Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-02-27 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FEBRUARY 27, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission February 13, 2013 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Oertel Architects/City of Edina. 7450 Metro Blvd., Edina, MN B. Variance. Hemberger. 5601 Countryside Road, Edina, MN. ' C. Variance. Williams. 3915 Morningside Road, Edina, MN D. Variance. Wernke. 401144th Street West, Edina, MN E. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Anderson -KM Builders, 7171 France Avenue, Edina, MN VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission March 13, 2013 o� e t4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 27, 2013 VI.A. Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A front street setback Variance from 50 feet to 26 feet to construct a canopy over the existing fueling station at the City's Public Works site at 7450 Metro Boulevard. (See property location on pages Al—A4.) INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The City of Edina is requesting a 24 -foot setback variance to construct a 16.5- foot tall, 40' x 30' protective canopy over the existing fuel island. The canopy would be constructed of prefinished metal panels to match the panels on the existing Public Works building. (See narrative and plans on pages A5—Al2.) Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -story light industrial buildings; zoned PID, Planned Industrial District and guided I, Industrial Easterly: A six -story office building; zoned POD -2, Planned Office District and guided O, Office Southerly: A two-story light industrial/office building; zoned PID, Planned Industrial District and guided I, Industrial Westerly: A two-story light industrial/office building; zoned PID, Planned Industrial District and guided I, Industrial Existing Site Features The subject property is 7.8 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains the Public Works building, surface parking, loading do and a salt storage building. (See pages A3—A4.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Material I, Industrial PID, Planned Industrial District The proposed canopy would be steel framed with a prefinished metal panel to match the existing building. (See pictures on pages A9—A11.) Primary Issue: • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.04.Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The canopy could be re -located on the site to meet the required setback of 50 feet. However, in doing so, the existing fuel islands and gas pumps would have to be relocated. Relocating these facilities to meet the setbacks would cause interference with the large trucks moving through the site. The car wash bay is the first garage door seen on page A6 and Al 0, and further to the south is the truck repair area. (See page A6.) Additionally, the underground tanks serving the fuel islands were located in this spot due to a series of underground Stormwater lines to the south. 2 The practical difficulty is therefore, caused by the existing location of the storm water lines that mandated the fuel islands to be located where they are, and the tight drive aisle area in which to move trucks through the site 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The Public Works facility is unique in the PID zoning district. There are no other active 8 -acre parcels in this zoning district with a public utility function. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed canopy is very small in scale compared to the existing. building on the site. The canopy would be partially screened in the spring and summer by the mature deciduous trees in the boulevard. The fueling activities are already taking place in this location; therefore, the canopy would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (See pages A9—A10.) Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the existing location of storm water utility lines that mandated the fuel islands to be located where they are; and the tight drive aisle area in which to move trucks through the site. b) The encroachment into the setback is a relatively minor area compared to the size of the existing building on the site. c) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing fuel islands. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The canopy must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped February 5, 2013. Deadline for a city decision: March 18, 2013 Aa City of Edina 4WAM '`..r"M mail !4AIIIIIIIII �r a ♦ X11/r/v IAIImo1/ UN, ��-. O♦ ep/11►��0 ►�i///n■ ■ 11/1/rIts 1111 �� / ■ �Mmo.'s F� . _PID:0911621320013 7450 Meb-0 Blvd Edina, MN 55439 Aa A? A Aft( IcAu'r MAORATIV6 As a response to all of the points in the application, please note: The character and use of the property as a public works site is in general compliance with the more industrial / office- warehouse type of buildings located in the neighborhood. Public works operations vary from neighboring uses, such as the near- by post office, in that exterior fueling takes place on a regular basis at the property. Given that the city's public works department renovated and moved into the existing popcorn plant, there were limited locations for this necessary fuel island, which includes some substantially -sized below grade fuel tanks. These tanks had to be situated away from a series of underground storm water lines and dedicated traffic flow on the site. Similar to the more resent trend of commercial gas stations providing canopies at their stations for customers, public works employees prefer to be out of the snow and rain to the extent possible. Also note that fueling -up the larger vehicles used for operations is also considerably longer than a common car or pickup truck. Workers are not allowed to sit in their trucks while idling and fueling. In addition to the benefits for staff, the canopy will help conserve the condition of the exposed fuel equipment. A minor point, the canopy will help prevent drippings of fuel from flowing directly into the sewer system, allowing minor spillage to evaporate as opposed to being washed away in a rain storm, for example. Note that the design of the canopy is of a greater quality than that found at a conventional gas station. As opposed to the plastic facade and sometimes back -lit signage, this fueling island has a more austere appearance and uses the same type of metal panels found on the adjacent public works building. The design concept is to provide a simple elevation and roof line that blends in with the building. We believe that this simple and intentionally -minimal design will not alter the character of the neighborhood and believe that this fits within the intended purpose of the ordinance, resulting in no significant negative impact on other properties in the vicinity. Detailed Application Requirements: Unless waived by the Planning Department, youst complete all of the following items with this application. An incomplete application t' MV accepted. x Completed and signed application form. >� x Application fee (not applicable). x One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. x Seventeen (17)11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the application. A -S— MOSTM SALT am M a -DIM, TO /' 3 '\ 74TH ST W NORTH EDGE IV7 OF CANOPY -'-DIM. TO PJM ISLAND CURB I u VK--Yi Q f OERTEL ARCHITECTS 171MIUMPICAR AVIL N FAVI. AW 59103 t"Ijff6-MU FAX EDINA PUBLIC WORKS FUEL ISLAND CANOPY ADDrMN 7450 METRO BLVD. Em4k AOL o 12-25 EF' wx mem JAMAMr 2k "S IDA JLO I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TINS OOCLWENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AM THAT I AM A DULY REGSTERM ARCHITECT IN THE STATE.OF MINHOOD, A ott MUM SITE PLAN AO.1 m Q f OERTEL ARCHITECTS 171MIUMPICAR AVIL N FAVI. AW 59103 t"Ijff6-MU FAX EDINA PUBLIC WORKS FUEL ISLAND CANOPY ADDrMN 7450 METRO BLVD. Em4k AOL o 12-25 EF' wx mem JAMAMr 2k "S IDA JLO I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TINS OOCLWENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AM THAT I AM A DULY REGSTERM ARCHITECT IN THE STATE.OF MINHOOD, A ott MUM SITE PLAN AO.1 0 168'-6" TO WEST SAGE OF PROPOSED -x CANOPY DIM. TO NORTH EDGE OF CANOPY 3 \ 74TH S w DIM. TO FUEL ISLAND CURB 6 we r wlr m — lrytyw@1-w- p MfCJb3Z75�96.73 Imml B * ww RT�eri6 a.+eeti�r� >r�aton�i avu Awc. o2seT m BO' RC d 90' oo<tT.a s/ww uw n rl CML SITE PLAN CAMIpY iavr A wsrwll a rsc al° y awTen uw A �� `.% EMTI RiI.R 1� usrr.' (NM M a%DM06r RIS NLNV, I%vmw, Alb OTIM SITE RATLM ARE ALL Mww.) A aftwoG ME -M000 , f OERTEL ' ARCHITECTS IM SYRC1A&AVL m rALL,MNS3705 1 16411141F4H9TA5 ( EDINA PUBLIC WORKS FUEL ISLAND : CANOPY fF ADDITION n 7130 METRO BLVD. / K J to mo•Ia wA1RW 12-23 uac / JANUARY 25, 290 J a.A. gK�Fu IM .� To RE"Wft J t HEREBY CERTIFY MAT T. DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY Off OR UNDER 11Y DIRECT ! A DULY REWSTERED ARCNRECI RI THE STATE OF NINNVWA 4r '' CMI. PLAN C.1 J P- 111141111111 X38 0 0 MMMMi 0 0 fi_� OERTEL ARCHITECTS 17" Son CZAR AVE ST. rAmm" sS/06 W 641" P {estl e».slw PAX EDINA PUBLIC WORKS FUEL ISLAND CANOPY ADDITION 7450 METRO BLVD. wwik mm JANIAHRY 23, 2M OA. 40 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY WE OR UNDER M/ ORECT THAT I AM A DWY�REMSTEREOD ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF UIMFSOTA ,� �,� Il.11tfil-SI-0017 NOPY IMAGES A0.4 Attachment for Variance Application: Photographs of the existing Public Works fueling island with the Public Works building in the background. Note that the closer portion of the building is the newer wash bay, made of decorative concrete panels. Beyond this is the renovated "Popcorn Factory" building with a metal panel facade. In the lower photograph, the current Public Works maintenance area has the plain concrete panels that pre-existed from the Popcorn Factory. The views are from the Northwest corner of the property, looking East. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 27,2013 B-13-07 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 5.15 foot side yard setback variance at 5601 Countryside Road to increase the ridge height of the roof above the garage for a second floor to accommodate bedroom space 8.1 feet from the side lot line for property owners Jim and Crissy Field. INFORMATION/BAC KG ROU N D The subject property is located on the south side of Country side Road consisting of a 2 story home with an attached two car garage, (see attachments A.1 — A.3, site location, Ariel photos). The property owners would like to expand the back wall of the garage by 4.9 feet and add a second floor to include bedroom area and bathroom over the garage. The existing garage is located 8.1 feet from the south lot line and conforms to the minimum 5 foot side yard setback requirements for a garage. Currently there are storage trusses above the garage; however, it is not convertible to living space given the low roofline. The homeowners are proposing to increase the roof height in order to accommodate a bedroom area. The second floor area will be setback and indented from the front wall of the garage to reduce impact from the street view. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback for living space, however, six inches of setback must be added for each twelve inches the side wall height exceeds 15 feet. The height of the addition from grade to mid- point of the gable roof is 21.5 feet requiring a side yard setback of 12.5 feet. The existing garage provides a side yard setback of 8.1 feet therefore a 5.15 foot side yard setback variance is required. The neighboring house adjacent to the expansion area has their garage next to the improvement so the neighbor's living space is not directly affected, (see attachments AA — A.6 photos of subject and adjacent properties). Spacing between structures will remain the same at 13.35 feet between the two garages. It should be noted that a similar room space above a garage at a nonconforming setback is just down the block at 5525 Countryside, (see attachment A.7). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -dwelling homes. Easterly: Single -dwelling homes. Southerly: Single -dwelling homes. Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 10,800 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1960. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design The proposal is to construct. Compliance Table Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? I"rJ1 City Standard Proposed Front - 35.15 feet 35.2 feet Side- 10+ height *8.1 feet Rear- 25 feet 72.5 feet Building Height 2'12 stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to feet to midpoint, ridge, feet to the rid e Lot coverage 25% 12.4% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? I"rJ1 Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of second floor side yard setback. If the home had been centered on the lot, a variance would not have been necessary and ample setback would have been provided for the bedroom addition . 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from neighborhood. The footprint of the home would increase slightly by only 99 square feet. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and neighboring structures will remain the same. 4. The home improvement and height increase would provide enough space to accomplish the bedroom without having to completely reconfigure the property, (no tear-down/re-build). • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. A practical difficulty is the original placement of the home. The addition would not have required a variance if the home had originally been centered on the lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the inability to increase the roof height to provide living space. An addition to the back of the home, (which is not a solution considered by the owners), would require the removal of two mature trees and would impact views of the neighbor to the west. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The footprint of the home will remain almost the same and spacing between structures will remain the same. The addition will be recessed from the front wall of the garage to reduce impact from the street. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested side yard setback variance, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R- 1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing conditions without reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The imposed setback and existing house location does not provide opportunity for an increase in roof pitch or adequate room space above the existing garage. 4 C. The original placement of the home closer to the west lot line makes it difficult to adjust living spaces within the existing structure. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: 5/31/2012. Building plans/ elevations date stamped: February 12, 2013. Deadline for a city decision: April 14, 2013 VARIANCE APPLICATION \11b CASE NUMBER.�_DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.cltvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 65424 * (962) 826.0368 * fax (952) 826- 0389 .................. FEE: RES - $360.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: required on back page) -90_3 EMAIL: /iiN�-Q Cor1('ctS� , tie PROPERTY OWNER, NAME: e- elCi e i (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: UQ \ `Dunk('U<: .-e CA PHONE: (old •aR 119(03'3 and electrot) is form): n H, ode . A-,nner,-A le nt -A. PI-Aft$$—k "You must provide a full legal description. If more apace Is needed, please use a separate sheel. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project If the legal description does not match lhelr records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS:to". le lea MN 43,; 1v PRESENT ZONING: Ve S,*Aer\) . P.I.D.# _ Za _ I,�T -a ` 14;) - Oaa.,;[ EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: (Use reverse side or additional pages If necessary) �1)EECT: NAME: PHONE: EMAIL- 1. SURVEYOR: NAME: PHONE: EMAIL: G \ J ARCHITECT Greg Wagner Sales Representative Lamperts - Lake Elmo 9220 Hudson Blvd. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Office: 651-287-6970 Cell : 763-568-1669 Fax :651-739-0267 greg.wagner@larnpertyards,com SURVEYOR Joshua P. Schneider, Owner Acre Land Surveying, Inc. 9140 Baltimore Street NE, Suite 100 Blaine, MN 55449 P.L.S. #44655 Phone# (763) 238-6278 Fax# (763) 445-2203 rmail:-N.acrelandsupteV@)gmall.com Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using � additional sheets of paper as necessary. 3 A `{swWeD The Proposed Variance will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not ❑ self -Imposed or a more Inconvenience: Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not ❑ applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Preserve a substantial property right ❑ possessed by other property In the vicinity and zoning district. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the ❑ vicinity or zoning district. T CUSTOM RENOVATIONS, LLC 2817 Anthony Lane South Minneapolis, MN 55418 612-788-9608 0 612-788-9630 F Craig@CustomRMN.com License # 20636095 Reference: 5601 Country Side Road Edina, MN I am writing this letter in reference to the above listed address. I have been contracted by the owners Jamie and Amber Hemeberaer, to construct a new master bedroom and master bathroom addition. The reason that the Hemebergers have contracted with us is to create some more room for their growing family. Some of the concerns we have on the setbacks are 0.) That with the current zoning requirements that we would have to set back off of the current load bearing foundation would be 5'6" in from the outside perimeter, this would cause new footings, beams and posts In the middle of their current garage western stall. The current setback requirements also cause the existing home and the proposed addition to not be asymmetrical with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood and make the home look disproportionate within the surroundings. This would also affect the space below and cause them to lose their capacity of a current 2 car garage. (2.) The space that they would be losing from the setback would cost them over 150 sq.ft. of livable space. This would make the new proposed bedroom extremely small and cause the Hemebergers to probably question the necessity of the space that they desperat,ly need and force them to look for another place that can accommodate their neeis. They have stressed to me that they love the area of Edina, decided to purchase a home ih this area and were hoping that we could make this dream a reality for them to stay. V�, Please review the attachment and let me know if any other information might be needed. If you might have any additional questions please feel free to call me direct @ 651-- 341--2421. Sincerely, Craig Peterson Co -Owner Custom Renovations. LLC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 9, Block 3, Edina Countryside. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Cert. No, 1137496 SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO: 5601 Countryside Road Edina, Minnesota 55436 Our Fite Number: 12MN00812 October 10th, 2012 Dear Neighbors, We are writing this letter to ask for your input regarding a proposed addition to our home. Currently, we have 4 bedrooms and 1.5 baths. With only one shower/bath, it Is not sufficient for our 4 person family. We hired a contractor to help us in finding the best way to incorporate an additional full bath. The plans drawn by the architect show an extension of the second floor of the house, over the existing garage. This will allow us to keep four bedrooms on the second floor, along with adding a second full bath and minimizing any additional footprint to the home. In addition to meeting the needs of our family, we feel this addition will help keep our home in line with others in our neighborhood by updating it with another bathroom, without drastically changing the Countryside neighborhood look of the home. Unfortunately, when the plans were reviewed by the city of Edina, they proved to be inconsistent with city ordinances and were denied. The only way to move forward with our plans is to submit an application for a variance for our situation. Once submitted, the variance will be taken to a public hearing for which you will receive notice. Since moving in to our home In 2004, we have fallen in love with our neighborhood. We have many wonderful neighbors that we have been fortunate enough to develop relationships with. We feel this is truly unique to our Countryside area and want to stay here for a very long time. We ask that you please consider our situation and respond to the question on the next page as soon as practical. We would like to include your input when we submit the variance on October 21". We recognize this puts you in an uncomfortable position, but we will understand and respect however you answer. if you have any questions feel free to call us at (952)922-8992. Your neighbors, Jamie, Amber, Joe and John Hemberger 5601 Countryside Rd Edina, MN 55436 October 10th, 2012 Dear Neighbors, We are writing this letter to ask for your input regarding a proposed addition to our home. Currently, we have 4 bedrooms and 1.5 baths. With only one shower/bath, it is not sufficient for our 4 person family. We hired a contractor to help us in finding the best way to incorporate an additional full bath. The plans drawn by the architect show an extension of the second floor of the house, over the existing garage. This will allow us to keep four bedrooms on the second floor, along with adding a second full bath and minimizing any additional footprint to the home. in addition to meeting the needs of our family, we feel this addition will help keep our home in line with others in our neighborhood by updating it with another bathroom, without drastically changing the Countryside neighborhood look of the home. Unfortunately, when the plans were reviewed by the city of Edina, they proved to be inconsistent with city ordinances and were denied. The only way to move forward with our plans is to submit an application for a variance for our situation. Once submitted, the variance will be taken to a public hearing for which you will receive notice. Since moving in to our home in 2004, we have fallen in love with our neighborhood. We have many wonderful neighbors that we have been fortunate enough to develop relationships with. We feel this is truly unique to our Countryside area and want to stay here for a very long time. We ask that you please consider our situation and respond to the question on the next page as soon as practical. We would like to include your input when we submit the variance on October 2e. We recognize this puts you in an uncomfortable position, but we will understand and respect however you answer. If you have any questions feel free to call us at (952)922-8992. Your neighbors, Jamie, Amber, Joe and John Hemberger 5601 Countryside Rd Edina, MN 55436 c`� XNo objection to the variance Not comfortable with the variance Signature/Date: Name/Address: 5(em (A �7L - AO 4Fb 1, 2 61Z X No objection to the variance Not comfortable with the variance Signature/Date:4,"LAd 10 -It ta i V ---- J Name/Address: 'otto 'k EIIAIA /14AJ 5-5134 75,z- u� 5161- F gib 12 2012 _ /No objection to the variance Not comfortable with the variance Signatu Name/Address:' / 01�`PP 56 17,, 3.' No objection to the variance Not comfortable with the variance Signature/Date: i i 14 Name/Address: At'oLt ruN 5:5q3(p FEB I1.tj _/_ Noobjection tothe variance Not comfortable with the variance Name/Address LOCATION MAP 5709 $705 $701 5813 5a12 secs t Le n ,,f 16gbighled Featuure 5613 Sunaondkg House Number 5824 5617 LYLE aR Lebab ¢704 5700 5621 5828 5632 5817 5524 5520 $16 5512 5506 5503 5500 5424 House Nunber Labels Stmet Nam Labsb 5800 C* Lktllh 5668 DEMNAt7E Sm 5609 /`% Creaks Lake Names Lakes ItENTORAVR Q pefy 5511 O pamsk 490f 5613 5501 5609 5904 �e 5909 Sm`' 5525 5521 5529 5603 5551 5533 6517 5429 we � 5909 5019 5915 5912 000 5812 5820 5616 5808 5609 5600 5524 5520 5516 5512 5506 6504 5500 5424 5920 5916 couN7mWE ND - 6821 6817 5811 5609.