RMGA design goals for the golf course: • Playability improved by reducing forced carries. • Playability improved through wider fairways. • Playability improved through Tee Shot Distance Equity. • Improves golf feature infrastructure. • Equalizes overall distance of each nine by switching holes 4 & 5 with holes 14 & 15. • New #23 allows for a significant change to the third nine to achieve above goals. U 0 TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION R I C H A R D M A NDELL GOLF AACHrr6C IM Alternative Renovation Options Best 27 Regulation Holes Possible: Three Equal Nines • Achieves RMGA design goals for ecological enhancement: • All 73 acres of existing wetlands remain intact. • Wetland buffers restored. • Oak Woodland on all sides of golf course are restored. • Creation of new Oak Savanna areas within the golf course. R I C H A R D M A N D E L L GOLF AACHTrECTUM • Proposed Tree Canopy for Braemar Park: 38.26% of 445 -acre site. • Proposed Tree Removal: 15.18 acres. Proposed Oak Savanna Restoration Areas: 30.30 acres (15.15 acres of Oak Canopy Planting) • Preliminary Estimated Cost: $9,331,956.51. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION asC �� aaldeuo MeN d :saloH 9L MGN --^-"-rte► . _ C Alternative Renovation Options R I C H A R D New Eighteen Hole Regulation Golf Course: GO��w_ A New Chapter • Achieves general RMGA design goals for the golf course: • Playability improved by reducing forced carries. • Playability improved through wider fairways. • Playability improved through Tee Shot Distance Equity. • Improves golf feature infrastructure. • Provides space for a dedicated Multi -Use Area. • Provides space for a dedicated 7.50 acre Environmental Education Area • Achieves RMGA design goals for ecological enhancement: • All 73 acres of existing wetlands remain intact. • Wetland buffers restored. • Oak Woodland on all sides of golf course are restored. • Creation of new Oak Savanna areas within the golf course. • Proposed Tree Canopy for Braemar Park: 40.03% of 445 -acre site. • Tree Removal: 12.21 acres. • Proposed Oak Savanna Restoration Areas: 45.10 acres (20.08 acres of Oak Canopy Planting). • Preliminary Estimated Cost: $ 6,983,688.75. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options R I C H A R D Ecological Benefits to the General Public G A N o E L L CALF AACF(17'ECiVRE • The opportunity to minimize manicured golf turf and create additional Oak Savanna habitat is a clear win-win for both non -golfers and golfers alike: • By minimizing outputs on the golf course, Braemar's carbon footprint will decrease. • Non -golfing citizens of Edina as well as golfers will be able to enjoy the benefits of an increased Oak Savanna habitat. • Braemar's restored native plant communities will require fewer inputs for maintenance, fertilizer and pest control because they are well adapted to Minnesota's climate. • Braemar's restored native plant communities provide habitat for birds, wildlife, and pollinators which promote healthy and diverse ecological systems. • Braemar's restored native plant communities will improve stormwater infiltration, which reduces erosion and recharges groundwater. • Braemar's restored native plant communities will also stabilize steep slopes and shorelines, further preventing erosion. This leads to cleaner surface water and healthier systems. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation options RC H A R D Ecological Benefits to the General Public G I A OLF hRR n F 1. GCNTI"FCIl,'AF • Residents of Edina have expressed a strong desire for more trails and accessible open spaces. Native plant communities will provide an attractive and welcoming background for these activities. • There will be many educational opportunities surrounding the golf course, including educational signage and potential for park- or school -programmed activities. • Restoring and connecting native habitats within the Braemar property to the larger context of the ecological area comprised by the City of Edina will strengthen and make more resilient the natural systems that provide a vibrant and healthy environment for Edina's citizens. • Connecting and expanding trails at Braemar to the Hennepin County network represents a broader, more systematic approach that invites more users to enjoy the amenities Braemar provides its citizens. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION Alternative Renovation Options R I C H A R D In Conclusion: A Win-Win Situation for Edina GOu� Option 1 (27 Holes) will provide three championship nine -hole loops of equal quality: • More enjoyable due to proper placement of hazards, wider fairways, Tee Shot Distance Equity. • Easier to maintain with improved infrastructure (drainage, irrigation, golf course features). • Greatly improve the ecological quality of Braemar Park. • Allow for nine holes to provide a separate outlet for: • Beginning golfers in busy times. • Regular golfers while golf outings utilize the other eighteen holes. Option 4 (18 Holes) will provide a brand new championship 18: • Maximize the site to create the best possible golf holes the site will yield. • More enjoyable due to proper placement of hazards, wider fairways, Tee Shot Distance Equity. • Easier to maintain with improved infrastructure (drainage, irrigation, golf course features). • Increased opportunity for ecological gain. • Provide space for additional site uses. • Less golf round supply needed for fiscal responsibility. TRADITION ♦ ENJOYMENT ♦ CHARACTER ♦ PASSION To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Date: June 2, 2015 Agenda Item #: VIII. B. The Recommended Bid is ❑X Within Budget ❑ Not Within Budget Subject: Request for Purchase — Authorize Engineering Services for Morningside A and White Oaks C Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: May 26, 2015 Company: Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), Inc. Bid or Expiration Date: NA Amount of Quote or Bid: $105,979.00 Recommended Quote or Bid: Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. $105,979.00 General Information: The Morningside A and White Oaks C Neighborhoods are scheduled for reconstruction in 2016. Please recall as part of the STS -406 Storm Water Project, BARR Engineering recently completed a study on flood protection and clean water improvements that were listed in the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for further study. The study contains 95 pages and will not be included with this RFP but can be found on our website using the following path. http://edinamn.goy/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Engineering/Construction Projects/Morningside A White Oa ks C/STS-406 Part 3 - ProjectArea8 WhiteOaks FinalReport 03-27-2015 pdf The study tried to answer the question, are water levels in land -locked wetlands too high for too long? Water levels have potential impacts on flooding, vegetation, and aesthetics. These were some of the concerns we heard from the neighborhood at neighborhood meetings conducted during November 2013 and February 2015. The study confirmed models to predict water levels in these wetlands in relation to precipitation. In 2000, the City added approximately 3 acres of drainage area to wetland #I to address structure flooding of homes along Arden Avenue. This increased the drainage area into wetland #I by I I%. Based on last year's precipitation, that increased drainage area may have increased water levels by 2-5 inches during normal precipitation amounts or as high as 6-7 inches during the larger, more frequent events. There are also two other factors influencing the amount of water entering these wetlands, residential redevelopment and increasing average annual precipitation since approximately 1960. This project will not only complete our typical review of our road and utility systems but it will also study different implementation scenarios of Living Streets elements, most notable green storm water infrastructure. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000/CHANGE ORDER Page 2 We will develop scenarios along with cost impacts ranging from our typical practice to high implementation of green infrastructure. These scenarios will be developed with the neighborhood, along with funding impacts that will ultimately be discussed with the council. The neighborhood can also implement green infrastructure privately, most commonly in the form of rain gardens or rain barrels. Their actions can also improve the concerns about the amount of water reaching these landlocked wetlands. Staff has met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) about this project. Grant funding for public infrastructure is limited due to the distance from the creek. There are opportunities for grants on the private side through engagement and support of the neighborhood for green infrastructure. The neighborhood association has requested a time to discuss their concerns with the council. A work session has been scheduled with the council for July 7. The project is funded by a combination of special assessments, City Utility and Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety funds. Staff recommends approving the attached engineering proposal with SEH. Attachment: • Engineering Proposal G:\PW\CENTRAL SVCS\ENG DIV\PROJECTS\IMPR NOS\BA422 M'side ABWhite Oaks C(2016)\ADMIN\MISC\Item VIII. B. RFP Eng Svcs.docx City of Edina ° 4801 W. 50,h St. • Edina, MN 55424 -A 0 SEH Building a Better- World for All of Us SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AGREEMENT May 26, 2015 Mr. Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina Engineering and Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 RE: City of Edina 2016 Morningside A & White Oaks C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction BA -422 SEH No. EDINA131823 10.00 Dear Chad: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH°) thanks you for the opportunity to submit the attached proposal for the engineering study portion up to the public improvement hearing of the referenced project. The project area is shown in Figure 1 attached to this letter. If accepted, this supplemental letter agreement describes how we will provide these services for a not -to -exceed fee of $105,979.00. This amount is detailed in the attached Task Hour Budget (THB) and includes our reimbursable expenses and that of our soil boring and laboratory testing subconsultant. We will bill the City monthly for reimbursable expenses and on an hourly basis for labor. We will provide these services in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Engineering Services dated June 4, 2013, herein called the Agreement. We understand this project proposes to upgrade aging street and utility infrastructure. A component of the preliminary design will include incorporation of the City's Living Streets Plan. Preliminary design will evaluate which existing street widths should be narrowed, whether to maintain or replace existing curb and gutter, how to incorporate the existing sidewalk network already present in the neighborhood, determine if restricting parking to one side of the street is feasible and a provide a cost/benefit analysis of multiple stormwater treatment options. We understand several existing land -locked wetland basins are located in the neighborhood. Under these conditions, there is concern of extended high water levels and flood potential, and what impact this has to existing vegetation and wetland aesthetics. This project presents an opportunity to reduce stormwater volume to the wetlands through the implementation of green infrastructure and reduction of impervious area. With this in mind, feedback and input from the neighborhood will be essential to ensure a successful project. Residents will have the opportunity to participate throughout the project's • preliminary design through two (2) separate project specific questionnaires and two (2) separate Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100% employee -owned I sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 888.908.8166 fax Mr. Chad Millner, PE May 26, 2015 • Page 2 neighborhood meetings where at least 30% and 60% design elements and their associated impacts will be presented. Our anticipated project production schedule is given in the table below. Anticipated Project Schedule Work Work Item Description Work Item Key Item No. Milestone Date 1 Begin Data Collection June 3, 2015 2 Mail general project resident questionnaire June 8, 2015 3 Mail stormwater treatment specific resident June 22, 2015 questionnaire 4 Neighborhood work session with City Council July 7, 2015 5 Neighborhood Meeting No. 1 to present overall project Week of July 27, and stormwater treatment options 2015 6 Neighborhood Meeting No. 2 to present refined Week of August 24, stormwater treatment options 2015 7 Edina Transportation Commission Meeting — Present October 15, 2015 Draft Engineering Stud 8 Public Improvement Hearing December 8, 2015 This Supplemental Letter Agreement, THB, Figure 1 and the Agreement represent the entire • understanding between the City of Edina and SEH in respect to the project and may only be modified in writing if signed by both parties. We sincerely appreciate our continued working relationship with the City. Please contact me at 952.912.2616 or tmuse(a)sehinc.com with questions regarding this proposal. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. WWQ—�' Toby M , PE Project Hager Enclosures p:\ae\e\edina\131823\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\sla Itr morningside white oaks 5 26 15.docx Accepted on this _day of 12015 City of Edina, Minnesota 0 By: Name O o o � o O o 0 4311 4310 3936 W O N o M N o 4313 4313 312 N N N 4315 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 431 S 391 00- cn o No No 4324 0 0 0 0� aa�N w w o� Cn W M N o Co o� �N 392 t.•' ■ 0 0 394 3908•Z 04 Wl 400 12 • ■ Q Q 3 PROJECT LIMITS 4005 M D O �LQ � N 4011 4401 O d' Q " �' 0 40 y 5 pOp pOp �O 4500 00 0 ■ 4021 4400 '7Q �p0 '7pp opt Q o 4101 ■ 4405 440 ? �p0o� �ppb)77 p 3903 00 `� .�' �` 4121 4141 406 > 4407 4410 `� � �O c� iQ .� < Qp p7 p o� 4155 4 4410 4 71 w 0 4411 4412 �O� 7O ', A .A 4412 4413 ��� 5p �0. op y o co �a 4, o M rn N � 4416 4417 sz0 ��'�`b Q apo O� � N4420 4419 5p `sr' Qo o� 0 4532 W 1 �I W 45TH ST 4501 �O Qp ��� 'gyp �cS` 4541 'a o s �� 4536 A �_ A o 101 4503 � rn o SJ��y� �p 4544 LU 4540 a W w NJ N N o c" 4505 A N o �O � ■ W (0 cn W � o '' ♦i 4544 LL 4508 4507 4055 sem, ♦♦ 4545 4548 r r■r. rrr 451 • p A 4601 ■ 4600 4601 Rcm �_ _1 O ■ W rn N o� rn� N 4600—�...... ■ 4604 4603 alk♦♦ 14-619 4501 ;� 4081 4605 ♦� "... '.♦08 4607 462 4620 15 4501 4500 ■ 4607 ♦♦ 4611 4626 4624 502 1 14503 1 4502 4503 4650 4611 •♦i 4613 4630 04 14505 1 4504 4505. WHITE 4609 •♦Z 4634 06 14507 1 4506 4507: AK $ � 4615 4638 4615 • 08 4509 4508 4509 ; 4700 TOWNES CIR 4640 10 4511 4510 45114617 4646 12 4513 4512 4513 4701 4621 4619 1 4617 • 4650 14 4515 4514 4515 4702 ..loss" "Mnffi � 16 4517 4516 4517 ■ 4703 ; 4700 4701 .h ''■ 4701 18 4519 4518 4519 ' 4704 0 ♦• 4703 � 0 4521 4520 4521 li •4703 • 4702 2 4523 4522 4523 1....708.. 20 470701 4705 4 4525 4524 4525• �` ♦ 4704 � % ♦i 4707 6 4527 4526 4527 �+ 4709 8 4529 4528 4529 8 6 4 $0 4706 4709 0 4531 4530 4531 2 ♦ . 4713 4711 BRIDGE LN 4713 0 4601 4600 4601 4717 4603 4602 4603 9 7 5 4716 4719 4715 e M 2� 2016 Project Area W N E Morningside A & White Oaks C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No: BA -422 Engineering Dept October, 2013 FIGURE 1 N, 4 SEH Task Hour Budget City of Edina 2016 Morningside A & White Oaks C Neighborhood Roadway Improvement No: BA -422 May 26, 2015 Page 1 of 6 ESTIMATED PROJECT TASKS COST ENGINEERING STUDY PHASE 1.0 Data Collection 1.1 Collect Data from the City 1.1.1 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Tapes/Disks and Logs (1) 1.1.2 Verify Utility as-builts from Cit 1.1.3 Digital parcel mapping from Cit 1.1.4 Hennepin County / City of Minneapolis traffic signal coordination 1.1.5 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan dated 7/03 prepared by BARR Engineering for the project area. 1.1.6 List of property owner information 2 1.1.7 Sanitary sewer manhole structure survey data (3) 1.1.8 Previous soil boring logs and/or test results 1.1.9 Topographic survey 1.1.9.1 13D base drawing file 1.1.9.2 3D topographic survey point files 1.1.10 Traffic and pedestrian counts 4 1.1.11 Aerial mapping 1.1.11.1 Photograph 1.1.11.2 Contours 1.1.12 Existing driveway hoto ra hs 1.2 Gopher State One Call 1.2.1 Obtain Ticket No. for Gopher State One Call 1.2.2 Collect atlases from private utility companies in the project area Subtotal Labor Cost $15,866 2.0 GeotechnicalInvestigation 5 2.1 Coordinate Subsurface Investigation 6 2.2 Provide geotechnical recommendations 7 2.3 Provide Geotechnical Memorandum Subtotal Labor Cost $7,112 Kick-off Newsletter & Questionnaire 3.1 Prepare kickoff newsletter text and ma 8 9 3.2 Print newsletter, questionnaire and mailing labels (10) Page 1 of 6 Page 2 of 6 ESTIMATED PROJECT TASKS COST 3.3 Prepare draft questionnaires text 11 3.4 Tabulate Kick-off Questionnaire Results Subtotal Labor Cost $3,280 4.0 Field Inspection (12) 4.1 Inspect storm sewer manholes and storm sewer catch basins (13) 14 4.2 Inspect existing curb and gutter for reincorporation into the project 15 4.3 Inspect existing pavement for limits of alligator cracking to indicate presence of subgrade soils needing repair (16) 4.4 Observe storm water runoff during a rain event 4.5 Inspect potential stormwater BMP locations 4.6 Traffic signal system at France Avenue Subtotal Labor Cost $2,773 5.0 Street/ Pavement Design (17) (18) 5.1 Develop street pavement sections 19 20 5.2 Evaluate narrowing of roadways 21 5.3 Determine the locations and depths of subgrade repairs (19) (20) Subtotal Labor Cost $3,816 0 Drainage / Storm Sewer Design 6.1 Prepare layout of proposed storm sewer extensions/new systems 22 6.2 Identify tributary areas 23 6.3 Calculate runoff coefficient "C" factor 23 6.4 Determine time of concentration "Tc" for tributary areas 6.5 Size proposed storm sewer pipes 24 6.6 Prepare approximate layout for proposed sump pump drain pipe network 25 6.7 Design layout of drain tile network based on recommended subcuts 6.8 Size storm water runoff treatment manholes (26) 6.9 Identify existing manholes, trunk pipes, and catch basins needing reconstruction in the project area (27) 6.10 Investigate adjustments to the street profile in select locations to improve the flow of storm water runoff to existing and proposed catch basins 6.11 Treatment/volume control system preliminary design (28) 6.11.1 Level 1 System 6.11.2 Level 2 System 6.11.3 Level 3 System Subtotal Labor Cost $15,251 Water Main Design 29 8.1 Develop Suggested Staging Plan (30) 8.1.1 Evaluate Locations of Existing and Proposed Valves and Fire Hydrants Page 2 of 6 Page 3 of 6 ESTIMATED PROJECT TASKS COST 8.1.2 Evaluate Layout of Temporary Water Main and Water Services 8.2 Trunk Pipe 8.2.1 Reconstruction Plan (31) 8.2.2 Relocate Fire Hydrant (32) 8.3 Service Pipe 8.3.1 Reconstruction Plan (33) Subtotal Labor Cost $2,734 9.0 Street Lighting 34 10.0 Calculate Quantities 10.1 Streets 10.2 Storm Sewer 10.3 Sanitary sewer 10.4 Water Main Subtotal Labor Cost $3,749 11.0 Prepare Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (35) (38) 11.1 Prepare Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (36) Subtotal Labor Cost $3,160 12.0 Preliminary Assessment Roll 37 12.1 Count single family/commercial business parcels 12.2 Input parcel information data into XLSX spreadsheet 12.3 Prepare preliminary roll 38 12.4 Account for special corner lots that received 1/3 or 2/3 rate assessments as part of a previous or future reconstruction project 12.5 iminary roll with City staff Subtotal Labor Cost $1,443 13.0 Pre are Engineering Stud 13.1 JWrite draft engineering study 13.2 Prepare project area location map figure 13.3 Prepare preliminary assessment roll figure 13.4 Review draft study with City staff 13.5 Prepare final stud 13.6 Prepare and submit hard copies of the stud 13.7 Prepare and submit PDF file of the stud Subtotal Labor Cost $14,887 14.0 Meetings 14.1 Kick-off meeting with City staff 14.2 Email Private Utilities (39) 14.3 Neighborhood Meetings 40 14.3.1 Prepare invitation to Neighborhood Meetings 14.3.2 Prepare preliminary assessment roll graphic 14.3.3 --(41)(42) Prepare plots summarizing improvements for use at the meeting 14.3.4 Prepare attendance roster sheets and attend Neighborhood Meetings 43 Page 3 of 6 P:\AE\E\Edina\131823\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\[THB Morningside Prel Engr Study only Council.xlsx]THB NOTES '1 To be completed by the City and submitted to SEH. Data will assist in evaluating the condition of the trunk sanitary sewer pipes in the project area. 2 List will be an XLSX file containing at a minimum property address, property owner name, property owner address, and PID number. 3 City will provide data as either a XLSX or DOCX file. If SEH determines the data to be insufficient, the scope of the additional surveys needed will be negotiated between the City and SEH and added as a Supplemental Agreement. 4 Assumes City will complete and provide data to SEH. 5 SEH will contract directly with Braun Intertec for subsurface investigations and laboratory testing. 6 Task includes developing drilling / testing scope and coordination with Braun proposal, staking borings, coordinate drilling & surveying, review draft boring logs, review soil samples, assign laboratory tests, and coordination of final boring locations and final boring report. 7 Includes a evaluation of roadway subgrades, analysis of soil corrections, recommendation for pavement section based on traffic loads, evaluation of utility excavations and evaluation of site drainage. 8 Two (2) questionnaires will be developed - one for the overall project and one that is specific for potential stormwater treatment improvements. 9 Includes submitting draft copies to the City and effecting City edits. 10 Assumes task is completed by City staff including stuffing envelopes and mailing. Page 4 of 6 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY PROJECT TASKS COST 14.4 744 Subtotal Labor Cost City Staff, City Boards and Commission Meetings, and other Agency Meetings Subtotal SEH Expenses 49 $3,500.19 Subtotal Subconsultant Expenses 5 50 14.4.1 OTAL Meeting with City Staff 44 $105,979.00 14.4.2 Transportation Commission Meeting 45 14.4.3 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meeting (46) 14.5 Public Improvement Hearin 14.5.1 Prepare for Public Improvement Hearin 47 14.5.2 Attend Public Improvement Hearin 48 Subtotal Labor Cost $19,432 P:\AE\E\Edina\131823\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\[THB Morningside Prel Engr Study only Council.xlsx]THB NOTES '1 To be completed by the City and submitted to SEH. Data will assist in evaluating the condition of the trunk sanitary sewer pipes in the project area. 2 List will be an XLSX file containing at a minimum property address, property owner name, property owner address, and PID number. 3 City will provide data as either a XLSX or DOCX file. If SEH determines the data to be insufficient, the scope of the additional surveys needed will be negotiated between the City and SEH and added as a Supplemental Agreement. 4 Assumes City will complete and provide data to SEH. 5 SEH will contract directly with Braun Intertec for subsurface investigations and laboratory testing. 6 Task includes developing drilling / testing scope and coordination with Braun proposal, staking borings, coordinate drilling & surveying, review draft boring logs, review soil samples, assign laboratory tests, and coordination of final boring locations and final boring report. 7 Includes a evaluation of roadway subgrades, analysis of soil corrections, recommendation for pavement section based on traffic loads, evaluation of utility excavations and evaluation of site drainage. 8 Two (2) questionnaires will be developed - one for the overall project and one that is specific for potential stormwater treatment improvements. 9 Includes submitting draft copies to the City and effecting City edits. 10 Assumes task is completed by City staff including stuffing envelopes and mailing. Page 4 of 6 ESTIMATED COST PROJECT COST SUMMARY ENGINEERING STUDY PHASE Subtotal Hours 744 Subtotal Labor Cost $93,503.81 Subtotal SEH Expenses 49 $3,500.19 Subtotal Subconsultant Expenses 5 50 $8,975.00 OTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL: $105,979.00 P:\AE\E\Edina\131823\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\[THB Morningside Prel Engr Study only Council.xlsx]THB NOTES '1 To be completed by the City and submitted to SEH. Data will assist in evaluating the condition of the trunk sanitary sewer pipes in the project area. 2 List will be an XLSX file containing at a minimum property address, property owner name, property owner address, and PID number. 3 City will provide data as either a XLSX or DOCX file. If SEH determines the data to be insufficient, the scope of the additional surveys needed will be negotiated between the City and SEH and added as a Supplemental Agreement. 4 Assumes City will complete and provide data to SEH. 5 SEH will contract directly with Braun Intertec for subsurface investigations and laboratory testing. 6 Task includes developing drilling / testing scope and coordination with Braun proposal, staking borings, coordinate drilling & surveying, review draft boring logs, review soil samples, assign laboratory tests, and coordination of final boring locations and final boring report. 7 Includes a evaluation of roadway subgrades, analysis of soil corrections, recommendation for pavement section based on traffic loads, evaluation of utility excavations and evaluation of site drainage. 8 Two (2) questionnaires will be developed - one for the overall project and one that is specific for potential stormwater treatment improvements. 9 Includes submitting draft copies to the City and effecting City edits. 10 Assumes task is completed by City staff including stuffing envelopes and mailing. Page 4 of 6 11 Questionnaires will be for residents to complete and return to City for tabulation of results. Questionnaire will be sent to all residents of the project area and will cover presence of local drainage problems, pet containment systems and the interest in street lighting. The stormwater treatment questionnaire will include options for residents to consider such as porous pavement, tree trenches and rain gardens. 12 Assumes no inspection of sanitary sewer manholes because the City has already done this work. 13 We will inspect only structures with insufficient data gathered from the City's storm sewer structure survey project. We will only inspect structures within the street rights -of -ways. 14 If additional inspection is needed, inspection results will be compiled on paper structure survey forms. Whenever possible, City supplied manhole and catch basin numbers will be used for identification purposes. 15 Complete removal or complete reincorporation of existing curb and gutter in this neighborhood is unknown and won't be determined until the extent of utility reconstruction is better understood. This task won't occur until the utility reconstruction scope is known. 16 We will visually field inspect the cracked conditions of the existing streets to estimate the amount of subgrade repair needed. 17 Based on preliminary discussions with staff, we assume corridor design will follow City of Edina's Living Streets Plan. 18 The street width will likely be 24 -feet wide face of curb to face of curb, with parking on one side and reincorporation of the existing 4' wide sidewalks found in the neighborhood. 19 Typical sections and subcut locations will be per the geotechnical memorandum prepared for the engineering study. 20 Includes evaluating the feasibility of producing reclaim aggregate base and reincorporating it into the proposed street section as base or subgrade backfill. 21 This tasks analyzes the impacts to the boulevard areas by narrowing the roadway equally from both sides or from just one side. 30% design level will be established. 22 Scope of this task includes the layout and preliminary sizing of storm sewer trunk line and special structure locations (e.g., treatment manholes, diversion structures to BMPs, etc.) 23 Consult Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan dated 7/03 for the City of Edina prepared by BARR Engineering. 24 Based on a 10 -year design storm. 25 This system will be limited to areas of need. Sump pump drain pipe and sump pump drain service pipe design and quantities will be tabulated under the storm sewer improvement number. 26 Involves evaluation and design of City approved style of storm water treatment structures at locations to be determined during engineering study. Assumes SAFL Baffle design with sumps. 27 Repairs or replacements of existing storm sewer structures and pipes are based on recommendations from City staff and the structure condition surveys completed by SEH staff during its field inspection operations. 28 Includes a green infrastructure assessment of cost -benefit of public BMPs and a listing of the best locations/options for private BMPs (e.g., top 10 locations). Storm water treatment design will include analysis of three different levels of service: Level 1 = 1/2 -inch event; Level 2 = 1 -inch event; Level 3 = 1 1/2 -inch event. The analysis will focus on volume control BMPs that can help to reduce/mitigate stormwater volumes to land -locked wetlands. 29 Based on preliminary discussions with the City, we understand the trunk water main system will require rehabilitation on 45th Street, Townes Circle, Curve Avenue and portions of Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road. Page 5 of 6 30 Includes evaluation of water main reconstruction and its staging plan since this will likely drive the overall phasing of the project. 31 Includes evaluation of open cut vs. pipe bursting as part of the engineering study and providing a recommendation to the City. 32 All existing fire hydrants in the project area will be removed and replaced. Hydrants in front of residences will be relocated within the boulevard to be adjacent to the nearest common side -yard property line. Fire hydrants will be inserted to keep the spacing between fire hydrants under 400 -feet. 33 Includes removing and replacing existing water service pipes from the trunk water main pipe up to and including the existing curb stop. 34 An existing street lighting system is present in both neighborhoods. Residents will be asked about the desire to upgrade the street lighting network in the questionnaire. We assume street lighting will not be included in the scope of this project. If the neighborhood does request this system, SEH and the City will negotiate a Supplemental Agreement for these services. 35 Includes unit price estimates during development of engineer's opinion of probable cost. 36 Costs will feature a 15% contingency factor and be computed in 2016 dollars. 37 The assessment to each parcel is per residential equivalent unit (REU) that adheres to the City's assessment policy. 38 Includes analysis of preliminary cost estimates and assessment rolls for each neighborhood vs. combining both neighborhoods under one project cost. 39 Task will notify CenterPoint Energy, Xcel Energy, Comcast, and CenturyLink of the potential project and inquire whether or not they have any facilities in need of updating. If so, the private utility companies will be instructed to coordinate with the City the timing of this work prior to the start of the project. 0 40 Two meetings will be scheduled for late July and August. 41 At the first meeting, SEH will provide meeting graphics that will have as a base the aerial photo of the project area with 1. existing sanitary and storm sewer trunk pipes line work 2. existing watermain trunk pipe line work 3. topographic survey line work 4. property and right-of-way lines 5. street names and addresses, and 6. 30% complete proposed improvements for sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm sewer treatment options, drain tile, sanitary sewer, water main and fire hydrant relocations and replacements. 42 At the second meeting, SEH will provide refined design based on input received from the 1st meeting. The 2nd meeting will focus on stormwater treatment options that will include plots with 60% complete proposed improvements. 43 Preparations include creating a 10 -minute long PPT file for presentation to the residents made by SEH staff. Homeowner comments will be recorded on the meeting graphics. 44 Meet with Public Works staff to determine which stormwater treatment system options are viable for consideration on the City's streets and boulevards. 45 Present to Transportation Commission at October 2015 meeting. 46 Update Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff on stormwater treatment system options prior to neighborhood meetings. 47 Preparations include creating a 10 -minute long PPT file for presentation to the Council and residents. 48 Tentatively scheduled for December 8, 2015. 49 Reimbursable expenses include survey equipment charges, mileage and printing costs for meetings, draft and final study submittals. 50 Soil investigation to include the following: 13 soil borings drilled through existing pavement to 15 ft depth, sampling at 2.5 ft intervals in soil borings, assumes up to 2 thin wall samples (if organic soils are encountered), assumed lab budget based on: moisture content tests, 20 sieves, and 10 Atterbergs. Page 6 of 6 MAYOR AND COUNCIL C�3 77" v` • r�coaPolk T 1881 13 Agenda Item #: VIII.C. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action ❑ Discussion ❑x Date: June 2, 2015 Information ❑ Subject: Sketch Plan Review— Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion, 4113 West 54th Street. Action Requested: Provide non-binding comments regarding the proposed Sketch Plan. Information / Background: The City Council is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to build a sanctuary and kitchen addition, and a new parking lot on the east side of the existing church located at 4113 West 54th Street. To accommodate the request, the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would have the same seating capacity as the existing sanctuary. The purpose of the request is to provide larger fellowship and supportive areas to the church. (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages A I b -A 16 in the attached Planning Commission memo.) The site is zoned R- 1, Single Dwelling Unit District, where a church is a conditionally permitted use. The applicant submitted a request for the conditional use permit in 2013. (See original plans on pages A25 -A35 in the Planning Commission memo.) The applicant did not move forward with the request after concerns were raised in regard to the architecture of the proposed addition, and impact to the steep slopes and mature trees as a result of a new parking lot south of the building and construction of stormwater ponding. The applicant has now revised the plans in an attempt to address the concerns raised in 2013. They hired a new architect to design the addition to better fit with the neighborhood. The proposed addition uses a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, and has more variety in building material compared to the lap siding originally proposed. The new plan proposes using an underground storage tank for stormwater, rather than the surface pond proposed in 2013. The new plan would preserve the slope and mature tree area. Planning Commission Consideration: On May 13, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the sketch plan proposal. (See attached minutes.) Concerns/issues raised by the Planning Commission included: ➢ Future parking plan. ➢ Landscaping/screening to the south, east and north. ➢ Vehicle lights shining into neighboring properties. ➢ Drainage/erosion toward the creek ➢ Addressing of neighborhood concerns. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from the May 13, 2015 Edina Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Memo, May 13, 2015 Correspondence from residents • • Page 2 CITY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com v �y 19H0 Date: May 13, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review — Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to build a sanctuary and kitchen addition and a new parking lot on the east side of the existing church located at 4113 West 54th Street. (See the property location on pages Al -Ala.) To accommodate the request, the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would have the same seating capacity as the existing sanctuary. The purpose of the request is to provide larger fellowship and supportive areas to the church. (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages Al b -A16.) The site is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District, where a church is a conditionally permitted use. The applicant submitted a request for the conditional use permit in 2013. (See original plans on pages A25 -A35.) The applicant did not move forward with the request after concerns were raised in regard to the architecture of the proposed addition, and impact to the steep slopes and mature trees as a result of a new parking lot south of the building and construction of stormwater ponding. The applicant has now revised the plans in an attempt to address the concerns raised in 2013. They hired a new architect to design the addition to better fit with the neighborhood. The proposed addition uses a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, and has more variety in building material compared to the lap siding originally proposed. The new plan proposes using an underground storage tank for stormwater, rather than the surface pond proposed in 2013. The new plan would preserve the slope and mature tree area. The table on the following page demonstrates how the project would conform to the R-1 Zoning Ordinance. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO �91NA,�j� Compliance Table Sas * Existing Condition — Variance Granted in 1992 Traffic/Parking The number of parking spaces required is based on the seating capacity of the largest place of assembly which is the sanctuary. The Code requirement is one stall per three seats. The capacity of the existing and proposed sanctuary is 210 people; therefore, the required number of stalls is 70. A parking variance was granted in 1992 to allow 37 spaces when the church last expanded. A condition of the variance was that a proof of parking plan be established. (See the proof of parking plan on pages A36 -A43.) When the proof of parking plan was established however, it did not specify how the added number of stalls were to be created; rather, it listed options that included: The city property used for parking and located west of the creek and south of 54th street; on 54th Street following reconstruction and widening of the street to provide parking bays; or other off-street locations or combinations thereof. (See page A37.) There is adequate area on the site to build more parking, however, that would be in the flood plain area adjacent to the creek on the west side of the site. Many mature trees would have to be removed. That was not an alternative that was desired in 1992 and would not be desirable today. There are 37 spaces on the site today, though not all are code compliant. The revised plans would be have 39 spaces that are code compliant. A traffic and parking study was done in 2013, as part of the original application, and is attached for reference. The study concludes that the existing parking generally works, and there is not a problem with parking in the neighborhood on adjacent streets. The study would need to be updated to examine the new parking lot configuration. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Standard (R-1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — 54,nStreet 50 feet 23 feet* Side — East 50 feet 80+ feet Side — West 50 feet 100+ feet Rear — Creek 50 feet 100+ feet Building Height 3 Stories or 40 feet whichever is One story 36 less feet tall Building Coverage 25% 15%+/ - Parking Stalls (Site) 70 required stalls for the 39 spaces* sanctuary maximum seating proposed (37 capacity of 210 seats existing) * Existing Condition — Variance Granted in 1992 Traffic/Parking The number of parking spaces required is based on the seating capacity of the largest place of assembly which is the sanctuary. The Code requirement is one stall per three seats. The capacity of the existing and proposed sanctuary is 210 people; therefore, the required number of stalls is 70. A parking variance was granted in 1992 to allow 37 spaces when the church last expanded. A condition of the variance was that a proof of parking plan be established. (See the proof of parking plan on pages A36 -A43.) When the proof of parking plan was established however, it did not specify how the added number of stalls were to be created; rather, it listed options that included: The city property used for parking and located west of the creek and south of 54th street; on 54th Street following reconstruction and widening of the street to provide parking bays; or other off-street locations or combinations thereof. (See page A37.) There is adequate area on the site to build more parking, however, that would be in the flood plain area adjacent to the creek on the west side of the site. Many mature trees would have to be removed. That was not an alternative that was desired in 1992 and would not be desirable today. There are 37 spaces on the site today, though not all are code compliant. The revised plans would be have 39 spaces that are code compliant. A traffic and parking study was done in 2013, as part of the original application, and is attached for reference. The study concludes that the existing parking generally works, and there is not a problem with parking in the neighborhood on adjacent streets. The study would need to be updated to examine the new parking lot configuration. