HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-28 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MAY 281 2014
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Ill. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission May 14,2014
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 slatedfiarfuture consideration. Individuals must limit
their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number ofspeakers 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 stafffor consideration at a future meeting.
Vi. PUBLIC HEARINGS/
A. Variance. Stojmenovic. 5501 France Avenue, Edina, MN Co — Continued to 6/11/14
B. Final Rezoning and Final Development Pion. Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC
6725 York Avenue, 6628 Xerxes Avenue and 6700, 04, 08, 12 Xerxes Avenue, Edina,
MN
Vil. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Survey Results — Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager
B. Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Charter
C. Wooddale Valley View Small Area plan Consulting Services
D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing Densities
E. Work Plan
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Attendance &Council Update
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
X. STAFF COMMENTS
X1. 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 June 11, 2014
Agenda Item VI.A.
Variance. Stojmenovic. 5501 France Avenue, Edina,
MN Continued To 6/11/14
A,
e tA
0
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Originator
Meeting Date
Agenda #
Cary Teague
May 28, 2014
V1.13.
Community Development
Director
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND
Project Description
Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC is requesting final review for a proposal to
tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family
homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue, and build a six -
story, 240 unit upscale apartment building with 11,500 square feet ' of retail on the
first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail store on York Avenue,
with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Surface
spaces would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident guests.
(See location, narrative and plans on pages Al—A46, and larger scale plans in
the attached development book.)
This request has received the following approvals from the City Council:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding land use, height and
density;
Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R-
1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and
Preliminary Development Plan.
The proposed plans are consistent with the approved Preliminary Plans,
th
including the revised plans submitted to the City Council on May 6 . (See
minutes on pages A81 k -A81 n.) Revisions included moving the building 10 feet to
the west away from Xerxes Avenue, reducing the square footage of retail space,
and creating an additional setback of 8 feet on the top floor corners of the
building on Xerxes.
(See attached Preliminary Development Plans on pages A52—A54.)
The following is therefore requested for this final review:
Final Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R-1,
Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development;
(including a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish the PUD Zoning
District.) and
);, Final Development Plan
The proposed plans are consistent with the approved preliminary development
plans.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: Automotive Repair & McDonalds; zoned PCD -3, Planned
Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center.
Easterly: Single -Family Homes in the City of Richfield; these homes are
zoned Single -Family Residential, but the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan guides them for medium density, 7-12 units
per acre. (See pages A82—A83.)
Southerly: Shopping center including the Edina Liquor Store and Cub Foods;
zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided
Community Activity Center.
Westerly: Southdale; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and
guided Community Activity Center.
Existing Site Features
The subject property is 4.61 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a
retail building with surrounding surface parking and five single family homes
on the east side. (See pages Al—A3.)
Planning
Guide Plan designation: CAC — Community Activity Center and LDR, Low
Density Residential. (See page A4.)
Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District & RA
Single -Dwelling Unit District (See page A5.)
Site Circulation
Access to the site would be from York Avenue only. The curb cut to Xerxes
has been eliminated. Both access points would be right -in and right -out only.
WSB and Associates conducted a traffic study and recommends a left turn in
to the site off York Avenue. (See page A67 and A72 of the traffic study.) The
city would continue to work with Hennepin Country for approval of this
2
access. If Hennepin County does not approve the left turn in, the project
would still work with the right -in and right -out movements.
Access into the two-level underground parking garage for the residential units
would be from the north and south side of the building. The north
entrance/exit would be to/from the lower level of the garage; and the
entrance/exit on the south side would be to the main level.
Extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A new north/s,outh
sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along York Avenue;
and a new north/south sidewalk, separated from the street would be built
along Xerxes. (See page Al 7.) There would be five sidewalk connections into
the site from the York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new
building, and two that would'extend all the way through the site to connect to
the Xerxes sidewalk. This would provide Richfield residents a pedestrian
connection to the Southdale area.
Traffic & Parking Study
WSB and Associates conducted a parking and traffic study. (See the attached
study on pages A55—A76.) The Study concludes that the proposed
development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there
would be;adequate parking provided. As mentioned above, the traffic study
recommends a left turn in to the site off York. (See page A67 and A72 of the
traffic study.)
Landscaping
Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 48 over
story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is
proposing 59 over story trees, including existing and proposed. The trees
would include a mixture of Maple, Elm, Birch, Honey Locust and Pine. (See
pages Al 7—Al 9, and the development plan book.) A full complement of
understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Any plantings in the
right-of-way of York Avenue must meet the requirements of Hennepin County.
Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures
Loading for the retail space would take place in the front of the building or at
the south side. Trash would be collected within the building and the garbage
truck would pick up on the south side. The move in/trash and recycling area
for the apartments would take place at the south side of the building as well.
3
Grading/Drainage/Utilities
The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be
acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached
page A85. Highlighted items include: a requirement for a developer's
agreement for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and -
for any other public improvements; connecting the water main to the Edina
water distribution system, rather than both Edina and Richfield distribution
systems; and SAC and WAC fees will be required. Any approvals should be
conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo
dated May 21, 2014.
Building/Building Material
The building would be constructed of high quality brick, architectural cast
stone, stucco, fiber cement board and metal panels. "Edina" limestone is
proposed at the street level. (See renderings on pages Al 1 —Al 5.) A
materials board would be presented at the Final Site Plan phase.
Signage
The underlying zoning of the property would be PCD -3, therefore, would be
subject to signage requirements of that zoning district.
Setback from Single Family Homes
Within the underlying PCD -3 zoning district, the Edina City Code requires that
buildings six stories tall be required to be setback twice the height of the
building from the property line of single family homes. If the homes on the
east side of Xerxes were in the City of Edina a 136 -foot setback would be
required from the six -story portion of the building. The six -story portion of the
building would be setback 132 feet. (See page A20a.) The Richfield
Comprehensive Plan guides those homes for medium density development at
7-12 units per acre, so the long term plan for that area is to be more densely
developed, and not single-family homes. (See Richfield Comprehensive Plan
on pages A82—A83.)
Shadow Study
The applicant completed a shadow study to determine impacts the height of
the building might have on the surrounding area. (See pages A45—A46.) As
demonstrated, the biggest impact would only be for a few hours roughly from
3-5pm in the winter months when shadows would be cast over the residential
homes in Richfield.
4
Floor Area Ratio/Density
The proposed density of 52 units per acre would be on the high end of the
end of the density range for the City's high density residential development as
indicated in the table below. The site is however, located in the CAC,
Community Activity Center, which is described as the most intense district in
Edina. Floor area ratio (FAR) is the regulatory tool in the PCD -3 Zoning
District regarding density.
Development
Address
Units
Units Per Acre
Yorktown Continental
7151 York
264
45
The Durham
7201 York
264
46
6500 France (Senior Housing)
6500 France
179
76
York Plaza Condos
7200-20 York
260
34
York Plaza Apartments
7240-60 York
260
29
Edina Place Apartments
7300-50 York
139
15
Walker Elder Suites
7400 York
72
40
7500 York Cooperative
7500 York
416
36
Edinborough Condos
76xx York
392
36
South Haven
3400 Parklawn
100
42
69th & York Apartments
3121 69th Street
114
30
The applicant has attempted to address the density concern that was raised
at the Sketch Plan and Preliminary review by reducing the number of units
from 273 to 242, and now down to 240 units; and reducing the floor area ratio
from 1.55 to 1.22.
As requested by the City Council, during the review of the 6500 France
Avenue Senior housing, the following is a list of suburban examples of high
density regulation and development in cities adjacent to Edina:
St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park allows densities within a PUD to be up to 75
units per acre in high density and mixed-use districts. Additionally, for PUD's
in an office district, if there is a housing component as part of a mixed-use
PUD, the City may remove the upper limit on residential density on a case-by-
case basis. This happened recently within The West End Redevelopment
project. "The Flats at the West End" has a density of 111 units per acre. It is
119 u nits on a 1. 07 acre site.
Minnetonka. Minnetonka does not have a density cap within their
Comprehensive Plan. They define high density residential as anything over
12 units per acre. Developments are then considered on a case by case
basis. Factors that go in to the consideration include: environmental
impacts/conditions such as wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes and trees; type
of housing; provision of affordable housing; traffic impact; site plan; and
surrounding area. Minnetonka does not have an example project similar to
the one proposed here. Minnetonka is primarily made up of large lots, with
mature trees wetlands and open space. However, their Comprehensive Plan
does allow consideration of dense development.
Bloomington. The City of Bloomington allows up to 50 units per acre in
general; however, in areas that are designated as "High Intensity Mixed Use
with Residential" (HX -R District) an FAR minimum 1.5 with a max of 2.0) is
required. The density may be increased if the following is provided: Below
grade parking; provision of a plaza or park; affordable housing; sustainable
design principles; provision of public art. With the exception of the park/plaza;
the applicant is proposing all of the other items.
Bloomington has had three recent projects that have exceeded a 2.0 FAR:
The Reflections condominiums along 34th Ave (95 units per acre); Summer
House senior apartments at 98th and Lyndale (59 units per acre); and
Genesee apartments at Penn and American Boulevard. (73 units per acre)
Given these examples of high density residential development in our
surrounding cities, the proposed density would seem reasonable for this site,
given its location in a commercial area, with convenient access to Metro
Transit bus service.
Land Use
Within the City of Edina, the existing single family homes on this site are
surrounded by commercial area that is guided as Community Activity Center.
The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because
of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area
within the City of Edina. The uses along Xerxes in the City of Edina typically
do not have roadway access onto Xerxes. The proposed development is
consistent with that, as the driveways to the existing single family homes
would all be eliminated, and no new access would be created. The proposed
land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC.
Within the City of Richfield, the existing single-family homes are guided in the
Richfield Comprehensive Plan for medium density at 7-12 units per acre.
Therefore, Richfield's long term vision for this area also includes higher
densities. (See pages A82—A83.)
31
Height
At Sketch Plan and Preliminary review, the Planning Commission and City
Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site,
especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height
was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has both included a
two-story podium on Xerxes, and has moved the building 22 feet back from
the road. The setback proposed at Sketch Plan was 25 feet; the proposed
setback is now 47 feet. The 3-6 story set back is proposed at 55 feet.
Podium height is also being proposed on the York Avenue side, by bringing
the retail portion of the building closer to the street and stepping back the
height into the site.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Section 36-253 of the Edina City Code provides the following regulations for
a PUD:
1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the PLID District is to provide
comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow
more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be
'ble under a conventional zoning district. The decision to
poss,
zone property to PLID is a public policy decision for the City
Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and
intent of a PLID is to include most or all of the following:
a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit
development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and
situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use
within the City, while at the same time protecting and
promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic
viability, and general welfare of the City;
c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use
regulations in order to, improve site design and operation,
while at the same time incorporate design elements that
exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any
variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable
design, greater utilization of new technologies in building
design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting,
stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and
7
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, wettand 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 proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of
the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive
Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which is described as the
most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Primary uses
include retail and residential. Mixed uses are encouraged.
The proposal would be a mixture of use within the building with residential
and retail. The site would be very pedestrian friendly with extensive
pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A new north/south sidewalk,
separated from the street, would be created along York Avenue; and a
new north/south sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along
Xerxes. There would be five sidewalk connections into the site from the
York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new building, and
two that would extend all the way through the site to connect to the Xerxes
sidewalk. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections into the
Southdale area for residents of Richfield.
As recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and by the Planning
Commission and City Council as part of the Sketch Plan review, podium
height would be utilized on Xerxes Avenue to lessen impact to the single-
family. homes in Richfield. There would be two-story apartments close to
Xerxes, with four additional stories stepped back into the site. The top
corners of the sixth story also step back further.
8
The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their
project narrative. (See page A8.) The proposed buildings would be a high
quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina"
limestone is proposed at the street level. A green roof is featured. As has
been the past practice for PUD's, the applicant should be required to
attempt to meet an energy savings goal of 10%.
2. ApplicabilitylCriteria
a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses,
conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit
contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section
850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses
within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on
the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently
zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD.
The proposed uses, retail and multiple -family residential housing are uses
allowed in the Community Activity Center, as described in the
Comprehensive Plan, and within the underlying PCD -3 Zoning District.
b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all
development should be in Compliance with the following:
L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more
than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City
may require that the PUD include all the land uses so
designated or such combination of the designated uses
as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the
purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan;
The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community
Activity Center - CAC," which encourages the mixing of retail and
multi -family residential uses. The proposed plans are therefore,
consistent with the land uses in Comprehensive Plan.
ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or
housing type may be permitted provided that it is
otherwise consistent with the objectives of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan;
Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses.
iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the
appropriate planned development designation and shall
M
be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
and
As indicated in the table earlier within this report, and the fact that
the site is located in a commercial area on York Avenue, near
Southdale, Metro Transit and an arterial roadway, the proposed
density and FAR of 1.22 is appropriate for this site.
iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area
ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning
district shall be considered presumptively appropriate,
but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and
intent described in #1 above.
The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how
the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PCD -3
Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City rezone this site to
PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of
parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note
that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning.
However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as
described in #1 above would be met.
The site layout encourages pedestrian movement; would utilize
podium height on both Xerxes and York, bringing two stories up to
the street on Xerxes, and stepping back the mass of the building on
York. The project would provide mixed use on one site.
The design of the building is of a high quality. Proposed materials
include high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass.
"Edina" limestone is also proposed at the street level
The development would incorporate improved landscaping and
green space within the development.
10
Compliance Table
PRIMARY ISSUESISTAFF RECOMMENDATION
Primary Issues
0 Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site?
Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following
reasons:
The proposed plans are consistent with the plans approved as part the
Preliminary Rezoning approval to PUD and approval of the Preliminary
Development Plan.
2. As highlighted above on pages 8-10, the proposal meets the City's criteria
for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would:
a. Provide a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail.
I I
y,
y C
'a P d,
"k
Building Setbacks
Front - York Avenue
76 feet
124 feet
Front - Xerxes Avenue
(Stories I & 2)
35 feet
47 feet
(Porch)
35 feet
40 feet
(Stories 3 - 6)
68 feet
55 feet
(Porch/Deck Stories 3-6)
58 feet
50 feet
Side - North
68 feet
36-58 feet*
Rear - South
68 feet
36-59 feet*
Building Height
Four stories and
Six Stories &
48 feet
68 feet*
Maximum Floor Area
1.0%
1.22%*
Ratio (FAR)
Parking Stalls
71 - retail
133 spaces exterior
(retail & guest parking)
240 enclosed
(residential)
291 stalls + 9 ADA
Parking Stall Size
8.5'x 18'
8.5 x 18'
Drive Aisle Width
24 feet
24 feet
* Variance would be required under PCD -3 Zoning
PRIMARY ISSUESISTAFF RECOMMENDATION
Primary Issues
0 Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site?
Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following
reasons:
The proposed plans are consistent with the plans approved as part the
Preliminary Rezoning approval to PUD and approval of the Preliminary
Development Plan.
2. As highlighted above on pages 8-10, the proposal meets the City's criteria
for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would:
a. Provide a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail.
I I
b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian
paths planned for the site. A new north/south sidewalk, separated from
the street, would be created along York Avenue; and a new north/south
sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along Xerxes. (See
page A17.) There would be five sidewalk connections into the site from
the York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new
building, and two that would extend all the way through the site to
connect to the Xerxes sidewalk. These sidewalks would provide
pedestrian connections into the Southdale area for residents of
Richfield.
c. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes.
d. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within
their project narrative, including a green roof. (See page A8.) The
proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast
concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the
street level. (See pages Al 1 —Al 5.)
e. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on
the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council.
3. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site
is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing
land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site.
4. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic
impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be
supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. (See traffic study on
pages A55—A76.)
5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades
should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and
enhance the pedestrian environment.
b. Movement Patterns.
• Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to
adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways.
• A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment.
12
c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city
infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor
context and character.
d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods,
the city, and the larger region.
e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate
infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and
diversify the tax base.
Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections
between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve
transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car.
g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all
aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of
new and existing development.
h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create
pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower -
density districts and upper stories "step back" from street.
Staff Recommendation
Rezoning
Recommend that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning from PCD -3,
Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and
Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the existing retail building at 6725
York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628
Xerxes Avenue and build a six -story, 240 unit apartment building with 11,500
square feet of retail on the first level.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development
Plans.
2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of
the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive
Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages a mixing
of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are
therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
13
3. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive
pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian
connections for residents in the City of Richfield to Southdale.
4. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes.
5. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings
would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass
building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level.
6. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only
buildin'g built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by
City Council.
7. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this
site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages
mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one
site.
8. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic
impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be
supported by the existing roads subject to conditions.
9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades
should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and
enhance the pedestrian environment.
b. Movement Patterns.
• Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to
adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways.
• A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment.
c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city
infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor
context and character.
d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods,
the city, and the larger region.
e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate
infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and
diversify the tax base.
14
f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections
between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve
transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car.
g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all
aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of
new and existing development.
h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create
pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower -
density districts and upper stories "step back" from street.
Approval is subject to the following Conditions:
Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the
conditions below:
Site plan date stamped May 12, 2014.
• Grading plan date stamped May 12, 2014.
• Utility plan date stamped May 12, 2014.
• Landscaping plan date stamped May 12, 2014.
• Building elevations date stamped May 12, 2014
Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and
City Council meeting.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be
submitted, subject to staff approval. The Final Landscape Plan must meet
all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36-1436 through 36-
1462 of the City Code. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of -credit, or
cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount
for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control
measures.
3. Any plantings in the right-of-way of York Avenue must meet the
requirements of Hennepin County.
4. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping
that dies.
5. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section
36-1260 of the City Code.
15
6. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City
may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's
requirements.
7. Sustainable design principles must be used per the applicant narrative.
Attempts must be made meet an energy savings goal of 10%.
8. All signage for the site must meet the underlying PCD -3 Zoning District
regulations.
9. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's
memo dated April 2, 2014; including that all public utility easements shall be
dedicated to the City.
10. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the
conditions outlined in the chief building official's memo dated March 27,
2014.
11. Continue to work with Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from
south bound York Avenue.
12. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding consideration of R-1
property within a PUD, prior to final rezoning.
13. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the
PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site.
14. Metropolitan Council approval of the City Council approved Comprehensive
Plan Amendment regarding land use, height and density.
PUD Ordinance
Recommend the City Council adopt the Ordinance Amendment establishing the
PUD -6 Zoning District.
Deadline for a city decision: July 1, 2014
16
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO ESTABLISH THE PUD -6, PLANNED- UNIT DEVELOPMENT -6
DISTRICT AT 6725 YORK AVENUE AND 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700,
AND 6628 XERXES AVENUE
The City Of Edina Ordains:
Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to add the following
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District:
36-493 Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD)
Subd. 4. Planned Unit Development District -6 (PUD -6) — 6725 York Avenue
A. Legal Description:
See Attached
B. Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re-
development plans received by the City on May 12, 2014 except as amended by City
Council Resolution No. 2014-, on file in the Office of the Planning Department under
file number 2014-
C. Principal Uses:
All principal uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial — 3 District (PCD -3)
D. Accessory Uses:
All accessory uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District -3 (PCD -3)
E. Conditional Uses:
All conditional uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District -3 (PCD -
3)
F. Development Standards. Development standards per the PCD -3
Zoning District, except the following:
Building Setbacks
Building Setbacks
Front — York Avenue
124 feet
Front — Xerxes Avenue
(Stories 1 & 2)
47 feet
(Porch)
40 feet
(Stories 3 — 6)
55 feet
(Porch/Deck Stories 3-6)
50 feet
Side — North
Rear — South
36-58 feet
36-59 feet
Building Height
Six Stories &
68 feet*
Maximum Floor Area
1.22%
Ratio (FAR)
Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published:
ATTEST:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor
Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on:
Send two affidavits of publication.
