Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-02-26 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FEBRUARY 26, 2014 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 12, 2014. 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. Lot Division & Variance. Chris and Anne Hill, 5617 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN B. Preliminary Rezoning. Pentagon Revival, Pentagon Office Park, Edina, MN C. Tree Preservation Ordinance 9 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Update • 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 12, 2014 TrueBlock mTechnology Paunt Pending www.avery.com Q q� p 5163TM Use AveryTEMPLATE 5163 1 -800 -GO -AVERY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 26, 2013 B-14-05 Planner Recommended Action: Deny the variance as requested. Project Description A 7.86 foot front yard setback variance and a lot division request to accommodate a garage with living space above addition to the home located at 5617 Wooddale Ave. So. for Chris and Anne Hill. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Chris and Anne Hill are hoping to add onto the front and north side of their home to include a two car garage addition with living space above. The request is for a lot line shift to the north and a front yard setback variance. The owners are requesting to shift a 5 foot portion of the existing north lot lime that divides the two properties at 5617 and 5613 Wooddale Ave. The purpose of the lot line shift is to provide adequate side yard area to build a two stall garage in front of the existing single stall garage with a masterbedroom above. The lot line shift will allow a two car garage width with living space above without also requiring a side yard setback variance. A front yard setback variance is needed from ordinance requirements to over -lap into the front yard. The proposed plan matches the front yard setback of the home to the north at 5613 Wooddale, but will be closer to the street :than the neighbor to the south. The existing single stall garage with living space above will be remodeled and attached to the new addition as part of the project. The zoning ordinance requires a minimunh 5 foot side yard setback plus 4 inches of setback for each 1 foot the lot width exceeds 60 feet and 6 inches of setback for each 1 foot average height exceeds 15 feet. Thee addition as proposed requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.4 feet, given the increased lot width and height. The lot line shift will allow the side yard setback to be met. The zoning ordinance requires that all new homes and additions to existing homes maintain the average front yard setback of the homes on either side of the subject :-Efts pAt13/�d o AHA""08-1, �w£9L5 wege6 al zasllpn worA,anennnnnn awaue ue 9l60l0u4:)81 ap;aneJ8 wipolsenjl property. The home to the north is located 42.59 feet from the front tot line and the home to the south is located 58.31 feet from their front lot line, for an average required front yard setback of 50.45 feet (See property location, narrative proposed lot line shift and plans on pages A1 -A13.). The new addition will be 42.59 feet from the front lot line. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding: properties and uses include single-family homes zoned and guided low-density residential Existing Site Features Single-family homes are located on both parcels. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-density residential Zoning: R-1; Single-family residential Building Design The proposed addition is two stories with an attached two car garage and a new front entry porch. Finish materials will match throughout the exterior. Compliance Tables Zoning Ordinance City Standard Proposed Requirements Proposed Size Zoning Front- 50.45 feet *42.59 feet Side- 7.4 feet **7.4 feet Rear- 25 feet 88 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 story, 11,080 s.f. 10,471s.f. No cha e 25% 23.1°k * Lot -coverage Variance Required, **Lot Division Required Minimum Lot '*Remains nonconforming 2 Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Size Zoning 5617 5613 5617 5613 Ordinance Wooddale. 1Nooddale. Wooddale Wooddale. Lot Area- 10,723 s.f. 10,828 s.f. 11,080 s.f. 10,471s.f. 9,000 s.f. Lot Width —75 *60 feet *68.97 feet *65 feet *63.97 feet feet Lot Depth — 175 feet 156 feet 175 feet 156 feet 120 feet '*Remains nonconforming 2 Minimum 500 foot Lot Size Requirements Existing 5617 Wooddale Existing 5613 Wooddale Proposed 5617 Wooddale Proposed 5613 Wooddale Lot Area —11,107 s.f. *10,723 s.f. *10,828 s.f. *11,080 sA *10,471 s.f. Lot Width —75 feet *60 feet *68.97 feet *65 feet *63.97 feet Lot Depth —135 feet 175 feet 156 feet 175 feet 156 feet *Remains nonconforming Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? No. Staff does not believe that the proposal is reasonable for the site: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from Wooddale Ave. The north side yard setback is maintained only by the acquisition of additional property from the neighbor to the north. A variance from side yard setback would also be required without the lot line change. 2. The proposed lot boundary shift adds 5 feet onto the subject property for an additional 71.5 feet of depth, with the north lot line jogging back to the existing north lot line creating an odd shape or notch in the lot. The new north lot line will overlap a portion of a wood privacy fence currently located on the neighbor's property to the north. It is unclear how the fence will be addressed between properties. 3. The existing and proposed lots are nonconforming regarding the minimum lot width standard in the zoning ordinance of 75 feet and will remain nonconforming regarding lot widths and area within a 500 foot radius of the property. 4. The ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit; however, it does not require a double wide garage. The variance and lot line shift increases spacing between the subject home/addition and the modified lot line, however, it reduces spacing between structures. The lot line shift only addresses the "letter of the law" by allowing the addition to comply with side yard setback. There is no opportunity for a front addition to the house without the benefit of a front yard setback variance. The design as proposed cannot avoid a front yard setback variance. Is the proposed variance justified? No. 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 not meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 36-98 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 and required lot division needed for the project is forcing an addition that is perhaps too large in the front yard area and imposes an undue burden on the adjacent property and the streetscape. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? No. The lot line adjustment and front yard setback as proposed are self-created and not as a result of circumstances uncommon to properties within the vicinity. The property to the north that is relinquishing property to the proponent has a single stall garage with no ability to widen it to a two car garage given their existing north side yard setback unless they are also able to gain additional yard area. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The proposed project will introduce garage with living space above in the front yard area where none exists currently. The front yard setback pattern from the home to the north, subject property and the home to the south steps back from the street in a staggered pattern. The addition erodes the current street scape. Staff Recommendation Deny the requested Lot Division and Variance based on the following findings: 4 1. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a) Staff is unable to identify a practical difficulty specific to this property given similar situations on nearby properties. b) The encroachment into the front yard setback is 319 square feet of footprint with living space above and includes a front entry porch, all beyond the existing front face of the home and within the required average front yard setback. c) The lot division is a circumstance created by the owner to adhere to side yard setback standard and not require additional variance. Staff does not find the request reasonable given the unconventional lot line created to achieve side yard setback. Even with the lot division, a front yard setback variance is still required to achieve the plan. d) Staff does not believe the addition is in harmony with the essential character of the neighborhood given existing street views. Deadline for a city decision: April 11, 2014. 0 VAMANCk; APPLICATIOW IACASE NUMBER'ifl - DATE 2-_ FEE PAID—i--Jo—� G'fty of Ediria Planning Department * www.cit'Nofedina.colil. 4801 West 19ftieth Street * Edina, MN 66424 * (952) 826-0369,'; fax (962) 826- 0389 ........... --------------- FER: RES - $360.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: i\lAfYll-*:-C-ifg45--,4f-4b-,4-LJ—NP- (Signature required on back, page) ADDRESS:—57617 PHONE: &17-- 105 PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: 6HI-15 ANo &Awe: (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:. fi617 wooPHONE: &17 - W5-63165 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): "You must pfovide a full legal descf0tfon. If more space is needed, Please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the (asolution approving your project iT the legal description does not malch their (*cords- This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: T61 wayt> rAft Sur PRESENT ZONING:_ _ R-1 P.I.D.# _j q-_O_PLI) -;1,4 TO EXPLANATION Or REOUPST: (Use revel -so side or additional pages if necessary) ARGHITI-'CT: NAIME., If . - ff JVICY9!:tQJJ . P H 0 N E: 7"O%7% "MAIL. tam -0f . % -,IVFYOI--': NAME:: f-,HONv-.: 6T( -owl EMAIL: 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: YESNO, i✓ir '4 -TT, -01a�P 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 Lr�1 ❑ • Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance /l ❑ Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood F\71 P) 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 an�Qnformation I have submitted are true and correct. 1- 2 r- /`/ 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 applicaop,Pq',behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Owner's Signature /-ZY-(I-/ 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, The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Edina City Code requires a 2 car garage. The existing home has a one car attached garage on the north side of the house. The present garage sits only 5.69 feet from the present property line. The typical options for a home in this scenario is to add onto the back of the existing garage and create a tandem garage, or remove the existing one car garage entirely and relocate a new two car garage, attached or detached, to the backyard. The house at 5617 Wooddale and its neighbor to the North 5613 Wooddale however sit uniquely on their two properties. 5613 Wooddale is 69' wide and 5617 Wooddale is 60' wide. What is unique, is that the home at 5613 Wooddale is located centered on the northern 60' of the 69' foot property. Therefore rather than the typical 12 —13 feet between homes for these size lots, there is 23'4" between these two homes. The lot at 5617 Wooddale is described as the "South 60' of lot 13..." and the neighbor's property to the north 5613 Wooddale is described as "Lot 12 and all of lot 13, except the South 60 feet thereof.. ". Essentially given where 5613 was constructed on Lot 12, there is a 9 foot strip of 'extra' land between these two homes. What does this all mean at present? This means that if the 9 extra feet of room between the two homes were split between the two properties, another option for a two car garage for 5617 would exist. That option is to expand the present garage to the north 3.29 feet and 7.38 feet past the present front of the house. With approval of the new lot division, the only variance necessary for this garage expansion is one for the front yard setback. The neighboring homes sit 42.59 feet and 58.31 feet from their front property lines, creating a 50.45 feet setback for this property. The current house sits at 48.75 feet from the front property line, so as it already exists, it is nonconforming. This however isn't unusual for this block of Wooddale Avenue South. This block of Wooddale Ave S is very atypical for the street and neighborhood. Of the seven homes on the block, none of the 5 homes in the middle of the block are conforming. The proposed new garage only extends as far forward as the house to the North. By allowing the home at 5617 to extend as far forward as their neighbors home, a new precedence isn't set. The front yard setback remains the same for the house to the south. evo �� TO This solution to fitting a two car garage on the property is so favorable to any other option, the homeowners to the North, the only property affected by the variance, are willing to sell a portion of their land to make the project possible. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district 5617 Wooddale sits on the edge of an anomaly. To the north, all the homes are a standard distance from the street (around 40') while to the south, there are 3 homes with much larger than average front yard setbacks. These three houses are the only properties on this whole section of Wooddale Avenue with such large setbacks. Because of this, the front yard setback for 5617 Wooddale is increased to over 50' (taking the average front yard setback of both abutting properties). This is much larger than the standard 30' and causes the existing house to be non -conforming. Our proposed addition aligns with the more standard front yard setback of the main house to the north and is not visible to the house from the south. Be in harmony with general purposes and intend of the zoning ordinance The proposed addition continues the normal front yard setback of majority of the street and neighborhood. By aligning with the standard front yard setback, the addition does not block the sightlines of the neighbor the north or the neighbor to the south. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood. The proposed addition attempts to maintain the essential character of the vast majority of houses In the neighborhood. It aligns with the typical setback and does not disrupt neighboring sightlines. The neighbors of the property are in agreement that one main asset of the neighborhood is the wide open space created by their backyards. This is an area all of the families enjoy together. And the neighbors also agree that adding a large two car garage to the back of the property would diminish this essential character of the neighborhood. The neighbor most affected by the project feels so strongly that they are willing to sell a portion of their land to keep this open ba space Intact. A, LOT DIVISION APPLICATION �r(Minor Lot Line or Party Wali o e Adjustment) • JY IMP a 1Be6 CASE NUMBER�DATE k0 lolq FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department* www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (952) 826-0389 FEE: $100.00 APPLICANT: NAME:,Si-iRiS r4�D ArJrje +#Ir t; (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: '9617- W(JV1DDAL-r. P4VENVE - PHONE: 27— -V05.6345 EMAIL: PROPERTY ADDRESS (1): _ Sbi'7w0001?4yr- Vwye PRESENT ZONING: R,I P.I.D.# I9 --07J •may "13 "Ot)-f PROPERTY ADDRESS (2): PRESENT ZONING: R{ P.I.D.# EXPLANATION 'OF REQUEST: 5�� r4�K.t►�p (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) SURVEYOR: NAME: MAP* MIE- PHONE: bti l - 4'31 -o35-1 EMAIL: APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This aoplicaticn should be i-rocessed in my name, and l ani the party whore the Cit; should cc: tact about :his a pljcatic°i. D;, sig" ing tills aPNCatlon, I Certify that all flees, charQes, utility rAfs, taxe:i, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by rite or for this property have been paid, I further certify that i cm in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have beer I gran`ed to rile for have "'or7ipleted all of the applicable Eking requirements and, to the hest o- r,iy knoMedge, the documents and' Hformati•)rl , have submitted are true and correct. l— ZS' (?./ A131licant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT ! aril the I've title o,tiner o= the, abode described property and ; agree to this applicafior.. 3 COrS�Cr�t(!I gip_ *,2rtnr_rv} '!p iS ill': fee title h0der, eittCi1 a rBgGlUton aLlilrlr'i inn it?i5 aopiircation r+n b -h@'i fnt tl-e- hoard of directors ^r l�a�:nersr ir. r_. Owners Signature (Lot 1 ) Date Owner's Signature (Lot 2) Date Wte. Both signatures are reguired(ifthe o,r✓neris different than the applicants before we can process the application.. otherwise it is considered incomplete, Lot Division Application — 5617 Wooddale Ave. and 5613 Wooddale Ave. Explanation of request The homeowners at 5617 Wooddale Avenue are requesting to purchase a V-0" by 71'-6" portion of the neighbor's property to the north in order to build a 2 car garage. Yhlf Jackie Hoogenakker From: kathleen froeber <kafroeb@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:03 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File: B-14-05 We certainly approve the variance and have no objections of any kind to the request of Chris and Anne Hill at 5617 Wooddale Ave. Thank you, Jim and Kathi Froeber 5606 Wooddale Ave. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dave Steingart <dave@steingart.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:13 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File: B-14-05 am the property owner of 5633 Wooddale Avenue. I support the garage modifications requested by my next door neighbor, Chris and Anne Hill. David J. Steingart Steingart & McGrath, P.A. 2500 West County Road 42, Suite 220 Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone: 952-832-0693 Fax: 952-894-9716 Mobile: 612-750-0348 E -Mail: dave@steing_art.com Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax -related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Electronic Privacy Notice: This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then immediately delete it. LEXINGTON AVE u, a � lot i � g TOWER ST 4ND RD W T ... Parcel ID: 19-028-24-13-0075 A -T -B: Torrens Owner CM Hill & A M Hill Market Name: Total: Parcel 5617 Wooddale Ave Tax Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: (Payable: 2013) Property Residential Sale Type: Price. Homestead Sale 03/2006 stead: Date: Parcel 0.25 acres Sale Area: 10,721 sq It Code: Warranty Deed Map Scale: 1" x 200 ft. N Print Date: 2/20/2014 + This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS 15" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the Information shown. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A Think'Grieefti Parcel 19-028-24-13-0075 ID: Owner C M Hill & A M Hill Name: Parcel 5617 Wooddale Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.25 acres Area: 10,721 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens Market Total: Tax > Total: (Payable: 2013) � Sale ' ` f LU W Sale J, Y Date: Sale Warranty Deed ? Code: +0 k f Parcel 19-028-24-13-0075 ID: Owner C M Hill & A M Hill Name: Parcel 5617 Wooddale Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.25 acres Area: 10,721 sq ft Map Scale: 1" # 200 ft. /NNS Print Date: 2/20/2014 -(f}- This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A ThinkGreen! A -T -B: Torrens Market Total: Tax Total: (Payable: 2013) Sale ' ` Price: Sale 03/2006 Date: Sale Warranty Deed ? Code: Map Scale: 1" # 200 ft. /NNS Print Date: 2/20/2014 -(f}- This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A ThinkGreen! 3 Ik % n / �, d�- � F Map of Existing Front Yard Setbacks along Wooddale Ave. 0 5617 Wooddale Proposed Addition X, r7 � r Lrkevlaw Dr � �- t • �.. 1(i �: y jai }� 7 W 35th St. Oak Dr. z a Lex'{ngton$t Ee l d J 37'-5" 48' 9„ �rt 4016, W 56th 5t. 34,-7" eiV 5. O MAX"':' 39`-7" 42.-7.. Tower St. 42�'7� 58'-4" t i W_Woodland Rd. t ;� wooal.na'sa.w i i Philbrook Ln. W 58th SL Map of Non -Conforming lots - Numbers indicate existing lot width 47 a.t . ... , 8 t r � 4 ! a i..* T48. F �:� Vd�� � q ��` Q � ki.4 � °7��„„x.3 4 j•f i r 6qO,i0 0 , Q �a 60 00 �,. 60 20f. 00 , b4 f 0p 6Q 6Q y �BO 6p b0 6b b0 60 yy' i kap 0 60 X60 F 6 6Q p 0 4 6060 60"16016Q°bQ dQ' tb0 6t1;�O 6060 b0 60' i owe M ► ' _ i4 AVW ife tie ewa�'no iii•A s 4 4 F .. . � v a y t • Ias V".,., A 1. ka F � cwt '• y ^ �i � 3 � at i i ,1 ,. r• !. •).t P.i� t. f. �.R.� r, ^.-AMI CAHCbiia 1 eTiMO11E e�-ai , t . _ w E�, rA '' • �'u ♦ c i. iu. 5 :11 'y' ,y _ S'✓• rfM1 68Q 68 ? 48 ' Sop 5q t ! 5Q w Sb SO1i F ; 5q i 4 a i i bo Sb a $a I i 1p 0 W ! 0 sb AW 50 SU 50 ; 50 66 " U 50 5 SO + 50 sod i a 5� ' �► �Q 0 j 5U hQ l til 3 'AP 4. ? 550a 51! # 5D bTPA 0 -S bit 0 69 0011 1 4_ 0 i '511 g �_•,�� ;�i0 ,�� i � 5�, ± 5 _ � t ¢�► M � i �._..�_. �;�� 6p 0 b! a, t •.', 0. k-50 Non-Confrming lots - 5617 Wooddale Cm Maps of other "odd" shaped lots in area around 5617 Wooddale 2 $ (47) rs a (85) & G 1$ ,Z 9 e9 1 M 5640 Wooddale '� k(ttucc Pt " 70- !70 t t 39 4, )4 4 � 33 g (85; t (66) '� N i i S 4b N., 40 70 180 5616 Kellogg rNe _ 2 $.8 . tile) (26) � an gl rua 0" ren 5516 France '411 ree II rue qA — ra3 ro 5655 Wooddale f0' s ... 11761. s n ►: is 5500 Halifax WEST UNE of LOT 12. mm x COLONIAL SQUARE G ICOL., O ., SOULARE R � — Sk EL1iA�TM KyplltlEKO _ PTaoeneC Nav PLe�My Line _ yy UAP ADJACENT RESIDENCE 95613 'i•� COL LOT oN1Ano- RE QUAn2PJuy wN SOUR Sm w.amv. V1000 O[Qr SOUTHEAST CORKER OF MWupo14, MNSSII9 SQ/TH UNE OF LOT 12. Lo Ix BLOCK x BLOCK 1. COLONIAL SQUARE COLONIAL SQUARE W (932)9290yW J J 4s (932)920.1132 I °tOX05tlIGcuil�imewQ.wuevn3F6Tm UANniMRL� 3Em�D5vyt3ernRLwaQmsDvralxnAwrnxeL3ss I --- 1985----------- WOOD PPoVACY FENCE NSE ......._.... ON `1.. .... _.� .. U`J — — — — — — — — — — BL WIVEWAT Ia� == & — — —• — —i— — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ AMID nl6x 12 1 WORN UNE OF LOT J. SOUTH (DUSTING) 7.11 EKPAAc, DRIVmy T. ADIACENT C TE WALK BLOCK x COLONIAL SQUARE i� FENCE v--_---_' 18.93— DUSTING FOOTPRINT O DUSTING TO BE AEMODFIEO tc`.v'T` SIDE PATIO o 'O come BACK PATIO '00 I SLOOP g fi{ 'VEST of IJ, C — PROPOSEDAODTION 411 LAIE LOT KKK 2, CDLONAL SQUARE OMN UNE OF 1HE 2560 I � N I — — — — — — — — — — — —COLONIAL SQIARE Z I °tOX05tlIGcuil�imewQ.wuevn3F6Tm UANniMRL� 3Em�D5vyt3ernRLwaQmsDvralxnAwrnxeL3ss I --- 1985----------- WOOD PPoVACY FENCE NSE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —• — —i— — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ 12 1 WORN UNE OF LOT J. SOUTH (DUSTING) 7.11 TOTAL LOT T. ADIACENT C TE WALK BLOCK x COLONIAL SQUARE i� FENCE N 89'56'22" E 171.68 DUSTING FOOTPRINT 1.327 DUSTING TO BE AEMODFIEO tc`.v'T` SIDE PATIO 145 CCi PROPOS® 2ND LEVELADDfNON?,Ly- q BACK PATIO 610' f, CY.� y` FROT PATIO fi{ PROPOSEDAODTION 411 6"0'6K�. `q1 OMN UNE OF 1HE 2560 �^ O SQITH 60 FEET Ci LOT IJ. BLOCK 2. — — — — — — — — — — — —COLONIAL SQIARE SeEYALlfl31CKUE \ NEW SLAB O1NOW12SI41W smuennEnee � EFAtl41E0 \ r-1 \ s"twt/PO�DrAmm'�oNI I I � � I I � PAVER N PARD T $ l 4'y I tll °{ l sTQE slEv — v� 38.53 DN SQU OAt COLON AL I I DN DN I -----— WEIi PRIVACY PRIVACY ---------- — d FENLE SOUTH LINE DF LOT 1J. BLOCK 2. COLONIAL SDUARE - S 89'5622" W 179.90 (M) ADJACENT RESIDENCE #5633 SIDEYAFD SETBACK CALCULATIONS LOTCOVERAGE CALCU ATigg(SOFT) FOR A 65'-0''MOE LUT EgSTING LOT 10,723 PROPOSED LOT AUDITION 357 SOUTH (DUSTING) 7.11 TOTAL LOT 11,060 MOM UPROPOSED) 715' TOTAL 15'4' DUSTING FOOTPRINT 1.327 DUSTING TO BE AEMODFIEO tc`.v'T` SIDE PATIO 145 CCi PROPOS® 2ND LEVELADDfNON?,Ly- q BACK PATIO 610' f, CY.� y` FROT PATIO fi{ PROPOSEDAODTION 411 6"0'6K�. `q1 TOTAL 2560 LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE 23.1% 1�,� COLONIAL ORD`/E ppD1O0N LOT o �- 0 PID EA ova ISSUE DATE o�1,6���ti3A>nK E% IGfINGHOUSETONEMAM DUSTING TO BE AEMODFIEO tc`.v'T` CCi PROPOS® 2ND LEVELADDfNON?,Ly- q PROPOSED COVERED STDDP f, CY.