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO �v9IN�-�l''lr Cn o • ,t�hR1Y)tL ��� Additional Consideration ➢ Review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required. ➢ Tree loss and replacing will need to be examined closely, as that has been a concern in the neighborhood. ➢ Building renderings and perspectives would need to be prepared to show what the addition and parking lot would look like on the site with existing and proposed landscaping. A rendering must be prepared from the south side of the creek. ➢ Sidewalk connections for ADA accessibility shall be examined. ➢ Landscaping is a concern of residents to provide screening of the parking lot. Concern is raised in regard to vehicle lights shining in to adjacent property when leaving the site and parking in the parking lots. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 • • 51ST SIRE 51ST STREETWEST J114 I -f- t - - 52ND STRtFi :EST I I a)tlp S7REEt FST x. Arden Park " --t z. _ ;-_"I _, - - o —z�- LU _ f SM STR.EE1 ;;E`1 c T WL. 17, L.0} _ — t j '_ — LU � � ---N' LU w _ — �e E4TH STR,EEL :E .T 7 O J .._ 55TH STREETI EST V i - {�_ . ;5TH STREET'NcST I 1 fSTa r•J -A%: F N U E -- t W C 51 -- � w S' . GrH SCREEI':dESf G - -- n. :ET C� :VEST } { 57TH STRFF T WEST_ 4 _ ' — PHILP.R.� SOK LANE _ 518TH STREET .VEST w{ - Parcel Map Scale: 1" = 800 ft. 19-028-24-11-0010 A_T_g: ID: /N Print Date: 5/6/2015 4k Owner w Edina Com Luth Ch Name: Parcel 4113 54Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular - - purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 4.15 acres Area: 180,764 sq ft Code COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 .`s!, Think,Green! M • • �J Parcel w. 19-028-24-11-0010 ID: -1111 Owner Edina Com Luth Ch Name: tki�w Parcel 4113 54Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- Non -Homestead stead: Parcel 4.15 acres Area: 180,764 sq ft 1 - Map Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 5/6/2015 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 THink,Green! w. -1111 tki�w �3 B 1 - Map Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 5/6/2015 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 THink,Green! 4001 cot V� i 0 BENTZ / THOMPSON / RIETOW ARCHITECTURE • URBAN DESIGN PLANNING - INTERIORS EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & RENOVATION 4113 W 54th Minneapolis, MN 55424 �)a 1, C4 �" Edina Community Lutheran Church (ECLC) hopes to expand their existing church facility in order to better serve their congregation and the surrounding neighborhood and larger community. The proposed project consists of an addition and remodeling of the existing Edina Community Lutheran Church to expand worship space (with the same amount of seating), enlarge fellowship and support areas, increase classroom and meeting space, enlarge the kitchen facilities, consolidate administrative offices and improve parking and handicapped access. The Church has been operating at this site for over 60 years as a productive member of the Edina community and this addition and remodeling project will allow them to better continue that relationship into the future. The Church currently has a main worship space, as well as an adjacent fellowship hall both on the main entry level. Even though the existing sanctuary is approved to seat up to 210 people, during worship services typically closer to 175 can be accommodated. Both the sanctuary and fellowship hall are undersized and crowded before, during and after services. The kitchen serving the fellowship hall is undersized to provide for the needs of funerals, • weddings, or other celebrations. The kitchen equipment is old and outdated and due to current building code requirements and space restrictions in the current kitchen, newer equipment would be very difficult to accommodate. Off-street parking is limited by useable buildable area on the site and wheelchair/handicapped accessible access is also limited. The Church property includes an adjacent parsonage which in the past has been the home of one of the pastors until a few years ago when the church determined that the parsonage site could be used to allow for a building addition. Integral to this proposed project also includes the demolition of the parsonage which results in a large open space adjacent to the east side of the church. This open space provides the opportunity to add more off-street parking but also allows for a location to include an integrated underground storm water management system below the parking lot. A major benefit to using this approach to address requirements for storm water management is that it eliminates any need for large surface ponds which would likely result in the removal of significant areas of trees from the wooded area along Minnehaha creek. The ECLC congregation is active and socially responsible, so many of the of the upgrades to the existing building will include improvements to make the building more energy efficient, including improved windows, light fixtures, new HVAC systems, new roofing and additional insulation. The entire project is being planned to closely follow sustainable guidelines. At this time, ECLC asks that the City of Edina approve this request as the church is not changing the intended use of the site or building, but improving the use that has existed since 1948. The Church is asking to remodel and add space to provide improvements within their facility that assure compliance with current building and accessibility codes, are up to date, sized to their current population, and visually integrated with the original building and • the surrounding residential neighborhood. BENTZ/THOMPSON/RIETOW, INC. - 801 Nicollet Mall, Suite 801 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Phone) 612.332.1234 (Fax) 612.332.1813 - www.btr-architects.com 4 � 6 I • ENTZ / THOMPSON / RIETOW cling Community Lutheran Church April 29, 2015 BTR No. 1425 0 0 0 -14* NORTH 0 C EXISTING SITE PLAN W. 54TH STREET MINNEHAHA CREEK Edina Community Lutheran Church CDC -I NG SE NORTH Bentz / Thompson / Rietow • • EXISTING UPPER Edina Comm, un�)'�y 'Luvhemn Chuvc h n -A* NORTH Bentz / Thompson / Rietow *26IMMOMMIk Edina Community Lutheran Church • NORTH Bentz / Thompson / Rietow 0 0 0 NEW SITE PLAN Edina Community Lutheran Church W 54TH STREET EXISTING CHURCH CHURCH ADDITION �AA NORTH 0 0 0 NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN Edina Community Lutheran Chuvch SSL • CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN W S4TH STREET _.. EDINA LUTHERAN CHURCH Edina Community Lutheran Church HEDGE I�- DAM ON FARBERASSOCIATES • �J edea CIamnnuni-iy Lutheran Church NORTH Bentz / Thompson / Rietow • • Edhol "ZoTirdma nEdy L u�hevrnl n (Chuuch, NORTH • 0 • Aga E 0 Q E 0 m • • L' 413 3 0 0 C) E 0 C- C- (1) 0 m u 0 Z Q� w LU m u C e • • HE SOUTHELEVATION Edina Community Lutheran Church E • • A4 0 0 c- 0 a E 0 c 0 m u t U u O Q W W U I- a c FJU Memorandum DATE: July 6, 2012 -" To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, City Engineer City of Edina`Q"(, FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE dda� RE: Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 - 32 Background • The purpose of this study is to determine potential traffic and parking impacts the proposed expansion to the Edina Community Lutheran Church (ECLC) would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located on the south side of West 541i' Street between Minnehaha Blvd and Halifax Avenue. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The ECLC expansion will include room for additional seating capacity for the main sanctuary, additional classroom space and removal of the existing residential building on the east side of the site. The plan includes the reconfiguration of the parking, driveway circulation and drop off areas to provide for a one-way circulation drive. Access to the site will be from an entry only driveway (existing driveway location) on the west side of the site and a new exit only driveway on the eastside of the site. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic and parking impacts of the proposed expansion were evaluated at the following locations. • 54th Street west of Minnehaha Blvd to east of Halifax Ave • Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street • Intersection of 54th Street and Minnehaha Blvd • Intersection of 54th Street and the site entrances • Intersection of 54th Street and Halifax Avenue • ECLC Site Parking Lot The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the • proposed ECLC expansion. ✓1 q • %��•SB Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning w Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 & Associates, Inc. Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum DATE: July 6, 2012 -" To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, City Engineer City of Edina`Q"(, FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE dda� RE: Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 - 32 Background • The purpose of this study is to determine potential traffic and parking impacts the proposed expansion to the Edina Community Lutheran Church (ECLC) would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located on the south side of West 541i' Street between Minnehaha Blvd and Halifax Avenue. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The ECLC expansion will include room for additional seating capacity for the main sanctuary, additional classroom space and removal of the existing residential building on the east side of the site. The plan includes the reconfiguration of the parking, driveway circulation and drop off areas to provide for a one-way circulation drive. Access to the site will be from an entry only driveway (existing driveway location) on the west side of the site and a new exit only driveway on the eastside of the site. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic and parking impacts of the proposed expansion were evaluated at the following locations. • 54th Street west of Minnehaha Blvd to east of Halifax Ave • Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street • Intersection of 54th Street and Minnehaha Blvd • Intersection of 54th Street and the site entrances • Intersection of 54th Street and Halifax Avenue • ECLC Site Parking Lot The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the • proposed ECLC expansion. ✓1 q ECLC Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: 54th Street is an east/west city 2 -lane (on lane in each direction) local street with no turn lanes. An all -way stop is provided at Minnehaha Blvd and a side street stop is provided at Halifax Avenue. Access to adjacent developments and residential property including the Edina Community Lutheran Church site is provided directly from this street. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street except: west of Minnehaha Blvd where no parking is allowed; on the south side of the street from the Church driveway east for approximately 30 feet where no parking is allowed for site sight lines, and; on the south side of the street for the drop off area in front of the Church where parking is restricted to 15 minutes. The speed limit posted on 54th Street is 30 mph. The City is currently completing plans and specification for the Bike Blvd project that will modify the existing street configuration. It will be completed in the summer of 2012 and include restriping of the street with advisory bike lanes. Parking will continue to be allowed on both sides of the street. Halifax Avenue is a north/south city 2 -lane (on lane in each direction) local street with • no turn lanes. Access to adjacent residential property is provided directly from this street. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street except directly at the intersection of 54tH Street where no parking is allowed approximately 30 feet back from the intersection on both sides of the street. The speed limit posted on Halifax Avenue is 30 mph. Turning movement counts and parking utilization data was collected on Sunday June 10th, 2012 from 7:30am to 1:00pm. In addition hourly directional counts were collected on 54th Street, Halifax Avenue and Minnehaha Blvd beginning on Friday June 8th through Monday June l 1tn Figure 3 shows the existing conditions in the area including: lane configurations and traffic control; average daily and average weekend daily traffic counts; weekday and Sunday peak hour traffic counts, and; the Sunday "Church" peak hour traffic turning movement counts. Site Trip Generation In order to determine the impacts the proposed expansion will on the adjacent roadway system the number of trips from the site needs to be determined. For the Church this is based on attendance. Reviewing the Churches attendance records for the past year, the average attendance (not including Christmas or Easter) for a Sunday is approximately 130 persons at the 11:00 am . service. The 8:30 am service has a lower average Sunday attendance, therefore the 11:00 service was used for the analysis. The attendance at the June 10th, service was 125 pe so�Vt an therefore be concluded that the traffic and parking counts for that day would rep ell tan average event for the Church. AK ECLC Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Based on the traffic and parking counts on June 10th, the 125 person attendance was represented by approximately 73 vehicles. The largest attendance during the past year was 234 on Christmas Eve. Although the expansion is not anticipated to generate additional attendance on an average Sunday, a growth in attendance was assumed for this analysis. Assuming a modest growth in attendance to an average of 150 persons the corresponding traffic growth would be approximately 15 vehicles. Background Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of the site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other growth and development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed constant or dropped in the past few years. In order to account for some background growth in traffic a .05% per year factor was applied to the through traffic on 54th Avenue. Trip Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on existing travel patterns, the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: • 65% east on 54th Avenue 35% west on 54th Avenue Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2014, which is the year after the proposed expansion would be completed. The traffic forecasts were developed by adding the projected annual background traffic to the existing traffic counts then adding the anticipated additional site traffic to the system based on the traffic distribution outlined above. Figure 4 shows the projected 2014 Sunday peak hour traffic volume. Traffic Operations Existing and forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for each of the study area intersections. This section of the study describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. eV'14 APR � 4 '013 A i � srom ECLC Traffic and Parking Study • City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 1. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS • also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 1- Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: HCM PQF � Cot LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result • in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. W6 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A <10 <10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F > 80 >50 Source: HCM PQF � Cot LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result • in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. W6 ECLC-Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates • drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. 0 Existing Level of Service Summary Table 2, below, summarizes the existing LOS at each of the study area intersections based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersections currently operate at an overall LOS A during Sunday peak hour with all movements operating at LOS B or better. Table 2 - Existing Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS �a� AQP Sunday Peak Hour Intersection Delay LOS (sec/veh) 54th Street at Minnehaha Ave A (B) 4 54th Street at Church Entrance A (A) 2 54th Street at Halifax Ave A (B) 5 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS �a� AQP -ECLC Traffic -and -Parking Study City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2014 which represents the year after the proposed expansion is planned for completion. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 3. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service with the proposed increase in attendance as before the expansion. Table 4 — Expansion (2014) Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS • Parking Demand The parking demand for the site was analyzed based on the existing and anticipated attendance for the Church. Based on the parking inventory and count conducted on June 10th there is 38 parking spaces available in the existing Church parking lot (including 3 handicapped spaces) and 35 spaces on 54th Street from Minnehaha Blvd to Halifax Ave south. This represents a total of 73 spaces available on site or adjacent to the Church. There are also an additional 25+ spaces on Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street that could be used during peak attendance days. The peak parking demand on June 10th was 73 vehicles between 10:30 and 11:30 am. All of these vehicles were parked in either the existing Church parking lot or on 54th Street. No vehicles were parked on Halifax Avenue. Figure 5 shows the number of parking spaces available and used based on the parking count conducted. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis section, if attendance would grow to an average of 150 persons, this would represent and additional 15 vehicles, raising the parking demand to 88 vehicles. The proposed revised site plan includes an additional 11 spaces and 1 handicapped space for a new total of 50 spaces. Although this will accommodate much of the traffic growth, there will be a need for some vehicles to park on Halifax Avenue. It is estimated that on an average attendance day when all spaces are occupied in the Church parking lot and on 54th Street, vehicle would also be parking on Halifax Avenue to a distance of 50 to 100 feet north of 54th Street.QQ' The current City Code and previous parking agreement would require approximately 7Q parkingrybs. _`X spaces to be provided on site for the Church, based on the existing seating. The Chulwy receiv1. EQ • a variance for the parking requirement in 1992 for 37 spaces using proof of parking as a Q' I justification. The proposed expansion project would also require a variance for the parking requirement for 50 spaces also using proof of parking. A2-,� Sunday Peak Hour Intersection Delay LOS (sec/veh) 54th Street at Minnehaha Ave A (B) 5 54th Street at Church Entrance A (A) 2 54th Street at Church Exit A (A) 3 54th Street at Halifax Ave A (B) 6 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS • Parking Demand The parking demand for the site was analyzed based on the existing and anticipated attendance for the Church. Based on the parking inventory and count conducted on June 10th there is 38 parking spaces available in the existing Church parking lot (including 3 handicapped spaces) and 35 spaces on 54th Street from Minnehaha Blvd to Halifax Ave south. This represents a total of 73 spaces available on site or adjacent to the Church. There are also an additional 25+ spaces on Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street that could be used during peak attendance days. The peak parking demand on June 10th was 73 vehicles between 10:30 and 11:30 am. All of these vehicles were parked in either the existing Church parking lot or on 54th Street. No vehicles were parked on Halifax Avenue. Figure 5 shows the number of parking spaces available and used based on the parking count conducted. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis section, if attendance would grow to an average of 150 persons, this would represent and additional 15 vehicles, raising the parking demand to 88 vehicles. The proposed revised site plan includes an additional 11 spaces and 1 handicapped space for a new total of 50 spaces. Although this will accommodate much of the traffic growth, there will be a need for some vehicles to park on Halifax Avenue. It is estimated that on an average attendance day when all spaces are occupied in the Church parking lot and on 54th Street, vehicle would also be parking on Halifax Avenue to a distance of 50 to 100 feet north of 54th Street.QQ' The current City Code and previous parking agreement would require approximately 7Q parkingrybs. _`X spaces to be provided on site for the Church, based on the existing seating. The Chulwy receiv1. EQ • a variance for the parking requirement in 1992 for 37 spaces using proof of parking as a Q' I justification. The proposed expansion project would also require a variance for the parking requirement for 50 spaces also using proof of parking. A2-,� - ECLC—Traffic-and-Parking Study City of Edina July 6, 2012 Page 7 of 7 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: ■ The proposed Church Expansion will include additional capacity in the main sanctuary, additional classroom space and removal of the existing residential building on the east side of the site. ■ Although the expansion is not expected to generate new attendance, assuming a modest growth from 130 persons to 150 persons, the site would generate an additional 15 vehicles / hour on an average Sunday (11:00 am service). ■ Traffic operations at the study area intersections and driveways on 54th Street will remain the same with or without the proposed Church expansion. ■ Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded that, although the available parking does not meet the City's Code, based on the expansion of the Church parking lot and the availability of on street parking, adequate parking spaces are available for the anticipated parking demand. • A proof of parking should be provided documenting the availability of additional parking on site if required. Based on these conclusions no additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the proposed Church expansion. . 000 i0l A43 J 49th w �IUa�. 7 ST. 3 3II w o� 8 U �OJw, p 17uB 50 th RD. a > �— Aw p� o Q D WOODDALE LA• W. Q Q 51 St w UCE FST BRQ o Q a N Q w a 4 60ES P WOOD DACE PL' a oo > a _ _ ft 1400 ft J GL EN -=i Z2Q o W. 52nd ST. 2 W. 52nd ST. ti > _L54 W. 53 rd Q ST. = m x ST. N Q > aroject LocationL ke >W, =U ST. L–iL l R1CHMOND Harvey GOLF a TER. Q Q ��� DR. 3 o Y � W. FULLER o a <9 aZWINDSOR w WOODHILL,,, DR. Qo J x ST. m AVE. f7 z Y T. W. 55th a ST. OAK x DR. D KENT Y W. 55 th ST. a -J 1 ha STAVE. o o w F= a v Yea 55th 51. LAk E� LEXING TON IS T. > Q DENT" H O C o C EVI x a p� f9 z < W. 56th ST. ONNE TER. WI ND o `Trp a n� nso W. 56 th O o iOdy 24. PL. � � p UTH V1 EW TOWER ST. m 3� a NO ST. La' e �, WOOD LAND RD o" Q �p W. 57t w a y p J LAw CONCORD C 3 o N CL PHILBROOK LA. O Q a a a a a a $� 9�:N W� Qz TER. W, 58th ST. 2 J �� o > GRIM ES o via RW Ln > > Q Q W.59th ST. Z 59 th ST. PJTz wwCE N Z3 O Q _IA Ld CLOVE ' ' SCHOOL W• RD• 60 th o J ST. JQ o 0°PWU th FST RIDGE � LL Z a o wn6l a i o D� F w zJ zJ �p ACCE o X xo a Yo 61 St ST, mo Cr ~ Y L) a a�W st ST. W• m z o x w A N V I EW > -Y CH OWES y Q N r Q 3 a (4 N RD Q CU RVE Q D❑� W. 62 nd �ST. a 62nd ST O 3, W. 62 nd ST. D w x o W. W Q �A. J Q a Z GARRI SON w w> `w > w HERITAGE h ST. a c� 35. N (4• x a Q a Q 0° 264tn .w o 36.o w => > >� J � ELLjQ v=i Q a `o W. Q 5T. LLi 64 th ST. Q I[MINNESOTA 64 th ST• A z ST. o > o < a 0 o > > > > W 0 w Q Q Q Q o Ui Q a W. z 65 th $T. 6Sth ST. Z a Cr o Z w U 3 Q _ W Cr o F 3 o w Q Lake 's w o QST. m ST. ,=n a z W. 66th a v O 00 C====3 O r- 3 0 o SOUTH7�DALE a o s d > ��� LPGUNp 68 th Q ROYCA s� OR ST. D00 A a PAYTON RD. BALFANZ o w w O\�P j1 CT. UPPER n RD. �� �� ^ R a a Nto Traffic and Parking Study ��� PQM gure 1 •w �m Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion r City of Edina, Minnesota Prol Location Map i Mid alis posodoad elosEmin leuip] 10 Alio uoisuedx3 uoanuo ueaaulnl Apnwwoo euip3 ( ' Z aan6i=l ApnjS BUIMJEd PUB 3111eii ZfOZa'P1l' noiE)ltamfoatiyalyiepo�{ 10 �1,■ NY1d13A31 U3mol �a i 3 44 N' N o'' �} C ` 1t ,; •, rY.•r,'Yt 1 ` -`r+ t�1 PV - 1 � i \ t I t r 1 'Prluvo\ ,$g � 133H13 Flit s' 1S3M H F E Z u6P'uold a115 - 20-6/} Zf-9991\S11Q14x3\PoJ\02C-98910\.-y raraouD113 95M I �, Z102/ll/L rPalul�d =a4o0 Dote: Printed: 7/11/2012 ••-� •�•���-..cv�u�c.cn�ro voao vC rig -W -txis Ting condltions.dgn 650 1200 [550] [950] N _L Z PEAK HOUR VOLUME COMPARISONSUNDAY (11:00 AM TO 12:00 PM) 189SUNDAY PEAK (12:00 PM TO 1:00 PM) 221 WEEKDAY PEAK ( 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM)416DrncmA — — 2200 T i � 2650 T 2650 — — — — —moi -- — — [zsso] — 54th STREET — — —�� — — — —�— — Izsoo] Iz1oo] — �r — — — — —: — — — — H it— 8 ♦-101 �C �A f-- 106 or 9 9 66 —� 1 IT 69 �� m m In Ol N T /-- 8 5 21 -� 66 �! Edina Community Lutheran Church LEGEND A XX SUNDAY 11:00 AM TO 12:00 AM r� LANE CONFIGURATION V2 ®� TRAFFIC CONTOL — STOP SIGN q XXXX AVERAGE DAIL TRAFFIC [XXXX] AVERAGE WEEKEND TRAFFIC Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 ftonewEdina Community Lutheran Church Expansion �` City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Traffic Volumes Date: Printed: 7/11/2012 W5B Filename: K:\01686 -J20\Cad\Exhibits\1686-32 fia-04 - Proaosed Trofflb Mi-, N I i 0 50 ft 100 ft 9 B � 128 1 119 14 IC 98 t— 126 ---------------------------------------------------- -54th STREET ------------------------ 83-0 10 83 79 �► 23 9 � � IN 83---+ tp m N Edina Community Lutheran Church LEGEND 1^J � e, � � XX PROJECTED 2014 SUNDAY 11:00 AM TO 12:00 AM Y41- affic and Parkin Stud Figure 4 9 Y Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion l In w.n % City of Edina Minnesota Projected 2014 Traffic Volumes Z r s vy Z O c IT N I i 0 50 ft 100 ft 9 B � 128 1 119 14 IC 98 t— 126 ---------------------------------------------------- -54th STREET ------------------------ 83-0 10 83 79 �► 23 9 � � IN 83---+ tp m N Edina Community Lutheran Church LEGEND 1^J � e, � � XX PROJECTED 2014 SUNDAY 11:00 AM TO 12:00 AM Y41- affic and Parkin Stud Figure 4 9 Y Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion l In w.n % City of Edina Minnesota Projected 2014 Traffic Volumes -7F 1 ' � E W O LLLd Q k� U of 16�b AA i%d ,§Fee w cr Y NUE f 'X W Q. HALIFAX AVE a z W Y � T 4' ,tib �7? {•,+YL Akre' t L 'F J Y IL ti t E= k� O C M l a w } ,ly L1XI O• � t9i4F o CB o O a Y 4�5 cp a s C z E Cu CU E tQ O o z H W U N w pm m_ �V� B i rttt� �n C � t � .a>< + O i v � a $� y'� � i 7• f�� y.��yp 8 _ CONNECT TO EXIST. WATERMAIN, W 54TH STREET RESTORE STREET PER CITY REQUIREMENTS WALL TW/BW.3 TW882.5 RETAINING WALL, DESIGNED BW 881.3 BY OTHERS, SEE SITE PLAN 1 88 880.3 : a I TW 883.4 \ .\ BW 880.4 WATER SERVICE-/ ON UPPER FLOOR ELEV 888EEMCH U •____` LOWER FLOOR ELEV - 877.7' \. \ L RIM 876.3 ACCESS ER AD ]UST RIM TO RIM 877.0 - PROPOSED GRADE ett 1 ROOF DRAIN \ �� °BEND - CONNECTIONDI ..EXCAVATELOODPLOR \- a` (TYP•) 1:1 MITIGATION ION \ \- _ _ '.CO NE EXISTING,- SEE MECH. 11t INV IMPACT MRTGATION � - \ \ .8' PIPE TO 42' HDPE e (TYP.) \ 4 \ ` INV I NOTES: \ \ s�aie .. e_x SEE EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND RESTORATION INFORMATION. f _ RIM 6.8 Ae et egg ..RIM 875',9 30 NYOPLAST OUT 1710 ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE FLOW LINE IF IN CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PERFORMED BY OTHERS IN 2007 876,5 TC EMERGENCY OVERFLOW \ \,\ ' ` i 6BB.i 7 t to -� 'Al TW 887.0 , BW 878.8 TW 885.7 BW 879.3 TW 883.7 illil.. BW 879.0 NOTES: \ \ s�aie 30' ACCESS �> II 4y 30' NYOP ASi � RI sy r ' INLINE DRAIN SEE EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND RESTORATION INFORMATION. \• \ \ 1 \ - _ RIM 6.8 Ae et egg ..RIM 875',9 30 NYOPLAST OUT 1710 ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE FLOW LINE IF IN CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PERFORMED BY OTHERS IN 2007 876,5 TC EMERGENCY OVERFLOW \ \,\ ' ` i DRAIN BASIN (TYP.) ' oI / STMH2 lJA CONN�CT E%ISTING RIM P PE TO DRAIN { \ [[N II1NV IN 869.5 \ L 1' INV OUT 87 11 THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL -D". H M PI THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF \ 20� 0= q2 Cl/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINE FOR THE COLLECTION AND ' PERFORATED HOPE �` DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA. UNDERGROUND STORAGE, SEE DETAIL.. \ -TMH3• 1 872& � CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY PRIOR TO _ & \ \ IN IN 865.5 (N)' COMMENCING GRADING OPERATIONS. IF DISCREPANCIES OCCUR BETWEEN EXISTING -BOTTOM OF PIPE 867.0 _ \ \ INV IN 869.5 (NE): CONDITIONS SURVEY AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS, NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. - `.' - \ \ \ ` INV ON 860.7 (S)' CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE SIZE, LOCATION AND ELEVATION E EXISTING UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND BEGINCONSTRUCTIONFYDISCREPANCIES AT THESE POINTS. THE ENGINEER ' \C 12 HDPE STORM PI SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLAN AND _-\ , ; \ `\ \ �. @ 0.8% ACTUAL EXISTING UTILITIES. NO OF SHALL PROCEED UNTIL SUCH -\ fly , \ \ DISCREPANCIES ARE RESOLVED. M EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. /,Q yq,♦ \ \ RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. Fo\FF,f LEGEND -EXISTING LEGEND -PROPOSED WATERSERWCE -1-1- WATER SERVICE \,\ L' ,,♦ \ '\� \\ �,% STORM SEWER -n-«- STORM SEWERFp 1V - CATCHSANITARBASINER CONTOUR®t_/ STORM MANHOLE \`��`�',♦ \ \\\\ SANITARY MANHOLE 0 CATCH BASIN ---==3`M 876.8 ZINV IN 869.5 ,INV OUT 872.0 -I-NV-8-60 WITH TRI AND 8 C. WETLAND DELINEATED BY ACORN ENVIRONMENTAL MAY 2007 \\ EDGE OF PROPOSED AVERAGE WETLAND BUFFER I GUARD .L. III RIPRAP RETAINING WALL, DESIGNED BY OTHERS, SEE SITE PLAN GRADE SWALE ALONG WALL TW 881.0 SW 878.5 END WALL TW/BW 878.0 L-1 30' ACCESS RISER RIM 876.5 CONNECT 12' HDPE TO 42' HDPE INV 871.0 876.5 TC ;42' PERFORATED HOPE 1 UNDERGROUND STORAGE, SEE DETAIL BOTTOM OF PIPE 86@.$ P.)TIP.) DRAINAGE FLOW 6-=6.0 SPOT ELEVATION \` :. ♦ \ TW TOP OF WALL ELEVATION SW BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION % RIPRAP \�\ ♦� \.\ \ .�` BENCHMARK \ \ TOP NUT OF HYD(CRANT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF HALIFAX AVE AND 54TH S7. ELEVATION -889.13 (CITY OF EOINA DATUM) NARY - NOT IKRUCTION N s�aie 1°°1 0 20 40 60 ON/OL SMM r TALI A B O D INLET PROTECTION NO CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ALLAWED \ DOWNSTREAM CONTAACRDR SNALL UTILIZE g�w ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ONLY 1/Ll 54TH STREET MAINTAIN t2D' OF EXISTING IV CONCRETE DRE FOR TRACK -OUT PREVENTION UNTIL ROUGH GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED PROPOSED WETLAND c ` BUFFER \\ IFFF J di`• sf '`'� w'• `+ o, o"`� �r�„dYYoc°osiivoyiv%•,�,a.�/ \•�i.'•�i4.�o •,�iii:is s IC,\.••ice\\.\�\r\\•.•\••\•....mss. ii.i!t�__i_ii�_ MINNEHAHA • ►u.uu..aCREEK, ....�iuoou.a.eoo.00uouuuouu... .o:.couc: o.o.: NOTES:i-e '"�i�����•'��iiii:iiiii�ui............iiiiii.Inn". 1H, • ■ uoo.a. ... ... �: .. �.Y.. ��aii� -■.. .� 1. A PERMIT FROM THE MPCA FOR CONSTRUCTION STORMINATER CL III RIPRAP MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR 15 REQUIRED TO x . CO -SI N THE PERMIT APPLICATION. LEGEND: REQUIRED AND WILL BE APPLIED FOR WITH CITY _860— CONTOUR 2. A PERMIT FROM THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT IS APPLICATION PROCESS. 3. A SWPPP IS REQUIRED WITH THE MPCA PERMIT AND WILL BE FL FILTER TYPE STRAW 511 N PREPARED AS PART OF BUILDING PERMIT AND CONTRACTOR ---- • • — SILT FENCE BIDDING SUBMITTAL PACKAGES. 4. PERIMETERE SION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS AND INLET PROTECTION RAOT EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLE INUE, PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINEDSEW MIX 340 (MN/Dar 3876) wn H EROSION THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.A.68CONTROL BLANKET, CATEGORY 4 (MWDOT 3885) 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ALL ROADWAYS FREE OF SEDIMENTS. STREETS SHALL BE SWEPT AS NEEDED OR AS DIRECTED BY THE SEED MIX 310 (MR/DOT 3976) WITH — 4 ENGINEER. CONTROL UANKET� CATEGORY 3 (MN/DOT 3005) 6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 4' TOPSOIL AND WITH SEED OR SOD AS SHOWN OR AS DIRECrED BY THESEED MIX 340 (MN/DOT 3076) WITH PERMANENT \\A. ;Yi..s..��sTURF REINFORCEMENT MAT wm bR►��IVA E N� Y e) 3 a. 4 a 31 tj UJ a eHill. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS NOTSHOWNBYSEEDING HERE TO BE RESTORED WITH -'F SOD AND/OR LANDSCAPING 9W.), SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 11 -INSTALL INTERIOR SILT FENCE AFTER EXCAVATION OF FLOODPLAIN IMPACT MITIGATION AREA ELIMINARY NOT R CONTION D ao .NI.Im.N' rr w . e a• _ .. j� a SII- OV Sf NN •a I . M aa1N 9502 L'^N aaNua Pt,7dno�� le�aa�4Z4SS NW'Sgryy 'l—Is 47451SeM 5L Lo SNvzro f ni�ly���.. �� :•L� yamyo uejay3nl Allunwwoo e3 LeuiP a-I'NOSIO N3NIll3d dHOH.L N3SNtlH 5 LLyy Q nSQ "a )Z m i O m ° 022 a,jjjftojv adeospuel =G<� x �� z ' o 0o w S ci °iLLa€� 60 S w 6uuaa6u3`' ogg�r 3 co m F 5z o ° umow °w m 2 4 z F3 .o Gwi Ed liT�as Z ° o zaas w ^�° O F� yz5z ° z� op� 2 nry'w�";oza~q6ta>xe °zm�wwsw„��owmy�, to�ezxwxzim.r Uu���sz^zmzor>] 0g='°oW=fr FQ-:!o za- Q6z wol iyos Ow= x>Z- < a o2z ow ?3 ao�a ow ZCc zR °`u.6Uoaa°�wfw¢o Ro 2no � wo mn �Z H t22o wZi 3Nw2 oSto oa ozmz IS LU ra S O Mzd ^o rn �noa axcomLL3Ea �m °mm� ao az ,^o'a w i Q h O ---------1 ?•C•:•'•'•'•:• �• -- — Z r./ LLJ CC �.... � .: ••i.•.•.•:•: •.:: :U:.'.•.'.::•:tiv.'' L� �//l/l it '�ry �h J .. I III Ili 11f ( .. \ � 0 .,..•�•._ I W.. .esu- O )Ili 111 t.✓ Z d 6L a m °041H wdLL:Lo-cloz•co 0 43( u m ° o m 0 a / Q L 2 IN C� o s -� I v U 0 _ / O — J ,e LL z / / O_ W = OF a m °041H wdLL:Lo-cloz•co 0 43( EGEND FAST CURBe GU(TER OFASIING eUIWNG ,, p PaDPD66GADDNa,N R 0 FAsnND sere PAVT;aFNr ------------- -4.-WEST-64TH'STREET t----------- -71------------------.--------------------- — FaovosEDASPwr—N. 71' • 81M" al -- coos Q FPAPosfD CLNL. PAHNc PAVWG��� EkISTING STONf PUNIER eED ' I 1 C TOBEPBWYEU �.� PROPERTY UIB FAST LUi86alEr6i EY16i 61DEWAIJ, DESIGNATEOPUNTING, I I ENSi S1nEET WHt—_—_--_ UNE 11 EAer UTUTY POLE PVlfONG6 BY OvaNFR i i DOSL UnUTY POLE UMI,ILSTYO NE�ro — VJEILWDBUFFER W'T erPEET UGIR BIBLDING F m ro.] I I FJOSONO EGaES600at Iws� vAVE61EFR �� \ f 11 T— QP ARKING STALLS 6.y�� . . (34 `EXISTIOATCH NG)d EXISTING BUILDING Lo6VER LEVEL EIEVnnaN"zaiav rs�'. aiiir STPLLB ` iL�M�wO�AF&A UAsnNG�q UNE OF FASTING \ PPPoONG LOi W - U.. — EASnNGMELNIMBT — ° 1 60' -0" SIDE YARD SETBACK 1 COURTYARD — — ' OVEWMNG _ 1 1 I ADDITIONE ATI 1 LOVrERLEVELE1EVAnah60'E VEIL. en.T I 1 � AANTARY MNa �Q.�.":•; GiCll Bases . 1 ':1 RETNNINGEWWMINN � F�FNG L — 6I10=PNixING ��a0T5 — NEAH ENCLOSURE — SURuauMPBLE CURB ,D{STNG ACCESSORY BULGING IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS TOTALSITEARU 9B Bel SF 10014 EAei. &IIIgNGs 100]]sF 5% DBsr. sIrF INPEavlous uw4 sF ex TOTALFAST.IMPERNW3 ]e,131 TOTAL FAST. PERNOUs ... SE e6,4 EXIST. &eLDING RE6WNNG sATOSF s% BLTLGNGAODITION 4A7esF ax Mrs- - J% TOTAL PRDPDSED ls.ss]sF 1m OM TOTAO I50ISED 161,0165E et% TOTAL CHANGE IN 6,646SF +5"A IMPERVIOUS AREA PARKING CALCULATIONS: BVAwuND SP ssDE PaaAan VPAU VKE RC-0lE6TEo Fat an SPALEs ECRE°N,DFsr � PwNrsrRIPING 1 wNNElwu ry���a `,``,``` ` 1 �� � VENaE TURN ARoum MNNFIwL"aECG.REF EI( — g - I o D1 SITE PLAN NOT FOR C STRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group. Ltd. © 2013 W J I E o m = W 0 FRONT SETBACK .) FJOSONO EGaES600at Iws� vAVE61EFR �� \ f 11 T— QP ARKING STALLS 6.y�� . . (34 `EXISTIOATCH NG)d EXISTING BUILDING Lo6VER LEVEL EIEVnnaN"zaiav rs�'. aiiir STPLLB ` iL�M�wO�AF&A UAsnNG�q UNE OF FASTING \ PPPoONG LOi W - U.. — EASnNGMELNIMBT — ° 1 60' -0" SIDE YARD SETBACK 1 COURTYARD — — ' OVEWMNG _ 1 1 I ADDITIONE ATI 1 LOVrERLEVELE1EVAnah60'E VEIL. en.T I 1 � AANTARY MNa �Q.�.":•; GiCll Bases . 1 ':1 RETNNINGEWWMINN � F�FNG L — 6I10=PNixING ��a0T5 — NEAH ENCLOSURE — SURuauMPBLE CURB ,D{STNG ACCESSORY BULGING IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS TOTALSITEARU 9B Bel SF 10014 EAei. &IIIgNGs 100]]sF 5% DBsr. sIrF INPEavlous uw4 sF ex TOTALFAST.IMPERNW3 ]e,131 TOTAL FAST. PERNOUs ... SE e6,4 EXIST. &eLDING RE6WNNG sATOSF s% BLTLGNGAODITION 4A7esF ax Mrs- - J% TOTAL PRDPDSED ls.ss]sF 1m OM TOTAO I50ISED 161,0165E et% TOTAL CHANGE IN 6,646SF +5"A IMPERVIOUS AREA PARKING CALCULATIONS: BVAwuND SP ssDE PaaAan VPAU VKE RC-0lE6TEo Fat an SPALEs ECRE°N,DFsr � PwNrsrRIPING 1 wNNElwu ry���a `,``,``` ` 1 �� � VENaE TURN ARoum MNNFIwL"aECG.REF EI( — g - I o D1 SITE PLAN NOT FOR C STRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group. Ltd. © 2013 W J I E o m = W 0 FARTING ROOFb11NGLES TO REMNN ocwreGEwsnNc T.O. EXIST. ROOF 3PPE�AK FAsiING RTONE TO REMNN _ — t T'c� R1EFP'E Al4T LE ROO "cN EwsnNc mrocws FIBERCEMEM LOP SANG. PLANT, IYP. ENRnNG COINER � R�N00NR mttP.ING / TR0.5N5Ra / NG GIaa RMONc —EN -1 --//--EAE aPaM""' _ MET.OowN FEPGur, Tm. G REMODELED EXISTING ! ADDITION 0.EVFINGJOINT,—.ttP Z-11,=AIR'--AT GNAT CF EN E— Wl Dt PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION A7.I 7A7. 1-0• SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0'I —I'1I101�- 0 a' S 10' 37 !I Sw tz-a• _ T .R %—��IN OOR-TONETO EXISTING mNCONR.IYP! MAW @j 5� _ TO. SKVLIGH 133'-3" M—EO MEr. PPEFINIRNED METK SdNG RE—JOINT.— FRFFINIBHEIIER -E MEi. FIASfIIb SgNG, PNM, IYP. —O725. WALL 7 r sw D FOR mmucNrinoN FErvclxc Q MECH. U`YTR GNMMEM IAP SANG. `C"�R`fQRMNTI�I111 E 1� �-ak�'F�tiPi TY UNE e� NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. © 2013 • • EwsnNC ROOF swFALESTO RFAwN EASTING Iy--------------------------------------------------------------- s*EFSIE T.O.IS ETONETO REMNN ------- sNEO eH:'AtFusw"G nsER CEMF>aT l,v sIpNG. PNNr.Tw, .Uwrvumwlrvoons i 1 TO PROPERTY LIRE At PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION _LIGM _ 133 - 3" PREFINSNED PREFmsHED MET.8101 FIBER MEI. REVM"NT, TW. CEMErvT LFP SIgNG. P.W.". f ADDITION 1 REMODELED EXIST WG .EFINIRHE. MET. FUSIYNG /LwTGN T.O_WALL �25-2' ENRTMi b� I I _ _ TR¢us eEwNG �' b MET. FARpA A M im 11 Ll PPER L BVE 01'-0 e FARTING ROOFb11NGLES TO REMNN ocwreGEwsnNc T.O. EXIST. ROOF 3PPE�AK FAsiING RTONE TO REMNN _ — t T'c� R1EFP'E Al4T LE ROO "cN EwsnNc mrocws FIBERCEMEM LOP SANG. PLANT, IYP. ENRnNG COINER � R�N00NR mttP.ING / TR0.5N5Ra / NG GIaa RMONc —EN -1 --//--EAE aPaM""' _ MET.OowN FEPGur, Tm. G REMODELED EXISTING ! ADDITION 0.EVFINGJOINT,—.ttP Z-11,=AIR'--AT GNAT CF EN E— Wl Dt PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION A7.I 7A7. 1-0• SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0'I —I'1I101�- 0 a' S 10' 37 !I Sw tz-a• _ T .R %—��IN OOR-TONETO EXISTING mNCONR.IYP! MAW @j 5� _ TO. SKVLIGH 133'-3" M—EO MEr. PPEFINIRNED METK SdNG RE—JOINT.— FRFFINIBHEIIER -E MEi. FIASfIIb SgNG, PNM, IYP. —O725. WALL 7 r sw D FOR mmucNrinoN FErvclxc Q MECH. U`YTR GNMMEM IAP SANG. `C"�R`fQRMNTI�I111 E 1� �-ak�'F�tiPi TY UNE e� NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. © 2013 STEPS �LOV$RLEVEL - 8' Is -TI nsER CEMF>aT l,v sIpNG. PNNr.Tw, .Uwrvumwlrvoons AVERAGE EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONIAT FRONTt S�i.7S TO PROPERTY LIRE At PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION f ADDITION 1 REMODELED EXIST WG FARTING ROOFb11NGLES TO REMNN ocwreGEwsnNc T.O. EXIST. ROOF 3PPE�AK FAsiING RTONE TO REMNN _ — t T'c� R1EFP'E Al4T LE ROO "cN EwsnNc mrocws FIBERCEMEM LOP SANG. PLANT, IYP. ENRnNG COINER � R�N00NR mttP.ING / TR0.5N5Ra / NG GIaa RMONc —EN -1 --//--EAE aPaM""' _ MET.OowN FEPGur, Tm. G REMODELED EXISTING ! ADDITION 0.EVFINGJOINT,—.ttP Z-11,=AIR'--AT GNAT CF EN E— Wl Dt PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION A7.I 7A7. 1-0• SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0'I —I'1I101�- 0 a' S 10' 37 !I Sw tz-a• _ T .R %—��IN OOR-TONETO EXISTING mNCONR.IYP! MAW @j 5� _ TO. SKVLIGH 133'-3" M—EO MEr. PPEFINIRNED METK SdNG RE—JOINT.