The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-06-11 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 11, 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 28, 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 post 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slatedfor future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the some 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. V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Stojmenovic. 5501 France Avenue, Edina, MN B. Variance. Whiteman. 3932/34 West 49th Street, Edina, MN C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Residential Density for Mixed Use Areas VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. 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 can 952-927- 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission June 25,2014 A, tA 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker June 11, 2014 B-14-10 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 5 foot front yard setback variance, a 1.3 foot side street and a 10.3 foot rear yard setback variance as requested to add a 2 car garage and a second story for property located at 5501 France Ave., for owners Aleksander and Erin Stojmenovic. Project Description The variances are to allow a garage and second floor addition to a home located in the south east corner of France Ave. and West 55 th Street. The owners are requesting variances to allow additions to the home at the same nonconforming front and rear yard setback as existing and add a garage west of the home that will be 13.7 feet from the lot line adjacent to France Ave. instead of the 15 foot setback as is required, (See property location, aerial photos, photos of the subject and neighboring homes on pages A.3—A.9). The project is a major remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming single family home. All of the improvements will match the existing setbacks with the exception of setback from France Ave. to provide for a garage, (see site survey and building plans on pages A. 1 O -A. 16). INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The property has a number of challenges including that it is a corner lot requiring deeper setbacks to both streets; the existing structure is nonconforming regarding both front and rear yard setback which can be attributed to the shallow lot depth of 84 feet, (minimum lot depth per ordinance is 120 feet) and the lot is quite small at 6,720 square feet in area. The required setback from West 55 th Street is established by the front yard setback of the home to the east located at 3809 West 55 th Street which is located approximately 33 feet from the lot line adjacent to West 55 th Street. The neighbor's home was built in 1982, (much later than the year built of the subject home). The subject home is located 28.1 feet from West 55 th Street and pre- dates all of the surrounding homes. The structure that is now a dwelling unit was originally built as a church, (see attached page A. 1). No garage had been necessary at the time of construction since it was built as a church and no garage has ever been located on-site. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The challenge has been finding a suitable location on the property that allows access from the street. Access cannot be accomplished from France Ave. since it is a busy county road, so the property must gain access from West 55 th Street. The Engineering Department has approved access from West 55th Street as indicated in an attached e-mail, (see attached page A.2). The subject home has had no improvements and few permits for maintenance indicated in the building file and had been rental property for many years. The proposed improvements and additions would bring the home up to current building code standards and provide needed living space and a garage for the owner's family. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Easterly/Westerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Southerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-2, double dwelling unit district and guided residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is a 6,720 square foot lot consisting of a one story home with an attic area originally built as a church . Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Building Design The finish on the home will change from existing conditions replacing the siding and trim with a combination of finish materials. 2 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issue: 0 Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from France Ave. and matching nonconforming setbacks. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The additions are less than the maximum allowed for lot coverage. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. The proposed improvements will bring the structure up to current building codes and provide a minimum required two car garage. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a small lot that is heavily impacted given the current front and rear yard setback requirements and setback required from France Ave. The home to the east along west 55 th Street dictates the required front yard setback and was constructed at a later date than the subject home, forcing it into nonconformance. 4. The additions simply match the existing nonconforming front and rear yard setbacks that have been in place since the structure was built and the new garage will overlap required setback by only 1.3 feet. 0 Is the proposed variance justified? City Standard Proposed Front - 33.1 feet *43.8 feet - existing Side- 10+ height, (living) 10.7 feet Side St. 15 feet *14.1 feet Rear- 25 feet *14.7 feet - existing Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 story, 35 feet to the ridge, 32 feet to the ridge Lot coverage 30% 27.4% * Variance Required Primary Issue: 0 Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from France Ave. and matching nonconforming setbacks. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The additions are less than the maximum allowed for lot coverage. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. The proposed improvements will bring the structure up to current building codes and provide a minimum required two car garage. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a small lot that is heavily impacted given the current front and rear yard setback requirements and setback required from France Ave. The home to the east along west 55 th Street dictates the required front yard setback and was constructed at a later date than the subject home, forcing it into nonconformance. 4. The additions simply match the existing nonconforming front and rear yard setbacks that have been in place since the structure was built and the new garage will overlap required setback by only 1.3 feet. 0 Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The new home will match the nonconforming setbacks of the existing home on the property which have been located on the property since 1935, pre -dating the home to the west that was built in 1982 and was located farther back from the front lot line along West 55th Street. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are created by the required front and rear yard setbacks, the shallow lot depth and existing nonconforming setbacks. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that a minimum two car garage is required per single dwelling unit and the proposed location appears to be the only practical solution for the property. Duplicating the north street setback of the existing home will not compromise the intent of the ordinance. The new additions to the existing home will maintain the existing pattern of setback on the block and will be no closer to the street. The south setback will also maintain an existing setback. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Ell Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing lot is subjected to front and rear yard setbacks that are deeper than the location of the existing home. The required setbacks reduce the buildable area dramatically creating unworkable solutions. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed additions will be consistent with the location of the existing home and will not detract from the streetscape along France or West 55 th Street. The character of the neighborhood consists of a variety of housing styles. The applicant is asking to preserve setback patterns that include the nonconforming setbacks of the subject property with the new garage not imposing upon France Ave. The neighbor to the south has their rear yard adjacent to France and their side yard adjacent to the proponent's rear yard. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the existing home. b) The encroachments into the setback continue existing nonconforming setbacks that were established when the original structure was built on the property. c) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home relative to the orientation of surrounding homes. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped, April 30, 2014. Deadline for a City decision: June 29, 2014 5 mte 4:�:' A VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 65424 (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $360.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: F -r i r, )1DMQ.AbV(C(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 5!5V I J:�-(AA M A, PHONE: (o 2- 00 - EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER: NAMEAIQlf"�P_r F_r,' ' & (( A I001'(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: PHONE: 0 b - 9 -4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF and ele tronic form) - ]&r Trk— N�Zl Lk. **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, pleasebse a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: _� 0 VECI PRESENT ZONING: A&r1__k'tJV1_ P.M.# 2 0 - 02(6 - 2q 2 00 EXPLANATIOJq, OF REQUEST: Lu"'J :h'rd_& varixaty'i flov.- 0'ddA, 1A1_0 0-4 1) 0 r - (Use reverse side additioahl page4* if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: Le -on 6)ro-1kf,,AJAPHONE: -7 W , QQ QQ - 0 EMAIL:. I a q2 U) tftiA I -( 7) M SURVEYOR: NAME: 0 L'A^ CLA4� V d- I I ANr P H N E: LK IB - 2-qq -1 =RMA 0 1 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following condit*l?ns must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers additional sheets of paper as necessary. APR 3 0 2014 The Proposed Variance will: YES ,LoOF EDWA Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood -e EY' F -I 2 Variance Request Letter for 5501 France Ave South in Edina May 7, 2014 City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Edina Planning Department, This proposal letter is to request variances for the residence at 5501 France Ave S in Edina. We purchased the home February 5 th 2013. Our primary reason for moving into the neighborhood was so that our children could attend Edina schools. Our son Marko is in the 6 Ih grade at Southview Middle School, our daughter Sofie is a 4 th grader and Mariana is a kindergartener at Concord Elementary. When we moved into the neighborhood we expected a great public school system but what we have also found is wonderful neighbors that have children of similar age to our children. Within a block on S5th street there are eight children under the age of twelve. We, as our children, have made great friends in our new neighborhood. Soon after we moved, however, we also realized that we need a garage. There are many benefits of having the garage anywhere but having one in Minnesota is especially important. We would like to park our cars away from the elements but also to store our children's bikes and toys inside. Currently we park on the existing driveway on the north side of the house facing 55 Ih street. There are no other choices where we could add the garage except attach it to the West side of the house facing North and using the existing driveway. This is due to Edina building regulations that forbid any new driveways to be built on France or closer to France that they are currently. We do not have to worry about the setback against neighbors' houses on France Avenue because there are no houses that are built near our property, except to the East, where we are not making any changes. However, because we are planning on building a two car garage (as is the requirement) we will be within 13 feet 7 inches from our property line and the requirement is 15 feet. So the request for a grant on a variance is for the difference of 1 foot and 3 inches. The second variance request is related to the setback on the North side of the house. As we worked with our architect on plans to add a garage, we decided to reduce the dimensions as much as possible due to the house location on the lot. The width of the garage is 22 feet and the depth is 18 feet 4 inches. We wanted to stay in line with the current entrance on the North side of the house as shown in picture number 3. Our set back per our neighbor's home on the North side should be 33.1 feet from our property line and since we are lining up with the current entrance, the distance will be 28.1 feet. We cannot make the garage any smaller if we want to park our cars inside. The third variance request is related to the setback on the South side of our house for second floor expansion. The requirement is 25 feet and we have 13.1 feet from our property line. Please keep in mind that we are not increasing the size of our home from the outside, but building up on the South jild��\Ate-areLtaking-o-ff-th-e-existi.ng-roof-and-adding-a-new roof that will now face North instead of West. There are few key reasons why we are doing this. First, the current roof structure on the house is in poor condition and sagging on the North side, so the roof will have to be replaced soon in any case. Second, with the garage addition on the West side, the entrance to our home will be on the North side so the house should face that direction. And finally, by changing the roof structure and adding three dormers we are going to be able to add three bedrooms and two bathrooms to our house. Currently, this home has only two bedrooms and one bathroom on the main level with finished basement (there is a bedroom and a bathroom in the basement). The change in roof direction and the additional dormers will also add visual appeal to the property. The additions to our home are imperative if we are to continue to live in the property, and that is only possible if this variance request is granted. Our family would be very grateful for your help in this matter. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, 'Y' Alex Stojmenovic C161110 m I SSO I Wwe- Ave, Ej I ILJ 90/ V�j 1 -5 Ucfj�j.4, N�N SSL4aq lVae-jve JoVes �-r6tAeNLMC ,Lj�c� lv\�j AIM+ dc"R Net M md v-tJNL�4-S +ke(A tv\ L/ A" AAve fived-`tv PAI 4, e V"z e W, 7 T)Me wek4e� AejAeA.5, WhO Aej-e- 'u, e7v: -sepe C, 41 c,,�,Lj ot-INaep, e4lvd e e Aj Alu z�,jd A e.c rzi � e- g e4mh, Am 16� -PVjite calh� -A-�PcMv PAJ'?45 'vo r ove kaleA, cit vsej -ca V� Ol Tw- P LJ If 4-r-ep R2A ;Ivealve, -sc v e. ;L+ tkc —ra Me e.� we A e v i 1,f� 'I ps, d, 4-Q -P,42. 14,5 4,vv As IvC, a Al _9 1v 44 Aj�AIcl F- 9 i ct, i kfvdLP,7AR+eV AA1 ar- C(� j fZ 4e rofice see ai(ww- -tv camiv, _,�,Jl 4--ke - A-1 am) - �-K, jov s ��a,6 ivl� s ov e -e v Ae he Ap il- Id,. A hAirp eAl \& Ti lA/L/ oF & d -AlAt C)I,-/ OVPlSL--.1 r "17 , -k 9 � mvd E k'tV me &Iovi(- ARe 11,5K, All 4-�ke Rolv SckuAA4e(,46� A, ti A, ��,S 14 W cl_ 5 _q Ll 6? - 5V5V ILA OP-Vek l.eytP-NL k2 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Peterson, Douglas W. <doug.peterson@centerpointenergy.com> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:48 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Katie Anderson & Doug Peterson Subject: 5501 France variance request Hello. We are neighbors of this property and have no objections to the requested variances, in fact, we believe the proposed structure would add value and be beneficial to the area. Thanks. Doug Peterson 5505 Ewing Circle S. Edina, IVIN 55410 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Reed Gnos <rgnos@rpgsalesinc.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:55 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: 'Jill Gnos' Subject: Case File B-14-10 5501 France Ave To whom it may concern at the City of Edina Planning Commission: I am writing in response to the letter I received announcing a meeting on 5/28/14 regarding Case File B-14-10 5501 France Ave. I live directly across the street on 55 th from the purposed site & I am in full support of the purposed addition/remodeling of said location. It boggles my mind that this would be given any additional thought &/or time with the amount of tear - down building that is allowed in this city. The said location has been an eye -sore for over 20 years & now that a family would like to improve the location you are putting them through the ringer to obtain approval. I did not receive any letters when the multiple houses were knocked down 6-8 houses down the road from me, not to mention the construction traffic & the damaging of the road that was created . I did not receive a notice when the asinine roundabouts were put on 50 St. I can't believe that allowing a garage to be placed on a home without a garage has become such an issue. We have tried to sell our home 3 times & due to the fact that the said location was not up to what people expected in Edina, we were unable to obtain the price we wanted & were unable to sell the home. Allowing this addition/remodel is not only good for the owners of the property, but it is good for the property values & property perception for the homes that surround it. Please allow this property owner to make the requested upgrades that he has purposed. Sincerely, Homeowner — 3816 W 55 1h St, Edina, MN Reed P. Gnos RPG Sales, Inc. Phone: (952) 926-0785 Fax: (952) 926-0704 Cell: (952) 250-4967 Email: rgnosC@rpgsalesinc.com 11. Edina Baptist Church 5501 France Avenue South 1928 Originally known -as the France Avenue Mis- sion, this building was constructed in the summer of 1928 as a branch of the Lake Harriet Baptist Church. In 1942 the congregation established autonomy as the Edina Baptist Church. Six years later a new church building was completed at 5300 France Ave- nue South, and the former mission was converted into a private home." With the removal of the small steeple above the narthex wing, the church became an architecturally undistinguished residence. The clapboard facing of the one-story frame structure has been covered with blue composition siding up to the bottom of the eaves and with brown composition siding on the ga- ble ends. There is a low, brown -shingled, gable roof over the main structure and entrance vestibule. The foundation is of concrete block. Although modest in architecture, the building is rich in historical significance. 44 Edina Baptist Church building, 5501 France Avenui South, c. 1945 (above) and 1980 (below). Kris Aaker From: Jamie Cynor Sent: Sunday, May 04,2014 11:46 AM To: Kris Aaker Cc: Patrick Wrase Subject: RE: 5501 France Variance application Attachments: 5501 France Ave Site Plan.pdf Kris, I discussed this one with the builder and told them keep this curb cut as far away from the France Avenue curb return. Based on the site plan they aren't getting any closer than what they have currently. The can keep the proposed location from an engineering standpoint. Contact me with any questions or clarification. Thanks Jamie Cynor, Senior Engineering Technician -826-0392 952-826-0440 1 Fax 952 JLvn Q orQEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Livingi Learning, Raising Families & Doin, Business From: Kris Aaker Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:25 AM To: Jamie Cynor Subject: 5501 France Variance application Jamie, Please take a look at the proposed curb -cut and comment ... if they can't have the curb -cut in the location desired, then they can't have the garage in that location ... and there is no use in requesting a setback variance. Thank you, Kris Hennepin County Property Interactive Map - r Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Kesuns Links Tax information View oblique image[y (Bing maRs) Survey documents About the data PID:2002824220080 5501 France Ave S Edina, MN 55410 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: 5501 France LIc 5501 FRANCE LLC Taxpayer: 5501 FRANCE AVE S EDINA MN 55410 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0. 15 acres 6,730 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: Woodbury Park Near Lake Harriet Lot: 004 Block: 005 Metes & Bounds: N 84 Ft Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: Total Tax: Legend Measure Page I of 1 3 littn-//(Y;q on hp.iinp.nin mn iiq/nrnni-.rtv/mnn/iif-.fqllltqqnx?nitl='?,00?.R?.4?.9.0090 6/2/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page I of I Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Results Links Tax information View obliaue imagery (Bing maps) Survey document About the data PID:2002824220080 5501 France Ave S Edina, MN 55410 Owner/Taxpayer 5501 France Lic 5501 FRANCE LLC 5501 FRANCE AVE S EDINA MN 55410 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0. 15 acres Parcel Area: 6,730 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Woodbury Park Near Addition: Lake Harriet Lot: 004 Block: 005 Metes & Bounds: N 84 Ft Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: Total Tax: Legend Measure P, ,4,11 httn-//o,i.q-c,n-hennenin.mn.ii-,/nronertv/man/default.asnx?nid=2002824220080 6/2/2014 I L) CP-e^-j'� W4 I;ioe- �,RTMIENT APR 3 0 2014 (-Q '-'9-YO-'f:-: E.-MNIA ApRj 3 0 2014 OR oil k''I 14-,, 4 b,A# Page I of I IMF� 149 file://ed-ntl.ci.edina.mn.us/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/2002824220102001.jpg 6/2/2014 Page 1 of I A I file:Hed-ntl.ci.edina.mn-us/eitywide/PDSImages/Photos/2002824220103001..jpg 6/2/2014 CERTIFICUE OF SURVEY FOR: ALEX STOMENOVIC ADDRESS. 5501 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN AREA CAILCUILATIONS TOTAL LOT = ±6,720 sq. ft. Existing House = ±1,268 Sq. Ft. Proposed Addition = ±555 Sq. Ft. Proposed Driveway - ±605 Sq. Ft. Existing Concrete = ±108 Sq. Ft. 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND NORTH 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET 0 20 XI 011.2 DENOTES Exis-nhG ELEVATION. -.h DENOTES OVERHEAD WRE _X_ DENOTES EXISTING FENCE 10, DENOTES UTIUTY POLE IN FEET DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. I inch = 20fL DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAMNAGE. DENOTES METAL SPIKE NOTES CITY OF EDINA MLL NEED TO APPROVE A VARIENCE FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION SETBACKS AND AREA. - FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED ON APRIL 21ST, 2014. - BEARING's & ELEV. SHOINN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Easements. appurtenances, and encumbrances may x1st In addition to those shown hereon. This surve; Is subject to revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by qD1 X901.2 11819.4 EXISTING HOUSE 90086/ .. ......... .. ..... TOP OF OLOCK-901.0 wq.6 me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed TC --613 89.8 -T Lanj Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. .......... 903 899.5 Rev. 04/30/14, revised addition size LEGAL DESCRIPTION . ....... 904."" n ORE LMD SURVEYINGMml, Rev. 04/29/14, revised addition size '.. 0 11 The North 84 feet of Lot 4, Block 5, WOODBURY PARk q, 1310w MN 55" 1, 4-22-14 Reg. No. 44655 NEAR LAKE HARRIET, Hennepin County, Minnesota. r -763 -239 -OM js.acrelan, sury y%gma com JOSHUA P. SCHNEIDER Uute: JOB#14171 S O\Land Projects 2008\14171\1417lbs.dwg 4/30/2014 8Q7dB AM CDT via%. _."'J APR 3 0 2014 55TH STPEET WEST 89 .9 1115.5 895.4 --Olt EDGE 895.0 TO EN� A96.2 ...q ::� 8g5.1 89 TC .3 ............. )a .0 &.. 1197;1,,, 8. .5 .............. ....................... N80c26- 80.00 4 59 .................... .. 7.8 TO 897.0 ... 897. 897. 97 . INBD -FN :55 IP WNAIL 8g6'2 W 6. 4 ............. OPEN . .................... . FND .5 OPEN I SP 11117.2 BIRCH lb"e. EX INDUS ASH 12X2 33 .. ....... X 896.3 . ........ t A . ........... 00 897.8 1 898. 898 .......... PROPOSED Cd UJ SPR A?] ON 898,7 e 898. o Z 14. 898.� ....899 ..2Z , 00 .2 397.91898 UJ > X B99:6 . . . . . . . . . . X 4.0 X897.3 899.2 Sv PROPOSED c� ADDITION 89119 MAPLE 18 8. . LU W899.5 899.8 099.6 DOSTING HOUSE 11.2 Z in SIDEWALK ROT FU)ORw9O4,7 " . . 70P OF BLOCK -904.1 q.00.1 In 0 < 71 899A /�11;2/// 7 2 r; -I :�X897.8 898.2 900.5 0 .......... U_ Qr""' 0 C) 899.8 TC rA ..90 21.17 Z 412-� 900.7 900 3 90110 900.0 X 898.5 900.9 9DO.7 33 SASH 10" 9C SPO.6 0 R 1 .4 .... ...... a CAP? 99.. 900.2 FOPS TC 900.5 MD OPEN 899.6 89�-' N89'26'15"W X900.7 80.06 * B99.7 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by qD1 X901.2 11819.4 EXISTING HOUSE 90086/ .. ......... .. ..... TOP OF OLOCK-901.0 wq.6 me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed TC --613 89.8 -T Lanj Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. .......... 903 899.5 Rev. 04/30/14, revised addition size LEGAL DESCRIPTION . ....... 904."" n ORE LMD SURVEYINGMml, Rev. 04/29/14, revised addition size '.. 0 11 The North 84 feet of Lot 4, Block 5, WOODBURY PARk q, 1310w MN 55" 1, 4-22-14 Reg. No. 44655 NEAR LAKE HARRIET, Hennepin County, Minnesota. r -763 -239 -OM js.acrelan, sury y%gma com JOSHUA P. SCHNEIDER Uute: JOB#14171 S O\Land Projects 2008\14171\1417lbs.dwg 4/30/2014 8Q7dB AM CDT via%. _."'J APR 3 0 2014 'iG 99 rT rT rT ul c %M I SECOND FLOOR PLAN f 4! 81 16' z :2: . % C C2 FBI 71 �:7, ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- REAR ELEVATION `7 1-1 APR 3 0 2014 WEST SIDE ELEVATION APR 3 0 2014 � � e 4� 5GREENED-IN �ORGH .4 110 EAST SIDE ELEVATION A, e CD 0 4� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker June 11, 2012 B-14-12 Assistant Planner Single-family homes. Recommended Action: Approve an 8 foot lot width and a 4,892 square foot lot area variance as requested. Project Description An 8 foot lot width and a 4,892 square foot lot area variance to build a new twin home to replace an existing double dwelling unit at 3932/3924 49th St. owned by LIG Investments LLC. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is 82 feet in width and is a 10, 108 sq uare foot lot developed with a double dwelling unit located north of 49th Street and is zoned R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District, (see attached pages: A. 1-A.6), site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner is hoping to demolish the existing double for the construction of a new double dwelling home, (see attached pages: A.7 -A.13, site surveys, and bulding plans). The ordinance requires a double dwelling unit lot consist of no less than 90 feet in width and a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The 82 foot wide lot consists of 10,108 square feet, so it is therefore 8 feet short in width and 4,892 square feet short of the minimum 15, 000 square foot area requirement. The existing double dwelling unit was built in 1953 and pre -dates the current lot area requirements. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Double -dwelling homes Southerly: Double -dwelling homes. Westerly: Single-family homes. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 10, 108 square feet in area and is a double dwelling unit lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Double Dwelling Unit R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story double home with attached two car garages. Compliance Table - Variance Requirect Primary Issues * Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent Average of adjacent Side- 10+ height, (living) 17/16feet Rear- 35 feet 38 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 35 Ft 2 stories, 29 Ft Lot Area 15,000 Sq Ft *10,108Sq Ft Lot Width 90 *82 Lot coverage - Variance Requirect Primary Issues * Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 3. The property is an existing nonconforming lot that has always been developed with a double dwelling unit. 4. The homes are a two stories with attached two car garages and should complement the character of the neighborhood. The homes are within the setback, coverage and height requirements. * Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that historically the existing double home has been on a lot that is narrower and is less than the required 15,000 square foot lot since it was built in 1953. The practical difficulty for the subject property is that the ordinance has changed regarding minimum lot size for a double unit lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing property predates the ordinance and was not self-created after the fact. 141 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed homes will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new twin homes will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property as a double dwelling lot. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions. 3) The imposed lot area does not allow redevelopment of the property without the benefit of a variance or a zone change. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: May 29, 2014. Building plans and elevations date stamped: May 1, 2014. Deadline for a City Decision: July 27, 2014. El I<A, VARIANCE APPLICATION .0� o e 1%� (n 0 CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ................................................................................................................. FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: ?D4_; NAME:– 14 '4-e L -n e- -(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: PHONE: EMAIL:_A�/7,Tj!=,,4,_,, PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:/ --7-6– Z74-_t��,_L,,.js e_4e_fS1gnature required on back page) ADDRESS: ol PHONE: 3 47 VGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS:.3 ? -e se ",4 PRESENTZONING: 92 P.I.D.# Zgne EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: 7-A, Iea- �5 1,;ss 41, (Use rev4'rse side or additional page's if necessary) 7; ARCHITECT: NAME: / A., PHONE: EMAIL: - _!�;^42 cts, - 9p 4a SURVEYOR: NAME: Z�k" PHONE: S_07 -29i -h37 E MAIL: Dn�&4 6 #jS /4 —1 0- -1 �,� Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying RI, F1 with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance RI 1-1 Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood FY -1 F -I Kris Aaker From: agese@hotmail.com on behalf of Alexander Gese <alex@ljginvestments.com> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:20 AM To: Paul Whiteman; Kris Aaker Subject: Re: 3932-3934 49th S. Variance questions Attachments: Variance application for 3932.docx Hi Kris, Please find attached the variance request explanations, in a word document. Also attached below. Alex Gese UG Investments LLC Variance application for 3932-3934 W. 49' Street, Edina, MN 55424. Lot Width and Lot Area Variance request. We are seeking to rebuild twin homes on the subject lot, and need a lot width and lot area variance to do so. We believe that all of the following conditions strongly apply to our situation: The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance because, without the variance, rebuilding on the lot will be impossible. In short, if the variance is not granted no builder will ever be able to comply with the zoning ordinance at this location. The use is reasonable because we are simply proposing an improvement of the existing condition — i.e., to build two new attached homes on an R-2 site. This variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district because, in essence, it will put the lot on an equal playing field with other R-2 lots in the area that either meet the lot width and lot area requirement OR that have been granted a variance — the very same variance we are seeking — in order to redevelop similarly situated lots. Specifically, the adjacent property to the immediate east was recently granted the exact variances we are seeking, for the exact same type of project. Our project is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Simply put, the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance could not have been to deny future development of any lot that became non-compliant when the ordinance was written or was changed. At one time this lot was compliant with relevant lot area and lot width requirements, and the existing R-2 duplex was built on the site. Our proposed project complies with all other aspects of the building code — meeting all relevant setback, size, and design requirements for a lot of its size. Our proposed project does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is a tastefully designed twin - home that is code compliant in all aspects that our within our control. The subject street has many duplexes and a couple of new construction twin -homes, including the aforementioned adjacent property. Our proposed twin - home will not only fit into the neighborhood, it will improve the condition of the subject lot with a tastefully designed, updated building. Thank you for considering our variance request. Best Regards, Alex Gese President, LJG Investments LLC alex@ljginvestm.ents.com. (347) 645-7391 From: Paul Whiteman Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:11 AM To: KAaker@edinamn.gov, Alex Gese Hello Kris, If I am reading this variance application correctly it appears we need to have the entire app in by tomorrow to be sure to be considered at the June 11th meeting, is that correct? We can drop everything by tomorrow, but I was wondering if we can set up a time with you when we drop everything off to go over the variance process just to make sure we have everything in that is needed. Let me know if you have time that works tomorrow. Thanks Paul Whiteman PDW Investments 612-501-5224 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (if a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) -§7 Ownerls Signature —Z ;z Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page I of 1 I nteractive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Results Links Tax information View oblique image[y (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID:1802824140042 3932 49th St W Edina, MIN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Ljg Investments LIc LJG INVESTMENTS LLC 1312 DOUGLAS AVE Taxpayer: #2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 Tax District School Dist: Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0.23 acres Parcel Area: � 10,087 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: Enoch Sward Addn Lot: 002 Block: 001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: I tznpnd measure http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=l 802824140042 6/2/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Interactive Maps �,ina a Fiu or an aclaress on tile map Links Tax information View oblique image[y (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID:1802824140042 3932 49th St W Edina, MN 55424 Owner: Owner/Taxpayer Ljg Investments Lic LJG INVESTMENTS LLC 1312 DOUGLAS AVE #2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 T- r%; f ; + School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area- 0.23 acres 10,087 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract, Addition: Enoch Sward Addn Lot: 002 Block: 001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: : Legend Measure httD:Hizis.co.henneDin.mn.us/i)roi)erty/ma-o/de ault.aspx?pid=1802824140042 Page I of I 6/2/2014 Page 1 of I 6/2/2014 file://ed-ntl.ci.edina.mn.us/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/I 802824140042001 jpg Page I of I 14. 