Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-07-23 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
REVISED AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 23, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS — Fill the Secretary Vacancy V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission June 25, 2014 vi. COMMUNITY COMMENT During 'Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue In the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Porter. 4206 Crocker, Edina, MN B. Variance. Cates Fine Homes. 6816 Cheyenne Circle, Edina, MN C. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Variances, Frauenshuh; 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard. D. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Beacon Interfaith Housing. 3330 West 66th Street. Continued to Aueust 13.2014 VIII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment —Front Yard Setback & first floor 1 -foot rule for tear down and rebuild. B. Conflict of Interest/Bylaws IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Attendance &Council Update X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS XI. STAFF COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meetina of the Edina Planning Commission August 13, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein July 23, 2014 B-14-13 Consultant Planner Recommended Action: Deny a 4.33 foot side yard setback variance to the required 7.33 foot side yard setback to allow for the construction of a garage at 4206 Crocker Avenue. Project Description: Steve and Peggy Porter (the applicants) are requesting a 4.33 foot side yard setback variance to remodel their home and construct an attached garage 3 feet from the southern interior side property line. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 67 feet in width and is 13,317 square feet in area. There is an existing single-family home on the property, and the applicant is requesting to remodel a portion of their existing home and complete an addition to add a, two -car garage to the south side of their existing home, and convert the existing one -car garage into a living space. There are three existing single-family homes abutting the north side lot line and one existing single-family home on the south lot, both facing Crocker Avenue (4212 Crocker Avenue). The home located on 4212 Crocker has a two -car garage on the south side of the home, and was built in 2006 with no variances. Section 36-438 (II), requires a minimum setback of 5 feet, plus 1/3 of a foot for every additional foot that the lot width exceeds 60 feet, resulting in a minimum setback of 7.33 feet (plus an additional interior side setback for sidewall height, which is not applicable for this request). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the end of Crocker Avenue and is surrounded on all four sides by single-family residential homes. There are a mix of homes with one or two car garages. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 13,317 square feet and 67 feet in width. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to remodel the existing home to convert the garage into living space and build a new, two -car garage on the south side of the lot. The proposed two car garage is proposed to be 21 feet in width, and necessitates a variance to be located 3 feet from the adjacent south property line. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Given the existence of other homes in the neighborhood that have two car garages, the addition of a two -car garage is reasonable. However, there have been teardowns and remodels in the area that have been able to comply with the ordinance. Furthermore, there are several possible 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent 51.4 feet Side- (7.33 feet) 5+ 1/3 foot for every 3 feet* foot of additional lot width over 60 + height of sidewall calculation Rear- 25 feet 62 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 30 Ft 2 stories, 30 feet from Lot Area existing grade Lot Width 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 13,317 square feet 75 feet or avg of nbad 66 feet Lot coverage 25% 11.26% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Given the existence of other homes in the neighborhood that have two car garages, the addition of a two -car garage is reasonable. However, there have been teardowns and remodels in the area that have been able to comply with the ordinance. Furthermore, there are several possible 2 June 9, 2014 Narrative regarding request for variance for side yard setback from 8 feet to 3 feet for Peggy & Steven Porter's home at 4206 Crocker Avenue, Edina, MN 55416. Planning Commission, We have lived in our home for 28 years. We have 3 children who were born and raised in our home and the youngest will be a senior at Edina High School in the fall. We plan on staying in our home and have no intentions to sell or move. We have been exploring plans to do an addition. We would like to add a 2 car attached garage, an addition to the back of our home with a main floor mud room and family room, add an upstairs master bedroom and bath and repurpose our existing garage into living space. We have looked at all the potential placements of the garage and the only viable solution is to add it to the south side of our property. According to our recent survey, we have 24 feet from our home to the property line. We are applying for a 3 foot variance to in order to add a 21 foot, two car garage to the south side of our home. Our neighbors, Podaly & Desmond Jay, made a major investment in their home last summer. If we place the garage detached with the 3 foot setback per code, the garage would obstruct the view that the Jay's designed their expansion around. In reviewing the plans with the Jay's they would fully support the attached option which would move the garage closer to the street and out of their view. The proposed remodel was designed to protect the existing character and curb appeal of our home. Our lot is 66.66 feet x 200. We feel the attached garage with the 3 foot setback versus the detached option with the same setback still meets the intent of the ordinance. Our design fits the original character of the house and the essential character of our neighborhood. During this design process we talked to all of our neighbors and have their full support. FYIgTINr rmmnITIAW� NOTES: 1. BENCHMARK - TOP NUT HYDRANT AT THE SW CORNER OF CROCKER & 42ND STREET W. ELEVATION = 878.10 2. ALL GRADING/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE COMPLETED PER PLAN. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AS SHOWN, 4. RE -VEGETATE SITE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING. 5. REPLACE AND REPAIR DISTURBED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS AREAS PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLETS SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. 7. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL PROPOSED GRADES AND GRADE THE LOT SO THAT THE SURFACE WATER WILL NOT POND OR CREATE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR THIS LOT OR ADJOINING LOTS. 8. ARROWS DENOTE DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF. SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PROPEX "SILT STOP" FABRIC EQUAL AND WIRE BACKED (OPTIONAL) AND FASTENED TO POSTS 4' WOOD / STEEL FENCE POSTS 04' O.C. 10' MIN. EXISTING GRADE— LEGEND S 89'49'12" E v 200.03 INSTALL SILT FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE lI — S — LU LU C� — ST — STORM SEWER LINE +� ?� CONCRETE DRI`m OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL UNE PROPERTY ADDRESS: > FIRE HYDRANT 6 INSTALL—,,/ POWER POLE 111 L.P. tUJ1p C.B. SILT FENC , WATER VALVE W EGARAGEU o.s XFMR. I REPAIR CONC. un,to CABLE BOX -----876 ---- _ CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE SCALE IN FEET *n'o BLOCK 2 FNM"E',QDo 20 40 60 878.0 0,0 ,, (p --- SILT FENCE , a +g^,, _ �I Uj SOUTH LINE OF sneD N 2/3 OF LOT 3 = L.L. (n 7 W U e / Y N 2/3 OF LOT 3 200.19,E -------------- 6 7-4 86 0 0 200.19' -117 -------- U r O N 89 EXISTING m U w� v SOUTH LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK -{QU SE w EXISTING B B w� U Z �Q U NOTES: 1. BENCHMARK - TOP NUT HYDRANT AT THE SW CORNER OF CROCKER & 42ND STREET W. ELEVATION = 878.10 2. ALL GRADING/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE COMPLETED PER PLAN. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AS SHOWN, 4. RE -VEGETATE SITE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING. 5. REPLACE AND REPAIR DISTURBED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS AREAS PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLETS SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. 7. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL PROPOSED GRADES AND GRADE THE LOT SO THAT THE SURFACE WATER WILL NOT POND OR CREATE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR THIS LOT OR ADJOINING LOTS. 8. ARROWS DENOTE DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF. SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PROPEX "SILT STOP" FABRIC EQUAL AND WIRE BACKED (OPTIONAL) AND FASTENED TO POSTS 4' WOOD / STEEL FENCE POSTS 04' O.C. 10' MIN. EXISTING GRADE— LEGEND v S 89'49 12' E 200.03 INSTALL SILT FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE lI — S — w Z Uj C� — ST — STORM SEWER LINE / — OHE — OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL UNE PROPERTY ADDRESS: > FIRE HYDRANT Grant D. Jacobson, N License No. 23189 Doted this 16th Day of June, 2014 INSTALL—,,/ POWER POLE 111 L.P. LIGHT POLE C.B. SILT FENC , WATER VALVE W MANHOLE o.s XFMR. I REPAIR CONC. CBLX. CABLE BOX -----876 ---- _ CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE SCALE IN FEET HOUSE I STI 20 40 60 878.0 0,0 O ADDITION (p --- SILT FENCE , �j BLOCK L I CN C.—EN, _ �I L.L. (n PROPOSED DRIB = I W 489` SOUTH LINE OF ,¢7 } I PROPOSED n7 0 sn6o GARAGE / Y N 2/3 OF LOT 3 0 200.19' -117 -------- O N 89 —{—' '`,INSTALL SILT -FENCE m U v QiV13 PROPERLY LINE w EXISTING w� SOUTH LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK HOUSE e zz _ oa U NOTES: 1. BENCHMARK - TOP NUT HYDRANT AT THE SW CORNER OF CROCKER & 42ND STREET W. ELEVATION = 878.10 2. ALL GRADING/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE COMPLETED PER PLAN. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AS SHOWN, 4. RE -VEGETATE SITE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING. 5. REPLACE AND REPAIR DISTURBED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS AREAS PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLETS SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. 7. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL PROPOSED GRADES AND GRADE THE LOT SO THAT THE SURFACE WATER WILL NOT POND OR CREATE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR THIS LOT OR ADJOINING LOTS. 8. ARROWS DENOTE DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF. SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PROPEX "SILT STOP" FABRIC EQUAL AND WIRE BACKED (OPTIONAL) AND FASTENED TO POSTS 4' WOOD / STEEL FENCE POSTS 04' O.C. 10' MIN. EXISTING GRADE— LEGEND — W — WATER MAIN LINE The North 2/3 of Lot 3, Block 2, CROCKER & CROWELL'S FIRST ADDITION, — S — SANITARY SEWER LINE — ST — STORM SEWER LINE supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor and Professional — OHE — OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL UNE PROPERTY ADDRESS: HYD. FIRE HYDRANT Grant D. Jacobson, N License No. 23189 Doted this 16th Day of June, 2014 P.P. POWER POLE L.P. LIGHT POLE C.B. CATCH BASIN W.V. WATER VALVE M.H. MANHOLE XFMR. TRANSFORMER CBLX. CABLE BOX -----876 ---- EXISTING CONTOUR LINE — 876 — PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE SCALE IN FEET D 20 40 60 878.0 PROPOSED ELEVATION m 3D --- SILT FENCE a - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED DATUM NOTES: 1. BENCHMARK - TOP NUT HYDRANT AT THE SW CORNER OF CROCKER & 42ND STREET W. ELEVATION = 878.10 2. ALL GRADING/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE COMPLETED PER PLAN. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AS SHOWN, 4. RE -VEGETATE SITE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING. 5. REPLACE AND REPAIR DISTURBED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS AREAS PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLETS SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. 7. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL PROPOSED GRADES AND GRADE THE LOT SO THAT THE SURFACE WATER WILL NOT POND OR CREATE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR THIS LOT OR ADJOINING LOTS. 8. ARROWS DENOTE DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF. SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PROPEX "SILT STOP" FABRIC EQUAL AND WIRE BACKED (OPTIONAL) AND FASTENED TO POSTS 4' WOOD / STEEL FENCE POSTS 04' O.C. 10' MIN. EXISTING GRADE— FABRIC PROPOSED PROPOSEDADDITION I hereby certify that this is a correct representation of a survey of: The North 2/3 of Lot 3, Block 2, CROCKER & CROWELL'S FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plot thereof. And that this survey and certificate was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROPERTY ADDRESS: ,ILL, V %- _� 4206 Crocker AV nue Grant D. Jacobson, N License No. 23189 Doted this 16th Day of June, 2014 Edina, MN 55416 FABRIC PROPOSED -- 4108 - 4109 4109 _..._ --' 4112 4112 r 3 411J u�le er�a- 61d-P, 4113 f 4116 i _ 24 4 117 4116 4117 4120 - 4115 . 4121 i 4120 4121 4124 7 f 4406�� 4404 4330 4324 14308 4304 4300 4224 4 4125 4212;4202':42001 3 ` 4100 !43211431714313!430914305143011 421 �,`4_134200 4217' 4205 420 1:i 4200 t z i I 4202 1... 4204 4212 4211 4206 420 4 4208i I 4209 4206 i 4213 4212 -� ___ _ _ _ _ 4208 4216 4215 1 4216 4213 4212 4213 4210 4220 4217 i:.._.4215 ' 4220 4215 4212 4224 _ _-_�_._ .�_ 4216 - Iw 4217 1 4217 4214 . 4219 4224 _._ 4228. ; _. __ _—__ i 421.9 t 4219 i 4216 22.1 4226 — 4218 -- ._ w : 4221 4221 _ 4220 4232 4223 4228 z ' 4223~--- 4222 — —__—.4223 —�-_ EET 4225 LU _ >- 4231 � `r ' 4225 4224 4225 4222 4227 42,1 42274224 4227 4232 _..._ to 4226 4231 _ _._.___._i 422c+ __.. -422 4226 Parcel 07-028-24-42-0045 ID: Owner S & P Porter Name: Parcel 4206 Crocker Ave Address: Edina, MN 55416 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.31 acres Area: 13,311 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: Sale Date: Sale Warranty Deed Code: Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 7/18/2014 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A Th ink •Green! 8. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ and http://edinamn gov/index 12hp?section=engineering_ water resource 9. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site .Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 36, article 12, Division 2 — Supplementary District Regulations, states: Sec. 36-1257. Drainage, retaining walls and site access. (a) Drainage. No person shall obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to harm the public health, safety or general welfare. Surface water runoff shall be properly conveyed into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. As part of the building permit, the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan that is signed by a licensed professional engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The plans must be approved by the city engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. 10. A storm water management plan signed by a Professional Engineer is required: a. No increase in peak rate to MS -2. b. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards, if applicable. 11. Due to flat grades, additional precautions are recommended to provide positive drainage to front yard. Grading, Erosion and .Sediment Control 12. A grading and erosion control plan signed by a Professional Engineer is required. c. Provide erosion and sediment control precautions described under Edina City Code Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345). d. Identify on the plan the individual responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. e. Describe stockpile locations. f. Describe site access and precautions against undue soil compaction. g. Include provisions for temporary erosion control. h. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used in the case of temporary pumped discharge. i. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used for concrete washout, and hazardous waste storage and handling. j. Provide inlet protection for all storm sewer inlets downstream of the site within one block or as directed by the City. k. Provide sediment control precautions, including downstream perimeter sediment barrier. 13. Meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard ..Edina, Minnesota 55439 �vNvw EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-037. • Fax 952-826-0392 Dave and Sandy MacPherson 4221 West 42nd Street Edina, MN 55416 June 12, 2014 To the Edina City Planner, We are writing in support of Steve and Peggy Porter's plans for adding a double car garage and living space to their home at 4216 Crocker Avenue. They have reviewed their plans with us and we realize this will be very usable space for them. If you have any questions we can be reached at 952- 920-2145. Thank you for your consideration. Ocu-,c OV�L,-, Dave and Sandy MacPherson June 10, 2014 To: The City of Edina Planning Department Re: Proposed Construction at 4206 Crocker Ave, Edina To whom it may concern, We are the homeowners at 4209 Crocker Ave, Edina, and are writing to express our full support for the proposed construction at Steve and Peggy Porter's house, 4206 Crocker Ave. They have reviewed their plans with us and we do not object to any of their proposed work. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. ncuy r ulllci by 4209 Crocker Ave Edina, MN 55416 (952) 926-3376 Wednesday, June 11, 2014 Dear City Planning Commission, This letter is for support of Steve and Peggy Porter's addition of a two -car garage on the south side of their house and a two-story addition on the back. These additions will match many of the other houses on the block that have been remodeled in the past several years. These additions are keeping with the style of many other homes on Crocker. We encourage you to pass their requests for these additions to their existing home. Thant in adva for your consid a ion, 4rrluce and Marilyn Reiter 4215 Crocker Avenue Edina, MN 55416 June 11, 2014 To the City of Edina: This note is to advise that Steve and Peggy Porter of 4206 Crocker Avenue — Edina, MN 55416 have reviewed with us their remodeling plans and need of a variance to execute. We are in support of approval for a variance for their project. Sincerely, f David Pinske 4216 Crocker Avenue Edina, MN 55416 6/11/14 To whom it may concern, I, Rebecca Remick, owner of 4220 Crocker Ave, am in support of the plans for an addition which includes an attached garage at 4206 Crocker Ave. The proposed plans keep the integrity of the home and I am not opposed to the 3 foot variance. f Thank you, Rebecca Remick June 10, 2014 City of Edina Planner We are aware of our neighbor's variance request and support it. We feel the best location for the garage is the south side of the house, where it would be located between the 2 houses. We understand the south border of the garage may fall 3 feet from our property line. Knowing this, we continue to support their request. Other options that include placing the garage in the back yard are the least favorite choices for many various reasons. We ourselves have recently renovated our home and created an outdoor living space in our back yard. Placing the garage in the backyard would obstruct and significantly affect our view. Sincerely, Podaly and Desmond Jay 4212 Crocker Ave June 11, 2014 Edina City Planner, I am the homeowner of 4309 W. 42nd St., Edina, MN. Steve and Peggy Porter are my neighbors to the south. I have reviewed their plans for an attached garage and addition. I am in support of their renovation and request for a variance for the proposed attached garage. Sincerely, Steve Dovorany 4309 W. 42"' St. Edina, MN 55416 Monday, June 9, 2014 Dear City Planning Commission: We are writing this letter in support of Steve and Peggy Porter for the addition of an attached garage and two story addition to their house. This addition will allow them to have a two car garage on the front of their house and match many of the other houses that have had additions or have been bui It over the last few years. The Porters addition is keeping with the style of their house and the neighborhood look and feel. We hope you will pass their requests. Thanks for your consideration. Best Regards, Timothy and Susan Gruidl 4213 Crocker Avenue Edina, MN 55416 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein July 23, 2014 B-14-15 Consultant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 24.4 foot variance to the required front yard setback of 54.4 feet to allow for a 30 foot front yard setback. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a 24.4 foot variance to the required 54.4 foot front yard setback construct a new home on the lot located at 6816 Cheyenne Circle 9 (subject property) at a front yard setback of 30 feet. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 150 feet in width and is 59,561 square feet (1.4 acres) in area. Approximately .8 acres of the lot is above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Indianhead Lake. There are two existing single-family homes on the north and south lots, both facing the Cheyenne Circle cul-de-sac. The north lot has a front setback of 53 feet and a setback from the OHW of 31.7 feet. The lot to the south of the subject property is set back 55.7 feet from the front property line and is set 10 feet from the rear property line. The property owner is requesting to demolish the existing single-family home, which currently does not meet the setback from the OHW, and build a new home. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the average setback of the two adjacent homes, or 54.4 feet for this lot. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the end of a cul-de-sac of single-family homes in the Indianhead Crest subdivision. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 59,561 square feet, of which 34,630 square feet is above the OHW. It is a treed lot with frontage on Indianhead Lake. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story single family residence with a full, finished, walkout basement and a three car, attached garage with a footprint of 2,694 square feet. Compliance Table * Variance Required 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-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent 30 feet* Side- 10+ height, (living) 14.3 and 32.8 feet OWH- 75 feet 75 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 2 stories, 18 feet from Lot Area 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad existing grade Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 150 feet Lot coverage 25% 18.8% * Variance Required 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-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 3. The property is subject to the OHW setback of 75 feet, and the property to the north does not meet that setback, allowing the home to set farther back toward Indianhead Lake (31.7 feet from OHW). 4. The proposed home, as proposed, protects the lake and existing foliage by meeting the OWH setback of 75 feet. • 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: Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance 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 existing homes immediately to the north of the lot and the south of the lot are set back much farther than otherwise required, and do not meet rear/OHW setbacks, as they are situated today. 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, adjacent, single-family homes do not meet rear setbacks as required today. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed home will complement the existing 3 neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property as a large, lake lot. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is subject to the OHW setback of 75 feet, and the property to the north does not meet that setback, allowing the home to set farther back toward Indianhead Lake (31.7 feet from OHW). 4. The proposed home, as proposed, protects the lake and existing foliage by meeting the OWH setback of 75 feet. 5. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to an imposed front yard setback from adjacent homes that do not meet rear yard setbacks. 6. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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: July 9, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped: July 8, 2014 Deadline for a City Decision: September 6, 2014 0 MEMO w91�A o Date: July 23, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Agenda Item B-14-15 — Variance at 6816 Cheyenne Circle The city engineer is still reviewing the civil engineer's grading, drainage and erosion control plan. His final report will be emailed out next week. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: Planning Commission of City of Edina From: Jennifer Cates Peterson, Cates Fine Homes Michael Huber, Huber Architects Representing Matt and Michelle Cooke, homeowners Date: July 8, 2014 Re: Request for Variance at 6816 Cheyenne Circle, Edina, MN The project consists of constructing a new single family home at 6816 Cheyenne Circle in Edina, Minnesota. The side yard setbacks and the setback from the Ordinary High Water were established on the official survey per the zoning ordinances. The Owner and Design Team are requesting a front yard setback be defined as 30 feet in lieu of ordinance Section 36-439 (1a) which defines the front yard setback to match the adjacent neighbor. The 30 foot request is a result from trying to develop a reasonable construction limit boundary and is a listed front yard setback within the zoning ordinance as a baseline. This request is based upon the following: -The approximate 54 foot setback of the adjacent residence would cause practical difficulties as the subsequent remaining buildable area is severely limited. -The existing structure on the property extends into the OHW setback. Our proposed new structure pulls the home out of the setback area. -The adjacent neighbor to the north currently encroaches into the OHW setback by approximately 43 feet. If the home conformed to the 75 foot OHW setback, the current front of the home would be approximately 10 feet from the property line, encroaching into the 30 foot baseline setback. -The home directly across the cul-de-sac is set at 25.4 feet from the front yard propty line, Y <c encroaching into the 30 foot baseline setback. q'�t r�. Lots within a cul-de-sac, especially on a lake, are always challenging, as the 16is`tene.' be _w irregular in shape. Our goal was to find a balance between respecting the tariousa6ncy. regulations and the specific issues associated with this particular piece, f propprl and adjacent neighbors. The project has been reviewed and approved by'T Nin&, ile creg Watershed district and we believe all other zoning ordinances have been met. We. ygrteatly appreciate your review and we would be happy to provide further information k .,ihswer any questions you may have. 2000 industrial boulevard . stillwater, minnesota 55082. p 651.439.2844. f 651.430.2922 . catesfinehomes.com . mn lic no. bc533260 Parcel 06-116-21-43-0007 ID: Owner Darrell H Boyd Name: Parcel 6816 Cheyenne Cir Address: Edina, MN 55439 Property Residential Lake Shore Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 1.35 acres Area: 58,867 sq ft Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 7/18/2014 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A T inkGreen? i 602 5 I j f 6624 6600 6801 't. 6805 6804 6629`` 6820 6809 6606 - 681'3 6812 _. , 6904 6817 R 6900. "i� 6°01 24 6905 6926 I 6919 6940 6936 Parcel 06-116-21-43-0007 ID: Owner Darrell H Boyd Name: Parcel 6816 Cheyenne Cir Address: Edina, MN 55439 Property Residential Lake Shore Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 1.35 acres Area: 58,867 sq ft 6932 6821 �A`�-� 6629`` 6820 =690_ 6900 692 �} , 6904 6905 R 6917 6908 I� � I A -T -B: Torrens Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 7/18/2014 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS' with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Parcel 06-116-21-43-0007 Map Scale: 1" = 100 ft. N ID. Print Date: 7/18/2014 Owner Darrell H Boyd Name: Parcel 6816 Cheyenne Cir Address: Edina, MN 55439 Property Residential Lake Shore Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Homestead representation or warranty expressed or stead: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 1.35 acres Area: 58,867 sq ft COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A TihinkGr+eeiV NINX- UNV80201 Ir Comparable to Avery@ 5160 Elf U Inkjet printer label: � Lniversa I GJ fn i C) CZ CD C, Co cz 00 -cD CO LU Li - Inkjet printer label: � Lniversa I 7- XNORTH -te-,7-, 0 20 40 11 0 \v/ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIO XI;L m HOUSE DETAIL IMPR2�IMI:AR�1,, (AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE 77 NO.N HE OF 1 . IFEAFMCS.-U... 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BY ME 4 CM.N_'Av TA so. 2.5" 11 - Lot I. Rf.1, INDIANHEAD CRUST, IH -pin C- W, 3 EASEMENT INFORMATION MATH) TO ITEMS AS SHOWN ON ME RECORD PEAT ANDCFRTIFICATE OF -1 W000 DECK STEPS =16) CONCRETE PAVERS STONE =1,892 4. FIE—RK WAS PERFORMED 4-18-14. BENCH MARK TNN HE COMER OF LOT I. BLOCK 2. DAIv LEGEND: EASEMENT NOTE: L INDIANHEAD CREST- R -W.- $75.51 H-29 DENOTES FOUND )WIN MONUMENT 1. DRAINAGE AND UTRITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON ME - RECORD P- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PROPOSED) - - - - -- - -.1. SET IIZINCH - PIPE 2. REST ICITONS AND COVENANTS PER DOCUMENT NO.LEGEND: 47630). 3. EASEMENT PER DOG, NO. 899601. TREE LIGHT - P.ROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREA S <�- I GUY 1. PROPOSED COMURS FENCE UCROUND CAS LINE OVERHEAD• ELECTRICLINfS CONCRETE FRON PORCH-173SELFT. 1 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL TOTAL ASPLATTEDi. IS,111 SO. FEET. SETBACKS: REAR PATIO =1,118 0 ROUTSIDEOFPATIO-29�- FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY:In", I AREA TO 11.- THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 (PER EDINK WEBSITE) FRONT BUILDING SETBACK -30 FEET INTERIOR 81HOINGSETRAC -11FEET GARAGE MOOR _ 880.25 TOP OF FOUNDATION - 981.2S PILLARSV10- wALL=Q FT. OHW BUILDING SETBACK 15 75 FEET UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES ARE NET SHOWN. SETBACKS PER DDC NO. 475301 30 FEET FROM MY UOTLINE. N AN ATTORNEY TO VERIFY THE vAuDM OF THIS 6. -50.' 0-R, DOCUMENT O UMENT. --- ---- v ou PR IOFY THE MSETBACKS WTH ME R TO ANY SUo-E DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONZONING . ADJACENTADMINISTER PROPERTIES DIFFER THAN ME MOVE SETBACKS. XNORTH -te-,7-, C I TZ::. F IIIE= IIC=IP m 111--j --- CONTACT: CATES FINE HOMES 2000 Industrial Blvd Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651-439-2844 D E S IG N 901 N - STREET, SUITE III MINNEAPOLIS, M N SS.. l clx.rw]ssOwww ciao ab ram IN. REVISIONS:. Kv.- =.GME HAN CERTIFICATION' x: zsna PROJECT LOCATION: CHEYENNE CIRCLE PID# 061162143-0007 ERHAUN, .. Sidle IN 2 ... Es_ Ph 5,969 Fm 651.27-1a y CORNERSTONE LAND SU-1—INC, INC PER NANE A.I.Rvic" PROU-No. jc'S.' SITE/GRADING PLAN 0 20 40 \v/ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIO XI;L m SURVEY NOTES: IMPR2�IMI:AR�1,, (AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE 77 NO.N HE OF 1 . IFEAFMCS.-U... 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BY ME 4 CM.N_'Av TA so. 2.5" Lot I. Rf.1, INDIANHEAD CRUST, IH -pin C- W, 3 EASEMENT INFORMATION MATH) TO ITEMS AS SHOWN ON ME RECORD PEAT ANDCFRTIFICATE OF -1 W000 DECK STEPS =16) CONCRETE PAVERS STONE =1,892 4. FIE—RK WAS PERFORMED 4-18-14. BENCH MARK TNN HE COMER OF LOT I. BLOCK 2. DAIv EASEMENT NOTE: L INDIANHEAD CREST- R -W.- $75.51 H-29 PLA0E'R 1 27 TEToU- - 1,973 1. DRAINAGE AND UTRITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON ME - RECORD P- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PROPOSED) - - - - -- - 2. REST ICITONS AND COVENANTS PER DOCUMENT NO.LEGEND: 47630). 3. EASEMENT PER DOG, NO. 899601. DENOTES OFFSET HER (gp) DENOTES PROPOSED Rev. P.ROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREA S <�- aL C�l PROPOSED COMURS PROPOSED IMPROVE HOUSE -3.445 5� M. -T AR- AR�40TE" FRON PORCH-173SELFT. TOTAL ASPLATTEDi. IS,111 SO. FEET. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS REAR PATIO =1,118 0 ROUTSIDEOFPATIO-29�- I AREA TO 11.- — M DRIA 7SQ, UTILITY INFORMATION GARAGE MOOR _ 880.25 TOP OF FOUNDATION - 981.2S PILLARSV10- wALL=Q FT. UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES ARE NET SHOWN. RASEU- FLOOR- -.G FIRST FLOOR -881.5 6. -50.' 