— FRFFINIBHEIIER -E MEi. FIASfIIb SgNG, PNM, IYP. —O725. WALL 7 r sw D FOR mmucNrinoN FErvclxc Q MECH. U`YTR GNMMEM IAP SANG. `C"�R`fQRMNTI�I111 E 1� �-ak�'F�tiPi TY UNE e� NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. © 2013 • • • �dRY,�a.y•u rqa .v �a o M1r 2 ,, m: s �Y^S �Wivyt± e- - Edina Community Lutheran Church Exterior Street Level Perspective Architectural Group Ltd. 15 Croveland Terrace • Mlnneapolis,MN 55403-1154 E -Mail arch®kodet.com . WebSite www.kodet.com Telephone 512.377.2737. Facsimile 612.377.1331 ® 2013 KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, I.M. 01W*10 �' ..:-•>''n�. May 3, 2013 oRk6fuhi ,4v gnn i Ti I} Edina Community Lutheran Church SW Perspective ®Architectural Group Ltd. ISGroveland Terrace . Mlnneapolls,MN 55403-1154 E -Mall arch@kodet.com . WebSite www.kodet.com Telephone 612.377.2737 . Facsimile 612.377.1331 ® 2073 KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD. 13 r -- -- 'W1 May 3, 2013 R(6w /i � 5 u 8 W 7tit L �J 227ZO21 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of 1992, by and between EDINA COMMTJNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, INCORPORATED, a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the "Church") and CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"); WITNESSETH, THAT: ("Property") located in ,the City of Edina, County of Hennepin, property REAS The Church is the Owner of certain p p ty " �� -� in, State of Minnesota, , . . J - ..... . legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, The Church proposes to construct an addition to the building currently. existing on the Property ("Building"), which addition is to include parking and landscaping to be used in connection therewith as shown on the plan prepared by Sovik Mathre Sathrum Quanbeck Edwins dated February 20, 1992 ("Plan") (the addition and said parking and landscaping being hereinafter called the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the Plan provides 37 parking spaces on site but would need 70 parking spaces; following completion of the Improvements, to comply with the' City's zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, additional on site parking spaces could only be provided by locating them on the flood plain of Minnehaha Creek; and WHEREAS, the Church has sought approval from the City for construction of the Improvements and requested a parking variance necessary to allow construction of the Improvements as shown on the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City did, on April 6, x992, in Case No. G92-1, approve the construction of the Improvements and grant the requested variance because strict enforcement of the City ordinances would, in this case, cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Property, and the approval of construction and grant of such variance has been determined by the City to be in beeping with the spirit and intent of the applicable ordinances, but the approval of construction and grant of the variance was conditioned upon the execution, delivery, and recording of this :Agreement, and upon the conditions hereinafter set out in this Agreement, which the City deems, necessary to impose to ensure compliance with the applicable City ordinances and to protect adjacent properties; and A 34 17eputy Examiner of Titles WHEREAS, The Church is agreeable to the approval of construction and the granting of the variance being subject to the conditions hereinafter set out, and is willing, and represents that it has the power and authority, to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval given by the City and the granting of the above requested variance, by the City, and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The City hereby confirms that it did, as above stated, approve construction of the Improvements, and did grant variance from its applicable ordinances concerning parking requirements and building setback requirements; subject, however, to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. If the City Manager and the City Planner shall hereafter determine, in their sole and absolute discretion, that additional parking spaces are required on the Property, the Church will, at its sole cost and expense, submit to the City a plan for providing the additional parking spaces as the City Planner and City Manager shall then require, up to the maximum number of parking spaces required by the then applicable City Ordinances. The City Planner and City Manager need not require that all of the additional parking spaces be provided at any one time, but may require additional parking spaces be provided from time to time as they deem them necessary, again in their sole and absolute discretion, until the maximum number of parking spaces as required by the then applicable City Ordinances have been provided. The plan for additional parking spaces may provide for additional parking spaces on the Property, on the City property used for parking and located West of Minnehaha Creek and South of West 54th Street, on West 54th Street following reconstruction and widening of the street to provide for parking bays, or on other off-street locations or combinations thereof. 'The plan shall also include methods for implementing the use of any such additional parking areas by Church patrons. Any such plan shall avoid use of the floodplain area for additional parking spaces. The plan must be approved by the* City, and if approved by the City (which approval may be withheld for ar y reason or cause), such additional parking spaces may then be utilized by the Church pursuant to said new parking plan, as approved, and subject to the then applicable ordinances of the City, except as such ordinances may be waived by variances, if any, then granted. As above stated, the City Manager and City Planner shall be the sole judges of whether or not additional parking is required, from time to time, and if so, how much is to be constructed at any given time. _J The City Manager and the City Planner shall give written notice to the Church of their determination that additional parking spaces are then required, 5!� 43 setting forth in said notice the number of spaces then required to be provided, up to the maximum required by the then applicable City Ordinances. The Church must submit its proposed plan for additional parking spaces within thirty (30) days after such notice is given. 3. If any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder hereof and the application of such term, provision, and condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and this Agreement, and all the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof, shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law. 4. In the event that the Church fails or refuses to fully comply with all of its obligations under this Agreement, or violates any of the provisions hereof, - and such failure, refusal or violation continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof is given to the Church, then, in that event, in addition to any other remedies then available to the City at law or in equity, the City shall have the right to; (a) Prohibit any parking on West 54th Street (which City may do whether or not agreed to herein by the Church). (b) Obtain enforcement of this Agreement by court order for mandatory injunction or other appropriate relief, and (c) Withhold, deny, or revoke any building permits, certificates of occupancy, utility connection' permits and any other permits and approvals, now or hereafter issued or granted or to be issued or granted by the City for the construction or occupancy of all or any part of the Property, or Improvements, until such failure or refusal ends and the Church fully complies with its obligations hereunder. All of the foregoing remedies shall be usable and enforceable by the City separately or concurrently as the City shall determine, and the use of one remedy shall not waive or preclude the use of any one or more of the other . remedies. Also, the failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any remedy hereunder in the event of a failure or refusal by the Church, shall not preclude City from thereafter exercising any of its remedies for the same or a subsequent failure or refusal. The Church agrees to pay to City any and all costs and expenses incurred by City in enforcing this Agreement by the use of the remedies above set out or by other remedies or means available to the City at law or in equity, including attorneys' fees whether suit be brought or not, and with interest on all such costs and expenses at the highest rate permitted by law, or, if no .maximum rate is -3- A 3 � applicable, then at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the dates incurred by the City until paid. The Church also agrees to pay all costs of collection of any monies due to the City from the Church pursuant hereto, and of such costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement, with interest thereon, again including attorneys' fees and whether suit be brought or not, with interest at the highest rate permitted by law, or if no maximum rate is applicable, then at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the dates such costs of collection were incurred until paid. 5. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall, be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when personally. delivered to, any officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the Unites States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified trail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To City: 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Attn: City Manager To the Church: 4113 West 54th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Such addresses may be changed by any party upon notice to the other party given as herein provided. 5. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, and shall run with the title to the Property and be binding upon all present and future owners of the Property. If, for any reason, the provisions hereof should be determined by the legal counsel for the City, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, not to be binding upon and fully enforceable against any owner of the Property, then the variance granted by the City in Case No. C-92-1 shall wholly cease and terminate and the Property shall be used and usable only in full compliance with all then applicable ordinances of the City. If there be at any future time more than one owner of the Property, all of such then owners, while they are such owners, shall be jointly and severally liable for all obligations under this Agreement. -4- /U l IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly executed the day and year first above written. EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, INCORPORATED _ _ ; CITY OF EDIN A . ^ C C By Its Mayor And Its Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /S day of 1ti1M,1992, byole-� o the �,�rea��crNi` of EDIlVA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, INCORPORATED, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. A �+tivw,nnnnnNv��M x STEVEN J. FRANK NOTARY PUBLIC --MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Dec, 21, 1992 s� x -5- K STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this"'—'- .ay of Q 1992, by e . S, ' �!��andlGR►b2ic, £ f� ln�� the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. NCY#;IlIYA'1lOw-wN"M G` Notary Fublxc IWw�wMrl��rer�ril��Ma This instrument drafted by: Dorsey & Whitney (J'ES) 2200 First Bank Place East Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 12 M ti EXHIBIT A All of the Northwest Quarter (NW$) of the Northeast Quarter (NES) of the Northeast Quarter (NEa) in Section Nineteen (19), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), except that part thereof 6, f...( platted as Minnehaha Woods A-1 k OFFICE OFT14E REGISTRAR OFTITLES HENNEPiN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CERTIFIED FILED ON JUN 2 2 1992 5 � R OFTITLES BY D Aa&�� ..- 4/6/92 80 heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of • each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvements: PERMANENT STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER, STORK SEWER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -293 (S.A.P. 120-159-03) - Valley View Road from West 69th Street/France Avenue to Crosstown Highway PERMANENT STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -299 (S.A.P. 130-144-06) - West 66th Street from France Avenue to Southdale Lane STORK SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. STS -219 TRAFFIC SIGNAL NO. TS -21 - Valley View Road & West 66th Street STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-36 (S.A.P. 120-150-07) and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improvements; that said improvements are hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as: PERMANENT STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMFROVEKEN NO. BA -293 PERMANENT STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT No. BA -299 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. STS. -219 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT NO. TS -21 STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-36 The area proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improvements includes: Unplatted Parcel (Cornelia Park Pool), Lot 1, Blk. 2, • Southdale Office Park Second Adda.; Meets & Bounds Description Southdale Office Center Unplatted, Commencing at NE corner of SE 1/4 thence South to NE Corner of South Office Park 1st Addn., thence Westerly along Northerly line of said Addn. to its intersection with the centerline of Valley View Road, thence Northerly along said centerline to North line of SE 1/4. Thence Easterly to Beginning Except Roads; Lots 1 thru 10, Blk. 3, Southdale First Addn.; Lots 1 thru 13, Blk. 4, Southdale First Addn.; Lot 2, Blk. 1 South Office Park First Addn.; Tract A, RIS No. 1365; and Apartment Ownership X79 - Point of France Condominiums. All units contained with Apartment Ownership X79 (Unit 102 thru 1210 and Penthouse 1 thru Penthouse 12). Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Nays: Rice ((���� Resolution adopted. G.' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED FOR BUILDING EXPANSION AND REMODELING - EDINA (fir COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH Planner Larsen reminded Council that at the March 16, 1992, meeting the request for a conditional use permit for building expansion and remodeling at Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, was continued for additional information on two issues: 1) sidewalk along the front of the church property, and 2) parking bays along the south side of W. 54th Street adjacent to the church. Following that meeting, architects for the church have submitted two site plan for both sidewalk and parking bays. Exhibit "A" illustrates a seven foot wide sidewalk just inside the existing curb line. The sidewalk would extend from the parking lot curb cut on the west to the parsonage driveway on the east, with no parking bay. Exhibit "B" illustrates both a • sidewalk and a parking bay. The parking bay would stop before the parsonage and would provide space for six cars. Staff would recommend the Exhibit "A" sidewalk only alternative. The bay should 1 1 4/6/92 • be included in the Proof of Parking Agreement and considered in the future if conditions warrant. Reasons presented in support were: 1) The existing street meets the local and state width standard for a low volume collector street with parking on both sides. The state standard is 38 feet and the existing street is 40 feet wide. 2) The parking bay would not provide additional parking spaces. There is presently parking on both sides of 54th Street. 3) Due to existing grades, additional steps would be required if the parking bay is constructed. 4) The Proof of Parking Agreement will allow the City to address future parking and safety problems. Ben Crabtree, 5428 Woodcrest Drive, neighbor and church member, submitted that one parking space would be lost if the bay is constructed. With sidewalk up to the curb, snow left by plowing could be more easily moved onto the church property. He concurred with the staff recommendation for Exhibit "A" sidewalk only. No further comment or objection was heard. RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 825 (The Zoning Ordinance) have been met; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Ordinance No. 825 have been satisfied; NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church at 4113 'West 54th Street for building expansion and remodeling. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. SECOND READING GRANTED: ORDINANCE NO 812-A3 ADOPTED (REGULATING TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS AND TOWERS) Planner Larsen recalled that the Council granted first reading for Ordinance No. 812-A3 on March 16, 1992. The only changes to the final draft are to the height of the residential radio antennas in Subsection 815.06. Staff would recommend second reading and adoption. Ray Voss, 5716 Benton Avenue, representing the amateur radio group, and Dick Casey, 6120 Ashcroft Avenue, said they concurred with the ordinance amendment as presented. Member Kelly offered Ordinance No. 812-A3 for Second Reading and moved adoption as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 812-A3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 812 TO REGULATE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATION, TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS, Kr=OR DISH ANTENNAS AND SUPPORTING TOWERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 812 is amended to read as follows: 815.01 Definitions. Words and phrases used in this Section which are defined in Section 850 of this Code shall be construed in this Section according to their definitions contained in Section 850. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings in this Section: Antenna. Equipment used for train witting or receiving telecommunication, 40 television or radio signals, which is located on the exterior of, or outside of, any building or structure. For purposes of this Section, "antenna" does not include "dish antenna". Dish Antenna. A parabolic shaped antenna (including all supporting 4+s-- 3/16/92 ' F bathroom/restroom located within a non residential building or within the common areas of a multiple residential building.) Section 460 - Signs (Scheduled for April 6 hearing.) Section 470 - Dangerous and Substandnrd,guildings (Incorporates State Law whereby Council may order repair or removal of dangerous or substandard buildings.) Section 475 - Parking Ramp# ..Scheduled for April 20 hearing.) Section 480 - Exterior,.Pf"; — gle Dwelling Unit and Double Dwelling Unit Buildings No public comment or objection was heard on Chapter 4. CHAPTER 5 - CIVIL,;RBg8[QSE AND EMERGENCIES The following pr s ons in the existiag,code have been deleted: Section 5 - Air Raid rrecautifts Sections markod with an asterisk r# significant changes noted: Section 505 - Civil Defense No public comment or objection was heard on Chapter 5. Mayor Richards then declared the public hearing closed. ( j�J REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PER?IIT CONTINUED TO APRIL 6. 1992. FOR BUILDING 0�1 E%PANSION1REiSODELING - EDINA CoMMNM LUTHERAN CHURCH, 4113 WEST 54TH STREET Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered place on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen recalled that in August, 1988, the Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, requested and received a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new sanctuary addition and to generally remodel the church. The new sanctuary would have seated 210 persons compared to 197 in the existing sanctuary. Following approval of the permit, the church decided not to proceed with the addition and renovation. The church has now reapplied for a Conditional Use Permit for a revised and reduced in size plan for expansion and renovation of the church. Phase I would be construction of a 22 x 24 foot addition to the north side of the church for relocation of church offices. The fellowship hall (located in the lower level) would be moved to the main floor and the present fellowship hall would be converted to classrooms: Phase II would be construction of a 16 x 48 foot addition to the sanctuary on the east side to provide improved circulation within the building with no increase in seating capacity. The church presently maintains a setback of approximately 27 feet from West 54th Street. The proposed addition would extend four feet in front of the existing wall and would provide a setback of approximately 23 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot minimum setback; thus a 27 foot setback variance is requested. All other existing and proposed setbacks comply with ordinance requirements. The existing parking is located west and south of the church with a capacity ranging from 25 .to 35 vehicles. The lot is improved with a blacktop surface but is not striped. The plan anticipates organizing and striping the lot to provide 37 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space for each three seats in the largest place of assembly. The 197 seat sanctuary would require 66 spaces. The plan requests a 37 space parking variance. The church has submitted an alternate parking plan which would increase the total parking count to 44 spaces. This plan would require substantial fill and retainage along the creek bank. 40 The church site is 4.73 acres in size, with a majority of the site either flood plain or wetland; the useable area is relatively small. In 1988 the church prepared plans to construct parking in the floodplain area. The plan received approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This plan was not viewed 4�4 .59 3/16/92- 60 favorably by the City or neighbors along the creek. The approved Conditional Use Permit instead included'a proof of parking agreement obligating the church to pursue other parking solutions if a problem arose in the future. The plan addressed modified service schedules and possible parking bays along 54th Street. Staff believes this approach remains valid. On -street parking has not presented a problem for the neighborhood and continued ou-street parking seems to be preferable to disturbance of natural areas adjacent to the creek. Staff would recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit including the requested parking space variance and building setback variance, subject to a proof of parking agreement for these reasons: 1) The project has been reduced in site from the 1988 plans, 2) Given the characteristics of the site, the plan is the best solution with minimal impact on the.neighborhood and the environmental features on the site, 3) The project will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission heard the request at its meeting of February 26,'1992, and unanimously recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to a proof of parking agreement with the following elements if warranted: 1) Parking bays along West 54th Street, 2) Off-site parking implemented on City property, 3) Additional parking constructed behind the parsonage, 4) Rearrangement of existing parking stalls. The Commission specifically recommended that the alternative parking plan for parking within the floodplain not be considered. It was noted that written correspondence in support of the project had been received from Pastor Erik Strand, Edina Community Church; Steven B. Edwins, of Sovik Mathre Sathrum Quanbeck Architects, 205 So. Water Street, Northfield, MN; and Burton W. Grimes, 5400 Halifax Lane. Correspondence in opposition was received from Merideth/John Hale, 5504 Halifax Lane; Martin/Marion Donnelly, 5332 Halifax Avenue So.; Kathleen Wetherall, 5328 Halifax Avenue So.; Anne/John Crist, 5324 Halifax Avenue So.; Amy/Tom Donnelly, 5333 Halifax Avenue So.; and Teresa Forliti, 5336 Halifax Avenue So. Presentation for Proponent Erik Strand, pastor of Edina Community Church, submitted that the congregation felt that the plan proposed in 1988 was too ambitious and not in keeping with its desire to maintain a modest size church. He elaborated on the current proposal emphasizing that it would allow for.better internal flow of the building and better utilization of space. Further, a sidewalk along the front of the church property is being considered'if the City and neighborhood concur. Public Comment Burt Grimes, 5400 Halifax Lane, said he favored the sidewalk on church property only. Ray Voss, 5716 Benton Avenue, said he was a councilmember at Edina Community Lutheran Church and referred to a letter from neighboring property owners regarding problems with church activities. He stated that none of the issues mentioned have come to the attention of the church, that they would not intend to impinge upon :the neighborhood in any way, and would follow-up on the concerns that have been raised. Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place, asked if the building was used for day care and�also asked about the parking bays. Pastor Stand said space is rented to a nursery school which uses the facilities from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on weekdays. The church council will be evaluating whether this rental should continue. Planner Larsen said parking bays would essentially be a widening of the street -in front of the church property to allow parallel parking. Tom,McCusker, 5413 Woodcrest Avenue, said he felt the proposal accommodates the wetlands area and asked about the proposed parking on City property. Planner Larsen explained that, if a parking problem is perceived in the future, one of the ',solutions may be to improve the City property adjacent to the creek for church parking. 3/16/92 fit • Council Comment/Action In response to Mayor Richards, Planner Larsen said there is no code requirement nor a commission recommendation that sidewalks or parking bays be included in the proposal, but could be made a condition of the permit. Answering Member Rice about what triggers a proof of parking agreement, Planner Larsen said there are agreements in force with some churches now. However, with the exception of Christ Presbyterian Church, none have been implemented. A proof of parking agreement would give the City the right to determine and institute any action necessary to bring non -conforming parking requirements into compliance. Engineer Hoffman explained that if a sidewalk were installed the church would be responsible for its maintenance: He added that safety would be the main reason for parking bays and/or a sidewalk in the area. Member Smith made a motion to grant a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, for building expansion and remodeling, subject to a Proof of Parking Agreement. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Council discussion ensued regarding implementation of parking bays and sidewalk into the proposal at this time. Member Paulus amended the motion to continue the public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit for Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, for building expansion and remodeling, to April 6, 1992, to alloy the church to present plans for parking bays and sidewalk as a condition for issuance of the permit. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 812-A3 (REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND SUPPORTING TOWERS) GRANTED FIRST READING Subsequent to the public hearing on the draft City Code, and draft Section 815 specifically, the Council considered an amendment to existing Ordinance No. 812 to incorporate language from draft Section 815 as amended. Member Smith offered Ordinance No. 812-A3 for First Reading incorporating the language contained in draft Section 815 as amended in the public hearing on the draft City Code. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith Nays: Richards First Reading granted. AMENDMENT TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 114 (MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF TOWERS, ANTENNAS AND DISH ANTENNAS) CONTINUED TO 04/06/92 Member Smith made a motion to continue the hearing on an amendment to repeal Ordinance No. 144 (Moratorium on Construction of Toners, Antennas and Dish Antennas) to April 6, 1992. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. _VACATIONS GRANTED FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (LOT 1. BLOCK 2, TNTERT.ACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION) AND EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PARR LANDS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, STORMWATER POND AND HOLDING AREA (OUTLOT A INTERI CEEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION): AGREEMENT APPROVED FOR USE OF UTILITY EASEMENT Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman advised that the developer of the Lincoln Apartments on Lincoln Drive has petitioned the City to either vacate certain public interests or grant 3/16/92 6-2 permission for encroachment on public easements on the Lincoln Apartments • project. Staff would recommend the following actions by the Council: A. Vacate the southerly two feet of a 35 foot utility easement above the elevation of 889.7, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. B. Grant execution of an agreement to permit a ventilation shaft on the utility easement. C. Vacate all public interest on east 20 feet of Outlot A, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition, except to reserve drainage and utility easement rights over the east 22 feet. The first recommendation involves vacating air rights on the southerly two feet of a 35 foot utility easement running parallel to the north wall of the Lincoln Apartments north building. The north building footprint was constructed just south of the easement but after field confirmation it was determined that the bay windows protruded over the easement area. The developer has requested that air rights be granted over this two foot area to resolve issues with the title company resulting from the encroachment. The second recommendation results from the encroachment of a ventilation shaft on the utility easement for sanitary sewer. In this case, staff would recommend not granting a vacation of the easement to allow the ventilation shaft but would recommend granting the execution of an agreement to use the utility easement. The terms of the agreement would hold the City harmless for any damage done by the City during its use of the utility easement for repair or construction work on the utility system. The third recommendation involves vacating any public interest except for utility • and drainage rights over the east 22 feet of Outlot A, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. This area is part of the parking lot for the south building of the Lincoln Apartments. During a title examination it was unclear what the City's intent was in 1990 when it earlier vacated all public interests but retained utility interests over the east 20 feet. Council Comment/Action Mayor Richards raised the issue of who would pay for the relocation and legal costs if in the future the City must relocate the public utility within the easement. Attorney Gilligan explained that language could be added to the draft agreement to include the City's right to relocate the utility and that all costs incurred would be paid by the developer. Norm Bjornnes, Lincoln Drive Partners, affirmed that the partnership would indemnify and hold the City harmless from any loss under the terms of the Agreement and would be liable for any and all costs. No public comment or objection to the proposed Council action was heard. Member Paulus introduced the following resolutions and moved adoption: RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 18th day of February, 1992, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of easement for drainage and utility purposes; and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 16th day of March, 1992, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the • public that said easement vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning • 1 • • N LO LO Z a I -] 9/19/88 259 View Road contain between two and five units. Lot sizes range between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. The R-2 lot immediately to the south of the subject property has an area of 11,500 square feet. Planner Larsen explained that despite the minor deficiencies from the ordinance requirements, staff believes there are several reasons to support the proposal. Lot Size - The area of the double dwelling unit lot is below the requirement, however, it is compatible with the other R-2 properties in the vicinity. The R-1 lot exceeds the ordinance minimum as proposed and is larger than several other R-1 lots on Brookview. Character and Symmetry - The streetscape along Brookview Avenue will remain unchanged. The R-1 properties along Brookview are not impacted by the proposal. The new double dwelling on Valley View Road will appropriately fill in a noticeable gap. The new unit will be developed within all required setbacks and orients logically to Valley View Road. Community Planning - The proposed plat and rezoning is consistent with the principles and land use designations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Larsen advised that the proposal was consi#ered by the Community Development and Planning Commission on September 7, 1984 end recommended preliminary rezoning and plat approval, subject to finaj-rezoning, final plat, subdivision dedication, curb cut location approval and "parate utility connections. He noted that the proponents, Ronald and RoWt Erhardt were present to answer questions. Ronald Erhardt gave a brief history of the subject property which was the home of his maternal grandparents. He'ptated that in the summer of 1987 they made inquiries as to the possibility of ,Onstructing a double bungalow on the rear of the lot. With the decease of their mother earlier this year, they are now pursuing the project with plans to live' on this property when they retire. Member Turner asked if the Planning Commi*xion discussed the substantial variances that are involved. Mr. Erhardt said the variances were discussed and the Commission's questions were answeg tO. Member Turner then asked Mr. Ehrhardt to support their.request for variance*. Mr. Erhardt explained that most of the lots along Valley View square footag#:wise are smaller than the variance on the square footage on the proposed lot fronting on Valley View. In discussions with City staff and the surveyor it was determined that the proposal was the best use of that lot. Member Turner said the use makes sense but that she had trouble finding justification for the variances and that she was concerned about the impact on the single family neighborhood. Member Smith suggested that if the lot line were drawn perpendicular to Brookview Avenue instead of diagonally that the variance needed for the sin v,family lot would not be as great and it would maintain a rectangular lot on "okview . Member Richards commented that he did not feel there is justificatio or the requested variances so that there could be three dwelling units who h 'now just one exists. Mr. Erhardt said that one of the questions raised at Planning Commission meeting was how many units would the square footage of t4e;'aubject property handle and the answer was a minimum of three. The issuen was should the existing house be removed in order to construct three un The reponse was where there is an existing single family house that fits Brview why not build a double on the back portion of the lot which would front onvalley View. There was further discussion on re -orienting the propoee4' lot line to eliminate the setback variance for the single family lot and *w a double could be sited on the new lot fronting Valley View Road. Member Bards made a motion to continue the hearing for approval of the rezoning to R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District and preliminary plat for Erhardt Addition to the oweting of October 17, 1988 to give the proponents time to revise the preliminary plat and provide information on the sizes and dimensions of other lots in the ar". Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Keelly, Smith, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion caXxled. Motion ' made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner to continue the hear in� or preliminary plat approval for Edina Highlands 2nd Addition to Octobi* 3, 1988, as requested by the proponent. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED FOR EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner for adoption of the following resolution, subject to an executed Proof of Parking Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit: RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 825 (The Zoning Ordinance) have been met; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Ordinance No. 825 have been satisfied; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina Ctiy Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, for construction of a new sanctuary and conversion of the existing sanctuary to a fellowship hall. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON ISSUE OF DIVERTING TRAFFIC ON HALIFAX AVENUE. Engineer Fran Hoffman advised that approximately 800 notices were mailed to residents in northeast Edina regarding the hearing on diverting traffic on Halifax Avenue. The A�o 81t5188 225 . RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN 2ND ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "OAK PONDS OF INTERIACHEN 2ND ADDITION, platted by Michael Halley Homes, Inc. and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 15, 1988 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Nays: Smith =1ution adopted. PRY PLAT APPROVED FOR HED ADDITION. Affidavits o notice were presented, approved a3rhlordered placed on file. Planner Larsen pre ented the request for preliminary p t approval for the Hed Addition, locate at 6625 West Trail, Lot 1, Block 10, India Hills. The subject property is a d eloped single family lot with an area of 7 �7 square feet. The proponent as submitted a preliminary plat which would cre a one new buildable lot. TYje existing house would remain as it is today. The new lot would contain 34,277 square feet, and the lot for the existing house would contain 44,930 square feet The new house is proposed to front on Iroquois Trail. )3oth lots comply orxceed all Zoning Ordinance requirements for single fami� lots. A grapt�c of the proposed plat was shown indicating the'existing house �twe�Zern way�nd proposed house to be constructed on N the new lot. In support of thecaon, the proponents have submitted an analysis and survey of 40 lots portion of Indians to determine lot Losize. The existing lot (Lot 1,0, Indian Hills) is the largest in the area and following the subdivision the res g lots would remain among the largest lots in this area of Indian Hills, anne \\Larsen explained that, normally, staff m would want to see the property spli more evh ly than is proposed. However, in Q this case a more even division of ire would require removing the existing house. The present proposal max' izes the size f Lot 2 while saving the existing house. The entire property is�eavily wooded and he existing house is barely visible from the street. A di sion which would require removing the existing house may disturb the site more than the present prop\al,Hedvised that at its meeting of July 27, 1988, th Community Development an Commission reviewed the proposal and commended preliminary apprct to: 1) final plat approval, 2) subaivis on dedication, and 3) utiliion charges. He stated that Virgil Hed, roponent, was present to answns. Member Smith asked questions about tht retaining wall adjacent to Iail. Planner Larsen said that it wa/s/an existing private retaining wall on the property. Member Smith commented that the lots in the proposed plat are consistent in size with the neighborhood/with the exception of the large lots to the east. No other comment being heard Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject - 1) final plat approval, 2) subdivision dedication, and 3) utility connectio changes: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HED ADDITION BE IT RESOLVE by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat .titled "HED ADDITION", platted by Virgil and Sharon Hed, husband and wife,presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 15, 1988 be an' Pis hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rolleall: Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION CONTINUED. Affidavits of notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen presented the request of Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, for a conditional use permit. Edina Community Lutheran Church, generally located south of West 54th Street and west of Halifax Avenue, has applied for a conditional use permit to build a new sanctuary and convert the existing sanctuary into a fellowship hall. The new sanctuary will seat 210 people which is an increase of 23 seats over the present sanctuary. The project includes remodeling the interior of the existing building. The exterior of the new sanctuary will be finished with cedar shakes and stone trim to match the stone on the existing church. The existing building will be re -sided with cedar shakes to match the new addition. Discussion at the Community Development and Planning Commission meeting centered upon where additional parking would be located on the church site. The church property measures 4.73 acres in size. However, much of the area is within the flood plain of Minnehaha Creek. No building or other obstructions may be • placed in the flood plain. Consequently, the only buildable area is the northeasterly portion of the site. All of the proposed construction is above the flood plain elevation. Under certain circumstances, parking could be developed within the flood plain area. However, from staff's point of view it is not a desirable alternative. In looking at other alternatives, it was determined to develop as much parking as possible on the upper area of the church ground and if parking overflowed the capacity of that lot it could locate on West 54th Street where there is adequate street width for parking on both sides and very few homes. �S� f 8/15/88 226 The church's proposal calls for rebuilding the existing parking area to the south • and west of the church:to accommodate 41 cars. The existing parking area is unstriped and accommodates 25-35 cars. With seating for 210 persons, the Zoning Ordinance requires 70 parking spaces. In order to provide the required parking the church would need to locate the.additional parking within the flood plain area. The church has elected to request a parking variance of 29 spaces to avoid disturbing the natural:conditions existing adjacent to the creek. According to church officials the intent of the addition and renovation project is to better accommodate existing needs and not to prepare for any significant increase in congregation size. The seating capacity increase is very modest and the existing building would benefit from the proposed renovation. The building design and the soft, natural materials seem appropriate for the site. The Planning Commission members discussed at length whether to recommend the parking variance and the conditional use permit.or to require a proof of parking agreement. The question arose if there is a proof of parking agreement in place and additional parking is required in the future,. where would those 29 spaces be located. The answer would be in the flood plain which both the church and staff have been trying to avoid. At its meeting of July:27, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit, with a 29 space parking variance as recommended by staff, and that the City and church enter into a proof of parking agreement. Planner Larsen stated that the Planning Commission, staff,.the church, and neighbors all supported the proposed parking variance to avoid disturbing the flood plain areas on the church property. He explained that staff did not recommend the proof of parking agreement for these reasons: 1) The increase in seating capacity is small, only 23 seats. 