Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-10 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission August 13, 2014 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment' the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered In the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the some Issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Bill Robey/Mike Erickson. 5808 Crescent Terrace, Edina, MN B. Conditional Use Permit. Ted & Amy Carlson. 5516 Knoll Drive, Edina, MN C. Final Rezoning & Final Site Plan with Variances, Frauenshuh; 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Work Plan - 2015 VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance & Council Update IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission September 24, 2014 o e t� .� � +•IYr�Fiff'�""Y� � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein September 10, 2014 B-14-16 Consultant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a front street setback variance from 74.7 feet to 61.5 feet for the construction of a new home located at 5808 Crescent Terrace. Project Description: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Crescent Terrace and Bywood West. The site is 1.02 acres in size and is located in the Rolling Green neighborhood. The proposed new home would have setbacks further from the north side lot line and further back from Crescent Terrace than the existing home. The existing home has a 12 foot side yard setback (north lot line), and the new home would be 18.6 feet. The existing home has a 30 -foot setback to Crescent Terrace, and the proposed home would be setback 61.5 feet. This is the setback where the variance is required. (See attached plans.) INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 110 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property line) and is 44,456 square feet (1.02 acres) in area. The lot is rolling in topography. There are two existing single-family homes on the north and eastern lots, one facing Bywood West and one home facing Crescent Terrace. The Bywood home is located 102.3 feet from the front property line, and the Crescent Terrace home is located 74.7 feet from the front property line. The property owner is requesting to tear down the existing home and build a new home on the property in a location that does not meet the Crescent Terrace front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the average setback of the two abutting homes. The average setback of the two abutting homes is 91 feet. As a corner lot, the property owner may choose the front yard. The appliant has chosen Bywood West as the front street. Cresent Terrace then becomes the side street. However, because the home to the east faces Crescent Terrace, the side street setback becomes a front street setback, and they must match the front street setback of the abutting home, which is 74.7 feet. The Planning Commission is currently analyzing the interpretation of this particular ordinance requirement, but under any interpretation, the proposal needs a variance approved in order to construct in the proposed location. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. There are no major concerns with run off or grading on this lot. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded on all sides by existing single-family homes located in the Rolling Green neighborhood. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 44,456 square, feet. It is a rolling lot with an existing single- family home on the property and a stand of trees on the front of the lot. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to tear down the existing home and construct a new home on the property, but 13.2 feet from the required 74.7 foot setback from Crescent Terrace. The proposed home meets the required front yard setback for Bywood West. The home is approximately 7,000 square feet in size with a large patio and pool area. 2 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Below are factors to weigh in considering this request: 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/side street setback (as determined by the adjacent home). 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The proposed home, as proposed, is located on the far northeastern corner of the property. 4. The proposed home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming lot. The variance is requested to move the home further away from the side lot line to provide more space between the homes and more area for drainage. 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. Given the fact that the home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming location, staff does not believe the variance is justified. There are no 3 City Standard Proposed Front & Side Street - Average of the abutting homes ( 102.3 feet on Bywood 91 feet on Bywood and 74.7 feet and 61.5 on Crescent on Crescent) Terrace Side- 10+ height, (living) 18.6 feet Rear- 25 feet 32 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 35.29 feet from existing Lot Area grade Lot Width 9,000 s.f. or avg, of nbad 44,456 sq. ft 75 feet or avg. of nbad 110 feet Lot coverage 25% 17.5% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Below are factors to weigh in considering this request: 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/side street setback (as determined by the adjacent home). 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The proposed home, as proposed, is located on the far northeastern corner of the property. 4. The proposed home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming lot. The variance is requested to move the home further away from the side lot line to provide more space between the homes and more area for drainage. 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. Given the fact that the home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming location, staff does not believe the variance is justified. There are no 3 conditions unique to the property that poses a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance. 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 that the proposed location of the home is reasonable. The applicant could locate the home on the lot to meet all setback requirements; however, it would move the home much closer to the adjacent lot to the north, and create less area for drainage. The new home would be located further from Crescent Terrace than the existing home, and further from the north lot line than the existing home. The practical difficulty in this instance is the narrow lot combined with the large front street setbacks of the abutting homes, which make the building area minimal compared to the size of the lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The unique circumstances are again the corner lot abutting homes with large front street setbacks. 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 addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested Variance based on the following findings: 4 The proposed location of the house is reasonable. It would be located further away from the north side lot line and Crescent Terrace than the existing home. 2. The applicant could locate the home on the lot to meet all setback requirements; however, it would move the home much closer to the adjacent lot to the north, and create less area for drainage. 3. The practical difficulty in this instance is the narrow lot combined with the large front street setbacks of the abutting homes, which make the building area minimal compared to the size of the lot. 4. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Deadline for a City Decision: October 25, 2014 5 The proposed variance will: The purpose for the variance request is to place the new house on the lot in such a way as to provide adequate storm water drainage and a larger setback to the surrounding residences more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Relive practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. The lot configuration is such that the buildable area for the lot forces a new build to the back North East corner of the lot. This places most of the structure in the back yards to the homes on the North side and East side of the lot. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Since the lot is a corner lot, the setbacks force the home to be in the back corner of the lot. This situation is exacerbated because the adjacent residences are pushed back further from the street than is normally required by City Code. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. We are not asking for any variances from City Code other than to modify the required setbacks in order for the new house to be sited in a way that maintains the spacious nature of the neighborhood. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. The new house location will enhance the overall architecture of the corner lot, and place it on the lot in such a manner as to maintain the Estate character of the neighborhood. It will also alleviate the neighbors' concerns that the house as sited per City Code will impede their views and sense of spaciousness they currently enjoy. m; o' MAI7 Lr1hlE Parcel 29-117-21-24-0019 ID: Owner Name: Parcel 5808 Crescent Ter Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Type: Home- stead: Parcel 1.03 acres Area: 44,679 sq ft INTERWHEH BOUT FVARD I This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no _T representation or warranty expressed or i ' t i F ^ r t Code: COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Hlh(a�t1r, � _ i`- 4 { - _ `lig__ 1� . w rya �a q r• 1.10U t #I Parcel 29-117-21-24-0019 ID: Owner Name: Parcel 5808 Crescent Ter Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Type: Home- stead: Parcel 1.03 acres Area: 44,679 sq ft r. AT -B: Abstract Map Scale: V = 800 ft, N Print Date: 9/5/2014 Market w Total: Tax Total: Sale INTERWHEH BOUT FVARD I This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date: ' purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and i F -W r s W - S •� Code: COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Hlh(a�t1r, _ i`- r. AT -B: Abstract Map Scale: V = 800 ft, N Print Date: 9/5/2014 Market w Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale Code: COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A Think Green! / m �.. 5oR3� 2'.�33oa� 2RN"R qQ 11 !'•. _ x t � IgE +'�- a� '> E. JI r✓, .� \ 3 sa a ate`-; '`,�\ � � '' J\�.