Bill to Edina City Clerk
2
Parcel
29-028-24-31-0003
ID:
Owner
Nha Birmingham Llc Et Al
Name:
Parcel
6725 York Ave S
Address:
Edina, MN 55435
Property
Commercial -Preferred
Type:
Home-
Non -Homestead
stead:
Parcel
3.33 acres
-,A
.. rea:
145,096 sq ft
U.1
Ilap Scale: 1 " = 200 ft.
Irint Date: 8121/2013
A/
iis map is a compilation of data from various
)urces and is furnished "AS IS" with no
presentation or warranty expressed or
iplied, including fitness of any particular
irpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and
)mpleteness of the information shown.
DPYRIGHT @ HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013
A Tifink Greed.
Interactive
6725 York Avenue, Edina
Maps."
H Find a PID or an address on the map
Welcome
Results
PID:2902824310003
6725 York Ave S
Edina, MN 55435
Owner/Taxpapr
Nha Birmingham LIG
bwner:
EtAl
Taxpayer:
School Dist:
280
Sewer Dist:
Watershed Dist:
1
Parcel
3.33 acres
Parcel Area:
145,096 sq ft
Legend
Measure
. 21
1 7�
MORN
Tl
21
7 tj
OL
4 jj
J 41 ,
Tl
21
7 tj
OL
4 jj
e
... for livingjearning, raising families & doing busin s 2008. Comprehensive Plan
Figure 4.3
City of Edina
Future Land Use Plan
2008 compi-ehensive Plan Update
Data Source: URS 0 0.5 miles
Edina Comp Plan Update 2008
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-25
,V(,
WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETA
GRANDVIEW DETAIL
CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL
Zoning Map
City of Edina
Hennepin County, Minnesota
-
SOTH & FRANCE DETAIL
54TH & FRANCE DETAIL
Legend
VALLEY VIEW &WOODDALE DETAIL
WM
CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL
Zoning Map
City of Edina
Hennepin County, Minnesota
-
SOTH & FRANCE DETAIL
54TH & FRANCE DETAIL
Legend
VALLEY VIEW &WOODDALE DETAIL
VALLEY VIEW &WOODDALE DETAIL
LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL60173 1 847.592.3350
LENNAIT
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN — PROJECT NARRATIVE
6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH, EDINA, MN 55435
Monday, May 12 1h 2014
Team
DEVELOPER: LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES, LLC (LMQ
Lennar Corporation (NYSE: LEN) is a Miami -based homebuilder founded in 1954, with a market
capitalization of over $8.6 billion. It has offices in 33 markets and 16 states, and employs approximately
5,750 associates nationwide. In mid -2011, Lennar created Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC (LIVIC), a
company that specializes in the development, management, construction, and ownership of Class A
multifamily communities across the nation. LMC's core vision is to work in top tier cities with top tier
architects to create luxury condominium quality rental communities. Since its founding, LMC has
attracted an outstanding team of seasoned professionals, has purchased 12 sites and contracted for 16
more. Eleven projects are under construction and the company has plans to start 20 more projects in
2014. LMC's pipeline includes over 16,000 units and $3.9 billion in total development cost. Beyond the
numbers, LMC is led by professionals that are passionate about creating vibrant communities that
positively impact not only the residents, but also the surrounding communities that we become an
integral part of.
ARCHITECT: ELNESS SWENSON GRAHAM ARCHITECTS (ESG)
Since our founding in 1970, Elness Swenson Graham (ESG) Architects has helped our clients create
environments for business, community and leisure. In doing so, we have gained the experience and ability
to deliver high quality designs for many building types. But this alone is not enough to achieve our
mission. The essence of ESG is more than just architecture and buildings. Throughout our entire time, our
commitment to enriching our built environment has remained steadfast. It's a commitment that drives us
to go beyond the expected to deliver the superior, the timeless, the memorable and the unique; to create
environments that capture the human spirit and uplift our lives. This is what we do best. We strive to
combine our clients' needs and stewardship for the environment with our knowledge of buildings,
markets and culture to deliver uplifting and forward-looking design solutions.
The experience derived from our work allows us to offer each client a great breadth of informed and
integrated services. We bring holistic solutions to complex problems. We create truly unique
environments that enhance our communities and help our clients successfully pursue their goals in the
development and construction industries.
ESG is committed to creating communities that are both memorable and practical. We
breathe life and vitality into our new urban environments.
For generations outside our core cities, our society has created single purpose neighborhoods that isolate
us from one another and separate us from our workplaces and shopping marts. In so doing, we have
placed incredible strains on our infrastructure and resources. Today we want more. We want to build real
communities and promote stewardship for our land. We want to live close to our workplaces and close to
others. We want to eat out more, to walk to shops, to sit outside in a pleasant, vibrant, safe environment
made up of diverse buildings, diverse people, and great public places.
2014.05.12 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 1
LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL60173 1 847.592.3350
Staying ahead of the market - Residential Communities and Community Planning
Whether it is on a single site or a large parcel, multi -family residential development has long been a large
part of our built environment. Housing is a forceful driver of new development and will remain so as long
as our population continues to grow. But our lifestyles evolve and our sensibilities toward land
development change. This creates new demands for new residential paradigms. Many people are moving
back to the city in large numbers. They wish to live in walkable communities. They now seek vital, 24 hour
neighborhoods where they can find the amenities and conveniences of a more urban lifestyle. By
advocating for New Urban principles, our Residential Studio has propelled ESG to regional and national
prominence. Our portfolio of completed work illustrates these principles and highlights the value that
high quality design brings to reshaping our neighborhoods and cities.
Project Purpose and Vision
The purpose and vision for this multifamily development in Edina is to create a high-end luxury rental
community with complimentary retail. This complimentary high-end retail tenant(s) (such as a high end
restaurant, food service, health club, or other community based retail tenant(s)) will flourish with the
other shopping opportunities along York Avenue while also adding an incredible lifestyle value to the
residents of the building. This development will give Edina residents a wonderful living option as they
downsize, retire, move, etc. while still staying in the community they love. The project will also establish a
better utilization for the wickes furniture site and eliminate the existing dated structure. We strongly
believe that this project will become a catalyst for future redevelopment opportunities for other
properties going North along York Avenue. The strong pedestrian connection and community terraces
will dramatically enhance the walkability of this area with connection into and throughout the
site. Special attention has been paid toward the building materials and massing to prop6rly fit within this
community; creating a place that is " Pure Edina" by incorporating elements from the surrounding areas
such as the limestone that is on City Hall and other Edina structures.
Architectural Description
The architectural design and massing of this project is based on guidance from urban design and
architectural design principles developed in the City of Edina's land use plans and timeless city building
strategies. The design and massing creates a new fabric and a better street definition along York and
Xerxes Avenues. A large opening in the building mass breaks up the south fagade and allows for both
increased solar penetration and a view enriching vegetative courtyard.
The architectural expression and materials of this project will incorporate contemporary materials and
fagade composition. The building materials will feature a transparent glass storefront, masonry, and
"Edina" limestone at the street level, above which will float a traditionally inspired composition of
masonry, architectural metal, and large amounts of glass.
Special attention has been paid toward proper setbacks, material usage, landscaping, and privacy along
Xerxes Avenue where our development is adjacent to the single family residential community. Building
design details include a dark, grounding two-story podium, segmented to reflect the scale of the homes
across the street, an active street level with walk-up units, expressed with a front porch entry design, the
creation of three-story bays to create plane changes and additional stepping in the facade, and color and
material changes reducing the appearance of height.
2014.05.12 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE2
LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL60173 1 847.592.3350
Streetscape and Public Realm
The design of this development features streetscape improvements including new pavement, street trees,
and lighting. The groundscape will f eature green landscape elements, high quality pavement, pedestrian
gathering and sitting areas, and decorative lighting. The sidewalks will wrap the entire site allowing
neighboring properties a through -way access from York Avenue to Xerxes. This pedestrian connection will
also create a one-third mile walking path around the site as a safe walking path for residences and the
community. Distinct nodes will be linked to these sidewalks as community terraces. These nodes will
both highlight the residential entrance and commercial tenant on each side of the facade facing York
Avenue. Safety of pedestrians walking along York will be improved with a landscaped buffer and
increased sidewalk width.
Green and Sustainable Features
The key sustainability strategy for this project is to create an urban mixed-use, pedestrian friendly
community that allows residents to live, work, and play without dependence on daily automobile usage.
The mixed use development will include a complimentary retail tenant to the residential tenants. The
development team is committed to the sustainable design principles reflected in the City's comprehensive
plan. Our sustainable design mission is to promote livable communities through the use of energy
efficient systems, green building practices, reduced dependency on automobiles, creative density, high
quality pedestrian and bicycle public realm, and the preservation of natural resources. The project will
feature a series of green elements including green construction practices, materials specification, thermal
high -efficiency windows and exterior envelope, and numerous permeable planted green spaces both on
the site as well as on the amenity level roof.
2014.05.12 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 3
Aq
E
6725'YORK AVENUE
.PROJECT ADDRESS:
6725 York Ave S
Edina, MN
UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES
mr, lm 1
V=-
4 Z
PROJECTTEAM
SHEETINDEX
C— P.1, Ch.—M
A--
W—� h S.., E- 1—
�. N E.1 S
Ph: 6�Z2-WM�S
6
Em—N. PLLC
N— � —1,
1117
Ph: S, 7E
F-1 M
ZP E'll
ch— �d'.
B—OW F- WW 118
81.1
= "N
Ph: SS I SE
SS.—
C.—
12—
A-010=11— S=DE�-01. D261tlh
�ZWI, MN
TM ---E
F.: TE
W.O. D
SHEETNUMER
E.
TIT
_h__M
- P—p—
r
672 S YORK AVE.
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DE V ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/ 12120 14
TITLE SHEET
T1.1
z >
AJO
ou
z
0
U. Z
LLI �i
0
U.
LU Ir Z
cc
uj 0
L
Z,3
z >
AJO
AJO
5.
6 72 5 YORK AVE.
11--
la
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
I .. .......... I...
Ll
Sh-.,
111 1- A-
-SPECTWEVIEWS
AO.3
672S YORK AVE.
LA
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
051 12/2014
6125 YORK AVE.
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
AO.4
K]
re -
[m]
03
Sl- T -URE
m
CC
I
m
m
(B
I
672S YORK AVE.
I-, -
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05112/2014
-1 1- A-
1�,TEU � ---
MITERMLS
AO.5
M on on NJ !I go MR N! J! on up ME J! nj so All,
an No III !I IN 11 BE J! on ml BE J! 91 on kin::
a no ME R; in is 11 NJ! o! Rig
.1 111! 1! NJ on as
Z� I_
no' 0 SO me MI !11 !11 11 BE !I! No me BE I! q mumm all
MalLm smam moms ums mass
;5k,
I -
�
Ila 31 on I[ on NJ no 11 ME B! BE
- - -
121
-
-- ZT!
B
I!
No 13 ".1m 11 on go on NJ am 0.1 no W H P BE:
!1
g -
11
—
-
am: tp, RM RI an gj us NJ ED NJ ED 5!
-
-_1 I -
015
13
75, it ml 01 rn nj ma go ED ol am W FI v Ill!
!I
R�o
BE p
J�
131 0,1 1 mv ei on 04 MR MR mm 11 mmi BE !I IR BE
!I
�J�z'
H
E0
lw�===_—M ��MZM- 'A
N1 U =_mm__!
go
IN us-"
no qj
0�
g! qm
m j-,
I -
�
-_
__7-
—
-
''" '',
-
-_1 I -
up Ai
am,
R�o
w
11
7,F;
!m
ME 12
Eo ON
FM
go
IN us-"
no qj
0�
g! qm
m j-,
�4 k" v�
v. rj
J!
rm,
!q�2
qm PR
F,5 m!
:'j!
on TE
J!
0!
V all
I! an
or. P��
in
R?-
m-,
ng
mv,
lgi
in
w
im V,
MIN
go,
muz U5
�u
i�� mm
P, r.-
F7 10
'" mg
IN
mm
%q
mm I%
v�
MA
go 41
r.
11 no
H r$39 H,
VR
I'll PM
7,1 , 1
1
iFl
r j vi
u p
L�j
Rl
m!
q mqll�;l
i� W F5_'4 RIA N N lUl U H V Em D"ll el P E9 R v M H M H Hl 51
T
I- mill "m
M7 El M m"
W3 50 am
ul -Jm 'an
-,v rm up
ME ffi OR SHE
-R-KEMOM 6725 YORK AVE.
!T�
I .. . .. . . ......... . ... . ... ...... .
... .......
-7 mr, Ell
no
0 @ e 0
R� MR EPA
MR MA
"m M;, CA
MR ma NJ !m 10 n 5 g 19 rz; UK
I mm mm On wl
N
p"m ME 5� Tr, 11 C z @p p ma On
,son rl" 21
m mill
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
I'll I'll IVE.
EXT- R CLEYATI011
COLOR
A 3.4
C) — ENI- PIDIVER POLE. POWER
UND AND � CABLES.
XCEL SHAUL REIA- —EN
'EEDER TO DENI
D-1— —IN.
�D—X— ENALL BEFEED
RDNAINING D—BUTC,
B—DA FININ NORTH END.
(D-AlOA -IN DILET
..E... (— BID —1,
N "' "
AIIR—D ED-). BEE
DEJAIL
M.-DE1.011IIII.-
PO R PDUS ARE `RDN—
AND OOMCADT
SHALL BE CODE INATED SO
TNAT ALL D NO IVIRK
.D_ Al' — —1 TI.E.
I T I L � A It I ti
1=11'ZiEl —bil I� ddi%l'
b --
cit.,
A.
--l" Kli' -1 1. A-1-1.1 dIll— .1
5.
I. B—Il —d -. .11 d— —111, g --
'A
1. B. It. h- — 1.— 1.1 I�
z dtpthA I �t W. -I .41
.-it pim, Doz I
—I- td.1
d bl.
—11t. d- 1. 1.
RIMONT E)QSTNG SITE
PAVETT. SITE CONCRETE.
AMD CURB AND GUTTER
ABANDON AND REMM
EXI NO UNDERGROUND
FSEE LANDSCAPE P�NS FOR
I TINLE PROTECTION DED%ft-S
p -
W.
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
Immmom.- �'
—ADI —
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION
/V CATCHEASIN INLET P
SEE SHEETS 01.3 AND 01.4
FOR ADDMONAL NOTES AND
1. FEE' DETAILS
672 5 YORK AVE.
.I- N
nn—
IT
I -d—
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/14
ORIDINAI-IDS- 1-11
2-06
NM
6725 YORKAVE.
DEMOLITION AND
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
cl .0
Mw
till
Soo -ap a a to,
Pr000.
I Jill I
it J
i 0 ONE
10
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
401
, 7-9
2's
PH
6 72 5 YORK AVE.
LA
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
P LAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
NODE
COLOR CONC
N,ODE"
SOD ---------
W)"Al— ,
—RNS D—ILLY
(6)ITONTIEREUN
0
Ofl---All— ('�) ELQN.E AN -14 —E —A
(24) FIREDANCE DOGMOD
�)..SUNEETMAPLE
NO
— —E—
. ... ......
(21) STELLA
D... ..ULl ....... ...... ..
P— RS —
(21) STELLA
D... ..ULl ....... ...... ..
P— RS —
-WI
U)
Lu
x
a�
w
x
(8)AUTUMN
B— MAPI-t
t2�:j * I I — —OR --
-ON oNO. NODE
NODE (11) ......
S D—ILLY
-NCRETESID— im) ETA. (1) SOOTCH PINE
AU... — — —T -G—.
PLAN LE6END (12) FIREDANCE DOGIVOOD (2) AIJI.N — MAPLE AU -1 I—E—E N) --m. I—
�14) STELI-A D ORO DAY—Y (1�)FIREDAN.DDEVVQOD (12�FIREOANCEDOE— IS) 1I.—E DOG—
Eamixi— EASTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP) (95) ATNC FIRE DDI-OOD
CORFERCWS-S
0—TREE
&SrAPE P
�M) LANTING KAN
6725 YORK AVE.
Ul.-N
DANIONFARBERASSOCIATES
N—
,_��32JW 612232,0936
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
RE-ON5
js js
—, I-- —
6725 YOR� AVE.
7
LA14MCAPEPLAN
LA1.0
— -----------
-WI
U)
Lu
x
a�
w
x
(8)AUTUMN
B— MAPI-t
t2�:j * I I — —OR --
-ON oNO. NODE
NODE (11) ......
S D—ILLY
-NCRETESID— im) ETA. (1) SOOTCH PINE
AU... — — —T -G—.
PLAN LE6END (12) FIREDANCE DOGIVOOD (2) AIJI.N — MAPLE AU -1 I—E—E N) --m. I—
�14) STELI-A D ORO DAY—Y (1�)FIREDAN.DDEVVQOD (12�FIREOANCEDOE— IS) 1I.—E DOG—
Eamixi— EASTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP) (95) ATNC FIRE DDI-OOD
CORFERCWS-S
0—TREE
&SrAPE P
�M) LANTING KAN
6725 YORK AVE.
Ul.-N
DANIONFARBERASSOCIATES
N—
,_��32JW 612232,0936
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
RE-ON5
js js
—, I-- —
6725 YOR� AVE.
7
LA14MCAPEPLAN
LA1.0
GENERALNOTES
1. — OR E -L INSPECT THE ME MV BECOME FARIBURR � EASTRIG CONDITIONS REMNS TO
THERATUREAHBECOSE-
-1-ANDES — AMY COMPROMISE THE DESISH OR MENT Of THE I -OUT.
-- SH.-USE11M.P.M-LE.—HERULATIONS—NNINGTHE
—DRATE—FUED.
4. C�RSHkL��EASnNG�S.���,�.T�S.L—�.��ITE
EUEA— BUNING OONSTRUCTION — UFMAX TO EASE — BE REPNIRED AT NO
ABOOTUN. — T—E ONSHEI
CUEUUFANOE�
B OF QORSEL— AND —N. IN—LABOR
OF
7. US RG�U��IIES�kLBENST�DMTH�TR��ES�MCT=��—
EISTE SOFEASTABBIREESTOREMAN.
& EN TING OD—S. TRALS. —ION, —ESSUTTER AND OTHER BLEMESNE AHE UNMED UPON
IN DRANTIONEL—TOTHEL-11YOTHERS—ORSH—FIFY
DS—ESFRORTOOONFINSCRIN—LANDS-E—HIT-0-
1. NOISO
FUEL. -I— NFOUBF- TO —ON. TO -.1- 1UP.— —IONE AN) TO NINUE
TIRE NE—GRATING. CHANDESIRAJISHMENTMD—BLUSTRE—BYTHE
— —ECTMORTOINFLEME—M.
A. CMT��S�MMW��F��H�BCIESMUTE��l�S�CHMI�TNEG�ALY
�EGT " FS -U—. — ON W�TY. DNOFFERMBLE BE CON[OlONE RiAl BE
STRUMT TO THE —OR OF THE LARDSHVE —ECT FRIONR T6 BEGIRDING OF —
11. DO OR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON GDAG MMHENAN OE OF NEXY INETA-UED MATBRIA., UNTILTIME
OFSUESTA—OOMPUBT . I-ARDFAM—ISMORDRAME—MAYOOCURPRONT.