2). The flood plain area is the only place to develop more parking. This area is approximately 16 feet lower than the existing parking lot make it undesirable parking. 3) Cars can park on both sides of West 54th Street without disrupting traffic flow. 4) Present church activities have not caused problems for the neighborhood. Planner Larsen said that representatives of the church were present,.as well as John Cunningham, project architect. Member Turner asked if all alternatives for parking have been considered. Planner Larsen said there may be room for additional parking in the future if the existing parsonage were removed. Staff also.looked at the possibility of a parking bay adjacent to West 54th Street. However, the level of traffic and the existing width of the street did not seem to warrant that alternative. Staff also looked at public.park land on the south side of West 54th Street and west of Minnehaha Creek as off-site parking; however, that is rather remote to the church. Member Smith asked how a proof of parking agreement would • be handled. Planner Larsen said the standard procedure with regard to a proof of. parking agreement is that the City would hope it would not need to be enforced. The problem with an agreement is if additional parking is proved to be needed the City would require that parking be provided somehow on the site. Here the only . place would be down on:the flood plain. Planner Larsen added that the City and church could enter into a general agreement; similar to that with Colonial Church, whereby the church would work with the City to solve parking problems should they occur in the future. Ann Bishop, 5324 Halifax Avenue,.asked about the impact of traffic in the neighborhood if both sanctuaries are used to capacity. Planner Larsen explained that the Zoning Ordinance says you calculate the demand on traffic and parking based on the largest use assembly which in this case would be so modest that there would be no noticeable increase in traffic. If in the future, both structures were used concurrently, it could have some impact. When the City reviews requests for conditional use permits from schools and churches, staff relies on those institutions telling staff how they operate. Mark Brethein, 5429 Woodcrest Drive, said he was supportive of the church's plan and in favor of the parking variance. He said he was concerned about any option to build parking in'the flood plain as that would be across the creek from his property. Member Smith commented'that he would.like to see some kind of agreement with the church regarding future parking needs. Member Turner said she would not support putting parking in the flood plain. She added that the Council has been tough with churches in recent years regarding their parking requirements; that we should not make an exception here and that there should be some type of agreement. Hember Richards made a motion that approval.of the Conditional Use Permit for Edina Community Lutheran Church be continued to September 19, 1988 and that staff be directed to bring back an agreement regarding future parking needs for approval before the Conditional!Use Permit is granted. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9 1988 APPROVED. Because of the number of persons present regarding Agenda Item VIIIA (Approval of Traffic Safety Committee Minutes), Mayor Courtney declared :this the next item to be heard. Engineer Hoffman reviewed the discussion held at the Traffic Safety Committee • meeting of August 9, 1988 regarding the traffic issues on Halifax Avenue, West 51st through West 54th .Streets and the temporary traffic barricade that had been installed at Halifax and West 51st Street. He recalled that at the July meeting the Committee had recommended that the Council conduct a public hearing on this matter to get input from the residents of Halifax Avenue and the affected surrounding neighborhoods. At its meeting of August 9, 1988, the members 1 1 1 Mr. Ackerberg told the Commissioners he too would like better pedestrian access to the patio; however, liquor license restrictions prevents it and it is difficult to control seating order. Chair Platteter said he supports the project; adding in his opinion it's a great project. Platteter said the Commission viewed this in a "small scale"; however, as redevelopment occurs in the area the Commission may need to think about how these small redevelopments fit into the rest of the area and bigger picture. Platteter noted it appears throughout Edina and the greater Southdale area infills are occurring. Commissioner Carr stated she supports the project; however, was a little hesitant with the exterior materials. Commissioner Forrest also indicated her support for the project. She said in her opinion the SE corner may need enhancement to keep the public engaged. A discussion ensued on the importance of creating an active streetscape and developing an inviting pedestrian experience. There was some discussion on the location of the door; however, Commissioners acknowledged the challenge with door placement when the majority of visitors come by car. All in all, Commissioners agreed it was a nice project. Public Hearing Chair Platteter asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Motion Commissioner Carr moved to recommend final rezoning and final development plan approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions; with the additional comment that the applicant do everything to help encourage engagement with the street. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 9-0. `��Ti-. V11. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan. Edina Community Lutheran Church — 4113 54"' St West. 0\1 Planner Comments Planner Teague reported the Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to build a new sanctuary, kitchen addition and new parking lot on the east side of the existing church. Teague explained the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would provide the same seating capacity as the existing 10 • sanctuary. Teague gave a brief history on the previous proposal, adding the revised plans address concerns previously raised. Teague asked for Commission comments. Appearing for the Applicant Thomas Whitlock and Randy Mo Discussion Commissioner Nemerov asked how close the proposed addition is to the creek. Planner Teague responded that it appears to be over 100 -feet from the creek. Applicant Presentation Randy Mo told the Commission that the site is striking and with graphics explained the layout of the proposed addition(s) and site drainage. Thomas Whitlock presented the landscaping plan and asked the Commission to note that the proposed addition ends at the edge of the existing parking lot. He noted permeable pavers would be implemented throughout where appropriate. Whitlock explained that the neighbor to the east will be heavily buffered through the planting of evergreens, adding this form of landscaping buffer also screens neighbors from headlight wash from vehicles coming or leaving • the parking lots. Concluding, Whitlock said the development team continues to work with the neighbors on landscaping and tree retention. Discussion Commissioner Hobbs noted that drainage and water shed are important issues facing this redevelopment and asked the applicants if they believe the proposal can adequately handle the run-off. Mr. Whitlock said they are working with the Watershed District and believe the plan will address all drainage issues. He explained that the demolition of the parsonage allows for the location of an integrated underground storm water management system below the parking lot. Whitlock said this storm water management system is superior because it eliminated the need for retaining ponds which would result in additional tree loss. Commissioner Carr noted that the parsonage earmarked to be demolished was built in 1949, adding the Heritage Preservation Board may be interested in the demolition. Carr suggested that the applicant take photos of the parsonage to document it. There was a brief discussion on if the Heritage Preservation Board should weigh in on the demolition of the parsonage. Chair Platteter asked the applicants the square footage of the build -out. Mr. Mo responded that total build -out square footage is 26,000 square feet. Chair Platteter commented that this addition creates an opportunity to work with the Watershed District that could provide a better storm water management situation especially since the structure is in close proximity to • the creek. Continuing, Platteter said special attention needs to be paid to screening the addition from the properties to the west. Platteter said he likes the handling of the trash 11 • enclosures He further recommended that the development team look at the project from all angles and consider the build -out in all seasons, leafs, no leafs, minimal leafs etc. to ensure adequate screening from adjoining neighbors. Concluding Platteter said if done correctly the new addition should blend well. • Commissioner Forrest commented that the addition of bike parking stations should be added to the plan. She further noted she agrees with Chair Platteter in supporting the location of the trash enclosure. Continuing, Forrest stated she has a couple issues; one is lighting, two, parking. She asked the applicant to make sure they are sensitive to light wash into the residential neighborhood, pointing out parking lot lighting needs to be done correctly. Forrest also noted that she is concerned with parking on West 54th Street. She pointed out West 54th Street is a bike route and the parking of vehicles along a bike route could raise some issues. Commissioner Nemerov commented that it is difficult finding balance and encouraged the applicants to continue to work with the neighbors in addressing all their concerns. Mr. Whitlock agreed, adding they will continue to work on tree placement, landscaping, access and parking. Commissioner Thorsen commented that parking is an issue and will continue to be an issue; however, circulation and viable access can help mitigate the issue. Chair Platteter thanked Mr. Whitlock and Mo for their presentations. 12 • TO: Leadership & Members of Edina Community Lutheran Church City of Edina, Planning Commission & City Council Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Planning & Projects FROM: Brenda Becker, Edina Resident at 5437 Woodcrest Drive SUBJECT: Concerns & Questions re Proposed Expansion Plan of ECLC DATE: May 26, 2015 A neighborhood update regarding ECLC's revised expansion plans was held at the church early in May. I do appreciate the church's somewhat belated effort to establish communication with its residential neighbors. While I feel the revised plans reflect the fact that the church has listened to some of the rather vehement objections to the previous plan, many of us still have major concerns and a multitude of questions. The church is deeply surrounded on all sides by taxpaying single-family residences. The church has tried in the past and failed to find an expansion plan that would be acceptable to this beautiful, wooded and quiet residential neighborhood. Their current efforts strike me as just one more attempt to fit a BIG church onto a site — and into a neighborhood - that simply does not lend itself to BIG. Each of us who purchased homes in this area bought in with the assumption and understanding that this neighborhood • would continue to reflect and honor its environment. We are, as Edina residents, held to a very high building standard in order to insure that new construction and additions to existing structures will visually and environmentally assimilate into this lovely wooded community. We are, after all, paying the taxes for all. I feel strongly that any structure — private, public, non-profit — should have to adhere to similar standards, in order to insure that this area continue to be a lovely, quiet residential neighborhood. Over and over, I find myself questioning the wisdom — on many levels - of this proposed expansion. As owner of one of about 12-15 houses directly across and downstream from the proposed expansion, I am shocked at the prospect of looking at what appears to me to be an 8,000 square foot massive two-story barn -like addition built onto the very edge of an eroding bluff overlooking our homes. And while the church claims no trees along the creek side immediately adjacent to this structure will need to be cut down and no retaining wall will need be built, I find that difficult to accept as reality. Our homes, as well as homes on all sides of the church, already are invaded nightly by uplighting and outlighting from the existing 16,000 square feet of church structure and surrounding impervious parking area; traffic, headlights, door -slamming and early morning garbage pickups add to the invasion. And now we will have a most obtrusive, monstrous addition staring at us as well. I certainly did not buy my house on this beautiful, wooded section of Minnehaha Creek to look out at a structure that does not blend with the neighborhood. I can't help but question whether this building site and this church's goal to be BIG really are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Could this be why this church has 9 tried and failed so many times to bring their plans to fruition? • At the presentation meeting, I was surprised that the church did not provide its residential neighbors with hard copies of the facts and details presented. It was impossible for us to absorb the information provided so quickly, and we all felt the need for written drawings and details, and more specific answers to questions raised. And I can't help but wonder if the church has conducted studies to determine drainage patterns and how they might affect the surviving trees once the construction has begun? What about the potential impact on the creek from soil erosion and runoff? What might be the ramifications of huge runoffs from the massive new roof structure on the environment and on bluff erosion? Has the Watershed District been involved in determining environmental requirements regarding wildlife? (I know the Watershed District made many recommendations to the church regarding tree replacement for the many dozens of trees the church irreverently chopped down along the creek -bed in 2013 in order to do some minor utility trimming; to my knowledge, none of those recommendations has been followed, which surely raises questions for me of the church's commitment to being good stewards of the land. After attending the church meeting in early May, I left confused as to the exact approval process. Are we "neighbors" really that? Or will we have to carefully monitor this project independently so as not to miss hearings and appear — incorrectly — to be unconcerned. I can only speak for myself in this letter, but, yes, I am concerned. Very concerned. 1�1 0 Teague From: Kristine Donatelle <donatellek@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:13 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Re: ECLC proposal concerns and CUP requests Hi Cary, Could you also forward my email outlining my concerns to City Council members? I want to be sure all Planning Commission members and City Council members are aware of it. I heard that my letter was mentioned, but not discussed at the Planning Commission meeting last night. If you get a chance, could you let me know which night the City Council will review the Sketch Plan next? Thanks, Kristine Donatelle > On May 12, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Cary Teague <cteague@Edina MN.gov> wrote: S(Thanks! > I will put this in front of the Commission tomorrow night. > Cary > Cary Teague, Community Development Director > 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 > 952-826-0460 I Fax 9S2-826-03891 Cell 952-826-0236 cteague@EdinaMN.gov > I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & > Doing Business -----Original Message----- > From: Kristine Donatelle [mailto:donatellek@icloud.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:36 PM > To: Cary Teague > Subject: ECLC proposal concerns and CUP requests > Importance: High > Dear Cary, > Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the new Edina Community Lutheran Church expansion proposal. I live on Woodcrest Drive, directly south of the proposed addition across Minnehaha Creek. My home is situated directly across the creek from the church. Within my view is the existing parking lot and floodlights, surrounding chain link leence, church structure, and refuse bins. > I have the following concerns about the proposed addition that I would like addressed by the Conditional Use Permit and site plans: > - Please add screening for the existing parking tot on the west side of the proposed addition. As it stands, the south �ide neighbors have to look at an unsightly and unconcealed paved parking lot, exposed refuse bins, and a chain link ence in disrepair. Existing tree leaf cover DOES NOT conceal the parking lot 6 months out of the year. This must be addressed for me to consider supporting the proposed addition. I would like to see the proposed new parking lot screening of 4 -foot arborvitae trees continue along the entire parking lot. The unsightly existing chain link fence should also be removed. I would also like the refuse bins to be moved and concealed behind landscape or structural screening. > _ Please modify parking lot lighting for the existing parking lot as well as the newly proposed lot. The existing three parking lot floodlights are very obtrusive, glaring and noticeable from across the creek. I would like to see softer, modified parking lot lighting that is less obtrusive to neighbors and the environment. I am sure the neighbors next to the new parking lot would appreciate that as well. I understand code standards have changed since this harsh lighting was first installed. > - Stormwater runoff and watershed impact. With such a massive new 8,000 -square -foot structure and roof proposed to be constructed on the edge of a steeply eroding hill, I am greatly concerned about foundational support and footings for this new structure and any deck that it includes. Several mature trees stand next to the proposed expansion area and parsonage lot and we prefer that these NOT be removed to make way for this addition. > This wooded area provides habitat and shelter for wildlife like deer, Great Blue Heron, water fowl, mallard ducks, turtles and many other species. We would like to see in detail how the wooded area below the church will be impacted by any necessary retaining wall structures, catch basins, drainage pipes or clearing of trees. We would prefer that no mature trees be removed to make way for this addition as it would be harmful to the peace and enjoyment of neighbors, the community and the wildlife habitat. The trees also help with noise control. > The Watershed District should make every attempt to protect the 50 -foot wetlands buffer along the creek below. OI am wondering if any consideration may be given to reducing the height, size and scope of the addition as it seems ut of proportion to the existing building. > - I am also concerned about the traffic the new parking lot might introduce to the intersection of Halifax and 54th Street and would like to see the results of the prerequisite traffic impact study. > Thank you for considering my concerns and those of other south side neighbors. > Sincerely, > Kristine Donatelle 0 0 Ow Nov z �tity • r�CORPORf`��O • 1888 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII. D. From: Debra Mangen Action x❑ City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: June 2, 2015 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2015-57 Accepting Various Grants & Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by • four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the departments receiving donations for your consideration. Attachments: Resolution No. 2015-57 • City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-57 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed grants and donations on behalf of its citizens. Edina Art Center Mark & Ruth Valgamae $500.00 1 Dated: June 2, 2015 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK Art Center Patron Membership James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 2, 2015, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 40 L' To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: June 2, 2015 Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. • �1�'ottroaf+��� • 1889 Agenda Item #: IX. A. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 0 car "or knV I C ) enc 1� \-A� -tom win �bf Eavlr� , "(% �ast Iotas bean rJ e ex\'aro,-jak:ka ax)A 'S-' Ylcw-e, W -o -A Q to T Aa� '►►) -I�or +Lo- ON aM ex p �tS. `S -a W-Cac aj U. 4V) CJ 0 Hennepin County Public Works Transportation department James N. Grube P.E.; Director 612-596-0300, Phone 1600 Prairie Drive 612-321-3410, Fax Medina, Minnesota 55340 wwvv.hennepin.us/transportation Dear Resident: Notice this is an update to a previous letter regarding bumpouts on Xerxes Avenue. The blocks stated in the letter should have read 5400 to the 6100 blocks of Xerxes Avenue. As a resident of Xerxes Avenue you have observed the recent installation of bumpouts along the street and observed how well they've worked in keeping vehicles away from the curbside along the blocks. While the bumpouts have been largely successful in keeping vehicles away from the curbside, they are not very appealing to the eye. At the suggestion of interested neighbors, the county is sponsoring a meeting at the location and time noted below to discuss possible ways the bumpouts could be improved in appearance. As you prepare to attend the meeting I invite you to bring pictures of small scale landscaping that you believe could be adopted to Xerxes Avenue. One of the fundamental aspects of visual enhancements is ongoing maintenance. To help insure that the bumpouts remain sightly I ask you to consider the implications of an "Adopt a Bumpout" concept. 1 look forward to getting together to consider what we can do with the Xerxes Avenue bumpouts. Sincerely: • Ja es N. Grube, P.E. Transportation Department Director and County Engineer Enclosure cc: Mayor Jim Hovland, City of Edina Council Member Joni Bennett, City of Edina Council Member Linea Palmisano, City of Minneapolis Jan Callison, Hennepin County Commissioner Mark Nolan, City of Edina Chad Milner, City of Edina Jon Wertjes, City of Minneapolis Steve Mosing, City of Minneapolis t u u =; WHAT: Meeting to discuss potential for bumpouts along Xerxes Avenue between 60"' and 54th Streets WHEN: Wednesday, May 27`h, 2015, 6:30-7:30 • WHERE: Edina Community Lutheran Church 4113-54 th Street Fellowship Room Heather Branigin From: Andy Porter <aporter@refinedllc.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:16 AM To: Susan Peterson; Mary Brindle; James Hovland; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; swensonannl@gmail.com; Scott H. Neal; Cindy Larson Subject: RE: Plans for fence/wall at 4419 Grimes teardown? Susan, Our homeowners have decided to install an approximately 20" high retaining wall a few feet off the east property line. The grade from the neighbor to the east to my Clients property is very steep and will likely have erosion control issues. Adding the small wall will shallow up that grade and should help. I assure you the location of the wall/fence will be exclusively on the property at 4419 Grimes. As far as the comments you heard from the workers I cannot confirm/deny that but will have a discussion with them about sharing their opinions. Thank you, Andy Porter Ly Ol c. 612.991.9301 e, ap_orter.(•�refinedllc,com www.REFINEDLLC.com From: Susan Peterson [mailto:feydese@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:27 AM To: Andy Porter; mbrindle@edinamn.gov; ihovland@edinamn.gov; kstaunton@edinamn.gov; rstewart@edinamn.gov; swensonannl@gmail.com; sneal@edinamn.gov; clarson@edinamn.gov Subject: Plans for fence/wall at 4419 Grimes teardown? Andy - Could you please explain why this large trench (see attached photos) has been dug on the southeast section of the lot at 4419 Grimes and how it may relate to plans for a wall/fence? The trench is very close to the property lines of our house, 4060 Sunnyside, and our neighbors at 4058 Sunnyside. It is worth noting that your workers were out here the other day and could be heard talking about it and laughing about how the plans for whatever is going to get built there would really make the neighbors angry. You might advise your clients that is not exactly the way to come into a new neighborhood and make friends. Susan Peterson 0 Heather Branigin • From: Ross Plaetzer<ross@employersolutionsgroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:41 AM To: 'jhovland@krausehovland.com'; 'mail @EdinaMN.gov'; 'kstaunton@EdinaMN.gov'; Irstewart@EdinaMN.gov'; 'mbrindle@comcast.net'; 'swensonannl@gmail.com' Cc: Charlie Gerk; Scott H. Neal; Cary Teague; Monica Mero Subject: Illegal fence at 4419 Grimes Ave. Attachments: SESG 115052105560.pdf; IMG_4297Jpg Dear Mayor Hovland, City Council Members, and staff, I know that you are all familiar with the house being built at 4419 Grimes. Their backyard is our side yard because of the odd shapes of our lot (see attached diagram). You all know that this building process has been a "nightmare" process for the neighbors. We have had an especially difficult time dealing with Refined and its sub -contractor Southview Design. Earlier this year, after a survey, they moved a wooden marker up about 3 feet onto our property and said that was where they were planning on building a fence. In fact, Refined and Southview even had Charlie Gerk from the city hold a string to plan the fence location in what Charlie described to us a "poor man's" survey. We had to threaten Southview Design and Refined with a potential lawsuit to have them resurvey the corner where the post was moved. The new survey of this spot gave us our land back. Now, instead of accepting the established boundary and putting the fence there, apparently they have conspired to come up with another scheme to "gain more privacy" for their client. They are building a small boarder wall that will raise the lot elevation up 2.5-3 feet around the back of the property. They apparently plan to put a six foot fence on top of this boundary wall, thereby artificially creating a 8.5-9 foot fence around the back portion of the lot, which faces the side of our lot. This is illegal in Edina according to Code sections 36.10 and 36-1255. 1 • This is the Edina city code regarding fences— Sec. 36-10. - Definitions "Fence height" means the vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the uppermost point of the fence panels. The grade at the fence line shall not be altered in any way that artificially increases the maximum permitted height of the fence. The height of the fence may exceed the allowed height by a maximum of six inches to accommodate drainage and uneven terrain. Posts may extend beyond the top of any of the fence by no more than 12 inches. Sec. 36-1255. - Fences in the R-1 and R-2 districts. Fences erected in the R-1 and R-2 districts shall conform to the following: (2)No fence shall exceed six feet in height. (3)Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties. ........................ An apparent artificial wall of 2.5-3 feet clearly violates the prohibition that "the grade at the fence line shall not be altered in any way that artificially increases the maximum permitted height [6 feet] of the fence." Refined has continually pushed the neighbors to the breaking point with this build. It feels like we constantly have to defend our property rights in so many ways. We will not stand by while they violate the fence ordinance in such a sneaky way as to artificially increase just a small part of the back lot in order to erect a higher fence. A neighbor overheard a person we think is a team lead for Southview talking with his workers and one said "The neighbors are really going to be p***ed when they sees that fence." They were all laughing about it! This has always been a very friendly neighborhood. I am not sure why anyone would feel the need to erect such a huge fence in a family neighborhood. We request that they city council and their agents make certain that Refined and Southview adhere to the city ordinances regarding maximum fence height. By Refined and Southview's reasoning, a homeowner could build a six foot wall at the property line and then erect a z six foot fence on top of the wall and thereby have a 12 foot barrier at the property line. Clearly, the city ordinances do not contemplate allowing property owners to build 12' spite fences and get away with it. Please help us with this matter ASAP because the workers are already digging the trench for the stone wall and then the fence apparently goes on top of the wall. (see attached photo) The City of Edina must protect the rights of the property owners who are adversely being affected by the builders who try to push the rules to the limits. It is outrageous that we had to finally threaten them with a lawsuit to get our land back after they moved the wooden stake to get our land back. We are further appalled that they have conspired to come up with an alternative plan to raise the fence illegally. They have 300 feet and their back lot line is entirely our side yard. This is absolutely wrong that we might have to look at a huge fence along our entire side lot. (Our lot is a small pie shaped area with about 15 feet at the end of our lot). This would damage our resale and our view. We are requesting that the city go out to the property and review this situation and make it clear to Refined and Southview that a boundary line • fence cannot be artificially raised by building a wall at the boundary line to serve as a raised platform for a fence. Six feet means six feet. We also respectfully request that the house at 4419 Grimes not be given a certificate of occupancy until the rear lot line fence conforms to all city codes. Sincerely, ROSS AND LAURA PLAETZER 14058 SUNNYSIDE ROAD EDINA, MN I CELL: 612.940.4804 • 3 • oor Heather Branigin • From: Common Sense Edina <commonsenseforedina@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:20 PM To: David Nelson Cc: Kevin Staunton; Mary Brindle; James Hovland; Robert Stewart; swensonannl @gmail.com; Scott H. Neal Subject: Common Sense for Edina - Request for a community meeting to discuss recent residental crime issues in Edina Dear Chief Nelson, As you are probably aware there has been an increase in residential crime in the past few weeks primarily in the NE quadrant of Edina. A recent electronic poll on the community blog Nextdoor.com 37 Edina residents requested having a community meeting to discuss the crime concerns of residents. Would it be possible to have a community meeting next week to discuss crime issues? I realize this is a short time frame but residents are concerned and would like to hear from the police. I would appreciate a timely response. Thank you. Regards, David Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive • Edina 55424 612-237-1966 The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. Robert Peel • 1 Heather Branigin • From: David Arbit <davida@mplsrealtor.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:32 PM To: James Hovland; Scott H. Neal; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle; 'swensonannl@gmail.com'; Edina Mail Subject: April 2015 Housing Market Update Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of the Council: April 2015 marked a historic milestone for the Twin Cities real estate market. Pending sales surged 26.0 percent in the metro and have reached levels not seen since June 2005. That's a nearly 10 -year record high for consumer demand. This signals strong consumer confidence mixed with a bit of proactive purchasing before rates increase. Rising rents, job growth and finally some wage growth are also fueling the strong demand. Given persistently low inventory levels, many consumers are still frustrated by the lack of options. Here are some specifics on your community. • New Listings in Edina decreased 8.5 percent to 161. • Pending Sales were down 12.4 percent to 92. • Closed Sales decreased 1.3 percent to 75. • Days on Market was down 13.0 percent to 94 days. • The Median Sales Price increased 12.1 percent to $400,000. • Inventory levels grew 22.8 percent to 393 homes. • Percent of List Price Received at Sale decreased 1.3 percent to 97.4 percent. • Months Supply of Inventory was up 25.0 percent to 5.0 months. • Distressed sales made up 4.0 percent of all Closed Sales. • • Single -Family homes made up 61.6 percent of all Closed Sales. • New construction properties made up 8.1 percent of all Closed Sales. The 13 -county metro has now enjoyed 38 consecutive months of year -over -year price gains. The median home price is now about 8.4 percent below its peak reached in 2006. But housing also relies heavily on the economy. At 4.0 percent, the Twin Cities MSA currently has the fifth lowest unemployment rate of any major metro area. We've also added enough jobs since the Great Recession to surpass our previous employment peak, according to DEED data. In the spirit of Garrison Keillor, most measures of the Minnesota economy are well above average. Here is the link to your local report: hftp://maar.stats.1 Okresearch.com/docs/Imu/x/edina. It highlights buyer and seller activity as well as other housing indicators such as home prices, days on market and absorption rates in Edina. The Twin Cities Metro report can be found here: http://maar.stats.1Okresearch,com/docs/Imu/x/TwinCiti6sRegion. If you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Also, be sure to check out all of the market reports on our website - http://www.mplsrealtor.com. Thank you! Enjoy the holiday weekend, David Arbit, MCRP Research Manager Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORSO 5750 Lincoln Drive - Edina, MN 55436 USA P:952-988-3150 1 F:952-908-2646 MAAR I Market Reports • QUO ON F j+/FN UMina Federated Women's Club 1 GFWC Edina J ub& CLit, J&,j $5,MV cPce& ij pwented to Edina J uric tbd f wm .The Edina gedevated Wotnen',3 Md.gfii/i donation b a ffi wcau, funded / ' I / / ' ofUinu'6 ' . t w ,,jawe / t I . that &6 9* 11 & Edina cWzem to. enjo* with the poj1.3i64&q of the eW r t f t AUth4ft' t ♦ 't / pwljedal.3 the r // • t / .it ij the efid,.jUfb/ to, kept ♦ t • of the / tanning and dewt 'C the gift'13 tm' C / f Sctdptaw. Susan Smith a1 PuecacntPvwpV C'hah 204-205 , ♦ rf• t ♦ / May 21, 2015 The Honorable James Hovland Mayor, City of Edina City Hall 4801 West 50'' Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland: I INN09Wil t1i la9l ON= Community: City of Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota Community No.: 270160 This is in response to an e-mail dated September 18, 2012 from Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner for the City of Edina, an e-mail dated June 24, 2013 from Laura Adler, Water Resources Coordinator, and comments made at the Preliminary DFIRM Community Coordination (PDCC) Meeting on May 25, 2006, regarding road name changes, cases on the revised preliminary SOMA, and lake delineations as presented on the revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated August 17, 2012 and the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated December 31, 2005. Please note that only those submittals that relate to the addition or modification of the proposed flood hazard information (i.e., Base Flood Elevations, base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area boundaries, zone designations, or regulatory floodways) shown on the FIRM and in the report that satisfy the data requirements defined in Title 44, Chapter I, Part 67 of the Code of Federal Regulations are considered appeals. Because your submittal did not meet these criteria, FEMA has processed it as a `comment.' We have determined that the specified road name and labeling change requests will be made to the revised FIRMs and the unnamed pond delineations on map panel 27053C0363F have been fixed by the update to aerial basemap imagery. The cases that were requested to be revalidated have been placed in Category 2 on the SOMA with the exception of 13-05-2444A. Due to an increase in BFEs for this portion of Nine Mile Creek this determination will be superseded. Once we have incorporated the aforementioned changes, we will proceed with finalizing the FIRM and FIS report. Please submit any comments regarding this resolution within 30 days of the date of this letter to the following address: FEMA Region V Mitigation Division 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60605 Attention: Bill Heyse, Regional Engineer www.fema.gov 0 Pi is U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region V 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60605 a�cir, r\e ti z z o�f��NO FEMA 56GJh. I INN09Wil t1i la9l ON= Community: City of Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota Community No.: 270160 This is in response to an e-mail dated September 18, 2012 from Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner for the City of Edina, an e-mail dated June 24, 2013 from Laura Adler, Water Resources Coordinator, and comments made at the Preliminary DFIRM Community Coordination (PDCC) Meeting on May 25, 2006, regarding road name changes, cases on the revised preliminary SOMA, and lake delineations as presented on the revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated August 17, 2012 and the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated December 31, 2005. Please note that only those submittals that relate to the addition or modification of the proposed flood hazard information (i.e., Base Flood Elevations, base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area boundaries, zone designations, or regulatory floodways) shown on the FIRM and in the report that satisfy the data requirements defined in Title 44, Chapter I, Part 67 of the Code of Federal Regulations are considered appeals. Because your submittal did not meet these criteria, FEMA has processed it as a `comment.' We have determined that the specified road name and labeling change requests will be made to the revised FIRMs and the unnamed pond delineations on map panel 27053C0363F have been fixed by the update to aerial basemap imagery. The cases that were requested to be revalidated have been placed in Category 2 on the SOMA with the exception of 13-05-2444A. Due to an increase in BFEs for this portion of Nine Mile Creek this determination will be superseded. Once we have incorporated the aforementioned changes, we will proceed with finalizing the FIRM and FIS report. Please submit any comments regarding this resolution within 30 days of the date of this letter to the following address: FEMA Region V Mitigation Division 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60605 Attention: Bill Heyse, Regional Engineer www.fema.gov 0 Pi is • At the end of the 30 -day period, FEMA will address any additional comments that are submitted. FEMA will then finalize the FIRM and FIS report by issuing a Letter of Final Determination (LFD). The LFD will explain the adoption/compliance process and will state when the FIRM and FIS report will become effective. We appreciate your community's comments and commitment to having the most accurate flood hazard information available reflected on the FIRM and in the FIS report. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bill Heyse of my office either by telephone at (312) 408-5323 or by e-mail at WilliamHeyse@fema.dhs.gov. Enclosure: Laura Adler E-mail Sincerely, 6111 .16b Christine Stack Director, Mitigation Division FEMA Region V cc: Scott Neil, City Manager, City of Edina • Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner, City of Edina Laura Adler, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Edina Ceil Strauss, Minnesota State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator is www.feina.gov Czajkowski, Eric M • From: Murphy, William C Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:12 PM To: Czajkowski, Eric M Subject: FW: Edina, MN Preliminary Summary of Map Actions Attachments: 5528 5530 Malibu Dr LOMA.pdf; 20040820 FEMA Revalidation.pdf; 3919 42nd St W LOMA.pdf; 80 Woodland Cir LOMR FW.pdf; 6808 Brook Drive LOMA Approval.pdf; 6412 Aspen Rd LOMA.pdf; 5537 Park PI LOMA.pdf; 5548 Malibu Dr LOMA.pdf; 5550 Malibu Dr LOMA.pdf Categories: MN -Hennepin County From: Laura Adler [mailto:LAdler(abEdinaMN.gov] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:00 PM To: Murphy, William C Subject: Edina, MN Preliminary Summary of Map Actions Hi Bo, Some time ago, Edina received a letter explaining what would happen to existing LOMAs when the FIRMs were revised. It also asked for additional information on a few LOMAs that FEMA did not have. I have attached a number of LOMAs to this email, with descriptions below. Missing LOMAs: • 5530 Malibu Dr 05-05-3728 4804 E Sunnyslope Rd Revalidation letter from 2004 From "LOMCs Superseded" section: 4804 E Sunnyslope Rd Revalidation letter from 2004 LOMAs that have been issued since the 8/14/12 letter, we would like to make sure that these will be revalidated with new FIRMs: 3919 W 42nd St 12-05-8263A 80 Woodland Cir 12-05-0671A 6808 Brook Dr 13-05-1988A 6412 Aspen Rd 13-05-2444A 5537 Park Place 12-05-2142A Miscellaneous: 5548 Malibu Dr 05-05-0878A (This was provided by the resident, who said FEMA told her she did not have a LOMA. She is one side of a twin home, and the case number is the same as her neighbor at 5550 Malibu Dr, also attached.) Please let me know if you need any more information. • 1 Laura Adler, Water Resources Coordinator 952-826-0445 1 Fax 952-826-0392 LAderCa)EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email. • 0 Heather Branigin From: Montgomery, Matthew <MMontgomery@UtilityService.