� -' 1 c ~ ✓ /, 6�1yy'{�� ' l _� of �� \/ •• \ Ja\` `\ � 11 - � ` � � J� ,J a •' da t .e � ` f � \ \ 1 i 10 � \, � tom• ,�- :�/, �` �� �,� \ ,�t( ����� .\ 31 lif I ;ill �i�yt gg $ sg T g i g3 aapa& n i 3 Ws Z �>: Q4 Z4 PMNEER,, g. ,i., w„,p Certificate of Survey for: a,u^m •--��ya��.� Robev Construction, LLC a 3a^ss a as 119I1a;�°,Im 1 -r�" I Existing Conditions for:PI$NEERengineering WKI 1 Robey Constiuction, LLC 31Z `uogotujsuoD Kagod: Ioj TILid 1OTIUOD UOISOJH OWAL ULTOIS a.� , »�.�.� WuGcaau, ua2I��l�I�Id H!V--1—••ni{!z L ql n t ! l} 3j11 1i�t tl,• i } (''elf ' ]1 itt ]]t !� �±{ :•1� al 's; Sit ! �j'+ �!•1] �!!s' ifi+ i] R' (] Lis it]j'. 3 i,, I till if I l- ]rS 1 liljlij i , ' }' sis]i. i is j�3 'jjl } }° t ,,, 3{ ],{{ j ! t"h t;if J, n ]j i i3•�t'3 ,, t, l ?,ii 3 3 1,. a. , - g, 3 eti ei i 3� !; tjj s )h],1 + !l al, f i f l,j. 3 '.d{� E � i 5 ; 5fi�6 EE a�b�fra _nyn'o vin ve ah c �x�sx�a �p�ay 8.n��5e \ ! ,. b aa; ail p, gSz�e 408�?j8 -r^nnn 9HEM j;r2 5 �gg j g HUN10° j' .iw i Sw a y� \� \� :�\� � �� .�� � �. 2m«®�yds^yam � \�\ ^®°� �� w « �, a �� \§«\ . ».�; y\d as _ �� :w»w:w ^�d=�� \\�� . \ `^�\ ~ .� v\\\\���\ � \� \� »� \\\� _ MWPA rIwV b" dr 10 POMIIJ3 04IN - �ZMl ll m¢ ' ' `�� iii= �� o!j I � I m 1 I I 1 I I rJ I I 1 I I I i 1 I L—_ IIYYSIs•119 aJ to �1i ��TIV IPJ wNwNi7 MMY �! 11M 00840sJ3 941W I � I I I J --------- --J I g ��9�{liilljEf�►�Il _ ��I'I'I°I'i'I� �I'I I�I�91. ..F ' Mika Erickson ISO liw rl Fs 6H•af•Ifll --1 �iI fP T ri'll g ''!I!iii��ji��'1i s�+s.u..r.: o !I �{ , lot soorm"W*" D§ Mike Erickson tr. J rs au -moi DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Ross Bintner PE - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charlie Gerk — Engineer Technician RE: 5808 Crescent Terrace - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and adherence to: • 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) I . A separate permit will be required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: www.minnehahacreek.org/ 2. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.phhp?section=construction standards 3. Separate permits for retaining walls will be bound by the grading and stormwater management plan associated with this permit application. 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. #I. Property lines showing monument locations. (Were any found?) b. #6. Locations and dimensions of all existing buildings/structures on the lot. c. #10. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD-1929) elevations at the following specific locations: d. #10. 1. Each lot corner (existing and proposed). e. #10.4. Lowest point of entry (i.e. door sill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. f. #10.6. Top of wall and bottom of wall elevations at regular intervals for all retaining walls. (Existing and proposed) g. #11. Placement and method of erosion control, including construction entrance location. h. #14. Lot coverage calculations (Storm water plans differ from the calculations on the certificate of survey, also where is existing information?) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Street and Curb Cut 5. Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut. a. Show removal of existing driveway entrance. Sanitary and Water Utilities 6. Show new utility connections. Storm Water Utility 7. The subject site south front yard drains to subwatershed HI -6. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is available. 8. The subject site east front yard drains to subwatershed EI -2. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. 9. The subject site rear yard drains to subwatershed EI -3. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. 10. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: httDS://maps.barr.com/edina/ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 10, article 4 - Demolition Permits And Building Permits For Single And Two Family Dwelling Units (Sec. 10- 110), states: For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. 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 erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden stormwater runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 11. The following comments apply to the storm water management plan: a. No increase in peak rate or volume to private properties in rear lot, EL -3. (Proposed plans and calculations meet this requirement) b. No increase in peak rate to EL -2. (Proposed plans and calculations meet this requirement) Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 12. Engineered plans required for retaining wall greater than 4' in height. Indicate (by -others) on plan and apply for separate permit at that time, or provide engineered plans as part of this application. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein, September 10, 2014 VI.B. Consulting Planner Recommended Action: Approve a conditional use permit with a variance to the eligibility requirements for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new home more than one foot above (1.97 feet total) the existing first floor elevation at the property located at 5516 Knoll Drive. Project Description: Ted Carlson has submitted a conditional use permit on behalf of the property owners to increase the first floor elevation 1.97 feet higher than the current first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 5516 Knoll Drive. A variance is also needed to raise the first floor by more than one foot. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND The current home has a first floor elevation at 954.97 feet above sea level. The proposal is to tear down the house to the existing foundation and re -build on the existing foundation, but increase the basement height by 1'5" feet and increase the floor trusses to 18 inches, for a total of 1.95 feet increase in first floor elevation (95 feet above allowed in code). The existing basement ceiling height is 7'5" feet, and the proposed is 8'10". Eligibility Requirements for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit City Code allows for the issuance of a conditional use permit to increase the first floor elevation of a new home over one foot above the existing home under one of the following circumstances: 1) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, as established by FEMA; 2) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to protect from groundwater intrusion; 3) To elevate the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code, city code, or statutory requirements; Furthermore, a conditional use permit may only be issued if the proposed project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. TO: City of Edina - Staff, Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Amy & Ted Carlson DATE: August 8, 2014 RE: Written Statement — CUP application — 5516 Knoll Drive As 10+ year residents of Edina, we wanted to find a home that would accommodate a growing (hopefully!) family. We suspect this a common theme for applicants. So in fall 2013 we initiated our search and in May 2014 closed on 5516 Knoll Drive. Our request is for an increase in the front elevation change from the allowed 12" to 27". There are three reasons for our CUP application: 1) re -use as much of the existing foundation as possible using low impact remodel techniques 2) fix water drainage concerns affecting the front elevation with a keen eye to stormwater management 3) increase the livability of the home using modern construction standards The existing footprint of the home fits nicely within the lot and neighborhood. With minimal footprint expansion we can maintain the neighborhood aesthetic, adhere to code, and upgrade the home to modern livability standards. We reduce waste by re -using nearly all of the existing foundation. During our inspection and subsequent closing we determined that water had penetrated the front elevation foundation wall. By increasing the front yard grade to direct water away from the home we can alleviate future water concerns. Our engineering team has contacted and confirmed with the 9 -Mile Creek Watershed district that our plan does not require a stormwater management plan, as we are under the required plan thresholds. We also mandated that our design have minimal soil disturbance. The current home is constructed with floor joists and has a 7'4" basement ceiling height. By adding two courses of block to the foundation and installingn� flor trusses we will improve the home to adhere to modern construction vsti r��dards and provide for an 8'10" basement ceiling height. �� During our design process, we set the following goals: the home must fit within the neighborhood aesthetic, addresses water concerns, and allow for re -use of the foundation; with the added benefit of increasing livability. We believe our request meets the requirements for CUP approval: 1) Our plan is not detrimental to public health, safety, morals or general welfare; 2) Our plan will not cause undue traffic hazards, congestion or parking shortages; 3) Our plan will not be injurious to the use & enjoyment, or decrease the value of other property in the vicinity, nor is our plan a nuisance; 4) Our plan will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; 5) Our plan will not create and excessive burden on parks, streets and other public facilities; 6) Our plan conforms to the applications and restrictions of the 9 Mile Creek Watershed district; 7) Our plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you for your consideration. Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of l = A v 3 00 'N"W"04, PAR W LANs i m LOt•tDOPtC�E R RIVE tt� . l.. X't4�Cg15plh+t rSPtE Parcel 31-117-21-12-0038 ID: I I t Parcel 5516 Knoll Dr Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property ;_.EiiANWv0 an,lAtdLi TFLEMARKTFAll LLIIlO4:'W1JOD� Home- !! rJAD ff tiVE5Itifi740ta�OURt, 4 i PINE GRt7VF R0i�D PatiRKWIUOD�'IIOAD11 T i } I} � _ A� a i i I '` ii IDY�U DRIVE O I _ r; - � „' ` ! � 'fir✓ tStwttigil ��! I m �.1 ! Shit tiv ROAD 1 i STAUDER#"CIRC t I i — "s iT5LLELA�E'I, Lt I 77 " ` FIELD WAY ifFFRYZatJ�—� . I ! DOI±RE DRIVE ' a ' , -..� i _ ¢ i r BOUT BISCAYNE FVARD # I BISCAYNE t3OUIrvAR Parcel 1.11 acres Area: 48,347 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: Sale Date: Sale Code: i GRA Map Scale: 1" - 800 ft. N Print Date: 9/5/2014 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 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=469413.91635000147,4972237.988850... 