UNLESS —ED TO BE REM BORNSELOGATEDINSHARBATOSEDRUNDED. ODESTICHBREERSIONG
ToN—
EA�NGT�STOK�,U���RECT�N�L�C��HITE�,��K�ILI�MD
�NEDTO���WOM.M�D�DR��GB���
11. --ORN .. — AND BRAND' � —H EDUEST FOR THE SUBSTANTRIL LOAFFLETON
I & ODNTRUCTOR — PNI AD SUENUT REPRODUCIBLE —LT D-RR(RS OF LARDS�
IN LATFOH, IRIFIGN10H ARD SHE —ABEHE UPON COMPLETON OF CONSTRUCTUNN
VISTA—AN.I.R.— —.,
E — ON FtRN D—G ME FREMENM DUDS —DULES IF IS � IN OUNOTTES
EAST. SPE—E)HS AD DEME ME PNNSRDESCE OVER NOTE&
GRADING NOTES
1. G�NGtIMITS�E�FINED��"UN�KOFPR�SE GRABEINITHEAM—UNLEE
KTEDOTRERAS�
2. GRADNGU KSMDL�ffS��SH������ROMME�OM"��U�ED
IN REI -D BY LNNDR-E AR— � CUTS. OF THE. UNDE VRUL BE DONE AT L.D.-
- ESFENBE UN. SE UREOTED BY �E ANW- ON —ER IN 1YRTIM
3. Fill— AS RECESIMURY TO —DE A I % MINIMUM BRABE � FROM BUILAIGE —N LIMITS O�
T—ON.
4. MAINTAN A UNIFORM — —EN OONTU— IN NEAB TO HE E—D UNLESS WED
5, ELF -DONS, IF SHI— ARE FINNNED —S. SPOT E—TIONE ME PREEDE—CE
D-
6. C— — CONT- NKIC UTIUTlE$ FOR LODATION Of UNDEPUBSOUND —$. DAES.
S, PIPE , MAN l—, —� OR 011 El BUNIED BIT — USES Ell- DURING. --
- SH�RE�R���E�E��lF��D��U��MffNO
SDCSTI� COST TO THE O—R.
1. —T. — . .-R ERRUEUN —1- N—S . REQUIED TO IN— THAT
EROSION W A� TO Al AEOLLRE MINIMUM - SFE — —1—
& — TEN— — FOR — —B .0 — HOLES USE. FINISHED — G IS
GDNFLETE - SEE — SP-1—
PLANTING NOTES
1. NO PtARTS — HE VETNULED � FIRM. GRALOG — OONSTRUCTION HAB BEEN — IN THE
IMINEOPEASSA
I PROPOSED KNAT ASERK SHALL COMPLY — THE NlEHT E—H OF THE I— E-DAND
FOR NUREENO —K ARBI -1.
S. STREET M SO.— TREES SHALL BEBUI BRUNOVIG NO — THAN 6 ME -E I -ED SUNU—.
4. PRONDEED PLANT MATEW — BE LOOSED AID —0 AE — ON — L—.-
- — — STAORD DI — AUDERA' — To
& NO PtAHT — EU ATITUTIONS AS1 RE ACCEITED UNLESS — IS USUVITED By THE
I-AND—B ANORDEC1 TO THE CO— MOR TO THE SUEN— OF -
6, AD—ENTS N — 0' FIROP-D PtAHT MATERI&E NAY RE NEEDED IN — lAHDS-E
ANCH.V MUST BE — PFRON TO NAUBTRIENT UF FLA'.
RANT A—B TO BE — PER -NG DETALS,
B. TREE —AG NAERML SHALL BE TMO—ED — SHEEINN. —B FROM — FLARI 10
FIRST BRUNROH. WIDUOUS TREES RANTED IN THE FALL FRAIN TO DEOEMBER I
AHD REMOVE — W 1.
TURF NOTES
1. Sm — IN RED M TO GRABONG UNUEFE NOTE. OTHERNEE.
2 MEBB ROD ARRE PONED SUR—ES. FINISHED SNROB OF SOUREED SH&L BE HELD I - E-
1. OF TIM � ... —
3. :W EHAJL BE WD PARSILLEL TO THE CONTODUS � 8— HUNE STARGERED JOHNE, OR SLOFES
TEEFER THM �l ON IN DROSHWE HMRLE� SOD SHN.I. BE STARBO SEMNELt
"THTREETMNK
LR
,,ES!%ANTlNG DETAIL
SHI NARTAN TREES N A
PLUMBP ORTHROJERBUT-RRADY
PERIM—PTREETRUS M—N
. 1BY—APEAR.—
SEEBRX, —ON RE—D
I—FtNRUI.
—T THEIR5 Wl RCRO — A AT TOP
OFNE IF OUTF-RREISNOTWIELE,
REAMSOILINALE-MARREFFROMR—
BAL=EL�FIRSTAMI DROERNSCOOV-
OR I
BET_=RGEB—THI
I�NIG THAH MR.
S_ BSNUT 'T.,
OF,—=
FRE B.—Il NTRE
THE EIRRHE BED 9E--STION BE..
NEWED TO ESTERSOR PLAHTING
S' A— DO HOT — MULDR
IS Q.— RON BHRSH ETE.
MED BALSER —
� COESTION —MEE PLAN
EORING. S E PIAH
CONTANER.....—SR.
I -E ACKE HAND LGOSEED
I-NING BOB. FOR BHRIAM
9 -. -1, -.B B =
TOBIND—GS IL
UM
1'-2-'\ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
Ll
.—ED—STSUENER
"`RADB AND EDBE
FBR�
/'�3 STEELEDGER
L,
FREFANE BOB FOR M
T.F I— ESE —I— BE..
A— . NOT p-
- STEN
BE. SEE
EIRRNG, —
OUN—ER GRONH MATES& $H-
BNOOTSHAHULDDEENED
c!S —BHR SOL FOR lE--
RODR—E—O,
ENTIFIESED—SPROEBYRSHO
'OBBROVOTHISANTSHESCH.
UNISETUREEDEDISSURDE
PIE �E
'tlk PLANTING DETAIL
6725 YORK AVE.
Eft.. AN
w
DANIONFARNERASSOCIATES
"I D — R- RNIN �H
—HN. AN 'SH,
SUSIO.S.
--U—R
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
- ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
211101
js . js
6125 10N� AVE.
I
-AND5CAPE SCHEDULE
& .�AILS
I LA1.1
WE
-1-ERNI-:
6725 YORK AVE.
Eft.. AN
w
DANIONFARNERASSOCIATES
"I D — R- RNIN �H
—HN. AN 'SH,
SUSIO.S.
--U—R
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
- ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
211101
js . js
6125 10N� AVE.
I
-AND5CAPE SCHEDULE
& .�AILS
I LA1.1
M
0
z
w
0
67Z5 YORK AVE.
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/ZG14
. .. ........
.1-.. -E
AR111TEITURAL Sl- ILA.
AO.1
-� 3
ql=rTlf)KI THRCMIGH XERXES AVENUE
"'=`O``^`^
^--~-��
ILL FITUT
---~~--'
'-_--_'--�
'--'--'-��
mousoron
-- --- -- -- -�� nspsnswns
ONLY
IM LIZ
wOTnOR
comornucnow
'--
- --
'-_---'-��
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
'��'����VA'
,�
-
'-----'-+�)
_- -- -��
_- --'-��
; i
z
M LU
0
0
cc
LL
L ,
U
0
LL.
"Imz
UA 0
U)
z
LL,
D) cc
z
; i
",z,."""^.".
---o
___
----
ISvusopon
REFERENCE
ONLY
worpon
oowornucnow
MOM
ima
672S YORK AVE.
I—. ..
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
--- --------- --------- -
------
CITY or EDINA
FINAL
D EV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/1 Z1201 4
0
11H
10
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL I
A1.1
672S YORK AVE.
I-, -
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
1) E V ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05, 12/201 4
.1 RON,
ll -N
NORTH FLOOR PLIN - LEVEL
I OTREET LEVFL)
Al .1 a
4A
----------
hL0ffV FLOOR PUN - LEVEL 1
. ..... . ..........
– - — - — --- - — -
— --
-OR
T
r
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
CIO
ri P
-N
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
1) E V ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05, 12/201 4
.1 RON,
ll -N
NORTH FLOOR PLIN - LEVEL
I OTREET LEVFL)
Al .1 a
4A
----------
hL0ffV FLOOR PUN - LEVEL 1
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
1) E V ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05, 12/201 4
.1 RON,
ll -N
NORTH FLOOR PLIN - LEVEL
I OTREET LEVFL)
Al .1 a
Mi.
1� T
woll
WN]
GOUT* FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL I
6725 YORK AVE.
I-, ..
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
D EV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
051 12 1201 4
I I-EIT -E
A1.1 b
0 1
S -
M LLI
ou
z
0
rj
LL Z
Lmu
Ell
w z
uj 0
:3 LL
W
F-
z
LLI
nm
z
0 1
S -
rel
Aal
rj
rel
Aal
°,,. YORK AVE.
m
__~_��
—~------
'
�~~_-
ISSUED FOR
nspsnswcs
/
im 10
ME ww
WIN
worpon
oowornumxmw
°,,. YORK AVE.
m
__~_��
—~------
'
�~~_-
ISSUED FOR
nspsnswcs
/
ONLY
worpon
oowornumxmw
"'`"`"^:^,".
J ---/D
--------
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
wOTFOR
-- _(�oo
"vrnucnom
MOM
AM5F TERRACE PUN
T T 7
@ COY!TARD PLAN
---s
6725 YORK AVE.
I-, -
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEV EL 0 PMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
(1511 Z/201 4
C011TIAll IIANS
Al .2c
MENOMONEE
m -ng
31
.... tift
..... 117
H.H.:
1p-110MUM!
AM5F TERRACE PUN
T T 7
@ COY!TARD PLAN
---s
6725 YORK AVE.
I-, -
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEV EL 0 PMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
(1511 Z/201 4
C011TIAll IIANS
Al .2c
9
'?
6725 YORK AVE.
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
D EV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05 1 12/2014
. .........
6725 YORK AVE.
..............
!FRI
ISSUED FOR
ON
-
fflm�
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
,w- n
1-gumblalm,
log
6725 YORK AVE.
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
D E V EL 0 PMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
0511212014
. . .........
N-TH F -A PLAN LEVEL
Al .3a
..............
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
D E V EL 0 PMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
0511212014
. . .........
N-TH F -A PLAN LEVEL
Al .3a
w T T T T
FLOOR PLAN LE
I
I
6725 YORK AVE.
----e
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
P LAN APPROVAL
05/1212014
S01- FWll PlAl - LEVEL
Al .3b
... . ........ .
-------
--- 77
--------
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
1-1
ONLY
NOTFOR
I,- T- . �1,i
�i A
I I �
CONSTRUCTION
----e
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
P LAN APPROVAL
05/1212014
S01- FWll PlAl - LEVEL
Al .3b
z
ou
LL Z m 2
LLI
�; 2 D
LL, CC z Cc 3
LLI
LL
z
z
m
A3 I
Ulm
m
A3 I
Yr
I
6725 YORK AVE.
la
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEV ELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
051 12/2014
H�R- Ell
Ell, 1- -1.
WORTH FLOOR VIIN LEVEL
6
Al .6a
. . .
"'`"`°«:^'E.
la
.
|
. |
'-~�-~~--
—
----
-----
ISSUED FOR
nspsnswos
--~�`
ONLY
NOT FOR
--
-_(�
cowmmucnow
mmm
Wall
0 1
low
Kim m
1104. Is
� | --'-'--'--'-'--'--'-
. . . .
| | | | | |
672S YORK AVE.
R-N-ANGENE-NMES
. ... ...... .....
z-rm !,-T �'V;
�7
10 ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
LEVELB
AMENITY
TERRACE KX1
BE..
ETjl.F CITY OF EPINA
0 FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/2P14
IEL-
--LAP
T-1
J r.'�
llL-J
F 11A.
A1.7
L
I mm;j Sic
-, R I
i r! ii 1711i i mt !I INWIS —11,El r! Nei
11 P: Wei
L! FOR IN
Ell,
! mill Ills p
!_0 C., C! _, Ll
TIRL"77-
No
I P1 1,
ME 11 Gull Nt IN
L!
L! 1.
g
.1" g
@) W;PD - EAST ELEVATION
�U?�CTYD - NORTH ELEVATON
7--
gWTFYD -WEST ELEVAnON
CTYD - WEST ELEVATION
7"
6725 YORK AVE.
WERML
:E
. ........ ..
@) W;PD - EAST ELEVATION
�U?�CTYD - NORTH ELEVATON
7--
gWTFYD -WEST ELEVAnON
CTYD - WEST ELEVATION
7"
Typ.souTHrLEVATION
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
P LAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
&.,1— Ch -k-
1!
P !m
mi 1!
P
MRC
Typ.souTHrLEVATION
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
P LAN APPROVAL
05/12/2014
&.,1— Ch -k-
Ez
q nl:,Mr
MR1 ,I Ig m
EST
MEN
MEN
I- - _010-0-
V Al: H I
0! N N E mul, R B, q f!
PiTFIll
HE WONEF-�Pllummi 2—irmoula
,IT
Big
4 117
25 --x zt NO
--�Z E
, 3z—
-MM
_E.
5 �s I '. -
He' 5
1'4
Z E
Z'-ot
z
E 2i
15'
'ME
fiz . .... 6
a R 9 s 41
HIZ9 R
51
ve
is
t�lu
i ri
�i 9 u. .-;I
M
J
'el.00
1-4 1
PEI.
HK
\RMMW�
E3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Ez
.6r
IR
IH
Ez, - - - - - - - -
!t
E
6-1
IS
--- ------- ------------ �;Z;T:
M
lull 3,,ZZ',.90.00IV
D
00�- -S�gnNRA V YYO,(
P (XV
in I
M
p
A t I L
Q zc Ns
7p.
RDNFOROED CONCRETE -GROUND E -E
-7
5-0
yv
FEE'
SEE SHEETS C1.3 AN
FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND
DETAILS
I F I I I T I A � E A
W,
. ........
z
d-1,- 1- lh. ft.ti d -g
6725 YORK AVE.
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/14
213506
672S YORK AVE.
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
cl .1
/V
SEE SHEETS C1.3 AND C1.4�
FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND
DETAILS
672 5 YORK AVE.
—, MN
—.—kiMn
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CrrY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05/12/14
—106
NM
swu—
�MERANDWATER
UTILITIB
C1.2
I I I I I I I I I I I I I " I I A I I I I I I �
__1 -1 11 11 di— (.1, 1—
d-.
I . I � � . I � , , I � . I
.... ... . .. ...
. .....
—1-- -d —I
I I I I I A I I
Zt
d—d,
1
..... .... .....
...... . . . . Zz�
.. ..... ..... ..
"'W---
1Z. 1;r
Z-1 1. .1 .1
1 —1 d— 1.
v:
d. I;-
-tti—
1... 1. . —d— .;11 1-1, --1 �1—
P4
-ILI 1,, -
0
p
M 1.1" "zI.", N t&` 1Z 4'. hl" Z
lo —id 11—
Zx,—'.
.....
.. ... ......
12:11
Z Ix 1� , " 1—. -1
.!T Iz- c,�
1— .1. —d
—T �I,,,X,—,
tz I.Wtptt (11, 11-
m-,
2� 1. .11 1.11
4
. " I. ... ......
LZ)7 topt, -IL
ESTIMATED PRELIMINARY EROSION A14D
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP QUANTITI
TTEM OMNIFY
liqll — 1-1 Pr. -I— 1�
E-- C -1,,,I 51-1
Riprap
BIP Iitiw� — -bil,d I. — P—d,,
.ddil I =z, "" .� ---, � J
--, I. a.
IMPEWOUS SURFACE (DISTURBED MFAS)
10.
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
DEVICE OPERATION SCHEDULE
21
11 d.
-ILI 1,, -
d
"I'll?.27
W,
—T �I,,,X,—,
'V�
SWPPP CONTACT INFORMATION
AGENC� / POSITION CONTACT PERSON PHONE NUMBERS
E C—t,.I —1W,
—th
ZpVt', MW 55437
I.D
1".2 -Z
vWl—l" =t —11:*".,�
�Z
2
d,
a—.. I. .—d 1-1 1. H. 7
6725 YORK AVE.
MI., -
-imvi� 'nrn vvi
qw
ISSUED FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDINA
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL
05112/14
N.
MK
6725YORKAVE.
STGRMWAT R
FIOLLUTION
PRE�NTION PL,!,N
C1.3
MARCH/SEPTEMBER MORNING 9AM
FT 7-
........ ..
j� L
� 7-�-
1 L
im,
r
n i�
MARCH/SEPTEMBER MORNING 9AM
MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON
FT 7-
........ ..
j� L
1 L
17,
n i�
MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON
mARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM
JUNE MORNING 9AM
FT 7-
........ ..
j� L
WT
17,
n i�
;Ire.
r!
mARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM
JUNE MORNING 9AM
JUNENOON
FT 7-
j� L
17,
n i�
;Ire.
r!
JUNENOON
JUNE EVENING 3PM
C%WAnniAl c..Tl iny
DECEMBER MORNING 9AM
DECEMBER NOON
DECEMBER EVENING 3PM
c
FOR
NCE
ONLY
NOT 'OR
CONSTRUCTION
FT 7-
n i�
;Ire.
JUNE EVENING 3PM
C%WAnniAl c..Tl iny
DECEMBER MORNING 9AM
DECEMBER NOON
DECEMBER EVENING 3PM
c
FOR
NCE
ONLY
NOT 'OR
CONSTRUCTION
SHADOW STUDY
DECEMBER DAY
L] U U
z p 0 p
0 r ej
0 D 11
71 :0 0
cl cn U a -�
. . ..........
0
r 1 0 0 c
c e.3 .0
L
L
43 e,
Lai OL., r, ...... ..... ..
0 r 13
D 0 0 0
r
0 C,
c, 0 0
N - I
CR 6
101,
L L R ll P 11
DECEMBER MORNING BAM DECEMBER MORNING 9AM DECEMBER MORNING I DAM
(DEC 21 SUNRISE: 7:51 AM)
E ISSUED FOR
r7l, E REFERENCE
0 D
ONLY
L
CE
0
Q
L
0 1) L
7L NOTFOR
L
CONSTRUCT]ION
0 Q
ri
FE
(I n 0 0
0 D
0
Tb
00
1.11.11 ITUD y
DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1 IAM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 12PM DECEMBER AFTERNOON I PM 0312512014
L2
0 1�1:11 LE Q �p 0 E
4—i 0 E 0 0
0 - I
0 c 0
12:3
0
0
ALL];
E
1.4
Li
u u
n n
n ri n ra
0 0*1
0 D
cl
rR
A
0' 13
DECEMBER EVENING 2PM DECEMBER EVENING 3PM DECEMBER EVENING 4PM
(DEC 21 SUNSET: 4:41 PM)
I-)
0
2i
C:
LLJ
0
0
U)
C%j
N
(0
a_
q
LU
2i
L<E
:D
2
'7
VY
w
7—
*6h�
LENNAR MULTIFAMILY INVESTOR,S
OPP
\
gggg
5
............
RO
4
a
AVE
CE
E_
MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MIN 08,28.13
pi
P�
W__'1_11 IJ
L
4-4-1 s
LENNAR MULTIFANIM INVESTOR5
lip I
11a R
Et
1,113, 1 L ,, 7r
6'11 6 1
'j
QL
m"N
il -1 r
F;1 Lz
j
Fir
j'7
MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13
7
co
0
Lj
0
ri u ja,: a
k7a
mg
TI:
C.0
LZ_,
0
0, Fj
it
. It _
w I man W H RAN,
A Z.- Wo, mral
[Mai wx WIN W
WE mil ml 3 M A"C
If. EPA
fff "t
M Emil
MIND 173. Wr t
4T
LW
'44
rk i
i, IL L _j
E :7 L J W_ .,
r -T7 -f 1:71LU;
M
owl,
t I ttwr
4 1 — — 1 —.5, —
.r -4W,
-2(
--jLj A
if, El— R
lt��Ja, AMP EN
OWN a
7,7�-
22
M OWL-'
oil MIT
oil �l IC3
CYD
T -
LL
5
cc
CI5 'N
aF
Lq
LL
_j
LLJ
11-d
IW IN
" '9':: 3 E I
0
11"u- u Imo
U)
" 111,
LL
- F±.