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:56 PM To: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Utility Service Group (USG) - Water Valve and Fire Hydrant Condition Assessment Services Attachments: December2014OpfIow.pdf; USG_OceanCityMD_CaseStudy.pdf; USG_Valve_Hydrant_ 2014. pdf Dear Mayor Hovland and Council Members. As a new citizen of Edina and the new regional Water System Consultant for USG I would like to meet with you to discuss some of the many Water Utility Asset Management programs USG offers such as Distribution System monitoring, well maintenance and water tank maintenance. It has come to my attention that the City of Edina is performing fire hydrant maintenance this year. Utility Service Group has an extensive valve and hydrant maintenance program that can • Mitigate risk against deficient assets • Improved emergency response time • Extended life of assets as well as develop a prioritized repair and replacement plan for the city. I have attached some literature and case studies about our valve and hydrant programs for you to reference. Please let me know if you would like me to come meet with you and discuss these services further as many of them could assist in Edina maintaining and improving its water distribution system as a whole. Regards • Matt Montgomery Water System Consultant 0111 Mobile: 612-816-3235 MMont�ry(cDUtilityService.com utilityservice.com Tank Asset Mgt. I Tank Condition Assessment I Tank Rehabilitation I Ice Pigging I Thm Removal I Water Mix I Chemical Cleaning I Water Well Asset Mqt. I Water Well Rehab I Valve & Hydrant Asset Mgt. I G.I.S. Asset Mgt. I Leak Detection Services I Smart Metering I Communications • 0 May 25, 2015 I hope your day is going well? noticed that you have planted tulips on the corners of France. They are pretty. We had tulips and the first year my Dad accidently mowed them down. The next year they bloomed again and had multiplied themselves. So each year Dad mowed them down. You may want to consider mowing the tulips down at the end of the season and see what happens the following year. Are you planning on adding more flowers for us to enjoy the Summer months or plants. Next: Along the center medium are metal sticks that look like lighting. Why? They look strange. Have a successful day! Sincerely, Mrs. Wendy Johnson 3118 West 90th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 • 952-920-0863 c: Heather Branigin • From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: I will be there as well. James B. Hovland, Esquire HOVLAND & RASMUS, PLLC Southdale Office Centre 6800 France Avenue S., Suite 190 Edina, MN 55435 ihoviand@hovlandrasmus.com Phone: (612) 874-8550 Direct: (612) 874-8551 Fax: (612) 874-9362 Cell: (612) 961-6192 James Hovland <jhovland@hovlandrasmus.com> Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:45 PM Mitchell, David L.; Scott H. Neal James Hovland; mark.mccary@cbre.com; caryschilling@gmail.com RE: Arden Park Roadway Reconstruction - Bruce Avenue, Bruce Place Issues From: Mitchell, David L.[mailto:DMitchell@RobinsKaplan. com] . Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:01 AM To: snealaedinamn.gov Cc: jhovland(c EdinaMN.gov; James Hovland; mark.mccary(d�cbre.com; caryschilling@gmail.com Subject: [PossibleSpam] Arden Park Roadway Reconstruction - Bruce Avenue, Bruce Place Issues Dear Mr. Neal: Mark McCary, Cary Schilling and I are scheduled to meet with you on Thursday, May 28 at 8:30 AM. Attached is a memo prepared in anticipation of our meeting which outlines the 2 concerns of the residents of Bruce Avenue and Bruce Place. We look forward to meeting with you on Thursday. Regards, David David L. Mitchell Robins Kaplan I.A.P 1 800 LaSalle Avenue I Suite 2800 1 Minnealiolis, MN 55402 p 612 349 8282 1 f 612 339 41811 DMitchel1@RobinsKap1an.comi I3.obinsKaplan.com • 1 Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. • If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax -related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Robins Kaplan LLP . http://www.robinskgplan.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9765 - Release Date: 05/13/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. C] MEMORANDUM 0 To: Scott Neal, City Manager City of Edina From: David L. Mitchell, 5011 Bruce Avenue Date: May 22, 2015 Re: Bruce Avenue, Bruce Place Issues Mr. Neal: The residents of Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street and Bruce Place are upset and frustrated with 2 aspects of the Arden Park Road and Sewer Reconstruction project: • Narrowing the width of the Bruce Place cul de sac • Restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue The City's decisions on these matters seem arbitrary to the residents for the following reasons: • They are not based on any historical evidence of parking or traffic problems on Bruce Avenue or the experience of residents of Bruce Avenue and the Bruce Place cul de sac who live with it on a daily basis. • They are not based on any third party evidence or research presented by or cited to by City staff. Nowhere in the Edina Engineering Department's November 2014 Study or in any prior presentation concerning the Arden Park streets project does anyone state (or reference any authority that says) "if you reduce the width of a local street to 27 feet, you must/ should limit parking to one side of the street." They are not based on Edina's Living Streets Plan, adopted by the City Council at the May 6, 2015 meeting. That Plan neither requires nor necessarily recommends one -side parking on 27 foot wide streets. The Plan provides that in the case of Local Streets of 27 foot width, the parking options are "None, one or both sides of the street, depending on context."' No reason was articulated for restricting parking to one side of Bruce. The decision regarding parking was not based on a City-wide policy decision of the Council to limit parking to one side of all 27 -foot wide streets in the City. I On -street parking is one of the traffic calming measures listed in the Living Streets Plan as appropriate for Local Streets. is 85881799.4 • May 26, 2015 Page 2 • The decisions were made with absolutely no resident support for the changes but rather unanimous opposition of the residents. Parking on One -side Only Until the November 2014 Engineering Study, no earlier City presentation addressed the parking configuration of a 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue. The width of Bruce Avenue was itself a "moving target" in the months leading up to the City Council's December 2014 meeting. As of July 31, 2014, Bruce Avenue was depicted as a 24 -foot wide street and City staff so stated in response to a resident's question at that time. While a City Proposed Schematic Street Plan dated September 22, 2014 later depicted Bruce Avenue as being 27 feet wide, the companion City presentation of the same date was silent as to both the width and the parking rules planned for Bruce Avenue. Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street is a unique, curved one and one half block street with a hill beginning at the intersection with Bruce Place and winding down to Arden Avenue. As provided in the Living Streets Plan, [a]lthough many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood... natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate these differences, the City will ...Seek input from stakeholders [and] Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character." Bruce Avenue residents strongly believe that their concerns and input have been ignored. Restricted parking to the east side of the street will not only be an inconvenience for the residents, their guests and service vehicles, but will instead create more safety issues for pedestrians. The north half of the east side of Bruce already has many feet of natural "no parking" areas: the feet before the stop sign on 50th Street, the number of driveway entrances, the increased number of fire hydrants and required adjacent "no parking" areas. Because many of the driveways on Bruce are short, there is a need for parking on both sides of the street. By limiting parking to the east side of the street, Bruce Avenue residents will have less than 1/2 on -street parking space per house on the entire street. As noted above, on -street parking is considered an appropriate traffic calming measure in the Living Streets Plan. The residents strongly believe that restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue will create, rather than ameliorate, safety concerns. With or without parking on the west side, because of the curvature of Bruce Avenue, a pedestrian's or bicyclist's vision of on -coming traffic from either direction is 85881799.4 May 26, 2015 Page 3 un -obstructed. However, by reason of the elimination of parking on the west side, cars traveling in both directions will likely travel faster on Bruce.2 We believe that the foregoing reasons provide the "context" that merit Bruce Avenue being treated differently from others in the neighborhood. Bruce Place Cul de Sac In its November 2014 Engineering Study, City engineering staff stated as follows: "The existing pavement footprints of the cul-de-sacs for Bruce Avenue and Gorgas Avenue are larger than necessary." The Bruce residents who live on and experience the cul de sac 365 days a year STRONGLY disagree with this statement. They routinely experience the difficulties encountered by large vehicles (e.g., waste management trucks, lawn maintenance trucks and trailers, FED EX trucks, etc.) trying to turn around or park in the cul de sac. The prospect of an even smaller -10 feet smaller (5' on each side) - footprint creates the likelihood that these large vehicles will now have to BACK THEIR WAY OUT of the cul de sac into on -coming Bruce Avenue traffic. This is a HUGE SAFETY CONCERN of the residents. Children and pets are not readily visible to large vehicles traveling in reverse. Moreover, given the reduced number of parking spaces that would be available on Bruce if one -side only parking is imposed, guests and invitees of cul de sac residents will have much farther to walk to their destinations in the cul de sac, again, a safety issue for pedestrians. The problems for such pedestrians are only excerbated by snow piles and winter conditions. There is a significant difference in the cul de sacs for Bruce and Gorgas. There are no homes on over one-half of the Gorgas "circle" whereas the Bruce cul de sac is surrounded entirely by homes. More homes and more resultant traffic require a larger footprint on Bruce than on Gorgas. As reflected in the minutes of the City Council's December 9, 2014 meeting, when questioned by Council Members about the reduced size of the cul de sacs and the effect on driveways, Chad Millner answered that "the cu -de -sacs were being reduced by three to four feet and the City would work with the property owners to mitigate impacts." Residents of the Bruce cul de sac report that their concerns expressed regarding the reduction in footprint, based on their experiences of having lived on the cul de sac for many years, were, in fact, totally ignored by the City's engineering staff. There was z The 20' allocated to travel lanes on Bruce Avenue after completion of the project is actually greater than the 16' allocated to travel lanes on the former 30'wide street with permitted parking on both sides. 0 85881799.4 Is May 26, 2015 Page 4 absolutely NO EFFORT made by City staff to engage the affected residents and to demonstrate how things would work in a smaller cul de sac. Given their long time experience in living on Bruce Avenue, the residents believe that the City's decisions to narrow the Bruce Place cul de sac and to restrict parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue, both decisions made ostensibly to promote safety, will actually have the opposite effect of creating more safety issues. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City do the following: 1. Construct the Bruce Place cul de sac at its pre -project width; and 2. When the new 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue is completed, permit parking on both sides of this unique one and one half block street. 85881799.4 If after one year, specific and measurable evidence is presented that parking on both sides has resulted in increased safety problems or issues, then consider instituting parking limited to one side of Bruce. Heather Branigin • From: Common Sense Edina <commonsenseforedina@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:56 AM To: Kevin Staunton; Mary Brindle; James Hovland; Robert Stewart; swensonannl @gmail.com; Scott H. Neal Subject: Common Sense for Edina - Smart Cities Resources: Who, What, When, Where and How? (from Govtech.com) http: //www. g ovtech. com/blogs/lohnnann-on-cybersecurity/Smart-Cities-Resources-Who-What-When- Where- and-How.html According to Gartner, a smart city is: "An urbanized area where multiple sectors cooperate to achieve sustainable outcomes through the analysis of contextual, real-time information shared among sector -specific information and operational technology systems." Or, in simpler terms, smart cities use the latest technology, and es 9ecially our data explosion, to address broad questions like: How can I make - : 1 � P I . ? David Frenkel • 0 Heather Branigin From: Phil Mero <phil.mero@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:54 PM To: Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Monica Mero; Ross Bintner; Cindy Larson; Scott H. Neal; Andy Porter; James Hovland Subject: Re: 4419 Grimes Attachments: 4419 driveway.jpg Thanks Mary. Looked for the house you are referencing and wasn't able to find. Would you have an address? As you will see in this photo, the stone foundation that has been installed is just that, foundation. It is in no way a retaining wall, as it stops at the point where the driveway will be laid. That, in turn is the point of contention for us with this mind-boggling driveway design. In the photo you will notice the driveway CLIFF that has been created that falls off 10-12 feet into our backyard. That is directly where I place our backyard hockey rink every winter. I would hate to see a car end up in our backyard with a rink full of kids, etc. Again, even if we are looking at .01 % chance of the neighbor accidentally stepping on the gas, hitting an ice patch, driving tipsy, driving distracted, etc there needs to be some sort of barrier to ensure that a 'runaway' vehicle does not impede our property, risking the safety of our children and property. Landscaping would be appreciated, but we need to see a plan for some sort of solid barrier on the southeast corner of the driveway to ensure the safety of our family/property. .If this can't happen, we strongly believe that the best solution would be for the builder to have to relocate the garage doors to the front of the garage facing the street. Seeing as both builder and city made a major gaffe in allowing for this design to be executed, we will hope that this can be considered. Finding a formidable solution to this issue would actually serve as a wonderful PR platform for the city, showing their constituents how they course corrected a major mistake on behalf of a neighbor and longtime resident. You've been able to support our neighbors and friends the Plaetzer's, we are asking for the same. I am including the builder in this note as timing is of the essence. Thanks in advance. Phil and Monica Mero On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mary Brindle <mbrindle(a�comcast.net> wrote: Hello Monica and Phil, I wanted to touch base with you since you have both sent messages since we met in your front yard. As for a barrier at the edge of the new driveway, I recall that a row of shrubs or trees was discussed when we •were together. It was mentioned that the driver would feel the vegetation as they approach the edge of the driveway. A curb edge that would be similar to the curb along your driveway was also discussed. I won't suggest that I can provide a design for either of these, just that these ideas were discussed. Over the weekend, I drove past a home with a similar approach to the garage. The lot size and front yard measurements seemed to be similar to 4419 Grimes. I did not stop in. The home is located in Edina on 44th Street, a block or two West of France Avenue. It is located on the North side of 44th Street. This home has a double garage as I recall. The overall garage approach appears similar to me. If you are in the area, you might drive by to see how it compares to the the project next door to your home. Mary Brindle mbrindle@comcast.net 612-270-9887 call or text Sincerely - Phil Mero 612.963.0852 0 • I COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF WAJIR 1'elrl>iione: rmtrl: al)di78@)gnwA.com \Vhen replying, please Quote our kel'& Date Ref: 0DG/c0 RR./N'0LI/(1) Honorable Janes Hovland, Mayor of Edina 1801 West 5011' Street Edith, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Havland, REF: POSITIVE RECEPTION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR WAAR COUNTY 110 Bm 9- 70200 WAA R IF)"' May 2015 On behalf of the Wajir people to Kenya and in Minnesota, i would like to express my sincere appreciation to you and your staff for meeting with us during our three week visitation of your City of Edina and Minnesota. We found many prograrns and best practices on capacity building and leadership we would like to implement in Wajir. The tours and meetings .it the City of Edina's City Council, Fire Station, Pari( and Recreation, Water 'f'reatment Facility, and other places allowed us to learn more about governance and infrastl'IICtU1711, develOPITieni. Our visits to Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, and University of idlinnesota were very informative. I hope we will be able to contintae Our relationship with the City of Edina as Wajir seer( to be a national model in Kenya for positive development. Sincerely yours; H.F f? BDIHAFI D A. VAII%')W BF-PUTY GOVERNOR 0 • • 0 COUNTY GOYERNNIENT OF WARR Telephone: Email: abdi7R(ggm:ulxom When replying, please i �uolL our Ref & Date Reh llonorable Council Members, city Council of Edina 1001 West 5011, stz•eet Edina, MN 554.24 Lear Members of the Council, REF: APPRECIATION OFFICE OF TH6 DEPUTY GOVERNOR WA11R COUNTY P 0 Dos 9 - 70200 WA.1111 15t1' May 2015 On behalf of the Wajir people in Kenya and in Minnesota, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to you for meeting with us during our three week visitation of your City of Edina and Minnesota. We found many programs and best practices on capacity building and leadership we would like to implement in Wajir. The tours and meetings at the City of Edina's City COLInCil, Fire Station, Park and Recreation, Water Treatment Facility, and other places allowed us to learn more about governance and infrastructural development. Our visits to Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, and Univ: rsity of Minnesota were i+ery informative. 1 hope we will be able to continue our relationship with the City of Edina as Wajir seek to be a national model in Kenya for positive development. Sincerelyyuurs, (_Ll_ ILE AQDIHAFID A. YAROW DEPUTY GOVERNOR Heather Branigin From: Clare Hahneman <clhahneman@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:49 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: Kevin Staunton Subject: Traffic Concern on Sunnyside Road I live at 4047 Sunnyside Road and I am getting increasingly concerned about the speed at which drivers are flying down my street. I am not sure why such a residential street is rated at 30 MPH when other 30 MPH streets have a double yellow line and are much wider, it seems given the amount of children in the neighborhood to be asking for a major life/safety issue. But be that as it may, with the addition of Hello Pizza and now the work on Highway 100 and Highway 5, there is a notable increase in the amount of cars, and the traffic creates frustrated drivers who speed more than normal down the road. What can we do to make remind drivers to slow down? Speed bump? One of those speed tracking signs? More police presence and ticketing? I would think that a stop sign at the intersection with Townes or Curve Road would the best long-term solution, but I don't know how to go about requesting that through the appropriate channels. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, Clare C7 U 0 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: June 2, 2015 Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. k- UJ r A'�v •'�o�RYOR!'�'r'9 • 188fl Agenda Item #: IX. A. Action ❑x Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last packet was delivered to Council Members. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • Heather Branigin From: Stephanie K. Mullaney <stephaniemullaney@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:42 AM To: Edina Mail Cc: Scott H. Neal Subject: Letter to the Council Attachments: Letter- M ay-26.docx Please include this letter in the correspondence packet. Please let me know you got this since I had trouble sending files last time. Thank you Stephanie Mullaney • May 28, 2015 To Edina City Council and Scott Neal, I am writing to express my deep disappointment in the Grandview development process. What I have discovered through research and have seen in the last six months has lead me to the conclusion that the Council believes citizen feedback is not considered important or relevant. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT From December 4 to the present, I have participated and monitored the public engagement process. This process has consisted of primarily one-way communication, a lack of reporting of public input, and a lack of using resident feedback in the decision making process. ■ The data from the December 4 meeting was misrepresented. ■ The data from the December 4 meeting was not presented or used in the decision making process about Grandview. • ■ The data from the January15 meeting was not presented or used in the decision making process about Grandview. • ■ The data from Speak Up, Edina! through the end of February was not presented or used in the decision making process about Grandview. ■ Information about the March 11 meeting was misrepresented. ■ Data from the March 11 meeting was not presented or used in the decision making process about Grandview. ■ Data from the March Speak Up, Edina! was not presented or used in decision making. ■ Data from the April 22 meeting was not presented or used in the decision making process. ■ Detailed documents from Public Grandview, including a community center proposal, summary of public feedback and Framework shortcomings were not acknowledged or considered during the decision making process. THE FRAMEWORK • The Council has consistently stated that the Grandview development process is following the Framework. This is not the case. Documentation supplied by Public Grandview (http://bit.lyliHoghnw) examines the Framework versus the process. The above document points to many elements in the Framework that have not been adhered to in the areas of processdesigrn and function. There has been no response to date about the discrepancies. DECISION MAKING PROCESS Instead of a methodical and data -driven process, the Council's decision-making process appears to be based on individual preferences. During the April 7 city council meeting and the May 19 work session, the Council was not presented, nor asked for, any public feedback data about Grandview. Instead, the format consisted of a long presentation followed by Council members stating their individual preferences about the site. There has been no clear process to determine programming of the civic building (as called out in the Framework): • ■ No market analysis. There is no shortage of performing arts centers in the Twin Cities and each are experiencing significant operating losses and dwindling patron numbers both for attendance and charitable contributions. ■ No data analysis to determine what the public wants ■ No feasibility/ cost analysis If the James Sewell Ballet is chosen as a tenant, the Council should take into consideration that the organization lost over $215,000 in FYE 2013. It also has a financial transparency score notably lower than its peers. PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION AND MISTRUST As stated in Public Grandview's document (http://bit.ly/iHoghnw), there is public dissatisfaction with the Council and its decision making process. In a recent Next Door poll, 67% of respondents do not approve of the City's handling of the Grandview process. is In 2-o16 Edina City Council elections, incumbent candidates will surely be judged by their lack of listening to Edina residents, privatization of the site, unwanted high density development and the absence of any methodical process in determining the future of this rare piece of public land. Stephanie Mullaney r: Heather Branigin From: Janet Canton Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:25 PM To: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; 'swensonannl @gmail.com'; Asef C; Brenda McCormick; Cathy C; Daniel G; Ellen J; Gerard G; Graham C; Greg G; Julie S; Louise S; Susan J Subject: Ribbon -Cutting Ceremony for Garden Park and Countryside Park Baseball Fields Attachments: Garden Park and Countryside Park Ribbon -Cutting Ceremony.docx Hello, Attached is an invitation for a ribbon -cutting ceremony for the baseball fields at Garden Park and Countryside Park. Thankyou! Janet Canton, Administrative Support Specialist p' 952-826-0435 1 Fax 952-826-0385 JCanton(a)EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaParks.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business For the latest information on the department that builds community through people, parks and programs, check out our blog. • You are invited to come join in the fun and celebration as we have a ribbon -cutting ceremony to re -open two newly renovated baseball fields! Garden Park Baseball Field Date: Friday, June 5 Time: 6 p.m. Where: Garden Park (5520 Hansen Rd.) Countryside Park Baseball Field Date: Saturday, June 6 Time: 10 a.m. Where: Countryside Park (6240 Tracy Ave. S.) The ribbon -cutting ceremony will be followed by a baseball game to re -open these renovated fields. The renovation was a cooperation between the City of Edina and the Edina Baseball Association along with the Twins Field Grant and many others who helped with these great • projects. "Play Ball"! • Heather Branigin From: Claudette.Pinkney@hklaw.com Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:17 PM Subject: Broadband Conference Update Attachments: Broadband Conference Update.docx Claudette Pinkney I Holland & Knight Sr Legal Secretary 800 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 1 Washington DC 20006 Phone 202.419.2513 1 Fax 202.955.5564 claudette.pinkney@hklaw.com I www.hklaw.com Add to address book NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co -counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality. r 1 U 0 May 29, 2014 Dear Mayor: Please join Miguel A. Gamino, City CIO of San Francisco in an important roundtable discussion on Broadband Strategies for Municipalities. Date and Time: June 18th -1:00 PM - 4:30 PM Pacific Location: San Diego Room Milton Marks Conference Center 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Lower Level San Francisco, CA 94102 This building is across the street from City Hall. This roundtable discussion will be joined by: *Susan Crawford, Former Special Assistant to the President for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy and co-author of The Responsive City: Engaging Communities through Data -Smart Governance. Other CIO's and Mayors who will discuss their broadband strategies and challenges. This conference is an opportunity for all CIO's and Mayors to develop a strategic understanding of the future of broadband deployment. Please also pass this informal invitation on to your City's CIO or other staff who might benefit from this important discussion. *** Formal invitations and registration will be available on line Wednesday, June 3, 2015. Dear Mayor James Hovland, It is an honor to announce that Edina will be recognized as a Minnesota GreenStep City and will receive a certificate honoring efforts to date for continued participation at the League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference on Friday, June 26'b during a special GreenStep Cities Breakfast in Duluth. Your award shows that Edina is taking great steps in the direction of energy and resource sustainability. We expect 450 attendees at the GreenStep Cities Breakfast, which runs from 8:00 to 9:30am and includes a presentation from meteorologist Paul Douglas. GreenStep Cities participants in attendance will be recognized and asked to gather for both a group photo and individual city photos. During the city photos portion Edina will be presented with a certificate honoring efforts to date. Cities unable to attend will have their award delivered to them at a later time. You should plan on attending the entire event June 24-26 at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center (DECC) with a strong showing of city representatives, including your GreenStep Coordinator, Ross Bintner! There will be workshops related to GreenStep Cities on Thursday, June 25' including Community Solar Gardens, Climate Resilience, and Sustainable Infrastructure and Complete Streets. You can see the agenda and register to attend at ww-w.lmc. org/ ac 15home. If you and others from Edina can only attend the GreenStep breakfast, please email Jamie Oxley at ioxleylmc.oq by June 12th and we'll pay for your breakfast and have nametags ready for you at registration. Representatives of Minnesota GreenStep Cities at the 2014 LAIC Annual Conference Your leadership and efforts are supporting a stronger community and a better environment for all of your city's residents, businesses, and institutions, current and future. Thank youl Sincerely, f&* i Philipp Muessig GreenStep Cities Director i i Minnesota GreenStep Cities Moral Mind Management PO Box 569 Muncie, IN, 47308-0569 June, 1, 2015 James Hovland Mayor Edina Mayor Office 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424 Dear James Hovland, My name is Javonta Jones, Executive Director of Moral Mind Management in Muncie, Indiana. Moral Mind Management is an organization serving at -risk high-school students in the Muncie area by providing positive experiences through structured programming. At the core of our programs are our all - expenses -paid museum trips that we offer to students in our program. Over the course of a year and a half, we visit five culturally relevant museums related to history, science, and the arts. Through these visits, students are exposed to extraordinary ideas and spaces that they otherwise would not have had access to. I am writing you today because our organization is seeking micro -donations from cities around the U.S. to offset the cost of our museum trips. For a donation of $100, your city can help engage youth in ways that broaden their horizons and give them hope. Though $100 may not sound like a lot, for our • students—many of whom live below the poverty level—every dollar counts. Combined with donations from other cities, as well as support from our own community, Moral Mind Management can successfully provide funding for museum admission, transportation costs, and food expenses. We understand that most cities are focused on local -impact programming; however, if our program is successful, we hope it could serve as a model for all U.S. cities looking to increase cultural experiences for their youth. As an additional expression of our appreciation, we would reward your donation by including your city under our list of partners on our website as well as our brochure. To donate, please make out checks to Moral Mind Management and mail to PO Box 569 Muncie, IN, 47308-0569. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you might have. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Javonta Jones Executive Director, Moral Mind Management 765-716-5070 moralmindmanagement@gmail.com www.moralmindmanagement.com 40 Heather Branigin From: Charles Gits <charliegits@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 3:59 PM To: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; swensonannl @gmail,com Subject: Blake Woods proposal Attachments: 008.J PG Mayor Hovland and Councilpersons Brindle, Staunton, Stewart and Swenson, Before you render a decision on the Blake Woods development proposal we are asking for your consideration of its impact on us and clarity on a few issues. We have lived on Evanswood Lane for 16 years. Our house fronts Evanswood Lane. A new city street will be built 33 ft. from the back of our home. It will be singular to Parkwood Knolls and very rare in Edina to have homes with streets in front and back. Unfortunately for us, stormwater drains west, south and east from proposed Lot #7. Water then backs up and pools because of an old grass driveway on our south property line. We pump it out north to drain onto Evanswood Ln with an outdoor sump pump and we roll out a 200' hose when necessary. With an increase in impervious surface from new home/driveway, the developer has proposed to dig a ditch along the west property line line of Lot #7 and divert stormwater to a new sewer opening on south edge of Lot #7 in attempt to prevent existing flow onto us. The new city street will be set at a higher elevation than the base of our house. The existing grass driveway elevation is lower than the house base. Last spring '14, we pumped water for two weeks, but knew we would not flood because water would flow over the grass driveway. We are asking Council for access to public sewer at time of construction, because of the flood risk to us. We will also be put in the uncomfortable position of how to self police the maintenance of the Lot #7 ditch. The new homeowner may not like it (unsightly, tough to mow, reduce play space etc) We are asking for your consideration because the economic impact and quality of life as a result of the new development is significant to us. 1. People who live and buy into Parkwood Knolls enjoy space, mature tree canopy and privacy. With a road in front and in back and with the loss of a mature tree canopy it will discount the value of our home substantially. 2. Unlike the new resident's homes to the south whose backyard will abut Parkwood Lane home's backyard, our backyard will look unto asphalt with on street parking and delivery trucks. We will want to build a fence and landscape and would request no on street parking. 3. After road and sewer is completed and city has assumed maintenance we will need to apply for permit and construct a holding pond and tap into the sewer. This major cost will be greater to us then at time of sewer construction. 0 These economic costs to us are real and they are very sizable. It seems reasonable and fair to expect some kind of cooperation and cost sharing from the developer. Regrettably, we have been shut out of the process. 0 This is our longtime home which we love and where we want to live. The loss of trees and beauty of surrounding nature, our loss of privacy —it will be a big change for us. Please consider our situation when making decisions on this development.. Thank you, Charlie &its • 0 Heather Branigin From: Paul Thompson <paul@coolplanetmn.org> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:40 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Join the SELC Celebration on June 7 at 5pm - please let us know you are coming Dear Awesome Edina Council, Wanted to share our end of year picnic with all of you to come and meet our student city leaders from Valley View, South View and the high school. Altho Kevin is the designated member to liais with the EEC, if he cannot be there we would love for the city council to be represented at the picnic....plus you can see our garlic patch and still pick up some gorgeous pepper and tomato seedlings ready for the earth. Ric Dressen and Lisa O'Brien from the school board have been invited as well as key teachers and the student's families. Let us know if you can attend. Paul and Mindy Paul Thompson Cool Planet -Neighborhood FUN -Action for Our Planet Citizens' Climate Lobby- Political Will for a Livable World 952-920-1547-h 612-810-4664-c Begin forwarded message: From: Mindy Ahler <mindy(q-)-coolplanetmn.orq> Date: May 29, 2015 at 10:52:30 PM CDT Subject: Join the SELC Celebration on June 7 at 5pm - please let us know you are coming • • • • It's time to celebrate SELL! Looking forward to our pot luck picnic to celebrate the first year of the Student Environmental Leadership Council, wish good luck to Sunaya and Reilly as they move on after Graduation and make plans for next year. Sunday, June 7th 5:00 pm Paul & Mindy's House 4244 Crocker Ave Edina, MN 55416 952-920-1547 Bring a dish to share (grill available), bring a completed Cool Planet Family Action Plan (for a special prize), bring your parents and family members, and bring your fun selves! We'll have outdoor games, beverages, a main dish and a Skype call from China with Yuanxi. Superintendent Dressen, City Council and School Board members have been invited as well as other teachers and key adults working with us to build a "Deeper Shade of Green" Edina. Please invite any other students who would make a good addition to SELC next year. Please confirm #attending to paul coolplanetmn.org or text to 612-810-4664 Mindy Ahler Co -Director, Cool Planet inindy coolplanetmn.org www.coolplanetmn.org Z (o/h) 952-920-1547 Heather Branigin From: Sent: To: Subject: Eugene Persha epersha aol.com Eugene Persha <epersha@aol.com> Monday, June 01, 2015 9:07 AM Edina Mail Fwd: Needed Response -----Original Message ----- From: Eugene Persha <eepershaCa)aol.com> To: mail <mail(cD_Edina.Mn.gov> Sent: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 9:03 am Subject: Needed Response Mayor Hovland: Several times now I have asked for a clarification about your response to a developer proposal concerning a planned project at 7200 France Ave. if you recall, you said after a "non -approval' of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this plan to move forward, that the developer has to withdraw the request or he cannot submit another one for a year. Since that has never been commented on since, is that the case today? Is this statement made by you, the correct and actual state of affairs. I have raised this issue several times, and I have not gotten an answer. Staff does not know what the impact of this statement is. I am hoping for a clarification, and I waited a long time already. This is a simple straight forward question pertaining to a developer. 1 would appreciate it if I would get a prompt answer to this state of affairs. Thank you. Gene Persha • • 0 Heather Branigin • From: Phil Mero <phil.mero@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:44 AM To: Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Monica Mero; Ross Bintner; Cindy Larson; Scott H. Neal; Andy Porter; James Hovland Subject: Re; 4419 Grimes So, I had to squeeze that plan for the driveway out of an unassuming landscaper this weekend, thanks for the help. He told me that there is going to be a 3 inch cap above the driveway. That's cute. A 3 inch cap is actually going to do more harm than good, providing said runaway car a ramp to be projected even further into our yard. We need atleast a 12 inch'cap' to ensure that cars will stay out of our yard. We need a meeting with City and Builder and preferably Cade and/or Brian to talk through this major concern/issue this week. I want all parties at the table. Let me know when all are available either early morning or late afternoon. http://articles.latimes.coml20l2/j unl3 0/business/la-fi-autos-lexus-recall-2012063 0 On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Phil Mero <plul.meromail.com> wrote: . Thanks Mary. Looked for the house you are referencing and wasn't able to find. Would you have an address? As you will see in this photo, the stone foundation that has been installed is just that, foundation. It is in no way a retaining wall, as it stops at the point where the driveway will be laid. That, in turn is the point of contention for us with this mind-boggling driveway design. In the photo you will notice the driveway CLIFF that has been created that falls off 10-12 feet into our backyard. That is directly where I place our backyard hockey rink every winter. I would hate to see a car end up in our backyard with a rink full of kids, etc. Again, even if we are looking at .01 % chance of the neighbor accidentally stepping on the gas, hitting an ice patch, driving tipsy, driving distracted, etc there needs to be some sort of barrier to ensure that a'runaway' vehicle does not impede our property, risking the safety of our children and property. Landscaping would be appreciated, but we need to see a plan for some sort of solid barrier on the southeast corner of the driveway to ensure the safety of our family/property. If this can't happen, we strongly believe that the best solution would be for the builder to have to relocate the garage doors to the front of the garage facing the street. Seeing as both builder and city made a major gaffe in allowing for this design to be executed, we will hope that this can be considered. Finding a formidable solution to this issue would actually serve as a wonderful PR platform for the city, showing their constituents how they course corrected a major mistake on behalf of a neighbor and longtime resident. .You've been able to support our neighbors and friends the Plaetzer's, we are asking for the same. I am including the builder in this note as timing is of the essence. Thanks in advance. Phil and Monica Mero . On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mary Brindle <mbrindlcgcomcast.net> wrote: Hello Monica and Phil, I wanted to touch base with you since you have both sent messages since we met in your front yard. As for a barrier at the edge of the new driveway, I recall that a row of shrubs or trees was discussed when we were together. It was mentioned that the driver would feel the vegetation as they approach the edge of the driveway. A curb edge that would be similar to the curb along your driveway was also discussed. I won't suggest that I can provide a design for either of these, just that these ideas were discussed. Over the weekend, I drove past a home with a similar approach to the garage. The lot size and front yard measurements seemed to be similar to 4419 Grimes. I did not stop in. The home is located in Edina on 44th Street, a block or two West of France Avenue. It is located on the North side of 44th Street. This home has a double garage as I recall. The overall garage approach appears similar to me. If you are in the area, you might drive by to see how it compares to the the project next door to your home. Mary Brindle mbrindle@comcast.net 612-270-9887 call or Lexi • Sin�;erel�- Phil Nlcro 612.963.0852 Sincerely - Phil Mero 612.963.0852 0 Heather Branigin From: Eugene Persha <epersha@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:33 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Concerns Members of the Edina City Council: I continue to have concerns about pending redevelopment projects. 