% 5606 `5801f%% 5529. 5525 4521 5517 5517 5509 5565 5501 6921 8000 6001 5600 5520 5516 5512 5506 5509 5500 6005 6004 6609 HIGHLAND RD 6009 5808 5517 5513 6101 5509 5505 5501 8014 8012 6t65 5508 5509 8016 5512 6100 �� 5500 8005 5516 seawwa+Abuf•omlr'q+Rlu»sasm 8101 aIWl 0 'M•6Ref B-13-07 4 W� PID: 3211721420022 5601 Countryside Rd 'R ` Edina, MN 55436 L� ,� LOGISMap Output Page 127a Page 1 of I A 4�1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS—ArelMS/��ms?SeiviceName=ed—LOGISMal)—OVSDE&CRentV... 2/21/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 X15 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArelMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 2/21/2013 .. �, 7,7 ..w 4 *1.......- + (�i. ��. � _ � �' .ice P � e.yya�s , � • l J � �� � e � �_ Y a..�' y. x , 1� f�� Y Y -,,,uY / +�+ � L � � w . J"`� ♦.� p >� rr tl4 J'St wv S� ix� � r �' • L 1�i r �.� i.Jt, ;a �, 1'i' `,a` i, g aa<. `a ti. . ,. i#!" �}.,.. �` t.;yr� r L�,�s M � ' •.__ �„ � >w„ �w: L L1 ' "k d1 'f , e I r � � '°d+ .. �, l( .! �1 /7F.IL .+'h # Ami 9 1 i •+$o,ys. 0�� y�1,3 }Q't " �,, ��I�>;�' e ,S' "� '�,� F� .-> ' �5jt� y.,, t _ • r :'x `"V1 s��:1, �` '�" �.,'��^ ������"� t �r l`� �r t�t.�. v+��;'f -'`T�;��ta1 � :a .._4° r• -,iy ,� R �f...�,� ��4,; " s (YS Y j 1 rp a r ��. v f dPS^� � �+ � ` q 1 �i ` ti f rwl f -�.� `-Y .� y.✓^# i `' '�� a w� � -i♦ j N •T � „ „� ... - . ; r r .� ^ .. r ,. , p .ate jx�. � � •- r' g > � t-;�f :-,,,a #� l a. h r ` �• F � l+„ ',� � ��h �� �" yy��� "� y� t''p gc to ' '° �m�`Ll ` ' � a _ � , t c � � �.� +��' � ax, d � /�° x � *` 5 T ,: �• x _ 4*j.. .. � yXA � " P W. f i a � � _ � �"' � . �" ���� � �"'X �' � "�. iy�� � -c .�'"'' i �� ,, .. �'� • s � � i q �+ ., � Q� �, 4+` A � +> i fGrF � � psi ' Y+h'iah aii� �� i R � •i ���+ ,! � k } '. 1 �� ' A 1 [ f ' � (y -- + � �� jj �` M. P ,. - T �� -. �..,_- z l� ___ — � T_ .. ..: .� '� .A,._-. , � �.. .� -- .-.•.www ..:......�.....°",. w�. 41, � i i'•9n y e � �� ', t � � / � �r i ��J'b.�l�'�B r T e , j • c..._ _ � OM1, r �. a ��`.:� _,.Fx y � S. AP Lot . • ,.�, � � rY rte% v ( M � Fri Tf . P a ' 1 1 .--. ,^.+...-.. L.. _ - �,�+.«-_ ,•..wee_ ,. -, 0 t v^� Nw,71 P' _ e � t a •i m w y rt tt :fyj} rl t to • - - �, .-., . _.� . _ _._ ��di- —..�._ ..a..1ir ...�,.. '*�Y.� -�"" irkAf��fi I r� p•1�w�.;� b tea.. i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 27, 2013 B-13-09 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 12.17 foot rear yard setback variance to allow an 11.83 foot addition to expand the existing garage to accommodate a mud room to 4011 44th street for Bob Ganser/Dorene and Alan Wernke. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot located south of 44th Street and west of Grimes Ave. It consists of a split level home with an attached two car garage built in 1958, (see attached Fig. A.1 -A.6, site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent properties). The property owners are hoping to add a garage extension west of the existing side wall of the garage.The owners would like to convert an area within the garage to accommodate a mud room. The existing garage does not have direct access into the house. Access into the garage is through two exterior doors over an open deck behind the home. The existing garage is narrow at 19.33 feet in width. The owners would like a more usable, 24 foot garage width while incorporating a mudroom for access to the house. The owners are also proposing a screened porch addition behind the home in place of an existing deck. The porch conforms to all ordinance requirements. The existing garage is slightly nonconforming regarding rear yard setback. The minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet with the garage side wall located 24.5 feet from the west lot line. Any addition to the side of the garage requires a setback variance. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks. The property must match the front yard setback of the home to the west fronting west 44th Street and the front yard setback of the home to the south fronting Grimes Ave. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 8,620 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1958. The subject lot was platted from the old street car line that ran along west 44th Street, with the lots in the plat nonconforming regarding lot depth. The minimum lot depth required by ordinance is 120 feet with the lots in the street car plat providing 66 foot lot depths. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to extend the garage by an additional stall and add a mud room. Finish materials will be consistent the existing materials on the home. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues 2 City Standard Proposed Front - 15/14.91 feet 14.59/39.78 feet Side- 7+ height, (living) 9.25 feet Rear- 25 feet *13.02 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories Split level, 35 feet to ride 19 feet to the ridge Lot coverage 30% or 2,250 Sq Ft 29%/2,250 Sq Ft * Variance Required Primary Issues 2 Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of rear yard setback. 2. The addition is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The addition of garage and mud room area will allow for a wider standard garage that is a typical width within the neighborhood. The improvements will allow a mud room that will provide direct access from the garage into the house. Currently there is no direct access from the garage into the house. 3. The improvements will provide additional garage space and a mud room without drastically changing conditions on the property. Spacing between the garage addition and adjacent home will be in excess of 39 feet. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced garage and mud room. The front of the home is oriented toward west 44th Street with the west rear yard functioning more like a side yard, however, a 25 foot rear yard setback is required. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. 3 Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The setback of the existing garage will change slightly with sight lines along both streets remaining the same. Practical difficulties present on the property include the required setback from both streets and orientation of the house towards west 44th Street and limited design opportunity given those conditions. The street car lots are a challenge given their narrow lot depth and given the required street setbacks in this instance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the orientation of the house and the street setback requirements limiting design opportunities for adding onto the home which is not a self-imposed condition. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setbacks along both streets will remain the same with the addition blending seamlessly with the existing garage. Staff Recommendation Recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: 4 3) The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding properties and will not alter the character or street views. 4) The imposed setback limits design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between structures and lot lines. Spacing will remain generous between the west wall of the garage and the adjacent home to the west. The unique circumstance is the original placement of the home relative to the lot configuration and orientation to the street. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey and building plans date stamped February 12, 2013. Deadline for a city decision: April 12, 2013. VARIANCE APPLICATION ch 0 IF\ 25 CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID! City of Edina Planning Department * www.cltvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 65424 * (962) 826-0369 * fax (962) 826- 0389 ......................................................................................................... . ...... FEE: RES - $360.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: BOB GANSER, AIA (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 900 6TH AVENUE S.E. SUITE 215 PHONE: 612.872.2398 EMAIL: BGANSER@CITYDESKSTUDIO.COM PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: DORENE & ALAN WERNKE _(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 4011 W 44TH STREET PHONE: 612.865.6750 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): Certificate of Title No. 1338799/Lot 1, Block 1, Arden Park/Subject to utility easement as shown on plat. -You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4011 W 44TH STREET PRESENT ZONING: R-1 p.I.D.# 07-028-24-44-0001 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: REQUEST TO REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACK OF 25'(WICURVE AVENUE FRONT YARD) (BY 12'-2 118" to 12'-9-7/8') TO EXPAND EXISTING 2 -CAR GARAGE (PER ATTACHED DRAWINGS). (Use reverse side or additional pages If necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: BOB GANSER, AIA —PHONE: 612.872.2398 EMAIL: BGANSER@CITYDESKSTUDIO.COM 1 SURVEYOR: NAME. MARK D. KEMPER, PLS, PE PHONE: 651. `035 EMAIL: KEMPER@PRO-N&NET Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood a a 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION — 4011 W 44T" Street February 12, 2013 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Certificate of Title No. 1338799 Lot 1, Block 1, Arden Park Subject to utility easement as shown on plat EXPLANATION OF REQUEST Request to reduce rear yard setback of 25' (w/Curve Avenue front yard) by 12'-21/8" to 12'-9-7/8" to expand existing 2 -car garage (per attached drawings). VARIANCE CONDITIONS The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties created by an atypical single dwelling unit corner lot -133' x 66' and 8,778 sf instead of 120' x 75' and 9,000 sf. Also, the current dwelling has a very narrow 2 -car garage (19'-2" wide clear interior width). Even though the garage is attached to the home, entry into the home is not directly to the residential interior, but through two exterior doors over an open deck. The proposed variance is a reasonable use - it would allow for a wider standard garage (24' wide clear interior width) and would also add a new mudroom with internal entrance directly into the home. The proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity of the zoning district. The residence is located on a non-standard corner lot -133°x66' and 8,778 sf instead of 120'x 75' and 9,000 sf. It has an existing garage of smaller than current standard size for a 2 -car garage and even though it is attached to the residence, entry from the garage is not directly into the residential interior. The existing home also lacks any kind of garage -entry storage / closet / mud room accommodations. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The use of the home will remain a typical single family dwelling unit use. Intent of the proposed variance and of the proposed renovation in general is to update the existing home to more current residential standards. The proposed renovation meets all other setback requirements (other than the requested rear yard decrease to 12'-9 7/8") and meets the maximum zoning lot coverage requirement. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As a corner lot, both interior side yards will be greater than the required minimum interior side yard setback. The existing dwelling unit exterior and interior will be improved and updated. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information i have submitted are true and correct. FEBRUARY 12, 2013 Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the bo rd of directors or partnership.) FEBRUARY 12, 2013 s Signature Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise It is considered Incomplete. LOCATION MAP 420D 4249 4114 4248 4249 4248 4247 L end _ r"7 }6gbighNdteams O10RNINOSIDE RD 4300 4301 4017 ♦ 101 4x02 3915 3913 3911 3609 •:F Surmu11dkW House Number Labels WuseNu tretLabels 4209 4201 213 4211 4603 4001 f15 4113 4fi1 109 4147 4105 f01 4103 gipy( Nymy Labels CAYLkdls 4306 4304 ff Creaks 4307 Lake Name 4307 4308 0 6924 3920 ru 4111 3930 lakes 12 4210 4208 4206 204 4202 200 4311 4110 9920 Parks Q €4311 4313 41t2 4010 4008 4315 4115 4006 4316 dgT� 1918 4004 O Parols 8RANSON ST m 4213 4211 4208 4207 ZQS 4324 4019 4016 4014 012 3925 3975 4022 4020 4001 24 1916 4005 24 4100 4112 4122.4120 4116 1011 4101 1920 400039 ' 4015 4002 4400 4465 4004 1940 4021 4406 , 4407 .4008 4101 4405 ,H09 4121 4410 4008. 4141 4406 4407 4010 3911 4012 4410 4111 4612 4014 400t 14 4003 4412 44f3 4416 4005 4126 4112 4007 4108 A418 4417 44f8 4009 4062 4088 4011 4420 444@ 4013 4015 4541 4501 4058 4060 4503 4064 4062 4043 4 Ip4125 {STN BTW 4105 4101 4121 4113 107 4545 _at8 4 4087 404 24 yW' 4051 4504057 4507 4055 4545 a �$ 4511 a 4800 xasn .0 4601 ua,c..r.a.tiws tauxisoamn B-13-09 PID: 0702824440001 r1 e 401144th St W Edina MN 55424 act�uc� LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 14, Z,. http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap OVSDE&CIientV... 2/21/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMSlims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&CIientV... 2/21/2013 �� r:•#y�'� �.sjws �aq�si^i' -q A{' i,�►t' a',�" `1 F• .y M ,, rx r •. t t � r r ' i � r r r h�.,.� �ks� ."k• — 1,i! r� .�3j°" tib, �i« .r .i�� r -•, ti A 'it'� t r _ r e 't . r $ _r. e ��/oa4 r # ' � � .z+ r�= � ' f y t } J} - ' L p Fes. a , 7:7- — ,;' i . � r v q ... s���'*„rig �b• �,�•`7�tit1 i y � s' 4,91�1r� ow e In 0 •,N 'f�e�K�• PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 27, 2013 VI.E Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Lund Food Holdings is proposing to tear down the existing 59,000 Byerly's grocery store, located at 7171 France Avenue and build the following: Phase 1 ➢ A new 47,000 square foot Byerly's store. ➢ A six/seven-story 109 -unit apartment building with two levels of underground parking. ➢ A six/seven-story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,450 square foot retail area and two levels of underground parking. Phase 2 ➢ A six -story, 60 -unit apartment building with 10,500 square feet of retail space on the first level and two levels of underground parking. In building the first phase, the new Byerly's store would be constructed in the parking lot of the existing store at the northwest corner of the site. The existing store would remain open. When the new store is finished the existing store would be removed, and then the two apartment buildings would be constructed. (See the property location on pages Al A6; the applicant's narrative on pages A25— A27; the building renderings on pages A28—A41; and site plans on pages A42— A58.) To accommodate this proposed redevelopment, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; ➢ Preliminary Development Plan; and ➢ Preliminary Plat This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two-step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the second step would be Final Development Plan, Final Rezoning and Final Plat review which would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See the sketch plans on pages A7—A8; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A16—A24.) The applicant has developed the proposed plans by attempting to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Some of the most significant changes include: ➢ Bringing the Byerly's store up to France Avenue. ➢ Relocation the loading dock away from the Promenade. ➢ Project embracing the Promenade. ➢ Better pedestrian connections. ➢ Providing some sustainable concepts. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Rue De France retail center; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Mixed Use. Easterly: Vacant restaurant; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and Mixed Use, Southerly: Macy's Home Store; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and Mixed Use. Westerly: Sunrise senior living; zoned PSR -4, Planned Senior Residential and guided Office/Residential Existing Site Features The subject property is 9.67 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains Byerly's Grocery Store with a large parking lot in front. (See pages A3—A4 and A6.) Planning Guide Plan designation: MXC — Mixed Use Center. Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District (See page A5.) 2 Site Circulation Access to the site would be from France Avenue and Hazelton Road. A new right -in and right -out would be added at the south lot line on France Avenue. Hennepin County is agreeable to this new access point. There are two existing access points on Hazelton Road. These would be slightly adjusted. A future stop light is planned for the easternmost access point, and has been realigned to match the access to the north. The property owner to the west is not agreeable at this time to this arrangement. This intersection could be shifted to the east to be off the adjacent parcel. City staff would prefer the proposed alignment to match the access across the street to the north. (See page A45.) The westernmost access on Hazelton Road would be a right -in and right -out only. Extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. Along France Avenue and Hazelton Road, a sidewalk would be constructed with green space separating them from traffic. An interior sidewalk is planned from the France Avenue sidewalk, to the east in front of the Byerly's store, to the south side of Building C, and east to connect to the Promenade. (See page A43 & A45.) An additional connection to the Promenade is available along the south lot line. (See page A45.) Sidewalks are also proposed around each of the housing buildings to provide pedestrian connections to the France and Hazelton Road sidewalks and the Promenade. (See page A43 & A45.) Traffic & Parking Study RLK Incorporated is conducting a parking and traffic study. (See the attached draft of the study dated January 16, 2013.) The Study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. The document attached to this report is a draft of the study. RLK is anticipating completing the study this week. Representatives from RLK and Wayne Houle, the City's director of engineering will be at the Planning Commission meeting to present the study and answer any questions. Once staff receives the updated study it will be emailed out to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. The proposed new right -in and right -out on France Avenue would greatly benefit traffic operations around the site. The level of service on adjacent roadways and intersections would remain the same. The Study further concludes that the project would have adequate parking. Based on the proposal for 67,950 square feet of retail and 246 apartment units, 357 spaces are required for the retail, 18 bike parking stalls, and 246 enclosed units for the apartments. The applicant is proposing 314 spaces for the retail space and 357 enclosed and 33 surface stalls for the apartments. Bike racks are show at the entrances of each retail building. A shared parking arrangement between all the lots for parking and drive aisle access would be established by a blanket easement over the properties. A parking study was done for the proposed project, which has concluded that the amount of parking provided would adequately serve the proposed development. (See the attached draft parking study by RLK.) A specific breakdown of the parking for each proposed lot is as follows: Lot 1 (Byerly's) = 190 stalls proposed (252 required) Lot 2 & 3 (Housing A&B + retail) = 285 enclosed proposed + 72 surface proposed (183 enclosed required + 62 surface retail required.) Lot 4 (Housing C + retail) = 89 surface proposed + 72 enclosed proposed (62 surface retail required + 60 enclosed and required.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 68 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 98 over story trees. They would include a mixture of Maple, Lindens, Oak, Crabapple and Spruce. (See pages A43, A49—A50.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Final Landscaping would be more closely reviewed with the Final Development Plan. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures The proposed plans would locate the loading area on the east side of the building along Hazelton Road. (See proposed location on page A43.) This is similar to the arrangement of the loading dock for the recently construction Whole Foods to the south on France Avenue. The loading area would be screened from Hazelton with a brick wall that would match the building. (See page A32, A43 & A49.) Additional landscaping is also proposed along Hazelton to screen the loading area from the Hazelton and adjacent property. This is an improvement over the current location of the loading dock facing the Promenade, and the plans reviewed during the Sketch Plan, which were also facing the Promenade. (See previous Sketch Plan on page A7 & A8.) Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A61. A developer's agreement would be required for the 4 construction of the proposed sidewalks, public water main, sewer and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. A more detailed review would be done at Final Development Plan. It should be mentioned that the water feature, as recommended in the Promenade Plan, is not specifically designed in the grading plan. (See Promenade Plan on pages A9—A15.) The Promenade Plan ponding area is located on a high point on the site, and therefore, was difficult to get drainage to flow naturally to that spot. The applicant is indicating that roof storm water could be routed to the area, if the City constructed the pond. (See page A26 of the applicant narrative.) Lighting The applicant has indicated that all site lighting would conform to City Code requirements. Pole lights, 25 feet tall would be used to light the parking lot areas, and 14 foot tall decorative fixtures would light pedestrian walkways. All exterior lighting and illuminating devices would include lenses, reflectors or shades so as to limit light spill and glare on to adjacent properties. A detailed lighting plan would be required for the Final Development Plan review. Building/Building Material The Byerly's would be constructed of brick on all four sides, with a stone base and concrete panels. (See rendering on pages A8—A9.) The apartment buildings would be constructed of metal panels, cement fiber panels, large windows, pre -cast concrete. The applicant believes that the mass of the building walls, in particular the west and north elevations, have been broken up by the variety of brick and concrete proposed as well as the landscaping anticipated in front. The applicant will present a visual elevation that shows the building and the landscaping together at the Planning Commission meeting. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be PCD -3, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of pylon signs and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Density The proposed density would be 24 units per acre would be toward the lower middle end of the density range for the City's high density residential development as indicated in the table on the following page. Development Address Units Units Per Acre Yorktown Continental 7151 York 264 45 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 York Plaza Condos 7200-20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240-60 York 260 29 Edina Place Apartments 7300-50 York 139 15 Walker Elder Suites 7400 York 72 40 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 691h & York Apartments 3121 69,' Street 114 30 Preliminary Plat The applicant is also requesting a Preliminary Plat to create separate lots for each of the proposed buildings. (See the plat on page A44.) The site exists as two lots today; the proposed subdivision would create four lots. The subdivision would meet all minimum lot standards and subdivision requirements. Shared parking and drive -aisle agreements would need to be established across the four lots. Park Dedication Per Minnesota State Statute 462.353, Subd. 4(a) and Section 810.13 of the City Code, the applicant is required to dedicate land for public use as parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, or public open space. Per Section 810.13. Subd. 5 of the City Code, the fees in lieu of land dedication is $5,000 per dwelling unit. The development would create 246 new dwelling units; therefore, a $1,230,000 parking dedication would be required. A portion of the park dedication funds could be used to develop the water feature, as shown on the Promenade Plans on pages A9—A15. The fee would be paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars or subdivision approval for recording with Hennepin County. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f, preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening, 7 g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of , the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The Byerly's store would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. A patio is proposed along France at the front of Byerly's, and the front walkway in front of the building would be covered with a canopy. (See page A32.) The store configuration is similar to the recently constructed Whole Foods, except that there is an entry into the store closer to France Avenue. (See page A43 & A52.) Pedestrian connections would be made from France Avenue to the Promenade from the north and south sides of the site, as well as through the middle. (See sidewalk plan on pages A43 & A45.) The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See pages A25—A27a.) The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. (See pages A29—A35.) The site circulation would be improved with a right -in and right -out added along France Avenue. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The proposed uses, retail and multiple -family residential housing are uses allowed in the Mixed Use Center, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, and within the underlying PCD -3 Zoning District. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages the mixing of retail and multi- family residential uses. The proposed plans are therefore, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses. iii.. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As indicated in table earlier within this report, and the fact that the site is located in a commercial area on France Avenue and the Promenade, the proposed density of 24 units per acre is appropriate for this site. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout would be improved by bringing the building up to the street; pedestrian connections would be incorporated through and around the site, including green space between the road and the sidewalk; locating the taller buildings farther back from France Avenue, into the site; introducing a mixture of uses on the site. The design of the building is of a high quality. Byerly's would be brick on all four sides, with a stone base and concrete panels. (See rendering on pages A29—A35.) The apartment buildings would be constructed of metal panels, cement fiber panels, large windows, pre -cast concrete. The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space. Traffic would be improved in the area with a right -in and right -out on France Avenue. 10 Compliance Table * Would require a variance under PCD -3 Zoning 11 City Standard (PCD -1) Proposed Building Setbacks Byerly's Front — France Avenue 50 feet 51 feet Side Street — Hazelton Road 50 feet 26 feet* Side — South NA 200+ feet Rear— East (Promenade) NA 200+ feet Building A Front — France Avenue 81 feet 500+ feet Side Street — Hazelton Road 81 feet 300+ feet Side — South NA 41 feet Rear— East (Promenade) NA 27 feet Building B Front — France Avenue 85 feet 300+ feet Side Street — Hazelton Road 85 feet 200+ feet Side — South NA NA Rear— East (Promenade) NA NA Building C Front — France Avenue 79 feet 300+ feet Side Street — Hazelton Road 79 feet 43 feet* Side — South NA NA Rear— East (Promenade) NA NA Parking Lot Setbacks Front — France Avenue 20 feet 51 feet Front — Hazelton Road 20 feet 20 feet Side — North & East NA NA Building Height Byerly's One story — 21 feet Building A Eight stories or 108 feet Six/seven stories — 81 feet Building B Six/seven stories — 85 feet Building C Six stories — 79 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% 72%* Lot size = 9.67 acres 303,025 s.f. Parking Stalls Retail 67,950 s.f. = 357 spaces 314 spaces retail* Housing 246 units = 246 enclosed units 357 enclosed & 33 surface Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Would require a variance under PCD -3 Zoning 11 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: I. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 2. The proposed six/seven-story buildings are two -three stories lower than the height allowed by City Code, and would fit into this area. They are consistent with some of the high density residential development to the east and south. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. RLK conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. The proposed new right -in and right -out on France Avenue would greatly benefit traffic operations around the site. The level of service on adjacent roadways and intersections would remain the same. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. ■ Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. Improving the auto -oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for 12 guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services from within the development without making additional vehicle trips. Parking ratios for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate and the shared parking opportunities this type of development offers. d. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site. As highlighted above on pages 6-9, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: 1. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. 2. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The Byerly's store would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. A patio is proposed along France at the front of Byerly's, and the front walkway in front of the building would be covered with a canopy. (See page A32.) The store configuration is similar to the recently constructed Whole Foods, except that there is an entry into the store closer to France Avenue. (See page A43 & A52.) 3. Pedestrian connections would be made from France Avenue to the Promenade from the north and south sides of the site, as well as through the middle. (See sidewalk plan on pages A43 & A45.) 4. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See pages A25—A27a.) 5. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. (See pages A29—A35.) 6. The site circulation would be improved with a right -in and right -out added along France Avenue. 13 7. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PCD - 3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to build a new 47,000 square foot Byerly's store; a six -story 106 -unit apartment building with two levels of underground parking; a six -story, 77 -unit apartment building with first floor 10,450 square foot retail area and two levels of underground parking; and a six -story, 60 -unit apartment building with 10,500 square feet of retail space on the first level and two levels of underground parking. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The Byerly's store would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. 5. Pedestrian connections would be made from France Avenue to the Promenade from the north and south sides of the site, as well as through the middle. 6. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. 7. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. 8. The site circulation would be improved with a right -in and right -out added along France Avenue. 14 9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. Improving the auto -oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services from within the development without making additional vehicle trips.*Parking ratios for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate and the shared parking opportunities this type of development offers. d. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated January 28, 2012, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission. Final Development plans should include specific locations of trash enclosure areas, number of bike parking spaces provided, and where loading/deliveries are made to the retail space and apartments. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 15 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. 5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated February 22, 2013. 6. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create a new four lot subdivision at 7171 France for the proposed project. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The Final Plat must be considered within one-year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 4. The Park Dedication fee of $1,230,00 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Deadline for a city decision: May 21, 2013 16 1'. City of Edina rr r im tt � a'i��® � rr`� � ■� ■ W, tS s�• � I ♦ tT s ,-if �.r«ate eeea.++♦ R � ra►1]Ilya W. ne �►• i�ee �� i ■ ■� w�rw ■a rw atwee i goal /�lrlflf Iti11��%f11 �tt :xraaiSirs I � swkaw.aw;_aw -r •a■ ■ses■ __ 11 tlrl °� �■'-w�aw�ww wr ■_ �i►j I�Ir}�� WINit i i000 rr• KD: 3202824220009 7171 France Ave S Edina, MN 55435 Illlllil1/111/3�s ��e r w�. ._ ,n "...111■■ �, . _ � � T �� Imo; � r� ■., _ w 111\ • �►-tl 0 �d- 43 I lWyMpOK0101 glgr' 5 mi 64 (�,®®ws■ -ir. _®sib i�. - ►*"�. _ urs— _ _ ;: s <zt ■int `^��+ � .y... -""" �ls�ir� r .... - .' ~ • a r �/View fimm SE - Macy's 1 y ' -!►Jim_ t a ♦ k r Kit p jr to /t�i�•': 1,=' ar .� moi.:. �• _�. -.�., ■ ■ ■ „ ._. 46 Ain Arl G 0 I M "Ill m Sk 1 Ityq r44A A Sk 1 5 �kkl rrf,,,10,ttt4 :cif �SY7 �"l ti?7+ sf � css3c"t' Ys�t ,JA,',f• 5 �kkl rrf,,,10,ttt4 :cif �SY7 �"l ti?7+ sf � css3c"t' r Y� yL L yk LL� w � p on Vice -Chair Staunton reported "Fr+a,ublic hearing for preliminary plat approval for 1MS Custom Homes 20 Brookvew Ar�u has been continued to March 28, 2012. . REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Sketch Plan Review — 6500 France Avenue South, Edina, MN Vice -Chair Staunton explained the Sketch Plan Review process was new to the Commission and its purpose was to give developers the opportunity to share their ideas with the Commission and Council without the expense of providing full plans. Vice -Chair Staunton said at this time he Is suggesting that the Commission comment on the Sketch Plan review in a structured form that encompasses three topics. 1Land Use; 2) Site Plan; 3) Design Features. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the Planning Commission was asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the Byerly's site at 7171 France Avenue. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing Byerly's store and build a new 52,000 square foot Byerly's with a 96 unit 7 -story apartment on top, and a second 19,000 square foot retail building with a 67 unit apartment on top. Parking for the building would be underneath the retail space. Loading areas would be behind the buildings facing the Promenade, (See page A8.) Primary access to the site would be off Hazelton Road, with a secondary access off France through the Macy's site to the south. The existing property is zoned PCD -3, which allows retail as a permitted use, and multi - residential uses are conditionally permitted. (See page A5.) The applicant would be seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The applicant is requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be considered advisory only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. Should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site. Planner Aaker observed while the proposal would be an Improvement over the existing Page 5 of 11 A4 building and use on the site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise to the level of meeting the purpose and intent of the PUD above. The proposal is more typical of traditional suburban development, and does not create a pedestrian friendly environment or engage the adjacent streets or the Promenade. Boulevard style sidewalks along France and Hazelton Road should be added. Due to the retaining wall along France, the sidewalk may need to be located above the retaining wall, with set of stairs to get to the bus stop. Connections from the retail uses to these sidewalks should also be required in addition to the full connection to the Promenade. Aaker also reported that a traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways and the city engineer has expressed concern in regard to sewer capacity in the area. This issue would have to be examined closely as part of a formal submittal. Upgrades to the system, and cost sharing for those upgrades may be required. Appearing for the Applicant Greg Anderson, Anderson KM Builders Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson introduced the development team; Paul Holmes, Pope Architects and Jennifer Kent/Lunds. Mr. Anderson explained that Lunds Food is considering redeveloping their 9.67 acre site in two phases. Anderson said at present the site contains a 59,000 sq. ft. Byerly's grocery store. Continuing, Anderson explained that the intent of Phase I is to redevelop the site to include a 51,800 sq. ft. replacement of the Byerly's store with seven levels of market rate apartments above. Phase 2 would include constructing a 19,000 sq. ft. one level retail space with seven levels of market rate apartments above. Anderson said what's challenging about this redevelopment is that Byerly's would remain open during construction. Anderson also noted that at this time the project hasn't "signed" a residential partner; however those discussions are in the process. Continuing, Anderson told the Commission in discussions with Byerly's it became apparent that it was very important to them that the stores main entrance orients toward France Avenue. Anderson also informed the Commission Byerly's has had discussions with Macy's on shared opportunities including access. Paul Holms said in designing the project the buildings will address both France Avenue and the "Promenade" with the housing elements focusing on the Promenade, retail France Avenue. Holms pointed out that in reality the project is a mixed use project. Retail space would be oriented toward France Avenue and housing toward the promenade. With graphics Holms asked the Commission to note the location of the loading dock, adding the goal Page 6of11 AO is to shield the loading dock from both the promenade and residential aspect of the project. He added that plans to screen the dock will become firmer when a residential partner is on board. Discussion on Applicant Presentation Commissioner Fischer questioned the east/west orientation and south location of the new Byerly's building and asked the developers if this configuration was the result of the current grocery store having to remain open and the existing utility easement. Mr. Holms responded in the affirmative adding that grades also played a role in building configuration and placement. Continuing, Holms said another factor in building orientation and location was to separate the retail parking from the residential parking. Holms said another important aspect of the design was to eliminate semi -trucks from a front loading dock. A "front" loading mini dock would serve the deli and the rear dock semi -trucks. Fischer noted over the past few years the Commission has encouraged developers to design their buildings up to the street, adding in this instance the buildings are pulled away from the street similar to what exists today. Continuing, Fischer acknowledged this discrepancy; however he indicated he understands to be successful requirements for a large freestanding grocery store is different. Commissioner Schroeder said his question is broad. He explained that the City recently adopted a PUD process. This process was put in place to enable developers and the City to achieve something they couldn't achieve through the regular rezoning process. Schroeder asked the applicant what the community gets from this; what's the benefit. Mr. Holms responded that the proposed multiple land uses and added density are of benefit by establishing a direct connection between retail and housing. This connection not only enhances the immediate area but the City as well by adding to the tax base. Mr. Anderson told the Commission through this proposal Lund's would be investing in the community at large. Anderson noted that Lund's could proceed by building only a new grocery store; however they chose to redevelop the site as presented. Anderson pointed out that the existing Byerly's is tired and if the project were approved the community would get a new piece of real estate and expanded tax base. Commissioner Scherer said when she first viewed the sketch plan she was struck by the proposed use. Scherer asked if there was still a market for this type multi housing project. Mr. Anderson responded that Lund's retained a market analysis firm and they found that market rate rental property is in demand. Commissioner Carpenter said that while he agrees that market rate apartments are now in demand, he's not sure how that will fair in the longterm. Mr. Anderson responded that it's hard for him to know if this is a risk, adding there's always a risk in development; you can either be ahead of the curve or behind it. Page 7 of 11 AK Commissioner Platteter asked if Lund's ever considered acquiring the restaurant to its immediate east. Mr. Anderson reported that Lund's has been in contact with that owner; however, at this time the discussion is in the preliminary stage and a deal hasn't been struck. Vice- Chair Staunton said at this time the discussion would focus on the proposed land use. Commissioners expressed the following: • Support the mixed use aspect of the project — use is good • Building height doesn't appear to be an issue. • Suggest that the developer study the ordinance as it relates to mixed use and implement those goals and standards. • Consider encouraging a more active environment — use imagination; such as an outlet for local artists to display their art, etc. • Make it stellar. • Lingering concern on the housing market. • Develop the site with vision; how will it be relevant 10-20 years from now. • Create an area where people want to live, work and shop. • Embrace the importance of the Promenade. • Create a village feel. • Create a space where people want to stay and where they don't have to drive. • Ensure that the site is developed in such a way that it provides a positive experience