=
>
Lai:
[plf-
NL
Iff mmig mull 111"WESIMEL-
wa-
W, MR i
mm OR W091 I
Emig
FAY
Im
'I'Lihn "
1=i 13di
tkii M, - Q-
JON
k
rw T.
Ul 11F) 04110
-W -V
1\7
At
V17
SMU
lk Im"Ou
w
WF
'IM11
m
Li
Lli
ON
L<L
LU
z
LLI
LO
C14
All
li'A
Allin
A
Infrastructure m Engineering m Planning x Construction
WSB
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
& Associates, b7c.
Tel: 763 641-4800
Fax: 76S 541'4700
Memorandum
DA TE: . April 2, 2014
TO: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director
Mr. Chad Milner, Director qf Engineering
City of Edina
FRom. Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE
RE. 6725York Avenue Redevelopment
Traffic and Parking Study
City of Edina, MN
WSB Project No. 1686-51
Background
The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and parking impacts the proposed
redevelopment of the Wickes Furniture site at 6725 York Avenue. The site is located on the west
side of York Avenue between 66th Street and 69th Street across from Southdale Shopping Center.
The project location is shown on Figure 1.
The proposed site redevelopment includes 242 multifamily residential units and 13,980 sf of
retail uses. Access to the site will be from the two existing driveways on York Avenue.
Currently both driveways provide right-in/right-out access. It is being proposed with the
development plan that additional left turn access be allowed at the northern driveway. The
proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2.
The traffic impacts of the existing and proposed. development were evaluated at the following
locations.
• York Avenue and 66t" Street
• York Avenue and Southdale site entrance and exit intersections
• York Avenue and Site Entrances
• York Avenue and 69"' Street
The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the
proposed redevelopment.
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 2 of 14
Existing Traffic Characteristics
The existing lane configuration and traffic control include:
York Avenue (CSAH 31) is north/south a 4 -lane divided "B" Minor Arterial Hennepin County
roadway. Primary access to York Avenue is by local streets and development driveways. The
posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on
York Avenue is 20,200 vehicles per day. The lane configurations at each of the study area
intersection are as follows:
York Avenue at 66th Street - Traffic Signal control
SB York Ave approaching 66th St — one free right, two through, one left
NB York Ave approaching 66th St — one free right, two through, two left
EB 66 th St approaching York Ave — one free right, two through, two left
WB 66t" St approaching York Ave — one free right, two through, two left
York Avenue at Southdale Site Entrance — Sidestreet Stop Sign control
SB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one right, two through
NB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one continuous right, two through, one left
Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one right out only
York Avenue at Southdale Site Exit — Traffic Signal control
SB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — two through, one left
NB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one right, two through
EB Site Entrance approaching York Ave — one right/through, two left
VVB Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one right, two left
York Avenue at 69th Street — Traffic Signal control
SB York Ave approaching 691h St — one through/right, three through, one left
NB York Ave approaching 69t" St — one right, three through, one left
EB 69t" St appr - oaching York Ave — one through/right, one left
WB 69h St approaching York Ave — one right, one through, one left
PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour turning movement counts and daily hourly approach
counts were conducted during the weeks on July 8th — 2 1 ", 2012. The AM peak hour counts were
foundlo be 20% to 25% lower than the PM peak or Saturday peak counts. Therefore, only the
PM and Saturday peak hours were analyzed with this study. These counts were used as the
existing baseline conditions for the area.
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 am-th-west quadrant of
69'h Street and York Avenue. This project is currently under construction and will have a direct
impact on the existing York Avenue traffic. Therefore, it was assumed that the traffic from the
Southdale Residential development would be included in the existing (2014) traffic conditions. A
Traffic Study was completed for this development which documented the anticipated traffic
levels.
A5-�
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 3 of 14
Figure 3 shows the existing intersections and driveways along each corridor that were analyzed
as part of this traffic study with the 2014 PM peak hour and Saturday 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.
However, in order to account for some 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 from
the 2012 counts to the 2014, 2016 and 2030 analysis years.
In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related
traffic near the site was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These
projects included:
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 109 -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 2016 analysis.
Think Bank 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 8,441 sf
bank building with a four lane drive thru. The project is planned for construction in 2014 and
assumed fully completed for the 2016 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 2016 and 2030 analysis.
Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Ave ue) — Tho-�Qj
n ity, recently approved the redevelopment
of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65'fi Street. The proposed site
included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65 th 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 2016 and 2030 analysis.
V1
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 4 of 14
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 2016 and 2030
analysis.
Future Restaurant Development � A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant
of France Avenue and 69t" 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 2016 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2030
background traffic.
The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table -1.
The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development 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 table shows the
Saturday peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses.
Table I - EstimatedA,,IditionalBack�-,round Triv Generation
Use
Size
PM Peak Hour
Satur ay Peak Hour
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Byerly's Redevelopment
73,450 sf and
234 units
411
231
180
556
282
274
Think Bank Development
8.44 1 sf
206
103
103
182
91
91
Hospital Expansion
77,500 sf
24
10
14
30
12
18
Senior Housing
209 units
40
is
22
48
22
26
Southdale Apartments
232 -units
144
94
50
118
59
59
Shopping Center
143,880 sf
533
256
27.7
693
333
360
Restaurant
----------
8000 sf
79
47 ,
32
112
67
45
Source: Institute oJ D'ansportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
Development Site Trip Generation
The estimated trip generation from the proposed 6725 York Avenue project is shown below in
Table 2. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is also based on rates for
other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual, 9h Edition. The table shows the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour trip
generation for the proposed development.
V�IK
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 5 of 14
In addition, it was assumed that all the traffic from the site would be new and that no adjustments
were made for dual purpose or pass-by/diverted trips. This also will provide for a worst case
traffic condition.
Tahle 2 - Estimated DevelODMelll Site Trip Generation
Use
Size
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak Hour
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Apartments
242 units
150
98
53
126
63
63
Retail
13,980 sf
70
31
39
96
53
43
--777E
Total Site
220
—
129
92
221
116
106
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
Trip Distribution
Site -generated trips were distributed to the ad acent roadway system based on several factors
including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and the travel sheds for the major
routes that serve it. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed, 30% to the north, 40% to the
south, 15% to the east and 15% to the west.
The generated trips for the proposed 6725 York Avenue development wereassumed to arrive or
exit using driveways on York Avenue, and were assigned,based on the ratio of existing AADT
volumes on each respective roadway.
Future Year Traffic Forecasts
Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2016 which is the year after the proposed site would
be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan
development time frame. Four improvement alternatives were evaluated.
1. No Build – Assuming existing lane configurations and traffic control
2. Access Alternative I – Existing condition, right-in/right-out at the north driveway.
3. Access Alternative 2 – Left in fi-om York Avenue at the north driveway. Figure 4 shows
these proposed improvements.
The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth
and the projected non -development traffic growth to the existing 2012 traffic counts to determine
the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated 6725 York Avenue development traffic was
then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. Figures 5 – 9 shows the
projected 2016 and 2030 No -Build and Build PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic
volumes.
A!T�
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 6 of 14
Traffic Operations
Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections and access
driveways on York Avenue. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios.
1. Existing 2014 Conditions
2. Projected 2016 Alternative 1
3. Projected 2016 Alternative 2
4. Projected 2030 Alternative 1
5. Projected 2030 Alternative 2
This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of
traffic operations for each scenario.
Analuis Methodolo
The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the .
Highway Capacity Manual 20 ' 00 (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 make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition
where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators
may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a
stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle
queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an
acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection.
The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The
threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized
intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ
with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the
number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the tirning at signalized
intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase
or decrease.
AGO
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 7 of 14
Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges
Source: HCM
LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to
as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a
LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very
low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on
such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting
timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on
the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on
minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and
might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost.
Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways
and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding
availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS.
LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often
considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for
limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections.
The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic:
Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input
database for turning -movement volurnes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing
characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for
ffiture conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic
simulation model.
SirnTraffie is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each
individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes,
intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors
and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It
outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed.
Ak
Control Delay (Seconds)
Signalized
Un -Signalized
A
< 10
< 10
B
10-20
10-15
C
20-35
15-25
D
35-55
25-35
E
55-80
35-50
F
>80
>50
Source: HCM
LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to
as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a
LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very
low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on
such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting
timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on
the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on
minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and
might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost.
Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways
and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding
availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS.
LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often
considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for
limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections.
The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic:
Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input
database for turning -movement volurnes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing
characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for
ffiture conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic
simulation model.
SirnTraffie is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each
individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes,
intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors
and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It
outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed.
Ak
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 8 of 14
Existing Level OLService SummarV
Table 4, below, surnmarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based
on the current lane geometry, traffic control and 2014 traffic volumes assuming the Southdale
Residential project is open. The table shows that all intersection are/would be operating at an
overall LOS D or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours with all
movements operating at LOS E or better.
Table 4 — Existing (2014) Level of Service
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
Forecast Traffic Operations
A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2016 which is
the year after the proposed 6725 York Avenue site would be fully developed and for the 2030
conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time fi-arne. The results
of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 5 - 7.
Table 5 — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall
LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours.
However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E.
Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions,
especially at the major intersections at 66th Street and York Avenue and YorkAvenue and 691h
Street.
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Intersection
Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
(see/veh)
(sec/veh)
York Ave at 66 1h St
C (E)
34
C (E)
29
York Ave at North Site
Access/Southdale Entrance
A (13)
4
I
A (B)
3
York Ave at South Site Access
A (A)
3
A (A)
2
York Ave at Southdale Exit
C (E)
26
C (E)
23
York Ave at 69'h St
C (E)
29
C (E)
27
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
Forecast Traffic Operations
A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2016 which is
the year after the proposed 6725 York Avenue site would be fully developed and for the 2030
conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time fi-arne. The results
of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 5 - 7.
Table 5 — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall
LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours.
However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E.
Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions,
especially at the major intersections at 66th Street and York Avenue and YorkAvenue and 691h
Street.
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 9 of 14
Table 5 — Forecasted No Build - Level of Service
C=OverallLOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS .1 Source: WSB &Associates, Inc.
Table 6 —Forecasted BuildAccess Alternative 1, shows that, assuming right-in/right-out access,
all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during
both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or
better in 2014 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from
the No- build condition.
Tahlp 6 — Forecasted BuildAccess Alternative I -Level of Service
2016
2030
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
. Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
Delay
(sec/veh)
(see/veh),
_
(sec/veh)
(sec/veh)
York Ave at 66 1h St
D (E)
36
—
C (E)
29
D (E)
46
C (E)
30
York Ave at North
Site Access/Southdale
A (B)
4
A (B)
3
A (B)
5
A (B)
4
Entrance
York Ave at South
A (A)
3
A (A)
3
(A)
3
(A)
3
Site Access
York Ave at
C (E)
26
C (E)
25
C (E)
27
C (E)
25
Southdale Exit
York Ave at 69 1h St
C (E)
29
C (E)
29
D (E)
34
C (E)
28
C=OverallLOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS .1 Source: WSB &Associates, Inc.
Table 6 —Forecasted BuildAccess Alternative 1, shows that, assuming right-in/right-out access,
all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during
both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or
better in 2014 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from
the No- build condition.
Tahlp 6 — Forecasted BuildAccess Alternative I -Level of Service
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, hic.
g3
2016
2030
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
(see/veh)
(sec/veh)
(sec/Veh)
York Ave at 66 th St
D (E)
36
C (E)
29
D (E)
46
C (E)
31
York Ave at North
Site Access/Southdale
A (B)
4
A (B)
4
A (B)
5
A (B)
4
Entrance
York Ave at South
A (B)
3
A (B)
3
A (B)
3
A (B)
3
Access
-Site —
York Ave at .
C (E)
26
C (E)
25
C (E)
27
C (E)
25
Southdale Exit
York Ave at 69th St
C (E)
31
C (E)
29
D (E)
=.
C (E)
29
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, hic.
g3
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 10 of 14
Table 7– Forecasted BuildAccess Alternative 2, assuming a left turn in at the northern site
access, has similar results as Access Alternative I showing that all intersection will continue to
operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday
peak hours. Specificlly the proposed left turn in movement from York Avenue to the North Site
Access would be operating at an LOS C in both 2016 and 2030. All other movement will be
operating at LOS E or better in 2016 and 2030.'Overall LOS and delays do not show any other
significant changes from the No- build or Build Alternative I condition.
Table 7 –Forecasted BuildAecess Alternative 2 -Level offervice
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
VehieleQueu�MgAnalys
A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating
the anticipated vehicle queues with the proposed Site Access Alternatives. The analysis was
conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. Table 8 shows the results of the queuing
analysis for the 2030 full build of the area conditions.
The results found that during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, with both access
alternatives for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any
of the available or proposed turn lane storage on York Avenue. However, at both site access
driveways the maximum queue will block parking spaces. The maximum queue represents the
longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period.
In addition, observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases
the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identifiedjust one time during the
peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues
exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (I vehicle) or less and would clear without
blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic.
2016
2030
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
Hour
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
(see/veh)
(sec/veh)
(sec/veh)
(sec/veh)
York Ave at 66t" St
D (E)
36
C (E)
29
D (E)
46
C (E)
31
York Ave at North
Site Access/Southdale
A (C)
5
A (C)
6
A (C)
6
A (C)
7
Entrance
York Ave at South
Sile Access,—
A (B)
3
A (C)
York Ave at
-Southdale Exit
C (E)
31
C (E)
25
C (E)
28
C (E)
25
York Ave at 69th St
C (E)
31
C (E)
29
D (E)
37
C (E)
29
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
VehieleQueu�MgAnalys
A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating
the anticipated vehicle queues with the proposed Site Access Alternatives. The analysis was
conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. Table 8 shows the results of the queuing
analysis for the 2030 full build of the area conditions.
The results found that during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, with both access
alternatives for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any
of the available or proposed turn lane storage on York Avenue. However, at both site access
driveways the maximum queue will block parking spaces. The maximum queue represents the
longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period.
In addition, observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases
the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identifiedjust one time during the
peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues
exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (I vehicle) or less and would clear without
blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic.
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 11 of 14
Tnhl,- R-.Iqitp Arrp.v.v Maximum Vehicle Oueues
Parking Demand
The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the anticipated
use for the site and the PCD -3 zoning. Based on the current City Code the proposed development
would require a total of parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 9
shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code.
Table 9 — Parking Required per City Code
Available
Site Access Alternative (feet)
Use
Size
Rate
Vehicle
Alt I — Right -in
Alt 2 — Left in
Location
Direction .
Approaching
Queuing
Retail
13,980 sf
8/11t 1000sf +
Storage
Right -out
Y ork Ave
Southbound Left
Site Access
110
NA
97
North
(112)
employees)
+ I/employee on shift)
.at
Site Access
Eastbound Right
York Ave
5 0
72
101
York Ave
at South
Eastbound Right
York Ave
50
85
86
Site Access
I
Parking Demand
The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the anticipated
use for the site and the PCD -3 zoning. Based on the current City Code the proposed development
would require a total of parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 9
shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code.
Table 9 — Parking Required per City Code
Source: City ofEdina — PCD Zoning District
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 10 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and
the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case
conditions for the parking assuming the proposed full development of the site.
A65-
Parking
Parking
Use
Size
Rate
Required
Provided
Multi -Residential
242 units
1/unit
242
419
Retail
13,980 sf
8/11t 1000sf +
86
95
6/additional 1000sf
(Retail / Restaurant)
(9 ' 655 sf / 120
(Restaurant= 1/3 seats
(112)
employees)
+ I/employee on shift)
rToseats/12
fal Parking
1 328
14
Source: City ofEdina — PCD Zoning District
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 10 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and
the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case
conditions for the parking assuming the proposed full development of the site.
A65-
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 12 of 14
Table 10 — Site Parking Demand per ITE
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition
Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with
the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan.
Conclusions lRecommendation �
Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following:
The proposed 6725 York redevelopment project includes the addition of 242 apartment
units and 13,980 sf of associated retail space. The site is anticipated to generate 220 trips
in the weekday PM peak hour and 221 trips in the Saturday peak hour.
Existing (2014) traffic operations, assuming the Southdale Residential project is
completed, all the intersections and driveways on York Avenue are operating at overall
LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour..
Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2016 and 2030 will continue
to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday
peak hour.
Two build site access alternatives were analyzed. Access Alternative I included a right-
in/right-out at the northern access to the site. Access Alternative 2 included a left in
access from York Avenue to the northern site access.
Intersection traffic operations for both access alternatives in 2016 and 2030 will continue
to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday
peak hour.
The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact on intersections or access
locations will occur as a result of the proposed full build conditions in 2016 or 2030.
J�; �
Weekday
Use
Size
Rate
Parking
Regui ed
Multi -Family
242 units
1.20/unit
291
Residential
Retail
13,980 sf
4.1/1000sf
58
(Retail / Restaurant)
(9,655 sf / 4325 so
(4.1/1000sf
(98)
13.3/1000so
L_ -Total Parking
349 (389)
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition
Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with
the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan.
Conclusions lRecommendation �
Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following:
The proposed 6725 York redevelopment project includes the addition of 242 apartment
units and 13,980 sf of associated retail space. The site is anticipated to generate 220 trips
in the weekday PM peak hour and 221 trips in the Saturday peak hour.
Existing (2014) traffic operations, assuming the Southdale Residential project is
completed, all the intersections and driveways on York Avenue are operating at overall
LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour..
Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2016 and 2030 will continue
to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday
peak hour.
Two build site access alternatives were analyzed. Access Alternative I included a right-
in/right-out at the northern access to the site. Access Alternative 2 included a left in
access from York Avenue to the northern site access.
Intersection traffic operations for both access alternatives in 2016 and 2030 will continue
to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday
peak hour.
The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact on intersections or access
locations will occur as a result of the proposed full build conditions in 2016 or 2030.
J�; �
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 13 of 14
The proposed addition of the left turn in (Access Alternative 2) would not create
operational or vehicle queuing issues in the 2016 or future 2030 build conditions.
The existing or proposed available parking would meet the City's Code and are below
those identified by ITE. No parking space variances would be required.
Based -on these conclusions the following is recommended.
1. Construct the access and pedestrian accommodations as shown in the site plan
(Figure 2).
2. Provide the proposed roadway improvements as shown for Access Alternative 2
(Figure 4), providing a left turn in from York Avenue at the North Site Access. This will
require Hennepin County approval. .
No additional roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate
the proposed 6725 York Avenue development.
Al
6725 York Ave Redevelopment
City of Edina
April 2, 2014
Page 14 of 14
APPENDIX
k � 9
-A N
VIR Ew
cn CH
A <
(S 4 CU
< 4. RD W. 62 nd
T. c1f . P 5ST-nl— A
C =� 62 nd ST. Uj x
uj _j
< �A <
I:n Lj L' uj
GNRRI solIV LLj �� �:; �:-
4 > < < 700 Ft 1400 ft
35. u
3 6. w —
o <
ST �L
�b. cr
Ld 0
co
64 th ST.