0-R, C I TZ::. F IIIE= IIC=IP m 111--j --- CONTACT: CATES FINE HOMES 2000 Industrial Blvd Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651-439-2844 D E S IG N 901 N - STREET, SUITE III MINNEAPOLIS, M N SS.. l clx.rw]ssOwww ciao ab ram IN. REVISIONS:. Kv.- =.GME HAN CERTIFICATION' x: zsna PROJECT LOCATION: CHEYENNE CIRCLE PID# 061162143-0007 ERHAUN, .. Sidle IN 2 ... Es_ Ph 5,969 Fm 651.27-1a y CORNERSTONE LAND SU-1—INC, INC PER NANE A.I.Rvic" PROU-No. jc'S.' SITE/GRADING PLAN DATE: July 18, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 6816 Cheyenne Circle - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the following ordinance sections: • Chapter 10, Article 4 — Demolition Permit Stormwater and Erosion Control (10-106 to 10-1 13) • Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12 — Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the provided documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Land Use/Planning Concerns I. None. General 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org 3. Applicant has been in contact with the watershed, but the site is still in review. Permanent stormwater facilities are atypical and may not be permitted as proposed. 4. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the building permit application packet Survey missing the following: a. #10 NGVD 1929 Datum b. #11-12 ESC and drainage can be shown on grading, stormwater management, and erosion control plan. Street and Curb Cut S. If application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplicationpdf Sanitary and Water Utilities 6. No comments. Storm Water Utility ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov.952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 6 ('.[ rN��rtt�c� �?.clrt.t> .1ltattac:��c.��.s The proposed development consists of a single residential dwelling and associated improvements. The site is presently occupied by an existing single residential dwelling which will be razed to build the new home. The site is on a hill overlooking Indianhead Lake. Generally drainage flows from the existing structure in four directions, three of which end up flowing directly to the lake. Drainage to the north flow=s into a depression on the property to the north and then appears to overflow to the west near along the property- line to the lake. Drainage from the east side of the home flows to Cheyenne Circle. For purposes of this report the flows from all four sub basins are combined since they all ultimately end up in the lake and in the proposed condition only a de minimis area flows to the street. The area used in the drainage calculations includes 34630 Ft' of lot area to the OHNVL, 1900 Ft' below the OHM and 3370 Fr of street right of way, for a total of 39,900Ft^. A geotechnical report has been prepared for the project by Northern Technologies, Inc. and is attached. The two borings performed indicate sandy clay fill underlain by silty sand. Subsequent hand auger borings in the previously proposed infiltration basins indicated that the soils were unsuitable for that purpose. Jtll'1SD1'0T101* 1.. BOE)HES AISM REOI_11t lYfUJS The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (TOICWD) has jurisdiction over storm water management, flood plain impacts and erosion control for this site. Since this site is within 500 feet of Indianhead Lake stormwater management is required. The Watershed District's requires that an applicant for a stormwater management permit demonstrate to the District that the proposed land - altering activity will: 1. Provide for the retention onsite of one inch of runoff from all impervious surface of the parcel. «here below -ground infiltration facilities, practices or systems are proposed, pretreatment of runoff must be provided. 2. Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events for all points where stormwater discharge leaves a parcel 3. Provide for all runoff from the parcel from the 2.5 inch storm event to be treated, through onsite or offsite detention, to at least sixty percent (60%) annual removal efficiency for phosphorus, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids. The onsite retention of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and phosphorus removal requirements ri Page 1 of 4 3/27/2014 rel t_aPOSE") 01� , 4-1 11 t:. S"1C)R A t. %r`F4<a,i. The proposed building is in roughly the same location as the existing home and the drainage patterns are generally retained. See attached exhibits. The runoff from all impervious areas is directed to a cistern located between the home and the lake. This cistern is sized to hold 1" inch of runoff from all impervious areas of the site. The total impervious area is 7,100 fe x 1/12 ft. x 7.48 gallons/ft' = 4,425 gallons. The plan shows (2) 2500 gallon tanks, a drawing of which is attached to this report. The bottom of the tanks would be set at roughly the OHWL elevation and ground water elevation noted on June 27, 2014 when NTI performed hand auger borings. Runoff enters the cistern from two inlets plus an 8" pipe from the front yard. The surface area around the cistern is contained with a low berm that provides rate control for larger stone events. The outlet from this containment is 10 foot wide grassed swale. The high water level for the containment area is 868.2, 2.1 feet below the low floor elevation. Water that collects in the cistern will be utilized for irrigation. The pumping system will be designed by the irrigation contractor. It is also proposed to install a fresh water connection to the cistern to facilitate irrigation during dry periods. The cistern should be backfilled with granular material. A 4" PVC drain tile with filter sock should be installed at the bottom of the sand backfill with a discharge to the lake. The purpose of this tile is to assist with drainage during spring runoff when the irrigation system is turned off and to minimize potential buoyancy issues. The cistern provides storage to limit total runoff to the predevelopment rates and volumes as demonstrated in the HydroCAD model which is attached. As tabulated below, the model shows a decrease in the rate and volume leaving the site in all four events. There is no surface discharge from the infiltration area for the 2.5 inch rainfall event addressing criteria #3. Event Existin Rate Proposed Rate Existina Volume Proposed Vol. 2.5 -Inch 1.29 CFS 0.49CFS 2,645 Fe 1,867 Fe 2 -yr, 24 hr 1.57 CFS 0.62 CFS 3,199 Ft' 2,422 Fe 10- yr, 24 hr 3.32 CFS 3.11 CFS 6,701 Fe 5,922 Fr' —100 -yr, 24 hr 5.68 CFS 4.73 CFS 11,632 Ft' 10,847 Ft' STORMWATER SUMMARY Criteria #1 is met for the site by directing all runoff from the areas to the cistern. Criteria #2 is met as discussed above. Overall the runoff rate and volumes are reduced for all events. Criteria #3 is met since the runoff from the 2.5 inch rainfall from the disturbed areas of the site is directed to the cistern. � R Page 2 of 3 7/03/2014 FLOOD PLAIN IMPACTS / MITIGATION It has been represented to us that the HWL for Indianhead Lake is essentially the same as the OHWL. No work is being performed within 45 feet of the OHWL therefor it can be reasonably assumed that there are no flood plain impacts. EROSION CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION BMPS The grading/erosion control plan for the proposed project includes numerous Best Management Practices (BAP) to minimize erosion and the transport of sediment during and after construction. A construction entrance is indicated at the only access point to the site. The disturbed areas of the site that flow offsite are protected with silt fence. All disturbed areas will be seeded and protected with fiber blanket or mulch during construction and ultimately sodded. See plans by others for additional details. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATIONS The proposed basement floor elevation is 6.9 feet above the OH -VT and of Indianhead Lake and 2.1 feet above the Hl` 'L of the cistern containment area. CONCLUSION We believe that the grading & drainage design by results in a site that meets the watershed requirements for rate and volume control and water quality treatment. Please direct any questions regarding the attached calculations to me at 612-260-7982. This report was prepared by me and I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Stephen.johnston 7/03/2014 Registration #18914 n _< Page 3 of 3 7/03/2014 © DEN HARTOG INDUSTRIES, INC. In, ^Mlhl .'.11 y.fni,-.'H—t:,11 dr'n-.•hl, r�•... I, o", filo nr .111.:.pr,r•r_ lyu".bv, Ilar' ml:nr,! 1, a-•. 'n xxl r!wll n,ll kr n:,^, r: +1•.-,A lx'M-,. „ I.. ntl:,Il.::rl 1.4, .1 vl:llry, rr:!,nnl xf Iw•, Il.,rin•I Y,; :,�-Iriv+. IN 00'1'30X510 .6 16 O oc)o- 19463 CISTERN BOLT TORQUE LABEL 19462 BURIAL LID 19464 GASKET— B.15 ALIGN HOLES AND STAPLE TO LID FOR SHIPMENT 10 PLACES ACT -16503 NOTE: STRETCH WRAP FOR SHIPMENT DRA'e;N / J%,TE WJEMA.L ADH 5/19/09 Den Hartog AlIKII-11VAIL I N 0 U S T R I ES,INC. REH 5/19/09 I OESCCIPTION BY U%TE Qtl Au Roto.Mold Inlsotlon Moldln9 Blow Molding Sowloy ALL DIM 'TIONS ACE :!1 DECIM ".I. INCHE., L u. u+ Jt.l N 'HSI stE13HT ROTES. 4010 HCSPERS DRIYL S VD, 4i5, HOSNCRS, 10":A 51'?. -0'r25 TCLL! A4CE' INN EES nTliCkWISE SPECIPICD p,l , l 17 LB'. OE�CRIPTION ?OLYE!HYLENE7 MEr1,L SHNPING'.•LIJHICISTERN BURIAL LID AND GASKET DECIMAL � .V5" _ 6.1- F CP AC MN • 1/4•• �- ;1NIc1;.-`;c�-".� P'NI If; ACT -16053 ANT E t r N.S. } NTI_ NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. July 3, 2014 Cates Fine Homes Attention: Jennifer Cates Peterson 2000 Industrial Boulevard Stillwater, MN 55082 Subject: 6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes for Storm.water Infiltration Evaluation Edina, Minnesota NTI Project No. 14.6065 8.100 Introduction On June 27, 2014, Northern Technologies, Inc. (NTI) performed three hand auger probes within the proposed infiltration basin areas. The locations of the probes were selected by Mr. Steve Johnston with Elan Design Lab. The purpose of this evaluation was to estimate the infiltration rates and existing subsurface conditions at the proposed locations. A boring location sketch showing the recently completed hand auger locations and also the boring locations for the soil borings associated with the previously completed geotechnical evaluation (NTI report number 14.60561. 100 dated May 13, 2014) is attached. Please refer to this report for additional details in regard to construction recommendations. Hand Auger Exploration A hand -operated bucket auger was used to probe to a depth of approxunately 6.0 feet below the existing grade at the three test locations. Please refer to the attached hand auger logs for a summary of the soil conditions encountered at each location. Stormwater Infiltration The soils encountered in hand auger probes HA -1 and HA -2 were generally not considered to be suitable for infiltration. Hand auger probe HA -3 did encounter various layers of silty sand at depths within the explored soil profile. This material would generally be considered suitable for infiltration. NTI cautions that this soil layer did also include occasional clay seams that may slow infiltration. NTI suggests that a double ring infiltrometer test be performed if more accurate infiltration rates are required for the design of the proposed infiltration basins. 6588 141+ Ave. NW 7403 191h Street S 1408 Northland Drive #10' 3522 4,N Avenue S 51501'hghv,a), 2 I : 830 S 4P Street Ramsey, UN 55303 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Mendota Ih[eight,,, ia1N 55120 Fargo, ND 58103 Minot, ND 58701 Grand forks, ND 58201 763.433.9175 320.654.9409 763.433.91'.5 701232.1822 701.818.8486 701.219.0920 ",63.323.4739 fix '63.323.4739 fax 651389.4190 fax 701.232.1864 fax '01.232.1864 fax 701:775.3774 fax 1S North Exist 14R] 2S Total Existing Runo West Exist 3S East Exist Total Proposed Runoff 11S East Basin 12S West Direct J/ urta— 13S Cisfem West Basin 2 0� a— 14S Front Yard Swale West Basin 1 OSubcat [Reach on Q DEN HARTOG INDUSTRIES, INC. "Oin7nl .•a wt:�r!r-, rerr _.ea.•-rr., r^..:.rove. _t ••rearm tee .rvl rW ACT2500-LP DRAWN: DATE ADH 6/1/09 REH 6/19/09 DESCRIPTION BY / DATE CCN ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN DECIMAL INCHES SHOT WEIGHT 1009 LB. TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED er" ++>•' 'OLYETHYLENE METAL,3HIPFING WEIGHT. 1014 I.S. DECIMAL 12S" 11M O 68' F FRACTION x 1/4' ANGLE s 1e MATERIAL 12769 M/B 10538 POWDER 40, NOTES- DESCRIPTION 110.425 WALL THICKNESS SCALE P/ N.S. X 4 1 Den I- rg g9NDUSTRIES,INC. A-113W-AftM Ielne:n-lMherrg dbwmod"n ■seelear 4010 HOSPERS DRIVE S, BOX 425, HOSPERS, IOWA S1238-6425 2500 GALLON CISTERN ACT2500-LP 6816 Cheyenne Circle Infiltration Evaluation NTI No. 14.60658.100 Table J provides estimated infiltration rates for the soils encountered on site. These rates are generally based upon the design recommendations within the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Table 1: Estimated Infiltration Rates Soil Type Estimated Cumulative Infiltration Rate inches/hr CL & SC <0.2 SM 0.6 Closure The results presented within this report are assumed to be representative of the site. However, the data is limited to the results from the three hand -operated auger probes performed at the project site. For this and other reasons, we do not warrant conditions below the depth of our test probes, or that the strata Iogged from our test locations are necessarily typical across the site. Deviations from our recommendations by plans, written specifications, or field applications shall relieve us of responsibility unless our written concurrence with such deviations has been established. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Cates Fine Homes and its agents for specific application to the 6816 Cheyenne Circle development project in Edina, Minnesota. Northern Technologies, Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. Northern Technologies, Inc. makes no other warranty, express or implied. Northern Technologies, Inc. Ryan T. Menter, P.E. Project Engineer I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Ryan M. Benson Reg. No. 42724 Ryan M. Benson, P.E. Date: July 3. 2014 Regional Manager/Principal Engineer RMB:rtm Attachments- Location Diagram, Hand Auger Logs (3) Minneapolis/St. Paul • St. Cloud 9 Fargo • Grand Forks • Minot 7' - ...4.- .y �1 V' 3 ti roti MW AIVUF LOr •,.�,. al"k /. dLf .•f;' FMMK 'A\ 'p i LT"yJf7'��'+•"��'. 6bNIDv ^� • A' '%�\ ~ '�,'e S'B_� F6'ft PLAY w , a °F'F //y.�«�a tid►� ' $�e' y saa i�,.r•,. xy° ` N89'0@'f!"lf °•nxe s..�. E75 `04+ °� �°'b :m LFR r 8*0 Boring Location Diagram A6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes Edina, Minnesota NTI Project #: 14.60658.100N NTI NOTE: Survey provided by Cornerstone Land Surveying; Inc. � TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOTE: Boring and hand auger locations are approximate. r ;� n 4fi8 •mr Fallp �/'i' a XT SM n+ W --wig t. t=103.8@ a R=54A0 1i4 7' - ...4.- .y �1 V' 3 ti roti MW AIVUF LOr •,.�,. al"k /. dLf .•f;' FMMK 'A\ 'p i LT"yJf7'��'+•"��'. 6bNIDv ^� • A' '%�\ ~ '�,'e S'B_� F6'ft PLAY w , a °F'F //y.�«�a tid►� ' $�e' y saa i�,.r•,. xy° ` N89'0@'f!"lf °•nxe s..�. E75 `04+ °� �°'b :m LFR r 8*0 Boring Location Diagram A6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes Edina, Minnesota NTI Project #: 14.60658.100N NTI NOTE: Survey provided by Cornerstone Land Surveying; Inc. � TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOTE: Boring and hand auger locations are approximate. BORING NUMBER HA -1 NTI PAGE 1 OF 1 $ wonwuw 1 rtcnxctt¢cin CLIENT Cates Fine Homes PROJECT NAME 6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes PROJECT NUMBER 14.60658.100 PROJECT LOCATION Edina MN DATE STARTED 6127114 COMPLETED 6/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 865.8 ft HOLE SIZE 3 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR NTI GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING 2.00 ft / Elev 863.80 ft LOGGED BY RLL CHECKED BY RMB AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES BM Elev = 875.8 (Previously drilled soil boring SB -1) AFTER DRILLING ATTERBERGLu t - o-� z ui LIMITS w v } ~X U aC7 �m ? wo �w oz� LL, z � �- F- E p� EL EL W O �J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a� oa mo> ta- N Y` _ � oz o �� po 0� (� QZ W 0 `GU �J gJ NZ Wv rn of O o- lY o U o d 0.0 4.5" TOPSOIL a HA FILL: SANDY CLAY - (CL), trace fine roots, trace gravel, brown, moist to waterbearing at 2 feet (Fill) HA 15 1 HA 2.5 NOTE: Hit cobbles at 2.5 feet. HA 2 =' FILL: ORGANIC SILTY SAND - (SM), trace roots, trace gravel, black and dark brown, waterbearing HA (Buried Topsoil) SANDY CLAY - (CL), trace gravel, brown to gray at 4 feet, moist (Glacial Till) HA NOTE: Occasional waterbearing sand seams at 3.5 feet. HA 5.0 19 HA 4 HA Hand auger hole backfilled with soil cuttings. Boring terminated at 6.0 feet. BORING NUMBER HA -2 NTPAGE 1 OF 1 I ,8� 110l1M��M ndl6illG4lNlC CLIENT Cates Fine Homes PROJECT NAME 6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes PROJECT NUMBER 14.60658.100 PROJECT LOCATION Edina, MN DATE STARTED 6/27114 COMPLETED 6/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 865.1 It HOLE SIZE 3 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR NTI GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger � AT TIME OF DRILLING 3.00 ft / Elev 862.10 ft LOGGED BY RLL _ CHECKED BY RMB AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES BM Elev = 875.8 (Previously drilled soil boring SB -1) AFTER DRILLING — ATTERBERGLu i o w w o LIMITS w h� U _ =C7 M } _ wo co w 3z� n. �� � " �z z EL a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wm g > Ct ¢ E c W Y z$ w t— r_ U o 2z w 0z O ¢— Na Z W W C9 v¢i a a �O v ZI �� ° a- z 0.0 6" TOPSOIL HA FILL: SANDY CLAY - (CL), trace fine roots, trace gravel, brown, moist (Fill) HA 1 HA 18 HA 2 2.5 HA HA 3 6 — FILL: ORGANIC SILTY SAND - (SM), trace roots, trace gravel, L gray and black, waterbearing — (Buried Topsoil) Organic content=8.4% HA SANDY CLAY - (CL), trace gravel, gray, moist 5.0 /r / HA 4 i HA Hand auger hole backfilled with soil cuttings. Boring terminated at 6.0 feet. i i i P i S 3 N R I BORING NUMBER HA -3 NTI PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Cates Fine Homes PROJECT NAME 6816 Cheyenne Circle Hand Auger Probes PROJECT NUMBER 14.60658.100 PROJECT LOCATION Edina MN DATE STARTED 6/27/14 COMPLETED 6/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 875.8 ft HOLE SIZE 3 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR NTI GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Nand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING --No groundwater observed. LOGGED BY RLL CHECKED BY RMB AT END OF DRILLING --- NOTES BM Elev= 875.8 (Previously drilled soil boring SBA) AFTER DRILLING -- ATTERBERG w wo LIMITS w U Lu.-. v =U' �� }_ rnw �ZJ Q. I_ - �Z Lu Z IL 0-0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CO W� > c3 ¢ I-_ 12 w z n w o I— F U W OU e uj �— C7 0 n <z UW W co Uz V }` OZ 5 ��_ 1—p �Z cp W O a nY o 2U U zi IL a 0.0 LL 8" TOPSOIL FILL: CLAYEY SAND - (SC), fine to medium grained, trace fine 1 roots, trace gravel, brown with trace black, moist (Fill) SILTY SAND - (SM), fine grained, light brown with iron oxide stains, moist (Glacial Outwash) 2 SANDY CLAY - (CL), trace fine roots, trace gravel, brown with iron 2.5 1 oxide stains, moist (Glacial Till) s SILTY SAND - (SM), fine to medium grained, trace fine roots, light brown with iron oxide stains, moist 3 14 (Glacial Outwash) 5.0 NOTE: Occasional clay (CL) seams. 4 11 43 Hand auger hole backfilled with soil cuttings. Boring terminated at 6.0 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 23, 2014 VI.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is proposing to tear down the existing 12,199 square foot office building and build a new 10,000 square foot retail building that would include a drive-through. The property is located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, just west of Highway 100, and is located across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. (See pages Al -A4.) Retail uses to the south include the Shell Gas Station, Burger King, Dairy Queen, and a small retail strip center. (See page A5.) North and east of the site are office/light industrial uses. (See property location on pages Al -A8 and the applicant narrative and plans on pages Alt A32.) To accommodate the request, the following would be required: Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2. 2. Preliminary Development Plan with consideration of Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 to 30 and 25 feet. 3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two-step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council, the second step would be Final Rezoning to PCD -2 and Final Site Plan & Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 feet to 30 and 25 feet. The second step would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment in this first step would be a final action. The subject site is guided for Office Uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The above mentioned commercial sites located south of the subject property, are guided for Industrial use and are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Pages A8 and A11.) Therefore, staff is recommending that these commercial sites also be included for consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial to bring the existing uses into compliance. These parcels include the following: ➢ 5125, 5105, 5101 Edina Industrial Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard. These uses include a small commercial strip center, Burger King and Dairy Queen; each of which are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. The Shell convenience gasoline station is zoned PCD -4, Planned Commercial District. See the Zoning for the area on page A2, and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the area on pages A8 and A11. The proposed use of the subject property at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. Sketch Plan reviews for proposed development of this site were done in 2013 and 2014. (See Planning Commission and City Council minutes on pages A69 -A77.) The applicant has attempted to address as many of the issues raised during Sketch Plan review as possible. The two most notable changes are bringing the building up to the street to create a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street, and relocating the drive-through. (See the previous Sketch Plan on pages A33 -A34.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: An office building; Zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided O, Office. Easterly: An office building; Zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided O, Office. Southerly: Burger King and Shell convenience gasoline center, Zoned PCD - 2 and PCD -4, Planned Commercial District; and guided for 1, Industrial. Westerly: The old GM Plant currently leased by Filmtec; zoned PID, Planned Industrial and guided Industrial. 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.3 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains an office with surrounding surface parking on all sides. (See pages Al A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Site Circulation O — Office. POD -1, Planned Office District -1. Access to the site would continue to be from Edina Industrial Boulevard and Metro Boulevard. There are currently two curb cuts to Edina Industrial Boulevard. The access closer to the intersection would be eliminated. Traffic Study Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A37—A68.) The study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there would be adequate parking provided. No improvements would be needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 25 overstory trees and a full complement of understory shrubs. The applicant is proposing 27 overstory trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Elm, Honey Locust, Crabapple, Linden and Aspen. (See pages A21 and A30.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading for the retail space would take place at the back of the building or parking lot area. Trash would be collected within the building and at the trash enclosure area in the northeast corner of the parking area. The material of the enclosure would be brick to match the proposed building, as required by City Code. (See pages A22 and A26.) Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A35 -A36. The applicant should address the engineer's memo as part of the Final Rezoning process. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of high quality brick and ledgestone. The building would be finished on all four sides. (See renderings on pages A14— A19.) A materials board would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of final rezoning of the site. Drive-through Stacking Space The proposed drive-through lane would be accessed on the east side of the site, with the pick-up window on the east side of the building. The drive- through lane would contain six stacking spaces behind the menu order board and nine spaces from the pick-up window. (See page A22.) City Code requires five spaces, although the Code does not specifically refer to coffee shops. A traffic study, done by Wenck and Associates, found that the traffic from the proposed use would not impact the adjacent roadways. The study shows that additional stacking would line up with the drive -aisle area. (See page A42.) Signage The applicant would be required to meet all signage regulations of the PCD -2, Zoning District. Compliance Table 4 City Standard (PCD -2) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — Edina Ind. Blvd 35 feet 30 feet* Front — Metro Boulevard 35 feet 25 feet* Rear — East 25 feet 50+ feet Side — North 25 feet 40+ feet Building Height 4 stories 1 story Maximum Floor Area 1.5% .16% Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls (Site) 56 55 (proof of parking for 1 stall) 4 Drive Aisle Width 24 Feet 24 feet *Variance requested Rezoning Per Section 36-216 of the City Code, the commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Should the City Council approve the Amendment to designate the future land use of the site to neighborhood commercial; the proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing land uses to the south, which are commercial. The proposed project would meet several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, including the following: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. (2) Is consistent with the preliminary site plan as approved and modified by the council and contains the council imposed conditions to the extent the conditions can be complied with by the final site plan. The proposed plans are consistent with most of the comments by the Planning Commission and City Council per the Sketch Plan review. Any conditions imposed in this preliminary review would be required to be presented as part of the Final Rezoning application. (3) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract. The proposed retail uses are consistent with the retail uses to the south, and currently being considered to the east. This limited retail area would provide uses beneficial to the office and industrial areas to the north and west. (4) Will not result in an overly intensive land use. The proposed square footage would be less than the existing office building on the site. A traffic study was done and found that the proposed uses could be supported by the existing roadways. (5) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. Again, Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study which concluded that the proposed uses could be supported by the existing roadways. (6) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code. With the exception of the front yard setback variance requested to bring the building up to the street, the proposed project would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements of the PCD -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. (7) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. As mentioned above, the proposed retail uses are consistent with the retail uses to the south, and currently being considered to the east. This limited retail area would provide uses beneficial to the office and industrial areas to the north and west. It would provide convenience retail and dining options for the nearby employment area. G PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial reasonable for this area? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is reasonable for the site and area for the following reasons: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area and the Industrial areas to the north and west. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties to the south is really a house keeping item, as it was mistakenly guided for industrial use. 3. Neighborhood Commercial is defined as small to moderate -scale commercial, serving primarily adjacent neighborhoods. Primary uses are retail and services, offices, studios, institutional use. Existing uses in this area include a gas station, limited retail and convenience food. All are permitted uses within the PCD -2 and PCD -4 Zoning Districts. 4. The proposal would meet the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. VA 5. The traffic study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project. • Is the Rezoning to PCD -2 appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PCD -2 is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36-216, as noted on Pages 5 and 6 above, in regard to rezoning property. Subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The project would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; would not result in an overly intensive land use; would not result in undue traffic congestion or hazards; and with the exception of the setback variances would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: ➢ To re -guide 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard from O, Office to NC, Neighborhood Commercial; and ➢ Re -guide 5125, 5105, 5101 Edina Industrial Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard from I, Industrial to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties to the south is really a housekeeping item, as it was mistakenly guided for industrial use. 3. Neighborhood Commercial is defined as small to moderate -scale commercial, serving primarily adjacent neighborhoods. Primary uses are retail and services, offices, studios, institutional use. Existing uses in this area include a gas station, limited retail and convenience food. All are permitted uses within the PCD -2 and PCD -4 Zoning Districts. 4. The proposal would meet the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. 5. The traffic study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project. Preliminary Rezoning to PCD -2 & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from POD - 1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the existing retail building at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard and build a 10,000 square foot retail building as proposed. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36-216, as noted on Pages 5 and 6 above, in regard to rezoning property. Subject to approval 0 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; would not result in an overly intensive land use; would not result in undue traffic congestion or hazards; and with the exception of the setback variances would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this Limited retail area. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated June 6, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the City Code. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the City Code. 4. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated July 15, 2014. 5. Approval of the requested Front Yard Setback Variances. Deadline for a city decision: October 1, 2014 10 City of Edina - s SO 770 �7sr 1l a n Ott �]t7: 7740 ills D1N 7241J4j14! Ja 12f 722 4261�1 4 14dQ5% Leffond 3;:'t rI1gMlQhtadr-oalnro 14 L1. sdH75l Sm-Fd1npHausatfumbcr Sled , le •4737 WGC1/ 17d0 "`•fad' \l/e9 sial '•Jj/5 77Ti $211 7701 FRO y711 trause rlpmbar Lsbe(s ' sstxE 1700 F14a X711 slmet flame Lnbeis .. Clty Umlts rx- 7t2 Z4 ! �.sln6du +h+ Cmehs 770! 1440 718$ 6150 $Joe Tim fadl 140] a al 2 210 f� L.A. 177m0c (7779 1:10 t lakes �4r1-J�J�l a1 0 Parks Pascals 7Qo x�rriF 1J 6317 t7a 24 r4ro 7401 Sul 7450 1401 - S 417 d92d i'!^lt 11910 916 0 114 743 - 418 i 7515 75(0 6119 td J JSdo Vc4 J17sIB2 sial 7404 49f 917�?n� �I11�4fA7� SOS 490� Is.. d} 0d 21 e' 4198, X49 4201 1625 7115 y I660+y v y %50 744 �lf6J 7675 lr6 76+0 7E75 IN 7509 7 G stro 9 7dw sicv;..� { 4 to to �i,710 7I•@ - ..;:.. L-1 77TAF 770{niq\� 7 j, ci11}1}^{�y� 11A 1671 775774 7TP3 SAtl Sidi 110 5175 510S .)7101 77� 1 'lads 5000 17 c 4fal 21 n6e sSo'SSSS 4759$101 fill 4415 6171 1742 7710 3615 t4 7711 1f 6lot 0 . 4 a7MSI1V fIW 7800 Flat r101521157J1 sT21 7x17 vol flat �'� 7007 Igo 7007 is r6 7di0 Eld0 fall 7071 1711 loll idea flat +� S2227100 40� 7827 J�l'r No a G16-0 0901 3859 $701 s601 bits 020/ales OW e162 1297 E16/ 12 9213 2d 5120 ua�l:at ni e.vv, <,mss=m4 6015 slag e21a 0701 2a. l X71 g1failVSr 4109 1911 0751 tOBJ Wa101 6161 520 .: .Aws eard+:4 ecaa 4023 01°0 t .r slot scot 70 qa sits 5110 City Of Edina 71.1 7115 10 ! � 62M 77�7jJ 77 -•i}f� 71 7770— 2/D77M1 77f��1-�,� J D DI M 717 JO 1011011d � Mai0lpkled .atm@ �•••' ..