9/5/2014 = A v 3 00 - PAR W LANs LOt•tDOPtC�E R RIVE Parcel 31-117-21-12-0038 ID: Owner Name: Parcel 5516 Knoll Dr Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Residential Type: Home- stead: Parcel 1.11 acres Area: 48,347 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: Sale Date: Sale Code: i GRA Map Scale: 1" - 800 ft. N Print Date: 9/5/2014 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 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=469413.91635000147,4972237.988850... 9/5/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=469413.91635000147,4972237.988850... 9/5/2014 Py ,. •� '::/i=,,•%,'!.ice' l 11iiC '' < '�i %7;+'r.J �;'/ji ; j 1r•' ; y' 4 �' / /;:%1'��i>. - .//', / ma=r, / j j(• 'I "`,,, �;/ �j'jj,//ij�; i:'-'. 'i�3.S: %4!'.�`/ '•r✓ y1' - E`�8 .vy /�� i� ✓ � y till, ( i%�� • :J. . \ � T / Ila Z � r e } 91 _o Z �s GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN Issued Inc.CARLSON RESIDENCE Rdider&.Associaw. rym 5516 KNOLL DRIVE SOUTHtlV"'' CITY OF EDINA Ma. x._ moat rw: ur-nea oio u¢vnr, nc �+eeoiaaro < 2 / d/� 2 2�«%= «�: \\�;� y\��� u� . :� 6� ^� � � }\\\ « e q « : � §d§ :� :\\} y 2�� � \ ® � �� \ / $ _ , »}.����4 - �\>.� �� ���� ������. \\\�<.r« 3�� et «.> y/.-. � : ƒ' / � 3 �f \ \ / , �� \\ ¥ - �� \� .. .. ..x«&a §� \� § . t:- � ®� \\ \ \:, .� .% � � � \: � � % . . �� � � > . \ � /\% §\»\»,�{/ \ ..w f Y,r ,rnr-----°-•oil R Ma I - €$g sp8 �g E g 33g¢E ing$g $ 60 s•Q� �Q3 aos i 'sa z iBS ! 4 N= eF CARLSON RESIDENCE � D.F.P. 5516 KNOM DR _e�[ IIIA PLANNING b DESIGN EDINA, MINNESOTA t i R�� � 1�4e9 i Ilsg� c £ � °R I I• D I I "• I I I Y g9 R! I I 3d _ _— ss•• I 2 „� I � mrtan 4¢?�j 1 •r � r.N F• e F — T rrn ff A I:I 3°11111III zI'w„�nori. uJ ° F , T.=.f.. �s �--�'--I Irl 3•}t. I :. 1 - F � ���L °' _si�q I} �� la. �� I `* 1.15• ��• 117 # II••��-��--yyll Yn s•F�I'g •� ��� C5 FQ 19 s � � Igl �' '� J •X,�I� ea• $� t ��'�� z R, I .I 6 ,.•,w.., I s I I I t ��5�1 I sc�"•i I.. i II �r5 $E• 3 � I I I i I J CRR 1' 1: mN RESIDENCE ®® KNOLL © ?3� _A,a__TA . Igin te€ g P all ";I �gf i€°ti �•i �3l�a t?3 � � � �� R s911111 Fd ! 8 t Si 23 HIM 1st �"tR=�g' z 2a "g� 9 � ppgt ��? pp9y t fB i d" sn t'� €Fg E R t yea 'o €i AN Q$ �t FS �t$ o da tea a c . Ig ?�?S !Ill fi€g s. � I �R 1jiJAINIJ ply j � 1l 1 P 111 -116 f tili IN l_ i Ila- ji asomo 00 o m o 0 0 0® o toot U. 2D 0 on o o noao 2 AF11 ' § �� �sA!i si}`Sg}' its S€�}i�• € f�r� t" tl�� till f�� £ d�{tj# S¢I} $§t�[ i �€,� .�i r t�� ��•�P �����9 ���5 i3 � g; IF I I=1� [_�CAIYILSQN RELLSDIDR ENCE�FPI�l I EDINA. III JJI PLANNINGIS DESIGN AiINNESOTA e? :e � J- M, a Js �� 4 ' an a � as I I=1� [_�CAIYILSQN RELLSDIDR ENCE�FPI�l I EDINA. III JJI PLANNINGIS DESIGN AiINNESOTA v� J sp iPi4 0 0 �Y � �a� E a��g RR �R F G �g �(1C A O • (31 r 4(n 43 at � rn i'i :x D ! s F P A Efl — e �Y8"� r,• IL-7 JaB� �•4 B y ,` Z M (J) MH sgR? i O r •t o --a ! §� I wr � a\auaw /° IIIIIIlI I / � 1111111 Illillll I / 1 � oq L11U 11� �liuly_ _� 11 11 1 1 1111111 / 1111111 Iilllllll i s fL I I P c4S)8 2pp 3 � I a o 1 S Es R� I 3 ff I 1 �a _rn a 'A 91= �a b\�I jd� I I I I I wI� CARLSON RESIDENCE o,. R` � V DFP x 3 *{{ e ' PLANMNG 8 DESIGN �s�w�Y 6616 KNOLL DR .��� - d�• � ., EDINA, MINNESOTA "` �: D's"`.`°" `.°•." °"`�"""`" z ' Ih INVOICE 0. S%¢9 The 0leCa,(.O+ovP.lx. \\ F.E.NO. 1072 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY / �♦ SCALE: I- za umrn."n wV,_ rnww:nn °5 � � LANDSURVEYOR9 /` ♦x�: o sa ' PtO� r p�, .atlE M1f���NG,YSOPSTA� �M1MI0.LIPA �° . SLtrvr�urs C�rrtifirair,�,,, l � .^:� � Zee? ,pry, Existing Conditions Survey For:l ?CD 9.Ab('l CARLSON �`.F� p ..d.oY 5ITe • `� _ ___'>r,.__-: .Inv. ILAN �b. 000.\ �((=))) rlromylmaalaaal.. NO. 5512 Heee.PN Caaop,DPavmn vi.. m. 9•iP�f �\ svv ``oda aaaemvh rwNPexlnmmaa�ae ____ •� �..tiv-Farb¢ �+ia '���� ' (/ "```to"""m. 1 9�$Y ArP,eaaa�• �y +'"C� �5�� r/ardfs✓o ` `� -'t 1 •. PS-.+ .. tvtuea `"`" .ap p•n` - -- �'`r.. _ 4Q329 AY Oaq .°sP•_-„ oie� k. Iva¢ Deet Sr6 ul Rs' (466- 1501 I.-,1 PP mrd - 05 aq kt •""+: •.d ` ., ... l `� � - i Percrnt+ge - .90 .� .�,y�'cSy"� _ avr _ a'` 1 ;��=f'�''j{•�,�\ -�o a'"a :�h 1. `, �I � ^,,k.„`.: :.-,,,_-•. ,.,.:. _{ � �; '-- - =enc pq �� rr cc NO �� •• ```�,` , `�`A `I'\ \\``.�`., `-, `., � tat 1l. HIod15, PAPKO.'OOD 107 '4a4? `�!;`.'`, ,:', +' , ,•�'\'•. � tel`. •� ` ��-_. , Nmaol4 BocRltmtP¢><wEirhl Hemgtln C°aory. ,L.'¢rted,aad �"a. . DATE: August 20, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 5516 Knoll Drive - Special Review of CUP 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 U.se/Planning Concerns I. No comments General 2. A separate permit may be required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.orQ 3. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the building permit application packet. a. #5. Dimensions of front, rear and side yards, proposed and existing. b. #7. Location and dimensions of proposed building/addition/structure, including cantilevers beyond the foundation. c. #8. Side yard and setback dimensions of buildings/structures on adjacent lots. d. #9. Location of all easements as shown on record plats. e. #10.4. Lowest point of entry (i.e. door sill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. (Plan shows a lowering of the LLE by I', how will this be accomplished?) f. #10.6. Top of wall and bottom of wall elevations at regular intervals for all retaining walls. g. #11. Placement and method of erosion control, including construction entrance location. h. #12. Arrows indicating direction of existing and proposed drainage. i. #14. Lot coverage calculations Street and Curb Cut 4. No comments ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Sanitary and Water Utilities S. No comments; Please note if remodel will not use existing utility connections. Storm Water Utility 6. The subject site front yard drains to subwatershed NMN -39. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited, but flows into a public park. 7. The subject site rear yard drains to subwatershed NMN -50. This drainage path is through a rear yard into a landlocked wetland that is volume sensitive. 8. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ and http:/Iedinamn.gov/index.php?section=engineering—water resource 9. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 10, article 4 - Demolition Permits And Building Permits For Single and Two Family Dwelling Units (Sec. 10- 110), states: For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. 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 erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden stormwater runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 10. The following comments apply to the storm water management plan. a. Provide generalized location(s) of NDS FLO-WELL(s) and explain impact to backyard slope OR provide an alternative for alleviating roof drainage down backyard slope. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 11. The following comments apply to the erosion and sediment control plan: a. 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). b. Provide sediment control precautions, including downstream perimeter sediment barrier. i. Is the work area identified truly reasonable for construction activities? c. Identify on the plan the individual responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. d. Describe stockpile locations. e. Describe site access and precautions against undue soil compaction. f. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used in the case of temporary pumped discharge. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 g. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used for concrete washout, and hazardous waste storage and handling. h. Provide inlet protection for all storm sewer inlets downstream of the site within one block or as directed by the City. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague September 10, 2014 VI.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is proposing to tear down an 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 -A7.) 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 A1 -A7 and the applicant narrative and plans on pages A9—A30.) This request has received the following approvals from the City Council: 1. 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 33 and 25 feet. 3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed plans are generally consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan. The applicant has slightly revised the plans per the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Council, including shifting the building back to the north to create more patio space in front of the building. The applicant has not however, provided boulevard trees or additional landscaping along Edina Industrial Boulevard as was requested. The applicant believes that trees and additional landscaping would be difficult to maintain, cause problems for snow storage, and trees would block visibility to the building for the retail tenants. (See attached Preliminary Development Plan on page A8.) The boulevard area is 10 feet wide; therefore, there is adequate area for some tree planting and landscaping. Hennepin County requires trees to be planted six feet back from the curb. Trees could be planted to meet that standard. The city engineer has reviewed the plan and believes the area could be landscaped including trees and still could be maintained. The City of Edina would be responsible for the plowing of snow on this sidewalk in the winter. The following is requested for this final review: Final Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District; and 2. Final Development Plan with Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 to 33 and 25 feet. 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 I, Industrial. Westerly: The old GM Plant currently leased by Filmtec; zoned PID, Planned Industrial and guided Industrial. 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—A4.) 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 A33—A47.) 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 26 overstory trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Elm, Honey Locust, Crabapple, Linden and Aspen. (See page A20.) 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 A23 -A25.) 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 A31 -A32. Conditions include establishing an easement over the sidewalks and enter into a developer's agreement for the installation of public water, fire hydrant and public sidewalk. The grading and drainage plan shows three ponding areas designed for drainage. The plans are subject to review approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 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 A27— A30.) 