< G h S T < ltrMWNES > M w. Lh
< SIT > cc�
< 0
L2 LIj -j <
> �> o
> W. u
< C
_j th ST.
w
Ij :z th ST. c�
co
Lake
Jh7 �j W. 66th
R nST E
F -
Cornelia SOUTH ALE
F-1
Project E
cc IR.
< >
Ij
f[MINNESOTA 68 < Location
NERO IS T.
HOYCA IP -1
D BALFANZ c�
)G Y ON "U. Q wE
T. LUPP HU < > F
ER <
WI/ LA.
4 69th W 69th ST
D \NAY -J
38 6E
W. 70 h >
Li CD L11
> >
ANDOVER E
LAR/, RD. < MAVELL E 'Lu
On Ln
BE VIDERE LU
'P Ct4R LA. DR. HAZELTON go.
n
ORE C C 4 w
7� x E:
> x
'ASPASIA
0
D >-
A, W. 721 En -d ST.
CIR. ')&A
C" 3 LLJ
3� 1 C-
e4e 9
9
QHB I S CUS RTH DR.
CUS -J
A IIISIJ <
AVE.— LU
0 <
C) ELL DR. 0�k-
LU V) w
z = - of
PHLOX �: z x U
-J GILFORD DR. 3: o
cc
0
4th
LA. L�J
-J 0 CT .
UTPTCr"C !'� > -j rl� 'z T
Lake 0 PARKLAftl AVE.
ST. AVE. 0
7-J - W.
Edin [W] 75th
C3 01 0
PLAZA
C! OPP)- ORE Li
DR.
w .
76th
V)
LU
< cl)
=1 / x
-J (D / Of
BLVD. f Of UJ
[if CD X
< CD
77th ST. CL
R.
F�—
U
VIKING cc: DR.
LLJ U)
I-- I
D
Q CL
75;
0
4
Figure 1
Traffic and Parking Study
e
5 York Avenue Redevelopment
City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map
Q
Ew"NI'!n ww' -
ww
ME
WN
64 MOOR
W -
Traffic and Parking Study Figure 2-
6725 York Avenue Redevelopment
City of Edina, Minnesota Site Plarl
Alb
as �30)
4
4— 860(330)
Or 370(310)
IL q= 0(0)
_7
0(0) A t
195
r
225 (165)
�R 4- Op
52
0(0)
C; On
0(a) 2� a t
G, Vr E�
On 4 �7 a
BI: 0(0)
0(0)
00
'W 4, -'N
A
FV"' ®R
0 V
%
35(150)
5(20)
y-"
E Ir 135(160)
Lf C; 0 to)
(70)
0(0) A t 40
140(150)
175�165) -0
Or 45(55)
20(20)
165 (195) "% k Lt C; O(q
Op 41 t
Z 'IL 180(220)
A 165
LEGEND 50(165) N
Thru-Stop Intersection
Signalized Intersection
50 (75) AM (SAT) Counts A
Wra
fl'ItF Turning Movement Direction
0 t4 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3
CO 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements
0
City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Conditions
0
",a F#an—a: K.\01686-5lOkCad�Ehlb;t,\1686-51f;g-04 -
LLI
z z
w
gas
WZ
>
> ><>
id
0
Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4
6725 York Avenue Redevelopment
City of 'Edina, Minnesota Access Alternative 2
h -7a,
J
-W
i
I
LLI
z z
w
gas
WZ
>
> ><>
id
0
Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4
6725 York Avenue Redevelopment
City of 'Edina, Minnesota Access Alternative 2
h -7a,
� A,A,
e Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5
0 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements
City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Access Alternative 1
A-73
7.
Aw
44
55 (6�
4- On
9 S
V
L
0(0) 41 t F
On
E
(0)
77
4�
t'i
50 0)
6
135(160)
'A On
On 41 t IF
175�165)
20(20)
OF
165(195) N
a
50 (55)
On
W" On
k U 4z Op
0(0) :b 41 t
L On
0 (0)
mrwn�' I %- 50 (80)
4- 140(150)
ZE Ir 45(55)
k C; Op
O(q t
210(2q
L165(95)
150(iq
LEGEND
11(35)
(35))
Intersection of Interest
(340)
"0(140)
50 (75)
Ir 400(340)
'A
I= 0(0)
On
a t r
t
200(110)
765(330)
12
260(195)
55 (6�
4- On
9 S
V
L
0(0) 41 t F
On
E
(0)
77
4�
t'i
50 0)
6
135(160)
'A On
On 41 t IF
175�165)
20(20)
OF
165(195) N
a
50 (55)
On
W" On
k U 4z Op
0(0) :b 41 t
L On
0 (0)
mrwn�' I %- 50 (80)
4- 140(150)
ZE Ir 45(55)
k C; Op
O(q t
210(2q
L165(95)
150(iq
A�t
LEGEND
0
Intersection of Interest
50 (75)
AM (SAT) Counts
fl'ItF
Turning Movement Direction
Traffic and Parking Study
Figure 6
0
6725 York Avenue Redevelopment
Peak
Hour Turning Movements
City of Edina, Minnesota
2016 Access Alternative 2
A�t
T
!7�
55(65)
On
q! I ,
e 0(0) 11 "I'll,
U IZ 0(0)
O(G)
_42 41 'j t
On
O(G)
4 --ft 0
(0)
#F
R
�4
505
Nr
(2 0)
135 (160)
U U c; o n
op 41 t
175(165) ;F ;F
M
20(20)
77
12- S' Ir 400 (340)
0 (0)
0(0) A t
215(li5) -0
K815(350)
245(180)
mow
LEGEND
OR
9
Ir 0(0)
0
Intersection of Interest
k
C;
0(0)
t
0(0)
50 (75)
AM (SAT) Counts
OR
L
On
75 (100)
145(145)
E Ir 45(55)
WA C; 0(0)
0(0) t
E
225(265) -0
165
150(165) N
ATT
LEGEND
0
Intersection of Interest
50 (75)
AM (SAT) Counts
fly1tF
Turning movement Direction
Traffic and Parking Study
Figure 7
e
gV 0
6725 York Avenue Redevelopment
Peak Hour Turning Movements
ly
City of Edina, Minnesota
2030 Access Alternative 1
ATT
fw, :- ,
XV
Ion I
Via* 7VTORRA
A
- I' '-- -.— --. � —
55
0(0)
'r 0(0)
4) 1k C; On
O(0)b 41 'k t F
(0)
0(0)
x
VV
A-,
(150)
M V6,
110)
135(160)
.P 1A tt C; 0(0)
o(o) Z A N t F
175(1
20(20)
165(195) N
1-4
95(30)
9 935(355)
'5 (355)
Ir 420(360)
C 0(0)
; On
0 (0) 'k t
0(0) A 'i t
2`15(115) az; Gff *ff
815(350)
215 (20�
Is
50(80) 7q
Ir 45(55)
'A
It c; o(o)
0(0) 23
210(245) -0
165(95)
150(165)
LEGEND
law
0 Intersection of Interest
50 (75) AM (SAT) Counts
N
4111tF Turning Movement Direction
A.
e 1 tA Traffic and Parking Study Figure 8
Cn 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements
0
City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Access Alternative 2
A-7�
Commissioner Potts recused hij—gKfrom the discussion.
Planner Cornme
Planner Teague told the Commission staff received a Sketch Plan Review for 6725 York Avenue
(the former Wick's). Teague explained the applicant is in negotiation with the owners of Wick's
and the five (5) residential homes fronting Xerxes Avenue. Teague stated the subject site is
currently zoned PCD -3. Continuing, Teague said the applicant is proposing to tear down the
existing commercial and the five single family homes and build a six -story, 273 unit upscale
apartment building with 22,289 square feet of retail space on the first level. A parking lot is
proposed in front of the retail component on York with underground parking for residents
provided under the apartments.
Teague reported to accommodate the request four (4) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
would be required as follows:
• Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 66 feet
• Housing Density — from 30 units per acre to 82
• Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 3.1
• Re -guiding the land use for the six single-family homes from Low Density Residential to
Community Activity Center.
Teague concluded the applicant is tonsidering a rezoning of the properties to PUD, Planned
Unit Development.
Appearing for the Applicant
Peter Chmielewski, Lennar Multifamily Investors, LLC
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Chmielewski gave a brief history on Lennar and explained that originally they only
considered the Wick's site; however felt only utilizing that site pushed the envelope so they
decided to approach residential property owners on Xerxes to obtain those houses and add
them to the site. Continuing, Chmielewski said they propose to build a high-end luxury
multifamily rental community with complimentary retail. Chmielewski introduced Aaron Russet
to further speak to the proposal.
Mr. Russet told the Commission they are very happy to be in Edina. Russet referred to the
density and explained that the calculations presented in the redevelopment materials did not
include the five single family homes they are hoping to acquire. Continuing, Russet explained
they are proposing to build a 273 -unit upscale multifamily complex that is six (6) stories with
retail below. Russet said the attraction to this site is the walkability factor, adding from this
Page 9 of 14 A-7
location the residents of the building have access to all venues, shopping, City Park, library,
Government Center, etc.
Russet further explained that their intent is to create an urban mixed-use, pedestrian friendly
s0stainable community. As previously mentioned by Mr. Chmielewski the area offers
abundance to amenities and this creates an environment without dependence on daily
automobile trips. Continuing, Russet said they are committed to sustainable design principles
reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He added their intent will feature green elements
including green construction, practices, material specification, thermal high -efficiency windows
and numerous planted green spaces both on the site as well as on the roof. Russet said they
are also working with the White Group on sustainability.
With graphics Mr. Russet concluded highlighting the following aspects of the project:
• Open terraces on both ends of the project (pocket parks)
• Walking paths of high quality pavement
• Decorative lighting
• Front doors
• All parking is proposed to be contained within
• Building is designed open to the south
Exterior building materials include transparent glass storefront, masonry and "Edina"
limestone at street level. Above includes composition of masonry, architectural metal
and large amounts of glass
Unit breakdown 7% studio. 40% one bedroom, 1IYo one bedroom plus den and 32% two
bedrooms.
Chair Staunton thanked the development team for their pres entation and explained the Sketch
Plan Review process is informal and nonbinding.
Commissioner Grabiel stated he was encouraged that someone was considering purchasing the
site and redeveloping the property. Grabiel acknowle dged he was somewhat concerned when
he first reviewed the materials; however, if the five residential homes are acquired that's a
different story. Grabiel asked if three bedrooms or two bedrooms plus den were ever
considered. Mr. Russet:responded that this development would be a "rent by choice" and they
have found that many people that rent by choice are either downsizing or desire smaller living
space. Russet explained that at this time they are waiting for an update of the market study;
however, it appears the market may be for smaller spaces. I Continuing, Grabiel acknowledged
this is an area of heightened activity, questioning if the market is sound for this type of project
in such a dense area. Russet responded that population metrics indicated a drop in home
ownership and for every percent home ownership drops a million families need a home.
Walkability is also a very important factor in home choice and this area is highly walkable.
Page 10 of 14 h-1-116
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the owners of the homes have been contacted. Mr.
Chmielewski said that process is continuing through a real estate broker adding two of the
homes are in foreclosure and it takes a little more time when working with banks.
Commissioner. Carr stated she really loves the look of the building but does have a concern with
the proposed density; which is clearly on the high side, Carr said she agreed with the
comments from Grabiel especially on unit size, adding the two bedroom with den in her
opinion would be an attractive choice. Carr said in her opinion the project is intriguing and if
special care is taken in buffering the residential properties in Richfield this may be a good
project. Concluding Carr noted that with regard to the retail space d ' epicted on the plans the
applicant should be aware for future retail tenants that the abutting property is la large grocery
store.
Mr. Chmielewski said with regard to unit numbers, spacing and size it's important to find the
right density to ensure that the project will be successful. Chmielewski said the property
owners reside in New York City and their price for the subject property reflects the New York
Citymarket. Chmielewski said the development team would take under advisement all
comments from the Commission and would make every effort to buffer Xerxes Avenue. He
added at this time their intent through design is to make the units feel and look like
townhomes/brownstones vs. the traditional apartment building look.
Commissioner Schroeder said he finds the project and site plan interesting, adding he likes the
connectivity and other elements of the project; however has a few concerns about the Xerxes
Avenue side. Schroeder said the Xerxes Avenue component of the project is the most difficult
to address. He pointed out as presented the proposed fa�acle facing Xerxes Avenue is
imposing. He suggested that they reconsider the large fagade and relocate a portion of the
building by placing it on top of the building nearest France Avenue. This change; in his opinion,
would better suit the site, adding height in this area is generally found along.York Avenue; not
Xerxes (Westin, new Southdale apartments etc.). Continuing Schroeder pointed out when
considering the projects impact on Xerxes Avenue, vehicle traffic, especially truck traffic, needs
to be further reviewed. Schroeder stated if left as is all truck traffic would only occur on Xerxes
Avenue. Concluding Schroeder asked the applicants to consider "marrying" the subject sites
loading dock area with the Cub Foods loading dock. This action would reduce and mitigate all
delivery traffic..
Commissioner Scherer complemented the look of the building but shared concerns over the
amount of concrete on the site and its impact on Richfield.
Commissioner Platteter stated that overall he's not opposed to the density of the project or
bu-ilding height; however, has a concern with the ramp accessing the underground parking.
Platteter suggested that this access point be relocated more to the middle to avoid confusion.
With regard to connectivity Platteter said he likes the incorporation this project'inclu des to
enhance pedestrian spaces. Concluding, Platteter said he also supports the requirement for
affordable housing.
Page 11 of 14 .471
Commissioner Grabiel asked Planner Teague if he knows the zoning classification the City of
Richfield has on their side of Xerxes (east). Teague responded he's not sure of that zoning. He
added he knows that Richfield either has or is going through a rezoning process for this area to
allow for more density. Grabiel said during the review process the City needs to keep in mind
what's best for Edina while being respectful to the City of Richfield.
The development team acknowledged that much of their focus is in "the devils in the details",
adding they really appreciate the comments from the Commission. Mr. Russet acknowledged
this site is a challenge; however believes it's worth it.
Commissioner Forrest said that while the project has good points she is concerned with how
portions of the project violate the Comprehensive plan. Forrest added as previously mentioned
the homes across the street from this project will be impacted. She concluded she likes the
look but has concerns.
The discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that the project has merit; however,
wants the development team to take a further look at reducing the buildings impact on Xerxes
Avenue, increase greenspace where possible, consider the City Comprehensive Plan during the
design process, reconsider the fa�acle of the building as it relates to Xerxes Avenue, carefully
consider the retail tenant mix, better design the building's access point and continue to work
on the loading dock area and the underground parking access, etc. Also it is very important to
work with the re�iclents of Richfield to reduce and or minimize the buildings impact on them.
Chair Staunton thanked the applicant for sharing their sketch -plan with them. Stauntonstated
he hopes their venture is successful adding that so far no one has found something that could
work for this site. Staunton reiterated his thanks and stressed to the applicant the importance
of communicating with the City of Richfield.
The applicants ensured Chair Staunton they would engage the City of Richfield and Xerxes
Avenue residents.
011111111MINATA
I
Chair Staunton told the C mission every fall th>e*Irnning Commission Work Plan is discussed
and prioritized. Staunton sai hat at this tim e would like Commissioners to start thinking
0
i s
about the 2014 Work Plain. Sta ton said opic suggestions should be forwarded to Teague
or him prior to the Commission m tin Staunton concluded that his goal for finalizing the
10
r or 0
Work Plan is for some time in \Septe er or October.
Commissioner Scherer note may be J`\cood idea to discuss the Work Plan prior to a
!;Ji", . " 'd
Commission issioners a -'z; , -
Vill. C PETITIO\
Page 12 of 14
Minutes/Edina Citv Council7trwtember 17, 2013
on Series 2013B was at a 3% intere Member Sprague introduced and moved adoption of
Resolution 2013-80, Awarding Sale of s Serie's 2013B. Member Swenson seconded the motion.
I u e
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Spragu enson, HovIa
Motion carried.
VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — 6725 YORK AVENUE (WICKS SITE) AND FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON
XERXES AVENUE TO THE EAST OF 6725 YORK — REVIEWED
Community Development Director Presentation
Mr. Teague presented the request of Lermar Multifamily Investors, LLC for sketch plan review of its
proposal to redevelop the property at 6725 York Avenue. The proposed project would also include five
single-family houses on Xerxes Avenue. The proponent was in negotiations with these property owners to
purchase and incorporate the houses into the development. Mr. Teague stated the property at 6725 York
(the former Wick's building site) was currently zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District -3, and guided
CAC, Community Activity Center. The five -single family houses were zoned and guided for low-density
residential use. The proponent was requesting consideration of a proposal to tear down the existing
commercial building and the five single-family houses and build a six -story, 273 unit, and upscale
apartment building with 22,289 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot was proposed in front
of the retail store on York Avenue and underground parking for residents. Surface spaces would be
available along the north and south lot lines for resident's guests. The loading area for the market would
be at the rear of the retail building and south side of the apartment building. Mr. Teague advised that to
accommodate the request, four amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: Building
Height from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 66 feet; Housing Density from 30 units per acre to 59
units per acre; Floor Area Ratio from 1.0 to 1.55; Re -guiding the land use for the six single-family houses
from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. In addition to the amendments, a rezoning of
all the properties would then be required to Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Mr. Teague stated the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and provided commenti relating to
reducing the buildings impact on Xerxes Avenue, increasing greenspace where possible, consideration of
the City Comprehensive Plan during the design process, reconsidering the fagade of the building as it
relates to Xerxes Avenue, need for continued work on the loading dock area and the underground parking
access, and incorporation of affordable housing.
Proponent Presentation
Peter Chmielewski, Lennar Multifamily Investors, LLC, introduced the concept of the sketch plan for the
property located at 6725 York Avenue with five single-family houses on Xerxes Avenue to the east of 6725
York Avenue. Mr. Chmielewski discussed the intent to build a high-end luxury multifamily rental
community with complimentary retail.
Aaron Russet, ESG Architects, provided a presentation on the subject sketch plan, the setback on Xerxes
Avenue, landscaping, walking path/sidewalk network, gathering spots, outdoor seating area, retail
element, landscape buffer, and parking.
The Council discussion included concern relating to the six story height across from single-family houses,
the importance to include affordable units, incorporating a green roof over the market, option of utilizing
podium height along Xerxes Avenue, improving the articulation/fagade of the market area, reduction in
density, including some smaller units in unit mix, greenspace, additional work needed on the appearance
of the townhouses, concern with the loading dock area and underground parking access, and concern with
the concept of routing truck traffic onto Xerxes Avenue.
000w'
VIII.C. SECOND READING GRANTED — Z G ANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE R-1 & R-2
I
- rA 0.2
ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, NCE NO. 2013-09 — ADOPTED
VTS" 0
Community Development Director Prese>non
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
APRIL 9, 2014
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDE
11. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Poqs, Olsen, Kilberg,
Members absent from roll: Scherer kd Forrest
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AG
Commissioner Carr moved appr/ovalo e [-'I
ir
proponent to continue Item VI.C. Pr mina��
49th Street, Edina, MN. Commissio er Pla
carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF C014SENT AGENDA
Lee, Carr, Platteter, Staunton
agenda as amended to honor the request of the
ing & Variances, Mathias Mortenson, 3923 West
:)nded the motion. All voted aye; motion
A. Minutes of the R ular Meeting of the Edina
r m
Commissioner C/amoved approval of the Consent Ag(
Commissioner e seconded the motion. All voted aye;
V. COMI4UNITY COMMENT
ing Commission March 12, 2014
and January 22, 2014, meeting minutes.
ion carried.
/Chair aunton asked if anyone would like to speak; being none mmissioner Platteter moved to
clos =011
clos community comment. Commissioner Lee seconded the noti n. All voted aye; public
I
c ment closed.