�71: ^-N-+•.'-•. 190 SurraurdinpHduselldmbcr SMO Ir737 L Labels 7 3702 •'. I IJ7s 3717 /Jf4 '•'7701.,. '• Hous. Hdmb.r LAW. N IEFFM PJ70,: `.?• -. � :' !J SiroctTwmO Labala 1 .• -\ - v It �/ CIW l -trolls Itn 71:57 7Jds 37SD sIN 7100 )07 >!ro o �/ Cracks 7201 _ Laka Hamas IJ20 7779 O "Ims I237aEJr ° 777(41 •••,•`• •, 7150 Parka 7 pt 7100 TIOt a7sr ;� 0r01 !A Jr0 a' N 6_ .; '•: •' •: i I 1 ASO IA,I,=L aPstal OWej 4to;$ r_ s :: : •-:'. ID 9 IO troa 17Ut�Jber�lGacla ire) 0 #6il}J 7575 1511 53^ :•. � ISJd - . 40O SliLo/a<nDfprNbsirl) 7 ••' •'• a0f3 7 ® n.D•LlumanMv7awl Omval 1673 7613 S IJIi►A'9J9 � J7Df ® Ka•IlP.neHCeerae`e:J0otta1 74d'Jr $ 7952f3�) ® OCOdIPaeNCammat=l0e.b) 60f 1423 Tela 71N,. IF15 Is 0 t� Pa041� He _.;dam.Gt 1� 7E001970 7005 32N at �. teb.ItearHe,lam�1 [w ln., �t aoar�tb tr a2 at7m >rN 7 o TJOs s1t0 ,. 777ftsf17 ®PuOlvnad ueA tad..itl 1 /i�11 7719 IIl} 717J(){s7773R� J Y� 7611 TtN \ . rSIOP 3 10 i/! �, ❑ POa•TlPstarJCf(mae12/l It s4m z \�: V7aa: � '•7150 Il Pba•IIPWH arm ahwq .. JYEO. _'.- J7JI` � 1-90.11PtnaHacoic7m0e1ut1 . 3595 3575 SSSS 37Y2 $ $701 3177 3715.3131 7760 7710 _ _ 1 PAOdIR-wlR�ladutvavtq Pa0.71NeaH lt.fdpwp48t) 1675 6Ja sir � ®PAb•dl7u Htresre7tilOs�ay) rE aW31yj 51N 7400 It05 1717 4 740177JT3711 3177 Pa0317.•+aHBoLmadbeliGl a 7101 1400 7101 7416 1440 PStIJµynWSmEi abbotmiWO!� 0A•Ilsaiharaaepaea) 9 7477 7f0J S1N 1772 Jost ® R•TlbuaB O++lna tle6l 0671 SEOr � 5172 MOa ® IIv01aV6N4vrd0�iel 7021 I+,. Parcels 4109 1911 0751 tOBJ Wa101 6161 520 .: .Aws eard+:4 ecaa 4023 01°0 t .r slot scot 70 qa sits 5110 4� AT �7Ix s LD L1J CIO , W U-J a ry w ' x ` 111 �j vtll """'y�wy.xx,y U91IppMMMMWt�i 1 +ti 5. 'v, x.. A7 19M iau ML, Kum 17 rail MISS --77 LA fit 19M iau ML, Kum 17 rail `living,learnir►g,wai5ingfdmi1We &, loing'business'�q, F2QOit.CnYa'ipY'ebehsI Pl h tz 0mg1p Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Deyelopment . Depsity MiXed Use �Gujdelines Guideline ategories MEstablished or emerging mixed Maintain ekisting, or Mixe -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, oor to Area Current amptes: than one neighborhood (and pedestrian and Ratio -Per ih 50 an Franc e beyond city boundaries). streetscape current primary uses. Retail, office, amenities; enco age Zoning Code; © Grandvie service, multifamily residential, or require stn tuned maximum of institutional uses, parks and ings 1.5 open space. n height 1-2 ertical mixed use should be tions. /orlesU Et units/acre e unaged, and may be req ed on larger sites. ories at Grandview CAC The mos" tense district in Form -based design' Community Activity terms of . height and standards for building Floor to Area Center coverage. placement, massing Ratio -Per Example: Greater primary uses; Re ' , office, and street -level current Southdale area (not lodging, eptert m t and treatment. Zoning Code; including large multi- residential u- s, Com ed or in Buildings should be maidnium of family residential separate i ings. placed in appropriate 0.5 to 4.0* neighborhoods such Secon ryuses: Institution 1, proximity to streets to 1-3 as Centennial Lakes) recr tional uses. create pedestrian units/acre . ed use should be encou, scale, Buildings "steprage down" at boundaries and may be required on larger 'th lower -density sites.. di icts and upper stone "step back" from str\ddesign More strstandardbuildingEmphasicirculatiintroduce finer - grained circulation patterns where feasible. I Applies to existing predominantly Performance Indust"Tial industrial areas within the City. standards to ensure Floor to Area Primary uses: industrial, compatibility With Ratio: Per manufacturing. Secondary uses: adjacent uses; Zoning Cade: thited retail and serlrice uses, screeriirig of outdoor 0:5k activities, Edina Comp Plon Update 2008 Chapter 4; land Use and Comnitmlfy Design 4-29 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 5 Existing language xxxx �`� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx 10 destinations. greater density for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Floor to Area Ratio: per current Zoning Code* Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories 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 Zoning Code: • Morningside `corridor.' Primary uses are retail storefronts). Parking is maximum of 1.0* commercial core and services, offices, studios, less prominent than institutional uses. Residential pedestrian features. • Valley View and Wooddale permitted. uses p 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 I-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 be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. O 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 Existing language xxxx �`� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx 10 Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights Plan Update Southwest Quadrant Figure 4.6C 0 0.5 Mi/es AI ( 4P tcovs, t a r,rA N � 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard - Redevelopment Project Narrative In connection with recent discussions, this narrative and the enclosed drawings provide an overview of the redevelopment plan for the property at 5108 Industrial Blvd. ("Property"). Overview Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is the owner of the Property, located at the northeast intersection of Edina Industrial Blvd and Metro Blvd. The Property consists of approximately 1.3 acres with an existing one-story multi -tenant commercial building located on the site. In July of 2013 and March of 2014, Frauenshuh submitted plans as a sketch plan review and met with the planning commission and City Council to discuss the concept of repositioning the property for retail oriented use given the area service, demand and property characteristics. The feedback on the concept of retail use was favorable, while certain design, pedestrian access, circulation and parking considerations were noted as refinements needing further development. The Property will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning from POD1 (Planned Office District) to PCD2 (Planned Commercial District), and a Variance to accommodate a broader range of retail use on the Property. Rezoning would be consistent with existing neighborhood zoning and land use patterns and would be processed with a site plan review application. Redevelopment Plan Hiahliahts The enclosed plans illustrate the redevelopment concept for the Property. The existing structure would be removed from the site and the new building plan would be constructed in one phase. The redevelopment plan provides the opportunity to create a new, very functional building and site plan with a highly attractive architectural aesthetic, improved traffic flow in and out of the site and good circulation, parking and pedestrian orientation for retail tenants and customers. The building will be constructed on the southwest corner of the property with a total square footage of 10,000 sq.ft., thus creating a pedestrian friendly site layout and parking configuration for retail use. Several food service providers and neighborhood retail uses have expressed interest in the redevelopment plan and location. Some of the redevelopment plan highlights would include: • Creation of high quality and consistent architectural aesthetics (incorporation of stone, glass, metals and high quality building signage); • Placement of the building — in response to the sketch plan review comments,- to reduce interface between pedestrians and vehicles — adjacent to the street with parking on the North. • Reduction of vehicular access from streets from 3 (existing) to 2. • Installation of pedestrian enhancements, including sidewalks, interior walkways, outdoor seating areas and related improvements; • Improved site landscaping including boulevard trees and shrubs and internal landscape elements conductive to the retail environment; • Drive-through on the east side of the building, subject to tenant requirements; • Reconfiguration of parking layout (56 spaces) , Ala • Improved internal vehicle access and site circulation. • Design of the Drive thru on the east side of the building will be complimented by a rain garden feature. Variance Request The Applicant wishes to request a variance to allow the front yard setback to be reduced from 35'-0" to 25'-0" in order to respond to the comments from the sketch plan review which suggested that the building placement address the need to accommodate the pedestrian movement in the area. This variance will allow for improved outdoor common space development near the tenant entrances, green space enhancement on all sides of the building, and improved vehicular flow on the site. Pedestrian movement along the sidewalks on the south and west will be able to access the building without crossing parking areas. RE NORTH ELEVATION WITH COLOR 3/32" = V—O" SRa- SPMMB semens eRcnrtscrs �xc. 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL NORTH ELEVATION -060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group SR _a_ SrSEM RMNUS ARCNRECIS.INC. V1EN FROM SOUTHEAST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group SRa. RSINCRS 1RCNIfECIS.INF VIEW FROM NORTHWEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group SRa- SPERIDES RRINRRS ARCRRRCM INC. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group n 50UTH ELEVATION WITH COLOR 5.1 = T -O" SRa. S"MD" MFIM 8 ARCfIlIECIS, ING 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL SOUTH ELEVATION - 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group LEDOESTONE 3/32" = V -O" SRa. srea�nFa ne�xerts aacxrrecrs, me 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL WEST 81 EAST ELEVATIONS GLASS FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group FIRST FLOOR 5/32" = V -O" SRa. SMUDU MIMS ARCIIRECIS.INF 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL FLOOR PIAN 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group i7 t M 'Ar aria - rim t M :14 - rim t M S 89'31'30" E 318.01 j ACCESSORY R BUILDING I I I i ITFM31 NORTH SRa 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD SITE PLAN FRAUENSHUH WITH GARBAGE ENCLOSURE AND ORDER BOARD SPBRMM RilFaRs ARCIM rs,' 1"=30'-0" JULY 16, 2014 rt ivvFr. P: cARKL s,N ��e..c.E�n:; Ian I I STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PROPOSED STANDARD PARKING STALLS Sl PROPOSED AM PARKING STALLS 4 TOTAL PROPOSED STALLS S5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR TIES. THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SMLL COLE FOR C WITH ALLR UTUTY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/ OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651459-0062 AT LUST 46 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR TME LOCATIONS OF All UNDERGROUND WERES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLE, VALVES OR OTHERBURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIROR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DARING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. ALL �roRC YW pI8 ® Gopher State One Call FBEE. H_epp_RSR54 -ii WDE 1� f FYYF6,�p b p8p ¢�¢ pyRR pp� NG�SG� tlG S6I1�mYZY�� g�yG ?.Is 3 5 � AN d EA b Jim 6 co O a QaQQQ J W � O LO t•— o b N W • SFE PLAN PLaRO w:6 Ta AWNBY: WBS .Y D CIEIX®M, VN C2-1 NORTH 0 20 40 LLJ I SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN NOTES L I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION LS RASFD ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF EDINA. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BYOTHERS — 2. MNNESOTASTAIESTATLTFE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER'COPHERSTATE ONE CALL• PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND —. WORK ].CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING J UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF — CONSTRUCTION ACTNITY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PUNS. ALLDIMENSgNS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDE A T FOOT TAPER AT ALL CURB TERMINI 6. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, CLUTERAND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNESERDAND — INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF _ THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PUNS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL 111111111 will 1111 111 11 ii ll 1111 c J. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED INF UR I HER DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PUNS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES. B. 8612 CONCRETE CURB AND GLITTER SHALL RE INSTAI I ED AT THE FDGE OF ALL COMMON DRNES AND PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. SEE SHEETS C3•1 AND C41 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. T;. STRIPING 11. DISABLED PARKING SIGNAGE b PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH ADA A MMUTCD. iI i1 STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PROPOSED STANDARD PARKING STALLS Sl PROPOSED AM PARKING STALLS 4 TOTAL PROPOSED STALLS S5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR TIES. THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SMLL COLE FOR C WITH ALLR UTUTY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/ OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651459-0062 AT LUST 46 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR TME LOCATIONS OF All UNDERGROUND WERES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLE, VALVES OR OTHERBURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIROR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DARING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. ALL �roRC YW pI8 ® Gopher State One Call FBEE. H_epp_RSR54 -ii WDE 1� f FYYF6,�p b p8p ¢�¢ pyRR pp� NG�SG� tlG S6I1�mYZY�� g�yG ?.Is 3 5 � AN d EA b Jim 6 co O a QaQQQ J W � O LO t•— o b N W • SFE PLAN PLaRO w:6 Ta AWNBY: WBS .Y D CIEIX®M, VN C2-1 NORTH 0 20 40 LLJ I SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN NOTES L I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION LS RASFD ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF EDINA. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BYOTHERS — 2. MNNESOTASTAIESTATLTFE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER'COPHERSTATE ONE CALL• PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND —. WORK ].CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING J UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF — CONSTRUCTION ACTNITY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PUNS. ALLDIMENSgNS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDE A T FOOT TAPER AT ALL CURB TERMINI 6. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, CLUTERAND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNESERDAND — INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF _ THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PUNS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLICATIONS. c J. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED INF UR I HER DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PUNS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES. B. 8612 CONCRETE CURB AND GLITTER SHALL RE INSTAI I ED AT THE FDGE OF ALL COMMON DRNES AND PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. SEE SHEETS C3•1 AND C41 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. 10.ALL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BEe WIDE WHITE PANTED STRIPING 11. DISABLED PARKING SIGNAGE b PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH ADA A MMUTCD. STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PROPOSED STANDARD PARKING STALLS Sl PROPOSED AM PARKING STALLS 4 TOTAL PROPOSED STALLS S5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR TIES. THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SMLL COLE FOR C WITH ALLR UTUTY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/ OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651459-0062 AT LUST 46 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR TME LOCATIONS OF All UNDERGROUND WERES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLE, VALVES OR OTHERBURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIROR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DARING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. ALL �roRC YW pI8 ® Gopher State One Call FBEE. H_epp_RSR54 -ii WDE 1� f FYYF6,�p b p8p ¢�¢ pyRR pp� NG�SG� tlG S6I1�mYZY�� g�yG ?.Is 3 5 � AN d EA b Jim 6 co O a QaQQQ J W � O LO t•— o b N W • SFE PLAN PLaRO w:6 Ta AWNBY: WBS .Y D CIEIX®M, VN C2-1 L>_J I .L" NORTH X FX 3B9 440 ,N L IO��J�20 I r SCALE IN MEET f - L>_J NORTH 440 L) IO��J�20 I SCALE IN MEET III �I C GRADING PUN NOTES ' _ 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD LETILDY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PAR" LOU"'ASSOCIATES ODES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PUNS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES. RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. O. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TOADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRLK'TDN PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THEM TRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TOADIACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCIIONPHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLYACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE IDB SITU INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK THIS REQUIREMENTLMLL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORK WG HOURS. S. BEFORE BEGINNINGCONSTRLHTION THE CONTRAC.MRSHALL INSTALLAIWIGIRARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE SAID CE ROCK ENTRANPAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FORFEIT DURATION OF THE ... PROJECT. 6, EROSIONAND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND LEGEND EXITING PROPOSED _ TabcRAmlc cavroLut \_BN'—� oMMACE Rork SDYER r-11 L sTVRrcH Ns� O --- —_- WATE.-F. ® BFNCHM,RX D,FR�LN�D„FRFLOW �X.� CpusiRFX:TnuFxBTR _..-..: _- __- THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETERAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALLSPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE OR GUTTER LINE ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. - R. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING INFORMATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY PIAN DISCREPANCIES. N. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ASRER CIN AS -BUILT PIANS AND FIELD SHOTS. 10. SEE SHEET 0-2 FOR EROSION CONTROL INFORMATION. GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL TIE IN GRADES. ABBREVIATION LEGEND " ffE•fINKNLD FLOOR ELEVATION TW -TOP OF RDAINING WALL GTV•GROLIND AT FACE OF RETAINING WALL --- _ HIGH POINT LP=LOW POINT TC=TOP OF CURB "UTTER LINE NOTE: CATCH BASINS "TARE ZINC ESLOWER TION FLOW LINE ELEVATION. NOTE: SPOT ELEVATIONS AT CURB LINES INDICATE BASE OF NRB AND GUTTER LINE TLE FLOW LINE) ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERVVK NOTED, WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY.SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND; OR RELOCATON OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 AS4-0002 ATLEAST 4B HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS Of ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGCRNG THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REFUGE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. RNL IRFBRF Yau BIa Gopher State One Call TOLLMy M11 .S XBX- FREE: rao�D YY � ✓Y W 'gyp g�s! 9 R! aQQQaa J M� Z w O � LO a -GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN POIF.CT NO: 13-046.4 BAWNN: c — HxLmn, vry 0-1 5108 RETAIL I ASOATS�MVI.v�,n�IX�lY152- T�g.96J6. 4SM�1J�E5p0EEiA� S54J) 1 _ 5108 EDIA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. "� °1arN°SPPon°x'oi�Easlncccr., ®ry EDINA'MN �I�.,.n,. om c"2'a'� �Ai3�i=An y A4imo2coo�sims m$o so;zse°LTo ^$z eN6oO>'£7i i Pg°Sia��ico 1 1 H S IT SPEAIDFS REINERSAACHITECfS, INC uWRCRhe � I , O 8� �� pmt l ;7 ,.g,,>pp<z A� ,n ��� .H �''E y�,'.,n5' 5108 RETAIL I ASOATS�MVI.v�,n�IX�lY152- T�g.96J6. 4SM�1J�E5p0EEiA� S54J) a« ,.F 5108 EDIA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. "� °1arN°SPPon°x'oi�Easlncccr., ®ry EDINA'MN �I�.,.n,. om c"2'a'� �Ai3�i=An Di�zi A4imo2coo�sims m$o so;zse°LTo ^$z eN6oO>'£7i i Pg°Sia��ico CiF'mpaz SPEAIDFS REINERSAACHITECfS, INC uWRCRhe - ---Hj:6mla mgg:s"oQ �fF O 8� �� pmt ,.g,,>pp<z A� ,n ��� .H �''E y�,'.,n5' mT1m P: "o �i_o^ o �2�g ^F W6 xz' lz °oC �"ni o �^'iaaTa: R$f7D zsc�z aig per- PH i�°zp9 n N Mi. 5 N ?ooF�yp3 £8 l7 pz _$n EoO°:oii i _z m£aoA A A - � >sDS oA mA 3. a m o pp 43 A am.8m° g T'. _ Az.o 7_219 Z� 'szo � OO i°�E 5108 RETAIL ASOATS�MVI.v�,n�IX�lY152- T�g.96J6. 4SM�1J�E5p0EEiA� S54J) a« ,.F 5108 EDIA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. "� °1arN°SPPon°x'oi�Easlncccr., EDINA'MN �I�.,.n,. SPEAIDFS REINERSAACHITECfS, INC uWRCRhe m 3 _ EF ELEVATION Vu WER PAINTED BOLLARD CENTER SUPPORT �. 0UTH ELEVATION L SCALE: 3/5'-P-0' SRa 6P6RmE5 RRSNRRS ARL'F111RC19,INC T.O. GATE OL B.O. GATE I IDID'-8" PAVEMENT loo. -ID" HEAVY DUTY HINGES, PAINTED 2" k 2" STL. TUBE, PAINTED CORRUGATED METAL PANEL, PAINTED GATE LATCH WITH LOCK DROP BOLTS/PINS ON INSIDE OF ENCLUSURE CONCRETE PAD INSIDE ENCLOSURE, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OUTSIDE OF ENCLOSURE PRE -FINISHED METAL COPING BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING %l PLAN I BCALE: 114'.1'-0' 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD TRASH ENCLOSURE 07.10.2014 9) NQRTH I'm FRAUENSHUH s LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 3. Bleck 1, Edmo Inlmobi Cente, film Ad3Uon. tlmmepin Camty, Nmnvmb. Ammept propmty NOTES CORRESPONDING TO EASEMENTS: ii c,a'pAa°'oin :i so+'+ a vwK tssa .OeaW` :.'-m'eaWmm"°im`:,`s>-n%a� I eem""a x°'wm::ia. i'p°sles' eMem. ems,. is,iuis'p.wx ss vww a "NB"°°xn:sm N ow ..s. ,w, `�n:mv. mm ':e .magma e ��ee ��.�, ,a f� n pm a�a`•%ax,v ae�lu Mpwale""'n :wl:e eoa. ewt eel�a mei a iWiC Am.— a d� E m >aJame f.raccrs Pvawx. Aa rua w a9x.E'n �M1M mwe eun n v�eev"am4 e�mva.x.l�awM4 Au"reye,�iw[poov,ira w4i� wsm m vmrml w »uJex Ima[crs Pvwum, u mar w mnn[n 9mS"lma STATEMENT OF POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS: SCALE: I INCH= TO FEET meeylc t", mm W. au .M m Deemed my me or la 9b.— l9nd Surdbat veyor t. e be 5lof�te/ol Nmn�e[>�o/�t�aj-�2� mros2. N�� L5. /0 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY For- FRAUFNSHUH COMPANIES BLOOMINGTON SITE - 61011 EDINA INDUST -1. BOULEVARD EDIWI, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY HARRY S. JOHNSON CO., INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9062 Lynd•le Avenue Bouts Bloomington, MN. 554ST Tale. 9 52d845W Fu 952.3840844 .m1.u" em.eem a' -1 8 5 4 5 T H; m°o4�s£'m>�gg;o TaA�s��n�Rsz=°8 �e-,��ny�ac mpo�o Rmcm ss ;gym g�gmm zo sg f >oz z �myom ma z�i$�u rzT ^5zzz 3y izo 3zz o�>, in i 255 �m A z Az of z g A mF�A� 3pS o 0 a^q zaoApm� zg8 Sas000z >coy�om o go zmt °s i�ypzorm �06� W 8A n g c _off o ~o a'0 -LCB-_ a a s s C'If", A II, I E CEP,, TR � IIII m1—e®®aeo+�moe®pAo®o I s • !!uu II M°I IlTE m .- 2 it 5 z bEDINA, RETAIL 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. MN BELWVDESKSE5108 AssoCA_F___ rS " n P IMINA Y FOR Bv'xL�d9cJss.°Wss..wIw°�GieTa�.doveadea, 5s=M1tlE5°�LA 5563] wrw.svnaomEaswc.caH !R-a— SPEMDM REINERS ARCHMMS, INC f 83, •b1.�1♦.♦.�.♦s♦♦�.♦♦♦♦1�♦CI.♦♦e1�♦♦♦�1�♦♦.s♦�♦♦�J♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦.1.1 ♦1�.�♦�If♦♦.s♦�♦ �♦': �i t:1�1 a�♦���♦�♦�h�♦�� �ibiii♦iii♦�Ii♦: i, w♦�•i♦�♦�s�.�� ��♦� �♦�♦1 �♦�ID� �f�r�*a1♦PSP♦♦��•a♦�1�♦�♦i!i \ `c \\ \\ \ =N 6wu1= \\ \\ \\\ \\ I •wv. 5.0 \ \\ \ OEBR rtE[D \ \\ mekx.SBfE \ BaFssIHE �e �IWv.-eEI.R ,� i B♦fie ♦♦ ♦• f♦• !: ♦ ♦♦Y _. ♦ _ ♦♦d�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�� 1�� b♦♦♦4J♦C♦♦♦♦♦� � f♦♦♦f♦♦♦♦♦♦♦f♦♦♦♦♦♦ef41♦♦♦f♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Y♦♦♦♦♦^�•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦f�31♦o♦f♦1•.Ir♦♦♦♦♦♦♦<f♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦r,�41, •♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦♦ ♦o•♦♦♦ra♦♦s♦�♦ <' Oil•'. n < s Oi♦ �i♦i0.: ♦nJ ai♦ f♦♦or�»'�♦�.. tl♦♦y♦♦ C♦se.IJ♦♦♦ _ of fMet__ _ ._.._. — _ .._ __ •. __— - ♦f♦i♦w�R♦i♦iav�i♦i♦i♦♦fi�♦fi♦.moi♦i♦ • . :' . ♦�Aa •♦♦�♦♦•♦♦�♦♦� 1�A♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦R ni J♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦•1f♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •••••♦•••♦•••• •♦••••♦ ♦A♦•♦••• .f•♦♦♦•♦.♦, 1�e♦♦♦��♦♦♦4f♦♦♦♦I�♦♦♦�1♦.♦�♦♦♦♦If♦♦♦♦1�♦♦♦�h♦♦♦� •♦.♦.♦♦♦♦♦1�•♦.�R♦•♦6 •♦.♦�•<F.♦hN ♦♦♦♦♦♦•%4f�1:1♦♦i1♦♦♦�1♦•♦♦�.♦•♦�♦♦♦�e♦♦1�1♦�♦���fD�4 •♦E�I.1.♦.♦•✓•♦♦♦�e♦♦A�♦♦A1� �A♦�e'�♦�..� ��i!��'+� a*o'�A+i♦i?i!i�i i♦00i�>3i!i!ii0♦iaili�i!e!i i♦i i%ilii ♦♦eDi♦i rj,�� i NORTH I0 20�4J0 SCAIEI - '— LEGEND 0 Property Monument Concrete concrete am Fann Overhaatl Dectrk — — — —mow— Underground ElectriCa c WARNING rI.I MAWUoiI¢I GI,HEw SFRVCEanu/ptRFLOG,1DN O'UnES.�VANxs IN wlRis,cwe,M. cormmuris:iiPEi. wNi/oiE<.v�v�oi o,flfiia socio u u ABOVE WHEN DAMACE��j,VTME�OrvTRAc�NSHALLOR oMT ORTME� rHf ® Gopher State One Call DLL EE I_BDD a5z_I�e DEh10LITION NOTES NO InyoRMYTnrvls ¢AHo oNAflnD suRvty ar Eof�xxs�A.s �MnsnuD EeFtt����tro .uroxmsmrai po Iv ofO ev oma � sNor AUMRNi H W Eq,eS Uu0.INc T,E roHs1HRFiKION PHASE of ,NRgisfYPogcr. PEY DUMGEs n)ADIAE'.FNi P¢OPHItIEs PROIEci. WNCEK-fRFM �LLWORMWG It�F,ESYRE40N51BLEF04 CON ONSON TIf �e WOM�BREQUMuxN7W4AMLI[ONTINlIOL-SLYANUNQTKlwIIEIWNqtt ul THE UEvfEOPER NCONUUC, [ONS,0.UCnON REVIEW Of nDEQwf�' � BffCME efGINNINGCOErvB,RLCigN 1HE COrv1WLCMR SHALLTROTATSIn.H�roMRYx P ��pSFESHEET�C" H]R UFTA¢e R,111E CDNSMO,OR EOR iESE DUMTRJN OF 1HE F NAND. FNTA,XJN WN,RIXMfAM,RESSHAII BE FSTTp�UIRf NIn. HSTF 6NAGEMFUTf iU MnNf tt REQUMEMFrv,sMR A DITHF DFGRs sMH4Wu0u sHHTC1:6 ARISE NOF YFNGNEF¢xW,EUw,FLYM� DFSOLL.TpN.O EOR REMOVALFDISC0.EPA�rxJEs Au,HORIL\nON fRW�A ENGINEER,EON550.LCTpWSRTEFNCE IYIIHOUTPRpR ®RfMovE EusnNcmrvcREEE a elnlMwous¢nvNc ®REMOVE FxUTINc. eVlWiuc z.z.xREMovE Ex,snrvc a:RneeuT,Eneu,xmES • DEMOLITION PIAN ', PIU1Kf W: 1BffiB.4 D,AwN amm n: vry C" 1-2 — una«9roDne T•Ipnone -w-w- wateru,n Sanitary sewer � storm sewer Elactrk Meler ® Elaclric Box tP1 PowerkPaenhas ® Nn0�1 uollnae 0 ® Cala V.I. coloncoatn # LightPalen O Coe MetaIN ID m TNp M1me Manhole Telphm• Box ® s woler uonnDle Sanitary Manhole IS dorm Manhole DxieuoDJ rree (Diameter In mDne•) � CoNlerous Trs• (DlamelH in Inehaa) Existing Contour X1181.27G % 934.3 Exklln9 Spot Elewlbn Gutter Exlaling Spot ElswOon DEh10LITION NOTES NO InyoRMYTnrvls ¢AHo oNAflnD suRvty ar Eof�xxs�A.s �MnsnuD EeFtt����tro .uroxmsmrai po Iv ofO ev oma � sNor AUMRNi H W Eq,eS Uu0.INc T,E roHs1HRFiKION PHASE of ,NRgisfYPogcr. PEY DUMGEs n)ADIAE'.FNi P¢OPHItIEs PROIEci. WNCEK-fRFM �LLWORMWG It�F,ESYRE40N51BLEF04 CON ONSON TIf �e WOM�BREQUMuxN7W4AMLI[ONTINlIOL-SLYANUNQTKlwIIEIWNqtt ul THE UEvfEOPER NCONUUC, [ONS,0.UCnON REVIEW Of nDEQwf�' � BffCME efGINNINGCOErvB,RLCigN 1HE COrv1WLCMR SHALLTROTATSIn.H�roMRYx P ��pSFESHEET�C" H]R UFTA¢e R,111E CDNSMO,OR EOR iESE DUMTRJN OF 1HE F NAND. FNTA,XJN WN,RIXMfAM,RESSHAII BE FSTTp�UIRf NIn. HSTF 6NAGEMFUTf iU MnNf tt REQUMEMFrv,sMR A DITHF DFGRs sMH4Wu0u sHHTC1:6 ARISE NOF YFNGNEF¢xW,EUw,FLYM� DFSOLL.TpN.O EOR REMOVALFDISC0.EPA�rxJEs Au,HORIL\nON fRW�A ENGINEER,EON550.LCTpWSRTEFNCE IYIIHOUTPRpR ®RfMovE EusnNcmrvcREEE a elnlMwous¢nvNc ®REMOVE FxUTINc. eVlWiuc z.z.xREMovE Ex,snrvc a:RneeuT,Eneu,xmES • DEMOLITION PIAN ', PIU1Kf W: 1BffiB.4 D,AwN amm n: vry C" 1-2 A !_� _m ° 2�-.y gra < '22Hl�il� ma's o baa $_ �! Z 4 Z a5108 C y o' BLO eloouswTa+, I.vmawrn sum a g ° iB`B BSG E�7 z5 zn 7 z U p1k 954.9969664 z 4 4 g 3ga a;3 c 4i> a� -.�,„K-- �,.g-w,,..m,= �ww°ws svPxaTE-1-1 — s R g rn EDINA, MN II x PP_° >C '84 �P a� S 520 a� CQyyQy sAi �' i�ypso a S Yczi3 x. iAmFi- 7 i 1� i>S i 52 .., cz �Sggrg: ;dm zfl 536N aM"o �mj °s E4 ° hog Ong-„�„� aa ; 0” =P �3 o= ca z 2 mzl A s 4 m =F> -> oi> FizF Rio �s a 43 z. VIM U �z �> �Aa z mfg __"° s�pgB °s' 3 Baszs ='^"£ 'sFzna o& �� RIP Az S myaR a° A sr oz. „ s 8 u °. ° °E° zlFs � rS RIFs _ a� =b °F3 6 gi z offs zs'cg :':='sS Az5 _z E_>°>„ -11 4 a " =i F§ol Rim°. >B =R "gym 9a >^ M € -€ N i a =cam; 2s 33R£ i §R s asp;$m ozm Ag ars° ' rn I p n G Z 4 Z a5108 C y C BLO eloouswTa+, I.vmawrn sum z z U p1k 954.9969664 z 1 T b o n Z n -.�,„K-- �,.g-w,,..m,= �ww°ws svPxaTE-1-1 — s R rn EDINA, MN II v RELIMINARY.1 520 CQyyQy sAi �' i�ypso S Yczi3 x. 7 i 1� T i 52 .., �_ o0 Z Ip It METRO BOULEVARD OWNER: STEWARDSHIP PROPERTIES IV I EDINA INTERCHANGE CENTER 3 �pgb�8 z ��oSa �AaR 7= S° ! I°�� r° _gym° ��"� ➢ a u pppa <'O p nwr�es� a400wEsr oto sHnxoaEEawn g a5108 RETAIL �ao°�` °E= 4E BLO eloouswTa+, I.vmawrn sum ASSOCIATES U p1k 954.9969664 1 T b n 5168 EDINA INDUSTRIAI. BLVD. Q -.�,„K-- �,.g-w,,..m,= �ww°ws svPxaTE-1-1 — s R rn EDINA, MN RELIMINARY.1 Z -... +m+•*� R ',�¢raoan��K SPERIDES AEINERS ARCHITECPS, INC e: ©o, --G -O --o ---S 5108 RETAIL °�,A aucEw>� UanA� P�sgs 9 5 ELYNA INDUSTRIINDUSTRIAL° BLVD EDINA, MN vnwr.sauanccrso¢.com ^ p -UJ p PRELIMINARY p NOTFOR _ 63 CONSTRUCTION 0 � SPMDES MNE"S HnEM, INC 0 I �Illll l�li�j�lil ll�l �I� Illi �g 11111 v �'h I� o I III II IhrIIIII � � Iln I li I VIII IIII ��� � s'd I� ,I I �I1u11°1111111 u��, IIII I I IIII I I '�1 w5 -r ��k �I�1�% O i u IIII Il11iIIIIIIIlI1 IJIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII JIIIII p l 11111, 111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII�tl1 I,I Il Ila I E IIII�� �� a�+l I� ' O Ip � I1 II IIII I'fl I p � IIf �� IBJJ !I -, IIIIiIIll lull§s 1�I��IoII�IIII�IIIII r�^ 7 f� � �T� I L a € 's ,IIII Ii I I 1114 IIh I;uIII11 I�IIIIIIi IQII,�I1 Illi nrul nllnl�Iitl� HII 11 3 j Nk"P Y ? a • M6 }�� �+a`� �s�l� '�' ®1 � II � i 1-' S II Iu�llllhrl'I I III Illll� €� �� '�- Fle 21hzs'I Il�lll II III 114�IIIII 11.11111 rill p I� I II 11f 111 "'ll © IIy,., II I d .II�s� Cl�� � ��' Imo■ '� " I I III II m@ IIIIVVII11111 II[.'llll I l its IIII uILI II h� l F �a� III�m1 r II eY' Gth? !, I II III IJI� 1 VIII III `srl ly—'1,+v^ All .'I' lea l� III II 1777115"..� ull ill IIII a IIII-' z kil I jl�-1 �li� j'ill�1 lilt � � I3 pl I III IIIIIIIII, �I�'F III III'iJ€by�l -I IIII�� I'h�1 ol, I� �. ' II Idl I1.� lllal IIII z � y,�l� 0 II•I�� _ I�I�,�, ; 111 11 III (IIIIIIIII Ill 9 k (IIII t"!`�' IIII �� III.1 ! IIJI II � l.�,i'��.�. Illli IIII Ijj11.11Ii11I11 1j.111 IIII (IIII (IIII IUIIJI III I I 5'1 F �`�;£� ��., II I'IIi II IUIiIIII� li . 1111111 IlRi b �� III�n.i 1111111 II IIII II III I�III�1�111 IIII I,Il I I -' l F 'u� II III IJ mL�., I II I 14111111 1Y=IIII III -,c I III.P II 1111 I IIlilllll III IIII III IIIIIIIII II I11111i1,��II II (IIII III 'I_#' I 111111 l ;J= �� —{iJ 1111.11 O VIII uJl.1 III�IO�ii l l Ip2,��5�v S IIII, �:,v? �b I I c � III' VIII (NII �111III11 I�.1lllli (IIII IJV IIII 11''1111 II �i tt �I i .111 I�'II ' lli� Illl l I I I Il 111 I IIII I I III-, �� III IIIVIIIII�.�� snx�,� �� u�' qI h I��6 I IIII Ill lu��♦ II III MIN ' 4CC'i III11I m° I 3.1 ll, Ell, "� aim � IIII- I G ? S 1 t ti ti ► AML .I . . � 1 � IVIV1�VlV11JV 1 SRa_ SRIII"E" 5-acru mr. 5'1 Ute WIN/\ INDUSTRIAL BLVD SITE PIAN OPTION A 1 "=301-0" FEBRUARY 24, 2014 r FRAUENSHUH I y N R 11 h3� DATE: July 15, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 5108 Edina Industrial Blvd — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. I. City Standard Plates available here: httR//edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction_ standards 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org 3. Developer's agreement will be required for installation of public water fire hydrant and the installation of public sidewalk. Survey 4. See traffic and street comment below. Soils 5. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 6. No comments. Traffic and Street 7. 5' concrete walk on Industrial Blvd and intersection is outside of public road easement. I recommend either vacating existing easement and platting or dedicating new easements to clean up the property record. 8. Commercial entrance should follow standard plate 400 and 410. 9. Consider concrete armoring on northern nose of eastern entrance island near filtration basin. Vehicle tracking in this area is very likely. 10. Split large pedestrian curb ramp on Metro/Edina Industrial into two separate, with raise curb section in between. Sanitary and Water Utilities 11. Show existing utility connections. 12. Relocate hydrant at corner of Metro/Edina Industrial out of sidewalk area, avoid conflict with monument signage. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 x+ nvw.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 AJ Storm Water Utility 13. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District standards. Capacity is available public stormwater system in NMS_5 subwatershed, downstream of project. 14. Consider connecting into city CB 6375 just to the SE of FES B, as it's a shorter run. 15. Provide copies of maintenance agreement for private stormwater systems. 