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 pages A20 and A38.) 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 also shows that additional stacking would line up with the drive -aisle area. (See page A38.) Signage The applicant would be required to meet all signage regulations of the PCD -2, Zoning District, Compliance Table *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 City Council did approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this site and surrounding retail area. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing land uses to the south, which are commercial. The proposed 4 City Standard"(PCD-2) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — Edina Ind. Blvd 35 feet 33 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) 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 City Council did approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this site and surrounding retail area. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing land uses to the south, which are commercial. The proposed 4 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 and Preliminary review, with the exception of providing boulevard trees. A condition of approval could include requiring these trees. (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. Variance — Building Setback (Front Yard Setback from 35 to 33 and 25 feet) Per Section 36-98 of the City Code, 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 Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the small size of the site. A building could be located on the site to meet C all the applicable setback requirements, however, the result would be a building located in the middle of the site with parking lots in front, as demonstrated by the applicant during the sketch plan. The applicant has moved the parking areas to the north and east side of the building, and created green space, sidewalk and seating areas in front, as requested by bot the Planning Commission and City Council. This setback to Edina Industrial Boulevard is now 33 feet, which nearly meets the 35 -foot setback requirement. The Comprehensive Plan encourages buildings to be brought up to engage the street. The following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be met: "Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment." This would be the first building in this area to be brought up to the street. Currently there are no sidewalks on the site. The proposed boulevard style sidewalk would hopefully encourage more pedestrian movement in the area. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are the small size of the property and location as a corner lot. As mentioned above, the building could be moved back to meet required setbacks, however, would create a parking lot in the front. While there are other small corner lots in the PCD -2 Districts, these circumstances are generally unique compared to all PCD -2 District properties. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed new retail building would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Rather it would enhance the area, and encourage pedestrian movement. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the Rezoning to PCD -2 & Front Yard Setback Variance appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PCD -2 is appropriate and the Variances are reasonable for the site for the following reasons: 7 1. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36-216, as noted above, in regard to rezoning property. The project would be consistent with the recently amended 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. 3. As demonstrated above the variance criteria would be met. Staff Recommendation Final Rezoning to PCD -2, and Final Development Plan with Front Street Setback Variances from 35 feet to 33 and 25 feet Recommend that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and Final Development Plan with Variances 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: The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36-216, as noted on Pages 4-7 above, in regard to rezoning property. 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. 3. The variance criteria are met. The proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the small size of the site. A building could be located on the site to meet all the applicable setback requirements, however, the result would be a building located in the middle of the site with parking lots in front. 4. The unique circumstances are the small size of the property and location as a corner lot. The building could be moved back to meet required setbacks, however, would create a parking lot in the front. While there are other small corner lots in the PCD -2 Districts, these circumstances are generally unique compared to all PCD -2 District properties. 5. The following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be met: "Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment." This would be the first building in this area to be brought up to the street. Currently there are no sidewalks on the site. The proposed boulevard style sidewalk will encourage pedestrian movement in the area. 6. The traffic and parking study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped August 20, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped August 20, 2014. • Utility plan date stamped August 20, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped August 20, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped August 20, 2014 • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Additionally, a performance bond, letter - of -credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. Additional landscaping, including deciduous trees shall be planted within the boulevard, subject to review and approval of the city forester and city engineer. 4. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 0 5. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo dated July 15, 2014, including entering into a developer's agreement for construction of utilities and sidewalks. 7. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Dedication of an easement over the proposed sidewalk, subject to approval of the city engineer. , Deadline for a city decision: October 21, 2014 10 t City of Edina '.... ita/ ilrte 1 y axv P r i r 1 !N T , to and 1; � wwMl alva .=.. 1oJt f _ trd�! sattaaMWal4eass100dr .anc Tb t Pd qia tear $Am T1JI `Yr 3 IN# ralmrHanatnkda thmeM bettibcp trM Ifv ft_ /V a7fl"u+. N 4aM.1 t �! GtCk• NJr "M lap also $to enf 644 FJ= LakeHiaroa i 4kat tare El P -m l NtV 1401 AM 1450 1a1 ©Pa1t01s r fa it4 Sfta area slrT $111 7561 7 1M ttra A nr1, tfls Jr rysl Kli alfa tars /Fr1 \ TSN e 1 afla .sags )fsV 1` lith "" frdl>Yq ?NJ iW Talo frol atil arra far 7 Mrs Toa am an�? JIfr ora sail alit its Ilia nr ffff � 4 'r1M. NN Silo pp 1JIJ r0allufsral flrl Fall A9.1 erH a� 1716 180 k6lralt me Mt Mf net Uhf %- am On 37aV Am Ins Fast wolf*JiN LWO RN not fflt fyll fall j u Je Six•,,,,a.f,w5enn ,�....,,,.e. �'� era elfail6l a® t of Edina ent slot slot tacv ►toiotas fm, ov alitNpattt aa *W4%crtcti salt arta afMarol .... t y 's�41 sits N ilia ,� daeha ialattr�sa u; a$aa rarer pom lW1iQeN�blPatiaRaOat ap►i{7omKtdfF.mfFlit�j maa{ssauoanaay nratw�aaraa�wimkxU alai aalhatRmdCuOvebl al't4 ob—iRvablN4tnt aastm+.dtr�e.ee�euel MttVgdMpNdO�a1 fWliLwtlti4RA441 ►0a1(P�readRnabuai a(Wi11on4f�MaoOW� ' MPip�+rlCdtm6u03ipt M$SMtuulReVe�4to'd6l 3rwOgerut'y4ar+pEttwliq taos�amp/owGerl aaaaRtwnat'eree.ataiaar,! WptsrM�bf46st � eiaaroMreonrw � .a�a.••�wata mat E i ® ON.. .. + z ent slot slot tacv ►toiotas fm, ov alitNpattt aa *W4%crtcti salt arta afMarol .... t y 's�41 sits N ilia ,� daeha ialattr�sa u; a$aa rarer pom lW1iQeN�blPatiaRaOat ap►i{7omKtdfF.mfFlit�j maa{ssauoanaay nratw�aaraa�wimkxU alai aalhatRmdCuOvebl al't4 ob—iRvablN4tnt aastm+.dtr�e.ee�euel MttVgdMpNdO�a1 fWliLwtlti4RA441 ►0a1(P�readRnabuai a(Wi11on4f�MaoOW� ' MPip�+rlCdtm6u03ipt M$SMtuulReVe�4to'd6l 3rwOgerut'y4ar+pEttwliq taos�amp/owGerl aaaaRtwnat'eree.ataiaar,! WptsrM�bf46st � eiaaroMreonrw � .a�a.••�wata 43 wl" rdi � _ _ , , �. , � r,<-�� w It c, Ail y» w< � < ' � /z2 , , ' k\ ! �� Mil �„��� :f ixTStlA'.-,� .+w4( � �+ t � � � �� � yJ, �i 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 Hinhilahts 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, outdogr., seating areas and related improvements; • Improved site landscaping including boulevard trees and shrubs and internal lapdscape elements conductive to the retail environment; • Drive-through on the east side of the building, subject to tenant requirem". k • Reconfiguration of parking layout (56 spaces) , <" • 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. 5108 RETAIL 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINAV MN PROJECT TEAM RVAL 15TATM eg-m�vw-ATEASQ& 1101 reT'Mh 5TKWr stm vo SLOOMMOTCK. MH 95494 00WACT, VAVV AWV52*cw PF,OK2cM2)1612598 ARC44=01' ZMGMUT4 4200 OLD SKW.CPM RD StM 220 moommalm, MN 554sl WWAGri- Hr-K9PMW=M w mApicrow PHOWIMW 446-4662 c4ft amomem 7200 K94worK LAW 5urrc sw MNW.%-QLS. MN 99394 ctwAcr; VIM VA -CELL FROM Ow Aq"lm 4063 LYNPAW AYOM "M SLOOMM&TCK MN 59487 O:WACT. THOMAS HOPORM PACHM ("2) 864-5947 SHEET INDEX AO Trnz gHt=r SuRvEr CML SHEETS W-1 MM M& C4*40"ONS CI -2 vemckjroN MAN =-I 9rm FLM ca�.l dMAMS 4 PRAKAff PLM Q5-2 EMONM CONTROL PLM C4-1 Mai" ftm CS -1 VVIL MA" W-1 LA"pec-Amftm Apzmnwtum SHMM Al ftomnm A2 MWAWft 0015 Qs J� G -MESHM GtoFow NS AO nom, 1 ,YJw LEGAL. DESCMPTiON w t 9— *.O.r c a.r a. NOTES CORRESPOWNG TO EASEMEMTS: aer"�. na.am, r ew xw a'u�+,rai i+rremwaaom, x rae rm» K.i�u'MM�4�a*nsa'cu+was.ran Ya apms PMri"«eYn4 n xs: p *MSMpry��y �rwex"w. M�ww �4f �rM1.a.�+4xr� w....w �, xfo.4�amnnx er�4w axwf &-%-=MZ-2 - 9! F»Mi M=. 4nP K{fews am. M�.a w. •".w. t mm Mra�t p xq�. a r. Mir 5SMEAe wIm SiATEMENTOFPOMBLEENCROACI*Wff : •w�«� K".y,.w K.rw..w •irK xw nr.wr+»r GENERALNOTES: LEGEND erp4 4f.nwEW«rYYFU fMMfY�-W •s.w KKr Msi Ms.»da Aw�.l-sW4 :A • +y•K+�..w+tn�YFili�rrnYMwyFwwefY�w�M1 MSI n� �~ w.1ri`M^I.�FMLM�+M�iAa»�1d FfAWM.MM. ,SwIYNlur 33'iwwn wtfr r.�rf��•�My4.4Ww.M bw4+M.w l».t+iwvfhlaf wl/M.ir.e� °w'wa.riR yam", xw.w .K M....r «.t a.rKrr.we.« •""S'"'°'».w.. �YiOr��na�aruArwwa+�Wd Grans tx �w�.Mw+t cr�ie. °"'•n.rw rw. �'"'.r.."'��„'Y�a �r� �` GYMA'�MI.MWs ywr+r�+r.�p.. MwK1M M•+•.i+i+MawkA MiM ww>f1�aR»/141 QO •O iG aa..•. w..�rrwwraa. $C.oUX.