1� file:Hed-ntl.ci.edina.mn.us/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/I 802824140043001 jpg 6/2/2014 m SO LEGEND 12 . . . . CAS METER 0 . . . . IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 . . . . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 91A. -O ... EXISTING ELEVATION -9t 9C (922.0) . . . PROPOSED ELEVATION (9CS .... CURB STOP 0 . . . . MANHOLE 0 . . . . CATCH BASIN 0 .... POWERPOLE . . . . . ECIDUOUS TREE . . . C.NI—.US TR - Q.. . . BUSH -Ak— . . . PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES TREE PRESERVA'rION FENCE DENOTES SILT FENCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, according to plat thereof, on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. Surygyor PTS Land Services. Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Far"Iboult, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 Fax: 507-334-9472 www.ptsiond.com ELEVATIONS: EXISTING: MAIN FLOOR - 892.2 PROPOSED: MAIN FLOOR = 892.00 TOP OF BLOCK - 891.60 BASEMENT FLOOR = 882.23 SET "'FMENTS 31 ZMrBUILDING TO ROW (AVE.) 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP LINE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP LINE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substontliol snow fall. The surveyor makes no guarantee that all Visible improvements are shown. AREAS: LOT = 10,108 SO. FT. BUILDING = 2,655.61 SQ. Fr. INCLUDES 2 DECKS 084.15 SQUARE FEET EACH. BUILDING - DECKS=2,487.31 SO. Fr. X HARDCOVER = 24.6% o 20 FEff rZRrj JfZ7eV .4ff 49 .1f7 SeIRF .FF Z077 2 7/0 RZOC,f� /, ZA12OCff S#M9,449421,7 IV R7ZZ7 'q7 #ZrS , Z JA�W r 1.9,��V S-7 .9 , A 32.00 EXISTING Z 0 WIN HOME M RETAININ3 WAM A�l NEfED TW=890.92 .2 ,23.,0 OR MATCH EX 11 11 MAXIMUM �-IEIGHT 4 FELT S 0 ��NOO' 19'53 -4: r-� , --- �! , . W a ��! qrBI �a CO . CO 00. N �x ti - Isi 10' SETBACI� il Ibm - S 1.5Z .0 S C, — --- -9t 9C 0 LLJ z Ld C/ LLJ V) 0 C, C14 0' 0 X 3.0% Xc� 10 LL .0Z LL Ld LL LL U.) 4.0% C891.30) 3.0% BIO -TOG X890.20+/ VJ GO-zC Uj LLJ 0 LLJ z Ld C/ LLJ V) 0 C, LLJ 0' CONCRETE LL .0Z LL LL LL 0 1 -41 I 1.51 -X 10' SETBACK — X— 887.20+/-1 oo '61 9.2% 6i (888.20) �LL , 45 1 — I liq —.I 'is — "" i— , WOOD FENCE -------------- ISIISST 31.0112,3.4j Soo* EXISTING j V, TWIN HOME 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EROSION CONTROL NOTES DIMENSION & EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS 1. SILT FENCE AND BIO -LOGS MUST BE MAJNTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS. CORRECTION, IF ANY. 2. BIO -LOGS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLAN, AT ROCK 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND DOWN FLOW SIDE OF ROCK AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IN FLOW LINE OF CURB AND GUTTER. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED AT STORM DRAMS LOCATED SETBACK=(32.0+31.01)/2 - 31.51 FEET WEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CLEANED AND MAINTAMED REGULARLY. PTS LAND SERVICES, INC . ..... .... .. COMPLETE LAND SURVEY1,VC SERVICES I LOT 2, BLOCK FEDTNI� IMN 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA ARCHITECT. 2DS Sin An. SE 301 Abendeen. ED 5740 Ph.. ODS-725ABS2 c 0 224 N. Philip Ave. 2D8 Sk,ox FallS. SO 57104 Phone: OD5,334-gM INew i --parch—n ARCHII RE DRAWING SHEET INDM ARC FTECTURAL A0.0 SITE PLAN Al -0 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A -2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2-0 LOWER LEVEL RE LECTED CEILING PLAN A2-1 MAIN LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-2 UPPER LEVE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A3- ROOF PLAN A4- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5-1 BUILDING SECTION A5-2 BUILDING SECTION BID DOCUMENTS 05-01-41 ej C P4 sig H i � 'T I U1019-4 4 MEN ®rs- oil N iit� LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN co op ARCHITECTURE 205 Oth A— SE 301 Ab�—. SD 57401 Ph— 605-72�852 224 N. PhlIllps Ave. 208 Siam FIls, SO 57104 Phwe: 605-334-9999 --p—h.— .1 PROJECT NQ 11.S ISSUE: —1-14 REV SION SCHEDULE: R" So. REV. PA --L— .-l— PROJECT-. 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PUN Al -0 co op ARCHITECTURE 205 6th AVe. SE 301 Abade n, SO 57401 Pho,e: ;95-7254852 224N.Phinip.A MR Sl� Fatis. SO 57104 Ph—: 605,134-9999 o-opa" CO0P PROJECT NO: 140 ISSUE: —1-14 REVISION SCHEDULE: PROJECT. 3932-N34 TWINHOME WE 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA MLUM= — MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al- UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN co op ARCHITECTURE 205 61h A— SE 301 Ab�erdeen. SO 57401 Ph .. 60S" 'S' 224 N. Phillp, A,. 211 17111 P�._ S05,334-9999 CO�OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE REVISION SCH DULE.. PROJECP. 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 4M S rREET EDINA. MINNESOTA_ I-EL-nnE. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -2 LOWER LEVEL co Op ARCHITECTURE 205 8th Aft. SE 30 Mende., SD 57401 Phone: 606-7254852 224 N. PhUllps A— 2D6 Slo-Falts,S 571D4 Phone: 605-33"999 —o-opamhmm CO-OP PROJECT NO: 140; !SSUE: —11. REVISIONSCH5DU 2 &1114 PNECT M2'.. TM 4HO.E WEST 49TH STREET EDINk MINNESOTA M� REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-0 14A, e tA ril 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague June 11, 2014 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description As a result of the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Lennar project at 6725 York Avenue, the Metropolitan Council has requested that the City of Edina establish new residential density ranges within the City's Comprehensive Plan to better align with the description of the uses allowed within each District. The text below is the description of Land Use Categories within the existing Edina Comprehensive Plan. Please note the highlighted areas in regard to density. Staff has incorrectly interpreted this so that FAR could determine density for mixed use areas. Met Council staff has informed city staff that specific density ranges must be used, and that the City of Edina's densities should be revised to reflect the existing descriptions for its districts. Floor area ratio alone cannot be used to determine densities within mixed use areas as suggested in the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and used in the City's Zoning Ordinance. A. Future Land Use Categories. Land uses are characterized primarily by range of densities or intensities. For residential uses, density is defined in terms of dwelling units per net acre (exclusive of road rights-of-way and public lands). For nonresidential and mixed uses, intensity is typically defined in terms of floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, which refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, a maximum FAR of 1.0 could allow for a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, and so on. Building heights are not specified in the table, because height will vary within and between categories, based on neighborhood context, infrastructure, and community design goals. (See the discussion later in this section.) As demonstrated in the attached pages Al — A6, from the Comprehensive Plan, the residential density ranges for Office Residential (OR), Mixed Use Center (MXC), Community Activity Center (CAC), (NC), Neighborhood Commercial and Regional Medical (RM) are from 1-2 and 2-3 units per acre. These densities are less than the City's Low Density Residential (LDR) district, which allows up to 5 units per acre. Densities from 1-3 units per acre are not feasible for the intended mixed-use character or opportunity in these areas. The descriptions of these districts on pages A3 — A6, include "multifamily residential; vertical mixed use; serving areas larger than one neighborhood; the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage." Requiring densities less than the Low Density Residential (LDR) range does not encourage redevelopment with mixed uses in these areas; or reflect the types of redevelopment occurring in Edina and the Twin Cities. The Lennar project is located within the CAC district. By establishing new density ranges for these areas, the city would create the feasibility for mixed use projects. Changes to these density ranges would be accommodating growth that has been anticipated and planned for in the City's future population projections. The Met Council projection within the Comprehensive Plan was for 22,500 households in Edina by the year 2030. That would be an increase from the 2000 census number of households that was 20,996. Studies from traffic consultant WSB, and Barr Engineering on the attached pages A25 -A59 demonstrate that there is adequate sewer and roadway capacity to support the cities anticipated growth projections. Additionally, as with all redevelopment projects, these issues are also examined with each project individually to ensure adequate capacity. Floor area ratio would continue to limit density through the existing zoning ordinance requirements. Edina is a fully developed community; therefore, new development would be in the form of redevelopment, or in some instances additional structures within existing parking lots. Example Residential Density Ranges in Surrounding City's Comprehensive Plans The attached pages A7- A24 provide information on the residential density ranges used by our surrounding cities. Please note that in general, these density ranges are higher than Edina. The City of Minnetonka does not have a residential density range established for its Mixed Use area. A summary is as follows: 2 city Ran e – Per Acre Bloomington Medium Density Residential 540 High Density Residential No limit General Business 0-83 Commercial (Community & Regional) 0-83 High Intense mix use 0-60 Airport South mix use 30-131 Richfield Medium Density Residential 7-12 High Density Residential —Minimum of 24 High Density Res./Office Minimum of 24 Mixed Use 50+ St. Louis Park - Medium Density Residential 6-30 —_ High Density Residential 20-75 (PUD for high end) Mixed Use 20-75 (PUD for high end) Commercial 20-50 Minnetonka Medium Density Residential 4-12 High Density Residential 12+ Mixed Use No range established (density based on site location and site conditions See page Al 8.) Minneapolis Medium Density (mixed use) 20-50 High Density (mixed use) 50-120 Very High Density(mixed use) 120+ Districts for Consideration in Edina Suggested residential density ranges are demonstrated in the attached draft resolution, and discussed below. NC, Neighborhood Commercial. The Neighborhood Commercial district guides density at a range of 2-3 units per acre. A density in that range would not encourage mixed use. The Planning Commission recommended a density range of 5-12 units per acre, to be consistent with the Medium Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. 4W OR, Office Residential. The Office Residential district guides density at a range of 2-3 units per acre in the current Comprehensive Plan. A suggested Office Residential density of 12-30 units per acre would be consistent with the High Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. Pentagon Park is located within the OR district, therefore, if housing is desired within that area, this density range would have to be expanded to realize housing in that development. MXC, Mixed Use Center. The MXC, Mixed Use Center district guides density at a range of 1-2 units per acre. These areas include 50th & France, Grandview and Centennial Lakes/Greater Southdale Area. A Mixed Use Center density of 12-30 units would be consistent with High Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. This density range is consistent with existing densities in these areas, including 50th and France (23 units per acre) and 71 France in the Centennial Lakes/Greater Southdale area (24 units per acre). At the May 28 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended a new MXC-1 District be proposed for both of these areas with the 12-30 units per acre range. The Grandview area would then be divided off separately into an MXC-2 district, and continue with the 1-2 units per acre. Densities in this new MXC-2 district would then be studied furthered as part of the Grandview planning process. However, the Met Council has informed staff that creating a new district would be considered a major Comprehensive Plan amendment, and not be deemed administrative. Therefore, the Commission is asked to proceed with a recommendation in one of two ways. First, leave the MXC as is in its current range of 1-2 units per acre and indicate to the Met Council that the City is still examining these areas in will come forward with a separate Comprehensive Plan Amendment; or second, amend the density to 12-30 units per acre, and consider a separate amendment for just the Grandview District. CAC, Community Activity Center, The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The floor area ratio maximum in the CAC is 1.0. The existing density suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of 2-3 units per acre would result in less density than the City's Low Density Residential area; which allows up to 5 units per acre. Density in that range would not encourage a mixture of land uses. A density range of 12-75 units per acre in this area is reasonable given the descript ' ion of this area is the city's most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Floor area ratio would continue to impact densities based on the Zoning Ordinance regulations. As compared to adjacent cities the maximum suggested for this district would still be less than surrounding cities and their most intense districts. The density proposed for the Lennar project is 52 units per acre. IS V RM, Regional Medical. Regional Medical is an area that allows senior housing, but does not have a specific range for density. This district was amended specifically for the senior housing project at 6500 France. That project would have a density of 76 units per acre. The current density is described as follows: Floor to Area Ratio — Per current Zoning Code: maximum of 1.0 for medical office uses. Density for senior housing shall be based on proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Based on the project at 6500 France, a density range of 12-80 units/acre is recommended. The proposed densities using unit per acre are consistent with the existing descriptions of each land use category in the Comprehensive Plan; are consistent with existing development in Edina; and are consistent with the existing Edina Zoning Ordinance. The table on the following page demonstrates the densities of multi -family residential project in the City of Edina. High Density Development in Edina 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 Waters Colonial Drive 139 22 Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on June 11, and forward a recommendation to the City Council, as they will hold a public hearing on June 17. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. M DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR MIXED USE AREAS, BUILDING HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LAND USE Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City of Edina establish new residential density ranges within the City's Comprehensive Plan to better align with the description of the uses allowed within each District. Floor area ratio alone cannot be used to determine densities within mixed use areas as suggested in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. 1.02 Lermar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single farnily homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue, ' and build a six -story, 240 unit upscale apartment building with 11,000 square feet of retail on the first level. To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were approved by the City Council: 1. Building Height - from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. 2. Floor Area Ratio - to exceed 1.0 in some instances. 3. Re -guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single-family homes on Xerxes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. 1.03 On June 11, 2014, the Planning Comrnission recommended of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vote: — Ayes and — Nays. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 The Edina Comprehensive Plan is a guide for development and redevelopment in the city that establishes density ranges for the purposes of managing growth. Density in mixed use and planned commercial districts are primarily regulated by Floor Area Ratio within the existing Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2.02 Residential density ranges within the City's n-dxed use areas including CAC, Community Activity Center; MXC, Mixed Use Center; OR, Office Residential; and NC, Neighborhood Commercial District are between 1-2 and 2-3 units per acre, which are not feasible for the intended mixed-use character or opportunity in these areas. The City's LDR, Low Density Residential District allows up to 5 units per acre, which is a higher density than the above n-dxed use districts. The RM, Regional Medical District does not have a residential density range and senior housing is proposed as a permitted use. 2.03 By establishing new residential density ranges for these areas, the city would create the feasibility for mixed use projects. Changes to these residential density ranges would be Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xieix RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Page 2 accommodating growth that had already been anticipated and planned for in the City's future population projections. 2.04. 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. The floor area ratio maximum in the CAC is 1.0. The suggested density of 2-3 units per acre would result in less density than the City's Low Density Residential area; which allows up to 5 units per acre, would not encourage a mixture of land uses. A density range of 12-75 units per acre in this area is reasonable given the description of this area is the city's most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Floor area ratio would continue to impact densities based on the Zoning Ordinance regulations. 2.05. The OR, Office Residential District guides density at a range of 2-3 units per acre in the current Comprehensive Plan. An OR density of 12-30 units per acre would be consis'tent with High Density Residential District and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. 2.06. The MXQ, Mixed Use Center District guides density at a range of 1-2 units per acre, These areas include 5061 & France, Grandviezu and Centennial LakeslGreater Southdale area. Option 1. A Mixed Use Center density of 12-30 units zvould be consistent ivith High Density Residential District and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. This density range is consistent with existing densities in these areas, including 50th and France (23 units per acre) and 71 France in the Centennial Lakes area (24 units per acre). Option 2. The residential density of the MXC District is currently being considered as part of the Grandviezv planning study, and zvill be processed -tinder a separate forthcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2.07 The NC, Neighborhood Commercial District guides density at a range of 1-2 units per acre. A Mixed Use Center density of 5-12 units would be consistent with Medium Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. 2.08 The RM, Regional Medical District is an area that is proposed for senior housing, and does not have a specific range for density. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for the senior housing project at 6500 France. Senior Housing creates a lesser impact on traffic; therefore, higher densities can be supported in this area. Density for senior housing shall also be based on proxin-dty to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. A density range of 12-80 units per acre is reasonable to encourage that use in the district. 2.09. Establishing higher residential density ranges within mixed use areas, align with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including growth that had been forecasted by the Metropolitan Council. Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken -x�ix RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - ;Page 3,, 2.10. The proposed densities using unit per acre are consistent with the existing descriptions of each land use category in the Comprehensive Plan; are consistent with existing development in Edina; and are consistent with the existing Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2.11. There is adequate roadway capacity and sewer capacity to support the proposed residential density ranges proposed in these mixed use areas. 2.12. The proposed land use change of the single family homes on Xerxes Avenue 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, and the property to the north west and south in Edina are guided CAC, Community Activity Center; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2.13. 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. 2.14. 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. 2.15. 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. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows: I �� Sw '� Q , ��Pl 3.01 Resolution 2014-51 is rescinde( . ',A t) 3.02 The following Comprehensive Plan Amendments are approved subject to review by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §473.864: A. Future Land Use Categories. The categories in the table below apply to the Future Land Use Plan. It is important to note that land use categories are not zoning districts - they are broader and more long-term in scope. The land use plan and the zoning ordinance should be consistent with one another, but are not identical. Each land use category may be implemented through more than one zoning district, allowing for important differences in building height, bulk and coverage in different areas of the city. Some revisions to existing zoning districts or creation of new districts may ultimately be needed as part of the implementation of the land use plan. Land uses are characterized primarily by range of densities or intensities. For residential uses, density is defined in terms of dwelling units per net acre (exclusive of road rights-of- way and public lands). For nonresidential and mixed uses, intensity is typically defined in terms of floor -to -area ratio or FAR, which refers to the ratio of a building"s floor area to the size of its lot. A density unit per acre range is listed below, however, in practice FAR lin-dts Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Page 4 the density in the Edina Zoning Ordinance based on site size. Thus, a maximum FAR of 1.0 could allow for a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, and so on. Building heights are not specified in the table, because height will vary within and between categories, based on neighborhood context, infrastructure, and community design goals. (See the discussion later in this section.) The "Development Guidelines" in the table below are intended to highlight important design considerations for each land use category, but are not regulatory in nature. Residential Description, Land Uses Development Density Range Guidelines -Categories LDR Applies to largely single-family Massing standards Low Density residential neighborhoods, (under development) 1 - 5 units/acre Residential encompassmg a variety of lot and impervious Floor to Area Ratio: per sizes and street patterns (see coverage limitations current Zoning Code* "Character Districts' for more would apply to ensure detail). Typically includes small compatibility of infill institutional uses such as schools, construction. churches, neighborhood parks, etc. LDA Applies to two-family and Introduction of more Low -Density attached dwellings of low contemporary housing 4 - 8 units/acre Attached Residential densities and moderate heights. types, such as low- Floor to Area Ratio: per This category recognizes the density townhouses, current Zoning Code* historical role of these housing may be an appropriate types as transitional districts replacement for two - between single-family residential family dwellings in areas and major thoroughfares or some locations, commercial districts. May provided that include single-family detached adequate transitions to dwellings. and buffering of adjacent dwellings can be achieved. MDR Applies to attached housing In new development Medium -Density (townhouses, quads, etc.) and or redevelopment, 5 - 12 units/acre Residential multi -family complexes of improve integration of Floor to Area Ratio: per moderate density. multi -family housing current Zoning Code* May also include small into an interconnected institutional uses, parks and open street network and space work to create an attractive, pedestrian - friendly street edge. HDR Existing "high-rise" and other Provide incentives for 12 - 30 units/acre Density High -Density concentrated multi -family updating older for senior housing may be Residential residential, some of which may multifamily buildings. increased to over 30 units contain a mixed use component. Work to create an per a cre, based on May also include limited office, attractive, pedestrian- . proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density service or institutional uses friendly street edge uses, utilities capacity, Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014-. ,Page 5, Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories primarily to serve residents' and provide level of transit service NC needs, parks and open space convenient access to available, and impact on Neighborhood commercial, serving primarily the transit, schools, parks, adjacent roads. Other Commercial adjacent neighborhood(s). and other community desired items to allow Current examples: Generally a 'node' rather than a destinations. greater density for senior • Morningside 'corridor.' Primary uses are retail storefronts). Parking Is housing would include: commercial core and services, offices, studios, less prominent than Below grade parking, • Valley View and institutional uses. Residential pedestrian features. provision of park or open Wooddale uses permitted. Encourage structured space, affordable housing, • 70th & Cahill Existing and potential parking and open sustainable design neighborhood commercial space linkages where principles, and provision districts are identified for further feasible; emphasize of public art. study. enhancement of the Floor to Area Ratio: per pedestrian current Zoning Code* Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories Descxiption, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines NC Small- to moderate -scale Building footprints 2-3 5-12 residential Neighborhood commercial, serving primarily the generally less than dwelling units/ acre Commercial adjacent neighborhood(s). 20,000 sq. ft. (or less Floor to Area Ratio -Per Current examples: Generally a 'node' rather than a for individual current Z I oning Code: • Morningside 'corridor.' Primary uses are retail storefronts). Parking Is maximum of 1.0* commercial core and services, offices, studios, less prominent than • Valley View and institutional uses. Residential pedestrian features. Wooddale uses permitted. Encourage structured • 70th & Cahill Existing and potential parking and open neighborhood commercial space linkages where districts are identified for further feasible; emphasize study. enhancement of the pedestrian environment. OR Transitional areas along major Upgrade existing 2-3 12-30 residential Office -Residential thoroughfares or between higher- streetscape and dwelling units/ acre No current examples intensity districts and residential building appearance, Floor to Area Ratio -Per in City. Potential districts. Many existing highway- improve pedestrian current Zoning Code: examples include oriented commercial areas are and transit maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* Pentagon Park area anticipated to transition to this environment. and other 1-494 more mixed-use character. Encourage structured corridor locations Primary uses are offices, attached parking and open or multifamily housing. space linkages where Secondary uses: Limited retail feasible; emphasize and service uses (not including the enhancement of "big box" retail), limited the pedestrian industrial (fully enclosed), environment. institutional uses, parks and open space. Vertical mixed use should Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Page 6 Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x)eix be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. 0 This designation allows for Provide Floor to Area Ratio - Per Office professional and business offices, buffer/ transition to Zoning Code: Current examples generally where retail services do adjacent residential Maximum of 0.5 include the office not occur within the development uses. Use high quality buildings on t e west unless they are accessory uses permanent building that serve the needs of office materials and on-site side of TH 100 between 70th and 77th building tenants. Vehicle access landscaping. requirements for office uses are Encourage structured Streets. high; however, traffic generation parking. from office buildings is limited to morning and evening peak hours during weekdays. Office uses should be located generally along arterial and collector streets. Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories MXC Established or emerging mixed Maintain existing, or I 6M'Tts/acre Mixed -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, pedestrian Current examples: than one neighborhood (and and streetscape Floor to Area Ratio -Per beyond city boundaries). amenities; encourage current Zoning Code: • 50t" and France Primary uses: Retail, office, or require structured maximum of 1.5 • Grandview service, multifamily residential, parking. Buildings institutional uses, parks and open "step dowe' in height space. from intersections. Vertical mixed use should be 4 stories at 50th & encouraged, and may be required France; 3-6 stories at on larger sites. Grandview CAC The most intense district in terms Form -based design 2-3 12-75 residential Community Activity of uses, height and coverage. standards for building dwelling units/ acre Center Primary uses: Retail, office, placement, massing Floor to Area Ratio -Per Example: Greater lodging, entertainment and and street -level current Zoning Code: Southdale area (not residential uses, combined or in treatment. maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* including large multi- separate buildings. Buildings should be Floor to Area Ratio may family residential Secondary uses: Institutional, placed in appropriate exceed 1.0 on a case by neighborhoods such recreational uses. proximity to streets to case basis, subject to as Centennial Lakes) Mixed use should be encouraged, create pedestrian "step proximity to utilities and may be required on larger scale. Buildings capacity, level of transit down" at boundaries service available, and sites. with lower -density impact on adjacent roads. districts and upper Other desired items to stories "step back" allow greater density or from street. density on the high end of More stringent design the residential housing standards for range above, would buildings > 5 stories. include: Below grade Empha ize pedestrian parking, provision of Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x)eix RESOLUTION NO. 2014-� Page 7, Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken �ixxx circulation; re- park or open space, introduce finer- affordable housing, grained circulation sustainable design patterns where principles, provision of feasible. public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height. Applies to existing Performance Floor to Area Ratio: Per Industrial predominantly industrial areas standards to ensure Zoning Code: 0.5* within the City. Primary uses: compatibility with industrial, manufacturing. adjacent uses; Secondary uses: limited retail screening of outdoor and service uses. activities. Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories RM Hospitals, senior housing*, Form -based design 12-80 senior residential Regional Medical medical and dental offices and standards for building dwelling units/ acre clinics, and laboratories for placement, massing Floor to Area Ratio - Per performing medical or dental and street -level current Zoning Code: research, diagnostic testing, treatment. maximum of 1.0 For analytical or clinical work, having Pedestrian circulation medical office uses. a direct relationship to the and open space providing of health services. amenities should be Density for senior General office uses are permitted. provided for larger housing shall be based on sites. proximity to hospitals, * Senior housing may include: proximity to low density independent hvin& assisted living, uses, utilities capacity, memory care, and skilled nursing. level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of publi art. OSP Applies to major parks and Performance and NIA Open Space and protected open space that is buffering standards Parks publicly owned. May not include for intensive outdoor all small parks, since some are recreation, parking. included in residential land use districts. PSP Applies to schools, large Performance and To be determined - may Public/Semi-Public institutional uses (churches, buffering standards require review of large - cemeteries) and semi-public uses for intensive outdoor scale development or such as country clubs. Some recreation, parking. institutional expansion Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken �ixxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Page 8 *Floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, an FAR of 1.0 could mean a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, etc. Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xx�ec small uses of these types may be integrated into other land use districts. LAH Expressways and access ramps NA NA Limited Access for two regional arterial Highway highways (TH 62 and TH 100) occupy land within the City to serve local and regional travel needs. *Floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, an FAR of 1.0 could mean a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, etc. Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xx�ec ILI 1%11__� = - 1 1 -"t.. -- , All Vwio L: p rim MN rl RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Page 10 C. Figure 4.6B is amended as follows: Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights City of Edina Southeast Quadrant 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.6B Data Source: URS 0 0.5 miles C k(, * Height may be increased to six stories & 70feet ifpodium height is utilized on York and Xerxes subject to review and approval of the City Council Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xx-xx ELL, C\j (D -4 9 am RESOLUTION NO. 2014-, Page 11 3.03 The City Planner is directed to forward this resolution to the Metropolitan Council for review. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 1, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 17,2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this — day of .2014. City Clerk Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x�ee , rt� I�al Towo M-1 -m MLR i�Z T WE 116"Airk , - - , ER. w®r va, - a I Future Land Use Categories. The categories in the table below apply to the Future Land Use Plan. It is important to note that land use categories are not zoning districts — they are broader and more long-term in scope. The land use plan and the zoning ordinance should be consistent with one another, but are not identical. Each land use category may be implemented through more than one zoning district, allowing for important differences in building height, bulk and coverage in different areas of the city. Some revisions to existing zoning districts or creation of new districts may ultimately be needed as part of the implementation of the land use plan. Land uses are characterized primarily by range of densities or intensities. For residential uses, density is defined in terms of dwelling units per net acre (exclusive of road rights-of-way and public lands). For nonresidential and mixed uses, intensity is typically defined in terms of floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, which refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, a maximum FAR of 1.0 could allow for a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, and so on. Building heights are not specified in the table, because height will vary within and between categories, based on neighborhood context, infrastructure, and community design goals. (See the discussion later in this section.) The "Development Guidelines" in the table below are intended to highlight important design considerations for each land use category, but are not regulatory in nature. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-26 Table 4.3. Future Land Use Categories Residential Description, Land Uses Development Density Range Categories Guidelines LDR Applies to largely single-family Massing standards Low Density residential neighborhoods, (under development) I - 5 units/acre Residential encompassing a variety of lot and impervious Floor to Area sizes and street patterns (see coverage limitations Ratio: per "Character Districts" for more would apply to ensure current Zoning detail). Typically includes small compatibility of infill Code* institutional uses such as schools, construction. churches, neighborhood packs, etc. LDA Applies to two-family and Introduction of more Low -Density attached dwellings of Low contemporary housing 4 - 8 units/acre Attached Residential densities and moderate heights. types, such as low- .. This category recognizes the density townhouses, Floor to Area historical role of these housing may be an Ratio: per types as transitional districts appropriate current Zoning between single-family residential replacement for two- Code* areas and major thoroughfares or family dwellings in commercial districts. May some locations, include single-family detached provided that dwellings. adequate transitions to and buffering of adjacent dwellings can be achieved. MDR Applies to attached housing In new development Medium -Density (townhouses, quads, etc.) and or redevelopment, 5- 12 Residential multi -family complexes of improve integration of units/acre moderate density. multi -family housing May also include small into an Floor to Area institutional uses, parks and interconnected street Ratio: per open space network and work to current Zoning create an attractive, Code* pedestrian -friend ty street edge. HDR Existing "high-rise". and other Provide incentives for High -Density concentrated multi-farnity updating older 12-30 Residential residential, some of which may multifamily buildings. _-,units/acre contain a mixed use component. Work to create an May also include limited office, attractive, Floor to Area. service or institutional uses pedestrian -friend ty Ratio: per primarily to serve residents' street edge and current Zoning needs, parks and open space provide convenient Code* access to transit, schools, parks, and other community destinations. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 A, -3 - Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-27 Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories NC Small- to moderate -scale Building footprints Neighborhood commercial, serving primarily generally less than Floor to Area Commercial the adjacent neighborhood (s). 20,000 sq. ft. (or less Ratio -Per Current examples: Generally a 'node' rather than a for individual current 'corridor.' Primary uses are storefronts). Parking Zoning Code: • Morningside retail and services, offices, is less prominent than maximum of commercial core studios, institutional uses. pedestrian features. 1.0* • Valley View and Residential uses permitted. Encourage structured 2- 3 Wooddale Existing and potential parking and open units/acre • 70th Et Cahill neighborhood commercial space linkages where districts are identified for feasible; emphasize further study. enhancement of the pedestrian environment. OR Transitional areas along major Upgrade existing Office- Residential thoroughfares or between streetscape and Floor to Area No current examples higher -intensity districts and building appearance, Ratio -Per in City. Potential residential districts. Many improve pedestrian current examples include existing highway- oriented and transit Zoning Code: Pentagon Park area commercial areas are environment. maximum of and other 1-494 anticipated to transition to this Encourage structured 0.5 to 1.0* corridor locations more mixed-use character. parking and open 2-3 Primary uses are offices, space linkages where units/acre attached or multifamily housing. feasible; emphasize Secondary uses: Limited retail the enhancement of and service uses (not including the pedestrian "big box" retail), limited environment. industrial (fully enclosed), institutional uses, parks and open space. Vertical mixed use should be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. 0 This designation allows for Provide Office professional and business offices, buffer /transition to Floor to Area Current examples" generally where retail services adjacent residential Ratio - Per include the office do not occur within the uses. Use high quality Zoning Code: buildings on the west development unless they are permanent building Maximum of accessory uses that serve the materials and on-site 0.5 side of TH 100 needs of office building tenants. landscaping. between 70th and 77 th Streets. Vehicle access requirements for Encourage structured office uses are high; however, parking. traffic generation from office buildings is limited to morning and evening peak hours during weekdays. Office uses should be Located generally along arterial and collector streets. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-28 Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories MXC Established or emerging mixed Maintain existing, or I Mixed -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, Floor to Area Current examples: than one neighborhood (and pedestrian and Ratio -Per • 50th and France beyond city boundaries). streetscape current Primary uses: Retail, office, amenities; encourage Zoning Code: • Grandview service, multifamily residential, or require structured maximum of institutional uses, parks and parking. Buildings 1.5 open space. "step down" in.height 1 -2 Vertical mixed use should be from intersections. units/acre encouraged, and may be 4 stories at 50th Et required on larger sites. France; 3-6 stories at Grandview CAC The most intense district in Form -based design Community Activity terms of uses, height and standards for building Floor to Area Center coverage. placement, massing Ratio -Per Example: Greater Primary uses: Retail, office, and street-tevel current Southdale area (not lodging, entertainment and treatment. Zoning Code: including large multi- residential uses, combined or in Buildings should be maximum of family residential separate buildings. placed in appropriate 0.5 to 1.0* neighborhoods such Secondary uses: Institutional, proximity to streets to 2- 3 as Centennial Lakes) recreational uses. create pedestrian Units/acre Mixed use should be encouraged, scale. Buildings "step and may be required on Larger down" at boundaries with lower -density si tes. districts and upper stories "step back" from street. More stringent design standards for buildings > 5 stories. Emphasize pedestrian circulation; re- introduce finer - grained circulation patterns where feasible. Applies to existing predominantly Performance Industrial industrial areas within the City. standards to ensure Floor to Area Primary uses: industrial, compatibility with Ratio: Per manufacturing. Secondary uses: adjacent uses, Zoning Code: limited retail and service uses. screening of outdoor 0.5* activities. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4.- Land Use and Community Design 4-29 Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories RM Hospitals, medical and dental Form -based design Regional Medical offices and clinics, and standards for building Floor to Area laboratories for performing placement, massing Ratio - Per medical or dental research, and street -level current diagnostic testing, analytical or treatment. Zoning Code: clinical work, having a direct Pedestrian circulation maximum of relationship to the providing of and open space 1.0 health services. General office amenities should be uses are permitted. provided for larger sites. OSP Applies to major parks and Performance and N/A Open Space and protected open space that is buffering standards Parks publicly owned. May not include for intensive outdoor all small parks, since some are recreation, parking. included in residential land use districts. PSP Applies to schools, large Performance and To be Public/Semi-Public institutional uses (churches, buffering standards determined - cemeteries) and semi-pubtic uses for intensive outdoor may require such as country clubs. Some recreation, parking. review' of small uses of these types may. be large-scale integrated into other land use development districts. or institutional expansion LAH Expressways and access ramps NA NA Limited Access for two regional arterial Highway highways (TH 62 and TH 100) occupy land within the City to serve local and regional travel needs. *Floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, an FAR of 1.0 could mean a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, etc. Potential Areas of Change Among its many purposes, the Comprehensive Plan functions as a long range tool that attempts to anticipate where change and growth will occur in the City. Identifying those potential areas of change is an initial stage in the process of guiding new construction and redevelopment when it is proposed by private property owners. It is not an attempt to stimulate change, but to acknowledge that it may occur and be proactive in shaping it. Locations identified in this section appear to be areas where change may occur during the life of this Plan. Many of these areas were identified in a group exercise at Public Meeting #2 as Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4.- Land Use and Community Design 46 4-30 CITY,OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA Table 2.6 Guide Plan DesignationS, 2oo8 Comprehensive Plan Update Residential (Esti_ Designation Density mated Estimated Range in Typical Airport South Mixed Use Commercial Zoning Districts To help implement the community's vision, Bloon-tington has recently adopted twenty-first century corranercial zoning districts. New features within the districts include: Minimum intensity requirements. Minimum building heights. Maximum building setbacks. High density residential uses allowed when vertically or horizontally integrated with commercial uses. Design standards including window requirements, streetside entrance requirements, and anti -blank facade requirements. Rezoning of land to these new districts is currently underway. 2.18 LAND USE V7 Percent Acres Min Max Low Density Residential 7,231 29-2 100 7,231 0 5 Medium Density Residential �High Density Residenti�al 710 856 2.9 3-4 100 100 710 848 5 �io 10 No + limit Public 1,739 7.0 0 0 NA NA Quasi -Public 6n 2.5 0 0 NA NA Conservation 4,746 19.2 0 0 NA NA Water 2,000 8.1 0 0 NA NA Office (82) 675 2.8 0 0 0 6o General Business (33) 167 0.7 0 0 0 83 Community Commercial (33) 281 1.1 0 0 0 83 Regional Commercial (33) 201 0.8- 0 0 0 83 High Intensity Mixed Use (loo) 123 0.5 0 0 0 6o Airport South Mixed Use (loo) 88 .0.4 3.4 3 30 131 Industrial (3o) 1,101 4-4 0 0 NA NA Right -of -Way 4,219 17.0 0 0 NA NA Note: No guide plan designation changes are proposed from the previous Comprehensive Plan as part of the 2008 update. Source: Bloomington Planning Division, 2008. 2.18 LAND USE V7 _q ImsT -T —ST 1111.1 1�1 11 loll 5 11 A I I I-@ III,!! Ill., I ;11111111.11,115111111 HII Is III III fi_jliww� 9-gNivili 101 11W I w II I X 111 111 gig M I I IN ig M 5 1 111 'RIH 9111118IN11 IN IN d HAHN 111111111H 110111 HIM L Medium-DensityH Quasi -Public I I General., Busines High Intensity Mixed Use High-Censity (10+ DU/A) Conservation Community Commercial Airport South se Land Use and CommunityFacilities 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 condominiums ranging from 7 to 12 units per acre. Medium density residential also includes manufactured housing. z High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Residential also includes multi -unit and multi -building developments at a more intense scale. The allowed density range is a minimum of 24 units per acre. High Density Residential uses are priman y To"'cTV convenient to transportation, utility, security, shopping and social services in order to support higher c oncentrations of people. High Density Residential/Office (HDRO) The High Density Residential/Office category is similar to the High Density Residential category. The HDRO includes multi -unit and multi -building developments with the presence of office uses. Like the HDR category, a minimum density of 24 units per acre is required. 4 Land Use and � Comm u nityFacilities Richfield Comprehensive Plan 4-19 "I Land Use and Comm unityFacilities 4-22 Richfield Comprehensive Plan Regional Commercial/Office (RCO) In addition to the retail and service uses allowed in the Regional Commercial land use category, Regional Commercial/Office allows for the presence of offices. Within this category, office uses are to be integrated into the overall development with buildings exceeding 150,000 square feet in size. Office uses would preferably be located above retail uses or situated in stand-alone building developments. Mixed Use (MLI) Mixed Useisa newland use categorythat is being usedto better clarify planned land use patterns near 66th Street & Lyndale Avenue and the Penn Avenue corridor from 68th Street to Highway 62. Lyndale & 66th Street: The intent of the mixed use category is to focus on creating a city center in Richfield that would serve as a "downtown" The city center is expected to include a mix of residential, shopping, recreational and businesses uses. The area at 66th Street and Lyndale has been developing for the past decade as Richfield's city center. The intent is to continue the expansion of the city center area by incorporating residential housing at 50+ units per acre and providing commercial, office and recreational opportunities. __-1 Penn Avenue Corridor: The intent of the mixed use category is to create a traditional neighborhood center that is a vibrant, pedestrian -oriented district. The district would accommodate residential, shopping, recreational andbusinessesusesinaflexiblearrangementthatcaptures the spirit and intent of the Penn Avenue Revitalization Master Plan. Office (0) Office usesareaccommodated in several ofthe residential and commercial land use categories. However, the office land use category is intended to provide stand-alone office development. These stand-alone developments mayincludesuch uses as office -showrooms, research and developmentfacilities,rea I estate offices or banks. Afloor area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 should be achieved for stand- alone office building development. Public and Quasi -Public Public and Quasi -public uses include all civic, county and state facilities (excluding parks); religious facilities, schools and other similar non-profit uses. Park The park designation includes all public parks, public playgrounds and trail corridors. Right -of -Way Right-of-way includes all public land that is under the jurisdiction of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota that is generally devoted to transportation and/or utilities. 4 � Land Use and Comm u n ityFaci lities Richfield Comprehensive Plan 4-23 N H Public Land It is estimated that public land comprises more than 40% of the land within the city's boundaries. Publicly owned land includes streets, sidewalks, alleys, parks, playgrounds, trails, public institutions (e.g. City Hall, schools, and the community centers), public facilities, and some natural open spaces. These publicly owned spaces are used in a multitude of ways. The City's goal is to facilitate the best use of public land to enhance the amenities available to residents, access to public land and buildings, and mobility. Public land can be categorized into the following use types: • Public right-of-way. which includes streets, sidewalks, boulevards, trails, and alleys; • Parks, playgrounds, and open spaces; • Park Commons "town center" and other public places that define the community's identity; Public and quasi -public institutions, which includes city buildings, schools, churches, and community centers; - Public facilities. Where We Are Headed This section of the Land Use chapter establishes the City's official land use categories and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which is intended to guide current and future land use planning and development through the year 2030. The land use plan categories are fully defined below. The 2030 map is the official land use designation map for the City. The land use designations are intended to shape the character, type and density of future development according to sound planning principles. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the land use guiding for each parcel. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories There are 12 land use categories that guide the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which are described below. In general, the categories reflect a movement towards greater mixing of uses. 1. RL - Low Density Residential The Low Density Residential category is intended primarily for single-family detached housing. This category allows net idential densities from three (3) to seven (7) units per acre. RM - Medium Density Residential c Medium Density Residential category allows net idential densities from six (6) to 30 units per acre. This egory allows for a variety of housing types including single- aily detached, duplexes, townhomes, and small two- and ee-story apartment buildings. RH - High Density Residential High Density Residential land use category is intended higher density, compact urban residential development, luding high-rise apartment buildings. This category allows a net residential density range of 20 to 75 units per acre; vever zoning will allow only up to 50 units per acre except utilizing the PUD process. Under a PUD, 75 units per - may be developed if within 1,000 feet of a park. The )ropriate building height will vary by development and depend upon the characteristics of the development and its V. MX — Mixed -Use surroundings. Pedestrian -scale, three- to four-story buildings + n the Mixed Use land use category, a mixing of uses including will be appropriate in some areas, while six- to eight -story c ornmercial is required for every development parcel. The buildings and even taller high-rises will be acceptable in goal of this category is to create pedestrian -scale mixed-use others. In addition to residential development, a small buildings, typically with a portion of retail, service or other proportion of supportive retail and service is also appropriate. commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office Retail, service and office beyond those supporting the uses on upper floors. Mixed use buildings typically have residential development would only be permitted as part of a approximately 75 to 85 percent of the building for residential mixed-use PUD. use and 20 to 25 percent for commerical or office uses. Taller IV. C - Commercial, 'Ihe Commercial land use category is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of commercial uses, such as retail, service, entertainment, and office. Commercial uses can range from small neighborhood convenience nodes, to community retail areas along major roadways, to large shopping centers, to auto -related commercial uses along freeways. Res ' idential uses are also appropriate as part of a mixed-use commercial development, with a net residential density range of 20 to 50 units peracre allowed. buildings may be appropriate in some areas and net residential densities between 20 and 75 units per acre are allowed. The MX designation is intended to facilitate an integrated town center atmosphere in Park Commons and a diversity of uses in certain other areas of the community. A I - Industrial 'Me Industrial land use category covers all industrial uses from manufacturing, assembly, processing, warehousing, storage, laboratory, distribution, and related offices. Industrial areas consist of both lighter industrial uses, which tend to have higher appearance standards and fewer impacts on surrounding properties, and general industrial uses which are typically set off from other uses. Current industrial uses tend to be concentrated around the City's railroads, where industrial uses first developed in the community. Future industrial uses should primarily be located in close proximity to either a railroad line or regional roadway system with limited traffic circulation through residential and pedestrian - oriented areas. VII. 0 -Office 'Ihe Office land use category is primarily intended for employment centers of fairly intensive office and mixed use development with high floor area ratios (FARs) and building heights. Business, professional, administrative, scientific, technical, research, and development services are typical uses appropriate for the Office land use category. 'Ihe Office category also allows other limited uses such as hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail and restaurants when part of a larger development. AO SSt. Louis Park MIMNESOTA A I 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map catew MM cl it, 0 BP - Business Park OV - CMc PRK - ftrk aW Open Spwe ROW - Right cff Way RRR - RaAroW +1 A(�- St. Louis Park MINNESOTA Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan Section F Land Use Plan Implementation The following land use implementation section describes the methods that the City of Minnetonka will utilize to initiate the implementation of the Minnetonka 2030 Vision according to the planning strategies for the growth strategy themes listed in Section B of this chapter. The implementation methods also consider the conditions and policies established in the other chapters of the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan. This section establishes the land use categories and review criteria to guide private and public decisions regarding development and redevelopment in accordance with the targeted planning areas (residential neighborhoods, villages, regional areas/ corridors, and transportation /natural area corridors) within the city. The implementation methods include: * the 2030 land use definitions; * the 2030 land use plan map; * the 2030 population, household and employment forecasts; * the overall development review criteria, including those established in Sections C and D of this chapter, to determine consistency of development and redevelopment projects with the land use plan; and * implementation procedures that include city regulations (the zoning and subdivision ordinances) and specific 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment criteria that pertain primarily to the [and use chapter text and 2030 land use map. 2030 Land Use Deflnitions The [and use districts should not be confused with the zoning designations of property. The [and use districts describe general land uses and may include other criteria to be considered when development and redevelopment projects are reviewed by the city to ensure that the project meets the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan policies and the appropriate policies and strategies of other chapters of the plan. The corresponding zoning designation and associated performance standards describe specific criteria that must be met before development can occur on property. The city's land use definitions follow, according to the general land use category. Appendix IV -A of this chapter provides illustrative examples of the specific types of uses found within each land use category. 1. Residential Land Use Districts Prior to 1979, the medium- and high-density residential definitions restricted densities to five to eight, and nine to 12 units per acre, respectively. The definitions were changed, as part of a comprehensive planning effort, to allow a greater density to provide more opportunities for housing choice (variety and cost), recognition of the rising cost of Land in Minnetonka, and to bring the density standards more in conformance with other metropolitan area communities and Metropolitan Council policies. IV -36 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan k(�- Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Ptan The density definitions are expressed in terms of ranges to allow for development flexibility and compatibility with natural resource and other site specific characteristics of property. Therefore, an appropriate density for a particular use may be at the lower end of the density range rather than the higher end. Further the density definitions do not specify the type of housing; rather, the zoning ordinance specifies the type of housing and specific standards that must be met by a particular development. The decision regarding the specific density for a particular property is made during the development review process, where the folLowing conditions are considered by the city: • The existing environmental conditions of the property including wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes and the quality of existing vegetation; • the specific site plan including the type of housing units proposed and requirements for development facilities such as stormwater ponding, municipal sewer and water, etc.; • the existing and requested zoning classification for the property; and • the surrounding neighborhood characteristics. A. Low-density residential: development that ranges in density from two to four dwelling units per acre. Most residential neighborhoods that contain existing singte-famiLy homes in the city are designated for Low-density residential uses. Although low-density uses include detached single family housing types other residential housing types such as duplexes and attached townhomes are included provided that the overatt density does not exceed four units per acre. This land use district is established to recognize the primary residential development pattern in the city and accommodate housing goats, including affordable and mid -priced housing. B. Medium -density residential: residential density ranges from more than four to 12 units per acre. Typically, this land use district includes attached housing types such as smatl-tot singte family developments ("zero lot tine"), duplexes, townhouses, "quads," and tow -rise muttipLe family buildings. This [and use designation is used to: • Encourage and allow the opportunity for residential project design techniques that incorporate natural resource protection and open space preservation techniques such as "clustering". • Create appropriate transitions between different and more intense Land uses and low- density areas. • Encourage opportunities for residential development near and within viLtage and regional centers, employment centers or major transportation corridors. • Broaden housing choice, especially with an increasingly aging population and accommodate housing goals, including affordable and mid -priced housing Development within medium -density residential areas should incorporate: 1. Design techniques that facilitate natural resource protection and open space preservation;, and 2. Buffers and/or transitions between more intense land uses and low-density areas. ciLy 41 .nithrietorilka IV -37 ,ft 2030 Comprehensive Guide Ptan Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan Environmental, features such as wetlands, fLoodplains, steep slopes, and heavily vegetated areas should be used, as available, as buffers. Developments should incorporate appropriate transitions, such as landscaping and other Land use or design features between non-residentiat and residential uses of a Lower density. High-density residential: residential developments with densities above 12 units per acre. ao"no 011 Taffis " Typical high density residential development consists of apartment o*rwc ifornioniAu VIM in multistory buildings. The intent of this district is to provide the opportunities for residential developments that: serve a wide range of income group and changing lifestyLes; are in close proximity to services, employment centers and transportation corridors, especially transit routes; and broaden housing choice, especially with an increasingly aging population and accommodate housing goals, including affordable and mid -priced housing. As is the case with medium -density residential development, development within high- density residential areas should incorporate: 1 . Design techniques that facilitate natural resource protection and open space preservation, and buffers and/or transitions between more intense Land uses and low- density areas. 2. Buffers and/or transitions between more intense Land uses and lower density areas. Environmental features such as wetlands, floodpLains, steep slopes, and heavily vegetated areas should be incorporated, as available, within buffers. Developments should incorporate appropriate transitions, such as Landscaping and other [and use or design features between non-residential. and Lower density residential uses. High-density residential development projects should occur in a planned manner, with specific consideration given to all. uses within an area and also to impacts on adjacent developments, services and transportation. Development will not be encouraged to occur until appropriate services and infrastructure are available or programmed. 