The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-11-12 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsREGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 12, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. GRANDVIEW UPDATE — Bill Neuendorff V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission October 8, 2014 vi. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new Issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the Interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Sullivan. 4601 Oak Drive, Edina, MN B. Variance. Erickson. 4917 Rolling Green Parkway, Edina, MN C. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to amend the PUD -3 District. 6500 France Avenue for Aurora Investments LLC. D. Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development, & Preliminary Development Plan. 7200 France I.I.C. 7200 France Avenue. VIII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Honey Bee Keeping and Fowl Ordinance. B. Tree Ordinance IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Attendance & Council Update X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS XI. STAFF COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission December 10, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 12, 2014 B-14-20 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 12.7 foot front street setback variance from 18.9 feet to 6.2 feet for the construction of a 2nd floor addition to a house located at 4601 Oak Drive for Thomas and Carolyn Sullivan. Project Description: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Oak Drive and St. Johns Ave. The site is 12,312 Square Feet in size and is located in the Golf Terrace Heights neighborhood. The home is a one story home fronting Oak Drive with a tuck -under garage fronting St. Johns Ave. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks along both street frontages. The existing home over -laps the required setback along St. Johns Ave. The home is located 6.2 feet from the easterly lot line along St. Johns. The required setback as established by the neighbor to the south fronting St. Johns is 18.9 feet. The existing home intrudes into the east side street setback by 12.7 feet. The proposal is to add onto and remodel the existing nonconforming home. The plan includes an extension of the tuck -under garage at the existing nonconforming setback as the current garage. The garage addition does not require a variance since it utilizes the alternate setback standard to allow extensions at the existing nonconforming setback. There is a main floor addition to the back of the home proposed that complies with the required setbacks. The proposed 2nd floor addition requires a variance from setback from St. Johns. The alternate setback standard cannot be applied because it is all new construction proposed above the main floor, so the second floor should be setback 18.9 feet from the easterly lot line. The proposed additions to the home would have the same setbacks as existing from both Oak Drive and St. Johns with the exception of a front porch facing Oak Drive, which can overlap the setback by no more than 80 square feet. (See attached plans.) INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 94 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property line) and is 144 feet in depth. The home sits up above a ponding area located in the rear yard. There are two existing single-family homes on the west and south lots, one facing Oak Drive and one home facing St. Johns Ave. The property owner is requesting to add a second floor to the existing home in a location that does not meet the St. Johns front yard setback. Section 36-439, requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the two abutting homes. As a corner lot, the property owner may choose the front yard. The applicant has chosen Oak Drive as the front street. St Johns then becomes the side street. However, because the home to the south faces St. Johns, the side street setback becomes a front street setback, and they must match the front street setback of the abutting home, which is 18.9 feet. The proposal needs a variance approved in order to construct a second floor addition in the proposed nonconforming location. Engineering Review/Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management 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. 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 relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded on all sides by existing single-family homes and backs up to a pond. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 12, 317 square feet. It backs up to a pond with an existing one story, single-family home with a tuck -under garage on the property. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single -Family District Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District 14 Building Design The proposal is to add onto the existing home to include enlarging the garage in the lower level, a main floor addition to the back of the home and a second floor which requires a variance from street setback. The proposed addition conforms to all of the required setbacks with the exception of the required setback from St. Johns Ave. 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 second floor addition will maintain existing nonconforming setbacks. • Is the proposed variance justified? K3 City Standard Proposed Front & Side Street - 32.1 feet on Oak Drive and 18.9 35.5 on Oak Dr. and feet on St. Johns *6.2 feet on St. Johns 10+ height, (living) 24.9 feet Side- 25 feet 65 feet Rear - Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 30 Ft 26 feet from existing Lot Area grade Lot Width 9,000 s.f. or avg. of nbad 12, 317 sq. ft. 75 feet or avg. of nbad 94 feer Lot depth 120 feet or avg. of nbad 144 feet Lot coverage 25% (3,079.25 sq. ft.) 20.9% (2,570.4 sq. ft.) * 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 second floor addition will maintain existing nonconforming setbacks. • Is the proposed variance justified? K3 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. 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 second floor addition is reasonable. The applicant is "stacking" the second floor above the fist floor at the existing setbacks. Setbacks will remain the same from St. Johns Ave. The practical difficulty in this instance is the front street setbacks of the abutting homes, which make adding onto the existing home difficult when 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 front street setbacks and the nonconforming setbacks of the existing home. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed additions will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed additions will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested Variance based on the following findings: .19 The proposed location of the 2nd floor is reasonable. It will match the existing nonconforming street setback from St. Johns. 2. The applicant could locate the 2nd floor addition to meet all setback requirements; however, it would move the second floor farther west reducing 2nd floor living space and severely altering the plan. 3. The practical difficulty in this instance is the front street setbacks of the abutting homes, which make the building area minimal compared to the size of the lot. 4. The proposed additions will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed additions will complement the existing neighborhood homes and will not alter existing setbacks from St. Johns Ave. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: • The addition must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped, October 21, 2014. • The survey date stamped, October 21, 2014. Deadline for a City Decision: December 21, 2014 5 DATE: November 4, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 4601 Oak Drive - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The existing and proposed drainage plan, as detailed on sheet ST I "Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan", does not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Grading and Drainage Minor grading is proposed, existing and proposed drainage plan does not affect nearby private property. Existing Site Conditions The existing grading allows for drainage away from the home on all sides. On the north side of the home the grading directs the drainage to Oak Drive, the east side of the home drains to St. John Avenue. The west and south sides of the home drain to rear yard, which flows into a small pond that is directly connected to the cities stormwater infrastructure. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed grading changes the existing grading minimally and will mimic existing site conditions. The proposed addition and grading will not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Erosion and Sediment Control No concerns Street and Curb Cut No concerns Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns ENGwmRTNG DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 A, VARIANCE APPLICATION e �rt� • rNCORF AZE9 • O�V 1989 ^ CASE NUMBER DATE 10 L1 01 FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: �hc�-nAS 11�; C:Sn;��"001/N (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 4-90► cx', _�>r G>�*0 a . A SntZy PHONE: CAZ,-:;%z 54Y -Aa EMAIL: �U 1►;vr,.k, rnsr rnr,� t .cont, PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: �4+pvnhs x�+ (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: Wca cacOw- �r �tJir•s.� ynyN J5�12'`k PHONE: �p1Z-��la EsbL((s LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: LAW\ 02-k 2''roti *2v" m'r` PRESENT ZONING:P.I.D.# EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: CS.j 'cyay'1C AV1Gli (Use reverse side o additional page if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: C-pwi 6n a m!m_ PHONE: %1-935 EMAIL: Qa'12H�C�vi•Cor�n SURVEYOR: NAME: arc x% S�n2-� EMAIL::_0\o\c,nc! P Ql:i-C- in PHONE: �5 °� Kris Aaker From: CarIG1244@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 31, 20141:36 PM To: Kris Aaker Cc: tjsullivanmsp@gmail.com Subject: 4601 Oak Hi Kris, The issues as outlined on your correspondence of 10/23/2014 are addresses below: Are there compelling reasons why the 2nd floor can't be shifted to maintain the required setback? A 6.4 foot setback is very close and may be too close for comfort. The garage may be added without a variance, given the alternate setback standard, but a new 2nd floor needs to provide the 18.9 foot street side setback. 1 Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable The practical difficulties of locating the second floor to comply with the present setback requirement is that the addition would not be above the main body of the existing house. To locate the second floor addition to comply would result in an inefficient, non-symetric, plan layout and alter the entire front aesthetic. This can be seen from the existing and proposed front elevation for a cape style house.. Adding the second floor to comply would result in a complete makeover of the plan layout and the existing front of the house. At that point relative to the cost, it would only be reasonable to tear down and rebuild to comply. 2 Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The extraordinary circumstance here relative to other properties is that the location is on a corner lot. On another inboard lot we would be able to add a second floor directly above the main body of the house to accomplish this and stay within the existing cape style. 3 Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The addition would be in harmony with the neighborhood, existing style of house, and the residential zoning ordinance with the exception of the setback requirement. 4 Not alter the essential Character of a Neighborhood The new addition would be in character, and not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The new design would actually enhance the slightly dated existing cape style. The plans and survey need to indicate the correct required setback from the east lot line, which is the setback of the home to the south which I believe is 18.9 feet (not 15 feet as indicated on the plans). Plan will be updated. It would be helpful to submit photos of the existing home so that the Planning Commission can visualize the existing structure vs the proposed. Existing photos are available and can be submitted with updated plan. Will there be any trees removed for the proiect? If so they should be indicated in the plans. No appreciable trees are to be removed. The one tree to be removed has been diagnosed by Rainbow Tree Service as dying. Have you contacted adiacent neighbors about the plans? What are their reactions? Do you have any letters of support? Owner has contacted neighbors outlining the project along with renderings. The overall feedback has been positive and has neighborhood support. Some of the neighbors plan on writing a letter in support or attending the hearing. Carl J. Cramentz, FARA Registered Architect 5048 Clear Spring Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 952.933.4590 Phone 952.933.0684 Fax www.cigarchitecture.com 4601 Oak Drive, Edina Sullivan Home Supplement to Variance Application Supplement to Variance Application for 4601 Oak Drive Edina, MN 55424 4601 Oak Drive, Edina Sullivan Home Supplement to Variance Application Are there compelling reasons why the 2nd floor can't be shifted to maintain the required setback? A 6.4 foot setback is very close and may be too close for comfort. The garage may be added without a variance, given the alternate setback standard, but a new 2nd floor needs to provide the 18.9 foot street side setback. 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable The practical difficulties of locating the second floor to comply with the present setback requirement is that the addition would not be above the main body of the existing house. To locate the second floor addition to comply would result in an inefficient, non-symmetric, plan layout and alter the entire front aesthetic. This can be seen from the existing and proposed front elevation for a cape style house. Adding the second floor to comply would result in a complete makeover of the plan layout and the existing front of the house. At that point relative to the cost, it would only be reasonable to tear down and rebuild to comply. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The extraordinary circumstance here relative to other properties is that the location is on a corner lot. On another inboard lot we would be able to add a second floor directly above the main body of the house to accomplish this and stay within the existing cape style. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The addition would be in harmony with the neighborhood, existing style of house, and the residential zoning ordinance with the exception of the setback requirement. 4. Not alter the essential Character of a Neighborhood The new addition would be in character, and not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The new design would actually enhance the slightly dated existing cape style. The plans and survey need to indicate the correct required setback from the east lot line, which is the setback of the home to the south which I believe, is 18.9 feet, (not 15 feet as indicated on the plans). Plan will be updated. It would be helpful to submit photos of the existing home, so that the Planning commission can visualize the existing structure vs the proposed. Existing photos are available and can be submitted with updated plan. Will there be any trees removed for the project? If so, they should be indicated in the plans. No appreciable trees are to be removed. The one tree to be removed has been diagnosed by Rainbow Tree Service as dying. Sullivan Home Photos of existing home Page 1 of 4 1 Oak Drive, Edina Sullivan Nome Photos of existing home Area of addition on backside of house. NOTE: expansion will not go beyond existing porch. Page 2 of 4 Area of addition. NOTE: expansion mill not go beyond existing porch. Oak ®rive® Eoina Sullivan Home Photos of existing home Page 3 of 4 4601 Oak ®rive, Edina Sullivan Home Photos of existing home East side of house facing Saint John's Ave. Page 4 of 4 Kris Aaker From: Tom Sullivan <tjsullivanmsp@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:15 AM To: Kris Aaker Cc: Carolyn Sullivan Subject: Re: Pictures of 4601 Oak Drive Kris: We have spoken with neighbors and provided them with a description of the plan and a rendering of the plan. The neighbor to our south did express concerns and was curious to know why we had to seek a variance for the project. I had a face to face conversation with him and he came to see why from a structural perspective we were seeking a variance. I must note, that his mother is the home owner and does not currently live there. She lives in Maine and I have not heard directly from her. He expressed some additional concerns over the silver maple in our backyard that I informed him needs to come down despite the project moving forward. He did contact the city to see whether or not we can simply cut down a tree. After letting him know that Rainbow tree service had been out to look at the tree, we was empathetic to us having to remove the tree. I can forward his email to the city to you, in which he expresses his concerns. All other neighbors have been supportive of the project and intent to either write a letter in their support or attend the meeting. Has the city received any additional concerns over the project that we are not aware of? Thank, Tom On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Kris Aaker'<KAakergedinamn.gov> wrote: Dear Tam, Have you spoken with the adjacent neighbors about the project? How did they respond? The Planning Commission is always interested in the neighbor's reaction. Thank you, Kris !Cris Aaker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-04611 Fax 952-826-0389 a ` U 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAakerat7EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Lcarniaig, Raisirig Families e- Doing Business Detailed Application Requirements: Unless waived by the Planning Department, you must complete all of the following items with this application. An incomplete application will not be accepted. Completed and signed application form. ). Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. Seventeen (17) 11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the application. A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." �l Variance requests require scale drawings to explain and document the proposal. The drawings are not required to be prepared by a professional, but must be neat, accurate and drawn to an acceptable scale. The drawings may vary with the proposal, but should include a site plan, floor plans and elevations of the sides of the building which are affected by the variance. Elevation drawings of all new buildings or additions and enlargements to existing buildings including a description of existing and proposed exterior building materials. For single-family home projects elevations drawings must include a rendering of the proposed home AND the existing homes on either side as seen from the street. VARIANCE GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION INFORMATION The City of Edina Planning Department encourages healthy development within the city of Edina. Although this document is meant to serve as a guide for the application process for development through the Planning Department it is by no means comprehensive. The Planning Staff recommend that you schedule a meeting to answer any questions or to discuss issues that may accompany your project. It is much easier to tackle problems early on in the process. The office number for the Planning Staff is (952) 826-0465. Variance Information The Edina Planning Commission has been established to consider exceptions (variances) from the Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36), the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 34), the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 36) and the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment Ordinance (Chapter 26). The variance procedure is a "safety valve" to handle the unusual circumstances that could not be anticipated by these ordinances. The Commission is charged to only grant a petition for a variance if it finds: 1. That strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property 2. That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the or e. 3. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.° "Practical Difficulties" means that: 1. The property in question cannot put to a reasonable use as allowed by trdinap �"a 3 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. Hennepin County Property Interactive Map M■ I nteractive Maps Welcome Results Links Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing m psj Survey documents About the data Find a PID or an address on the map PID:1902824210043 4601 Oak Dr Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: T Sullivan & C Sullivan THOMAS SULLIVAN CAROLYN Taxpayer: SULLIVAN 4601 OAK DR EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0.31 acres Parcel Area: 13,323 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: ' Abstract Golf Terrace Heights Addition: 2nd Addn Lot: ! 001 Block: 1004 Metes & Bounds: Lot 1 And That Part Of Lot 2 Lying E Of A Line Running From A Legend Measure Page 1 of 1 - http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=1902824210043 11/5/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map _r Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map 4601 Oak Dr Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer T Sullivan & C Sullivan THOMAS SULLIVAN CAROLYN SULLIVAN 4601 OAK DR EDINA MN 55424 Tax District '273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: Torrens/Abstract: I Abstract Addition: Golf Terrace Heights 2nd Addn Lot: '001 Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=1902824210043 11/5/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map .-1—j Results Links i Tax information View oblique imanery (Bina mans) Survey documents About the data PID: 1902824210043 4601 Oak Dr Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer T Sullivan & C Owner: Sullivan THOMAS SULLIVAN CAROLYN Taxpayer: SULLIVAN 4601 OAK DR EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel t 0.31 acres Parcel Area: 13,323 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract i Golf Terrace Heights j Addition: 2nd Addn Lot: 001 i Block: 004 j Metes & Bounds: Lot 1 And That Part Of Lot 2 Lying E Of A Line Running From A Legend Measure http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid= 1902824210043 Page 1 of 1 11/5/2014 SITE ADDRESS: 4601 OAK DR. EDINA, MN 55424 EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY FOR: TOM SULLIVAN �w/ PROPOSED ADDITION) Legend OAK DRIVE onnn, r•• '" � — encm • L=72.06 °* M •mm� won C: 72.05 MEAS. a •„ m mss, I ' •D�a y4�.,, TeP X900-� Emtiy Cwlmr Ib u, ;I I ` 1 I �� I M1I I ytJ I `GS. • erulm Yen Me "1 � , en 4 .y � L 2 1 LOT 1 I —2o.DD --a-.-- W .. j IMPE:: ,----- We- Y�=°AF=�17 ME In �,nrata Pele , Iza =F Nmnnn. _ 27= IF.,.. Q e • W Fd°• weld. m I . "tmonrz mi°. e».t m- M• j m �N - (%� '^F FJkek ----------- 1 --- — — u •• ' d - ' lAl Me° 12,317 SF I Imo\ 1 /` r m fl L IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: I I Cause = 1,923 SF ••�• Concrete P.U. less 152 SF NI°wsnce = 275 SF Proposed Adtli[i°n - 372.4 SF Tat°I = 2,570.4 SF 20.9% L-----------� NOTE: Lot Area C°I°eleted to Edge °! Water. ` 'L''• .— } , r � ' STREET e I vo lATIGN- 884.5\ Ci .uLr ao. _3\� --57.45 MEAS. -- 101.08 COMP. I _ I n T 7 ---N88'10'02"W-r- I � I h i. v i S Li E3 v i v v N, ----� I L T T L ' - �/�' - i I I _ L. ,`J n I i � i`. �i ��!!!!!%/�i -------- 167-13 _ I rs ds?e•-name 167-13 131/68 SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET PNOPFAIV OESCRIF-IN: WI ,end I— Ped 0 L 2 V.9 Em! ,f e eENCMUxe: Edi EI"^Ni et° 81-6. NOTE: Ne seamn W°s U° for My Ememml, NOTE: m I..met Imeuen n.le,. a��y e•�y emwm I III. amy Inns — as �, Pbn w d y tang S,nmynr uMn the Iia °I lice 9•re M M�mneta. a W. NAONN"mss�uJx INC. INC omae' os- 4a W. BR,pW{J,Lq II.D' SURVEYING, INC. e°ao "s'..a . '' Na54252° 521 851 iawM9: o.65 ")a as 167-13 sdn: I rrn -ala 7 897.3TC R 897 "= 1 0 896.4TC L==72.06 896 1898.2 C.==72.05 896.4 895.5TC � MEAS. 897 x • - 6g8 .O 898. 898----- ' I 1698.0 898.4 I �Gl �9 897.0 ` I 898.8 I • \\�1 Q� U m X899.1 . I •\ :� p I t1 gr 899 9C,F, ml l� o m a IM ' 899.2 NI J 899.4 93.21' 4" ® m =220.00 8 7.9 x899.4 899. \ m 4 z -B99,8 I I x899.1 900 1 4AD.0 � 900.0 N 899.4 a m 23.0 /15.2 � . x8 7.6 6. 8-2 fi.4 O1 N 0.7 X99 899.9x c _ r` `<.#4601 OAK DR. m 249 898.6. FRONT ENTRY=901.3 _ X 8.0 TOP OF BLOCK=900.6 .6 1 GARAGE FLOOR=892.3 m m 892.4 < I / ...•:-. ;.,,. .::.1:: 892.4 CO 25.8 \a ' 997.2 - - '-- x 4/ Y\ - Q ,897.7 897.7 `� _6.2 ' L1J / N OPOSED ADD O 7 N a g o Od, X xco a 1 xRETE PATIO. 892.4 896.8 u 1 x894.5 � .6 9 .014{ �' .ro'bry' % d se 895.9 + x892.31 891.7. d x896.6 '896.2x 'O 897.0. °697.14' 896.3TW 891.5m V x896.7 x896.7 8 vii, 89 6g I 6 �P o0 a X � 895 m � o _) �) A / F- 894 r-7 893 1 1 L x890.2 � 892 x89 69L6x. V U 891 92.3x N ro 1 x692. i .3 •_888 \ 889 1 09 x8 4 689.7 n &J x886.4 1 x DGE OF WATER I r A Q STR -r-T .: I I \L_L_ I p ®$a N ® �\ ��_ 887 x888.2 888.9 888 ELEVATION -201$3.5 \ 8ss 1 - 00 o 101.08 COMP. n T I-)--- NRR" 1 n'n')"1AI -I-- '1 a30�. � 13A3'1 cm smmlYaiosawmlwonsxmrs»'+Oua ' n3urov.mrsrcv�s' tlatl3'ZIMWW9'LTHYJ sxouvn3'la 3�ve1Hs a xv�a Hoo'w axwas YJAS3NA3W Y1QQ3 � dill 3AOIQHtlO 1096 aJN3QIS3H NYN1'105 NA'IOlIYO Y StlWOHa "" o. ia�e�s.. NOI]]OOtlQ350dOHd303 SONLY.tlHQ cm smmlYaiosawmlwonsxmrs»'+Oua ' n3urov.mrsrcv�s' tlatl3'ZIMWW9'LTHYJ dill G a' • eN011vA:3n I - YJA53N.�N 1'M03 �.m r+nmxwwwl wc�vmrrilenn`ac ' - - soNaonau Nvnnws uaoxvo s srwonz. � asmnn•vaa,.Um� . .. NOISIOOY 0350dOUdH03 sONLMtlt10 - tltNd'ZW�V1S'J'I'I11PJ wman[ram G d � _ Zm N m� z � �� w° r w m ' g ^�e, I '00 F-m � ro�" r G CriFli;,=- ._ :..: IQi 1 t I da s�nu�aasza� �olz�x� ---°�- r. ., o MLL a a V1051NNIW VNIM i MYQ wo 1096 SDN?QK NYA11115 N UN) 8 SVWONi i v e ay . W" 7 n O 41* Z NOIIIQQV 635OdOM dol 5!9NVvlVdQ n Jackie Hoogenakker From: Nick Basgen <basgenfamily@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 11:24 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: case file B-14-20 This letter is to express support for the project of Thomas and Carolyn Sullivan at 4601 Oak Drive. We believe the Sullivans' proposal for a variance to the current setback is reasonable, and that the project seeks to enhance the appeal and value of their home and, in turn, contribute to the overall appeal and value of the neighborhood. We are happy to discuss further and provide additional context if desired. Best regards, Nick and Kelly Basgen 5540 St. John's Ave. 612-388-1980 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Nick Basgen <basgenfamily@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 11:24 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: case file B-14-20 This letter is to express support for the project of Thomas and Carolyn Sullivan at 4601 Oak Drive. We believe the Sullivans' proposal for a variance to the current setback is reasonable, and that the project seeks to enhance the appeal and value of their home and, in turn, contribute to the overall appeal and value of the neighborhood. We are happy to discuss further and provide additional context if desired. Best regards, Nick and Kelly Basgen 5540 St. John's Ave. 612-388-1980 1 dt. (2 -.1. woo e6vzlnunw Elznz Ii -Ft -.1t. 1 11 d- Ir I.- t� - d d- I I _ I__ .L .d -d ,It" Xid`42 :Vl= ce. memo uv as tpz;-=.1 Z. 1.2 1..) po M7).= 12d _`p 2 ppay� 6m Tt= -d �- T Et II. wy '4" t' .7h. d%it- 2. .d =.1 2 -d d_ WWII Idd .. 7. d P_ 4ie q] (1,. I_ 2, � to. x.. In L whafs W. Pdo) I—— d. 2-1. -Call beton you dig. a q. Ive�gq:ryie crew -b— Zd VILM n. INDIVIDLAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEANLINESS OF THE SITE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS; .. T . Z� I— TOM SULLIVAN 4601 OAK DRIVE EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE: 612-396-5040 EMAIL: TJSULLIVANMSPOGMAIL.COM 11 =it .1"11 1 11,;T 12 -1 ne.-d- dd_ w 6q I,—. I-- III - III h) E, =`Zl -11, !IT 12. -1 1—. 3 1—— (B)2.5) rlmvga[0 mw ptwngx X', %� ;``V # 2- SRI FENCE"— G L F- , 0 L - D A K D V E S- L 0 T X 411.1 41: CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE' .11 do•.°9M i. p.n.— hT 4 -1 It. ItY 11 d- 6 7 1.. lar .II us!_eae =P- Imo th. .d t q 00-1'R HWL = 886.92 FT EDINA INTERACTIVE WATERZ ESOURCES MAP) I_J - ---------- .. ........ .... I:, N, L 0 T L 0 T 4601 OAK DRIVE EDINA, MN. __wml 11 Y AA I A "'" law rlunewlwawwwYwflNbaN wmmn .A- I im— STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL I— PLAN OdOg— ST1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 12, 2014 B-14-21 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Deny a front street setback variance from 75.8 feet to 41.6 feet for an addition to the front of a home located at 4917 Rolling Green Parkway for Dale and Elizabeth Erickson. Project Description: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Rolling Green Parkway and Interlachen Boulevard. The site is .91 acres in size and is located in the Rolling Green neighborhood. The proposed new home would have setbacks closer to Rolling Green Parkway than the existing home. The existing home is one story with an attached garage. There is extensive patio area and an in ground swimming pool behind the house. The home owners would like to add two bedrooms onto the front of the house within the required front yard setback (See attached plans.) The required front yard setback is established by the front yard setback of the adjacent neighbor to the north. The neighbor to the north has a front yard setback of 75.8 feet. The subject home has a nonconforming front yard setback of 49.8 feet. The existing home is 26 feet closer to the front yard lot line than allowed by code. The homeowners would like to reduce the front yard setback to 41.6 feet, which would place the addition 34.2 feet closer to Rolling Green Parkway than allowed by city code. It should be noted that front yard setbacks vary along Rolling Green Parkway with an average front yard of 77 feet for homes along Rolling Green between Annaway and Interlachen Boulevard. The subject home is the closest to Rolling Green Parkway at 49.8 feet with the next closest at 56 feet from the street. A variance from front yard setback would place the home even closer to the street. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 149 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property line) and is 39,456 square feet (.91 acres) in area. The lot is primarily flat with a solid stucco wall along the south and a portion of the east rear yard. There is one single-family home to the north facing Rolling Green Parkway establishing front yard setback. The adjacent neighbor is located 75.8 feet from the front property line. The property owner is requesting an addition in a location that does not meet the Rolling Green front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the abutting home. The setback of the abutting home is 75.8 feet. Engineering Review/Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management 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. Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The existing and proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Storm Water Management and Erosion Control plan" dated 10/08/2014, does not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Minor grading is proposed, existing and proposed drainage plan does not affect nearby private property. Additional runoff created by the proposed addition will be directed to the rear yard via swale and collected in a rain garden located in the northeast corner of the lot. The rain garden is designed to capture the additional run-off created by the proposed addition and provides for underground storage and infiltration into the soil. In summary, the grading will not affect nearby private property nor will it negatively impact city infrastructure. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded on all sides by existing single-family homes located in the Rolling Green neighborhood and Highlands neighborhood. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 39,456 square feet. It is mostly flat with an existing single- family home, in ground pool on the property and a solid wall stucco fence along the south and a portion of the east lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single -Family District Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District 2 Building Design The proposal is to add two bedrooms onto the existing, but at 41.6 feet from the required 75.8 foot setback from Rolling Green. The home has a footprint of 5,338 square feet in size with a large patio and pool area. 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 street setback (as determined by the adjacent home). 2. The addition to the home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. 3. The proposed addition will result in the closest front yard setback along Rolling Green Parkway. 4. An addition to the home can be constructed on the lot without need for a variance. There is an existing pool and patio behind the home and an attached garage south of the home, all of which can be removed or reconfigured for an addition to the back or south side of the home. The minimum setback from Interlachen right-of-way is 15 feet. The existing home is 53.6 feet from the south lot line along Interlachen Boulevard. Is the proposed variance justified? City Standard Proposed Front & Side Street - Match the abutting home (75.8 41.6 feet on Rolling feet ) Green Side- 10+ height, (living) 10 feet Rear- 25 feet 127.3 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 1 story/15 feet from Lot Area existing grade Lot Width 9,000 s.f. or avg. of nbad 39,456 sq. ft 75 feet or avg. of nbad 149 feet Lot Depth 120 feet or avg. of nbad 264 feet Lot coverage 25% (9,864 sq. ft.) 20.48% (8,082 sq. ft.) * 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 street setback (as determined by the adjacent home). 2. The addition to the home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. 3. The proposed addition will result in the closest front yard setback along Rolling Green Parkway. 4. An addition to the home can be constructed on the lot without need for a variance. There is an existing pool and patio behind the home and an attached garage south of the home, all of which can be removed or reconfigured for an addition to the back or south side of the home. The minimum setback from Interlachen right-of-way is 15 feet. The existing home is 53.6 feet from the south lot line along Interlachen Boulevard. Is the proposed variance justified? No. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. 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 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 addition can be reasonably accommodated in a conforming location. The applicant could locate the addition on the lot to meet all setback requirements. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned properly, and that are not self- created? The unique circumstance is that the existing home is the closest to Rolling Green Parkway on the block. Much of the existing home overlaps the front yard setback. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The addition may alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will be even closer than the existing nonconforming home to the street. The existing home is currently the closest home to Rolling Green Parkway. Staff Recommendation Deny the requested Variance based on the following findings: 2 The location of the existing home is the closest to the street along the block. 2. The applicant could locate the addition on the lot to meet all setback requirements. 3. The practical difficulty in this instance is that the existing home is already too close to the front lot line. 4. The proposed home may alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will reduce an already nonconforming front yard setback that is closer to the street than any other home on the block. Deadline for a City Decision: December 21, 2014 DATE: November 4, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 4917 Rolling Green Parkway - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The existing and proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Storm Water Management and Erosion Control plan" dated 10/08/2014, does not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Grading and Drainage Minor grading is proposed, existing and proposed drainage plan does not affect nearby private property. Existing Site Conditions The existing grading allows for drainage away from the home on all sides. On the west and southwest sides of the home the grading directs the drainage to Rolling Green Parkway. The east, north and northwest sides of the home drain to the rear yard. The south side of the home drains to Interlachen Boulevard. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed grading changes the existing grading minimally and will closely mimic existing site conditions. The additional runoff created by the proposed addition will be directed to the rear yard via swale and collected in a rain garden located in the northeast corner of the lot. The rain garden is designed to capture the additional run-off created by the proposed addition and provides for underground storage and infiltration into the soil. The grading will not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Erosion and Sediment Control No concerns Street and Curb Cut No concerns Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 0 VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBERe DATE 1(A 1 00 FEE PAID • City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: r ff ,{ NAME:NlegnJ GI;Za CIA &'Ck3-0v1(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:q%1-) Roll,, Cr-eeOn ParkW &.0 PHONE: °15'2-5$2 - T7(09 EMAIL: MSJoiWe k@ Qa 1.64Y" (E1;zr,6e* PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: S4Me- ads -g&Ve - (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: PHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): *`You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: PRESENT ZONING: -'-� P.I.D.# 10 �" EXPLANATION.OF REQUEST: /► u &0 (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME:Gk&fIcs L - 61bts PHONE: Ito 3 - 7AP -&ocoQ EMAIL: 5e964ri 5y & M 5.4. &�O.ti SURVEYOR: NAME: JA Me s H. AWICCI PHONE: IN- 74'� Y EMAIL: A:&t.�Ird✓s,..r_ gog" Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying ❑ with the zoning ordinance and that the use I is reasonable PLCct S -L Ste-�ITlaria Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district ® ❑ Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance �(.GaScslack Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood Cx� ❑ _� "kms .V, y�� ,.. i? EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Your applicants have owned the above -noted property since January of 2013. The objective is to create an additional bedroom on the main floor of the home. The main floor currently contains one master bedroom and a den with a full bath. Your applicant's daughters, five and seven years old, currently share the den as a bedroom. Bedrooms exist in the basement, however, and despite mitigation; radon gas is present in the basement. For this reason, as well as the general safety and desire for close proximity to the children, your applicants are requesting a variance to allow for an addition to the northwest corner of the home in order to accommodate a second bedroom on the main floor. Other options have been extensively explored with two separate architects, a designer and two builders, but either involve the addition of a second story to the home or variance requests, such as is presently submitted. The former are considerably more expensive and complicated than the design provided to you in the latter; this variance request. Based upon the unique configuration of the home, the proposed design, requiring a variance, provides the best solution for our family. If the variance is granted, the addition will protrude just beyond the current footprint of the home toward Rolling Green Parkway. Although extending the home toward the street, the addition ought to make the home more aesthetically pleasing from Rolling Green Parkway and, based upon the contour of the land, landscaping and current design of the neighboring homes, will not hinder, obstruct or be unsightly in terms of any neighbors' current views. The proposed variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. In answering yes, it is your applicant's position that the granting of this variance request is reasonable; that practical difficulties presented will be relieved. All other options explored to create an additional bedroom on the main floor either require additional variances, would be not cost effective or fit with the existing architecture of the home. Again, adding a bedroom to the main floor allows for rooms for children, seven and five years old, to be located on the main floor of the dwelling rather than the basement, which despite mitigation, has radon gas present. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. In answering yes, it is our position that this home, in its design and placement, presents extremely little opportunity to add an additional room on the main floor without a variance granted by the City of Edina. A considerable amount of time and resources (as stated aboo architects, a professional designer and two builders) have been involved in attemptin ;h�ve an additional bedroom added to the main floor or to add a second story to the home., , QJV"T tter,��p, based upon the unique design and layout of the home proves to be inordinately e ensiv AXuld alter the design character of the home and require a much larger addition toli e ho 11 �In ter ti '�;.. of the circumstances being extraordinary, your applicants cannot expand in terms of othe property in the vicinity other than it is assumed that radon is an issue throughout many parts of Edina. As stated above, this home, although mitigated, has radon indicated in the basement level, the primary reason for creating an additional bedroom on the main floor. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. In answering yes to this question, your applicants believe the variance to be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. This variance request is for the home to extend a few feet further than the existing structure; and only for a small portion of the home. Every other aspect of the home and the home site are in harmony with all ordinances. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. It is the opinion of your applicants that the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The surrounding homes are beautiful and unique. The current appearance of the home from Rolling Green Parkway is diminutive. The addition for which a variance is being requested will maintain the style and beauty of the dwelling; only slightly increasing the size of the main floor out toward Rolling Green Parkway. The addition will actually make the property more appealing from Rolling Green Parkway. Based upon the land contours and visibility of the portion that is hoped to be expanded, it should not be unsightly or obtrusive to any of the neighbors, and again; it should look more appealing than the current structure. Kris Aaker From: Kiki Erickson <msdoublek@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:33 AM To: Kris Aaker Cc: segberg56@msn.com Subject: Re: Variance request for 4917 Rolling Green Kris, We have plans to meet with our neighbors next week to show them the blueprints. They are aware of the fact we have applied to get a variance, and I have made them aware of the meeting on November 12th. To the beat of our knowledge, the only landscaping that will be changing are some ornamental shrubs near our home. No major trees will be changing, with the exception of possibly some branch trimming. Thank you, Elizabeth Erickson Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Kris Aaker <KAaker@EdinaMN.gov_> wrote: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-04611 Fax 952-826-0389 <image002.gif> 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAakeraaEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Kris Aaker Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:12 PM To: 'msdoubleCabaol.com' Subject: Variance request for 4917 Rolling Green Dear Dale and Elizabeth, A few questions regarding your variance application: Are any trees or landscaping going to be removed or changed as a result of the addition? Have you shared the plans with your neighbors and what was their reaction, (to the north)? Thank you, Kris Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-04611 Fax 952-826-0389 <image002.gif> 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAaker(a)EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business 1' 2. That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 3, Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. "Practical Difficulties" means that: 1. The property in question cannot put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance 2. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application: Applications are submitted to the Planning Department. Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 4:30 PM. Deadlines for Applications: Applications need to be submitted at least fifteen days before the meeting. This allows the City of Edina time to notify surrounding property owners of the date of the hearing and details of the variance. It is helpful to submit the application as soon as possible to secure an early hearing position. Notice of Public Hearing: Notice is mailed to all property owners (of record at City Hall) that are located within 200 feet of the site. Notice is mailed ten (10) days prior to the hearing. You are encouraged to contact adjacent or close owners and advise them of your proposal prior to the notice of the hearing. You may wish to provide statements of "no objection to the variance" from the nearby property owners. Meetings and Public Hearings: Meetings of the Planning Commission are scheduled on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. The meetings are held at 7:00 pm in the Edina City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 West 50th Street. Each meeting is limited to five variance cases on a first come, first serve basis. Additional requests are delayed until subsequent meetings. Meetings are formal public hearings with a staff report, comments from the proponent and comments from the audience. It is important the owner or a representative attend the meeting to answer questions. Staff Report: After review of the drawings submitted and a visit to the site staff prepares a report. This report, along with any supporting drawings and materials, are sent to the Zoning Board in advance of the meetings. Board members may visit the site before the meeting. All plans, emalls and written information are public information, and may be used in the staff report and distributed to the public. Board Membership: The Planning Commission serves as the Zoning Board. Five members are required for a quorum. Decisions by the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may approve, deny or amend the variance request and establish conditions to ensure compliance or protect surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission generally makes a decision at the scheduled hearing. Occasionally, however, a continuance to another meeting may be necessary. Appeals: Decisions of the Planning Commissionare final unless appealed to the City Council in writing within 10 days. The proponents, any owner receiving notice of the hearing or the staff may appeal decisions. Appeals are rare and they can be time consuming because a new hearing is required before the full City Council. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. OWNER'S STATEMENT am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partner shite Signature 17/1 Sj iy Date C/ Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. Hennepin County Property Interactive Map — r Interactive Maps Welcome Results Links Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID:2911721130004 4917 Rolling Green Pkwy Edina, MN 55436 Find a PID or an address on the map - Parcel y __�__ . __ Neighborhood Street_,_._- R, _City i ,. i -Co my a Owner/Taxpayer a , D S Erickson & E M LU Owner: Erickson I 0 DALE S ERICKSON ELIZABETH M 0' ERICKSON -__ Taxpayer: 4917 ROLLING GREEN PKWY EDINA MN 55436 Tax District School Dist: 273 i Sewer Dist: I Watershed Dist: ;3 . Parcel ' Parcel Area: 0.91 acres 39,553 sq ft X. M: Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Addition: Carlsons Park _may' Lot: !005 L Block: i0ol Metes & Bounds: III! Tax Data (Payable 2014) Legend � Measure ! 0 ( OQ 200ft Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=2911721130004 11/5/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map nteractive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Links Tax information View obliaue imaaery (Bina maps) Survey documents About the data PID:291172113OOO4 4917 Rolling Green Pkwy Edina, MN 55436 Owner/Taxpayer D S Erickson & E M Erickson DALE S ERICKSON ELIZABETH M ERICKSON 4917 ROLLING GREEN PKWY EDINA MN 55436 Tax District Watershed Dist: 3 Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=2911721130004 11/5/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page 1 of 1 - r Interactive Maps Find Find a PID or an address on the map Results Links Tax information View obliaue imaaery (Bina maps) Survey documents About the data PID:291172113OOO4 4917 Rolling Green Pkwy Edina, MN 55436 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: D S Erickson & E M Erickson DALE S ERICKSON ELIZABETH M Taxpayer: ERICKSON 4917 ROLLING GREEN PKWY EDINA MN 55436 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: ?. 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.91 acres 39,553 sq ft Torrens/Abstract::, Torrens Addition: Carlsons Park Lot: 005 Block: ;001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) 6..' 1"5 - I � �' 0 0, X 0 V- -r'/ http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=2911721130004 11/5/2014 .1 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map — r Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Results Links Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID: 2911721130004 4917 Rolling Green Pkwy Edina, MN 55436 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: D S Erickson & E M Erickson DALE S ERICKSON ELIZABETH M Taxpayer: ERICKSON 4917 ROLLING GREEN PKWY EDINA MN 55436 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.91 acres 39,553 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Addition: Carlsons Park Lot: 005 Block:- 001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Legend Measure Page 1 of 1 city -County V' 11/5/2014 ✓ V.. r 1 AAA T V (1L A;11 v kill vr1Gl[. l S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 Q JRVEYFOR: SCOTT ERICKSON JRVEYED: July, 2014 DRAFTED: August 5, 2014 JRVEYED:August 6, 2014, to show revised Coverage. ?GAL DESCRIPTION: It 5, Block 1, Culson's Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 'OPE OF WORK & LDMATIONS: Showing the length and detection of boundary lines of the above legal K ription. The scope of our services does not include determining what you m, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your :orris or consult with Competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure A it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you sh shown on the survey, have been shown. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners the property. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some dcation of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at at one other feature shown on the survey when determining other vations for use on this site. ANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " Denotes found iron monument, unless otherwise noted RTIFICATION: ro by certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by I_ _ or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional gineer and Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of I u n unesota. ... -`lure:;gimpe, X 6`aAAv, Tied Name:James H.Parker mA >, No.: 9235 =: August 5, 2014 BUILDING COVERAGE HOUSE — 4,641 SQ. FT. SHED — 104 SQ. FT. POOL PATIO — 4,222 SQ. FT. LOT — 39,456 SQ. FT. COVERAGE — 22.7% NOTELKCOVERAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE DRIVEWAY OR WAS POOL PATO IS LIMITED TO ADJACENT AREA AROUND POOL i GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FELT ) $3 E I' o��n$s3$e� Sga a e °fi� � 5 a sm a Sm lip S'$$ x` 5 'So .$ z 29L 1 Him Mg nu a€_ Ui t o " "o e' a 0 _. 1, a Ea °'s y in u -" N U. -1.a g s a 9 a e Va a9�E9 Eli A §, P� 9E" '9 € �e a B� & r uTm C 5S 5C5 E�$e'_e Z SAF �L" a u� 11 =`� � � < �s Eah R fi Sg my `e a�a3 a._e a6 AS a 5e 1x w H I I --9026- 3 ,91,0fl00 N yb. � • A' .. .VlosgNNIVJ ,_am/ . m��s_m VNJa _� \� m m �ms��sn��NUIao \' ! �\ , I16 i� HOME PLANNING ASSOCIATES INC. �� KIKI AND SCOTT ERICKSON 6329 CENTRAL AVENUE NE SPRING LAKE PARK, MINNESOTA 55432 4917 ROLLING GREEN PARKWAY C163) 166-bO69 EDINA, MINNESOTA SPRING LAKE PARK LUMBER BLDING 7 S il g V1OS3NNIW'tlNIU3 n."."XU EN33E549NIflOU CT6b 9NI0i9 2-mewn1 > w i sN"' VNIad9 6909-98L (s9U LE455 V10S3NNI41' �I?1Vd 3�I'YI 9NI.JdS -IVNIIGO 3 _+ god Hvv NOSNIMJLOJS aNV'D'U 3N awAV6LE9 'ONI S31VI30SSU 0NINNtlld 3WOH w • j � ice: �. • - - j`' ISI � Lg �:4 aa�ffio ��i 1 ii �� ilti l�l iii ��,• 7 S il g • - � ice: �. • - - j`' ISI O J 0 'C�j9i�,l'ri„ ok e �. HBO . j�`btY�""�• PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 12, 2014 VII.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Mount Development and Aurora Investments, LLC are requesting final review for redevelopment of 6500 France Avenue. Specifically, the request is to change the use from medical office, which was previously approved for the site, to 100 units of senior assisted and independent living; 54 units of traditional care/skilled nursing; 34 units of memory care, and 7 care suites. (See location on pages A1 - A5.) The "care" suites would include short term stays by patients that have had surgery at Fairview Hospital or Twin City Orthopedic (TCO). A pedestrian skyway would connect the building to the hospital parking ramp to the north. The parking would be provided underground. There would be a 15,000 square foot reduction in the structure footprint from the previously approved medical office plan that was proposed for the site. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6—A49.) The applicant has already received the following approvals of the City Council: ➢ A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow senior housing as a permitted use in the Regional Medical District, at a maximum density of 80 units per acre. ➢ Preliminary Rezoning to amend the PUD, Planned Unit Development -3 Zoning District; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. The density of the development excluding the transitional care suites for short term stays of patients of the hospital and TCO is 80 units per acre. The first floor of the new building would contain uses accessory to the senior housing, including a pub, barber shop/beauty salon, coffee/bistro, and fitness center. The request before the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to amend the PUD -3 District. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. The proposed plans are consistent with the approved preliminary development plans. As noted on pages Allo -A15, of the applicant narrative, the following slight modifications have been made: • A slight reduction in building square footage (2,000 s.f.) • A slight decrease to west setback (3.5 feet), but green space was added with the elimination of the concrete sidewalk. • Slight variance in housing unit counts • Slight parking modifications, but still code compliant. • Refined the floor and roof plans. • Due to anticipated damage to the boulevard trees on France, they have been programed to be removed and replaced. • Refined the exterior of the skyway to be consistent with the new building and parking ramp. • Worked with the property owner to the West (Cornelia Place Apartments) regarding entrance and exits and providing additional landscape plantings on the Cornelia Place Apartment property to provide additional screening. • Lowered the loading dock area and provided an overhead structure for screening. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fairview Hospital parking ramp; zoned APD, Automobile Parking District Easterly: Fairview Hospital; zoned and guided Regional Medical District. Southerly: Point of France condos; Zoned PRD -4, Planned Residential District & High Density Residential Westerly: Cornelia Place Apartments; zoned PRD -4, High Density Residential; and guided HDR, High Density Residential Existing Site Features The subject property is 2.34 acres in size, is relatively flat. (See pages Al A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: RM, Regional Medical. (See pages A5—A6.) Zoning: PUD -3, Planned Unit Development District. 2 Comprehensive Guide Plan/Density As mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan guides this site for RM, Regional Medical Use. Senior Housing is now allowed in the RM District, and the -density range is a maximum of 80 units per acre. The Met Council has approved the City's Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding the density and senior housing as an allowed use in the RMD District. Amending the PUD -3 District The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site to amend the PUD -3 District to allow Senior Independent and Assisted Living/Nursing Home along with Transitional Care associated with the adjacent hospital and other facilities performing surgery. (See attached draft PUD Ordinance.) Within a PUD District, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent of the PUD. The table on the following page demonstrates a comparison of the base zoning (PUD -3) compared to the proposed. Compliance Table *Would require a variation from Previous approved ruu City Standard Proposed (PUD -3) (PUD -3) Building Setbacks Front — France Avenue 25 feet 25 & 35 feet Front — 65th Street 25 feet 25 feet 43 feet Side — West 15 feet (parking structure 20 feet Rear — South 20 feet Building Height Five -Stories and 62 feet Five -Stories & 62 feet Maximum Floor Area 1.0% 2.2%* Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls 133 — Based on: .5 exposed stalls per unit (50) 134 Provided (126 underground + 10 surface) .25 enclosed stall per unit (25) 1 per employee (33) 1 per 4 residents — nursing/memory/care (25) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet *Would require a variation from Previous approved ruu As demonstrated above, the proposed building complies with all setback requirements of the previously approved PUD. The only change proposed is in regard to the FAR. Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; Cl g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The general land uses would be -consistent with land uses allowed in the area. The adjacent sites to the south and west are guided High Density Residential. With Senior Housing being a permitted use in the Regional Medical District, the land uses area consistent. Staff believes the proposed land uses, Senior Housing and Transitional Care associated with the hospital would be better use of land than the previously approved Medical Office. As with the previously approved medical project for the site, this proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The building would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. This project goes a step further and provides a skyway pedestrian link to the Fairview Southdale Hospital. (See pages A16 -A18.) Parking would be located under the proposed housing; and would not be visible. The previous approved plans included a large parking ramp setback just 15 feet to the west lot line. The new building would expand that setback to 43 feet. (See page A28a.) Landscaping and balconies are proposed in front along France Avenue. The corner of the building still opens up to France and 65th. The individual store fronts have been eliminated; however, the large store -front type windows remain. Uses on this side of the building would be a coffee shop/bistro and fitness room; so activity within these spaces will be evident from the street. The applicant is again proposing to utilize sustainable design principals. Green building practices are suggested, and green roofs are proposed. (See pages A10—Al2, of the applicant's narrative that explains how this project meets the above purpose and intent of the PUD Ordinance.) The applicant has also agreed to attempt to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over the current state energy code guidelines. A plan of how standards are intended to be met must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant is also proposing to provide affordable per the Planning Commission and City Council recommendation of 10% of all the senior housing units, which would be a total of eighteen (18) units. 5 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. With the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to allow senior housing, this site would contain uses that are allowed in the Regional Medical District. The Zoning Ordinance amendment, which follows this staff report, lists the uses that would be allowed on this site. WSB and Associates did a parking analysis that determined that the proposed parking would support the uses proposed, and the traffic generated would actually be less than the previously approved medical office. (See pages A61 -A88.) b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The proposal would include a mixture of land uses. It would include senior housing, nursing home/assisted living type housing, memory care, and care suites associated with the adjacent hospital. Retail would also be provided as an accessory use to the residents of the building, including a coffee shop on the corner. A skyway connection is proposed to connect the uses to Fairview Southdale Hospital. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; As mentioned above, the proposed uses would be senior housing, care suites and limited retail, consistent with Comprehensive Plan as senior housing is acceptable in the Regional Medical District. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and G1 The proposed residential density of 80 units per acre is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which limits senior housing in the RMD District to 80 units per acre. Senior housing typically does not generate as much traffic as an all age apartment or medical office. Density is typically tied to proximity to low density residential areas, availability to provide utilities to the site (sewer and water), proximity to transit service and impact on roadways. This site is adequately served by public utilities, there is adequate sewer capacity, the use would generate less traffic that the previously approved office building, and transit service is available on France ,and 65th. Staff believes the density is appropriate for this site given the adjacent high density land uses, proximity to the hospital, the provision of the skyway connection tying the land uses together and the lesser impact on the roads than the approved medical office. Additional items that might warrant higher density would be the underground parking, affordable housing element, and public art proposed. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The proposed project does closely relate to the already approved PUD setbacks for the site as demonstrated above. For the reasons stated above, staff believes the purpose and intend of the PUD Ordinance is met. Site Access The primary access to the site would remain off of 65th Street West. There would be no right -out only onto France, as was allowed in the previous PUD. Parking Per Section 850.08 Subd. 1, the following are the parking requirements: Senior Housing — 5 exposed stalls per unit; .25 enclosed stalls per unit and one exposed stall per employee & company vehicle. Nursing, Convalescent & Rest Home —1 enclosed stall per 4 residents. Based on this requirement the project is to provide 50 enclosed spaces and 83 exposed for a total of 133 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 126 enclosed and 10 exposed spaces. Residents, employees and visitors can all access the underground parking by an audio/video intercom system. (See pages A8—A13 of the applicant narrative.) 7 A parking study was done by WSB which concludes that the proposed parking would support the uses. The total demand for parking is anticipated to be 125 spaces. Traffic A traffic study was also done by WSB, which concludes that the existing roadways support the proposed uses. (See traffic study on pages A61—A88.) The proposed use would generate less traffic than the approved medical office. The medical office was anticipated to generate 279 trips in the AM peak hour and 216 trips in the PM peak hour. The proposed use would generate 27 trips in the AM peak hour and 40 trips in the PM peak hour. However, as was conditioned in the approvals for Twin City Orthopedic and Fairview Southdale Hospital, should signal improvements be deemed necessary at 65th Street and France Avenue, the property owner would be required to participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements. This would be a requirement in the Developer's Agreement. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 34 overstory trees and a full complement of understory trees and shrubs are. required. The applicant is proposing to plant 43 overstory trees around the perimeter of the site & 200+ understory trees and shrubs. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to plant 22 evergreen trees on the Cornelia Place Apartment site to provide additional screening. (See landscape plan on pages A18 and A37.) Grading & Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the plans and found them acceptable and offered comments. (See page A59 -A60.) Noise Study Based on the issues during preliminary review of this project the chillers have been located on the roof of the building away from the adjacent residential properties to the south and west. They would be screened with a pre -finished metal screen. A noise study has been completed and found that the units would conform to the noise ordinance. (See pages A45 -A49.) Signage Signage would be allowed per the requirements of the Regional Medical District within the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the PUD. (See attached draft Ordinance.) This would be consistent with the previous PUD approval. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed rezoning to PUD appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal to rezone the site to PUD is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The building would be pulled up close to the street with a podium height of two -stories, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. The skyway connection adds an element of connectivity not found in the previous project, providing a convenient pedestrian connection for residents of the proposed building and patients of the hospital. 2. Parking would be located under the proposed housing; and would not be visible. The previous approved plans included a large parking ramp setback just 15 feet to the west lot line. This building expands that setback to 43 feet. (See pages A60a-A60d and A43.) Landscaping and balconies are proposed in front along France Avenue. The corner of the building still opens up to France and 65th. The individual store fronts have been eliminated; however, the large store -front type windows remain. Uses on this side of the building would bea coffee shop and fitness room; so activity within these spaces will be evident from the street. 3. The applicant is proposing to utilize sustainable design principals. Green building practices are suggested, and green roofs are proposed. (See pages A10—Al2, of the applicant's narrative that explains how this project meets the above purpose and intent of the PUD Ordinance.) The applicant has also agreed to attempt to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over the current state energy code guidelines. A plan of how standards are intended to be met must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The building includes a podium height of two -stories along the street, which would give pedestrians on the sidewalks in front a feeling that the building is not as tall. Comprehensive Plan contemplates allowing a maximum podium height of two -stories at the street. This two-story podium was also a part of the previously approved medical office plans. 5. The proposed uses would be an even better fit in to the neighborhood. The residential component is consistent with the high density residential apartments to the south and west. The transitional care is consistent with the medical uses to the north and east. 9 6. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development, and concluded that the traffic generated from the project would not impact the adjacent driveways or intersections. In fact the proposed uses would actually generate less traffic than the previously approved medical building. No additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the site redevelopment. (See traffic study on pages A61— A88.) 7. The PUD ensures that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies. of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. ■ Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front fagade. • Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. 10 9. Higher densities are justified for the following reasons: The project would be connected to the Fairview Hospital by the second level skyway, tying the project to the Hospital; Senior Housing would generate less traffic than the approved medical building with retail on the site; existing roadways would support the project; adequate utilities are available to the site; convenient transit service is available for workers and residents; the building would include sustainable design principles; public art is proposed; affordable housing is offered; and primary parking would be below grade. Staff Recommendation Final Rezoning to Amend the Planned Unit Development -3 District & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning to amend the PUD -3 District, and approve the Final Development Plan. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The site layout would be an improvement over a site layout required by standard zoning; the building is brought up to the street, provides podium height, and front door entries toward the street, includes sidewalks to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street, provides underground parking, and provides an indoor pedestrian connection to the hospital. 3. The design of the building is of a high quality brick, architectural precast concrete, and glass, and is compatible with previously approved medical building. 4. Traffic would be improved in the area by eliminating the right -in and out access on France Avenue. 5. Based on the traffic study done by WSB, the existing roadways can support the proposed development. Traffic generated by the proposed project would be less than the approved medical building for the site. 6. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented 11 development sites, encourage placement of linear buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. ■ Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. ■ Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. • Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front facade. ■ Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. 7. The project would be connected to the Fairview Hospital by the second level skyway, tying the project to the Hospital. 8. Convenient transit service is available for workers and residents; the building would include sustainable design principles; public art is proposed; affordable housing is offered; and primary parking would be below grade. Final approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with. the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped October 15, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped May 23, 2014. • Utility plan date stamped May 23, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped May 23, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped October 15, 2014 12 Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36-1436 through 36- 1462 of the City Code. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of -credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 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. Sustainable design. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the Planning Commission staff report. Attempts must be made meet an energy savings goal of 15% over the current state energy code guidelines. A plan of how standards are intended to be met must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated November 5, 2014. 8. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 9. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. 10. As part of a Developers Agreement the property owner would be required to participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements at 65th Street and France Avenue. 11. Deliveries on the west side of the building shall be limited to 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 12. Affordable housing units shall be 10% of the assisted and independent units. (18 units.) 13 13. Adoption and compliance with a PUD Ordinance for the site. PUD Ordinance Recommend the City Council adopt the Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD -3 Zoning District. Deadline for a city decision:. No deadline 14 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVISING PUD -3, EDINA MEDICAL BUILDING INTO PUD -3, AURORA ON FRANCE A SENIOR HOUSING AND CARE SUITE FACILITY AT 6500 FRANCE AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 36-490 of the Edina City Code. Planned Unit Development District — 3, (PUD -3), Edina Medical Building is amended as follows: Sec. 36-490. Planned Unit Development District -3 (PUD -3), C°'' ""^'"^e'• 0�'-'-''0"a Aurora on France. (a) Legal description. (1) All of Lot 4 and the easterly 56.44 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Southdale Office Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and (2) Lot 3, Block 2, except the easterly 56.44 feet thereof, Southdale Office Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (b) Approved plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the 6500 France €bra Medical Bu4d *g Aurora on France plans received by the city on " evemb& 6, 2012, May 23 and October 15, 2014 except as amended by city council Resolution No. 29�176 2014- , on file in the office of the planning department under file number 2012 003 !2 2012.003.14a. (c) Principal uses. (1) All principal uses allowed in the Regional Medical District (RMD) Zoning District, except drive-through uses. (2) Senior Independent, Assisted Living/Nursing Home, Transitional Care Suites and Memory Care Suites as proposed in the Approved Plans above. (d) Accessory uses. The following are the accessory uses allowed in the Regional Medical District (RMD): (1) Off-street parking facilities. (2) Produce stands, pursuant to permit issued by the city manager. (3) Signs allowed per the Regional Medical District. (e) Conditional uses. There are no conditional uses for Planned Unit Development District -3 (PUD -3). Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX ArIr]Pd taxt—XXXX (f) Development standards. Development standards per the RMD zoning district, except the following: (1) Building setbacks. a. Front. 1. France Avenue: 25 feet. 2. 65th Street: 25 feet. b. Side—West: 1-00 43 feet. c. Rear—South: 20 & 30 feet. (2) Parking ramp setbacks. a. Front. 1. France Avenue: 80 feet. 2. 65th Street: 25 feet. b. Side—West: 15 feet. c. Rear—South: 20 feet. (3) Building height: five stories or 62 feet. (4) Maximum floor area ratio: 188 220 percent. (5) Chiller/mechanical equipment setbacks. If the footprint is larger than 36 square feet in area or six feet in height, utility and/or mechanical equipment shall be required to meet the front setback requirements in subsection (f)(1) of this section. The side and rear setback requirements shall be six feet. Mechanical equipment must also meet the following conditions: a. All mechanical equipment accessory to any building shall be screened from all lot lines and streets in accordance with section 36-1459. b. Noise from mechanical equipment shall be subject to the city's noise regulations in accordance with article 11, division 5 of chapter 16. (Ord. No. 2012-23, § 1, 12-18-2012) Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Cleric James B. Hovland, Mayor Existing text – XXXX 2 Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX .$MUN M r A'1�oEYlt RbrLn�IM► �D N ±t 1V IN— MR City of Edina PID. 30023241440008 6500 France Ave S Edina, MN $54.35 M H%blAhi2 =11re' Mouse Number Lz'hels Stroosome labels City Umiis •�/� 'CRebi Q Lamm Q Pinks 0 F@ wf City of Edina �• L � � µQ3di -w f } a c' f r °" t 1 r1 � } '• �� 1 ! } .-" r.� 1i 1' LCgC IItT House Ndmber Llhels l: Strc e't NarAe Lohel3 -City Limlis rg al6sslr.nsc,..r i ki.i#.d `. F IF ' T`' tI�l,�.+ % •� ��+ • 1� A Ii.�.1 N [ Z� 1� S`t,� .•. "Y� — }'�1tt El Laka Names C �� 1 L �. , (—'f Parks •gym"': �� • i sL +�d t � � � _ _ _ Xtit� , � f— •i •jc � t R 1 AWAerii Phot. +��y r � � i [ � I.,R�fx�°�? y IL��/ tt f +� t>`, Sj it®� ' 0 • •'Ahr; 'si frcia+t'y'. -- � � � Vis, ,�,�, � + • f vwn � 1 ' � � T, $� .^�� Til 4 . q+ x •' T ...• szi�: � �AIiS 'g! `a�u�i '� .6Y7i�8 ;� YoerrrsAs'1C �6dias• r�•,`i'+ �*�., z'� _ __ PI®: 3®®282414•®®®8 I 6500 France Ave S •�i_ �� Edina, MM 554.3 �� A;)� Y ��• a?G of -�T# ,+ '�f � tri ,~ r 3r .r .•� 1 .`e el iv 1� � + •i4- 1 .S .! 4�. ky '� rte" � J / .. /' , . _ � ! I � ' `'% 7t 1 I I ••' a r c 4 ' "1 �—x of �. j - ��z i ll Jl li '/Ii _ M1 �. y, /'L _ , %i�_� r-�• - 7� �+_ ''off J �.L �` �. �,v�. ?, •M,S' r IA TA „d ��/I i?,1'r L p'i •�-� ,r �� ,' �y r Till � � J �r;_ 4, _ .�'�v.; 7 of, r-- Roleud Pa•R r Yk g Ci ®f City Edina -- 4W3 `- 6220 — 6�3 suD w o«. "" :� dt2! 6224 62iL 362£7_62 ,....+ �-'� d2p Iw 6221 MO 2't �{ UWand Huuse NOmWLabels @36 _ 622E ' D7 3 .. 6274 fi2r 6f2D 6P9! Ow &25 623E -� r 912et.Name Labels s9�1 670! 6705 6�E •, frJD1 6367• Sdf d100 307 City Limits 606E x t7d � 6309gw- 67N/ � 6305 Ei06 6J0! '+05 6i. Creeks N 6DOt 3, J c70i 6Jd GiCB 6'b � Lake Names 6712 a iNl � ,63n 63t3 6312 i$d 5'�,. Lakes -"T F1( .. T Parhs El Ei76 Mai iR SJf7 pr6 R - Zoning 0 6025 BY I 6376 aj2} 6321 8120 }1:• 6326 APD4Aelc:r. iH. P.a6a"g0c.1i�) rl87 - [192 aao E120 .' J> � �> kwu tucilaL-psadN�irdJ ,�y - ®afUO•Ss116ci tlae'.G.r-at GEd �t �� ® 1690•DlFiluil�.•-px�Om:rxyJ PUO.1{pi�iCcr. rail lbpiyJ fiI , / ee r Jam. ' PUD-2Vh=dO w=MW-k.:jl 1kDWN>m*�l4is�iae�IUi�i1 �ti � J PSS.slPbnojCaa�o)U"�'aF--11 tfai O qP�„i Mm413D'�c'::) .. +* Paiii�Rfxe�J 0 • ® fl70.11Mwaa6RMOI.Ra # MB{Dirma7R1So1W11tiJd1J k 7aZs . �!•tiP�t3affiria5l4r� } S M44PI -R tIfw6f Or wj ®1'�f04m�6�0inrcrcq - ,14Y ED 7bt gtlall a law �`�.` 6511 ®4lICLo�m�Bal C � � Paieofs 203 Asda) Pima P%®:3002824140008 6500 France Ave S Edina, MN 55435 yi tt r �( 1f n v� "i' }i 7 Alliwk� 5} r+fi13�� 3 �llI�iiihk'�)Fy� bal. RT.SttFn Y 9� lk xE 'tYr 4�`�r# if ��r.�3 r,°`,�� ?`,r•".nP—� ��.� fti`+�. � � r _ t. �4 " qj R ']y.�• �Y PIE_ ha � 1�J �,f��'rr i hrNra� c ✓ �'?t o Jl !ii Cw Aurora on France 6500 France Avenue South Project Summary May 23, 2014 Ypt I cko T uhRRg i IUB Our development team is looking forward to working with the City of Edina to obtain the final approvals for the Aurora on France project. Everyone will strive to make this building an outstanding addition to this regional medical area. Development Team Architect: Edward Farr Architects, Ed Farr Civil Engineering: Alliant Engineering, Mark Rausch Developer: Mount Development Co., Stephen Michals Owner: Aurora Investments, LLC, Luigi Bernardi Tenant/Operator: Ebenezer Society, Susan Farr Please contact Stephen Michals with any questions on this new building - 952-941-1383. Site Area = 102,965 sq ft / 2.34 acres Property Guided: RM Regional Medical, amended to include Senior Housing (2013 action) Property Zoned: Planned Unit Development — 3 (2013 action) Proposed Redevelopment: New Senior Care Building, 227,577 sq ft, 5 stories; plus one level of under -building parking. Proposed Occupancy: • Senior Citizen Dwelling Units: o Independent & Assisted Living Units — 100 units • Nursing, Convalescent, Rest Homes: o Transitional Care Suites — 54 units o Memory Care Suites — 34 units o Care Suites — 7 units Proposed Parking: 8 Surface Stalls + 126 Under -Building Stalls = 134 Stalls total. Required parking: 133 Proposed Building Setbacks: North 25' min / 50' max. South 30' on east end / 20' on west end East 25' at street level / 35' at podium level West 44' at grade level / 54' at podium level History: We received approval of a 5 story medical office building and parking ramp in December, 2012 for this property. Aurora Investments has purchased both land parcels. Demolition is complete on the 6500 France Av structure and the 4005 W. 65th St structure. Overview: Ebenezer Society will manage this property for a Specialty Senior Care Housing Facility. We feel that this new use is an improvement to our previously approved use in the following ways: 1. The entire block bordered by Valley View Rd on the west, France Av on the east, W. 65th St on the north and W 66th St on the south will become all Housing, for consistency of uses on this block. 2. There will be substantially less traffic generated by this housing development versus the previously approved medical office use — 400 less cars parked on site! 3. There will be approx. 15,000 sq ft less `roof area' on our building versus the previously approved medical office building and parking ramps roofs. 4. The cubic volume of building enclosure is approx. 25% less than our previously approved medical office building and parking ramp enclosed volume, reducing the visual mass of the structure. Planning Concept: As per our earlier application, the lot combination of the two parcels (6500 France & 4005 W 65th St) is complete; and it offers many advantages to the site layout. We are still adopting an urban, pedestrian -friendly, streetscape along France Ave by bringing the building forward to the street; as well as incorporating a 'podium' design effect by setting the building back above 2nd floor to maintain a comfortably -scaled pedestrian experience. The streetscape includes over -story trees along the right-of-way, a 10 ft wide sidewalk and decorative planters that contain colorful plantings (annuals, perennials and low evergreen shrubs). Vehicular access is available at two driveways along 65th St W — one at the main entry / visitor drop off area; and a second for parking and delivery vehicles on the west side of 0 our site. The City is currently in process to update several intersections along France Avenue at 66th St, 69th St and 70th St. The City's consultant, WSB Associates, has provided the preliminary designs at those intersections for reference. Our proposed project has been refined to incorporate a consistent design in the southwest quadrant of the 65th St and France Avenue intersection including the addition of raised planters between two new relocated pedestrian ramps. There are final traffic signal design details to be done by others that will need to be coordinated with the City Engineer and County regarding the existing traffic signal base, pedestrian crossing buttons and hand -hole relocations, as needed. Building Design: The building design will be an attractive fagade using multiple colors of face brick and warm -toned architectural precast concrete wall panels with a variety of surface finishes. All of the windows will be tinted bronze -tone Low -E glass. Most of the windows will be tan colored prefinished fiberglass windows; and a few of the feature curtainwali windows will be constructed with prefinished champagne color aluminum frames. A small amount of EIFS decorative cornice trim caps the parapet. Multiple fagade planes, parapet projections and exterior balconies offer dimensional relief to the fagade. The main entrance located off of W 65th St serves as a visitor drop-off area for residents, and features a partially covered drop- off canopy for weather protection. The NE building corner at France Ave and W 65th St has its distinctive glazed crown, backlit at night, to provide a regional point of identity for the building. The corner plaza area will offer outdoor seating, plus a public art piece, and also coordinates with the City's initiative to upgrade the pedestrian experience at these corners. The plaza will have decorative concrete surfacing treatment, planting areas and bollards behind the curb. Visual Screening for the Adjacent Properties: We will supplement the already mature landscape buffer between Point of France and our site with new trees and bushes along our south yard. The ash trees along this borderline with Point of France are approx. 