� y` S:�Riliran�l PROPOSED SINGLE STORY ADDITION PROPOSED 2STORY AODiION -- 6"0'6K�. `q1 e 1 1®.® Hill ro L' e ��. m H o 0 HillA Residence Remodel MIX�c 5617 Wooddale Aven" Sou@t §„ I Edina, MN 55429 I c .21 'b/ a Hill °g Residence Remodels ® 5617 WooddaleAvenue South s Edina. MN 55424r 5�pkl m N® � c Hill rA Residence Remodel$= 10 5617WertueSouth Edina, MN &-A24 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 26, 2014 VI.B. Community Development Director IN FORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Hillcrest Development, LLP is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77tH Street. (See the Pentagon Tower & Pentagon Quad sites on page Al.) The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2-15 years. (See the applicant narrative and proposed plans on pages A6—A47.) Proposed uses include office, medical, retail, restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. The following is a breakdown of the anticipated land uses at this time: ➢ Office —1,420,000 square feet. ➢ Retail — 40,000 square feet. ➢ Hotel — 250,000 square feet (375-425 rooms) ➢ Parking structures — 6,400 parking stalls. ➢ Housing (would likely replace some of the office if built.) The likely first phase of development of the project would be the Pentagon Tower site, which would include office buildings, a hotel, limited retail and parking structures. Future redevelopment phases of the "Pentagon Quad" site north of 77th Street would likely occur from the west side to the east. Future housing would then likely occur on the east end of the Quad sites. To accommodate redevelopment of this property, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ An Overall Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a multi -step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the next step would be a Final Development Plan for Phase 1, Final Rezoning, and formal adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment rezoning this site to PUD, Planned Unit Development, including zoning regulations and land use requirements. Prior to final approval of any future phase, the applicant would bring forward a sketch plan review to both the Planning Commission and City Council to seek direction and guidance prior to a formal application. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is being requested to allow greater flexibility of land uses and setbacks in exchange for enhanced amenities; greater pedestrian connections; high quality architecture, and depending on the future use of Fred Richards Golf Course, potential greater connection and integration of public space. As shown on page A29, there are six primary principles requested to achieve the PUD: 1. Green Streets. 2. Integrated storm water as a project amenity. 3. Pedestrian Connections. 4. Connections to all the parcels. 5. Multimodal Connections; transit, bike, pedestrian. 6. Shared parking. The applicant is pledging high quality architecture for all buildings, including the parking structures, and sustainable design principles. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6—A47.) In 2008, this site was rezoned to the current MDD-6 Zoning designation. The site was approved for 1,881,134 square feet of total development; 50% was to be residential and 50% was to be non-residential. The applicant is essentially requesting the same amount of square footage, 1,777,560 square feet, but requests that the uses not be restricted by percentage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fred Richards golf course; zoned and guided as a park. Easterly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Southerly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Westerly: Highway 100. 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 43 acres in size, and contains 17 office buildings that total 660,500 square feet of office space. (See pages A3—A5.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation/Connection OR, Office Residential MDD-6, Mixed Development District Access to the site is off 77th Street which has direct freeway access on and off Highway 100. The applicant is proposing a re -construction of 77th Street when the total build out of the overall development reaches 80-85%. (See the street re -construction renderings on pages A43.) Additionally, new "Green Streets" would be built to make better connections and circulation in and around the development. Improved connections would also be made to the Fred Richards Goff Course. (See pages A44—A47.) The applicant is proposing to provide transit shelters along 77th to promote transit ridership. Pedestrian/Bike Connections Connections would be made to the regional trail to promote alternate means of transportation to get to the development. Bicycle facilities, dedicated showers and bike lockers would be provided throughout the development. Sidewalks would be created throughout the development and along streets. Safe crosswalks across streets would be created. Traffic & Parking Study The proposed project would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (AUAR) that has been done in this area. A traffic study was conducted by WSB, which concludes that the following roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites: 1. 2020 No -Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 2. 2020 Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy Place. 3. 2030 No -Build: a. 2020 No -Build Improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive. e. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of an eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue. Traffic will be analyzed at each phase of development to determine when these improvements would be required. Parking A shared parking strategy is intended to reduce large surface parking lots; additionally, parking is intended to be shared with the Fred Richards golf course site, no matter the future use of that property. 4 Parking for a Mixed Development District is based on the square footage of the buildings. Non-residential uses require one space per 300 square feet. Therefore, the 1,777,560 square feet of non-residential uses would require 5,425 stalls. The applicant is proposing 6,400 stalls. Part of the overage of parking space anticipated is due to the sharing of use with the public property to the north. The applicant does not wish to create more parking than needed. Each phase of development would examine closely the need for parking. The parking study done by WSB concluded that the proposed uses would generate the need for 5596 parking spaces. (See page A70.) Green Space/Landscaping There is very little green space and no storm water retention areas on the site as it exists today. The applicant is pledging to significantly increase landscaping, green space and storm water retention ponding within the development. (See the proposed plans on pages A33—A35.) As a condition of approval on a preliminary basis a minimum of a 20% should be achieved at final build out. Individual landscaping would be reviewed at the time of Final Development Plan review for each phase of development. The previously approved overall development plan for this site included a 20% increase in green space alone. Grading/Drainage/Utilities There is not specific grading, drainage or utility plan to review at this time. 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 Al 06. A developer's agreement would be required for the 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 with each phase. The idea of integrated storm water, and using storm water as an amenity, similar to Centennial Lakes, is a good one. The soils in this area are very poor; creating on-site storm water retention areas would benefit the site and the area. The applicant is proposing to connect the north and south sites with a surface water course if possible, and re -use storm water for irrigation and other uses. Building/Building Material While there are no specifics proposed at this time, the applicant is proposing to build all buildings and parking ramps to a high architectural standard. Parking ramps are to be integrated into the architecture of the development. The applicant has indicated that podium height and sustainable building practice would be used. The applicant plans to bring forward sketch plans for each phase of development to gain input on architecture as well as site planning. Staff recommends very specific requirements for future building architecture as a condition of preliminary approval of the project. The following conditions are recommended to ensure quality building and podium height: ➢ New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. ➢ Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. ➢ All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. ➢ All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be MDD-6, 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 with the first phase of development. 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. Preliminary Rezoning — PUD (Planned Unit Development) Below are the Code requirements and considerations for PUD. The applicant has pledged to include many of the goals and standards for a PUD. Those include: sustainable design, living streets concept, improved pedestrian connections, high architectural standards, podium height, pedestrian oriented 0 design, creative storm water management, integration of public space, podium height, enhanced landscaping and green space. Per Section 36-253, the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development (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, storm water 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; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The purpose of this PUD is to ensure that the principles proposed by the applicant and the goals of the City, are carried out throughout the life of the development. Those goals and principles include: Green Streets; integrated 7 storm water as a project amenity; multimodal connections including, transit, bike, and pedestrian; high quality architecture; mixed use; shared parking; podium height; sustainable design; enhanced landscaping & green space. 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. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD distric4 all development should be in compliance with the following: 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: 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; N. permitted densities maybe specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but maybe departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. As highlighted above, the City may require housing to be incorporated into the development to achieve the purpose of the MDD-6 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan which calls for housing within the development. The applicant has indicated that housing may be a possibility in future, but does not anticipate it in the short term. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying MDD-6 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, when reviewing the general overall site plan. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described above would be met. Compliance Table * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. we City.Standard (MDP -6) Proposed,- PUD Setbacks - Buildings Front Setback 35 feet +'/ foot for each foot the building *35 feet (77�" Street - 12 story height exceeds minimum setback buildings) *35 feet (Viking Drive - 12 story buildings) Rear 35 feet + % foot for each foot the building 50 feet height exceeds minimum setback Side No interior side setback required No setback Setbacks - Parking Structures 20 feet or the height of the structure 35 feet Front/street Building Height 4 stories north of 77"' Street *5 stories 12 stories south of 77th Street 12 stories (Heights over 12 stories would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment) Parking lot and drive aisle setback 20 feet (street) 20 feet Building Coverage 30% 30% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% - Non-residential Uses *1,777,560 sl total proposed 50% - Residential Uses non-residential (includes, 1,881,134 square foot site Burgundy Place, Walsh Title & a 250,000 s.f. hotel) Parking Stalls — Mixed Non Residential: 1,777,560 s.f./300 = 5,425 6,400 spaces suggested at this Development District stalls required time Minimum Lot Size 43 acres 43 acres * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. we PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal meets the purpose and intent of the PUD, and therefore, would be appropriate for this development site for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing MDD-6 Zoning of the site. The only real change proposed, compared to the previously approved development plan for the site, is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3, which does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. (See pages A83 & A103, of the attached AUAR.) 2. The project would encourage multimodality as follows: transit shelters on 77th Street; links to the regional trail, promotion of biking through bike facilities within each new building; creation of complete streets; establishing sidewalk connections between uses and buildings; creation of a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 3. Improved transportation system. The applicant proposes to upgrade 77th Street and provide better street connections into and throughout the development including better access to the Fred Richards golf course land. (See pages A34—A35.) "Green Streets" would be created. (See page A43—A47.) 4. Parking would be shared. The applicant proposes to construct parking ramps for the purpose of shared parking throughout the development, including shared parking with the public land to the north. 5. Storm water management would become a project amenity. Similar to the Centennial Lakes concept, storm water retention would be incorporated into the development to become an amenity. 6. Provision of high architectural standards. The applicant has agreed to building architecture, including parking ramps that would be of very high quality. The applicant has also agreed to achieve a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to incorporate podium height into the development. Sustainable building design similar or consistent with LEED standards is also anticipated. 10 7. The proposed project would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (AUAR) that has been done in this area. A traffic study was conducted by WSB and Associates for the Development. (See the attached study on pages A54— A80.) The study concludes that some roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites. 8. The PUD Zoning would give the City of Edina greater discretion in ensuring that the above mentioned principles are incorporated into the overall development in the future. 9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity -generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. 11 Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Overall Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD- 6, Mixed Development to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and an Overall Development Plan for the subject property. Approval is based on 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. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential," which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts. Primary uses include: offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. C. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity - generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. 12 e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant/land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Green Streets, as shown on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built by the applicant/land owner upon 80-85% build -out of the overall development. 7. Final Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 13 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77th Street to the property north of 77th Street through or adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and Fred Richards golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings, along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Green Streets, the installation of which are conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 11. Where applicable and required pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks will be provided throughout the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention will be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space/storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re -platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. 18.All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. 14 20. Public art shall be incorporated into the development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues/conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Deadline for a city decision: May 21, 2013 15 j 100 t' (' G ; 1 9j ,T �y a _44 7r da z,.. 1_n wS„e ris�: ^^O til RY r.� t „„ € La � ,T t jy#r.;jpg '1'« �£{{ik f NrV4i it Gr.M t i}¢ia''m'E _-; { Y1st(ivl7 1 ti t �..' �� _ P s i g riknri r(r) it'll:0v LAWAAA tA`i ..i x .= ku �itiorrii r� ;; ty", I. W -"-a it`" tt s rr,€ri,irnkari =Zi iUN yklf l?NL 2� ,�,� { lit'x+7 to a 4f t t 3 kY 44 f31 #?,l w", � � Wit (( NI&1hL I1 Avt W A inti haVE lei 1 5 H Y �' } • _ { ( � it $�'.;, �"1 � }«. � . �.—s �y i ,• f §+ c 1 ffi rix, •« k + -r'.`..,.„.. ""+.. ?TIi Y1V v"r�"� n� IIIJNNV�01N up hill t. tiliOW I i .iflfi SfRrCr CFk y! $&-} i'S ,[1 sp iill o 1 P 2} ¢ I #}} f WO M, 3 'r F Parcel Map Scalp 1 ' =1600 ft. N Print Date: 2/20/2014 AN Owner Pentagon North Lic Market Name: Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS” with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or steed: { Date: implied, including fitness of any particular i Purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and Parcel Sale completeness of the Information shown, Area: Code, COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 __ A TbOt Grecrttt k S�VORTH OR iW 730 moo e �r 777kkk — 7360 IFORDDR Ga .24 19 74oa FII81�U5 AVE � � P t �iAi �k� I k , si q �, , ^ v �' 4435 �yC C 7545 . jk�y t tv a Fi� C�� v r y "v P 48Q 7515.��� .7G40 X600 - 76254451+ 4400 � ,�.� ��� ,,, „ �.�.�.w 175 INDUST BL\rD 77TH ST 705 -401 $7t F 460 4W F 77.25 Wit _ -- I ? 4Wi `',ti 47b1 45 7750', 4625 _ 4425 77aQ too 771 1++; '7711,41 '021 4300 r �_ T784Q 7 i ddb 0 ` 78St� i i7 a �s 78TH STRfFTCIR W 1 4380' '4200 000 4478 Parcel A -T -B: Map Scale: V - 800 It. N ID: Print Date: 2/20/2014 Owner Market Name: Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and Is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date: Implied, including fitness of arty particular Stead: { purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: ' Code: ldiifik Green! W-1 of Edina Q1," Stratt Iftme labs MY umlts N Crooks Lake Nama$. 0 Parcels 2008 Aerial Phu* A3 lei ",� A3 A� L wu Ac IEEE rite► .x" ` r ACTIVE PHASE PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 0 125 250 m»r* �e-'� • SCALE p .r- . ,; . Ex A LOQ FT WEST PARKING sNGES' ±i3— I _ w 154 ROOMS 1.200 STALLS A + `PARKING 95 P g$ WN °� 1 f 1T� Mt U& E2 1,200 (� o 1 1� D LIVING 1 1NDF_PENDEN f (EYING 2 ASSkSTEi3 LIVING 2 V 8U NDY P CE 1 U/ 3 UN lr%ss0,gsf USES 36 UNITS (MI7C AS31STEQ LMNG 1 TO� 3 (U)ST INC)WSHTOE WE53 BUIL DING470 STOttiES1 MO-EPENDENT LIVING 3 milter dunwiddie,, A. 1fIC EgINA 4Alt1NAY nxa st�unwnwmos gin ' Pentagon Patti Rov*Woprneat yp EMwk GATEMY- - WM PLM PROM= 2 Warsaw Pn+P.�cks±ttC.,. RaZoe�ngandOvetaltPlaa� �",�,. P Rin 1 Pentagon Park Narrative Background When constructed in the 1960's, Pentagon Park was a state-of-the-art office complex located on approximately 42 prime acres in the northeast quadrant of Interstate 1494 and Highway 100 (Exhibit 2). It featured 8 three story buildings and one four story building surrounded by surface parking north of W. 77th Street ("North Parcel") and a "tower" of six stories in the southwest parcel surrounded by randomly placed one story office buildings with surface parking lots between ("South Parcel"). The complex — like Southdale, the innovative 1950's era indoor shopping mall — was designed to accommodate the emerging car culture that was sweeping the country. Unlike Southdale, which was originally conceived to be a more complete mixed-use development, Pentagon Park was always intended to be office -focused and auto -centric. Access to the campus or getting to a restaurant for lunch was virtually impossible without a car. Today, the moribund buildings of Pentagon Park sit amidst a sea of surface panting lots, testament to changing times and tastes (Exhibit 6). Pentagon Revival, the development entity, has "stabilized" some of the buildings, attracting new tenants but the office park has outlived its useful life and the Applicant intends to completely re -imagine and rebuild on the site. The Applicant's affiliates own or control all of the property described in the Application which includes the parcels identified as the "North Parcel "South Parcel", "Walsh Title" and 7710 Computer Avenue (collectively, the "Property"). Context (Exhibits 3 and 4) Immediately north of the North Parcel is Fred Richards Golf Course, an approximately 42 -acre City -owned and operated facility which is separated from Pentagon Park (Exhibit 5). The City is in the process of evaluating the use of the Fred Richards land as a golf course and determining whether it should remain a golf course or be "repurposed" to another public use. North of the golf course is the Lake Edina neighborhood, which comprises single family houses, many of which surround the small lake. To the east of Pentagon Park is a district that includes a mix of business and multi -family housing. To the south, along West 77"' Street, are a variety of businesses, the largest of which is Seagate Technology. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail will be constructed in 2015 and is proposed to be located along the northern property line of Pentagon Park. The exact configuration of the Regional Trail is not Final. Depending on the future disposition of the golf course, the Regional Trail could shift north onto City property. The southwest portion of Pentagon Park is bounded by W. 77th to the north, Computer Avenue to the east, Viking Drive to the south and Normandale Road and Highway 100 to the west. A variety of businesses are located in the surrounding area. January 22, 2014 The Applicant The Applicant's membership includes Hillcrest Development, LLLP ("Hillcrest"). Hillcrest's Managing General Partner Scott Tankenoff is the face of the Applicants development team. Scott has been the Managing Partner of Hillcrest since 1990. Hillcrest was founded in 1948 and is now a third generation company specializing in commercial renovation to suit its clients' facility needs for office, hi -tech, biotechnology -medical research, light assembly, warehousing, manufacturing, and other commercial purposes. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in most sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi -family residential. All of Hillcrest's projects (over eighty to date) have been fully designed, developed, built, leased, managed, and owned by Hillcrest. Hillcrest has its own internal construction, leasing, and management groups. Hillcrest has enjoyed success in its business and renovation projects due to its hands-on approach toward redevelopment. Hillcrest's in-house development team consists of experienced construction, design, leasing, management, operations, and accounting personnel. This "hands-on" approach streamlines the efficiency of the projects and provides for a quicker occupancy for Hillcrest's clients. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in multiple sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi -family residential. The Application The Applicant is seeking approval of the land uses, maximum densities and maximum building heights for the project. The Exhibits that accompany the Application illustrate several aspects of the Applicant's proposal. Specifically, the Applicant requests: a. Land Use. i. Hotel, office and retail on the South Parcel. ii. Office and retail on the North Parcel, Walsh Title and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcels. iii. Potential multi -family residential on the Property. b. Densities. i. 425 room hotel. ii. 1,400,000 square feet of office. iii. 40,000 square feet of retail. 2 �� January 22, 2014 c. Height (Exhibit 15) i. 12 stories on the South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcel. ii.In the future, the Applicant may request a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for a hotel of over 12 stories in the location on the west side of the South Parcel, identified on Exhibit 15. iii. 2 stories on the Walsh Title Parcel. iv. 4 and 5 stories on the North Parcel. (Exhibits 13 and 14) In response to the unknown future use of Fred Richards, the Applicant will present inultiple options with respect to the configuration of stormwater and green space amenities. As discussed with the City Staff and presented at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission and City Council, the Property needs to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development in order to achieve the requisite density and land. Accordingly, the Applicant has filed these applications for the Property to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") and for Preliminary Development Plan approval. The proposed redevelopment of the Property is a unique opportunity. The redevelopment of the Property will do to the northeast quadrant of Interstate I-494 and Highway 100 what Centennial Lakes did for the southeastern portion of the City and what Normandale Lakes has done for the City of Bloomington. The unique opportunity and aspect of the Applicant's requests include substantial and procedural characteristics that include, with limitation: 1. The fact that the redevelopment of PUD is very different than the previous Planned Unit Development zoning districts that have been approved and adopted by the City, for several reasons, including, without limitation: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, the buildings could be stabilized if the PUD is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent redevelopment of the Property for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of Fred Richards. c. The size of the Property and proposed multi -phased project. 3 At January 22, 2014 d. The long term use of Fred Richards is unknown and a PUD will provide flexibilities to respond to change in use of the golf course, allowing for the integration of Pentagon Park into a repurposed Fred Richards. 2. The proposed land uses, densities and building heights are either consistent with or less intense than what the Comprehensive Guide Plan, City Code and AUAR (updated in the summer in 2013) allow or anticipate. The requested density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total gross square footage approved in the failed Gateway Plan approved by the City in 2008. 3. Because of the unique characteristics of the PUD request including the multi - phased development and the Applicants need to terminate leases or relocate tenants in the current office tower on the North Parcel prior to March 31St; the Applications for rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan do not contain architectural renditions, landscaping plans, drainage/grading plans or the other detailed plans called for in the City's form application submittal checklist. The details will not be available until Final Development Plan approval is requested by the Applicant when each phase is ripe for development. At each final stage, the Applicant will appear before the City Council and Planning Commission at sketch plan and Final approval, in addition to the Applicant's communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 4. While at the Sketch Plan meeting before the Planning Commission, certain commissioners requested additional detail on the Applicant's plan, including the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcel, the Applicant is not able to present more detail because the users and market factors are Luiknown. This is a market driven project. Certainty and time efficiency is necessary for success in today's market: which is a different paradigm then previous market conditions. 5. As discussed in this Narrative and illustrated in the Exhibits, Pentagon Park as a PUD will satisfy the PUD requirements of the City Code, because, as the Applicant has represented, the project will: a. Create a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan; b. Promote creative and efficient approach to land use. 4 l January 22, 2014 c. Provide variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation; d. Include sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian -orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks; e. Ensure a high quality of design; f. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets; g. Preserve and enhance site characteristics; and h. Allow for mixing of land uses. 6. The Applicant requires preliminary approval of the PUD and the Preliminary Development Plan by March 18`h (which is the last City Council meeting in March), so the Applicant has certainty on the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the project. The Applicant is willing to proceed to move or terminate the existing tenants based on preliminary approvals, even though the PUD ordinance and Final Development plans will not be approved until the Applicant has submitted for Final Development approval, for each phase. 7. The risk/reward of granting preliminary approval without submittal of detailed plans (including architectural plans) are properly weighted, because the Applicant bears more risk than the City; and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, the Applicant is willing to include items in the preliminary approval that include, without limitation, the following (wluch line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested and are discussed in detail below): a. A higher % of green space (including water/ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to bean amenity. E 410 January 22, 2014 c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77"' Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76"' Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar/consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77t" Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80-85% in process or completed. 8. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions, goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. Architectural details would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD-6 category in any event: a PUD provides commercial densities to enable, meaningful redevelopment of the Property to be feasible. The Vision The Applicant proposes to transform the Pentagon Park project area in phases, into a state-of- the-art development with an emphasis on office use. Other uses, including a hotel, restaurants and convenience retail, are all planned for the project. Housing will also be considered. The final mix of uses will depend on market demands. The Applicant has: (i) held two neighborhood community open houses; (ii) conducted a series of interviews, meetings and presentations with City Staff and elected officials; (iii) appeared at 6 4`I January 22, 2014 numerous joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops; (iv) appeared at multiple Rotary meetings and Chamber of Commerce events; and (v) presented the project at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission in December 2013 and to the City Council on January 7, 2014. These were productive and informative sessions that led the Applicant to identify various issues (Exhibit 7) and to develop an overall goal of integrating green infrastructure throughout the site, resulting in improved connectivity and porosity and linking transit, open space and the broader community to Pentagon Park (Exhibit 12). An additional six primary principles (Exhibits 7 and 8) were developed through intake and discussions over many months of meetings with Council members, City Staff, neighbors and professionals, all of which will be integrated into any future plan of the site: Establish Green Streets (Exhibits 22 — 26) - The project will include a familiar pattern of streets and blocks as opposed to the current superblock design. The green streets will serve multiple needs, with the following goals: • Allow access into and out of the district, parking structures and to the City -owned property. • Provide "front door addresses" for businesses and other uses. • Integrate space for stormwater management. • Include on -street, parallel parking, to help reduce dependence on surface parking lots. • Provide continuous sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of streets. • Include additional amenities, such as street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, landscaping. Develop Integrated Stormwater (Exhibits 9 - 10 and Exhibits 16 — 21) — Stormwater currently sheet drains off the Pentagon Park site without clarification/treatment, or any substantive retention, burdening city infrastructure on 77th Street and negatively impacting adjacent water bodies in the Fred Richards Golf Course area. The new development proposes to properly manage all stormwater on-site or in conjunction with a change in use of the Fred Richards with the following goals: • Celebrate water creatively as an amenity (Exhibit 9), and integrate it into the overall Master Plan. • Connect the northern and southern sites with a surface water course. • Provide "urban" infiltration basins (in lieu of standard basins) and/or "treatment trains" to cleanse water and allow it to penetrate and recharge the groundwater system. • Capture and re -use stormwater for irrigation and other potential uses. • Use the stormwater system as a focus for recreation throughout the site. Create a Pedestrian Friendly 77th (Exhibit 22) — W. 77th Street is currently a five lane arterial road, with a continuous center lane used to turn both north and south into businesses at numerous locations. Currently, there is an inadequate 4' sidewalk immediately behind the curb on the south side and no sidewalk on the north side. There is a lack of access to transit 7 All January 22, 2014 stops along 77"' and poor connections to business for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City right-of-way only extends from curb to curb. The new development proposes the following: • Work with private land owners (e.g. Pentagon Park, Seagate, and other businesses) to gain easements for gracious pedestrian sidewalks, enclosed transit shelters, street trees and pedestrian -scale lighting on both sides of 77th. • Connect to Green Streets (to the north) and consolidate and align business access roads (to the south) to allow for development of a landscaped center median with left turn lanes at new intersections. • Provide safe and clearly defined crosswalks at green streets/business access roads, with pedestrian "refuge" areas in the center median. • Identify one significant intersection of the redevelopment site to potentially receive a traffic signal. • Provide two 11' through -traffic lanes in each direction to retain current street capacity for through traffic. Provide Key Connections (Exhibits 10, 14 and 16 — 21) — Presently, the south/west site — also called the "Tower Site" is an isolated island in the district and completely disconnected from the north/east site. Roads and fences further isolate Pentagon Park from its immediate and more distant neighbors. Links to transit do not meet current accessibility standards. The project will include the following: • If the golf course on Fred Richards is decommissioned and transformed to a multi-purpose public space, the Applicant will pursue connections between the Tower Site and the North Parcel with a new bridge and undeipass(Exhibit 10) beneath W. 77th, with enough clearance to allow bikes, pedestrians and a water channel to all pass beneath. • Provide one connection to the new regional trail at the 77th underpass to the south/west site and another near the east end of the site to 77°i to allow safe and easy access to improved transit shelters. • Integrate the North Parcel with Fred Richards, by extending "green streets" south through the new development to 77th (Exhibit 25) . • Provide sidewalks, safe crosswalks and other pedestrian -friendly facilities within the site to promote walking within the development, to transit and to other nearby places. Promote Multimodality (Exhibits 12 and 22 — 26) — At present, Pentagon Park and the surrounding district still rely heavily on car use. With all the issues related to favoring the car — oil dependency and the cost of gas, air pollution and ensuing climate change, social equity, etc. — this development will strive to promote multimodal access to the site, promoting easy access to the public . The proposal recommends the following: Provide safe access to transit shelters on 77t', and make them comfortable and inviting. 8 413 January 22, 2014 • Link the regional trail to and through the new development to connect with transit to promote bicycle use as a serious form of transportation as well as a recreational one. • Provide state-of-the-art bicycle facilities, including a repair facility, dedicated spots for shower and inside bike lockers. • Create "complete streets" within the new development by calming traffic and providing safe and inviting sidewalks throughout. • Establish sidewalk connections to adjacent land uses to reduce dependence on the car and encourage walking. • Develop a recreational system both that promotes walking, health and wellness. Institute Shared Parking Strategies (Exhibit 11) — Currently, Pentagon Park is characterized by large surface parking lots, single -use facilities that consume vast amounts of land and sat empty at many times even during the heyday of the office park. This development aims to reduce surface parking lots using a multi -pronged strategy for parking. The following are recommended: • Invest in parking structures that are integrated into and serve the architecture of newly constructed buildings on the Property to the extent possible. • Locate at least one parking structure in close proximity to the Fred Richards site for events that may take place there. • Provide on -street parallel parking on all internal streets, including "bay parking" on the parkway street. • Provide one level of below -grade parking beneath buildings (one level is feasible). A number of concept diagrams were developed to illustrate how these principles could be translated onto the Pentagon park site and illustrate potential redevelopment scenarios (Exhibits 16,17,19-21). Based upon feedback provided by Staff, Community, Planning Commission and Council a hybrid concept was developed (Exhibit 18) that reflected additional public comments. Although, the details of the redevelopment will change depending upon market forces, it reinforced the strong community interest in the site and the redevelopment process. It was clear a strategic process was needed to achieve the results all stakeholders desired. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The creation of a Planned Unit Development District is appropriate for a site of this size and potential. The Mayor, Council and Planning Commission, in addition to the Applicant and Staff, are in agreement that this project offers unique opportunities that exceed normal City standards for the current zoning classification (MDD-6). In addition, the land use, height and density requests of the Applicant are either consistent with or less intense than requirements described in the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR. 9 f January 22, 2014 A two-step planning process is required to achieve the redevelopment goals the community has identified and the quality of development the Applicant envisions (Exhibit 1). The redevelopment of approximately 42 acres will take a number of years to achieve and flexibility is needed to capitalize on opportunities as the market forces change over time. The two-step approach envisions a preliminary FUD approval (step -one) which will set the overall land use, height and density requirements for the site and allow the Applicant to begin to market the overall concept of the Pentagon park redevelopment to potential tenants. The second -step will bring forward individual site development proposals for final PUD approval, allowing the City to review detailed project features at a sketch plan level and at a final development level. This provides the City with final approval of any projects to be constructed at Pentagon Park. As summarized above, the Preliminary PUD approval being sought in this submittal focuses on three primary aspects; land use, density and height (Exhibits 13-15). South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue The South parcel or "'rower Site" envisions approximately 500,000 gross square feet(GSF) of office use in multiple buildings that do not exceed 12 stories in height, approximately 25,000 GSF of service retail and restaurants to support proposed uses and the surrounding community and an approximately 375-425 room hotel that may exceed 12 stories depending; upon the proposed hotel operator. The Applicant seeks approval of a 12 story concept in the Preliminary PUD approval, but may seek approval for additional stories at the time of Final approval if the hotel concept warrants consideration beyond the Preliminary PUD approval. Parking ramps to accommodate approximately 1,400 vehicles to support the density and use envisioned on the South Parcel. Walsh Title Parcel Dirvectly north of the South Parcel is the existing Walsh Title site. This is a remnant parcel from the historic Pentagon Parr campus and provides a key connection point to link the South Parcel to the fixture regional trail and to Fred Richards. A two story of approximately 20,000 GSF Retail/Medical/Office use is envisioned for this site that supports surrounding uses and enriches the connection between the south parcel and the northern public green space. A combination of underground and surface parking is likely to support the proposed uses on this parcel. North Parcel The North Parcel situated between 77t" Street and the southern edge of the Fred Richards site envisions approximately 900,000 GSF of office uses and approximately 15,000 GSF of retail. A residential component could potentially be included in the North Parcel if the market demand exists. A stepped approach to height is envisioned, transitioning from 5 stories adjacent to 77`h Street to a maximum of 4 stories along Fred Richards to relate to the public open space and neighborhood to the north. Four parking ramps accommodating at total of 3,600 vehicles are proposed to support the density of use envisioned on the Noah Parcel. The potential to share this parking with the 10 0+1 January 22, 2024 community to support uses on red Richards is a possibility as the vision for that site crystalizes over the next year. Although, the redevelopment of Pentagon Park will be driven by market demand and the details of a final PUD plan will come at a later date, the Applicant envisions a master Preliminary Development Plan that is: Sustainable The redevelopment will strive to promote sustainability in every sense of the word, including creating a well connected, multi -modal project that encourages other means of movement than the car, employs active and passive solar energy systems, harvests, manages and re -uses rainwater on-site, promotes energy-efficient architecture and landscape, etc. This project has the potential to be a model for mixed-use office development, Consideration will be given to creating a LEED-ND (Neighborhood Design) project. Innovative — The project will focus on innovation at all levels. The Preliminary Development Plan will propose integration of'systems using district -wide strategies, including parking, management of water., circulation, heating and cooling. All systems will be addressed in concert. The synergies between systems can also extend to the adjacent City -owned property to further capture opportunities for innovation. Contextual — The project will create a new paradigm for the Pentagon Park district, establishing a more familiar pattern of streets and blocks (may be of varying sizes). In essence, this new development will set the tone for the future of the district — more porous and more transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adaptable — Cities typically consist of a framework of streets and blocks within which a variety of land uses can coexist and evolve over time. This project proposes to establish that framework and encourage all building to have adaptability as a key design criterion. Incremental — It is also important to create a place that can evolve comfortably over time. This project will take many years to complete, but it needs to feel like a welcoming place early in the process. A well crafted public realm with well - conceived green and blue infrastructure will be critical to its success. Efficient — Because this project will be designed from scratch, efficiencies in everything from road design, utilities layout, stormwater management, parking locations and synergies, to accommodations for increased transit service, can all be conceived during the final PUD planning process, resulting in a more cohesive and innovative development. Aesthetically Pleasing — It is critical that the design of all facets of Pentagon Park, from architecture, landscape and infrastructure be aesthetically pleasing while functioning seamlessly together. With top -tier amenities and aesthetics, the project 11 A January 22, 2014 will set itself apart from the competition, much like Centemlial Lakes and 50°i and France have in the past. Health / Safety / Comfort — The project will promote walking, bicycling and transit use that makes them attractive, safe, and viable alternatives to the car. The design will create "complete streets" that serve all users equally, calming the car and providing the necessary infrastructure for safe walking and cycling. In addition, the design will provide recreational walking trails that connect to the regional trail and nearby streets to encourage walking over the noon hour or before and after work. Economically Viable — By providing the innovative features that have been discussed in this narrative, the renewed Pentagon Park will create a buzz and attract businesses that might otherwise look elsewhere. Cool and livable environments have become requisite in today's competitive workplace; providing the perks will translate to a stronger bottom line. Podium Height — Edina has spent a great deal of time considering the impact of building height on the public realm. This redevelopment will honor that work by establishing appropriate podium heights in relation to setbacks from the street. It is important to remember that the best street envelopes are well-defined by architecture and landscape; the project guidelines need to find the sweet spot where buildings don't overwhelm pedestrians but still provide a strong and attractive edge that defines a better public realm. The Comprehensive Guide Plan challenges the City in its mission to guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improved the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. It is a once in a generation opportunity to be presented with an application for approximately 42 acres by an Applicant that not only currently owns or controls all of the Property, but understands the importance of the City's mission statement and the relationship to a potentially re -purposed Fred Richards. 