16. A revised SAC unit determination will be required at building permit application. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 17. Provide erosion, sediment control plan that meets provisions of MPCA construction site general permit. Other Agency Coordination 18. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits may be required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard. Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 43t - vv. ` A enck Wenck File #3022-02 July 14, 2014 r' - --- - - -- - - -- - e-----�!--- Traffic Impact Study for 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN Prepared for: CITY OF EDINA FRAUENSHUH Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 A3-7 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................»..............................1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...................................................................................2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS..................................................................................................4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................6-1 7.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................2-2 FIGURE2 SITE PLAN............................................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES........................................4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS...........................................5-3 A3� i July 2014 /I►Wenck 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new retail building located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN. The project site is currently occupied by a single story office building. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps • Edina Industrial Blvd./project access • Metro Blvd./project access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve replacing the existing office use with a new retail building. The site will include 58 parking spaces. Access for the site is provided on both Metro Boulevard and on Edina Industrial Boulevard. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Pronosed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit General retail 3,535 SF Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 3,950 SF Coffee shop with drive-thru 2,090 SF SF = square feet The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment project is expected to generate a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. • The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 1-1 July 2014 A31 AWenck 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new retail building located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN. The project site is currently occupied by a single story office building. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps • Edina Industrial Blvd./project access • Metro Blvd./project access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve replacing the existing office use with a new retail building. The site will include 58 parking spaces. Access for the site is provided on both Metro Boulevard and on Edina Industrial Boulevard. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Pronosed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit General retail 3,535 SF Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 3,950 SF Coffee shop with drive-thru 2,090 SF SF = square feet The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. 2-1 July 2014 �`� Wenck APPR 0 Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD IN EDINA, MN Aft FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION t I -irr -- S 89,31,30" E 3 6M —07 — 31 WN, C7 --&AWenck I Engineers - Scientists 58 PARKING SPACES ARSA 10 17F).01 Goo RAIN GARD 410C'Eoo/OR��Il- 1 144.0' 1 t cz) ORDER N 89'31'30* W 318.01 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 45, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SITE PLAN IN EDINA, MN 11 rills' WN, C7 --&AWenck I Engineers - Scientists 58 PARKING SPACES ARSA 10 17F).01 Goo RAIN GARD 410C'Eoo/OR��Il- 1 144.0' 1 t cz) ORDER N 89'31'30* W 318.01 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 45, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SITE PLAN IN EDINA, MN 11 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site currently houses a single story office building. The site is bounded by Metro Boulevard on the west, Edina Industrial Boulevard on the south, and existing office uses on the north and east. Near the site location, Metro Boulevard is a two-lane, two-way street with turn lanes at major intersections. Edina Industrial Boulevard is a five lane, two-way street with turn lanes at major intersections. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Blvd. (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The northbound approach serves as access for an existing retail area. Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane,and one right turn lane. Metro Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound project access approach. The northbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. Edina Industrial Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the southbound project access approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and two through lanes. The westbound approach provides one through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. 3-1 July 2014 K3 AWenck i F , � x i} • w w w , h • -. _ .. .�y -- - - �ista�sacs'v�asa+�rl 3 t 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2016. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: 2014 Existing. Turn movement volumes collected in February 2014 for the MnDOT signal timing project were used for existing conditions. The existing volume information includes trips generated by uses near the project site. 2016 No -Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.0 percent per year to determine 2016 No -Build volumes. The 2.0 percent per year growth rate was based on both recent growth experienced near the site and expected future growth. 2016 Build. Trips generated by the existing office building were removed and trips generated by the proposed uses were added to the 2016 No -Build volumes to determine 2016 Build volumes. Trip Generation The expected development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent gross total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. A 10 percent reduction was applied to account for internal trips between the various uses. The resultant net trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Land Uses Land Use ITE Code Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total General retail 820 3,535 SF 2 2 4 6 7 13 136 Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 933 3,950 SF 2 2 4 47 45 92 2545 Coffee shop with drive-thru 937 2,090 SF 107 103 210 40 41 81 1540 Totals I 111 107 218 93 93 186 4221 SF=square feet The a.m. peak hour trip generation for the general retail and fast food restaurants assumes these uses are not open before 9 a.m. This is typical forthese types of uses. The trips shown during the a.m. peak hour are for deliveries and employees. 4-1 July 2014 �� Wenck As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed development will add a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The total trips can be categorized in the following two trip types: • New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. • Pass -By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for new trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 20 percent to/from the north on Metro Boulevard • 30 percent to/from the west on Edina Industrial Boulevard • 15 percent to/from the north on TH 100 west ramps • 33 percent to/from the east on Edina Industrial Boulevard • 2 percent to/from the south on the south frontage road Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. 4-2 July 2014 Wenck ti 4426 -/415 ACCESS > Tr m 0 2z t5 M u' g T� to ul N ;25e- -394/410/398 0 •' <-465/484/490 24/25/25 J �-- 102/106/114 n 400/416/425 --� 111/1 � c, imp M N N N t 0 Lo -132/137/134 n N 4412 449 g T� to no ` W ~ o rn Co a v C Co r PROJECT LOCATION ACCESS a m ti -132/137/134 0 (ov F-- 288/3001304 F- 15116/16 32/33/41 -a 797/829/837 o/olo M V' tT`O h M � r Wenck Engineers • Scientists PROJECT LOCATION AM PEAK HOUR ;(o z. t 4451 j Lj 1 <-8831919/896 4420 -� EDINA INDUSTRIAL 534/556/543 BLVD. PM PEAK HOUR oa J` �'-4-/36 Lj <-- 435/453/444 1-126 - EDINA INDUSTRIAL 1292/1344/1317 BLVD. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN As7 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD xxl=XX � m M O VIt00 4rnN �aV�411 361/3761383 783/815/827 -� 27/28/29 FIGURE 4 c 0 F 419/436/436 E-271/282/300 f- 77/80/80 to I r 10 Nc00G CD Co WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES CL N 0 V' tT`O J <--456/474/493 - 93/97/97 61/63/72 n 419/436/460 75178/79 N rn N N Cl) to r 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD xxl=XX � m M O VIt00 4rnN �aV�411 361/3761383 783/815/827 -� 27/28/29 FIGURE 4 c 0 F 419/436/436 E-271/282/300 f- 77/80/80 to I r 10 Nc00G CD Co WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. 5-1 July 2014 �, � Wenck The LOS results for the study intersections are described below and shown in Figure 5. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Blvd. (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Metro Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m, peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Edina Industrial Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Overall Traffic Impacts As described above and shown in Figure 5, the project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 5-2 July 2014 �I`�°IAeAWenck dd a ` A/A/A —ACCESS d T ICY > O a. aa$ B B/B/B -� BB/B - B/B/B c/C/c -� C/c/C -� C/c/c PROJECT LOCATION <----aaa A/A/A as as q` ACCESS AM PEAK HOUR •T l 2014 2016 NO -BUILD F2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX T r a W w a' PROJECT U U LOCATION ¢ C3 U U QUU a v o i `� B/B/B -/-/,AaA A aUU �BB/B B/B/B _.. aA/a,. crc/c --- _/-/A —1 EDINA INDUSTRIAL B/B/B AWA -� C/C/C -� .� u`i u'i C/C/C nod •T l 2014 2016 NO -BUILD F2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX T r a a' PROJECT U LOCATION ¢ o t —B/B/B U U W m E— BIB/B BB/B .� u`i u'i E— A/B/B B/BB —A/A/A A/A/A -/_/A EDINAINDUSTRIAL C/C/C a a AIA/A BLVD. C/c/C -� c/crc p`f�0 Wenck Engineers - Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN A TD FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment project is expected to generate a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 6-1 July 2014 Wenck �� 1 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets 7-1 July 2014 A5 Ae_ Wenck Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 71812014 Cane Group EBL EBT E13R WBL WBT WBR NBL. NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 102 400 1 24 465 394 3 22 22 112 9 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 0 3504 0 0 3299 0 0 1740 0 1770 1684 0 Flt Permitted 0.601 0.930 0.988 0.725 Said. Flow (perm) 0 2127 0 0 3071 0 0 1724 0 1350 1684 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 385 23 16 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 529 0 0 929 0 0 49 0 118 25 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.3 16.3 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.63 0.08 0.26 0.04 Control Delay 14.2 8.1 9.0 14.6 8.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.2 8.1 9.0 14.6 8.8 LOS B A A B A Approach Delay 14.2 8.1 9.0 13.6 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 51 4 21 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 91 25 64 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 2121 3064 1002 777 976 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.05 0.15 0.03 lntersecfton 8.76r5ntary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 45.5 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212014 am.syn h5j Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/8/2014 Lane Group , EBL EBT EBR WBL W8T OR NBL NBT NBR SBL 'SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 61 419 75 93 456 9 13 23 153 592 68 387 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.412 0.366 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 767 3458 0 682 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 22 2 194 407 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 520 0 98 489 0 14 24 161 623 72 407 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.9 34.1 43.6 35.0 8.4 8.4 8.4 22.9 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.25 vlc Ratio 0.14 0.39 0.23 0.36 0.08 D.14 0.50 0.71 0.15 0.58 Control Delay 13.6 22.1 12.0 17.7 38.2 39.0 9.1 35.1 25.1 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.6 22.1 12.0 17.7 38.2 39.0 9.1 35.1 25.1 6.2 LOS B C B B D D A 0 C A Approach Delay 21.2 16.8 14.7 23.8 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 105 24 77 7 13 0 165 32 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 179 m49 127 25 36 38 204 60 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 552 1324 480 1373 196 207 348 1106 600 785 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.20 0.36 0.07 0.12 0.46 0.56 0.12 0.52 Intersection, Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:13 0 2 210 212 0 1 4 am.syn el ��T Synch ro, 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 68: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL I $T EBR WBL WBT 1NBR NBL NBT NBR � SBL SBT SBN Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 106 416 1 25 484 410 3 23 23 117 9 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 0 3504 0 0 3299 0 0 1738 0 1770 1680 0 Fit Permitted 0.585 0.929 0.988 0.724 Said. Flow (perm) 0 2070 0 0 3068 0 0 1723 0 1349 1680 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 382 24 17 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 551 0 0 967 0 0 51 0 123 26 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.8 18.8 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.33 vlc Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.28 0.05 Control Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 15.3 9.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 15.3 9.0 LOS B A A B A Approach Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 14.2 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 55 5 22 2 Queue Length 95th (fi) 95 98 27 69 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 2054 3047 991 768 963 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v!c Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.05 0.16 0.03 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 46.1 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am nb.syn A- -y Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 718/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR- WBIL , WBT WBR- NBL NBT' NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 63 436 78 97 474 9 14 24 159 616 71 403 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.395 0.348 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 736 3458 0 648 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 22 2 194 424 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak dour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 541 0 102 508 0 15 25 167 648 75 424 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effci Green (s) 41.2 33.3 42.9 34.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 23.6 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.37 0.48 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 vlc Ratio 0.15 0.42 0.24 0.38 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.72 0.15 0.58 Control Delay 14.0 22.9 12.5 18.2 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.0 22.9 12.5 18.2 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 LOS B C B B D D B C C A Approach Delay 21.9 17.3 15.6 23.5 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 112 25 81 8 13 0 172 33 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 187 m52 132 26 37 42 212 62 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (K) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 535 1294 460 1342 196 207 348 1106 600 797 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.22 0.38 0.08 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.13 0.53 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc RaUo: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am nb.syn JK 6 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR 'WBL W6T WBR NBL NBT t+(BR SBL SBT_ SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 114 425 1 25 490 398 3 23 23 115 9 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3504 0 0 3306 0 0 1738 0 1770 1647 0 Flt Permitted 0.583 0.928 0.987 0.724 Said. Flow (perm) 0 2063 0 0 3071 0 0 1721 0 1349 1647 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 368 24 31 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°/6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 568 0 0 961 0 0 51 0 121 40 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effcl Green (s) 19.0 19.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.65 0.09 0.27 0.07 Control Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 15.2 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 15.2 7.6 LOS B A A B A Approach Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 13.3 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 56 5 22 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 98 27 68 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 2047 3050 987 766 948 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.28 0.32 0.05 0.16 0.04 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 46.2 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am b.syn �� 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 71812014 Lane Group - _ EBL EBT E13i2 WBL WBT* WBR - NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 72 460 79 97 493 9 14 24 159 616 71 411 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3461 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.376 0.334 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 700 3461 0 622 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 21 2 194 433 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 567 0 102 528 0 15 25 167 648 75 433 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.4 33.3 42.6 33.9 8.4 8.4 8.4 23.6 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.37 0.47 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 v1c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.25 0.40 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.72 0.15 0.59 Control Delay 14.2 23.2 12.7 18.7 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.2 23.2 12.7 18.7 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 LOS B C B B D D B C C A Approach Delay 22.2 17.7 15.6 23.4 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 119 25 84 8 13 0 172 33 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 197 m53 139 26 37 42 212 fit 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 522 1295 449 1331 196 207 348 1106 600 803 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.15 0.44 0.23 0.40 0.08 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.13 0.54 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am b.syn M Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Metro Blvd & access 7/812014 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (veh/h) 15 26 527 8 15 137 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 27 555 8 16 144 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 174 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 735 559 563 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 735 559 563 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 95 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 381 529 1008 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 43 563 160 Volume Left 16 0 16 Volume Right 27 8 0 cSH 463 1700 1008 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.33 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 1 Control Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:k3022kO2%2016 am b with access.syn A:'l Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: W. 77th St & access 7/8/2014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lanes 1 2 2> 0 1> 0 Volume (vehm) 20 543 896 51 46 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0°% 0°% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 572 943 54 48 18 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 301 257 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.92 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 997 1298 498 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 760 875 202 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 81 98 cM capacity (vehfi) 758 259 719 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB;1 Volume Total 21 286 286 629 368 66 Volume Left 21 0 0 0 0 48 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 54 18 cSH 75B 1700 1700 1700 1700 313 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.17 OJ7 0.37 0.22 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 20 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 19.6 Approach LOS C In44se6tion Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:1302210212016 am b with access.syn Nu 0 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88. W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 71812014 Lane Group E8L EBT ESR ML WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 32 797 0 15 288 132 5 3 16 479 6 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3370 0 0 1674 0 1770 1608 0 Flt Permitted 0.919 0.910 0.967 0.741 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3253 0 0 3073 0 0 1636 0 1380 1608 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 85 117 65 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 873 0 0 458 0 0 25 0 504 71 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effcl Green (s) 25.4 25.4 31.6 31.6 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.39 0.03 0.81 0.09 Control Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 28.3 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 28.3 4.0 LOS C B A C A Approach Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 25.3 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 60 2 177 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 300 123 14 338 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 1594 1549 1145 961 1140 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.55 0.30 0.02 0.52 0.06 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 69.8 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212014 pm.syn R�� Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lams, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 71812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 361 783 27 77 271 419 18 83 337 269 41 141 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (pros) 1770 3522 0 1770 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.231 0.332 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 430 3522 0 618 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 246 160 160 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 666 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 380 852 0 81 726 0 19 87 355 283 43 148 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 94.4 82.5 68.0 60.1 26.2 26.2 26.2 17.4 17.4 17.4 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.63 0.55 0.45 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 We Ratio 0.70 0.44 0.24 0.51 0.06 0.27 0.87 0.71 0.20 0.46 Control Delay 23.7 22.5 13.2 9.4 47.5 53.1 53.4 74.0 61.4 11.2 Queue Delay 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 23.2 13.2 9.4 47.5 53.1 53.4 74.0 61.4 11.2 LOS C C B A D D D E E B Approach Delay 23.4 9.8 53.1 53.2 Approach LOS C A D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 171 260 17 0 16 74 196 139 38 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 307 360 34 289 37 118 300 189 78 55 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 636 1937 342 1435 436 459 511 439 238 342 Starvation Cap Reductn 18 672 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.61 0.67 0.24 0.51 0.04 0.19 0.69 0.64 0.18 0.43 Intersecfion 86ro nary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length:150 Offset: 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.87 Intersecfion Signal Delay: 29.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212014 pm -syn 4414 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 33 829 0 16 300 137 5 3 17 498 6 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3373 0 0 1673 0 1770 1606 0 Flt Permitted 0.917 0.906 0.969 0.740 Said. Flow (perm) 0 3245 0 0 3062 0 0 1637 0 1378 1606 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 84 18 68 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%} Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 908 0 0 477 0 0 26 0 524 74 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.4 26.4 33.2 33.2 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 vlc Ratio 0.77 0.41 0.03 0.83 0.10 Control Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 30.1 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 30.1 3.9 LOS C B A C A Approach Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 26.8 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 189 67 2 204 1 Queue length 95th (ft) 316 129 14 361 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 1523 1482 1110 930 1106 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.56 0.07 Intersection Suntnary _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.4 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Levet of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 pm nb.syn 63 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL ' MT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT, _ _ SBE Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 376 815 28 . 80 282 436 19 86 351 280 43 147 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3522 0 1770 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.206 0.321 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 384 3522 0 598 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 3 248 160 160 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 866 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 396 887 0 84 756 0 20 91 369 295 45 155 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 92.9 80.9 65.3 57.3 27.2 27.2 27.2 17.8 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.54 0.44 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 vlc Ratio 0.75 0.47 0.26 0.55 0.06 0.27 0.88 0.72 0.20 0.47 Control Delay 28.8 23.8 14.1 10.3 46.8 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 12.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.9 24.5 14.1 10.3 46.8 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 12.4 LOS C C B B D D E E E B Approach Delay 25.9 10.6 54.3 53.7 Approach LOS C B D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 193 283 17 0 16 77 211 144 40 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 346 378 35 314 38 122 321 196 81 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 616 1903 324 1381 436 459 511 441 239 343 Starvation Cap Reductn 6 639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.70 0.26 0.55 0.05 0.20 0.72 0.67 0.19 0.45 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 pm nb.syn AIk Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WeL WBT WBR RBL NBT NBR . SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 41 837 0 16 304 134 5 3 17 489 6 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3377 0 0 1673 0 1770 1604 0 Flt Permitted 0.906 0.905 0.968 0.740 Said. Flow (perm) 0 3207 0 0 3062 0 0 1635 0 1378 1604 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 79 18 78 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 924 0 0 478 0 0 26 0 515 84 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.9 26.9 32.7 32.7 32.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.45 vlc Ratio 0.78 0.40 0.03 0.83 0.11 Control Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 30.2 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 30.2 3.8 LOS C 8 A C A Approach Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 26.5 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 190 67 2 203 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 325 131 14 350 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 1503 1477 1107 928 1106 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.61 0.32 0.02 0.55 0.08 Intersecpon' Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.3 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 pm b.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 702014 Lane Group EBL E8T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 383 827 29 80 300 436 20 86 351 280 43 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3522 0 1770 3224 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.195 0.316 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 363 3522 0 589 3224 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 3 232 160 163 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 866 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 403 902 0 84 775 0 21 91 369 295 45 163 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 92.9 81.0 64.7 56.8 27.2 27.2 27.2 17.8 17.8 17.8 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.62 0.54 0.43 0.38 0.18 0.18 018 0.12 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.47 0.27 0.57 0.07 0.27 0.88 0.72 0.20 0.49 Control Delay 31.3 23.9 14.3 11.5 47.0 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 13.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.3 24.7 14.3 11.5 47.0 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 13.4 LOS C C B B D D E E E B Approach Delay 26.7 11.7 54.3 53.4 Approach LOS C B D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 212 290 17 0 17 77 211 144 40 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 366 386 35 345 40 122 321 196 81 70 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 609 1903 317 1364 436 459 511 441 239 345 Starvation Cap Reductn 6 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.67 0.71 0.26 0.57 0.05 0.20 0.72 0.67 0.19 0.47 Intersection Summa Area Type: Olher Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:k3022\02\2016 pm b.syn M°/ Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Metro Blvd & access 7/812014 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR ' $BL SBT Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 9 12 174 8 20 560 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0°ti 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 13 183 8 21 589 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f 1s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 174 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 619 187 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 819 187 192 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 340 855 1382 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 192 611 Volume Left 9 0 21 Volume Right 13 8 0 cSH 518 1700 1382 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.11 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 1 Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS B Interiklion Sumrimary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:1302210212016 pm b with access.syn . #(o7 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: W. 77th St & access 718/2014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lanes 1 2 2> 0 1> 0 Volume (veh/h) 26 1317 444 36 47 10 Sign Control Free Free Slop Grade 0% 0°% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 1386 467 38 49 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 301 257 pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 505 1234 253 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 505 748 253 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °% 97 81 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1056 266 747 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 1;13 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 27 693 693 312 194 60 Volume Left 27 0 0 0 0 49 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 38 11 cSH 1056 1700 1700 1700 1700 300 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.11 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 18 Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 20.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:1302210212016 pm b with access.syn W Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Mr. Bona agreed to do his best, adding he wants the Commissio to know that trees would be removed to accommo services, building pa s and driveway however, a landscaping plan and/or list would 6e submitted for City Couna re ested by th Commission. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENE)ATIONS A. TIF Resolution — Pentagon Park Commissioner Fischer recused himself from Increment Financing. Chair Platteter asked Planner Teague if the Pentagon Park Proposal/TIF District is con: responded in the affirmative. Bill Neuendorf addressed the Commission e Associates to help create a Pentagon Park T Motion Consist*cyyAth the Comprehensive Plan vote; explaining works with the City on Tax being aced to specify that the intent of the the Comp hensive Plan. Planner Teague the City hash red Nick Anhoff of Ehlers & lent Financing Pistrict. Commissioner Grabiel moved to dopt�the Resolution findi g that proposed TIF Plan and modifications to the Redevelop ent P n conforms to the neral plans for development and redevelopment of the Ci Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q\\\N B. Sketch Plan Review — 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN 'd'( XON Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission Frauenshuh presented a redevelopment sketch plan in 2013 on this site. At that time their intent was to remodel the existing office building into retail space. Continuing, Teague said at this time Frauenshuh is proposing to rezone the site from POD, Planned Office District I, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and tear down the existing structure and build two new buildings with retail and office use. Teague asked the Commission for their comments. Appearing for the Applicant David Anderson Page 9 of 14 ft(A acom,,om'll that may worl<- however as previo y mentioned without seeing it it is difficult to design or env 'on. 'It was furthersuggest hat staff conditions (all) be available for review at the Council level. Concluding, Commissioners nk the developers for their response to their earlier comments adding _ in their opinion this will be a go oject and possibly the first in the redevelopment of the Grandview area. Ayes; Carpenter, Pgfts, Platteter, Carr, Forres-t,'Staunton. Motion carried. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review- Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group -,5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to re -develop 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard from office uses to retail uses including a drive-through. Currently the building on the site contains a real estate office, a hair loss treatment center, a telecommunication switching site and a small vacancy formerly occupied by a builder office/showroom. The applicant, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, would like to repurpose and remodel the existing building with neighborhood retail services. Aaker explained to accommodate the request, the following would be required: 1. A Rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2. 2. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Continuing, Aaker reported that the property is located just west of Highway 100 and is located across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Uses include a gas station, Burger King, and a small retail strip center. North and east of the site are office/Fight industrial uses. The proposed use of the property would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. Aaker noted this property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a -Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan rests with the City Page 10 of 1S t7o Council." Therefore, the decision to require a Small Area Plan can be made by the City Council at the Sketch Plan review. Appearing for the Applicant David Anderson, Frauenshuh and Nick Sperides, SRa Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson addressed the Commission and reported their intent is to rezone the property from POD1, (Planned Office District) to PCD2, (Planned Commercial District). Anderson explained this is a sizeable employment area, adding their goal is to repurpose the property;to.better serve neighborhood commercial service demands and the economic viability of the_ property. With graphics Anderson pointed out "before" and "after' 'schematics of the property noting the building is low level. If the Commission and Council are agreeable to repurposing the property the following changes to the property would include: • Implement an updated landscape plan • Improve and repair the building':.s:exterior, to include lighting, awnings and other architectural features • Create a better pedestrian experience by including walkways and outdoor seating areas • Potential for a drive-through option • Reconfigure the parking in keeping with ordinance requirements and • Improved internal vehicle access and circul.atio,n.. Concluding Anderson asked the Commission for their opinion on the sketch plan. Discussion Commissioner Platteter commented that.he likes the concept; however, believes this is a hard site to get in and out of. Platteter suggested reconsidering access points (eliminate west entry along Edina Ind. Blvd.) and changing the location of:the proposed drive-through; possibly to the rear. Continuing, Platteter also suggested energizing the corner of Metro Blvd/Edina Inc. Blvd. to be more pedestrian friendly. Concluding, Platteter stated he understands the requested change, adding it would continue the synergy of the areas service component; however, this is a hard site. Mr. Sperides responded that they looked at different scenarios for the drive-through but found out that moving it to the rear wouldn't work because of the three lanes (in, out & Drive-through), circulation and the difficulty in ensuring that the driver is on the proper side. Commissioner Platteter agreed driver placement was an issue, he noted in the Grandview area a drive-through is located between buildings; in the middle. Mr. Sperides added they are open to revisiting drive-through placement, adding they don't know if a drive-through would be part of the equation; however, want that option kept open because it's important to retail. Continuing, Sperides said another point they needed to keep in mind was stacking. Platteter agreed, adding as presented he is unsure if stacking would be adequate. Mr. Page 11 of 15 Sperides pointed out adequate stacking capacity is also very important for the retailer; without adequate stacking the business would suffer too. Chair Staunton commented that it is important to both the Commission and City Council that adequate stacking space is provided for drive-through window components. Staunton asked the applicant what their vision is for this property. Mr. Anderson said Frauenshuh observed this area was undergoing a change and creating an opportunity to repurpose the property in response to that change would benefit everyone. Anderson said what they do know is that the employment base is there and retail services to respond to that base are needed. Continuing, Anderson said the vision is to capture the current activity in a positive manner. Anderson added in his opinion this area has become more of a mixed u.se area; reiterating the introduction of more retail is good. Commissioner Potts stated in his opinion this area is very challenging and if redeveloped a complete traffic analysis needs to be completed. Planner Aaker responded if a formal application to rezone the property is submitted a traffic analysis is a requirement of -that process. Commissioner Carr said she realizes this is only in the "sketch plan" phase; however if redeveloped she would like the applicant to pay attention to. aesthetics, -such as lighting, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, etc. to create a more attractive place to visit and view:-: Anderson commented the intent would be to revitalize the site. Commissioner Forrest commented that she's not surtshe's on board with the rezoning request. Forrest said she is concerned with parking, vehiclecirculation and the potential drive-through space. Continuing; Forrest pointed out as previously mentioned by Commissioner Potts that much depends on the outcome of the traffic analysis. Mr. Anderson said the initial thought was to gain Commission and Council input on the proposed rezoning. Anderson said if that support was present it would allow them to prepare a site plan supported by a completed market and traffic analysis for formal review. Anderson explained that is the reason why the plans presented aren't firm, reiterating they felt the first step was to gain input on the rezoning. A discussion ensued on if the Commission felt extending the PCD zoning designation to this side of the street makes sense. Commissioners expressed the opinion that pedestrian and vehicle safety is of the utmost importance, pointing out the volume of activity is this "neighborhood" is very high. Commissioners also observed that it is difficult to make a decision without the facts; such as tenant mix and how that mix relates to traffic. Page 12 of 15 Commissioner Forrest asked Planner Aaker if the site were rezoned would all uses within the PCD -2 zoning district be allowed. Aaker responded in the affirmative; adding parking requirements need to be met for each use which could limit uses. The discussion continued on the rezoning clarifying without the traffic analysis and knowledge of the uses in the tenant space it is difficult to make an educated decision. Commissioners suggested moving forward keeping in mind how important the relationship is between traffic and use. It was further noted that if it is found that pedestrians do want,to cross the street both ways having these amenities makes sense and would be of benefit to the area and areas users. Mr. Anderson thanked the Commission for their comments, adding they would speak with City staff before submitting the sketch plan to the City Council. B. Reside ial Redevelopment Ordinance - Recap from City Council Meeting Chair Staunton remin ed the Commission of the numerous meetings held on residentiia edevelopment and amending the Zoni Ordinance. Staunton said the Commission forwarded the! inal draft to the City Council for their July 1 th meeting Staunton stated he along with Commissi ers Forrest and Potts attended that meeting to pres nt the Commission's recommendations. Stau on stated after Council action there was concern that th Council didn't understand the intent of a Commission on specific issues; mainly building height, 2"d st step elimination and setbacks. Chair Staunton said in speaking with City ff he felt there was a ed to reiterate to the Council the Commissions intent on one set of items (#3 p memo) and ref red the Commission to the attached statement of intent and graphics. Clarifying Staunton said at their July 16`., meeting the o ci and elimination of the second floor setback; however a 1m Staunton added he doesn't want to second guess tPe Coun ' however, reiterated he wants to make sure they Vinderstood adopted a 30 -foot cap on building height d to adopt the side yard setback formula. and is agreeable with their decision; t e Commissions intent on side yard setback as part of a "bundle" that w/buncil neously. Staunt referred to the table provided in the Ordinance amendment on side yardd wondered if the \waschleved ought this table was too cumbersome. Staunton said the gomission was also tthe public with greater clarity in the Ordinance; however, tay not have felt thiin the Commission's final draft. Staunton told the Commission would be forwarding his statement along wit he graphics provided by Commissioner Potts to th Council before their final reading on the Ordinance a endments at their August 5ch meeting. tau on asked the Commission for their input on the "sl atemen ". He acknowledged the stat ent also recommends that on lots narrower than 75 -feet in width that there be at least a total of % of the lot width (with a minimum setback no less than what currently exists). Page 13 of 15 47) Minutes dingy lCouncil/August 20, 2013 Motio rn d. VIII.B. SKETCH LAN —5801 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD —REVIEWED Assistant Planner Presentation Ms. Aaker presented the sketch plan to re -develop 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard from office uses to retail uses including a drive-through. Currently, the building contained a real estate office, a hair loss treatment center, a telecommunication switching site, and a small vacancy formerly occupied by a builder office/showroom. The applicant, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, would like to repurpose and remodel the existing building with neighborhood retail services. To accommodate the request, the following would be required: 1) A Rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -I, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2; and, 2) A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Ms. Aaker reported the subject property was located just west of Highway 100 and across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Uses included a gas station, Burger King, and small retail strip center. North and east of the site were office/light industrial uses. Use of the property would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. This property was located within an area the City designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan stated that within the Potential Areas of Change, a development proposal that involved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning would require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan would rest with the City Council. Ms. Aaker stated staff had noted the following issues for discussion in relation to the sketch plan: 1) Drive- through in front of the building with consideration of moving it to the back of the building; 2) Elimination of the existing western access to Edina Industrial Boulevard, as the access was too close to the intersection; 3) Concern over a lack of parking space for conversion into retail spaces; 4) The parking shortage could further increase if a restaurant use were to go into the site; 5) If the drive-through were to be moved to the back there might not be adequate area for two-way circulation; and, 6) Office land uses to the north and west. Ms. Aaker stated the Planning Commission considered the sketch plan proposal and generally believed that the use was appropriate as long as adequate parking was provided. The Council discussed sidewalks and connectivity, parking, pervious surface requirements, and stacking in relation to the sketch plan. Proponent Presentation David Anderson, Frauenshuh, stated the intent was to re-energize this corner of the City. Mr. Anderson discussed that in relation to parking, some of the retail uses on the site might be serving pedestrians, which would reduce the parking demand, that the drive-through proposed on the site offers flow, and that there was also the potential to reduce the square footage of the building to lower parking requirements. The proponent was aware of the discussion on stacking in relation to the site. The Council discussed landscaping with Mr. Anderson, and encouraged engaging the public from the curb area to the building. The importance of connectivity and safe pedestrian crossing, including a buffer between the sidewalk and street, and squaring off the corner to slow traffic down was discussed. The Council requested review of the zoning options for potential uses and to ensure the required parking was provided. Council support was expressed for a neighborhood retail use in the area under the category of Planned Commercial. A drive-through on the site was discouraged. The Council agreed that a Small Area Plan should not be necessary for the sketch plan as presented. VIII.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2b13- ADOPTED —ACCEPTING V RIOVS DONATIONS -ADOPTED Mayor Hovland explained that in oTckr to comply w' tate Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved fou vorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Page 8 fi7� Discussion Commissioner Platteter noted that previously the City Council indicated a small area plan was not required for this redevelopment, adding he wonders if that decision would change if this was split into two lots. Planner Teague said the Council as they did with the previous sketch plan would decide if this proposal met the threshold to initiate a small area plan. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson told the Commission the property consists of 1.3 acres with an existing one-story multi - tenant building. Anderson said in July 2013 they appeared before the Commission with a renovation concept of all retail. The Commission found the retail aspect acceptable, but had certain circulation and parking concerns. Continuing, Anderson explained the proposal before the Commission is a two - building redevelopment. The existing building would be removed and two new buildings would be constructed in phases depending on the timing of tenant occupancy. Discussion Commissioner Forrest stated she likes the new plan; however is a little disappointed that once again the buildings are in a sea of asphalt. Forrest suggested that if the applicant proceeds with a formal application they need work on creating a more pedestrian friendly attractive area. Commissioner Schroeder said as proposed the site doesn't appear to be pedestrian oriented. He said he also feels the landscaping doesn't meet the goal the Commission has set for redevelopment. Continuing, Schroeder also commented that he has concern with the directional flow of the proposed drive-through. Concluding, Schroeder said if the trend in this area is redevelopment one parcel at a time this may be a good time to consider a small area plan. Developing on a lot to lot basis doesn't create cohesiveness. Commissioner Potts agreed with previous comments and added the site as presented appears over parked and in his opinion minor changes could occur to better address pedestrian access and introduce more green space on the site. Concluding, Potts also suggested that the development team take another look at the location of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Carr indicated she liked the concept of two different buildings; however believes the building(s) should be moved farther forward, adding additional green space and parking to the rear. Mr. Anderson responded that their goal this evening was to get feedback on the two building retail concept. He added they are considering incorporating wider sidewalks and an enhanced plaza seating area, creating a more pedestrian feel to the development. Page 10 of 14 h7 Commissioner Grabiel added that he supports the idea of retail in this location; adding, it's needed. Continuing, Grabiel pointed one the City needs to be careful in their attempts to bring buildings to the street because in his opinion it hasn't always been successful. Commissioner Platteter said he too agrees that the site may be over -parked; adding another concern he has is with the drive-through circulation. Continuing, Platteter stated he was a bit disappointed with the layout of the site adding in his opinion both options; pedestrian friendliness, reduced parking with more landscaping could be accomplished. He concluded that the goal of this development should be to provide options for the public; walkers, vehicles, everyone. Nick Sperides responded that they considered other options for the drive-through facility acknowledging the difficulty of a drive-through. Continuing, Sperides said that the drive-through set up was designed as presented because most of the traffic flow is off Edina Industrial Boulevard. He acknowledged the path to the drive-through is circuitous, adding he was willing to take another look at it. Concluding, Sperides said the goal was to develop a high quality neighborhood retail service area. He stated they would review the circulation patterns and adjust as needed. Commissioner Grabiel questioned if the drive-through was really needed. Commissioner Scherer commented that she was disappointed there wasn't a safer route to get from the sidewalk to the proposed coffee shop Chair Platteter suggested that the development team visit the site and create a "mock-up" with cones to ensure that the drive-through flow works safely. Concluding Platteter thanked the applicants and noted the direction moving forward should be to address traffic circulation, especially as it relates to the drive- through, ensure safe pedestrian access, reduce parking, add landscaping and create more common space. V1 Planner Presentation Planner Teague addressed the Co missio ` a xplained this is another Sketch Plan proposal (same area) to tear down the existing offe' g and built a new retail office building with drive-through on the north end. Teague explained, cant proceeds to accommodate the request a rezoning would be needed from POD anDistrict I, to either PCD -2, Planned Commercial District - 2 or PUD, Planned U .evelopTeague n similar to the re ie t i erty is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a "PotentialArea ofChange.Tear ted and noted that the City Council did not recommend a Small Area Plan as part of the recent Sketch Plan of the site to the east. Page 11 of 14 ( Council conce was expressed about the appropriateness of retail use and a driv ugh (which resulted in reduced parkin in this location. Mr. Dovolis agreed this was a y gateway location with good visibility from the hig ay, which attracted retailers. He explai at surface parking was proposed due to the high water table d high cost to construct a bui ' g on stilts. Mr. Dovolis described the formal shared parking arrangemen nd mixed uses that 'ght include retail and office. The drive-thru on the north side could be used by a§Ewdwich sho enant. He stated support for rezoning to POD as it had yielded a quality building/developmentat and France. The Council asked questio Attorney Knbtkon and Engineer Bintner related to the shared parking arrangement or proo parking, should the adja t use change in the future. Mr. Knutson advised if that occurred, i ould be an issue between the tenant property owner. To assure adequate parking, Mr. Teagu uggested addressing specific uses and elimin a uses (i.e., restaurants) that would drive need parking. The Council supported staff interaction with M DOT to address points of access. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED —5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the sketch plan proposal of Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group to tear down the existing 12,196 square foot structure at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, build two new buildings totaling 9,450 square feet, and change the use from office to retail including a drive-thru. He described the uses of the existing building. It was noted that to accommodate this request, it would require a rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -1 to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2; and, a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Teague advised that the Planning Commission considered this sketch plan proposal at its February 12, 2014, meeting and expressed concern related to site circulation. Proponent Presentation David Anderson, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, 7101 W 781h Street, Suite, Minneapolis, described site elements, adjusted points of access, and refinements made to the sketch plan to address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. He stated they have paid attention to parking need and outdoor seating/green space because the focus would be on restaurant and food related users. Mr. Anderson noted this was a small site of 1.3 acres that required small-scale buildings to accommodate site circulation and green space. Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects, 42 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, presented the site plan and reviewed the traffic circulation, drive-thru and sidewalk locations, one curb cut, reduced building size by 715 square feet, and more common space. He then presented exterior building materials, noting the similarity to Starbucks and Whole Foods at Centennial Lakes. The Council considered the sketch plan proposal and recommended the following: PUD zoning to create flexibility and coordinated development; relocate entrance/exit away from adjoining curb cut; consider proof of parking options rather than being over parked; enhanced redesign of upper parapet to reduce utilitarian appearance; inclusion of a matching crosswalk at the southwest corner; flipping building locations to ease drive-thru access; bicycle racks at both buildings; moving the buildings closer to the street; additional greenspace including an island with trees and garden; specific storm water plan to accommodate the high water table; modify the vehicle centric design to better accommodate pedestrian access; create sidewalk across the berm to connect with Metro Boulevard sidewalk; provide pedestrian connectivity between the two buildings; and additional planting breaks within the parking lot. With regard to the suggestion to flip the buildings, Mr. Sperides explained it would create conflict in traffic movements and reduce parking capacity. Page 4 1+17 Date: July 23, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Conflict of Interest/Bylaws MEMO As a follow up to our discussion regarding Planning Commissioner conflict of interest in our bylaws, the city attorney offers the following suggested amendment: SECTION 21. ETHICAL AND RESPECTFUL CONDUCT (A) Conflict of Interest Members may not use their position on the Planning Commission for personal benefit. The interests of the Planning Commission must be the first priority in all decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial interest in or who is employed by a business that has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Planning Commission action, decision or recommendation must Promptly disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from discussion and voting on the matter and should sit in the audience when the matter comes before the Planning Commission. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Date: July 23, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO w91A,j� • `M1��A:YIX-KBO IBBt� Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration — Front Yard Setback & One -Foot Rule for a Tear Down/Rebuild. As mentioned at the last Planning Commission Meeting, the city attorney is recommending that the Zoning Ordinance regulations on these two items be revised. The attached Ordinance Amendment has been written to meet the intent of the original language, which was as follows: Front Setback — Required front street setback was to average the front street setback of the homes on either side. The existing ordinance does not account for a side street setback or an abutting lot with a front street setback that faces a different street. (See attached examples.) One -Foot Rule for Tear Down/Rebuild — The intent of this ordinance is that the first level of the new home was to match or be no taller than one foot above the pedestrian entry of the existing split level. The ordinance did not define front entry. A garage could be considered a front entry. Additionally, it did not account for multiple entries for a new home. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS & FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION REGULATIONS FOR TEAR DOWN REBUILDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 36-439 of the Edina City Code. Special Requirements are amended as follows: Sec. 36-439. Special requirements (1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. a. Established front street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead-end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot that has a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot on the same street. If an abutting lot is a corner lot with a side street setback; that lot is not considered an abutting lot. 2. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot that both have a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. If an abutting lot is a corner lot with a side street setback; that lot is not considered an abutting lot. 3. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. b. Side street setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text—XXXX (7) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the first floor elevation of the home being torn down is deemed to be the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrance to the garage and entrances that do not face a street. the new fa...-+ fIGGF OF eRtFy level .,I.,yatoen may et be M e than ., e feet .,L,eye the f.-ent .,. tFy elevation of the Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Parcel ID: 19-028-24-11-0082 A -T -B: Torrens Map Scale: V= 100 ft. Print Date: 7/8/2014 at lk Search Map StarTribune - Print Page 7/12/14, 10:31 AM c ztaF it ibune Ideological blind spots: The right on housing policy Article by: Thomas Fisher July 10, 2014 - 6:54 PM In "Housing report not credible" (July 4), Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute shows how the political right has it wrong when it comes to denser cities. O'Toole, like many conservatives, equates low-density development with personal freedom, which is ironic since increasing density vindicates some core economic principles of conservatives, while low-density often results from big -government programs, which the political right claims to oppose. O'Toole argues that the Metropolitan Council's Thrive MSP 2040 report shows a "lack of any understanding of the law of supply and demand," and he goes on to make the obvious point that demand involves a "relationship between prices and quantities." But he blunders when he equates higher density with higher -priced housing and lower density with lower-priced housing. Supply and demand suggests the reverse. Large -lot, single-family development eventually limits the supply of housing because of the finite amount of land in any given municipality, driving up the cost. A higher -density mix of detached, attached and multifamily housing enables a community to increase the supply to meet the demand, bringing prices down. Increasing density, though, does more than hold down the price of housing; it also helps keep taxes low. As has been shown by the engineer and planner Chuck Marohn of the nonprofit Strong Towns, we have built far more infrastructure than the tax base in most communities can maintain. Facing that funding gap, fully built -out municipalities often have just two options — they can either increase revenues in the form in higher taxes, which I doubt O'Toole would support, or they can increase the density around existing infrastructure, using it more efficiently while growing the tax base. Although some may equate low-density living with personal freedom, an imbalance between the cost of maintaining our infrastructure and the intensity of its use represents a type of financial suicide for communities that have no hope of keeping up with the repair and replacement of their roads and utilities. The infrastructure maintenance bill will force communities to either densify or die. This reveals one of the great paradoxes in the political right's support of low-density development. O'Toole has written elsewhere against government subsidies to local transit systems and against tax incentives to encourage denser development. He ignores, though, one of the most obvious examples of big -government programs in American history: our highly subsidized post -World -War -II suburbs. For much of human history, people largely lived relatively close together in villages, towns and cities for reasons that included personal safety, social solidarity and economic opportunity. It took a lot of social engineering — and a great deal of disinvestment in our cities — to counter that history and to incentivize the modern development of low-density sprawl. Those incentives came from a couple large and expensive federal programs: the interstate highway system, which made it easier for people to commute long distances, and the mortgage -interest tax deduction, which prompted people who otherwise might not have owned a house to want to do so. The market responded to the opportunities these federal programs created and built the suburbs that now ring every American city. But it's disingenuous to portray our postwar http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=266684251 Page 1 of 2 1 StarTribune - Print Page suburbs as strictly the result of market forces and of personal choice. 7/12/14, 10:31 AM While some people have always wanted — and will continue to want — to live outside of cities, the suburban sprawl we now endure would never have happened without massive government intervention, which makes the Cato Institute's defense of it truly ironic. Rather than politicizing the issue, we should promote density where it makes sense and prohibit it where it doesn't. And we should not deny the fact that the two largest demographic groups in America — baby boomers and the millennials increasingly want to live in higher -density cities, with more amenities and services an easy walk or transit ride away. The development community has energetically responded to that change, and the likes of O'Toole should applaud this market response and stop holding onto the unaffordable settlement patterns of the recent past. Thomas Fisher is dean of the College of Design at the University of Minnesota. © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=266684251 Page 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 23, 2014 VI.