- 1 WCH m 38 FEl.7 » -emT Pr— BOUNDARY AND fOPOGRAPHICILL SURVEY Fon MAMNSIMUCOMPAMMS BLOOMINGTON. arae emu Mawrpw, row:ewMo eonu,!��rsm". 14ENNEPW COUNTY rwrva,aaHr�nca.� .AND WAVEYOAS "$3t>"hAxrr6srh ripe. 1.0$9404 I r6 I �_ , 3 Y.�Xwhi�UahYi Mld "^"`°' a.f.wW 0 � ♦fw.a �p 3 r i$ a, >sA�. •� � u�SJr:nvrT Q%1ia iv�s°tcM°A �/Iv'�a 805 ¢�� aKcv+uer.�rt+�er:.vxs s*f�.+a,me..,Nu.+. o«waeuoisso+•wRv.s. a@".'?wiva0°�smo`�"�m. S91Yt�OSSj/ v> 11VAN 8O LSus V cc:e.at•croacs.ms. wn • a I pp Mimi I I mv ��1JI wo www"On sots V W13� 8OL91 9�Z -O- �° 3 Y O J:II'SL�3SIHJUV SlC3.U131I 534IL3d5 >. LL na,i �Q� 'R"T-•• 9 b2IVNIft1138d�' �_ cW EN G 3Wg °z 2W Hr QOM 1173lM°V3LiQ'iS Q,K9'W NW VNI03 o 2 05 oCZw� �151<�<ivy�z cssecxz;ew nn H�CC�r< 3,wa,r�srerr..a�0 rirv:u 'M19lVRLLS(1aNl bN10380LS VV tcrsvio,-�:rrN�L +.>_va N_-11fii a�--.7ressin,e...v�mi �"�c�na�•^nin - S31VI�OSS\/ • 1��M�'iA �':.'L Q>vV.]�9J IIVBL 8015 U U.^.f--z_V.n1SU•.0153'n[�a ISiatNlaH-t i:��i nra�te 9�Z -O- �° U i p l�< i<��j G g tilt �WZ QMH O 9 cW EN G 3Wg °z 2W Hr QOM o 2 05 oCZw� �151<�<ivy�z �3„'� nn H�CC�r< <�[cO0550F����f'`p 1 t l 9 v H D� j [111 'd i`•l 103 s3ca.maa dFsasea;.a a3r,;:c. I 9 1 - u��e`■a"wr� nra�te ■ \ VJ� I WVNU3 IIVEM 80 Ls 01, v-$ to - -4Y 0 d VA 3 0 6E E3 LO 0 d VA 3 a i T i.l.l o� I^�o ao I{- �_..... I y 3 45 gbr.a SALE IM FREE P _ w kTOSINONCON ROgUSn[ rcUEum R1vNVnaFa w a P qxN rw ..I �'"'" ",` 'es,_ �'' � — 2� :�; .y '� " = a♦ •¢ � I w RugR,wrgxn E - +F --4 .� w ww — < ! I exF J i;�`�`Pmo.mum.'una°`Lrt"Iw`l"[w:rFtw°O;"';F'q[v"o'LLo�wrrc"M�,w1ON..n`a�,o�;P""ctlrrxLpP,D,v+YwrD ',- -g=2_ - S, b '_st.>r =k _.. �. � ]2=,-1Pmi � � I I -. r L • r u r e I '�[e "�tl.,,w JJ "@,; 9 � Vis. ,r I aRVM`w`mwuxpnsMr �[DIXaco� mvrsFDrPaxt[nM xrowmKAwPRrcnrznRus. atMwnl sNMl bFpxA CI '� e� � x L++� Y �: w, lg ,yh �M "� I c Dorn utam�Io��iH[c�ausnicl�a.'llw Auo oCilird`nun�Mu[wio Q: t•f � w t <L — '�� 5. e s w'41 P� y' T rcsalx�l uiarL�inrc nL��ionoroscr`H m`riutii a°v w< w 1 UorcsN YRssnnuz[pm'RempsngpANomr[MpwnNAxleDxpxmwaolbw+al, on Muwno > 5 yy .'na ctf Ymnn t+enetNr nssopNne l95xWlnn[pexnWe•wpxo urtxrtw.wonLx. \ w �M 'i5I -j -'r YyAq 2 4^ �y_ oxmxlxu WsiMurroMLiru.¢FUW roto\C[nxn U[nudrnw[pmcgop[gapngx urlN[ � _I I { Z I w � Vnc'roM.eMr11[rtmnlrMYl[ruSn[rxeLV[e[innp,ntMned1WF11ttYsrWlu[p[A1oVlD.INPP[q _ POIURY[tl05UN.\uD SFUIMMI C[wt0.ol O[Mq; oNAMRY Ms.AW RNK[pll[RrUPAIIp. UMMGD. oR �� I IF n.! w� I] mtw<wa+m�ruolclHnsuw[pu�n�flloMa�Pxor%antFwprwnlwxMct�xu, mF coxrw,croa tnr _ M �w,,l `n3 3 mRRox rwcvax rMPLsmoxs rov x`• v L �aurrixxlssAx Rrm u-rocon n n Q1Mi[goMox mxixoLw 1 � O ` �• tv q.an*wlsttwxc r0 �`"b "P, ba' , n`w+Nair'iIn°rnwwc'°nroi[il°f.`/`i's`rwonrs,"simnu"erne"si"`rwa1eitse:�witam c�tc[:AiD-Leala• Ixi `'h � I . l= Z "''Ax°RnPY ;p Mtws.cw+lxpl[PwoxlaoMnLLsluWTlSbrn�LWcsxl wn¢xlnmrmpllr[nlrs. { 51L CYnr�OGi`p ONMPO.\Y[D�rMfS Frt.sUfrKnM tprYrnL"`s1NL`L P[Sr.[rlJlrm mN.ON'roRa I� I ,• I � I ,whv � "Rx W xqF 'xSYI. � 16 V• yw � I � p�[A[r'rM.FRNt pInMWmlP.sgP'q�fpngLipR IHSII�RULO nu[AS 1NnfNLL iORF Ntv[c[lAr[p. I Q S I E I 'Er M ,9 -832- b• x�t 9.r 0� w S I� w rl+o 1 Msm xuLn.wrxQl ucuv[wHxr qoM iM $ wn[UrwfAs.cntcn�`6\5Ww[atslURJ[H[RN1n�KY/[�o pRp�UC[ME R�L�IIMFDInMw �iWOFU O�uror -_ 1 'x'1' 's� � „ n. q rt IH irNimircnm�+. r`aar„K rPq[n xtu. nor routs ,wxrw Uc 1[5 INor [vn P Lp .-!T� �• ❑ ' �832� x+ »I w�4- e n SOnumriH`gN �l[slr[luNu[w uaU w`p N[5Mpg1 50 ooNauttRitnil`'RIWcuLo rErmnbN a[tAt 1upIN `` � - - e}1 •e { F[Kimtv�niL wia�Mi�r"iiiw+tsruts o[nr�mrLn gnuu `J°wca<nmxr. onrsor iMpWc ♦ b ! I [ .rxrornisaLmgREawR wunLmKlrtARro rn[sroaMwmn y� a ""'"'r�¢ � � i F. "«umD"aro"izoao"Nro'iHrv"'lr,smrcn*rongruvnn�[oN•warooLPA+Lun,ew,r,vxo[nnuarwt �M — k ' 4 U'\\ F r cOMR[i[ruitlRPWlF.AR[PR HRII[D w111m11NP tKRKNI OFwnY. wl ,.x .p2�pN ��K•Non w� N°rs �lNpp Iw":nSwN,[v<oYrr I nlMnc , 'w' • '4. .'° n uv/strououtroNusxosvNox tnt,xovnxcpxnm nw woq rm aacwlsrwcts L: {-, $ s f m--�°�/� wb-�.—w=''FPe--� —Me .�� :_mom-�— �� ��� � [ �+,egrnnnanapwNwrprnlr[mcneNrLu wnvox NrorwvrwlK OPwNnnsrpw MwLe EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM® `\\ \ , � "� � ♦ r. wsP[Ci mraralKrlox s.[�n noAaY �s.wD�Nw RN PtP�pR yn aMMNlFvmtor }}} \ \6 \ t �'r bum ♦ nroRtrwwosrrnus Wxtr nxluU. [P cro rs1P1uttocamgm[ •'I \ 9joJY�W— coNorior`K`O xrN GON.sI [rglatv[w. n+[swvPPsrwLL b[Au[xpN \\ EDII'`J,4 INP.USTRIAL BOULEVARDw�w-w-w y �`� `` w'.--L—w—w'-i—w--�r��-m �rT,. � �P, 9 \w.k X00 `♦ wiiwoo `osoiiz` u'a+�x`oom"wa\iiirw..n`iM�r rn°nitrcuo `r'in"i onxxilaortn[umwm \ 5 \\ � � � �L,� IH�i.MMggni[asflDMu. rOC�04.IwItN iM tpsimr.Cuot Pxtw#p.wOH[tMbOxnm �rs�D• LJ IE� o'rl;OP•�L�t` ar`o,,:." .nDOI��L°ni`ua< \ w ♦ B -._ L+ \ /'i 9 B \ �., xYw taurwxsiMiu Fi o. rt11Ks<w �nuMa tSlnn Pnm+x[. our Norptroc[ 1 -t" .0 No+nlaaQON[o \Mtn ru rrcllu`P�`ielr`Fn`uUlMxnrres,tNY bAIIs, FtCtOK[51r[rs ` `` \ \♦ �xu:N]J.Y� I '� '\ s.b.rlMnrrpN bAlIN$MUsrbF rnsrOeru R.lV4la gvwAxp R[MwAl or Itresturwn<,Mm<IwrcP..pAlnwrwuPr.Fwa s[wxgn�cpMPul xD[xogD an "•I�MxNrpRMxDE; azbMprMrt>wl nn N[pm a xxrn� ERISA.. PROVOS[. _ — — IgppanN,Ke.MpoP � --- \.,rt,. PPpR[LrA.px x , nswuLf�nH M N o «rMMgF o o ® ulgL[FwN o ..— snHIARY Yw[P —YM1I— wAr[aM.w! !B OLNCMFuxa LMrRgxtt w[angv -/\.- �� MAMYYSSbtf PDYI[ . • O •• ' 6 coo.a a ` � : El gh ig aZa W J aF5 • fA S �v Q UPI c LUg� � 8 z CID • EROSION CONma PLAN W.•M Trq. IWK1U^.o.P RRCrFDar; VH 0-2 o.•a'suuwonvsuaxu3x sdalaaas a.rw�.��-�� ilBi-�21 p- AZIVN[741T3tidy rm�s�vcv:vsrrm P--"r�., �•"�•w• 0 _ NlN bN;O3 ¢s;.>xaasnw vla3,m 0 'OA181HIZ11S1ONI M103 SOLS a:>sscnasnw n�vsn+nm.,, ��-on�,aa ss.a•,v:ocuoeae �?.��O n�rv� -7 ,I (� ¢�c arssvw;;:_Nko ams S3IVIJOSS\/ 0- Il V �/nU 0o LS 9 \ � �sr:xnmu:.nr_v vww ��❑ 4YW HGa'.hSoa L�.mei. - w wi. i S r W.g Cy S "x so�wy=y gig iz s4 g g oa°�5 3zgY ¢Y p° e° E. q<W C#`T-� �o ;„W yoc 'g s °"< �°� __` 0' � 4�5•. SWb 5 OF ��Mo°a�� � =F �`o,",3¢�'z` �'�so ��¢�k`��i 'Wa `83i�� � �- '°a:s iid eS F & p9- 3€p p 'fru=a"`S.E 3Y d ao. s8 resEprn.. -z oWi>�xp, ` U W.1 io8?3�3o Gia Gaw r�lfJ�:I �`..'IV':'N:_`•c�ilVl h"iJl�� i ni 8�I��z c.• naI -Al MIVAA noo odj v\, i- a — � Ytet EY eou 31i.`'o ni 8�I��z c.• naI -Al MIVAA noo odj v\, �oo 1\ . fiii;k ��c7� sit• els )11 ! P s I [ s I i E i iI o t t ASSOCIATES ,�u°sa,e s,..� r�c;"'•�� a 9£J Rarz$[.•::.Ev rns:.m �xa�Hs�'$•F�°"mc.�cc., jI T t s —S P i -0 4iY�"N „� .��°g',� EPRELIY[NARY :��•�T FOR :e LV ^-��u U�.u.ren. SPEttIDFS Rii[R'ER.SARCHIIECIS,AC m s�'n,< � i t 3 S!6 Pit ��� pit s E }SIS f` � ! t! S1� `\t• q !i itEEf lfl�'I'id� �6 i s I nrfl (� lid q4 E i iI o t t ASSOCIATES ,�u°sa,e s,..� r�c;"'•�� a 9£J Rarz$[.•::.Ev rns:.m �xa�Hs�'$•F�°"mc.�cc., jI T t s —S P i -0 4iY�"N „� .��°g',� EPRELIY[NARY :��•�T FOR :e u ^-��u y T� nrfl (� lid q4 o t O�JYlQK :..ti.P,Vu�oD�,..D�D ay..n[pr-va�ru errca:.v+:s 0 ASSOCIATES ,�u°sa,e s,..� r�c;"'•�� a 9£J Rarz$[.•::.Ev rns:.m �xa�Hs�'$•F�°"mc.�cc., [E � G ED1110, MN -0 4iY�"N „� .��°g',� EPRELIY[NARY :��•�T FOR :e u ^-��u U�.u.ren. SPEttIDFS Rii[R'ER.SARCHIIECIS,AC m s�'n,< � i t 3 S!6 Pit ��� Hill�� nrfl (� lid q4 o 5108 RETAIL 510SE". INDUSTRIAI.BLVD. O�JYlQK :..ti.P,Vu�oD�,..D�D ay..n[pr-va�ru errca:.v+:s 0 ASSOCIATES ,�u°sa,e s,..� r�c;"'•�� a 9£J Rarz$[.•::.Ev rns:.m �xa�Hs�'$•F�°"mc.�cc., ,`..:,,,4_, � G ED1110, MN -0 4iY�"N „� .��°g',� EPRELIY[NARY :��•�T FOR :e (� lid q4 o 5108 RETAIL 510SE". INDUSTRIAI.BLVD. O�JYlQK :..ti.P,Vu�oD�,..D�D ay..n[pr-va�ru errca:.v+:s 0 ASSOCIATES ,�u°sa,e s,..� r�c;"'•�� a 9£J Rarz$[.•::.Ev rns:.m �xa�Hs�'$•F�°"mc.�cc., ,`..:,,,4_, � G ED1110, MN -0 4iY�"N „� .��°g',� EPRELIY[NARY :��•�T FOR :e u ^-��u U�.u.ren. SPEttIDFS Rii[R'ER.SARCHIIECIS,AC m s�'n,< ��� �'CL76SItt]YV.SYs1II39 i26[MIdF �(t + �u•. w:�rmmaaut¢ssa'p *wuaa NW Y?lxt3 uaarrr g�u'ricxQ m¢ 'N1IRMCd1StYN4hKH 6t1tS 7pp uersvvtarrav'Wsttasr.,°a ave a irn $�lY1�OS5�/. V/ v 80 1 IY�U OV 4S us a;wa�rasauuxnaa. '`r`iir:°wa�'°�i °xw. sa + MPHb5 9 r iON x $ a ME 0 G O 6 g & a p bit R f 1 gg tiro aY x l=ay L'[ 1E 1,111 M " II am.I ISI P Y lS b $ F 111 a It 1 X3,11 11 11111 ar flit all IM hl F p Mi x 2 11 1 11101 11 rt€ lit ;.111119 99 G rt P t �a O 6 g & a p bit R f 1 gg tiro aY x l=ay L'[ 1E 1,111 M " II am.I ISI P Y lS b $ F 111 a It 1 X3,11 11 11111 ar flit all IM hl F p Mi x 2 11 1 11101 11 rt€ lit ;.111119 ett W ( _ Fl 4 I I I 1 I 1 i I I I I I , 1 I I I I I I i I I T I I I I I , I I I p�y #� • o 8 - - 5108 RETAIL - 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD ED�NgMN E'+e. >H..IINL p+n'sa -p _ p p _- ' a•t»u in•saucsw PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 41VN3iCN5 •NJ.'£EVYL aancral l.+�•L`o•n s:•3) MY:4W.f aaa ra 5zaewv o ��•� ,ox, < — srewouaFJneasnrtcxlrsas. me 1 _-0 ----s _--8 ---o v iol 0 �L p 9N4N 4YVw6 qDA •)RYD a'�Y VDT f31� p m+' - . - Nasn RE_nS ;"k - - 5108 RETAIL 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINPY MN _-0 ----s _--8 ---o v iol 0 �L p 9N4N 4YVw6 qDA •)RYD a'�Y VDT f31� p m+' - - Nasn RE_nS ;"k - M YSY.W6.SR'R:vES'JTN 55. .;moo DcuzYsssex, -p www_exeEcrzrcon _p p PRELIMINARY - p NOTfOR —la CONS'TRUC110N Qs�imu�m. -'+Srt SPERIDE9 REI\ERS.IRCHITEC�S, IP"C 1'i .a� "MM rnns�s axnmzets roc 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL rroan+E"AWN-081514 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL. BLV RETAIL SOU''ON -OS1514 FRAUENSHUH Commert! ' Estate Group .,r a Illlilf " 111 "` r - . _...:�:.�....x•:��ar.'ta �.: E.. �+..�-'�n.,,c fir• wh SB .Ba-® 'iAlUfl RRIRRRSARC11fIELTR,4YC. 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL WBT H EAST EEVATUM QL&66 FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group oz AftRa. 5 "emm R6dXMIXARQXTLl7S,iXl: VIEW FROM NORTHlNEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL 081514 9 t FRAUENSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group V1 N FROM SOUTHWEST 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD RETAIL '14 FRAUENSHUH Commerc` ' Estate Group m- V15N FROM 50XTHEA5T 5108 EDINA INDUS TIAL BLVD RErw�FRAUENSHUH001514 Commercial Real Estate Groupa, EP6l1�PS AlIXl�S AWIRttIS.IYP. 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. 1. City Standard Plates available here: hM,11edinamngov/index oha?section=construction standards 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek ore 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 wivw.EdinaM N.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 A 3 1 Storm Water Utility 13. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Nine Mile Creels 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 Conti -of 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. MDR MPCA and MCES permits may be, required. ENGiKEBRING DEPARTww 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaW.gov • 952-825-0371 « Fax 952-826-0392 Wenck File #3022-02 July 14, 2014 Traffic Impact Study for 6-1 1; i • • in Edina, MIV 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 A33 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 .........................................................I............ ......................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 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN.................................................................................................1.2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES ............ .................... ........ 4-3 FIGURE S WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS .....„ .................................... 5-3 I July 2014 � ` lick Ott 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 100west 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 Sixes 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 r f��Wet�ck A3 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 e Edina Industrial Bivd./TH 100west ramps • Edina industrial Blvd./project access o 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 forthe 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 Proposed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit General retail 3,535 SF Fast food restaurant without drive-thru 3,950 5F 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 To't •9 t st ~i fy N. q f2S /� St. y 43tn ST. •'� s g C t ST. Y'cop' R s' p, 6ftn ST. a k. �i 65th 4. RIA St. z• -at >r s' J multafm ht. 3LM03" LLr3' !C Tt CAA7 tP$. e. �d t i ' i' %W •t' $ S v. L �• % th S7 K!XftUW LE 2f.4Vdtbt Ut ]tLCMWistt ,t j , 7t. xsthvE 6v 21i.MIA14 a. t L � ht.� tr K7 1 Nip t � $� :dt LA• gA'yy� y Li Y A%0110mv At N. Nth S 4j� p3 % •1 t• '�}DY•e� 2._ 1 T" eY ('E L Loth "S•°� is. TCfth 5 i' �r .Tt't_ . 5T. Qp_ t4kAkOt7p k0. tmAmC 3L RGIF AE. nou YkkAE LPI. vu KS'_El.Tdl ti0•k E'1 �,Lkt 4 034. krocKTEST 3S.%. gird ST. 41"t+'3rt 36.1141 f UL 'S LMS RPDCi b.I d ST. kt ; ATr r Ft`1L. OL Oto. �2r �+�. ¢ 7t. EFRAC . Ib.CMAFE%Pl. �tkiL TkT T 11 4 � 4� c s Af6k0,�tup.6 %1915[45 •'t J � L � P" Jk �L7t d 7d -,a Q k. 74th ST. A& e PROJECT LOCATION Will t. K. 75th R IOWA kILNS� Idl 77m � s1. 11Y B � L90JIt50TA CU'8.tT OR. y� i a'Sit A I th� 1 P+I[LF ' xLFRPCUI ¢ 41.10. t" ¢4' P3„4 at r Gin RST. k`51 i i1 T. ti ST . . S k3td g k •t s!. tts+r � � k. +, 3 to sT tir S roehwiE a St. v. 85th olip, tk y.. 12.1400WRALE tat k:, t SitPk_gAtf �4 wt f4'hSl. s V 5�z k9RTP4tookc64 a afE L1, >r �� g N APPROXIMATE SCALE WON R?,��] lgPTTRr07% Tg Va. Fails, 0� a� tCA RlOGt jtY.4. � Ors Rf.3list ST. !7 94. VJLUY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 1 Menck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 5908 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. PROJECT LOCATION Engineers • Scientists IN EDINA, MN 431 W, '`".. Engineers Scientists _va :.rte 5 89'31'3D' E 3 i .yam �--- - -- --- - - -. -- - 31 58 PARKING SPACES N 17 r JFlCo'Eo/oRENFNL I I I 144'-m' 1 E r r I r I Ir( i I I V 1 I 10 RAIN f c4R n®r f )R MN�7 _0000Q N 89'31`34' W 318.81 �..� EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD N APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 45' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. I.r.E 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 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 Industrlal 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 leftturn 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./prosect 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./proiect access (minorstreet stop sign contro 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 y 1 AJuly 201x44 l -Wenck r-ngineers - Scienfists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. IN EDINA, MN APPROXIMATE SCALE N 0 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 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 MnpOT 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 ITE Land Use Code Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday gaily In Out Total In Out Total Total General retail 820 3,535 SF 2 2 4 6 7 13 136 Fastfood restaurant 933 without drive-thru 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 111 107 218 93 93 1 186 1 SF=square feet The a.m. peak hour trip generation forthe 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 �nWenck 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. e 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: 0 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 0 33 percent to/from the east on Edina industrial Boulevard e 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. 42 July 2014 Wenck ti 1 air rT +--/42F 34 x441, OC! id b a� � H ! ACCESS Awa +-3941410/398 F-46514841490 f- 24125/25 1021106/114 ---+ <1 f ((r 40014161425 t„ iN11 �� t PROJECT LOCATION ACCESS a ,-132/137/134 co c3 v 1288/300/ f- 15/16/16 32/33/41 79718 .. ' -moi r PROJECT LOCATION AM PEAK HOUR rn a iT -1.151 Lj E-88 319 1 9/8 9 8 ./-120-1 EDINAINDUSTRIAL 634!5561543 —> BLVD. PM PEAK HOUR U Q {J �} X435/453/444 q 34 41i2 +19 OC! m o b a� c°Dnmw fG456/4741493 93197/97 PROJECT LOCATION ACCESS a ,-132/137/134 co c3 v 1288/300/ f- 15/16/16 32/33/41 79718 .. ' -moi r PROJECT LOCATION AM PEAK HOUR rn a iT -1.151 Lj E-88 319 1 9/8 9 8 ./-120-1 EDINAINDUSTRIAL 634!5561543 —> BLVD. PM PEAK HOUR U Q {J �} X435/453/444 61/63/72 41914361460 75/78/79 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/X) lXX 10 to -1-126 — t ELV�D. INDUSTRIAL 361/3761383 ---I'12921134411317 --� 78316151827 ---> 27/28/29 —i. 8 1-4191436/436 <-271/282/300 r 77/80/80 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 4 FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR Engineers o Scientists IN EDINA, MN TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES k' r tb O OC! x"9/9/9 c°Dnmw fG456/4741493 93197/97 61/63/72 41914361460 75/78/79 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/X) lXX 10 to -1-126 — t ELV�D. INDUSTRIAL 361/3761383 ---I'12921134411317 --� 78316151827 ---> 27/28/29 —i. 8 1-4191436/436 <-271/282/300 r 77/80/80 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 4 FOR DEVELOPMENTAT 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR Engineers o Scientists IN EDINA, MN TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES k' 5.0 . Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analvsis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Syncbro software. initial analysis was completed using existing geometries 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: m 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 10to 20 seconds. An unsignalized Intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. o Level of service Cdepicts 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 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. o 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 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.lMetro Blvd, (traffic sianal 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 atthis intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Edina industrial Blvd./TN 100 west ramps ttrafficskgrial 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 LOSE or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No Improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Metra Blvd./praiect 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./protect 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. s-2 July 2014 AM PEAK HOUR d-lB PROJECT 4.18 LOCATION fJAlA' +----ACCESS AL_B/B/S Uv F B/BIB T? 44A O as f N WF-AIMA w C ' PROJECT LOCATION! */A EDINAINDUSTRIAL A/A/A BVD. ¢¢� aam UU i ¢UU a �aaA A/A/A BBB �. Lj F -A!AIA ,F— 8lB/f8�'. .)VA/A, C/c%c` •----�-, I S VD INDUSTRIAL walls SUB aaa � aaa A/A/A -3 CC -� ee � Qa N 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD PM PEAK HOUR X XX/XX ACCESS c1clo f�J' C.l�+/C+�...?j c/c/c a� PROJECT LOCATION AL_B/B/S Uv F B/BIB T? 44A f N WF-AIMA C ' AIA/A. '----------�-� */A EDINAINDUSTRIAL A/A/A BVD. F-NB%/B tj � Li — B/B!B _-- C/C!C C/c/C -�� 2ew C!C/C --+ X00 N TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 5 Wenn FOR DA INDUSTRIAL AT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR ' 5108 ED1NA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. Engineers a Scientists IN EDINA, MN LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: o 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. o 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 20}14 ' ' Menck Mr. Bona agreed to do his best, adding he w, to accommoci °tis s .. �serecs, building would be submitted for Cii r VII, REPORTS AND 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 cons responded in the affirmative. Bili Neuendorf addressed the Commission Associates to help create a Pentagon Park motion ie Commissia to know that trees would be removed and driyeway4 however, a landscaping plan and/or list by the Comprehensive Plan works with the City on Tax to specify that the intent of the nsive Plan. Planner Teague the City has h1red Nick Anhoff of Ehlers Commissioner Grabiel moved to dopthe Resolution findg that proposed TIF Pian and modifications to the Redevelop ent P n conforms to the Ineral plans for development and redevelopment of the CiV. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion, All voted aye; motion carried. (Z%j Q\A B. Sketch (Plan Review — 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN Planner. Presentation d• Planner Teague reminded the Commission Frauenshuh presented a redevelopment sketch pian 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 1, 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 [)1 11 1' , ) (u,�,i'�+�� ,4 1' a comprom that may work; however as prevl y mentioned without seeing it it is difficult to design or en on. it was further hat staff conditions (ail) be available for review at the Council level. Concluding, Commissioners nk he 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, Pp&, Platteter, Carr, Forresit,'Staunton. Motion carried. VI. REPORTSAND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Pian Review— Prauenshuh Commercial,Real Estate Group =;5801 Edina industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commissionthey are being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to re -develop 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard from office uses to retail uses including drive-through. Currently the building on the site contains a real estate office, a Flair 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 repyrpose 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. AComprehensive 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/light 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 15 J`tT 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,f6.oetter serve neighborhood commercial service demands and the economic viabilityof 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 repairthe building's;exterior, to include lighting, awnings and other architectural features i;:; a;•..