2. Business Land Use Districts Business (and uses typically include categories of uses that are measured by the intensity of development and off-site impacts. These uses are found in the village areas, regional areas and corridors of the city. Additionally, business land use districts apply to several planned corporate campuses such as the Cargill and Welsch developments in the city. The following describe the categories of business uses in the city. A. Office The office land use district provides locations for administrative, executive, professional or other offices and related service uses, such as financial institutions, lodging, day care and similar uses. It is not intended for retail uses that serve the general public. The office designation can be used, if designed appropriately, as a transitional use between residential and more intense commercial districts. B. Service commercial The service commercial land use district is a [and use district used in the 1-394 Corridor and other specific areas. It is considered a tool. that increases flexibility in siting uses that IV -38 411 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan are typically associated with regional centers and within business concentration areas. Typical developments include hotels, health clubs, religious institutions and similar service uses. Uses are typically characterized by tower peak hour traffic generation characteristics, making them suitable for high-volume interchange areas. Certain service commercial areas serve as transitions between residential areas and retail uses. C. Commercial The commercial district is broad and includes retail, entertainment, service and office uses that typically occur in the village and regional areas. D. Industrial A range of "light" industrial uses including warehouse, showroom, manufacturing and limited office, retail and service uses fall within the industrial district. Many other industrial uses are part of mixed-use areas. These include business parks, where master plans govern more specific uses and development criteria, such as Opus and Carlson Center, as well as other areas close to TH 62 and 1-494. 3. Mixed Use Areas Areas include Locations where one or more uses can be accommodated within a single building or within a planned multi -building area. This designation has been established to allow flexibility in land use and creative site design, especially in the village and regional areas. Generally, most mixed use areas should be designed to allow the incorporation of appropriate natural resource protection and/or enhancement techniques. The general land uses determined appropriate for the mixed Land use area are shown on the 2030 land use plan map. For most mixed-use areas or buildings, the use and design of property is governed by a master plan that defines specific Land uses, relationships between uses and overall. design. The following describes the mixed use areas in the city: A. Mixed Use Areas with Residential Areas planned for a mix of residential and commerciat/retail uses should be designed to include a residential character, within specific mixed use buildings or within a compact village area. Buffering and transitions, as wet[ as careful consideration of noise and light impacts, are important to the viability of such mixed use areas, since they include higher density and more activity than exclusive medium or high density neighborhoods. Site design and access to pedestrian friendly open space and parks is important in mixed use areas that include a residential component. Accessibility and convenient parking as well. as streetscape enhancements in public and private areas are valued features for residents choosing to live in mixed use areas. A range of densities and building heights is anticipated, depending on the specific location —an -d �_c3`nitionH=.�� B. Non -Residential Mixed Use Ar s Areas with a mix of commercial (office, service commercial, or retail) and industrial uses rely on mobility and access to transportation systems as key to business operations (e.g., Loading and deliveries). Other urban design treatments should be included in the overall site design such as cohesive signage and landscaping that contribute to the character of the area. IV -39 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan .=iwtonka Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan C. Mixed Uses Where a Single Land Use May Ultimately Be Developed These locations are where more than one land use is considered appropriate and feasible, but only a single land use will ultimately be developed. Decisions regarding the ultimate land use will depend upon a specific development's ability to meet certain criteria defined in this plan. For example, an area may be designated for either office or high- density residential purposes. Ultimately, however, office uses may only be allowed if commensurate transportation improvements are made to a nearby roadway. 4. Public and Semi -Public Land Uses A. Institutional This district accommodates public and semi-pubtic land uses including schools, religious institutions, government buildings, and multi-purpose complexes like the Civic Center. B. Parks and open space Parks and open space are designated separately to distinguish between the city's officially designated parks and those protected open space areas that are not included in them, although they may be city -owned. The open space district includes protected open space by public ownership, easement or other protection method. C. Roadway rights-of-way Includes public or private vehicular, transit and/or pedestrian rights-of-way. These areas may be reserved for future use as a transportation route, and thus undeveloped. D. Utility Includes land devoted to public or private land occupied by a substation, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water tower, municipal well, reservoir, pumping station, water treatment facility, communications tower, or similar use. E. Railroad Public or private freight or passenger rail activities. 5. Water Resources A. Lakes Includes actual water bodies greater than six feet in depth (such as Gray's Bay and smatter takes), and creeks. B. Wetlands Includes areas designated by the city's wettand protection program and maps. The actual areas have been field mapped but must be delineated as part of the development review process. C. FLoodplains Includes locations delineated on the city's and FEMA maps and sometimes overlap water bodies and wetlands. Similar to wetlands, actual field delineation is required for development projects. IV -40 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan 4K Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan 2030 Land Use Map The future land use pattern for Minnetonka over the next 20 years is presented in the city's 2030 Land Use Map as Figure IV -15 and Listed in Table IV -2 below. Consistent with the city's overall concept for development, the established patterns of existing single-family neighborhoods and commercial/business areas linked by roadway corridors, such as Highway 7, 1-394 and 1-494, will be reinforced so they continue to reflect the patterns that have evolved in Minnetonka over the last 20 years. Table IV -2 2030 Land Uses Land Use Category Gross Acres Percentage Net Acres Percentage Low Density Residential (2 to 4/units per acre) 9,039 50.0% 8,133 45.0% Medium Density Residential (4.1 to 12 units/acre) 619 3.4% 547 3.0% Density Residential (over 12 +High nits/acre) 330 1.8% 282 1.6% Commercial 344 1.9% 292 1.6% Service Commercial 42 0.2% 35 0.2% Office 283 1.6% 253 1.4% Industrial 200 1.1% 188 1.0% Mixed 994 5.5% 974 5.4% Institutional 763 4.2% 655 3.6% Open Space 1017 5.6% 376 2.1% Park §37 5.1% 587 3.3% Right of Way (including railroads, 3,073 17.0% 3073 17.0% roads and Co. LRT trail) Water 664 3.7% 664 3.7% Wettands/FLoodpLain 2,073 11.3% Total 18,066 100.00% 1 18,066 100.00% Source: City of Minnetonka Specific parcels for [and use change from the previous 2020 Land use plan map were identified based on opportunities for growth along key corridors, at regional centers, or in some cases, at several sites with specific village areas. The principal objective of these changes is to increase housing choice and provide additional housing opportunities, vibrancy and positive business activity at locations that support additional development intensity. The areas of change are shown in the Appendix IV -B on the Land Use Change Sites map and table, which indicates primary land use changes and potential residential units from the 2020 [and use map as amended through 2007. Appendix IV -B also contains the 2020 land use plan map and table of 2020 Land uses. Appendix 1V -E shows future planned land use in 5 -year stages. Can IV -41 fiao 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan Appendix IV -D Land Use Category Comparison to Zoning Ordinance Districts Existing Zoning Map (Please Refer to Appendix IV -D) Existing Zoning Districts Zoning District Purpose Key District Standards Single family detached dwellings in areas where such development is consistent with the Low density R-1 residential designation of the Lot Area Minimum: Low Density Residential comprehensive plan and compatible 22,000 square feet District with surrounding land use characteristics. Development shalt occur at densities not exceeding 4 dwelling units per acre. Single family and two family dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with the low density Single family Lot Area Minimum: R-2 residential designation of the 15,000 square feet Low Density Residential comprehensive plan and compatible Two family Lot Area Minimum: District with surrounding land uses- 12,500 square feet Development shalt occur at densities not exceeding 4 dwelling units per acre. Attached residential dwelling units in Low density lot area minimum: those areas where such development is 10,000 square feet per dwelling consistent with the low or medium Medium density lot area R-3 density residential designation of the minimum: 3,630 square feet comprehensive plan and compatible Low or Medium Density with the development pattern of the Residential District surrounding area. Clustering of buildings to permit more orderly development is encouraged within the district. Development densities shall not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre. Attached and multiple family dwellings R-4 in those areas designated for medium density residential development in the Floor to Area Ratio: 0.5 max Medium Density Residential District comprehensive plan. Development Height: regulated by the FAR densities shall occur at [east 4 but not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre. Multiple family dwellings designated R-5 for high density residential development in the comprehensive Floor to Area Ratio: 1.0 max High Density Residential plan. Development densities shall Height: regulated by the FAR District occur at least 12 dwelling units per I acre. aetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan B-1 Office and, accessory services uses but Floor to Area Ratio: 1.0 max excludes general retail and service Office Business District uses. Low intensity, service oriented B-2 commercial uses in areas designated as Floor to Area Ratio: 0.8 max Limited Business District neighborhood or community centers in the comprehensive plan. B-3 General commercial development in Floor to Area Ratio: 1.5 max areas so designated in the General Business District comprehensive plan. Low intensity, service oriented commercial uses in areas designated as Floor to Area Ratio: 0.8 max Industrial District neighborhood or community centers in the comprehensive plan. Floor to Area Ratios (max.): Low -Medium Density Res : 0.5 Uses permitted in all districts are High Density Res : 1.0 allowed Planned Unit Office: 1.0 Development District Commercial neighborhood or community: 0.8 Commercial regional: 1.5 Industrial: 1.0 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan �,hiiii�toiika POW cit a Y, eton"Vlll.�:�:J AMA=- 4here quality is our nature ke, T� IJ, z��77. r CA pl�i D -1, iT�d L -4 -TV: .7 A'� Land Use Catagory 0 Low Density Residential Z!6, (2 - 4 units per acre) Medium Density Residential �Tt (5 to 12 units per acre) T - High Density Residential J, (over 12 units per acre) -4 "S L 1 7 Commercial ............ it Service Commercial '61 K., V Office q Mixed Use Industrial 'K A 9 Institutional lit ? Open Space W K kl-=�Af :-K ji Parks 'T11 _ _ '!I - ".. R "A Wetlands .4, N L Lakes W s 41t AV j il I 'F_ , Tf, 0 2,050 4,100 8,200 feet J, JI J Figure IV -15 'S� . A 2030 Land Use Plan P A. Swrce: City of Minnetonka A GUIDE TO MPLS PLA Residential Densities 19 f rorn The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth MORE INFORMATION This guide offers sample building types and ideal locations of urban residential densities; examples from Minneapolis are provid& Ri, R1A: Single Family R2, R2B: Two Family R3, R4, R5, R6: Multiple Family Oft Neighborhood Office Residence OR2: High Density Office Residence OR3: Institutional Office Residence Cu Neighborhood Commercial C2: Neighborhood Corridor Commercial C3A. Community Activity Center C3S: Community Shopping Center 134: Downtown Business B4N: Downtown Neighborhood B4S: Downtown Service B4C: Downtown Commercial Co,'nsult the Land Use Chapter of The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth online at: city Wnn polis i �itP://www.minneapolismn.gov/CPED/comp_plan_2030.asp rev 1V2oii Cary Teague From: Ross Bintner Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:32 PM To: Cary Teague; Chad Millner Subject: RE: Meeting at Met Council - Mike Larson Yes.There is plenty of capacity at the regional scale. Local scale capacity is available, but limited. We will need to enact some of the capacity increases foreseen in Chapter 8 of the comp plan in the next 5-10 years. LE 130727 BARR SE Edina - �SAC Ava... From: Cary Teague Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:28 PM To: Ross Bintner; Chad Millner Subject: RE: Meeting at Met Council - Mike Larson Thanks Ross ... yes, could you provide the local capacity too? I assume that this tells us there is plenty of capacity? Cary Teague, Community Development Director 952-826-0460 1 Fax 952-826-0389 1 Cell 952-826-0236 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, IVIN 55424 cteaque(ZDEdinaMN.qo I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, P-Asing Families & Doing Business From: Ross Bintner Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:22 PM To: Cary Teague; Chad Millner Subject: RE: Meeting at Met Council - Mike Larson Ca ry, I have a call in to Kyle Colvin today to talk about the process to certify capacity in the 1 -RF -491 and 1 -RF -491(R) MCES interceptors. He has a good understanding of flow capacity and the planning that went into this area. I also have a flow and capacity question in to Anna Bessel with his staff. No reply yet. Here's what I've been able to stitch together from City of Edina and public records: MCES projected the need for 19.65 MGD peak capacity in 2030 for the 1 -RF -491 line, and the line had existing peak flows of around 13 MGD. The I -RF -491 line was conceived and built between 2007 and 2011, and was planned to add an additional 9 MGD to the peak flow capacity in the area. See sections 6.C, 18 of attached EAW. See attached map for 1 -RF -491 and I -RF -491(R) location. 1 A4�- The EAW also describes the treatment capacity, saying that IVICES has capacity to treat flow from the new 6e. Would you also like information on local capacity? We have that. << File: 1 -RF -491 Relief Interceptor EAW.pdf >> << File: IVICES Richfield -Bloomington -Edina Interceptor Map.pdf >> From: Cary Teague Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:30 PM To: Chad Millner Cc: Ross Bintner Subject: RE: Meeting at Met Council - Mike Larson Ok ... no problem ... if there is anything that you can give me that talks about the sewer capacity in the area, and that we have enough capacity to support the increase in housing units in the Southdale area in exchange for less office/retail space that would be most helpfulH Cary Teague, Community Development Director 952-826-0460 1 Fax 952-826-0389 1 Cell 952-826-0236 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 cteaqqeaEdinaMN,clqv I www,EdinaMN-qov1Planninq ... For Living, Learning, Raising Farnilies & Doing Business ----- Original Appointment ----- From: Chad Millner Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:36 AM To: Cary Teague Cc: Ross Bintner Subject: Declined: Meeting at Met Council - Mike Larson When: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00 PM -2:30 PM (UTC -06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Met Council Sorry Cary. I'm unavailable. Both Ross and I are out. Is there anything specific you think you need from us concerning the sanitary prior to this meeting? resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants I Memorandum To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 c: Ross Bintner Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an analysis of available sewer capacity in southeast Edina. Previous work related to the City's Comprehensive Plan completed in 2008 included the use of a computer-based sanitary sewer system model, which identified some trunk lines in this area as having limited sewer capacity remaining. The sanitary sewer model was created in 2006 as a part of an effort to reduce inflow and infiltration to the sanitary sewer. For this work the model was updated to allow for analysis of available capacity at the individual pipe scale. This information was then used (a) to determine individual pipes and pipe sections in the southeast area of Edina which may be nearing capacity; and (b) to advise a summary of future work, including where targeted metering should be conducted in the future to improve the accuracy of analysis of potential capacity issues Project Area The area analyzed for this project is generally bounded on the south and east by the city limits, on the north by Crosstown, and on the west by Valley View Road extended south to 494. Pipes outside this area are also known to have limited capacity; however, they are not the focus of this effort. The trunk sewers in this area carry over half of the total sanitary flow for the City. Background Since the completion of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City has regularly asked Barr to look at requests by developers and manufacturers to add flow to the sanitary sewer system. At times the added flow has come as a result of expanded manufacturing, and at other times it has been a result of redevelopment where an existing site -use is modified and results in a higher -density development and added flow to the sanitary system, such as the Westin next to the Galleria. For each of these cases, a new flow is projected for the sanitary sewer and added to the model at the proposed location. Pipe capacities downstream of that location are then checked to see if the added flow can be handled by the system. Most Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com A 3-7 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 2 c: Ross Bintner of the development has occurred in the southern part of Edina where the existing sanitary sewer system is known to be at or very near capacity. Some of the proposed developments were built while others remain in planning stages. Accordingly, not all of the flows from the proposed developments that were checked have been left in the model, as some were not constructed. As redevelopment pressure continues to rise for this part of Edina, the City is interested in a more comprehensive review of the remaining sanitary sewer capacity which addresses multiple redevelopment requests in a systematic, cumulative manner, rather than one at a time. This memo is part of the more comprehensive review and provides the City with a simple tool to help estimate if a proposed development will exceed remaining sanitary sewer capacity. Each time a new development is proposed, a quick look at the tables in this memo will provide an estimated amount of remaining capacity in the sewers downstream of the site. It is recommended that the model be updated and the tables be regenerated each time a major new development is approved and on a regular basis after smaller developments are approved. This will result in new tables that, again, can be quickly referenced when the next development is proposed. New developments are often characterized as generating a certain number of SAC (sewer availability charge) units of flow. This is a unit used by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). One SAC unit equals 274 gallons per day of sewer flow. This unit of flow, along with gallons per minute will be the main units used in the following analysis. Modeling The existing City of Edina XP-SWMM sanitary sewer model (model) was used as a base for the updated analysis of SAC availability in Southeast Edina. The existing model, developed in 2006, accounts for all inflows into the sanitary sewer based on 2005 winter quarter water sales. Sewer infiltration, determined from city-wide metering efforts during model construction in 2006, was also accounted for by incorporating pipe infiltration rates into the post -modeling results. Since the creation of the existing model, Barr has analyzed a number of developments. At the direction of the City, four have been included in the model so that their projected flows are accounted for in the analysis of remaining sewer capacity. These include: • The Westin (now constructed and in use) • Byerly's proposed redevelopment (in planning stages) • The Southdale Apartments (in planning stages) • Edina Medical Plaza (in planning stages) \\barr.com\prcjccts\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFilesNSAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx To: Wayne Houle From: Man LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 3 c: Ross Bintner Estimated sanitary sewer flow from each of the four developments, shown in Table 1, was added to the model for this updated analysis. It should be noted that this additional flow makes up much of the future flow assumed in Scenario I of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Sanitary sewer flow estimates for the Westin were based on water billing data from the development over a 3 -year period. The flows are lower than those originally evaluated. The occupancy of this Westin over this period was not known, so it is possible that flow from this development could change based on future occupancy trends. To determine available pipe capacity at the individual -pipe scale, the theoretical capacity of each pipe in question was calculated using the pipe materials, slope, and dimensions. This capacity was then compared to the estimated expected peak flow at each pipe under current model conditions with the four added properties. The current model conditions represent base flow conditions using winter quarter water use from 2005 and infiltration rates estimated from the metering work done at the time of model creation in 2006. Note that this does not account for known flow reductions that have occurred since 2006 as a result of the changing business climate and addition of flow reducing water fixtures. It also does not account for the reduction in infiltration that may have occurred as the City improves its sanitary sewer collection system and repairs known leaky pipes. Th is means that calculations of available capacity should be conservative unless some water use has increased since the model was created. Mean flow in each pipe was then calculated using the model. Infiltration for each pipe was also estimated based on meter results from the time the model was constructed. With the infiltration and mean sanitary flow rate at each pipe segment calculated, individual pipe capacity was determined using the following equation: Pipe Capacity 100% Infiltration Rate + Mean Flow * Peaking actor Theoretical Maximum Pipe Capacity I Where Infiltration Rate is the cumulative upstream infiltration flow rate at a pipe segment, Mean Flow is the average flow rate predicted by the model at a pipe segment, Peaking Factor is the MCES Flow Variation Factor based on the value of mean flow which includes an allowance for inflow, and Theoretical Maximum Pipe Capacity is the maximum pipe capacity predicted by the Manning's equation. Percent pipe capacity and all related variables are summarized in Table 2. SAC availability was deterinined as the difference between total peak pipe flow (Infiltration Rate + Mean Flow * Peaking Factor) and the theoretical maximum pipe capacity. SAC availability at each pipe segment is shown in Table 3. \\barr.corn\projects\A4pls\23 MN\27\2327Gl3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A�'J To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 4 c: Ross Bintner Results Figure I shows the capacity of all pipe segments in the Southeast Edina sanitary sewer. Under current modeling conditions, there are I I individual pipe segments that are predicted to be over 100 -percent capacity during a peak inflow event. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the pipe identification numbers (Pipe IDS) corresponding to the Pipe IDS referenced in Table 2 and Table 3. Without additional data these pipes should already be considered to be at full capacity. As can be seen, all of the pipe segments at capacity are along the trunk sanitary sewer line heading east along 72d St. W. towards France Ave S. Once this east -west trunk joins with the trunk going south along France Ave. S., the pipe is no longer over capacity but remains very close to full capacity. Percent capacity along this sewer line remains high until the terminal connection with the Metropolitan Council Environnfental Services (MCES) Interceptor, MCES-129. Because the majority of sanitary flows from developments in Edina ultimately reach the MCES-129 interceptor via these trunk lines, requests for additional SAC units flowing to these pipes should be carefully planned to make sure there is sufficient available capacity. 2012 Sanitary Flow Metering Efforts As part of the FilmTec Flow Analysis Study, completed by Barr Engineering Co. for the City of Edina in December of 2012, sanitary flow data was collected at several locations throughout the city, including the MCES-129 Interceptor. As described in the modeling section of this memorandum, the model used in this analysis was developed and calibrated based on 2005 winter quarter water sales and city-wide metering efforts conducted in 2006. Included in the attached addendum is a comparison of modeled flow and observed flow form the 2006 and 2012 studies. As can be seen, the model accurately predicts observed flow in the 2006 study, but appears to over -predict flow based on metering efforts in 2012. There are many factors which may be responsible for the model over -predicting flow during the metered period in December of 2012. Infiltration and Inflow rates used in the model are based on the metering efforts conducted in 2006. Since then, the City of Edina has taken efforts to reduce I&I by replacing manhole covers and lining some pipes. From work done recently in other areas of the city we also know that it is likely that base -line sewer flows have decreased to some extent. Additionally, the fall season of 2012 was exceptionally dry, potentially leading to lower than expected infiltration when metering efforts were conducted in December of that year. One, all, or a combination of these factors could have led to the over -prediction of total sanitary flow in 2012. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27U327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 1436 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 5 c: Ross Bintner Conclusions and Recommendations The sanitary sewer trunkline from 72' St, W, to France Ave, S,, currently modeled as being over capacity, drains a relatively small portion of the project area. Most of the flow contributing to it is pumped in from Lift Station 6 (LS -6) and comes from southwest Edina. Once it joins to trunk lines draining with flow from southeast Edina it is no longer over capacity, however, it remains at over 80% capacity. For this reason, it is possible for development to continue in most areas of southeast Edina. However, because the major trunk lines leading to MCES-129 are nearing capacity, it is recommended that the City evaluate requests for additional SAC units on a case-by-case basis. With most of the major trunk lines immediately upstream of MCES-129 being close to capacity, it is recommended that the City also start looking into reliever trunk lines to accommodate proposed development in this area. New trunk lines running down York Ave. S. and a reliever line carrying flow from LS -6 all the way to the MCES interceptor could free up significant capacity to support additional development. Before any major trunk line upgrade decisions are made, it is recommended that updated field metering data be collected and compared to the data collected in 2006 for the creation of the model. Due to I&I reduction efforts completed since 2006 and potential decreases in base -line sewer flow, it is possible that capacity issues could be less severe than indicated by current modeling results. Even without fully updating the model with new water use data, updated metering data will allow us to determine if baseline flows have changed since the model was created. If baseline flows are shown to have decreased, there may be additional capacity in the pipes not accounted for in this analysis. If flows have remained the same or increased, there may be even less capacity in the trunk lines than this analysis shows. If updated metering efforts are to be conducted, it is additionally recommended that extra metering efforts be taken along the trunk line spanning from 72nd St. W. to the terminal MCES-129 interceptor, where pipe capacity is the most limited. Attachments Addendum \\barr.com\prqJects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 2 Q 1.11 f I0 S in U) U) tu 4P Meter I > ..00 1 0 x W 70th St Met r 21 W701;2St Minneapolis Cornelia United Jewish H e br e& Cemetery Park em etery d C W71112SI 15�nai Emet C em etery Meter 3 W 72nd St Adams alla6her Dr Vnr th*n 0. 1� " 73rd St to Park �H ill Park '--goodeg4go CeNdennial W 74th St ake�� park in Lake MCES-129 Edina SOW Park W 75th St V red E Richards V) F red Golf Course Richard Golf Course 0 W: 77th St V. 77111 1 V U.1 w 78th St Mi nn esota D r 0 thtown Sources,: AVT�q, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri ja, a - gTol, sri China (Hong 1�ong), Esri (Thailand), TOMIM.,?'01� Pipe Capacity Filled (%) 0-60 90-95 60-80 95-100 80-90 >100 Sanitary Sewer Not Included in Analysis Meter Location M BARR Feet Figure 1 0 600 1,200 1,800 SOUTH EAST EDINA Meters SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY 0 250 500 750 SE Edina SAC Availability Study P% City of Edina, IVIN 1 inch = 1,200 feet A3-2- G-5142: 'G-slis 2,447 1,284 730 G -5141 6,467 fi A L War 2 G-51 3 -5124 G-5125 1 .22 1'" 1,910 G-15122 3,716 G-5132 NE as 3,117 1 : .1 1. PR r P G4193 G-5208 G-5207' 1.835,, 2,002 2.022 'a 14 7 2 44 G - _I ' '�4 G-1 4 :t .4.7 ,4 4 G' 4, -ter 2 G4, 2. G_",3 " JNJ7 .224 G '132 3 '7 ,11 G-5184 t4177 3,371 G4202 _23 993 1161 G-5 G 25 G-4926 NJ G'51i7 G-5145 G-5146 �13.302 N/A !�X �INIA NJX� MIA G-5115 N/A a .147 NIA Meter 3' '823 G.S'55 Cl zm ' foll G-5174 6,5176 1,936 4,457, G-4121� G-8158 G-5159 �1.5161 G-5162 G-4329 6-4833C- 3,"8 3,590 3�12 3098 1,559 24,318 G -51k0 P� (141190 Z! G404 81,137 X U- X G-5249 MCES-1 29 G4183 2J 9. i Sourc . sri, arnne, NAVTEQ, 923 LISGS, Internnap, FC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Earl China G-51 84 3,371 It (Hong Kong), Earl (Thailand), Torn-Fonn , 2013 4 20 G-6239 G-Suo A w;- "243 4 G-524 29 2.954 2.759 G 4/ C-845 G ,.s 'r 4 3.2 G449 A" M� G-943� 2 V ED 3,356 141 .G.".3 .23 G- 3. G460 4,866 G4237 G,Z74 g G459 0-6235 G-5234 8 2.065 �70,. T$Wj' W?Vhst G.857 $8 G_ 1,51)6 1.624t G432 13 1,500 a 6,267 G-5227 1- 1,876 G-5226 943 G4222 '-52 6 3062 L112114 G4163 .7 6,028 G466 71 0 G4 908 L G'212 '211 G-5210 a. 2,3 13 "j-.— D' G-5214 1,639 Soum�:Esri,DeLo�,NAVrEQ,USGS,IniennapI ,NgGAN, Esd Japan, METI. Earl China (Hong Kong), Esri (rhailand), TornTom, 2013 Pipe capacity Filled 0 abell-egend: M — 0-60 90,95 BARR -60-80 95-100 0 200 Feet 400 600 --- Pipe ID G-5249 Available SAC Figure 2 80-90 �100 2,759�--Units Sanitary Sewer Not Meters SOUTH EAST EDINA SANITARY Included in Analysis 0 50 100 150 SEWER SAC CAPACITY (SOUTH) meter Location BW5R!!!5;;iiQ SE Edina SAC Availability Study I inch = 400 feet City of Edina, IVIN A31 Gi .......... ........... ........ -G400V 1,316 2,002 2.022 .. .. . . ..... 