35'- 50' tall, providing excellent screening for most months of the year. On the west, facing Cornelia Place Apartments, we are employing significant screening strategies to our garage entrance and service area as follows: 1. We covered the loading dock area with a decorative roof structure to mitigate views into the loading area. 2. We moved the HVAC chiller equipment away from the loading area to minimize any noise for the apartments. 3. We recessed the EXIT garage door in the NW corner so it will be visually screened. 4. We provided a visual screen wall and roof cover at our ENTRY garage door in the SW corner. 5. We are planting 22 evergreen trees on Cornelia Place Apartments property to allow that owner to strategically place those trees where they feel they are best used. In addition, we will be landscaping the property line with a dense row of evergreen trees to provide a visual buffer. 6. We will limit the hours of the loading dock deliveries to the hours of 9am to 4pm (unless otherwise coordinated with neighboring buildings). Parking: There are 8 exterior surface stalls at the main entrance drop-off, used primarily for short-term visitor parking. The remainder of the parking, 126 stalls, is under the building in an enclosed level that has security access control. Residents, employees and visitors can all access this under -building parking level; via an audio/video intercom system. Refer to the Parking Calculation page of our submittal for parking calculations. 12 Service Court: Deliveries are quite infrequent for this building, estimated as follows: • Garbage & Recycling pick up - 3 times a week, max. Short trucks only. • Food Service deliveries - US Foods (2 times a week) and Bix 6 times a week. Periodically, they may add one delivery per week for special needs. • Medical and Linen Supply trucks — up to 3 times a week. Step van vehicles, typically. • Pharmaceutical deliveries - typically weekly, but we require daily when needed. Small vehicles only (car or van). • Resident Move -in / Move -outs — varies, but a 1 to 3 per week is average. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain: The property is currently encumbered by two public utilities - an existing 12" ductile iron water main and 12" ductile iron sanitary sewer in the south quarter of the property. The existing water main and sanitary sewer referenced serve other properties and thus the continuity of those mains is required. There will be no disruption to the adjacent roadways. An existing 8" sanitary service line that previously served the 4005 and 6500 buildings will be removed, capped and abandoned at the west property line. A connection will be made to the existing 12" sanitary sewer main along the southern property line of the 6500 France Ave property to service the developments proposed building. The existing 12" water main loop cutting through the site will be relocated and re-routed to the south side of the property parallel to the sanitary sewer main. An 8" water service for the development is proposed from a tee off the re-routed 12". A new hydrant is proposed to service the south side of the building. The proposed service will be routed along the east side of the proposed building and connect to the NE corner of the building. The existing Point of France building south of the development site currently receives water service from the existing 12" trunk watermain within the proposed development site. It is planned that the new watermain will be installed, tested and operational before the existing Point of France service is disconnected and connected to the relocated trunk watermain. This should reduce the length of time required to have water service disrupted to the Point of France. Stormwater Management: The proposed storm water management storage facilities meet the requirements of Nine Mile Creek Watershed and the City of Edina. The three primary requirements that have been met are: 1. Volume retention onsite equivalent to 1" of runoff over the entire proposed site impervious surface. (Accomplished via a series of rain gardens and an underground infiltration chamber system). 2. Water quality volume from entire site equivalent to runoff from the 2" type II storm event with 25 years of planned sediment storage. (Retention volume counts towards WQ volume and remainder accomplished via the rain gardens and additional underground infiltration chamber). 3. Discharge rate control shall be provided so the proposed conditions do not exceed existing conditions for the 2, 10, and 100 yr storm events. The proposed site plan reduces the amount of impervious surface by 10.5%, reducing proposed discharge rates. The rain gardens. and infiltration chamber also contain the entire 2 -yr event for their contributing watersheds. 61 The proposed plan is to maintain the same point of storm water discharge from the properties as is currently present. A private storm sewer collection system will be routed from north to south through the western portion of the site collecting the majority of site runoff. The storm sewer will drain to an offline pretreatment chamber to the proposed underground storage system at the western end of the site which will ultimately outlet to the City pond south of the property. An agreement to construct the storm sewer discharge point to the City pond will be coordinated with the Point of France property owners. Storm water runoff from the south side of the building will sheet drain to a series of two proposed rain gardens. The rain gardens will overflow for larger events to an existing 15" CMP culvert that currently serves the property. Landscape Design Strategies: The landscape design provides a mix of over -story, coniferous and ornamental trees, shrubs and perennials to create a vibrant display of color and foliage. The four existing Honeylocust trees along France Avenue and seven of the boulevard Ash trees along West 65th Street will be replaced. Raised curbed planters are to be provided along France Avenue that will be planted with colorful, annual and perennial flowers. Coordination will occur with City staff to provide landscaping along France Avenue that will be consistent with the work proposed by the City at other intersections. The perimeter of the building will be planted with a mixture of plant types to soften and compliment the building architecture. The building's service area and parking entrance will also be screened by existing and proposed conifers on the west and southwest side. The diversity of plantings will provide color variety and year round interest. In addition, the project is proposing to provide a green roof system on top, covering approximately 7,823 sf. This sustainable initiative will help reduce the heat island effect, reduce stormwater runoff quantity, as well as providing a nicer view down on our roof from the residents of Point of France building. Noise Ordinance Compliance: We are proposing two outside air-cooled chillers for heat rejection, located under the crown feature on the NE corner of our roof. They will be visually screened with an overhead metal trellis structure, and not seen from the public way at all. An acoustical analysis has been performed and attached to demonstrate compliance with zoning noise ordinance limits. Site Lighting: Decorative wall mounted lighting along France Av and W 65th St frontages, and around the main entry area. Decorative city sidewalk light poles, as prescribed by City Engineering Dept, along the W 65th St and France Av sidewalks. Resident unit balcony wall lights will be low -wattage down lights to provide minimum level of illumination. The glazed crown feature at rooftop level at the corner of France Av and W 65th St will be backlit at night for a nice glow. Site Signage: Building name / address at corner of France & W 65th St., and address above front entry. Directional signs at both entries along W 65thSt. Hours of Use: 24/7 resident use. Green Building Practices: Throughout all phases of the project - Design, Construction and Operation, we will use best practices of environmental awareness. Ebenezer is fully educated on Reduce -Recycle -Reuse operations. We have a Green Building Practices Narrative with our submission. We have retained our green roof area, which can be enjoyed by residents on the north side of Point of France. X(b Community Benefits from the New Project The previous buildings, parking lots and landscaping had substantial deferred maintenance problems. The property is ready for a fresh, new development. 2. This building provides senior and rehab service to support the regional medical presence of the SW suburbs. This is.consistent with the City Guide Plan. 3. The building is sized to have a critical mass of services to allow cross referrals among other senior facilities in Edina. This is a key factor for the success of each specialized service area. The building will offer cost effective services to seniors as a strategic support to the hospital. 4. Edward Farr Architects is known for creating special building design features. The focal point will be the glass and brick detail of the main entry corner creating a Gateway Building to the Southdale area. Numerous surface changes occur on each side of the building to create interest and shadow elements. 5. We are supporting the pedestrian environment along France Avenue with flower - gardens and sitting areas. Accent lighting table seating will make this area a pleasant visual experience. 6. The skyway will link the building to the hospital for visitor and patient services. 7. Green Building Practices will be implemented for the three phases: building design, construction phase and long term operation of the clinics. The General Contractor has compiled a summary of the Green Practices we will pursue for each phase of the project. Periodic reports during construction will demonstrate our progress. 9. A portion of the building roof will have a vegetated green roof, with native wild flowers and sedum, to enhance the view down onto the roof from the neighboring Point of France building, as well as reducing our heat island effect and improving our stormwater runoff quantity. Annual reports will show the reduction in the heat island effect along with estimates of water volume enhanced. 10. There will be ongoing efforts to evaluate methods and new technology for our employees to: — Reduce consumption. Re -use materials, and Recycle waste. The benefit to the building will be reduced operating expenses and good stewardship of our business resources. Reports will be provided on the quantities of recycling. 11. Alternative transportation is a key element of any project. A tangible goal will be to reduce the number of cars coming to the building which will reduce the parking stalls required to service the building. We have provided several successful alternate transportation systems: Scooter, motorcycle, bike parking will be an enclosed space that is secure, well lit, and air tempered. We want employees and residents to know they are recognized for their efforts. At\ Employees may participate in the ZAP chip monitor system which will provide a monthly printout of number of rider days. There will be a calculation of carbon footprint poundage saved to each participant. The MTC #6 bus line services multiple stops for the building. Additional routes around Southdale are 515, 538, 539, 578, 579, 684. 12. There will be over 52 staff positions in the building. In addition, there will be 40-60 construction jobs over 12 months. 13. Storm water management will be improved through rate control and water quality, including our green roof. The current site has direct, unrestricted runoff. There is almost 13% less hard surface area in the new plan than the current buildings, which means more green space for the community. 14. The new development is using existing utilities and roads in the community. Urban planning considers this good stewardship to reuse existing sites with current infrastructure. 15. The corner plaza will have an area for a significant piece of art. We are planning a special commissioning for this feature. AURORA ON FRANCE May 23, 2014 Enclosed Exposed Enclosed Exposed # of # of Parking Parking Parking Parking Units Beds Parking Calculation Required Required Provided Provided Nursing Home uses per zone PRD -5 Traditional Care/Skilled Nursing Licensed Beds 54 63 1 enclosed stall per 4 residents 16 Memory Care 34 40 1 enclosed stall per 4 residents 10 Care Suites 7 7 1 enclosed stall per 4 residents 2 Subtotal 95 110 28 0 Senior Citizen Dwelling uses per zone PSR -4 Independent and Assisted Living 100 .5 exposed stalls per unit 50 .25 enclosed stalls per unit 25 Employees 1 exposed per employee = 29 1 enclosed per management = 1 1 29 Subtotal 100 26 79 Totals 195 54 79 126 8 Total Required 133 Total Provided 134 7710 Golden triangle, Drive Edea, PriBe Mixmmta 5534.4 'telt 952,9.13,9660 Tax: 9.52-94.3.9665 wwwedfarrarch.com May 30, 2014 Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Aurora on France 6500 France Av S. Redevelopment Final Development Plan — Supplemental Information Cary, This letter itemizes the design changes from the Preliminary Development Plan approved in July 2013 to the current Final Development Plan Application submitted May 23, 2014. ■ Slight reduction in building square footage (approx. 2,000 sf less). ■ Slight decrease to west side yard setback (3'/2 ft+/-), but increase in green space by elimination of concrete sidewalk in that west yard. ■ Minor change to senior housing unit counts. ■ Modified required parking and provided updated parking counts (still compliant). ■ Refinements to front plaza (corner of France & 65th) to coordinate grades, skyway columns and planters. ■ Interior floor plan refinements, all floors. ■ Refined roof plan showing all incidental plumbing vents, roof drains and exhaust vents. ■ Refined exterior elevations with updated window pattern and HVAC grille locations. ■ The existing boulevard trees along France Ave. are now scheduled for removal and replacement; we would have been excavating too close to their root structures, causing significant root damage. ■ We completed the exterior design for the skyway crossing W. 65th St. ■ On the west side, the vehicle entrance/exits to the lower level have been redesigned to split the ingress and egress locations for better traffic circulation. We've discussed this design change with our Cornelia Place neighbor; and receive his approval. In return, we have offered additional evergreen trees to be planted off-site on their property, now 22 in total, to further screen their views. The final location of the trees will be field identified in coordination with Cornelia Place representation. Further, architectural wing walls with an overhang have been added to the new southwest vehicle entrance to screen that overhead door. ■ The west delivery area has been redesigned with a 4' foot "dropped" truck delivery pavement, so that we could build the overhead dock structure that screens this area, while achieving truck clearances. The grading plan has been revised to lower the delivery area and lower the west driveway entrance to accommodate the elevation change. A small retaining wall has been added along the west side of the driveway for the same reason. ■ Relocated the water service connection to northeast building corner. ■ Relocated / revised the sanitary sewer connection to the 12" trunk sewer along the south side of the site. The existing 9" sewer to the west will now be no longer used and abandoned. ■ Added a second rain garden system on the south side of the building to provide additional above ground infiltration volume. ■ The proposed underground storm water management system was reconfigured to use a `proprietary' style design. A lower profile storage system was required as a result of the lowered truck dock. If you have any questions about these design changes, please feel free to contact me at 952.943.9660. Thank you, Sincerely, Edward Farr Architects, Inc. �Qtdfsv— Edward A. Farr, AIA President C: Steve Michals, Mount Development Co Luigi Bernardi, Aurora Investments, LLC Page 2 AIs- 65001 ranee BuMing Town Center Offerings & Activities Ebenezer would like to make several common areas of the building accessible to the residents of Point of France. The rooms and activities are designed for all residents in the new building and we welcome your participation in many of the services outlined below, "Please provide the front desk a 24 hour reservation notice for the selected activity' Theater— 40 reclining seats with a custom screen create a special theater atmosphere with evening star lights in the ceiling that reminds of the outside "drive-in" movies, Presentations will include movies and cable offerings, popcorn machine and concessions are available! •:• Convenience Gift Shop — The main floor will have a retail convenience store with cards, gifts and partial service pharmacy. ❖ Dining Room — There will be a 160 -seat dining room overlooking the south terrace, which will have an upscale traditional theme and servers taking tableside orders. Lunch or dinner may be purchased off the menu, A full-time chef will create daily specials and each month will feature special ethnic dinner parties. 4• Bistro — Our northeast corner will have an internet caf6 open to the plaza with seating around the special flower gardens and pedestrian way. Offerings will be premium coffee, ice cream, light meals and other refreshments. ❖ Community Room —This room is used for music events or special lectures of interest, There will be frequent OSHER Life Long Learning lectures from the University of Minnesota. Beauty Shop — Hair Stylist will have a daily schedule and will offer an array of salon services by appointment only. *All Offerings and Prices will be subject to change without notice. 5118113 41,5,4 EBENEZER Part of Fairview Health Services Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 May 31't, 2013 Dear Mr. Teague, Ebenezer 2722 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55407-1009 Tel: 612-874-3460 Fax: 612-874-3465 The 6500 France Avenue location is a gateway into Edina, providing Ebenezer an opportunity to build a senior living community offering Independent Living, Assisted Living, Care suites, Transitional Care Suites, and Observation Rooms for Ebenezer's nearby affiliate Fairview Southdale Hospital and the Twin City Orthopedics center. The new facility would feature Healthsense, state-of-the-art technology, and offer the following: a heated, underground parking garage, full-service salon, exercise room, massage therapist, bistro, club lounge, full-service dining room, gift shops, library/computer lounge with Wi-Fi, theatre and a concierge service, bus lines and bike paths for employees, pharmacies, and shopping. It also faces nature and the lake, providing residents with activity views and beautiful scenery. Ebenezer is looking forward to developing in and partnering with Edina. Thank you, Susan Farr DHS -5357 -ENG 12-12 if Minnesota Department of Human Services Elderly Waiver Program What is the Elderly Waiver Program? The Elderly Waiver (EW) program funds home and community-based services for people age 65 and older who are eligible for Medical Assistance (MA) and require the level of care provided in a nursing home, but choose to reside in the community. The Minnesota Department of Human Services operates the EW program under a federal waiver to Minnesota's Medicaid State Plan. Counties, tribal entities. and health plan partners administer the program. What types of services are available? Covered services include: ■ Adult day service ■ Case management ■ Chore services ■ Companion services ■ Consumer -directed community supports ■ Home health aides ■ Home -delivered meals ■ Homemaker services ■ Licensed conununity residential services (customized living services or 24-hour customized living services, family and corporate foster care, residential care) ■ Environmental accessibility adaptations ■ Personal care ■ Respite care ■ Skilled nursing ■ Specialized equipment and supplies ■ Personal Emergency Response Systems ■ Training and support for family caregivers ■ Transitional supports ■ Nonmedical transportation Who is eligible? ■ Those eligible for the EW are 65 or older, eligible for MA and need nursing home level of care as determined by the Long -Tenn Care Consultation process. ■ The EW service cost for an individual cannot be greater than the estimated nursing home cost for that same individual. ■ The person chooses to receive home and conununity-based services instead of nursing facility services. http://nui.gov/dhs AKc How many people? How many dollars? In fiscal year 2012, EW served 31,320 people at a total cost of approximately $311,817,288. Ninety-two percent of EW participants receive their services through a managed care organization. The managed care program options include the Minnesota Senior Health Options (MSHO) program, an integrated Medicaid/Medicare health and long-term care program; and Minnesota Senior Care Plus (MSC+), a Medicaid health and long-term care option. The average monthly EW participant population for fiscal year 2012 was 22,357 with an average monthly cost of $1,504 under fee-for-service purchase and $1,124 per participant per month under managed care. What alternatives exist for people who are eligible for EW? Probable alternatives to EW include Medicaid -certified skilled nursing facilities and certified board -and -care homes. The average cost of these alternative settings is $5,054 per person, per month, less a resident contribution toward cost of care. Where can I learn more about the EW program? The EW program is described in Minnesota Statutes 256B.0915. Where can I learn more about managed care for seniors? More information about managed care for seniors is on the DHS website. How can I enroll? Contact your county's social services or public health department. If you are already on Medical Assistance and enrolled in a health.plan, you should contact your health plan. How do I obtain more information as a provider of home and community-based services? See the Elderly Waiver and Alternative Care chapter of the Minnesota Health Care Provider Manual. Call the Senior LinkAge Line® at 800-333-2433 for more information about the program. Log on to www.MinnesotaHelp.info for more information. MinnesotaHelp.info is an online directory of services designed to help people in Minnesota identify resources such as human services, information and referral, financial assistance, and other forms of aid and assistance within Minnesota. This information is available in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities by calling 651-431-2400, toll-free 800-747-5484, or by using your preferred relay service. For other information on disability rights and protections, contact the agency's ADA coordinator. A(A http://mn.gov/dhs Final Development Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 6500 France Avenue Lok to Page 1 October 14, 2014 r=m ED�IARDF�2R AUR®RA ON FRANCE Aim.®nA�� ARCHITECTS INC 0lnmrm.s,uc MOUNT DEVELOPMENT CO. r low m I J O L \ �' h41. • - —. � III n,.r -KI • C� = '• `-I Fairview Pmlung Ramp --__ l J l s F n .m. All (a i/r+e�naa; w J Mrs :iUmak— w L M�ii ��.�.��k X11 I I1! 1111 I. m 'vo ��r►�� ma Ill.— MiA cryo - �` ��-w..�.: � c IST - �� tea''`• '. �� jjj, - L Goadin9Dack Memory Green Hoof Green Hoof Below —+ ardent �- k 5oud? leuvre Mir Tennis Court - �- W Point offmaceService Drive �� C, View Looking Northwest EDWARD FARR ARCHITECTS INC Aerial View Looking Southwest Page 4 October 14, 2014 AURORA Inresnurncs, LLC MOULT OEVELOPMEMI' CO. View Looking at Front Entry View Looking Southeast Page 5 October 14, 2014 EDWARD FARRAURORA ®lit FRANCE ®au�aoitA ARCHITECTS INC View Looking Northeast EDWARD FARR ARCHITECTS INC i View Looking at Terrace Page 6 October 14, 2014 AURORA Invcsuncnts, LLC MOW, 1'DElE101M.'l CO. T T T T T T T T 7 T T T T TP T T T Page 7 October 14, 2014 ° ib r ar r'nuY>>arl pl IDs 0, OYwd+rBtl wWrvK'wn'enJ o 'e'u° wr ror'lee ss°m'° 110oi Ed—OSA. Farr Pru aeo.+m.16362 I PACE BRICK 01 - FIELD 2 FACE BRICK •2 • BASE 3 FACE _BRICK Y3 - ACCENT 4 EIFS 6 PRECAST (PC) CORNICE BA BRONZE TINTED CLAS$ IN ALUMINUM FRAMES BB BRONZE TINTED GLASS IN PREFINISHED FIBERGLASS FRAMES 7 ARCH'L'PC CONC 02 • ACID ETGH TO MATCH BRICK 02 B DECORATIVE WALL LIGHT O GLASS CROWN 10 SIGNAGE/ADDRESS NUMBERS 11 PREFINISHED, METAL PANELS 12 PREFINISHED ALUM- GUARDRAIL 13 BALCONIES - CONCRETE 14 O.N. DOOR - PAINTED IB LOUVERS 10 PNEFINISHED METAL TRIM D WALL MOUNTED AR9A LIGHTING IS PEEPINISNEO HVAG GRILLE 19 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNAGE AURORA Lnvnn O LLC cuem SIO Wv1 p1:V f3AYM1:Yf C4. vmren AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EFRANCE AVENUE SOUTH A. MINNESOTA IsseeL Fs` as 1—e� GIIY 5J9NIISX i-1]NIA Sorer tore NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS <�. 13.025 A5.1 k Yt J B 3 l Li ,yID PNtnP1:L._ ia�•14G'-0' A I51 FLOOR— IW'w T T IT T T IT T IT T , � EAST tL[vnnoN T� u>._�. r, lo- I �B oEs le v T T IT T T Y1' T T . X ■ logo ■ �. �..� ■ 1,111 ■ ■ goIn ■ . M ME V -6 Page 8 October 14, 2014 S�OYtr! fo I a reOaeWr aY Y11(Y[t a54p�OfvAONa aW unEYr ofYlYn Etafa�rf of +r Eftiv . EGAiIY A. Fare ea• xo.1G3G2 Ptn e[e RanaY^r 1FACE BRICK 41 -_FIELD 2 FACE BRICK M2 - BASE 3 FACE, BRICK 43 - ACCENT 4SIPS . 5PRECAST (PC) CORNICE BA BRONZE TINTED CLASS, IN ALUMINUM FRAMES GB PBEOFNINISHEDTFIBERGLASSN FRAMES 7 ARCH'L PC CONC 42 - ACID ETCH TO MATCH BRICK C2 GDECORATIVE, WALL LIGHT B GLA55 CROWN 10 SIGNAGE/ADDRESS NUMBERS 11. PAEFINISHED. METAL PANELS 12 PREFINISHED ALUM.GUARDHAIL 13 BALCGNIES - CONCRETE 14 O.H., DOOR - PANTED. 15 LOUVERS 15 PREFINISHED.METAL TRIM 17 WAG. MOUNTED AREA LIGHTING IB PREFINISHED HVAC GRILLE_ 15 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNAGE AUltO1tA A U11 us. LLC amu. T DfvlilAl'alEFr CO. AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN F0 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH A. MINNESOTA �r av ItY T EVII I,LT 6vI11,L {-i3—Y $M51 mea EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS sn.er :m. 1 13.025 A5.2 View Notes Cornelia Residents no longer have a view of an Office Rooftop (previous con- dition) nor the view of a Parking Ramp (previously approved condition). i f 36' to 76' (varies) { 54' to Podium Stepback 11 I New evergkeens planted ■. off-site for Opt. neighbors. Cornelia Place 44' Setback -- oil m oll Loading Area Page 9 Screening Strategies West End October 14, 2014 EDWARD FARR AURORA ON FRANCE AURORA ARCHITECTS INC '°°°5�°'�^�t. �.�c MOUNI'DL'VEIAPfvICNT CO. 4 i y l vvx au �sn.n �x ` !=IlB/Idi 0 adod AIA HIfICS amgAb': I lll�l'J II i I I I I I I I I is -- _1. Ohm, Ohm, 44 `Y t✓� Lz r+ 3 uj o •/_+rs��. ,1 '� �5/..fes r CO :tf ;; \ In Y11��•_._. ?� E Qo Z. U oz ®U 11o s S `a, Q s ¢za ginni 4 i y l vvx au �sn.n �x ` !=IlB/Idi 0 adod AIA HIfICS amgAb': I lll�l'J II i I I I I I I I I is -- _1. Ohm, Ohm, jam. .a S ./ -1k� r•-ra—� —i2 ..Ti .�tE �If w =-=. ,-r._=i__ - c — -r •�r-r fin- n � 1. 1 w R.J wdCD:O — *LOZ •LZ I, 6w`P'Pw6C900C1\Io111w400'1tl —lour — xly.oy uold 1115\1 3 ul 3 M-21 ods R§�lv „ g b K i M I 1g 314 5.11 Iall pp t 1e1y1 ..jd\EgoDCI\CIOZ\:X .1wou fiulxo� A3 44 `Y t✓� r+ 3 uj o •/_+rs��. ,1 '� �5/..fes CO :tf ;; \ jam. .a S ./ -1k� r•-ra—� —i2 ..Ti .�tE �If w =-=. ,-r._=i__ - c — -r •�r-r fin- n � 1. 1 w R.J wdCD:O — *LOZ •LZ I, 6w`P'Pw6C900C1\Io111w400'1tl —lour — xly.oy uold 1115\1 3 ul 3 M-21 ods R§�lv „ g b K i M I 1g 314 5.11 Iall pp t 1e1y1 ..jd\EgoDCI\CIOZ\:X .1wou fiulxo� A3 44 `Y t✓� r+ 3 •/_+rs��. ,1 '� �5/..fes ;; \ In Y11��•_._. jam. .a S ./ -1k� r•-ra—� —i2 ..Ti .�tE �If w =-=. ,-r._=i__ - c — -r •�r-r fin- n � 1. 1 w R.J wdCD:O — *LOZ •LZ I, 6w`P'Pw6C900C1\Io111w400'1tl —lour — xly.oy uold 1115\1 3 ul 3 M-21 ods R§�lv „ g b K i M I 1g 314 5.11 Iall pp t 1e1y1 ..jd\EgoDCI\CIOZ\:X .1wou fiulxo� A3 .. I •� t,/ u"T i.4mr a• m i" ° m�`" "' 65TH STREET WEST / i, c-Ja tr,,="752Y --- —— — tea --— ,np mr.ro, y"ny°Ar°r N" a�aa ".ami �N6t' s;ov% I II afar : � maw �,Iro $• w=I ear a.w ,xar Ik' A ___ uxz (aaorp J-------- I it I OIr I '•e:�•,!, xis• ua I I SuEtlucnr 1 I �. Iii. I a x :. �:dr 1 jaxra, 7 I W Q I`J LEGEND' '-DDry ^ , _'I, . • .,• . V„ ME -1 o —MEN i Lsxar, xwr I Z IR --------- / } xa ' r•— u cRn�ua� 1 i:� asa,.i j ,r sml „x j 1 N a.ar oswas amlwr `1 f� x°v vuv`x<'a"�"""" ALLIANT 1 wxw:zrz soawxx (a• � b'sia"xwxu I ; ; ...,....,.. ' r I IN wwm uvpvpnn'mi» n 1 a� - nr hp ❑ �" ,�r�1 �;,p, ter, I I C I II A � _ ______ ------ _ V 4\.} .j�%$'S?I•^�37 �li�_ _.._____________ I L„ i m• .pY .f "{} arM{v / _,. AURORA _q _ .. .. ____ __ --a-i ' ,s l _ _ _ s• aorpulc a - — --`-'— ------ 1 --i---- ---- -- ----- --- — -- -- -- --- SITE DATA I � Ac9➢IWa nut I - ... ... _ _ ZOtlW4 'E z — ._ ___ xnazpsm wo-, x; ___8 Ifs•^, _ S. IM ` MOIINiOEVEIAPNENS CO. S II _. __ __ _____ 4•.''. rp .I ,. �;.. II lel mru .wu z -aa eL Pra xrr I nr v I ro - N AURORA ON FRANCE RE -ZONING �. t:r" �.S-`, i�1. G. r �� i • .r - I ,i d SUBMITTAL — 3,?•A�-�. ,I�.:.�... i .. r —_rm,x.V..=+"—_,..'��.�. .ate I maNl I II' [onrron .,y�rRi 1 I Y I .I 14 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH :ry ! I• EDINA. MINNESOTA k@j , 10 a0 IN FEET .rm :. ,..e.•-� '�'-'S, I I ern aumir.ns wrwim,s SITE PLAN NOTES: GENERAL NOTES: pA IG NOTES: i wyn rawanx ma vma,e u m vxmw wsm u p v Exn haxme wo camp[ aww rpiepx ' e aumm w v m xc awm xm w a aNm aCITY lu W4x lnpNsaHENr CL... xIA � _ aawa xxm mw:m ,acvam. rwlaxae ze¢aluno:m xvo ne r nvwmm smen mal¢,m:nmF xm Imavosm nmua as xq Vz uue�i mximri xo w ua ' w lv. r�imorwHi <cmm mvc[ wn wn xwwxr sxn w,xn _ cro unwo aw unss. ural um wau. w xc oss,ux srwmuxm exw� a]wrx mauxmna u m.as nx¢m _ a�.ar.w ax ss. sneer rur x_ 0°°0P`"m'� end m " _ a.alanma:wmwarwmmxuwss.wmsaw �NxgVlt�D�N4[� t { SITE PLAN Erwm`x µwoMx""im axm°I"rm m"' a a�,m"ar.,' w'a1O_-=5m, a"' m "' �'ap,L, mw nmmma w n:r a.nwan vam aeon. ax,lme n m nmlr aa. wr rr.man w wrw mma m mmx COP `, E�\1" UD p i9 TP Prvjecl Nunher Slleal Neer ,wam:lal ro ammmaram aw: :,�m';�"•x�x"" °" mxaw:ax•= m,:.amxz mxm,wmx a�a r�'�nr'a"a< Amar` �'ra� w,r�.:"��:: � afYa.' a:. aamam m am.xao xm „°,E:wS�r-� xa"TM'i_"`ws m::w ��xa6 R oohs m.m:r.:a ror a� a w""Im °"'"n° mol :w m::.,xwwx.aml:n . sw.0 a u.wx:em rn ,mwc mx:lml 'G a amwxmn nm awm a. a aama m �r.,rxa mmwm aw w m m wwm,mmx mm xm ,a mm m aw �.� nm m ammx w mm w annmm .maw m w xa mm.. No 13,0063 C5.0 mww I, m:mam ax., ma::aa„r.xmvx:aw mwm axpmn. x� mx�ea µa waa ma w amxw �xxmax n f ao q wrlwY loaf Mia plan, n anTinfion apwl ms preparN by ulWar mY Gira[f aparv:xay and Enpmear wear Ila lam of Aa alala of Mnrrenla. NOT TO SCALE 3L:iH MA. 103 101 101.5 RIPRAP OVERFLOW 100 3" SINGLE SHREDDED MULCH SEE LANDS 11 E PLAN 1. 99 COMPLETE PLANTING SCHEDULE. 98 MIN. PLANTING MEDIUM DEPTH 24" 97 WITH A WELL BLENDED MIXTURE (BY VOLUME): 70% SEMI—COARSE WASHED SAND 30% MnDOT GRADE 2 COMPOST UNDISTURBED, UNCOMPACTED t�5' 11 01 of xr Mark . PE ALLIANT AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT It PLAN 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA [111 SUBMITTAL --a-PNB Eal EMIR DETAILS 13.0063 C4.0 j a. { a 1 6 `�a ! ffE EEIk g {!i tyiy Y i E tpp Q •j cj te�� s¢ i 9 try° tE n'�I.I E pp �'i. pe {.g jE ! ijE {i €+ i � [3! kl H• I� �{{{ S {![ t {Eyy iSel�I �j d9 i!t{�ji I i�s�.31,�tlitiij eil .g,t e R dish hu I all Its @ &a pEp iii 1!; 3 §�a �a��j9 �S� is i:a�"ajl3` � _� _ �6• t ai9SE{; ;fy �A iii tfi Iini�Bij{l +{ 9 it E1s'�B®ee4�l xN f's€E tit :i •�c�YxS Moo SigSi�fS € r�f Z 1113. male 9 IIN J 3 § k.§{{!{jim!fi� Z_ t t W •� a�€c!'+a?t+S��Y�itj�!'iii � a I 5 • =R €y O j a. { a 1 6 `�a ! ffE EEIk g {!i tyiy Y i E tpp Q •j cj te�� s¢ i 9 try° tE n'�I.I E pp �'i. pe {.g jE ! ijE {i €+ i � [3! kl H• I� �{{{ S {![ t {Eyy iSel�I �j d9 i!t{�ji I i�s�.31,�tlitiij eil .g,t e R dish hu I all Its @ &a pEp iii 1!; 3 §�a �a��j9 �S� is i:a�"ajl3` !ta _� _ �6• t ai9SE{; ;fy �A iii tfi Iini�Bij{l +{ L it E1s'�B®ee4�l xN f's€E tit :i •�c�YxS Moo SigSi�fS € r�f s'z 1113. male 9 IIN 3 § k.§{{!{jim!fi� t t t Ha •� a�€c!'+a?t+S��Y�itj�!'iii � a I z g Q RRR O '�nel r°7 O '0 LL W >a— t Z: �— 5 C, wn u 3d a nQ1L0. 9mw��u� n` j a. { a 1 6 `�a ! ffE EEIk g {!i tyiy Y i E tpp Q •j cj te�� s¢ i 9 try° tE n'�I.I E pp �'i. pe {.g jE ! ijE {i €+ i � [3! kl H• I� �{{{ S {![ t {Eyy iSel�I �j d9 i!t{�ji I i�s�.31,�tlitiij eil .g,t e R dish hu I all Its @ &a pEp iii 1!; 3 5E� a D kgq 0 ij e \ e LL LL m $$ LL 2 §�a �a��j9 �S� is i:a�"ajl3` !ta _� _ �6• t ai9SE{; ;fy �A iii tfi Iini�Bij{l +{ L it E1s'�B®ee4�l Ej f's€E tit :i •�c�YxS Moo SigSi�fS € r�f _� 1! 1113. male 9 IIN 3 § k.§{{!{jim!fi� t t t Ha •� a�€c!'+a?t+S��Y�itj�!'iii � a I 5E� a D kgq 0 ij e \ e LL LL m $$ LL 2 r�f g M' 3 t 5E� a D kgq 0 ij e \ e LL LL m $$ LL 2 Oiho jiij'16IgimplI'-+ a • �Ilij� EZ!TZ{E . W�l [ p H: E'slS it 1lal i � a� � e H j It— of 1jj{.i:in 1 i"1111 ;I' 99.is 6 i"1111 jig iSj��it i g F �I I II ?Sg �� 5a aS a 49A wdCO:b — b+OZ 'LZ 1a0 Em9'Z1aGC90O£a\lalllwq-8 — !ou!d — k..N uold al!9\slaa4s uo!d\C900£L\C,OZ\�% .awou bu!moi0 g alai 3 t Oiho jiij'16IgimplI'-+ a • �Ilij� EZ!TZ{E . W�l [ p H: E'slS it 1lal i � a� � e H j It— of 1jj{.i:in 1 i"1111 ;I' 99.is 6 i"1111 jig iSj��it i g F �I I II ?Sg �� 5a aS a 49A wdCO:b — b+OZ 'LZ 1a0 Em9'Z1aGC90O£a\lalllwq-8 — !ou!d — k..N uold al!9\slaa4s uo!d\C900£L\C,OZ\�% .awou bu!moi0 �� xxr iia ' xmwTue .�.r,.eaeTx„N eramemwm`:.- ` � xmzearum roa[mxe �T 4f'[�rC ^.`C .:r NPN�e�NeeaxxatNN x �°ar TM �� ems. uroP� a""""d651PfAf1O[r�ATM ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ^�� STANDARD SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION - CATCH BASIN INSERT AFTER CURB CONSTRUCTION INLET PROTECTION FOR CATCH BASIN BEFORE CURB CONSTRUCTION B612 CURB AND GUTTER s.PeE a/r eu er. C ,n•x ---�- ° 1• . Iro mNt:-�In1�a��iGar to ua�c e SURMOUNTABLE W/STAMPED CONCRETE 191 W u• rz r/z•x �n•N — L Nr r-I/z• �. STANDARD SURMOUNTABLE (wrz cuxfi e: carr.) TYPICAL RETAINING WALL AND RAILING DETAIL L Dax[ I �oDr sPEs sl,e I I - — werxear xxmTxas.s � rt sraE eE ummnuP �oONE�i Bea . tE' O.c xONc a CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SECTION NOUS NEM�Y E. t".••RTCWR3E) z BITMN 5 IMEx CD�xEE (NON t -E) /MNOT SPEC SIY —Wi F ,C o—A OR ll1-1-1- HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION 'ter TE,�aT. • �sro,x cwv ow E oan - au EaPEs axP aaxrs J "-Na""`ii a°Xu» m. ""�` r as iwsor sxc mx srCONCRETE WALK SECTION EROSION AND 9EDIMBR' CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. ansa M•• aaeNrw�NN ... �In eu: N.w,�T[aroe.� SEDIMENT G NTROL R CTICES _ -^�^-^riiuw�w„a^•' n �„.ervu�[,wu�w�.:.vuix�^etd'�wsx e-w-iw-x-ec��i,w� rtwfwnun�wt waaa�wvoowmwux an EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE/SEOUENgNQ F3NAL STABILRATION� T m°O-n wrre xna w eea mmrxe vw[ POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES: EROSION CONTROL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES xuNoa, x.N, cax Nox szts Ew�rruxrs�°s' . mow. Tol n�Nlxcr� s"�srut PEoo mOK'OIIOW60ix 65918-00]S luN✓ , neanPeP awrPPraP�oea 1 wvaaesoavE�PSro ��xEPRF5WG5NE FD.N PRYFIE, W ESN. r norm- -.ury rtir ua p aPe, a`vK r.yirP.Taiiarei°M°r E IM�neo Plus dt�N1 of Ma@ ..o.eN, PE ..'. Re.. NP. Prriere Nanaeer ALLIANT ® AURORA Moudr ocvPz.orM6Mr m. Prrisri AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA sneer nu. DETAILS 'erl� Sheaf N!er SHRUB P"NTING DETAIL 13.0063 C2.0 e�v awing name: X:\2013\130063\pI,, sheets\Site Plen Resie - PW - Resubmittal\13006Ud ..Ow9 Oct 27. 2014 - 4:02pm mam�m 4~+ �F� _ �; :i t c m i r \ it r T 1 2, 1 _ a ®®4 vz ij o O 1 pua At I• i g 611 ��>� u��& I V:• ix l 9 ��f Jw/ n rn� y t $ - yyk _ § € R $sl' a pin x8 R91 '\ II,Qs I t •• - r I�A y Ion r`- rl ll aa Md)r>— 17 ii toys t /' y €p 4 3� Y Rse s§ A SES I4 II F: °A,� 1 I ' • i + e€Re geae �frA sg ��.lou i'P : +•.€m N� - +• �� 2p�� :� s Reps . i i :� E., m —_ 1 �fil-.'Ic i �C.. _ �L a z_Lss• z zz� °.�'�� -�j -1- 14�� I, mN3 � 1 191 IN At8 $ Kip ,�. pp�pp°� �€ 11, fig$ a$ — ~°F Am e°e'Z gg € r1 a — _ d - — II I il jil� Ull _ aim t t� I /F ,�9° �� ,e„ � cs o 6 .^ �: z � § p (---4 I � -i IRT \ ..�� a \\ \\\ �, i� e• �^*y 'I ' ;I I � 1 �l = e a t" s 4.s 221 r' �jigI---------;:5a. t \I \ \l\\\ a\ Ze n 1e 11, a e € ly 112 j xil' € a upt m 1 ' F p f 20 6� g's H$ p p t .: �00 2 3 E 13749 — x �� s $ •c$� ZOO �6€ T th- € e$ee m .•n I^Am' k FRANCS AVENUE SOUTH_ it 6 i ?— i (COUNTY ROAD 17J1 i j 1 -,yam``,.; - — nQ. P !a ¢ pg gg9 € °9p -3 ` a - Txe i/. es sscxiost m. w 6! i.s ` , •` g P$ $� Y F 2 8 j� P oX �< IL I pap SO w a' DX pN �•^D -1 = ag. D e Fvo=� o DDS p ; Ir- s x wg$a3 �mz cr F'F z m o F" Of7 z = oa D` �` -I mz �� -�"�� Z'_ -i I °Wu VM == m 0 am mz 't•p Amo€M es ^ nY �e€FS vzi s -zim pp gy waol:C - 91oZ 'ZZ F°Iv 6MF'doV- .,OZlml\suwyeuoo Bullalsa\A..,ns\oZlou\uoZ\:z :awou 5.!.wo 9 � g!CO ui LU J a fi +AeEi 3; 9 fr`l _ I_J �S �`3336i3DI W < r }' >(JI OVOU-%U Ig e w , _baa dJ-1141nOS 3nN3/I F/ Nt/J _ °, � __ __ }j a � a ( '=q--`� ! E •�s ��a >< �.,a� z ��' �•�i � � . ba4�e -��§ 3•. �$� a ^ jfi6 Ep(:•i 0a i ' 4e—xm'�On N. Of ` s `:boa\•.. \t '\`°a ��. ei\'°'\^ I R f 1 '_ § I� _ . 7R/9l'i hyo ' a T i .IL _. l \\''nim' � I H§ � _ <i.E � d;a Eco'' �• •'.=_€ a � � z�.o E °i, c f A 1 i-` § � ��, Aj 71 _I I '^ I• L 9.Z0. a — — 1. v i 1 °i ` �``.. 3 4-4 ir go Es E ate^ E �•. i I .a + �.� 5 .�`t ".'C�\(°`'~n�: :C,Iw ��:. 1 _x a,'�14."ielR- --�e •, a �i p G1.s 3 $ �s�Y9� .�_, � tII aon �§11 pier ISI .I •��t II � � 3B __________ _-EZ.� ..x - X €bill a _ [I-jl"I � �, E i e •`§: aia x � ._ s � �' t � . m � I'v � � ° ;i I ,� I p 'x•,� r , - i�l��t-•2—II___ a�_x`��I .'_ �I�r�.. �I�'�1H-' _�I•v �«� 6 IlE °§? % i�541 �T✓\ i ��,:j�i /Aj IJP 1 �_ ❑ j ,� z ¢ LL) 9ZI� J � 'tl' L'1 'aC 735 la yl 3N fonana! 1 (Z QYOH ,UnON) — @F Hinos-gnN-4Ad 3 -4 ONVUi hvvA sr b I f J /'ror� •1 i' gg0 6�ts8$p �y� O�b3 ? 4 ' ,RIl oul 1 1 61 IL Rid f J /'ror� •1 i' r/ r 1 1 61 t I l I � 1 R z �x I I u N a3tl3hHaaa oa _ CinroeM'!oo-u_ _ ZL • pozf . •. 4 1 n y � �� x 1 IN ob 1 Q15Q 1 q J�'¢g�F¢ (3111 �aF4F4 E° � le o Pill III allWz W 5 QgR Qb a Pin ..aa'aZNi l - •�a7 0 zsa� 9� AIMI dam 9 a� a HilaW i Oma 1-121,0111j RPRj , 1-911911491 I : i1- e� HN -11111 UsW wi i r, y •x �w � � �� a u Z8 a 5 IN IS spot '. fst 3 88 0� $Bad ' W 1� .'Gk• ` m - ¢� .1� .6 A age •�a �ry i Site Area - 109'-- a ft / 2.34 acres q Building Setbacks: 9 -��- -'� Nergar Home, w geaid=olv . 28 stalls (enclosed) 1/4 Residents North 25 feet Senior Citizen Dwelling "nits = Property Guld Regional Medical South 20 feet Resident 25 stalls (enclosed) .25 /volt East 25 feet /35 feet «* Resident 50 stalls (exposed) .5 / unit West 44 feet / 54 feet ** Staff 29 stalls (exposed) 1 / employee FAIRVIEW SOUTHOALE Property Zoned: PUD -3 - P Y Management 1 Stall (enclosed) 1 PARKING RAMP «« second setback number Is above podium level Required 54 enclosed / 79 exposed = 133 stalls Proposed New Senior Care Building s, 227,5 7 gross 5 stories, 227,577 gross sq 71 *. 'Notincluding 1 level of underground parking (55,554 GSF) I I I I Proposed Parking: 125 enclosed! / 10 exposed = 134 stalls OUT I OUT I SKYWAY Proposed occupancy: Senior C ti2en Dwelling Units I , ii Il . I suPPORT COLVMNS Independent Living Units, Assisted Living Units Nursing, Convalescent. Pest Homes 1 ( Transitional Care Suites, Memory Cara Suit\, Care SuitesSKYWAY , _ I. \ \ To (THIRD FLLDUj n o— _ 65TH_ STREET WEST S _ _ _�_ _ _ _ PUBLIC SIDEµWqq��KI( CELORgT1VET 1— sKYAPqA� UPPOrI" — + 9• WIDE GREY CONCRETE CITY OF EDWA POLE MOUNTED COLOR COLUMNsJ SIDEWALK WEST OF MAIN 6TREETSCAPE LIGHT ENTRY (TYP) I O OUT -t - J 44• ' ! I SETBACK' (, 1 (� ,tea, arp PORTE LOCHERE A y ) 69' A I (• J A PODW +PIECESBED GARAGEEXIT DOORS LOWER Jo LEVEL 25• + AVEMENT Q 9L.a+ imi `rmm°f `°eaio °i�rM; a` ermN'ci • In° ia.a r nr stela or faA. Farr I ua Reo• No.15362 Prole n Naaaae. I o�walvn x.. .I 419A'OIldG.JTN ek. — .. dEaSi� .--- Glq.EKiE1 Ill-�LRrreN�eRrt �_ Gti.4S1T1LEBE Fur -- [E. F8Pn1VtL5I41l1E51£OUTF�lL G��T�yvQ4Q..VDyj EI.1 111& L _ RLTJISEIJAII.IlxrurL rrPss ISa.Lr6ff Ia u.] iNJ1�A00R 0.N1 11 I!®6 EIN�- Na—x?f Lial �]11j,6QLljl1,[lfYAiIQI=, SEATING AREA PLANTING. IIIIII VIII ARI PUBLIC .1WALK DECURATIV _ CO fl .x2p RAIS�D P _ _ ... ARBOAS W/11SEAS _„— PDLANTINGBIEART11 1 Q + Q E R IBi CK 01 2 �D 5 -STORY SENIOR I cn 2 •'f HOUSING BUILDING 5 o � m to• EwaL1� U II 5' LANDSCAPE 3a IT LA E CAST IN PUCE TENANT FIREPLACE IIWA''_f•`� CONTAINER c ORNAMENTAL CONCRETE RATIVE GMDME "t j4t 4- I• LOADING RAILING PATTERN AND S W DOCK COLOR BELOW RODF OVER �,, y-.� •1 '�> GARAGE ENTRY <;J,,;S"• A' ' It Lj T COp0:�0. �ry©. C}0�00 Qty<9 ORNAMENTAL GAZEBO _ I I 4 rJ 000000 RAILING RAIN GARDENS,-ULL'ND1CAPE PLAN _ TENm. COURTS MINT OF FRANCE POINT OF FRANCE . (yam 4410- LOADING ZONE DELIVERY TRUCK (`(11�Id� 6 SB3'-0- STflEET POND DINT OF FRANC COOLING TOWEflS SITE PLAN scNE< 1 •m -D• D IDD ID SAURORA Inraanne'O LLC pNOI 61DDMDEVLLOPMINf Co. Pra;aTl AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Laaalwn 655D FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA. MINNESOTA iaw°G Foy_ Dal_ clTr svRFIILTN 5 -R] -Zein iAeal TNIe ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 11.0. -- 13.025 A1.1 Finish materials in shaded area Finish materials in sunny area OFiberglass Window Frame All Face Brick #1,-".. ® Bronze Tinted Glass ® Champagne Aluminum Window Frame t� Prefinished Metal Panels Face Brick #3 0 Decorative Precast Concrete ' Face Brick #2' Corresponds to Elevation. Sheets Ob^ A5.1 and A5.2 Y Finish Materials May 23, 2014 EDWARD FAM AURORA FRANCS AURORA = ARCHITECTS INC ON rrmuNr n Fvc�.or++ewr co. 59.0' Above 1 st Floor 61.5' Above 1 st Floor = 942.5' = 945.0' = 59.4' Above Curb = 61.2' Above Curb = 59.0' Above Grade = 60.5' Above Grade 71.5' Above 1 st Floor = 954.0' = 70.5' Above Curb = 70.0' Above Grade Note: There is 30' of lawn 7v t- t i t and landscape betwee building -- - . __,and curb here. - � --�- 883.5' Buildin Grade 883.0' Buildin Grade 879.0' BuildingGrade 883.5' Building Grade I 883.5' Build Grade 883.0' To of Curb 880.5'Top of Curb 879.8' Top of Curb 878.0' Tc of Curb 876.8'Top of Curb 884.0 Existing Grade 879.0 Existing Grade 878.0 Existing Grade 876.0 Existing Grade 876.0 Existing Grade North Elevation - 65th Street West Approximate Center Top of Curb Along 65th St. W. Line of Building EDWARD FARR ARCHITECTS INC AURORA /�.,,.