for the people already there — the shopper's at Byerly's etc. • Create an example of how people gather. Have this be a positive experience for all; not just the residents of the project. • Consider a public purpose for this area by creating go to and stay at areas within the site that encourages them to stay. • Look at how to maximize the lobby and entrances by creating meeting spaces. • Create better access throughout the site; especially to France Avenue. There appears to be no change from the France Avenue perspective. • Consider relocating the main loading dock area; or at the very least screen it from the Promenade. Mr. Anderson asked Commissioners if their concern about providing inviting "public space" was for the residents of the proposed housing or for the general public. Commissioner Schroeder responded that his intent would be for the developer to create an attractive place for everyone, retail patrons, residents of the project and the public at large. He added he doesn't know how that would translate but would like to see it happen. Commissioners agreed, adding opportunities to gather should be encouraged and can be created. Vice -Chair Staunton introduced discussion on the "site plan". Commissioners expressed the following: Page 8 of 11 4t, I • There appears to be a lot of distance from France Avenue to the stores entrance, soften this. • Keep the pedestrian in mind. Commissioners reiterated there's a lot of space between the front door of the proposed stores and France Avenue./Hazelton • Create a place for bicycles. • Concern was expressed on sewer capacity — ensure that it's sufficient and a ? on who pays for it if it needs to be increased. • Note that Edina is moving toward the "Living Street" concept; keep that in mind with redesign. • Consider separating the housing from the retail — more housing along the Promenade. • Keep in mind ordinance requirements for utility equipment. (placement, screening, noise etc.) • Could the number of parking spaces be reduced; has compact parking ever been considered to preserve green space. Ms. Kent responded that the width of Byerly's parking spaces is part of their branding and she doesn't believe those standards would be relaxed; however that can be discussed. • Suggest better integration of the large vehicle loading dock into the site. • Support the use of rain gardens. • Reiterate the importance of promoting pedestrian access through the large front parking areas. Consider relief islands, a front expanded patio, pedestrian walkways/aisles to the bus stop area on France. Tie into the Promenade. • Remember ADA standards — are there stairs and a ramp from the parking lot onto the sidewalk to France Avenue/bus stop. Is there even a sidewalk at the lower level on France. Be cognizant of what materials are used — pavers can cause tripping for walkers and vibrations for those in scooters. • Consider having staff parking near the corner of France/Hazelton. Those parking spaces probably won't be in high demand. • Ensure that the cross walks are clearly delineated; especially the walkway between Byerly's and the retail building. Add sidewalks? • Has reconfiguration of the buildings ever been considered; especially the second building. • Acknowledge that balance needs to be taken with the rear elevations of the buildings. Want them done correctly — they face either the Promenade or street. Mr. Anderson said that the residential component has separate parking acknowledging the site has no rear. • The separation of retail parking from residential parking makes sense; however there's room for tweaking — • How will the parcel pickup flow — will this work - • Connectivity. • The location of the loading dock works; however, it needs better screening from the Promenade. • Maybe there isn't a sidewalk at the lower level — part of the larger system • How are we getting people from France into the development. • The utility easement running through the site is the real deal and does drive building placement. • Two housing projects share one field of parking that's a great strength. Page 9 of 11 ko-lb The discussion ensued with Commissioners reiterating their concern with pedestrian access and travel throughout the site. Commissioners stressed the importance of sidewalks and wondered if France Avenue would ever be pedestrian friendly. Commissioners indicated they don't want to give up on that goal. Commissioners also acknowledged that grocery stores are different and accepted that the parking would be in front of the proposed buildings vs. their goal of having buildings address the street. Continuing, Commissioners again stressed the importance of the Promenade. The Commission also suggested embracing the Promenade, adding it's a great amenity; not only for the housing aspect of the project but for the store as well. More screening could be added around the loading dock. Vice -Chair Staunton directed the discussion to the design features of the proposed project. Commissioners expressed the following: • Support expressed for building height • From an architecture perspective make it look great; understand its sketch plan review but when/if the team comes back with an application go all out on this project. • Be creative, be innovative. • Think outside the box. Vice -Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their participation in the sketch plan review process and he told the design team he looks forward to preliminary plans. • VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Vice -Chair Staunton acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice -Chair Staunton reported that the Grandview process continues. He told the Commission the comment period has been extended to March 281h. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the Framework on April 11, followed by the City Council on April 17tH Commissioner Forrest reported that she attended an Integrating Arts workshop. Forrest said she discovered that more could be done to promote Edina's artists. X. STAFF COMMENTS None. Page 10 of 11 N-1 XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Potts moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. -Tqz� }f ggqgni k G%GPX Respectfully submitted Page 11 of 11 �d a- 141. COM UNITYCOMMENT Loretta Knab, 5 0 Richmond Drive, requested guidance on how to In a the cost of optional sewer and water service reco ruction as part of the special assessment. , Woule stated he would provide that information to Ms.0 Joe Jellen, 5221 Mitt rtulevard, expressed co rn about safety at the 5outhdale Center during evening hours. V111. REPOR75/RECOMMENDATIOii1S VIII.A. SPORTS DOME FE SS18/L►TY STU UTHORIZED Park Director Keprios presented th recom ndation of the Park Board to authorize consultants to conduct Phase 2 of the Edina 5p Dome Feas lity Study. The Council had previously directed staff to ask the consultant to addres he feasibiOty of th ite immediately south of the South Metro Training Facility. The consultant Id also address the feaslb 'ry of the golf dome area and had agreed to a time and materials cont r rather than a flat fee, with a of to -exceed figure of $12,000. The Council indicated it want o determine feasibility of the golf dorn lte for a joint project with one entrance prior to proceedin It study of any other sites. Member Brin made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, thorizing Phase Two, location phase, of the Edina Sp Dome Feasibility Study. Ay , . ennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland otion carried. ViILB. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW— 7171 FRANCE AVENUE FOR LUND FOOD HOLDINGS Community development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Lund Food Holdings to build a new 52,000 sq. ft. Byerly's with a 96 -unit 7 -story apartment on top and a second 19,000 sq. ft. retail building with a 67 -unit apartment on top at 7171 France Avenue, This building would be constructed just to the south of the existing BYerly''s store and once constructed, the existing store would be torn down. Mr. Teague reviewed areas of parking and noted the loading areas behind the buildings facing the Promenade. He also noted primary access points to the site off Hazelton Road with a secondary access off France through the Macy's site to the south. Mr. Teague indicated the request was for a PUD rezoning, noting a variance and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required for height and consideration given to a floor area ratio of 69 percent and parking shortage. Mr. Teague advised the Planning Commission supported the proposed mixed use and was not concerned with the building height, but made many comments on the site plan including the need to create gathering/staying places by enhancing the pedestrian environment and connections to the store and promenade. Proponeol Presentation Greg Anderson, 4212 Oakdale Avenue, Anderson Builders representing Lund Food Holdings, introduced the design team and indicated the new store location was placed to allow the existing eyerly's to remain open during construction, to maintain a westerly facing door, and place the parking field between France and the main entrance to retain familiarity for patrons. Mr. Anderson indicated many details remain to be worked out including access points and location of the loading dock facing the Promenade. Paul Holmes, Pope Architect, presented the sketch plan for this multi -use project and advised of the client's requirements. He indicated the proponent tried to arrange the site so the residential use and Its pedestrian and vehicular traffic were separated from the retail use, placing them to face the Promenade. Phase 1 would construct 96 units of housing over the retail and Phase 2 would construct an additional 19,000 sq. ft. of retail and 67 units above that. The Council discussed the site plan and consensus was reached that while it supported the proposed mixed use and was willing to consider the height deviation, site plan enhancements were needed in the following areas: Page. 4 AJ3 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 3. 2012 • Providing at -grade pedestrian interaction and connection to France Avenue and transportation opportunities • Loading dock orientation would negatively impact pedestrian experience and aesthetics of the Promenade • Minimizing impact to the Promenade • Incorporation of Living Streets philosophy and design elements • Increased integration with France Avenue • Providing pedestrian access from France Avenue without having to navigate through the cars • Creation of protected, lighted, pedestrian walkways or greenway within parking areas from grade level to the store that incorporated lighting, landing pads, landscaping, and overstory trees • Modify grass strip on south side of the building to create connectivity to the Promenade • Incorporation of landscaping and placement so it does not blunt pedestrians access to the Promenade • Improvements along Hazelton Road such as a roundabout and/or living street features • Creation of quasi -public places to gather • Enhanced sustainability features including stormwater management elements such as buried cisterns to capture stormwater for irrigation The Council supported the proposed water feature, noting it would extend and create linkage with Centennial Lakes. Member Sprague suggested the proponent consider a land swap with Szechwan Star, providing Szechwan Star with an outlot on the corner of Hazelton and France. Mr. Anderson indicated the proponent had held discussions with the ownership of Szechwan Star; however, the property values had to be much closer to consummate such a deal. He added Byerly's had many partners within the store which would not want a competing use on the corner, and it would be daunting to meet the parking requirements for a restaurant in addition to housing and retail. Mr. Anderson stated the proponent also has had conversations with Macy's regarding a licensed access across both properties. Mr. Teague confirmed that redevelopment of this site would require the proponent to install sidewalks along France Avenue and Hazelton Drive. The Council indicated it had created the PUD zoning to facilitate enhanced creativity and good development that met the needs of the developer and City. However, while the current site plan incorporated elements to meet the goals of the developer, it does not meet the goals of the City and would create PUD with one-sided benefits and no public benefits. The Council indicated that to make it worthwhile to consider a PUD zoning and variances, the proposed site pian would need to address the issues raised and the City's goals. It was mentioned the Council preferred the orientation and integration of housing near the St. Louis Park Byerly's with the Wolfe Park area as well as the University Avenue Lund's integration with residential use above. The Council encouraged the proponent to consider the comments of the Planning Commission and Council and create an iconic project in this location. Mr. Anderson indicated he respects the Council's comments, acknowledged the development team had a lot of work to do, and would continue discussions with respect to the City's input. VIII.C. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE —CONTRACT ENG 12-1 VALLEY ESTATE IMPROVEMENT —APPROVED Mr. Houle presented the street and utility improvements proposed for the Valley Estates neighborhood and staffs recommendation to install sidewalks adjacent to Creek Valley School, along Creek Valley Road from Gleason Road to Nordic Circle, as discussed during the feasibility phase. He indicated staff was reviewing the special assessment policy; however, this $14,000 portion of the project was proposed to be special assessed in 2013 with 50% to the School District and 50% divided among neighborhood properties at $101/REU. The sidewalk installation was recommended to improve pedestrian safety since there was a fair amount of traffic on the roadway and the sidewalk would tie into the Gleason Road sidewalk system. Mr. Houle explained this project was approximately $100,000 over budget, which would be paid from the Storm Water Fund, because the amount of drain tile needed to address issues with stormwater drainage had been under estimated. He confirmed installation of the additional drain tile would address the concern expressed by residents at the public hearing relating to drainage issues. It was noted the special assessment would be lower than presented at the feasibility study. Page 5 /A it A epkcamf NtPA )Jc. Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment January 28, 2013 Preliminary Development Application Narrative Lund Food Holdings, in partnership with Schafer Richardson Commercial Real Estate Services, seeks to redevelop an existing 9.67 acre parcel at the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road in Edina. The property is presently occupied by a Byerly's store of just over 59,000 square feet. The proposed redevelopment will create an exciting mixed-use community, including a residential village along the Promenade, a new retail destination on France Avenue, and improved connections to and through the site for those driving, as well as for pedestrians, cyclists, and those using mass transit. Overview: Current zoning is PCD -3. PUD zoning classification for this project is desired in order to provide flexibility that will enhance redevelopment outcomes and provide benefits as described in the city zoning code 850.04 subpart 4. The proposed redevelopment plan includes, in Phase 1, a replacement Byerly's store of 47,000 square feet, and two market -rate rental apartment buildings. Building A is a 6 story, 106 -unit Apartment Building, with two levels of underground parking. Building B is a six story, 77 -unit Apartment Building including 10,450 sq ft. of retail space on the west side of the ground level, and two levels of underground parking. A second phase of redevelopment includes an additional apartment building (Building C) containing 48 dwelling units and 10,500 sq. ft. of retail area on the west side of the ground level, and two levels of underground parking. Building A contains 124,250 Square feet, Building B contains 81,375 square feet and Building C contains 50,400 square feet. (Note that underground parking area is not included in the totals above.) On- site parking provided includes 186 spaces serving the Byerly's retail,48 spaces serving building B Retail, 80 spaces serving building C Retail, 285 below -grade spaces serving Building A and B residential , 72 below - grade spaces serving Building C residential, and 33 on -grade residential visitor parking spaces. Byerly's Store Description: The Byerly's store is a single level structure with a roof height ranging from 20'6" to 30'. It's exterior architectural expression is rooted in the Prairie Style School and includes the use of natural indigenous stone, brick, architectural precast, glass, stucco and metal panel. The structural system relies on load- bearing, insulated, architectural pre -cast wall panels, finished with a combination of thin -set brick, precast masonry, and exposed, scored, colored -concrete. The store layout, and the need for "back of house" spaces, limits the ability of the design team to introduce vision glass in the exterior wall. Consequently, day -lighting will be provided through other means, and articulation of the exterior is accomplished through changes in wall plane and materials. Housing Description: Buildings A, B, and C are all 6 stories in height above grade with an average parapet elevation not in excess of 85'. All three buildings rely on below -grade parking, with building A and B having interior vehicular connections below grade and a covered pedestrian connection above. The buildings are concrete construction from the parking levels through the first floor, and wood construction (Type 3A) from floors two through six. p5- The exterior architectural expression of Buildings A, B, and C is clean, sleek and modern. Enclosure materials include brick, architectural precast, and a pressure -equalized exterior rain -screen consisting of metal panel and high quality, pre -finished fiber -cement panels of roughly 12 sq. ft. each. Continuity between the Byerly's store and the housing buildings Is achieved through the use of some similar materials (pr€ncipally brick & architectural precast), and similar colors. It is the desire of both Lund Food Holdings, and Schafer Richardson that the design of the buildings reflect their differing purposes. Transit and Site Access: The redevelopment of the site has been planned wlh pedestrian, tricycle, and transit use in mind. The layout of the residential buildings takes advantage of their immediate proximity to the Promenade, and pedestrian way -finding through the site Is established by the use of landscaped sidewalks, shared -use pathways, special paving sections at roadway intersections, and other architectural features. The Byerly's store entry canopy extends east to welcome pedestrians coming from the housing and Promenade, and the design of the store includes outdoor gathering spaces along France Avenue on grade, and on a second lever. The planned France Avenue pedestrian and bicycle pathway will be immediately adjacent this outdoor seating space. An existing transit stop on France Avenue will be relocated to the north side of the new Byerly's, on Hazelton Road, for improved access and safety. Access to the site from northbound France Avenue is provided via a right-in/right-out connection established between the subject site, and the Macy's Home Store property to the south. An agreement for this shared access is In place between the two property owners. Access to the site from south -bound France Avenue, and from the east, is via two curb cuts on Hazelton Road. The easternmost access is envisioned to be signalized, while the westernmost access will be right-in/right-out only. The easternmost access drive is indicated as spanning the property line between the subject parcel and the neighboring property to the East. An agreement between the two property owners is not yet in place. Stormwater, Landscaping and Site Lighting: Storm water management design includes establishment of Infiltration areas above grade, as well as below grade storage and infiltration. Roof water from residential building A is planned to be routed to a water feature along the Promenade that would be constructed by the city. Alternatively, that roof storm water could be handled internally on site. The proposed landscape design has a variety of native tree, shrub, and plant types that provide seasonal interest and will exceed the requirements of the city codes. The landscaped areas will have an efficient Irrigation system with moisture sensors to reduce the amount of water needed, and to prevent over - watering. Site Lighting will be provided in accordance with city requirements. Pole lights of 25' in height will be used to light the parking lot areas, and 14' tall decorative fixtures will light pedestrian walkways. All exterior lighting and illuminating devices will include lenses, reflectors or shades so as to limit light spill and glare on to adjacent properties. illumination measured at the property line abutting residential zoned lots will not be greater than three foot-candles or ten foot-candles measured at property lines abutting streets or property zoned non-residential. Sustainability: This mixed use project will incorporate sustainable design principles, materials, system selections, and operating protocols, and will participate in Xcel Energy's Design Assistance Program. Redevelopment of an existing site in a densely developed suburban context affords many opportunities. Specific sustainable features that will be incorporated into the residential buildings include: • Energy efficient windows, roof, and wall assemblies • Occupancy sensor controls in select building locations • High efficiency heating and cooling • High efficiency, Energy Star appliances in units • LED and fluorescent lighting fixtures throughout • Individually controlled and metered heating and cooling • Low flow plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage • Use of recycled content materials • Use of regional materials • Use of Low -Emitting Materials (VOC) including adhesives and sealants, paintings and coatings, and carpeting • At least six electric vehicle charging stations In parking areas • Stormwater system designed to optimize infiltration and support Promenade water feature • Convenient bicycle storage with a minimum of 150 bicycle parking stalls in dedicated storage areas Specific sustainable features that will be incorporated into the Oyerly's store include: • An energy-efficient, high-performance, building enclosure system • Day -lighting • Occupancy sensors • High efficiency mechanical and electrical systems with high-performance controls • The use of locally and regionally sourced materials, components and equipment • Incorporation of materials high in post -consumer and post industrial recycled content • Specification of Low Emitting materials • Convenient bicycle parking • Convenient access to Mass Transit Conclusion: This is an exciting redevelopment opportunity that has been in the planning stages for more than a year. The Sketch Plan Review process completed early In 2012 was of great help to the development team, and this plan has changed significantly as a result. The outcome is an approach that adds 234 housing units along the Promenade, activates France Avenue frontage with a new retail presence, and enhances access to and through the site for those who use motorized vehicles, as well as those who choose alternative means of transportation. Additional background information regarding Lund Food Holdings and Schafer -Richardson Commercial Real Estate Is available on their respective websites; www.Ifni.com and www.sr-re.com. We appreciate your consideration of the Preliminary Development Plan application, and look forward to meeting with you to discuss the project in greater detail. 