12 � `1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL KEY DISCUSSION POINTS DATED January 22, 2014 The following are some key discussion points regarding the PUD and Preliminary Development Plan Applications: 1. The redevelopment of Pentagon Park is very different than. the 5 or so other PUD's that have been approved and adopted by the City, because: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, they can be stabilized if the PUD or TIF is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent the redevelopment of Pentagon Park for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of the FRED. c. The size of the Project.. d, Phased re -development over a long period of time. e. We do not know the long term use of the FRED. 2. The proposal in our Applications is a result of over a. year of intake, including many meetings with Staff and elected officials and the Sketch Plan meetings before the PC and Council. 3. What we are asking for with respect to use, density and height is either consistent with or less intense than what the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR allow or anticipate. We are willing to keep residential as an alternative with office and retail. The density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total square footage that the Kaminsky plan included. Regarding height, we are willing to build 4 and 5 story buildings on the North Parcel when the Code allows for 12. As we discussed, we need 12 stories for the South Parcel with the understanding that we also want the opportunity to discuss a hotel building of over 12 stories as per our plans we have shown. 4. Because of the unique characteristics of this PUD request as compared to others, and our need to terminate or move existing tenants prior to March 18, 2014, our Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Development Plan will not contain architectural, landscaping, drainage/grading or other details. The details will not be fleshed out until the final development plan approval is requested on each phase. At each final stage, we will appear January 22, 2014 before Council at sketch plan and final approval, in addition to consistent communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 5. While we understand that certain PC members asked to see more detail, especially the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcels, we are not prepared to present more detail because we do not know who our users are or what the market will bear. We have and can continue to refine the detail improvements on 77th and the street scape, in order to illustrate that we are committed to make the Project much more pedestrian friendly and we have shown our commitment to tie the Project into the FRED if the use of the FRED changes. 6. This Project fits into a PUD much more than the existing PUDs because, as we have represented, the City will be receiving many, if not all of the following (taken from the general PUD ordinance): a. Creates a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. b. Promotes creative and efficient approach to land use. c. Provides variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation. The design elements include, sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian -orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks. d. Ensures a high quality of design. e. Maintains or improves the efficiency of public streets. f. Preserves and enhances site characteristics. g. Allows for mixing of land uses. 7. We agree to (i) appear before the Council every four months for update on redevelopment activity or when requested, in addition to the appearances required as part of the Application process; (ii) appear before the Planning Commission for updates as requested; and (iii) appear for sketch plan review in front of the Planning Commission and City Council when we seek final approval for each phase of the redevelopment. January 22, 2014 8. We need the Preliminary Approval at the March 18th City Council meeting, so we know the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the Project. We are willing to proceed ahead with moving/terminating our tenants based on the Preliminary Approval, even though the approvals are not final, until we have submitted for final development approval and a PUD Ordinance has been adopted. 9. The risk/reward is properly weighted, because we really have more risk than the City, and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, we are willing to include items that include, without limitation the following(which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested): a. A higher % of green space (including water/ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to be an amenity. c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77th Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76th Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar/consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77th Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80-85% in process or completed. 3 ,kaa January 22, 2014 10. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions and goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. The architectural detail would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD-6 category in any event. 4 qa � EXHIBIT 1 DAM O N FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC PUD PROCESS DIAGRAM EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 PENI\J'TAGU'-%lr'\Jl PARNI�� t Q ,G9C a .. u.1 Z 6 t{ t. t y 4 ,jit e � .. ♦� k 1° f tC , r � ! '11P r r+ OOL i 4 (.im.., .. Q ,G9C -"OV - o-« low ,t was -e" ^ r a n er , o- m ....- ' ' lel.. ♦, y i i - .,s P, � k Fk a .4 S�i y a I tn � z 9 0 cr� CSG Z Z 0 im uj 3 LOOMGSWTOWARDSPENTAGONPARKFROM FREO RICNAROS GOLF COU LMR EAST SIDE OF PROPS IMAGE LOCATIONS EXHIBIT S DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS� ' BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 PEN-IAGu'#'%ih\jl uj CL V) ;2 Zo V� 00: W LLI Z b� 0o z Z? tu R uj I EXHiBIT8 DAMONFARBERASSOCiATES PRINCIPLES BOB CLOSE STUINO, LLC EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAGON PARK�: ` lul Z-' LIU CL H W LlI SneKreaK"_Px%gM THREE PRONGED APPROACH TO PARKING: 1. Below -grade (1 IeveO 2. "Embedded" deck (maintain great addresses at perimeter) 3. Street Parking • Parallel • Diagonal - Parking Says UNMFAFXM MCKUNDEnaAip M i I s� v-►Aaarw � � �o aKtiunus EXHIBIT 11 DAMON FARSERASSOCIATES 608 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC PARKING STRATEGIES" \i EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 '•'67 EXISTING EXHIBIT 12 DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EXISTING RELATIONSHIP GOAL UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL L/ . EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9,2013 P Irz vJ1i xeyl statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 475 Rooms A 1AW STALLS Office :SDDA=GSF s IAMSTAL15 Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS Porth Parcel: Office - 400,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail -1 SAM GSF E 800 STALLS WalshTIW Retail/M kaVOfrm-2D,000 GSF F 1,200 STALLS 8 x 11 — RegionaiTnil -- Trail Corrrrectlon isi ParirwmY =nth ea Supporting Streets "m Green streets ® Intemal streets P�4 p rri Guiding water Me open Space el W 76TH ST ®Morwments EXHIBIT 13 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES DIAGRAM OPTION 1 BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 EkiJAGON PARK�� 3 \, .4r,4 a V14mV�wLL cc file ail' 1:011111001810 LU CL N Z Q" 0- u u ui �o �a Lu z W U O WG Va V) v W a -� m Q m i w "- U. m0 oot HI X Q w p 01 w>an+sr DOCKSIDE GREEN CONCEPT • A continuous linear stormwater amenity conned the development parcels Atwo-way parkway With parking bays provides a loop around the development, connecting from W 77th St •`Naturalvegetation'isplanted adjacent to stormwater ponds and buildings A regional trail is located north of the site, with three connections from trail to W 77th St • W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and unproved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings �... "'�� PARf0+16 asx+a S10WAkVATER514i11E5 �,..,.... pp0/EAiY lOItt�AKY ORWROF DOCKS101i GRMLOCAMNVICTORMBRMSHCOL=ijjk OOGKSIDEGREENSfORIOMM&PIMSITIMUWGE LM VEMATM AT DOCKM GRM STOMMAnRAMEN" NltMATESMALD"AND ClRaUTION EXHIBIT 16 DAMONFA►RBERASSOCIATES 1308 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 P E_ N __-FA G 0 N r-ARK�Z� R .T AWALOFTMEUPPER LAND W 01 St FWL.MN .....��• REGgNALTRA� r7 PAMM ACCESS ,>: eFmmvBGETAIW+... ','' plDKI11IANFRI@CLY77MST ROAD ST ORWOMPOMS . OWPOSWVVET M ...,. PEDlSfltl — FARWG erarru»+ SMWWATERSWKM PFAMMM")ARY stormwater management, and improved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below•grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings etnwwsxTm ewuoRFSufEFNT1IE UPPER LANDING ANDTRAILS ROADWAY ADJACENTTOTME UPPER LANCING LAIFR DP51REEiS ALTERNATEWRMSTOMMAFEATURES PATMNMYBETWEE IN"NGS EXHIBIT 17 DAMON FAR13ERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS%'ITAGuiq PARK� EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 Pf E ILNI 1 17 THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT �"- PRS^•"" Two road loops off of W 77th St • providing connectivity without through traffic • Small stormwater ponds are located on the pe t*a interior of the development buildings • Public parking is located between the trail and development .�_.• Flexibility in block size (market-driven) wTin+T A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, .....��• REGgNALTRA� r7 PAMM ACCESS ,>: eFmmvBGETAIW+... ','' plDKI11IANFRI@CLY77MST ROAD ST ORWOMPOMS . OWPOSWVVET M ...,. PEDlSfltl — FARWG erarru»+ SMWWATERSWKM PFAMMM")ARY stormwater management, and improved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below•grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings etnwwsxTm ewuoRFSufEFNT1IE UPPER LANDING ANDTRAILS ROADWAY ADJACENTTOTME UPPER LANCING LAIFR DP51REEiS ALTERNATEWRMSTOMMAFEATURES PATMNMYBETWEE IN"NGS EXHIBIT 17 DAMON FAR13ERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS%'ITAGuiq PARK� EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 Pf E ILNI 1 17 n, UPPER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small storrnwaterponds are located on the interior of the development buildings + Public parking is located between tate trail and development Flexibility in block size (market-driven) Ti�TarNsi • A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development ••••�> REGIDNALTRA6. PARgNG ACGFSF V0SFMVVWATM PED6""nI NXy7nHST . PIIOPOSQDvl�Ch'p11Cn �� Pf0E5TAWI PAnt �`� 191RNING ea�rar, STfMMYNQERSWALES ..—« PROPBIITYBOUFDMY STORMWATER SWALE BETWEENTNE UPPER LPONGANDTRARS ROAOWAYAOJAG'ENTTOTNEUPPER.LAW"G LOOP STREETS AI - W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees. stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street parking bays on loop roads and architecturally integrated with buildings EXHIBIT 18 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 FENTAGON rF* *,A R 'K " AERIALOPTNE O" of LAKES CHAIN OF LAKES CONCEPT • Multiple shared amenities • A parkway is located north of site, Increasing connectivity • Multiple water bodies are located north of the site, separating the neighborhood from the development • Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development and manage water in concert with larger ponds to the north • Flexibilityinblocksize(market-drNen) �..�w• REGIM"TRAX PAM04ACC1135 UMMCiMMATIM PFABTIRA,I FAR7rSlP7TM ST �_.. IgAC STORAIWAf9tPOHOS wt0P0=vr—.MON PEOESTIRAN WK .+ ..jWWr— PARgNG eWeir+*s, s70RWN ITE VM5 PROPOTTPtGUNOIRIP WimAND AREA AONICWrto LAKE CALM" Twp+WAYRgXnwwMM PAMRMiG LATS ACUMffoFLMMCJUVM sronRlwm swALEAomcenrm mTH A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development • W 77th St to be pedestrian friendlywith trees, stormwater management, and Improved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings STCIDeNYAM SWALE Wrfam►ATNS EXHIBIT 19 DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES 608 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAGON AERIALOPLAREROKO S RtmULmm r-3 6XRpNG ACQSS � E%[SfMIGY[6iTAilON f: °n rfOESlmMp ., � FIIIENOLY 7TSNsr lOAo' sramo<+xra®itor�os ®tRan46mv�er�rtara �-.. nrormmrxnim `9111111111111ir- PAR04 xA STORMWATE'SIM5 •.._... FlWPEM,0UNQW WN WAYLo0PVM"►AN"SAYS HATURALVEGEULTION CEWOMILLAXES CENTENNIAL LAKES CONCEPT - A central water feature is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development - Stormwater ponds are natural amenities within the development - A parkway provides public access and bay parking to the park A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies- below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings Sr0WVVAT RLW0TOOEVRciPMEW EXHISIT20 DAMO NFARSER ASSOCIATES 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAGON PAR"K�� CREEK A flexible grid of streets (market driven' with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St -to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade. on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings PATH ADJACENTiO PARKWAY EXHIBIT 21 DAMON FARSERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAGuisi"j, PARK� MINNEHAHA CREEK CONCEPT A naturalized corridor with vegetation and a spine of water is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development • Small stormwater ponds are located on the Interior of the development buildings • A parkway with parking bays is located between the naturaUed corridor and new development CREEK A flexible grid of streets (market driven' with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St -to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade. on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings PATH ADJACENTiO PARKWAY EXHIBIT 21 DAMON FARSERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAGuisi"j, PARK� 77TH CONCEPT PLAN 6' SideweNc 77TH CONCEPT KEY ELEMENTS • Center median with small accent trees • Left turn lanes • Boulevard/sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Shade trees Transit shelters •Street lights • Pedestrian lights 61 IT 61 sidewalk boulevard travel lane travel lane rrredlarr b" larm t"[one Odewaik exiOn9 R.O.W. EXHIBIT 22 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAY TYPES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, ECC 0 N R EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 13, 2013 t,;ENTMj K DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES 608 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC KEY ELEMENTS • Decorative lighting • Street trees • 6'sidewalk with 10' boulevard • One lane of traffic in each direction • Parking bays for parking PARKWAY CONCEPT SECTION 1o• 0 �o• is u• 17 ,a _ io' _ e' ~ eeybnaf tra8 ;;u!ard --t P+ 9 ♦ aavai lane travel lerK Pa ^9 boulevard sweMwlk _ '' ,eaaway W RAW. ROADWAYTYPES EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 13, 2013 FENTAGON PARK SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT PLAN HEMWEEMEM KEY ELEMENTS • Parallel parking • 10'boulevards/6'sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Street trees 7- SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT SECTION 11 EXHIBIT 24 DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 61 10, - 01Y 110vard 0' sidewalk boWevwd - ;line travel �9 51;&k roadway 7W FLaW. ROADWAY TYPES EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 PEN-FAGU"N Fr"'ARN� DP- Eg GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN GREEN STREET CONCEPT SECTION KEY ELEMENTS • Parallel parking • 6' boulevards/6'sidewaiks • Decorative lighting • Street trees EXHIBIT 25 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 6' 6' 10 12' 12' 10' 6' G sidewaR boukvmd W9 t2vN taro travel lane Pi�4 baAevard sivaHc 44' Y 68' _ • P.M. ROADWAY TYPES EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 P E N TA G ue"N' PA R INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT PLAN 0 INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT SECTION DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 6 @' '2 ;;*; a m boukevard ;Alk 44! —d -y Gr RAW. ROADWAYTYPES EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 PENTAGON PAK"'NO "rolled out" to help clarify c Platteter also suggested that the City create a map that identifies the areas wh things ar ; going on". This map could also be web based so residents can see where a lot of th rk is going Planner Teague responded the map be T, ion to consider, possibly by YSW 9 Com sione/shad ke rson if she knows the percent of,' she spend on speck issues. erespoes each day, adding she also tH 'spend much her time being proactive, ott:questionedad found neighbors reportin ppi ciperty damage as aresultofnew on.esponded to date there hav�°een some issues; su as sprinkler heads being broken, etc. rther explained that s cts as a mediator betwe owners oeighbgws and City whenn somethawry; adding for the st part issues have been a, dressed at�d set�ed. Continui Pd Larson if she. ever "sat down" with builde s) and neighor, s) Larsonresponded thfield she haseer► with the builder, owner, and . eighbors ,; Commissig er Forrest70wr ented that in her opinion there are could RLarsonwhy redlrebuilds and asked Larson if she e probiit models, Larson responded in the affirmati enfolarly receives inquiries from residents regal be d gather the proper information for the neighb t rrest noted the discrepancy in "noise" re4ui y there is a discrepancy. Larson expla ed f are more limited; thereby allowing residents to woirlc Qn Ha;, "I pm• sd wctrifne they ,neighbors if ,at although she rson said she tries to to that neighbor between City ordinances and owntrebuild construction hours .ts" over the weekends and until 9 Commissioner Forrest questioned ww, { r v B. Sketch P.t : Peiitagdtt Office Park Planner Presentation Planner;Teqgue reminded the Commission at their last meeting they considered a sketch plan for Pentagon Ctiffice Park, adding the development team is again before the Commission asking for their comments' OA continuation of the sketch plan. Teague explained that the total site area is roughly 43 acres in size and its redevelopment would likely occur over the next 2-15 years. After sketch pian review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant has indicated they will follow up with a formal application to rezone the site to PUD, Planned Unit Development. This request would allow greater flexibility in land uses, amenities, setbacks, pedestrian, connection, and depending on the future use of Fred Richards Golf Course, the potential for greater connection and integration in public space. Page 3 of 7 M Commissioner Potts noted that a traffic study was completed in 2008 and asked Planner Teague if the City would require an updated traffic study. Teague responded in the affirmative. Teague explained that the next step would be to reexamine traffic volume and patterns in the area. He added the City would also have a traffic consultant on board to address traffic. Applicant Presentation Scott Takenoff addressed the Commission and explained they will proceed with the redevelopment of the site through the PUD rezoning process. Takenoff said that in his opinion the PUD allows for more flexibility. Takenoff said their goal is to make formal application to the City by theend'af.,March 2014. Takenoff introduced Tom Whitlock and Bob Close to address the plans. Continuing, Takenoff explained that the City continues to discuss options for the Fred Richards' Golf Course, adding that in a sense this development proposal needs to be considered independently from Fred Richards. Takenoff stated the development team would prefer integration between the''public and private space but much depends on what the City envisions for the Fred, Rielards Go, If :Course. Continuing, Takenoff said an architectural group has not been retained. He added.the formal application would contain architectural details. Concluding, Takenoff stated in h`is;ppinion; great architecture comes from great land use. Questions/Comments Commissioner Fischer noted when they last met thanked the applicant for making their decision b process. Mr. Takenoff responded the developm X1:11 "right protocols to achieve the best redevelopme'i ecision hadn't been made on the rezoning and ng'the flexibility found in the PUD rezoning i wants to make sure they are following the Mr. Close delivered a power point presen'tationyand Highlighted for the Commission the two different options. Close said the options are` more defined'from the previous multiple options and the development team plans on presenting a formal preliminary rezoning application sometime before March 2014. , Close highlighted the opuons`'as follows Option �.1 • Minimalist concept • <; Imp rbve West 77th Street — project envisions a pedestrian friendly West 77th Street • Crate as much green space as possible — it is proven that green space slows traffic • No`connection through Walsh Title Option 2: • Larger vision concept • Repurpose Fred Richards with parkway on the south side • Additional overpass • Keep in mind the option of linking with the new trails Page 4 of 7 T1 Commissioner Potts noted that in Option I there is no underpass. Mr. Takenoff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Grabiel recalled when this proposal was before the Commission in 2008 there was much discussion on building height; especially the height on the "tower" site. Grabiel asked if there had been any discussion on building height on this specific site. Mr. Takenoff responded they have had numerous discussions on building height for the "tower" site and believe at this time height would be between eight and nine stories; and meet ordinance; however a final decision on height hasn't been reached. Commissioner Carr asked if building height meets Code. Planner Teague responded that -At this time the proposed height meets both the ordinance and comprehensive plan requirements.; =Carr questioned if they wanted to exceed building height would that require an amendment. Teague responded that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to go taller and variances folded ihto the PUp rezoning. Mr. Takenoff noted the difference between Option I and Option; reiterating much depends on what occurs with the Fred Richards Golf Course. He added what's missing Wihe City's time"'frame on what they envision for "Fred Richards" in the future. Takenoff acknowledged the impoi?tance of integrating the Fred Richards Golf Course; however, it's the one thing the deveiopment'team doesn't have control over. Chair Staunton said if he "reads" option 2 correctly thatit`may.,not work if the golf course remains as is. rn Takenoff responded that could be true; however alteatives are. eded and there will time to integrate the infrastructure after that decision is made. Takenoff saitl,what they are focusing on now is the land use. Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion it':s good to maintain flexibility; however, the options presented are so sparse it's difficult to comment. `Continuing, Forrest said she would love to see more detail on how West 77th Street addr.,esses?:the street. She said in her opinion it may be an area to develop neighborhood nodes. Continuing,' orrest asked the development team where their parking numbers came from. Mr. Takenoff tesp6Hded'that the parking numbers are from the current zoning ordinance. Takenoff,said that'as,time-,goeso'n and more is found out about Fred Richards they can be more creative with bUildinz. paric'ing and_'greenspace. Commissioner Potts said he,vyoaldn't be adverse to increasing commercial density, adding the traffic study supports._it.'Continuing=Potts stated he wants the development team to focus on implementing green streets and creating amore residential setting even though it may end up being a commercial/office streetscape.. Potts acknowledged parts of the Pentagon Office Park are blighted and innovative tweaks�'need to be made; however, he continues to feel the development is "off' without a housing'eldri'ient. Mr. TakenoWsaid that while housing is not a viable option at present time there is the potential it could appear in the future. Takenoff noted that is the reason for the PUD rezoning request; it provides more flexibility in development. Continuing, Takenoff said with regard to the "tower site" it is very critical what the infrastructure will support, adding they want to ensure the hotel built will be high quality. Concluding, Takenoff reminded the Commission this redevelopment will have many phases stretching out over many years, adding their intent is to redevelop the south west corner first with an office/hotel use. Concluding, Takenoff acknowledged that much of this is conceptual, adding as time goes on it is very possible "things" will change. Page 5 of 7 4S0 Mr, Close commented that at his time so much is not known, adding much depends on the market. Commissioner Schroeder said the sketch plan approach is correct; however, he said he has difficulty with the limited architectural details that were provided. Schroeder said in his opinion how the site, buildings, building height, street, street scape relate to each other identifies the character of the area; framing a great development. Schroeder said he would like to see further study done on building height and uses on the first floor, Schroeder pointed out that building height Is more than stories. Continuing, he added careful attention also needs to be paid to the street and the lack of sidewalks. Schroeder said that he believes the project is on the right track and he's supportive of the general concept; however, needs the next level of detail. Concluding, Schroeder said it is extremely Important to1ge. how the development is framed, the way the buildings relate to each other and to the streetsca. and green ways. Mr. Takenoff responded that the development team wants to "get to then step'", ixiweyer, as mentioned by Mr. Close much is market driven. Schroeder questioned if that mean$ the Corrii»is`s"ion and Council can expect to go through another sketch plan review process Planf ler gue.;ltter jected that he believes the next step would be preliminary PUD rezoning approval �and✓`if approved the development team would bring forward a sketch plan for final PUd rezoning; Commissioner Forrest stated she wants to ensure that this area stays vibratlt, adding the development concept should also be carefully crafted to "look into the future". She:further added in her opinion that housing would be an important element in keeping this area vibrant Chair Staunton said he understands that this process ►s,two steps however, the Commission needs to know the "uses" and if the "uses" are appropriate and ".';doable"`' Staunton said he wants to ensure; continued flexibility; however, it is very important that f6 the "second step" that the "uses" and scale of the project are very clear. Planner Teague state#(,°heagues"�+�rith that `statement. The discuss"ton continued on TiP fuming actawledgfng that the Impact of what the City decides for the Fred Richards Golf Course Is an important`'Uqor.x' Commissioners expressed the desire for this area to be interconnected keeping in mind,pthe regional `tail system to the west and Richfield. The discussion focused on buiklkgji ight especially on the "tower site"with Commissioners expressing m the opinion that before they act I ey�heed to have the specifics on building height for the hotel. The height needs to be framed to, eniure c6mpliance with both the ordinance and comprehensive plan. It was further acknowledged that the'PUD rezoning creates a venue to address any discrepancies. f r L e Commissioner, Potts stated that in his opinion as previously mentioned by Commissioner Schroeder that It is very impoitant tt know;how land use and the infrastructure reiate to each other and wha1ies Commissta't"er Carraagreed that more detail is required and asked the development team if they, plan on providing more detail, Mr. Takenoff responded in the affirmative. He explained that it is their intent to formally appiy;for preliminary PUD approval sometime in early 2014,.adding at that time more detail would be depicted on the plans; however the detail could be site specific. The discussion ensued on the preliminary nature of the plans with Commissioners acknowledging that in order to make an educated decision they need more detailed plans. Commissioners stated they understand that "sketch plan"` is "sketch plan'; however, want more detail for the next go round, Mr. Takenoff commented that their company policy is "don't overpromise or under deliver", adding he believes their formal request for preliminary PUD rezoning is consistent with a multiphase Page 6 of 7 Le- redevelopment project. Takenoff said their goal is to redevelop this very important site to its fullest potential. He did acknowledge that the redevelopment would be in phases over a number of years; however, he believes time is a friend. Concluding, Takenoff reiterated the importance of this site and their intent to redevelop it to its fullest potential. Chair Staunton thanked the development team for their presentation, adding he looks forward to preliminary application. Page 7 of 7 �a Minutes/Edina City trouncilhanuary 7, 2014 V11 D- RESOLUTION NO. 2014-10 ADOPTED RESCINDING ACQUISITION AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATE© AT 3944 WEST 49-1A STREET The Council discussed the resolution language and asked questions of Attorney Knutson. Council consensus was reached to revise the resolution as follows: Page 2, third WHEREAS, to indicate: "...because it has been renresented to the City that the owners Prefer to pursue this alternative instead of continuing negotiations with the City because the acquisition price negotiated for this alternative transaction exceeds the purchase price offered by the City to construct a public parking expansion, and;" Member Sprague Introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014-10, Rescinding Acquisition Authority for Property Located at 3944 West 49-1/2 Street, as revised above. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VILE. SKETCH PIAN FOR PENTAGON PARK REVIEWED Community Develooment Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the sketch plan proposal and two options to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77th Street, noting the total site was 43 acres In site and expected to redevelop over the next two to fifteen years. There would be mixed uses Including office, retail, and a multi-storled hotel with housing remaining as a potential. Mr. Teague ,advised that an eight -story hotel was approved but not constructed so that approval had expired, He answered questions of the Council relating to the building height under PUD regulations, Proponent Presentation, Scott Takenoff, Development Manager of Hillcrest Partners, presented the pending Pentagon Park PUD application, noting Hillcrest Partners Would assure ample securlty for the City to meet all mutual expectations. He stated as part of the first PUD step, Hillcrest Partners would agree with: a higher percentage of green space than required; the majority of stormwater management being a public amenity; encouraging stormwater treatment/management at a higher standard than Code required; encouraging bicycle and pedestrian traffic; upgrading a minimum of two transit shelters; upgrading 77th Street; creating a design consistent with LEED standards; use of solar on the buildings north of 77th Street; upgrading pedestrian infrastructure; and, upgrading of Parklawn. Mr. Takenoff indicated Hillcrest Partners does not yet know the hotel height but It might be above 12 stories and require a Comprehensive Plan change, He stated Hillcrest Partners was working with Ehlers and staff on the option of Tax Increment Financing,'which would be presented to the Council on February 18, 2014. Tom Whitlock, President of Damon Farber Associates, and Bob Close of Bob Close Studio, presented a slide show and described elements of the two project options, The Council discussed the sketch plans, asked questions of the proponents and Mr. Teague, and made the following suggestions for consideration of a well -crafted PUD: developing a hybrid plan (such as using the west section of Caption 2 with the east section of Option 1 to assure connectivity) that included a creative trait alignment and shape of water amenity; keeping building height to the Comprehensive Plan limit and not exceed 12 -stories In the southerly section; locating buildings closer to the street; integration of step- down podium height throughout the project and especially towards the neighborhood to the north side; eleven -foot street widths with narrower side streets to allow wider sidewalks/enhanced pedestrian environment and green spaces; restaurant use open into evening hours; embracing the park and inclusion of elements to welcome foot and bicycle traffic; providing additional plan specificity; shadow studies; and, retaining a residential housing element. The Council acknowledged the enhancements beyond Code requirements offered by the proponent In of making a PUD request. Mr. Takenoff thanked the Council for its comments and indicated 2014 would be a year of planning to add specificity with 2015 being a year of construction. Page 3 Memorandum DAVE: February 19, 2014 TO.. Mr. Cary Teague, Planninrg Director City of Edina FmAv Cli'arles.Rickarl, P. E, PTOE Re. Pentagon Park DewJopafent Trac and Parking Studjf City of Edam, MN WS& Project No. 1"6-50 Background The purpose of the study is to document the impact the proposed redevelopment of the Pentagon Park area adjacent to W. 77'h Street between TH 100 and Parklawn Avenue has on; the area traffic operations; site access; and, parking demand for the site. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. A Traffic analysis was completed in conjunction with the Gateway Area, Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2007 which included the Pentagon Park: area. The AUAR was updated in 2013 and it was concluded that because no Gateway Development had occurred in the area, and that the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions the future year analysis and recommended mitigation in the 2007 AUAR were still valid. These mitigation measures will be discussed and documented as part of the future year analysis found in this Traffic Study. The proposed full development of the Pentagon Park site includes: a 315 — 425 room hotel, 500,000sf of office and 25,000 sf of retail uses on the south parcel; 900,000 sf of office and 15,000 sf of retail on the north parcel, and; 21,000 sf of office on the Welsh Title parcel. It is asstuned that the south parcel will be developed as the first phase. Access to the site will be from public streets and driveways off of 77t" Street. The proposed site plan is shown in the attached Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed site redevelopment were evaluated for the existing conditions, anticipated completion of phase 1, assumed to be 2020, and full development, assumed to be 2030, at the following locations. • France Avenue at 761" Street • France Avenue at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue A9- Engineering . Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South WAtnfrastructurea suite #300 Minneapolis, UN 88418 A . A" 763 341.4M Fax: 763 $41.1700 Fax: Memorandum DAVE: February 19, 2014 TO.. Mr. Cary Teague, Planninrg Director City of Edina FmAv Cli'arles.Rickarl, P. E, PTOE Re. Pentagon Park DewJopafent Trac and Parking Studjf City of Edam, MN WS& Project No. 1"6-50 Background The purpose of the study is to document the impact the proposed redevelopment of the Pentagon Park area adjacent to W. 77'h Street between TH 100 and Parklawn Avenue has on; the area traffic operations; site access; and, parking demand for the site. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. A Traffic analysis was completed in conjunction with the Gateway Area, Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2007 which included the Pentagon Park: area. The AUAR was updated in 2013 and it was concluded that because no Gateway Development had occurred in the area, and that the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions the future year analysis and recommended mitigation in the 2007 AUAR were still valid. These mitigation measures will be discussed and documented as part of the future year analysis found in this Traffic Study. The proposed full development of the Pentagon Park site includes: a 315 — 425 room hotel, 500,000sf of office and 25,000 sf of retail uses on the south parcel; 900,000 sf of office and 15,000 sf of retail on the north parcel, and; 21,000 sf of office on the Welsh Title parcel. It is asstuned that the south parcel will be developed as the first phase. Access to the site will be from public streets and driveways off of 77t" Street. The proposed site plan is shown in the attached Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed site redevelopment were evaluated for the existing conditions, anticipated completion of phase 1, assumed to be 2020, and full development, assumed to be 2030, at the following locations. • France Avenue at 761" Street • France Avenue at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue A9- Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 2 of 19 • 77th Street at Computer Avenue • 77th Street at Burgundy Place Driveway • 77th Street at SB TH 100 Ramp 77th Street at NB TH 100 Ramp Figure 3 shows the locations of the key intersection analyzed with this study. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: France Avenue (CSAH 17) is north/south a 6 -lane divided Arterial roadway from I-494 to TH 62. Primary access to France Avenue is by local streets and major development driveways. The posted speed limit on France Avenue in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph. Parklawn Avenue is a 4 -lane undivided Arterial roadway from France Avenue to W. 77t1' Street. Street access and access to adjacent developments including the existing Pentagon Office site is provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on Parklawn is 30 mph. W. 77th Street is a 4 -lane undivided Arterial roadway with a center left turn lane fi•om Parklawn Avenue to Industrial Boulevard, west of TH 100. Street access and access to adjacent developments including the existing Pentagon Office site is provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on W. 77th Street is 30 mph. The existing lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: France Avenue at 76th Street — Traffic Signal Control SB France Ave approaching 76th Street — one free right, three through, one left NB France Ave approaching 76th Street — one free right, four through, one left EB 76th Street approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, two left WB 76th Street approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, two left France Avenue at Minnesota Drive — Traffic Signal Control SB France Ave approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, four through, one left NB France Ave approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, three through, one left EB Minnesota Drive approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, one left WB Minnesota Drive approaching France Ave — one fi•ee right, two through, one left W 77th Street at Minnesota Drive — Traffic Signal Control SB 77th Street approaching Minnesota Drive — one right/through, one through/left NB 77th Street approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, one through, one left EB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through, one through/left WB Minnesota Drive approaching 77th Street — one free right, one through, one left MS Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 3 of 11 W. 770' Street at Parklawn Avenue — Traffic Signal Control SB Parklawn Avenue approaching 77th Street — one right, one right/through, one left NB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through/left EB 774 Street approaching Parklawn Avenue— one right/through, one through, one left WB 77t' Street approaching Parklawn Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left W. 77th Street at Computer Avenue — Traffic Signal Control SB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right, one through/left NB Computer Avenue approaching 77hh Street — one right, one through/left EB 77th Street approaching Computer Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching Computer Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left W. 77th Street at Burgundy Place — Traffic Signal Control SB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through, one left NB Driveway approaching 77th Street R- one right/through, one left EB 77th Street approaching Driveway — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching Driveway — one right/through, one through, one left W. 77" Street at TH 100 Northbound Ramp/Frontage Road Traffic Signal Control SB TH 100 Ramp approaching 771h Street — one free right, one through, two left NB Frontage Road approaching 77hh Street — one right/through, two left EB 77th Street approaching TH 100 NB Ramp — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching TH 100 SB Ramp —one right, two through, one left W. 77th Street at TH 100 Southbound Ramp/Frontage Road -Traffic Signal Control SB TH 100 Ramp approaching 77th Street —one free right, one through, two left NB Frontage Road approaching 77'4 Street—one right, one through, one left EB 77th Street approaching TH 100 NB Ramp — one right/through, one through, one left WB 771h Street approaching TH 100 SB Ramp — one free right, two through, one left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in April 2013 in conjunction with the Gateway AUAR update and in January 2014. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. The attached Figure 4 shows the existing intersections and driveways along the corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study, with the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must,be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. The Gateway AUAR identified adjacent development projects in Edina and Bloomington that have yet to be completed. These developments for the projects in Bloomington are shown in Treble 1. In order to account for these and other development background growth in traffic the Hennepin County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic to the 2020 and 2030 analysis years, AT Pentagon Park pevelopnent City of Edina February 19 201.4 Page 4 of 19 Table 1- Sunttmrtry ofAdiar_ent Radounlnn»sant Arnssnrnle Development Summag of Proposals Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Partnership Phase I and 2 completed Phase 3 to add an additional ..(Norman Pointe 312,000 sq. ft. of office in the future Ryan Companies US, Inc. Phase I and 2 completed. Phase 3 to add an additional (Marketpoint) 250,000 sq. ft. of office in the future. Covington Apartments 250 Apartment units — Approved, under construction. 8100 Office Tower 2554000 ftp of office - Future Hotel 100 Rooms -:Future Luxembourg Apartments 282 Apartment units - Approved, under construction OATI Office/Data 100,000 fl of office - Future Center Hotel 257 Rooms - Future Norman Pointe 111 312,000 ftp Office - Future Office Tower Marketpoint III Office 250,000 W Office — Future Tower In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site in Edina was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These projects included: Burgundy Place Development— The Burgundy Place development site is located west of the Pentagon Park development on the north side of 77°t Street. It is planned to include approximately 17,000 sf of retail space and 36 apartment units. This development is assumed to be completed for the 2020 analysis. Byerly's Redevelopment- The City has been working with Lund Food Holdings for the reconstruction of the existing Byerly's grocery store site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road to include: a new 47,119 square foot Byerly's store; a six/seven-story 1.09 -unit apartment building; a six/seven-story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,711 square foot retail area, and; a six -story, 48 -unit apartment building with 11,162 square feet of retail space on the first level. This project is currently under construction and will be partially completed in 2014 and assumed to be fully completed for the 2020 analysis. Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 5 of 19 Tbink Batik Development - The City recently approved the proposed redevelopment of the Szechuan Star site at 3655 Hazelton Road adjacent to the Byerly's site to include an $,441 sf bank building with a four lane drive thru. The project is planned for construction in 2014 and assumed fully completed for the 2020 and 2030 analysis years. Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion. consists of a 77,500 sf (gross area), two-story building located on the north side of the existing hospital. building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) —The City recently apXroved the redevelopment of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65 Strut. The proposed site included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65'h Avenue site with a five story 96,500 sf medical office building. However, recently the City was presented a revised site plan changing the use on the site to a 209 unit senior housing and skilled care facility. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Southdale Residential - The City recently approved the addition of 232 apartment units with associated parking in the existing Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of 69* Street and York Avenue. This project is currently under construction. It is assumed that the project will be open and is included as part of the 2020 and 2030 background traffic. Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This figure includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all leasable space will be occupied and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development — A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 691" Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2015 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2020 and 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other Simi lar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9"' Edition. The table shows the AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses. ks Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 6 of 19 Table 2 - Estimated Additional Back round Tri Generation - Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Burgundy Place Development 17,000 sf and 36 units 54 32 22 69 35 34 Byerly's Redevelopment 73,450 sf and 234 units 369 174 1.95 411 231 180 Think Bank Development 8.441sf 102 58 44 206 103 103 Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 36 21 15 24 10 14 Senior Housing 209 units 27 18 9 40 18 22 Southdale Apartments 232 units 118 24 94 144 94 50 Shopping Center 143,880 sf 138 86 52 533 256 277 Restaurant 8000 sf 87 48 39 79_F_ 47 1 32 oource: insunne of n-ansportation hngnaeers D'tp Generation Manual, 9th Edition Site Expansion Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the Pentagon Park Phase 1 proposed site development is shown below in Table 3 and the full development of the site is shown in Table 4. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The tables show the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed site. Table 3 - Estimated Trip Generation — Phase 1 Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In I Out Hotel 425 rooms 3791 1896 1896 285 165 120 298 146 152 Office 500 ksf 5515 2758 2758 780 686 94 745 127 618 Retail 25 ksf 1108 554 554 25 20 1 5 68 30 38 Subtotal New Trips 10414 5207 5207 1090 871 219 1111 303 808 Pass-by/Diverted Trips 25% Retail (277) (139) (139) (6 (5) (1) (17) (8) (9 Existing Office Occupancy 58.9 ksf (650) (325) (325 (92) (81) (11 (88) (43 (45) Total Phase 1 New Tris 9487 4743 4743 992 785 207 1 1006 1 252 754 oow-ce::nsruuie of T ransporlanort Engineers [rip Generation rl4anual, 9lh Edition A�'ei Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 7 of 19 T,.Lf- A »1'0811 Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak -Total In Out Total In Out ` Total: In Out Office 900 ksf 9927 4963 4963 1404 1236 168 1341 228 1113 Retail 15 ksf 665 333 333 15 12 3 41 18 23 Office — Walsh Title 21 ksf 232 116 116 33 29 4 32 6 26 Subtotal New Trips 10824 5412 5412 1452 1277 175 1414 252 1162 Pass-by/Diverted Trips 25% Retail (166) (83) (83) (4) (3) 1 11 (4)(7) Existing Office Occupancy 200.6 ksf 2212) (1106) (1106) (313) 275) (38) (299) (51) 248 Total Phase 2 New Tris 8846 4223 4223 1135 999 1 136 1104 197T 907 Sota•ce: Institute of 1 i•ansportation Engineers Dip Cieneralion Manua[, vrn canon Traffic Distribution Background and site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), the travel sheds for the major routes that serve the area and data provided in the Gateway AUAR. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed as shown in Table 5: "fable 3 — Development 1 rgftc Distrinution Direction AM PM In Out In Out North 27% 22% 21% 26% South 24% 13% 18% 25% East 21% 35% 22% 20% West 28% 30% 39% 29% The generated trips for the proposed Pentagon Park development were assumed to arrive or exit using the accesses on 77°i Street. The Phase 1 development will access the site via Computer Drive and the Burgundy Place driveway. These trips were assigned based on the ratio of existing traffic patterns on each respective roadway. The full development trips were assumed to access the site through driveways on 77t" Street and Parklawn Avenue. A6 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 8of19 Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2020 which is the year the proposed Phase 1 development would be completed and assumed to be fitlly occupied and for the 2030 conditions which represents the year the entire Pentagon Park development would be completed as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. Three development scenarios were evaluated. 1. Existing Conditions — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control. 2. No -Build — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control without the proposed Pentagon Park development. 3. Build — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control with the proposed Pentagon Park development. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non -development background traffic growth to the existing 2013/2014 traffic counts to determine the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated Pentagon Park traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the `Build" traffic conditions. The attached Figures S — 8 shows the projected 2020 and 2030 No -Build and Build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the impacted intersections and driveway adjacent to the development. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing 2014 Conditions 2. Projected 2020 No Build 3. Projected 2020 Build 4. Projected 2030 No Build 5. Projected 2030 Build This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Analysis Methodolaey The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to 'T" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to snake it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. � � Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 9 of 19 LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 6. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing for decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized. intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 6 - Lttersecdorr Level o Service Ranges Source: Higlnvaycapacity manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LDS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D/E is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas such as Edina. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS E/F may be acceptable in highly congested urban areas for limited durations or distances, or for low-volume legs of some intersections. API Cwtrol Dela Seconds) Signalized 'Un-Sigawked A :510 510 B 10-20 t0-15 C '20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 > 50 Source: Higlnvaycapacity manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LDS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D/E is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas such as Edina. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS E/F may be acceptable in highly congested urban areas for limited durations or distances, or for low-volume legs of some intersections. API Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February, 19, 2014 Page 10 of 19 The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a ,software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turn ing-movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for fixture conditions, Output from Synchro is transferred to SitnTrat ' c, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding tragic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existing Level of Service Sumntani Table 7, 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 AMand PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. Table 7 - Existing Level ofService Intersection AM Peak .Dour PM Peak Hoar LOS Overall Delay seelveh LDS Overall Delay secN , France Ave at76 h St C (D) 31 C (D) 38 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 21 D (E) 43 77°r St at Minnesota St B (C) 17 C (D) 27 77"' 5t at Parklawn Ave B (C) 16 C (C) 24 771h St at Computer Ave 8 (C) 13 C (E) 31 774h St at Burgundy Place A (B) 8 C (D) 2I 77`x' St at TH 100 Northbound Ramp C (D) 24 D (E) 43 771t St at TH 100 Southbound Cramp C (C) 25 D (D) 43 %-. — USIMUrt Iva, (uj = Yrors7l71oaelnettl LU.Y aource: rl'SB & Associates. Inc. Forecast Trak Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was also completed for the study area intersections for 2020 which is the year after the proposed first phase of the Pentagon Park development would be completed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the full build of the Pentagon Park development and the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 8 and 9. n Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 1 t of 19 Table 8 Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour. However, during the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77`h Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76`h Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at F. Mitigation improvements that would improve all intersections and movement to an acceptable LOS E or better includes: 2020 Flo -Build Mitigation: 1. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77`h Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. 2. Improved signal timing at 77`h Street and Computer Avenue. 2030 No -Build Mitigation: 1. 2020 No -Build improvements 2. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH too Northbound Ramp 3. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive 4. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive 5. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76`h Street T..IJ.; it — Tinrannalnd M2 Ruud 7.owl af.COrviep_ C = Overall LOS, 0 — Wor si movcmenr LOS Sotn'ce: WSB & Associates, Inc. Alf 2020 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Dour PM Peak Hour Ta#ersectlon Overall Overall Overall Overall LQS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec/veh seciveh seaveb sec/veh France Ave at 7e St C (D) 33 D (E) 39 C (D) 35 - 73 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 25 D (E) 49 C (D) 28 61 77t1 St at Minnesota St B (C) 20 C (D) 28 B (C) 22 C (D) 29 77$ St at Parklawn Ave B (C) 18 C (C) 26 B (C) 20 C (C) 27 77`h St at Computer Ave B (C) 15 D (E) 48 B (C) 16 &M 85 77`h St at Burgundy Place A (C) 12 C (E) 33 A (C) 14 D (E) 39 7 Stat TH 100 C (D) 26 D (E) 49 C (D) 27 52 Northbound Ram 77 St at TH 100 C (C) 26 64 C (D) 32 , ' 91 Southbound Ramp C = Overall LOS, 0 — Wor si movcmenr LOS Sotn'ce: WSB & Associates, Inc. Alf Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 12 of 19 Table 9 — Forecasted Build with Pentagon Park Development, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour, however several movements will be at a LOS E/F. During the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at E or F with movements at LOS F. Mitigation improvements that would improve all intersections and movement to an acceptable LOS E or better includes: 2020 Build Mitigation: 1. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. 2. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp 3. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. 4. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street 5. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy Place. 2030 Build Mitigation: 1. 2020 Build improvements 2. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77t11 Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. 3. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street 4. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. 5. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. 6. Addition of a eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue, Ac Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 13 of 19 Tahto 9 Fararavt Ruild with Pentagon Park Develonniertt Intersection 2020 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hoar AM Peak $our PM Peak Hour L07S LOS Overall Delay sce/veh LOS Overall Delay seciveh LOS Overall Delay sec/veh LOS Overall' Delay seclveh France Ave at 76`h St C (D) 35 Office 69 D (D) 38 3,261,000 sf 117 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 29 D (E) 51 C (D) 31 77 774 St at Minnesota St B (C) 23 C (D) 32 B (C) 25 D (F) 48 77th St at Parklawn Ave C (D) 25 C (D) 28 B (C) 26 D (F) 42 77`h St at Computer Ave B (D) 13 2,888,060 sf 71 D (E) 37 ., , 95 771h Stat Burgundy Place C (F) 27 D (F) 50. C (F) 34 D (F) 46 77 Stat TH 100 Northbound Ram D (E) 42 63 D (F) 66 ,;M 72 77a St at TH 100 Southbound Ram D (E) 55 83 D (F) 97 120 C = Overall LOS, (D) —Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, enc. AUAR Mitigation Requirements The AUAR completed in 2007 and updated in 2013 identified several required mitigation measure to be completed at various levels and stages of development. Table 10 shows a summary of the development scenarios identified in the AUAR. Tdhtn 1tl _ .Cirmsmivri> of Rpdavr+/nnn�pnf :�rn_narior Based on the above development scenarios, the Traffic and Transportation Mitigation measures were developed and included in the AUAR. The list below shows the required mitigation from the AUAR and needs with the Pentagon Park development. 0 Existing Scenario 1: Scenario 2• Scenario 3. Scenario 4, Conditions Comprehensive Master Maximum Maximum Plan Plan Commercial Residential Office 1,546,000 sf 1,862,000 sf 3,261,000 sf 1,094,000 sf Commercial 1 15,000 sf 174,000 sf 15,000 sf 15,000 sf Retail/Hotel 1,873,000 sf Office & Light 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf Industrial Mix Residential 31,000 sf 31,000 sf 914,000 sf 31,000 sf 10581.4000 sf TOTAL: 1904 000 sf 2,888,060 sf 4 246000 sf 4 603 000 sf _319-8-6,00-0- sf Based on the above development scenarios, the Traffic and Transportation Mitigation measures were developed and included in the AUAR. The list below shows the required mitigation from the AUAR and needs with the Pentagon Park development. 0 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 14 of 19 G. Traffic and Transportation G1. Scenarios 1 and 4 The following mitigation strategies are needed for Scenario 1 and 4 to accommodate future fiill development traffic projections: Intersection: France Avenue / West 70h Street Improvement: Extend one southbound thru lane on France Avenue to create a total of four thio lanes Pentagon Park 2030 No -Build Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Southbound lanes approaching the I-494 ramps restriped to provide exclusive lanes to both westbound I-494 and eastbound I-494. The right lane will drop at the westbound I-494 ramp providing an exclusive ramp lane. The second lane will also be an exclusive lane leading to I-494 eastbound, reducing the weaving and stacking of vehicles that occur today. The County has expressed interest in participation. Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual left turn lanes on West 78th Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / Metro Boulevard Improvement: Add southbound right turn lane on Metro Boulevard, restriping the existing two southbound lanes to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, and a thru/left lane, providing dual left turn lanes. Add 300 foot eastbound left turn lane on Edina Industrial Boulevard Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Northbound TH 100 /West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot northbound right turn lane on Frontage Road Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 77th Street Pentagon Park 2020 No -Build G2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 will require all the improvements listed above in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive /France Avenue Improvement: Dual westbound left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Eastbound dual left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Ap Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 15 of 19 Intersection. Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot eastbound right turn lane on West 770 Street Pentagon Park 2020 Build Intersection: Computer Avenue / West 77th Street Improvement: Northbound dual left turn lanes on Computer Avenue Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Minnesota Drive/ West 771h Street f]ohnson Avenue Improvement: Southbound dual left turn lanes on West 77th Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build G3, Scenario 3 Scenario 3 will require all the above improvements listed under Scenarios 14 2, and 4 in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: France Avenue / West 7e Street Improvement: Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 7$`t' Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build. Interchange: TH 100 / West 77" Street Improvement: Six -lane section from. Metro Boulevard to Computer Avenue Dual left turn turns at both TH 100 Ramps (Hence an eight lane bridge) Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build 04. General The mitigation measures discussion above (GI — G3) are needed to address full build -out of the site and surrounding area. Specific mitigation measures required for proposed development plans will be established through traffic and transportation studies required for each development proposal. These proposals will need to document compliance within the AUAR and mitigation plan. G5. Transit/Non-Motorized Transportation As redevelopment occurs in the Study Area, consideration of site-specific improvements needs to be included as developments are proposed. These would include upgrading the existing transit facilities, including bus shelters, to become ADA compliant and improving the sidewalk and/or path connections in and around each .redevelopment. M6 Pentagon Park. Development City of 1rd'tna February 19, 2014 Page 16 of 19 Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of5925 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 11 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 11— Parklnp Reardrn_d nor rmy rndo Use / Location Size :Rate Parking Parking ' 425 Rooms 1.08/Room 459 Required Provided Non Residential Mix 4903 Retail 57,000 4.1/1000sf Used Development / 824,560 sf GFA/300 2750 2800 Southside Non Residential Mix Used Development / 953,000 sf GFA/300 3175 3600 Northside Total Parking 1,777,560 5925 6400 Source: City of Edina The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4h Edition. Table 12 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and theanticipatedpeak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking on the site assuming the proposed full development of the site, including the Welsh Title site. Table 12 -Site Parhin¢Dentand nor 1TF. Use Size Rate Weekday Parking Required Hotel 425 Rooms 1.08/Room 459 Office 1,421,000 sf 3.45/1000sf 4903 Retail 57,000 4.1/1000sf 234 Total Parking 5596 .30101ce. JAY11f le aJ f ransportatron �&ngmeers Parking Genera lon A4anual, Ph Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would not be adequate for the proposed development plan. M Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 17 of 19 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed full development of the Pentagon Park site includes: a 375 — 425 room hotel, 500,000sf of office and 25,000 sf of retail uses on the south parcel; 900,000 sf of office and 15,000 sf of retail on the north parcel, and; 21,000 sf of office on the Welsh Title parcel. It is assumed that the south parcel will be developed as the first phase. The site is anticipated to generate an additional 2127 trips in the AM peak hour and 2110 trips in the PM peak hour. • Additional trips will be generated from other approved or anticipated development in the surrounding area. Only a portion of these trips will affect the critical intersections adjacent to the proposed Think Bank development. • Existing traffic operations at the intersections and driveways in the study area shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2020 and 2030 shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour. However, during the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at F. • Intersection traffic operations for the Forecasted Build alternative (with the Pentagon Park development traffic) in 2020 and 2030 shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour, however several movements will be at a LOS E/F. During the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77"' Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at E or F with movements at LOS F. • The Gateway Area AUAR completed in 2007 and updated in 2013, including the Pentagon Park development area identified several required mitigation measures to be completed at various levels and stages of development. • Based on the traffic analysis mitigation improvements can be implemented to improve the overall and movement level of service to E or better at critical intersections. • The parking shown on the current site plan meets City's Code for the proposed uses. The current plan provides for 6400 parking spaces with 5925 required by City Code. Based on the ITE parking generation estimates the total parking needed for the proposed uses on the site would be 5596. A70 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 18 of 19 Based on these conclusions the following improvements are recommended: 1. 2020 No -Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound. Ramp b. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 2. 2020 Build: a. Addition of northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp c. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street e. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 771h Street and Burgundy Place. 3. 2030 No -Build: a. 2020 No -Build Improvements b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp c. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77t1' Street and Computer Drive d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive e. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76" Street 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street fi-om Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Sheet. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of a eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue, 41( Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 19 of 19 APPENDIX A?a cQe t Traffic Study Figure 1 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map A'73 ft Kett StatIstkS Land Use South ft"Oet: jww - in - 425 ft*"K 1Nkw-30WGSF ?4W-25MG5F NottlWOK& (Ake-MMOF ktaf-15.MGSF DAMONFARBERASSOUATES 508 clost SOU010- tic FOR sn", 0 11tow""If PRET MINAAY PLANNING COMMISSION �i, TIF DIAGRAM Off Irf I PA P% I EDINK MN - NCWFMOFR 6. 2011 Traffic Study Figure 2 Pentagon Park Development Site Plan Option I C4 of Edna, Minnesota Vf P t a s J �1i C 6th St al PF Ad 4 ti B71:W $ � � 12tw1 � � i� 2811p11 � � Zi' t w2(fao t,sq ra + ant 4 . (179 +- seslal7) 71xu-Stoptntersection � a�, r at+o N �• r otW .� j. r t1►�! SiBrfalixedinter&eetion (um� � (laatsw.r .�. a ligx � t r (ftp9N �► � s r (/311412 J C P C t>� 1� � >; F t4o174 � — �t� fxisting Lane Geometry Traffic Study Figure 4 Pentagon Park Development Existing (2014) Traffic Volumes City of Edina, Minnesota ,A76 gi e. 001+6s) a. s1 sl f "Dine tssgus . t I' tzgzo h "'' tbs8sa .P 'k t f 11 —s itotgrsta s 9 s 1 ssl N °s 1 +9v is k. 1416" S +- t)OINp P L; a ,. Isslltq w isi i' il6tN9 [61s)120.0 1 t f ryWss .0 ti (111411" * a 12 € 133e1a lttetos 1E LEGEND W" lot � � zstso . 144,22" e w 3101"M o R 1•s(�l R a 160t1% Thru3top Intersection k *, 50t4m J j 4 r of $) J 16 a W(Gq Signalized Intersection [ iq 0s o W# t t (M)340 r 4 twss)rNs .« si g itN)sts .. g 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts � � F M1O5 NN s W t$0s + — ✓ IV Turning Movement(Arection Traffic Study e ,!' Pentagon Park Development 2020 No f=igure t Development '" City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes ,t ,� 4 r esdtwt J i� r usleet J; 4 ar uetsN fess +r � # !' t�Am •* 5 � !' tJ7a1K ,r 1 � l* JOW 17 771n Street ,l � � � +► bled Ar:M•— ztettnq s g ,. ztettea »I { ar aol to 1 � 4 r amt�i letsl#tt y h f �` t+efa .r 1 '� f htt►ms � = _ ,49411 tett s 'n e e i- easf,o,a S o � +- 751is7oJ :Yr4 yj � +- 16e(u) Thru-stop intrrsectlon t r e•1 � h ► � t r zutea .► � L r of a �✓ � t,,,,�y Signalized Intersection l,a u ✓ 1 t l' paaalls +" 1 f �` t u1 s '" �' � � V t,zeyluo .+ � = s lasasoo w "u ya � lu8 F r► y� �' g N - "t"��' TurnMg Movemen#Direction Traffic Study Figure 6 >y Pentagon Park Development 2020 With Phase 1 Development ,Y City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes A7� J 1 4 A- lot" (5141" .r `1 t t U1a1ra0 a � ( 35110 6 u0(0w11 a •- 300tr001 ► ; 4 If- 10(tp, PF c s i s1 , � � a Z « 150n33S) +J j tk it Milo ( as IS .e nxpslu�s � ► LEGEND 16 10(" or 9 It- u(w � Thru Stgp Intersection a +- xOsCmxs) 6 ,r• 00(50! g o R ;.0 � 4 *• 1001300! r x101 {.�+q Signalizedlntmection 11011os 1' tx3gxa -0 t { 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts "il4R Turning Movement D(rectton (1W411Si (ss►xro (s1 s > " Traffic Study �> Pentagon Park Development ` City of Edina, Minnesota h7l "I Er "twos J t. 21512rse fslnro.0 ti R I +. ISo"I o F w.3»1x031 ; j t. 1r twl !1M(ao .0 (i4.v J +. 1sSJaEn �+ Y ` r 90 (0015.0 � t 0515 � sN! Figure 7 2030 No Development Traffic Volumes fr^ 450{190 $ +�"' S25imt0 �. '�' IS �• enisl8 �� rt r 3 4 ,r ,ehlsl r j t. ,e tnloq � r ztelzno 15Y�tn J +� j /� Ian ♦ h � � (50.9 a S f t (i710e15 � � � � n+00 � �g � 0 Imnl9►5 �+ �. � S iiAll R Q 4 ,5{100 r � l r toi >b �• ,.� � 4 r tnt�1 17e0135 ✓: A � f (110!0 '�► i t -- a •- aStMra � S R ,- 5u111q � � � « ,n1t01 Thtu-Susp MtelsecNon ,,� � 4 t aslwll r ,� i. r of � J � ti r wltp Signalized lnte►section I lelws "'' �` fi r p15ap5m x � � {� lacb 5 � # f 'I Ah StrLet Or lip ns151wes -. 