7- G-5194 ,f-177 G-1111 /G-1111 3,371 G4202 4i32, 993 at G G4150 -7 G4925 G4926 NIA G-511 7 d G4145 G-5146 4! �13,302 G'' .139 NIA 'NIA Nhk� NIA 4�� \17-491 9 NIA WA CIP G-57"' G-6147 G-4914 NIA NIA -sl So rd9shEislid, Lo -E� armci, USGS, Internnap, PC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, Esti G-5002 5,109 K. ),IEsri(ThaI.n-11 qtn-jpjQW13 39,842 G-5014 G4020 G-6 19 11,053 )G '1,692 2,6 25 sG_501S "G 296 G49 7,424 21775 6';li G-50 ' 03 G-499$ G-5023 G-5022 33,L4 5633 G4999 Z868 9,676 302� G-5024 2,278 94112 �2 G14477 G,%7s 3,392 - --------- -- - G4979 7.7 -'—W�st G,4435 1, 3!! , , ?LA G48" 41 'k, 3 G -MG 1,308 G,485� 6.4856 G-4949 G4848 G-434 G-4945 G48" 8118 W 6�M 895 .1998 liO69 1,063 963 G-4846 554 g r G-5142 'P;UAI� G-5138 2,447 1,284 730 G-5141 i� 6,467 Meter 2 G-4921 U Z 612 C-6125 22 1,117 014 G -sl�3 " 1. : G-5122 3,716 G-5112 ,11 3 7 G 5193 G4209 G-5207 Pipe capacity Filled — 0-60 90-95 — 60-80 95-100 80-90 �100 Sanitary Sewer Not Included in Analysis meter Location 0 Feet 0 200 400 600 Meters 0 50 100 150 1 inch = 400 feet abell-egend: Pipe ID G-5249 --- Available SAC 2,759�e—Units A3t M BARR Figure 3 SOUTH EAST EDINA SANITARY SEWER SAC CAPACITY (NORTH) SE Edina SAC Availability Study City of Edina, IVIN 2,002 2.022 .. .. . . ..... % G-5194 ,f-177 3,371 G4202 4i32, 993 at '. G4150 -7 G4925 G4926 NIA G-511 7 d G4145 G-5146 4! �13,302 G'' .139 NIA 'NIA Nhk� NIA 4�� \17-491 9 NIA WA CIP G-57"' G-6147 G-4914 NIA NIA -sl So rd9shEislid, Lo -E� armci, USGS, Internnap, PC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, Esti Chin, K. ),IEsri(ThaI.n-11 qtn-jpjQW13 Pipe capacity Filled — 0-60 90-95 — 60-80 95-100 80-90 �100 Sanitary Sewer Not Included in Analysis meter Location 0 Feet 0 200 400 600 Meters 0 50 100 150 1 inch = 400 feet abell-egend: Pipe ID G-5249 --- Available SAC 2,759�e—Units A3t M BARR Figure 3 SOUTH EAST EDINA SANITARY SEWER SAC CAPACITY (NORTH) SE Edina SAC Availability Study City of Edina, IVIN To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 9 c: Ross Bintner Table 1. SanitarqTy flow from post -20 5 major de elopments Estimated Metered or Flow SAC Estimated Development Address Projected Units Location flow added Peak Flow Pipe Capacity Flow? (gpm) (gpm) Byerly's 7171 France Ave. Projected 210.8 Hazelton & France Southdale Apartments W 69h & York Ave S Projected 190.5 69th & York Westin 3201 Galleria Metered 10.9 (2/3) 69th & York, (1/3) 69th and G-840 1.2 7.4 4.0 York Edina Medical Plaza 6500 France Ave Assumed 109.5 W 65th & France Table 2. Pipe capacity Estimated Estimated Maximum Pipe Pipe Infliftration Mean Flow Peaking Peak Flow Pipe Capacity Segment (gpm) (gpm) Factor (gpm) Capacity LE) (% Full) G-839 0.6 7.4 4.0 30.0 356.1 G-840 1.2 7.4 4.0 30.7 368.3 G-841 2.0 7.4 4.0 31.4 391.6 G-842 5.1 7.4 4.0 34.5 1,384.8 G-843 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 427.6 G-844 1.2 0.1 4.0 1.7 368.3 G-845 2.6 11.0 4.0 46.6 380.1 G-846 10.8 18.4 4.0 84.3 1,692. G-848 1.4 0.0 4.0 1.4 722.5 G-849 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.8 364.3 G-850 3.2 0.2 4.0 3.9 376.2 G-851 4.3 0.2 4.0 5.0 413.6 G-852 4.9 0.2 4.0 5.6 589.4 G-853 6.9 0.2 4.0 7.7 629.0 G-854 9.8 4.7 4.0 28.5 1,242.5 G-856 10.3 4.7 4.0 29.0 572.8 G-857 11.3 4.7 4.0 30.0 572.8 G-858 12.3 4.7 4.0 30.9 572.8 G-859 13.2 4.7 4.0 31.9 2,978.6 G-860 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 1,753.8 G-861 2.4 0.0 4.0 2.4 1,011.3 G-862 0.7 0.0 4.0 0.7 339.1 G-863 1.1 3.6 4.0 15.6 339.1 G-864 1.6 3.6 4.0 16.1 343.5 \\barr.com\prqjects\1\4pls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\A4emo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A3-�' To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 10 c: Ross Bintner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Segment Estimated Infiltration (gpm) Mean Flow (gpm) Peaking Factor Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Pipe Capacity (% Full) G-865 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.8 343.5 G-866 2.6 21.3 4.0 87.7 343.5 Y G-867 3.4 21.3 4.0 88.5 343.5 G-868 3.8 21.3 4.0 88.9 2,261.3 G-869 7.8 21.3 4.0 92.9 1,011.3 G-4827 1,042.6 1,987.4 2.7 6,408.7 7,505.8 85.4 G-4828 3.2 1.3 4.0 8.2 469.6 G-4829 3.4 1.3 4.0 8.4 570.3 G-4830 3.4 1.3 4.0 8.4 3,931.6 ""'AST, r G-4831 74.6 57.1 4.0 302.9 1,420.3 G-4832 74.7 57.4 4�O 304.1 9,848.6 G-4833 1 1,117.8 2,044.9 2.6 6,434.4 15,198.2 G-4834 1,122.0 2,046.1 2.6 6,441.8 35,682.4 G-4835 0.6 0.0 4.0 0.7 503.6 . . . . . . G-4836 1.2 2.1 4.0 9.6 481.2 G-4837 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.6 519.8 G-4838 2.0 2.2 4.0 10.6 519.8 G-4839 3.0 2.3 4.0 12.1 5%8 MAINE' G-4840 5.4 23.6 4.0 99.9 519.8 G-4841 6.8 26.0 4.0 110.8 519.8 G-4842 7.8 29.7 4,0 126.4 519.8 G-4843 8.2 30.3 4.0 129.4 519.8 G-4844 9.5 31.8 4.0 136.8 519.8 G-4845 1 O�7 31.8 4.0 138.0 519.8 G-4846 10.8 77.3 4.0 320.0 519.8 G-4847 11.7 77.3 4.0 320.9 680.5 G-4848 12.6 88.6 3.9 358.1 680.5 G-4849 13.5 89.0 3.9 360.4 680.5 G-4850 13.6 89.0 3.9 360.5 680.4 G-4851 118 105.9 3.9 426.7 1,592.9 G-4857 1.1 0.4 4.0 2.5 550.6 G-4858 0,2 69A 4-0 277,9 1,023-8 G-4914 676.3 1 1,0416 2.9 3,702.7 3,517.1 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 430 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 11 c: Ross Bintner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Estimated Mean Flow Peaking Estimated Maximum Pipe Pipe Segment Infiltration (gpm) Factor Peak Flow Capacity Capacity (gpm) (gpm) (% Full) (gpm) G-4916 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 575.1 G-4917 2.3 0.1 4.0 2.8 575.1 R, G-4918 3.6 0.4 4.0 5.4 719.8 G-4919 682.9 1,044.4 2.9 3,711.6 3,517.1 G-4920 683.8 1,044.3 2.9 3,712.4 3,517.1 G-4921 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 680.5 G-4922 2.3 0.7 4.0 5.0 643.0 G-4923 3.6 2.0 4.0 11.5 643. 1". G-4924 4.9 3.0 4.0 17.0 749.9 G-4925 691.3 1,048.1 2.9 3,730.9 3,798.9 G-4926 692.4 1,048.4 2.9 3,732.8 3,660.7 G-4959 0.4 152.9 3.8 581.5 1,023.8 G-4960 0.5 152.9 3.8 581.6 1,023.8 G-4961 14.5 258.9 3.6 946.5 1,289.0 G-4962 14.7 258.8 3.6 946.5 2,108.2 G-4963 15.0 258.9 3.6 947. 2 1,943.9 G-4964 177.7 683.3 3.2 2,364.4 3,660.7 G-4965 162.1 424.3 3.4 1,604.8 3,798.9 G-4966 162.4 424.2 3.4 1,604.8 3,517.0 G-4967 18.4 101.4 3.9 413.8 799.4 3,517.0 G-4968 160.4 425.0 3.4 1,605.3 G-4969 160.7 424.9 3A 1,605.3 3,517.0 G-4970 161.2 424.7 3.4 1,605.2 3,517.0 G-4971 161.4 424.6 3.4 1,605.1 3,517.0 G-4972 161.8 424.5 3.4 1,605.1 3,517.0 G-4973 162.1 424.4 3.4 1,605.1 3,517.0 G-4974 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 1,623.0 G-4976 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.4 4,368.0 G-4977 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 380.2 G-4978 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 1,222.6 G-4979 159.1 425.3 3.4 1,605.0 3,045..8 G-4980 159.3 425.2 3.4 1,605.1 3,517.0 G-4981 159.6 425.1 3.4 1,605.0 3,517.0 \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI 3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 43-7 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 12 c: Ross Bintner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Segment Estimated Infiltration (gpm) Mean Flow (gpm) Peaking Factor Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Pipe Capacity (% Full) G-4982 158.8 425.3 3.4 1,604.8 3,517.0 G-4994 155.3 391.7 3.4 1,487.2 2,487.0 G-4995 155.6 391.6 3.4 1,487.0 3,517.0 G-4996 156.0 391.5 3.4 1,487.0 2,487.0 G-4997 156.3 391.4 3.4 1,487.0 7 3,36 .1 G-4998 156.6 391.3 3.4 1,486.9 3,517.0 �X G-4999 156.6 391.2 3.4 1,486.9 4,973.9 G-5002 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 14,358.6 G-5003 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 12,013.0 G-5005 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 469.5 G-5006 0.2 0.2 4.0 1.1 469.5 G-5007 0.2 0.2 4.0 1.1 475.3 G-5008 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1,841.1 G-5009 0.3 0.4 4.0 1.7 1,548.0 G-5010 0.3 0.4 4.0 1.8 1,750.9 G-5011 0.4 0.4 4.0 2.0 1,610.0 G-5012 0.7 0.7 4.0 3.5 3,286.8 G-5013 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 815.5 G-5014 0.2 0.3 4.0 1.5 3,984.7 G-5015 157.7 391.8 3.4 1,489.9 3,367.1 G-5017 0.0 5.9 4.0 23.7 2,348.7 G-5018 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2,675.5 G-5019 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 946.1 G-5020 0.4 7.3 4.0 29.7 639.6 G-5021 0.4 7.5 4.0 30.3 750.0 G-5022 0.5 7.6 4�O 30.9 320.0 G-5023 0.7 33.7 4.0 135.5 1,169.2 G-5024 0.8 33.7 4.0 135.6 956.5 G-5025 G-5112 G-5113 G-5114 158.7 0.8 1.3 0.9 425.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1,604.9 0.8 5.4 0.9 2,270.2 469.6 894. 680.- G-5115 695.8 1,049.3 2.9 3,738.7 3,517.1 \\baff.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 4-34 To: Wayne Houle From: Bdan LeMon, Dan Nesfer, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 13 c: Ross Bintner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Segment Estimated Infiltration (gpm) Mean Flow (gpm) Peaking Factor Estimated Peak Flow (gp-) Maximum Pipe Capacity m Pipe Capacity (% Full) G-5116 696.8 1,049.5 2.9 3,740.2 3,660.7 G-5117 700.6 1,050.5 2.9 3,747.2 3,517.1 G-5118 701.9 1,050.7 2.9 3,748.9 3,517.1 G-5119 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 486.9 G-5120 1.4 0.0 4.0 1.4 1,286.0 G-5121 2.1 0.4 4.0 3.9 1,288.1 G-5122 2.3 0.8 4.0 5.5 1,344.7 X G-5123 6.0 3.2 4.0 18.8 469.6 G-5124 8.5 5.0 4.0 28.5 469.6 G-6125 G-5126 12.3 1.0 6.3 0.0 4.0 4.0 37.7 1.0 757.2 1,328.2 G-5127 G-5128 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 4.0 4.0 6.8 1.5 1,328.2 514.4 G-5129 2.9 1.3 4.0 8.1 420.0 G-5130 G-5131 1.5 2.9 0.0 0.8 4.0 4.0 1.5 6.2 514.4 420.0 G-5132 212.8 794.4 3.1 2,675.4 3,798.9 G-5133 216.7 794.3 3.1 2,679.0 3,367.4 G-5134 1.4 0.0 4.0 1.4 1,050.0 G-51 35 2.1 4.5 4.0 20.3 469.6 G-5136 196.4 784.9 3.1 2,629.5 3,517.0 G-5137 196.6 785.0 3.1 2,630.2 3,517.0 G-5138 G-5139 G-5140 G-5141 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 6.7 6.7 1,704.7 469.5 469.5 2,337.5 G-5142 197.0 786.5 3.1 2,635.2 3,517.0 G-5143 197.4 786.4 31 2,635.2 3,517.0 G-5144 200.1 787.3 3.1 2,640.9 3,367.4 G-5145 705.4 1,051.2 2.9 3,753.8 3,517.1 G-5146 709.4 1,051.4 2.9 3,758.4 3,517.1 G-5147 710.1 1,051.2 2.9 3,758.6 3,367.4 229.2 800.1 1 3.1 1 2,709.5 1 6,421.3 \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 NfN\27\2327Gl3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A31 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 14 c: Ross Bin" ner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe segment Estimated Infiltration (gpm) Mean Flow (gpm) Peaking Factor Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pip� Capacity (gp ) Pipe Capacity (% Full) G-5149 230.7 799.8 3.1 2,710.1 6,279.8 G-5150 233.2 799.6 3.1 2,712.1 7,505.8 G-5151 956.3 1,912.1 2.7 6,118.8 9,786.4 G-5152 G-5153 960.9 963.3 1,911.9 1,911.6 2.7 2.7 6,123.1 6,124.6 7,872.2 8,558.0 G-5154 966.7 1,911.3 2.7 6,127.3 7,505.8 81.6 G-5155 971.4 1,912.4 2.7 6,135.0 7,505.8 81.7 G-5156 977.5 1,912.1 2.7 6,140.1 7,120.7 86.2 G-5157 984.6 1,927.2 2.7 6,188.2 7,505.8 82.4 G-5158 988.3 1,927.0 2.7 6,191.1 7,505.8 82.5 G-5159 994.2 1,932,6 2.7 6,212.1 7,505.8 82.8 G-5160 996.5 1,932.3 2.7 6,213.7 7,505.8 82.8 G-5161 1,014.9 1,975.3 2.7 6,348.2 7,505.8 84.6 G-5162 1,021.0 1,974.9 2.7 6,353.3 7,505.8 84.6 G-5163 1,026.4 1,974.4 2.7 6,357.3 7,505.8 84.7 G-5164 1,032.2 1,988.0 2.7 6,399.9 7,505.8 85.3 G-5165 1,037.4 1,987.5 2.7 6,403.6 7,120.7 89.9 G-5166 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.4 251.8 G-5167 0.2 0.9 4.0 3.6 159.3 7� M. .w 7 M F", G-5168 2.4 1.3 4.0 7.6 469.6 W G-5169 3.8 1.3 4.0 9.0 771.6 G-5170 5.8 1.3 4.0 11.0 846.5 MEN G-5171 7.2 1.5 4.0 13.1 1,938.7 G-5172 8.3 1.6 4.0 14.8 159.9 G-5173 10.1 14.3 4.0 67.2 750.0 G-5174 10.6 14.3 4.0 67.7 783.3 G-5175 12.7 43.4 4.0 186.3 2,974.3 G-5176 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 1,607.0 G-5177 0.6 0.0 4.0 0.6 1,558.5 G-5181 1.4 6.0 4.0 25.5 753.5 T IM, G-5182 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 274.7 G-5183 1.0 2.5 4.0 10.9 343.5 1", G-5184 1.1 4.4 4.0 18.7 1,2316, \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Merno - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx =0 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 15 c: Ross Bintner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Estimated Mean Flow Peaking Estimated maximum I Pipe Pipe Segment Infiltration (gpm) Factor Peak Flow Capacity Capacity (gpm) (gpm) (% Full) (gpm) G-5186 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.8 11-.t.717; Fin 473.6 G-5186 2.7 8.1 4.0 35.0 473.6 G-5187 3.3 10.6 4.0 45.8 468.3 G-5188 3.9 12.0 4.0 51.8 462.9 G-5189 4.5 15.1 4.0 65.0 1,044.8 G-5190 0.7 0.0 4.0 0.7 467.2 G-5191 2.2 0.3 4.0 3.2 485.7 G-5192 222.2 800.4 3.1 2,703.3 4,30-, G-5193 225.4 800.2 3.1 2,705.9 3,367.4 80.4 G-5199 1.4 0.0 4.0 1.4 664.1 G-5200 2.8 0.1 4.0 3.3 664.1 G-5201 9.4 54.0 4.0 225.6 565.4 G-5202 10.5 54.0 4.0 226.6 584.6 G-5203 10.5 61.5 4.0 256.5 4,163.1 G-5206 1.6 0.0 4.0 1.6 469.6 742.5 G-5207 3.1 2.6 4.0 13.7 G-5208 4.3 4.1 4.0 20.8 742.5 G-521 0 1.5 6.6 4.0 28.1 942.2 G-5211 2.8 6.6 4.0 29.3 870.6 G-5212 3.5 6.6 4.0 30.1 878.6 G-5213 6.8 6.6 4.0 33.4 1,328.2 G-5214 4.0 6.6 4.0 30.6 621.2 G-5216 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 697.6 G-5218 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.8 708.1 G-5219 2.3 0.2 4.0 3.0 766.1 G-5220 7.1 6.6 4.0 33.6 2,398.5 G-5221 29.1 23.0 4.0 121.2 2,041.5 G-5222 38.5 34.3 4.0 175.8 1,279.2 G-5223 26.6 23.0 4.0 118.7 932.4 G-5224 0.7 0.0 4.0 0.7 410.0 G-5225 0.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 343.5 G-5226 1.7 0.0 4.0 1.7 343.5 2.1 0.0 4.0 2.3 678.3 \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327G13\WorkFi1es\SAC AvailabilityNemo - SEEdina\SE Edina -SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 16 c: Ross Binfner Table 2. Pipe capacity Pipe Estimated Mean Flow Peaking Estimated Maximum Pipe Pipe Segment Infiltration (gp-) Factor Peak Flow Capacity Capacity (gpm) (gpm) (% Full) (gp G-5228 2.5 0.0 4.0 2.7 2,261.3 G-5229 11.7 21.3 4.0 97.0 1,011.3 G-5230 13.8 21.3 4.0 98.9 1,011.3 G-5231 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 1,311.2 G-5233 1,2 0.0 4.0 1.2 447.8 G-5234 42.8 34.6 4.0 181.4 1,359.8 G-5235 38.9 33.4 4.0 172.6 916.8 G-5236 59.2 56.4 4.0 284.7 1,359.8 G-5237 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.4 2,261.3 G-5238 62.2 56.3 4.0 287.5 1,359.8 G-5239 1.7 0.0 4.0 1.7 1,011.3 G-5240 2.6 0.1 4.0 3.2 1,036.3 7. G-5241 4.7 0.2 4.0 5.4 972.6 G-5243 69.4 56.5 4.0 295.2 1,359.8 G-5244 70.2 56.5 4.0 296.1 1,449.6 G-5246 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.4 446.5 7�',y G-5247 1.7 0.2 4.0 2.6 1,102.8 G-5248 2.3 0.6 4.0 4.9 1,655.7 G-5249 74.0 57.1 4.0 302.3 1,296.5 G-5250 2.4 0.6 4.0 4.9 1,214.3 G-5251 1.5 0.0 4.0 1.5 486.9 G-5252 3.1 0.9 4.0 6.8 486.9 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 446.5 WRG-5277 G-5278 1.6 0.1 4.0 2.1 446.5 G-5320 1.9 0.1 4.0 1 2.4 543.1 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI 3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx Al+a To: Wayne Houle From: Briian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 17 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC avail bility Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units Avallabhs� G-839 30.0 356.1 326.1 904.9 G-840 30.7 368.3 337.6 936.8 G-841 31.4 391.6 360.2 999.5 G-842 34.5 1384.8 1350.3 3746.8 G-843 0.2 427.6 427.4 1186.0 G-844 1.7 368.3 366.6 1017.2 G-845 46.6 380.1 333.5 925.4 G-846 84.3 1692.2 1607.9 4461.6 G-848 1.4 722.5 721.1 2000.9 G-849 0.8 364.3 363.5 1008.6 G-850 3.9 376.2 372.3 1033.1 G-851 5.0 413.6 408.6 1133.8 G-852 1 5.6 589.4 583.8 1619.9 G-853 7.7 629.0 621.3 1724.0 G-854 28.5 1242.5 1214.0 3368.6 G-856 29.0 572.8 543.8 1508.9 G-857 30.0 572.8 542.8 1506.2 G-858 30.9 572.8 541.9 1503.7 G-859 31.9 2978.6 2946.7 8176.5 G-860 0.2 1753.8 1753.6 4865.9 G-861 2.4 1011.3 1008.9 2799.5 G-862 0.7 339.1 338.4 939.0 G-863 15.6 339.1 323.5 897.6 G-864 16.1 343.5 327.4 908.5. G-865 0.8 343.5 342.7 950.9 G-866 87.7 343.5 255.8 709.8 G-867 88.5 343.5 255.0 707.6 G-868 88.9 2261.3 2172.4 6028.0 G-869 92.9 1011.3 918.4 2548.4 G-4827 6408.7 7505.8 1097.1 3044.2 G-4828 8.2 469.6 461.4 1280.3 G-4829 8.4 1 570.3 561.9 1559.2 G-4830 1 8.4 3931.6 3923.2 10886.1 1 \\barr,com\prqjects\Mpls\23 NfN\27\2327GI 3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx AO To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 18 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC availability Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units Available' G-4831 302.9 1420.3 1117.4 3100.6 G-4832 304.1 9848.6 9544.5 26484.1 G-4833 6434.4 15198.2 8763.8 24317.8 G-4834 6441.8 35682.4 29240.6 81136.9 G-4835 0.7 503.6 502.9 1395.4 G-4836 9.6 481.2 471.6 1308.6 G-4837 0.6 519.8 519.2 1440.7 G-4838 10.6 519.8 509.2 1412.9 G-4839 12.1 519.8 507.7 1408.8 G-4840 99.9 519.8 419.9 1165.1 G-4841 110.8 519.8 409.0 1134.9 G-4842 126.4 519.8 393.4 1091.6 G-4843 129.4 519.8 390.4 1083.3 G-4844 136.8 519.8 383.0 1 G62.7 G-4845 138.0 519.8 381.8 1059.4 G-4846 320.0 519.8 199.8 554.4 G-4847 320.9 680.5 359.6 997.8 G-4848 358.1 680.5 322.4 894.6 G-4849 360.4 680.5 320.1 888.2 G-4850 360.5 680.4 319.9 887.7 G-4851 426.7 1592.9 1166.2 3236.0 G-4857 2.5 550.6 548.1 1520.9 G-4858 277.9 1023.8 745.9 1 2069.7 G-4914 3702.7 351-1 G-4916 0.9 575.1 574.2 1593.3 G-4917 2.8 575.1 572.3 1588.0 G-4918 5.4 719.8 714A 714.4 1982.3 1982,3 G-4919 G-4920 3711.6 3712.4 351 B 1 351 .1 71 G-4921 0.9 680.5 679.6 1885.8 G-4922 5.0 1 643.0 638.0 1770.3 G-4923 11.5 643.0 631.5 1752.3 G-4924 17.0 749.9 732.9 1 2033.7 \\barr.com�prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A+I� To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 19 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC avail bility Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units AvallabW G-4925 3730.9 3798.9 68.0 188.7 G-4926 3732.8 36E G-4959 581.5 1023.8 442.3 1227.3 G-4960 581.6 1023.8 442.2 1227.0 G-4961 946.5 1289.0 342.5 950.4 G-4962 946.5 2108.2 1161.7 3223.5 G-4963 947.2 1943.9 996.7 2765.6 G-4964 2364.4 3660.7 1296.3 3597.0 G-4965 1604.8 3798.9 2194.1 6088.2 G-4966 1604.8 3517.0 1912.2 5306.0 G-4967 413.8 799.4 385.6 1070.0 G-4968 1605.3 3517.0 1911.7 5304.6 G-4969 1605.3 3517.0 1911.7 5304.6 G-4970 1605.2 3517.0 1911.8 5304.9 G-4971 1605.1 3517.0 1911.9 5305.1 G-4972 1605.1 3517.0 1911.9 5305.1 G-4973 1605.1 3517.0 1911.9 5305.1 G-4974 0.1 1623.0 1622.9 4503.2 G-4976 0.4 4368.0 4367.6 12119.2 G-4977 0.0 380.2 380.2 1055.0 G-4978 0.2 1222.6 1222.4 3391.9 G-4979 1605.0 3045.8 1440.8 3997.9 G-4980 1605.1 3517.0 1911.9 5305.1 G-4981 1605.0 3517.0 1912.0 5305.4 G-4982 1604.8 3517.0 1912.2 5306.0 G-4994 1487.2 2487.0 999.8 2774.2 G-4995 1487.0 3517.0 2030.0 5632.8 G-4996 1487.0 2487.0 1000.0 2774.8 G-4997 1487.0 3367.1 1880.1 5216.9 G-4998 1486.9 3517.0 2030.1 5633.1 G-4999 1486.9 4973.9 3487.0 9675.7 G-5002 0.0 14358.6 1 14358.6 39842.3 G-5003 0.1 12013.0 12012.9 33333.4 \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI 3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx W- To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 20 c: Ross Binfner Table 3: SAC avail billity Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units Available' G-5005 0.1 469.5 469.4 1302.5 G-5006 1.1 469.5 468.4 1299.7 G-5007 1.1 475.3 474.2 1315.8 G-5008 0.0 1841.1 1841.1 5108.7 G-5009 1.7 1548.0 1546.3 4290.7 G-501 0 1.8 1750.9 1749.1 4853.4 G-5011 2.0 1610.0 1608.0 4461.9 G-5012 3.5 3286.8 3283.3 9110.5 G-5013 0.1 815.5 815.4 2262.6 G-5014 1.5 3984.7 3983.2 11052.6 G-5015 1489.9 3367.1 1877.2 5208.9 G-5017 23.7 2348.7 2325.0 6451.4 G-5018 0.0 2675.5 2675.5 7424.0 G-5019 0.1 946.1 946.0 2626.0 G-5020 29.7 639.6 609.9 1692.4 G-5021 30.3 750.0 719.7 1997.0 G-5022 30.9 320.0 289.1 802.2 G-5023 135.5 1169.2 1033.7 2868.3 G-5024 135.6 956.5 820.9 2277.8 G-5025 1604.9 2270.2 665.3 1846.1 G-5112 0.8 469.6 468.8 1300.8 G-5113 5.4 894.0 888.6 2465.7 G-5114 0.9 680.5 679.6 1885.8 G-5115 3738.7 T 3517.1 485.9 1348.3 G-5116 3740.2 3660.7 G-5117 3747.2 3517.1 G-5118 3748.9 3517.1 G-5119 1.0 i 486.9 G-5120 1.4 1286.0 1284.6 3564.5 G-5121 3.9 1288.1 1284.2 3563.4 G-5122 5.5 1344.7 1339.2 1 3716.0 G-5123 18.8 469.6 450.8 1250.9 G-5124 28.5 469.6 441. 1 1224.0 \\barr.com\prqjects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 4% To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 21 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC avail bility Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available.Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units Availlablel G-5125 37.7 757.2 719.5 1996.5 G-5126 1.0 1328.2 1327.2 3682.7 G-5127 6.8 1328.2 1321.4 3666.6 G-5128 1.5 514.4 512.9 1423.2 G-5129 8.1 420.0 411.9 1142.9 G-5130 1.5 514.4 512.9 1423.2 G-5131 6.2 420.0 413.8 1148.2 G-5132 2675.4 3798.9 1123.5 3117.5 G-5133 2679.0 3367.4 688.4 1910.2 G-5134 1.4 1050.0 1048.6 2909.7 G-5135 20.3 469.6 449.3 1246.7 G-5136 2629.5 3517.0 887.5 2462.6 G-5137 2630.2 3517.0 886.8 2460.7 G-5138 0.0 1704.7 1704.7 4730.2 G-5139 0.1 469.5 469.4 1302.5 G-5140 6.7 469.5 462.8 1284.2 G-5141 6.7 2337.5 2330.8 6467.5 G-5142 2635.2 3517.0 881.8 2446.8 G-5143 2635.2 3517.0 881.8 2446.8 G-5144 2640.9 3367.4 726.5 2015.9 G-5145 3753.8 3517.1 3517.1 3367.4 G-5146 G-5147 3758.4 3758.6 G-5148 2709.5 6421.3 3711.8 10299.5 G-5149 2710.1 6279.8 3569.7 9905.2 G-51 50 2712.1 7505.8 4793.7 13301.6 G-5151 6118.8 9786.4 3667.6 10176.9 G-5152 6123.1 7872.2 1749.1 4853.4 G-5153 6124.6 8558.0 2433.4 6752.2 G-5154 6127.3 7505.8 1378.5 3825.1 G-5155 6135.0 7505.8 1370.8 3803.7 G-5156 6140.1 7120.7 980.6 2721.0 G-5157 6188.2 7505.8 1317.6 3656.1 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx W To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject- Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 22 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC availability Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units AvallabW G-5158 6191.1 7505.8 1314.7 3648.0 G-5159 6212.1 7505.8 1293.7 3589.8 G-5160 6213.7 7505.8 1292.1 3585.3 G-5161 6348.2 7505.8 1157.6 3212.1 G-5162 6353.3 7505.8 1152.5 3198.0 G-5163 6357.3 7505.8 1148.5 3186.9 G-5164 6399.9 7505.8 1105.9 3068.7 G-5165 6403.6 7120.7 717.1 1989.8 G-5166 0.4 251.8 251 A 697.6 G-5167 3.6 159.3 155.7 432.0 G-5168 7.6 469.6 462.0 1282�O G-5169 9.0 771.6 762.6 2116.1 G-5170 11.0 846.5 835.5 2318.3 G-5171 13.1 1938.7 1925.6 5343.2 G-5172 14.8 159.9 145.1 402.6 G-5173 67.2 750.0 682.8 1894.6 G-5174 67.7 783.3 715.6 1985.6 G-5175 186.3 2974.3 2788.0 7736.1 G-5176 0.9 1607.0 1606.1 4456.6 G-5177 0.6 1558.5 1557.9 4322.9 G-5181 25.5 753.5 728.0 2020.1 G-5182 0.2 274.7 274.6 761.7 G-5183 10.9 343.5 332.6 922.9 G-5184 18.7 1233.6 1214.9 3371.1 G-5185 0.8 473.6 472.8 1311.9 G-5186 35.0 473.6 438.6 1217.0 G-5187 45.8 468.3 422.5 1172.4 G-5188 51.8 462.9 411.1 1140.7 G-5189 65.0 1044.8 97!9.8 2718.8 G-5190 0.7 467.2 466.5 1294.4 G-5191 3.2 485.7 1 482.5 1 1338.8 G-5192 1 2703.3 4307.5 1604.2 4451.3 G-5193 1 2705.9 3367.4 661.5 1835.5 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A�,K To: Wayne Houle From: Briian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 23 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC avail bility Pipe Segment Estimated Peak Flow (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gpm) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units Available' G-5199 1.4 664.1 662.7 1838.9 G-5200 3.3 664.1 660.8 1833.6 G-5201 225.6 565.4 339.8 942.9 G-5202 226.6 584.6 358.0 993.4 G-5203 256.5 4163.1 3906.6 10840.0 G-5206 1.6 469.6 468.0 1298.6 G-5207 13.7 742.5 728.8 2022.3 G-5208 20.8 742.5 721.7 2002.6 G-5210 28.1 942.2 914.1 2536.4 G-5211 29.3 870.6 841.3 2334.4 G-5212 30.1 878.6 848.5 2354.4 G-5213 33.4 1328.2 1294.8 3592.8 G-5214 30.6 621.2 590.6 1638.8 G-5216 0.9 697.6 696.7 1933.2 G-5218 0.8 708.1 707.3 1962.6 G-5219 3.0 766.1 763.1 2117.5 G-15220 33.6 2398.5 2364.9 6562.1 G-5221 121.2 2041.5 1920.3 5328.5 G-5222 175.8 1279.2 1103.4 3061.7 G-5223 118.7 932.4 813.7 2257.9 G-5224 0.7 410.0 409.3 1135.7 G-5225 0.9 343.5 342.6 950.6 G-5226 1.7 343.5 341.8 948.4 G-5227 2.3 678.3 676.0 1875.8 G-5228 2.7 2261.3 2258.6 6267.2 G-5229 97.0 1011.3 914.3 2537.0 G-5230 98.9 1011.3 912.4 2531.7 G-5231 0.2 1311.2 1311.0 3637.8 G-5233 1.2 447.8 446.6 1239.2 G-5234 181.4 1359.8 1178.4 3269.8 G-5235 172.6 916.8 744.2 2065.0 G-5236 284.7 1359.8 1075.1 2983.2 G-5237 0.4 2261.3 2260.9 6273.5 \\barr.com\prqjects\MpIs\23 MN\27\2327GI 3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availabilit7y Memo - 072313 - 2.docx 01 To: Wayne Houle From: Brian LeMon, Dan Nesler, and Michael McKinney Subject: Southeast Edina SAC Availability Analysis Date: July 23, 2013 Page: 24 c: Ross Bintner Table 3: SAC avail bility Pipe Segment Estimated Peak FloW (gpm) Maximum Pipe Capacity (gprn) Available Pipe Capacity (gpm) SAC Units AvallabW G-5238 287.5 1359.8 1072.3 2975.4 G-5239 1.7 1011.3 1009.6 2801.4 G-5240 3.2 1036.3 1033.1 2866.6 G-5241 5.4 972.6 967.2 2683.8 G-5243 295.2 1359.8 1064.6 2954.1 G-5244 296.1 1449.6 1153.5 3200.7 G-5246 0.4 446.5 446.1 1237.8 G-5247 2.6 1102.8 1100.2 3052.8 G-5248 1 4.9 1655.7 1650.8 4580.6 G-5249 302.3 1296.5 994.2 2758.7 G-5250 4.9 1214.3 1209.4 3355.8 G-5251 1.5 486.9 485.4 1346.9 G-5252 6.8 486.9 480.1 1332.2 G-5277 1.0 446.5 445.5 1236.2 G-5278 2.1 446.5 444.4 1233.1 2.4 543.1 540.7 1500.3 I SAC units available adjusted to account for peak usage rate predicted by typical diurnal water usage curve. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A S'O Affachment Addendum /M Addendum lnfiltration and inflow (1&1) used in the City of Edina XP-SV0viM sanitary sewer model (model) is based on metering efforts conducted in February and June of 2006. Base -line sewer flows used in the model are based on 2005 winter quarter water sales. Since 2006, redevelopment in the city of Edina, repairs to the sanitary sewer infrastructure, and improved water consumption efficiency have likely led to changes in expected base -line sewer flow and I&I flow. Figure I shows meter data collected for model development in 2006 compared to meter data collected as part of the FilmTec Flow Analysis Study, completed for the City of Edina in December of 2012. The meter data shown was collected at the MCES- 129 interceptor. As can be seen, there is a large difference in flow observed between the two studies. Some of the factors which may explain difference in flow rate observed between the 2006 and 2012 studies are outlined below: 0 1&1 reduction efforts conducted by the City of Edina since 2006, including replacing manhole covers and lining pipes. 0 Reduction in base -line sewer flow since 2006. 0 Differences in climatic conditions during the metering periods of the two studies; the fall of 2012 was exceptionally dry, potentially leading to lower than average pipe infiltration. Figure 3 shows a comparison of monthly precipitation totals in 2006 and 2012. Figure 2 shows the 2006 and 2012 observed flow at MCES-129 compared to the flow predicted by the model. As can be seen, the 2006 data matches closely to the flow predicted by the model plus expected infiltration, whereas the 2012 matches more closely to the flow predicted by the model without the addition of infiltration. This observation could be caused by one or any combination of the factors outlined above. To better understand which factors are contributing to the decrease in observed flow and to help evaluate if updated calibration of the model is required, it is recommended that updated metering efforts be carried out, especially in areas identified as at or near capacity by current model projections. In addition to this, once the City has completed its water meter replacement program, new water use data should be added to the model to ensure more accurate calculation of base sanitary flow. \\baiT.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.doex A-Fo� Figure 1. 2006 and 2012 MCES-129 metered flow data. 12.0 10.0 A, 8.0 1) 6.0 PAI �,L& .2 V CL 4.0 V IV IV YJ V till 2.0 - IVICES-129; 2012 meter data —MCES-129; 2006 meter dajta ...... XP-SWMM Flow + Infiltration 0.0 0 1 2 4 5 7 Time (days) Figure 1. 2006 and 2012 MCES-129 metered flow data. Figure 2. 2006 and 2012 MCES-129 metered flow data with XP-SWMM modeled flow. \\baiT.com\prqjects\1\4pls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx W 12.0 10.0 At K P, A, k A h 8.0 &W 6.0 .2 till 4.0 - ...... XP-SWMM Flow + Infiltration 2.0 — — — XP-SWMM Flow — IVICES-129; 2006 meter data — IVICES-129; 2012 meter dat 0.0 1 0 1 2 Time (days) 4 5 6 7 Figure 2. 2006 and 2012 MCES-129 metered flow data with XP-SWMM modeled flow. \\baiT.com\prqjects\1\4pls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx W Figure 3. 2006 and 2012 monthly rainfall depth. \\ban-.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A -S-+ 10 9 N 2006 ;9 2012 8 2006 7 Periods meter 2012 CL data collected Period meter 6 ata co ecte M 4- C 5 4 0 3 2 0 Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Figure 3. 2006 and 2012 monthly rainfall depth. \\ban-.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327GI3\WorkFiles\SAC Availability\Memo - SE Edina\SE Edina - SAC Availability Memo - 072313 - 2.docx A -S-+ A WSBInfrastructure n Engineering n Planning n Construction &Assodaies, Inc. Memorandum DATE. June 6,2014 TO: Mr. Caiy Teague, Planning Director City of Edina FRom.- Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transportation Impacts City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-55 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 A Comprehensive Plan amendment was recently submitted to Metropolitan Council for the Lennar (6725 York Ave) project. During discussion with Metropolitan Council for that request they concluded that the City needed to establish new residential density ranges for the City's mixed use Districts, to better align with the description of the uses allowed within each of the Districts. As part of the review in establishing the residential density ranges, transportation impacts need to be considered. In general it can be concluded that: There is adequate roadway capacity to support the proposed residential density ranges in the mix use Districts. This finding is based on the following: I . Per City Code, with each development proposal submitted to the City a detailed Traffic Study is required to document local and regional traffic impacts. These studies include evaluating the existing and forecasted 20 year roadway capacities. They take into account approved developments adjacent to the proposed project, as well as general traffic growth in the area. The studies will recommend any existing or future roadway mitigation required to accommodate the development. The studies are coordinated with Hennepin County and MnDOT if there roadways are impacted by the development proposal. 2. The City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan included forecasts based on households, population and employment for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The TA -Z's do not align with specific land use districts and are based on anticipated developable land. In mixed use districts, although some of the household and population forecasts are low, the corresponding employment forecasts are high. Therefore if additional households are included in a specific District, the corresponding employment numbers would be reduced which would balance the traffic generation. Attached is the TAZ map from the City's Transportation Plan and a summary of the effected TAZ's with the forecasted current Transportation Plans, Households, Population and Employment compared to the 1999 Plan and that included in the current (2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model. A's- 5-- fo V jai tKq -ITT 100 Tj 62 A I Ni 77 100 '_ 4091k-: 104 F_' m 40 -4941-- 4974, Vw' 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 575 766 - - 3974 1.33 Ln V-4 2009 # 586 737 0 4056 4056 1.26 Ln – 2020* 575 765 - - 3603 __j 1.33 < _2030- 597 764 208 1016 1224 1.28 1 2030' 636 916 650 3184 3834 1.44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 2000 2903 - - 3127 1.45 Ln V-4 2009 # 2009 2934 2576 2081 4657 1.46 Ln N — 2020* 2000 2905 3191 1.45 < 203 OA 2039 3085 2525 2525 5050 1.51 1 2030' 2059 2965 2525 2525 5050 1.44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP/ HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 33 38 - - 6019 1.15 Ln V-4 2009# 9 29 2692 3076 5768 3.22 Ln —2030A 65 130 7156 2.00 r< 2030A 310 540 2420 3630 6050 1.74 2030 # 509 733 2420 3630 6050 1.44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP/ HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 993 1642 - - 6210 1.65 Ln V-4 2009 # 1014 1595 21 2608 2629 1.57 LO 2020* 995 1650 - - 6690 1.66 r< 2030A 1044 1 46 840 3960 4800 1.58 2030# 1064 1532 840 3960 4800 1.44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP/ HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 447 670 - - 3219 1.50 00 4 2009 # 454 695 402 11448 11850 1.53 Ln 2020* 445 675 3716 1.52 r< 203 OA 1 481 741 531 4460 4991 1.54 2030' 504 1149 1331 11201 12532 2.28 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP/ HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 1589 3393 - - 4506 2.14 00 4 2009 # 1617 3540 128 3350 3478 2.19 Ln 2020* 1670 3575 - - 4637 2.14 2030A 1963 4278 200 4300 4500 2.18 2030' 2192 3156 200 4300 4500 1-44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan g � 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 1214 RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL - - 1200 2.45 1997* 691 1792 - - 3857 2.59 M 2009 # 713 1794 55 2615 2670 2.52 Ln 2020* 690 1805 - - 4658 2.62 N < F- 203 OA 729 1821 400 2900 3300 2.50 2.28 2030 # 731 1667 400 2900 3300 2.28 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 1214 2980 - - 1200 2.45 1997* 2009 # 1224 3200 289 940 1229 2.61 Ln 2020* 1235 3050 - - 1433 2.47 N < 20 30A 1299 3327 960 320 1280 2.56 Ed 2 030A # 2030 1349 3076 320 960 1280 2.28 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 748 1653 1813 2.21 Ln 2009 # 623 1663 327 726 1053 - 2.67 N Ln 2020* 940 2170 - - 2105 2.31 < 2 030A 698 1790 360 780 1140 1 1 2.56 2030# 748 1705 1 360 780 1 1140 2.28 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 1159 2493 - - 1271 2.15 00 2009 # 1170 2414 20 1493 1513 2.06 r4 Ln 2020* 1160 2510 - 1536 - 2.1b r1j < 203 OA 1186 1 2441 50 1650 1700 2.06 2030 # 1190 2713 50 1650 1700 2.28 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP / HH R ETAI L NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 54 101 - - 11532 1.87 M 2009 # 57 92 607 11746 123S3 1.61 M LO 2020* 55 100 - 1 - 13700 1.82 N < 203 OA 358 603 1987 11263 13250 1.68 2030# 557 802 1988 11263 13251 1.44 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION JOBS POP/ HH RETAIL NON -RETAIL TOTAL 1997* 0 - - 948 2009 # —0 0 0 12 2497 2509 M Ln 2020* 0 0 - - 1145 2030A 30 51 13 1 1211 1224 1.70 # 2030 50 72 50 5116 _L_ 5066 1999 Edina Comprehensive Plan Current (as of 2014) Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model A 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan EDINA CRW-eOUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 22,2008 7:00 A.M Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. in the Community Room of Edina City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Also present were Planning Commissioners Brown, Fischer, Risser, Schroeder, Staunton, and Chair Lonsbury. Staff present included Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager, Cary Teague, Planning Director, Dan Cornejo, Comprehensive Plan Coordinator, and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the study session was to review the draft of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Manager Hughes briefly outlined the history of the Comprehensive Plan revision to date. Dan Cornejo presented an overview of the changes made from the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and the draft of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council, Planning Conuydssioners and Staff reviewed and discussed the draft plan as follows: 0 Improve the definitions of "step down" and "step back" in Land Use and Community Design chapter. "Step down"' means that buildings should step down to the sidewalk; "step back" means that buildings should step back from nearby and adjacent lower -height residential areas. A drawing or photo will be added to help illustrate the term. 0 Clarify bonus height and density - developers would need to earn either in exchange for 0 450 acres or about 5% of the city could change in terms of land use and densities. The other 95% is not recommended to change. The draft Plan does con-unent that within this 95%, and possibly within the other 5%, there could be proposals to make smaller zoning changes to facilitate the provision of affordable housing, lifecycle housing to accommodate seniors' needs. However, the draft Plan does not call for immediate zoning changes, nor does it specify certain areas for these changes. This point was emphasized: NO changes are recommended in the single-family areas. a The height maps need an accompanying narrative text that details what heights are recommended for which areas. a Change map on page 4-50, regarding the Cahill area: the OR area should be 12-16 stories, and the GMU area should be 3-5 stories. * Develop better definition of lifecycle housing and inclusionary housing. 