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is proposing to tear down the existing 12,199 square foot office building and build a new 10,000 square foot retail building that would include a drive-through. The property is located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, just west of Highway 100, and is located across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. (See pages Al -A4.) Retail uses to the south include the Shell Gas Station, Burger King, Dairy Queen, and a small retail strip center. (See page A5.) North and east of the site are office/light industrial uses. (See property location on pages Al -A8 and the applicant narrative and plans on pages Al2—A32.) To accommodate the request, the following would be required: Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2. 2. Preliminary Development Plan with consideration of Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 to 30 and 25 feet. 3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two-step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council, the second step would be Final Rezoning to PCD -2 and Final Site Plan & Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 feet to 30 and 25 feet. The second step would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment in this first step would be a final action. The subject site is guided for Office Uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The above mentioned commercial sites located south of the subject property, are guided for Industrial use and are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Pages A8 and A11.) Therefore, staff is recommending that these commercial sites also be included for consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial to bring the existing uses into compliance. These parcels include the following: ➢ 5125, 5105, 5101 Edina Industrial Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard. These uses include a small commercial strip center, Burger King and Dairy Queen; each of which are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. The Shell convenience gasoline station is zoned PCD -4, Planned Commercial District. See the Zoning for the area on page A2, and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the area on pages A8 and A11. The proposed use of the subject property at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. Sketch Plan reviews for proposed development of this site were done in 2013 and 2014. (See Planning Commission and City Council minutes on pages A69 -A77.) The applicant has attempted to address as many of the issues raised during Sketch Plan review as possible. The two most notable changes are bringing the building up to the street to create a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street, and relocating the drive-through. (See the previous Sketch Plan on pages A33 -A34.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: An office building; Zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided O, Office. Easterly: An office building; Zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided O, Office. Southerly: Burger King and Shell convenience gasoline center, Zoned PGD- 2 and PCD -4, Planned Commercial District; and guided for I, Industrial. Westerly: The old GM Plant currently leased by Filmtec; zoned PID, Planned Industrial and guided Industrial. 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.3 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains an office with surrounding surface parking on all sides. (See pages Al A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation O — Office. POD -1, Planned Office District -1. Access to the site would continue to be from Edina Industrial Boulevard and Metro Boulevard. There are currently two curb cuts to Edina Industrial Boulevard. The access closer to the intersection would be eliminated. Traffic Study Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A37—A68.) The study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there would be adequate parking provided. No improvements would be needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 25 overstory trees and a full complement of understory shrubs. The applicant is proposing 27 overstory trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Elm, Honey Locust, Crabapple, Linden and Aspen. (See pages A21 and A30.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading for the retail space would take place at the back of the building or parking lot area. Trash would be collected within the building and at the trash enclosure area in the northeast corner of the parking area. The material of the enclosure would be brick to match the proposed building, as required by City Code. (See pages A22 and A26.) Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached 3 page A35 -A36. The applicant should address the engineer's memo as part of the Final Rezoning process. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of high quality brick and ledgestone. The building would be finished on all four sides. (See renderings on pages A14— A19.) A materials board would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of final rezoning of the site. Drive-through Stacking Space The proposed drive-through lane would be accessed on the east side of the site, with the pick-up window on the east side of the building. The drive- through lane would contain six stacking spaces behind the menu order board and nine spaces from the pick-up window. (See page A22.) City Code requires five spaces, although the Code does not specifically refer to coffee shops. A traffic study, done by Wenck and Associates, found that the traffic from the proposed use would not impact the adjacent roadways. The study shows that additional stacking would line up with the drive -aisle area. (See page A42.) Signage The applicant would be required to meet all signage regulations of the PCD -2, Zoning District. Compliance Table 0 City Standard (PCD -2) Proposed Building Setbacks Front— Edina Ind. Blvd 35 feet 30 feet* Front — Metro Boulevard 35 feet 25 feet* Rear — East 25 feet 50+ feet Side — North 25 feet 40+ feet Building Height 4 stories 1 story Maximum Floor Area 1.5% .16% Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls (Site) 56 55 (proof of parking for 1 stall) 0 Drive Aisle Width 24 Feet 24 feet *Variance requested Rezoning Per Section 36-216 of the City Code, the commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Should the City Council approve the Amendment to designate the future land use of the site to neighborhood commercial; the proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing land uses to the south, which are commercial. The proposed project would meet several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, including the following: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. (2) Is consistent with the preliminary site plan as approved and modified by the council and contains the council imposed conditions to the extent the conditions can be complied with by the final site plan. The proposed plans are consistent with most of the comments by the Planning Commission and City Council per the Sketch Plan review. Any 5 conditions imposed in this preliminary review would be required to be presented as part of the Final Rezoning application. (3) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract. The proposed retail uses are consistent with the retail uses to the south, and currently being considered to the east. This limited retail area would provide uses beneficial to the office and industrial areas to the north and west. (4) Will not result in an overly intensive land use. The proposed square footage would be less than the existing office building on the site. A traffic study was done and found that the proposed uses could be supported by the existing roadways. (5) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. Again, Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study which concluded that the proposed uses could be supported by the existing roadways. (6) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code. With the exception of the front yard setback variance requested to bring the building up to the street, the proposed project would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements of the PCD -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. (7) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. As mentioned above, the proposed retail uses are consistent with the retail uses to the south, and currently being considered to the east. This limited retail area would provide uses beneficial to the office and industrial areas to the north and west. It would provide convenience retail and dining options for the nearby employment area. 0 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial reasonable for this area? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. is reasonable for the site and area for the following reasons: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area and the Industrial areas to the north and west. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties to the south is really a house keeping item, as it was mistakenly guided for industrial use. 3. Neighborhood Commercial is defined as small to moderate -scale commercial, serving primarily adjacent neighborhoods. Primary uses are retail and services, offices, studios, institutional use. Existing uses in this area include a gas station, limited retail and convenience food. All are permitted uses within the PCD -2 and PCD -4 Zoning Districts. 4. The proposal would meet the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. ■ Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. 7 5. The traffic study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project. • Is the Rezoning to PCD -2 appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PCD -2 is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36-216, as noted on Pages 5 and 6 above, in regard to rezoning property. Subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The project would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; would not result in an overly intensive land use; would not result in undue traffic congestion or hazards; and with the exception of the setback variances would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: ➢ To re -guide 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard from O, Office to NC, Neighborhood Commercial; and ➢ Re -guide 5125, 5105, 5101 Edina Industrial Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard from I, Industrial to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and enhance this limited retail area. M City of Edina - m I�7 t� o is �ill 775U InS5 30 SiN { 7N1717tl�7�1 7 12JIJ 12203 7t 170319 . r�aads� LopOad 6:! Hlphllphlea Poalaro ._. - .4 SdN75T- SarrouadJnp House l(umLur 5led 2300 00017+a Tf J7i7 eMf i"lag nti 1701 J/!s label$ - House Humhe,lahe(s $211 my t TIED ITw 4777 L.W..t Flume 55A97CE I 4731 City LI.A. 17 rlfi3ljp a 7J '.ak!0- rhl Creeks 7701 tree 7705 6230 Slat Ina roe 7402 el 1 71 t-1 LAO tla.0% 1--7 X7239 Q Was 741671 "T �7an,,10! U10 , 7!C-0 Ti01 3451 7{k 2{91 0 Parks Parcaia Y416 70711 N 4171 7930 , •71791454. a ( 4 7575 7)4 4 1f920 9101 26 4912 7510 5702570E 5197 51x2 7507 194 S1It3p." J S7CQ `` II 4901 53914 449¢2, 90�4{ �( 21 4$1e 913 40 a90fv 1625 Fels t , 49 7efAsy e 775,! 746S 7G0 i �TE07� 7627 1G:W 7615 7N4 7509 - X1[03 sero 3920 7644 :�NU , ! npf,70 �N •.... 77 iH171Y > 7103 shy . Sidi MOM -1132, lab iNt�1/137, T1N $j25 SIO l 121(�t74IN 0 77p, I 4815 r! n 24 t 0907 5766 nia 3395 SSSS 6159 5701 5771 5215 0151 2159 Ilia 1711 5615 74 2f 470 6519Sia 4 471fSIJV N NN TT19 a '770177114737 $ttl fist S 7807 law Is I6 1003 raid %lalt 1031 Toed 217! Tall 5801 J� 6721 7900 4'r 7021 �dy%r srcd N 6K{I 5501 last d9N ® 5701 scot 820, olds sits 6160 6161 3750 0217oral :111 7a 5176 E025 SlM a21e 02ot � 1 10 �� ��'. �'�71y13,•tirvSs'�• Ila, M 0700 s)Y77 1851 QD EPN 77m a29r11 Oro/ 77F3t7 ,e.:a.adwL Gayg1(giaC as La 80}5 a100 a ➢r•, . .:4 6701 5aof 70 >b� '7kl�b st{s 5120 LDDand � Hiptalpkled FD,tura SurrOuid1a0 House, ilumhai Labels Neuro HOmlwr Labels almolrama Labels city Lfd. 7 cracks lake llamas E3 Lukas a Pork, ZaNDp Ma lAalsat5r:uy Dklrell O qaD-It>t�sems9>s,mcra} . 400.5(Ui�:l DadeprdDu4t j ® iIOD•illfatyDMSpavalOmlai ® rcu-TIPaterlte—d."Wb 1 PCa.2lp—c jc. ,.—::jame.) Pta-31p-.nlCvr_-- alldil pe0a(a�rdt�,,,,xrD�) ra)rear�hd.ntsD�eral ® Paaliate�dn.h➢tzly ] POD•fIP'.tllesIXTmDNH9 FOD-21ft—ION-01460) . PAD•11Pe,+adAe3xWDNrkf) Pn0.71Pmtedf Rvac,rd➢:uerj Pqa+(Merl lreiatgtolasld!) Pgo a Ift—I Oad.1w u6b;q PSRJllts�nN5a6060i9) . A•IlSayh➢rffiaODaa) Ig Aal➢aa9v➢.�i.}nee) ® p110I11g1 ..iller jocW) 1 Parcels City of Edina 71.0 7775!'A' s:co it�rJl7¢+ 7770) lra'. •� •: 7j.• 77P0�ea,L1� a+- �•. `•. 190 3 0 sPlO 170D 1LTO 3709 7]ls UN Me ;' '7101.,. \,.-iiG51 •``' vyEur n 1750 ••�`�� FD 7+0/ 71'w 7136 3750 5IN 1 Flea 1!N o - 7+10 .7799 �f7 P 9366 7+ 7+0,0 7+01 4251 I+SO 7+01; a ��71d �,...__, I{ .. • : '•. a 1D , 97 1771 filo 3}00 mai -9+E6 sfa 7579 5/37 5112• .... 7sas,+•: .. :•.: .• 9 + 1 1 1673 76{5 311 39+9 190 [ 3957 It 7015 16N 7075 r19 o 7P+i S� 1\ 7 0 G am; w7ra f7N sloe T7a3 It 77Nr 7671 11,N) .tit:lAilij }p 3700 5 73 70 ill Ildo 7 7 711 57 1 9 1rb0 0x9\ 3595 ass 5 31" 3701 SIII 5715 ,313! 7730 77]0 7l � 77�f 070 � I9 4 3WS7Yi 71 fl0b 1100 73013211s731 play 1500 T1D] W0p 7d 130r 7b10 6+01 fly sr00 7179 O1672 7811 1671 tell tell 1301 % i171 °+„ 0700 s)Y77 1851 QD EPN 77m a29r11 Oro/ 77F3t7 ,e.:a.adwL Gayg1(giaC as La 80}5 a100 a ➢r•, . .:4 6701 5aof 70 >b� '7kl�b st{s 5120 LDDand � Hiptalpkled FD,tura SurrOuid1a0 House, ilumhai Labels Neuro HOmlwr Labels almolrama Labels city Lfd. 7 cracks lake llamas E3 Lukas a Pork, ZaNDp Ma lAalsat5r:uy Dklrell O qaD-It>t�sems9>s,mcra} . 400.5(Ui�:l DadeprdDu4t j ® iIOD•illfatyDMSpavalOmlai ® rcu-TIPaterlte—d."Wb 1 PCa.2lp—c jc. ,.—::jame.) Pta-31p-.nlCvr_-- alldil pe0a(a�rdt�,,,,xrD�) ra)rear�hd.ntsD�eral ® Paaliate�dn.h➢tzly ] POD•fIP'.tllesIXTmDNH9 FOD-21ft—ION-01460) . PAD•11Pe,+adAe3xWDNrkf) Pn0.71Pmtedf Rvac,rd➢:uerj Pqa+(Merl lreiatgtolasld!) Pgo a Ift—I Oad.1w u6b;q PSRJllts�nN5a6060i9) . A•IlSayh➢rffiaODaa) Ig Aal➢aa9v➢.�i.}nee) ® p110I11g1 ..iller jocW) 1 Parcels City of Edina 71 L000nd r I�*CAS+ 771' �`�} , 'i�!) Sf h';• �} J L. IMrr-II _11�„ Y�-� w �•--.L,.•'1 /r• r i �i � - � ■ ■ i�2012 AV�ml MOP t.W i k °, f♦F} ., 111 vj syAil ltik� 4 I`y \T I i k.. ' �f `i d .•{"��1 '� �. I�\ � ! `, is ' t f� Y "L � �k6R' �I�li }'ar„•a` 1 �I I' `'``,•..1�;.�p LIZ _�- if ,� _ A� rya i i 5168�Edina Industrial Blvd. Fdina, MN 55439 USA _ r _. In c L' I �A 77. - - C;000 lc Pa, 'h A7 -i Nno I —�, T-` oltNm agg w R;w lip t M , ffj` pl! AL M i"a1t31_ 1 011 6" W12 11 1 M-1 ZMINE MARK 4) Af" IN Md� U5 D rail WAWW 'I living, learning,Yaiing Saritilles &,doing business'M �! 2UOti.CotY1[it'eitensd►e PI Nohresidential and Description, land Uses Development . Density MiXed Use GdIdelines Guidelitt ategories M Established or emerging mixed Maintain eXisting, or Mize -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, oar to Area Current amples� - than one neighborhood (and pedestrian and Ratio -Per to beyond city boundaries), streetscape current n 50 an France Primary uses: Retail, office, amenities; enco age Zoning Code; © Grandvie service, multifamily residential, or require str tured maximum of institutional uses, parks and parking. B dings 1,5 open space. "step d n" in height 1-2 ertical mixed use should be from tersections. 50u' !f units/acre e uraged, and may be 4 odes at req ed on larger sites, rance 3-6 stories at Grandview CAC The mos - tense district in Forn1-based design' Community Activity terms of us height and standards for building Floor to Area Center coverage placement, massing Ratio -Per Example: Greater Primary uses; Re ' , office, and street -level current Southdale area (not lodging, entert m t and treatment. Zoning Code.; including large multi- . residential u s, comb. ed or in Buildings should be maximum of family residential separate itdi.ngs, placed in appropriate 0,5 to 1.0* neighborhoods such Secon ry uses: Institution 1, proximity to streets to 2 - 3 as Centennial Lal(es) recr tional uses.create pedestrian units/acre xed use should be encourage, scalp�� Buildings "step down at boundaries and may be required on larger er -density sites. and upper "step back" t. ring t designds \,d fors > S st. 'es,ize pede5trion; re- introduce finer - grained circulation PCtterns where feasible. I Applies to existing predominantly Performance Industrial industrial areas within the City. Primary uses! industrial, standards to ensure compatibility With Floor to Area manufacturing. Secondary uses: adjacent uses; Ratio: Per Zoning Code: limited retail and service uses. screening of outdoor 0.5 activities, Edina Coup Plan Update X008 Chapter 4; hand Use and Community Desigil n 4-29 � "l RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 5 Existing language xxxx ��� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxii 6 destinations, greater density for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Floor to Area Ratio: per current Zoning Code* Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories 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 anode' rather than a for individual current Zoning 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 p ermined. Encourage structured • 701t, & 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 I-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 be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. O 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 Existing language xxxx ��� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxii 6 Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights Plan Update Southwest Quadrant Figure 4.6C 0 0.5 Miles 4I( 4p �Ilcovn t Narrm liv 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard - Redevelopment Project Narrative In connection with recent discussions, this narrative and the enclosed drawings provide an overview of the redevelopment plan for the property at 5108 Industrial Blvd. ("Property"). Overview Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is the owner of the Property, located at the northeast intersection of Edina Industrial Blvd and Metro Blvd. The Property consists of approximately 1.3 acres with an existing one-story multi -tenant commercial building located on the site. In July of 2013 and March of 2014, Frauenshuh submitted plans as a sketch plan review and met with the planning commission and City Council to discuss the concept of repositioning the property for retail oriented use given the area service, demand and property characteristics. The feedback on the concept of retail use was favorable, while certain design, pedestrian access, circulation and parking considerations were noted as refinements needing further development. The Property will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning from POD1 (Planned Office District) to PCD2 (Planned Commercial District), and a Variance to accommodate a broader range of retail use on the Property. Rezoning would be consistent with existing neighborhood zoning and land use patterns and would be processed with a site plan review application. Redevelopment Plan Hiahliahts The enclosed plans illustrate the redevelopment concept for the Property. The existing structure would be removed from the site and the new building plan would be constructed in one phase. The redevelopment plan provides the opportunity to create a new, very functional building and site plan with a highly attractive architectural aesthetic, improved traffic flow in and out of the site and good circulation, parking and pedestrian orientation for retail tenants and customers. The building will be constructed on the southwest corner of the property with a total square footage of 10,000 sq.ft., thus creating a pedestrian friendly site layout and parking configuration for retail use. Several food service providers and neighborhood retail uses have expressed interest in the redevelopment plan and location. Some of the redevelopment plan highlights would include: • Creation of high quality and consistent architectural aesthetics (incorporation of stone, glass, metals and high quality building signage); • Placement of the building — in response to the sketch plan review comments,- to reduce interface between pedestrians and vehicles — adjacent to the street with parking on the North. • Reduction of vehicular access from streets from 3 (existing) to 2. • Installation of pedestrian enhancements, including sidewalks, interior walkways, outdoor seating areas and related improvements; • Improved site landscaping including boulevard trees and shrubs and internal landscape elements conductive to the retail environment; • Drive-through on the east side of the building, subject to tenant requirements; • Reconfiguration of parking layout (56 spaces) , Ap • Improved internal vehicle access and site circulation. • Design of the Drive thru on the east side of the building will be complimented by a rain garden feature. Variance Request The Applicant wishes to request a variance to allow the front yard setback to be reduced from 35'-0" to 25'-0" in order to respond to the comments from the sketch plan review which suggested that the building placement address the need to accommodate the pedestrian movement in the area. This variance will allow for improved outdoor common space development near the tenant entrances, green space enhancement on all sides of the building, and improved vehicular flow on the site. Pedestrian movement along the sidewalks on the south and west will be able to access the building without crossing parking areas. �1 NORTH ELEVATION WITH GOLOR SMQa. ARCIffIECIS. INC. 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL NORTH ELEVATION -060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group _a_ SPERIDES REINERS ARCNRECIS. INC. VIEYN FROM SOUTHEAST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group SRa- SPMDES \/IEW FROM NORTHWEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group SRa- SPERIDES REINERS ARCIRIECIS.INC \/IEW FROM SOUTHWEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 060614 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group ri0SOSN 3/32" = V -O" SRa. SPMDESREINF sAxnmacrs.�wc 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL SOUTH ELEVATION - 060614 ROOF � 5' - O- O" �.I LOO_ o' - o"" � FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group 1 YVC7 1 CLCV/'t l ICJIV Yvl I n Civ LCJR L.WGESTONE S.Ra. sresmYs ■enreas asai�crs, me 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL WEST H EAST ELEVATIONS GLASS FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group (G v m �Y 10'"O 39''4* I .. 32'_0• 101_0. W'. I i I I I I i I 1 TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT 9 1 1 un I TOILET TOILET UTIL o vnL J 1 A !"c COMMON ..............______..... 6RAPHIG_YHIL _ _ I .PATIO 5EATM6 n FIRST FLOOR 3/32" = 1'-O" NORTH `v m 0 b N 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL FRAUENSHUH ,SRa. BOOR PIAN 060614 Commercial Real Estate Group SPfS10F3 REINERS ARCIIIIBCiS.ING Sr �_�`V ..;-mall! �tt� II u S 89'31'30" E 318.01 • �� -PRBP59Et) ACCESSORY WILDING \I I FF77 31 I a 56 PARKING SPACES QARGEI MONUMENT SIGN Iwr-rvu--fwUKUtK v u N 89'31'30" W 318.01 NORTH 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD SRa- SITE PLAN FRAUENSHUH WITH GARBAGE ENCLOSURE AND ORDER BOARD SPERM RRiNRRR ARCI{ITF.m IRC, 1"=30'-0" JULY 16, 2014 H OWFIEP: PARKIF.'M i STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PRO SID STANDARD PARKING STALLS 51 rPROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLi 4 I. F 'v - TOTAL PROPOSED STA 5.5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HE RESMNSIBLECOO FOR ERATE WITH ALLR LOC TIONS OF ALL EXI COMPANIES IN MAINTANIEY SHALL COOPERATE/OR ELOCKTIIY COMPANIES IN FMINTAINBJG THEIR Sf0.VN:E AND/OR RELCIUTION OF LINES. THECM145 TRACTLR ST4ICONTAINAMAERSTATE EMRT ELC AT LINDER ROUND AT LEAST48HOURSOADVANCE FOR THEHOUTIONSOF ALL OTHERGROLIN STRUCTURES WHITES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES LOR OTHER BURIEPLACETEABOVE WHENDAMG.THE DDURINGCONSRSHALL ATFLEA XNO OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED OARING C.ONSTRIICTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER ®Gopher State One Call rT FREE ITI -BBB-Ru EBR: 13 s�sU G gG 5 D Zw xv i Z 34 L gSg� 9 aaaQaa I W o O � os L N W R SrrE PLAN PRDILcr w: 1a�Rees BNWNBY: WBS C14.Q.ED N: VN C2-1 �`---:' NORTH 40 0� �20 W I . m SCALE IN FEET 1 . 1 SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION H BASED ONA FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS -�- ASSOCIATESAND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF EDINA. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THEAC.CURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BYOTHERS. -- 2. MINNESOTA STATE STATURE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER YOPHER STATE ONE _ CALL' PRIOR TO COMMEWINGANY GRADING, EKCAVAHGN OR UNDERGROUND WORK - 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONSAND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF — CONSTRUCTIONACTNITY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER Of ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PUNS. .. 1 4. ALL DRAENSgNS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDEAT FOOT TAPER AT ALL CURB TERMINI. _ A. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GLITTER AND SIDEWALK SHALE OF FURNISHED AND — INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITKTLIRAL PUNS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLIC ATIONS 1. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL UN THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LGHTINGAND OTHER FIXTURES. 1, 8612 CONCRETE CURB AND GLITTER SHALL BE INSTAL 110 AT THE FDGE OF ALL COMMON DRNESAND PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND 00.1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. MAL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE 4' WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPING 11. DISABLED PARKING SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA & MMIfICD. I�I I III STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PRO SID STANDARD PARKING STALLS 51 rPROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLi 4 I. F 'v - TOTAL PROPOSED STA 5.5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HE RESMNSIBLECOO FOR ERATE WITH ALLR LOC TIONS OF ALL EXI COMPANIES IN MAINTANIEY SHALL COOPERATE/OR ELOCKTIIY COMPANIES IN FMINTAINBJG THEIR Sf0.VN:E AND/OR RELCIUTION OF LINES. THECM145 TRACTLR ST4ICONTAINAMAERSTATE EMRT ELC AT LINDER ROUND AT LEAST48HOURSOADVANCE FOR THEHOUTIONSOF ALL OTHERGROLIN STRUCTURES WHITES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES LOR OTHER BURIEPLACETEABOVE WHENDAMG.THE DDURINGCONSRSHALL ATFLEA XNO OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED OARING C.ONSTRIICTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER ®Gopher State One Call rT FREE ITI -BBB-Ru EBR: 13 s�sU G gG 5 D Zw xv i Z 34 L gSg� 9 aaaQaa I W o O � os L N W R SrrE PLAN PRDILcr w: 1a�Rees BNWNBY: WBS C14.Q.ED N: VN C2-1 �`---:' NORTH 40 0� �20 W I . SCALE IN FEET 1 . 1 SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION H BASED ONA FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS -�- ASSOCIATESAND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF EDINA. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THEAC.CURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BYOTHERS. -- 2. MINNESOTA STATE STATURE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER YOPHER STATE ONE _ CALL' PRIOR TO COMMEWINGANY GRADING, EKCAVAHGN OR UNDERGROUND WORK - 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONSAND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF — CONSTRUCTIONACTNITY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER Of ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PUNS. .. 1 4. ALL DRAENSgNS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDEAT FOOT TAPER AT ALL CURB TERMINI. _ A. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GLITTER AND SIDEWALK SHALE OF FURNISHED AND — INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITKTLIRAL PUNS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLIC ATIONS 1. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL UN THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LGHTINGAND OTHER FIXTURES. 1, 8612 CONCRETE CURB AND GLITTER SHALL BE INSTAL 110 AT THE FDGE OF ALL COMMON DRNESAND PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND 00.1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. MAL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE 4' WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPING 11. DISABLED PARKING SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA & MMIfICD. STALL COUNT ANALYSIS PRO SID STANDARD PARKING STALLS 51 rPROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLi 4 I. F 'v - TOTAL PROPOSED STA 5.5 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HE RESMNSIBLECOO FOR ERATE WITH ALLR LOC TIONS OF ALL EXI COMPANIES IN MAINTANIEY SHALL COOPERATE/OR ELOCKTIIY COMPANIES IN FMINTAINBJG THEIR Sf0.VN:E AND/OR RELCIUTION OF LINES. THECM145 TRACTLR ST4ICONTAINAMAERSTATE EMRT ELC AT LINDER ROUND AT LEAST48HOURSOADVANCE FOR THEHOUTIONSOF ALL OTHERGROLIN STRUCTURES WHITES, CARIES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES LOR OTHER BURIEPLACETEABOVE WHENDAMG.THE DDURINGCONSRSHALL ATFLEA XNO OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED OARING C.ONSTRIICTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER ®Gopher State One Call rT FREE ITI -BBB-Ru EBR: 13 s�sU G gG 5 D Zw xv i Z 34 L gSg� 9 aaaQaa I W o O � os L N W R SrrE PLAN PRDILcr w: 1a�Rees BNWNBY: WBS C14.Q.ED N: VN C2-1 T I j. I IX�I.IIR I L'- NORTH L ,.2 I � I CL .',NkEN: I=^,f;I,-,: •,VER F'N^FEPTIE� I.I� LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED . ropacR,SPHIccoNroux \�eW'—�' 01wIHArE SLOPE sroRM nu—DEe O L - uicH BASIN MNITARY ® NNmnMRn D,EB�LI�DYFRHD« �..— L'- NORTH IOEOu40 I SCALE IN FEST Li D GRADING PLAN NOTESIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIII 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK. LOUCKS `I- h r Y �• ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALE REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS G AND DIMENSIONSOF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES. SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. a gp 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY - DAYACE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DARING THE CONSTRUCDON PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FORANY DAATAGE5 MAE ACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING EHE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE �4 6 CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE BOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TOS �+e NORMAL WORRWG HOURS.,x BEFOREBEGINNINCCONSTRUL:TIONTHE C.OWMCA TORSHAILINSTALLATWMMRY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROIECT SITE SAID ROCK D , ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE ...., PROJECT.g SLAG �f G EROSION AND SEOeMENTATION CONTROL MEASURE55HALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUNDB¢ THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, Dalq BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS � i 3 iwg 7, ALLSPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENTFINLSHED SURFACE OR GUTTER LINE • ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOT€D. t' ' B. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING INMIU EATKON PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONANO NOTIFY ENGINEER Of ANY PUN DISCREPANCIES. 9.EXISTINGUTILITYLO,AT*NSA ERCITYAS-BUILTPUWANDFIELDSHOTS. 10. SEE SHEET CM FOR EROSION CONTROL INFORMATION. 11. GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL TIE IN GRADES. < a 4? ABBREVIATION LEGEND IFE=JANE HlD FLOOR ELEVATION (p� 23* $C ETiFzr •fit�S-' TW=TOP OF RETAINING WALL GYJ=GROIIND AT FACE OF RETAINING WALL {J 41! E -- —HP=HIGH POINT [P=LOW POINT TIC MP OF CURB GLxUTTER LINE NOTE: CATCH BASINS RIMS ARE 21NCNE5 LUV✓ER N . THAN FLOW LINE EIkVATIDNSPOT � ELEVATIONS AT CURB LINES ICATE o L� BASE OF CURB AND GUTTER LINE IIEDHOW LINE) ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. a Q Q Q a a a J m W � WARNING _7 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEYSHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN AWINTAINING THEIR SERVICE (DO Z AND 1OR RELOCATION OF LINES. O THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651454-0802 AT LEAST 0 HOUR5 IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF Al I. UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, LO N PIPES, FW NHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHA It REPAIR OR RFPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST •GRADING S' TO THE OWNER. BLYou as DRAINAGE PLAN ®t6u Gopher State One Call �+ Ta MMU "I`—SR ISBBe: PIOIEGI ND: l3-BP6.4 aNWN B/. WBS CIEIXED eY. VN 0-1 ®6��>� z �A�M'�aw �J g�o££PWBHW���s�F��A� �p9sig�p'�.o [) AOgO mA r'RA3"mfo^:��' "Bo's£^P 0. bpi A sok ;� � � mgg"s^oM MME R. 3 oN°"o A —21 X' i^ 8 x48yHoAo (D cnl= oNR" oba aH'"�� �<2pm�fbO?Q'o� �Op S'x n�m i`FA of i�2- F.T §w N 2T 0° gq N'^ng 3°tA xs N>3B2o:aLiom " m ms'A o'- = <"a n 3 =2 5o (� ^mo "spa'° i m£o'4 0 ��>°ayrzy-c<Om so g 8z z�fN io OF ys� z n x o$"a.98i?S X o r ez ;.4 (� $ 5108 RETAIL 06pWli VREINV NR'DESGN SEi ° na5wry r.E Ol ud.9M'�1i W/S WBA6UW IX°A[EM9Wn° X400 WEST OID 51N1COEE 0.Q+D SUfIE ffi0 $$$ V � �° EC.i£WWCW TE NW56TESiNECF %1: C54C96.906P 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. R� Y x rs z E�� -° PRELIM RY a °E°E 1 stx[ ieaacrs.re SPERIDES REINERSARCHI'1'EC15, INC WEST ELEVATION 'ill SCALE: 3B'.I'-0' Q PAINTED BOLLARD CENTER SUPPORT n5OUTH ELEVATION L SCALE: 3/e'.I'-0' T. 0. GATE OIL 107'-O" S.O. GATE PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY HINGES, PAINTED 2" X 2" STL. TUBE, PAINTED CORRUGATED METAL PANEL, PANTED GATE LATCH WITH LOCK DROP BOLTS/PINS ON INSIDE OF ENCLUSURE CONCRETE PAD INSIDE ENCLOSURE, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OUTSIDE OF ENCLOSURE PRE -FINISHED METAL COPING BRICK MATCH BUILDING n PLAN NORTH SR 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD _a_ TRASH ENCLOSURE 07.10.2014 FRAUENSHUH SPSRD)E$ Re1NSRSARC1111ECIS,INC `9- I � fj ✓ Jun uslu-pr- wz83�2ru-5 , _m_ ___ g3at-a+ w I LEGAL . DESCRIPTION OWER: PARKLAWN PROPERTIES LLC uZ. v W 3, Bbck 1. EOkw blwd. Il AEAb.mty. ----- &32 ------ -- 5r •£'318.01 -832-07 .834 .-x% .r`-'•. Ae.wcl ProP.ny 832- =---------- -B32 i• s u IJ. NOTES CORRESPONDING TO EASEMENTS: J IarxEcrs eart.,x w xnow a vxRn r°"' B "T /^ 32 _ �'o :i wss'rmuF° wwmnw u ' w ii. siieimoe r w,Wwms ;a _ _ � F ,rNt r a , I' :) Ivrrtcn w,«Ean. as aRaw o l "'u °f°.`) ----�--9 ---_ 3l _�--_ ---�2. 6 4 4 14 I I � �I ,s (rzrtcrs Pavan. All sou a vmcnxs P - 6 O s��� ` � �'..$ @ � p' @ w�u I �f I 4`k / ' - rwwn..s vvw a mwsue•+M Y ----a-y ___1_____ H ar ego..• waw u ne w emmb. mmpm:nn°W n e < \\ I bb - urtcn neon. '' @ -ar •� \ � � � � � �� e:� .^�ee'p �,"eN� a n. alir::� ,o.' �..ea mow. 1 L / I • @ aE,,..an.a. ,� r3 e I aaEoj % I @ - 8 u_ (NTxors wm,a,n. w •low, oN'sxNPo°ca1 \_ ' Ici Gia@ ��ar..ne-�I leo I 1 4 TTI •almlc a n.e M, w ma .,vn.-_- ay..esi°t» 'i^ � ,� � _ @ 111 � � -- �°.¢ w �ae�n� �..asuem�zN a'artle..•"'•.m �:e wwi'vwiaw."u:els�..`w.e. I'�a m A/ mrA I m � I`B �� � I � 8 . `•� nay.-w.w' ` � �. - �v.-saxsz- )�i � I I t'b � < i xw rw..,i,: r'm.,. uw�w.�w.u...a w �.f �r a u. ww.�we _� +�I eLa' I' 3 %war Iz xmar o wm. aw Su ( n •m`a <:: R: , m o raa•R• ova N I-I(p b ->k .# _ u ryN +N I P I I STATEMENTro a POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS: UP a I w ' # @ Rxr ,ne,wE b • ; I I , (y�{I`'x" �9- I f •.,; •. ' "° ry a•a �, sauru `atNr a .lam"wa 1 @ s x,rcm 5.,wl m V B3`E u¢a mwsmus '�arsywa,a a ,w� © liwaouua rp .•s 1 < yr t ® wEmm PEa_ NSN aw Ne:;, : -""* � �' � ;:� �- '•' �-o �.` � �' R`�� a aaaaop vox m aoa w �rt aunrvw - •• __.r, wrzaouxcz 1 @ 9 N 89]31'30- W @318.01 saL T `. -Eaw,w m a-Mrzlas= uo.''Irwu .-: st cmu[ ea er li,u 1u - a11N 1 A Ir.Inl -)I A �l l II 1 A [:I- BID rLe�'� %L_LINNn l I\InL_ L -V VL_L_`V ru \v _�-:�•�•_ -- — �b------,---"-----_ VICINITY MAP �rn d♦ v 13 �• ea R �I wr •a � -T ro SCAIc N SCALE I INCH= 10 FEET REVISIONS Ie y Pei my 1- bm •. y. waa m Pre d 5y roe o aaa.r ary dv-euPwrlaivn one -I 1 Ra0lete It - t L otl o1 un r IM lava o! le. Slvle Mm Ninne o BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY For: FRAUENSHU11 COMPANIES BLOOMINGTON SITE: 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD EDINA, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY HARRY S. JOHNSON CO., INC. LAND SURVEYORS 6065 Lyndole Avenue South Slooptautoa, MN. 550.7] Tale. 6524845541 Fox 9542d64d394 .n•1•uwyP wm 1-- 1OFi '^---•'� GENERAL NOTES: �. ,.. b- •wNab-LEGEND LEGEND n, • Propsly Nonumenl cw,N.I. m � v • 1 aaa b nes •wvwnv evn uw�°iwq r.r rrmnN. o�� r wwrer em.,.lw• .ImN m. ar•Nlm •.we-�-e.., ---- — — Vneerg wntl LNro ne • m wmum I— one a kw.,. ,uw %w +Vn°Wm a ww N aZ,a° aelaw. un —_ _— � � EpwrunlcsN�° rww••aw�M me...e.1.a � Im,w, e'0'mv�nw�kwwN✓iwun Hess 1�"ai .b �v i�mri wa eees e' nw.e. aeon v rw.we o m IK I. „�oN^rNNw• m.w w' NI. wen •we ... esu .m. e,..•. ® o ,vN ware .rm•.. -�Ne _ .Ie N ame•,ewml.�Iwa m ay TN<pevne Bared m• pW4e au u. m•. -me .eny uiv,.eilar kv A. Hary wlwiml m S _mo Pm , Ib.9 :boa p MS w„eww 4 Drmume^,Tr.l. I-- ztl•!ur lexx e'*,b�(.•4••a .wam.a... aa NuW. v. e .w•rrwvl zMwyZarub.sP•)l•.Iu�Il••ynai. x•`. el.,ma uem.... mma uer u mea _ _ _._ x gSi Rao EaNmv t.mwr ei E0n�, Sp•t FE -11. DUIIw ,auaro• •��•ar••. p•'Iv:lxa Gme uv'wv• •a�(111)l51)34 y. 20 to O 2 40 60R' (..s °•mw, oa sv a SCALE IN FEET EN.wNe • uvn N SCALE I INCH= 10 FEET REVISIONS Ie y Pei my 1- bm •. y. waa m Pre d 5y roe o aaa.r ary dv-euPwrlaivn one -I 1 Ra0lete It - t L otl o1 un r IM lava o! le. Slvle Mm Ninne o BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY For: FRAUENSHU11 COMPANIES BLOOMINGTON SITE: 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD EDINA, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY HARRY S. JOHNSON CO., INC. LAND SURVEYORS 6065 Lyndole Avenue South Slooptautoa, MN. 550.7] Tale. 6524845541 Fox 9542d64d394 .n•1•uwyP wm 1-- 1OFi imp A�mnn�„Krop<nHUI 9 „my Apm=�3oTm��>oao=z�gA= isms€m 'mgm= _ �msm>aR ^mam��z ow=ani Dc aTmna� o^oA �Zioz^ AO mAoobN�B za„m'" a �m30 A is 3a =A_7i NopF g �o pppp Q yea' �=� <C. ys f�R i < z o p n 44 'c min p fTS `e Amoi i5n >m i fo m Z x�pm nZ of �Iing mF€Q5 z ys^m�a op"m��o -5n2� ZZSn.o�z p jz 0 -AA" ypaboi z> ° 5z io 0 � ANG 0 c i• J w�7�e®®9e®�®®e®4aoeo II�I� ':• cll� 4 , j m M Fie s ;;=sp�oge�sNs a' gag a ; o§ Qz°evR°"ssz -�CJERz log.. og.g�: n 3 9 35L 3. S (� O Q (/J RETAIL oam/�� oaElyNunxr eESlCry sEr ° �°� "° ti Av d" tA0is4Cwt ♦2W WF TO °SHNOFEE D D wrtE sso GfgJ, NYJ1E50iA 5503] 'H 2g� Z � � ° ASSOCIATES u0"yD W ISE Nw560E STAR 952 ➢H: G52.99C.0652 a� 15108 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD.nYn£SO� Ra EDINA, MN x PRELI INARY °"YYOT ° " "- — FOR rzaWrnvmv 11: SPMDRS RFSNRRS MCHMM, INC 5 2 g 5: � 5: 8 56 Z - 22 -x -27, M- 12" 6�4 P 5 8 zo 9�8 z 3S NOH. M i 15; 1 z 55 8 ;N 0 Is 88 N ; 9 - Re > z M i z' I s % 'A g 3B g g - 1 � "� 1 �R MW � 11 � a 8c: z 81� ju > z A� Q 8, 8- z -. Q 9 A5 >03 zg.-. MUM RR;sM2 >8 > z z Ey 5 z > N 0 ;R85 z UM � SPEMDES�M�HTTECrSWC z. z. a > 2 p z> z Z M > > Z z. -2 2 6 5-i *8 0 62- lz q, ig H > . E I f sz 0 7 qIz 22 �p ��MS �5:p p R� -mRgQp' 1>-�6 �61 g6 z§ zj�. zlj j'�'lz 'z >z.? '6 5 ;be, a; S? FPO �FM- -0FA -i- 800 'R .23!� I, �8'i " . lN M.- m�-X*i 2F'> gj". "8 ,G-8 ��i P6� -g !� N '.P >Z > 698 82 M>;M 5-1. VA R-- 4H 6U' 6�- F;2i'M 9088 f6 o 8�8nl� .5 z! z' > q8 P5 52 �6�1�'pjx > !zg Pm 2P5 z. > qq � ; i � 'm 8 np iz 6 > 1 -6 Z i � z 6i 6 z >p Bp P Mz* P, 2 z� �z�� z A 1 a �k A 1, -5 S�? -' z z 0 2�.ffl Z6 �z n r > IzE z� A I z luM 1� l.y �i '8 0 6t z -H 2*1 8- -H IM i -- 0 iI ZM g,.-Rzv N z z H Q I A �Z �E NP" i'l, PH, 1.3 > v 2H z 15 - , g 5 Z 6 �lgg -8 -z 0 PF " .1 �z 91. �Mppz' g� 2 Hgo 'T a et� �E;' Q? '5 z> '0 0 A>" �- 3 9, 4 -�' i �0 3 z. > '��z-1 u5! 8-r 21.2 MOP z_ z M MY >p > 5R ec xfgz' 0 01 ;�p Z"' �23.*�j >6 � A ggoz .. M� ,>'z M12 z > z ;�g N, EH big 7-- [E 5108 RETAIL E I ;i sg m s z 55 40 61O 0N, N- -7 z z z $-Ra- cl EDINA, MN A A MUM RR;sM2 CC) 0 .17 7D - - - - - - - - - - - NAP-Tpn Pni ii P-\/Apn OWNER: STEWARDSHIP PROPER NES IV I EDINA INTERCHANGE CENTER §�U MIU "�MH MPH, A R 01 E z U A QTI�W A Et r C) IF 0 -a- (=D (D 5108 RETAIL �4 DEWN 59 s ASSOCIATES 61O 0N, N- -7 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. $-Ra- EDINA, MN z SPEMDES�M�HTTECrSWC ��{{ Qo O 5108 RETAIL 06 M.201a QCm SU&Mix 04W WEST OIDSH>KWEE ROAD Bi r.�p �rrocWMv+sw surtE rz40 IiE OiAS 37 p a�cEw,� 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD p So,ABI�.��2 www svA�roi SR EDINA, MIN Q nEcisnc.can a p PRELIMINARY p NOT FOR,Ea 631 Ci�N$TRU('.110N ©mss SPERIDE<REINERS,lltCHITECfS, INC W 01 5108 RETAIL 9 _ 5105 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD w ^ vZ r< g z EDINA, MN '�.J e°u i - -<D _--G _---e _--o 65�E u40C WEST OID SH4KOGEE RJAD M.W.ROts Q CRY SUB+NiN 5 440 r, wuS Ct ltE stns[ CH:954'996Po641i-1NE E 5563) Q mu�sa � � iX 954.990.9E63 o VNM�SFMCHRECfS[�C COm a p PRELIMINARY p NOT FOR _ 0-81 Sj CONSTRUCTION o gE�s&efe s>. �� SPERIDES REINERS AECHITECfS, INC v - F 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD SITE PLAN OPTION A 1 -Ra - 11-301=0" FRAUENSHM IN FEBRUARY 24, 2014 I , y im Im 1 n 11 h3'� DATE: July 15, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 5108 Edina Industrial Blvd — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. I. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction standards 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org 3. Developer's agreement will be required for installation of public water fire hydrant and the installation of public sidewalk. Survey 4. See traffic and street comment below. Soils 5. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 6. No comments. Traffic and Street 7. 5' concrete walk on Industrial Blvd and intersection is outside of public road easement. I recommend either vacating existing easement and platting or dedicating new easements to clean up the property record. 8. Commercial entrance should follow standard plate 400 and 410. 9. Consider concrete armoring on northern nose of eastern entrance island near filtration basin. Vehicle tracking in this area is very likely. 10. Split large pedestrian curb ramp on Metro/Edina Industrial into two separate, with raise curb section in between. Sanitary and Water Utilities 11. Show existing utility connections. 12. Relocate hydrant at corner of Metro/Edina Industrial out of sidewalk area, avoid conflict with monument signage. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 mvw.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 A3� Storm Water Utility 13. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District standards. Capacity is available public stormwater system in NMS_5 subwatershed, downstream of project. 14. Consider connecting into city CB 6375 just to the SE of FES B, as it's a shorter run. 15. Provide copies of maintenance agreement for private stormwater systems. 16. A revised SAC unit determination will be required at building permit application. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 17. Provide erosion, sediment control plan that meets provisions of MPCA construction site general permit. Other Agency Coordination 18. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits may be required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 43t We n c k Wenck File #3022-02 July 14, 2014 Traffic Impact Study for 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN Prepared for: CITY OF EDINA FRAUENSHUH Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 A3-7 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...................................................................................2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS..................................................................................................4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................6-1 7.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................2-2 FIGURE2 SITE PLAN............................................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES........................................4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS...........................................5-3 July 2014 3 � �eAWenck 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new retail building located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN. The project site is currently occupied by a single story office building. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps • Edina Industrial Blvd./project access • Metro Blvd./project access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve replacing the existing office use with a new retail building. The site will include 58 parking spaces. Access for the site is provided on both Metro Boulevard and on Edina Industrial Boulevard. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Proposed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit General retail 3,535 SF Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 3,950 SF Coffee shop with drive-thru 2,090 SF SF = square feet The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment project is expected to generate a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. • The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 1-1 July 2014 A31 . Wend< 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new retail building located at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard in Edina, MN. The project site is currently occupied by a single story office building. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps • Edina Industrial Blvd./project access • Metro Blvd./project access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve replacing the existing office use with a new retail building. The site will include 58 parking spaces. Access for the site is provided on both Metro Boulevard and on Edina Industrial Boulevard. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Pronosed Land Uses and Sites Land Use Size Unit General retail 3,535 SF Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 3,950 SF Coffee shop with drive-thru 2,090 SF SF = square feet The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. 2-1 July 2014 � ` Wenck APPF 0 -tedAWenck Engineers - Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN AY FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION t I i I 5 89'31'30" E 3 7 fog& 3 31 o a 58 PARKING SPACES ARBA �f 1 0 �L I� Q 17 10 1 > n_ W � ddb }} P-A o m RAIN i I I I � GARD i i 10,000 SF 0L r OdFICE I REi^ILLLJ i L WI I I I ORDER w V — N 89371.30" w318.01 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD N APPROXIMATE SCALE l 0 45' �D n TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 i� Wench FOR DEVELOPMENT AT Engineers • Scientists 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SITE PLAN IN EDINA, MN 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site currently houses a single story office building. The site is bounded by Metro Boulevard on the west, Edina Industrial Boulevard on the south, and existing office uses on the north and east. Near the site location, Metro Boulevard is a two-lane, two-way street with turn lanes at major intersections. Edina Industrial Boulevard is a five lane, two-way street with turn lanes at major intersections. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Blvd. (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The northbound approach serves as access for an existing retail area. Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane ,and one right turn lane. Metro Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound project access approach. The northbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. Edina Industrial Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the southbound project access approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and two through lanes. The westbound approach provides one through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. 3-1 July 2014 K3 wenck 7 PROJECT SITE A. • 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2016. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: 2014 Existing. Turn movement volumes collected in February 2014 for the MnDOT signal timing project were used for existing conditions. The existing volume information includes trips generated by uses near the project site. • 2016 No -Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.0 percent per year to determine 2016 No -Build volumes. The 2.0 percent per year growth rate was based on both recent growth experienced near the site and expected future growth. • 2016 Build. Trips generated by the existing office building were removed and trips generated by the proposed uses were added to the 2016 No -Build volumes to determine 2016 Build volumes. Trip Generation The expected development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent gross total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. A 10 percent reduction was applied to account for internal trips between the various uses. The resultant net trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Land Uses Land Use ITE Code Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total General retail 820 3,535 SF 2 2 4 6 7 13 136 Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 933 3,950 SF 2 2 4 47 45 92 2545 Coffee shop with drive-thru 937 2,090 SF 107 103 210 40 41 81 1540 Totals I 111 107 218 93 93 186 4221 SF=square feet The a.m. peak hour trip generation for the general retail and fast food restaurants assumes these uses are not open before 9 a.m. This is typical for these types of uses. The trips shown during the a.m. peak hour are for deliveries and employees. 4-1 July 2014 ,SCK Wenck As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed development will add a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The total trips can be categorized in the following two trip types: New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. Pass -By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for new trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 20 percent to/from the north on Metro Boulevard • 30 percent to/from the west on Edina Industrial Boulevard • 15 percent to/from the north on TH 100 west ramps • 33 percent to/from the east on Edina Industrial Boulevard • 2 percent to/from the south on the south frontage road Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. 4-2 July 2014 �� Wench ti M it400/416/425 r '� -/-126 IM U) T� o t d' iT U) Y 132/137/134 Nti Y E--288/300/304 ACCESS ,n 83 '�-394/410/398 rn Y <-- 465/484/490 f- 24/25/25 102/106/114 --t it400/416/425 --� M 11111 -y U) Co Co Co N t PROJECT LOCATION 0 �a 4412 ACCESS g T r in n� y U) 3 Co 0 d' iT m 132/137/134 Z4 ti Co Co v E--288/300/304 1 1 1 _ �- 15116/16 32/33/41 T r 797/829/837 - ii? 27/28/29 -� N Lo to M f0 Wenck Engineers • Scientists PROJECT LOCATION AM PEAK HOUR U Co W U Q x--/-/51 F 883/919/896 -/-120---t EDINA INDUSTRIAL 534/556/543 -_> BLVD. PM PEAK HOUR W U oZ. ` 'C.-4436 .E) 4 1 <- 435/453/444 -1426 EDINA INDUSTRIAL 1292/1344/1317 --9' BLVD. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN As7 61/63/72 - a 419/436/460 -� 75/78/79 2014 2016 NO -BUILD IFF 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX a w y U) 3 r f0 0 r Y oC`r° y IL -4191436/436 CD u) E--456/474/493 1 1 1 _ 93/97/97 61/63/72 - a 419/436/460 -� 75/78/79 2014 2016 NO -BUILD IFF 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES a w U) 0 N 2 F- CD y IL -4191436/436 X271/282/300 J L> - 77180/80 361/3761383 ---t T r 763/815/827 - ii? 27/28/29 -� N Lo �2 r 00 f`) Cl) FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. 5-1 July 2014 ___ Wencl< The LOS results for the study intersections are described below and shown in Figure S. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. Edina Industrial Blvd./Metro Blvd. (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Edina Industrial Blvd./TH 100 west ramps (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Metro Blvd./project access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Edina Industrial Blvd./proiect access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under the 2017 Build scenario, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Overall Traffic Impacts As described above and shown in Figure 5, the project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 5-2 July 2014 �}4°I Wenck aT4413 cn U a a/A!A -ACCESS m a_ Q PROJECT o LOCATION Qd� aam J �A/A/A A/A/A BB/B B/B/B BB/B —7> BBB —;I, a a '- -/-/B 4-113 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX IA. -ACCESS cn U a a Q o PROJECT w UU aUU t—BBB I �-/-(R A(A(A 1 J J, L> E--BB/B E— A/PJA _ +j-- B/B(B C/C/C.. �,...�....� -/_/A EDINA INDUSTRIAL BIB/B m 0 A/A/A -� SVD C/C/C —� A/A/A j 1 4— _t—A/BB B BB C(C/C _ A/A/A. - -/_/A J` EEDIINDA INDUSTRIALBLV `C/C/C C/C(C .---- a a a aaa AWA PM PEAK HOUR 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX IA. -ACCESS a PROJECT w LOCATION U _o t--B/B/BUU m 0 E— B/BB B/BJ8 A/A/A j 1 4— _t—A/BB B BB C _ A/A/A. - -/_/A J` EEDIINDA INDUSTRIALBLV `C/C/C C/C(C .---- a a a aaa AWA CJC/C � u7 ooa .......... . Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN A SO FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment project is expected to generate a net total of 218 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 186 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 6-1 July 2014 . Wenck h� 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets 7-1 July 2014 �' _eAWenck Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 102 400 1 24 465 394 3 22 22 112 9 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prof) 0 3504 0 0 3299 0 0 1740 0 1770 1684 0 Flt Permitted 0.601 0.930 0.988 0.725 Said. Flow (perm) 0 2.127 0 0 3071 0 0 1724 0 1350 1684 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 385 23 16 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 529 0 0 929 0 0 49 0 118 25 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.3 18.3 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 vic Ratio 0.62 0.63 0.08 0.26 0.04 Control Delay 14.2 8.1 9.0 14.6 8.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.2 8A 9.0 14.6 8.8 LOS B A A e A Approach Delay 14.2 8.1 9.0 13.6 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 51 4 21 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 91 25 64 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (Pt) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 2121 3064 1002 777 976 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.05 0.15 0.03 intersection Suihmary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 45.5 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.63 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 V:13022102t2014 am.syn W Synchro 8 Report Page i Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7!812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT OR NBL NBT NBR SBL 'SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 61 419 75 93 456 9 13 23 153 592 68 387 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.412 0.366 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 767 3458 0 682 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1663 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd, Flow (RTOR) 22 2 194 407 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 520 0 98 489 0 14 24 161 623 72 407 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.9 34.1 43.6 35.0 8.4 8.4 8.4 22.9 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.39 0.23 0.36 0.08 0.14 0.50 0.71 0.15 0.58 Control Delay 13.6 22.1 12.0 17.7 38.2 39.0 9.1 35.1 25.1 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.6 22.1 12.0 17.7 38.2 39.0 9.1 35.1 25.1 6.2 LOS B C B B D D A D C A Approach Delay 21.2 16.8 14.7 23.8 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 105 24 77 7 13 0 165 32 0 Queue Length 95th (it) 44 179 m49 127 25 36 . 38 204 60 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 552 1324 480 1373 196 207 348 1106 600 785 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.20 0.36 0.07 0.12 0.46 0.56 0.12 0.52 Intersection;Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vtc Ratio: 0.71 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212014 am.syn r M Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 68: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/8/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WT WBR NBL NBT NBR' SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 106 416 1 25 484 410 3 23 23 117 9 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 0 3504 0 0 3299 0 0 1738 0 1770 1680 0 Fit Permitted 0.585 0.929 0.988 0.724 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 2070 0 0 3068 0 0 1723 0 1349 1680 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sald. Flow (RTOR) 382 24 17 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 551 0 0 967 0 0 51 0 123 26 0 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.8 18.8 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.33 vlc Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.28 0.05 Control Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 15.3 9.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 15.3 9.0 LOS B A A 8 A Approach Delay 14.8 8.4 9.3 14.2 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 55 5 22 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 98 27 69 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity(vph) 2054 3047 991 768 963 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.05 0.16 0.03 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 46.1 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:13022102t2016 am nb.syn A _ T Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 718/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBA WBIL Mf WBR NBL NBT' NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 63 436 78 97 474 9 14 24 159 616 71 403 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.395 0.348 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 736 3458 0 648 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 22 2 194 424 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 541 0 102 508 0 15 25 167 648 75 424 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.2 33.3 42.9 34.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 23.6 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.37 0.48 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 v1c Ratio 0.15 0.42 0.24 0.38 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.72 0.15 0.58 Control Delay 14.0 22.9 12.5 18.2 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.0 22.9 12.5 18.2 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 LOS B C B B D D B C C A Approach Delay 21.9 17.3 15.6 23.5 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 112 25 81 8 13 0 172 33 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 187 m52 132 26 37 42 212 62 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 535 1294 460 1342 196 207 348 1106 600 797 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.22 0.38 0.08 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.13 0.53 lnterseciion Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am nb.syn Synchro 8 Report Page i Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metra Blvd 7/812014 Lane Group EBL E8T EBR 'wi3L WBS' WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2> 0 0 <2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 114 425 1 25 490 398 3 23 23 115 9 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3504 0 0 3306 0 0 1738 0 1770 1647 0 Flt Permitted 0.583 0.928 0.987 0.724 Said. Flow (perm) 0 2063 0 0 3071 0 0 1721 0 1349 1647 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 368 24 31 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 197 721 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.5 16.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 568 0 0 961 0 0 51 0 121 40 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permifted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 19.0 19.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.65 0.09 0.27 0.07 Control Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 15.2 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 15.2 7.6 LOS B A A B A Approach Delay 15.3 8.5 9.3 13.3 Approach LOS B A A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 56 5 22 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 98 27 68 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 117 641 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 2047 3050 987 766 948 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.32 0.05 0.16 0.04 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 46.2 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: 8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am b.syn �1l Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR 'WBL WBT' WBR NOL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 72 460 79 97 493 9 14 24 159 616 71 411 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Sald. Flow (prot) 1770 3461 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.376 0.334 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (perm) 700 3461 0 622 3529 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 21 2 194 433 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 910 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 20.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 567 0 102 528 0 15 25 167 648 75 433 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 18.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.4 33.3 42.6 33.9 8.4 8.4 8.4 23.6 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.37 0.47 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.25 0.40 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.72 0.15 0.59 Control Delay 14.2 23.2 12.7 18.7 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.2 23.2 12.7 18.7 38.2 39.2 10.0 34.7 24.7 6.1 LOS B C B B D D 8 C C A Approach Delay 22.2 17.7 15.6 23.4 Approach LOS C B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 119 25 84 8 13 0 172 33 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 197 m53 139 26 37 42 212 62 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 830 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 259 250 Base Capacity(vph) 522 1295 449 1331 196 207 348 1106 600 803 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Wo Ratio 0.15 0.44 0.23 0.40 0.08 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.13 0.54 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 15 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 am b.syn M Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Metro Blvd & access 7/812014 Movement WBL WBR NBT NM 58L SBT Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 15 26 527 8 15 137 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 27 555 8 16 144 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 174 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 735 559 563 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 735 559 563 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 95 98 cM capacity (veh1h) 381 529 1008 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 43 563 160 Volume Left 16 0 16 Volume Right 27 8 0 cSH 463 1700 1008 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.33 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 1 Control Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:t302210212016 am b with access.syn 6-0 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: W. 77th St & access 7812014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lanes 1 2 2> 0 1> 0 Volume (vehlh) 20 543 896 51 46 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 572 943 54 48 18 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 301 257 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.92 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 997 1298 498 vCi, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 760 875 202 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 81 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 758 259 719 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WI3 2 SB'1 Volume Total 21 286 286 629 368 66 Volume Left 21 0 0 0 0 48 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 54 18 cSH 758 1700 1700 1700 1700 313 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.22 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 20 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 19.