` Page 11 Aurora on France - Building Height Measurements ®,. ,«•• October 1�, 2014 TIOVMDLVLLMAIGVf CO. t _ y • , '. s. To_p of Curb Alo - France Ave �` fI 71.5' Above 1 st Floor 883.5 BuildingGrade - 884.5 Buildingrade 1 st Floor = 0.0 = 883.5' G - Note: Existing Grade Elevation = 954.0' 883T' o- of Curb 883.8 To of Curb 884.5 Existing Grade taken at location of new building = 70.5' Above Curb 883.0 Existing Grade 884.0 Existing Grade footprint = 70.0' Above Grade East Elevation - 6500 France Avenue - Primary Architectural Front 59.0' Above 1 st Floor - 942.5' 62.0' Above 1 st Floor 61.5' Above 1 st Floor 59.0' Above 1 st Floor ^� = 59.5' Above Curb = 945.6' = 945.0' = 942.5' = 59.0' Above Grade = 65.00' Above Curb = 65.2' Above Curb = 64.5' Above Curb = 62.00' Above Grade = 61.5' Above Grade = 59.5' Above Grade 00t�` Note: There is 30' of lawn 7v t- t i t and landscape betwee building -- - . __,and curb here. - � --�- 883.5' Buildin Grade 883.0' Buildin Grade 879.0' BuildingGrade 883.5' Building Grade I 883.5' Build Grade 883.0' To of Curb 880.5'Top of Curb 879.8' Top of Curb 878.0' Tc of Curb 876.8'Top of Curb 884.0 Existing Grade 879.0 Existing Grade 878.0 Existing Grade 876.0 Existing Grade 876.0 Existing Grade North Elevation - 65th Street West Approximate Center Top of Curb Along 65th St. W. Line of Building EDWARD FARR ARCHITECTS INC AURORA /�.,,.` Page 11 Aurora on France - Building Height Measurements ®,. ,«•• October 1�, 2014 TIOVMDLVLLMAIGVf CO. KR Rai Fa L � �IC i l l i Ei i I i PA In lre .1 I ,IihE i _ — a �0 6500 France Avenue Page 3 Mechanical Noise Calculations 14 May 2014 FIGURE 1 peo��•t� 1 � N e.Rt- v,��r5 i, To vA A rT#i.5 Lp cq-r-�oiy Z 99 d3A AT -Ak5 L e o.,WO xj itsO Al 6500 France Avenue Mechanical Eloise Calculations 14 May 2014 Page 2 sound level. This location was chosen because it is expect to exhibit the loudest sound levels from the chillers on the roof. Magic Pac Units These units are located on exterior of the south side of the 6500 France building on the 3rd; 4th and 5t" floors, as shown schematically in Figs 1 & 2. The loudest point from the 6 chillers facing the south will be on -axis with one of the sets of 3 vertical chillers. I have calculated the noise level to be an even 50.0 dBA at this location. At the midway point between the two vertical rows of Magic Pac units, the sound level would be approximately 1 dB lower. (See Figure 2). At other locations along the south property line the sound levels from the Magic Pac units will be lower than 49 dBA. Noise levels from the chillers on the roof will not have any impact on the noise levels at these locations. In order to achieve these low sound levels, the Magic Pac units for the apartments on the East and West sides must be located on the East and West faces of the building. Thus, the sound levels at the property line from the York chillers and the Magic Pac units will meet the daytime and nighttime MPCA rules. Given that the measured L50 is 55.6 dBA at that location, and that the spectrum from the Magic Pac units will be similar to that of the traffic noise, the Magic Pac units will not figure significantly in the soundscape at the south property line of the 6500 France building. Please contact me with any comments or questions. Steven Kvernstoen 94 CONSULTANTS IN ARCHITECTVRAL ACOUSTICS 14 May 2014 Stephen Michals Mount Development Co. 10400 Viking Dr. Suite 160 Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 NOISE REPORT: 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH Kvernstoen, R6nnholm & Associates, Inc. was retained by Mount Development Co. to model mechanical noise levels from the building at the south property line of the site at 6500 France. To that end I gathered sound data for the two chillers on the roof as well as the Magic Pac units located on the 3rd, 4 t and 5t" floors of the proposed new building. I then calculated the expected noise levels from the equipment at the loudest locations at the south line of the property. For my calculations I used manufacturer's sound data from Magic Pac for Model MGEA-09-241 and from York for the two Model YVAA0183ABV46 chillers equipped with low -sound fans and low -sound -level kit. All units are calculated at the 100% level, which is the loudest expected sound level. Chillers The chillers are located at the NE corner of the 6500 France building in the circular element referred to as "the crown". The direct distance from the chillers to a person standing at the south property line is approximately 175 ft. However, the building and parapet acts as a very effective sound barrier for the chillers. I have calculated the noise level at the property line closest to the chillers to be below 25 dBA. This is very well within the 50 dBA maximum required by Minnesota Rule 7030. See Fig 1 for the location of this calculated 2444 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405 TEL 612.374.3800 • FAX 612.374.3133 • eMAIL info@kracoustics.com ATT ROOF BELOW OW LUMINATED GLASS 'DWN AT ROOF. PPORTED ON MTL (TRIGGER STRUCTURE 'EFINISHED MTL REEN STRUCTURE 'ER NYC EQUIPMENT 3Tidlim A 2''s•. R^> > r A.EggO�v 57•� 0" METALSUNSCREENS B 6 9 g DECK SF IFTH FLOOR ATOP OF SLAB V gT-p^ 69'-0" BOOP TOP EQUIPMENT ��yy' , PREFIN MTL CORNICE. UT P) A PLUMBING WASTE VENT RISER 0 ROOF GRAINS 0'�✓ yq p C ELEVATOR SHAFT SMOKE RELIEF A1, 1 O KITCHEN HOOD EXHAUST Qs E DISHWASHER EXHAUST VVVV F TRASH ROOM EXHAUST" G FRESH AIR INTAKE A H POPCORN HOOD EXHAUST J SATELLITE DISH i ROOF PLAN o e in�`I lnea ian<n or LliM"s°raien'r ar Edward aA. Farr ®AURORA Invesrmcntsr LLC hIOUNI'OfiVLIAPMTM'CO- Prole[I AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINA. MINNESOTA 111- Fug` — palpal-__ 2irwi TIAL - el TNIe ROOF PLAN Prule[I Nun=er ur NUmA 13.025 A4.1 E%ISi1NG SIOREFflONT DOORS Exl$TINR 9ln'AY ACROss FRANCE AVE TO HOSPItK � ar W %a Ore%rea ne wN ra Duly alic%s%aEr ArNils<r r!•Ae Urm of IAe slate a! A. Fur Dale R.R. NR 262 F`raiecl waneper ®AURORA lnvesuucn0, LLC MouwrfA¢vmoFMFxrro. weien AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1-1- 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA. MINNESOTA IssueN Enr Vale GUi WIWAITLfA 62xmfa ID FLOOR PLAN i AND 5TH SIM.) NUMB` SOeel NN=er 25 A2.3 S¢m' S¢m�- Slutlio Pr rva t¢ 620 I. LOUNGE Stud. Sludi¢ Stud.ludlo StuUm Pr.ale 652 s.f, CARE ° ❑4R2 s.f. too s.r. 396 s.f. 0 1. F. 385 sJ. ° _ SUITES MNG Stud. 5tu0i¢ Stud'o ROOM 908 s.f. r@ TRANSITIONAL CARE 17 units Slutlio StuUio Studio GEN. 1- ° ❑403 s.f. PRI VATE semi - Stud. swam Stud" Stud. Sl ud.0 Studio ❑ Private 415 S.f. '.65 S.f. 85 s.f. 15 s.I. 85 s.f.� c,q ol ° SPA OPEN i0 LMIIJGRY C TCR N AONIHSiRFT ION GELDW —11-IVING ROOM Studio Sludlo LIVING Glud�¢ 9^ TCU ENTRY CARE SUITES Sludlu ° *� i i i - -C EXFM Gill. -J t1 .�,"tDpIHG r� SiOR. iNEGAPY OPEN i0 pELDW Slud. Studld Sludld Stud. ED. _ 1.300 S.f. twnur SiOR SlYdia —ILLiT nO eEv . O HITCHEll ❑ ❑ S¢m1 i E Studio StuUio Pr .f fi20 t.f. Slude SIu11¢ IEudio Ru.4 AliWlvEu 000 pELIVERT Raaf Below LOUNGE GOT s.f. 103 s.f. SEE s.f. stud. Studio SEMI - 408 s.f. PRI VATE TRANSIT 1014f1. CARE 17 units ° SEMI - PRI VATE Slutlio ❑ ❑408 s.f. S tud. Stu 10 smdlo studio swdlo sma�o stun. Prlva le 15 s.f. 85 W. 85 s.F. X10 s.f. 15 S.f. 103 s.f. 385 s.f. per' 620 s.f. 652 S.f. ®AURORA In.ezuncdts, LLC MOANSDGVLLgPN[NPCO. AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA. MINNESOTA r¢eeed Fnr.� oam. nix w6NNiu 6-zs-zdw rnm SECOND FLOOR PLAN Pm .nPm Nom_ ®- 13.025 A2.2 el,a Eula. LrcenaeE Ar[Aile[( w, Ae s,ne yr e A. Farr u.0 R.v. x %362 \ ` Q PToie[1 Nana9o, 65TH STREET WEST ® AURORA uc 1 AdDUMDEVElOPAUM C:0. AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ra[amn 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDWA, MINNESOTA Issued Foy_ WIC_ CITY aIINu1TTk Sneel Tl FIRST FLOOR PLAN _— 13.025 A2.1 ~~ �� `~ ~_ 551H STPEET WEST BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 126 CARS' INCL (5) ACCESSIBLE FIXIWe 1.00 A -AA and A—tall =36- Fkt- Lb.l. B MIGRAW-EDISON-*= N41 "Mom— MIR gggaz-- ama Fixime Label.- WP LUMARK-06-. FWLabeb WF2 (9) COOPER LIGHTING - LUMARIC' lk, m Flxtn Labs4 XXX Eq.iftl.nt I. CIty Iq.hd atrmt Ught Lim vl- AURORA InvratLLC AURORA ON FRANCE =INAL DEVELOPMENT DLAN 3500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINA. MINNESOTA .— 111. SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE TYPES 13.025 E1.2 i Existing Street Lights , Illumination Not shown Streetscape Poles per City Standard" • Located per City • - . b N r-U-b-i••trY � � , ;.�;i.iw�,. 4 m m b N ,• ,..,. b „ „ ,. ,. ,. ,. „ ,r -m, � W 1• N � � .a b Lab ,•b 1 b, ,. ,r ). „ ,. ,-.9.�bi Yr, .• » ,• N�4 V T -N4N-Y 1„•Y V YN-„trNH m,•U ,�i�iY�lt_!=.�f Y• I dab b •l,N a,•'a� ,iiiNYIa UNUNb\ YYbY-UU\ Y Jl ,a m W m 4 mm mmmm m '�,4 15 of mfr 'U-Y•,YYUUUU UUUN-U Y4 •, 4 YN1, r N, JIW 4N.NNY LU1aUYml,U UYUYH NUUUUY4,1 1. Yy4U biYmmUm Wm Yaa1 Y ,r Y Y U 1yYY1Ydr Y SI'N. Yr Y N y N N • V -V U UH ,• Y• N V Um a U N U 1, N Y r U it I. U Y• tl l U Y U Y Y N y N Y U y Y 1• N U U b Y M, Y -m 5 1 Y v ', U. +/NJ• b • Y• U 1. 1, U Ya L 1, N U Y• Yr U U» U Y• 1, Y• U 1, L, U U H >• Y• H b Yr 1• Y, M 11 U U Y• U U b Y• \• U Yr , U U I•., S U 1 U a, i • Nq1 ` 1 • Y Yr 5, 1, • • L 1r Y Yr y Y'Y�A•,,1 fr�Ye bvSi ISH V N' '1' S •' W -WN r .V V U-1 1 1 Y fl -I lr 1 1 -f-- S' 4�1- Wf S U b 1 W:1' , b N b )+ N.\• 1r 1r Y N 5, N W Y l y U f Y L U I V 1 N N y Y 1• I, r M N 4 1 1 U Y Y I b 1 • , 1 • H I N 4 1, V Se U, r 5 r Y r 1, N N m f I t b Y, I f� _ • S i V I,I Y I , N , \ t I Y 1 N U , I t Y f If N Y N�ICDA) Y V N YY V Y N M- l, 1 N 1 N N Y-1 ,t N ire Y• ,lr 1, „ U V N 1, 1. l i b S 1• • 1, 1r I i, N_ b f I - 1 N f 1 1 1 S -", -. b U b H l ,U JI' b U. N.W 11 V. 1 u N'u ij I, 11 N, N Y 1 1 U ,1.•. Y -tW W k •V Y•N 5, 5, V,a S•,. N,•5•m rN,•N t•N YtlY1,N YY 1 Y •UI I HNY.IANtl i Nil 4 : N Mr"��ISti V i]N.1r.1f-1N 1hV N i ° Y Y r� f S tl N N N N U.1 1Lfr-1f`i f 'U it t 1 1 1 S Ni1r N N �1 N V U •' Ir Yr 4, b 1r „ 1 1 1 1 1 N O U N» b W i/ 1; f b � AIN 11 N Ir Ir N 1• N 1 Y � V 1 1 1 .1, Ir 1• N U N Ir 1, Ndli N N U Ii W W- � N YI U N N b N Y I ,a•fir 1N.W 4 Y U N I, Y U N U ,r •` U 1 I ) I Y IrU1FW ,r 1, Y'Iil I_bINI»N1. b� � v !L142, 4Y t`1'W� LNN Y U 1• LI , 1 ,1 1 Y _LII 1 6 `, �• • Yr. {r 1- - 1• b M, Y, N Y 1r 1. 1 ,r 1I.yJ,.1 I 1 , 1 1 , V N r r I - -- - - m •• 1 11 , ti 1 N 1 , N�, N b, N„ N 1 (y W 1 1 1• N 1 N 1 Y M , b M", Wall Mount Fixtures I�t' 1 1 fl ,• ,r Y, ,rby 1 I 1 ,I • ,1 ,I rr, ,{ L', 1 11 1•� 1, 1, mmi a 1, ,. •+ ° to Light Driveway I LrHN N1 , ti,y N1�:y� Y, NwY a Nmb IIN :v V L•ii Hsi N .. hi Y Y Y N 1. ]I.'�• 1 t I1pI N,, y V lE_I_ hnN Y Y _.:IV 1 Y:1 7 ' (wllhin-tunnel) n r •••{4444 9 i tl v 1 111 M Ir 1 4 4 1 1 '1T11 ,• , Y7: 1i Y N 1 STAIR, b• Y W IhY Y ..ILAL.l JJJ..I'�,�L�_�-gi m \. b• IBWfR 1 1 1 6 5, 1 h• I,, m 4 Y• 114 l- U " U J' U- U li ° °,- f i U 1 1 1 N U 1 ' • 1•.p: b• • a• N I b 1 '�i1 1 1' j' )' lir 1 y�t1,i�.N N f, Yi 1, b. e, h• Y, N'Yi 1 �Ui 1 N 1. 1�: m•�. ,. ; ;. ,• ., Y,, U , .5• N }. Y Y b y N tiN b, N N N „ ,• M d Y� r �'jJy,. ,• IJ 1�'�.,�• ,• ,• m 1i 11 Y tl N� AI'NIY-N � N IiippP Y Y IY s' m b. m m 1, b, DQEU 1 Ii, N Y:Y N W N 4� N 0• m m „ 4 Ii 1 1, 1• I N m 14 , b, ,• f • N U 41N a W bb ,r Y .... � m:N Y b NO m N ar U , b HIN IrIH Y1Wp �°I�NGb II�•.' i 1R ." N N ° ° 'RCS Y. W iYGMGE+f• N Y. N IY C ° 6 O C ] O O C y 7 �r b, 1x „k. Decorative Wall Mount Fixtures v �' Y » N tl Y• tl rilb N'ii. N b, e b L tlIN t• ,. • b Y�• IELEVELEV EYEVELlEV 1, a N i+� v bj \ IU YH v,• ,,r�W�'..V{,�2��y� : N ,•II L •„N{•, UN 4N r NNN (J.• C O ° �] ° ° lm Uf. NNN • AIR Loading Dock Roof N.4 Y Ii i • N 1 7 WEfl will shield lighting ,. ,. N 1. ,.b.'='.Ir-;. N , .,,. , ,IA,+• ,. N 1 , L N,I b IttN N ° ] ] 7 0 ° 1. Y. 1. ,. b... , h. N m m a , b Y Y. 1. 1. 1 1 , '1T1 from this area / Wall Mount Fixtures :1,1".. b, U N bY�t•' ,y Wall Mount Fixtures +' N -H N k N • 1• N U VEr Mb bJ, N 1 _ !' Y, o ° I b b U V ! W N W b 1• ..1, o to Light Emergency d Ii b,1�4, w 1. ,• I�;,I`. LIN . v 1, to Light Driveway . . ,r , • 1p.,,. ° ° ] ] ] ] ° °. �: • .. : : Y. y, r .:4r}. Egress Path y- Ax b11; Y•1. N�,rw! 6•m • N,'yYN • » »,. ,i N m � • W N N»N»m ' I 1/ ^\��,.. l ,i ,f Nb�I,N Yr N'1'� , a tl - N N, � N 1•�'i i•r _y 1�1' h1 Y r N m , 6+ m m ,• N � r � � N hs b� m Pr m , � Y �� J 4 , N 11J 1• irjP gl m b m b. is i. • r• N t il'Z{. • b� m m a• ,• •': m � ° O ] ] ]. .] ° °I • , • , � , � � • , J �t A M , , i N Y 1 1r b� t'mmmm� mb,•Ym Nm,•mmm4 .. • • • • • ,y.NNYC, ~obi.; 4 �NN 1 1 L• by N�3,w. M N . e • . • . m . • , 1.Y I N Y N Ir . . ,. o . m . • • ,• e • e • • . • • • ,. • • • o • • • • • • • • . . • • N 1. 1, 1 1 , U 1, tl • N ,. 1 f• � • • m m m m,. m m m m m b. be b•,. ,• ,... m ,... ,. b. b 0.0 Fo Line Aurora Site i,,.-0.1 Footcandles at Properly Lfr(e I yrf spnool Gry w MYrca•t ,'•Nlemp Lamm rmn WWm, u W,nigbo a�`� 9UGLE OF— RE i I L' 4 t i e .e•T•pderTFA,AEOErCOeovl lEGmn<mba4A j� IimT'—dime ._ _ ... _. _—_________ ' wrz dw"wvr.GL.wEomv LEG,wpmE I �•�QVS i �uw �Aw �rAo—tM4�.MA4i rANMEitl,m�Vlen �, HWr•Nxem Nmm Vn EGLamMRuasm5O pF. i'\ I(Ir UL f r„ "� '4da tlinGry N Plan provided by Pulse Lighting and modified by Edward Farr Architects mos off" �1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN SC -T � ,•=p._U. 0 10 A "ter 1G.. miu...... irr":m • dmr uE.p••d n.mn•�i u�d•r moi Iam •r m, sole •r Edard A. F— AURORA A ® UORA A UR LLC MO� C0. Proi AURORA ON FRANCE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN O FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH INA. MINNESOTA issuedFor Imp nrr s_ rr w s-n-zmn iii��•'' Tnld SITE LIGHTING PLAN 13.025 E1.1 �e�p$j yy LLa 'a o� = I I d � OD Ea z €C 0 w 2�>�s Ree 6a zoLU o 'a w .' F a ❑ zz j" G `ansae as aaE ®s¢Za ^S® 3¢ s ^S r�n9rw1 'Hic fa B= ! "I ;-WnOS 3nN3AV 3PNVlY T t gg 5§ tt � j°$j F !I'd]., aa: Itll gFg{p. Y.€Eg!{ q ,vyg5 ggygy 5 gg �� - -I 1x6'- `- __ I1: �A^'�! - �°(��•.;�e: 0� '��E3 j$9 �7$��;$¢E � $�"e@ �t sill mr, r nes. 1% g" oil y I MIT, blu limp' � W II I 3 a x 5 4 a2I¢ ilii gi€� � d I 8f�' � � �� `3m� ��' ��, ` ... • rn � u2 1 N �e I els .rte' z a$ I i w k 3 k� E$ j-- c K s' TT Ms LLI IP 98S_ ti ✓n ' �iC 'd/a i�74�} % h wd6o:V - VIOL 'LL M 6MG'VoojE9IXlfl\ gg gg gg gg ¢S gg aIf If 19 If 11 It III If If s•q •q '£ a •q 'E a •E y #a #x Ex Ea Ex Ev Ea Ea Ea t € ,111.gm,8 _ jo! — 1M8 void 1715\ale049 uop\E9oot1\Clod\:X :•woo 5,1-1 A37 A I A nr8ee =g9En - `as Wok s'a o amp W UW o < i P4 `; Z� O+ Rap f�,'u 0 CL sma CS Zy ¢o = Q O Q JE s OZ¢ €off 4� J o 1 Q = J a 1 n` y.-":... w -:-.,vim a3 90 a� �—�� W o ie -$E �� gag -10 N' 11 dzup g \ � �` 15 a� A15 €§ all 3� LLN. �o a PN�s-+L_ � .1' '� S.i'a ' Ids_ :',�''• i 6 6 11 III wd40:b — tLOZ 'LZ 110 6mV'II}n£9OOft\loplwgn..H — bold — ma,naa noid a11S\gaaga ..td\£900£I\£IOZ\:X :auwn 6ulrnu}, -NG DATE: November 5, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 6500 France Avenue - Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. Survey 1. Utility easements were drafted for a prior building version, an update will be required. Soils 2. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 3. Update all City standard plates to current http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction standards Traffic and Street 4. A traffic and parking study (WSB and Associated 7/26/2013) shows adequate parking, and no undue burden on the transportation network. 5. Provide pedestrian lighting along France Avenue and also along West 65" Street. (Example Attached) a. The pedestrian lighting along West 65`' Street shall match the pedestrian lighting used on West 66'' Street from France Avenue to York Avenue, see City Standard Plate 625: http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Engineering/Construction%20Standards%20Plates/ ConstructionStandards 625.pdf. b. The pedestrian lighting along France Avenue shall match the pedestrian lighting proposed for the France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project. See the Canto G detail attached with two luminaires, the lower one directed to the sidewalk. 6. Curb cut permit will be required for relocation or modification of driveway entrances. Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf 7. Crosswalk intersection improvements shall include white thermoplastic blocks across both 656 Street and France Avenue and shall include installation of ADA pedestrian ramps. 8. Traffic signal sight lines, and Emergency Vehicle Preemption system (EVP) on traffic signal on France may be blocked by skyway. Provide design schematics showing sight lines approaching from west, and propose modifications to signal as necessary. 9. Provide private maintenance agreement for skyway. ENGMEERMG DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov. 952-825-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Page 8 City Council Update View Looking Southeast July 26, 2013 EDWARD FARRAURORA ON FRANCE AURORA /� ARCHITECTS INC r°`m°nt�,u.c ' MOWi TDEVELOPMENT CO. #aEt oh I )A#vN p1 -AA) i. i lin ,iGl Il �� 7 i ril- 17 11T t �l p, 1 (1.--- MR /)AWA ]j raft MR /)AWA - .--,ice Ila t l\ i k�tf •_ —I 1 A i i _ n 1 \ �►�`' q�` �1,wk z w. M 1 Ab(r� Pt a ®el`s M.A. al All V - & MWAWr4d WT ldhRl har.2, %alh.SVhA%j & 1 �\ .f► ✓ 47 4i J1 `s ti�� AC�:..:=.�:1till !� lP l l ■n,T"l l ,SW• Views from Cornelia Place Page 20 July 26, 2013 Em AUR EDWARD FARR ORA OIii F RAI`I C EAURORA Invatinmrs, LLC 0 MOIINTDEVELOPMENT CO. KELIMIVAkY PLAV 34&Z. .....ijav USA p'e'w.:++.', " � 1/ �� . � ��..„....:30_....,'�'a.__`. tr....a..«.� � , �►. • s Nunn OPP mo ■■ � I■■_AMI L. moi■-� O wommr. -:.Amir a�rr ,��■��ri, lL e -�Tw;{ill r i 3 r■ ■ li' fr11 am r • ,`� fir.-_ _ r - F i 3.4.,`.Mi kotl B.A..).AQ%i C FIRST FLOOR PLAN 6500 France Senior Housing . EDINA, MINNESOTA 7-19-2013 1 COMM#17656-13051 MOUNT DEVELOPMENT CO. NO ACCESS COFFEE/ b BISTRO pq I,I�o SF. 0.d ■ IN FITNESS 873 S.F. PHARMACY/ GIFT SHOP 1111146 S.F. I BvZ4m wom 7430. I BWI— B•dd.- 700 sL 30' 15' 0 30' 60' NORTH AURORA hivestments, LLC Page 17 July 26, 2013 ttf.umlvAt f t Afj • p? -•- /mom •' \ 1® e� Ell . m►_� ^ ONE ■■ ENE MEMORYCARE CARDEN ME ENE MEN MEN ONE ENE ■■■■■■■ 00 we ONMONOMMIN No q, I L IMMONME ■■■■■■■ ME NMI D FAR Q_,..■■■■■■■1i■ .o. ■■■�■■■■■■■1 �. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■�son ■■■■■■■■1 i■■■■■■■■■■■■■ INEEMEEN:::�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■ ■■■■■■■■■■l ■■■■ ■■■■■NNIN ■■■■■■■■■■■, .�■■■■E■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■r IIIIIIIiI �Iilllllll� FIRST FLOOR PLAN 6500 France Senior Housing . EDINA, MINNESOTA 7-19-2013 1 COMM#17656-13051 MOUNT DEVELOPMENT CO. NO ACCESS COFFEE/ b BISTRO pq I,I�o SF. 0.d ■ IN FITNESS 873 S.F. PHARMACY/ GIFT SHOP 1111146 S.F. I BvZ4m wom 7430. I BWI— B•dd.- 700 sL 30' 15' 0 30' 60' NORTH AURORA hivestments, LLC Page 17 July 26, 2013 ttf.umlvAt f t Afj DECIBEL LEVEL GRAPHI ACTUAL READING OF FRANCE AVENUE GENERATED FROM TRAFFIC \�� \ 66.0 dBA _a ✓a __ B5TH STREET WEST � J L5 0, 0 0 0 0 50.0 dBA N SOFFR Ir N taxa I t \� � arrwaa®.S� F >. O 4. t— Iy m 1 O 00 b d 4 D 111Ji1L111111 PROJCTED READING AT PROPERTY LINE FROM ? NEW HVAC UNIT Y 25.0 dBA a ACTUAL READINGS OF FRANCE AVENUE GENERATED FROM TRAFFIC AT POSITION 1: 1) 66.7 dBA 2) 66.0 dBA 3) 64.0 dBA 4) 66.7 dBA I 1 1 I I 1 1 DATA COLLECTION LOCATION NOTES: 0 30 60 120 1. DATA COLLECTION PROVIDED BY KVERNSTOEN, RONNHOLM & ASSOCIATES. 2. COLLECTION TIMES ARE AS FOLLOWS: SCALE IN FEET 7-9AM WEEKDAY, 11:15AM-1:15PM WEEKDAY, 6—SPM WEEKDAY, 11AM-1PM SATURDAY Devign Fiir. Geched By. I hweby evli( that Ihis plop, apecifieot'xn w repM 3. POSITION 1 IS JUST WEST OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE iapo63 pep waa p.epdred �y me a undw my direct supar.;ai,. AND POINT OF FRANCE. (Leo AVERAGE IS 65.9 d9A. 60 dBA IS THE MPCA RULE FOR of 1 am d duly Lice ise0 Prelaasbnd Lab Stole: prawn B% Wr antler YMneaeto a tea 326.02 l0 326.16. MAXIMUM DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS.) 1• = 50' pc 4. POSITION 2 IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE AND POINT OF FRANCE °ole: Btldk up.: sgndwr. 5/15/14 BB pole License Numbw NORTHWEST OF THE COOLING TOWER. (Lso AVERAGE IS 55.4 dBA, WHICH IS WITHIN THE MPCA DAYTIME GUIDELINES.) POINT OF FRANCE ALLIANT wcweewNp, INC 5. THE DECIBEL LEVEL NUMBERS ARE NOT CUMULATIVE. DECIBEL EXHIBIT sv p.�BBxvB aourB, surra sob EDINA, MINNESOTA rxonera »I se�weoa�la ra h ACTUAL READI G A, — 1 AVENUE GENERATED FROM 1 TRAFFIC AT POSITION 2: 1) 55.5 dBA 1 2 56.0 dBA 1 3 54.4 dBA 1 4) 55.5 dBA I I I 1 1 1 m 1 O 00 b d 4 D 111Ji1L111111 PROJCTED READING AT PROPERTY LINE FROM ? NEW HVAC UNIT Y 25.0 dBA a ACTUAL READINGS OF FRANCE AVENUE GENERATED FROM TRAFFIC AT POSITION 1: 1) 66.7 dBA 2) 66.0 dBA 3) 64.0 dBA 4) 66.7 dBA I 1 1 I I 1 1 DATA COLLECTION LOCATION NOTES: 0 30 60 120 1. DATA COLLECTION PROVIDED BY KVERNSTOEN, RONNHOLM & ASSOCIATES. 2. COLLECTION TIMES ARE AS FOLLOWS: SCALE IN FEET 7-9AM WEEKDAY, 11:15AM-1:15PM WEEKDAY, 6—SPM WEEKDAY, 11AM-1PM SATURDAY Devign Fiir. Geched By. I hweby evli( that Ihis plop, apecifieot'xn w repM 3. POSITION 1 IS JUST WEST OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE iapo63 pep waa p.epdred �y me a undw my direct supar.;ai,. AND POINT OF FRANCE. (Leo AVERAGE IS 65.9 d9A. 60 dBA IS THE MPCA RULE FOR of 1 am d duly Lice ise0 Prelaasbnd Lab Stole: prawn B% Wr antler YMneaeto a tea 326.02 l0 326.16. MAXIMUM DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS.) 1• = 50' pc 4. POSITION 2 IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE AND POINT OF FRANCE °ole: Btldk up.: sgndwr. 5/15/14 BB pole License Numbw NORTHWEST OF THE COOLING TOWER. (Lso AVERAGE IS 55.4 dBA, WHICH IS WITHIN THE MPCA DAYTIME GUIDELINES.) POINT OF FRANCE ALLIANT wcweewNp, INC 5. THE DECIBEL LEVEL NUMBERS ARE NOT CUMULATIVE. DECIBEL EXHIBIT sv p.�BBxvB aourB, surra sob EDINA, MINNESOTA rxonera »I se�weoa�la ra h 6500 France Avenue Mechanical Noise Calculations 14 May 2014 FIGURE 2 So OTA E4.FNP`-T1OtJ Page 4 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 7 of 11 Existing Level of Service Summary Table 4, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the two primary intersections on 65th Street as well as the existing site driveways and adjacent development driveway based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operation at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS D or better. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Table 4 - Existinq Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2014 which is the year proposed Aurora on France would be developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time fi•ame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables S. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service after the redevelopment as prior to the redevelopment. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Table S shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2014 and 2030 during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the intersection of France Avenue at 65th Stree. By 2030 the analysis indicates that at the intersection of 65ti' Street and France Avenue potential issues on the 65th Street approaches and France Avenue left turns may exist. With minor intersection and signal improvements (additional turn lane length and signal phasing changes), these issues would be minimized, improving the overall intersection LOS back to a C with 20 to 25 sec delays. � p AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Delay LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) 65th Street at France Ave C (D) 20.3 B (D) 19.8 65th Street at Valley View Rd B (D) 13.8 B (D) 12.5 65th Street at 6.500 Site A (A) 1.0 A (A) 1.2 Driveway 65t Street at 4005 Site A (A) 0.5 A (A) 0.4 Driveway 65" Street at Adjacent A (A) 0.5-2.2 A (A) 0.4-2.7 Development Driveways C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2014 which is the year proposed Aurora on France would be developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time fi•ame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables S. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service after the redevelopment as prior to the redevelopment. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Table S shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2014 and 2030 during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the intersection of France Avenue at 65th Stree. By 2030 the analysis indicates that at the intersection of 65ti' Street and France Avenue potential issues on the 65th Street approaches and France Avenue left turns may exist. With minor intersection and signal improvements (additional turn lane length and signal phasing changes), these issues would be minimized, improving the overall intersection LOS back to a C with 20 to 25 sec delays. � p Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 6 of 11 Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. A G Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A 510 510 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. A G Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 5 of 11 The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non -development background traffic growth to the existing 2013 traffic counts to deterinine the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated Aurora on France traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. Figures S and 6 show the projected 2014 and 2030 Build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the impacted intersections and access driveway adjacent to the hospital. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing Conditions 2. Projected 2014 Build 3. Projected 2030 Build This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections of 65th Street at France Avenue, 65th Street at Valley View Road, the existing driveways on 65th Street, the proposed development site driveways on 65th Street and the right -out only site access to France Avenue. This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to snake it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. X45 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 4 of 11 Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed ultimate redevelopment is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic are based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM. peak hour trip generation for the proposed site. Table 2 - Estimated Site Trip Generation Use Size (units) ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Assisted Livin 59 157 78 79 9 6 3 13 6 7 Independent Living 50 101 51 50 3 2 1 9 4 5 Skilled Nursing Care 40 96 48 48 6 1 4 2 1 7 3 4 Memory Care 40 96 48 48 6 4 2 7 3 4 Observation Care Rooms 20 48 24 24 3 2 1 4 2 2 Total New Trips 498 249 249 27 18 9 40 18 22 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Trip Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: 25% north on France Avenue 20% south on France Avenue 10% from the Hospital across France Avenue 10% north on Valley View Road 5% south on Valley View Road 30% from west on TH 62 Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2014 which is the year the proposed development would be completed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. h44 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 3 of 11 In addition to the regional background traffic, other specific none development related traffic was determined and included with the overall background traffic. Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion consists of a 77,500 sf (gross area), two-story building located on the north side of the existirig hospital building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 20.14 and 2030 analysis. Southdale Residential - The City recently approved the addition of 232 apartment units with associated parking in the existing Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of 69th Street and York Avenue. It is assumed that this project will not be open and included as part of the 2014 analysis but, will be fully leased and included in the 2030 background traffic. Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all space will be occupied by 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2014 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development — A future restaurant is proposed in northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 69th Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2014 but, will be open and included as part of the 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other sirnilar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the AM and PM peals hour trip generation for the proposed uses. Table I - Estimated Additional Background Trip Generation Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 36 21 15 24 10 14 Apartments 232 units 118 24 1 94 144 94 50 Shopping Center 143,880 sf 138 86 52 533 256 277 Restaurant 8000 sf 87 48 39 79 47 32 Total New Tris 379 1 200 1 780 407 373 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Existing Traffic Characteristics France Avenue (CSAH 17) is north/south a 6 -lane divided Arterial roadway from south of 66th Street to north of 65th Street. Primary access to York Avenue is by local streets and. development driveways. The posted speed limit on France Avenue in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph. 65th Street 65t" Street is an east/west City street with numerous access driveways. The existing roadway configuration includes a single lane in each direction with a continuous center left tui lane (three lane section). All the driveway access points are controlled with stop signs, stopping the exiting movements from the developments. A 30 mph speed limit is posted on this roadway. The two primary intersections along the 65th Street corridor are at France Avenue and Valley View Road. Both France Avenue and Valley View Road are classified as "A" Minor Arterials providing regional access to the area. Both intersections are controlled with traffic control signals. The lane configurations at each are as follows. 65th Street at France Avenue SB France Ave approaching 65th St'— one through/right, two through, one left NB France Ave approaching 65th St — one through/right, two through, one left EB 65th St approaching France Ave — one through/right, one left WB 65th St approaching France Ave — one right, one through/left 65th Street/TH 62 off ramp at Valley View Road SB Valley View Rd approaching 65th St — one through, one left NB Valley View Rd approaching 65th St — one through/right, two through EB TH 62 off ramp approaching Valley View Rd — one free right, one through/left WB 65th St approaching Valley View Rd — one right/left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted along 65th Street at each access driveway, the intersection of France Avenue at 65th Street and the intersection of Valley View .Road at 65th Street/TH 62 off ramp the week of February 20th, 2012. Figure 3 shows the intersections and driveways along the corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study and, Figure 4 shows the existing 2012 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the existing lane configuration. The traffic count data is included in the Appendix. Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed development will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other growth and development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts on in the area traffic has stayed constant or dropped in the past few years. In order to account for some background growth in traffic a .05% per year factor was applied to the through traffic on 65th Street, France Avenue and Valley View Road to the 2014 and 2030 analysis years. �4-4 WSB Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South &A&vdak4Inc. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 66416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum DATE. June 26, 2013 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Public Works Director City of Edina FWom.• Charles Rickar�t, P.E., PTOE RE: Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-43 Background Traffic and Parking Studies were completed in April, June and October 2012 documenting the anticipated impacts the proposed redevelopment of both 6500 France Avenue and 4005 65th Avenue sites would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site and proposed redevelopment has again been revised. This memorandum provides an updated review of the traffic and parking impacts, based on the revised site plan and development proposal. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The revised development plan includes a change in the proposed use on the site from medical office to a senior housing and skilled care facility. The current approved plan for the site includes a 102,965 sf medical office building with a 548 vehicle parking ramp. The new proposed senior housing and skilled care facility will include 209 units with 144 parking spaces. In addition, the current approved plan included two full movement access locations on 65th Street and a right out only access to southbound France Avenue. Access to the existing sites is currently provided at two (2) full movement driveway locations from 65th Street to each property (four driveways). All access to the proposed development plan will be from 65th Street at two locations. The primary access. to the underground parking will be on the west side of the site. A second access will be located in the center of the site and will be on for visitor drop-offs. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the existing and anticipated development were evaluated at the site access locations as well as the primary impacted intersections and driveway along 65th Street between FranceAvenue and Valley View Road. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated traffic and parking impacts for the proposed redevelopment. i t 6A. t cc ''k4c 12, 7-1 AP Site ph 6500 F Our OUT; IN IN 000000 4 ��R F� EDI MEDICAL lam" ARCHITECTS INC� ALJR.O�A �wwawniti Li.0 MOUN'TD I�P�1�w�iD 1496)CAL N 6, 2012 ZIOZ `9 .(—D N 173t0Y1 �v�wsa a9�wa�v VZV-I A -IV IS[ II [� 1336 S H199 ---------------- j n uln0atno dWlfb�d�Sd p V-0oue13 ®OS9 G1NOd UeTGT OTIS Sanitary and Water Utilities 10. Developer's agreement will be required for the realignment of public water main and the installation of public sidewalk. 11. City requires realignment of watermain at SE corner of property in France Avenue. a. With realignment, watermain is not necessary along east property line. b. Make water service connection off of France Avenue watermain near the NE corner of the property. c. Extend watermain and a fire hydrant to the front entrance off 65`' Street, near the out driveway. 12. Remove sanitary sewer to downstream manhole on southwest property corner. 13. Expose sanitary manhole 4680 on south property line, confirm location and bring to grade. 14. A revised SAC unit determination will be required at building permit application. Storm Water Utility 15. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic calculations. 16. Point of France pond outlet elevation is 862.9, 10 year elevation is 864.4 and 100 year elevation is 865.9. Provide summary of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to confirm proper capacity under backwater conditions. Confirm no backflow potential from drains near garage that may cause sanitary inflow. 17. A separate permit is required from 9MCWD Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide erosion, sediment control plan that meets provisions of MPCA construction site general permit. Reference notes on detail sheet on ESC plan. Provide permanent erosion control for down spout locations. Other Agency Coordination 19. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. Hennepin County, MDH, MPCA and MCES permits are required. These permits may have been started under the previous iteration, but need to be revised and resubmitted. ENGINEERING DEPARThfENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdhwIMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 1 F+J 66(280) 60(11) 139(11) 0 0(0) 6. 213(440) 0 c N 2I 1) 0 ( 0) '-, o H 73 (269) o N 41- 105 (195) o o F - 253 (207) ^ 52 (113) i o o 16 ( 32) .A. K' 2 ( 1) .A. or 9 ( 6) or 1 ( 5) E' 2 ( 2) rl 1 j L 63 ( 64) ( 42) 39 t t f► ( 8) 53 -0 ( 3) 76 .s ( 0) 0 '4P (158) 88 . R t t I. (709)324 ..}� ^, o ILII (218)382 =► 0 0 0 (281)337 "_,► o (396)360 �! o 0 0 (170)228 �.► .00-, (232)489 N ..., ( 0) 1 v -.. ( 4) 7 ,.. V ( 1) 2 `. ... (130) 45 " F+J ,(�Traffic Impact Study Figure 6 }o Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) 2030 Peak Hour Turning Movements ® City of Edina, Minnesota 2I 1) 0( 0) 0( 0) '. o o ti 84 ( 309) o o ,� 44, 123 ( 277) o o 4— 254 ( 201) A 0 ( 0) APA or 1 ( 5) 0 ( 0) ( 1) 0 .a ( 0) 0 -0 '4P ( 0) o We ILII LEGEND (225)435 �-► o o (280)406 '_► o m (396)360 -► o ! AM (PM) Peak XXX(XXX) Hour Turning (6) o (4) 4 Movements" I ,(�Traffic Impact Study Figure 6 }o Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) 2030 Peak Hour Turning Movements ® City of Edina, Minnesota _---.�-......... ... _-__--- _'-_.----'-_-'_ _--' _-'-_- . . (97)201 -`� i. | | ' 64(278) 93(244) 224(179) (312) M U - LEGEND AM (PM) Peak XXX (XXX) HourTurning 4) 4 Movements Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Peak Hour Turning Movements M o 2( 1) 0 0( 0) o 0 0( 0) 0 0( 0)' 37 ( 271) o o �. 76 ( 237) o o �.. 199 (167) o o 4- 209 (167) I .A. 0 ( °) .8. Ir 1( 5) � 5 ( 2) 0 ( 0) (1)0 1 LEGEND (°) o .s Y (o) o � (o) o � (162) 383 �► o ( 217) 354 'a► o o ( 327) 302 '_► 6 0 ( 332) 305 AM (PM) Peak (°) ° _ ( 4) 4 ( 1) 2 -_ _- ( 0) ° `- - XXX(XXX) Hour Turning Movements WSB Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 �C ) Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements ��J 29 (254)v 60 (11) 139( 11) 0 0 ( 0) i m R 179 (376) j .. 0 ( 0) o N JL 26 (229) o ti 61 (156) o o o F- 204 (168) a m N °:' 43 (96) 1 1 V 8(20) A or 2( 1) r 0( 5) r 5( 0) 14 4 50(51) (42) 39 't t . ( 8) 53 J ( 3) 76 -0 ( 0) 0 (131) 73 -0 1j 1 t 'fs ( 80) 294 .% (155) 330 o o .- (277) 277 'i► ( 332) 305 o 0 0 ( 93)196 `_► - i o o (232)489 N ( 0) 1 V V ( 5) 9 ,.. _. ( 1) 2 V `.. (108) 37 M o 2( 1) 0 0( 0) o 0 0( 0) 0 0( 0)' 37 ( 271) o o �. 76 ( 237) o o �.. 199 (167) o o 4- 209 (167) I .A. 0 ( °) .8. Ir 1( 5) � 5 ( 2) 0 ( 0) (1)0 1 LEGEND (°) o .s Y (o) o � (o) o � (162) 383 �► o ( 217) 354 'a► o o ( 327) 302 '_► 6 0 ( 332) 305 AM (PM) Peak (°) ° _ ( 4) 4 ( 1) 2 -_ _- ( 0) ° `- - XXX(XXX) Hour Turning Movements WSB Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 �C ) Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements ��J i...._...._..._......._......_... ._... _.._.................. ......._........... ._. - -. _.........._ tWSB FPlu�1A ti Traffic Impact Study Figure 3 �C} Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) y City of Edina, Minnesota Intersection Location Map -FrOSPITAL. RAT g5tt1 StHt'tT :+c ST .19ML AWL {• 'wmrar.r t 'doss, P SERVICE C,atMT x • } t ' r <y' ay .. 42' > OP r p01NT OFF POINT OF FRANCE ' LOADING ZONE PARKIN T V POND •��'�.. .. . _! 'COOLING .. ..... ....TOWER, I IED%VW FAM LE ARCHITECTS INC Traffic Impact Study ll` Aurora on France (6500 France Avenue) /r Senior Housing Development City of Edina, Minnesota Vi AVRORA / N - 11C Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan C I z wR OINI A EIH�a J U CH OWEN Qti 3~ Y >a Cq a N RD < CU RVE a ❑� W. 62 nd �ST. 32nd ST. W J 62 nd ST. a� w x a a ow L ui w r GAU a RRI SON ( a 35, A > a m _ 0 700 ft 1400 ft L ST. 35. o 31 J o w = W W > U J � d_ J ~ 64 th ST, Ln a ST. w 64 th IIST. a rar"SOTA z a a I w• ] 64th L� o r Q > DiW W W .. J a a th w r a W. z o 65 th ST. a d 6S ST. _ Z 0 Q -L Q `'� �VRB LU W D' h ST., T. v= 0- z r z W. 66th ST, a 0 00 000 0 SOUTH )ALE > s Cornei�ci . Project cc (oz ti w Location CIR. _ apt N ~ n� �POONR 68 th a Q <11A<D m ROYCAR P� gALFANZ o tiQ ST, TON RD. �� > w G NPN T UPPER RD. �P° > a �P WI TER• zo JUDS pN �� t�� A 69th AOLi R ~i J L z �� J W. 69th ST. C o D WAY w a z w 000000 0 Q ST. D&o o �q pq 38. ERRY o J O p J �DE W, � 70th o > a w ST. o a o o > LAR o ANDOVER RD. > M WF1 L E w ~ � ¢ u := hS = m r D z�� w C ASP4S GA C�AREL VIDERE LA. o _ o DR. HAZELTON v n MORE D w o?_ x TIT !q ASPASIA CIR CARE Y of a o o 1cd D CIR. DUNygM DUN MORE W. c� _ m 72 nd ST. r L1 <9 (/) DR yAAIRO z p a `� Cree 39. O�o pJS k HIBISCUS o RT DR. DR. w v 0IpO(r Qa O F Q af w a AVE. 0 J a > 0NDELL DR. w ~ w OR• J > PHLOX _ of 'f GILFORD DR. o CD z C3 LA. a w w a � o z 4th �U W y of a W CT. o ST. Lake HIBISCUS a a s PARKLAWAI < AVE, v a ST. AVE. O EaiIna, a SEpUM `CD P�� o W. 75th 0 0 0 �� PLAZA r o �� QOPPy SNORE wQP .�• r > v LA, G DR. a W. 76th ST. UJ ` a :D x L BLVD. W. Y w s 1J a m U I 77th M w a MINNESOTA DR. VIKING w DR. u" 0 1I' 1r o 7 Traffic Impact Study Figure 1 N Aurora on France (6500 France Avenue) ° Senior Housing Development 'y Project Location Ma City of Edina, Minnesota A7a p �.. Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26; 2013 Page 11 of 11 APPENDIX A7 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 10 of 11 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed Senior Housing and Skilled Care Facility project including planned 209 units is anticipated to generate an additional 27 trips in the AM peak hour and 40 trips in the PM peak hour. • Additional trips will be generated from other approved or anticipated development in the surrounding area. These uses will generate an additional 379 trips in the AM peak hour and 780 trips in the PM peak hour. • Existing traffic operations at the intersections and driveways in the study area on 65tth Street are all operating at overall LOS D or better for the both the AM and PM peak hours. • Traffic operations at the intersections and driveway on 65th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road with or without the proposed site development for the forecasted conditions in 2014 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. • The intersection of 65th Street and France Avenue may have potential delay issues with full development in 2030. With the minor intersection and signal improvements (additional turn lane length and signal phasing changes), these issues would be minimized, improving the overall intersection LOS back to a C. • The results of the queuing analysis found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no -build and build 2014 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridors do not exceed any of the available turn lane storage. • The proposed site plan provides parking to meet both City Code and anticipated parking generation based on ITE guidelines. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide the proposed roadway internal roadway improvements as shown on the proposed site plan (Figure 2). 2. Although no improvements to the France Avenue at 65th Street intersection are specifically required at this time. Should delays and queuing become an issue in the future, minor intersection turn lane and phasing improvements may be necessary. Should these improvements be required in the future the Aurora on France Senior Housing development will be responsible for their share of those improvements. 3. No additional roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate the proposed Aurora on France Senior Housing project. A70 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 9of11 Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on anticipated uses on the site. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4t' Edition. Table 6 below shows a summary of each potential uses, the estimated parking generation rate and what the anticipated peak parking demand would be for a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case condition for the parking on the site assuming the proposed uses. Table 6 — Site Parking Demand per ITE Use Size Rate Spaces Assisted Living 59 0.41 spaces/unit 25 Independent Living 50 1.00 spaces/unit 50 Skilled Nursing Care 40 0.48 spaces/unit 20 Memory Care 40 0.48 spaces/unit 20 Observation Care Rooms 20 0.48 spaces/unit 10 Total Parking Demand 125 The current City Code would require a total of 13 8 parking spaces for the proposed development. Currently the proposed site is estimating 144 spaces available. Table 7 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 7 — Parking Required per City Code Use Size Rate Spaces Assisted Living 59 0.75 per unit + 1 per employee 60 Independent Living 50 0.75 per unit + 1 per employee 53 Skilled Nursing Care 40 1 per 4 beds 10 Memory Care 40 1 per 4 beds 10 Observation Care Rooms 20 1 per 4 beds 5 Total Parking Demand 138 Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for the proposed senior housing and skilled care facility. 40 Aurora on France Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina June 26, 2013 Page 8 of 11 Table 5 — Forecast Build with Development C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Queuing Anal A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2014 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at the driveways and intersections on 65th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no - build and build 2014 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridor do not exceed any of the available turn lanes storage. In some cases however, the maximum queues were exceeded. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In most cases the queues exceed the storage in the continuous left turn lane, therefore only blocking the adjacent driveway and not impacting through traffic. The potential future mitigation at the 65th Street and France Avenue intersection discussed above will improve the flow of traffic on 65th Street and also minimize traffic blocking the hospital entrance. Additional signage could also be added indicating "do not block intersection" and/or "no left turns during peak hours" at the hospital entrance should this become an issue. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement and approach are included in the Appendix. 4 6� 2014 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Overall Overall Overall Overall LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) sec/veh 65th St at France Ave C (D) 21.3 B (D) 19.8 C (D) 23.2 D (E) 37.4 65t" St at Valley View Rd B (D) 14.3 B (D) 14.8 B (D) 14.5 B (D) 17.8 65th St at West Site Access A (C) 1.1 A (A) 1.3 A (C) 1.2 A (C) 1.8 65th St at East Site Access A(A) 0.4 A(A) 0.5 A (A) 0.8 A(A) 1.0 65t' St at Adjacent A(A) 0.8-2.2 A(A) 0.5-2.7 A (A) 0.8-2.4 A (A) 0.5-2.8 Development Driveways C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Queuing Anal A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2014 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at the driveways and intersections on 65th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no - build and build 2014 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridor do not exceed any of the available turn lanes storage. In some cases however, the maximum queues were exceeded. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In most cases the queues exceed the storage in the continuous left turn lane, therefore only blocking the adjacent driveway and not impacting through traffic. The potential future mitigation at the 65th Street and France Avenue intersection discussed above will improve the flow of traffic on 65th Street and also minimize traffic blocking the hospital entrance. Additional signage could also be added indicating "do not block intersection" and/or "no left turns during peak hours" at the hospital entrance should this become an issue. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement and approach are included in the Appendix. 4 6� ,u r ..',�y{. ti Nf rl t f i t. ��*� `+`©�j - �+ `�• - r= "fit `-v�r. '� '- -� - - � r • r _ SS i> • r ,a --------- �W-zw M +ii r Tw 2( 1) 0( 0) G( 0) 0( 0) 45.. 37(271) 76(237) 199 (167) o o t. 209 (167) A 0( 0) A or 1( 5) Ar 5( 2) 0( 0) 1) 0 0) 0 -0 0) 0 0) 0 LEGEND �2 -r (332)305 (162)383 (217)354 (327)302 AM (PM) Peak 0) 0 4) 4 1) 2 — — — 0) 0 XXX(XXX) HourTurning Movements Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements A-7� 29(254) 60( 11) 139 11) 0( 0) 179(376) 0( 0) 26 (229) o 4L 67 (756) o o 4- 204 (166) 43 (96) TA 8( 20) AL it 2( 1) JA Or 0( 5) kr 5( 0). 1A 50( 51) 42) 39 t t B) 53 3) 76 .0 0) 0 (131) 73 .0 t t 80)294 J+ (155)330 - - - (217)277 ( 332) 305 93)196 (232)489 N 5) 9 1) 2 (108) 37 --------- �W-zw M +ii r Tw 2( 1) 0( 0) G( 0) 0( 0) 45.. 37(271) 76(237) 199 (167) o o t. 209 (167) A 0( 0) A or 1( 5) Ar 5( 2) 0( 0) 1) 0 0) 0 -0 0) 0 0) 0 LEGEND �2 -r (332)305 (162)383 (217)354 (327)302 AM (PM) Peak 0) 0 4) 4 1) 2 — — — 0) 0 XXX(XXX) HourTurning Movements Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements A-7� x 0 n 36(249)C- 139(1) o w o 0( 0) 36)1 18(32))42) 39 t t f r85)298 0(232)489 � _. I 139 ( 11) m 75 (162) 9( 6) ( 3) 76 -0 it (237)290 '� o (4) 7 v 0 ( 0) R 187 ( 388) 223 (119) c- 'r 46 (100) or 2( 2) �, j j d 56 ( 57) ( 0) 0 (140) 78 dr TA 1 1 r a (352)379 oo^ o o (97)201 '�► ( 1) 2 (117) 40 2( 1) 0( 0) @�W.- 0 o ai 54 ( 278) o o 4S. 93 ( 244) � 0 ( 0) � R' 1(-5) LEGEND (1) 0 .0 (0) 0 -0 `Y' (181) 394 •�► o o ( 236) 365 '�► c " AM (PM) Peak 9) 9 `.. `_ (4) 4 XXX(XXX) HourTurningMovemerits B e Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 >( o Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Peak Hour Turning Movements Ml 41 A 4 J 2( 1) of o) 0( 0)o 0 0 0 c " as- B4(309) o o iS., 123 (277) o o `" t- 254(201) 0( 0) J H or 1( 5) 0( 0) I LEGEND (0)o (225)435 (280)406 ^, o m (396)360 —0, AM (PM) Peak ( 0) 0 o vo) o J XXX(XXX) Hour Turning (4) 4 ( Movements WSB . Traffic Impact Study Figure 6 oe Y(, ) Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Peak Hour Turning Movements 66(280)60(11) 139(11) 0( 0) 213(440) o w 0 ( 0) o N 4. 73 ( 269) r, o N �. 105 (195) o o 4- 253 ( 201) r- 4r 52 (113) 4 4 18 ( 32) A jr 2 ( 1) AL : 9 ( 6) r 2 ( 2) 41 WA 63 ( 64) (42) 39 t t �+ ( 8) 53 .0 V ( 3) 76 -0 T ( 0) 0 (158) 88 t t 'Ft (109)324 .}, (218)382 =► o o (M) 331 (396)360 ^j► a o (110)226 =► (232)489 '9i -.. (0) 1 _.. ,.. (4) 7 V v ( 1) 2 ... V (130) 45 `. 4 J 2( 1) of o) 0( 0)o 0 0 0 c " as- B4(309) o o iS., 123 (277) o o `" t- 254(201) 0( 0) J H or 1( 5) 0( 0) I LEGEND (0)o (225)435 (280)406 ^, o m (396)360 —0, AM (PM) Peak ( 0) 0 o vo) o J XXX(XXX) Hour Turning (4) 4 ( Movements WSB . Traffic Impact Study Figure 6 oe Y(, ) Aurora on France Senior Housing Development (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Peak Hour Turning Movements SimTrafflc Simulation Summary Gn4Rat3 Existing AM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness K\01686-430\Traffic\Existing MOEs TAB: [AM MOEs] A 3- 6/26/2613 1: 66th Street & Valley III— Rd meneeeneseeee�imeneeee�s mmmm�nnmmnn®®gym®n®nnnno mn�onn�o�©nnm�m®nnonn�o �a®�� mnn�� mo®n�m�� m®ennnemm�e©an,mnnneee mennnnnenn©n©�mnneeo ONE .. m®�� m�� 66thStreetF.111i..mnn�nen®nnnnntnr�mennesen.e��m��©�� mnnsenesenene�!mee®see®e mnemnnennee©e�m®nneee®e mn®e�n�n�enent�mnn�eeen.e �an.�� ®�� nn.nn�� meas©ee©eeene��ne®ese�e m©�ono�onomoo�m®nonoo�o mnnnnnnnnn===m=nnnnnnMM mn�©nn�©®nnon�mnnneeo�o �m=MEN �en�� m©mm�� m�� 7: 65th Street& 6600 -We,tD mnnnnnonnnonommnnnneo�o��m�� m©�n�©inn®nnemmnnnnee�o mnnnnnnnnnnno�mnnneoe�e . min®�� n�� DVWVmnnnnnonneone�mnnnonn�o� mnnnennoonnno�mnn�nno�o mn�nnnnonnnnnt�mnnneon�e mn�nnn�n�neno�mn®nnne®e mam�� m��n,�� n�� m��mn.�� K\01686-430\Traffic\Existing MOEs TAB: [AM MOEs] A 3- 6/26/2613 SlmTmfric Simulation Summary 6/2412013 Existing PM Peak Hour Measures of Eff-tf.... as K\01686-430\Traffi6E fisting MOEs TAB: [PM MOEs[ h-63 6262013 me®ewe®ee®©etstem�eeeee®e ��®�� mteeeeeeeeeeeemmeeeeeeets me®e®ee©®eest� meeeeee©®eeet<,��eeeeee�ts mneeeetmeee©e©mm�eeeeetets �eeeeeet�ts �� m��©�� t�ee�� tsteets®�� meeeeseeoeeeete m��eee®mee©e©temeeeeeeets mmom�eeme©e®etem�o�eeet®ts me®etmeeetme©e©em®eneeeee mese®©eeeeeeem m©meeeeeeeeee mteeeeeeeeeeett,t� me®e®ems©®e©soot meeeeeet�e�� m©eeeeeets mee©eee®ts�� - eeeeeeets me�eeeee•e ate■®�� m�� mmm�� me©m�m��', mee�� mae®�� m�� m�� I� mteeeeee©eeeeemm�seeeet�ts�'me®�� m©e®®eeeee®®��®eeeeet�ts m�eeeeeee®eeettsm�e®eee�ts m©eee©eee®e©ts� m©eotm©eotmomom�.�®�0000eo m00000000000emm0000eeeo me®owe®nye®e®teme��eeeets m®eeeeet�ts�� mt©t®®tst®,,■tete �®�� its®�� m�mm�m�� m�� ,m�� '�� m00000ee0000ee meee�eeeee�eetemeeneeeee meeeeeeeeeeeeemeeeeeeets me®e®e®e®eoea�me�eeoeets m®ooeoet®o�� ms■®��s�� m�� m�� e��e®�� , meeeooeeoeeee� meeeeeeeeeeeeteme®eoeet®ts mneeeoeeneeeeemeeeeeeeo e��ee®e®eeeeeme®eeee®e meeeeeeets�' mae�� m��t•�� e��s�� m��®�� K\01686-430\Traffi6E fisting MOEs TAB: [PM MOEs[ h-63 6262013 simTraffic simulation summary 6/24/2013 2014 AM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness K101686-0307raffic\2014 MOEs TAB: [AM MOEs] Aq 6/26/2013 1: 65th Street &Valley View _ mem©mn�©fie©e©�mmm��e�EN m____ --_ Ramp meeoeneseeseemmne®eee®e mmn®mmemm®nne�!m®n®eoom.o mmmomm®nnommm�tm®mm�nomto ©��®emne©e®nt mmmmeeemto�' mmm�� mmmm��mt�� m®m�� m©ne�m�� m®eemneemne©amtmeemeeomte memememememem�mmneeeemte mnnemememnmem�mnnneee�e m©e©e©e©eneee�mmeneeemte mmemm®emm®e©emtmme®eee�e mmne®mmmnnm©®n,mnnneee®e ©en©©en©sesemtmmeneeem,e �� m�e�� ©�� memt�� ®�� m®�� Iiiimennneenneeeemlmneneee�e 7: 65th Street & 6500 - West DW m©®n®©mama©a©mtm®n0000mto mnnnnnonon000mmnoonoomto mnm©®mm�mn®o®��mnnmeoomto menoeon©nn000mmmmmnnnmto mmmnnmmnmmen©mt!mmmnnnn mnnnnnnnnmmnm memmm�momm mmmmmmmmmn©e©m�mmmte mmmmmmmmmnmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmnm� Mmmmmmmmmmmmm� = mnnnnnn mnmnnnn mnnm : Mmmnnnmo n nnmte�� : �m�� m�mm��mt m��©m�� mmmtmtm®�� K101686-0307raffic\2014 MOEs TAB: [AM MOEs] Aq 6/26/2013 SlmTraffic Simulation Summary 6/2412013 2014P11 Peak Holt Measures of Effectiveness K:\01686-430%Tralfi62014 MOEs TAB: [PM MOEs] 6/26/2013 man I' ,:Si MMMMMIM MMn nnn MMM - MEN mm"MMIMIMMIMIMIMI mea mMM M' M' M' MMMMMe�e��m�®ease®e M' n' M' M' I mM' M' M' MMM '®' M_ -____MI_ meneeseese mmnm�mom®ooe©�me��ooe�o mo�o�o�o�oonomm��ooee�o Mseeoe�e mmm�� m©mm�� mese®eee®eese!mMe®eoe®e �meneeseeoeese��neeeee�e ��_ MMMMM mMMMM m©®MMMMMMMMMMI m®�eeee�e��ma�� MM MMMMMe MMIe®MIMIMIMIMI meeneoeMMMIM m©wnMM m000000MnUMI mo®e®e�®®MMM mOO©000©�o00�m®0®M0nME me�oMMMMM meeeeeeeeoeo me®D®0�0�0®Ommme®0000®d nwm®o®�m��on ®o® �mM �m000000=o MMMMMMMMME MMMMMM me®eno=M_ meooeoMMM MERIIMIMMIMIMMIMIMMI HmIMIMIMMIMIMIMIMI MIMIMIMIMMIM�I mammIMINI I mIM��MIMIM � m©mM�l�� ®IMIMIMIMIMIMMIMI mMIMIimMMIMIMI I mmM®0IM®=M mm®®�m�m ®®®��m��®000 mem®m�MMIMMIMMMMMIM m��e0�0 �000�0 0 mIMMIM®®MMI ROMMMMIMMIMI m�®NMEMIM110 K:\01686-430%Tralfi62014 MOEs TAB: [PM MOEs] 6/26/2013 SlmTraHie Simulation Summary 6114/2013 2030 AM Peak Hour Measures of Ellecliven... K:W7686-430\Tra1fic12030 MOEs TAB: [AM MOEsj 4 6/26/2013 Sam _ • . m©mom®©mm�n®nn�m®�nnnnnn mmmm�mnmm®nn®� mmnnnm®nnn�nnfmm�nnnnnnn mnnnnnnnn�� m�� m®n�� mnnnan�� m®nmm�nnnnnnn��mnnnnnnnn me®nnn®nnnnnn�m®nnnnnnn��m�n®�� mnnnnnn©nn�n®ntmnnnnnnnn �� mmmm�®nnn®nn®gym®n©nnnnn �©�� m©®n®n®nnmmnm�mnnnnnnnn mnnnnnnnnnnon�lmoonnnnno mnnnnmmnmn MM nnnnnnnn mMM�©n�� mnnnnnnnnnnnnmmnnnnnnnn mann©nnnnnnnn�mnnnnnnnsn mnnnnn®mm�nn®�mnnnnnnnn MnMnnnMnMn�nntmmn®nnnn®n I° m��n®��■� mnnnnmMnnn mnn®Mmn®Mnennntmnnnennnsn mnnn�®nom®nom©�ntm��®nno®n mn�nnn�mm�n®®m�mnn®nnn�n MMM nt;mnMnnnnMM �'n��n®nt�� mn®�®nt�� mm®nn�� K:W7686-430\Tra1fic12030 MOEs TAB: [AM MOEsj 4 6/26/2013 SimTraffie Simulation Summary 6/25/2013 2030 PM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness ... ........ .. 'M BEEME Baum IRNRNRHM= m®nn®nnnM©nn©n,m�n�nnn�u = mn®=®' �Mn' mn®nne®nMnM mnnneennnnnn mnnnnnn©nnnnnMmnnnnnnnnMMMMMMMMM mmmmMmmm=nnnnMmnnnn mnnnnnnnnnnnntntmnnnnnmm� nnnnn�' nnennnnn��' n= n®" ©®n' Mn nn��Mnmmnnmm� - n - '®' '®' Mmnnnnnnnn M mn '�n' m®n' Mnnmm� nnnnnnn nnn nn=n '®' n m --_nn___ Mnn______ MMMMMMMMM MM=MMMMMM MMMMMMMMM m©n®===== h Street & 6500 West DW mnnn®nnn=====M mn®nnnMnnnnnnn.mnnnnnnnn mnnnnnnnnnnnnMmnnnnnmm� mnnnnn®nnn mnn®ne®®®©m�e® mnnnnnnnn m®nnnnnntnt MMMM MMMMMMMM= mann®nn®nn®nnntm®nnnnnnn mnnnnnnn®nnn® mnnnnn®nnnnen mnnnnnnnnnnn m©nnnnonoono�m®nonon�o n mnnnnnn mnnnnnnonmmn mnn®nnnn.n m®nnnnn�n nnnnnn m©nnnnnn©nnn mm®n�mnnnnnmm�m��nonnnsn mnnm®nnm�nnnnn,m�®�nnnme mnnnn®nnn®nn®�m�®mnno�e n®nnn�oMMMMMMMMM�Mm �mnnnnmnnnnnnnnnnnMM mnnnnnnmem=MMMMMMM MMMMMMMMM m��n�n®� MMMMMMMMM en®nt®n.�� K\01666-430\Traf jcI2030 MOEs TAB: [PM MOEs] Nq1 6/26/2013 6500 France Avenue Traffic Study City of Edina April 6, 2012 Page 7 of 7 Vehicle Queuing Analysis A queuing analysis for both the existing and future 2014 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at existing driveways and intersections on 65th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing and future 2014 conditions, the average queues in the corridor do not exceed any of the available turn lanes storage. In some cases however, the maximum queues were exceeded. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In most cases the queues exceed the storage in the continuous left turn lane, therefore only blocking the adjacent driveway and not impacting through traffic. Based on the analysis none of the anticipated average queues or maximum queues on 65th Street will back up or block either the France Ave or the Site Access intersections. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement and approach are included in the Appendix. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: ■ The proposed site redevelopment is proposed to include primarily medical office and supporting uses and is anticipated to generate 2280 trips in a day, 279 trips in the AM peak hour and 216 trips in the PM peak hour. ■ Traffic operations at the intersections and driveway on 65th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road will remain the same with or without the proposed redevelopment. ■ Traffic operations at the proposed site driveway will operate at overall LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours with the worst movement operating at a LOS C. ■ The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact to the adjacent driveways or intersections will occur as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Based on these conclusions no additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the proposed site redevelopment. all Jackie Hoogenakker From: Penny Smith <Penny.smith@att.net> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 8:19 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Aurora project I live at #603 at Point of France. Our condo overlooks the project. I support the development and feel it will be an asset to the area. I just received your recent mailing with the latest architect drawing. If my recollection is correct, the exterior originally looked more like the Twin Cities Orthopedics with rich looking shades of brown. This current Aurora on France building seems to show a cheap yellow look as shown in the latest drawing. I hope it is ONLY the printer shade and not reality. That Red 8 on front of the building seems to cheapen the exterior look. I note that those huge beautiful flower pot containers originally included on the corner are now missing and replaced with rather pathetic looking low planters. Unfortunately, I no longer have the previous drawings of the building, but seems there was also beautiful area (perhaps on the green roof) toward the POF side. I hope it is still there. Last year, Point of France owners were told that they would be invited to use Aurora's dining facilities, be invited movies that would be shown in their movie theater (with a ceiling of twinkling lights to remind folk of Drive In movies) etc. That is one reason why I strongly supported the project. I hope this offer has not been eliminated due to any change in concept. Thank you all for your work on this and other Edina issues. Sincerely, Penny Smith .V Jackie Hoogenakker From: Tree <twedin@ncscor.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 10:19 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Aurora project an The project is very nice looking and the skyway to the ramp is nice. From the previous Aurora presentations they were touting many amenities that there would be at this facility and with this basic outline it doesn't give enough detail to determine exactly but in practical terms only parking for 30 employees seems short. If there are more than 30 staff or vendors there where will they park? Jones Harris in Minneapolis and the addition to the Coop at 7600 Xerxes both have parking issues for staff with overflow parking all over have you ever driven it buy these places? Are they going to park in the lot across from valley view at the park? The streets surrounding the development are no parking, 65th France, valley view, what is the plan? Will they be allowed to use the Fairview ramp? I guess my concern is our parking lots ...... will we have to add staff for a parking guard on our two lots? Our receiving lot could be full or empty on any given day and I just see it as a natural progression for the Aurora folks to use our lots without some kind of a plan. How do I see the rest of the plans noted on the drawing index? Thanks! 7"e-awlW ad4t/ / NCS Sciew twed,64� nQC- r. COM 7440 W 78dvStreetl 3 oTvMN 55439 952-941-4464 / 866-404-2060 / 952-941-0396 fav Jackie Hoogenakker From: Judie Mattison <judiematt@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 7:17 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 6500 France Av S I am a resident of Point of France, 6566 France Av. S. I write to support construction of a senior care building at 6500 France Av. S. which is being considered for final rezoning. This building can be a valuable asset to our neighborhood as it serves the growing number of aging people in our community. The neighborhood has other medical services into which these services would fit and with whom they can possibly cooperate. I encourage you to approve this beneficial addition to our area. Judith Mattison Point of France #908 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 12, 2014 VII.D. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKG ROUND Project Description The applicant, 7200 LLC is requesting to redevelop the property at 7200 France. (See property location on pages Al -A5.) The proposal is to tear down the existing office building on the site, and redevelop it with a four and five -story mixed use development project that would include the following: ➢ 160 unit luxury apartment, 32 units of which would be for affordable housing. ➢ 20,000 square feet of retail space including two restaurants and retail/office space. ➢ A two-level, 500 stall underground parking ramp. The retail space would be located on the France Avenue side of the project. Access to the retail space would be off France Avenue. Access to the residential use would be off 72nStreet. The existing vegetation and trees on the west side of the site would remain to provide screening from the residential area to the west. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages Al 3 — A56 and in the attached development plan book.) To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are be required: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 5 stories and 76.5 feet. ➢ Housing Density — from 30 units per acre to 50 units per acre. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from .5 to 1.49. In addition, the following land use applications are requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two-step process of City review. Should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Preliminary Rezoning be approved by the City Council; the second step would be Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Site Plan review which would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish the PUD District would be included in the second step. The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See the sketch plans on pages A57 A61; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A62 A67.) The applicant has developed the proposed plans by attempting to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council at Sketch Plan. Some of the most significant changes include: ➢ Reduction in the number of units from 195 to 160. ➢ Reducing the building height from 6 stories to 5; and reduced the townhome height on the west side from 4 to 3 stories. ➢ Reducing floor area ratio from 1.88 to 1.49. ➢ Increased the podium height on France by 10 feet. ➢ Increased landscaping. ➢ Created a green boulevard on 72�d Street which serves to prevent left turn out movements from the site. This would eliminate some traffic in the in the low density residential area to the west. ➢ Increased the setback on the west boundary from 60 feet to 75 feet. ➢ Reduced the commercial space from 26,500 to 20,000 square feet. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Sunrise Senior Assisted Living; zoned PSR, Planned Senior Residential District and guided Office Residential. Easterly: Macy's Home Store; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided CAC, Community Activity Center. (See pages A3—A5.) Southerly: An Office Building; zoned Planned Office District and guided Office Residential. Westerly: Duplexes and single family homes; zoned R-1 & R-2, Single and Double Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 3.51 acres in size, contains a multi -.story office building with a low drainage area on the west side of the property that is wooded. (See page A2.) 2 Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation OR — Office Residential. (See page A5.) POD -1, Planned Office District (See page A3.) Access to the commercial portion of the development would be from France Avenue only. A new curb cut to France would be required. France Avenue is a County roadway, therefore would require Hennepin County approval. This access would be right -in and right -out only and would lead to the underground parking area. (See page A22.) There is an existing turn in lane on France Avenue that would remain. This could be used as a drop off area, and valet parking. Hennepin County has provided a preliminary review of the plans, and has indicated that they would not approve the right -in and right -out access to the retail, and would like to eliminate the existing turn in lane on France Avenue. Should these access points not be allowed; the entire project may have to be re -configured. Access to the residential portion of the development would be from 72nd Street. There would be full access in, and right out only. (See page A22.) Extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A new north/south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along France Avenue. As recommended in the Sketch Plan review, the sidewalk has been separated from the turn in lane along France Avenue. A new east/west sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along 72nd Street. (See page A21.) There would also be an interior circular sidewalk in the court yard area inside the residential portion of the site. (See page A21.) Traffic & Parking Study Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A -73—A94.) The study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways. There would not be a change to the current level of service on the roads. No improvements would be needed to the roadway, other than what is proposed on 72nd Street. However, as mentioned above, Hennepin County has indicated that they would not allow the access on France Avenue as proposed. Any condition of approval would require County approval or a re -working of the development "a to provide other access points off 72 Shadow Study The applicant completed a shadow study to determine impacts the height of the building might have on the surrounding area. (See pages A54—A56.) As demonstrated, the biggest impact would only be for a few hours roughly from 9 am to noon in the winter months when shadows would be cast over the single family homes to the northwest. (See page A54.) Landscaping r 1 Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 40 over story trees and a full complement of understory shrubs. The applicant is proposing 77 overstory trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Oak, Maple, Hackberry, Spruce, Honeylocust Aspen, and Linden. (See pages A36—A37, and the development plan book.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Final Landscaping would be more closely reviewed with the Final Site Plan. The west side of the property is a wooded area that would remain to provide a natural buffer area to the low-density residential area to the west. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading for both the retail and residential space would take place from the courtyard area, and would be located inside the building. (See page A22.) Trash would be collected within the buildings and would also pick up from within the courtyard area. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and has a few concerns. (See the engineer's memo on pages A68 -A72.) These issues should be addressed at the time of Final Plan review. Any approvals should be conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo dated November 3, 2014. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of brick, limestone, stucco, composite panels, precast concrete, and glass; "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level on France Avenue. (See renderings on pages A17—A19 and A23 - A26.) A materials board would be presented at the Final Site Pian phase. 2 Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be POD -1, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Should this project be approved by the City Council; staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of monument signs and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Setback from Single Family Homes Within the underlying POD -1 zoning district, the Edina City Code requires that buildings five stories tall be required to be setback twice the height of the building from the property line of single family homes. The five -story portion of the building would be setback 320 feet from the nearest R-1 property. (See page A2a.) Based on the height of the five -story portion of the building, the required setback is 153 feet. Comprehensive Guide Plan/Density To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 5 stories and 76.5 feet. ➢ Housing Density — from 30 units per acre to 50 units per acre. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from .5 to 1.49. Density. The proposed density of 50 units per acre exceeds the density range for the City's Office Residential area in the Comprehensive Plan by 20 units per acre. (See recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Approved Density in the OR District on page A10.) The proposed 50 units per acre density is on the higher end of existing development, but generally consistent with recent development projects. Development Address Units Units Per Acre Yorktown Continental (Senior Housing) 7151 York 264 45 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 6500 France (Senior Housing) 6500 France 179 76 York Plaza Condos 7200-20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240-60 York 260 29 5 Edina Place Apartments 7300-50 York 139 15 Walker Elder Suites (Senior) 7400 York 72 40 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 69th & York Apartments 3121 69th Street 114 30 Lennar 6725 York 240 52 71 France (Byerly's) 71 France 234 23 Beacon 66 France 39 43 , The applicant has attempted to address the density concern that was raised at the Sketch Plan review by reducing the number of units from 190 to 160. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The proposed floor area ration is 1.49. Under the current zoning district regulations of the POD -1 District, the maximum FAR allowed is .5. The applicant has attempted to address the FAR concern raised at Sketch Plan by reducing the floor area ratio from 1.88 to 1.49. Based on the above information, the following is the suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment language, as recommended by staff. The text highlighted in red would be added to the existing text. Staff would further suggest flexibility in regard to density for housing in the CAC District. Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories Description, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines OR Transitional areas along Upgrade existing streetscape 12-30 residential dwelling** Office -Residential major thoroughfares or and building appearance, units/acre No current examples between higher -intensity improve pedestrian and Floor to Area Ratio -Per in City. Potential districts and residential transit environment. current Zoning Code: examples include districts. Many existing Encourage structured maximum of 0.5 to 1.0** Pentagon Park area highway -oriented parking and open space and other I-494 commercial areas are linkages where feasible; ** Residential density may corridor locations anticipated to transition to emphasize the enhancement be increased to 50 units per this more mixed-use of the pedestrian acre and 1.5 floor area ratio character. environment. with the provision of a Primary uses are offices, minimum of 20% of the attached or multifamily dwelling units being for housing. affordable housing as Secondary uses: Limited defined by the Metropolitan retail and service uses (not Council. including "big box" retail), limited industrial full ON Using the above amended text as a basis for review of the subject project, a case could be made to support the proposed high density through the PUD Zoning process. Height. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six -stories on the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has attempted to address the issue by increasing the podium height on France by 10 feet; and reduced the height from six -to -five stories. (See comparison on page A27.) Should the Planning Commission and City Council choose to support the proposed height increase; staff would recommend the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: 7 enclosed), institutional uses, parks and open space. Vertical mixed use should be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. Using the above amended text as a basis for review of the subject project, a case could be made to support the proposed high density through the PUD Zoning process. Height. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six -stories on the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has attempted to address the issue by increasing the podium height on France by 10 feet; and reduced the height from six -to -five stories. (See comparison on page A27.) Should the Planning Commission and City Council choose to support the proposed height increase; staff would recommend the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: 7 L.aMd Future Land Use Plan with o e City of Edina Building Heights � 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Southeast Quadrant Figure ALM Data Source: URS 0 0.5 Niles * Height may be increased to five stories if podium height is utilized on France Avenue and adjacent to low-density residential uses. M Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section 36-253 of the Edina City Code provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; W h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential - OR," which allows residential use and retail on a limited basis. Mixed uses are encouraged. The primary use would be residential; and the retail use would be secondary, and serve not only the new residential use, but residential uses and office uses in the area. The site would be very pedestrian friendly with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. A new north/south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along France Avenue; a new east/west sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along 72nd Street, and interior sidewalks would be provided. (See page A21.) As recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Sketch Plan review, podium height would be utilized on France Avenue and from the low-density residential area to the west to lessen impact to the single-family and two- family homes to the west. There would be three-story apartments on the west side; and the wooded area on the west side of the site would also be preserved to screen the use. (See page A20.) The applicant is also proposing sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See page A14.) The project would include high efficiency mechanical equipment, appliances and electrical fixtures. Roof mounted photovoltaic panels for electrical energy generation are proposed. The applicant is pledging an energy savings 20% over current energy code requirements. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, limestone, precast concrete, composite metal panel and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level on France. (See pages A24—A26.) The most significant element of the plan, in regard to PUD requirements, is providing 20% of the units for affordable housing. That would be 32 units toward the city's goal of 212 units by the year 2020 as established with the Metropolitan Council. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The proposed uses, residential and limited retail are uses allowed in the Office Residential area, as described in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential — OR," which encourages the mixing of uses. In this instance the uses are residential and limited retail. The proposed uses are therefore, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and The proposed density is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would have to be amendment for the proposed development to be built. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning 11 district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. Below is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying POD -1 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. Compliance Table * Variance would be required under POD -1 Zoning (See page A21a.) 12 City Standard (POD -1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — France 77 feet 26 feet* Avenue 77 feet 27 feet* Front — 72nd Street 77 feet 5 feet* Side — South 34 & 46 feet 75 feet Rear — West Building Height Four stories and Five Stories & 48 feet 77 feet* Maximum Floor Area .5% 1.49%* Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls 440 total 506 spaces total 200 — retail/restaurant 201 retail 240 enclosed (residential) 305 enclosed residential Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance would be required under POD -1 Zoning (See page A21a.) 12 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: As highlighted above, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide a development that includes 20% (32 units) of the residential units as affordable housing. This project would help the City toward meeting its goal of creating 212 additional affordable housing units by the year 2020. Given the City of Edina's high cost of land, it has been difficult in achieving affordable housing. The increase in floor area ratio and density is required to make the development work. b. Provide a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail. c. Create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. A new north/south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along France Avenue; and a new east/west sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along 72nd Street. (See page A21.) There would be additional sidewalks provided within the courtyard area that would connect residents to the retail uses on France. (See page A21.) d. Podium Height would be used on both France Avenue and the west side of the development toward the low-density residential area. e. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See page A14.) The proposal includes high efficiency mechanical equipment, appliances and fixtures, high performing fiberglass and storefront window that meet Energy Star requirements. The applicant proposes a 20% improvement over current energy code requirements. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 2. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. The proposed residential use with limited retail would fit this neighborhood. Mixed use is encouraged within the OR, Office Residential area. 13 3. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. 4. Assuming the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Provide affordable housing. J. Create podium height. 14 • Are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments reasonable to allow the proposed development? No. For the following reasons, staff believes the proposal development is too dense for this site: The proposed development would allow for a floor area ratio that would be nearly three times the floor area ratio currently allowed for this site. Under the current POD -1 zoning classification; a floor area ratio of .5 is allowed. The proposed FAR is 1.49. When comparing the recent comprehensive plan amendment that was approved for the Lennar project at 6725 York Avenue; the amount of floor area ratio over and above the City Code and Comprehensive Plan requested here is far greater. For the Lennar project, the allowed FAR was 1.0 and the proposed FAR was 1.27. 2. The proposed density is nearly double allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. A maximum of 30 units per acre is allowed, and 50 are proposed. 3. This area on the west side of France Avenue is seen as a transition area from the low density residential to the west and the higher intensity commercial area on the east side of France. (See page A5 and A10 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The Comprehensive Plan describes this area as a "transitional area along major thoroughfares or between higher -intensity districts and residential districts." (See page A10.) 4. The proposal may set a precedent for similar development requests at this density. There are several properties within this OR area that have buildings in similar condition, that may be ripe for redevelopment. (See page A5.) 5. The Planning Commission is about to begin a study of the impact on greater development density in the Southdale area, with an emphasis on development in this OR, Office Residential area. Allowing a development within this area prior to completion of an impact study, may be premature. 6. While the applicant has made positive improvements to reduce the size of the development proposed at the sketch plan; staff does not believe they have reduced the size of the development enough to provide a development that is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Preliminary indications from Hennepin County is that they would not allow access to France Avenue. 15 Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments While the project does contain a number of components that are desired in the Comprehensive Plan, however, due to the size of the project, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments based on the following findings: 1. The proposed development would allow for a floor area ratio that would be nearly three times the floor area ratio currently allowed for this site. 2. The proposed density is nearly double allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. A maximum of 30 units per acre is allowed, and 50 are proposed 3. This area on the west side of France Avenue is seen as a transition area from the low density residential to the west and the higher intensity commercial area on the east side of France. The Comprehensive Plan describes this area as a "transitional area along major thoroughfares or between higher -intensity districts and residential districts." The proposed development is more for square footage than what would normally be allowed in the POD -1 Zoning District. 4. The proposal may set a precedent for similar development requests at this density. There are several properties within this OR, Office Residential area that have buildings in similar condition that may be ripe for redevelopment. 5. The proposed development is pre -mature given the Planning Commission's plan to study of the impact on greater development density in the Southdale area, with an emphasis on the west side of France in this OR, Office Residential area. 6. While the applicant has made positive improvements to reduce the size of the development proposed at the sketch plan; staff does not believe they have reduced the size of the development enough to provide a development that is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The availability of access to France Avenue is questionable. If the County does not allow access, the plans may need to be revised. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Because of the denial recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the 16 City Council deny the Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District Denial is subject to the following findings: The proposed development would allow for a floor area ratio that would be nearly three times the floor area ratio currently allowed for this site. 2. The proposed density is nearly double allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. A maximum of 30 units per acre is allowed, and 50 are proposed 3. This area on the west side of France Avenue is seen as a transition area from the low density residential to the west and the higher intensity commercial area on the east side of France. The Comprehensive Plan describes this area as a "transitional area along major thoroughfares or between higher -intensity districts and residential districts." The proposed development is more for square footage than what would normally be allowed in the POD -1 Zoning District. 4. The proposal may set a precedent for similar development requests at this density. There are several properties within this OR, Office Residential area that have buildings in similar condition that may be ripe for redevelopment. 