1) GRANDVIEW I found it interesting and highly irregular to have another option, a building office building, thrown into the mix of options for Grandview at this late stage. And then, to have this pulled off the table soon after, makes one wonder how this whole process works. If there was anything that should be added, it should have been an expanded community building of some type since it has received the most focus from the public continually. Who makes these decisions? Does the public play any part in this? Does the "development" interests even use the Grandview I concept as a guiding plan? To have no community members on this design team is not only exclusionary, but it is downright offensive. Do you know how Caesar Pelli designed the Minneapolis Public Library? He did it with community input with the design process? It looks as if this Grandview design team does not even know what the emphasis and concepts were stated from the Grandview I group! Unfortunately, Bill Nuendorf is up to his old ways: not answering questions raised about the process, seeking out ideas from the interested public, nor even interacting with them in a soliciting way as to seek out ideas from our residents. It is widely assumed Mr. Neuendorf represents the developer's interests as opposed to the residents'. That is why we get more commercial input(options). A prime example is to have two of the original three options having a 10-12 story building at the top of Eden Ave, the northern most point of Grandview. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, did any ideas of Grandview I or any other input from the community even contemplate this. And why was the building here? The view from the top of the hill! We need a much more representative and including process. 2) 7200 FRANCE AVE. We have a new restaurant at 7600 France in the planning stages, and as usual, the developer wants a Planned Unit Development(PUD). If you have followed the Small Area Planning Process for Southdale, you would see that this topic has come up numbers of time. What is significant about the discussion of PUD is that it is not to be taken in isolation, i.e., one building at a time. It was originally meant to fit into a total concept. We cannot even let this process take its course before the usual continued exceptions are always asked for. Do you ever why every major building project in the Southdale area for the last dozen years either had a variance or now, a PUD, or a custom or spot zoning? Because more can be had easily. And then to the continued extensions for that proposed building, 7200 France, is so wrong that it defies any semblance of good government. How the Council cannot approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not official since it was not signed off(BAD) and to keep giving extensions, some with no explanation offered, and no timeline, no end game, is really, really bad government. It is made further objectionable because the Comprehensive Plan, in effect, gives the authorization or lack thereof, to continue on this process. I find this continuance null and void just for this reason. Mayor Hovland, you said at the outset of this de facto denial of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, that if it was not withdrawn by the developer, then they could not submit another application for a year. Is this the case? Someone answer that question for me! It has to be either retracted with an explanation or sustained as matter of Council business. And to have no real procedures about giving extensions, and extensions with no end, and to give extensions to favor a developer as opposed to residents' interests, is not only biased ,but wrong from a .governmental procedural operating way. It is just plain bad government! I have said this several times now. I get no response, no invitation to dialogue on this, no answer to my questions, and no consistency on how one proposed project works when compared to another. And then, where are the residents in all of this? We are in the obvious secondary role we seem to paly on every one of these big development projects. Who represents whom here? The whole posture here on both points I brought up is that our public left out in a meaningful way. You know we do have • ideas and perceptions and visions of the desired future good. Maybe we need to be asked about them? As Cool Hand Luke once said: "We have a failure to communicate." Gene Persha • Heather Branigin From: Diane Rice <jdarice@msn.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:37 PM To: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Ann Swenson; Robert Stewart; Kevin Staunton; Scott H. Neal Subject: Letter to the Edina City Council and Memorandum from David Mitchell Attachments: Scott Neal memo re Bruce Avenue -Bruce Place 05.22.15[2].DOCX Dear Council Members, In the last few weeks the residents of Bruce and Bruce Place have met to discuss our continued concern over what is happening to our streets. David Mitchell wrote an excellent review of his understanding as to the Living Streets plan and how it pertains to our street and cul de sac. He discusses the chain of events that led to the decision as to our street's plan. That memorandum is included at the end of my message and I ask that you take the time to read it. David Mitchell, Cary Schilling and Mark McCary had a meeting with Jim Hovland and Scott Neal. Ann Swenson also attended. Cary sent our neighbors a synopsis of the meeting. While we have respectfully approached Jim and Scott with our thoughts, I think it is still very important for you all to realize we continue to be very concerned and frustrated by how our street is being redone. The safety of our street and the cul de sac are of utmost importance to us. • One of the facts of the Living Streets plan is "to promote safety and convenience." We don't feel that either are being accomplished by reducing the cul de sac size or with one side parking. There has also been the comment that the current plan was "developed when the car was dominant". Too frequently we have heard from you that in the future this will not be the case. I'm not sure what streets you are living on, but on our street, there are only 4 homes that have a single car. All the other homes have 2 cars, with several homes having 3 cars. There are families with children who will soon be drivers, and they will have a car as well. Just as 30+ years ago, there are still moms and dads driving kids to school, to traveling soccer and hockey games ... this isn't going to change. The majority of us will continue to drive to work because the buses don't travel to our worksite. Stand at 50th and Bruce and you will see that the dominance of cars is not decreasing. On every Monday, there are 6 recycling and sanitation trucks that go up and down our street. Everyday a Fed Ex truck, UPS truck, USPS truck and school buses are using our street and cul de sac. Each week there are 10, yes, 10 landscaping/ lawn services with their trailers that take care of lawns on our street. Where do they park? And each day there are cars that cut through on Bruce to avoid 50th and France or Halifax. And there are those attending St. Stephens Church who regularly park on our street. Over two thirds of our driveways are single drives. That means that we play the pull in/ pull out game with two cars. We frequently park one of our cars on the street and any service trucks or construction trucks ( and there are many) park on the street. Our guests park on the street. This is not a little, country road that doesn't have much traffic. And to insinuate that in the future it is going to become one, with less traffic, is kind of . ridiculous. In David's comments and research of the Living Street plan, he notes that each of our homes will have approximately 1/2 parking space!!! He also states, as part of the plan, a 27 foot wide, local street may have parking on both sides of the street. Both sides of the street parking is street calming—it slows the traffic and increases the safety! So, an arbitrary decision was made to make our streets a one side parking street with NO PARKING signs in the yards on the other side. There has been no research as to why. And when our neighborhood's opinion was given, in petition form and survey form, that we would like to continue with parking on both sides; it was ignored. The resulting suggestion at the latest meeting was... we'll try half year this way and half year that. Why???? We the residents, are happy with the way it has been. It has worked for the safety of the motorists, walkers and bikers in the past. And we, who live here, feel that by making one side a driving/ walking/ biking FAST lane is going to do nothing but make our lovely street an unsafe environment. It will not "providing meaningful opportunities for active living or better living" as the plan suggests. We feel your plan for our neighborhood has been dictated to us. Our opinion, as to which of the 27 foot plans works for us, is not being considered. Why is the logic of those of us who live on the street and know the "use and safety" of the street, so undervalued by you? What is it you feel you know that we don't? Do you walk to 50th every morning on the street, do you drive up and down Bruce Street everyday? Do you try and pull out onto 50th? Do you try and turn from 50th onto our street? Do you stand at the bus stop at the end of the street daily? WE DO!! This is exhausting and I am weary of the "we know better than you" attitude, when there is no evidence to prove the need to change. I ask that you use common sense and consider what is truly best for our street. I realize this is the first test of the Living Street Plan. Will you please do as your plan envisions? Think of the past, think of the future. Sorry, but the cars on this street aren't going to decrease. Nice thought; but not realistic. And the safety of our street AND the convenience for us does need to be considered for the future. Please, listen to our concerns. Please do not reduce the size of the already too narrow cul de sac and please just leave the parking alone. It works. We really don't need to reinvent the wheel ... be it car wheel or bicycle wheel. Sincerely, Diane Rice MEMORANDUM To: Scott Neal, City Manager City of Edina From: David L. Mitchell, 5011 Bruce Avenue Date: May 22, 2015 Re: Bruce Avenue, Bruce Place Issues Mr. Neal: The residents of Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street and Bruce Place are upset and frustrated with 2 aspects of the Arden Park Road and Sewer Reconstruction project: • Narrowing the width of the Bruce Place cul de sac 0 • Restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue The City's decisions on these matters seem arbitrary to the residents for the following reasons: They are not based on any historical evidence of parking or traffic problems on Bruce Avenue or the experience of residents of Bruce Avenue and the Bruce Place cul de sac who live with it on a daily basis. • They are not based on any third party evidence or research presented by or cited to by City staff. Nowhere in the Edina Engineering Department's November 2014 Study or in any prior presentation concerning the Arden Park streets project does anyone state (or reference any authority that says) "if you reduce the width of a local street to 27 feet, you must/ should limit parking to one side of the street." • They are not based on Edina's Living Streets Plan, adopted by the City Council at the May 6, 2015 meeting. That Plan neither requires nor necessarily recommends one -side parking on 27 foot wide streets. The Plan provides that in the case of Local Streets of 27 foot width, the parking options are "None, one or both sides of the street, depending on context."L1 No reason was articulated for restricting parking to one side of Bruce. • The decision regarding parking was not based on a City-wide policy decision of the Council to limit parking to one side of all 27 -foot wide streets in the City. • The decisions were made with absolutely no resident support for the changes but rather unanimous opposition of the residents. Parking on One -side Only Until the November 2014 Engineering Study, no earlier City presentation addressed the parking configuration of a 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue. The width of Bruce Avenue was itself a "moving target" in the months leading up to the City Council's December 2014 meeting. As of July 31, 2014, Bruce Avenue was depicted as a 24 -foot wide street and City staff so stated in response to a resident's question at that time. While a City Proposed Schematic Street Plan dated September 22, 2014 later depicted Bruce Avenue as being 27 feet wide, the companion City presentation of the same date was silent as to both the width and the parking rules planned for Bruce Avenue. Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street is a unique, curved one and one half block street with a hill beginning at the intersection with Bruce Place and winding down to Arden Avenue. As provided in the Living Streets Plan, [a]lthough many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood ... natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate these differences, the City will ...Seek input from stakeholders [and] Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character." Bruce Avenue residents strongly believe that their concerns and input have been ignored. Restricted parking to the east side of the street will not only be an inconvenience for the residents, their guests and service vehicles, but will instead create more safety issues for pedestrians. The north half of the east side of Bruce already has many feet of natural "no parking" areas: the feet before the stop sign on 50th Street, the number of driveway entrances, the increased number of fire hydrants and required adjacent "no parking" areas. Because many of the driveways on Bruce are short, there is a need for parking on both sides of the street. By limiting parking to the east side of the street, Bruce Avenue residents will have less than 1/2 on -street parking space per house on the entire street. As noted above, on -street parking is considered an appropriate traffic calming measure in the Living Streets Plan. The residents strongly believe that restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue will create, rather than ameliorate, safety concerns. With or without parking on the west side, because of the curvature of Bruce Avenue, a pedestrian's or bicyclist's vision of on -coming traffic from either direction is un -obstructed. However, by reason of the elimination of parking on the west side, cars traveling in both directions will likely travel faster on Bruce.M- We believe that the foregoing reasons provide the "context" that merit Bruce Avenue being treated differently from others in the neighborhood. Bruce Place Cul de Sac In its November 2014 Engineering Study, City engineering staff stated as follows: "The existing pavement footprints of the cul-de-sacs for Bruce Avenue and Gorgas Avenue are larger than necessary." The Bruce residents who live on and experience the cul de sac 365 days a year STRONGLY disagree with this statement. They routinely experience the difficulties encountered by large vehicles (e.g., waste management trucks, lawn maintenance trucks and trailers, FED EX trucks, etc.) trying to turn around or park in the cul de sac. The prospect of an even smaller -10 feet smaller (5' on each side) - footprint creates the likelihood that these large vehicles will now have to BACK THEIR WAY OUT of the cul de sac into on -coming Bruce Avenue traffic. This is a HUGE SAFETY CONCERN of the residents. Children and pets are not readily visible to large vehicles traveling in reverse. Moreover, given the reduced number of parking spaces that would be available on Bruce if one -side only parking is imposed, guests and invitees of cul de sac residents will have much farther to walk to their destinations in the cul de sac, again, a safety issue for pedestrians. The problems for such pedestrians are only excerbated by snow piles and winter conditions. There is a significant difference in the cul de sacs for Bruce and Gorgas. There are no homes on over one-half of the Gorgas "circle" whereas the Bruce cul de sac is surrounded entirely by homes. More homes and more resultant traffic require a larger footprint on Bruce than on Gorgas. As reflected in the minutes of the City Council's December 9, 2014 meeting, when questioned by Council Members about the reduced size of the cul de sacs and the effect on driveways, Chad Millner answered that "the cu -de -sacs were being reduced by three to four feet and the City would work with the property owners to mitigate impacts." Residents of the Bruce cul de sac report that their concerns expressed regarding the reduction in footprint, based on their experiences of having lived on the cul de sac for many years, were, in fact, totally ignored by the City's engineering staff. There was absolutely NO EFFORT made by City staff to engage the affected residents and to demonstrate how things would work in a smaller cul de sac. Given their long time experience in living on Bruce Avenue, the residents believe that the City's decisions to narrow the Bruce Place cul de sac and to restrict parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue, both decisions made ostensibly to promote safety, will actually have the opposite effect of creating more safety issues. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City do the following: 1. Construct the Bruce Place cul de sac at its pre -project width; and 2. When the new 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue is completed, permit parking on both sides of this unique one and one half block street. • If after one year, specific and measurable evidence is presented that parking on both sides has resulted in increased safety problems or issues, then consider instituting parking limited to one side of Bruce. • David L. Mitchell 3ROB1:NS;ffKAFI. ANLLP 800 LaSalle Avenge 12800 LaSalle Plaza I Mii7.neapol.is, AKIN 55,102 Direct: 6:12.349,81_$2) Fax: 61.2339..181. 1 DMitchell®RobinsKaplan.com W On -street parking is one of the traffic calming measures listed in the Living Streets Plan as appropriate for Local Streets. ll The 20' allocated to travel lanes on Bruce Avenue after completion of the project is actually greater than the 16' allocated to travel lanes on the former 30'wide street with permitted parking on both sides. Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax -related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. • 1 Robins Kaplan LLP http://www.robinskaplan.com Heather Branigin From: Zavier Bicott <zavier.bicott@gmail.com> • Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:33 PM To: James Hovland Subject: EDITED: We invite you to visit our Facility! General Sports - Braemar Arena Please excuse the typos! We have been a community member of Edina since 1962 when our home location at 5025 France Ave S, Minneapolis MN 55410 was constructed at the 50th & France location. General Sports has given tens of thousands of dollars to promote sports in the community as well as other non-profit organization committed to enriching our community. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Zavier Bicott <zavier.bicott@gmail.com> wrote: Mayor Hovland, We have been a community member of Edina since 1962 since our home location at 5025 France Ave S, Minneapolis MN 55410 in the 50 was constructed General Sports have given tens of thousands of dollars to promote sports in the community as well as other non-profit organization committed to enriching our community. In March of 2013 we opened a second store connected to the Braemar Ice Arena. Expanding has been a great success! Let us know a date and a time that works with your schedule, It would be an honor to have you visit our new location. Thanks! General Sports Staff Zavier Bicott General Sports Retail Associate Candidate for State House 50B Minnesota Young Republican Chairman 952-270-7277 0 Heather Branigin • From: Sandy Simmons <ssimmons47@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:29 PM To: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Ann Swenson; Robert Stewart; Kevin Staunton; Scott H. Neal Cc: Diane Rice; McCary, Mark @ Minneapolis; Diane McCary; joanE Cell; David L. Mitchell; Cary Schilling; Pat Lawrence Subject: Bruce Place Edina City Council and Edina City Manager, We live daily with the construction on our street but, most importantly, the imminent finality of your decisions for the size and livability of the finished product. By petition and survey of all Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place residents, there is unanimous concern for the safety and functionality of the current plan you have approved. The cul de sac, which originally had issues with being too small for large vehicles to turn around, is slated to become 10 feet smaller. Daily there are a number of large vehicles (deliveries, Fed Ex, waste trucks, lawn service vehicles to name a few) which will have to go in reverse to navigate the new smaller sized circle. Add the snow piles in winter months, it will be even smaller with even less visibility. Small children, pets, the pedestrians who will have to cross Bruce Avenue because of parking only on the east side of the street will be at risk as these vehicles are backing up with limited visibility. There is nothing that is safe or safer about this. Have you actually looked in person at the situation you are approving, one that we experience every day? •The one sided parking will actually be creating more foot traffic on the street as people have fewer places to park. The traffic on the street will be moving faster because of the 'thoroughfare' that has been created with one sided parking. As residents we are genuinely concerned with your decisions and very frustrated that we have not been listened to, The Living Streets Plan specifically states that "every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood ..... street design, users, and modes" and the city will "seek input from its stakeholders". The city is not following this with Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place. The unanimously expressed concern by our street should alert you that this needs more careful consideration. Please follow your Living Streets Plan and listen to the input we are giving you. We are all being assessed for this improvement to our street. It would be wonderful to end up with a finished product that we feel was done in our unique and best interest. Kevin and Bob, as the new council members, have chosen to not involve themselves in what they decided was a previous decision. Respectfully, this is happening NOW- we are asking for the CURRENT City Council to review this decision. We need support from our representatives that we elected to represent us now. Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place is urging our City and our City Council to please listen to these concerns. Thank you, Sandy and Cal Simmons 5038 Bruce Place Heather Branigin From: JoanE Mitchell <jemitche11922@gmail.com> • Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:53 AM To: Diane Rice Cc: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Ann Swenson; Robert Stewart; Kevin Staunton; Scott H. Neal; David L. Mitchell; McCary Diane; Mark @ Minneapolis McCary; Cary Schilling; Pat Lawrence; Sandy Simmons; lisastanley5@gmail.com; patolson5@icloud.com; Karen Mcelrath Subject: Re: Letter to the Edina City Council and Memorandum from David Mitchell Thank you Diane for your time & energy spent in this process. Your words ring true & hopefully will be heard. This "test case" situation has been and is ,to say the least, frustrating especially when the Living Streets Plan has become a moving target, even though approved by the council within the past month. As long standing Bruce Avenue residents , tax payers and constituents we deserve to have our "within the Plan" choices approved. Best Regards, JoanE Sent from my email iemitche11922gamail.com On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Diane Rice <jdarice@msn.com> wrote: Dear Council Members, In the last few weeks the residents of Bruce and Bruce Place have met to discuss our continued • concern over what is happening to our streets. David Mitchell wrote an excellent review of his understanding as to the Living Streets plan and how it pertains to our street and cul de sac. He discusses the chain of events that led to the decision as to our street's plan. That memorandum is included at the end of my message and I ask that you take the time to read it. David Mitchell, Cary Schilling and Mark McCary had a meeting with Jim Hovland and Scott Neal. Ann Swenson also attended. Cary sent our neighbors a synopsis of the meeting. While we have respectfully approached Jim and Scott with our thoughts, I think it is still very important for you all to realize we continue to be very concerned and frustrated by how our street is being redone. The safety of our street and the cul de sac are of utmost importance to us. One of the facts of the Living Streets plan is "to promote safety and convenience." We don't feel that either are being accomplished by reducing the cul de sac size or with one side parking. There has also been the comment that the current plan was "developed when the car was dominant". Too frequently we have heard from you that in the future this will not be the case. I'm not sure what streets you are living on, but on our street, there are only 4 homes that have a single car. All the other homes have 2 cars, with several homes having 3 cars. There are families with children who will soon be drivers, and they will have a car as well. Just as 30+ years ago, there are still moms and dads driving kids to school, to traveling soccer and hockey games ... this • isn't going to change. The majority of us will continue to drive to work because the buses don't travel to our worksite. Stand at 50th and Bruce and you will see that the dominance of cars is not decreasing. • On every Monday, there are 6 recycling and sanitation trucks that go up and down our street. Everyday a Fed Ex truck, UPS truck, USPS truck and school buses are using our street and cul de sac. Each week there are 10, yes, 10 landscaping/ lawn services with their trailers that take care of lawns on our street. Where do they park? And each day there are cars that cut through on Bruce to avoid 50th and France or Halifax. And there are those attending St. Stephens Church who regularly park on our street. Over two thirds of our driveways are single drives. That means that we play the pull in/ pull out game with two cars. We frequently park one of our cars on the street and any service trucks or construction trucks ( and there are many) park on the street. Our guests park on the street. This is not a little, country road that doesn't have much traffic. And to insinuate that in the future it is going to become one, with less traffic, is kind of ridiculous. In David's comments and research of the Living Street plan, he notes that each of our homes will have approximately 1/2 parking space!!! He also states, as part of the plan, a 27 foot wide, local street may have parking on both sides of the street. Both sides of the street parking is street calming ... it slows the traffic and increases the safety! So, an arbitrary decision was made to make our streets a one side parking street with NO PARKING signs in the yards on the other side. There has been no research as to why. And when our neighborhood's opinion was given, in petition form and survey form, that we would like to continue with parking on both sides; it was ignored. The resulting suggestion at the latest meeting was... we'll try half year this way and half year that. Why???? • We the residents, are happy with the way it has been. It has worked for the safety of the motorists, walkers and bikers in the past. And we, who live here, feel that by making one side a driving/ walking/ biking FAST lane is going to do nothing but make our lovely street an unsafe environment. It will not "providing meaningful opportunities for active living or better living" as the plan suggests. We feel your plan for our neighborhood has been dictated to us. Our opinion, as to which of the 27 foot plans works for us, is not being considered. Why is the logic of those of us who live on the street and know the "use and safety" of the street, so undervalued by you? What is it you feel you know that we don't? Do you walk to 50th every morning on the street, do you drive up and down Bruce Street everyday? Do you try and pull out onto 50th? Do you try and turn from 50th onto our street? Do you stand at the bus stop at the end of the street daily? WE DO!! This is exhausting and I am weary of the "we know better than you" attitude, when there is no evidence to prove the need to change. I ask that you use common sense and consider what is truly best for our street. I realize this is the first test of the Living Street Plan. Will you please do as your plan envisions? Think of the past, think of the future. Sorry, but the cars on this street aren't going to decrease. Nice thought; but not realistic. And the safety of our street AND the convenience for us does need to be considered for the future. Please, listen to our concerns. Please do not reduce the size of the already too narrow cul de sac • and please just leave the parking alone. It works. We really don't need to reinvent the wheel ... be it car wheel or bicycle wheel. Sincerely, Diane Rice MEMORANDUM To: Scott Neal, City Manager City of Edina From: David L. Mitchell, 5011 Bruce Avenue Date: May 22, 2015 Re: Bruce Avenue, Bruce Place Issues Mr. Neal: The residents of Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street and Bruce Place are upset and frustrated with 2 aspects of the Arden Park Road and Sewer Reconstruction project: • Narrowing the width of the Bruce Place cul de sac • Restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue The City's decisions on these matters seem arbitrary to the residents for the following reasons: • They are not based on any historical evidence of parking or traffic • problems on Bruce Avenue or the experience of residents of Bruce Avenue and the Bruce Place cul de sac who live with it on a daily basis. They are not based on any third party evidence or research presented by or cited to by City staff. Nowhere in the Edina Engineering Department's November 2014 Study or in any prior presentation concerning the Arden Park streets project does anyone state (or reference any authority that says) "if you reduce the width of a local street to 27 feet, you must/ should limit parking to one side of the street." They are not based on Edina's Living Streets Plan, adopted by the City Council at the May 6, 2015 meeting. That Plan neither requires nor necessarily recommends one -side parking on 27 foot wide streets. The Plan provides that in the case of Local Streets of 27 foot width, the parking options are "None, one or both sides of the street, depending on context."M No reason was articulated for restricting parking to one side of Bruce. The decision regarding parking was not based on a City-wide policy decision of the Council to limit parking to one side of all 27 -foot wide streets in the City. • The decisions were made with absolutely no resident support for the . changes but rather unanimous opposition of the residents. Parking on One -side Only • Until the November 2014 Engineering Study, no earlier City presentation addressed the parking configuration of a 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue. The width of Bruce Avenue was itself a "moving target" in the months leading up to the City Council's December 2014 meeting. As of July 31, 2014, Bruce Avenue was depicted as a 24 -foot wide street and City staff so stated in response to a resident's question at that time. While a City Proposed Schematic Street Plan dated September 22, 2014 later depicted Bruce Avenue as being 27 feet wide, the companion City presentation of the same date was silent as to both the width and the parking rules planned for Bruce Avenue. Bruce Avenue south of 50th Street is a unique, curved one and one half block street with a hill beginning at the intersection with Bruce Place and winding down to Arden Avenue. As provided in the Living Streets Plan, [a]lthough many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood ... natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate these differences, the City will ...Seek input from stakeholders [and] Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character." Bruce Avenue residents strongly believe that their concerns and input have been ignored. Restricted parking to the east side of the street will not only be an inconvenience for the residents, their guests and service vehicles, but will instead create more safety issues for pedestrians. The north half of the east side of Bruce already has many feet of natural "no parking" areas: the feet before the stop sign on 50th Street, the number of • driveway entrances, the increased number of fire hydrants and required adjacent "no parking" areas. Because many of the driveways on Bruce are short, there is a need for parking on both sides of the street. By limiting parking to the east side of the street, Bruce Avenue residents will have less than 1/2 on -street parking space per house on the entire street. As noted above, on -street parking is considered an appropriate traffic calming measure in the Living Streets Plan. The residents strongly believe that restricting parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue will create, rather than ameliorate, safety concerns. With or without parking on the west side, because of the curvature of Bruce Avenue, a pedestrian's or bicyclist's vision of on -coming traffic from either direction is un -obstructed. However, by reason of the elimination of parking on the west side, cars traveling in both directions will likely travel faster on Bruce.0 We believe that the foregoing reasons provide the "context" that merit Bruce Avenue being treated differently from others in the neighborhood. Bruce Place Cul de Sac In its November 2014 Engineering Study, City engineering staff stated as follows: "The existing pavement footprints of the cul-de-sacs for Bruce Avenue and Gorgas Avenue are larger than necessary." The Bruce residents who live on and experience the cul de sac 365 days a year • STRONGLY disagree with this statement. They routinely experience the difficulties encountered by large vehicles (e.g., waste management trucks, lawn maintenance trucks and trailers, FED EX trucks, etc.) trying to turn around or park in the cul de sac. The prospect of an even smaller -10 feet smaller (5' on each side) - footprint creates the likelihood that these large vehicles will now have to BACK THEIR WAY OUT of the cul . de sac into on -coming Bruce Avenue traffic. This is a HUGE SAFETY CONCERN of the residents. Children and pets are not readily visible to large vehicles traveling in reverse. Moreover, given the reduced number of parking spaces that would be available on Bruce if one -side only parking is imposed, guests and invitees of cul de sac residents will have much farther to walk to their destinations in the cul de sac, again, a safety issue for pedestrians. The problems for such pedestrians are only excerbated by snow piles and winter conditions. There is a significant difference in the cul de sacs for Bruce and Gorgas. There are no homes on over one-half of the Gorgas "circle" whereas the Bruce cul de sac is surrounded entirely by homes. More homes and more resultant traffic require a larger footprint on Bruce than on Gorgas. As reflected in the minutes of the City Council's December 9, 2014 meeting, when questioned by Council Members about the reduced size of the cul de sacs and the effect on driveways, Chad Millner answered that "the cu -de -sacs were being reduced by three to four feet and the City would work with the property owners to mitigate impacts." Residents of the Bruce cul de sac report that their concerns expressed regarding the reduction in footprint, based on their experiences of having lived on the cul de sac for many years, were, in fact, totally ignored by the City's engineering staff. There was absolutely NO EFFORT made by City staff to engage the affected residents and to demonstrate how things would work in a smaller cul de sac. • Given their long time experience in living on Bruce Avenue, the residents believe that the City's decisions to narrow the Bruce Place cul de sac and to restrict parking to the east side of Bruce Avenue, both decisions made ostensibly to promote safety, will actually have the opposite effect of creating more safety issues. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City do the following: 1. Construct the Bruce Place cul de sac at its pre -project width; and 2. When the new 27 -foot wide Bruce Avenue is completed, permit parking on both sides of this unique one and one half block street. If after one year, specific and measurable evidence is presented that parking on both sides has resulted in increased safety problems or issues, then consider instituting parking limited to one side of Bruce. David L. Mitchell <image001.png> 800 T,aSalle Avenue 1 2800 LaSalle Plaza I Minneapolis, T%4N 55402 Direct: 6'12.349.82821 Fax: 612.339.4181 1 DMitchefl@RobinsKaplan.com 0 • U On -street parking is one of the traffic calming measures listed in the Living Streets Plan as appropriate for Local Streets. Lt The 20' allocated to travel lanes on Bruce Avenue after completion of the project is actually greater than the 16' allocated to travel lanes on the former 30'wide street with permitted parking on both sides. Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. • Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax -related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Robins Kaplan LLP http://www.robinskaplan.com <Scott Neal memo re Bruce Avenue—Bruce Place 05.22.15[2].DOCX> • Heather Branigin From: JoanE Mitchell <jemitche11922@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:59 AM To: Sandy Simmons Cc: James Hovland; Mary Brindle; Ann Swenson; Robert Stewart; Kevin Staunton; Scott H. Neal; Diane Rice; McCary, Mark @ Minneapolis; Diane McCary; David L. Mitchell; Cary Schilling; Pat Lawrence; patolson5@icloud.com; lisastanley5@gmail.com; Karen Mcelrath; Ted & Carol Cushmore; carol cushmore Subject: Re: Bruce Place Sandy, My reply to Diane's email to the council apply to your thoughtful, direct statements as well. Thank you for your time & energy in this process. Best Regards, JoanE Sent from my iPad > On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Sandy Simmons <ssimmons47(c@gmail.com> wrote: > Edina City Council and Edina City Manager, > We live daily with the construction on our street but, most importantly, the imminent finality of your decisions for the size and livability of the finished product. By petition and survey of all Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place residents, there is unanimous concern for the safety and functionality of the current plan you have approved. > The cul de sac, which originally had issues with being too small for large vehicles to turn around, is slated to become 10 feet smaller. Daily there are a number of large vehicles (deliveries, Fed Ex, waste trucks, lawn service vehicles to name a few) which will have to go in reverse to navigate the new smaller sized circle. Add the snow piles in winter months, it will be even smaller with even less visibility. Small children, pets, the pedestrians who will have to cross Bruce Avenue because of parking only on the east side of the street will be at risk as these vehicles are backing up with limited visibility. There is nothing that is safe or safer about this. Have you actually looked in person at the situation you are approving, one that we experience every day? > The one sided parking will actually be creating more foot traffic on the street as people have fewer places to park. The traffic on the street will be moving faster because of the 'thoroughfare' that has been created with one sided parking. > As residents we are genuinely concerned with your decisions and very frustrated that we have not been listened to. The Living Streets Plan specifically states that "every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood ..... street design, users, and modes" and the city will "seek input from its stakeholders". The city is not following this with Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place. The unanimously expressed concern by our street should alert you that this needs more careful consideration. Please follow your Living Streets Plan and listen to the input we are giving you. > We are all being assessed for this improvement to our street. It would be wonderful to end up with a finished product that we feel was done in our unique and best interest. 