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 V:1302210212016 am b with access.syn N� 0 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 718!2014 Lane Group _E8L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL $BT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 i> 0 Volume (vph) 32 797 0 15 288 132 5 3 16 479 6 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3370 0 0 1674 0 1770 1608 0 Flt Permitted 0.919 0.910 0.967 0.741 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3253 0 0 3073 0 0 1636 0 1380 1608 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 85 17 65 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 873 0 0 458 0 0 25 0 504 71 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effcl Green (s) 25.4 25.4 31.6 31.6 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.45 vlc Ratio 0.74 0.39 0.03 0.81 0.09 Control Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 28.3 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 28.3 4.0 LOS C B A C A Approach Delay 25.0 15.6 6.8 25.3 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 60 2 177 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 300 123 14 338 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 1594 1549 1145 961 1140 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.55 0.30 0.02 0.52 0.06 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 69.8 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 VM02210212014 pm.syn W Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale BUM TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S13T SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 361 783 27 77 271 419 18 83 337 269 41 141 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 3522 0 1770 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.231 0.332 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 430 3522 0 618 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 246 160 160 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 866 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 380 852 0 81 726 0 19 87 355 283 43 148 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 94.4 82.5 68.0 60.1 26.2 26.2 26.2 17.4 17.4 17.4 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.63 0.55 0.45 0.40 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 vlc Ratio 0.70 0.44 0.24 0.51 0.06 0.27 0.87 0.71 0.20 0.46 Control Delay 23.7 22.5 13.2 9.4 47.5 53.1 53.4 74.0 61.4 11.2 Queue Delay 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 23.2 13.2 9.4 47.5 53.1 53.4 74.0 61.4 11.2 LOS C C B A D D D E E B Approach Delay 23.4 9.8 53.1 53.2 Approach LOS C A D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 171 260 17 0 16 74 196 139 38 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 307 360 34 289 37 118 300 189 78 55 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 636 1937 342 1435 436 459 511 439 238 342 Starvation Cap Reductn 18 672 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.61 0.67 0.24 0.51 0.04 0.19 0.69 0.64 0.18 0.43 Intersecbon Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum We Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212014 pm.syn Aa Synchrc 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88: W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7!812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 33 829 0 16 300 137 5 3 17 498 6 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 0 3532 0 0 3373 0 0 1673 0 1770 1606 0 Flt Permitted 0.917 0.906 0.969 0.740 Said. Flow (perm) 0 3245 0 0 3062 0 0 1637 0 1378 1606 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 84 18 68 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 908 0 0 477 0 0 26 0 524 74 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.4 26.4 33.2 33.2 33.2 Actuated giC Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 vic Ratio 0.77 0.41 0.03 0.83 0.10 Control Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 30.1 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 30.1 3.9 LOS C B A C A Approach Delay 26.7 16.4 6.5 26.8 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 189 67 2 204 1 Queue Length 951h (ft) 316 129 14 361 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity(vph) 1523 1482 1110 930 1106 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.56 0.07 lntersection-Surrtmary _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.4 Control Type: Acluated-Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 V:13022102120W pm nb.syn 63 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL ' MT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBFT Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 376 815 28 80 282 436 19 86 351 280 43 147 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3522 0 1770 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.206 0.321 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 384 3522 0 598 3217 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 3 248 160 160 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 866 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 396 887 0 84 756 0 20 91 369 295 45 155 Tum Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 92.9 80.9 65.3 57.3 27.2 27.2 27.2 17.8 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.54 0.44 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.47 0.26 0.55 0.06 0.27 0.88 0.72 0.20 0.47 Control Delay 28.8 23.8 14.1 10.3 46.8 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 12.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.9 24.5 14.1 10.3 46.8 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 12.4 LOS C C B B D D E E E B Approach Delay 25.9 10.6 54.3 53.7 Approach LOS C B D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 193 283 17 0 16 77 211 144 40 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 346 378 35 314 38 122 321 196 81 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 616 1903 324 1381 436 459 511 441 239 343 Starvation Cap Reductn 6 639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v1c Ratio 0.65 0.70 0.26 0.55 0.05 0.20 0.72 0.67 0.19 0.45 In(ersedon Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 16 V:t3022102t2016 pm nb.syn 66ik Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 88. W. 77th St & Metro Blvd 7/812014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WIJR NBL 'NOT NBR . SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 <2 0 0 2> 0 0 <1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 41 837 0 16 304 134 5 3 17 489 6 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prof) 0 3532 0 0 3377 0 0 1673 0 1770 1604 0 Fit Permitted 0.906 0.905 0.968 0.740 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3207 0 0 3062 0 0 1635 0 1378 1604 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 79 18 78 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1027 558 176 489 Travel Time (s) 23.3 12.7 4.0 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (°�) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 924 0 0 478 0 0 26 0 515 84 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Penn NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Act Effct Green (s) 26.9 26.9 32.7 32.7 32.7 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.45 vlc Ratio 0.78 0.40 0.03 0.83 0.11 Control Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 30.2 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 30.2 3.8 LOS C B A C A Approach Delay 26.8 16.3 6.6 26.5 Approach LOS C B A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 190 67 2 203 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 325 131 14 350 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 947 478 96 409 Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 Base Capacity (vph) 1503 1477 1107 928 1106 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIc Ratio 0.61 0.32 0.02 0.55 0.08 lntersection Summary -_ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.3 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 pm b.syn W Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St 7/812014 Lane Group EBL E8T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 1 2> 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Volume (vph) 383 827 29 80 300 436 20 86 351 280 43 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 350 0 325 25 75 0 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3522 0 1770 3224 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.195 0.316 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 363 3522 0 589 3224 0 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 232 160 163 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 558 866 689 736 Travel Time (s) 12.7 19.7 15.7 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 403 902 0 84 775 0 21 91 369 295 45 163 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 3 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 75.0 11.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Act Effct Green (s) 92.9 81.0 64.7 56.8 27.2 27.2 27.2 17.8 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.54 0.43 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.47 0.27 0.57 0.07 0.27 0.88 0.72 0.20 0.49 Control Delay 31.3 23.9 14.3 11.5 47.0 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 13.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.3 24.7 14.3 11.5 47.0 52.4 55.2 74.3 61.2 13.4 LOS C C B B D D E E E B Approach Delay 26.7 11.7 54.3 53.4 Approach LOS C B D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 212 290 17 0 17 77 211 144 40 0 Queue Length 951h (ft) 366 386 35 345 40 122 321 196 81 70 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 786 609 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 325 75 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 609 1903 317 1364 436 459 511 441 239 345 Starvation Cap Reductn 6 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.71 0.26 0.57 0.05 0.20 0.72 0.67 0.19 0.47 Intersectiori. Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 20 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vfc Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 V:1302210212016 pm b.syn A► Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Metro Blvd & access 7/612014 Movement . WBL WBR NBT NBR " SBL SBT Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (veh1h) 9 12 174 8 20 560 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 13 183 B 21 589 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 174 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 819 187 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 oonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 619 187 192 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 340 855 1382 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 192 611 Volume Leff 9 0 21 Volume Right 13 8 0 cSH 518 1700 1382 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.11 0.02 Queue Length 95th (fi) 3 0 1 Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS B Intersection 'uummary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 VA302210212016 pm b with access.syn . �0 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: W. 77th St & access 718/2014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lanes 1 2 2> 0 1> 0 Volume (vehlh) 26 1317 444 36 47 10 Sign Control Free Free Slop Grade 0°% 0°% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 1386 467 38 49 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (flls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 301 257 pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 vC, confllcting volume 505 1234 253 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 505 748 253 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free °% 97 81 99 cM capacity (vehm) 1056 266 747 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 27 693 693 312 194 60 Volume Left 27 0 0 0 0 49 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 38 11 cSH 1056 1700 1700 1700 1700 300 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.11 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 18 Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 20.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Va302210212016 pm b with access.syn W Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Council." Therefore, the decision to require a Small Area Pian can be made by the City Council at the Sketch Plan review. Appearing for the Applicant David Anderson, Frauenshuh and Nick Sperides, SRa Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson addressed the Commission and reported their intent is to rezone the property from POD1, (Planned Office District) to PCD2, (Planned Commercial District). Anderson explained this is a sizeable employment area, adding their goal is to repurpose the property1o.better serve neighborhood commercial service demands and the economic viability of the. property. With graphics Anderson pointed out "before" and "after" schematics of the property noting the building is low level. If the Commission and Council are agreeable to repurposing the. property the following changes to the property would include: • Implement an updated landscape plan • Improve and repair the buildin.g'.s:exterior, to include,lighting, awnings and other architectural features • Create a better pedestrian experience by including walkways and outdoor seating areas • Potential for a drive-through option • Reconfigure the parking in keeping with ordinance requirements and • Improved internal vehicle access and circulation Concluding Anderson asked the Commission for their opinion on the sketch plan. Discussion Commissioner Platteter commented that he likes the concept; however, believes this is a hard site to get in and out of. Platteter suggested reconsidering access points (eliminate west entry along Edina Ind. Blvd.) and changing the location of,the proposed drive-through; possibly to the rear. Continuing, Platteter also suggested energizing the corner of Metro Blvd/Edina Inc. Blvd. to be more pedestrian friendly. Concluding, Platteter stated he understands the requested change, adding it would continue the synergy of the areas service component; however, this is a hard site. Mr. Sperides responded that they looked at different scenarios for the drive-through but found out that moving it to the rear wouldn't work because of the three lanes (in, out & Drive-through), circulation and the difficulty in ensuring that the driver is on the proper side. Commissioner Platteter agreed driver placement was an issue, he noted in the Grandview area a drive-through is located between buildings; in the middle. Mr. Sperides added they are open to revisiting drive-through placement, adding they don't know if a drive-through would be part of the equation; however, want that option kept open because it's important to retail. Continuing, Sperides said another point they needed to keep in mind was stacking. Platteter agreed, adding as presented he is unsure if stacking would be adequate. Mr. Page 11 of 15 Sperides pointed out adequate stacking capacity is also very important for the retailer; without adequate stacking the business would suffer too. Chair Staunton commented that it is important to both the Commission and City Council that adequate stackingspace is provided for drive-through window components. Staunton asked the applicant what their vision is for this property. Mr. Anderson said Frauenshuh observed this area was undergoing a change and creating an opportunity to repurpose the property in response to that change would benefit everyone. Anderson said what they do know is that the employment base is there and retail services to ,respond to that base are needed. Continuing, Anderson said the vision is to capture the current activity in a positive manner. Anderson added in his opinion this area has become more of a mixed use area; reiterating the introduction of more retail is good. Commissioner Potts stated in his opinion this area is very challenging and if redeveloped a complete traffic analysis needs to be completed. Planner Aaker responded if a formal application to rezone the property is submitted a traffic analysis is a requirement of -that process. Commissioner Carr said she realizes this is only in,the "sketch plan." phase; however if redeveloped she would like the applicant to pay attention to. aesthetics,;such as lighting, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, etc. to create a more attractive place to visit and view:-: A_ndersori commented the intent would be to revitalize the site. Commissioner Forrest commented that she's not sure'she's on board with the rezoning request. Forrest said she is concerned with parking, vehicle"circulatiowand_ the potential drive-through space. Continuing; Forrest pointed out as previously mentioned by Commissioner Potts that much depends on the outcome of the traffic analysis. Mr. Anderson said the initial thought was to gain Commission and Council input on the proposed rezoning. Anderson said if that support was present it would allow them to prepare a site plan supported by a completed market aci traffic analysis for formal review. Anderson explained that is the reason why the plans presented aren't firm, reiterating they felt the first step was to gain input on the rezoning. A discussion ensued on if the Commission felt extending the PCD zoning designation to this side of the street makes sense. Commissioners expressed the opinion that pedestrian and vehicle safety is of the utmost importance, pointing out the volume of activity is this "neighborhood" is very high. Commissioners also observed that it is difficult to make a decision without the facts; such as tenant mix and how that mix relates to traffic. Page 12 of 15 .�a Commissioner Forrest asked Planner Aaker if the site were rezoned would all uses within the PCD -2 zoning district be allowed. Aaker responded in the affirmative; adding parking requirements need to be met for each use which could limit uses. The discussion continued on the rezoning clarifying without the traffic analysis and knowledge of the uses in the tenant space it is difficult to make an educated decision. Commissioners suggested moving forward keeping in mind how important the relationship is between traffic and use. It was further noted that if it is found that pedestrians do want,to cross the street both ways having these amenities makes sense and would be of benefit to the area and areas users. Mr. Anderson thanked the Commission for their comments, adding they would speak with City staff before submitting the sketch plan to the City Council. B. Reside ial Redevelopment Ordinance - Recap from /eden ncil Meeting Chair Staunton remin ed the Commission of the numerous meeld on residentiia edevelopment and amending the Zoni Ordinance. Staunton said the Commorwarded thei inal draft to the City Council for their July 1 th meeting Staunton stated he aloCommissi ers Forrest and Potts attended that meeting to pres nt the Commission's recommen. Stau on stated after Council action there was concern that th Council didn't understand tht of a Commission on specific issues; mainly building height, 2nd st step elimination and seChair Staunton said in speaking with City ff he felt there was to reiterate to the Council the Commissions intent on one set of.items (#3 P memo)andrefe Commission to the attached statement of intent and graphics. Clarifying Staunton said at their July 16`h meeting the and elimination of the second floor setback; however Staunton added he doesn't want to second guess t 1 however, reiterated he wants to make sure they ndei setback as part of a "bundle" that works simul neously. Sta cil adopted a 30 -foot cap on building height ned to adopt the side yard setback formula. I p and is agreeable with their decision; Commissions intent on side yard ►i referred to the table provided in the Ordinance amendment on side yard setbac and wondered if the unci) thought this table was too cumbersome. Staunton said the goal of a Commission was also to pvide the public with greater clarity in the Ordinance; however, the ouncil may not have felt this was chieved in the Commission's final draft. Staunton told the Commission would be forwarding his statement along wit he graphics provided by Commissioner Potts to th Council before their final reading on the Ordinance a endments at their August 51h meeting. Stau c n asked the Commission for their input on the "statemen ". He acknowledged the statent also recommends that on lots narrower than 75 -feet in width thatthere ffi be at least a total of % of the lot width (with a minimum setback no less than what currently exists). Page 13 of 15 47) Cvf� 6`6011(J I'M( (VIA C A VIII.B. SKETCH ALAN —5801 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD —REVIEWED Assistant Planner Presentation Ms. Aaker presented the sketch plan to re -develop 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard from office uses to retail uses including a drive-through. Currently, the building contained a real estate office, a hair loss treatment center, a telecommunication switching site, and a small vacancy formerly occupied by a builder office/showroom. The applicant, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, would like to repurpose and remodel the existing building with neighborhood retail services. To accommodate the request, the following would be required: 1) A Rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2; and, 2) A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Ms. Aaker reported the subject property was located just west of Highway 100 and across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Uses included a gas station, Burger King, and small retail strip center. North and east of the site were office/light industrial uses. Use of the property would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. This property was located within an area the City designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan stated that within the Potential Areas of Change, a development proposal that involved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning would require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan would rest with the City Council. Ms. Aaker stated staff had noted the following issues for discussion in relation to the sketch plan: 1) Drive- through in front of the building with consideration of moving it to the back of the building; 2) Elimination of the existing western access to Edina Industrial Boulevard, as the access was too close to the intersection; 3) Concern over a lack of parking space for conversion into retail spaces; 4) The parking shortage could further increase if a restaurant use were to go into the site; 5) If the drive-through were to be moved to the back there might not be adequate area for two-way circulation; and, 6) Office land uses to the north and west. Ms. Aaker stated the Planning Commission considered the sketch plan proposal and generally believed that the use was appropriate as long as adequate parking was provided. The Council discussed sidewalks and connectivity, parking, pervious surface requirements, and stacking in relation to the sketch plan. Proponent Presentation David Anderson, Frauenshuh, stated the intent was to re-energize this corner of the City. Mr. Anderson discussed that in relation to parking, some of the retail uses on the site might be serving pedestrians, which would reduce the parking demand, that the drive-through proposed on the site offers flow, and that there was also the potential to reduce the square footage of the building to lower parking requirements. The proponent was aware of the discussion on stacking in relation to the site. The Council discussed landscaping with Mr. Anderson, and encouraged engaging the public from the curb area to the building. The importance of connectivity and safe pedestrian crossing, including a buffer between the sidewalk and street, and squaring off the corner to slow traffic down was discussed. The Council requested review of the zoning options for potential uses and to ensure the required parking was provided. Council support was expressed for a neighborhood retail use in the area under the category of Planned Commercial. A drive-through on the site was discouraged. The Council agreed that a Small Area Plan should not be necessary for the sketch plan as presented. VIII. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2bl P ADOPTED —ACCEPTING Mayor Hovland explained that in oTtIgr to comply ywith- adopted by Resolution and approved u v foorable Page 8 V 1OUS DONATIONS -ADOPTED tate Statutes; all donations to the City must be votes of the Council accepting the donations. 47� Discussion Commissioner Platteter noted that previously the City Council indicated a small area plan was not required for this redevelopment, adding he wonders if that decision would change if this was split into two lots. Planner Teague said the Council as they did with the previous sketch plan would decide if this proposal met the threshold to initiate a small area plan. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson told the Commission the property consists of 1.3 acres with an existing one-story multi - tenant building. Anderson said in July 2013 they appeared before the Commission with a renovation concept of all retail. The Commission found the retail aspect acceptable, but had certain circulation and parking concerns. Continuing, Anderson explained the proposal before the Commission is a two - building redevelopment. The existing building would be removed and two new buildings would be constructed in phases depending on the timing of tenant occupancy. Discussion Commissioner Forrest stated she likes the new plan; however is a little.disappointed that once again the buildings are in a sea of asphalt. Forrest suggested that if the applicant proceeds with a formal application they need work on creating a more pedestrian friendly attractive area. Commissioner Schroeder said as proposed the site doesn't appear to be pedestrian oriented. He said he also feels the landscaping doesn't meet the goal the Commission has set for redevelopment. Continuing, Schroeder also commented that he has concern with the directional flow of the proposed drive-through. Concluding, Schroeder said if the trend in this area is redevelopment one parcel at a time this may be a good time to consider a small area plan. Developing on a lot to lot basis doesn't create cohesiveness. Commissioner Potts agreed with previous comments and added the site as presented appears over parked and in his opinion minor changes could occur to better address pedestrian access and introduce more green space on the site. Concluding, Potts also suggested that the development team take another look at the location of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Carr indicated she liked the concept of two different buildings; however believes the building(s) should be moved farther forward, adding additional green space and parking to the rear. Mr. Anderson responded that their goal this evening was to get feedback on the two building retail concept. He added they are considering incorporating wider sidewalks and an enhanced plaza seating area, creating a more pedestrian feel to the development. Page 10 of 14 P Commissioner Grabiel added that he supports the idea of retail in this location; adding, it's needed. Continuing, Grabiel pointed one the City needs to be careful in their attempts to bring buildings to the street because in his opinion it hasn't always been successful. Commissioner Platteter said he too agrees that the site may be over -parked; adding another concern he has is with the drive-through circulation. Continuing, Platteter stated he was a bit disappointed with the layout of the site adding in his opinion both options; pedestrian friendliness, reduced parking with more landscaping could be accomplished. He concluded that the goal of this development should be to provide options for the public; walkers, vehicles, everyone. Nick Sperides responded that they considered other options for the drive-through facility acknowledging the difficulty of a drive-through. Continuing, Sperides said that the drive-through set up was designed as presented because most of the traffic flow is off Edina Industrial Boulevard. He acknowledged the path to the drive-through is circuitous, adding he was willing to take another look at it. Concluding, Sperides said the goal was to develop a high quality neighborhood retail service area. He stated they would review the circulation patterns and adjust as needed. Commissioner Grabiel questioned if the drive-through was really needed. Commissioner Scherer commented that she was disappointed there wasn't a safer route to get from the sidewalk to the proposed coffee shop Chair Platteter suggested that the development team visit the site and create a "mock-up" with cones to ensure that the drive-through flow works safely. Concluding Platteter thanked the applicants and noted the direction moving forward should be to address traffic circulation, especially as it relates to the drive- through, ensure safe pedestrian access, reduce parking, add landscaping and create more common space. Planner Presentation Planner Teague addressed the Cc area) to tear down the existing o the north end. Teague explained would be needed from POIDXaOt MN plained this is another Sketch Plan proposal (same and built a new retail office building with drive-through on ant proceeds to accommodate the request a rezoning District 1, to either PCD -2, Planned Commercial District - 2 or PUD, Planned U . evelopme t. Teague nsimilar to the re i pe �erty is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a "Potential Area of Change. Teagu reiteri ted and noted that the City Council did not recommend a Small Area Plan as part of the recent Sketch Plan of the site to the east. Page 11 of 14 ,ft7( Council conce was expressed about the appropriateness of retail use and a driv ugh (which resulted in reduced parkin in this location. Mr. Dovolis agreed this was a y gateway location with good visibility from the hig ay, which attracted retailers. He explai at surface parking was proposed due to the high water table d high cost to construct a bui . g on stilts. Mr. Dovolis described the formal shared parking arrangemen nd mixed uses that ght include retail and office. The drive-thru on the north side could be used by a dwich sho enant. He stated support for rezoning to POD as it had yielded a quality building/developme at and France. The Council asked questio Attorney Knbtspn and Engineer Bintner related to the shared parking arrangement or proo parking, should the adja t use change in the future. Mr. Knutson advised if that occurred, i ould be an issue between the tenant property owner. To assure adequate parking, Mr. Teagu uggested addressing specific uses and eliminat uses (i.e., restaurants) that would drive need parking. The Council supported staff interaction with M /DOT to address points of access. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED —5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the sketch plan proposal of Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group to tear down the existing 12,196 square foot structure at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, build two new buildings totaling 9,450 square feet, and change the use from office to retail including a drive-thru. He described the uses of the existing building. It was noted that to accommodate this request, it would require a rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -1 to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2; and, a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Teague advised that the Planning Commission considered this sketch plan proposal at its February 12, 2014, meeting and expressed concern related to site circulation. Proponent Presentation David Anderson, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, 7101 W 78`h Street, Suite, Minneapolis, described site elements, adjusted points of access, and refinements made to the sketch plan to address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. He stated they have paid attention to parking need and outdoor seating/green space because the focus would be on restaurant and food related users. Mr. Anderson noted this was a small site of 1.3 acres that required small-scale buildings to accommodate site circulation and green space. Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects, 42 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, presented the site plan and reviewed the traffic circulation, drive-thru and sidewalk locations, one curb cut, reduced building size by 715 square feet, and more common space. He then presented exterior building materials, noting the similarity to Starbucks and Whole Foods at Centennial Lakes. The Council considered the sketch plan proposal and recommended the following: PUD zoning to create flexibility and coordinated development; relocate entrance/exit away from adjoining curb cut; consider proof of parking options rather than being over parked; enhanced redesign of upper parapet to reduce utilitarian appearance; inclusion of a matching crosswalk at the southwest corner; flipping building locations to ease drive-thru access; bicycle racks at both buildings; moving the buildings closer to the street; additional greenspace including an island with trees and garden; specific storm water plan to accommodate the high water table; modify the vehicle centric design to better accommodate pedestrian access; create sidewalk across the berm to connect with Metro Boulevard sidewalk; provide pedestrian connectivity between the two buildings; and additional planting breaks within the parking lot. With regard to the suggestion to flip the buildings, Mr. Sperides explained it would create conflict in traffic movements and reduce parking capacity. Page 4 1+17