V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Preliminary Rezoning, and Preliminary
Development Plan. Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC. 6725 York Avenue,
6628, 6700, 6704, 6708, & 6712 Xerxes Avenue, Edina, MN
Commissioner Potts recused himself from consideration of this agenda item because his company works
with this applicant on a different project in a different city. He left the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
Page 1 of 14
/ g ( I
P -u
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission that Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the
existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and five single-family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700, and
6628 Xerxes Avenue. The applicant would then build a six -story, 242 -unit upscale apartment building
with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail store
on York Avenue, with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Surface spaces
would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident guests.
Planner Teague delivered a power point presentation highlight the project including the green space and
swimming pool above the parking deck. He recalled the changes the applicant has made since the
original sketch plat review, including the elimination of the loading dock, decreasing total number of
units, creation of podium height along Xerxes, creating better pedestrian connections, and new green
features. He noted that the road system can support the development and the parking is adequate.
Planner Teague concluded his presentation by indicating that staff recommends the City Council
approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows:
Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet.
> Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 1.27.
> Re -guiding the Land Use Plan for the six single-family homes from Low Density Residential to
Community Activity Center.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
I The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area.
The City of Richfield has guided the single-family homes on the east side of Xerxes as
medium density residential; therefore, the long-term vision of both Edina and Richfield in
this area is for higher densities.
2. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes and York as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. The six -story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to
minimize impact on adjacent property.
3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense
district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5
in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the
proposed use at 1.27, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area.
4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can
support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided.
Planner Teague indicated that staff also recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning
from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary
Development Plan to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family
homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue and build a six -story, 242 unit upscale
apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. Approval is subject to the
following findings:
1. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria
would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center —
Page 2 of 14
Az -
TI () 1-b
CAC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The
proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths
planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents in the City of
Richfield to Southdale.
3. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes.
4. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings would be a high quality
brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the
street level.
5. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site,
unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council.
6. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the
CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and
multiple family residential, on one site.
7. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and,
concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to
conditions.
8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a
consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian
environment.
b. Movement Patterns.
• Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods
along secondary streets or walkways.
• A Pedestrian- Friendly Environment.
c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that
complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character.
d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger
region.
e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize
traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base.
f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and
with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on
the car.
g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design,
construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development.
h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale.
Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower -density districts and upper stories "step
back" from street.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
I The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Development Plans dated March 3 & 25, 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 complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan
application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage,
and wall signage.
Page 3 of 14
AS16,
5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated
April 2, 20,14.
6. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the conditions outlined in
the chief building official's memo dated March 27, 2014.
7. Work with staff and Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from south bound York
Avenue.
8. Ten percent (10%) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific
detail would be determined at the time of Final approval.
9. Sustainable design principles must be used. Greater detail shall be provided with the Final
Rezoning submittal.
10. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned
Unit Development for this site.
Commissioner Platteter asked about the sidewalks in the sketch. Planner Teague pointed out the
sketch shows sidewalks' extending beyond what the developer is proposing; adding they will likely be
added when adjacent properties develop in the future.
Commissioner Platteter asked about the setback from the building to the nearby residential home
(Richfield). Planner Teague estimated an approximate 30 -foot setback from the Xerxes right-of-way to
the house; plus the setback for the proposed apartment building.
Commissioner Carr asked about the seventh story that is displayed on the west side of the building.
Planner Teague responded that will be a good question for the applicant.
Commissioner Olsen asked about how the loading dock will work with the retail. Planner Teague
pointed out the traffic pattern for delivery trucks.
Commissioner Olsen asked Chuck Richart, WSB & Associates, how vehicles would get to the south. Mr.
Richart stated they would either do a U-turn on 66th Street or turn onto France, adding this type of
movement was assumed as part of the study.
Chair Staunton observed if the rezoning request was to PCD -3 three setback variances would be
required, along with the building height, and the floor area ratio. Planner Teague concurred.
Commissioner Olsen noted Hennepin County Public Works recommended widening the boulevard on
Xerxes. Planner Teague indicated that will be part of future discussions, along with the landscaping
requirements.
Appearing for the Applican
Peter Chmielewski, Development Manager, Lennar Multi -Family Communities
Aaron Russet, ESG Architects
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Chmielewski stated Lennar Multi -Family Communities specializes in doing condo high-rise style in
first-tier cities. Lennar is very interested in making this the right project with the right materials and
integrating it with the community. He thanked the Planning Commission and the Council for pushing for
a redesign in certain areas. Lennar has worked to keep the integrity and language of the building the
same, while bringing back some sensitivities. Lennar has hired a broker to handle options agreements
Page of
A (K (X
with the homes on Xerxes; a representative with Lennar has met with each of the homeowners to
discuss their needs and wants.
Mr. Russet commented this is an incredible area to act as a bridge between very dense commercial
areas between single-family homes in the Richfield neighborhood. He pointed out several of the changes
that have been made since the last design presented. Accesses were eliminated through the site onto
Xerxes. The only physical connections to Xerxes are the front porches and sidewalks all the way to the
road. Eventually, hopefully, the sidewalks will connect north/south. The retail space has decreased from
22,000 square foot to 12,500. The original grocer did not work out, so now the idea is to have the
retailers fit well into the residences of this site. He discussed the changes in underground parking, trash
pick-up, as well as the area designated for resident moving.
Mr. Russet noted that the seventh story is just an architectural feature in order to acknowledge the
front door. One of the options considered will be two-story windows. There are now two courtyards
rather than one, which has helped increase the undulations of the building fa�ade. He noted the
increased square footages of the residential units, which will be more appropriate for those selling
houses in Edina but wanting to stay in Edina. The composition materials will be two colors of brick,
stucco, some metal panel and some fiber cement panel.
Discussion
Commissioner Carr complimented the architect on the new design.
Chair Staunton asked about the podium stepbacks on Xerxes. Mr. Russet presented the front porch
elevations and pointed out the 5 -foot and 3 -foot stepbacks. From the previous design, the building
moved back 12 feet, plus 5 feet and also 3 feet.
Mr. Chmielewski noted the architect wanted to create multiple setbacks, multiple uses, patios above the
walk -outs, then bays, and then balconies, with a flat faqade along the top. He pointed out there is a lot
happening on the Xerxes faqade that helps it appear it is further back than it actually is. Chmielewski
added the goal was to push the building back as far as possible while still making it a viable, adding this is
one of the highest -priced pieces of land that has ever been purchased in Edina. Concluding,
Chmielewski reported other developers have tried to make something work and could not from a
metric -standpoint, adding Lennar has worked on this the past year to try to make it feasible.
Chair Staunton noted the building is set back quite a ways from York Avenue. He asked if any thought
had been given to pushing the retail space closer to York Avenue so the apartment building could be
pushed back from Xerxes without losing any net space.
Mr. Chmielewski responded the goal was to have a boulevard protect the sidewalk. including a minimum
parking depth, minimum drive lane, and then brought the building forward as much as possible.
Chmielewski stated in his opinion retailers want adequate parking and height, the building has to be set
back beyond it, otherwise the ability to have the residential is lost. He concluded Lennar pulled the
building towards York as near as possible.
Chair Staunton asked about the parking spaces being flush with York. Mr. Chmielewski responded it is
basically flush. He noted there was discussion about sinking the parking, but general contractors gave a
lot of pushback regarding excavation.
Page 5 of 14
As�c
Commissioner Olsen noted additional setback from Xerxes would have been nice. She asked if there
was a way to reduce the building height in order to consider some of Richfield's comments about four
stories.
Mr. Russet responded that he worked on Oxford Hills on Grand Ave, adding this is the same type of
setback principle used. A challenge of setbacks is the contractors do not like transitions, and plumbing
cores need to go all the way through. This makes much larger units along the first and second floors.
Russet also pointed out as the building goes up, the kitchen and bathroom plumbing lines are stacked.
Concluding, Russet said because of the retail, it is easier to push things back on the York side. The
stacking element of the design really drove the discussions.
Mr. Chmielewski concurred the Xerxes has been pushed back as far as it can go.
Commissioner Lee asked about the newly created green space on the upper northeast. Mr. Russet
responded he believes the green space may be approximately a third of an acre.
Commissioner Lee asked about proposed retail tenants. Mr. Chmielewskii responded a local broker is
working on the tenant mix at this time. He added they believe the larger space would be a high-end
restaurant, and the other could be a daytime breakfast/coffee or a yoga studio, something that does not
compete with the high-end restaurant. Mr. Russet summarized it is not specific to the demographic, but
it certainly has to be complimentary.
Chair Staunton asked about a proposed green space in the north corner. Mr. Chmielewski responded
the goal for that area is to maintain it as more of a grass/open field. This area could be used by all the
residents of the area, rather than just the residents of the building.
Commissioner Olsen asked about consideration of sustainable guidelines. Mr. Russet responded ESG
inherently has green base specifications, from sealants to carpets to paints. One of the major sustainable
features of this site is the location. On weekends, this site has an amazing opportunity for residents to
use features without a car. Additionally, it is a walkable area. In both courtyards, there is a substantial
amount of green roof.
Mr. Chmielewski added that being a long-term holder and operator means efficient electricals and
minimizing water use in this building and also helps Lennar's bottom line. Also under exploration is a
possible shared garden space in the courtyard.
Commissioner Carr asked about bicycle racks. Mr. Russet responded there will be ample bike storage
to meet the needs of residents. As the plan evolves, they will be located throughout the underground
parking. Typically there is one bike stall per bedroom provided as well. Commissioner Carr asked that
bike racks be added for non-residents visiting the restaurants as well.
Commissioner Carr asked about public art at the front of the building. Mr. Chmielewski responded that
is not designated yet, but that can be considered.
Commissioner Platteter asked about breaking up the face on the east side and possibly changing the
courtyard 90 degrees. Mr. Chmielewski responded that corners for buildings are the most inefficient
uses of a building. He discussed why the courtyard was placed as it was in order to achieve the needed
density. Mr. Russet added that the current configuration allows for as much sun exposure as possible in
as many units as possible.
Page 6 of 14
k� I �
Commissioner Platteter asked if pets will be allowed and whether dog -walking areas will be allowed.
Mr. Chmielewskii responded pets will be allowed; a dog spa will be just off the elevator. You can circle
the entire site without crossing any main traffic areas.
Commissioner Schroeder asked about parking ratios related to retail. Mr. Chmielewski responded the
broker is providing the uses and the ratios, and those requirements have been met since the retail has
been shrunk.
Commissioner Schroeder noted the sidewalk is right up against the parking lot on York. He said in his
opinion ten spaces per thousand is excessive for retail. He suggested eliminating 24 spaces. Continuing,
Schroeder stated something that is 60 feet across should be more than just a setback. Concluding
Schroder said a reduction in parking, could provide more space on Xerxes.
Mr. Chmielewski responded this is something Lennar will look into, especially creating more interest
along Xerxes. Retail experts have indicated 100 parking spaces are required for a viable restaurant.
With incoming tenants, visitors, and employees, it is down to about 100 spaces.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
Public Testimon
Debbie Goettel, City of Richfield Mayor, thanked the Commission for consideration of their Richfield
neighbors. Goettel stated Richfield has no intention of the Richfield side of Xerxes being medium -
density; adding the mid -density reference in the Comprehensive Plan is a Met Council planning tool only.
She said this is a residential area, and would like this area to be considered as if it were Edina.
Considering, she noted the proposed apartment building will face one -and -a -half story Cape Cod houses
and one-story ramblers, and those houses will face decreased sunlight as a result of the building
shadows. Goettel concluded that an improvement would be increased setbacks from Xerxes and a
reduction to a four-story building. She noted this is a soft border and both Cities need to think about
each other as neighbors.
Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue S., expressed concerns about traffic increases that will result
from the limitations for left turns on York. He asked about the remaining houses left on the Edina side.
Dennis Fink, 6713 Xerxes Avenue S., expressed concern about the height of the building, and reduced
sunshine as a result of building shadows. He believes this building looks like South Minneapolis. He
does not believe the building is aesthetically pleasing for an area such as this. He also expressed concern
about increased traffic.
Linda Schnitzen, 6717 Xerxes Avenue S., commented this building does not fit with the character of a
residential neighborhood. She expressed concern about the value of her home. She asked the
Commission to consider how this would be handled if this were Edina property on the other side of the
street.
Nancy Bahr, 6620 Xerxes Avenue S., commented there will only be four houses on the west side of
Xerxes once the project is completed. She asked about the division with the house next to the building.
Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue S., asked how the sidewalks will fit with the street on the west
side of Xerxes. He asked about the access to Southdale and the possible addition of a traffic light to
help pedestrian traffic.
Page 7 of 14
ktl I
Nancy Bahr, 6620 Xerxes Avenue S., asked about the remaining four houses and any future plans for
them.
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner
Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion to close public hearing carried.
Continued Discussion
Chair Staunton asked Mr. Richart to address traffic issues brought up by residents. Mr. Richart
explained the various thought processes regarding the turning possibilities around the building. He
noted most people will go north than south. To south, most vehicles will go to Penn or other major
streets. He discussed the traffic volumes in the intersection are too low to warrant a traffic light. He
noted a couple other options for pedestrian crossing, with the new apartments at Southdale and at Cub
Foods.
Commissioner Olsen noted there will be a desire to cross the street there rather than walk down to
the light; noting this is a larger discussion Edina has to have.
Chair Staunton asked Mr. Chmielewski and Mr. Russet to discuss what was learned on the shadow
studies commissioned.
Mr. Chmielewski thanked the Commission and Council for pushing Lennar because Lennar desires to be
part of both of these communities. The goal is to do the best job possible because this redevelopment
opportunity has a lot benefit to both Richfield and Edina,'while balancing the issues at hand. However,
there is a limit to how far the developer can go before a project is no longer viable. He presented slides
on the shadow study which illustrated the impacts on the building and the homes across the street in
March, September, and December. There is very minimal difference between the shadows cast from
the nearby Cub Foods, which is approximately 2 stories high, and the proposed building. He then
discussed neighboring homes, two of whom are in foreclosure and one had a tax lien, which have a far
greater negative impact than anything else on neighbors. New residential construction tends to increase
neighboring home values.
Mr. Chmielewski also discussed the vegetative screening to be done as a barrier between the north
pocket park and neighbors.
Commissioner Olsen stated she is still struggling with the height of the six -story building and setback
from Xerxes Avenue.
Commissioner Lee discussed the value of being deliberate in planning towards future possible
development specifically in relation to the park plan on the Xerxes corridor as well as the ability to
cross York.
Planner Teague noted that there was focus on getting sidewalks on both sides of this development, so as
the parcels develop, it can ultimately connect people across the street to Southdale.
Chair Staunton clarified the two motions before the Council.
The Commissioners discussed the proper procedure of rezoning a district as well as approving a PUD.
Page 8 of 14
A &
lr-�t k
Commissioner Carr expressed support for the development.
Commissioner Olsen noted the project has vastly improved since the initial sketch, but she is still
concerned about the height and look on the Xerxes side.
Commissioner Lee noted this area is a transition from residential to commercial. She believes a little
tweaking will make the project doable. Overall, the density and height are probably where they need to
be. I
Commissioner Schroeder noted the transition in use between commercial and resident between York
and Xerxes is really good. He did express concern about the height of the building along Xerxes.
Chair Staunton expressed support for the changes made on the Xerxes side, but he suggested the entire
building could be pushed further back away from Xerxes to reduce the parking.
Planner Teague suggested the residential pieces be rezoned to PCD -3, if the Commission is inclined, so
when the applicant comes back for final rezoning, the PUD could be considered at that time. The City
Attorney could weigh in on the R- I not being eligible for a PUD rezoning.
Commissioner Platteter stated he thinks something further can be done on the Xerxes side. He really
likes the rest of the project.
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendments,
for the subject property, subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion.
Chair Staunton noted he would be in favor of the six -story building, though he thinks it can be pushed
back farther from Xerxes.
Ayes; Lee, Carr, Platteter, Staunton. Nays; Schroeder, Olsen. Abstain; Potts. Motion
carried. 4-2
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Rezoning, and
Preliminary Development Plans for the subject property, subject to staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion.
Commissioner Platteter offered a friendly amendment recommending the inclusion of
affordable housing.
Commissioners Carr and Platteter accepted that amendment.
Commissioner Olsen offered a friendly amendment to include recommendations regarding
turn lane as received in an email from Carl Stueve, Hennepin County
Commissioners Carr and Platteter accepted that amendment.
Page 9 of 14
)W
Chair Staunton called for the vote; amended motion. Ayes; Lee, Carr. Nays; Schroeder,
Olsen, Platteter, Staunton. Abstain Potts. Motion failed 2-4.
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend that the City Council deny the Preliminary
Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plans for the subject property. Commissioner
Olsen seconded the motion.
Chair Staunton asked Commissions Platteter and Olsen if they had further comments on their rationale
for denial. Commissioner Platteter stated he supported the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment; however, his vote to deny the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Develop Plan was
based on the layout of the project.
Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes; Schroeder, Olsen, Platteter, Lee, Staunton.
Nay; Carr. Abstain; Potts. Motion to deny carried 5- 1.
Commissioner
B. Site Plan and V
MN
Planner Presentation
to the Council Chambers at 9:45 p.m.
Border Foods (Taco Bell). 3210 Soutydale Circle, Edina,
Planner Teague informed the Commi ion that Border Foods Inc.yproposing to tear down the existing
Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a nZ, ght,y smaller Taco BeIVt 32 10 Southdale Circle. The building
would be 1,850 square feet in size. To ac mmodate the proD6sal to redevelop the site, the applicant is
requesting a Site Plan review and the follow Variances:
Parking Setback Variances from 10 to feet from
condition is a 3 -foot setback.) <
> Front Yard Building Setback Variance fro to
_i g I ti
> Variance for side menu board facing a resi ial
residential area.)
north and south lot line. (Existing
22 feet.
area. (Existing menu board directly faces
In 1985, a parking stall setback varian e wasdranted to ad�parking stalls for what was then a
c'
nc,
e
Zantigo Mexican Restaurant. The varia e, to match t dsexisting non -conforming setback of
three feet. As noted above, a four -foot tback for parking is ow proposed.
a
fou r-fo- t - e' ow prop'
Planner Teague delivered a power int presentation to highligh the project.
P
Planner Teague concluded h is pr sentation by indicating that staff re ornmends the City Council
r. T
at new a o
approve the Site Plan with Vfa ' /nces for the construction of Be] I restaurant at 32 10
Southdale Circle. Approval s based on the following findings:
1. The proposal
exception of
2. The Di-0130sed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is *aller than the existing
e site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one-
isting conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the
pointed away from the residential area to the east.
61d meet the required standards and ordinances r a Site Plan with the
setback variances.
building on/h
foot from 4x
building and
Page 10 of 14
ab
a
Motion carried.
Forester Horwath addr sed aised during publi relating to cost and timing to replant a
y issues ' "C 't:nt'M0,"1'
JCern
large tree, potential CitNs lity if regulating tree plz difficult predictability of tree impact. He
recommended including the ttate of Minnesota list /o�finva ve trees within the ordinance. Mr. Horwath
stated his concern relating to e amount of time enfor ment would require and indicated he had not
I )p t r
found tree replacement to be \aJor concern as prop y owners were not often cutting down significant
trees unnecessarily.
The Council continued discussion of th
.the merits oU t
Council expressed support f(
input on the most logical mi
excluded, how to define a
replacement ratios, how to
made a motion, second
Amendment to Chap;terO,
Session.
meno(nent and asked questions of Mr. Teague and Mr. Neal.