4a-7 Cary Teague From: Greg Anderson <ganderson@anderson-km.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:08 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Edina Byerly's - answers to your questions... Here are the answers to your previous questions.... sorry for the delay. These are comments back from the architect... I counted the units by hand this morning and per the city submittal and the current (both of which agree with each other) and the final unit count I get for all three buildings is 246 (109 for building 'A', 77 for building '13', and 60 for building 'C'). For the second question, our largest unit is a total of 1,470nsf (which includes a 216nsf loft area). This is unit type G2 and is a 3 bedroom with loft. Let me know if you have any additional questions—thanks Cary. Greg Anderson i Chief Construction Officer I D: 952-746-1465 j C: 952-292-1100 ganderson cDanderson-km.com 1 4220 Park Glen Road I St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ANDERSON Comprehensive Building & Development Services KM BUILDERS AL tis yr,aer b r o pro rrzy this Grntiil, k), _- _"lu I O z 5 a a OCIX # al ra- -r "r.IsMR e. Rsrea w:am,. - .m+.:. !r �m rar r. ._ t4'r€�. .sA^I. „• ., Em 4 s M1 F e sa�xt i ry CI esa1 til q3 b9 Y@ ll c 0 43D W VIEW FROM PARKING, LOOKING NORTHEAST Preliminary Development Plan Byerly's - France Ave. Re -Development EDWA,MN ou" =a—"M Schafer . ^� ANDERSON ■ Richardson KM 6 o,.uve e.aaro = a.+dwd$.M- VIEW a. »w »s....w..w:waw Sa3011f18 W� NOS2l3GNV , f ISV74lInnC WAVJ luvn funeu uosp.��� m am -9s auww NW VNIM wowdolanap-aa -and aoueJ: sApaAg weld 3uewdola"Cl Aieulwllajd ASd3H"ON WOVA M31AIV193V VIEW FROM PROMENADE, LOOKING NORTHWEST VIEW FROM PARKING, LOOKING EAST Preliminary Development Plan Schafer 6yerly`s - France Ave. Re -Development EDINA, MN ■ E_.. Ra.chardson STREETLMLMEW FROM HAZELTON ROAD ANDERSON KM BUILDERS 65 sf Sign W-0" h x 18'-0" w Intemanr lit — Corners at France Ave and 45 sr Sign- '4'-0" h x 11'-6' w Internally lit augding; A - North Entry Sulking 5 - North Entry SuPAng C- South Entry Housing - Entry Signage IF— ! 0' 16' 32' 93 Sf Sign `8'-6" h x 20'-0" w Irrwnalgr lit iR beyond cahenn- See Store Partner SWWw detaf 55 sf Sign SW h x 16'-0" w Internally lit 0' 16' 32' Housing - Typical Retail Signage Imo_- 0' 16' 32' sw Wnur at Frena Ave Maar Entry drive Weet Entry drive from Haxdoon SW caner at Frarrce Ave Main Entry drive East Entry MWe from tin Preliminary Development Plan Byerly's - France Ave. Re -Development EMA, MN OVAIn 1S226 -non leveloptrn i x 30'-0" Concrete a a' -is' ■ Schafer Richardson Mair Entry columns Store - Partner r Signage Detail o' a' ANDERSON KM BUILDERS -limaaaawre—usw*ft N N, t 15 g 8 t cm I "I K o EIA m 41 all pillimilkill"lill a I " - -is W; r HillIN-11-M� x A3t t3 l 2 0 a 10 ct" k � I ! k § § � « � At u �i � ��� � � <� � M � � � +•••w•�•'•• I ._ _ WOMMAW'At/67 Atd3MMiN N.Ss q1 YNfQ1 ��ddro - ��I AMt01�Rd lJY0iDD7p $Rl07 �liiYts llgC � aar A4to911t3L1t QNVgLSytW17Y � Y91® n 11 IN I � j. �• � i �' _ `r tit ( � � ' iij 1 i � t ! tti� 1• {��%( . 1 ! Iff b l ®�l � pmt® 0Q00 fit � li Ofweof O -A dp e 3nN3AV 3ONva-4 A+3 tp 4 CJ F 3 O �Q c Q �Vpp E R l N E�- a a+o ama:UJX BYERLY'S ADDITION F /j a(t � wrnwwawiraw�rw� k- r /' � M I�POI�{RYILOOOIYy➢M t � �IR�NMaM�Me�yr+.r P t3 �. NnM�PrI,M�� 4L�Y�Y1Y y i �M'r�M1.w�Mhs'\nwwnr ,..K 14 B R otm Nn �wd smm *is WIA Xg AWWMW ma ICM)Wd mt sulditne WN swalins nx Noso3amy hdtilidijv a tLu r lit to II lit if m "fill' 1 11 1 Ilk 1i ag I I A% S- SlAtwolkv, WN --,FRANCE--AVEWE IRRIS URUTY M -u KM BUILOERS , AW r.ROVT. L" Pm. to51"16t�:t!!r lvmwi2�* 91►99 N" 9wvd swot as 583011f18 WN sa3aiure w Nola or NOsaaaNv 0 Y 3(! itlR Ail ^` 1 1 i •� 1` i 1 yr ! d } W —.-__-F_RAt10E- _9VENUE.__,__�. 1 #:7T,:1 t YFit' i j is AV 9r �a , c r. iIt, -� fir,, '� • � - ��'�j��, R 1 OF, Aft III r IN ; ¢ Ilp 1, Ill NOT FCM CONSTRUCrIoN a s �i�� s ANDERSON KM BUILDERS 20 � aM Sr. $ aav atrar+c + uw LOM PAFK W $5416... 9-s Y • �i ♦ M ♦ Y ±w I � • Y 'Y di o ■;' ii Vii:fit It' loll led • a I€I OR CONSTRUCTION Int ANDERSON ANOER W KM WLMRS ®, �� UADMAK KiA BUIl0ER5 4z2a Duni aenrpt sora M _ «»—IRIX ^8t' t>Ftr, s sr. taws rrua as�ia ti��ll — � � E�„ r�.N�EB� 1 yet ,i'M � t .. r n• tr r � —r s w, m ar Jnr t ! IEGEWD WAM& son 1 i I � F <ttftMit�elR Wat M a i MellMeaew- �� i { 188.3 ]t 7 f M55 H*Wton Road I IITl ' �� Ed;no. MN 5M35 a i e o `� :MWr Wo.f=m Trustee tt.Aad ! k I Hi {if 7171 .Franca Avenus S. Etl.n6, MN 55435 I � 59.359 sgft M-869.51 W t ..t chi Hi's F i i I ' iuj 4 tFa4ti �� � s i'-� � i ��i I �t � � I � �� �.�I � � ' -�i � } t , � �..3 � t ,. ar•.,� a � �� .�� ! � ��"��r -. . EE + t E r l�.{< t l 3�y --= i� �- • `- ✓`'t Q m j' o T 71 I I si Y" loaw *' .'��''•� ! 'i� t �weawe s�ohe aawsm a errm�xrns �y I � !. � � . i / t11Ml1Y t�1fY{i fatM Fe[ M}EeWaA ="MMawmix.�; A j m � Ha ■ Oil |. \§$ 4 'h §§ §§ *P M] 0't'll9€j�I■:�Ii���+r�l�llllllllllilll1111,�1 4 � | �$ \2 � �� ��� , ( & � . �� k §�� �. 1.4 45� 0'w'I`llI■:'I■��$3� - ---- . ........ Aq Jill$, 1 'J VIc =� ( z�l °�Illllllllllll!IIlilll�l a'��I'��I■�'I�i�€�I Cion LLD M!n ORDINANCE NO. 2013 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 7171 FRANCE AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development (PUD) District: =0M =M10, 1 I�. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXM Added text — A �'l F. �lwliit � � Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text James B. Hovland, Mayor AW 2 Malmo MEMO) Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 Zr1A, Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofE&na.com o e r Date: February 22, 2013'x, •�� To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle— Director of Engineering Re: Byerly's — France Avenue Re -Development Dated January 28, 2013 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: • A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, MCES. © A developer's agreement will be required for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and for any other public improvements. O Cost participation for the France Avenue improvements, which include the right-in/right-out and also the Hazelton Road improvements will be proposed / determined prior to the final city Council approval. O Comments on the, traffic study will be submitted prior to the February 27`h Planning Commission Meeting. Civil Sheet 5: • Additional stop signs will be required internally. • The City code for maximum width of an entrance is 30 -feet. Therefore, a concrete median will be required for the westerly right-in/right-out at Hazelton Road. Civic Sheet 9: • Provide a plan that shows the roof water from the residential buildings to drain easterly towards the Promenade. • Note on plan which water mains and sanitary sewer is "Private" versus "Public". Redlined drawing to be emailed to engineer. • Provide descriptions of easements for the "Public" infrastructure. • Provide all documentation that was required by Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit, including the maintenance agreement for the Underground Chamber Storage System. Civil Sheet 10: • Update all City of Edina details. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. G-1WADMINI0014MW TERNALIGENERAL CORR BY STREETSW Streets%7171 France Avenue (Byedys)'Staff Review120130222 WH -Edina Review 7171 France doc A 61 Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment in Edina, MN January 16, 2013 RLK Project No. 2012-135-M /00'1 R1 INCORI TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment Edina, MN January 16, 2013 Prepared For: ineClT7m EDINA ,..For living, learning. saimg Um bm &doing business CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 50i° Street Edina, MN 55424 Prepared By: /00�\ 111JK NC RP RATCD RLKINCORPORATED Minnetonka Office 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 952-933-0972 RLK Project No. 2012-135-M RLK Incorporated Page I of 39 January16, 2013 Byerly's Eci'ina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M TABLE OF CONTENTS B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STUDY AREA ........................................................ 2 1. Description of Proposed Development.............................................................................................2 2. Map of Site and Street Network........................................................................................................2 3. Intersections and Roadway Segments to be Analyzed...................................................................... 2 C. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS................................................................ 1. Existing Traffic Statistics.................................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Roadway Geometrics.......................................................................................................... 3 3. Operational Analysis Methodology..................................................................................................5 4. Existing Trip Generation...................................................................................................................7 5. Existing Queue Lengths....................................................................................................................8 D. FUTURE PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT..... 9 1. Changes in Road Network................................................................................................................ 9 2. Background Development Traffic Growth.....................................................................................10 3. No -Build Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................11 4. Projected No -Build Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................12 5. 2015 No -Build Traffic Operations..................................................................................................12 F. FUTURE PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT .............15 1. Proposed Development Phases.......................................................................................................15 2. Proposed Directional Distribution..................................................................................................15 3. Proposed Build Trip Generations....................................................................................................18 4. Projected Traffic Operations — 2015 Build.................................................................................:...19 5. Projected Traffic Operations — 2016 Build..................................................................................... 21 6. Projected Traffic Operations — 2016 Build with Restaurant Development to the East ................... 22 G. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS................................................................... 25 H. PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 27 I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 28 FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 39 RLK Incorporated Page ii of 39 January 16, 2013 Byedy's Edina Transportation impact Analysis 2012-135-M LIST OF FIGURES Figure1— Project Site................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure2 — Existing Geometries.................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 3 — Aerial Photo of Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 32 Figure 4 — Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements.................................................................................. 33 Figure 5 — 2015 No -Build Peak Hour Turning Movements....................................................................... 34 Figure 6 — Proposed Geometries................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 7 — 2015 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................................. 36 Figure 8 — 2016 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements.............................................................................. 37 Figure 9 — 2016 Build with Restaurant to the East Peak Hour Turning Movements .................................. 38 LIST OF TABLES Table1— LOS Criteria.................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2 — Trip Generation Rates — Existing Byerly's Site............................................................................ 7 Table 3 — Existing Levels of Service............................................................................................................7 Table 4a — Selected 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths — P.M. Peak Hour -- Existing Byerly's Site ................ 8 Table 4b-- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths - Sat. Midday Peak Hour - Existing Byerly's Site ..... 8 Table 5 -- Projected Levels of Service — 2015 No -Build Condition............................................................13 Table 6a -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour -- 2015 No -Build Conditions...................................................................................................................................................14 Table 6b -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Saturday Midday Peak Hour -- 2015 No -Build Conditions...................................................................................................................................................14 Table 7 -- 2015 Build - Trip Generation Estimates 1. —Proposed Site.......................................................18 Table 8 -- 2016 Build - Trip Generation Estimates 1. —Proposed Site.......................................................19 Table 9 -- Projected Levels of Service — 2015 Build Condition................................................................. 20 Table 10a -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions..................................................................................................................................................20 Table 10b -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions...............................................................................:..................................................................20 Table 11 -- Projected Levels of Service — 2016 Build Condition..............................................................21 Table 12a -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 12b -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions................................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 13-- 016 Build with Impacts to the East - Trip Generation Estimates 1. — Proposed Site.................23 Table 14 -- Projected Levels of Service — 2016 Build Condition (With Impact of Parcel to the East) ..... 23 Table 15a -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions...................................................................................................................................................24 Table 15b -- Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths. — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions................................................................................................................................................... 24 RLK Incorporated Page iii of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M A. REPORT LETTER January 16, 2013 Mr. Wayne Houle Public Works Director City of Edina 4801 w. 50`h Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Traffic Impact Analysis — Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment Dear Mr. Houle: The attached report details the traffic impact analysis of the Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment at southeast corner of France Avenue (County Road 17) and Hazelton Road in Edina. The developer, Anderson -KM Builders, is proposing to redevelop the existing grocery store site into a mixed use development. The proposed redevelopment will encompass a new 52,500 square foot grocery store, an additional 20,950 square feet of retail and 234 units of multi -family housing. The redevelopment utilizes two full access intersections onto Hazelton Road, as well as a new right- in/right-out intersection on France Avenue. In addition, there is cross -access to be allowed between this site and the Macy's Furniture Store site to the south. RLK analyzed two peak times in its analysis — Weekday PM Peak Hour and Weekend Midday Peak. These two peak periods reflected the critical time periods among the three main land uses on the site. The report found that the Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment will result in acceptable levels of service for traffic using these intersections during the tested peak hours. The two access points along Hazelton will adequately serve the trips into and out of the site — especially when the easterly intersection is signalized. The right-in/right-out intersection on France will not adversely affect the northbound operation of France Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Edina accept these findings in their consideration of the Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment. Sincerely, Stephen J. Manhart, P.E., PTOE, PTP Senior Traffic Engineer Attachment RLK Incorporated Page 1 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STUDY AREA 1. Description of Proposed Development Anderson -KM Builders, LLC plans to redevelop an existing Byerly's Store at 7171 France Avenue South in the City of Edina, Hennepin County, MN. The site is to be redeveloped to replace the existing grocery story with a new 52,500 square foot grocery store and additional 20,950 square feet of retail and 234 units of multi -family housing. It is anticipated that the new grocery would be open mid-August of 2014, and the multi -family housing and additional retail would open in phases between mid-November, 2014 and late 2015. The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and parking impacts of the proposed redevelopment. 2. Map of Site and Street Network Figure 1 illustrates the development site and the study area street network. RLK analyzed traffic in the area bounded by France Avenue on the west, Hazelton Road on the north, York Avenue South on the east and 72"d Street on the south. RLK also looked at the interaction of trips between the proposed Byerly's redevelopment site and the Macy's Furniture Store to the south. Figure 2 shows the overall street network to be analyzed in the study area. 3. Intersections and Roadway Segments to be Analyzed Existing intersections to be analyzed include: ➢ France Avenue (County State Aid Highway 17) and Hazelton Road ➢ France Avenue (County State Aid Highway 17) and W. 72nd Street ➢ York Avenue (County State Aid Highway 31) and Hazelton Road ➢ Byerly's Main Access and Hazelton Road ➢ Byerly's Service Access and Hazelton Road This study will also focus on the following proposed driveway intersections: ➢ Byerly's new Truck/Secondary Access onto Hazelton Road (unsignalized) ➢ Byerly's new Main Access onto Hazelton Road (proposed as signalized) ➢ New Access onto France Avenue (proposed right-in/right-out) KLK incorporatetl Page 2 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byedy's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M C. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 1. Existing Traffic Statistics To address the impacts of a development on the surrounding roadway system, it is necessary to first understand the existing traffic conditions prior to the area's redevelopment The site exists today with a 13yerly's grocery store encompassing 59,359 square feet. In addition, there are 448 parking stalls serving the grocery store. PM peak hour and Saturday Midday peak hour turning movement counts were conducted during November 3 and 7, 2012. The two peak times analyzed — P.M. Peak Hour and Saturday Midday Peak Hour— correspond to the heaviest commercial traffic in the area. Figure 3 shows an aerial photograph of the existing intersections and driveways serving the Byerly's site, Figure 4 shows the average daily traffic along the routes within the study area. Figure 5 shows the peak hour turning movements at the major intersections within the study area. AM peak hour counts were previously conducted by Hennepin County at several nearby intersections along France Avenue, The AM peak hour counts were found to be 20°x6 to 25% lower than the PM peak or Saturday peak counts. Therefore, only the PM and Saturday peak hours were analyzed with this study. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. According to recent traffic studies conducted for the City of Edina, it has been found that France Avenue traffic has decreased. In 2009, two-way traffic counts on France Avenue varied from 26,000 vehicles/day to 28,500 vehicles per day. In 2011, it was found that France Avenue daily traffic volumes have decreased to a range between 24,300 vehicles per day to 27,800 vehicles per days 2, Existing Roadway Geometries Vehicular access to the site from the development area is expected to occur primarily on two roadways: France Avenue and Hazelton Road. The following text details the specifics of each of these roadways: France Avenue S. (County State Aid Highway 17) is functionally classified as an A Minor Arterial -Reliever route. It exists as a six -lane divided roadway with separated left and right turn lanes in an urban cross section which travels primarily north/south through the City of Edina. In the area of the proposed site, France Avenue has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, Average daily traffic (ADT)just south of Gallagher Drive is 28,000 veh/day, as measured in 2011, Hazelton Road is functionally classified as a collector. It is a four -lane undivided roadway with an urban cross section which travels east/west, Hazelton Road, also classified as Municipal State I PowerPoint presentation from France Avenue TE S.P, 120020-037 Intersection Enhancements Stakeholders Meeting #1, May 31, 2012. 3 2011 Publication Traffic Volumes Metro Street Series — 41), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Data and Analysis, Traffic Volume Program, hitp:/ ww dot stale mn us/tmff iddata/index html Of dyerly`s Who Transportation tmpoct Anotysis 12 -135 -tail Aid System Route 166, has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Hazelton has an ADT of 7,600 veh/day just east of the proposed site, as measured in 2009. • York Avenue S. (County State Aid Highway 31) is functionally classified as a Major Collector, and is a four -lane divided County roadway with and urban cross section and 35 mph speeds. ADT on York Avenue south of Hazelton is 15,000 veh/day, as measured in 2011. The following summary lists the numbers of lanes and types of traffic control at intersections, as well as posted speeds, no parking zones in the area: France Avenue at Hazelton Road - Traffic Signal control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 40 mph on France; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB France Ave approaching Hazelton — one shared through/right, two through, one left; o NB France Ave approaching Hazelton — one free right, three through, one left; o EB Hazelton approaching France Ave — one shared left/through/right lane; o WB Hazelton approaching France Ave — one free right, one through, one left. Hazelton Road at westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — Side Street Stop Sign control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB Development Driveway (Rue de France) approaching Hazelton Road — one shared right/througb/left lane; o NB Byerly's westerly driveway approaching Hazelton Road — one right lane, one shared through/lane; o WB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one shared through/left lane; o EB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one shared through/left lane Hazelton Road at easterly yerly's Site Entrance — Side Street Stop Sign control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB Development Driveway (Rue De France) approaching Hazelton Road — one shared right/through/left lane; o NB Byerly's westerly driveway approaching Hazelton Road -one shared right/tbrough/left lane (widened for truck movements); o WB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one shared through/left lane; o EB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one shared through/left lane • York Avenue at Hazelton Road — Traffic Signal control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 35 mph on York; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB York Ave approaching Hazelton — one right, two through, one left lane; o NB York Ave approaching Hazelton — one left, one through, one shared through/right; o EB Hazelton approaching York Ave — one left/through, one right; RLK Incorporated Page 4 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byedy's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M o WB Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one shared left/through/right lane. France Avenue at 72nd Street — Side Street Stop Sign control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 40 mph on France; Speed Limit 30 mph on 72` d Street. o SB France Ave approaching 72nd St — one through/right, two through; o NB France Ave approaching 72nd St —three through lanes; o EB 72nd St approaching France Ave — one shared left/through/right lane. France Avenue at Gallagher Drive — Traffic Signal control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 40 mph on France; Speed Limit 30 mph on Gallagher. o EB Gallagher Drive approaching France Avenue — one through/right, one left; o WB Gallagher Drive approaching France Avenue — one through/right, one left; o SB France Avenue approaching Gallagher Drive — one shared through/right, two through, one left lane o NB France Avenue approaching Gallagher Drive — one shared through/right, two through, one left lane Sidewalks are currently provided on one side of France Avenue in this study area. A six-foot wide sidewalk exists adjacent to the curb along the west side of France Avenue between 66th Street to 76th Street. On the east side of France, there is no sidewalk between Hazelton Road and Gallagher Drive. There are six-foot sidewalks along the north and south sides of Hazelton Road from France Avenue to York Avenue. Metro Transit bus routes 6 and 587 currently serve this area. Bus stops are currently located along the both sides of France Avenue at Hazelton and at 72nd Street, as well as one located on the west side of France at Gallagher Drive. Along Hazelton, there are bus stops located on the north and south side of the street just west of the Target Store and just east of the Edina Promenade. Existing rights-of-way vary within the study area. From Hazelton Road south to 72nd Street, the half - street right-of-way narrows from 75 to 63 feet (for the right turn lane). The westerly half -street right-of- way of France Avenue in this segment is 50 feet. On Hazelton Road, the half -street right-of-way on the south half of the street is 36 feet, while the north half street right-of-way varies from 36 to 44 feet (again for the right turn lane). 3. Operational Analysis Methodology Operational analyses were conducted at the study intersections per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which reports a level of service based on the delay experienced by vehicles at a particular intersection. The level of service concept indicates a measure of average operating conditions at intersections during an hour. Service levels range from A through F with each level defined by a range of control delay per vehicle. Table 1 lists the level of service criteria used to determine acceptable traffic operation. Traffic operations for peak hour conditions within the study area were analyzed using the industry - standard Synchro/SimTraffic software package, which uses the data and methodology contained in the RLK Incorporated Page 5 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M HCM, published by the Transportation Research Board. The software model was calibrated using existing conditions before being used to assess future conditions. The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as traffic signals and stop -controlled intersections, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volumes on that facility. Various factors affect capacity, including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number and width of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the HCM. The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of a Level of Service (LOS). Facilities are given letter designations from "A," representing the best operating conditions, to "F," representing the worst. Generally, Level of Service "D" represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. Table 1. LOS Criteria LOS Control Dela (sec/Veh) LOS Control Dela (sec/Veh) A <10 A 0-10 B >10-20 B >10-15 C >20-35 C >15-25 D >35-55 D >25-35 E >55-80 E IL >35-50 F > 80 F > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 The acceptable threshold for a particular movement at an intersection depends on both the priority assigned to that movement and its traffic volume. In general, the higher the priority and the higher the traffic volume, the more stringent the acceptable threshold will be. For example, the acceptable threshold for a high-priority/high-volume suburban movement might be "D," while LOS "F" on a low-priority/low- volume urban movement might be appropriate. For side -street stop -controlled intersections, a key measure of operational effectiveness is the side -street LOS. Long delays and poor LOS can sometimes result on the side street, even if the overall intersection is functioning well, making it a valuable design criterion. Again, depending on priority and traffic volume, acceptable side -street LOS can range from "D" to "F." A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the lineup of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable level of service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. The 95" percentile queue, or the length of queue with a 5% chance of occurring during the peak hour, is considered the standard for design purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, however, LOS "D" or "E" or better is considered acceptable for low- volume movements at certain intersections. For this analysis, the industry -standard Synchro and SimTraffic software packages were used to analyze intersection operation. All operational and queue reports are found in the Appendices of this report. 3 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.0 RLK Incorporated Page 6 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M 4. Existing Trip Generation Based on the trip generation rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, this supermarket will generate just over 6,000 vehicular trips each weekday and more than 10,500 trips on a Saturday (See Table 2). Table 2. Trip Generation Estimates'' — Existing Byerly's Site Land Use Size Weekday PM Daily Saturday Mi ay Saturday Daily Enter I Exit Enter Exit Supermarket 9,359258 22 239 6,069 322 310 10,542 Total Existing Trips 258 239 6,069 322 310 10,542 497 632 1. Per the data and methodologies in Trip Generation. 9"' Edition, published by I j E. Table 3, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours with most movements operating at LOS E or better. The northbound left turn from the westerly Byerly's intersection has significant delay in the Saturday midday period, while the eastbound left turn from the unsignalized intersection of 72nd to northbound France Avenue shows significant delay during both study periods (despite minimal volumes). Full reports showing detailed LOS and delays by approach are included in the Appendix. Table 3 - Existing Level of Service Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (sec/veh) Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (Sec/veh) France Ave & Hazelton Rd. B (D) 18 C (D) 22 Hazelton Rd. & Westerly Byerly's Drive a (e) 7 a (f) 22 Hazelton Rd. & Easterly Byerly's Drive a (c) 1 a (c) 1 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (D) 24 C (D) 30 France Ave. & 72nd St. a (fl 2 a (f) 1 France Ave. & Gallagher Dr. B (C) 20 B (D) 16 NOTES; a. Upper Case letters reflect LOS at signalized intersections; Lower case letter reflect LOS at unsignalized intersection. b. First letter reflects Intersection LOS; letter inside parentheses reflects LOS of worst movement. c. Int. Delay reflects overall average intersection delay, not necessarily worst movement delay. RLK Incorporated Page 7 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M 5. Existing Queue Lengths RLK conducted a study of the existing traffic conditions for P.M. Peak Hour and Saturday Midday traffic conditions. A queuing analysis was conducted for the main intersections/driveways for the P.M. Peak Hour. Traffic engineers use a measure called 95`h percentile queue. The measurement defines the queue length (in feet) that has only a 5 -percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. If the 95`h percentile queue length approaches or exceeds the segment length, mediation may be required. Results are shown in Tables 4a and 4b: Table 4a. Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths' — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — Existing Byerly's Site Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 162 Northbound Through France at Hazelton 402 420 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Drivewa 256 43 Northbound B edy's Driveway at Hazelton 500 110 Table 4b. Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths' — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — Existing Byerly's Site Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 196 Northbound Through France at Hazelton 402 302 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Drivewa 256 74 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 500 154 Westbound Hazelton approach has available capacity. Northbound France Avenue has a queue length that at times extends back through the 72nd Street intersection during the p.m. peak hour. Other critical movements have available capacity at intersections. RLK Incorporated Page 8 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M D. FUTURE PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT In the testing of the. future projected traffic conditions without the development (i.e., the "No -Build" condition), an annual growth rate of 1% was assumed for background traffic. Under this scenario, it is assumed that the Byerly's site remains as -is. Therefore, traffic volumes are projected to be constant for traffic entering and exiting the Byerly's site. The Byerly's France Avenue Redevelopment project has a completion date for the final phase in 2014. Therefore, the typical date for traffic analysis is one year after completion, so as to assess the traffic once the pattern for drivers has sufficiently developed in the area. To accurately assess traffic conditions with or without the development, traffic conditions will be assessed for the year 2015 without the development, but with the normal background growth on the street system. 1. Changes in Road Network The City of Edina was successful in securing Federal Transportation Enhancement funding for the construction of Pedestrian / Intersection Enhancements along France Avenue (CSAH 17) at 76`h Street, 701h Street and 66`h Street. While not finalized, the recommended improvements include: • Reducing the vehicle lanes to the minimum State Aid requirements on northbound France Avenue the entire length from 76th Street to 66th Street and on southbound France Avenue and the side streets only through the intersections at 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street. • Removing and relocation of the France Avenue northbound outside curb from 76th Street to 66th Street and southbound outside curb at the intersections of 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street. • Removing free right turn islands in all quadrants at 76th Street, in the southeast quadrant at 70th Street, in the southeast quadrant at 69th Street, in the southeast quadrant of the Southdale entrance, in the northeast quadrant of the Southdale exit an in the southeast, southwest and northeast quadrants at 66th Street. • Widening the center median on France Avenue and the side streets to a 10 foot width only at the intersections of 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street. • Providing an 8 foot landscaped boulevard on the eastside of France Avenue from 76th Street to 66th Street. • Providing an 8 foot sidewalk on the eastside of France Avenue from 76th Street to 66th Street and on the west side of France Avenue only at the intersections of 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street. RLK Incorporated Page 9 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M • Providing a minimum 6 foot landscaped boulevard on the side streets at 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street. • Providing a 6 foot sidewalk on the side streets where sidewalks currently exist at 66`h Street, Vh Street and 76`h Street. • Either a 5 foot on -street bike lane or a shared lane with "Sharrow" eastbound and westbound on 66"' Street, 701h Street and 76`h Street through France Avenue. • ADA compliant pedestrian ramps at all intersections and driveways on the eastside of France Avenue from 76"' Street to 66`h Street and on the west side of France Avenue at 66`h Street, 70`h Street and 76`h Street. • Revised traffic signal systems at 66`h Street, 70`h Street and 76`h Street including APS pedestrian push buttons, countdown pedestrian signal timers, median refuge island pedestrian push buttons and new vehicle and bicycle detection systems. • Urban design feature including, landscaping, monuments, planter boxes, bollards and colored or stamped concrete at the intersection of 66`h Street, 701h Street and 76`h Street. Where applicable, these enhancements have been incorporated into the proposed future -year conditions and models for France Avenue (-- both No -Build and Build scenarios). 2. Background Development Traffic Growth Despite recent decreases in traffic volumes, future traffic growth must be assumed. This background growth must be included in future year traffic forecasts. In order to account for some background growth in traffic, a traffic growth projection factor of 1.0 was used to project traffic to the 2015 and 2016 study years. In addition to the regional background traffic, other specific none development related traffic was determined and included with the overall background traffic. Southdale Residential Apartment Development - Based on information received from WSB & Associates, Inc., a 232 -unit 10 -story apartment development is proposed for the southeast corner of the Southdale Center property. The apartment building would be constructed in the northwest comer of the intersection of York Sheet and 69`h Street. The analysis assumes that all units will be occupied by 2015 and that the background trip generation will be included in the background of the 2015 and 2016 analysis. Future Southdale Restaurant Development — The analysis of the Southdale Residential Development included the analysis of a future restaurant that is proposed in northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 69th Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 s.f. in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will be developed by 2014 and that the background trip generation for the restaurant will be the same for the 2015 and 2016 analysis scenarios. RLK Incorporated Page 10 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Centennial Lakes Coffee Shop -- Based on information received from WSB & Associates, Inc., a free-standing 1,750 square foot coffee shop building is proposed in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of France Avenue and Plaza Drive. The site has other potential uses (fast food restaurant, bank, pharmacy, specialty retail, etc.), but the primary analysis of the site assumed a coffee shop. The analysis assumes that all units will be occupied by 2015 and that the background trip generation will be included in the background of the 2015 and 2016 analysis. Proposed Restaurant/Retail Site — A proposed restaurant or retail site is being proposed for the site of the former Szechuan Star restaurant to the east side of the Byerly's redevelopment property site. This site will be added to the long-term background traffic impacts. In each case, RLK looked at the traffic studies prepared for each development and compared the added trips to the background traffic for each study scenario. In the short-term build alternates of the Southdale Residential Project, the 2014 Build Alternate 1 traffic on northbound France Avenue was 53 fewer trips in the P.M. Peak Hour than in the 2014 No -Build scenario for the project 4 The 2014 Build Alternate generated 20 more trips on northbound York Avenue for the Saturday Midday peak hour than in the 2014 No -build scenario for the project. In the Centennial Lakes Plaza Coffee Shop Traffic Study, 21 trips were added to northbound and southbound lanes of France Avenue north of Plaza Drive in the P.M. Peak Hour.5 Similarly, 32 trips were added to northbound France Avenue in the Saturday Midday Peak Hour, and 30 trip were added to the southbound approach on France Avenue at Plaza Drive. In each development case, the associated trips were added (or subtracted, as the case may be) to either France Avenue or York Avenue through movements in the Byerly's redevelopment analysis to represent these changes to the background developments. 3. No -Build Trip Distribution If the No -Build scenario were to occur, all site traffic will continue. to enter from and exit onto Hazelton Road at the two access driveways. The westerly driveway will continue to be the primary driveway serving the site, while the easterly driveway will continue as the delivery driveway. It is assumed that the existing trip distribution pattern will remain. Site -generated trips will be unchanged from the existing trip distribution patterns. ' Southdale Residential Traffic and Parking Study, prepared for the City of Edina by WSB & Associates, 09/04/12. 