5. The proposed development is pre -mature given the Planning Commission's plan to study of the impact on greater development density in the Southdale area, with an emphasis on the west side of France in this OR, Office Residential area. 6. While the applicant has made positive improvements to reduce the size of the development proposed at the sketch plan; staff does not believe they have reduced the size of the development enough to provide a development that is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The availability of access to France Avenue is questionable. If the County does not allow access, the plans may need to be revised. Deadline for a city decision: February 1, 2015 17 7012, 8 1- AVELii DKIvi- T --1---- 1 - I , :IL05: 1 p171001 7101 �'71041 i 7105� ! 1 171�12 7101710 17108'!�j 710 , — Z, 71011 105710 7112 716 7108117109710 17116111 !7117 V120 7121 7112 0:17111711 'iii4 71257116 ;i71171711 ;7128197129 7120 txj';4121j7J2 - us 013 . 7012 7008 7001 01717016A 701914()00 7010 .-MAVIE1 X DRIVE. 3501 171014001 3 7"1 650 7110 4000 .E 24, "'-RAZELTON ROAD 7121 717-0: 7128 1i 3655 13301 . 5 71321 713317124 �'7125 7124°- 712517124 7171 i9, -771297128� 71361 7137+7128 71297128 712917128:, TREET WEST 72 17200,� 1 7201201-7200 17201, ,7204 ,'7205' L14 7205, 7-700 _ ;7208',,' j;720713F 7207 7209 .7300 '7301 7212' Date: 7216 7215 j fz-w 7220 7300 Parcel 31-028-24-14-0001 ID: Owner Name: I' Parcel 7200 France Ave S Address: Edna, MN 55435 . Property Type: Homi-. Home- stead: Parcel 3.51 acres Area: 152,751 sq ft 24 7235 7230 7298 FA40, 3821 U. 5 it 24 L 7373 A -T-8. Torrens, Map Scale: I"= 400 it N Print Date: 6!1 912014 Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: This map Is a compilation of data from various .7300 '7301 7320 Date: j7 -304'M purpose, membantablilly. or the accuracy and 7308 sale Code. 3l j1 A Think Green! 4 7333 J1720ij 7340 ta 73110 Parcel 31-028-24-14-0001 ID: Owner Name: I' Parcel 7200 France Ave S Address: Edna, MN 55435 . Property Type: Homi-. Home- stead: Parcel 3.51 acres Area: 152,751 sq ft 24 7235 7230 7298 FA40, 3821 U. 5 it 24 L 7373 A -T-8. Torrens, Map Scale: I"= 400 it N Print Date: 6!1 912014 Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and isfimWWmJ"AS IS*vAIhno, Sale representation orwarra*axpressed or Date: Implied. bX*AF10 fitness of any parlicular purpose, membantablilly. or the accuracy and contplateness of the Inkmallon shown. sale Code. COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A Think Green! P I Legend RA Smql.D-W.gUnit Dist = Church R-2 Doubt d"li., UM DM. City SWdi P-1 Planned R-id.l. Dist PR0.2 v P'W.t. SOW ftW S,hod PRD PR— M6l Planned Commerdal Mt MMI Planned DAl,.D P.D.2 RMD R.9i ... 1—..[Dmt PID Planned DM. P.0 Planned Unit Dist AP. --il. —W.. Di.. EHM Edina H.,K.9.Landmark Dist PSR -0 Planned Senior D7 MDD-0 W.d Development ON'. WE MD— + M. s � Planning Dept November, 2D12 FRANCE DE" A3 City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Pian Update Date &Aerial Photography: August 2006 RgWO44 Conceptual Land Use Framework: Potential Areas of Change F-L-F-Lj-1 0 0.5 Mffw Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design A C� 4-33 L Future Land Use Plan with City of Edina Building Heights ..2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Southeast Quadrant RWe 4.6B Data Solace: URS 0 os Afts �5 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR MIXED USE AREAS, BUILDING HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LAND USE Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City of Edina establish new residential density ranges within the City's Comprehensive Plan to better align with the description of the uses allowed within each District. Floor area ratio alone cannot be used to determine densities within mixed use areas as suggested in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. 1.02 Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes/Avenue, and build a six -story, 240 unit upscale apartment building with 11,000 square feet of retail on the first level. To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were approved by the City Council: 1. Building Height - from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. 2. Floor Area Ratio - to exceed 1.0 in some instances. 3. Re -guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single-family homes on Xerxes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. 1.03 On June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vote: 7 Ayes and 0 Nays. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 The Edina Comprehensive Plan is a guide for development and redevelopment in the city that establishes density ranges for the purposes of managing growth. Density in mixed use and planned commercial districts are primarily regulated by Floor Area Ratio within the existing Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2.02 Residential density ranges within the City's mixed use areas including CAC, Community Activity Center; MXC, Mixed Use Center; OR, Office Residential; and NC, Neighborhood Commercial District are between 1-2 and 2-3 units per acre, which are not feasible for the intended mixed-use character or opportunity in these areas. The City's LDR, Low Density Residential District allows up to 5 units per acre, which is a higher density than the above mixed use districts. The RM, Regional Medical District does not have a residential density range and senior housing is a permitted use. 2.03 By establishing new residential density ranges for these areas, the city would create the feasibility for mixed use projects. Changes to these residential density ranges would be accommodating growth that had already been anticipated and planned for in the City's future population projections. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 2 2.04. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France. The floor area ratio maximum in the CAC is 1.0. The suggested density of 2-3 units per acre would result in less density than the City's Low Density Residential area; which allows up to 5 units per acre, would not encourage a mixture of land uses. A density range of 12-75 units per acre in this area is reasonable given the description of this area is the city's most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Floor area ratio would continue to impact densities based on the Zoning Ordinance regulations. 2.05. The OR, Office Residential District guides density at a range of 2-3 units per acre in the current Comprehensive Plan. An OR density of 12-30 units per acre would be consistent with High Density Residential District and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. 2.06. The MXC, Mixed Use Center district guides density at a range of 1-2 units per acre. These areas include 50th & France, Grandview and Centennial Lakes/ Greater Southdale area. A Mixed Use Center density of 12-30 units would be consistent with High Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. This density range is consistent with existing densities in all three of these areas, including 50th and France Condos (23 units per acre) and 71 France in the Centennial Lakes area (24 units per acre), and Grandview Square (29 units per acre.) 2.07 The NC, Neighborhood Commercial District guides density at a range of 1-2 units per acre. A density of 5-12 units would be consistent with Medium Density Residential district and reasonable to encourage mixed use development. 2.08 The RM, Regional Medical District is an area that is proposed for senior housing, and does not have a specific range for density. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for the senior housing project at 6500 France. Senior Housing creates a lesser impact on traffic; therefore, higher densities can be supported in this area. Density for senior housing shall also be based on proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. A density range of 12-80 units per acre is reasonable to encourage that use in the district. 2.09. Establishing higher residential density ranges within mixed use areas, align with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including growth that had been forecasted by the Metropolitan Council. 2.10. The proposed densities using unit per acre are consistent with the existing descriptions of each land use category in the Comprehensive Plan; are consistent with existing development in Edina; and are consistent with the existing Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2.11. There is adequate roadway capacity and sewer capacity to support the proposed residential density ranges proposed in these mixed use areas. Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 3 2.12. The proposed land use change of the single family homes on Xerxes Avenue are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The City of Richfield has guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential, and the property to the north west and south in Edina are guided CAC, Community Activity Center;'therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2.13. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes and York as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The six story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to minimize impact on adjacent property. 2.14. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use at 1.27, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area. 2.15. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows: 3.01 Resolution 2014-51 is rescinded. 3.02 The following Comprehensive Plan Amendments are approved subject to review by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §473.864: A. Future Land Use Categories. The categories in the table below apply to the Future Land Use Plan. It is important to note that land use categories are not zoning districts - they are broader and more long-term in scope. The land use plan and the zoning ordinance should be consistent with one another, but are not identical. Each land use category may be implemented through more than one zoning district, allowing for important differences in building height, bulk and coverage in different areas of the city. Some revisions to existing zoning districts or creation of new districts may ultimately be needed as part of the implementation of the land use plan. Land uses are characterized primarily by range of densities or intensities. For residential uses, density is defined in terms of dwelling units per net acre (exclusive of road rights-of- way and public lands). For nonresidential and mixed uses, intensity is typically defined in terms of floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, which refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. A density unit per acre range is listed below, however, in practice FAR limits the density in the Edina Zoning Ordinance based on site size. Thus, a maximum FAR of 1.0 could allow for a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, and so on. Building heights are not specified in the table, because height will vary within and between categories, based on neighborhood context, infrastructure, and community design goals. (See the discussion later in this section.) Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx 4T Language stricken xxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 4 The "Development Guidelines' in the table below are intended to highlight important design considerations for each land use category, but are not regulatory in nature. When residential development is proposed in a mixed use district, the residential density range shall apply, in addition to the FAR requirement. Residential development is not required in mixed use areas. Residential Description, Land Uses Development Density Range Categories Guidelines LDR Applies to largely single-family Massing standards Low Density residential neighborhoods, (under development) 1- 5 units/acre Residential encompassing a variety of lot and impervious Floor to Area Ratio: per sizes and street patterns (see coverage limitations current Zoning Code* "Character Districts" for more would apply to ensure detail). Typically includes small compatibility of infill institutional uses such as schools, construction. churches, neighborhood parks, etc. LDA Applies to two-family and Introduction of more Low -Density attached dwellings of low contemporary housing 4 - 8 units acre Attached Residential densities and moderate heights. types, such as low- Floor to Area Ratio: per This category recognizes the density townhouses, current Zoning Code* historical role of these housing may be an appropriate types as transitional districts replacement for two - between single-family residential family dwellings in areas and major thoroughfares or some locations, commercial districts. May provided that include single-family detached adequate transitions to dwellings. and buffering of adjacent dwellings can be achieved. MDR Applies to attached housing In new development Medium -Density (townhouses, quads, etc.) and or redevelopment, 5 -12 units/acre Residential multi -family complexes of improve integration of Floor to Area Ratio: per moderate density. multi -family housing current Zoning Code* May also include small into an interconnected institutional uses, parks and open street network and space work to create an edestrian- attractive, pedestrian- friendl street edge. friendly HDR Existing "high-rise" and other Provide incentives for 12 - 30 units/acre Density High -Density concentrated multi -family updating older for senior housing may be Residential residential, some of which may multifamily buildings. increased to over 30 units contain a mixed use component. Work to create an per acre, based on May also include limited office, attractive, pedestrian- Proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density service or institutional uses friendly street edge uses, utilities capacity, primarily to serve residents' and provide level of transit service needs, parks and open space convenient access to available, and impact on transit, schools, parks, adjacent roads. Other and other community desired items to allow Existing language xxxx Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 5 Existing language xxxx Am Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x destinations. greater density for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Floor to Area Ratio: per current Zoning Code* Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories NC Small- to moderate -scale Building footprints 2-3 5-12 residential Neighborhood commercial, serving primarily the generally less than dwelling units/ acre Commercial adjacent neighborhood(s). 20,000 sq. ft. (or less Floor to Area Ratio -Per Current examples: Generally anode' rather than a for individual on current Zoning Code: g • Morningside 'corridor.' Primary uses are retail storefronts). Parking is maximum of 1.0* and services, offices, studios, less prominent than commercial core institutional uses. Residential pedestrian features. • Valley View and usesermitted. p Encourage structured Woo ddale Existing and potential parking and open • 70thd Cahill neighborhood commercial space linkages where districts are identified for further feasible; emphasize study. enhancement of the pedestrian environment. OR Transitional areas along major Upgrade existing 2-3 12-30 residential Office -Residential thoroughfares or between higher- streetscape and dwelling units/ acre No current examples intensity districts and residential building appearance, Floor to Area Ratio -Per in City. Potential districts. Many existing highway- improve pedestrian current Zoning Code: examples include oriented commercial areas are and transit maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* Pentagon Park area anticipated to transition to this environment. and other I-494 more mixed-use character. Encourage structured corridor locations Primary uses are offices, attached parking and open or multifamily housing. space linkages where Secondary uses: Limited retail feasible; emphasize and service uses (not including the enhancement of "big box" retail), limited the pedestrian industrial (fully enclosed), environment. institutional uses, parks and open space. Vertical mixed use should be encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. O This designation allows for Provide Floor to Area Ratio - Per Office professional and business offices, buffer/ transition to Zoning Code: Current examples generally where retail services do adjacent residential Maximum of 0.5 include the office not occur within the development uses. Use high quality Existing language xxxx Am Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x RE90LUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 6 buildings on the west unless they are accessory uses permanent building side of TH 100 that serve the needs of office materials and on-site between 70th and 771h building tenants. Vehicle access landscaping. Streets. requirements for office uses are Encourage structured high; however, traffic generation parking. from office buildings is limited to morning and evening peak hours during weekdays. Office uses should be located generally along arterial and collector streets. Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories MXC Established or emerging mixed Maintain existing, or 1-2 12-30 residential Mixed -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, pedestrian dwelling units/acre Current examples: than one neighborhood (and and streetscape Floor to Area Ratio -Per • 501h and France beyond city boundaries). amenities; encourage current Zoning Code: • Grandview Primary uses: Retail, office, or require structured maximum of 1.5 service, multifamily residential, parking. Buildings institutional uses, parks and open "step down" in height space. from intersections. Vertical mixed use should be 4 stories at 50th & encouraged, and may be required France; 3-6 stories at on larger sites. Grandview CAC The most intense district in terms Form -based design 2-3 12-75 residential Community Activity of uses, height and coverage. standards for building dwelling units/acre Center Primary uses: Retail, office, placement, massing Floor to Area Ratio -Per Example: Greater lodging, entertainment and and street -level current Zoning Code: Southdale area (not residential uses, combined or in treatment. maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* including large multi- separate buildings. Buildings should be Floor to Area Ratio may family residential Secondary uses: Institutional, placed in appropriate exceed 1.0 on a case by neighborhoods such recreational uses. proximity to streets to case basis, subject to as Centennial Lakes) Mixed use should be encouraged, create pedestrian proximity to utilities and may be required on larger scale. Buildings step capacity, level of transit sites. down" at boundaries service available, and with lower -density impact on adjacent roads. districts and upper Other desired items to stories "step back" allow greater density or from street. density on the high end of More stringent design the residential housing standards for range above, would buildings > 5 stories. include: Below grade Emphasize pedestrian parking, provision of circulation; re- park or open space, introduce finer- affordable housing, grained circulation sustainable design patterns where principles, provision of feasible. public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height. Existing language xxxx A(j Language recommended xxxx Language stricken x RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Page 7 Existing language xxxx�� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx I Applies to existing Performance Floor to Area Ratio: Per Industrial predominantly industrial areas standards to ensure Zoning Code: 0.5* within the City. Primary uses: compatibility with industrial, manufacturing. adjacent uses; Secondary uses: limited retail screening of outdoor and service uses. activities. Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Guidelines Mixed Use Guidelines Categories RM Hospitals, senior housing*, Form -based design 12-80 senior residential Regional Medical medical and dental offices and standards for building dwelling units/ acre clinics, and laboratories for placement, massing Floor to Area Ratio - Per performing medical or dental and street -level current Zoning Code: research, diagnostic testing, treatment. maximum of 1.0 For analytical or clinical work, having Pedestrian circulation medical office uses. a direct relationship to the and open space providing of health services. amenities should be Density for senior General office uses are permitted. provided for larger housing shall be based on sites. proximity to hospitals, * Senior housing may include: proximity to low density independent living, assisted living, uses, utilities capacity, memory care, and skilled nursing. level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of ublic art. OSP Applies to major parks and Performance and N/A Open Space and protected open space that is buffering standards Parks publicly owned. May not include for intensive outdoor all small parks, since some are recreation, parking. included in residential land use districts. PSP Applies to schools, large Performance and To be determined - may Public/Semi-Public institutional uses (churches, buffering standards require review of large - cemeteries) and semi-public uses for intensive outdoor scale development or such as country clubs. Some recreation, parking. institutional expansion small uses of these types may be integrated into other land use districts. Existing language xxxx�� Language recommended xxxx Language stricken xxxx MPEICO (,JaRRAlidf 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 210, Union Plaza, Minneapolis. MN 55401 T. 612.676.2700 F:612.676.2796 www.djr-ine.com October 10, 2014 Cary Teague, Planning Director Planning Department Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Project: Element - Mixed -Use Redevelopment Location: 7200 France Avenue South Subject: Project Narrative Proposed Redevelopment: The proposed project is a new 5 story mixed use project redevelopment of the site at 7200 France Avenue South. The proposal is to replace the existing office building and construct a mixed-use development of approximately 207,000 SF with site improvements. The proposed project includes approximately 160 residential units, 20,000 SF of restaurant/retail/office space and approximately 500 parking spaces in two levels of underground parking. Summary of Modifications from Sketch Plan Review: ■ Reduced building height from 6 stories to 5 stories and reduced townhomes on the west side from 4 stories to 3 stories. ■ Reduced Unit count from 195 units to 160 units ■ Increased the podium setback on France Avenue by 10 feet ■ Increased landscaping and setback along France Avenue and introduced green boulevard on 72"d Street, ■ Increased setback on western boundary from 60 feet to 75 feet. ■ Reduced FAR from 1.88 to 1.49. ■ Reduced Commercial space from 26,500 to 20,000 SF City and Neighborhood Betterment: The proposed redevelopment of this parcel from office to residential and retail uses will benefit the city and area surrounding the project in the following ways: ■ Provide housing in close proximity to commercial services and office sectors (80%/20% split of market rate to affordable housing) ■ Provide convenient retail/commercial uses for the area. ■ Locates both residential and commercial parking within the building creating a better visual environment unlike the vast majority of commercial projects along France Avenue. ■ Improve the site with more vibrant uses and an attractive building ■ Create a greener and more environmentally friendly development improving storm water rates through retained green space, green roofs and rain gardens. ■ Alternative energy options including photovoltaics are being pursued to lower the projects carbon footprint. ■ Sustainable design strategies will be incorporated into the project such as efficient lighting, mechanical systems, and rainwater harvesting for irrigation. pia 7200 France Avenue South — Preliminary Development Narrative ■ Detailed and landscaped plaza courtyard beautifies the 72nd Street. ■ Provides small scale neighborhood serving retail and office uses ■ Adds new businesses to the Edina. Sustainability Sustainability is a key component of the project, both in the importance of being a good steward of the environment as well as being a good neighbor. The key sustainable strategies of the project can be categorized in the following design elements: Storm water: The current site has an impervious coverage of 56% without any comprehensive storm water strategies except the catchment basin on the west side and a couple of inlets on the south side which do not provide any rate or quality control for storm water. The proposed project incorporates the following improvements to the existing condition. 1) The project preserves the 60 foot buffer of native vegetation on the west side of the site including an existing storm water catchment area and lift station which will naturally enable storm water collection and filtration. 2) The heavily landscaped courtyard area over the parking decks will hold and clean the majority of rainfall in that area much like the natural buffer to the west. Soil depths of 12-30 inches of soil allow the absorption and holding of run-off in this area irrigating the native selections of vegetation and keeping the rainwater out of the storm system. 3) South side of the parking structure is also covered with green roofing providing retention and the potential for resident gardens. 4) New storm water infiltration tanks will be located on the west side of the building capturing excess storm water not used for irrigation or captured by the landscaped areas of the courtyard. 5) The proposed site reduces impervious surface to 48% of the site; an improvement of 11,000 SF. Energy Efficiency & Generation: 1) High efficiency mechanical equipment 2) High efficiency appliances and electrical fixtures 3) Roof mounted photovoltaic panels for electrical energy generation 4) High performing fiberglass and storefront windows that meet Energy Star requirements 5) Improved insulation & advanced detail techniques equating to a 20% improvement over current energy code requirements Water Efficiency: 1) Rainwater for irrigation 2) Drip irrigation w/drought tolerant planting to additionally reduce watering 3) Low flow plumbing fixtures and appliances — this decreases water use and waste water PUD / Zoning: The project proposes to change the zoning of the site from POD -1 to a PUD using the MDD-6 as a basis for the zoning entitlements. The application for a PUD is based largely around a desire to develop a more pedestrian friendly development, a mixture of uses and a greater density for the site. The proposed building will enclose the majority of parking below grade and maintain a 75'-0" setback and existing vegetative buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west. In addition, the site is designed to keep the higher height and density toward France Avenue with the lowest height toward the residential neighborhood. The effective site size is 3.18 acres (138,650 SF). The proposed development not including garage space is 206,900 GSF for a proposed FAR of 1.49. The overall density of the site is largely mitigated by the stepping down of the height from France Avenue to the west toward the single family housing. The landscaped courtyard in the center off of 72nd street also scales the building to the neighborhood and provides a welcoming entry to residential visitors and the neighborhood. 7200 France Avenue South — Preliminary Development Narrative Comprehensive Plan / Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Parking Final Report The current comprehensive plan has recommended office and high density residential uses for this site area and neighborhood from 69th street south to Parklawn (Edge West District) in the Greater Southdale Area Land Use report. In addition, the site is within the Southdale area of mixed-use region around the mall in the character defining areas in the Comprehensive Plan and a "Potential Area of Change". The proposed project is in keeping with that mixture of uses as its scale transitions from the higher density toward France Avenue while tapering down toward the residential neighborhood behind. The distribution of uses follows this form by keeping the commercial uses and traffic on France Avenue as well. Traffic: Housing at this location will be able to take full advantage of the recent pedestrian and bike improvements completed by the city. The range of goods and services within an easy Y2 mile radius of the site offers a built in amenity to residents. Their proximity also lessens the demands for vehicle trips decreasing the car traffic to and from the site. The project's site improvements along France Avenue offer an amenity for pedestrians and bicyclists by creating a protected walkway away from France Avenue vehicular traffic and lined with landscaping and other pedestrian improvements. The introduction of a sidewalk on the south side of 72nd street also reinforces this pedestrian connection, coupled with the new median at 72nd street will create a completely different pedestrian environment in the immediate area. Residential and commercial vehicular traffic at the site is split between two entries to the underground garages. Commercial traffic will enter via a right in / right out access to the upper garage level. Residential resident and guest parking will enter from 72nd street to the courtyard garage entry. On grade convenience parking for guests and move -ins are located in the courtyard. This approach greatly reduces traffic in the South Cornelia Neighborhood to the west and keeps all commercial traffic at France Avenue. Affordable Housing: As part of a commitment to provide affordable housing to all people in the community, the project is proposing 32 units for residents who meet certain income thresholds. This type of housing is targeted to working adults or small families who earn less than the median income of the community. They provide an opportunity for young people starting their careers, teachers and service workers a chance to stay in the community they work. The site is uniquely situated where residents can easily access the commercial shops and services of the Southdale area without requiring the use of a car. Landscape The proposed landscape at Element will be clean and contemporary, with over -story boulevard trees on the north and east sides along 72nd Street and France Avenue, with upright planters near building entrances with seasonal annuals for color. The parking area will contain a mixture of over story and under -story trees with a full accompaniment of shrubs and perennial plants. The proposed planting palette is comprised of native and adapted plant materials, which will use less water and require less maintenance over time. To the west, the existing storm pond and existing wooded area will be left as -is, providing a natural buffer and giving residents both a sense of scale and allowing for a natural privacy screen along the entire west facade. The southern fagade will feature a terraced green roof, with limited access and the opportunity for community farming in raised planters, irrigated utilizing site -harvested rain water. 3 A (5- 7200 France Avenue South — Preliminary Development Narrative We believe the redevelopment of this site would be an improvement for the city and one that will enhance not only the character of the area, but also the city itself. Sincerely, Sheldon Berg, AIA Principal Cc: Adam Seraphine, NHH Properties Lori Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation P:\djr-arch\2014\114-0015.0 - Boisclair - 72nd & France Mixed Use\Word\Design\Zoning & Planning\Preliminary Applications and docs\7200 France Ave - Narrative.doc 4 /MI6 LL z u Z L fy L U-1 LL m I I LJ Z Z CD (-0 LJ LL LLJ r) CD cl� EL z u z L • i wr n _-gyp a } y r 1 r • n NHH PROPERTIES DJR DESIGN : BUILD : MANAGE ARCHITECTURE INC. ffi�^�L3G7ii�G siE s� antis:=Am— ABM ,'�i�aw�"w\ � � 4 ,� ,tis; I Oxy rl arm 44 [z 2 /t. �srs��s^ rn�N - i it —OBBYr la r NI -11--i PROPERTIES DJR DESIGN :BUILD :MANAGE ARCHITECTURE INC;_ 0 NHH PROPERTIES DESIGN : BUILD : MANAGE DJR ARCHITECTURE INC. �v LFE 2 83 =_ C� J" GREEN ROOF i - r t%V 11 p - .: sectill M1ppi19---"" k / S � T AC SITE PLAN loom •� Hill C ■ LFE 2 83 =_ C� J" GREEN ROOF i - r t%V 11 p - . RAE a1 thi.-11on - S 890.6 EXISTING BUILDING S � T AC SITE PLAN II pkovnccn vi Au reccuuwc io�x wnrs uwxouxcreW'vreok.) kcno a vux�we 11 W CD _Q z Q O m C� c1� W _w W CL O CL T z A. Alf" Ilk. t' w m -7T_ ,k p al -LAll �.y L Y 1ti$ y 111 i . t ^��4 �1�11• ®rkkI ti i �, 19111 t{i8? 9 i -ijr 11 mo ji k7 - � � � .fir ►s k�7 i 1�. �"�- - � ^� — � Ills 1 w OrW l Ir"; Q f 4 � LU S � F— t Ef tl�tiv! z Mn "m i� — mw �' fill yi !l 3 li Y giJKJr`_. � 9„rr W Y"t•"rn:. 1 n r 9e / 13tJ r'Y N ' I D� Li N LL a 4 stories — — — 7200 France Avenue France Avenue Byerly's A [3 tee. Office 7200 France Avenue W 72nd Street Housing 19 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY `for- #7200 France LLC & Anchor Bank, N.A. & Commercial Partners Title, LLC, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company & NHH Companies L.L.C. PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7200 FRANCE AVE. SO., EDINA, MN 55435 GENERAL NOTES P•I.D.#31-028-24-14-0001 °ias w.n (s.m: awns am Irl,u IM1n Hent -1 1. rbm-m-.aF. w Imw�....r w.«Y ,. 1anl. NMwq.wna anNN. ¢a/w 1 I ,n°I"'"•�"u ''ll:«. rant N °a°�a.: n"�;« m.r .wr n«n �a.mw, w.n n.•,an wa nwv«ntl al.u« a«� I I � rIe°a rw � "" ".°n"�. Stan a. w� Naunaauan e«t. at IPSn ase-aoq: Iw..ln<atnn al aBItY tm� � i BENCHMARK -swn «d ama.mxq I GRAPHIC SCALE n I BASIS wIR ELEVATI-NA o AA (VIA REAL TIME RPR - n"N^u wmR�tp1lan«:mwan' N'wl'°meYeini,N 1 e:wtlaamwl er in dMNeMa�,°aamwlYl q ewull w —1,-1eaatbn, .lux mnus mm b nv ee.ar.m, «awq a � I 1 DEPARTM[Nt OFTRANSP( 0.TATON VRS NETW08K1 � °°'- a.na. «mp w emnwy ImenP. mr, n nv «nvaN, wa,an wl •wnt ,w, w w,.an •wa« .:mx nemrl m« I I - 9 nn w. m «Wn,a tlalum. I I I � j (Ix eeRe 1 l .l,al-,1- w.nw wlYnw ru.n —J' __MR_—enn--_mm_nama:_°•^n_mf«:_.-nu_ L"' a''Ar •[ s]w LERM,•- w _mi____w__u___�_~r„lnp _./, •a+q• Rru «JI •.N'wR9>•5-•195''0.Ol � I Yom' I NORTH 7ZUSTREET WEST LEGEND04' xn y_________vtASEw.FRws s - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT EWND l� w • ° (i" °� Wv DENOTES son. SEWER a.. - 1v j •w I ❑ DENOTES CATCH BALN -rzEI �� •ej°'° Nw+ aN �}'+ I ?,T DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT j 1 ti ).` •+"' • , y an., ••'•v DENOTES STERN SEWER I Xtp1'`-I�-��PP ,u° •i0 w+ ,•°+ rr° ws•ypn }-• p a 1 D. TES c--EX iwv�, w, ..., cwvene•• .t I I. I DENOTES BNUMINOUS mt ......1. R w• i ..e, DDENENOTES EAS EASUTIL1 a /Boz .x� P'N L nsw+ .w• ' Y Y`° .wR w•iy' 9" a>a ° i w'� nW y yat I DENOTES ERIETND FENCE �9 •••' °°°0 y r'� I —°—DENOTES EXISTING LENGE E%ISTWG A0 .w g v'U E I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION } i R I � i ,,,y o �� w w+, w �"'�-T+°� :s> � �e /r,� In g I Naw.«naw�ta.ws.m,n,lm..,.n,m�n. na�n nAauw®•aww i 1 � ° i "'yw ,..y ,,,, I tMaaa.mmanlR .n.w, "p wtPan.mpmre+nlmint�plat o,MrR .a,rl 7w rr > =it w9 •G-<.- ---- ' �y' Q $ i .aR,:'".n Na. 099],: I WWP.p, ?m + cQ.� yl I hi A I S I .w •w• .w PARCEL #2-nea ,wn roa• w ) ZONING & SETBACK INFORMATION eunPxN 11—N»T w1 STE.m IRE s— FS]PPF810FNTALAnEa) ABWF INwRHATIDN PER VARY IFnOUE ATGIiY PLWNING DEPARINEM195bez{waml o]/m/la.• ►+� 3«.—Idat«Iann1:..xq]x.nl«Fetaue1l,1—,«om.n<wo.t9z2x/. EXISTING BUILDING tie E¢ .. �, �`' I «uxFaa«nntan«,mnrvz,zgn. nna P.aw,ry ., rz,«pawmw no. l9znez. nwnmxllwt r e e a Paw a: Ta¢tNer.Im tIw eenm or ua Humans rwno..9a a.axe9e aw.mr.s. ar ew+® nates wnane a mat �g'�`- w, -gym i ¢ nF.mm.M«�>annrv]atq]:.nMakawwY..t9]znpan,m.nNa.m:s]a]. ge -�Fj « I seal mewpama per nne wmmipnm JOB NkW81 u i i i r] —.—.— — —.— — —'—. - ;- I}-,•.nwu:w RY i E .awn--&:LP__s„ p°� PARCEL #i.a%/ I I I r umlwr xm P WSTING BUILDING aew • Nac 1vxv+» I I I I Fneby n:Iiy x 1]ma Irmws ue {AncMr tank NJ, a Cemmncml ragmen nee, llC Ola Rep9nec Naemwl Tne 4tunarce I I I r r ; w "Ak ,�.... LvmPa:ry { NNn Lpmpanba LLC. In the rhea., wenm:amtl mvww.Iha l hae,urveyN 16epmpmY kgaity4anAatl hwra :bu Ibu iiij 7� ' _�wPE•�— vmavM vzvmmd•an:g and mpeeaanbliannfwW pm¢rly wd IAe MmdvnnlM1ennf IMI M1i, mvpnpM nNtlw wrveym WM1 n°nbxdxvem nwmNvrcewJ:'Mmmmn.m2,4,D°md RryuwmwnfnALTAIA.f LvnITINqurveyx.'.,MAvnvbliJW aNedvgeJ by ALTA mM AGSM in 3011,and url°Jn lrcme 3,<,S,fi[v)]w)P,9,II(v), IfiaN IPvfTebbAlM1cnof, mJ mnpllm A¢ y � r wow J «n• SxdbrJv�l ntm v�Pled y ALTA mJ A(•SM ervl lv Mxxm the dare n(IhuemifsNMv), mdllm alrcalivg m Wemitym6'n^"R,leatememenr oM na lnaro rtlWumnlMCammi:mwa f�rliNClmwnw NwN by CwmmrkN Pam:m flee, LLC,Anadlun lnh, ml4 Given vIF TNM B«pbaWn aL ,wv ti nMw luIY MIM1,mM REV. 07/18/14. ENGINEER CONMENTS . 07/15/14. ADDITIONAL UTILITY INM. hvyc<. mpPae9n[«<-hvrc, Aw Pw• P1RM4pN1aaB1-el<ap.P ] AN UT JOB NkW81 ,gar=c Ma J•.... r r ; w "Ak ,�.... iiij 7� ' _�wPE•�— ) � r wow J «n• ,wv ti City of Edina, Minnesota (No Scale) 7200 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435 Parking On Site PARKING SUMMARY Level Stalls Per Level USE PARKING REQUIREMENT TOTAL REQUIRED TOTAL PROVIDED LEVEL P2 267 140 APARTMENTS1.75 PER UNIT 245 265 LEVEL P1 227 20 APARTMENTS 2 PER UNIT 40 40 12,500 SF RETAIL 8/1,000 SF 100 100 LEVEL 1 12 7,500 SF REST. 1 PER 3 SEATS + 506 1PER EMPLOYEE 84 101 TOTAL 469 506 Floor Area Ratio Level FAR Area LEVEL P1 4,926 SF LEVEL 1 45,839 SF LEVEL 1.5 18,585 SF LEVEL 2 47,664 SF Floor Area Ratio Level FAR Area LEVEL 3 30,042 SF LEVEL 4 30,042 SF LEVEL 5 28,856 SF ROOF / LEVEL 5.5 1,106 SF 'LU/,Ubq JI- BUILDING SUMMARY SITE AREA: 138,650 SF BUILDING AREA: 207,059 SF FAR: 1.49 GROSS RENTABLE AREA: 162,670 NET RENTABLE ESTIMATE: 152,910 UNITS: 160 UNITS PER ACRE = 50 ORAWIN01lNEX H Z W 7- w J W 111 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY "for- #7200 France LLC & Anchor Bank, N.A. & Commercial Partners Title, LLC, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company & NHH Companies L.L.C. PROPERTY ADDRESS: #7200 FRANCE AVE. SO., EDINA, MN 55435 GENERAL NOTES P,I.D.431-028-24-14-0001 = m: m,.::d"pmal«a .., w<«. ,• ]znd sL R.w . F<.,w A.m�• Ewx, «w ..Nbr d.«.«d <a�l-«-.a« . a«d«d. F.««IImN uv aa< md« mdEa w. w9<•« 91 Iw .,d«y w a«w mewwmwe aanN• x1 - I I 1 i eFia"`A cmlx� c.Mv ui� a. `an aln«'em'umm«atN1.) m+`sdm--- ry .M.I -d— N.— m ei u,u `w � md/ n+d � I I 9me I BENCHMARK 1 i wm m•w t«I+�vmcun« ai mar GRAPHIC SCALE I I BASIS FOR ELEVATION: NAV U XX IVIA RPALTIx1F. GFS _ .`h `-1. •.la.w. W yap.p cm•ywllm s -9 aenuan• Ithb <«nl mmu. ,nv b ro a0avrwga Mavrc AIEASURFMENA UTNLNG AIRMEN>IA •end w N 1 I a .. < mr rmp w •mnmy Imam. Ihw• N « aw.•hw •Je•rc• «.««, ry«1 w .a..M9 r«.F• Mum ..«n mm . I I I UEPART1.fEM OFIIUNSPORTATIIM V0.4NE'IWDRKI _ Y u•• « • v n m « .m m. m ®,m« «,m. o DFIn I I I - sdru unuzEs I.pcATm Arra slrowd FIw[pn aw mnd[n zrAn: a[ ePu nnwT HEsxpes]. an umin[s Am mr nws AI� l IN Feet I 1 --------- pasFRVARIm wmFr wm Ory rwrs W INsxxl ARpass I ) I II4rI ) ,lam- w R _--_--� w.L----------------- �<1LI I LEGEND NORTH _OMS IRON —BENT FOUND ® DENOTES SANITARY SEN❑I mm— ® DENOTES S—m SEVER a-- ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN Dmm3 FIRE —ART —>— DENOTES STORK SEDER F9 DE, -I s CONCRETE Ot— BnUNWI]Us ® DENOTES GAS NEtER/BO% M OEf<OlES URUTY BOX DENOTES RETAINING WALL —•— OEnOIEs EwsRnC FExCE —,— DE"MI U IOI B-11 TEIdPxOnE/11BER OPRC —<— DENOTES U11DERISM.0 GAS —.— DENOTE, UNDERGR . ELECTRIC —�— DENOIEs WAIE.- -a— DENOTES smITARY SEVER 1--------- , ZONING & SETBACK INFORMATION +a (NAnNFn IUF,a Dlsrwtrl oR nuh.othO lwlp,R, wxltwEv[ATp.M., nmh wY]]Op Nance ut a Anchor eanR nJ E Canmadal ra,lna• Ade, uO, 01tl RepYNlic xall9na11xN InFRanc• s (rEdDExnAt AREA) Company&NNN Com aaN«LLGa dural<un duw<N9m and a amm•Jdl I Ian In dIhz PdaPatY N,IA1y danibedha<mt,—llw nu dmwlns entl mla<m uta—dpma y-I<1wx Mena Ucorer,Ima,s napw0wend U<rvrnvan ADOYE I=. PFR YARYTFAGIIE AT CrIY—RN.OFPA aw _Hnh«vl wve mwx nrwnWnwUt•Muumum SunJwJ rural R<9wfv .ALTA/ACSM I..M TTU•Surv<,�t'mlw.UyewaMoUN vM •tl9gsl by ALTA vnd ACSNI h 201 1, and -1—Items ], A, s, 4Q, Tv) RSI I I,v) IS -d Ip NTLI- A—.1, vnd ---- I., -111d aglhzAmI.,-11<d q ALTA am ACSM«din—«JN tlq<ofpuv<mtif wimJ. and that inIwtinp mid-llug, raz 1awmmwm vamdM—m .h'—m—t 'k Cammnmmn rot Title In«tume'esueOM Camm .r.Jn•nrxl•.IIC,JvIMd.neITN,2- fill `nn39159'NudSuRJd .1. ACRE LAND SURVEYING„ D.ma,ay l,tx1, REV. 10/07 /I1, ENQNEER COMIENis PEv 0]/IB�A, ENGINEER CONVENTS w O REV 0>/15/ <. ADD I— UFUR INFO. ezNl L3wYDIId � m 783-�58 ABi aCfd R Ndw.ywa —8.144121 N•aJ•at• pa9pM.pWamt-F„M• A•. 14 SIpW.pll.ppo-•et.m•p ISI JOB iF14081 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION a<t wa,em qs<mm ]I,T9wnmF za. ANn<z<,.<Iw.ga m T. t« s«mnmem «t.�.v m<aq, em.w ww wa <mam<«.Jmw w. cat a o><a. Pahmta Nm waam. m.eq. F«my, Nln.esga. pM Easement d— Nmmry 29, 19n. NIaFewuary& 1—, Daum ntxa�103338t `•``m�"dIn NM xrux wrsl3. mdI—A, 2avemmt•tw 1—, - 8 ....... .N<and etv+pe orwNa<e rmtvs miWnee In wat nlw IAg d—- 1- -------- aelPum: x•«� 716"'3 `~• _ I'� },L a, .r. k ky <t«. ,tfi•' ?3:.. � 'silo„{ ..a wlsi�,' n m I �J L'D ldn�99x«• k F i 5 - n•A.N a—. City afEdina, Nllnnpanta OVD Scale) Yap O NVid 1OMINOO NOISO2130NV NOU11OW30 O ONI='3'11n1O311HOUV T- r Q .NM..... a�N 1N33W313 z`3.y "Sig �'MHLfr�u�2 E3i i1[EE53ffi'3 Si o asU aee A`z�t s:Yn@ & 1^ 4 11 $ 01 I e 4 S ffi €`' �k !a E� E's i 1—h€9 -. $�� IN gs ex$gY s9 ¢¢-rgg$1;11 Ingo I$�3ax k Y�§ 2 y ak 8� �!"n i nYmg- 66 s g i 8gg Y kg€&• - : :.i :.Sd3 : E E . : `.'C� eS£:S 1 €o: iaYG C$�m :ODOO OD©D OOOOO OO[E)DO M„bSd sz >5uoy 'ez d�N.o.oa •Ic wn.os F., �. ^ 1^ 6/13N le 9/l35 !o >u!11.>3 OS 3�V a y eJill 1z 15s F., �.a :�C'a a NVId IMUNOO NOISOU3 ONV'30VN1VUCLN1.LVjQ Cq ON]'BMEOEWHOMV U �!mi r a E Z _r '7�3VY3_13 Hl It JI"'_ i; yj 141 I jx.l Ia X- 35 e pV IlIflill it , 19105 11 3 i. �.,gj Ali. i Igi 9g I "yg 1. 21XIN N Niippp3 l! 42 EN 1 4x IBBEEISS' 10,9ze M3 FA 1 ry� 12 A zIt @g9aRag�mRRp all a IRE -------------- � z --- 00 O d 1 NZ Ups, i Itt *1 1 . -111 1, IN ail ---- - - - ----- --- Igi R ION Ip I-------------- E Z� — ---------- (7�k 1 05 Ig u a S as Eg` 8g€ E g UEg§ c� jJ o:a aya5si55°i;;iE§'ms € a x$ iee F 5 NEx E9 �'` F r e 3 d a °s•a E a a Y e=s E i$ e :3 'akE�" aE eRim+ lea ?e$ xaA £ 8 as£. .+9:. a�♦ 4 ®-idg Ek m' 'a 5 3'3 Ela =zlg€ a� �s =cEE 3 50 a d "S`Ta uasuE E"}z; vr�,a- =al 3x s 3"aSs-gg 3.111 a° S E`��EEm".g°ai e��.e L of " 7a �0 0 0 00000000a _ m. £ T0'9Z£ M„bS,lTe —�-s� � 7N 1” tI13N to YI135 to au;l iae3 .d5 29AV �ON t 8 rox 1 i 2 k _ Nvidunun M ONIz'321f110311HDNtl ----- Elo o U � tt�tl�1N3W��3 x ° S as Eg` 8g€ E g UEg§ c� jJ o:a aya5si55°i;;iE§'ms € a x$ iee F 5 NEx E9 �'` F r e 3 d a °s•a E a a Y e=s E i$ e :3 'akE�" aE eRim+ lea ?e$ xaA £ 8 as£. .