,thoVo preserve the City's tfV,,E canopy, whether home additions should be
b ze should be a factor in terms of
ygic removal radius, whethe sli
0
Jul�Nlot
ifnit the City's costs, and b va replanting strategy. Member Sprague
by Member Brindle, tabling c eration of Ordinance No. 2014-06,
0
Article III of the City Code, Regarclln�g ree Preservation, to a future Work
Ayes: Bennett, Bri le, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
VI.B. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PUD REZONING, PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LENNAR CORPORATION, 6725 YORK AVENUE AND 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700,
AND 6628 XERXES AVENUE —RESOLUTIONS NO. 2014-51 AND 2014-52 —ADOPTED
Mayor Hovland recognized elected Richfield officials who were in attendance.
Community Development Director Presentation
Mr. Teague presented the request of Lennar Corporation for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
the building height from four stories and 48 feet to six stories and 70 feet; floor area ratio from 1.0 to 1.27;
and, reguiding the Land Use Plan for the five single-family homes from Low Density Residential to
Community Activity Center. He reported on concerns of Richfield residents on the east side of Xerxes
Avenue with the proposed setbacks. It was noted the traffic study concluded the existing roadways and
parking could support this project and recommended creating a left turn into the site on York Avenue.
Mr. Teague advised that the Planning Commission recommended, on a split vote, approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and denial of the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development
Plan based on the layout of the project. Mr. Teague indicated the proponent had revised the plans by
reducing the size of the retail space; expanding the width of the boulevard along York Avenue, shifting the
entire building ten feet to the west; and, creating additional setbacks (eight feet) on the top floor corners
of the building facing Xerxes Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning, and Preliminary Development Plan per the findings and conditions as
outlined in the draft resolutions. If approved, the developer would be required to return for Final
Rezoning to PUD; Final Development Plan; and, Ordinance amendment creating the new PUD District. In
addition, a City Code amendment would be needed to allow R-1 property to be considered for a PUD.
The Council addressed the indication of the Edina Housing Foundation that 20% affordable housing was a
trigger for federal money and the Council had expressed interest in pursuing that type of project where
fundinR could be maximized.
Page 4 hi K
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 6, 2014
Proponent Presentation
Peter Chmielewski described projects undertaken and managed by Lennar Corporation.
Aaron:Russet Roseth, ESG Architects, presented the project, described revisions to the overall scheme, and
indicated that from the perspective of urban design and City building perspectives, this project offered an
incredible opportunity to redevelop large parking spaces and outdated mall spaces into a viable walkable
commercial node.
Mr. Chmielewski reviewed past consideration of this project and described revisions made to address
concerns raised including those expressed by the Mayor and citizens of Richfield, noting it had pushed this
project to the edge of viability. He indicated this project met or exceeded the 12 conditions of the PUD
and asked that approval not include Condition 8 requiring 10% affordable housing.
The Council asked questions of Mr. ;Russet Roseth and AAr-. Ghmiel.eWski, relating to
proposed with this project and setback distances. Mr. Teague stated the six -story Lyndale Garden project
had a setback of about 35 feet from the street with the drive aisle and parking spaces creating separation
from single -unit residential prpiperties. The six -story Vernon Terrace project had a setback of 35 feet to
the lot line. Mr. Teague advised of concerns expressed by Richfield staff and support to shift the building
to the west- which for a PCD -3 zoning district, adjacent to an,R-1 single dwelling unit districtrie,qdiriad-that
- s 1. i x I... s .. t .. o 1. r . y - build irig be �set back twice its height from the nearest lot line I of the nearest R;�,i 0,r6preriy.�,ike
r
stated that the required setback from Edina single dwelling unit,,properties, fo the,: prop
A LPIC L-tv IIUCILp UIU, JI�ZLWI Y FWA �Iwlm - U.-
ist lot line of the homes across.,Xerx0s Avenue in Richfie.ld,�
Mr. Knutson advised it was appropriate for the Council to review this request on a preliminary basis and if
the rezoning to PUD was -not allowed, it would not be finally rezoned. Mr. Teague described Edina's
required setbacks depending on the zoning of the property.
Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 10:09 p.m.
Public Testimony
Richfield Mayor Debbie Goettel, 6700 Portland Avenue South, addressed the Council.
Patrick Elliott, 6720 Oliver Avenue So.uth, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Fran Peterson, 6912 Washburn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Vivian Baumann, 6913 Xexres Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Kathleen White, 7115 Morgan Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Matt Tietje, 6733 Russell Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Dewayne Sietsema, 6724 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Lisa Schwab, 6740 Washburn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue South, Edina, addressed the Council.
Bill Blanchard, 6936 Washburn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Page 5 N i L
Minutes/Edina City Council/MaV 6, 2014
Steven Schwab, 6740 Washburn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Anita Gibson, 6813 Xerxes Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Joe Hoover, 7627 Harriet Avenue, Richfield, addressed the Council.
Frank Lorenz, 7551 York Avenue South, Unit 720, Edina addressed the Council.
Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
Mr. Neal addressed tax ramifications to the Richfield School District and indicated if the project was
assessed at $25 million, it would yield $530,000 of new property taxes with $200,000 to the City and
between $175,000 to $250,000 to the Richfield School District.
Mr. Ruse Roseth. and Mr. Chmielewski addressed issues raised during public testimony relating to impact
of vehicle headlight pollution on Xerxes Avenue South, points of building entrance, areas of resident and
visitor parking, 100% stormwater management (via tanks and grit chambers), increased permeability, and
pedestrian connections between Xerxes and York Avenues.
Chuck Rickart, WSB & Associates on behalf of the City of Edina, answered questions of the Council and
indicated that Xerxes Avenue was not considered in the traffic study as the proposed plan did not include a
point of access on Xerxes Avenue. He also commented on sidewalk and crosswalk locations.
Mr. Teague stated the setback was about 105 feet from the edge of the building to the north property line
(south edge of the park). Mr. 4wset Roseth described the finding of the shadow study and impact to five
houses across the street. The Council suggested the landscape plan along Xerxes Avenue include a mixture
of plantings and tree species. Mr. Teague reviewed the past and current zoning classification of the Wie"
Wickes property.
The Council acknowledged the height limit west of France Avenue and east of Xerxes Avenue was set at
four stories in 2005-2006 with the creation of the Westin Hotel. Member Swenson introduced and moved
adoption of Resolution No. 2014-51, Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding Building
Height, Floor Area Ratio, and Land Use. Member Sprague seconded the motion.
Concern was expressed relating to the proposed setback from properties in Richfield and desire for Edina
to be a 'good neighbor' to its bordering communities. The Council discussed the varying heights in this
area and benefit of the redevelopment project to improve the streetscape, create connectivity, benefit of
using podium height, and positive precedence set for York Avenue. The Council reviewed the
considerations made to address the concerns expressed by the City of Richfield and to assure the project
fit the neighborhood well.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Nays: Bennett
Motion carried.
The Council asked staff to address the streetscape to assure balance with the widths of the sidewalk,
boulevard, and green buffer strip prior to final consideration. Member Swenson introduced and moved
adoption of Resolution No. 2014-52, Approving Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial
District and R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary
Page 6 4,8 1 k,
Minutes/Edina City Council/may 6, 2014
Development Plan for 6725 York Avenue and 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700, and 6628 Xerxes Avenue, as
amended to remove Condition 8, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans
dated March 3 & 251 2014 and the revised plans submitted to the City Council on May 6, 2014.
2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36-1436
through 36-1462 of the City Code.
3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code.
4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application.
Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage.
S. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated April 2,
2014.
6. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the chief
building official's memo dated March 27, 2014.
7. Work with staff and Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from south bound York Avenue.
9. TeA pemeAt (10%) of the he-usiAg units shall be desigAateedd for afferdable heusiAg. SpeGifle detpA
wa-dd bp dtatprmined at the time of final appFGVVAI
9. Sustainable design principles must be used. Greater detail shall be provided with the Final Rezoning
submittal.
10. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit
Development for this site.
11. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding consideration of R-1 property within a PUD,
prior to final rezoning.
12. Final Rezoning is contingent on adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Met Council
approval of the Amendment.
Member Sprague seconded the motion.
Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Nays: Bennett
Motion carried.
VI.C. SITE PLAN WITH ML)kTIPLE VARIANCES FOR BORDER FOODS, INC. AT32��UTHDALE CIRCLE—
RESOLUTION NO. 20A-53 —ADOPTED
Mr. Teague presented the proposz\(of Border Foods, Inc. to tear down the isting Taco Bell Restaurant at
L.85 �a�e feet. Mr. Teague advised of
3210 Southdale Circle, and rebuild a\�lightly smaller building of " 50 sJ
the parking setback, front yard buiNing setback, and menu b d placement variances required to
accommodate this project. He reporte the lanning Commiss!91K unanimously recommended approval of
the site plan and variances subject to��, findings and ions as detailed in the April 9, 2014 staff
memo. r�
Proponent Presentation
Barbara Schneider, representing Border Food
District had already been received. She cle,%�
, stated a permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
,the improvements proposed to the Taco Bell site and
respectfully requested the Council's apg6al of the §(te plan and variances.
Mayor Hovland opened the publicffiaring at 11:22 p.m
Public Testimon
No one appeared to corn /ent.
Member Bennettrp6de a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing.
Ayes: Bennetorindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried. Page 7 P)
OR
4 � Land Use and
Figure 4.8 2030 Future Land Use Plan CommunityFacilities
Rich�eld Comprehensive Plan 4-15
Land Use and
CommunityFacilities
5-
4=4
�_V
4 — — — — ---------- — ------------- — --- __ —
4-18 Richfield Comprehensive Plan
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
The Medium Density Residential land use category was
derived from the Single-family Residential — High Density
category (R-SFH) that was included in the City's 1999
Comprehensive Plan. The medium density residential
category replaces the R-SFH category. Naming this
category medium density better clarifies the intent
of the residential uses within this category. Medium
density residential accommodates attached housing,
predominantly townhomes or condomi.niums ranging
from 7 to 12 units per acre. Medium density residential
also includes manufactured housing.
Medium - High Density Residential (MHID)
Medium - High Density Residential includes multi-
unit and multi -building developments. The intent is to
allow for higher density housing, sucfi as townhome
developments. The allowed densitywould rangefrom 12
to 24 units per acre and no greater than 4 stories tall.
�:ity Hall - Phone 952-833-9520
Fax 952-826-0390 - www.CityofEdina.com
Date: March 27, 2014
To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director
cc: Tom Schmitz, Fire Chief
From: David Fisher, Chief Building Official
Re: 6725 York Ave — Former Wicks Furniture Re -Development
Draft Plans Dated March 3, 2014
PA E NI 0
X""
01
The Building Department has reviewed the above proposed project with following comments:
- Provide a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the
city for building permits.
- All exiting must go to a public way.
- Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings.
- The building setbacks must comply with the 2006 1 BC for exterior wall protection.
- Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit.
- Provide fire sprinklers to NFPA 13.
- Verify fire sprinkler requirements under balconies.
- Verify the accessible parking is in compliance with the state building code.
- There has been a 30% review with the building & fire department staff for this project. I would
recommend that this project continues with the pre -construction meetings with the design.
processionals, contractor, the project manager and the city building and fire department staff.
AIT
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 5S424
Engineering Department - Phone 952-826-0371
Fax 952-826-0392 - www.CityofEdina.corn
Date: April 2, 2014
Revised May 21, 2014 (After detailed plans were submitted)
To: Cary Teague - Community Development Director
From: Chad Millner -Director of Engineering
Re: 6725 York Ave - Former Wicks Furniture Re -Development
Draft Plans Dated March 3, 2014
Plans Dated May 12, 2014
M_ E M 0
A,
0
Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments:
• A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with potential other agency permits
such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, and MCES.
• A developer's agreement will be required for the placement of the public water main and sanitary
sewer and for any other public improvements. The developer agreement should indicate that the
watermain and sanitary sewer mainline are public.
o The entire watermain loop with hydrants shall be public and the sanitary sewer trunk pipe up to the
terminating manholes before service pipes head into the building shall be public Indicate on plans what
utilities are private versus public by noting that on the pipes.
o The City requires utility easements over the public watermain and sanitary sewer pipes.
o The agreement should also state that the City is responsible for the maintenance and operation
of the watermain and sanitary sewer and in the event that the City needs to excavate for a
repair of the system that the City is not responsible for restoring the surface, such as pavements
and / or landscaping.
• A set of signed as -built plans will be required with the final C.O.
o An AutoCAD or GIS shape file shall be submitted to engineering of the public utility pipes as part of the
asbuiits.
• Staff requires connecting the watermain to the Edina water distribution system. Watermain cannot
be connected to both Edina and Richfield distribution systems.
Details are needed on the infiltration system such as.expected infiltration rates. This would be part
of the watershed permitting process.
• Engineering will indicate where to place the watermain gate -valves.
• Construct utilities per City of Edina Standard Details.
• Watertight sanitary sewer castings are required on all sanitary sewer manholes.
0 SAC and WAC fees will be required.
0 Note the removal of the sidewalk along York Ave.
• If an irrigation system is planned, please note where water will be provided from.
• Coordinate all connections to watermain and sanitary sewer with Edina Public Works.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review.
G:\PW\ADMIN\COMM\EXTERNAL\GENERAL CORR BY STREETS\Y Streets\6725 York - Former Wicks Site\201403xx CM -Edina Review 6725 York.doc
I — k15
Engineering Department - 7450 Metro Blvd - Edina, MN 55439
April 9, 2014
Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director
City of Edina
4801 W. 5& Street
Edina, IVIN 55424
MAYOR
DEBBIE GOMEL Dear Mr. Teague,
City Manager's Office
CITY COUNCIL
ELLIOTT
I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing being hel d before the Edina Planning
PAT
TOM FITZHENRY
Commission on April 9, 2014 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezonings related
EDWINA GARCIA
to the proposed development at 6725 York Ave. S.
SLIZANNE M. SANDAHL.
I would like this letter to be entered into the public record as it relates to this Public Hearing
CITY MANAGER
and, if possible, have the following read
STEVEN L. DEVICH
aloud at the Public Hearing,
On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning
Commission was held to discuss the proposed development at 6725 York Avenue South in
Edina. I am writing this letter to reflect the discussion that occurred at that meeting. In
addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager
Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that
meeting.
Although Richfield public officials have no formal legal authority to play a role in the
consideration of land use applications in the City of Edina, we feel that it Is good public policy
and good practice as a neighboring community to aflow meaningful impact by an adjoining
jurisdiction, especially in a case such as this which is located on a "soft border" between two
communities.
Richfield policy makers and staff do have a number of concems as they relate to this
proposed development. They are as follows:
A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for
Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this
area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit
District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances
and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional
height would adversely affect Richfield homes.
A building setbeck of less than 132 feet from existing single-Mmily lot lines. The
proposed setback is significantly less than what Edina requires for PCD -S District and/or
Planned Resident District (PRD) projects when ad acent to R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District)
properties. i 9
a The PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R-1
property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. In this case that is
equal to 132 feet; however, the proposal is for a setback of approximately 104 feet.
The PRD District requires a minimum setback from an R-1 property line in
accordance with the following calculation: I 0(height of building -40) + 80. The total height of
I'lle 01)(111 [10111clown
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
ww%v-cRyofrichfW,or9 AN EQUAL OPPORTUMY EMPLOYER
April 9, 2014
Page 2
the proposed building is approximately 75 feet-, however, the maximum height of the portion
facing Xerxes Avenue is approximately 65 feet. The required setback would be between 330
- 423 feet, depending on the number applied. If the building were only 4 stories or 44 feet,
the requirement would be for a minimum setback of 120 feet.
Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its minimal setback. As
a response from a request by Richfield staff members, Lennar conducted a shadow analysis.
This analysis shows that in December, the buildlings would begin to cast shade on six to
eight Richfield homes sometime between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. This impact would be
lessened, and possibly eliminated, by reducing the building's height to four stories and/or
increasing the building's setback from Xerxes Avenue. The project seems to have excess
retail parking that would allow for the building(s) to be shifted farther to the west.
Architectural Context. The project will face a block,of on.e-and-a-half story cape cods and
single -story ramblers. The proposed design is not context -sensitive to the period or style of
housing in the adjacent neighborhood.
Dog Park. The neighborhood has expressed concerns about noise related to a dog park
and would prefer passive open space.
I firmly believe that these are all concerns that Edina residents would have if they were in the
same position as those Richfield residents adjacent to the property and, in short, we are
asking that you treat Richfield residents concerns with as much validity as if they were your
own residents.
Sincerely,
b
Mayor
Copy: Richfield City Council
City Manager
Community Development Director
May 2, 2014
City Council
On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning
Commission was held to discuss the proposed development. In addition to Richfield's
Council Members and Pianning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal�.and
Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting.
On April 9, the Edina Planning Commission recommended denial of Lennar's site plan;- in
part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents.
Since that time, the developer has made some very minor adjustments to their plan that do
not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary
concern are the following -
A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for
Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this
area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit
District is two and 6 half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances
and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional
height would adversely affect Richfield homes.
A building setback of less,than 140 feet from existing single-family lot lines. 'The
proposed setback less than what Edina requires for PCD -3 District projects when adjacent to
R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission
Report dated April 9, 2014, the PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum
setback from an R-1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building.
The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent
revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at, 132 feet it remains short of the City's
nmn"ira Pni
The (.4-han Hoincloit'n
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RI.GHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861,!
wwll c4africhErld-m- AN EQUAL OPPOFiTuw" EmPLOYM
Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director
City of Edina
MAYOR
4801 W. 50"" Street
DESSIEGOETTEL
Edina, MN 55424
CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mr. Teague,
PKI FI, LIOTT
TOM FIT7HFNRY
EDWINA GARCIA
I would like this letter to be entered into the public record as it relates to this Public Hearing
SUZANNE INA SANDAI IL
and, if possible, have the following read aloud at the Public Hearing.
C rl Y MANAGER
I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing being held before the Edina City Council on May
STDEN L. DEVICH
6, 2014 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezonings related to the proposed
development at 6725 York Ave. S. Richfield city officials feel that it is good public policy and
good practice as a neighboring community to allow meaningful impact by an adjoining
jurisdiction, especialiy in a case such as this which is located on a "soft border' �between two
communities.
On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning
Commission was held to discuss the proposed development. In addition to Richfield's
Council Members and Pianning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal�.and
Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting.
On April 9, the Edina Planning Commission recommended denial of Lennar's site plan;- in
part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents.
Since that time, the developer has made some very minor adjustments to their plan that do
not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary
concern are the following -
A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for
Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this
area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit
District is two and 6 half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances
and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional
height would adversely affect Richfield homes.
A building setback of less,than 140 feet from existing single-family lot lines. 'The
proposed setback less than what Edina requires for PCD -3 District projects when adjacent to
R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission
Report dated April 9, 2014, the PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum
setback from an R-1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building.
The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent
revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at, 132 feet it remains short of the City's
nmn"ira Pni
The (.4-han Hoincloit'n
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RI.GHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861,!
wwll c4africhErld-m- AN EQUAL OPPOFiTuw" EmPLOYM
May'2, 2014
Page. 2
Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its reduced setback.
As a responsellfrom a request by Richfield staff members, Lennar conducted a shadow
analysis. Thisanalysis shows that in December, the buildings would begin to cast shade on
six to eight Richfield homes sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. While I appreciate
that the developer has increased the Xerxes Avenue setback, this impact would be
e.liminated by orienting the site's larger building mass toward York Avenue, the major
commercial artery.
Architectural Context. The project will face a block of one -and -a -half story cape cods and
single -story ramblers. The proposed design is not context -sensitive to the period or style of
housing in the adjacent neighborhood.
I firmly believe that these are all concerns that Edina residents would have if they were in the
same posi . tion as those Richfield residents adjacent to the property and, in short, we are
asking that you treat Richfield residents' concerns with as much validity as if they were your
own residents.