5 Centennial Lakes Coffee Shop Traffic Study, prepared for the City of Edina by WSB & Associates, 06/18/12. RLK Incorporated Page 11 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M 4. Projected No -Build Traffic Volumes To accurately project No -Build traffic volumes in the study area, it is assumed the existing Byerly's traffic volumes will not change while the background traffic will increase by the annual growth rate. To model this scenario, the trip generation for the existing grocery store was calculated and stripped from the existing traffic pattern based on percentages at each intersection. The remaining traffic is considered the Background Traffic. The Background Traffic volumes were then increased by the overall growth rate (I% annually) and the additional development background trips (described above) were added. Finally, the existing grocery trips were added back in to reflect the No -Build scenario. Figure 5 shows the 2015 No -Build turning movement volumes for the PM Peak Hour and for the Saturday Midday Peak Hour. 5. 2015 No -Build Traffic Operations Traffic operations were tested for the 2015 No -Build Scenario assuming the roadway enhancements along France Avenue have been implemented. In addition, the following geometric improvements are assumed along Hazelton: France Avenue at Hazelton Road - Traffic Signal control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 40 mph on France; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB France Ave approaching Hazelton — one shared through/right, two through, one left; o NB France Ave approaching Hazelton — one free right, three through, one left; o EB Hazelton approaching France Ave — one shared left/through/right lane; o WB Hazelton approaching France Ave — one free right, one through, one left. Hazelton Road at westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — Side Street Stop Sign control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. (Note: Modification to 3/ access not assumed under No -Build scenario.) o SB Development Driveway (Rue de France) approaching Hazelton Road — one shared right/through/left lane; o NB Byerly's westerly driveway approaching Hazelton Road — one right lane, one shared through/lane; o WB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one left lane; o EB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, one left lane serving as the west end of the Two -Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL)• • Hazelton Road at easterly yerly's Site Entrance — Side Street Stop Sign control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB Development Driveway (Rue De France) approaching Hazelton Road — one shared right/through/left lane; RLK Incorporated Page 12 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M o NB Byerly's westerly driveway approaching Hazelton Road —one shared right/through/left lane (widened for truck movements); o WB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, left turn opportunity in the TWLTL; o EB Hazelton Road approaching westerly Byerly's Site Entrance — one shared through/right lane, left turn opportunity in the TWLTL York Avenue at Hazelton Road — Traffic Signal control; On -Street Parking prohibited; Speed Limit 35 mph on York; Speed Limit 30 mph on Hazelton. o SB York Ave approaching Hazelton — one right, two through, one left lane; o NB York Ave approaching Hazelton — one left, one through, one shared through/right; o EB Hazelton approaching York Ave — (Note: TWLTL assumed to end prior to York Avenue) one left/through, one right; o WB Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one shared left/through/right lane. The levels of service for the study intersections are shown on Table 5. Table 5. Projected Levels of Service — 2015 No -Build Condition (Assumes France Avenue Enhancements) Intersection PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay LOS Int. Delay (sec/veh) (Sec/veh) France Ave & Hazelton Rd. B (F-SBLt) 17.7 C (F-SBLt) 33.3 Hazelton Rd. & Westerly Byerly's Drive a (d) 5.4 b (f-NBLt)) 53.9 Hazelton Rd. & Easterly Byerly's Drive (Signalized or unsignalized) N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. a (c) 1.0 a (c) 1.7 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (F-NBLt) 31.6 C (F-NBLt) 31.4 France Ave. & 72 ad St. a (f -EB) 2.0 a (f) 1.5 France Ave. & Gallagher Dr. B (F-SBLt) 19.4 B (F-SBLt) 18.6 NOTES: a. Upper Case letters reflect LOS at signalized intersections; Lowercase letter reflect LOS at unsignalized intersection. b. First letter reflects Intersection LOS; letter inside parentheses reflects LOS of worst movement. c. Int. Delay reflects overall average intersection delay, not necessarily worst movement delay. The associated 95th percentile queue lengths for the 2015 No -Build condition are listed on Tables 6a and 6b. RIK Incorporated Page 13 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Table 6a. Selected 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths' — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2015 No -Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95`h PercentileQueue Len h (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 139 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 419 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 99 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 125 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Drivewa 259 41 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 270 78 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 181 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 79 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 171 Table 6b. Selected 95`' Percentile Queue Lengths' — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2015 No -Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95` Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 201 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 394 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 119 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 114 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Drivewa 259 46 Northbound Byerly's Driveway at Hazelton 270 156 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 185 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 105 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230_____F_268 RLK Incorporated Page 14 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M F. FUTURE PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT 1. Proposed Development Phases There are several phases proposed for the Byerly's Redevelopment Project: A. Construction of a new 52,500 square -foot grocery store — completed by mid-August 2014; B. Construction of a new 109 -unit mid -rise apartment building — completed by mid-November 2014; C. Construction of a new 77 -unit mid -rise apartment building with 10,450 square feet of retail space on the ground floor — completed by mid- to late -2015. D. Construction of a new 48 -unit mid -rise apartment building with 10,500 square feet of retail space on the ground floor — completed by mid- to late -2015. The staging of these phases is such as to allow the existing grocery store to remain open until the new store is completed, then the old store will close and the remaining apartment and retail will be constructed. Therefore, two Build scenarios are to be tested: • 2015 Build — incorporating the new grocery store and the 109 -unit mid -rise apartment building; • 2016 Build — incorporating the 2015 Build land uses with the two remaining mid -rise apartments and ground floor retail. 2. Proposed Directional Distribution Because of the proposed site layout, access to the various buildings will be possible from more than one driveway. In addition, some of these driveways will be full access while others will have limited access. Generally, trips to and from most access points were distributed 80/20 with the closer access getting the majority of the entering/exiting traffic. Exiting traffic intending to head northbound on France from the grocery or from the apartments was split 50/50 between the new R1/R0 access onto France and the Hazelton signal. Some traffic headed southbound is split between the Hazelton easterly intersection or down to Gallagher intersection. The following diagrams illustrate the directional distribution of ingress and egress traffic into and out of each land use of the redevelopment project: RLK Incorporated Page 15 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Gro0a Store Traffic: Hazelton 27%v. 10117% 114-25% 1%4 Id'25% $113% I 4%-* 8%0 8%.* %25'G 1964 129GdP 26%-V %12%31%% 8%� 11%% 72nd 17%is 2 20%9 47%0 10.20% 8%tt 35%if France f65% 492'X► 13%0 2%04 4f17% Gallagher 5%,v 30%0 Proliosed Housing A (109 Units): Directional Distribution - Paopmd GroceryStore 35%0 Inbound Trip Percentage&Direction Q, 20% outbound Trip Percentage & Direction * General tocation of Trip Generator York a 5% 11 -3% Hazelton 27%Vr ei17% a25% 1%8 d2S% .13% 1 L 4%4 %iP 2%,* 34%P 34*Ao* %25% 1%0 3%dP 26%.# 4+12% 31%'b 2%'it 11%'% 11%a 4 41%0 France tA2% 13%0 2%+b 017% Gallagher Dkecdonai Distribution - Proposed HoustmA (109 Units) 35%6+ Inbound Trip Percentage & Direction %20% outbound Trip Percentage & Direction *- General locationolUpGenerator York RLK Incorporated Page 16 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Anolysis 2012-135-M Proposed Housing B (77 Units & 10,450 M. ft, Retail):. %5% 1 —ji':� 3% Hazelton 27%� dr1T"i4 ¢ 25% 196A X25% 013% St. 112%0 20%4 m�j 34%�p 34%,11 4,25",b 1-A' 3'%0 26%,0 31%'a 2%% 41%% York 1?%4 10. "% 2%11 41%,p Directional Distribution -Proposed koustng B (77 Units & Retadll France 35%0 Inbound Trip Percentage &Direction %20'.4 outbound Trip Percentage&Direction .i+2% 13%0 2%16 eil?-/, * General Location ofTdp Generator Gallagher 6%a 32%tt "roposed Housing C (48 Unites & 10.500 sq. ft. Retail): 9.5% 11 ,:� 3% Hazelton 27%04 OF17% —1 25% 1%0d°2ti96 4,13% 1 L 4%a 12%,A 194a 136%.0 3694ro 4,2S% 1%* 1%0 26%,p Q12% 4211 * 1%1* 111%gib 72nd St 17%8 Me 20%0 York 47*40 12%031%40 Directional Distribution- Proposed Housing C (4g Uidts & Rate#) France 35%gyp inbound Trip Percentage & Direction 4,6% %20% Outbound Trip Percentage&Direttlon 02% 13%0 2944c. d 1, % * General Location of Trip Generator Gallagher s%-* I 32%n RIJK Incorporated Page 17 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byedy's Edina Transporlalion Impact Analysis 2012--135-M 3. Proposed Build Trip Generations Tables 7 and 8 show the proposed trip generation estimates for each phase of the development — the 2015 Build (encompassing the new Byerly's store and Housing A), and the 2016 Build (which adds the trip generation of Housing B and C to the trip generation from the 2015 Build analysis). Each is based on the trip generation rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 9`" Edition. It should be noted that each scenario is adjusted to reflect shared trips and pass -by trips. According the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, "Pass -by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion." Further, "Pass -by trips are only applicable to trips that enter or exit the site, not internal trips. s6 According to Table 5.10 of the Handbook, the average pass -by trips percentage for supermarkets is 36%, which was used in this study. The ITE Trip Generation Manual also outlines a procedure for calculating internal capture rates for trip origins within a multi -use development (aka, "Shared Trips"). The total Shared Trip assumption for this study was 20%. Table 7. 2015 Build - Trip Generation Estimates" — Proposed Site Land Use Size Weekday PM Daily Saturday Midday Saturday Daily Enter Exit Enter Exit Supermarket 52,500 s ft. 254 244 5,368 285 274 9,323 Apartments (Building A) 109 Units 44 24 725 28 28 697 i Total - Gross 298 268 6,093 313 302 8,626 566 615 Shared Trips 56 56 1,211 85 82 2,710 112 167 Pass -By Trips 72 1 72 0 1 0 144 0 Total Proposed Trips 170 140 4,882 228 2 20 5 916 ' 310 448 2. Per the data and methodologies in Trip Generation, 9" Edition, published by ITE. 6 Trip Generation Manual, 9"' Edition, Volume 1: User's Guide and Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2012. RLK Incorporated IPage 18 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Table 8. 2016 Build - Trip Generation Estimates" — Proposed Site Land Use Size Weekday PM Daily Saturday Midday Saturday Daily Enter Exit Enter Exit Supermarket 52,500 s ft. 254 244 5,368 285 274 9,323 Apartments (Building A) 109 Units 44 24 725 28 28 697 Apartment (Building B) 77 Units 31 17 512 20 20 492 Specialty Retail 10,450 19 20 449 26 26 522 Apartment (Building C) 48 Units 19 10 319 12 12 307 Specialty Retail 10,500 19 20 451 26 26 525 Total - Gross 386 335 7 824 397 386 11,866 721 783 Shared Trips 73 73 1,576 105 102 3,134 146 207 Pass -By Trips 82 1 82 IO 10 164 20 Total Proposed Trips 1411180 6'248 282 274 8,732 556 3. Per the data and methodologies in Trin Generation, 9"' Edition, published by ITE. 4. Projected Traffic Operations — 2015 Build Table 9 summarizes the projected levels of service for the 2015 Build Condition. This reflects the traffic operation of the new Byerly's Grocery Store and the first building of apartment units (aka, "Housing A"). This analysis assumes the intersection enhancements along France Avenue. In addition, this analysis assumes that Hazelton has been reconfigured from a four -lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) to a three -lane roadway (one lane in each direction with a center Two -Way Left Turn Lane — a "TWLTI: ). Further, the westerly driveway intersection along Hazelton between the Byerly's redevelopment site and Rue de France shopping center has been configured into a three-quarter access — that is, eastbound Hazelton traffic can make left turns, make right turns or proceed straight, while westbound traffic can only turn right or proceed straight. No movement can make a left turn except the eastbound movement. That means that from the Byerly's property, northbound movements can only turn right (eastbound) at Hazelton. Full access is possible from the Byerly's property easterly intersection with Hazelton. This intersection has been tested with either signalized or unsignalized operation. Both resulting levels of service are shown in the table below. Both operate acceptably. RLK Incorporated Page 19 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Table 9. Projected Levels of Service — 2015 Build Condition Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (sec/veh) Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (Sec/veh) France Ave & Hazelton Rd. B (F-SBI.t) 17.3 C (F-SBLt) 31.4 Hazelton Rd. & Westerly Byerly's Drive a (b) 2.1 b (b) 2.4 Hazelton Rd. & Easterly Byerly's Drive (Signalized or unsignalized) B (B) a (c) 11.3 2.1 B (B) a (c) 11.6 3.2 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (F-NBLt) 28.8 C (F-NBLt) 31.5 France Ave. & 72nd St. a (f -EB) 1.8 a (f -EB) 2 France Ave. & Gallagher Dr. C (F-SBLt) 18.0 C (F-SBLt) 20.4 France Ave. & Byerly's Driveway a (a) n/a a (a) n/a NOTES: a. Upper Case letters reflect LOS at signalized intersections; Lowercase letter reflect LOS at unsignalized intersection. b. First letter reflects Intersection LOS; letter inside parentheses reflects LOS of worst movement. c. Int. Delay reflects overall average intersection delay, not necessarily worst movement delay. Queue lengths for the 2015 Build conditions are listed on Tables IOa and 1Ob. Table 10a. Selected 95°i Percentile Queue Lengths' — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile ueue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 162 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 434 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 147 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 90 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Drivewa 259 45 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 270 43 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 182 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 71 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 196 Table 10b. Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths' — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2015 Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile ueue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 180 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 478 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 44 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 73 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Driveway 259 55 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 270 37 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 186 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 90 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 318 RLK Incorporated Page 20 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byedy's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M 5. Projected Traffic Operations — 2016 Build Table 11 summarizes the projected levels of service for the 2016 Build Condition. This reflects the traffic operation of the 2015 Build conditions combined with the two additional apartment buildings (aka, "Housing B and C").and ground floor retail uses. (NOTE: This level of analysis did not include the proposed restaurant use to the east of the Byerly's redevelopment site.) This analysis assumes the same intersection enhancements along France Avenue, as well as the geometric and traffic control changes along Hazelton described under 2015 Build. Full access is again possible from the Byerly's property easterly intersection with Hazelton. This intersection has been tested with either signalized or unsignalized operation. Both resulting levels of service are shown in the table below. Both continue to operate acceptably. Table 11. Projected Levels of Service — 2016 Build Condition (Without Impact of Parcel to the East) Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (sec/veh) Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (Sec/veh) France Ave & Hazelton Rd. C (F-SBLt) 20.9 D (F-SBLt) 36.4 Hazelton Rd. & Westerly Byerly's Drive a (b) 2.2 b (b) 2.5 Hazelton Rd. & Easterly Byerly's Drive (Signalized or unsignalized) B (B) a (c) 13.0 2.5 B (C) a (d) 13.3 3.6 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (F-NBLt) 32.4 C (F-NBLt) 33.3 France Ave. & 72"d St. a (c) 0.5 a (d) 0.6 France Ave. & Gallagher Dr. B (F-SBLt) 19.2 B (F-SBLt) 18.3 France Ave. & Byerly's Driveway a (a) n/a a (a) n/a NOTES: a. Upper Case letters reflect LOS at signalized intersections; Lowercase letter reflect LOS at unsignalized intersection. b. First letter reflects Intersection LOS; letter inside parentheses reflects LOS of worst movement. c. Int. Delay reflects overall average intersection delay, not necessarily worst movement delay. Table 12a. Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 136 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 480 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 67 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 100 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Driveway 259 41 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 270 41 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 176 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 93 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 146 RLK Incorporated Page 21 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Table 12b. Selected 95th Percentile Queue Lengths' — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 177 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 440 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 89 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 92 Eastbound Left Hazelton at Byerly's Driveway 259 91 Northbound Byerly's Drivewa at Hazelton 270 49 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 187 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 124 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 176 6. Projected Traffic Operations — 2016 Build with Restaurant Development to the East Table 13 illustrates the trip generation added by the restaurant development to the east of the Byerly's Redevelopment. Applying these trip estimates, Table 14 summarizes the projected levels of service for the 2016 Build Condition assuming an outside developer were to develop the former Szechuan Star into another restaurant. Traffic operation of the 2016 Build conditions have been combined with the impacts of a possible 8,000 square foot quality sit-down restaurant that may be in operation at or after the completion of the 2016 Build scenario. This analysis assumes the same intersection enhancements along France Avenue, as well as the geometric and traffic control changes along Hazelton described under 2015 Build. Full access is again possible from the Byerly's property easterly intersection with Hazelton. This intersection has been tested with either signalized or unsignalized operation. Both resulting levels of service are shown in the table below. Both continue to operate acceptably. RLK Incorporated Page 22 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Table 13. 2016 Build Nvith Impacts to the East - Trip Generation Estimates'' — Proposed Site Land Use Size Weekday PM Daily Saturday Midday Saturday Daily Enter Exit Enter Exit Supermarket 52,500 254 244 5,368 285 274 9,323 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (F-NBLt) 33.0 C (F-NBLt) 34.5 France Ave. & 72 "d St. a (c) 0.5 Apartments (Building A) 109 Units 44 24 725 28 28 697 a (a) n/a a (a) 7n/a Apartment (Building B) 77 Units 31 17 512 20 20 492 Specialty Retail 10,450 sq. ft. 19 20 449 26 26 522 Apartment (Building C) 48 Units 19 10 319 12 12 307 Specialty Retail s10,5q.00 t. 19 20 451 26 26 525 Quality Restaurant 8,000 S ft. 40 20 720 51 35 755 Total - Gross 426 354 8,544 448 421 11,621 780 869 Shared Trips 77 77 1,676 119 112 3,350 154 231 Pass -By Trips 93 93 10 10 186 20 Total Proposed Trips 231 180 6,868 319 299 9,271 411 618 `Per the data and methodologies in Tri Generation, 9— Edition, publisned ny l i h. Table 14. Projected Levels of Service — 2016 Build Condition (With Impact of Parcel to the East) Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (sec/veh) Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Int. Delay (Sec/veh) France Ave & Hazelton Rd. C (F-SBLt) 21.9 D (F-SBLt) 39.6 Hazelton Rd. & Westerly Byerly's Drive a (b) 2.2 b (b) 2.7 Hazelton Rd. & Easterly Byerly's Drive (Signalized or unsignalized) B (B) a (c) 13.0 2.7 B (C) a (d) 13.4 4.4 Hazelton Rd. & York Ave. C (F-NBLt) 33.0 C (F-NBLt) 34.5 France Ave. & 72 "d St. a (c) 0.5 a (d) 0.7 France Ave. & Gallagher Dr. B (F-SBLt) 19.3 B (F-SBLt) 18.7 France Ave. & Byerly's Driveway a (a) n/a a (a) 7n/a NOTES: a. Upper Case letters reflect LOS at signalized intersections; lower case tetter rettect LU6 at unsrgnatized intersection. b. First letter reflects intersection LOS; letter inside parentheses reflects LOS of worst movement. c. Int. Delay reflects overall average intersection delay, not necessarily worst movement delay. RLK Incorporated Page 23 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerty's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M Queuing is also assessed for this condition, and is listed in Tables 15a and 15b. Table 15a. Selected 95rh Percentile Queue Lengths' — Weekday P.M. Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions w/restaurant Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95`h Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 175 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 381 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 84 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 69 Eastbound Left Hazelton at B erl 's Driveway 259 68 Northbound B erl 's Driveway at Hazelton 270 54 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 185 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 90 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 161 Table 15b. Selected 951h Percentile Queue Lengths' — Saturday Midday Peak Hour — 2016 Build Conditions w/restaurant Segment Segment Length (ft.) 95'h Percentile Queue Length (ft.) Westbound Left Turn Hazelton at France 256 93 Southbound Left France at Hazelton 360 442 Northbound Right France at Hazelton 315 90 Westbound Right France at Hazelton 150 93 Eastbound Left Hazelton at B erl 's Driveway 259 78 Northbound B erl 's Driveway at Hazelton 270 58 Northbound Left York at Hazelton 160 185 Westbound Left Turn Gallagher at France 120 119 Southbound Left Turn France at Gallagher 230 230 RLK Incorporated Page 24 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M G. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS As part of the Edina Redevelopment Project, consideration has been given whether the easterly driveway intersection at Hazelton will be warranted for signalization as a result of this project. RLK has used the following methodology to assess the likelihood of signalization at the intersection. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared a document "Metro Traffic Signal Justification Report Methodology", to assist in determining whether an intersection is justified for signalization.7 The document outlines the current methodology in determining whether criteria are met for a signal to be considered justified at a particular intersection. For a specific intersection to be considered for a traffic signal installation one of the following criteria must be met: 1. The intersection meets Warrant IA, 1B or 7 of the current MN MUTCD. 2. Current traffic volumes do not meet Warrant lA or 1B, but development in the area will occur such that the warrants will be met in a reasonable period of time and state funds are not used for construction. 4. Current traffic volumes do not meet Warrant lA or 1B, but a significant crash problem exists (an average of at least three correctable crashes per year (any 12 -month period) over the most recent 3 -year period) and traffic volumes are likely to meet warrants within a reasonable period. 5. The intersection has significant amounts of pedestrian traffic, which can be documented. A summary of the analysis of Warrants IA and 1B are as follows: Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach: • For Major Street = 2 (left tum lane is shared), Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) must be > 600 for Condition A, 900 for Condition B • For Minor Street = 2 (left lane + shared through/right lane), Vehicle per hour on higher -volume minor street approach (one direction only) must be> 200 for Condition A, 100 for Condition B For Condition A, the 2016 Build (with restaurant) Major Street approach = 679 trips per hour in PM Peak Hour; and 911 trips per hour in Saturday Midday Peak Hour. The Minor Street approach traffic = 64 trips 7 "Metro Traffic Signal Justification Report Methodology", as part of Minnesota Department of Transportation Engineering Services Technical Memorandum No. 07-02-T-01, Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), March 20, 2007. RLK Incorporated Page 25 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M per hour (one direction only) in PM Peak Hour; = 97 trips per hour in Saturday Midday Peak Hour. Warrant IA is not met. For Condition B, the 2016 Build (with restaurant) conditions are not met for PM Peak Hour conditions, but are very close to being met for the Saturday Midday Peak Hour. The methodology also states that a combination of Conditions A and B may be used after adequate trial of other remedial measures is made. This allows for a reduction to levels that are 80% of the previous minimums for warrants to be made. Therefore: • For Major Street = 1 (left turn lane is shared), Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) must be> 480 for Condition A, 720 for Condition B • For Minor Street = 2 (left lane + shared through/right lane), Vehicle per hour on higher -volume minor street approach (one direction only) must be —> 160 for Condition A, 80 for Condition B Under these 80% conditions, the Saturday Midday Peak Hour does not meet Condition A but does meet Condition B. The nearby pedestrian crossing of Hazelton at the Edina Promenade may be documented to provide additional justification to the signalization of this intersection. RLK Incorporated Page 26 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M H. PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS The Byerly's redevelopment has proposed the following on-site parking for each parcel of development: Byerly's Store: 46,700 sq. ft. ground floor; therefore, at 5 stalls per 1000 sq. ft., = 235 stalls required; 236 stalls provided to south of store. Housing A and B: At 2.0 stalls/unit; 186 units x 2.0 stalls = 372 stalls, per code At 1.5 stalls/unit; 186 units x 1.5 stalls = 279 stalls Parking User Rate = 1 stall per bedroom (except 3 br) = 263 stalls 286 stalls provided in garage; 25 surface stalls = 311 stalls total Housing C: At 2.0 stalls/unit; 48 units x 2.0 stalls = 96 stalls, per code At 1.5 stalls/unit; 48 units x 1.5 stalls = 72 stalls Parking User Rate = 1 stall per bedroom (except 3 br) = 64 stalls 72 stalls provided in garage; 9 surface stalls = 81 stalls total Overall Parking Summary for Housing/Retail Buildings Parking at 2 stalls per unit 468 Parking at 1.5 stalls per unit 351 Parking User Rate 327 Garage Parking Provided 358 Surface Parking Provided 34 Total Provided 392 RLK Incorporated Page 27 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation impact Analysis 2012-135-M I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis documents in this study, RLK Incorporated has drawn the following conclusions and recommendations: • The three -lane configuration of Hazelton appears to work well in both scenarios. • The westerly Byerly's driveway operates well (LOS -A) as a right-in/right-out at Hazelton. • At this point, the easterly driveway operates equally well as either a signalized or side street stop sign intersection (both LOS -A, with signal operating slightly better, especially for northbound movements). Left turn 95thpercentile queues at the intersection are less than 100 feet in each approach. As a signal, the average control delay is 7.2 sec/veh. As an unsignalized intersection, the average delay is 4.1 sec/veh (due to free flow along Hazelton). Signal warrants may be met with further analysis outside the scope of this report. • The right-in/right-out onto France operates well, and does not interfere with northbound traffic or weaving traffic approaching the right turn lane at Hazelton. • The additional access points into and out of the development disperse the trips throughout the development, and thus reduce the overall traffic impacts onto the surrounding system. • There is a reduction in overall traffic on the westbound approach of Hazelton at France. This is due to the redistribution of trips resulting from the alternate access points (right-in/right-out at France; cross access to Gallagher via the Macy's Furniture Store access, etc.). Westbound 95th percentile queues on Hazelton at France Avenue extend to the east 183 feet (total length to westerly driveway is approx. 260 feet). • There are some queuing issues with the northbound left turn movement at York, the southbound left turn from France to. eastbound Hazelton, and southbound France at Gallagher. These conditions seem to exist under the No -Build as well as the Build Conditions, and seem to attributable to other development in the area (especially Target and Yorktown Square impacts at the York intersection). • Off-street parking supply is met when considered at a 1.5 stall per unit or a parking user rate is considered. The mixed use development and availability of nearby transit may allow the parking supply to meet these lower rates. It is clear that the additional access points to and from the Byerly's redevelopment site greatly benefit the traffic operations despite there being more trips generated than in the current configuration. As a result, there are no queuing impacts directly associated with the redevelopment, even with the "roadway diet" from four lanes on Hazelton to three. While a signal is not explicitly warranted based on traffic volumes, a case can be made that signalizing the easterly Byerly's intersection will facilitate the pedestrian crossing at the Promenade to the east (subject to further engineering study). RLK Incorporated Page 28 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M FIGURES Figure 1 Project Site Figure 2 Existing Geometrics Figure 3 Aerial Photo of Existing Conditions Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements Figure 5 2015 No -Build Peak Hour Turning Movements Figure 6 Proposed Geometrics Figure 7 2015 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements Figure 8 2016 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements Figure 9 2016 Build with Restaurant to the East Peak Hour Turning Movements RLK Incorporated Page 29 of 39 January 16, 2013 Byerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M r u1DHeeaaVn�.. saw "Do a6eem to pmssm EDINA BYERLY'S PROJECT SITE PLAN FVLnf 1 Pr�� 2012135M Jan 17, 2013 q z a C) M 0 Al 10 CtOWwsm K—M BuVdwsUM2-135—MQ.TechnW Figure 3 - Aerial Photo of Existing Conditions RLK Incorporated Page 32 of 39 Januory 16, 2013 Byery's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012.135-M EDINA BYERLY'S EXISTING VOLUMES V. Fmjwt # 2012135M Jon 17, 2013 1 J 0 M z c z c m v a w A M r Jan 17, 2013 4: X� mrm Nov F r CA C-oknderson K—M EuOderso2Ol2-135—UCL.Tachnical Data b.Umn Irma K -M L7UIafquanz-143-MEX-leamical uclouircu LnepRCLrxmiIxuww LF JIa awu v U-Uwy ,v r.� CA C 6 T m 3z s 0 c z z -J z a a� r� cn Jon 17, 2013 w A M &.Okndwson K—M Bulldwxo20i2-13S--MtLT9chnkal Oatotfiroif l3RoportOExbbHsDCApUMO ft#d Volumosdwg Jon 17, 2013 0 W UMO raon K -M tluBdar3MM2-135-Vo_T4ahnkai DotoWroEtktR"wttfxAblt9WA002Qlti t1uUd Vdumaa - with rastowanLd" APPENDICES See Technical Appendices (bound separately) for Intersection LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersection operational performance reports and queuing analyses for each scenario. RLK Incorporaled Page 39 of 39 January 16, 2013 Syerly's Edina Transportation Impact Analysis 2012-135-M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 27, 2013 B-13-08 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Deny a 5.9 foot front yard setback variance to allow 108.8 square feet of porch area beyond the 80 square feet allowed as an encroachment into the front yard area. Project Description A 5.9 foot front yard setback variance to allow 108.8 square feet of front porch area into the front yard beyond the 80 square feet allowed by ordinance at 3915 Morningside Road for Nicole and Ryan Williams. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of Morningside Road and west of France Ave. consisting of a two story home with a detached two car garage. (see attached pages: Al -A.6, site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner is planning an addition to the back and east side of the home to include a new basement, 1St and 2"d floor area. The plan also includes a front porch addition which requires a front yard setback variance. The front porch is proposed to be 6' x 32', or 192 square feet in area, and run the full length of the front facade. The zoning ordinance requires that the front yard setback is established by averaging the front yard setbacks of the homes on either side. The average front yard setback for the subject property is 35.8 feet. The existing home provides a 35.9 foot front yard setback which is slightly farther back than the average. The ordinance allows a porch to encroach into the front yard setback area by a maximum of 80 square feet. The porch would extend the length of the fagade and is proposed to be 6 feet deep. The porch exceeds the allowable encroachment of 80 square feet in the front yard area by 108.8 square feet. The home was built in 1923 and has had no improvements with the exception of the installation of airconditioning and maintenance. The plan improves upon an existing sturcture and provides needed space with an addition without a complete teardown-rebuild of the home. If the existing home were removed, a conforming plan could be designed with a front porch. Retrofitting the existing structure can be difficult given the current code requirements. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 7,536 square feet in area and is a 50'x 150' lot. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design The proposal is to build a Compliance Table Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? RA City Standard Proposed Front - 35.8 feet *29.9 feet Side- 5 feet + height 7.1 feet Rear- 25 feet 75.3 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 stories, 30 fleet to midpoint 35 feet to 26 feet to midpoint, feet ride to the ridge Lot coverage 2 250 ani are feet 2 250 s uare feet * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? RA Staff struggles with the proposal is not reasonable given that an 80 square foot porch in any configuration is allowed to overlap setback by ordinance, however, agrees that it will not alter the character of the neighborhood or disrupt the rhythm on the block. Staff outlines the following: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of front yard setback. The ordinance was changed a number of years ago to allow 80 square feet of porch as an encroachment. 2. The home and proposed porch is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. The owner would like to have a porch deep enough for sitting and to extend the full length of the fagade. Given the eclectic nature of Morningside with varying setbacks and housing styles, the porch would blend in with the surrounding area. 3. The porch does not comply with the average front yard setback of the homes on either side; however, it will not be the closest home on the south side of the block. The double dwelling unit at 3902 Morningside is 25 feet from the right-of-way. The subject porch would be 29.9 feet from the right-of-way. The home at 4003 Momingside is within the same front yard setback range at 31.5 feet from the right-of-way. • Is the proposed variance justifled? Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is difficult to support because the ordinance accommodates porch area, but not to the extent that the homeowner desires. "Practical difficulties" may, however, include functional and aesthetic concerns. Perhaps it may be said that the allowable encroachment of 80 square feet does not allow for a functional porch and one that aesthetically enhances the existing home fagade. 2) Are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The variance accommodates the preference of the homeowner and could be viewed as self- created and would not change character. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of Morningside is eclectic with varying housing styles, setbacks and lot configurations. The porch would be an enhancement. Staff Recommendation It is difficult for staff to support the variance given the porch allotment afforded by ordinance. Staff puts forth the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The additions are to an existing home and must conform regarding current conditions. A porch would be easily attainable with all new construction, (tear-down/re-build). 2) The proposed porch will blend well with the eclectic nature of the Morningside neighborhood. 3) The imposed setback limits design opportunity for a porch. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing from the street. The 4 proposed porch will be no closer to the street than one home located on the block and within 1.5 feet of another. Deadline for a City Decision: April 13, 2013. .aI difficulties In complying U ordinanc6 and that the use u Scott & Gwen Smith 3913 Morningside Road Edina, MN, 55344 February 21, 2013 RE: Variance Request/ 3915 Morningside Road, Edina, MN Kris Aaker City of Edina 4801 West 501h Street Edina, MN Dear Kris: We received a notice from the City of Edina indicating that Nicole and Ryan Williams have applied for a variance to the front yard setback requirements so they can build an unenclosed porch onto the front of their home. My wife, Gwen, and I live next door to the William.'s on the east side. We have reviewed the detailed plans that were provided to us for the porch and a planned addition that apparently does not require a variance. We fully support Ryan & Nicki William's request for this variance. A front porch will be a fine addition to their home. Please support them with a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. f you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �,e�GL Scott Smith Cell: 612-802-7358 E-mail: Ssmith8857@gmail.com Kris Aaker From: Nicki Williams <nmwnmw@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:57 PM To: Kris Aaker Subject: Re: Variance application for a front porch/3915 Morningside Road Hi Kris, I received your emails and voicemail message. Before I could return your call, I heard from Rita and it sounds like everything is basically the same; we're just applying for the front porch variance. I know she's working on getting the updated drawings to you ASAP and here are the answers to the 4 questions: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable: Our front porch addition has been kept minimal as although we want it to run the width of the house for esthetic reasons, we matched the existing depth of the front stoop. We find it's use reasonable as it will provide shelter to anyone arriving at our front door. We have a very flat facade to our home, and although lovely, we do want to enhance the visual curb appeal as well as provide protection from rain and snow for ourselves and our visitors. We are also directly across from the bus stop, and it will create a pleasant place to wait for our children's return from school. Our main reason for the design and desire to add it, however, is the neighborly message it will send. Creating a sheltered spot for neighbors to stop and visit will be appealing and important to the environment we want to live in. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Although a bit deeper than either home's facade to our east and west side, it will not be the deepest structure on our block. Plus, the openness of the porch will keep sight lines running through, if anyone wants to look that way, as well as lightening the mass of an enclosed addition of any type.- Be ype: Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. We do acknowledge the intent of the law is to be fair to the neighbors, but as mentioned above, we want to create an inviting spot to share with our neighbors. We are social people, and host parties and get together quite often. This allows for a space we do not currently have that is both protected from some elements and visible to our friends in the neighborhood. Sociologists talked about the "cocooning" that happened after 9-11; hunkering down and staying put: Now, some 10+ years later we want "connecting", which is what a porch can do better than any other structure of a home. Not alter the essential Character of the a neighborhood. Again, we're all about reaching out and sharing our lives and our children's lives with Morningside. This porch will truly help us do that. Thanks! Nick! Williams :From: Kns Aaker Sent :"Wednesday, FebruaryJ-`,2613 11:35 AM To mailto:ritaCa�larsondesignbuild.com ; mailto:nmWnmW(&comcast.net Gc mail m�hs to:tojsiarveyorscotn ;Jackie Hoogenakker .6/ LOCATION MAP 4230 4211 4236 4231 4309 leQ end 4232 4233 4232 4233 4312 4709 Q lfghkpbted FNiare SUnaOndfng House Number 4294 4235 4234 4235 4311 LaDYk 4238 4237 4236 4237 4320 4315 3815 Nouse Numbertabeb Street Naar Labeb 4236 4239 Q. 4239 4324 43t9 mill 4240 4241 4240 4241 4328 4323 M Lala Nauss 4242 4243 4242 4243 4327 QLake& M Park& 4244 4•+15 4244 4330 4245 3610 4135 Partab O 4Ot0 4id6 ,�17 9246 4350 4248 4249 4248 4247 4352 4339 m(No 1"30 to 3815 3911 3615 4300 4017 4301%/i t: 4345 4101 4302 39133911 39093907 1903 4105 41QJ 4]07 403 d3915� 4304 4351 4307 4308 � X26 3918 3918 4388 4311 3930 3924 4310 3930 4312 4313 3813 4010 4008 4315 4400 4405 4006 4004 4316 4012 40eflo 3919 4402 3926 4412 4001 3945 24 3910 3815 4005 24 3919 4419 4011 4401 fp 3920 4000 44Q5 3930 4500 4002 rvaamra,erws•e�a^!•telwosasama 4004 3940 2 B -13-0E +� VA PID: 0702824440085 3915 Morningside Rd r Edina, MN 55416 .6/ LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 xr i. l http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS AicIMS/ims?SeiviceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&CIientV... 2/21/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMai)OVSDE&ClientV... 2/21/2013 rs �.i r5e .. t5,.../ • - �r �F � , _t � r d ��r ate. i ail � J`t �✓ 5* ++�� y � ��Y f R � � �� L ' i �.,�` .j � . �.{��' ; •y, ,�� F* " fie' '�� '� �' � �`<Y'� � , i� � y7.., ir 41 ` . V- r� �-'4 �. RM i r i t _ {.� ���q t� �' `• � : r ,s .� f is } d` .r . Y t I d, I � u W. 4