8 s � Ingsm •. a cr s Iseq s .` u >g � N 50 (75j AM (PMj Counls Itm►s�s -a � � l 51 5 ++ _ y I �u s � � `" A ejrl` 7wnMtg Movement pirection N A w, Traffic Study Figure 8 Pentagon Park Development 7030 With Phases 9 852 Development t` City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW UPDATE GATEWAY STUDY AREA - UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA Original AUAR: September 2007 Update 1: June 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. City of Edina 701 Xenia Avenue - Suite 300 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis, MN 55416 Edina, MN 55424 763-541-4800 952-826-0460 Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No.1686.37 A TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................1 II. Approved Development/Current Conditions.......................................................2 III. Areas Remaining to be Developed..........................................................................2 IV. Update to the Environmental Review....................................................................2 V. Mitigation Summary and Update...............................................................................7 VI. AUAR Update Review...............................................................................................14 List of Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 USGS Location Map Figure 3 Aerial Photo Figure 4-1 Scenario 1 Figure 4-2 Scenario 2. Figure 4-3 Scenario 3 Figure 4-4 Scenario 4 Figure 5 Adjacent Developments Appendix A - Figures Appendix B - Agency Correspondence Final Alternative Urban AreawideReview Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSBProjectNo. 1686-37� I. Introduction and Purpose The Gateway Study Area (Study Area) is approximately 135 acres. The Study Area is bounded by Minnesota Trunk Highway 100 (TH 100) on the west; France Avenue on the east; 76th Street West and Fred Richards Golf Course on the north; and Edina's border with Bloomington on the south. The area is shown on Figures 1, 2, and 3. The Study Area currently contains a mixture of light industrial/warehouse, commercial, office and residential uses. There is a total of 1,904,000 gross square feet (gsf) of these uses in the existing conditions. The City of Edina adopted the Final GUAR on November 5, 2007. Pursuantto Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7, for the AUAR to remain valid as the environmental review document for the area, the document needs to be updated every five years until all development in the study area has received final approval. Since redevelopment has not occurred in the study area and the AUAR expired in November 2012, the purpose of this document is to update the AUAR pursuant to Minnesota Rules. The 2007 AUAR included an analysis of the following development scenarios (Figure 4-1 to 4-4): Scenario 1— Comprehensive Plan Scenario 2 — Master Plan Scenario Scenario 3 — Maximum Commercial Build Scenario Scenario 4 — Maximum Residential Scenario Table 1: Summary of Redevelopment Scenarios In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Final Alternative UrbauAreawide Review Update Page 1 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 93 Existing Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3. Scenario 4: Conditions Comprehensive Master Plan Maximum Maximum Plan Commercial Residential Office 1,546,000 1,862,000 3,261,000 1,094,000 Commercial / Retail Hotel 1,873,000 15,000 174,000 15,000 15,000 Office & Light Industrial Mix 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 Residential 31,000 1 31,000 1 914,000 1 31,000 1 1,581,000 TOTAL: 1,904,000 2,888,000 4,246,000 1 4,603,000 1 3,986,000 In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Final Alternative UrbauAreawide Review Update Page 1 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 93 for review on the City's web -site at dirt•//edinamn eov/index ph»?section-community-deyeloptnent pllan ing. IL Approved Development/Current Conditions No redevelopment has occurred within the study area. Figure 3 shows the aerial photo for the site. In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ill. Areas Remaining to be Developed No redevelopment has occurred within the study area. The initial potential redevelopment that triggered the initial AUAR in 2007 did not come to fruition. Recently, there has been renewed interest in redevelopment of the area. The redevelopment plans are within or below the densities analyzed in the AUAR. Timeline: The 2007 AUAR anticipated redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quad areas (approximately 39 acres) to begin in 2008 and be completed within 5-7 years. The remaining 96 acres did not have a specific timeline for redevelopment This redevelopment has not occurred. The current estimate for redevelopment timeline for the area is 5-10 years. IV Update to the Environmental Review WildiI%: The DNR Natural Heritage Database was reviewed to provide an update for any threatened and endangered species. This review and DNR correspondence is included in Appendix B. There are no new incidents of rare or endangered species within the study area. Contamination and Fast. Land Use: Public MPCA database information was reviewed to update this section of the AUAR to identify verified or potential hazardous substances and petroleum release sites associated with the project area or surrounding area. The following databases were reviewed as part of this investigation: • MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood?" website search • MPCA Storage Tank leak site website search Twenty -mine database listings were identified for the project area, Some of the identified sites were listed on more than one database and the majority of the listings were for small quantity hazardous waste generator (15) and tank sites (7). Inclusions on these databases do not directly indicate an environmental hazard and no spills or mishandling of hazardous waste was identified during the review, However, the fallowing database listings for the project area were determined to directly indicate historic or current environmental contamination: FfnatAtternadve Urban Areas" Review Update page 2 Gateway Stt*Area City ofBdtna, MN WSHFmlect No. 2686.37 June 2013 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUS13 Sites • MPCA Leak #4105 - Pentagon Office Park located at 4930 West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Site closure indicates that the contamination, if present, has been investigated and determined to not pose a threat to human health or the environment Note: site closure does not indicate that the site is free of contamination. • MPCA Leaf #627 - Pentagon Office Park located at West 771h Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. • MPCA Leak # 617 - Roberts Automatic Products located at 4451 West 76th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Sites • MPCA VIC #28660 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530, 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 771h Street, Edina, MN 55435. • MPCA VIC #29410 - HiIlcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 5 543 5. • MPCA VIC #2890 - Parklawn located at 7625 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN,\ 55435. • MPCA VIC #13540 - National Rental Car located at 7700 France Avenue, Edina, MN 55435. Petroleum Brownfields Sites • MPCA PB #4182 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530, 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435 (also a VIC site). • MPCA PB #4239 - Hillcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 55435 (also a VIC site). Wastewater System: The AUAR analyzed the wastewater system in the area, including the Metropolitan Council's interceptor, BN -499: Since the 2007 AUAR, a wastewater project was completed in the area. Asa result of the AUAR and potential re -development anticipated within the study area, the City of Bloomington, in conjunction with Met Council, upgraded Lift Station 10 (MCES L-55) to a near-term capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Project improvements also involved constructing a new 16 -inch forcemain to replace the existing 12 -inch forcemain in West 84th Street in Bloomington providing a long-term capacity in the forcemain of 4.8 mgd. Inter -community flows from Edina have been -redirected to the new forcemain, essentially bypassing the gravity portions of MCES Interceptor BN -499 to provide additional capacity for re -development in Bloomington. Water Supply System: No changes to the water supply system have occurred in the area. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update' Page 3 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSR Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 A%� Storm Water Management: The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District adopted updated rules in 2008. Based on these rules, if a redevelopment project disturbs more than 50 percent of the existing impervious surface on the parcel (or increases the imperviousness of the entire parcel by more than 50 percent), retention of one inch of runoff from all the impeNious surface will need to be provided. Also, peak flow runoff rates cannot exceed the existing conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm events and the runoff from a 2.5 -inch storm event from the parcel will need to be treated to remove at least 60% of the phosphorus and 90% of the total suspended solids. Additionally, Edina Lake, which is north of the project area, was added to the impaired waters list in 2008. Edina Lake is impaired for nutrients/eutrophication. No TMDL study has been completed to date. Transportation: The AUAR completed in 2007 analyzed the impacts of the four development scenarios for the years 2014 and 2030. The analysis for both years assumed a 1% per year growth in general background traffic, the approved development in the Cities of Bloomington and Edina (see Cumulative Impacts) and the proposed Gateway Development traffic. Updated traffic counts were conducted the week of April 1, 2013 at selected intersection and roadway segments on 771h Avenue. The updated traffic counts were then compared to those assumed in the 2007 AUAR to determine if the analysis and recommended mitigation measures were still valid. The peak hour traffic counts ranged from 5% to 15% less than those counted for the base year in the AUAR in 2007. In addition, the 2013 counts were 65% to 75% less than the 2014 Scenario 1 condition, which had the smallest associated trip generation. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts used as a baseline in the AUAR were from the 2005 MnDOT State Aid counts. In 2009 these counts were updated and in general, these counts were at or slightly lower than those in 2005. The 2013 ADT counts compared to the 2009 ADT counts showed a slight increase (10%) on the section of 77th Street from TH 100 to Parklawn Avenue. Based on the facts that 1) no Gateway Development has occurred in the area, and 2) the majority of the additional development has been in Bloomington and Edina and their traffic generation included in the new 2013 traffic counts, and 3) the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions (see Cumulative Impacts), it can be concluded that the future year analysis and recommended mitigation is still valid. Cumulative Impacts: The Study Area and its surroundings are within a first -ring suburb of Minneapolis that is generally fully developed. Cumulative impacts will generally be driven by either individual parcel redevelopment or area -wide redevelopment. To analyze cumulative impacts for the Study Area, the information Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Pape 4 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 r J V from the 2007 AUAR was updated to reflect known or approved redevelopment projects within or near the TH 100 and I-494 area, Table 2 summarizes the known redevelopment pians and updates the 2007 AUAR in the area and Figure 5 shows the location of these projects. Table 2. Summary of Adjacent Redevelopment Proposals Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Phase 1 and 2 completed Phase 3 to add an additional 312,000 sq. ft. of office in Partnership the future Norman Pointe Walser Real Estate 11, LLC 50,000 sq. ft. car dealership project completed. Addition of 112,000 ftz of medical office space completed Ryan Companies phase 1 and 2 completed. Phase 3 to add an additional 250,000 sq, ft. of office in US, Inc. the future. (Marketpoint) Hilton Hotel 1256 room hotel and adjoining restaurant completed Normandale 122 space parking ramp to meet demand for existing offices completed Bloomington Investments, LLC United Properties 285,000 square foot office building at 8200 Norman Center Drive completed Covington 1250 Apartment units —Approved, under construction. Apartments 8100 Office Tower 1255,000 ft2 of office - Future Hotel 1 100 Rooms —Future Luxembourg 282 Apartment units - Approved, wider construction Apartments OA TI Office/Data 100,000 ftz of office - Future Center Venture Bank 37,000 ftz of office— Completed 2009 Office Final Alternative Urban AreawideReview Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June2013 417 Page 5 Final Alternative Urban Areatvide Review Update Gateivay Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 AVf Page 6 Hotel 257 Rooms - Future Norman Pointe 111 312,000 ft2 Office - Future Office Tower Marketpoint Ill 250,000 ft2 Office - Future Office Tower 6500 France 209 Unit Senior Housing / Skilled Care - In review process Avenue Redevelopment of 40,000 ft2 of a movie theater to 86,000 ft2 of retail Cypress Properties development (Not Yet Completed) Approved increase of retail space from 154,000 ft2 to 196,500 ft2 by 2008. Target (Completed) Approved construction of an 18 story building with 79 condominidms, a 225 Westin room hotel, and 7,000 ft2 restaurant (Completed) York Place Approved construction of 49,000 ft2 of retail space and 86 senior apartments. Development Replaces 52,750 ft2 of office space. (Development Completed as CVS) TE Miller Development (7380 Net increase of 2,000 gsf of office space (Completed) France Office) Edina 6996 France 3,000 ft2 Retail and 5,000 ft2 Office - Completed Avenue Centennial Lakes 2,000 ft Coffee Shop Approved under construction 2 P - Pp Coffee Shop Fairview Southdale 30,000 ft2 Emergency Room expansion - In review process Expansion Southdale 232 Units - Approved under construction Residential Mole Foods 32,000 ft2 Whole Food Grocery store - Completed --r YMCA 21,000 ft2 Expansion - Completed Final Alternative Urban Areatvide Review Update Gateivay Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 AVf Page 6 V. Mitigation Summary and Update Many of the mitigation measures outlined In the 2007 AtIAR still remain valid. The updated mitigation measures are outlined below and either remain in effect from the 2007 AUAR or have been updated based on new analysis as noted. A. Land Use Compatibility and Permitting Al. The proposed change in land use of Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 at the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads site will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A2. Any redevelopment will be required to meet Edina zoning requirements. A3. Any project proposers will be required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits. A4. If components of a proposed project exceed Edina City Code requirements, variances from the City's requirement will need to be applied for by the developer. The City will review these variance requests and make a determination as to the approval or denial of the project as part of the review process. A project proposer could also seek to amend the City Code. This request would also be reviewed by the City. B. Geologic Hazards, Erasion Control, and Hazardous Material B1. Prior to demolition an asbestos survey shall be completed by a project proposer. At the time ofdemolition, any necessary asbestos abatement will need to be completed by the project proposer in compliance with MPCA requirements. B2. The management, containment, and cleanup of any spills that may occur within the Study Area during construction will be addressed by the permit holders of the MPCA NPDES/SDS Storm Water Construction Permit and its accompanying Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan preparation. B3. if a neighborhood convenience store and gas station is proposed, the project proposer will be required to adhere to State regulations for containment of underground petroleum tanks and an annual license would be needed. 114. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including temporary and permanent seeding and staging plans, will be required to be submitted by each project proposer and reviewed by Edina. 135. The project proposer will need to develop an erosion control plan and submit this plan to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Final AltemaUve UrbanAreaivide Review Update Page 7 GatewgySt,dyArea u4yOfkd1nr4 MN MR Proled No, 1686.37 June2d13 B6. During construction, the project proposer and their contractor will implement Best Management Practices as needed to prevent erosion and sedimentation of downstream water resources. B7. Edina will develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit for the construction of any public infrastructure improvements (sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main) that disturb one acre of land or more. B8. Edina will conduct erosion control inspections during construction. B9. Project proposers will make environmental hazard investigation documents, such as Phase I Environmental Assessments, available to Edina. B10. Project proposers will be required to remediate any contaminated soils encountered in conformance with MPCA regulations. B11. Project proposers will be required to remove and properly dispose of trash and debris located within a project site, including all demolition materials that may include asbestos. B12. Municipal waste hauler companies will make residential and commercial recycling programs available to the Study Area. General municipal waste will be removed by these waste hauler companies. B13. The NPDES Construction Site permit requires a site specific SWPPP to be completed for the construction by the project proposer. This SWPPP is required to include pollution prevention management measures for solid waste and hazardous material spills that occur during construction. B14. Mitigation includes conformance with the Edina spill response plan. Spills will be reported to the fire chief and/or applicable City Staff. The fire chief and/or applicable City Staff will in turn notify any other appropriate officials depending on the nature of the spill. BIS. Project proposers will be required to develop a temporary dewatering plan for construction activities, review this plan with Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for approval, and conform to the dewatering requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and NPDES Construction permit. B16. If a redevelopment proj ect involves permanent dewatering for underground facilities, a detailed dewatering plan is required to be developed by the project proposer. This plan would include anticipated dewatering amounts, direction of discharge, analysis of impact on adjacent ponds and downstream receiving waters, and impact on the organic material within the Study Area for the Final Alternative Urban Areawlde Review Update Pgge 8 Gateway Study Area City ofEdina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 potential for subsidence. The plan will need to be submitted to Edina, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and DNR for review and/or approval. C. Fish, Wildlife, Wetlands, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources C1. Buildings to be removed as part of redevelopment will be field checked by the project proposer to determine if there are nesting Peregrine Falcons on the structure. If falcons are noted nesting on the structure, the site cannot be disturbed until the juvenile birds have fledged and left the nest. C2. The project proposer will be required to delineate wetlands within their project boundaries, if any, and review these delineations with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Edina to determine jurisdictional status. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District is the Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act and will review and verify any wetland delineations. C3. If wetland impact is proposed, the project proposer will be required to minimize impact to the maximum extent possible and mitigate for any unavoidable impacts in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act. D. Municipal Water Use and Service D1. Edina will work with Bloomington to determine the needs for water system capacity improvements, water main upgrades, and future service to the Gateway Study Area. D2. In conjunction with their Comprehensive Plan update, Edina will complete an update to the 2002 Water Distribution System Analysis for the entire city to determine what current and future water system improvements may be necessary to continue to serve the City's water needs and maintain a water system firm capacity above the maximum daily water use within the City. D3. As redevelopment occurs, Edina will complete an analysis of the water mains within the Study Area to determine if performing water main replacement is necessary and if it should occur in conjunction with other potential infrastructure improvements, such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation improvements. D4. Any abandoned wells found within the Study Area will be sealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. This will be the responsibility of the project proposer. D5. In accordance with Edina's Wellhead Protection Plan, continued protection of the existing Drinking Water Supply Management Areas located within the Study Area will be required for redevelopment projects. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 `q Pgge 9 06. There is potential for areas that redevelop within the Bloomington service area to request to be served by Edina. If this occurs, additional analysis and water main improvements will need to be completed by Edina in coordination with Bloomington. D7. Individual redevelopment may require the installation of service pumps to serve multi -story buildings and to provide adequate fire protection. The size and type of pumps will vary based on individual building characteristics, should meet the existing local building and fire protection codes, and will be the responsibility of the developer. E. Water Quality and Quantity E1. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet the policies of the most current Edina Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. E2. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet the policies of the most current Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements. E3. Redevelopment within the Study Area will be required to limit peak runoff rates to at least existing conditions and reduce the runoff volume so as not to negatively impact the existing storm sewer system. E4. Redevelopment needs to reduce the amount of impervious surface within the project limits or develop a site specific storm water management plan that shows that the project will not impact downstream pollutant or volume loading. E5. if warranted by Edina's Nondegradation Plan, project proposers will need to include storm water management strategies that reduce the total suspended solid loadings, total phosphorous pollutant loadings, and storm water runoff volumes.from the Study Area. E6. Any redevelopment project that disturbs more than one acre of land is required to develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit from the MPCA. E7. Edina and project proposer(s) will investigate the expansion of the existing ponding areas within the Fred Richards Golf Course to provide additional storage and treatment as outlined in Edina's Water Resource Management Plan. E8. The Cities of Edina and Bloomington will petition the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to expand the South Pond (SP 1) pond to provide additional storm water treatment for the area. E9. As Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are completed for Nine Mile Creep the results of these studies will be reviewed by Edina. Redevelopment in Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update GatewayStuejyArea Qtly nfEdtna, MN WSSProfetNa, 1686.37 fune2013 nVe 1b the Study Area will be required to meet any mitigation and pollutant load reductions that may be outlined within the TMDL studies. Update: This mitigation measure also applies to Edina Lake. E10. The project proposer will review and determine which Low Impact Development (LID) practices are feasible to be used for each parcel. Edina will review the LID techniques and encourage their use to the greatest extent possible.. E11. A maintenance plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for privately constructed and maintained storm water management facilities. F. Wastewater Mitigation Plan F1. Any redevelopment activities that may increase the total sanitary sewer flows within Service Area A beyond threshold limits for peak capacity will require upgraded facilities within the Gateway Study Area (Computer Avenue sanitary sewer) and Bloomington (MCES Bloomington Lift Station No. 10) to accommodate increased flows. Update: Bloomington Lift Station No. 10 is also denoted at MCES Lift Station L- 55. In 2011, the pumps in the existing lift station were upgraded to provide a near-term peak capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Future increases in flow for re -development will need to be evaluated as the final lift station site is proposed to be relocated with the proposed future realignment of I-494. F2. Edina, Bloomington, and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services will continue discussions and analysis regarding proposed capacity upgrades to Bloomington Lift Station No. 10 and the MCES BN -499 Interceptor along West 84th Street in Bloomington. Update: Capacity to L-55 (Bloomington LS 10 was increased to a peak flow of 1.8 MDG as previously discussed. Also in 2011,The MCES BN -499 interceptor was replaced with a 16 -inch forcemain from L-55 southerly and westerly along W. 84th Street to a gravity sewer approximately 600 feet west of France Avenue. The forcemain was designed to carry peak flows for the proposed redevelopment area. F3. Edina will complete its update to their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. F4. Edina will upgrade Lift Station No. 22. Final Alternative UrbanAreatvideReviety Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 m3 Page 11 F5. In conjunction with redevelopment activities, Edina will determine the condition of the existing sanitary sewer pipe within the Gateway Study Area to determine if repairs or replacement is necessary based on in-place pipe condition and infiltration potential. G. Traffic and Transportation G1. Scenarios 1 and 4 The following mitigation strategies are needed for Scenario 1 and 4 to accommodate future full development traffic projections: Intersection: France Avenue / West 761h Street Improvement: Extend one southbound thru lane on France Avenue to create a total of four thru lanes Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Southbound lanes approaching the I-494 ramps restriped to provide exclusive lanes to both westbound 1-494 and eastbound 1-494. The right lane will drop at the westbound I-494 ramp providing an exclusive ramp lane. The second lane will also be an exclusive lane leading to 1- 494 eastbound, reducing the weaving and stacking of vehicles that occur today. The County has expressed interest in participation. Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual left turn lanes on West 78th Street Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / Metro Boulevard Improvement: Add southbound right turn lane on Metro Boulevard, restriping the existing two southbound lanes to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, and a thru/left lane, providing dual left turn lanes. Add 300 foot eastbound left turn lane on Edina Industrial Boulevard Intersection: Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot northbound right turn lane on Frontage Road Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 77111 Street FtuatAtternattve Urban Areawide Update Page 12 Gateway Study Area City of6dtn4. MN WSB Project No. 268637 June 2013 G2. G3. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 will require all the improvements listed above in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement: Dual westbound left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Eastbound dual left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Intersection: Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot eastbound right turn lane on West 77th Street Intersection: Computer Avenue / West 77th Street Improvement: Northbound dual left turn lanes on Computer Avenue Intersection: Minnesota Drive / West 776 Street/ Johnson Avenue Improvement- Southbound dual left turn lanes on West 77th Street Scenario 3 Scenario 3 will require all the above improvements listed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 in addition to the fallowing: Intersection: Minnesota drive / France Avenue Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Intersection: France Avenue / West 781h Street Improvement: Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Interchange: TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Six -lane section from Metro Boulevard to Computer* Avenue Dual left turn turns at both TH 100 Ramps (Hence an eight - lane bridge) 04. General The mitigation measures discussion above (G1- G3) are needed to address full build -out of the site and surrounding area. Specific mitigation measures required for proposed development plans will be established through traffic and transportation studies required for each development proposal. These proposals will need to document compliance within the AUAR and mitigation plan. G5. Transit/Non-Motorized Transportation As redevelopment occurs in the Study Area, consideration of site-specific improvements needs to be included as developments are proposed. These Final Alternative Urban Areawkle Review Update Page 13 Gateway StudyArea CyofEdina,mV WS8 Project No. 168637 fune2013 would include upgrading the existing transit facilities, including bus shelters, to become ADA compliant and improving the sidewalk and/or path connections in and around each redevelopment. H Odor, Noise, and Dust H1. During; construction activities, the project proposer and contractor shall observe all dust control Best Management Practices for fugitive dust H2. Edina will limit construction activities and any other activities that produce noise audible outside the perimeter of a property to between 7:OOAM to 9:OOPM Monday through friday and between 8:00AM and 7:00PM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. H3. Noise mitigation will be necessary if any residential units are constructed near Receptor 2, located in the southwest quadrant of TH 100/West 77th Street. Any residential buildings should be constructed using noise abatement methods. Noise abatement requirements to conform to state standards can be found in Minn. Rules 7030.0050, subp. 3. 1. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources R. Prior to redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Quads sites that would require razing of the existing structures, an evaluation and documentation of the historical and architectural significance ofthe sites will be needed by the project proposer. This information will need to be submitted to Edina. J. Cumulative Impacts J1. Edina will work with Bloomington and potentially participate in a regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the TH 100/1-494 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. Edina will also coordinate with other entities to address cumulative impacts. These items have been addressed in other areas of the AUAR and include mitigation plan items D1, D6, E8, F1, and F2. Vi. AUAR Update Review This AUAR. Update has been reviewed pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7. The Gateway Study Area AUAR will remain valid for an additional five years from the City Council adoption date. Pkat Alternative UrbanAreawideReview Update Page 14 Gateway StwlyArea City of Edina, AN WSB Project Ne.1686.37 ftweZ013 4 Appendix A — Figures 117 Figure 7 Legend 0 4 g " - e Location MapMiles WSB Project Location GatewayAUARAmx*ft 1w - g L� —'Fry{'A7�r y x,sac cls J f3 �T 1 Si { V H NEW Leaend Gateway Study Area c .r e figure 2 USGS Location Map GatewayAUAR rrx� n -I 0 Sao 1,000 WSB zi Feet s >s G fat tk >s 1:1 � �' t } + r y wx 7 {' "i t, " -.I-, r {31.000 GSF It .,.{xj� (38 Unft) �a [A lI it 1 t I k ALM,, r W iwl t y �Y r pq tr!r " LY t v. y fr4�k, a b 3 [ Ilk a�1 (hi l tt }' 1 7 f E , al Y. t »`4 d UO a v x � 1 ) r t �; '.ry.�'�11ybA� Nit,, i i a X f 14 r r AL., i a X mw E-4974 j !N1 Rtl:f r ��^ � �`�f�{ "'!A �,!9 Y 7 xir..� t'rl r sir- .aa �o-.�•#i"Ti{�37.i �....._-"-'...>.,.-.-r 2 zl Tam I s r s_ k {' s �a <, IrI 1 .: 1,) An F I " 1 n ,1y }t'j•F �i„ '�•v''.,t :' r t t rp t 04 14 lir �� r '�✓ a "^y352• T(p>T 1 .Y `"°'saaw',9emra�*ttm'��^JAF'.;..„_. '-,:�aa.-r«a.r.S.ka.:o •- �''. 451r MCA , ;ni y� a rte' `; Jt�� ,�, '- J .,► �. 3: {"-,�'"°`.. � ' •d"�, � �' �., p' � ,� t� �n : <,n � k J+�F � k i �i F #t a �.: ,,, � '� ' j � y..sAr' L°"`k�n*e a�, � ..gyp 'q9e..�=�` , i" t a="—q �, ,1 9a 4 Y k q t F e. Ef, t rye r� all QW411 , Q GatawayAUAR n Knn 1 nnn & rwme w. _ ��':F '•F f �. ,•D _ d '' 65THfS7 W 5TH(5T'CV Proposed Redevelopment Areas 2007 AUAR 3T VV--- rS�Gateway AUAR Study Area (135.55 Acres) w .2 Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Partnership s 4 Ryan Companies LIS, Inc 68TiiSrt 5 Valser Real Estate 11, LLC a� �rt>ti Development, nq O •� r� r'A�' TH ST UV C7i :CC �P• 2 �' { 47 United Properties �.a ,_ .. Y ti' 4 may.. a u # 69TH ST V'J � A !Covington8 8100 Office Tower - 255,000 sq. ft. (future) A' J• fi Potential/0t{ LJ ourg artments - 292 units (under construction) t 1 •Ae�D.� 100,000 e' ' 7S T" VVI Z",� I Hotel - 2V : , w,S7 STxL'J Tower- Ifi . rooms J Norman Pointe 111 Office + ,'j r 4`G v d,2t1E:ST �. �' ,�r°„.;, 4j „{ :ii��''s^/.✓ j� x �SK'rQR r i GHER GR cYt R y� q2F a T„ VLPRQh EFaAGE'I, 3RfJ ST w J Y aS' �wT. vv i'O Aw�ELL OR ` x U GP M!l A Y. t w rk4 ra�� xw ai ASS' i,” .WL+ ORDiDR V.�'s s f I,Y 1 r w3THrc t r+� /,,,.��" i C w1. � � � r ' n• f- r ,74TH Si_ �� 1 �p f#"p "«„* PARK AW,t7 AbF Y i 4v4 if cEDUiv�',�P ► TN ST tiM } Ftj , �f3 ii .T F t i..-. � tR ." I � tea. i�. Z 77'47 �V. Y °' ! r °✓'�% Tsq %y� i) i Lj 1 d: w f t 3 f l? EOINA Ih •� 1 ( as aR� m }.wp v ITH+S �1n)Ar w t w c ! �i.,•i,3�j3� # „+ ' ,` i �� ^�., .+ 666 sE �t.'"• ^ Ay... v�KING DR.ff,, �� t4T� JT V> y + � a4> tri"w3 i.,.�f�� "���� eC y,� � �� �EDIwv KSO�' S � �}( �• nt� � t Ta � � � � � Y' ,a 2 w.r �w�� e . I �� t�t+` iw•Y: . + "NTfI% "TH.S REE Clew v TUC pT=rHN✓v 791 °• 787HrST tiV .a"„ T - c �? 15 T ST `IJ w 'p' ' In gf'ERiw P., ii#• --777 • 4 �` x��� f ' 82ND STVJ ,82ND�STgYb ". rt z �w rr < 33RD3STVv�ad j ¢�* t. 82ND" LJ I A'x p Q z d iW ✓ ;'"'" t'a+ k4}.�Z���, *s���'Ej �''�r� �`' a -:t w� »w.;.x -. {,9 ..>..� wtU'� ,� rt:+ tea- ��''•",�.aQ w>� �1� ;esu. «a..�, w�4THfS,TaW a a� yrs iw�= c�, G q, # ? D D swTfLU ' m m. $STH�ST �y ,Y �,•".iY 2� M EMO Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 S1`SA Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com,9r'"" O el t*i Date: February 19, 20145 To: Cary Teague Community Development Director From: Chad Millner —Director of Engineering Re: Pentagon Park Development Dated January 22, 2014 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: Watermain: • Provide watermain loop from Burgundy Place to Fred Richards Golf Buildings. San[Sewer: • Concept flows are consistent with AUAR. Flow or phasing limitations and required public improvements are described in AUAR. Pedestrian Facilities: • Provide a public traiiway easement along Fred Richards Golf Course for the installation of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. • Provide documentation from the property owners along the south side of 77' Street in regards to the installation of a sidewalk with a boulevard. This may require acquisition of easements by the developer. RoadV1 W: • Roadway design shall follow the Uving Streets Policy, Uving Streets Plan (anticipated plan approval in fall 2014), and MN State Aid Standards (MSA) where applicable. • Typical section dimensions along 77' Street do not meet MSA. Update section per MSA standards. • Typical section shown for Parklawn Avenue is incorrect and needs updating. • It is anticipated that significant soil correction measures will needed to build structurally sound roadways and for proper utility bedding. Soil corrections shall be the responsibility of the developer. • A recently completed AUAR does not identify any environmental hazards or spills but the area did have former tanks and hazardous waste generators. Any contaminated soils or structures will need to be disposed of by the developer per regulations. Staff will require a more detailed 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:IPW%ADMIN%COMM%EXTERNALIGENERAL CORR BY STREEM70 - 79 Streetsk77th St (Pentagon Park)%Eng Reviews%20140219 Edina Review Pentagon Parkdoc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 t ► 4 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com Date: February 26, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Tree Preservation MEMO Over the past few weeks, the Planning Commission has been considering an amendment to the City Code regarding the preservation of trees on construction sites. The attached Ordinance Amendment is the result of that effort. The Planning Commission is now asked to hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation to the City Council on the attached ordinance. The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. ➢ All such permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). ➢ Trees to be protected under this Ordinance include: birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a building pad, or a 10 -foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced to I. ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed as part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building pad, within 10 feet of the building pad or within to driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to I. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO ➢ Protected Trees to remain must be protected during construction. ➢ Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the certified tree inventory. Enforcement of the Ordinance would likely require additional staffing. The city forester is currently a part time position. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Draft 2-26-2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1, Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: awlsioN" i. iii ► <}.. 1 Existing text — XXXX Stricken text XXM — Added —40 M a. , ' is nt m�'be iia i*'S9MO Ut Il t .. . I% i21" Olm 0." Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — X Added text —, _ _ a. l ` .#R, - t'+itt a ite'`rai'€;+' ed�Wlft b,' . fi t d*Atl Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk lames B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — O. 3 Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of _ , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X7EXX Added text— ,; 4 To: Cary Teague From: Scott Busyn - Great Neighborhood Homes Subject Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance Date: February 19, 2014 Hi Cary, I wanted to pass on my feedback on the proposed tree protection ordinance from the perspective as a 25 year resident as well as a builder who has built over 40 infill homes in Edina over the past 7 years. Before I begin, I have to disclose that I like trees and as a builder dislike the large expense of removing them! In other words, I will do whatever I can to keep as many trees as I can when building a new home. 1. The tree ordinance seems to single out property owners who pull demo or building permits. If we are really concerned about tree protection, why are we only tasking this subgroup with tree protection? Seems discriminatory against those that are already investing in adding value to the community. Why not have it apply to all property owners? Based on the feedback for the Residential Development Coordinator, concerns about tree removal recorded a paltry 2% of all complaints. Is the Planning Commission once again trying to come up with a solution without a problem? In doing an informal drive around last week, it seems that most teardown/rebuilds keep most of the existing trees on the site. Trees are expensive to remove, and most builders try to work around the existing tree inventory on the site. 2. It seems odd that the Planning Commission is putting all this energy into protecting trees on construction sites when nothing is being done to date regarding the larger city wide tree preservation issues in Edina. Dutch Elm and Emerald Ash Borer are a looming threat to our tree canopy, much greater of a threat than residential construction. Many stretches of France Avenue, 50th Street, Valley View, etc have huge stretches where there are no boulevard trees in the city easements. Other cities around us seem smarter about focusing their energy on the strategies that will have more impact than just the construction sites. Builders are easy targets since they need to pull a permit, but is this where we should be focusing our energies? 3. The proposed tree ordinance is just one more layer of regulation Edina is adding onto the many layers of regulation on building and remodeling in Edina. In the past few years, we have added over $10,000 to the cost of a home for the increased cost of demo permits, surveys, stormwater management plans, soil tests, residential development coordinators, etc. In addition, these added layers of bureaucracy have increased the time it takes to get a permit approved as well as the amount of communication between builder and the new building bureaucracy in Edina. This has distracted good builders from being on the site and working with neighbors/clients on executing the project. Now you want to add another layer of regulation, fees, costs, etc for tree preservation and it sounds like you want to hire more regulators to make it more expensive and cumbersome. The net affect of all this regulation to good builders like us is zero changes to how we run our business except the distraction and workload of paperwork which keeps us away from doing the best we can on jobsites. With upcoming changes to building code including mandatory sprinklers I don't know how these out of control costs will affect the demand for new housing in Edina. 4. The ordinance as written is overly complex and hard to execute. If you must have an ordinance it should be simplified and not require all the steps, documentation, and expense. For example, we already provide tree inventories on existing conditions surveys for demo permits. We don't need the added expense of a certified tree inventory plan. The added layers of inspection (up to three years out!) seem impractical. S. Tree protection during construction: This needs to be defined. I am sure an arborist will want fencing at the dripline. As the dripline on many sites may cover the entire site, this is not feasible. Not only do we need access to the site, but worker safety needs to trump tree protection if we are not giving workers adequate room to work. Contractor should have final call on this as he is responsible for building the home and the safety of the workers. 6. Tree inventory plan: It is unrealistic that we will know what species replacement trees will be when we apply for a demo permit. You are asking us to alter our design process with clients. We don't typically do landscape plans until later in the project and the house is framed up. 7. Moving Trees: This is a very bad idea. Moving trees rips out 80% of the absorbing root system. Plus most small caliper trees are usually volunteer trees that were poorly planned allowed to grow in a random location. Plus moving a bad tree on a construction site that will have a lot of activity will further threaten its survival. Finally, to force a homeowner to keep a tree they may not like is just too much government control. 8. I don't like the added layers of inspections. You are requiring the City Forestor to approve replacement tree plans. This just adds more time and workload for the builder/homeowner, as well as requiring the obvious need to hire more city staff. 9. Other areas you need to allow protected trees to be removed: patios, utilities (gas, sewer, water, electrical). 10. Staff monitoring of trees for three years: Again, very cumbersome and requiring adding forestry staff. Not necessary. If a homeowner pays someone to install a new tree on their site, they expect that the tree survives. Plus, the installer typically provides a warranty on the tree. These are the market forces that will promote the health of our trees. We don't need a nanny state to watch over our trees. Again, this seems like a very complex ordinance, requiring a lot of staff and expense/workload for homeowners/builders. After driving around looking at jobsites this doesn't seem to be a problem needing a solution. I recommending scrapping this ordinance and shifting the Planning Commission's focus on more comprehensive tree programs for the city. This ordinance is extreme, punitive against property owners, and not in the interests of our citizens. Thanks, Scott Busyn 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Cary Teague From: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:37 AM To: Cary Teague Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Cary, Thanks for your email. I zipped through the proposed ordinance quickly... but here are my initial thoughts: 1. The extensive "purpose" cited indeed seems to be well intentioned. Therefore, if this is such a high priority of the City then why is It not for all property in the City (existing homes, new homes, remodels, golf courses, commercial properties, etc...)? I know one of the local golf courses took down 90 trees this winter. I suggest if the City wants to "preserve the canopy" then let's take it seriously and include all trees, City wide. 2. Wouldn't this ordinance, as drafted, essentially create covenants that would be required to travel with properties as they are sold based on paragraph 8? What will this do to property values for this singled out homes that now have "covenants"? 3. How many properties a year would this affect? How much strain does it put on the City Forrester? How much does the City Forrester staff need to grow? How does this get paid for? 4. How much cost will this add to the permitting homeowner to do a required certified tree inventory? 5. Per paragraph #4, what if a homeowner "moves" a tree and it doesn't survive? Who is going to police this? How will enforcement be paid for? 6. If I want to add a play -set in my backyard for my kids to improve the quality of their life and take a tree down can I? What about a shed? What about removing a tree for a vegetable garden? Or to allow sunlight to reach a vegetable garden? My quick two cents. Feel free to contact me if you need to. Thanks again for reaching out to me. Andy Porter REFINED Cell: 612.991.9301 Fax: 952.303.3170 Email: aporter@RefinedLLC.com www.ReflnedLLC.com