0 • > Kevin and Bob, as the new council members, have chosen to not involve themselves in what they decided was a previous decision. Respectfully, this is happening NOW -we are asking for the CURRENT City Council to review this decision. We need support from our representatives that we elected to represent us now. Bruce Avenue/Bruce Place • is urging our City and our City Council to please listen to these concerns. > Thank you, > Sandy and Cal Simmons > 5038 Bruce Place Heather Branigin • From: McCary, Mark @ Minneapolis <Mark.McCary@cbre.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:37 AM To: James Hovland; Ann Swenson; Scott H. Neal Cc: David L. Mitchell; caryschilling@gmail.com Subject: RE: Bruce Ave/PI roadway discussions Good morning. I have received several calls this morning from Bruce residents indicating the contractor is ringing doorbells and alerting homeowners that they are in the process of " running strings" for the new curb layout. Obviously we are worried about the cul de sac, in view of the Mayor's commitment to review our safety concerns regarding the reduction of its diameter by 10 feet. I continue to watch large trucks struggle to make turns in the roadway daily - and the reduced curbs are not even in yet. We would all appreciate an update on when, specifically, we can meet on site to review the implications of this reduction, prior to any curb work being performed.Thank you, Mark McCary Mark McCary I Senior Vice President CB Richard Ellis I Brokerage Services - Office Specialty 81 South 9th Street #400 1 Minneapolis, MN 55402 T 612 336 4317 1 F 612 336 4320 mark.mccary@cbre.com www.cbre.com/mark.mccary -----Original Message ----- From: McCary, Mark @ Minneapolis Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:33 PM To: ihovland@EdinaMN.gov; aswenson@edinamn.gov, sneal@edinamn.gov; sneal@edinamn.Rov> Cc: David L. Mitchell; caryschilling@gmail.com Subject: Bruce Ave/PI roadway discussions Good evening to all. I hope you all had a chance to enjoy the rare combination of dry and sunny skies this past weekend! As a group, I think David, Cary and I came away from our meeting last week feeling good about our working session with you all, and look forward to providing neighborhood input for helping develop parking demand test criteria here on Bruce Avenue that may become a model for evaluating on -street parking requirements for other streets as you introduce the Living Streets initiative throughout Edina. We are also very anxious to meet with Mayor Hovland and the appropriate City staff on location to re-evaluate the proposed reduction in the diameter of the Bruce Place cul de sac. It was explained that numerous large service vehicles are already choosing to back all the way down from Bruce Avenue rather than try to navigate around a smaller and more constricted cul de sac. Here is what we understood to be the City's "next steps" at the conclusion of our meeting: • 1. Mr. Neal will identify and gather the types of meaningful tests available to measure parking demand, speed of auto travel and line -of -sight travel along Bruce Avenue. This will be shared with representatives of the neighborhood and the two groups will work to finalize the tests to be conducted in order to effectively measure these areas of concern. Then two separate parking tests will be conducted, each over a 6 month period. The results will be reviewed to determine whether on -street parking will continue on both sides of Bruce Avenue or just one side. 2. Mayor Hovland agreed to review the proposed contraction of the Bruce Place cul de sac with appropriate City staff. The neighborhood representatives have requested an on-site meeting to show how the city's current plans will create very real safety issues if the cul de sac is narrowed as planned. Once again we are pleased to be able to work with the City to make sure the best interests of all can be fairly reviewed and measured so we can all be proud of the Edina we share. We are anxious to hear back from the City on the timing for these "next steps" and stand ready to provide timely and thoughtful input. Thank You, Mark McCary Sent from my iPad 0 Heather Branigin From: Jennifer Janovy <jjanovy@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:16 PM To: James Hovland; ann swenson swenson; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Bob Stewart; Kevin Staunton Cc: Edina Mail; Scott H. Neal; Bill Neuendorf Subject: Affordable housing and Southdale 2 TIF Dear Members of the Edina City Council: As you consider an affordable housing policy and future investment of Southdale 2 tax increment, please consider the following: • It has always been known that the Southdale 2 TIF district would generate revenue in excess of what would be needed to pay back the "loan" to Simon plus interest. The TIF plan included several million dollars in fabricated project expenses, thereby putting a claim on this revenue even though, at the time, there was no way to spend it. • In 2012, the city expanded the SE Edina Redevelopment Project Area to include about half of Edina. • In 2013/2014 the city requested and was granted special legislation that allows the city to pool increment from Southdale 2 into new TIF housing districts. Pooled revenue can be used to assist projects that include at least 20% affordable units. The new TIF housing districts can be anywhere within the SE • Edina Redevelopment Project Area. • A TIF housing district can last for 25 years. Under the proposed affordable housing policy, units would need to remain affordable for only 15 years. • Most of the excess revenue from Southdale 2 will be generated from properties in the Richfield School District. • Three projects have been mentioned to date as possible recipients of TIF assistance from Southdale 2: 66 West, 7200 France, and Grandview. 7200 France and Grandview are in the Edina School District. • A basic principal of TIF is that a development would not happen "but -for" the use of TIF. The public investment is warranted because it will result in an increased tax base, from which taxpayers will eventually benefit. But when TIF revenue is generated in one taxing jurisdiction and invested in another, taxpayers in the contributing jurisdiction never benefit. They instead subsidize redevelopment that increases a different jurisdiction's tax base. • 14.5% of Richfield residents live below the poverty level (compared to 4% in Edina). 65% of Richfield students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (compared to 9% in Edina). These facts raise some serious questions and ethical issues. The first one is whether you really intend to take tax increments generated from properties in the Richfield School District and invest them in projects that will eventually benefit the Edina School District. The second one is whether you really intend to create 25 -year TIF housing districts so that you can spend increment from Southdale 2 on projects that include only 20% affordable units --and units that are only affordable for 15 years. The third is whether you really intended to create a "slush fund" with Southdale 2 that could be used for future projects. The question was asked at the public hearing: What if Southdale 2 generates more revenue than is needed to pay back the "loan" plus interest? Mark Ruff responded that you could end the TIF district early or reduce its size. At no time was it mentioned that the excess revenue would or could be directed to other uses. Supporting affordable housing is a worthy goal, but so are fairness and integrity. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Jennifer Janovy 0 I • MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday April 9, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Anderson, Glahn, Gubrud, Howard, Manser, Seeley, Thompson, Waddick, and Chair Kostuch Late: Satterlee, Sierks, and Zarrin Absent: Padmanabhan Staff Present: Ross Bintner and Rebecca Foster Member Satterlee arrived at 7:01p.m. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Howard to approve the Meeting Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Member Zarrin arrived at 7:12p.m. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes. No Comment. B. Attendance report and roster. No Comment. C. Workgroup list and minutes. Member Gubrud requested the day of the Education and Outreach Working Group change from first Tuesday of the month to the first Thursday. He requested the spelling of his working group member be changed from Pretice to Prentice. Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Thompson to approve the remaining Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Member Sierks arrived at 7:14p.m. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT. Karin Schaefer, Executive Director MN Beef Council, says the "Cowspiracy" movie is only looking at one study in 2006. The researchers say that there are flaws in the study saying that livestock contribute to 30% of global warming in US and throughout the world. It wasn't a global study it was just within the US. The EPA says only 3% of global warming is from livestock. She would like to have the EEC show the movie "Farmland" which is about pro -agriculture. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Recap of 4/7/15 Discussion at Council Work Session. Chair Kostuch reviewed the Council Work Session. He said Scott Neal admitted that there are no environment efforts in the CIP. The Council said the EEC should be proud of their accomplishments, but it was city staff that drove the projects, Business Recycling (Bill Neuendorf), Solar Panels (Scot Neal), and PACE (Scott Neal). Chair Kostuch was disappointed by the Mayor asking what to do about the City's Fleet when the EEC told the Council what to do with it in the Fleet Advisory. Chair Kostuch was shocked to hear the Council looks at them for the • "How", because the EEC is a group of nonprofessionals who don't know how the city's operations work and only meet a couple hours a month. The City is a bunch of silos with lots of demands on City staff, so it's hard to get things done. The EEC would like to have a budget for Sustainability uses. The EEC 2015 . Workplan explains the "how", so the members created a smaller group to meet with Scott Neal and Kevin Staunton to figure out how to get top down success with implementing sustainability within city operations. Keith nominated Sarah Zarrin to lead and chair the small group with the participation of Kevin Staunton and Bill Seirks. The first meeting will be with Scott Neal. It was asked if anyone, 1 or 2, members would like to join the group, let Sarah know. Specifically, it was asked the new members, if desire, to join this group. We would like to keep the group small and focused. It was agreed and passed by all members. Scott Neal will be attending the May EEC meeting to talk with the Members and discuss the Xcel Franchise agreement. B. Succession Planning for EEC. Chair Kostuch discussed how there will be four members terminating off at the end of this year and explained which working groups need to receive Chairs to continue. Chair Kostuch Chairs the Procurement Report which is a summary from the City Manager explaining what sustainability projects have been implemented during the past year. Chair Kostuch also Chairs the City Environmental Considerations Subcommittee which makes sure the City incorporates sustainability in Capital Improvement Projects. Member Sierk Chairs the Building Energy Efficiency Subcommittee which makes sure the existing city buildings have energy efficiency and Community Solar Subcommittee to evaluate whether the City can host a Community Solar site. Member Thompson and Gubrud co-chair the Education Outreach working group which engages people on energy efficiency. Member Gubrud gives updates on the Home Energy Squad. C. EEC Meeting Process Discussion. Chair Kostuch requested Working Group and Subcommittee meeting minutes to be submitted to the meeting packet. Your verbal report should be what is your need or getting approval for a project from the Commission. • D. Xcel Energy Franchise Ordinance. Member Kostuch said Scott will be at the May Meeting to discuss what he needs from the EEC. The Energy working group will talk to the City of Minneapolis, because they just wrote renewal energy into their agreement. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS A. Email from Karin Schaefer - Executive Director MN Beef Council. Refer to Community Comment. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS A. Building Energy Efficiency Subcommittee. No Comment. B. Business Recycling Working Group. Member Zarrin said the City of Minneapolis is going to model our Business Recycling efforts. C. City Environmental Considerations Subcommittee. No Comment. D. Community Solar Subcommittee. Member Thompson said they have 10 people interested in Community Solar and would like to turn the Subcommittee into a Working Group. Member Sierks said he'd like to have a more defined work plan before developing a working group. Member Thompson will reach out to the interested people and find out what their expertise and interests are to develop the work plan. E. Education Outreach Working Group. Member Howard said there will be a panel discussion after the movie "Cowspiracy." This movie has received a lot of controversy. Motion made by Member Glahn and seconded by Chair Kostuch to not show the Cowspiracy movie. Member Glahn Opposed. Chair Kostuch Abstained. Motion not carried. Chair Kostuch said that future movie posters should have a disclaimer on the posters that the City of . Edina doesn't endorse the movie. 41 0 Member Zarrin excused herself from the meeting at 8:26pm. Motion made by Chair Kostuch and seconded by Member Thompson that in the future the Education and Outreach Working Group take a more formalized approach to getting the full commission approval as opposed just being informational. Motion carried unanimously. Member Howard is proposing the movies "Farmland" or "Revenge of Electric Car" for the May movie. Motion made by Member Howard and seconded by Member Thompson to play the movie Revenge of the Electric Car for the 3`d Friday in May. Member Glahn Opposed. Member Howard Abstained. Motion carried. Member Thompson gave an update on the April forum. There were 189 participants with a lot of active youth hosting it. F. Home Energy Squad Subcommittee. Mr. Bintner said he prepaid $1500 to the Home Energy Squad. Member Gubrud will be writing an article for the Fall About Town on Home Energy Squad. G. Local Food Working Group. Chair Kostuch will ask past Member Latham if this working group needs to exist. H. Recycling and Solid Waste Working Group. Keith Ellison went to Washington and discussed how great of a job 50`h & France was doing with Business Recycling. I. Student Subcommittee. No Comment. J. Urban Forest Task Force. Chair Kostuch will ask past Member Latham if this task force needs to exist. K. Water Quality Working Group. Member Waddick said the group received a new member. They are working on their outreach with Arden Park to educate on buffers and stream bank restoration. Flyers will be dropped off door to door. The group will have a table at Arneson Park for the Mother's Day plant sale to talk about Storm Drain issues. The Storm Drain Stenciling will start again with two youth groups from Good Samaritan Church. About Town will have an article on Mow High and Storm Drain Stenciling. IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Maintaining an Aging Infrastructure. Mr. Bintner talked about how the City maintains its infrastructure. The City uses an Asset Management approach. We are now replacing infrastructure after its first cycle. Storm Sewer, Trails, and Sidewalk installs have increased when the City reconstructs a neighborhood while the road area is decreasing. The average lifecycle replacement is 80-85yrs. Member Seeley excused herself from the meeting at 9:14pm. B. 2015-2016 EEC Term Summary/ Council Advisory Status/ Workplan. No Comment. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Kostuch declared the meeting adjourned at 9:16p.m. Motion made by Member Glahn and seconded by Member Waddick to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfu y- y bmitted, Rebe ca ter GIS Administrator Liaisons: Report attendance monthly and attach this report to the Commission minutes for the packet. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session J F M A M J J A S O N D Work Session Work Session 1# of Mtgs.1 Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions There is no number typed on the meetings' line. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 NAME Glahn, William TERM 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 41712015 (Enter Date) 5 83% Gubrud, Bob 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 5 83% Howard, John 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% Kostuch, Keith 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% Manser, Richard 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 100% Satterlee, Lauren 3/1/2018 1 1 1 3 75% Seeley, Melissa 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 4 100% Sierks, Bill 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% Thompson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% Waddick, Louise 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% Zarrin, Sarah 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 4 67% Heer, John 2/1/2015 1 1 2 100% Latham, Dianne Plunkett 2/1/2015 1 1 2 100% 0 0% Anderson, Reilly 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 5 83% Padmanabhan, Sunaya 1 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 4 67% Liaisons: Report attendance monthly and attach this report to the Commission minutes for the packet. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting` Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. 'A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is 0 0 0 N- MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 16, 2015 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Nelson, Olson, and Spanhake. ABSENT Campbell and Rummel ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Member LaForce nominated chair Bass to continue as chair and the nomination was seconded by member Janovy. All voted aye. Motion carried. Member Janovy nominated member LaForce to continue as vice chair and the nomination was seconded by member Nelson. All voted aye. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA The agenda was revised to do roll call first. Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member LaForce to approve the revised meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2015 Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to approve the revised minutes of Mar. 19, 2015. &II voted aye. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT — None. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Grandview District Update Economic development manager Mr. Bill Neuendorf and consultant Mr. Dave Anderson with Frauenshuh, presented. Mr. Neuendorf said he first presented to the ETC last year and tonight's presentation would be a summary of ideas since the last presentation. He said the same presentation was made to the City Council and Planning Commission, except the ETC's presentation would be more transportation related. Mr. Neuendorf described the location of the Grandview area and the process used to arrive at the diverse ideas that they currently have. He said a presentation was made to the City Council last week and they offered suggestions that are being implemented. He said the ideas are very fluid and have changed several times and will probably continue to change for some time. He said an open house is scheduled for Apr. 22. Mr. Neuendorf said three of the seven guiding principles are transportation related. He explained that even though businesses in the area are close to housing, residents feel the need to drive. He said the outcome of an image survey of older residents and high school students showed that both groups had the same preference. Continuing, Mr. Neuendorf said from their discovery session which was attended by over 100 participants, three scenarios have been developed with four popular themes—1)Multi-general Community Center; 2)Fitness Wellness Center; 3)Arts and Culture Center; and 4)Performing Arts Center. He said they arrived at the layout that they have by using the donut analogy — 0utting what they want in the 'sweet spot' and going further out with things like parking next to the train track, plus a new east/west street that would eventually extend over TH100. He said feedback was not to build up to the street and they'll have a woonerf-style street primarily for pedestrians and bikers but it will accommodate cars too. 0r. Anderson explained that they have three conceptual designs for the 3.3 acre site. He said concept #1 would include hree components -- residential tower, office, and civic plus restaurant/retail, and park and ride. The site will be accessible at five points (Eden, Arcadia (two areas) and Vernon (two areas). Concept #2 is different in that it adds another housing unit; and in concept #3, the office tower is moved to the north and the residential tower to the south. nisrussinn Member Janovy mentioned the density at 7200 France and said the Grandview area is denser. Mr. Neuendorf said currently, they are looking at the possibilities and have not looked at density which is generally taken into consideration with a traffic study. He said since the public works building closed traffic was significantly reduced but he is aware that the new development will bring traffic and a traffic study will be done. Member La Force said he was not concerned with density but is concerned with crossing Vernon at Interlachen Blvd and current congestion and considering adding more cars. He suggested extending the traffic study further out to include this intersection. Member Nelson said he too was not concerned with density and asked about parking by the civic center. Nr. Neuendorf said the civic center was on top of a parking ramp and the current Jerry's Ramp has approximately 200 stalls. Member Janovy asked about parking requirements for residential housing and offices per code. Mr. Anderson said for medical offices it is 5 per 1000; retail is 6-7 per 1000; and residential is based on the product type which could be 1% or 1% vehicles per unit. Chair Bass expressed concerns about directing 1,000 cars to drive through the development while at the same time saying it ould be pedestrian -friendly. Mr. Neuendorf said it was a challenge to find the right balance. He said they need to have iultiple entrances to the site and they also heard from neighbors about traffic on Eden. He said they do not want the entrances hidden similarly to Excelsior and Grand where it is a challenge to find the parking entrances if you are not familiar with the area. Chair Bass said there is a close connection to parking and transit and she did not want to see a heavy focus on parking to the detriment of pedestrian access to transit. She suggested that they think carefully about locating the residential building so that the businesses are easily accessible by pedestrians so that they do not end up driving. Member Janovy asked about trip generation and Mr. Neuendorf said they have not studied this yet. She said shared streets (woonerfs) works well with low traffic volume but accessing 600 parking stalls would not be low volume and asked if he's thought about this. He said this is a balancing act that they are still working through. He said the City has an easement that could be used for a road if necessary but he is hoping that most of the traffic will not go thru the woonerf but instead turn off towards parking. Mr. Anderson added that it will depend on the programming of the civic center — will there be evening performances with 150 residents arriving at that same time or daytime performances? He said it is hard to speculate now but they have options for parking and managing design. Member Janovy asked when a transportation study would be done for this site and the broader area and Mr. Neuendorf said at this time they are only looking at the old public works site. He said the transportation study and the broader study is on his work plan for 2015. He said a traffic study for the 3.3 acre site would probably occur simultaneously with the broader study. Member La Force asked if there was any possibility the bus garage may move and Mr. Neuendorf said the City has no control over the bus garage but they did briefly look at a design that would include that area but because of the train tracks the options are limited. ei hborhood Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Surve tanner Nolan said back in January the ETC discussed the reconstruction survey and it was also on their work plan. He said staff met with the ETC's communication committee (La Force/Iyer/Janovy) and member Janovy shared sample questions. 2 Staff reviewed the questions and selected some and called the survey Multimodal Traffic Survey that would be mailed two ears before a neighborhood is scheduled for reconstruction. And still continue to use the survey that is sent out one year efore a project because it is project specific. The Multimodal Traffic Survey would be mailed out by May 1 to the 2016 neighborhood project areas. Discussion Member Spanhake said the questions seemed clear and she liked that the data would be collected two years prior. She suggested adding another option to Q.4 and Q.S. Member Boettge concurred and said the time of day matters too because she feels safe alone but if she is with the children and there are garbage trucks, school buses, etc. she feels differently. Chair Bass asked if residents would be able to select more than one option from Q.4 and suggested finding a way to capture the views of children related to Q.6 because some of them are out on their own. Member Nelson said using satisfied and dissatisfied in Q.2 may not capture accurate data. Member Janovy said in the original draft, there were choices which would make it easier to quantify the data. Member Iyer said the survey looked good. He said the key thing he wanted clarified was what they wanted out of the process. He suggested that staff communicate to residents the general process that the City is following and explain how the survey data would be used. He asked if the survey would be taken one per household or multiple per household. Chair Bass added that it is a step in the right direction and it is important that they communicate with residents how the data will be used. Member Janovy asked why the streetlight question was not included and planner Nolan said because the PACS fund is united, but it is important. Member Janovy asked if it could be included in Q.S. She said there is also insufficient lighting and he considered this a safety issue. It could also be added in Q.9. Member La Force said if a design feature was added because of input it would be good to note it in future feasibility studies. He asked if it was really necessary to collect so much demographic information. Member Janovy said there are gender difficulties in traveling and also for children and those with physical disability. Member Loeffelholz suggested creating benchmarks to test the data. Chair Bass asked if staff planned to edit the pre -project survey and planner Nolan said it would stay pretty much the same except where it asked about sidewalks and other transportation related questions. Member Janovy said she can see the benefit in keeping the two surveys separate. 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Summary Report Planner Nolan said the report was put together for Manager Neal and was shared with the ETC as an 'FYI.' In reference to the Cornelia Drive Sidewalk, member Olsen asked if projects were bidding high or low and planner Nolan said they are coming in lower this year. Member Loeffelholz said it made sense to show 10 years prior for comparison and planner Nolan said 2014 was the first reporting year. ember Janovy asked if public works' budget was being adjusted for maintenance and planner Nolan said staff has been 'Waving this discussion and will be discussing this with Council in an upcoming work session and the public works director will ask for an increase. raffic Safety Report of April 1, 2015 IWB.1. Member Janovy asked about clearing the brushes and planner Nolan said the current clearing schedule is twice annually and public works will increase this to four clearings. B.2. Member Janovy said it wasn't clear what the recommendation was. Planner Nolan said the area meets warrants for a flashing beacon but it would interfere with the crossing guard that is there. He said director Millner spoke with the school district about doing a joint traffic study and they are considering it. The cost would be $60,000 split equally between the school district and the City. Member Spanhake suggested moving this to C.I. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Iyer to forward the April 1, 2015, TSC report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried. Updates Student Members — None. Bike Edina Working Group Member Janovy said Bloomington Public Health has funding for temporary bike parking and they are working out logistics. They are planning a handlebar assessment of bike routes later this month and interested participants can contact her. Living Streets Working Group Planner Nolan said the draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission. He said communications & technology (CTS) is 40oing the final edits and graphic placement. The plan will be submitted to City Council on Apr. 21 and a public hearing is cheduled for May 6. Feedback will be taken on Speak Up, Edina! Walk Edina Working Group — None. Communications Committee — None. In response to complaints about drivers stopping in the crosswalks on France Avenue, member La Force wrote an article titled 'Stop Behind the Crosswalks in South Area' and asked for feedback. He said Planner Nolan spoke with communications director Bennerotte and she suggested sending it to Edina Sun Current for publication in the guest advisory column or the City's advisory blog post. Chair Bass said it's an important message but most traveling on France may not live in Edina. Member Iyer said he lives in the neighborhood and is at these intersections regularly. He said he's observed that more drivers are stopping behind the marked crosswalks but when they are making a right turn, they do creep into the crosswalk. He asked if the city engineer reviewed the article for accuracy. He feels like things are getting better as time passes and drivers learn the procedures. Member Nelson suggested using a message board for educational outreach. Member Spanhake suggested working with area businesses to put educational signs in their establishment. Planner Nolan said this was a good idea and he's learned recently that CTS is working on an education video. Member Iyer said staff seemed to be reactive instead of being proactive. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS hair Bass said an email received from Mr. Johnson echoed much of the discussion above. Mr. Johnson's email talked about is concern with the improvements at the intersection of 66th & France — it is now more difficult for pedestrians to walk from the Colony to Southdale Mail even though the improvements were to make it safer. Because drivers do not stop behind the 4 crosswalk pedestrians often have to leave the crosswalk as they go around cars that are stopped on the crosswalk. Mr. 0hnson blamed the ETC for designing such a project. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Regarding handicap or disability parking at Morningside Church, member Janovy said she is confused because the markings are in conflict with City policy and this issue has come up before. She said a clear policy is needed. Regarding the free range parenting story that has been in the news, she said the current guideline is that children 10 years or younger should not be alone due to development. Regarding riding on sidewalks, she said more people will be doing this and she is still concerned that they are not educating the public. She asked that residents inform their lawn services providers to not blow leaves into the streets and set sprinkler heads so they do not spray the sidewalks. Member Nelson said he was intrigued by student member Rummel's comment last months about solar roads and wondered if they would consider a test area at the high school on Valley View Road. He said there are solar companies in the community and there may be grant money available. He said the power generated could probably be used to power streetlights or a flashing beacon. Member Nelson also talked about the amount of traffic on eastbound W 66th in the evenings — he said it is dangerous for pedestrians because there is no sidewalk from Ridgeview to TH-100. Member La Force said on Valley View Road toward Benton where a sidewalk was added, the sod seem to be dead. He asked if a missing segment of sidewalk, about 30 ft., could be filled in near the Grandview Library and planner Nolan said at the end of the year they look to see how much money is left over so he will add this to the list. Member Spanhake said the on-ramp from Tracy to the TH-62 has potholes. Planner Nolan will pass this on to Mn/DOT. STAFF COMMENTS nonstruction started in Arden Park D; staff received a $318,000 grant from Mn/DOT for the 54th St. bridge. Other eighborhoods are scheduled to start mid-May or June. Interlachen Blvd Sidewalk — staff is evaluating filling in the sidewalk all the way to Mirror Lakes Dr. Feedback from residents have been positive. A transportation study for the greater Southdale area is in the CIP for 2015 pending the small area plan. The Nine Mile Creek Trail east of Tracy is scheduled for construction starting in Aug.; this summer they will find out if they'll have funding for the western leg. Staff has put together a proposed annual bike rack cost share program; PACS Fund will contribute $10,000 (50% of cost) and participating businesses the other 50%; currently working on how to promote the program and the application process. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned. C 0 ATTENDANCE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D SM SM WS # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 4 NAME TERM (Enter Date) (Enter Date) (Enter Date) Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 4 100% Boett e, Emil 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 4 100% Iyer, Sura 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 4 100% LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 3 75% Loeffelholz, Ralf 1 1 2 100% Janov , Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 4 100% Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 4 100% Olson, Larry 2/1/2016 1 1 1 3 75% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100% S anhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 4 100% Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 2 50% Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 25% • • To: Mayor and City Council From: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager Date: June 2, 2015 Subject: Grandview Former Public Works Site Update regarding Potential Scenarios Action Requested: Information for discussion only. Background: o e,� 0VK • ,��Y)RPOR�t$0 te�3tt • Agenda Item #: XII. A. Action ❑ Discussion X Information ❑ Planning and visioning for the City's former Public Works site began five years ago when the facility was moved to a newly acquired site. In fall 2014, the City engaged Frauenshuh Inc., as a development partner to provide assistance and professional insight as the City explores ways to re -use the site for a combination of public and private uses. This approach is taken to provide for a new civic facility on the site while simultaneously returning the remaining portion of the site to the tax base with a complementary use. During the past seven months of preliminary planning and community engagement, hundreds of suggestions and comments were collected from interested stakeholders. Numerous concepts were explored and a variety of uses were considered on the site. Large public meetings were held at key stages of the preliminary site planning process. These efforts culminated in the preparation of four potential scenarios. Each scenario includes a combination of public and private uses that share parking facilities. The scenarios are rooted in the 7 Guiding Principles adopted in the Grandview Development Framework and address many of the community suggestions. An Open House to solicit public comments on the potential scenarios was held on April 22, 2015. Approximately 125 residents reviewed the scenarios, asked questions and discussed areas of interest with the design team. 80 people provided written comments and several people provided online comments. All materials used at the public meeting have been posted on www.edinamn.gov/grandview. Summaries of the written and online comments are attached. In addition to the public comment, the City Council reviewed the economic impact of each scenario and discussed the four potential scenarios at the May 19, 2015 Work Session. The economics of an "all public" and "all private" scenario were also considered as part of the discussion. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Grandview FPW Update June 2, 2015 Page 2 • Next Steps: Based on the input collected, the design team intends to move forward as follows: 1) Scenarios #2 and #3 will be further studied to understand the market feasibility and appropriate scale of multi -family housing on the site. 2) Scenarios (#1 and #4) with an office building or medical office building will not be pursued. 3) Programmatic details and operational feasibility of a large civic facility (approx. 60,000 square foot) will be further studied. a. Programming elements will likely include: multigenerational, multipurpose programming, art center and performing arts. b. Flexible spaces will be pursued to maximize the longevity of the facility. 4) Possible funding streams for the construction and operation of the new civic facility will be further studied. 5) Alternative uses of the existing Senior Center will be studied as those operations could be combined in the new facility. • 6) Operational requirements of a park and ride facility and future transit connection will be further studied. 