Sincerely,
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
ma -MI,
Copy: Richfield City Council
City Manager
Community Development Director
A,
e
0
To: Planning Commission Agenda Item #: V1. C.
From: Karen M. Kurt Action El
Discussion F]
Date: May 28, 2014 Information N
Subject: Small Area Plan Survey Results and Small Area Plan Guidebook
Action Requested:
None
Information / Background:
Attached are the results of the small area plan survey conducted in March. Twenty-one individuals
responded to the small area plan survey for Edina resulting in a response rate of 75% percent. Seven of the
responses were from planning commissioners, six were from the Grandview Executive Committee, three
were from the City Council and five were from Administration and Community Development staff.
The survey was instrumental in the creation of the draft Small Area Plan Guidebook. The Guidebook is
intended to provide a general structure for the small area planning process. Our goal is to test and refine the
draft Guidebook during the upcoming Wooddale and Valley View small area plan. After completion of the
small area plan, the revised Guidebook will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further discussion
and approval.
Attachments
0 Small Area Plan Survey Results
0 Draft Small Area Plan Guidebook
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424
To: Planning Commission
From: Karen M. Kurt
Date: May 28,2014
Subject: Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Charter
Action Requested:
Approve the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Charter.
Information / Background:
A,
e
0
'CIOR TL�
i as
Agenda Item #: V1. D.
Action 0
Discussion M
Information El
The Planning Team charter establishes the role and expectations of citizen volunteers during the small area
plan process. The Planning Team would be a working group of the Planning Commission and chaired (or co-
chaired) by a member,of the Planning Commission. Commissioners Forrest and Lee have agreed to serve on
the Planning Team.
Additional Planning Team members will be solicited through a press release and at the kickoff meeting, on
June 18. Applications will be due June 25. Applications will be screened during the month of June by
members Forrest and Lee and staff. Membership recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning,
Commission for approval at the July 9 meeting.
Attachment:
0 Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Charter
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424
City of Edina, Minnesota o Le
Wooddale and Valley View Small Area Plan
Small Area Planning Team Charter
Pr lect Overview
01
The Small Area Planning Team will assist with the development of a small area plan for the
Wooddale and Valley View commercial area. Small area plans provide guidance on land use,
transportation, housing, environmental protection and park/nat.ural spaces within a specific
geographic area. Ultimately the goal of a small area plan is to,implrove the quality of life within the
geographic area, while meeting greater goals outlined in the. City's Comprehensive Plan. Small area
plans outline a community vision intended that is intended to',Ib�jmplementecl over an extended -
period of time as opportunities arise. Small area plans do hot guarantee that what, when or how
redevelopment will occur.
Small Area Plan Process
A successful small area plan is the result of an extended effort by a number", of:" arties. In Edina,
p
key contributors to the process includej1he City Council,' Planning Commission, Small Area Planning
Team, staff and the consulting organizatibm.
City Council
Call for actio
Consultant
�Serve as technical resource
Facilitate community
meetings,
Synthesize data
Draft.plan document
1 .
Small Area Planning Team Membership
The Small Area Planning Team serves as a Working Group of the Planning Commission. As a
working group, a planning commissioner serves as the chair or co-chair of the Small Area Planning
Team. The proposed Planning Team membership for this project is:
• Two planning commissioners
• Approximately four neighborhood residents
9 Approximately two property or business owners
Actual membership may vary depending on the volunteer applications received. It is desirable that
that one member be a member of, and serve as a liaison to, the Concord Neighborhood
Association. The Planning Commission will approve the team m "embers. If there are more
volunteers than spots available, it will be the responsibility of the Planning Commission to select
the members of the working group. This may be done through the review of applications or
interviews.
Member Responsibilities
Planning Team members should be committed to advocating for the process over individual
preferences. Members of the Planning Team have the following responsibilities.:
Advises on the best methods to achieve public participation and champions the project
with the local area
Identifies and engages neighbbr.h6od'stakeholders
Helps to identify issues and concerns in'the area
May lead or assist with the coordination and faci litation of public meetings
• Clarifies themes from information gathered during the public input process and ensures
that plan reflects those themes
• Brainstorms solutions when conflicts exists between neighborhood goals and larger
community goals
• Presents updates to planning commission, after the public participation is completed and
when then the draft plan is finished
• Ensures that projects remains on schedule
While hours may vary throughout,the project, members should anticipate a time commitment of
4-8 hours a month With the most intensive work occurring during the month of October.
Project Timeline
The City is anticipating a six-monAh timeframe for the project. However, the project may extend to
February if public review of the draft plan cannot be completed prior to December 15.
Kickoff Meeting
------------------ - ------- ------ ----- ------- - - ------------
Identify Planning Team
and Consultant
Engagement Preparation
6
�--Public Input -Meetings----
Draft Plan Development
M'k W
and Review
-
Planning Commission
Review
city Council Review
To: Planning Commission.
From: Karen M. Kurt
Date: May 28, 2014
Subject: Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan Consulting Services
�A,
W�'4 k 10 -
It Pop-NIV-9
isas
Agenda Item #: VLE.
Action El
Discussion N
Information 0
Action Requested:
Provide feedback on the attached request for information (RFI) for consulting services.
Information / Background:
The attached RFI is for consulting services for the Wooddale Valley View small area plan. The intent is -to
release the RFl this week. Responses would be due on June 20. City staff would review the responses and
the select 2-3 finalists to interview with the s m all area planning team during the month of July.
Attachment:
0 Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan RFl for Consulting Services
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424
• Identifying issues or conflicts and potential options for consideration by the Small Area
Planning Team,
• Drafting the small area plan document, and
• Providing feedback on the draft Small Area Plan Guidebook
The Community Engagement Plan should generate the following small area plan components:
Values, Trends and
Assessments
A SWOT -type analysis should be done to determine strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In addition, strongly -held
community values should be identified.
Visioning and Issue
Descriptive end -states or visions of.what the community wants for the
Identification
future. Fundamental conflicts or challenges should also be
identified and discussed.
Strategy Formulation
Major programs, initiatives or actions should be identified to address
key issues, including Ia,h,,d,use, and to mov I e th,e community towards its
shared vision. The strategy should assign accountability and a
timeframe for action steps.
The small area plan document should follow the same general outline as Edina's Comprehensive
Plan. Content would include (as applicicable)i:,
Introduction
Vision, Goals and Objectives
Neighborhood Profile..
• Land Use and Co.m munitV�pOsign
• Housing
• Heritage Preservation
• Transoorta ion
• wiitor kesou'rce'.M'anagement
• Parks.,
• Ene'r "and Environment
gy
• community, Services andFacilities""..
• Imp leme�n\taiiojn Plan
Within each chapter, tk, e. I f\011,ow-i'ng,information should be summarized:
• General background,, , information, including current conditions
• Trends and challenges
0 Specific goals and tactics to reach the goal.
While the goal is to follow a common format to promote alignment with the comprehensive plan,
there is flexibility to add information or topics based on specific community concerns, needs or
interests.
Timeline
The City is anticipating a six-month timeframe for the project. However, the project may extend to
February if public review of the draft plan cannot be completed prior to December 15.
Kickoff Meeting
Identify Planning Team
and Consultant
1 Engagement Preparation
Public Input Meetings
Draft Plan Development
and Review
Planning Commission
imp
Review
City Council Review
Response Guidelines and Deadline
Interested consultants sh 6uld forward the following information (no more than 6' pages) for
consideration:
1) Brief descriptioln'Of proposed approach to the project.'
2) Description of innovative community engagement techniques successfully used in the past,
3) A summary of any information or supporty'pu anticipate needing from staff beyond what
has been described in the proceeding diagr�arb,
4) A summary of what youbelieve differentiates, you from other peers in the field,
Examples of past similar projects, including links to final work products,
6) Brief biographies of any staff who would directly engage with City staff or residents, and
7) Anticipated cost and ti.moline of the project.
Responses and/or questions related to the RFI should be directed to Karen Kurt, Assistant City
Manager at 952.826.0415 or kkwt(@edinamn.go . Responses are due June 20, 2014. City staff will
screen and select two consultants to be interviewed by the Small Area Planning Team based on
the perceived match between the information provided and the City's project needs. Interviews
with the Small Area Planning Team are anticipated to take place during the month of July.
CITY OF EDINA MEMO
City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861
Fax 952-826-0389 www.CityofEdina.com
U)
0
Date: May 28, 2014
To: Planning Commission
From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director
Re: Item VII. E. 2014 Work Plan
As requested at the last Planning Commission meeting attached is a copy of the Planning
Commission 2014 Work Plan. With our new Planning Commissioners now on board, the
Commission is asked to have a general discussion on the Work Plan.
Planning Commission
2014 Annual Work Plan
i014 New Initiative Target
Budget Required
Staff Support
Required
Council Approval
Completion
Date
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (See On-going
No additional
Yes, staff support is
Council approval is required
attached Zoning Ordinance Work Plan
budget requested
required
for each Zoning Ordinance
Tracker.)The Planning Commission would
at this time
amendment
like to complete the following from the list
in 2014:
1. Sign Plan Sign Ordinance 2014
30 Hours
2. Parking regulations/Proof-of-parking 2014
30 Hours
3. Max./min.size for Apts. & Senior Housing 2014
10 hours
4. Lighting/Noise Regulations 2014
20;,hours
B. Policy Recommendations 2014
No additional
Yes, staff support is
Council approval is required
1. Sustainability enforcement/PUD/Ped.
budget requested
required
friendly/affordable housing
at this time
2. Tree Ordinance/Landscaping
3. Mid Term Comp. Plan Consideration
4. Monitoring Residential Redevelopment
standards & ordinance
C. Commission Liaison On-going
1. Connectivity — Living Streets
2. France Avenue Corridor Planning
3. Mpls. 44/France Small Area Plan
4. GranclView Next Steps
D. Small Area Plan - Conduct a Small Area
2014-15
$25,000-$75,000
Yes, staff support is
Council approval is required
Plan for the Wooddale and Valley View
depending on the
requ . ired
Commercial area as defined in the
scope of work to be
Comprehensive Plan.
done by a
consultant.
Progress Report:
The Planning Commission is responsible to review all Land Use applications submitted to the City of Edina. Land Use applications include:
Variances; Site Plan Review; Sketch Plan Review; Conditional Use Permits; Subdivision; Lot Line Adjustments; Rezoning; and Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
To accomplish this responsibility the Planning Commission meets twice per month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month. The
Planning Commission typically reviews 3-4 of the above requests each agenda.
Small Area Plans —Areas from the Comprehensive Plan that suggest
are "Potential Areas of Change"
Proposed Month for Joint Work Session:
Staff Comments: We anticipate 2014 as another very busy year for development. We will try to
accomplish as much as we can outside of our usual "ongoing responsibilities."
Council Comments:
Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com
Date: May 28, 2014
To: Planning Commission
From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director
MEMO
A,
e
V,
0
Re: Item VII. D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing Densities in Mixed
Use Areas
Staff will present issues to the Planning Commission that are related to the City's existing
Comprehensive Plan, in regard to housing densities with the commercial/mixed use areas, at the
meeting.
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424
A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the plannin$ commission.
Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy.
Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages wiH calculate automatically.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Counted as Meetin-q Held (ON MEETINGS'LINE)
NAME
TERM
J
IF
M
A
M
J J S N ID I Work Session Work Sess0onj#'0f:Mtgs.
Attendance.%-.�
Meetings/Work Sessions
... ........
1 111111
Type "'I " under the month for each attending member.
1
1 1
1
9
There is no numb%typed on the meetings! line.
... ................... . *..:.:.:.:: .......
....... ... ....... ... . : ... . . . ......... .
X...:;XX
... . .........
.x
.... ....
Forrest, Arlene
2/1/2016
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
8
89%
Olsen, Jo Ann
2/1/2014
1
1 1
1 1
5
100%
Platteter, Michael
2/1/2016
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
8
89%
Pofts, Ken
2/1/2014
1
1
111
1 1
1
7
78%
Lee,Susan
2/1/2017
11
1 1
1 1
5
100%
Scherer, Nancy Nyrop
2/1/2015
1 1
1
1
11
1
6
67%
Schroeder, Michael
2/1/2015
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
7
78%
Staunton, Kevin
2/1/2015
1 1
1 1
1 1
6
67%
Carr, Claudia
2/1/20161—
1 1
1 1
1
6
67%
Halva, T6ylor
Student
I I i 1�1
1
1� 1
1 1
9
100%
Kilberg, Benjamin
Student
1111111111
1, 1
1 1
lit I — 1+� 9
100%
A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the plannin$ commission.
Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy.
Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages wiH calculate automatically.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Counted as Meetin-q Held (ON MEETINGS'LINE)
Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBE!B!S LINE
Regular Meeting w/Quorum
Type "l " under the month on the meetings' line.
Type 1" under the month for each a2nding member.
Regular Meeting wto Quorum
Type "V under the month on the meetings'line.
Type "l " under the month for each att#nding member.
Joint Work Session
Type "l " under "Work Session" on the meetings' line.
Type "I" under "Work Session" for each attending member.
Rescheduled Meeting'
Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type "'I " under the month for each attending member.
Cancelled Meeting
Type "l " under the month on the meetings' line.
Type 1 " under the month for ALL members.
Special Meeting
There is no numb%typed on the meetings! line.
There is no number typed on the members' lines.
*A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of gnew meeting dateitime at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is
SMAL
I
L AREA PLAN
GUIDEBOOK
Spring 2014
Start Up
Overview
This Guidebook provides a general structure for approaching the small area planning process
and is intended to serve as a resource for planning staff, planning commissioners and residents
serving on small area planning teams.
Small area plans help to implement the goals of the Edina's Comprehensive Plan. Small area
plans provide guidance on land use, transportation, housing, environmental protection and
park/natural spaces uses and improvements in a specific geogqo, hic area. Ultimately the goal of
a small area plan is improve the quality of life within the gei b�%Zc area, as well as the greater
community. Local residents, business owners and other olders work together with staff
and members of the citizen -led planning commission t, mall area plans for City Council
approval.
The benefits of a small area planning process,40036rde:
• Gaining an understanding of neigh borh),66 issues and concerns,
• Establishing a future vision for the are omo:,Unity input,
�,qn c-
1\611
Increasing neighborhood owjiksfiip of plan 66"I'l nd goals, IVIV
P 1,es a
Increasing neighborhood u f9t,
0 of the c rehensive plan and regulations
Win c
related to land use, and
Building social capital within the'e6mmu, kl�l
a
�4, g
A4 ii',iaide future redevelopment
Small area plans cletV), e lan4,,g ons aj I
.e regulat!""
proposals. City staff al �use smalF, s fucture improvements necessary
,# -Wj
,�ea plans t kj en i
fr 'ti;�
to support the uses propp,,% t
an. SmalF plans do not, however, guarantee
X
Vft
"WilLo r 0 ilic
reclevelopmeo rovements will take place. Other factors,
ok ccur 6 ul
A s, o r b4dg, t p r r 11 y an important role in how a small area
OR
such as In)
1-TAIS,
plan is�lftft`lementecl. li'l ort emem at small area plans are intended to provide
guidanc Ua e.
,,,,,,T a long pen
What makes uccessful s'001 area pilan?
u
an r %6-
TI- \6�5ents thel. red vision of multiple community residents and stakeholders
future development
• The plan pr i
0�*,,,a g'u,
"'101
• The plan identiAi'R�*-J",�&ks and timelines necessary for successful completion
• The planning proc� rengthens the community through increased interaction and
understanding of varied perspectives.
• The planning process builds resident capacity to lead future activities related to the
plan.
2 1 P a g e
Roles and Responsibilities
A successful small area plan is the result of an extended effort by a number of parties. The
specific roles and responsibilities of these groups are outlined below:
Planning Team
• Advises on the best methods to achieve public participation and champions the project
with the local area
• Identifies and engages neighborhood stakeholders
Helps to identify issues and concerns in the area
I Of public meetings
• May lead or assist with the coordination and facM�
,z g�,
L
• Clarifies themes from information gathered d 4blic input process and ensures
14
that plan reflects those themes
• Brainstorms solutions when conflicts e i een neigh� pood goals and larger
community goals
• Presents updates to planning commissi r the public parti io'flon is completed and
when then the draft plan is finished
r le
• Ensures that projects remai,.10,`,� sched
Staff
;O%z urces as necessary
• Provides technical expertise and" tifid§1#J,,pr tech nbj,�!,�%e\so
NIX
t -r Key sta e be,
-�f the planning process
• Notifies and up.", X�
area
• Helps to ide ssues,co cerns an" ers
• Works with th"i-P ote awareness of the project through
mmuniq d ,prom
Pon ivisio
marketing and co., ynicqtJ`,',`J,
,qq,,pfforts
X,� d"
• E n 7 irectio, "-Ltizen engagement plan and small area
q h th",,,�
an p
foll, d )'
—q !6 Ifig notices are met.
m
Staff an onsultant
• D e a current ar rofile' 'i'Vincludes demographics, physical conditions, land
u zo "K I -�)qn other nent information. Projects population, demographic,
economic at, I f nviron al trends for the future.
• Works with t' all, Planning Team to develop a community engagement plan,
• Leads or assis s I plementation of the community engagement plan.
• Identifies issues or c—riflicts and potential options for consideration by the Small Area
Planning Team.
• Drafts the small area plan document.
Planning Commission
• Helps to identify issues, concerns and stakeholders in the area
• Recommends solutions for unresolved issues
• Ensures that the final document is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
3 1 P a g e
City Council
• Makes decision on any unresolved issues
• Ensures that the final document is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
4 1 P a g e
Initiation
Small area plans may be pursued for a number of reasons:
• The area is a significant commercial corridor
• The area has a lot of dilapidated buildings ripe for redevelopment
• A developer is proposing a change in building use
• Significant redevelopment is occurring in the area
• Residents are concerned about potential redevelopment
Small area plans area typically proposed by staff or the Plan�n',�Q�Com mission and approved by
the City Council during the annual work plan process. SQ-614alftes the City Council may initiate a
small area plan during the year based on new c nc -bte�o proposed redevelopment.
N,;
To formally begin the small area planning proc e aies a i am Charter for
input and approval by the Planning Commissi". r irection f o ning Commission,
the Planning Team Charter is forwarded to the uncil for.,a r v
The Planning Team Charter will incl W"
N
planning members by type (e.g. 1 — 1544111
representative etc ... ), anticipated cleaiij
other special instructions. The Planning
this template in des 44,titi z e n e n
ig"
document.
e boundarik , WAAh 'small area plan, aVroposed list of
�r%,,gmmissiomrg! er,
nb 3 -residents, 1 -business
-f the planning process, and any
?s
Ch segmdft,�
h planning team to use
also, �%j��ctt e
CH6i
& R,
-'m e r -j" r -'ng the small area plan
m:
,.pd c
5 1 P a g e
SAMPLE PLANNING TEAM CHARTER
Purpose:
Complete Small Area Plan for Wooddale and Valley View (boundaries:
Membership:
Planning Team membership goal is outlined below. Final numbers may vary by one count in
each category depending on volunteers.
1 —Staff liaison
I - Planning Commission member liaison
1 — Neighborhood representative from the Concord Neighborhood Association
5 — Residents
3 — Business representatives
Time Commitment:
Estimated 8-12 hours a month until project is completed
Citizen Engagement Process:
Follow Small Area Plan Guidebook
Anticipated Project Timeline:
Budget
The City has a budget of $20,000 for consulting fees and $2000 for marketing materials and
meeting expenses.
Special Instructions:
• Provide specific guidance on City -owned properties at ???
• Establish contact with Metro Transit and work to promote transit features in corridor