0 Potential links between height -density -transportation. 0 Mixed used development and its future potential 0 What, if any zoning changes would be implied by the Housing Chapter. Plan would be a policy or visioning document. * Receipt and review of the recently written Energy and Environment chapter CITY PF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-927-8861 - Fax 952-826-0389 Discussion that Plan would be �r)gpe direction, and offer broader policy future changes. • Several language revisions were suggested to be incorporated on specific pages that staff will incorporate into the Plan. • Small Area Plans were briefly discussed including how to formally remove the small area plans from the existing plan. The Mayor and Council offered their thanks to the Planning Commissioners for their work on the update to the Plan. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk CITY OF EDINA 2 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov o 952-927-8861 - Fax 952-826-0389 OFTHESP EDI? IG OF THE CIL HELD-A��Al MARCH 27, 2008 7:00 P.M. L ROLLCALL Answering rolicall were Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland noted the purpose of the special meeting was to allow residents to comment on the proposed draft update of the Edina Comprehensive Plan. Following the hearing, he said there would be a forty-five day written public comment period. The Council was at the beginning of their work on the update to the Comprehensive Plan. John Lonsbury, 6716 Southdale Road, Planning Commission Chair, used PowerPoint and presented the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. Dan Cornejo, Comprehensive Planning Consultant, Planning Director Teague and Assistant Manager Worthington offered clarifications and comments in response to questions of the Council. Public Comment Arrie Larsen Manti, President, Edina Chamber of Commerce, 7701 Normandale Road Suite 101, stated that the Chamber hoped the City continued to work with business in Edina. She referred to the three entities: the Edina School District, the City of Edina and Edina businesses that must work together. Ms. Manti said 51,000 persons come into Edina Monday through Friday to work with mostly a positive effect. Ms. Manti said the Edina Chamber and businesses thanked the Planning Commission and city staff for the hard work and expressed their hope to be able to continue the working relationship that makes Edina a premier place to work and live. John Elliot, 5904 Lee Valley Road, stated his concerns over increased traffic that would result from an increase in density and added if his concerns were not listened to, he may have to move out of Edina. Ronald Rich, 7008 West Shore Drive, stated he was having a problem with the projected increased density seeming incongruous with what appeared to be the small projected population increase. Mr. Rich said that tall towers do not represent Edina and something was not being planned correctly and was off track. He said he did not want high density in Edina and asked for an answer to why it was being projected. Cassandra Mihalchick, 7227 Lewis Ridge Parkway, said she was the President of the Cahill Lewis Neighborhood Association with over 500 members. She stated the concerns of the Association regarding the proposed Draft Comp Plan. They included concern over increased density, potential high rises, and affordable housing. The Association would refute that adding more affordable housing or low income housing to our current mix outweigh the concrete negatives of the lower average tax base, more traffic and more pressure on the Edina infrastructure. She said that achieving Edina should be something to work towards and not automatically granted. The Association would oppose any density bonuses to developers building affordable housing. The Housing Section of the Plan was out of sync with the desires of the Edina citizens. They particularly 6j"tIW "Rosed plans for the Cahill Gardens. 1 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 950-dW-P861 - Fax 952-826-0389 Min Cou Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, said of Edina residents had been integrated into the plan and people -do not want tall bwq.W w,-jouinaaie or Larim. MUlyl IL VVdb LI It: I I lu,'t contentious issue and important point of the plan. The landscape will be affected by what was done permanently. The Plan projected the wishes of the Comp Plan Task Force and Planning Commission, but not the residents. He said that the consultants and planners vision was what the Draft Plan contained and that the citizens were not represented by the drafters of the proposed plan. Jerry Paar, 6201 Virginia Avenue South, said that he had attended the quadrant meeting held earlier and specifically asked about the Valley View and Wooddale Area. In the information provided that evening, the traffic was estimated to increase by 6,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Paar asked where increased traffic would come from and why affordable housing was proposed to be increased. He noted that the Met Council would not require the City to increase their affordable housing by over 500 units, He stated he thought the plan was untried and said he found it flawed to be told that the choice was between lower buildings that would use up the green space or taller buildings that would block out the sun and not allow green space. Doug Mayo, 6041 Kellogg Avenue South, said he was Chair of Edina Housing Task Force that had drafted the Housing Succession Plan. Mr. Mayo clarified that the 500 units of increased housing in the proposed plan would include 288 units of life cycle housing (this was housing that will be purchased by families earning between $47,000 and over $90,000) and 212 units of affordable housing (for person with incomes at 60% of median income or less). He said the affordable housing would be similar to what is already in Edina, such as Yorkdale, Centennial Lake, South Haven and some other apartment. He suggested there was a need for family and life cycle housing in Edina. Bill Griffith, representing TE Miller Development, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington, offered compliments on the comprehensive public process being followed by the Council and staff during the Comprehensive Plan Update. He stated there were issues with the area around Southdale and the loss of development potential. He suggested the Council consider his March 24, 2008 letter stating a reduction in FAR would result in a down -zoning without compensation. Ron Miller, 6921 York Avenue, owner of property at 7716 France Avenue, suggested that if the goal of the new plan was to see projects built with certain features, only a true density bonus system would work. He warned decrease in FAR would cause landowners to keep what they have or build all retail. Susan Covnick, 4715 Golf Terrace, said she was disappointed by behavior she observed. Ms. Covnick stated Edina was unique because it does not want change that was constantly being attempted to be foisted on the citizens, She said people are upset, angry and disappointed because they do not want the proposed changes. Ms. Covnick said people were there because they loved Edina and did not want to change. Vivian Talghader, 7504 Hyde Park Drive, asked if the Council was considering the plan in part or as a whole. If changes were made to the draft plan would public input be sought at that point. She also asked if the plan were adopted would the City be held accountable to the Plan and if neighbors directly affected by small area plans would be notified when the plans were under consideration. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 95?�-Rjg-§861 - Fax 952-826-0389 Jane Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, r but needs to think further in the future a must aaaress energy )sed draft plan only went out ten years, mate change. She suggested the plan Al Kluesner, 6417 Colony Way, suggested that if most of the re -development over the next ten years would be occurring south of TH62 and east of Cahill, the City Council become more pro- active in getting representation on boards and commissions from that area. Maire Katyal, 5177 Abercrombie Drive, said she was a former designer and planner in the State of Texas. She asked that the stress on the schools by additional development be considered. Ms. Katyal added that she would prefer owner -occupied housing and was opposed to more rental housing in the Cahill area. She asked that one West 70th Street higher buildings be set back from homes for light and air. Virginia Borgeson, 6216 Ewing Avenue South, said she understood the goal of the Updated Comprehensive Plan and stated residents did not want increased density. She objected to the Comprehensive Plan removing decision-making from the residents and giving it to the City Council. She said she objected to the plan satisfying the desires of the developers. She also objected to increasing mixed-use plans, and cited numerous pages in the draft plan to which she objected. Linda George, 5145 Tifton Drive, stated she did not feel there was neighborhood input from her neighborhood in the Comp Plan. She said that the persons drafting the Comprehensive Plan understand the impact of the traffic on Brookview Heights. She suggested that individual notices should be sent to each household in Edina notifying them of the update to the Comprehensive Plan. She also objected to tall buildings and said they would have a negative impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Sharon Ming, 1103 Coventry Place, said she was disturbed by comments about not wanting change. Edina has already changed many times from agrarian community to post-war suburb to the present. Ms. Ming stated change would come no matter what and she felt the proposed Comp Plan was an opportunity to embrace the change. She urged inclusion of affordable housing, encouraging diversity in age and economics as a way to maintain Edina's vitality. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, noted that tugging and pulling were typical of planning. He said that several things have come out of the process. Using the graphic, he noted some changes that. have been completed. Mr. Bohan suggested the promenade area be finalized, expressed concern over heights of buildings and suggested heights be limited to four stories until the study was completed. Linda Presthus, 4521 Belvidere Lane, asked for clarification of the question of whether the City of Edina was bound by statute of any kind to add 212 affordable housing units between the years of 2011 and 2020. Mark Chamberlain, 7004 Bristol Boulevard, agreed with Ms. Ming and suggested Edina should shape the future changes rather than react to them. He suggested the future be shaped with lower densities and lower height building. Higher density will lead to more traffic without increasing the infrastructure to the area that has already been saturated. He urged the restriction of building heights and density. Michael Fischer, 4512 Dunham Drive, stated he was a member of the Planning Commission and Comp Man I ask Force. He said ne ffiv so r Xn of Crosstown and eMST OT Canfir, reminding people that the Comp Plan Task for( n9T �f Edina citizens. He clarified what was 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 95NJg-§861 - Fax 952-826-0389 proposed in the land use section of the p housing. The 212 units were affordable required by the Met Council, an additiol were for people earning an average income of $62,800 and 113 units for peo an average of $90,275. He said these would be made up of teachers, fire fighters an ental hygienists. Mr. Fischer said that Edina would not stop traffic growth because Edina was surrounded by growing communities peopled by commuters who have learned that Edina streets were better than the freeway system. He pointed out that the Edina Schools were bringing in 1,000 students annually because there were not enough students in Edina which pointed to a need for life cycle housing. Peggy Buxton, 7500 Cahill Road, said she has been a 40 year resident and has seen a great deal of change. She said she lived on the first floor facing east of her property and said that a building even three stories would block the sun on her building. She suggested lower building heights. John Snyder, 5705 Lois Lane, said that a registered sex offered lived close to his property. He asked about the low income units and who would move into to them, expressing concern about the safety of his children. He asked the Council to explain why his fears were unfounded or if it was thought there was some merit in them, then why proceed and put the safety of young children at risk. Member Masica made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing, noting the wriften record would remain open for 45 days. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mayor Hovland reviewed the questions asked by the citizens. The staff answered the questions and discussed the answers with the Council. Following the discussion Mr. Hughes suggested the forty-five day written comment period would remain open until May 12, 2008. The Council consensus for beginning their work on the draft plan following the comment period noting their first work session would be held at 5:00 p.m. on May 20, 2008, preceding the regular meeting. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 9-1paW48861 - Fax 952-826-0389 i ru, 10, -M\" Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; Dan Cornejo, Planning Consultant; and Jane Timm, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. The Council discussed the plan of action to review the Comprehensive Plan. Consensus was to start with land use at the meeting on June 3, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. Topics of discussion would include: • Height • Density • Setbacks/design issues--i.e. closeness to street, parking • Small Area Plans • Height and density incentives, and how they work in other jurisdictions • Basis for legal change in zoning incentives • How mixed use works in the Twin Cities market, especially with housing over commercial? The discussion at the work session on June 17, 2008, 5 p.m., would be housing. The topics would include: • Housing type methodology • Ownership vs. Rental • Accessory dwelling units --would they work in any area in Edina, or be confined to certain areas • Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning • Methodology/philosophy of 500 additional affordable units • Location of Affordable Housing • Use of the phrase "Over Housing" • "Accessibility" issues • Implementation chapter inconsistencies The discussion at the work session on July 1, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., would be Assumptions. The discussion at the work session on July 15, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., would be Transportation. The topics would include: • "Access" issues • Functional Classification as a basis for traffic and vehicle count data The Council discussed the joint work session with the School Board on June 16, 2008. City Manager Hughes informed the City Council that one meeting would be needed to discuss the budget. The Council discussed and made a decision to change the May 27, 2008, work session to 12:30 p.m. The purpose of that work session would be the Public Works facility. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 5542.4 www.EdinaMN.gov * 952-927-8861 * Fax 952-826-04pe M. Timm, Deputy City Clerk VA IL Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Also present: Planning Commissioners John Lonsbury and Michael Fischer. Staff present included: Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; City Attorney, Roger Knutson and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to discuss the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Member Masica led off stating that she felt height was an issue that needed to be discussed. She brought to the meeting a large map received from a constituent that she used to point out the height of various buildings in the Cahill area. The Council discussed various aspects of building heights with staff and the Planning Commissioners. It was noted that the Cahill Industrial Area (east of Cahill Road, west of Hwy 100 and north of 1-494) was an area where the draft plan noted a potential for increased density. The Council discussed the following acceptable heights for the area: three stories, east side of Cahill and south side of 70th Street and the neighbors would not object to eight stories adjacent to Hwy 100. Discussion also included: increasing green space in relation to increasing height, impact of change in one neighborhood affecting adjacent neighborhoods, the vibrancy of neighborhood adjacent to freeways, whether or not zoning would need to change if the comprehensive plan changed the designation of an area (the City would have nine months to change zoning and then only change zoning if in conflict with plan), mixed use development, residential over retail development, whether industrial areas should be retained, purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to give guidance to developers and protection to residents, need to balance uses (i.e. commercial, industrial, residential), residents' desire to not increase height or density, development of vision, need for small area plans and maintenance of infrastructure. The Council agreed the Cahill Industrial area from the railroad tracks to Highway 100 should be included in a small area study, there should be a maximum height of three stories and the zoning should not change. Future work sessions should review other potential areas of change including: Southdale area, 44 th Street and France Avenue, the Grandview area, France Avenue north of Highway 62, and Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-927-8861 - Fax 952-826-0389 Debra Mangen, City Clerk OF THE WO EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 17, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager, Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to continue discussion of the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Member Masica stated she was uncomfortable allowing residential uses in conjunction with commercial and industrial uses and therefore opposed permitting residential uses in the industrial and commercial area. The Council discussed the area bordered by Metro Boulevard on the east, West 70th Street on the north, Cahill Road on the west, and West 78 th Street on the south. The issues included: existing and potential allowable heights of buildings in the area, current zoning of the area designated NC in the draft comp plan, effect of changing zoning on property values, existing and potential floor area ratio (FAR), desire to preserve commercial/industrial uses in Edina, the zoningshould stay a . s fit was in. the area described in the plan as NC., the area designated GMU should maintain light :industrial and. commercial without residential, mixed land use concept, and uses that would be allowed within an industrial zoning designation. Staff and Council also discussed Small Area Plan Studies and Potential Areas of Change that might trigger such studies. It was noted that the draft Comp Plan might be less prescriptive if it were to read "the City Council may direct staff to conduct a Small Area Plan Study in certain areas comprised of multiple parcels and/or identified as Potential Areas of Change within the Comp Plan." The Council pointed out several corrections/revisions to the draft Comp Plan which staff will incorporate into the document. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-927-8861 - Fax 952-826-0389 Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 22, 2008 7:00 A.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:10 a.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, briefly joined the meeting between approximately 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the study session was to continue review of the Land Use chapter of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update 2008 The Council discussed the area described as the greater Southdale Area bordered by the City's easterly and southerly boundaries, by TH 62 to the north and generally one parcel of land in depth west of France Avenue. The issues included: density, whether or not Floor Area Ratio should be adjusted, heights of buildings, buildings that would have a tower stepping down to a podium on the edges of the development nearer the street, setback, existing zoning, potential changes in zoning, the importance of encouraging a pedestdan friendly environment, concern regarding maintaining the vibrancy of the area, and infrastructure improvements potentially triggered by re -development or density changes. Staff noted that when speaking of building height,, building codes allow stick -built method of construction for buildings up to four stories, that buildings five and six stories were allowed to use a transitional type of construction, but buildings taller than six stories required full masonry construction. Acceptable heights based on the draft plan were suggested and staff recorded those changes. The Council asked Attorney Knutson if an existing 13 story building would be rebuilt, how many stories high statute would allow. Mr. Knutson responded the law would allow the building to be rebuilt to the same height. It was also noted that affordable housing would be favorably received in the residential areas. The Council felt it would be good to take time to reflect upon what the appropriate heights should be in the area. Member Housh left the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 4, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Cary Teague, Director of Planning; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the -study session was to continue review of the Land Use chapter of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update 2008. Member Masica commented that she would not be at the September 2, 2008, Council meetings. Staff recapped the results of the July 22, 2008, work session dealing with the greater Southdale area of the city. The Council finished their discussion of appropriate heights in the area and staff recorded the suggested heights. Some items from the discussion included: the ability to maintain the vibrancy of the area, potential future ownership of Southdale, community vision for Edina did not embrace height, traffic congestion, and differing heights of individual stories effect on the overall height of the building, desire to maintain or increase green space, and the desire to encourage pedestrian friendly redevelopment if possible. After concluding their discussion of the greater Southdale area, the Council next began the review of the France corridor north of Trunk Highway 62. Discussion included the regional medical district, FAR in the regional medical district, the office residential district in this area and scheduling of future work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m R espectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 19, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to continue the review of the Land Use Chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Council reviewed the outcomes of their previous discussions of the Land Use Chapter. Council discussion included: desire for a list of consensus items, concern about Regional Medical District zoning and density, future development of small area plans after the Comp Plan had been approved, and the need to potentially amend zoning regulations to coincide with the Comp Plan. It was decided that the neighborhood commercial nodes (50th & France, Wooddale and Valley View Road, 44 th and France, 70th and Cahill and Grandview) would remain with the same land designations and overall heights as currently existed until small area plans had been completed. Assistant Manager Worthington reviewed briefly the comments received from Three Rivers Park District and the Metropolitan Council on the Edina Draft Comprehensive Plan. Areas for which small area plans would be completed in the future included: 50th & France, Wooddale & Valley View, 44 th & France, Cahill & 70th , Grandview, and 54 th & France. There was also discussion of whether or not Southdale should be considered for a small �area plan. The Council discussed whether the work of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force was being ignored, the community vision for Edina and the need to keep moving forward with the review of the draft plan. The tentative future schedule follows: September 16 th at 5:00 p.m. - Housing Chapter, September 23rd, 7:00 a.m. Study Session, Transportation, October 7 th at 5:00 p.m. Parks & Open Spaces and October 21't at 5:00 p.m. Wrap Up. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE STUDY SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 7:00 A.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:00 A.M. in the Community Room of Edina City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Attending from the Edina Transportation Commission were Geof Workinger and Jennifer Janovy (also on the Bike Edina Task Force) and Sara Jacobs from the Bike Edina Task Force. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Engineer; Jack Sullivan, Assistant Engineer; Chuck Rickart, WSB, Consultant; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the study session was to review the Transportation Chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Member Masica commented that there was a rumor circulating there was no intention to finish the review of the draft Comp Plan by year end. Mayor Hovland said he believed the Council was to finish their work in October and submit the draft plan to Met Council by November. Manager Hughes assured the Council there was no intent to defer a decision on the draft plan until 2009. He stated staff was willing to meet whenever the Council desired to complete the review. He suggested that the Council also discuss whether they want to hold a public hearing on the revised draft plan. The Council conducted a review of Chapter 7 Transportation Plan. Included in the discussion were: Edina's functional classification of roadways and its difference with Met Council's listing of functional classification of roadways, how the functional classification was developed, criteria used to derive terms with which streets and roads have been labeled, how changing roadway classification could impact availability of state or federal funds, desire for development of an overarching narrative to describe departure from functional classification, Bike Edina Task Force Comprehensive Bike Plan and its need for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan, need to review draft plan for consistency of terminology and references between chapters, Traffic Demand Management Plans development and use, crash reduction strategies for major trouble points, working with various agencies and jurisdictions on 25 mph speed limit, transportation as it relates to transit, speed reduction strategy for school zones, development of park and ride locations and possible funding sources for updating TH 62 interchange. Staff noted suggested revisions and corrections during the review. The Council discussed the timing and process for adopting a final draft of the Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. They felt they could review the remaining chapters: Heritage Preservation, Water Resources, Park, Energy and Environment and Community Services in one more work session set for 5:00 p.m. October 7, 2008. The Council will e-mail any issues to the City Manager regarding these chapters by September 30, 2008. The issues will be consolidated to facilitate th discussion on October 7 It was decided that the revisions will be completed and the revised red -lined draft will be submitted to the Council in its entirety in late October. The updated draft will also be posted online. The Council will give staff any final updates November 3, 2008, and those will also be posted on the web as soon as possible. It was anticipated that a hearing date would be set for November 18, 2008, to consider the final draft and presumably approve that draft for submission to Met Council. Member Masica left the meeting at 9:45 a.m. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to the review the Housing Chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Council discussion included: Housing Task Force's development of the Housing Succession Plan, Housing Task Force's goal of 500 units, Metro Livable Communities Act goal of 212 affordable units, percentage of Edina housing currently at an affordable price, definition of affordable housing, inclusionary zoning and its meaning and implications, and the desire that affordable housing be ownership vs. rental, concern over allowing two housing units to be developed in single family dwellings, how school district demographics affect Edina's population, and life -cycle housing and ability to allow residents to age in place within Edina. The Council pointed out changes and inconsistencies to the Housing Chapter that were recorded by staff. Staff will review the draft plan for consistency throughout the chapters after incorporating the changes. It was noted the Transportation Chapter would be reviewed at the September 23, 2008, Study Session to be held at 7:00 a.m. Council requested that Geoff Workinger and Steve Brown of the Edina Transportation Commission be invited along with Kirk Johnson and other members of the Bike Edina Task Force. The meeting would be held in the Edina Community Room located on the second floor of City Hall. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL OCTOBER 7, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Housh was absent. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; John Keprios, Director of Parks and Recreation; Wayne Houle, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Marketing Director; Marty Scheerer, Fire Chief; Mike Siitari, Police Chief; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to review the remaining chapters of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Council worked through Chapters 6, Heritage Preservation; Chapter 7, Transportation; Chapter 8, Water Resources Management; Chapter 9, Parks, Open Space, and Natural Resources; Chapter 10, Energy and Environment; Chapter 11, Community Services and Facilities; and Chapter 12, Implementation. Several items were noted by staff. Council members supplied staff with notes of typos and clerical errors to be corrected into the final document. The revised red -lined draft will be sent out to the Council on Friday October 24, 2008, with the November 3, 2008, work session devoted to a final review of the document. At the regular meeting on November 3, 2008, a public hearing will be scheduled for November 18, 2008. Written comment will also be accepted on the draft document. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk Minutes/Edina Citv Council/October 21,2008 The Council discussion included: the depth of the monitoring wells were 15-17 feet deep; any purchaser of this property would request a no -action letter since the property issues needed to be resolved with ConAgra; the MPCA might require ConAgra to conduct additional investigations, perhaps to determine if this substance originated from this property or was the result of a flow from other properties; and that sale of bonds at this time would be premature since it could be six months before the no -action letter would be issued. Mr. Hughes advised that the budget included a debt service levy in anticipation of selling these bonds later this fall or during 2009. In December, the Council will make the decision whether or not to have a debt service levy start in 2009 in anticipation of selling the bonds. The Council noted the market in six months cannot be predicted at this time and the amendment would give the unilateral decision whether or not to sell bonds. The Council questioned whether the seller would be willing to issue an environmental assurance for unknown conditions. Mr. Hughes advised it was too early for such a negotiation with ConAgra, but there were different kinds of no - action letters and, based on the type issued, it was possible the City may negotiate additional assurances from ConAgra. The Council discussed the potential need for and cost of ground water remediation and noted that once the no -action letter was issued, the MPCA would still have the ability to require action under certain circumstances. The Council noted the amendment: would provide an additional 60 days of due diligence after the no - action letter comes forward, would provide the City with flexibility in deciding what to do about environmental issues, and the $100,000 would be returned if the City determined to not proceed to closing. Staff was directed to provide the Council with additional bond levy information to assist with that decision, noting it had until December 16, 2008, to make that decision. It was noted there were substantial savings in capitalized interest costs when this was considered previously. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, to approve an amendment to the purchase agreement for 7450 Metro Boulevard to extend the closing date; extend the due diligence period until 60 days after the issuance of the no -action letter for the City to evaluate its sufficiency and to arrange financing for the acquisition; and, permit the City to terminate the agreement if it determined that the no -action letter was not acceptable or financing feasible prior to the end of the extended due diligence period. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. UPDATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS SYSTEM Engineer/Public Works Director Houle advised that the Functional Class System in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan does not match the Metropolitan Council's mapping, which became apparent during the Metropolitan Council's pre -review, At that time, staff explained the functional class map was identical with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan and staff did not know Metropolitan Council's mapping had changed when redone three years ago. Mr. Houle stated staff and Peter Langworthy of WSB met with Metropolitan Council staff and it was determined that Edina either needed to replicate in its Plan the Metropolitan Council map and functional classifications or request approval for map changes from the Metropolitan Council and its Technical Advisory Board. Mr. Houle displayed the Metropolitan Council's current mapping, explained how it differed from Edina's mapping, and presented staff's recommendations for agreements with Metropolitan Council classifications and requests for change. He also explained the hierarchy of road classifications and how they were categorized, noting the advantage of funding tied to A -minor arterial roadways. The Council discussion included: the number of vehicles per day� carried by collector (1,000 to 15,000) and B -minor arterial roadways (5,000 to 30,000); funding advantage for A -minor arterial roadways; impact of land use concentrations of residential or commercial/retail developments on road classifications; the importance of connectivity and standard consistency; concern about function of the roadway going forward; and, risks to residents who live on those roadways. The Council noted that when Edina was built, it was the outer suburb so future construction of the roadway system to outer areas had not been envisioned. Page 6 Minutes/Edina City Council/October 21, 2008 Peter Langworthy, WSB, explained the classification was based on the amount of traffic the roadway carried. He advised there were not clear-cut mandates that an arterial must have certain design criteria. Rather, there were guiding principals, and if a roadway was designated as a collector as opposed to a B -minor arterial, it would not have a major change on how that roadway would be designed moving forward. He noted Edina was a mature City with a mature roadway system. Mr. Langworthy said certain roadways, due to basic features and development had regional significance. For example, a road that had an interchange at one end and major commercial enterprise at the other end, would be of regional significance. The Council noted that twenty percent of the City's mileage of roadways was designated as Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadways. Additionally, all of the road segments being discussed, with the exception of 58 th Street, were on the MSA system. The Council expressed concern that changing a designation from collector to another status expanded the potential for future developmental capability. Mr. Houle suggested the future land use had been identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council discussed that the Comprehensive Plan required the City to adequately control access points to the regional roadway system, and the Comprehensive Plan would establish and more clearly define the connection between land use and transportation. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to recommend the following functional classifications to the Metropolitan Council: • That A-1 CSAH 158 (Vernon Avenue South/Gleason Road) from TH 62 (Crosstown) to TH 100 be upgraded to an A -Minor Arterial Roadway; • That B-1 York Avenue So./Xerxes Avenue from TH62 to South City Limit and B-7 Valley View Road/West 69th Street from West 66 th Street to CSAH 31 (York Avenue South) be upgraded to B -Minor Arterial Roadways • That B-2 Blake Road/Interlachen Road from the north City limits/Spruce Road to Vernon Avenue, B-3 Londonderry Road/Lincoln Drive/Vernon Avenue South from TH169 to Gleason Road, B-4 Cahill Road from West 78th Street to West 70th Street, B-5 West 70th Street from Cahill Road to CSAH 17 (France Avenue), B-6 Normandale Road/Valley View Road from Benton Avenue to TH 62 (Crosstown) be designated Collector Streets Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION POSTPONED - PETITION TO NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION The Council questioned whether submission of a petition to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) would be in conflict with work of Bike Edina Task Force to establish a bike trail in this area. Engineer/Public Works Director Houle explained that for the last two years, the NMCWD had asked Edina staff to submit a petition, which would open funding for CIP projects. He explained the NMCWD's project was to stabilize the banks from erosion, to realign the Creek in some areas, and to add a trail where it would match the Three Rivers trails. The Council expressed concern that the two projects may not be compatible. Mr. Houle noted that a project had not yet been identified and while Three Rivers had not committed funding to a trail, they had started a preliminary review of the feasibility and potential location for a trail. City Manager Hughes advised that the Manager of the NMCWD had encouraged Edina to submit this petition, which would provide another source of funds into the corridor that did not exist today. This was the mechanism that cities used, a petition process to access the levy authority of the watershed district. He noted that Edina was one of the last communities to take advantage of this process. The Council discussed that residents have not indicated support for a bank stabilization project but have asked why there was not a bike trail in Edina or park land to bike between, as identified formally in the community survey. The Council noted the City's budget constraints and past discussion to cut $25,000 from trail maintenance, even though construction of more trails and maintaining current trails was identified as a top priority by Edina residents. It was also noted that Edina taxpayers contribute Page 7 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Eng i neer/Di rector of Public Works; John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director; Jack Sullivan, Assistant City Engineer; and Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Marketing Director. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to review the draft The Council reviewed the "Definitions" section of the draft Comprehensive Plan and the following chapters: Introduction; Vision, Goals and Objectives; Community Profile: Population, Housing and Employment; and Land Use and Community Design. Council discussion included proper definitions of the terms "sustainability," "CIP" and "PUD" in the "Definitions section;" typographical errors in Chapter 2; population projections and the concept of "overhousing" in Chapter 3; and desirability by the community of mixed-use developments in Chapter 4. The Council pointed out that graphics and tables in Chapter 3 were labeled as being comparisons of "similar communities," when they should have been labeled "adjacent communities." Staff will review the draft plan for consistency throughout the chapters. The Council revised two Land Use Policies in Chapter 4. Staff will make changes consistent with Council direction. It was noted that additional work sessions will be scheduled to complete the Council's review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. All sessions will be scheduled before the Dec. 2, 2008 public hearing. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 13,2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City E ng ineer/Di rector of Public Works; John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director; Jack Sullivan, Assistant City Engineer; Cary Teague, Planning Director; and Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Marketing Director. Mayor HqvIcInd purpose of the work session was to continue to review the draft The Council began by continuing its review of the Land Use and Community Design chapter. The "Implementation" and "Housing" chapters were also reviewed. Council discussion included the expression of building height, the maximum height of the high-density residential area west of France Avenue, the maximum height of the industrial area east of Cahill Road, development review process and affordable housing. The Council was reminded that heights in some commercial areas were not analyzed as much as in other areas because staff was directed to conduct small area plans after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Time did not permit such plans to be developed along with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will make changes consistent with Council direction. It was noted that an additional work session will be held 5 p.m. Nov. 18 to complete the Council's review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 18 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Engineer/Director of Public Works; John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director; Jack Sullivan, Assistant City Engineer; Cary Teague, Planning Director; and Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Marketing Director. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to continue to review the draft ,,Z,om- pphe w Pign, The Council continued its review of the draft plan beginning with Chapter 7, Transportation. Council discussion included the methodology used to model traffic volume projections, consensus that streets described as collector or above become residential thoroughfares, steps needed to remedy impaired waters, whether Todd Park should be downgraded to a neighborhood park and the status of Chapter 10, Energy and Environment. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk V Minute�,/Edina City Council/November 3,2008 member cities do receive LGA. The issue of eminent domain was discussed, and the position of Metro Cities was read, noting it softened that language. Member Masica advised that at a regional level, Metro Cities had to take a stance for the majority of its member cities. Mayor Hovland made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to appoint Council Member Masica as Edina's voting representative at the Metro Cities Policy Adoption Meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *HEARING DATE (NOVEMBER 18, 2008) SET — APPEAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL OF VARIANCE — SIGNAGE SOUTHDALE MEDICAL CENTER Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson to approve setting the hearing date for an appeal of a denial of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for signage at the Southdale Medical Building, 6545 France Avenue, for the November 18, 2008, Council meeting. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. HEARING DATES SET: 1. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VARIANCE APPEAL EDINA REALTY, 3930 49/2STREET WEST (DECEMBER 16, 2008); 2. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT — GALLERIA SHOPPING CENTER (NOVEMBER 16, 2008) City Manager Hughes explained the applicant submitted a letter indicating the Edina Realty project, approved at the last meeting, also required a variance that was to be heard on November 6, 2008. However, due to the applicant's schedule, the Board of Appeals cannot consider the application until November 20, 2008, so the applicant had requested the hearing be set for a December meeting date. Member Masica made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to approve setting the hearing date for the final development plan and variance appeal of Edina Realty, 2920 49% Street West, for the December 16, 2008, Council meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to approve setting the hearing date for the preliminary and final plat for the Galleria Shopping Center for the November 18, 2008, Council meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. KIM- U., Mayor Hovland advised tha!'N�� 6fi�nsive Plan, sblfw�6EdMended the public hearing be rescheduled. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, to schedule a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan for the December 2, Council meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. REPORT ON CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Mayor Hovland reported the Council held three meetings to review nine categories of general performance for the City Manager. The Council used a summary performance rating scale and confirmed that Mr. Gordon was ranked in the "very good" to "outstanding" categories in all areas. It was noted that the City Manager did not receive a pay increase in 2008. Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to adjust the City Manager salary for 2008 by a 3.5% increase, retroactive to January 1, 2008. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *FEASIBILITY REPORT RECEIVED AND PUBLIC HEARING SET (DECEMBER 2, 2008) — RESOLUTION NO. 2008-114 APPROVED FRANCE AVENUE SIDEWALK Motion, made Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson to adopt Resolution No. 2008-114 Page 6 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2, 2008 Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson introduced Resolution No. 2008-115, Resolution Approving a Final Plat for a Registered Land Survey for the Galleria. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mayor Hovland thanked the many citizens and groups for their participation and hard work in drafting the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant City Manager Worthington Pd stat ed that in late 2006 the City undertook to update the Comprehensive Plan as required by State Statute. She gadyised reviewed 90 the process W44, used, led by the Planning Commission, task force groups, citizens, staff members and consultants. The Council received the draft Comprehensive Plan on March 3, 2008, had now completed its review, and directed staff to schedule a public hearing for December 2, 2008. Ms. Worthington stated if the draft resolution was approved, the Comprehensive Plan would be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for its review process, which could take up to one year. When completed, the Council would be asked to adopt the Comprehensive Plan sometime in 2009 and then make Zoning Code amendments within nine months to comply with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Public Testimony Sharon Ming, 1103 Coventry Place, stated she was a 27 -year resident and served on the Human Rights and Relations Commission for 19 years. She also served on the Housing Task Force that helped draft the Housing Section of this Plan. Ms. Ming detailed the open process created by the Council that included over a hundred volunteers, hundreds of committee meetings and public listening sessions. These meetings were attended by hundreds of citizens who provided creative input that would guide the City's development and growth over the next 10-15 years. Ms. Ming estimated that 120 meetings were held and at a value of $25 per hour, there was probably $100,000 worth of free volunteer time from people with expertise. Ms. Ming asserted that over the last nine months, since the Council undertook its review of the Plan, the Council had subverted its own public process. She suggested the Council made substantial changes without the benefit of community input and did not release the final draft to the public until just eight days ago, over the Thanksgiving weekend. Ms. Ming stated she felt this draft of the Comprehensive Plan had a lot of background and history; however, very little vision or strategy and very few ideas about what Edina wanted to see happen over next 10-15 years. She encouraged the Council not to approve or submit this Plan to the Metropolitan Council because it would not serve Edina well. Cappy Moore, 6768 Valley View Road, stated she was a 24 -year resident and in 2000 was one of four residents representing three area churches who met to discuss Edina's housing situations through the eyes of the faith community who wondered what Edina would look like if it became more diverse. She advised of the 30-40 meetings that were held over the next seven years including two public forums in 2004. Ms. Moore stated that Council Member Masica attended a public forum and had indicated her surprise to see 150 people in favor of affordable housing. Mayor Hovland had attended the 2006 public forum and gave the key address about change coming to Edina, a first -ring suburb, and the need to keep Edina moving into the future. Ms. Moore noted the public had spoken for more affordable housing, but it was cut from the Comprehensive Plan. She reviewed her involvement to attend meetings with diverse groups who spoke of their desire for an economically diverse city. Ms. Moore asked what happened to the Edina's vision and stated she did not understand why the Council disregarded the work charged to the Task Force and the public's input. She stated that as a member of a strong united faith community, a Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2, 2008 Task Force member, and mother to six grown children, she believed there was room in Edina for families, single moms with one income wanting a secure environment, and newly -arrived immigrants. Ms. Moore stated Edina would be a better community for saying "yes" to those who want a new life in Edina. She asked the Council to be responsive to the work and moral fiber of this community and to reconsider and look with fresh eyes at the recommendations originally presented in the Comprehensive Plan. Sister Mary Madonna Ashton, 4401 Valley View Road, Apartment 2, stated she was a 26 -year resident and excited to attend meetings about the Comprehensive Plan that showed an effort to revitalize the community by encouraging young families, professionals and skilled workers to live as well as work in Edina. Sister Ashton stated that young people were needed to revitalize the community and asked the Council to explain why, in Chapter 5, Section 10, the goals stated by the Housing Task Force and unanimously approved by the Council to study in 2006 got scraped from the Comprehensive Plan. She stated she was very disappointed. Sally Krusell, 6229 Hanson Road, stated she was a 24 -year resident who moved to Edina from Highland Park because she wanted her daughter to attend Edina schools. She was a single parent and served on the Housing Task Force, spent a lot of time volunteering and bringing in experts who volunteered their time to provide information. Ms. Krusell stated she was floored by all that was cut from the Housing Plan and asked why she wasted her time as a volunteer. She read a portion of the Housing Succession Plan indicating: "mix of housing types and values was necessary to insure that those who contribute to the community can live in the community if they desire" and asked why that was stricken from the Plan. Ms. Krusell stated her children attended Edina schools but now cannot afford to live here. Ms. Krusell urged the Council to not accept the Comprehensive Plan. Patrick Downey, 7501 Hyde Park Drive, stated he was a 25 -year resident, had sons and -a career raising institutional capital for commercial developers. He followed the Comprehensive Plan cycle and was impressed with the professionalism and citizen input. However, he was shocked that the Council removed portions of the Housing Section. Mr. Downey referenced Chapter 5-21, Item 3, and asked why the 500 -unit goal for affordable housing was reduced to 212 units, noting some units would have gone to seniors. He stated his son married an Edina girl but lives in St. Louis Park because they cannot afford a house in Edina. Mr. Downey stated Edina needed to be revitalized by attracting young families to maintain its tax base and schools. He suggested affordable housing would provide better opportunity to attract young families, nurses, teachers and firefighters. Mr. Downey asked why the recommendation had been struck encouraging multiple building types or the expansion of mixed-use development. Mr. Downey urged the Council not to pass the Comprehensive Plan as written and to review the document as drafted by the Planning Commission that incorporated a long-term vision for the City and housing recommendations. Rev. Gregory Welch, Church of St. Patrick, 6820 St. Patrick's Lane, stated he speaks to the question not of product or process but that the people who had come to the hearings and put together the Comprehensive Plan document were in an unresolved conundrum as to what was done. He pointed out it only takes two Council Members to see the document was not passed tonight. Rev. Welch stated the City Council and Mayor were credible people who listen and if they disagree, have an articulate way to do so; however, that negotiation takes time. He stated the deadline was the end of December but it could be extended for that type of reason. Rev. Welch commented that years ago, Edina was a "sandbox", but development happened because of the creativity of community leaders. Now creativity was needed to provide housing for seniors and the people who work here, teaching in Edina's schools and serving on the police force. Rev. Welch urged the Council to take more time so there can be further dialogue. Stefan Helgeson, 3609 West 55 th Street, stated- he was a 28 -year resident and echoed the comments already expressed tonight. He displayed Chapter 2, Vision and Objectives of the Draft Plan, and drew attention to the areas that had been removed. He concurred with the opinion that the public process had been truncated, which was unfortunate because many people cared about what happened in Edina. Mr. Helgeson stated the Council had in its hands the vision of Edina and could stretch to serve the future or Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2. 2008 squander it by not hearing the participants in this process. He stated he was a participant and was very concerned about the process and precedence this set in Edina. Mr. Helgeson suggested that Edina was sitting on its laurels while surrounding communities were getting award-winning developments. He stressed the need to become a leader in developing Edina, a suburban first -ring community, through an urban process. He felt the Comprehensive Plan did not address those future opportunities to become leaders, noting LRT had passed Edina by and the Council had said "no" to bike trails that would have provided connection to other communities. Mr. Helgeson suggested the Comprehensive Plan was the vehicle to bring Edina into the next decade and he could not understand how the Comprehensive Plan ended in its current state. He recommended the Council not approve the Comprehensive Plan and look at it again. Dan Gieseke, 6800 Point Drive, stated he was a 17 -year resident and attracted to Edina by its leadership, innovation and being a premier suburb. He stated the Comprehensive Plan should be the "tool" spoken about by others that would set Edina apart. Mr. Gieseke stated he participated in the public meetings and was excited about the process to provide input but now thought that residents were being short changed with this draft of the Comprehensive Plan. He urged the Council to reconsider the prior information from public input and consulting groups. He noted there had been considerable expense, time and effort in this process and that many of the people who worked on the Update to the Plan did not feel right about the outcome. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, stated he had attended more meetings of the Comprehensive Plan than most citizens, and did not like how it started or finished but thanked all who participated. He stated he had read the document three or four times and while he was not satisfied with the document, he understood reality. Mr. Persha stated he took strong exception to the sentence in Section 4-1 indicating: "Land uses in Edina are the result of dynamic natural forces that shape the present landscape." He stated he had noticed that development went hand-in-hand with infrastructure, and there was a profound impact if infrastructure was lacking. He suggested some areas of the City would take Small Area Plans and stated his concern that Edina needed better citizen participation and citizens should be able to choose their own representatives instead of having them appointed by the Council. Mr. Persha referenced Section 5-10, Neighborhood Character, and indicated that he liked to think Edina's neighborhoods had character, but it was incumbent on commercial and office uses to be incorporated into that character and complementary to the residential neighborhood. He suggested broadening the definition of rental property since residents in all parts of Edina had become concerned about rental of individual homes, which they believed were a defect in their neighborhood. Mr. Persha stated he was not sure whether licensing or a time limit was needed, but people who rented out homes had an obligation to keep up their pFepeq location. He felt that mixed-use was not the only answer to increaseo q density, and green space was never a tradeoff for higher building height. He stated his concern that some of the pictures used for illustration in the Comprehensive Plan were not of Edina property. Bernadette Daly, 4521 Seclum Lane, stated she was a 26 -year resident with five children. Ms. Daly had followed with interest the public hearings and meetings at the Church of St. Patrick on housing and been impressed with the Council's engagement in seeking ways to help provide housing and economic diversity. She asked the Council to explain why, in Chapter 5, Page 19, Live Work Buildings and Mixed - Use Housing had been dropped. Ms. Daly suggested that other communities had wonderful examples of mixed-use buildings that were attractive, successful and visionary. She asked why Edina could not have the same and asked the Council to reconsider and put that type of housing back into the Comprehensive Plan. John Morial, 6566 France Avenue South, stated he moved from a smaller community when his children finished school and now lived at Point of France. Mr. Morial said Point of France had been built in 1976 and was state-of-the-art in design and worthy of Edina at that time. He stated he was now a senior citizen, had lived in Edina for 16 years and enjoyed having Lake Cornelia within two blocks, wooded areas, pathways, wonderful neighborhoods, as well as all the services, stores and shops, all within several blocks. Mr. Morial stated that Mayor Hovland's presentation at the Church of St. Patrick addressed the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and Southdale Plan. He had been impressed with the urban/suburban vision of bikeways, pathways and had looked forward to enjoying that combination. Mr. Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2. 2008 Morial asked what had happened to the vision, because it appeared to have been removed from the original report on which many hours had been spent. He urged the Council to vote "no" on the Comprehensive Plan so the Council could put vision back into the Plan before its approval. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, stated he was a 12 -year resident and had lived the preceding 40 years in southeast Minneapolis, always aspiring to live in Edina but unable to afford it. Mr. Bohan indicated he felt overwhelmed by people saying there was no vision and Edina was not doing the right thing. He stated he had heard a radio broadcast that there were no problems in Edina with foreclosures so something must be going right. Mr. Bohan said that initially the Draft Comprehensive Plan was the vision of a consultant whose focus was urban development. He suggested that over the course of 2007, the document began to reflect community input. Mr. Bohan stated he attended meetings and found interesting and sometimes heated discussions where the public got a chance to express their views, which caused changes in the original draft. For this reason, he said he felt it was not fair to say the Plan did not reflect the input from the community. Mr. Bohan stated that during 2008 the Council held many work sessions during which conflicts were resolved and ambiguities eliminated. He thought the Comprehensive Plan was a good representation and applauded the Council for their work. Mr. Bohan distributed seven suggestions to the Council. Douglas Mayo, 6041 Kellogg Avenue S., stated he returned to Minnesota in 1976 and chose to move to Edina where he became engaged in community activities including Chair of the Housing Task Force. Mr. Mayo explained he moved to Edina because it was a premier community where you could make a home, educate and raise your family. However, in the last few years he had come to question Edina's preeminence, which may no longer exist. Mr. Mayo stated his career was in real estate development, and he had seen competing communities get superior developments, recreation, transportation facilities and schools to challenge Edina. He expressed concern that Edina was changing, and possibly not for the better. Mr. Mayo described areas of Edina that contained deteriorating housing, outdoor storage, vacant lease space, a decrepit shopping center and blighted neighborhoods. He stated the draft Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Planning Commission had strategies to deal with these conditions and a vision for Edina with exciting opportunities for redevelopment of designated areas through category and mixed-use, with a wide range of life cycle housing for people of all economic standings. Mr. Mayo asked why all the strategies were deleted. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan before Council would result in the status quo, discourage innovation, not attract young families, not provide a range of housing, sense of a future or positive direction. He stated that if you envisioned an Edina that strives, ' then the Council should revisit the Comprehensive Plan and consider the research, expertise, wisdom and input of the Planning Commission, Housing Task Force, residents and consultants. Joellen Deever, 7405 Oaklawn Avenue, stated that she had been listening to comments and believed that no one was going to agree on a single issue. She thanked all who participated and commented that it was good to see familiar faces tonight of those who had attended the many Comprehensive Plan meetings. She commented that she found it interesting that Lewis Park Area did not want a restaurant, coffee shop, filling station or tall building. She stated that like Father Welch, she also remembered when Edina was considered a "sand box." Ms. Deever stated it had been an experience, pleasure and there were many people to thank. Bob Aderhold, 3529 West 54th Street, stated he was a 12 -year resident and served on the Affordable Housing Task Force that submitted its report to the Council two years ago. He stated that report had been accepted by the Council and was to form the philosophical basis of the Housing Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he had been part of that process and worked with wonderful people representing a broad cross section of Edina. Mr. Aderhold stated he felt the report provided very modest goals for the City, and he was disappointed to see that very few of those goals made it into the final Comprehensive Plan. He encourage the Council to revisit the Plan, which many felt was less visionary than hoped, especially in regard to the Housing chapter. Member Masica made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 5 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2, 2008 The Council discussion included: Reading of Page 46 of the Housii strategies recommended by the Task Force.