7) Transportation impacts of the large civic and multi -family housing scenarios will be further studied. Attachments: Open House comments (6 -pages) Speak Up Edina comments (12 -pages) • FPW Redevelopment Potential Scenarios Open House, April 22, 2015 Summary of Written Public Comments Approximately 125 people participated in the 2 -hour Open House. After a brief presentation of the current scenarios, participants spoke with 8 members of the design team who staffed tables with materials about various aspects of the project. In addition to the verbal comments, 80 people filled out written comment sheets. Those written comments are summarized in this document. PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING SUMMARY - There are mixed opinions on the preliminary site plans. There is general support for a mixed- use, public-private development on the site provided that the private components allow a higher caliber of public space to be achieved. There are also strong feelings that the publicly -owned land should remain for exclusive public use. The North Civic scenario garnered the greatest support. While the tower may provide "grand" views, many residents feel that it will set the tone for development in the Grandview District that is too high and too • dense. Many were pleased with the synergy created by combining the outdoor plaza with the main entrance of the new civic facility. The scale and mass of the apartment should be reduced so that additional green space can be provided. Some of the units should be priced to be affordable to moderate income households. Is When a final direction is determined, a full traffic study should be conducted so that necessary roadway improvements can be identified and implemented to better serve residents and patrons. Attention should be paid to the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to motorists and transit riders. FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 1 CENTRAL CIVIC WITH RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND MEDICAL OFFICE POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • Like the high rise & office to complement civic building. (x 7) • Already enough • Prefer high rise on North instead of on Eden (x 2) medical office in • The mixture of day & evening uses creates more of a mix. the area (x 6) • New medical offices here would provide better access to services. • Not enough parking • An urgent care is needed in this area to support the • Like the office; it should connected directly to parking garage. larger civic use • Residential tower provides good views • 10 stories is too • Like the open spaces of this design. tall, could it be a • Prefer high rise residential instead of low rise mid -rise? • This is the right location for density & height due to proximity to • Mid -block location Hwy 100 does not seem ideal for civic FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 1 CENTRAL CIVIC WITH RESIDENTIAL TOWER & RESIDENTIAL MIDRISE OR HOTEL POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • Prefer housing instead of medical office (x 5) • 10-12 stories is too tall (x 18) • Would be nice to have a hotel in the area (x 2) • Too much residential density for the • A small scale hotel would be OK. site (x 2) • Supportive of density if it helps fund civic • Civic facility needs better visibility and Concept is too bulky (x 3) presence from the major streets. • Lack of "wow" factor NORTH CIVIC WITH RESIDENTIAL MIDRISE OR HOTEL POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • Prefer this layout over the Central Civic (x 25) • No hotel (x 11) • Overall density is similar to new Byerly's on • Prefer apartments instead of hotel (x 4) France • Reduce apartments and add more • Prefer a boutique hotel instead of apartments green space (x 4) • Enlarge public plaza, add more dramatic Concept is too bulky (x 3) character to draw people here • Catalyst to properties on north and east • Closest to 2012 Framework PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING- GENERAL COMMENTS • All are too dense, add grass (x 9) • Provide real traffic figures generated by the proposals; some streets are already difficult and more cars will make it worse. (x 8) • Affordably -priced units must be included too (x 7) • Improve routes for pedestrian and bicyclists throughout Grandview (x 5) • Support any mixed-use as long as larger civic option is included (x 4) • Support each of the mixed-use concepts (0) • Too many people and too much congestion (x 3). • No more housing in Edina, especially not here (x 3). • Need more green space; where will the children play (x 2)? • Sad to lose public land (x2 ) • Too much private compared to public (x 2) • Set aside space for future transit station (x 2) • Explore larger park-and-ride with Met. Council (x 2) • Try moving Civic to the south part of site (x 2) • The site designs are improving (x 2). • Can civic be moved to southeast corner? (x 2) • None of these site plans show originality nor do they create a unique opportunity (x 2) • Don't like any of these options (x 2); keep it as a neighborhood park; site isn't large enough for public/private combined. • If we already have it in Edina, we don't need a new one. • We seem to need more senior housing, multi -story is OK. • Ok with residential tower, but add more green space. FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 2 • • 0 • :7 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING- GENERAL COMMENTS • Consider apartments for artists in the community • Consider cooperative housing • Can affordable units be for seniors? • Is low-income housing being considered here? • Too dense unless it is affordable/subsidized • Age 50+ families are downsizing and want to stay in Edina • Not interested in living in a small unit, but a maybe a unit with nice views. • The whole Grandview area needs to have a "welcoming" density (similar to Byerly's apartments on France). • Don't want new people and strangers in the neighborhood. • High rise would change the character too much and set precedent to build more of the same. • Improve pedestrian connects between this site and adjacent properties; consider climate - controlled walkways • Would like to see community center with residential apartments on top • Is retail realistic on this site? • Prefer to see more retail & restaurants • Excellent improvements for current and future transit use • Prefer to see more emphasis on restaurants, retail and civic spaces. • Don't like any of these —keep it public. • Need to identify environmental sustainability features • There will be a parking problem. PROGRAMMING OF CIVIC FACILITY SUMMARY—There is broad support for a new community facility that serves multiple ages and multiple purposes. There are multiple preferences for the scale and programming within a new facility. There is support for the Art Center and a desire to create a new Performing Arts space. There is also support for new fitness and recreation space that is community -focused. There is concern regarding the capital costs as well as the ongoing operational expenses. When a final direction is determined, interested residents and stakeholder groups should be involved in the design of the actual facility. NEW EDINA ARTS CENTER (24,000 SQ FT) POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • A new Art Center is sorely needed. • Art Center will not be profitable (x 2) • Include 5-10 artist studios that can be • Art Center is not needed; others have not rented been successful; we can use world-class • Smaller size is friendlier; no need for every facilities in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. possible activity in one place. • Art Center is too narrow; add recreation to fund the arts. FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 3 NEW EDINA CENTER FOR ARTS & COMMUNITY (60,000 SQ FT WITH 350 FIXED SEATS) POSITIVE COMMENTS POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • Largest civic is most desirable (x 8) • Fixed seats limit use of the • A performance space with tiered seating is most needed. (x 4) space • Fixed seats and good acoustics are needed (x 3) • Arts & culture should not • Edina needs a community theater (x 2). go on this site. It should • Love to see a marquee arts & cultural amenity in Edina. be a community rec. • Make stage large enough for bands and choirs. center, possible with • This provides something that Edina lacks —a great idea. some arts included. • Prefer multiple discipline and innovative community spaces. • Likely to draw more • Valuable to more people in community activity to Grandview NEW EDINA CENTER FOR ARTS & COMMUNITY (56,000 SQ FT WITH 300 MOVABLE SEATS) POSITIVE COMMENTS CONCERNS • Prefer the flexibility of a performance hall with movable seats (x 17) • Prefer fixed • Flexibility and adaptability for future needs are important seats, better • Like the sense of community that results from dual use of the building quality • Appreciate the multi -generational approach CIVIC FACILITY - GENERAL COMMENTS • More civic space is better (x 4) • Would like to see new swimming pool and work out space too (x 4). • Include outdoor space for small community events like festivals, performances and farmers market (x 3) • New civic space must cover its operating costs (x 3) • Need a rec center for all ages (x 3). • Like 60,000 SF civic, add more grass and flowers instead of more buildings (x 2) • Arts and performing space is essential in Edina (x 2) • Include arts, choir, dance & other user groups in the final planning process (x 2). • Would prefer recreation/health/sports (basketball, racquetball, exercise machines) instead of arts (x2). • Would like to see recreation & fitness in addition to arts & all ages community programming (x2) • What data did City Council use to support arts & culture (x2)? • Would like see History Center relocated here too (x 2). • Prefer arts & community instead of workout space and basketball courts (x 2). • Free public parking is important here (x2). Eden Ave Grill and funeral home need more parking sometimes. • Improve parking at existing Senior Center so the building can be used more fully during the daytime. • We already have art center, swimming pool and skating arena, why more? FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 4 • 0 11 r: CIVIC FACILITY - GENERAL COMMENTS • Include water feature • 1 support moving the art center but not at the expense of a new recreation center. • Thanks for listening to comments from Art Center staff. • Include windows so people can see artists working. • Include access to the outdoors from the new building • Use this site for a community gathering space — recreation center, meeting room, commercial kitchen, etc.) • Outdoor art should also be included in the public plazas. • This should be community focused with an arts component (instead of the other way). • Public space should be performing arts with theater, senior center and teen center. • Prefer the indoor and outdoor civic spaces to be adjacent to each other • Would like a low-cost fitness/wellness center; if you can't afford fees, you could work at the front desk. • Already too much high-quality arts in the Twin Cities. Arts & culture always loses money • Define new community space by the needs of multiple ages; don't segment into senior, teen, etc. • Include senior center and new fitness center in the larger options. • Could usable green roof -top space be added? • Who wants a railroad running through a public space? • Consider solar panels and green roofs. • Consider a park with pool, tennis courts and picnic tables. • No housing; a dog park would be better. • Maximize parking potential for future transit hub and future growth • Civic facility needs high visible and clear entrance. • Strong and strategic management of the new civic facility is essential; not simply first -come -first- served, but strategic programming to maximize the long-term use. • Security is important since many different groups could be using simultaneously. • Don't like any of these; turn it into a neighborhood park. • As a 30 -year resident, the past rationale against new facilities was a lack of public land. Now we have land but still no community center. • Thanks for the efforts to listen to and engage the citizens to the degree that you have. • Food operations should be privatized here. • Add two more stories to civic to provide a "grand" view that is open to the public. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS • Public lands should stay public (x 11) • City Council isn't listening (x 2) • Thanks for taking questions (x2). • If we need restaurants, bring in food trucks (x 2). • Improve pedestrian access throughout Grandview district • Will City Council even see public comments? • Prefer larger public use and less private development FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 5 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS • Prefer 100% public but if that isn't possible, I prefer North Civic. • Whole complex should be developed and owned by the City, not privately developed. • Leave it 'as is'; why rush to put profit in developers hands? • Council member Staunton laid out good priorities on April 7th • City Council is on the right track. • Move the Art Center here and use that building as a nature center or nature preserve. • When did the streets at Grandview Square become reserved for condo use? • The City Council should have an actual listening session. • Thanks for the City's hard work on this. • Decide something already; 5 years of study is too long. • Not in favor of 100% public option; would prefer to see City sell the site outright and pay for the 8 - acres it bought years ago. • The final project isn't about the City Council wants, they should represent all of us. • Many people I've talked with distrust the process. My word, we've been at this for five years. • Residents should be involved in the final design. • No TIF or corporate welfare. • It's been five years since the first planning; what's the hurry in building here? • 1 hope the City isn't just trying to pay itself back for money spent on new Public Works facility. • Public investment in Grandview benefits whole community as opposed to Braemar improvements which benefit a small fraction of community. • No need to duplicate Southdale • These meetings are too frustrating; isn't there a master plan for this entire area?! • Community owned rec centers are self-sustaining and needed in this part of Edina. • City and School District should consider sharing "community space". • Pursue opportunities rather than drag out the process. FPW Potential Scenarios Open House, summary of written comments Page 6 L' • 40 0 FPW Potential Scenarios — Speak Up Edina Comments April — May 2015 Discussion: Redevelopment of the Former Public Works Site — Potential Scenarios Over the last five months, the design team has considered hundreds of comments and suggestions received by the public as they prepared redevelopment scenarios for the vacant 3.3 -acre former Public Works site. Three potential scenarios have been prepared. Each scenario includes a combination of public and private uses. Since the planning is still in the early stages, full details have not yet been determined. Help further refine these concepts by reviewing the site plan, public uses and providing additional comments below.All comments will be shared with the City Council as they decide on the best options for the community. For more information on the options and • the process, visit www.EdinaNM.gov/Grandview. • 3 Topics 25 Answers Closed 2015-05-24 http://speakupedina.org/discussions/redevelopment-of-the-former-public-works-site-potential-scenarios FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 1 Topic #1: Public Uses . The City Council has encouraged the design team to pursue 3 out of the 4 functional themes that have been popularly supported. The new public facility on the site is envisioned to be a center for arts and community. Indoor programming could include visual arts (such as pottery, painting, glass, metals), t performing arts (such as music, theater, film, dance, lectures, poetry) and multigenerational, multi-purpose programming (such as social and recreational, educational, wellness, history, and community and special events). Two outdoor civic plazas would also be included. Adequate public parking stalls would also be included to accommodate a future transit connection and park-and-ride. What do you think of these public uses at this location? 6 Responses Hope Melton 25 days ago • I like this combination of visual and performing arts and multigenerational space. There has also been discussion about moving the Senior Center to the site. Since teens and young people now have no space of their own, and "seniors" have been segregated off in their own space --someone needs to define what "programming" means and how this would work. Above all, the young people and "seniors", perhaps meeting together, need to weigh in on what they would like to see. These decisions should be made by the people who will benefit --not some commission speaking for them. 0 Supports Chris Bremer 25 days ago Spaces for the arts and flexible spaces for various activities seem like good uses of the indoor areas, but I am uncertain about what is really intended by the term "multigenerational." Is it intended that cross -generational activities occur in these spaces (this seems aspirational but maybe not realistic, most of the time), or that different age/interest groups could uses the spaces at different times (such as young parents with kids, bridge players, or a martial arts club)? Will there be sound isolation for larger rooms so that a dance or "battle of the bands" could take place without disrupting activities in other rooms or in residential spaces? 0 Supports FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 2 • Chip Jones 24 days ago I really like the idea of having a visual arts and performing arts space in proximity to one another in Edina. This would be wonderful for the residents of Edina. I do think there needs to be more clarification on the third area, "multi -generational, multi-purpose programming". It's possible that multi-purpose programming like "community and special events programming" could be held in the same space used by the performing arts (theater, etc). I'm not not sure what "recreational and wellness" programs would entail. This also needs further clarification so that the proper type of space can be identified. The same applies to "social and educational" programming. 0 Supports Jennifer J 23 days ago This is not a smart way to define the need for or programming of a new public facility. The public is playing second fiddle to the private development interests. If millions in public dollars will be spent on a new facility, the process to determine the need for and uses within that facility should be free of developer influence. If we are going to pay for a new public facility, let's make sure it is what we would envision if all options were on the table. What would we do with 3.3 acres of public land and up to $38 million in public money if we could do anything? That's the question we need to ask. • 0 Supports • Joel Stegner, Community volunteer 23 days ago Really like it that the City has responded to the strong public preference for Grandview to have a major public use that will enhance life in the community. To remain a destination community, our public investment in modern public facilities to appeal to all ages, interest and backgrounds must.continue - updating what we have and adding facilities to.meet growing and unfilled needs. If we stand still and rest on our laurels, we get left behind. 0 Supports Donna Callender 19 days ago I attended the April 22 open house about the Grandview project. This is the first city (?) presentation on Grandview that I have attended, and I found that whoever was running it showed contempt and rudeness to me and my fellow voters ... er... residents. FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 3 At 5:30, the start time, an unidentified man addressed the seated assembly. He did not identify himself or his • role in the proceedings. He said there was no structure for the meeting, and he would wait 10 minutes to start until the room had "critical mass," and then he would take questions from us. At 5:50, 20 minutes later, he came back and addressed us again. He said that, after a quick summary by another man who also was not identified or introduced, questions from us would be answered. After the summary, the man asked for questions from voters .... er... residents. After a very few pointed questions about density, who would own what, and traffic concerns (for which he had no answers), the man abruptly announced that question time was over and we should go look at the posters until a second, unidentified group of residents arrived. He ignored the confused expressions and questions from the residents. A henchman in the back of the room started applauding, as if to signal that our participation was ended. I call him a henchman because I heard the two of them talking about it just before the meeting started. And just like that, the community was dismissed. I still don't know who these people were. I looked around for Rod Serling to tell us we were in an episode of the Twilight Zone, but he wasn't there. I don't blame him. This contempt for community input shows how bogus this process is. When those in charge only offer "input" on options chosen by themselves, in a forum that was advertised as a discussion but was immediately shut down when people started to discuss, we're not dealing with democracy. We're dealing with something Stalin-esque, a discredited government model that is very disturbing to find here in the U.S. I'm thinking that we need a city council who practices democracy instead of giving it flaccid lip service. This lack of transparency and prohibition of open discussion of issues is not, in my opinion, good enough for any American community. I'm still waiting for a response from any of the council members I contacted about this. The contempt and rudeness shown to voters .... er.... residents, is shameful. No one's buying this clumsy farce. I • would suggest that, next time, include the community for real and respect us as the reasonable voters ... er... adults we are. I was going to suggest it, but this is one farce over the line. I don't believe anything this City Council says anymore, and I'd like an investigative journalist out there to follow the money trails and see where they lead. I'm glad I only wasted one evening to find out that the Politburo is alive and well in Edina. I won't waste any more. 0 Supports 0 FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 4 . Topic #2: Site Plan 7 The potential site plans contains different combinations of public and private uses at sizes necessary to be successful in the marketplace (click here to view all three concept plans). The new public facility could be complimented by new apartments, hotel, or office space with retail and restaurant space. Each use has an impact on the traffic patterns and neighborhood feel that will be fully evaluated after the general direction is selected. What do you think of the potential site plans? 7 Responses Hope Melton 25 days ago The developers are trying to cram way too much into the space. This is inevitable, however, because its a privately driven decision process. In other words, the "highest and best use" of most of this very valuable public • land must translate into significant profit for the developer. • The public needs to know if the public uses will also involve public ownership of the land. In any case, in order to make a profit on the deal, the private developer has to make up in private ownership/use what he loses in public use/ownership on the site. That's what's wrong with this whole deal. The planning should have been led by an independent planning consultant. 1 Support Chris Bremer 25 days ago I agree that there does not seem to be enough space for all of the proposed uses, and I am surprised that it is not specified whether land will be leased or sold, which seems like a big deal. It seems like developers might get most of the benefit from rising property values. Some questions: What kind of housing is being proposed? Will it be affordable for retirees or middle-income families? Would existing spaces like the Art Center and Senior Center be kept as public space and used for civic purposes? Will there be adequate public transit and parking to adequately serve the civic spaces at all times of the day and year? For example, what happens if the Senior Center schedules a large social event during the holiday shopping season? 0 Supports FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 5 Chip Jones 24 days ago . I like the idea of having limited commercial space, like a gallery, a coffee shop or limited retail but I don't like the idea of having an office building on this property. There's already plenty of office space within a block or two of this property. If revenues are needed to finance this project for generations to come, then I think that the office space should be located on an adjoining piece of property. This would allow enough space and flexibility for the 3.3 acres of land to be developed as needed for future public use. 0 Supports Jennifer J 23 days ago Imagine everything at Grandview Square (condos, park, Library/Senior Center, office building and parking) crammed onto the former public works site. That's pretty much what they're proposing. Grandview Square is approximately 12 acres. The former public works site is 3.3. Yet, they are proposing nearly as much to more development on the former public works site as currently exists at Grandview Square. Only 9-22% of the estimated interior sq. ft. of the proposed scenarios would be dedicated to civic/public space. 78-91% would be private. All scenarios would require rezoning and comp plan changes. If residents were concerned about the proposed • density at 7200 France, these proposals far exceed that. 0 Supports Joel Stegner, Community volunteer 23 days ago This is an ideal place for density, as there is no adjacent residential neighborhood and and it is several stories lower than the buildings on Vernon. The public facility should have the best site, and putting housing on top of it should be considered - small affordable market rate and affordable housing units. If commercial space is inadequate, then let the developer buy the.bus garage space and develop that. The City could help the school find a new bus location with.lower value real estate. 0 Supports • FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 6 • �J Beck Jacobson at May 19, 2015 at 7:29am CDT http://www.inforum.com/news/3742774-solar-gardens-coming-soon-fargo-and-moorhead Lets make some future investment for our community and make the best use for the entire spaces available soon, including transportation line. Progressive ideas that the next generations can be proud of. 0 Supports Jon DeMars Victorsen at May 20, 2015 at 10:12pm CDT I liken railroad tracks to airplane traffic: fun to watch, but noisy and disruptive if you're trying to hear anything. Unless they design quieter rail cars, the noise and tremors from the train tracks are not going to go away, and in my mind forever disrupt any performances, businesses, and homes on this site. And, it is entirely possible, the rail traffic will continue to increase on this line. The three proposals are shown, quietly, on paper and computer graphics. To evaluate the uses proposed on this site, we need to have the proposals presented with full volume sound to comprehend the railroad's impact. Now, imagine you're listening to a play or a concert and a long, long, long train comes rumbling by; how's that going to work, intermission? Suppose you're on an important business call or have your fifteen minute appointment with your doctor and a long, long, long train comes rumbling by; are you going to hear all the details? And we're proposing to tightly pack civic space, business and homes on this site, so more people can be affected, why? 0 Supports FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 7 Topic #3: Other 0 Members of the Edina community have a wide variety of passionate feelings for this site. What other comments would you like to share? 12 Responses Hone Melton 25 days ago Why is the City once again seeking public comment? In response to charges that this has not been a democratic planning process, council members consistently assert this "wide variety of opinions" argument, including the fact that it's gone on for years, and hundreds of people have weighed in. That's not the issue. The issue is that hundreds have weighed in on surveys, letters to council, "discovery" sessions, SpeakUp Edina, and letters to the editor in the Sun Current, but the Council continues to ignore what a majority of residents are saying. The public is saying (data from public records summarized on the Public Grandview website): • Grandview 2014 Survey: 51 % oppose more office space, 54% oppose townhouse and condo development, 64% oppose more apartments, 66% favor public purposes only, 61% oppose selling the public land, and 72% favor arts/cultural opportunities. • • 2014 Letters to Council: 68% favor a community center (6% oppose), 54% favor a moratorium on the RFI for private developers. • SpeakUp Edina! as of 2/13/15: 74% endorse a community center (8% oppose), 44% endorse retaining public land, 5% favor mixed use, 24% have concerns about traffic/transportation. December 4th and January 15th (high school) Discovery Sessions: 59% and 53%, respectively, support public uses of the land, 1-2% and 3-8%, respectively, favor private use/housing. And what do we get? We get a majority of the space for high rise (10 - 12 story) office buildings and housing including mostly apartments. The condos and townhouse mix is unclear. I have asked two developers at two meetings if this will be more luxury housing. The answer is overwhelmingly yes, with perhaps a few "affordable" units for "single young people" on the lower floors. We do get some community space/use for "programming" --but within the larger context of majority private/commercial uses. This faux public participation process is a dangerous game. It feeds public cynicism and lack of trust in government. It's a game we all lose. 3 Supports FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 8 Chiu Jones 24 days ago I am not opposed to the proposed residential component. In fact I like it for two reasons. One, it brings more people into this area which will add some vitality. Secondly, it provides tax revenues which should help offset the costs of this project on a long term basis. With the right mix of people, coffee shops, gallery space, concerts and more this could really become a lively area, BUT I think residential is an important element for that to work. I also hope that the city would be willing to create a climate controlled walkway over to the Jerry's building from the proposed residential tower. This would be a wonderful addition for all and would provide access to the arts and cultural center, both TO and FROM Jerry's . 0 Supports Joel Stellner, Community volunteer 23 days ago The City needs to control the outcome. The outcome needs to be a new development with the public purpose put first. This is more like Braemar, less like Centennial Lakes, a nice project, but one for which the public component appears to have been put in on space left over - the best example being the band shell - right next to a noisy road, but with poor parking access, too little space to handle a large audience, no permanent seating and very hot in the summer sun. If it had been done right, it would have been a showpiece, but clearly the development was about a residential community, offices, and retail - with the public purpose being a fourth 18 priority. At Grandview, it needs to be number 1. Coming back with new concepts for public input is fine, as long as the City remembers the research it already did that showed a clear interest in putting the public purpose first. Now we should be focused on the best way to do that, with no backsliding. • 0 Supports Jon DeMars Victorsen 20 days ago Is it possible that Edina is inadvertently limiting community participation to geeks with fast computers? How many of you are having trouble navigating these reports? I find that the redevelopment scenarios are published in large, graphic -laden files. While they are thorough, I believe a significant amount of our residents with average computers find these reports hard to navigate. It takes a significant amount of time to review a graphic, then wait for the computer to catch up, so one can read the explanation, then wait some more, to go back to the graphic. Unless our residents are extremely patient and/or motivated to endure this process, they will and do give up on reading the entire report. In conclusion, please publish future reports parsed into chapters. 2 Supports Jon DeMars Victorsen 20 days ago FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 9 All three redevelopment scenarios, in my opinion, propose a static and unrealistic vision. The graphics show • only what is proposed for the site itself. In my experience, there is a ripple effect in rezoning and development. Specifically, the adjacent properties believe they too can rezone their property to have buildings with an equal - or -greater height and density. Therefore, it would be in the best interests for a community evaluation process, to have one graphic of the site development with existing neighboring buildings for orientation, and a second graphic showing adjacent properties with buildings of equal height and density. I believe this would show a truer impact of redevelopment scenarios. 4 Supports Jon DeMars Victorsen 19 days ago If we, the current generation, cannot find clarity and consensus in how to use this property, what is the harm in planting a forest on the land, entrusting it to a future generation to develop? 4 Supports Donna Callender 19 days ago I attended the April 22 open house about the Grandview project. This is the first city (?) presentation on Grandview that I have attended, and I found that whoever was running it showed contempt and rudeness to me and my fellow voters ... er... residents. 0 At 5:30, the start time, an unidentified man addressed the seated assembly. He did not identify himself or his role in the proceedings. He said there was no structure for the meeting, and he would wait 10 minutes to start until the room had "critical mass," and then he would take questions from us. At 5:50, 20 minutes later, he came back and addressed us again. He said that, after a quick summary by another man who also was not identified or introduced, questions from us would be answered. After the summary, the man asked for questions from voters .... er... residents. After a very few pointed questions about density, who would own what, and traffic concerns (for which he had no answers), the man abruptly announced that question time was over and we should go look at the posters until a second, unidentified group of residents arrived. He ignored the confused expressions and questions from the residents. A henchman in the back of the room started applauding, as if to signal that our participation was ended. I call him a henchman because I heard the two of them talking about it just before the meeting started. And just like that, the community was dismissed. I still don't know who these people were. I looked around for Rod Serling to tell us we were in an episode of the Twilight Zone, but he wasn't there. I don't blame him. This contempt for community input shows how bogus this process is. When those in charge only offer "input" on options chosen by themselves, in a forum that was advertised as a discussion but was immediately shut down when people started to discuss, we're not dealing with democracy. We're dealing with something Stalin-esque, a discredited government model that is very disturbing to find here in the U.S. • FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 10 • I'm thinking that we need a city council who practices democracy instead of giving it flaccid lip service. This lack of transparency and prohibition of open discussion of issues is not, in my opinion, good enough for any American community. I'm still waiting for a response from any of the council members I contacted about this. The contempt and rudeness shown to voters .... er.... residents, is shameful. No one's buying this clumsy farce. I would suggest that, next time, include the community for real and respect us as the reasonable voters ... er... adults we are. I was going to suggest it, but this is one farce over the line. I don't believe anything this City Council says anymore, and I'd like an investigative journalist out there to follow the money trails and see where they lead. I'm glad I only wasted one evening to find out that the Politburo is alive and well in Edina. I won't waste any more. 2 Supports Jim Stromberg 14 days ago It is obvious to the outside viewer that emotions run high on the Grandview site. My only comment relative to who 'owns' the high road in the discussions is that using percentages of population as opposing or favoring one viewpoint or another is pretty dangerous. One hundred percent of anything is 'all' of it, but if the 'all' is only a fraction of a community, it really doesn't accurately reflect what that community favors. So when I look at 'documentation' with percentages, I naturally wonder how many people in the population are factored into the equation. 0 Supports Jennifer J at May 12, 2015 at 12:33pm CDT Regarding the January 2014 Grandview Community survey: "The results of the study are projectable to all adult Edina residents within t 5.0 % in 95 out of 100 cases." Regarding the October 2014 Park & Rec Community Needs Assessment: "The results of the random sample of 1222 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision rate of at least +/-2.7%." 2 Supports Mark Mironer at May 18, 2015 at 10:54am CDT When so many residents favor a public use (and oppose residential use), it's very disappointing to see the City Council reselling the residential proposal over and over again. Over a year ago, my son and a number of his EHS classmates in an architecture course came up with designs for the space, many of which seemed to show more vision than the selected firm. The temporary bump to the city's finances is outweighed by giving up some prime land forever. 3 Supports FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 11 Lisa Nelson at May 18, 2015 at 8:57pm CDT 0 I know that this process has been going on for several years, and so there is a temptation to say it's time to just wrap it up, but I feel that the city does not have the majority of the public behind the private development approach. With the city bus garage space about to become available, we should go back to the drawing board and look at both parcels and the public option with a fresh eye. If we need to wait until the bus garage property is available, then we wait. It is worth it to get it right. An opportunity like this doesn't come up very often. A different point is that I think it would be well worth it to have a really top quality community center/arts/fitness center. Edina is an outstanding community in many respects, but our community center and arts center are definitely not. 3 Supports Amy Minge at May 19, 2015 at 11:15am CDT I attended the Grandview meeting at which the three development proposals were originally unveiled. Attendees were then allowed to "vote" for the proposal they liked the most, by placing green stickers on the corresponding placard. The problem was that the three plans were nearly identical in their ratios of public to private use. Of course this was exactly what city council members had intended. By limiting the choices to three nearly - identical plans, the "winning" plan's composition had been predetermined. In this way, the Grandview election bore an odd resemblance to a North Korean election. (You can vote for whichever candidate you like, but all candidates espouse an identical ideology.) • Yet, because we have the right to free speech in our nation (unlike in North Korea), one woman had the boldness to take a manila folder & say, "Here's for none of the above!" People smiled and laughed, & then began placing their stickers on the "None of the above" folder. Results: Plan A-13 Plan B-14 Plan C-26 "None of the above": 128 In this way, a rigged election turned into a more democratic one. Since then, city council members and the developers have expressed frustration that people are being too "fussy." Of course, if people were truly offered a spectrum of options, they would happily endorse one. Fortunately, in the next city council election, I imagine that people really will have a choice in whom they elect. It will be interesting to see how voters react when city council members have no opportunity to predetermine the results. 2 Supports • FPW — Potential Scenarios May 26, 2015 Speak Up Edina Comments Page 12 ■ C ME RO41% F`= WHO WE ■. Edina Robotics FIRST team 1816 competes in FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics Competition. This pre -college, varsity -level competition encourages students to delve deeply into many aspects of STEM, including design, build , and programming. We've inspired others to engage in STEM via FIRST Robotics Outreach and Activities: • Founded and/or mentor 7 FIRST Tech Challenge, 8 FIRST Lego League, and 4 Jr FIRST Lego League teams in the city of Edina • Inspired the formation of and/or mentor more than 22 FIRST Robotics (high school) teams • Developed, created, and hosted more than 90 outreach events, activities, and collaborations in the 2015 season • Achieved recognition of FIRST as a varsity sport in the state of Minnesota • Volunteered for 6,000+ hours over 5 years, from LEGO camps to park cleanups I I .. 7 OIL • Entering our 11th year, started in autumn of 2005 • Based at Edina High School, Edina MN • Average team size from year to year is 37 students, grades 10-12 • Award-winning team: 4 Chairman's Awards, 3 Engineering Inspiration Awards, 2015 National Woodie Flower's Award — Mentor Mark Lawrence • 36% of our team is non -Caucasian (double our school's percentage); over 1/3 of our team members are women • 22 Multi-year sponsors including Medtronic and Dow. The US needs to produce over 1 million STEM workers by 2022 to remain globally competitive. Funding p re -college STEM programs such as FIRST are one of the best ways to reach students in grades K-12 and to inspire lifelong excitement and interest in STEM fields. 89% of team graduates have pursued STEM in college and to date 71% have pursued STEM careers. www.edinarobotics.com contact@edinarobotics.com MISSION To bring the message of FIRST and STEM to new audiences To strengthen other FIRST teams STATEMENT: To maintain a strong foundation of FIRST in Minnesota Inspiring Leaders i'n Technology What is FIRST? FIRST learning never stops building upon itself, starting at age 6 and continuing through middle and high-school levels up to age 18. Young people can participate at any level. Participants master skills and concepts to aid in learning science and technology through innovative projects and robotics competitions, while gaining valuable employment and life skills. Jr. F L L teams design and construct a model with moving parts using LEGOa'elements and present their research journey on a Show -Me poster. glades K-' .;.Ii - ■ E.�rinrr ibn/lerrgrsfircirrg today s scientists ■ I)t:unver rral rvnrld nratlr acrd srienre ■ Bright demlop it g teamwork skills ■ t;nggge in team arth4 ies.quided by Jr. IU1., Gore I itlner r r teams build LEGO"-based robots and develop research projects based on a real-world Challenge that changes annually. Their activities are guided by FLL Core Values. Kids, grades 4-8, get to: ■ Stmtegi;r. rlvqtt. build progrr+m, and test an autonntrmas moot using 1.r-60 1-fINDSTC)K:1LS"° trcitnolo� ■ Cre,,nr.' iruux�atioe .rn/vtrous ro cballengt:r . larrng today J se enitsls ■ 1)eivlop aver and li(e skills unilldiiig iritica/ think✓ng. ,.mlmanggernenl, and teamwork ■ Become mmlvrd in their local and global rotnnrnnily FIRSTFOR INSPIRATION AND RECOGNITION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY students learn to think like engineers. Teams build robots from a reusable kit of parts, develop strategies, document their progress, and compete head to head. Design. prolot}pe, telt, and compete usntq real world practices (eg. &ngirteerirtg Xotebooks, (:AI) software, and rzapid protot)piny) Learn roboticspragrarrtmiug and gain bands-ov egmoer7Rg etpeiience Develop problem-solmttg, organif ational. and team-r«ildir+,g skills Qaal6, for millions of dollars in scholarship F RC teams compete with up -to -150 -pound robots of their own design in this varsity Sport for the Mind'" combining the excitement of sport with the rigors of science and technology. Students, grades 9-12. get to. ■ It`brk: alongside professional engineecr ■ I -earn and use .sophisticated bm-dware and software ■ Develop design, project management, prngrunttneng, teamwork, stmtegie tbxnkh,,%u, and C oopertitiorr' skills ■ Qual�6,jibr millions of dollan in scholarship, For information about FIRST' in your area: WWW. U S F 1 R S T. 0 R G/ C O N TA C TU S