- ; .. • Create a better pedestrian experience'byinc(udIng waI`wTand 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 the(r�opinlon on the sketch plan. Discussion i:r;.: : ,,• 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 changingthe location of.the proposed drive-through; possibly to the rear. Continuing, Platteter also suggested energizing rile corner of Metro Blvd/Edina Inc. Blvd, to be more pedestrian friendly. Concluding, Platteterstated'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 ta'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 atraffic analysis is a requirement of:,that.process. Commissioner Carr said she realizes this is onlyiithe "sketch plan" phase; however if redeveloped she would like the applicant to pay attention to, aesthetics;such as ligfifin_g, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, etc. to create a more attractive place to visit and view.: Anderso_n.commented the intent would be to revitalize the site. Commissioner Forrest commented that she's not sufe'she's on board with the rezoning request, Forrest said she is concerned with parking,.vehicle circulation°and, the potential drive-through space. Continuing;. Forrest.pointed out as previously rrie' rationed 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 an if the Commission felt extendingthe PCD zoning designation to this side ofthe 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 A5 l 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 wlthoutthe traffic analysis and knowledge of the uses in the tenant space It is difffcultto 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, addmg'they would speak with City staff before submitting the sketch plan to the City Council. B. Reside%remlt development Ordinance Recap from City Council MeoNng Chair Stauntoned the Commission of the numerous meetings held on resfde'ntt /edevelopment and amending the Zona Ordinance Staunto said the Commission f/Stau nal draft tothe City Council fortheir July 1 `f' meeting Staunton stated he atorigVwlthForrest and Potts attended that meeting to pres t the Commission`s rel otnrnendationsd after Council action there was concern that th Council didn't understand the intenion on specific Issues; mainly building height, 2"d sibq step elimination andsetbacks, Chair Staunton said in speaking with City ff he felt there was a d to reiterate to the Council the Commissions intent on one set of items (#3' memo) and ref red the Commission to the attached statementaf intent and graphics., Clarifying Staunton said at their July 16t a eeting they �+ cil adopted a 30 -foot cap on building height and eliminatiop of the second floorsetback, however a Ined to adopt the side yard setback formula. Staunton added he doesn't want fia second guess t Coun 'I and is agreeable with their decision; however, reiterated he wants to make sure they nderstood t e Commissions intent on side yard setback as part of a'bundle" that works simul neously. Staunt referred to thetable provided In the Ordinance amendment on side yard setbac and wondered If the until thought this table was too cumbersome. Staunton said the goal of a Commission was also to vide the public with greater clarity in the Ordinance; however, the ouncil may not have felt this was chleved in the Commission's final draft. Staunton told the Commission � would be forwarding his statement along witch he graphics provided by Commissioner Potts to th Council before their final reading on the Ordinance a endments at their August 5u' meeting, Stau n asked the Commission for their input on the "statemen ". He acknowledged the stat ent also recommends that on lots narrower than 75 -feet In width that there beat ieast a total of `6 of the lot width (with a minimum setback no less than what currently exists). Page 13 of 15 Minu din .ity Council/August 20,2013 i Ul fi Moto rr V111.8. SKETCH PLAN-5801EDiNA 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 Compiercial 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. Horth 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; S) 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 thatthe 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 comer 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 Pian should not be necessary for the sketch plan as presented. VlII.G RESRLUTfONN0.2 �S-ADOPTED—Acct PTlNQ V R/ S!)DNATiONS-ADOATED Mayor Hovland explained thr to comply w tate Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved fo orable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Page 8 «- ) 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 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 Piatteter 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. Pe 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 f'resentatlon Planner Teague addressed the Co missio a xplained this is another Sketch Plan proposal (same area) to tear down lite exlst'rng o e b )d g and built a new retail office building with drive-through on the north end. Teague explained . e app cantproceeds to accommodate the request a rezoning would be needed from POD ann d Offic District 1, to either PCD -2, Planned Commercial District - 2 or PUD, Planned U evelopme t. Teague slmilar_to the r erty is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a "Potential Area of Change, Teagu relte�ted ndnoted 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 jj _ A Council conce was expressed aboutthe appropriateness of retail use and a dri ugh (which resulted In reduced parkin In this location. Mr. Dovolis agreed this was a gateway location with good visibility from the hig ay, which attracted retailers. He espial at surface parking was proposed due to the high water table d high cost to construct a bu' ' g on stilts. Mr. Dovolis described the formal shared parking arrangemen nd mixed uses that t include retail and office. The drive-thru on the north side could be used by a dwich sho rant. He stated support for rezoning to POD as it had yielded a quality building/developme a and France. The Council asked questio Attorney Kn on and Engineer Bintner related to the shared parking arrangement or pro parking, should the adja t use change in the future. Mr. Knutson advised if that occurred, t uld be an issue between the tenant property owner. To assure adequate parking, Mr. Teagu uggested addressing specific uses and ell . naM uses (ie., restaurants) that would drive need parking. The Council supported staff Interaction with DOTto address points of access. i/II1.8. SICETCH PiAN 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 5208 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 1N 78`" 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 Refiners 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 buildlrig 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 VII. C. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Variances. Frauenshuh. 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague told the Commission 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. Retail uses to the south include the Shell Gas Station, Burger King, Dairy Queen, and a small retail strip center. North and east of the site are office/light industrial use. Teague explained to accommodate the request, the following would be required: 1. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District -I, 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. Teague further noted 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 Pian & 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. Planner Teague stated staff recommends 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, S 101 Edina Industrial Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard from I, Industrial to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Approval is subject to the following findings: I . 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. Pagel of 6 k I 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. S. The traffic study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project. Continuing, Teague further recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and Preliminary Development Pian to tear down the existing retail building at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard and build a 10,000 square foot retail building as proposed subject to the following findings; I .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. Approval is further subject to the following Conditions; Page 2 of 6 T% I . 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. S. Approval of the requested Front Yard Setback Variances. Appearing for the Applicant Dave Anderson, Frauenshuh and Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson addressed the Commission and gave a brief run-through of the revisions to the plans since their last meeting with the Commission. Discussion Commissioner Platteter commented that the proposed sidewalk going north doesn't appear to connect, and wondered if there was a way to ensure there is a sidewalk connection north. Mr. Anderson responded that connection would be reviewed. Platteter said it makes sense to him to have a connection to the north so people in the offices to the north could walk to the site instead of driving. Commissioner Platteter asked if the transformer would be screened. Mr. Sperides responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forrest asked Mr. Terhaar, Wencic & Associates if he found any issues with traffic flow. Mr. Terhaar responded that for the most part traffic flows well and will continue to work well. He acknowledged there are times when there is back up at left lane ramp; however it does clear rather quickly. Forrest asked if Terhaar believes this "use" would generate more traffic than the present use. Terhaar responded in the affirmative, adding they believe there will be an increase during the PM peak hours. Commissioner Carr complimented the applicant on their design changes and questioned what the proposed exterior stone looks like. Mr. Sperides explained at final review they will be presenting a material that would better highlight the materials and color scheme. Commissioner Platteter asked if there is a bus stop in the area. Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative; however, there is no bus shelter. Commissioner Lee commented that it appears the site will be losing the existing green buffer zone. Commissioner Scherer agreed, adding she also has a concern that the Page 3 of 6 X51 introduction of three overstory trees isn't enough. Commissioner Schroeder said he has an issue with drainage noting off Metro Boulevard there is a low area along the sidewalk that could flood during a heavy rainfall. He added in his opinion it's not a good idea to have people walk to the building through a stream of water. Mr. Sperides agreed, adding he would review the engineering drawings and "take care" of any drainage issues. Pudic Hearing Chair Staunton opened the public hearing; no one was present. Commissioner Carr moved to close the public hearing. Commissioners Piatteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed, Discussion Commissioner Kilberg commented that in his opinion the redevelopment of this site establishes a good precedent. He said with this proposal pedestrians are better served. Kilberg complimented the drive-through redesign, adding in his opinion its much better than at sketch plan. Continuing, Kilberg stated he likes the rain garden feature. In conclusion, Kilberg said he tikes the location of the building instead of having to view a sea of cars. Kilberg said he supports the proof of parking, the improvement to traffic flow and is in favor of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Preliminary Rezoning and Development Plan. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague if the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should include the property to the east. Planner Teague said at this time it would be best to only focus on the subject site. Commissioner Lee commented if the goal of the Commission is to bring new buildings up to the street the Commission should be clearer In what they mean when they suggest that an applicant "pull the building" up to the street. She stated the solution presented is good; however, engaging the street could be better defined. Continuing, Lee said she also likes to see boulevard trees and does have a concern that the existing trees and green buffer would be lost with this redevelopment. Chair Staunton said the intent of "pulling the building" up to the street was to engage the street. Commissioner Schroeder explained that the direction from the Commission to relax the setback of the building from the front street was to create an engaging street front with patio spaces, etc. Schroeder said the Commissions goal was to achieve an active engaging pedestrian friendly experience at front building facades; however, at times achieving that goal was difficult because the applicant(s) may have certain restraints (safety). Page 4 of 6 , Mr. Sperides said they would work toward creating more active patio areas. A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that the corner of Edina Industrial Boulevard/Metro Boulevard is busy; and encouraged the applicant to add more vegetation in that area. The discussion continued focusing on the parking area and public space and ways to better achieve balance. Commissioner Carr suggested that the applicant use pavers in the two patios and other areas because when viewing the site there appears to be a lot of concrete. Mr. Sperides responded that at this time the materials for the hard surface areas haven't been finalized; however, would keep in mind the use of pavers. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with variances based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. Commissioner Schroeder asked if the motion allows for movement flexibility along the north side of the building patio area. Commissioner Lee said she would also like to see additional landscaping added. Chair Staunton suggested adding their issues as an amendment to the motion. Commissioner Schroeder moved to amend the motion to include as an additional condition a reapportionment of the public space on the north side to create more useable space on the south side. Commissioners Platteter and Carr accepted that amendment. Commissioner Lee moved to amend the motion to include as an additional condition the addition of vegetation and trees on the boulevard area. Commissioners Platteter and Carr accepted that motion subject to findings. A brief discussion ensued with Mr. Anderson pointing out with regard to the request for additional plantings on the boulevard there is a concern that tenant Identification and signage could be compromised. Commissioner Lee commented that with careful selection of plantings such as deciduous trees any impact should be minimal. Chair Staunton called for the vote; all voted aye; preliminary rezoning and preliminary development plan approved 7-0. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission 2015 Annual Work Plan A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (See On-going No additional Yes, staff support is Counc attached Zoning Ordinance Work Plan budget requested required for ea Tracker.)The Planning Commission would at this time amem like to complete the following from the list in 2014: 1. Parking regulations/Proof-of-parking 2015 30 Hours 2. Lighting Ordinance 2015 30 Hours 3. Grading & Drainage — work with 2015 30 hours engineering to establish clear regulations B. Policy Recommendations On-going No additional Yes, staff support is Cou 1. Sustainability enforcement/PUD/Ped. budget requested required friendly/affordable housing at this time 2. Tree Ordinance/Landscaping 3. Mid Term Comp. Plan Consideration 4. Monitoring Residential Redevelopment standards & ordinance 5. Density in Southdale area 6. Living Streets — Bringing buildings up to the street C. Commission Liaison 1. Connectivity — Living Streets 2. France Avenue Corridor Planning 3. GranclView NAME I TERM JJ F IM JAI IM JJI 10 IN ID I Work Session Work Session j#of Mtgs-1 Attendante Meetings/Work Sessions Forrest, Arlene 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type "1" under'Work Session" for each attending member. 15 94% Olsen, Jo Ann 2/1/2017 Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. 1 1 1 1 1 Jill 11 1 9 75% Platteter, Michael 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 88% Potts, Ken 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 44% Lee, Susan 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 75% Scherer, Nancy Nyrop 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 63% Schroeder, Michael 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 63% Staunton, Kevin 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 81% Carr, Claudia 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 81% Halva, Taylor 9/1/2014 1 1 111111111.1 1 'ill 1 12 75% Kilberg, Benjamin 9/1/201411 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 75% I I I T I I I I Ill1 100% Hobbs, Steve A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the planning commission. Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under'Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is TheCITyof EDINA Edinet Employee Portal Keep up to date, share ideas and make Edina a great place to work. Timecards Calendar Gallery Staff Directory Edina IOS Tuesday, September 02, 2014 Sept. 2 City Council Meeting Summary Administration department �• f Handbook Safety & Wellness In I III I .: . .. The Council began its evening at 4 p.m. with a work session that was organized to interview the four finalist consulting teams that responded to the City's Request For Information (RFI) for the redevelopment of the City's former Public Works site in the Grandview area. The Council is expected to select a development partner at its Sept. 16 meeting. Following the work session, the City Council met in regular session and made the following decisions: • Set the date for canvassing the municipal election results for 5 p.m. Nov. 7. • Adopted a resolution commending Finance Director John Wallin for his more than 30 years of exemplary service to the City of Edina. • Received a presentation about the urban design improvements that are currently under construction on France Avenue. • Approved $26,300 for the purchase of a new triple -wave slide for Adventure Peak at Edinborough Park. • Approved $18,800 for renovations to the lower level of Adventure Peak, including two new Sit & Spins, two new Skywheels and two new Pogo Hoppers. • Authorized the City's participation in the 2015-2016 Fuel Consortium. • Approved a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis regarding billing for utility services. • Approved $48,436 for the purchase of security cameras and building access card readers from Pro -Tec Design for the new sports dome and outdoor ice rink. * Approved a $94,000 contract with Confluence Group to create a new Park System Master Plan for the City. • Approved a temporary on -sale liquor license for St. Patrick's Catholic Church for their annual Oktoberfest on Sept. 27. • Conducted a public hearing and then approved a request to vacate an unused portion of West 41 st right-of-way. • Conducted a public hearing and then approved a conditional use permit to allow Greg and Nicole Jennings to build a new home on Annaway Drive. • Conducted a public hearing on a request from Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative that would allow them to purchase the current TCF Bank at the corner of Barrie Road and West 66th Street in order to adapt it into a 39 -unit housing project that will be designed for homeless teens and young adults. Following the public hearing, the Council approved the project. • Following the Council meeting, the Council met in its capacity as the Housing & Redevelopment Authority and authorized a purchase agreement for 3944 W. 49 112th St., which formerly housed Hooten Cleaners. Return to list. UPC 0 M IG BIRTHDAYS H 0T LINKS MOST PULAR 1 September 07 City Slick Melissa Buy It, Sell It Police Department Field Updates September 12 Gallery Lindy Important Documents Administration Department Staff Liaison Toolbox September 17 Videos Paul work. Plan Fdinborougft Park 2014 City Of Edina, Minnesota