-; Two of the strategi ,Incorporated in part in the Comprehensive Plan, Specifically, the P . goal of 212 new units of affordable housing, encouraged mix use City where infrastructure was available or could be funded, advo mortgages to facilitate affordable home ownership, and reco marketing of existing programs. high numbeF of affordable heusin Succession Plan that included five es were incorporated in full and twc .Ian adopted the Metropolitan Counci development throughout most of the cated use of land trusts and secon( -nmencled be3tter coordination an( 1 U ise in mest of the Git R A PFegFam. It was noted that mandatory exclusionary zoning had been eliminated from the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Council agreed the Comprehensive Plan had included one of the most complete processes ever seen and reflected ",aGtiy what was said in all the public meetings. The Council considered that , ,this draft of the Comprehensive Plan was released to the public eight days in. advance of this public hearing and during Thanksgiving weekend, but that the previous draft containing, many of the changes . d iscuss I ed this evening had been published at the end of October. Heweyeii:, 11 .t was fe - It that continuing the public hearing would not be a good use of time because additional substantive changes would not occur. The Council discussed that it was elected to incorporate the community's vision into the Comprehensive Plan and had spent a lot of time attending meetings to ascertain that vision. The Council had found Edina's citizens embrace diversityT and, young families and citizens want people who work here to live here. That was the reason high density new development at Cahill Gardens was found not to be timely because the area was already a successful core of employment with growing and expanding light industrial companies. The Council agreed it wanted to protect residential neighborhoods-,- and, create thriving commercial nodes, but 09 did not want to jeopardize residential neighborhoods, so concerned about having too much rental housing. The Council had negotiated through vigorous debate -j. a Comprehensive Plan that struck a balance and equilibrium, which at least four Members could support. It was felt that Edina would continue to be innovative and attract people to live and work. The Council discussed its appreciation for those who participated in the process and that it should have informed the Housing Task Force earlier in the process that@ mandatory inclusionary zoning was a GO - RG did not have support so it was not a surprise to them. It was noted that Chapter 2, Vision and Goals originally had incorporated Vision 20/20, the City's Vision Statement first adopted in 2000 and. revised in 2003, with changes that had not been made by public process. In removing Vision 20120/ from, Chapter,2, the Council committed to hold a public process soon to revisit and update it. , was Ghang ,inGGFPGFate the 2020 CIOGUment VisiGning Statement that was aFiginally finalized 'R 2000 and updated in 2003. in adoifigR, t4eFe was a GGITIMitMeRt to Fevisit the 2020 V064OR rGen-.-The Council reaffirmed that ............. . input from public listening sessions indicated a clear, strong and overwhelming majority of residents did not expect the community would remain unchanged but the kind of place they moved to with a balance of residential neighborhoods and suburban environment, not an urban environment. Ue-LiYe- Work. Buildings were struck from the Plan due to a Fire Code issue and Accessory Dwelling Units, were removed because public input indicated A the, y would be destructive to the pattern of residential neighborhoods. The Council acknowledged that while each member had areas they'd like to "tweak," the Plan had been worked on for two years, there had been a lot of negotiation and the Plan Ge6t,660 embodied the community values and input heard from. most Who wrote or testified. stFeng! The Council acknowledged the disappointment and feelings of disenfranchisement of- expressed by some residents. Mayor Hovland stated he believed the Plan did not reflect the majority opinion of this - C - o . un 1. ci 11 1 1 orhis vision discussed at the Church of St. Patrick meeting but was a document fashioned to satisfy the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. He stated his concern that the elements of density, height and housing have fallen short of the mark and would not provide a framework for transportation and sustainable communities. Mayor Hovland stated that he knew Council Members Masica and Bennett attended many meetings and felt the Plan reflected the vision of many in the community but he felt it reflected the vision of those who chose to show up. Page 6 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 2, 2008 Member Masica introduced Resolution No. 2008-134, Approving the Submission of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON LIQUOR FEE INCREASES FOR 2009 — ORDINANCE NO. 2008-10 ADOPTED SETTING VARIOUS FEES FOR 2009 Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. City Manager Hughes explained that increasing liquor fees required the holding of a public hearing and adoption of an ordinance. He advised of the suggested fee increases and that the cost covered the City's expense to enforce the ordinance, process the application, conduct quarterly checks on restaurants for underage service and enforcement issues that could occur. Unique to Edina was to offer a license fee credit of $500 after completion of one calendar year and $1,000 after completion of two calendar years of successful license checks. Mr. Hughes explained that Ordinance No. 2008-10 also contained the other fees set by ordinance that were annually adjusted. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Public Testimon No one appeared to testimony. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Masica made a motion to grant First Reading and waive Second Reading, adopting Ordinance No. 2008-10 Amending Code Section 185 Increasing Certain Fees effective January 1, 2009. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Roll call: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT No one appeared to comment. *AWARD OF BID — ONE 2009 FORD CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD CAR Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Masica awarding the bid for one 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor to the recommended low bidder, Elk River Ford Crown Victoria at $22,276.36. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2008-123 APPROVED ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Bennett introduced Resolution No. 2008-123 accepting Various Donations. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *RESOLUTION NO. 2008-125 APPROVED AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE MET COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT TAX BASE REVITALIZATION GRANT Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Masica to approve Resolution No. 2008-125 Page 7 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 3, 2009 5:30 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Planning Commissioners present were: Commissioners Brown, Fischer, Forrest, Grabiel, Risser, Scherer, Schroeder, and Staunton. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Ceil Smith, Assistant to City Manager; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the meeting was to review issues of mutual interest to the Planning Commission and City Council and for the Council to hold a discussion of a potential City Council organizational development retreat. Planning Commissioner Fischer handed out the following list of zoning ordinance priorities which Planning Director briefly reviewed (Note: Page numbers quoted in the list refer to the Draft Comprehensive Plan): Zoning Ordinance Priorities 1 Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies. a. Height Standards — PRD -4 Districts. Page 4-56 of Comprehensive Plan (HDR area) limits height to 8 -stories — Current code has no max. b. Height Standards — RMD & POD -2 Districts. Page 4-56 of Comprehensive Plan (RMD area) limits height to 12 -stories — Current Code has no max. C. Height Standards — PCD -3 District. Page 4-56 of Comprehensive Plan (CAC area) limits height to 10-12 stories — Current Code max. is 18 stories. d. Height Standards — PCD -3 District. Page 4-56 of Comprehensive Plan (MXC area) limits height to 8 -stories — Current Code has no max. e. Height Standards — MDD-6 District. Page 4-56 of Comprehensive Plan (HDR & OR areas) limits height to 4 and 9 stories — Current Code has no max. f. Height Standards — POD -2 District. Page 4-57 of Comprehensive Plan (0 area) limits height to 8 stories — Current Code has no max. 2. PUD & CUP Ord i na nce/Development review process. Page 4-59 of the Comprehensive Plan states that a Planned Unit Development zoning option be considered to incorporate design guidelines, including sustainable design etc... The CUP regulations could also be updated to incorporate these same standards. 3. Zoninq Board review of variances associated with a "final development plan." Consideration of our variance review process, particularly when a variance is tied to another application. 4. Driveway width limitation/impervious surface max. Address the issue of excessively wide driveways for new home construction and establishing an impervious surface maximum to address drainage concerns/issues. (Page 4-44.) 5. Parking standards. Update the parking requirements. Reduce spaces required if appropriate, encourage shared parking and parking at the rear of buildings. (Page 4-47.) 6. Urban forest protection. Consider amendments to the landscaping requirements, including a tree preservation ordinance, and tree replacement requirement. (Page 4-59.) 7. Garage placement. Minutes/Edina City Council Work Session/February 3, 2009 Consider an amendment to limit garage placement to prevent garages in front of the living space of a home. (Page 4-45.) 8. Solar Ordinance. If recommended by the Energy and Environment Commission. (Page 12-9.) 9. Massing study. Examination of the impacts of the recent Ordinance changes from 2008. (Page 4-44 and City Council directed.) This would likely be an early 2010 project. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the priorities, and it was determined that the Planning Commission would work on drafting amendments to existing City Code to be reviewed within the next three to six months with the City Council. Mayor Hovland thanked the Planning Commission members for their work, and they left the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Manager Hughes noted the Council had held an organizational development retreat two years ago with positive results. Since there now was a new member on the Council he inquired about holding a similar retreat in the near future. Mr. Hughes listed firms that could potentially lead such a retreat. He noted this could be a good lead in to update the City's VISION 20/20. Council directed Mr. Hughes to select a consultant and bring back possible dates in March or early April. There being no further business, Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk Minutes/Edina Citv Council/ADril 21. 2009 Proponent Presentation Arrie Larsen Manti, Edina Chamber of Commerce President, requested approval of their application and thanked the Council for its past support of this event. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Public Testimon No one appeared to comment. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to Approve Temporary On - Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special Permit to use City property in conjunction with the Liquor License for the Taste of Edina event sponsored by the Edina Chamber of Commerce, conditioned that the sale and consumption be limited to beer and wine. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT Dan Wick, representing Congressman Erik Paulsen, offered Congressman Paulsen's assistance to both the City of Edina and its citizens. Mr. Wick advised how the Congressman could be contacted. Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue, thanked staff for its assistance with the utility construction in the Country Club area and urged use of the adopted Heritage Preservation guidelines. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, questioned the process for the Planning Commission's Work Plan amending the zoning code and whether public testimony would be entertained. *AWARD OF BID — 2009-2011 POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Benneft awarding the bid for the 2009-2011 Police Uniform Contract to the recommended low bidder, Uniforms Unlimited at $15,325.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote — four ayes. �M!ATION RECEIVED REGARDING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENWEN`TgPlannind"C�6rii -mission Chair Fischer and Assistant Chair Staunton presented the proposed work plan to bring Edina's zoning code into agreement with the updated Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Teague reviewed the recommended amendments to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council, Commissioners and staff discussed necessary amendments, lighting requirement, signage requirements, Planned Unit Development districts, the work plan, the proposed public process to be followed with an additional monthly study session held by a Committee -of -the -Whole, Commission attendance requirements and the impact on the Commission with the extra work session. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-43 ADOPTED ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2009-43 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/September 1, 2009 The Council discussed the funding and scope of traffic studies and asked questions of staff. Mr. Knutson addressed zoning district classifications and notification standards. Mr. Teague defined accessory and permitted uses, confirming that accessory uses do not require notice or review or approval by the Planning Commission or City Council. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, to grant First Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2009-11, amending the City code concerning regulation of drive-through facilities. The Council discussed the ordinance and proposed the following revisions: Subd. 14, F3, "Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m."; add F.7. "Drive- through windows shall be limited to one service bay."; add G. to limit the audio system and menu board to assure it does not impact adjacent single-family residences in all zoning districts; Section 3, Subd. 7, "...A restaurant may have a drive-through facility subject to the requirements in Section 850.07, Subd. 14F." and staff to verify language contained in Section 850.16. Member Brindle and Member Housh accepted these friendly amendments to the motion. Member Bennett stated that while she supported the proposed use, she would not support the ordinance amendment making drive-through windows an accessory use in all PCID-1 districts. It was noted the revised ordinance would be considered for second reading on September 15, 2009. Ayes: Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. *AWARD OF BID — JEFF PLACE SUMP DRAIN INSTALLATION IMP. #STS -366 Motion made by Member Brindle and seconded by Member Bennett awarding the bid for Jeff Place sump drain improvements, Improvement No. STS 366, to the recommended low bidder, RPU, Inc. at $23,310.00. Motion carried on rolicall vote — five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-75 ADOPTED ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2009-75 accepting various donations. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. FEWMATE Motion made by Member Brindle and seconded by Member Benneft to adopt Resolution No. 2009-76, approving and adopting comprehensive plan update. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *HEARING DATE SET (9115/09) — FOR PLANNING ITEMS Motion made by Member Brindle and seconded by Member Bennett setting public hearing dates for September 15, 2009, as follows: 1. Amendment to overall development plan and final site plan for Little Szechuan Restaurant at 4820 -West 77 th Street. 2. Final development plan with side yard setbacks and height variances at 8050 West 78th Street for Hellmuth & Johnson Law Office. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL OCTOBER 6, 2009 5:30 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Brindle, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Housh was absent. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; John Wallin, Finance Director; Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Cary Teague, Planning Director; Steve Kirchman, Building Official; Sherry Engelmann, Sanitarian; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the meeting was to continue the Council's review of the proposed 2010 Operating Budget. City Manager Hughes stated the budget review would continue with those departments not finished at the last meeting. He added that there had been a staff rearrangement to cover two retirements without hiring any new staff. Mr. Hughes explained that the Public Works Coordinator and a Public Works Administrative Assistant were retiring. To cover these positions, the existing Utility Superintendent had been promoted to Assistant Public Works Superintendent, an administrative staff member from the Building Department would be working at Public Works three days a week with staff members from the Finance and Administration Departments covering her absence from City Hall. This shifting of responsibility will allow coverage without any hiring. It was noted that all the union contracts were up for negotiation this year. Engineer Houle stated his intent to postpone as much as feasible any equipment purchases. He said when replacing vehicles the intention was to go with smaller versions still capable of the needed functionality. Mr. Hughes noted the Planning Department's budget had been reduced in professional services reflecting the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and because the Historical Planning Consultant would no longer be attending meetings of the Heritage Preservation Board. He pointed out this also eliminated budget monies for small area plans, but that the 2010 proposed budget for Planning was more in line with what the department had traditionally budgeted before the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Hughes noted the Building Department would be juggling support staff since a member was shifting to Public Works three days a week. He noted that part-time inspectors had been laid off, but the City would be retaining its full time inspection staff. Mr. Hughes said that activity for single family residential was still quite strong, but that commercial activity was down 37% from the same time in 2008. Mr. Hughes reviewed the Health Department's proposed budget. He noted that Karen Zeleznak of Bloomington Public Health would attend the October 20, 2009, Regular Council meeting to review the grant just received. The Council briefly reviewed the Assessing and Administration Departments' budget. It was noted that the Energy and Environment Commission budget would be reduced by $25,000. The City's participation in Metro Cities was discussed as well as the benefit received for participation in the various organizations such as the League of Minnesota Cities. It was noted that the contingency k I Minutes/Edina City Council Work Session/October 6 2009 budget had been increased over previous year and pointed out that there were no monies in contingencies to fund studies not included in the budget. The Council briefly discussed areas that might have some cost benefit if services were to be shared regionally. Concern was expressed over the sacrifice of service accessibility to residents if shared services were initiated. The Council and staff discussed the proposed 2010 budget. It w * as agreed to invite the Boards and Commissions to the October 20, 2009, work session at 5:00 p.m. There being no further business, Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, October 20, 2009. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Minutes/Edina Citv Council/December 1. 2009 Mr. Hughes answered questions of the Council, indicating that 37% of Edina's homes would see a tax decrease, 57% would have an increase of less than 5%, and the remaining homes would have a higher increase. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Public Testimony No one appeared to testify. Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council recognized that 70% of the budget was payroll and indicated its appreciation for staff's dedication, noting staff would be participating in the majority of reductions since there would be no cost of living increase to salary. It was noted the 2010 budget and levy would be considered for adoption by the Council at its December 15, 2009, meeting. AWARD OF BID — GREER MEMORIAL GARDEN DEVELOPMENT — EDINA ART CENTER Park and Recreation Director Keprios advised that just over $21,000 had been raised to develop a garden in honor and memory of Pat and Bill Greer. The Edina Art Center subcommittee believed it could raise additional funding but should that fall short, the contractor had indicated it would develop only what had been funded. Mr. Keprios stated the garden plan was available for review at the Art Center or City Hall. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, awarding the bid for Greer Memorial garden development, Edina Art Center, to the recommended low bidder, 4 Quarters Design & Build at $29,976.00 plus Watershed District and building permit fees. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *AWARD OF BID — EDINA PROMENADE PHASE 3 — LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, ENG 10-1, IMPS NO. A-240 Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson awarding the bid for Edina promenade phase 3, landscape improvements Contract No. ENG 10-1, Improvement No. A-240, to the recommended low bidder, Hartman Companies, Inc. at $66,209.60. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five aves. *AWARD OF BID — COMPRESSOR CONTROL PANEL REPLACEMENTS — BRAEMAR SOUTH ARENA Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson awarding the bid for compressor control panel replacements, Braemar South Arena, to the recommended low bidder, Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. at $18,530.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. PUBLIC WORKS SITE PROCESS PRESENTED Mayor Hovland recognized the attendance of Planning Commission Chair Michael Fischer, Commissioner Michael Schroeder, and Vice Chair Kevin Staunton. He thanked them for their work on this project as well as their contribution to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fischer presented the Planning Commission's community-based planning process that would identify properties and create a Small Area Plan to address areas within the City that were likely to change. He acknowledged the valuable contribution of the Planning Commission and Mr. Schroeder who had over 20 years of experience in community-based design. The program's goals were to create an inexpensive process, a concentrated timeframe, a true community-based process, and to use a team of experts from Edina. Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 1, 2009 Mr. Schroeder presented the focus of -breas of the community identified as He noted the authority to initiate resides 1potential areas of change' in th- with the Council and there wer statutory requirements for the composition of the Plan or process used to achieve the Plan. Mr. Schroeder referenced seven key points to frame a Small Area Plan and described how this short one-month study period would be approached and achieved through a twelve -step process. Mr. Schroeder described those who would be involved in the process including a Technical Advisory Group, Community Advisory Team, a Design Team, and the public would be directly involved. He displayed a schedule to accomplish the Small Area Plan, resulting in articulation of principles to guide further planning, development direction, patterns, and concepts. Mr. Schroeder answered questions of the Council regarding the appropriate length of time for the planning process that assured adequate public notification and input yet maintained energy and found points of consensus. Mr. Schroeder commented on the high importance of fully advertising the event so all in Edina knew the process was occurring and to encourage their engagement. Mr. Staunton addressed selection and composition of the Community Advisory Team and Core Team made up of six Commission and Board members who would select two business/property owners and six community representatives. The Council requested that each quadrant of the City select its own Community Advisory Team membership to avoid a perception of pre -selection and assure success. The Council discussed the process, noting it would not change the land use designation nor create a nonconforming use. Rather, it would offer a suggestion for evolution. The Council also discussed the need for varied venues to advertise the kick-off meeting to assure a high level of resident participation. Mr. Staunton indicated he would work with staff to schedule the kick-off meeting in February of 2010 so that a small Area Plan could be announced in the upcoming issue of About Town. Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, supporting the general Small Area Plan process and allow public testimony and written comment for two weeks. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 2009-12 ADOPTED - AMENDING SECTION 850 TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Mr. Hughes stated the changes requested by Council at its last meeting had been incorporated. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2009-12, amending the City Code concerning regulation of accessory buildings in the R-1, single -dwelling unit district. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-98 ADOPTED - ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2009-98, accepting various donations. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *RESOLUTION NO. 2009-99 ADOPTED - AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson to adopt Resolution No. 2009-99, approving deferral of special assessments. Page 3 incorporated on the site; however, they acknowledged the project meets Code with regard to landscaping. SPEAKING FROM THE PUBLIC: _*N Mr. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place. ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Brown moved to recommend Final Development Plan approval subject to the plans presented and subject to review by the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IIIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Comprehensive Plan Update — Dan Cornejo Mr. Cornejo addressed the Commission and informed them to the best of his knowledge this is the fourth time the City of Edina has prepared a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Comejo said a main objective is to open up and encourage resident participation during the process. Continuing, Mr. Comejo stated it is the task of the Planning Commission to oversee the Comprehensive Plan updating process. Continuing, Mr. Cornejo told the Commission until the plan has been adopted there will be a number of opportunities for resident input including small group "listening sessions" and community -wide public meetings. Mr. Cornejo informed the Commission a community -wide Comp Plan meeting will be held on March 21, 2007, 6:30-8:30 prn in the Community Center auditorium. The meeting on the 21st w ill focus on land use. Mr. Comejo also informed the Commission on April 5 th an inter -generational dialogue will be held at City Hall in the Council Chambers. Mr. Cornejo explained "land use" in the City pointing out the City is divided into character types to include "Garden" which is the traditional neighborhood developed along street car lines, "Post War" housing developments during the 1950's and 1960's, (this era of housing is particularly vulnerable to tear downs), "Contemporary", the typical large suburban lots, "Multi -family Enclaves" and "Industrial/Mixed Use" districts. Mr. Cornejo introduced Mr. Arijs Pakalns, URS to speak to land use and infrastructure. With the aid of graphics Mr. Pakalns spoke to circulation and infrastructure as they relate to land use. rd A discussed ensued with Commissioners acknowledging the Comp Plan is being updated incorporating Edina's Vision 20/20; however, noting the Comprehensive Plan doesn't really speak to values. It's a broader statement of community goals and policies that direct the development and redevelopment of the City into the future. The Comp Plan addresses zoning and other land use issues, street and other infrastructure improvements, traffic, parks, trails and other amenities including community services. Chair Lonsbury thanked Mr. Comejo and Mr. PakaIns for their update. Chair Lonsbury directed residents to refer to Edina's website for more information on the Comp Plan including future meeting dates and times. IV. REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Teague informed the Commission the City Council approved the request by the Edina Fire Department for a Final Development Plan to construct a new Fire and Rescue station. The City Council also approved the recommended change in Code regarding time limits for reapplying for a variance. V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM Submitted by 0 --KA. o e 0 MINUTE SUMMARY Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie Risser, Nancy Scherer, Kevin Staunton, Michael Schroeder, Mike Fischer, Steve Brown, Floyd Grabiel, Arlene Forrest, Katie Sierks and John Lonsbury STAFF PRESENT: Planner, Cary Teague, Assistant City Manager, Heather Worthington, City Engineer, Wayne Houle, Assistant City Engineer, Jackie Sullivan, and Planning Commission Secretary, Jackie Hoogenakker 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the January 30, 2008, meeting were filed with corrections from Chair Lonsbury. 11. OLD BUSINESS: Update of the 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan Commission Comment Chair Lonsbury used a PowerPoint presentation highlighting changes made to the Comprehensive Plan since their last meeting. Chair Lonsbury referred to a letter with attachments from Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group. The letter is in response to the Comprehensive Plan and was submitted as written public testimony. Chair Lonsbury noted the purpose of the letter is to request a modification to the Comprehensive Plan for property located within the greater Southdale area bordered by Highway 62, France Avenue, Valley View Road/Lake Cornelia and 66 th Street. Commissioners briefly discussed the letter and suggested that the interested parties give oral testimony to the City Council when the Council conducts their public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. 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 ofthe planning commission. Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meetina Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorurn Type 1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1 " under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type 1" under the month on the meetings'line. Type "l " under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "'I" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "I" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "l under the month on the meetings' line. Type "l " under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "l under the month on the meetings' line. Type "l " under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting. NOTES: eClnof >* �'EDINA %.I C Timecards Calendar Gallery Edinet Employee Portal Keep up to date, share ideas and make Edina a great place to work. Welcom Staff Directory Edina IQS Handbook Safety & Wellness Wednesday, June 04, 2014 June 3 City Council Meeting Summary Administration Department The Council began its evening with back-to-back joint meetings with the Energy & Environment Commission and the Community Health Commission. The discussion included such topics as amending our local ordinances to allow residents to have bees and chickens on their properties, setting energy conservation targets for City government facilities, the possibility of adding solar panels to the roof of the Public Works & Parks Maintenance Facility, a new ordinance restricting the use of e-cigareftes and how to add a community health perspective to the City's community vision statement. Following the joint meetings, the City Council met in regular session and made the following decisions: - Agreed to purchase 2,800 tons of road salt from Cargill, Inc. for the 2014-2015 winter road maintenance season. - Authorized the purchase of a new street sweeper from MacQueen Equipment at a cost of $182,148. - Awarded four contracts totaling $2.6 million for improvement projects at 50th & France. The improvement projects will start in mid-June. Rejected the only bid received for the 54th Street Project. The bid exceeded the estimate for the project by $1.2 million. The project will be re -bid for potential construction during the 2015 construction season. - Authorized a cost-sharing agreement with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District which provides the City with $20,000 from the Watershed District for the new street sweeper purchased earlier in the meeting. Authorized a change order for the Bredesen Park D & Countryside F Neighborhood Roadway Improvement Project to enable an unanticipated water main replacement project. - Approved a new special assessment policy for the 50th & France commercial district - Approved new standards for pedestrian crosswalks. - Agreed to consider receiving a Livable Communities Grant from the Metropolitan Council for the proposed Beacon affordable housing project. Granted first reading of an ordinance to amend the City's liquor law in order to allow establishments with liquor licenses to also have games of chance or skill on the premises. Adoption of this change would allow Dave & Buster's to open a new restaurant on the currently vacant third floor of Southdale Center. The matter will be considered again at the June 17 Council meeting. • Considered and then agreed to change City Code to allow bicycles to use sidewalks in Edina. Currently, our City Code does not allow bicyclists to use bicycles on sidewalks the City. • Conducted a public hearing to consider vacating a public right-of-way of the former 67th Street in the vicinity of the proposed Lennar redevelopment site on York Avenue. Following the public hearing, the City Council agreed to vacate the right-of-way. . Received the Legacy Destination Award from Conservation Minnesota. Received the Bicycle Friendly Community Award from the League of American Bicyclists. Following the City Council meeting, the Council met as the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in order to approve the award of contracts for the parking and streetscape improvements in the 50th & France commercial district. Return to list. FEATURED VIDEO MOST POPULAR UPCOMING BIRTHDAYS HOT LINKS June 12 Buy It, Sell It Ryan City Slick Communications & Technology Field Updates Services Department Gallery July 14 Important Documents Krystal Videos Communications & Technology Services Department Work Plan July 14 Jamie Engineering Department @ 2014 City Of Edina, Minnesota