+9:. a�♦ 4 ®-idg Ek m' 'a 5 3'3 Ela =zlg€ a� �s =cEE 3 50 a d "S`Ta uasuE E"}z; vr�,a- =al 3x s 3"aSs-gg 3.111 a° S E`��EEm".g°ai e��.e L of " 7a �0 0 0 00000000a 433 _ m. £ T0'9Z£ M„bS,lTe —�-s� � 7N 1” tI13N to YI135 to au;l iae3 .d5 29AV �ON t 8 rox 1 i 2 k ----- Elo o x ° d y m s �g 0 I z hg ongm � �r UR All p�^L" kd o _ " —n 0 3 d fr O o m p m Ua W� O a i 3s' at 1—me.r2°3 433 ZZ dV&ma•--"a .�w«,�, NV1d 311S Ali ONIz'Mln- IIHONV V r Q .� w._,1N3W313 U a b R � b R M.H. H t 'Its yy M.H. "OS "aAV 30NVZ!� 1 ' I ' III IIIIIIIIII ' " ' ------------- IIIIIIIII'I,IIIIIII1111 IIII �1 111111 III III11 (IIII IIIIIIII 1111111111111II11IIII II.•I IIIIII III IIII 11111111111II11IIIIIIIIIII II IIII IIII111II I' IIIIIII III III IIIIII IIII IIIIIII111111111111II III II II III . 'I'I'I' I'I'I;I'I 'I'III'I'1'I'I'I'I'I'4'?I'I'I'I'1'I'I'I'I'1'I'I'I'�111111, I, 11111, I, •IIIIIII IIIIII I IIIIIIII I I I I X 1 1 I I I I I I I 1'I I I I I I I ��11 �1111d,�l IIIIII III II II11111111 IIII I� IIIIIII IIIIIII 11 III II.,. V III I I I I I I I 1 V I I I I I I I 11,1 I I I I I I III,I;I IIII ,I,III,I,III�I;I'I I'I I II'I I II I I I I III; ,I;I I I 11,1,1 I I I I 111 �I� ' I1;1 r`1, ,I iN I � III N III I 1 •. 1�1, ,1;1;11;1 ' "III111111 ' I z I omoo wrw.~ -------------- GoO 000 o _ � w Ia�I III IIIIIII111 11III111 �111II II I I I I 1 1 I'I'I I I I 1 1 IIIIIF�I 1111111111IIIIIII III11111; I � I 5 •IIIIII V III IIIIIII IIIIIII11111II 1 I'I'I I III11�1111 I11111111III Ill lj IjL111 I�1 I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'I I r-rY tLH r r� 1 mocm N I I I I'I I I I 1 1 V I I I Irl I , IIIIIIII II 1111,11 _ 1111111 IIIIIII I� I �. 1,11i•�11,1 � i,l�l,l L, j,l, WGw..WW I �' d � w ' �z ilii I Illi II I I W V I I I I I I I I I III I I,I,I I I t I I L 1rL 1'L LI 1 o v I I I I I�1 I I I I I I I I I 111,111, II tY Y7 r r7 rl 1 (IIII III IIIII'I'lllll 11 II 1 III 11 IIIIII II'I IIIIIIII I C I I I I I V I I I I W 5 •.� l u l l 1 I I I I I I � I I I n �I LI and I I� - ONIL'3LIf11�31pi�TJH mK�.� �mw nmvn: � NOU. Jf1�N1SN00 tJ0310N'AtibT rC-1 ap'dnoi.��uBlsaa YRIe� �_w ., uopoelwd O pue uope,uaswd sail M1N 3 W313 2 g $ p a t a 2 € s_ _ Z. A s Wo I b e j s a qa 1 fl g g is e vwi -- w o 2 x m I -- s # 3 e g §§§S I A �B �� &'a g a gY y{ a z Z 1 s sz a� s s �§ Baa Fs U o _ $ O �� w oF 71 j s� t ell 'all p y3 e o a .�j!? �3 � — W � q - f_� y'�"� 1. ;:.� /L�y. ' �,�". �. ,/, ��i% ♦ _ ui ueld adeospue� o',z m°•¢�°a: wa. w.M <'c'c �,�°•x®o>a a -- int ONI'34dfllO311HONVLU a ru�o°mrea�Ms+rw� ww,r.wn�� Mry NOI1.�f1if1SNOO 210 lON •I.LIH' IlNll3ild o6'dnmg uBlsaO s61¢p 1N 3 W 313 �T_., ..-:�' ��., m o m cn < m m -u 02 m0 y y y T y Y y Cl) T 0 ;um -- - — - — - — - — - — - — cl) a, ,, ml — Cl rl,1 8 > -- - - ------ - T, Fn —All4p Em --t-4 17— 0 C2 M U) Ln X m CO "I 0 > 0 o co 17 X 0 co 71 - - - - - - ------ - ml _5' SETBACK 14' SETBACK 30'- 0" O FROM PROPERTY LINE F ROW --------------------------- 28 SETBACK TO UPPER FLOORS I I > ELEMENT DJR cn 91 fE PLAN' ARCHITECTURE, "�,.'-Pc ;F------------------------------------------------------------ 1 ' - ---I F . ..... . .. ... ... . . ... .... ... T_ .......... . I I 71:j:— 7.7 Q .. ..... .. ..... L LL, AL -- - — - — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J-11 0- 0 ------ : L------------------------------------------------------- I Nord M001ja13,1�j,12 r G ,�W�.b , IN3A313 ;F------------------------------------------------------------ 1 ' - ---I F . ..... . .. ... ... . . ... .... ... T_ .......... . I I 71:j:— 7.7 Q .. ..... .. ..... L LL, AL -- - — - — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J-11 0- 0 ------ : L------------------------------------------------------- �~ ��—� I N �� |�� lN3VU313 [-----------------------------------------1 . . || . || . | | | ��—�'--'��---f---T--�--'--'�-----�—'--'��'--'—�'----�'--'--�------ | � | | | | | | | | | | | | � | ' � ° | | | | | | | | | | | . . . . . . . . .� . . . . | | .cj'»u ' || . | | . L__________________________________________J BUILDING SUMMARY SITE AREA: 138,650 SF - (3.18 ACRES) BUILDING AREA: 207,059 SF FAR: 1.49 GROSS RENTABLE AREA: 162,670 NET RENTABLE ESTIMATE: 152,910 UNITS: 160 - 50 UNITS PER ACRE Floor Area Ratio Level FAR Area LEVEL P1 4,926 SF LEVEL 1 45,839 SF LEVEL 1.5 18,585 SF LEVEL 2 47,664 SF 340'- 0" Floor Area Ratio Level FAR Area LEVEL 3 30,042 SF LEVEL 4 30,042 SF LEVEL 5 28,856 SF ROOF / LEVEL 5.5 1,106 SF 207,059 SF Parking On Site Level Stalls Per Level LEVEL P2 267 LEVEL P1 227 LEVEL 1 12 506 7 J w LO NV -td NOWILL 12U� -------------------------------------------------------------- OD ........... Or - w ui fn l 2w z----- I 0I I - I Z CL CL 0 ui T---ro T --- -------- - - --- ---- -- -- ----------- z LU G) ........ ---- -- I T- F T -- - - - ------ ---- - z I----1--I-----I L 44----4 < z F- F- ------ F Zo oz I I-- jT j LL, - -1 L----------------------------------------------------------- �a [---------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . . | �� || � | | r | | / � / | | | | | ' | | . | | iBIKE' .TORAGIGREEN| . . | Q}-� / . | | 8-�' | | --[--]-- ' | | FF UNITS . . . . . / | ' | E}-� | ' ' ' | | ��' --L--�-- | .ROO. |ESIDENfIAL . � . � | � | . . I Es . ) . | . / . . � | �+�'- ---- . --.--,-- . | | . | | | || U! U | | | | | | | | �- -- _ -" -- -- _ _ -- _-u_-_-_ _ _ _ -- _�_ _�_ -- _ _ -- -_ _ _ __ -- -��-- '- - c, mm �x�^ NV ld Noold E w9-1 r SNI-'3af11j3.L.IH�aV RrMll 1 I I ___-______------_____-__-_____-__-___---__--_-__- , � 1 I I I I I 1 � ► I I I I I I I I I I I I I'i I I I I I I i I �.. I _.L -- I � i I I. 1 c--'-- I - - I --i ---I - W~ --- I --------- I ------i I Q I w I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I! I I I P I_ I II UJZ I I I I I I I I! cs— ----L---L -1-------------� I 1 --- -�---- --- I I ---1 I 1 1 Ii I i 1 1 1 I 1 I GD -11 1 - . --r---„-t ----- O ! I I I ® 1 1 I I I I L -----------------------------------------------------------J I NVId UOO)Jil ].3 NUWJ1 ld�SNU�l U.1 -111. AIIINI.l I...l IN31M313 F ------------------------------ ----------------------- I : 'o u) w 0 Z w E . ......... .... . ............ . ..... . ..... ... . . ....... . . ... . . .... . . .............. o— - — - — _—_y—_—_—_—__ _—__y_—_— F - Lu _7 ... ...... . .... .. .. . ..... ...... .. . .. .... . . ................. . . . .. .......... .. ..... - - - . . ........ ... . ...... . . . . ..... . ...... . .......... . ... ... .... ............. .. ...... ... ... 0 1 . . ............ L------ ---------------------------------------------- LO Nvtaaooiasi,i r onii'aan�3iiH�av ra w �� INJ3W3;� ------------------------------------------------------------- I, 1 1 I � I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I , I I , Z 1� oFFI I I I I I l HI ------I --- --- --- I - - ---- -- ' I ----- -----�---J -- ----- �- I 1 1 I � --------- ---- _ I ui _ _ _—F —T___�___-_� 1 1 I I I i 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b b I 0 1 � I L -----------------------------------------------------------J cm 2i 111311 Heb V U-1 -LUN -AtJVNIVVI 1-18d SN 1 01 �j rG J'g', Cal A�l C:: moi. o.. FL iIrr �A .11111 !�� - I 1y � NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION ��1" = 30'-0" (o \WEX6FOTERIOR ELEVATION M1 EX LEVEL ROOF 3 LEVEL ROOF 2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 E PANEL 1 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 :ONCRETE LEVEL 1.5 .. LEVEL 1 LEVEL P1 LEVEL ROOF 3 LEVEL ROOF 2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 .LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 ._,._ _..__ LEVEL 2 _ ___LEVEL 1.5 LEVEL Z O Zw W C w G 0 W Of J w W�5 Z200 SHEET REFERENCE R - LIMESTONE LIMESTONE STOREFRONT LIMESTONE EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0" LEVELROOF2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 .._... ......... _.. ----LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1.5 _LEVEL1 U Z Er4 Lpen. Q ga�N Z O H Z LuW J C W G � W � J W F_ W w Z201 SHEET REFERENCE \IM • !li'1�!Il�e �!�1!i�e�'■!��■e■ �!� le■ l ■ le■1!li!1m!1l■e■ �1 ;e■I it, !1. �1�j .I a _1.� = ='m. .!1'!11. :- ;q !1'fe■I,:� p ie■ !� ; ■lase■ q �!� rq Bei q e■. '1 '1 q':q� . • ` ■e■ �e■ �! ie■ N ■ Ie■ '1 '1 It q' !1 ,i p !I pe■ W . _ ! loan 11 an !1 q q !11 X11 1' 1!`" 1! !1` !1: !1 �e■° ■ � Mo !1 ■e■ 1! ie■ �1 ! ■e■ !1 11 !1 X PII r! 91 1! 1! 1! 9 9 !1 Hi 11 11 ll_I 11 111 11 111 11 11 Ul !1 4 117 ig ., R - LIMESTONE LIMESTONE STOREFRONT LIMESTONE EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0" LEVELROOF2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 .._... ......... _.. ----LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1.5 _LEVEL1 U Z Er4 Lpen. Q ga�N Z O H Z LuW J C W G � W � J W F_ W w Z201 SHEET REFERENCE RI$ 1 1 COURTYARD NORTH ELEVATION 1 " = 30'-0" 2 COUTYARD WEST ELEVATION 1" —! 30'-0" LEVEL ROOF 3 LEVEL ROOF 2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 __LEVEL 4 LEVEL3 LEVEL2 LEVEL 1.5 LEVEL LEVEL ROOF 3 LEVEL ROOF 2 LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 1 LEVEL4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL2 _LEVEL 1.5 LEVEL U) Z O Q Z W W LD C W G LD W w W W w 2202 SHEET REFERENCE COMPOSITE PANEL I �l! ! . LEVEL ROOF/5.5 LEVEL 5 _...__. _ LEVEL4 BRICK 1 LEVEL 3 V COMPOSITE PANEL 2 LEVEL2 BRICK2 BRICK2 LEVEL 1.5 LEVEL 1 1 COURTYARD SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0" COMPOSITE PANEL 2 BRICK2 ENTRY TO RESIDENTIAL _/ BRICK2 l ` /COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION PARKING U 1" = 30'-0" LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1.5 LEVEL 1 gaw JW W W Z203 SHEET REFERENCE 771F 1 � c R s R 4 0 0 N Z 0 m o g Z of . e i 0 N a m E 9 0 Z 0 � E 4 0 r� M a. $ o� 3 O � QO in IE 4 Ow O� Zw 9 I 1. IBM 41 `�+�1 ""°...-�7■� NJ■ iji>,��r�i�lta��i�■s,�.�irriiw;��i�iirr�i i_�; �- ,i i Iiia r r 77 if ■� l/ll J I �!14k [JAI xrm 1111f" ll INS ria 1■■■■Y'TY� ?��I■�Is„IM� ^7S'el�#'t�Ti1�7i':Yii � ALAI al A 5 ■tstone 9 if ■■r w �! ,:ia� ��mi■ ■/ill /ia��r -- r j — ---- J }Ali' AT ;' ;..�1M�l111111tttt�ti�l1�9>rttttl�tl��>t � ,� j ll, 7111•' � 1 ' �, � i � _�;�, �` �tllltttil!�!�'iitttli_ t �al�if�ll�llrl �P', ° Vis, ��3,tnr1�i11iltlliatlara :�. � � 1� di r��} a ��j� *fie � fe �� i✓"Z'1 aft.■'�t�*--ccr.�q lil�xa�■ �7R:11 1.�7fj117Y?:i/ ' {� 1Lws1�■ft�1 jtl■ ■]1x111■ S�tltl�tliltltltl�� toIliumt a, gas _wly�,_�tll��*' ��F ��M- 1ttii�ii:::iiit�ii>j�:��' �� ,l/% Ayes Scherer, roeder, Carr and Staunton. Nay, Lee, Olson, PI er rest. Motion failed 4-4. Commissioner Carr mo 0 ommend preli rezoning approval contingent on approval of the variances. C iss er seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Olson, Carr, Platteter, taunton. Nay, Lee. Motion to rezone approved 7-1. A discussion ensued o *onconfcrming. uld happen if the site wa oval and the double wasn't built; would the single family Planner Teague exp d it would be nonconforming; howe as a single family home it would have to be built is today. VI1. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan — 7200 France Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission a request to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 3.51 acre parcel at 7200 France Avenue has been made. Teague said the applicant is requesting consideration of a proposal to tear down the existing office building on the site, and redevelop it with a six and four-story mixed use development project that would include the following: ➢ 170 unit apartment (6 stories) (20% affordable) ➢ 25 units of row housing. (4 stories) ➢ 45,500 square feet of retail space including two restaurants. ➢ A two-level underground parking ramp. Teague noted the retail space would be located on the France side of the project. Access to the residential portion of the development would be from 72"d Street. Access to the retail portion would be off of France Avenue. The existing vegetation and trees on the west side of the site would remain to provide screening from the residential area to the west. To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories to 6 stories. ➢ Housing Density — from 30 units per acre to 50. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from .5 to 1.88. A rezoning of all the property would then be required to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Page 6 of 13 A Appearing for the Applicant Dean Dovolis DJR Architects and Laurie Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation. Discussion Commissioner Lee asked what the zoning of the subject site is and if the existing building was non -conforming. Planner Teague responded the subject site is zoned POD, Planned Office District and the building is non -conforming. Teague said the redevelopment is proposed to incorporate elements of the mixed use zoning district. Applicant Presentation Mr. Dovolis addressed the Commission and explained in his opinion the geometry of the site works well with the proposed redevelopment. Dovolis explained the goal is to create a gracious entry off of France Avenue that would be an improvement for the City and will enhance the character of the neighborhood. Dovolis pointed out the mixed use aspects of the proposed redevelopment would provide the following: • The proposed building will replace an existing building with paved surface parking lot. • 26,500 square feet of retail/office space. • 195 residential housing units to include an affordable housing element (20%). • 570 parking spaces. • Majority of the parking spaces would be located within the building (underground) creating a better visual environment. • Maintain and enhance green space area to the west. • Development of roof deck(s), green space and rain gardens. • Commercial traffic off France Avenue. • Residential traffic off West 72nd Stree.t • Improvement of storm water rates. • Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Dovolis concluded in his opinion the proposed redevelopment would be a nice evolution along France Avenue providing both housing and retail. Dovolis introduced Laurie Boisclair to further speak to the affordable housing element of the project. Ms. Boisclair explained that there is an 80!/20% split of market rate to affordable housing. Boisclair said a survey found that the pay rate of those qualifying for "affordable" housing make between $18.00-$25.00 per hour. Discussion With respect to the affordable housing element Commissioner Scherer asked when the units "turn -over" will the affordability component also carry over. Ms. Boisclair responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forrest asked if a square footage per unit was established. Ms. Boisclair responded that she believes a one bedroom unit would be roughly 800 square feet. Unit size would increase thereafter. Page 7 of 13 Ap Chair Staunton asked if the proposed townhomes are vertical. Mr. Dovolis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Kilberg commented that he appreciates the step down element of the building and that special attention was paid to retaining the landscaped buffer on the west. Kilberg said in his opinion the proposal as presented does a good job of balancing density and height. Kilberg acknowledged that the area was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as four stories; however, at first look the proposal appears promising to him. Concluding, Kilberg encouraged the development team to pay special attention to finding traffic solutions pointing out this area is heavily travelled. Commissioner Lee said she finds the proposal interesting and exciting; however does have concerns with traffic. She added it has been her experience that the speed of traffic along this stretch of France Avenue is high and suggested the addition of turn lanes and broadening the zone along France Avenue. Mr. Dovolis agreed traffic needs to be carefully considered adding the project introduces a "slip lane" that is needed to guide and calm traffic into the site. Continuing, Lee questioned why six stories are needed. Dovolis said height is needed to afford the underground parking. He said the proposed density allows amenities and improves the aesthetics of the site by locating the majority of parking underground. Dovolis acknowledged there is a balance of density to use. Commissioner Platteter said he also finds this an interesting project. He further suggested when formal application is made that the applicant provide materials indicating building heights in the surrounding area. Platteter added he is also concerned with the slip lane and ramp access/valet parking. Continuing, Platteter said he appreciates the podium height; however there may be too much height on France Avenue. Platteter stated he's not opposed to six stories; however much depends on where those six stores are located. Commissioner Carr said she too is interested in the proposal; however, finds the building mass along France Avenue too much. Carr suggested more articulation in building wall through colors or angles. Continuing, Carr asked where guest parking was located. Mr. Dovolis responded that guest parking would be in the underground garage, adding there are also a few "short term" parking spaces at grade. Commissioner Carr asked if bike racks are provided. Dovolis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen acknowledged the mix of uses; however, said she was struggling with the density, building mass and traffic. Olsen said in her opinion much hinges on the traffic study and what it reveals. She also said the development team needs to work carefully with a traffic engineer and with the County. Concluding, Olsen suggested a more straight connectivity and the addition of a traffic signal. Mr. Dovolis responded they are working with a traffic engineer and are looking at introducing a curb less design will bollards. Dovolis said they are trying to achieve a different effect with this redevelopment. Continuing, Dovolis said he would continue to focus on traffic and the pedestrian mix with the hopes of "enhancing this area". Dovolis said he was also considering tying the project with the open space to the north by developing a playground/public area that would benefit not only the residents of the building but the City. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged sustainability aspects of the project; however asked the applicant to provide a more detailed and measurable plan prior to formal application. Page 8 of 13 0 Commissioner Schroeder said at this time he doesn't have an issue with the mix of uses or density; however, does have a concern that future residents of the building will cut through the neighborhood to go north/west. Schroeder pointed out a residential neighborhood and school are located to the north and west of the subject site and special attention needs to be paid to the potential for cut through traffic. Continuing, Schroeder said he also has a concern with traffic maneuvering and traffic movements from both France and West 72nd Street. Schroeder acknowledged while the project has much to like about it he believes traffic will be the major drawback. Schroeder said he was supportive of connecting the open space to the north with the project as a playground/public space; however, believes that area may be "open space" to filter storm water for the neighborhood. Concluding, Schroder said the architecture is good, but the access points are difficult. Chair Staunton stated he echo's comments from other Commissioners, adding he likes the mixed use aspect of the project but believes there are some challenges with circulation; acknowledging that the mixed use concept does spread out the traffic. Continuing, Staunton said he was not alarmed by the height; however, there was a reason the Comprehensive Plan deliberately guided this area for no more than four stories. Staunton acknowledged at the time the Comprehensive Plan was revised the City was operating on the premise that four stories west of France Avenue was best. Staunton said in this instance the Commission and Council need to figure out if this is still the case and what this area of Edina can handle. Concluding, Staunton said he's not opposed to the redevelopment plan; it has promise; however, the City needs to be sure this type of density can be handled in this area. Chair Staunton thanked Mr. Dovolis and Ms. Boisclair for their presentation, adding he looks forward to the formal application. B. Sketch Plan — 4121 West 50th Street Planner Tea said the Planning Commission is being asked to consider etch plan request to allow a change use of the existing two-story apartment building at I West 50th Street. The proposal is to co ' ue the multi -family use on the first floor and er level, and remodel the second floor into o space. A PUD rezoning is therefore osed to allow for the mixed use within the building. The existing building contai ine residential uni ost units have 2 bedrooms, with 1.5 bathrooms and are roughly I, square fee size. The building recently was significantly remodeled. There are no plans to an r modify the exterior of the building. The proposal would simply be for a remodel of th d floor interior and change of use. The proposed plan would maintain the two residen ' units the basement or lower level; maintain the four units on the first floor; and remo a three un on the third floor into office space The property is cur r y zoned Planned Residenti istrict 4, PRD -4 and is guided, MXC, Mixed Use Cen . he MXC allows multifamily resi . I and office space. Therefore, the proposed ould be consistent with the Comprehensi Ian. The dowing would therefore be required to accommodate the request: ➢ Rezoning from PRD -4, Planned Residential District -4 to PUD, Planned unit development Page 9 of 13 �� Minutes/Edina City Council/July 15, 2014 Ben Hack& 7105 Glouchester Avenue, addressed the Council. Member enson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to clos the public hearing. Ayes: Benne . Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carrie Mr. Teague address issues raised during public testimony on types of variances t had been considered in this area. Mr. Mo\prsal dicated his building footprint included /wite he block but even when considering only the -type uses; his proposal remained in liaverage structure. The Council discussed thand asked.questions of Mr. Mortensoeague relating to use of the lower level and sge. Support was expressed for the imgn, sustainability aspects, and redevelopment ordered on either side by a parking lot. Council Discussion & Action Council concern was expressed for variance consideration, storm property, and potential risk of sai positive surface drainage. Membi 2014-79, Denying Preliminary to the requested lot drainage, ineffective I infiltration and infl renson introdu oning from to Side Building Coverage Variances; an findings: 2.01 The variance criteria are not 2.02 The current zoning is consist 2.03 The multiple variances requ zoning. 2.04 There are no practical diffi property owner does not prohibited by the Zonin ordinance requirement v justifies the variances. hi 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 Ord c rage variance, lack of hardship required tion of two rain gardens at the rear of the due to proposed excavations that lacked and moved adoption of Resolution No. R-2; Lot Area and Width Variances; Lck Variances, based on the following !h the Comprehensive Plan. demonstrate the property is not suitable for R-2 in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The to use the property in a reasonable manner VIt is not reasonable to deviate from the need for build such a large tw amily dwelling Reasonable use of a property exl located on the pr erty. is nothing unique about the property that Lriances is caused by the applicant's desire to e site. with the two-story single family currently The size of the oposed structure create h, the side yard s back variance. The City h traditionally not granted create) tearing do a home (single-family home or Proposed uilding coverage would be nearly today w' the single family home. Member Spragu seconded the motion. Ayes: Benn , Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bri le Motion rried. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT ne appeared to comment. need for the lot coverage variance, and for building lot coverage when and building a new one. the building coverage that exists VIII. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.D. SKETCH PLAN — 7200 FRANCE AVENUE — REVIEWED Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of sketch plan review, which did not include a public hearing, noting the application process that followed included four opportunities for public testimony. Page 3 k 0 ( Minutes/Edina City Council/July 15, 2014 It was noted the proposal was to redevelop the 3.51 -acre parcel at 7200 France Avenue to tear down the existing outdated office building and redevelop it with a six- and four-story mixed use development project. Proponent Presentation Dean Dovolis, DJR Architects, presented elements of the project that included 195 residential units with 40 units being affordable; 26,000 square feet of commercial space; and, underground parking. Mr. Dovolis displayed colored artist renditions of exterior elevations. Bruce Johnson, landscape architect, presented a landscape plan, noting it would create a lush environment through the use of plants, stones, and water and include winter interest. Laurie Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation and project co-sponsor, described the company's housing portfolio and intention to request housing revenue bonds to allow setting aside 40 affordable units as well as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to cover the gap in rental disparity between affordable units (81 cents/square foot) to market rate units ($1.19 per square foot). The affordability threshold would be 50% of area median income. Ms. Boisclair described the tenant base for affordable units that would be scattered throughout the buildings and of varied design and number of bedrooms. Mat Pascina, SRF Consulting, presented the findings of the independent preliminary traffic analysis. He reported current trip generation from this site was 500 daily trips and the proposed land use would increase it to 2,500 daily trips with retail (accessed from France Avenue) making up two-thirds of that number. Mr. Pascina stated France Avenue, a six -lane facility, could feasibly handle 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day. The roadway was currently handling 28,000 vehicles per day, identifying that additional capacity was available. Mr. Pascina explained how the project would minimize impacts to 72nd Street and recommended developing travel demand strategies for residents and employees. In conclusion, Mr. Pascina addressed points of access, turning movements, sight lines, and truck maneuvers. Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague explained that to accommodate this request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: building height from four stories to six stories; housing density from 30 units per acre to 50 units per acre; and, floor area ratio from .5 to 1.88. A rezoning would also be required to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Mr. Teague reviewed concerns of the Planning Commission related to height and density, traffic, and to require podium height on the France Avenue side. Council Discussion The Council supported this location for multi -residential housing, having a 140 -foot setback from the closest single-family house to the west, building design elements, underground parking, providing varied (I - 3 bedroom) workforce units, not displacing relatively affordable housing, offering a variety of housing units (townhomes and apartments), landscape features, and creation of a green berm/buffer. The Council offered the following recommendations: reduce intensity of the land use (height, massing, floor area ratio, and density); improve the pedestrian streetscape experience; consider eliminating the sidewalk cut -in and extend the curb; provide a significant podium on France Avenue without creating a step-up facing single-family residential; address traffic circulation to prevent neighborhood impact; encourage multimodal transportation by enhancing bicycle facility and providing interior storage; address stormwater management; provide recreational opportunities for tenants; replace asphalt with green space; and, address and mitigate impacts to the City's infrastructure and schools. The Council acknowledged the City would hire, at the developer's expense, a consultant to conduct a traffic study. The development team was encouraged to keep the neighborhood's interests in mind. D Page 4 4 � / DATE: November 3, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 7200 France Avenue — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. Planning Concerns 1. Significant planning level concerns for sanitary inflow, stormwater and flood storage exist. Preliminary approvals should be held until agreement is reached on a preliminary stormwater management plan. Survey 2. Consider platting lot and provide 30' right of way for 72nd Street. Soils 3. Provide soil borings logs and soils report including piezometer groundwater readings to confirm infiltration rates and support groundwater mounding analysis. 4. Provide copy of phase I environmental review. Details 5. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction_ standards Traffic and Street 6. Provide traffic analysis and expand scope of 72"d street improvements to provide dedicated left turn lane from 72"d Street to building. 7. Entrance and driveway must accommodate a design vehicle of Pierce fire truck 12205. See attached sheets. 8. Some architectural sheets show pedestrian access across France Avenue, remove these markings. 9. Provide widths for 72"d Street driving paths and medians. 10. Show pedestrian access across 72"d street and receiving pedestrian ramp on north side of intersection. 11. Proposed France Avenue lighting must remain consistent with Canto light fixtures. Sanitary and Water Utilities 12. Depth of sanitary will required pumped outlet from 2 level underground parking garage. 13. Soil infiltration feature is sited adjacent to and up -gradient of 2 level underground parking. Provide groundwater mounting analysis and design infiltration feature such that groundwater elevation will not intercept low floor garage elevation. 14. Provide hydrant access in the courtyard. �iGII�1fF.l�iNG I%'ABYbi�IrTP 7450 bilft+o Boulevard. ]Edim. hUnnesota 55439 ww EdinahMp w • 952-826-0371 • Rm 952.826.0342 461 Storm Water Utility S. France Avenue low point currently flows into 7200 France property. Hydrologic model needs to address modified EOF path for this condition, and grading plan needs to prevent inflow into parking garage. 16. Downstream stormwater system has limited capacity. Provide existing conditions lift station design. Rate will be limited to 0.5cfs or existing conditions, whichever is less. 17. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ and http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=engineering_ water resource 18. The subject property provides conveyance of stormwater and flood storage for adjacent properties to the south through three private easements noted on the ALTA title survey. Provide hydrologic and hydraulic report detailing the proposed changes to rate, volume, flow, flood storage and peak flood elevations. a. Use NOAA Atlas 14 storm probabilities b. Provide storage for LE_20 flood waters 19. Building low floor elevation must follow CWRMP policy 3.1.1.1, be a minimum of 2' above the 100 year HWL of basin. 20. Provide private maintenance agreement for lift station and associated stormwater infrastructure. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 21. MPCA SWPPP will be required for development plans. Other Agency Coordination 22. Apply for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit and schedule preliminary plan review with District Engineer. 23. Other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, MCES may be required. ]ENGUNIEERINGDEPARIKENT 7450 Metro Boallevard • Edina, b4innesota 55439 vrerwRi aMKg+av • 952426-0371 • Fax 952826-0392 W Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page 1 of 2 4-10 Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/2013 ----'- Parameters: _-----'----- Inside Cramp Angle: 45.000 - - Axle Track: 81.92 in. ' Wheel Offset. 5.25 in. Additional Bumper Depth Tread Width: 16.60 in. j = Axle Track Chassis Overhang: 65.99 in. Wheel offset Additional Bumper Depth: 19.00 in. Cramp Angle Chassis overhang Tread Width Front Overhang 84.99 in. Wheelbase: 258.00 in. - Calculated Turning Radii: Inside Turn: 20 ft. 4 in. �d�� Curb to Curb: 36 ft. 8 in. Wheelbase 1' J ;' c4� fO�yd Wall to Wall: 41 ft. 1 in. Comments: 'p°'-Truck 12205 I d a%vs i Inside Turning Radius Components PRIDE # Description Front Tires 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 425/65822.50 20 ply XZY 3 tread Chassis 0070220 Dash-2000, Chassis, PAP/SkyArm/Midmount Front Bumper 0123625 Bumper, 19" extended, ImpNel Aerial Device 0006900 xxxAerial, 100' Pierce Platform Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page 1 of 2 4-10 4( Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/2013 Definitions: Inside Cramp Angle Maximum turning angle of the front inside tire. Axle Track King -pin to king -pin distance of the front axle. Wheel Offset Offset from the center -line of the wheel to the king -pin. Tread Width Width of the tire tread. Chassis Overhang Distance from the center -line of the front axle to the front edge of the cab. This does not include the bumper depth. Additional Bumper Depth Depth that the bumper assembly adds to the front overhang. Wheelbase Distance between the center lines of the vehicle's front and rear axles. Inside Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle around which the vehicle can turn. Curb to Curb Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the vehicle's tires can turn. This measurement assumes a curb height of 9 inches. Wall to Wall Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the entire vehicle can turn. This measurement takes into account any front overhang due to the chassis, bumper extensions and/or aerial devices. Page 2 of 2 A1( CANTO LIGHT FIXTURE 41.25 4" ItANCr &iA'r 5P CONDUIT 24C COVCR A/8 BY OTHERS CROUT FML 014EX4 BY OTHERS 4)( /—By OTHERS 44 CANTO STANDARD France Avenge urban design workshop M -M. -MM -W, IM mountins Detall u 15.75 0 1.25 4X 11" PLATE rON001-1 BASE COVER BY OT.IERS GROOT AIS eY ER5 OIN3(,X4 01,11 0 V OftEAS DEML-A)UNTING Far Canto M"O and CC6*00 coneutt Factory for 0=00 Mounting 06ta1a CANTO G lighting concept: conceptual light fixture APRIL 1, 2014 _:Wenck Wenck File #3022-04 November 6, 2014 Traffic Impact Study for 7200 France Avenue in Edina, MN Prepared for: CITY OF EDINA Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 A-73 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...................................................................................2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS..................................................................................................4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................6-1 7.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................2-3 FIGURE2 SITE PLAN............................................................................................................2-4 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................3-2 FIGURE WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES.................................4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES.................................4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY DAILY VOLUMES.................................................................................4-5 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS.....................................5-5 FIGURE 8 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS.....................................5-6 i November 2014 :Wenck A7y- 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new residential and restaurant/retail development located at 7200 France Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located in the southwest corner of the France Avenue/72nd Street intersection. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a three story office building. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • France Avenue/70th Street • France Avenue/Hazelton Road • France Avenue/72nd Street • France Avenue/Gallager Drive • France Avenue/proposed access • 72nd Street/proposed access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing office building and constructing a new residential and restaurant/retail building. The project includes 521 on-site parking spaces. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown below. Proposed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit Apartments 160 DU Quality restaurant 5,000 SF Quality restaurant 9,000 SF Retail 6,000 SF SF = square feet, DU = dwelling units As shown in the site plan, the project includes access on both 72nd Street and France Avenue. The access as proposed prohibits left turns onto 72nd Street from the development through the construction of a center median. Left and right turns in and right turns out are allowed. This type of access configuration is known as a three-quarter access because three of the four access movements are allowed. The access on France Avenue is restricted to right turns in and out by the existing center median. As proposed, all residential trips will use the 72nd Street access while all retail and restaurant trips will use the France Avenue access. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2016. 1-1 November 2014 :Wenck The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate a net total of 37 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 167 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at the intersections analyzed to accommodate the proposed project. • 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. • Eliminating the access on France Avenue removes the disruptions caused by traffic slowing to enter and exit the site. However, southbound France Avenue has three through lanes, with the outside lane used for slowing traffic at many Locations under existing conditions. • From a traffic operations perspective, both access options result in minimal impacts to operations on France Avenue. The option with all access on 72nd Street results in slightly higher volumes in the neighborhood area west of the site, but these increases are minimal from an operations standpoint. • In order for the proposed 72nd Street access to operate as shown, the median and turn lane must be properly designed to eliminate the possibility of lefts turns out. Additional detailed design should be prepared and reviewed to ensure proper operation. 1-2 November 2014 ,47¢ Wenck 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new residential and restaurant/retail development located at 7200 France Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located in the southwest corner of the France Avenue/72nd Street intersection. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a three 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: • France Avenue/70th Street • France Avenue/Hazelton Road • France Avenue/72nd Street • France Avenue/Gallager Drive • France Avenue/proposed access • 72"d Street/proposed access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing office building and constructing a new residential and restaurant/retail building. The project includes 521 on-site parking spaces. The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Proposed Land Uses and Sizes Land Use Size Unit Apartments 160 DU Quality restaurant 5,000 SF Quality restaurant 7,700 SF Retail 6,000 SF SF = square feet, DU = dwelling units 2-1 November 2014 477ItWenck As shown in the site plan, the project includes access on both 72"d Street and France Avenue. The access as proposed prohibits left turns onto 72nd Street from the development through the construction of a center median. Left and right turns in and right turns out are allowed. This type of access configuration is known as a three-quarter access because three of the four access movements are allowed. The access on France Avenue is restricted to right turns in and out by the existing center median. As proposed, all residential trips will use the 72"d Street access while all retail and restaurant trips will use the France Avenue access. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2016. 2-2 November 2014 A 7 � Wenck 2300' iWenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7200 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN 471 FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION !I; W"m • r t - 4 IF Wi s M + ;r r ,u I 'Urcm i ,ETAIL i me ' ct•, r Fitlip i • r t - 4 IF Wi s M + ;r r ,u I 'Urcm i ,ETAIL i 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site is currently occupied by a three story office building and surface parking. The site is bounded by France Avenue on the east, 72nd Street on the north, office uses to the south, and residential areas to the west. Near the site location, France Avenue is a six lane divided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. 72nd Street is a two lane roadway. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. France Avenue/70th Street (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one through/right turn lane. France Avenue/Hazelton Road (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The eastbound approach proves one left turn/through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right turn lane. France Avenue at 72nd Street (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the eastbound 72nd Street approach. The eastbound approach provides one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and three through lanes. The southbound approach provides two through lanes and one through/right turn lane. Left turns are not allowed from 72nd Street onto France Avenue. France Avenue/Gallager Drive (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one through/right turn lane. 3-1 November 2014 F-;Wenck to 0 2W TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE Y V FOR DEVELOPMENTAT `A l�C�CI� 7200 FRANCE AVENUE Engineers • Scientists IN EDINA, MN EXISTING CONIDrr ONS W 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2017. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2014 Existing. Turn movement volumes collected in October 2014 were used for existing conditions. The existing volume information includes trips generated by uses near the project site. 2017 No -Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2017 No -Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was based on both recent growth experienced near the site and expected future growth. • 2017 Build. Trips generated by the existing office building were removed and trips generated by the proposed uses were added to the 2017 No -Build volumes to determine 2017 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. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Weekdav Trip Generation for Proposed Land Uses Land Use ITE Code Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Existing Use -removed Office 710 39,600 SF 55 7 62 10 49 59 437 Proposed Uses -added Apartments 220 160 DU 16 66 1 82 65 34 99 1064 Quality restaurant 931 9,000 SF 5 2 1 7 45 22 67 810 Quality restaurant 931 5,000 SF 3 1 4 26 12 38 450 Retail 820 6,000 SF 4 2 6 11 11 22 256 Net added by project 1 -27 64 37 137 30 167 2143 SF=square feet, DU=dwelling units . 4-1 November 2014 iWenck 3 As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed development will add a net total of 37 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 167 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The restaurant and retail trips can be categorized in the following two trip types: • New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. • Pass -By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for new trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 30 percent to/from the north on France Avenue • 30 percent to/from the south on France Avenue • 20 percent to/from the west on 70th Street • 15 percent to/from the east on 70th Street • 5 percent to/from the east on Hazelton Road Site Access Options As shown in the site plan, the project includes access on both 72"d Street and France Avenue. The access as proposed eliminates left turns onto 72nd Street from the development through the construction of a center median. Left and right turns in and right turns out are allowed. The access on France Avenue is restricted to right turns in and out only by the existing center median. In addition to the proposed access configuration, this study also reviewed the impacts of eliminating the access on France Avenue and providing all access on 72"d Street. It was assumed that under this scenario, the access on 72nd Street would be the same configuration as shown on the site plan. 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 and weekday daily. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6. 4-2 November 2014 Wenck m n CD C� 70TH sir it 4 161/166h88M86 154115811581157 —4 SN A P N mv� HAZELTON 10).J 3/31513 —1 10110110110 71=7 —� E-- 6118216.4164 72ND ST, f— 4414124 56158559/58-->W. 56/561122J12T� �m w T PROJECT e Ya' LOCATION J ACCM -Av- --+ O C e" O N 2014 81/83/83!83 —� 2017 NO -BUILD 41411AU4 —� 2017 BUILD WITH PROPOSEDACCESS 34 ` 0 5 �. IF 2017 BUILD WITH ALL ACCESS ON 72ND ST XX/X)C/XX/X)C Wenck Engineers • Scientists <-- 9811 01 r— 55157/5.4%52 t --70/79J7 M <-4141414 f-- 71/73173173 p, <— MGM r 29130f30/30 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7200 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN 4& t FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES ST. a r co 591811861125—+ 448117—�, RE1151118/1181118 �► ti n 7m S7. <j Jr Lj E-178/1811181/181 ,`' 104/107/1241124 214/22'0/213/213 --+ <1 t r 349136013531363 —> 172117711861183 00 r O 011011 ftD.IJ .' 281'2912121 29130128128 15115115115 ---�_ t-231238238238 F 32/:f3133/33 f--1601165/1701170 0 < N r O COO W W < Q F 18/1822/19 � r -1-1471120 59161/67161-i 591811861125—+ 448117—�, assa� u 0 �a PROJECT m LOCATION^ JI r ACCESS 44451---+ r Z4 C4 Z.) X o t -145/149/149h49 —co,r GALLAGER pit. L> <-71%i7? 'I' 49/50150150 2014 2017 N043UILD 157/1621162/162 —+ 91919/9 l' 2017 BUILD WITH PROPOSED ACCESS 65/67/67!67 N v� 2017 BUND Wrn-I ALLACCESS ON 72ND STIT XX/ owou)o( v r Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7200 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN A FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES g1 70TH ST. o MAVELLE DR. J a d J F- ZZ p p 2 iIC m pRE HAZELTON RD. t3 = m 1435H4101655H684) 5®0161016101610 72M ST. 1545/2005 8012205 PROJECT LOCATION W U LL 2014 2017 NO-BUILD N 2017 BUILD WITH PROPOSED ACCESS 2017 BUILD WITH ALL ACCESS ON 72ND ST XX/XXlXXno( . TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 6 Wenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7200 FRANCE AVENUE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC Engineers • Scientists IN EDINA, MN VOLUMES g1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. 5-1 November 2014 .. Wenck �� The LOS results for the study intersections are described below and shown in Figures 7 and 8. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. France Avenue/70th Street (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. France Avenue/Hazelton Road (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. France Avenue/72nd Street (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. France Avenue/Gallager Drive (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 5-2 November 2014 Wenck France Avenue/Site Access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 72nd Street/Site Access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, 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. Overall Traffic Impacts As described above and shown in Figures 7 and 8, 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. Access Configuration Impacts The access as proposed includes a three-quarter access on 72nd Street and a right in/out access on France Avenue. All residential trips will use the 72nd Street access while all retail and restaurant trips will use the France Avenue access. Vehicles can enter the site from both directions on 72nd Street and from the north on France Avenue. Trips from 701h Street have the option of traveling through the neighborhood area to the west to enter the site. The three-quarter access on 72nd Street and the right turn access on France Avenue forces all exiting traffic to France Avenue. Since left turns onto France Avenue are not allowed at 72nd Street, trips oriented to the north will likely make a u -turn at Gallager Drive. U-turns are allowed at Gallager and occur under existing traffic signal control. Eliminating the access on France Avenue forces all entering and exiting traffic onto 72nd Street. Once again, the three-quarter access on 72nd Street forces all exiting traffic onto France Avenue, resulting in similar operations that occur under the proposed access. As shown in Figure 6, the daily volumes on 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive are slightly higher with all access on 72nd Street. Eliminating the access on France Avenue removes the disruptions caused by traffic slowing to enter and exit the site. However, southbound France Avenue has three through lanes, with the outside lane used for slowing traffic at many locations under existing conditions. 5-3 November 2014 4AWenck �0 From a traffic operations perspective, both access options result in minimal impacts to operations on France Avenue. The option with all access on 72"d Street results in slightly higher volumes in the neighborhood area west of the site, but these increases are minimal from an operations standpoint. In order for the proposed 72nd Street access to operate as shown, the median and turn lane must be properly designed to eliminate the possibility of lefts turns out. Additional detailed design should be prepared and reviewed to ensure proper operation. 5-4 November 2014 r :Wenck bal rnuST »ST J 1 �__I c/o DAM D--> NNNA--+ +—NNA/A FDADM BANBIB as <-aCocim I! WZEM N FW: 1 - .. El T f crco= crcarrc maa as E—NNNA f- 4 -/NA ANNA --al- 44NA--;;, a .9a NNNA-a, PROJECT , Q LOCATION as �a ACCESS -14AIL. 2014 2017 N043UN-D 2017 BUILD WFrH PROPOSED ACCESS 2017 BMD WITH ALL ACCESS ON 72ND ST XXlX U)O(fxX aa� aa9 toR PJA MVDM BAWM -� �T". _ z Cr -A WC +—cr.j= •— CAUM TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY iWenck FOR DEVELOPMENTAT Engineers •Scientists 7200 FRANCE AVENUEIN EDINA, MN kl a, t� 1 FIGURE 7 P3 eee eee '�-MAIM o00 I 6--1 E-DG w 70TH ST. EfElEfE�a ArAfNA C aQe , +--A/A/A/A aao WZELTON RD� E-D/Qw EME DIDVD/D 8� � Baa 911 W U LL F-A/A/AtA 3a 44A/A J Y� I raw ST._..._,�- AAr -- nranrA- AIAINA - ► AIAIA/A 44AfA PROJECT a LOCATION za JI ACCESS---+:A/A!A_J'A' -/-/A/- . T a a as ,� C4" AGM DR:- 4(—AiD AWAIA 2014 � p r 2017 NO-BUILD BIB�B/B -� 2017 BUILD WITH PROPOSED ACCESS BIBIBIB e'I N 2017 BUILD WITH ALLACCESS ON 72ND ST )()VXX/)IF o TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 8 Wenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7200 FRANCE AVENUE WEEKDAY PA. PEAK HOUR Engineers • Scientists IN EDINA, MN LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS P3 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate a net total of 37 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 167 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement to an unacceptable level during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at the intersections analyzed to accommodate the proposed project. • 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. • Eliminating the access on France Avenue removes the disruptions caused by traffic slowing to enter and exit the site. However, southbound France Avenue has three through lanes, with the outside lane used for slowing traffic at many locations under existing conditions. • From a traffic operations perspective, both access options result in minimal impacts to operations on France Avenue. The option with all access on 72nd Street results in slightly higher volumes in the neighborhood area west of the site, but these increases are minimal from an operations standpoint. • In order for the proposed 72"d Street access to operate as shown, the median and turn lane must be properly designed to eliminate the possibility of lefts turns out. Additional detailed design should be prepared and reviewed to ensure proper operation. 6-1 November 2014 Wenck Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sita. k. Dash <drdash.uaslabs@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 201411:30 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Sita. k. Dash Subject: Case File: 2014.017 TO: City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the proposal to build a 5 -story, 160 unit apartment building with 20,000 square feet of retail on the first level on the property address 7200 France Ave, Edina, MN. I do object to this proposal and object to any change to the current zoning of the property at 7200 France Ave, Edina, MN. Sincerely, Sita Kantha Dash 7300 France Ave S. Suite 208 Edina, MN 55435 0:651-583-7281 C:612-325-1693 F: 952-405-6240 Jackie Hooaenakker From: Paul Hughes Sr. <paul.sr@peoplehelpinc.com> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:01 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: case file 2014.017 My concern for approval of this request is as follows: 1. Traffic flow Assumption being that a significant number of this proposed apartment residents will have an automobile. Regardless of previous studies indicating amount of vehicle France ave will manage you can only turn South on France off of 72nd. This will cause major traffic congestion in the early am for those using 72nd to get onto France ave. "If' those in the proposed parking wish to turn left onto 72nd out of the parking this will only add to my first sentence expression of traffic congestion. And finally, those turning left out of the apartment complex will be added unnecessary neighborhood traffic around the assisted living facility and the elementary school traffic. In the late afternoon or early evening return of residents heading north bound on France and turning onto 72nd heading west bound this could become a nightmare attempting to enter the designated turn lane (which holds only about 4-5 cars) becoming stacked up waiting to make their left hand turn onto 72nd - should that happen then you have north bound traffic problem on France ave. Frankly, the investors will profit from approval of this and we residents will pay the price in a combination of congested traffic, potential accidents and bodily injuries. The plan is flawed with underestimated concerns for the already overburdened traffic counts on France Ave, period! 2. A 5 story building with 160 apartments My personal opinion is that the number of apartment units is excessive! And in this latest memo there is no reference to 'low income' housing. Earlier there was mentioned of this accommodating police and nurse personnel unable to afford housing in Edina. I am sorry, if they cannot afford living in Edina they can't afford it. Those of us residence who have invested in the 'cost' of living in Edina over several decades have paid the price for the life style that living in Edina has provided. We are proud of that! and the desirability to be a resident will diminish with planning commission members/city council members warranting more and more 'low cost' housing when the cost is the cost. These members know that one can have any car they want to drive as long as they can afford it and if a person can't afford a certain car than they have to find an alternative. It would be appropriate to learn what is the underlying motivation of each individual on the planning commission and city council is for considering the disruption of established neighborhoods (the real motivation - not the political one's) with these type of proposals. The city would be served well if the residents within the the 1000 feet of this proposed building project were allowed'to vote yes or no on acceptance. I have greater confidence in their ability to discern the merits of this request than the planning commission or city councils arms length mind sets. My fear is that those two entities have protocol to follow and minds are often made up before we residents are communicated with and even with our input these type issues get jammed down our throats and then we are informed. That is their typical pattern of process. Jackie Hoogenakker From: ChadNSmith@eaton.com Sent: Sunday, November 02, 201412:56 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case file 2014.017 Hello I am against the proposed development on 7200 France Ave by applicant 7200 LLC. The traffic in this area is already too congested. There are two apartment complexes behind Byerlys that will increase the congestion. Cornelia Elementary is within 2,000 ft of the proposed development. The kids in this neighborhood walk to school and will be affected by the increase in population. Is this areas utilities capable of handling the increase in sewer demands? Chad Smith 7017 Bristol Blvd Edina, MN 55435 612-207-6006 Jackie Hoogenakker rom: Kathy <oconnellgang@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:54 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker; Kevin Staunton Subject: 72 and France I see there is a new application for a proposed development at 72nd and France. I have sent my concerns on this previously about the high density nature of the proposal, the impacts on infrastructure, such as schools, streets, water and sewer, traffic patterns, police, fire and telecommunications band width. The newly proposed plan still has high density, with traffic enter 72nd street where access is forced back through the neighborhood. It is not much different than the original proposal that was previously denied. My understanding is that Edina has a comprehensive plan to guide development in the city, and zoning laws to support the plan. This request is asking for significant variances to the comp. plan and zoning rules. It doesn't fit our current view of the city. I also just attended the Edina 20 year comprehensive plan meeting. In that meeting we discussed that the city needs this new plan to help guide decisions like the one proposed here. Based on the above, I propose the planning commission deny this request until the new Edina 20 year comprehensive plan is clear. This makes the most sense too have a vision of what we want the city to look like, have a plan to build the proper underlying infrastructure to support the plan , and approve development like the one above if they meet the new plan. This new plan is to be in front of the city council in the beginning of 2015. Please pass along this email to the city council, planning commission, and city manager, to be read at the upcoming meetings on this proposal. Tom O'Connell CITY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 4, x14, o e Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: November 12, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Honey Beekeeping & Fowl — Ordinance Amendment Attached is a draft Ordinance regarding honey beekeeping and fowl as recommended by the Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEC). Please note that there are revisions to Chapter 36 of the City Code, which is the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance proposes to allow a chicken coop, chicken run, and honeybee apiary in the R- I Zoning District as an accessary use. These uses are currently not allowed. Dianne Plunkett Latham, from the EEC will present the Ordinance at the meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REVISED 10-10-14 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 8, 22, AND 36 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE REGARDING HONEY BEEKEEPING AND FOWL THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 8 of the Edina City Code is amended to add Article VII as follows: ARTICLE VII. HONEY BEEKEEPING 8-311. Registration. (a) No beekeeper shall keep honey bees in the City without a current registration from the City of Edina Police Department. (b) Each beekeeper shall register with the Police Department prior to bringing any honey bees into the City. (c) Beekeepers operating within the City prior to the effective date of this Section shall have four (4) weeks from the date this Section goes into effect to register with the Police Department as a beekeeper. (d) The registration shall be upon the form provided by the City and shall include the applicable fee as set forth in section 2-724, Schedule A. If a beekeeper adds or relocates a hive or colony, the beekeeper shall update the registration prior to the addition or relocation on the form provided by the City. All questions asked or information required by the forms shall be answered fully and completely by the beekeeper. (e) The City beekeeping registration shall be valid until December 31 of each calendar year and shall be renewed prior to expiration each year by submitting a renewal form to the Police Department on the form provided by the City. A person no longer keeping honey bees in the City shall notify the Police Department within thirty (30) days. (f) Upon the initial registration, annual renewal, or change of address within City, each beekeeper shall allow the Chief of Police or his designee the right to inspect any Apiary for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Section. (g) Upon initial registration or change of address within the City, the City shall notify in writing all owners of lots within two -hundred (200) feet of any lot line of the Apiary Site, of the presence of said Apiary. (h) Any resident within 200 feet of any lot line of an Apiary Site may file a written appeal of the approval of the initial registration to the City Manager, or their designee. If an appeal is filed, the beekeeper will be notified in writing by the City Manager or their designee. 8-312. Required Conditions. (a) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which frames shall be kept in sound and usable condition. (b) Each colony on the Apiary Site shall be provided with a convenient source of water located on the Apiary Site so long as colonies remain active outside the hive. (c) Materials from a hive or colony which might encourage the presence of honey bees, such as wax comb, shall be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee -proof enclosure. (d) For each colony permitted to be maintained under this Section, there may also be maintained upon the same Apiary Site, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10 -frame hive body, with no supers. (e) Beekeeping equipment shall be maintained in good condition, including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted, but are peeling or flaking, and securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarming honey bees. (f) Hives shall be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their resident honey bees in order to control swarming. (g) In any instance in which a colony exhibits Unusual Aggressive Behavior, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly implement appropriate actions to address the behavior. If requenning is required, queens shall be selected from European stock bred for gentleness and non -swarming characteristics. (h) Fruit trees and other flowering trees, which are located on an Apiary Site, shall not be sprayed, while in full bloom, with any substance which is injurious to honey bees. 8-313. Colony Location. (a) No hive shall occupy any front yard. (b) In no instance shall any part of a hive be located within ten (10) feet of any lot line. 2 (c) In no instance shall any part of a hive be located within twenty (20) feet of any adjacent dwelling unit on adjacent property in any zoning district or located within twenty (20) feet of any public sidewalk. (d) All apiaries shall comply with Edina City Code Subpart B Land Development Regulations, Chapter 36 Zoning, Article XII, Supplementary District Regulations, Division 2 General Requirements, Section 36-1254, Customary home occupations as an accessory use. 8-314. Colony Density. (a) Every lot within the City shall be limited to the following number of colonies based on the size of the lot: (1) %2 acre or smaller = 2 colonies (2) more than'/2 acre to 3/4 acre = 4 colonies (3) more than 3/4 acre to 1 acre = 6 colonies (4) more than 1 acre = 8 colonies (b) Regardless of lot size, if all lots within two hundred (200) feet of any lot line of the Apiary Site are undeveloped property, there shall be a limit of 12 colonies that can be kept on the Apiary Site. However, upon the development of any lot within two hundred (200) feet of any lot line of the Apiary Site, the Apiary Site shall comply with the restriction set forth in this Subdivision 5. (c) If any person removes honey bees from locations where they are not desired, that person shall not be considered in violation of the restriction in this Subdivision 5, if the person temporarily houses the honey bees on the Apiary Site of a beekeeper registered under this Section for no more than 30 days and remains at all times in compliance with the other provisions of this Section. 8-315. Inspection. (a) Upon prior notice to the owner of the Apiary Site, the Chief of Police or his designee shall have the right to inspect any Apiary for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Section. (b) It shall be deemed a violation of this Section for any person to resist, impede or hinder the Chief of Police or his designee in the performance of their duties in inspecting any Apiary and surrounding grounds. 8-316. Denial, Revocation or Suspension. 3 (a) Registrations issued under the provisions of this Section may be denied, revoked or suspended by the Chief of Police after notice and the right to request a hearing, for any of the following causes: (1) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements on the registration or during the course of the registered activity. (2) The keeping of honey bees in an unlawful manner or a manner so as to constitute a breach of peace, or to constitute a nuisance to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. (3) Any violation of this Section. (b) Notice of the denial, revocation or suspension, shall be in writing, specifically set forth the grounds for denial, revocation or suspension and the person's right to request a hearing before the City Manager or his/her designee. Such notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the person to his/her last known address, or shall be delivered in the same manner as a summons. Any person who desires a hearing before the City Manager or his/her designee must request the hearing in writing, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice, by filing a written request for a hearing with the Chief of Police. If a hearing is requested it shall be held before the City Manager or his/her designee within thirty (30) days of the request. The City shall notify the person in writing of the time, date and location of the hearing at least five (5) days prior to the hearing. Within fifteen (15) days after the hearing the City Manager or his/her designee shall issue a written decision in the matter and that decision shall be final. If the person fails to request a hearing within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice, the denial, suspension, or revocation shall automatically be deemed final. The right to request a hearing before the City Manager or his/her designee shall be in place of any right to appeal. Section 2. Section 8-5 of the Edina City Code is amended to add the following definitions: Mary means the assembly of one (1) or more colonies of honey bees on a single lot. Aniary ,Site means the lot upon which an Apiary is located. Beekeeper means a person who- (i) is a resident of the lot where the Apiary is located who owns or has charge of one 1) or more apiaries of honey bees, and (ii) Any person who owns or controls a lot on which a colony is located. Beekeeping equipment means anything used in the operation of an Apiary, such as hive bodies supers frames top and bottom boards and extractors. Chicken run means a fully enclosed and covered area attached to a chicken coop where chickens can roam unsupervised. 4 Colony means an agate of honey bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one LZqueen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey. Hive_means the receptacle inhabited by a colony. Honey bee means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, Apis melli era species. Lot means one unit of a recorded plat, subdivision or registered land survey, or a recorded parcel described by metes and bounds. Nucleus colony means a small quantity of honey bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose, and containing no supers. Person means any individual, partnership, corporation, company, limited liability company, other entity, or unincorporated association. Rooftop means the uppermost section of a primary or accessory structure of at least one full story and at least twelve (12) feet in height. ,,Areas including but not limited to decks patios and balconies shall not be considered a rooftop Super means that part of a honey bee hive used to collect honey. Swanning means the natural process where a queen bee leaves a colony with a large group of worker bees. Undeveloped property means: i) any lot that is not improved with a structure that has or is required to have a certificate of occupancy; and(ii) all streets and highways. Unusual Aggressive Behavior means any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging without provocation or attacking without provocation occurs. Section 3. Section 8-210 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: Sec. 8-210. Keeping of certain animals regulated. No person shall keep any rabbits, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs or other rodents, ferrets or any bird, excluding female Gallus gallus domesticus, on any premises used for residential purposes except in a metal cage so constructed that it may be completely and easily cleaned and that the animal or animals kept therein are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. Such animals at all times shall be kept within the dwelling or an accessory building. Section 4. Section 8-212 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: Sec. 8-212. Keeping of certain animals prohibited. No person shall keep within the city: (a) Any livestock. (b) Any mammal belonging to the order Carnivora except dogs, cats and ferrets. For the purposes of this subsection, the bloodline of an individual animal must comprise not less than 51 percent domestic breeds. (c) Venomous snakes. Section 6. Section 36-435 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: Sec. 36-435. Accessory uses. The accessory uses permitted in the Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) are as follows: (a) The following accessory uses are permitted on the same lot as a single dwelling unit building: (1) Accessory garages. (2) Greenhouses, garden houses, chicken coop, chicken run, honeybee apiary, decks, patios and gazebos. (3) Tool houses and sheds for the storage of domestic supplies. (4) Private swimming pools, tennis courts and other recreational facilities for use only by residents of the principal use and their guests. (5) Improvements customarily incidental to single dwelling unit buildings, including, but not limited to, driveways, sidewalks, flagpoles and clotheslines. (6) Customary home occupations. (7) Day care facilities licensed by the state, located within the single dwelling unit building. 2 (8) Temporary retail sales of evergreen products from conditional use properties pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with this division. (b) Uses and facilities accessory to, and on the same lot as, a golf course, including maintenance buildings, golf driving ranges, swimming pools, tennis courts and other related recreational facilities. Accessory buildings totaling 1,000 square feet or more require a conditional use permit. (c) Preschools, nurseries and day care within elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions. (d) Rooms for residential occupancy by persons employed by religious institutions or golf courses. Section 7. Section 36-1254 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: Sec. 36-1254. Customary home occupations as an accessory use. (a) Customary home occupations which are permitted as an accessory use by this chapter shall comply with the following conditions: (1) Only the residents of the dwelling unit shall be employed on the lot or within the dwelling unit. (2) No exterior structural modifications shall be made to change the residential character and appearance of the lot or any buildings or structures on the lot. (3) No loading, unloading, outdoor storage of equipment or materials with the exception of honeybee apiaries, or other outdoor activities, except parking of automobiles shall occur. (4) No signs of any kind shall be used to identify the use with the exception of beekeeping cautionary signs. (5) All parking demands generated by the use shall be accommodated within the accessory garage and the normal driveway area and shall not at any one time occupy more than two parking spaces in parking areas required for multiple residential buildings. 7 (6) No more than ten automobile trips weekly by individuals other than the residents of the dwelling unit shall be generated to the dwelling unit as a result of the use. (7) No sale of products or merchandise shall occur on the lot or within any structures or buildings on the lot. (b) Permitted customary home occupations include the following and similar occupations if, and only during such times as, they comply with all of the conditions of subsection (a) of this section: (1) Dressmakers, tailors and seamstresses. (2) In single dwelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings only, music and dance teachers providing instruction to not more than five individuals at a time. (3) Artists, sculptors and authors. (4) Insurance agents, brokers, architects and similar professionals who typically conduct client meetings outside of the dwelling unit. (5) Ministers, rabbis and priests. (6) Photographers, providing service to one customer at a time. (7) Salespersons, provided that no stock in trade is maintained on the lot or in the building or structure on the lot. (8) In single dwelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings only, rental of rooms for residential occupancy to not more than. two persons per dwelling unit in addition to the permanent residents of the dwelling unit. (9) Honeybee apiaries. (c) The uses set forth in this subsection have a tendency to increase in size or intensity beyond the conditions imposed by this section for home occupations and thereby adversely affects residential properties. Therefore, the following shall specifically not be permitted as customary home occupations: (1) Barbershops and beauty parlors. E3 (Z) Repair services of all kinds, including, without limitation, auto repair and painting, appliance repair and small engine repair. (3) Music, dance or exercise instruction which provides instruction to groups of more than five individuals at a time. (4) Medical and dental offices. (5) Upholstering. (6) Mortuaries. (7) Commercial kennels, as defined by section 8-5. (8) Tourist homes, boardinghouses or rooming houses and other kinds of transient occupancies. (9) Commercial food preparation or catering. (10) Automobile and equipment sales. (11) Landscaping and lawn maintenance service where landscaping materials and equipment are stored or parked on the premises. (d) Permitted customary home occupations by residents who are physically unable to be employed full time outside their residence may be allowed as a temporary conditional use, with variances from the conditions of subsection (a) of this section pursuant to the provisions of article V of this chapter. Section 8. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk 10 Local Food Working Group (LFWG) Report 10-10-14 General Background: The Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) established its Local Food Working Group (LFWG) on 10-10-13 to implement the Green Step Cities (GSC) Local Food Best Practice #27 Action #2, which is defined as "Facilitate creation of home/community gardens, chicken & bee keeping, and incorporation of food growing areas/access in multifamily residential developments." To achieve GSC credit for chicken and bee keeping at the one star level, the city must "Remove restrictions to food gardening/raising of chickens/bees in residential areas." LFWG Membership - Three city of Edina commissioners were confirmed by the EEC at the 11-14-13 EEC meeting, with five additional residents confirmed at the Dec. 12, 2013 EEC meeting. The LFWG consists of.- Dianne £Dianne Plunkett Latham, LFWG Chair - Energy & Environment Commission — (H) 952-941-3542 Louise Segreto —Park Board — (Cell) 612-968-5195 Arlene Forrest - Planning Commission - Beekeeping experience - (H) 952-285-2795 (cell) 612-618-7973 Virginia Kearney — Edina Resident — Chicken keeping experience — (H) (952) 221-5469 Geoffrey Bodeau — Edina Resident - Beekeeping experience — (H) (952) 947-9445 Jamie Bodeau —Edina Resident —Beekeeping experience — Son of Geoffrey Bodeau and EHS senior - (H) (952) 947-9445 David Chin - Edina Resident - Beekeeping experience — (952) 942-8243 Flora Delaney —Edina Resident — Beekeeping experience — (Cell) 612-730-7941 LFWG Meetings: The LFWG meets at City Hall as needed with meetings attended as follows: Nov. 26, 2013: Present - DP Latham, Louise Segreto, Arlene Forrest, Virginia Kearney, Geoffrey Bodeau, David Chin. Absent: Jamie Bodeau, Flora Delaney March 21, 2014: Present - DP Latham, Flora Delaney, Virginia Kearney, Geoffrey and Jamie Bodeau. Absent - Louise Segreto, David Chin, Arlene Forrest EEC Meetings: The LFWG report and City Code amendments for chicken and beekeeping were reviewed by the EEC at its 4-10-14 meeting (present DP Latham, David Chen, Virginia Kearney) and 5-8-14 meeting (present DP Latham, Geoffrey Bodeau). The EEC approved the LFWG report and ordinance amendments for a recommendation to the 6-3-14 EEC/City Council Work Session. Council's 6-3-14 Work Session recommendations were incorporated into the report and code recommendations by the LFWG and unanimously approved at the 6-12-14 EEC meeting (present DP Latham, Geoffrey Bodeau, Jamie Bodeau) for forwarding to Council with a recommendation to implement the code amendments. The amendments were returned to the EEC for consideration at its 10-9-14 meeting to make additional changes recommended by the City Attorney as well as LFWG members at which time the LFWG's revised proposal was unanimously approved. Planning Commission Public Hearing — On 9-23-14 Ross Bintner indicated that City Attorney Roger Knudson indicated that because Section 6 and 7 of the proposed ordinance amend the zoning ordinance, that the ordinance must be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing before it goes to the City council. Cary Teague, the Planning Commission Staff Advisor indicated that the amendments must have an informational hearing at the Planning Commission prior to the 1 Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission informational hearing is scheduled for Wed. Nov. 12, 2014. The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for Wed. Dec. 10, 2014. City Council Meetings: The EEC met with the City Council for a work session on 6-3-14. All Council members were present. LFWG members present included DP Latham, David Chin, Virginia Kearney and hen Shirley who demonstrated what excellent and quiet companion animals hens are. Other EEC members present included Commissioners Herr, Sierks, Gubrud, Howard, Glahn and Zarrin. Beekeeping Background - Minnesota is among the top five states in honey production and agricultural by-products associated with beekeeping. Domestic strains of honey bees have been selectively bred for desirable traits, including gentleness, honey production, tendency not to swarm and non-aggressive behavior, characteristics which are desirable to foster and maintain. Gentle strains of honey bees can be maintained within populated areas in reasonable densities without causing a nuisance if the bees are properly located and carefully managed. Bees are a vital part of our food system by pollinating flowers. The number of bees has declined dramatically due to the overuse of pesticides as well as to diseases and parasites. Residential bee keeping can help re -stabilize both native and honey bee populations by educating residents to: 1) Plant ornamental plants useful to pollinators such as native plants and avoid those without food for pollinators such as daisy, day lily, marigolds, petunia, tulip, etc. 2) Reduce pesticide use. Objective — The objective of the LFWG is to propose to the EEC code revisions and accompanying policy and educational programs to enable Edina to obtain credit for the GSC Local Food best practice by making it possible for residents to keep honey bees and chickens in Edina and thus obtain their accompanying environmental benefits. Another objective of the honey bee and chicken keeping ordinance amendments is to provide an apicultural framework to enable hobbyists to safely and successfully pursue these pleasurable and environmentally, economically, culturally and agriculturally critical activities in suburban areas. The proposed ordinance amendments are designed to result in a minimum of staff oversight time. A simple beekeeping registration process is all that is required. Although renewal is required, the registration is effective unless the apiary becomes a nuisance due to inadequate management or unless a neighbor within 200 ft of the lot line of an apiary site appeals the registration due to medical reasons. No registration is required for keeping up to 4 hens. Where other city, county or state regulations apply, they will be utilized and not repeated as part of Edina's enabling ordinance amendments. This includes nuisance, noise, sanitation, animal cruelty or accessory building regulations, customary home occupations among others. Beekeeping Benefits — Honey bees are efficient pollinators of garden flowers and eatable fruits and vegetables, as well as being a source of honey. Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) threatens global food production. More than one-third of the world's crop species depend on bee pollination. By allowing beekeeping, we can impact the pesticide and herbicide usage of residents and landscape companies by beekeepers educating their neighbors. By creating an environment with minimal herbicides and pesticides, which is safe for bees, we are creating an environment that is safe for all residents and for wildlife. Potential Beekeeping Liability —There are very few hazards associated with honey beekeeping. The majority of people who fear honey bees do so out of ignorance. In 2000, the most recent year for which data has been reported to the World Health Organization, 54 people were reported to have died in the USA due to encounters with any type of stinging insect (wasps, bees, hornets, yellow jackets, fire ants, brown recluse spiders, etc). None of the deaths can be specifically attributed to honey bees. Honey bees are bred for their gentile nature and rarely sting. If a resident has been stung by a bee, it is more likely a Yellow Jacket. Honey bees are a different type of stinging insect than wasps or hornets. They are flower feeders with no interest in human food or drink. The only food they desire is nectar (carbohydrates) and pollen (protein). They have been bred for hundreds of years to be docile/non-aggressive. Honey bees typically do not sting unless their apiary is threatened (shaken or knocked over), or you threaten the individual bee (swat or otherwise attempt to harm it). Common Law Negligence - A landowner has an obligation to make reasonable use of his or her property so that no unreasonable harm is caused to others in the vicinity. This "reasonable use" rule is followed in Minnesota (Depue v. Flateau, 100 Minn. 299, 303, 111 N.W. 1, 2 (1907)). This cuts both ways with respect to a beekeeper's bees stinging a neighbor, or a neighbor's pesticide killing a beekeeper's bees. As a practical matter, causation is not easy to prove in these cases. It would be difficult to prove who was the owner of the stinging bee, or even what kind of bee caused the sting unless you obtain DNA from the bee's stinger and match it to the apiary's matrilineal DNA. Negligence means the failure to exercise the care of an ordinarily prudent person. Since bees sting by nature, it is necessary for any plaintiff to show that the owner of honey bees is negligent in his care of the bees. In any case of injury by honey bees, the plaintiff will have to show that the bees were vicious, provide proof they were vicious, and inform the owner of the bees that they were vicious. If the owner of the honey bees failed to correct the problem and the bees continued to be vicious, a basis may exist for a claim of negligence. Given that honeybees are not considered inherently dangerous (or vicious), a City's sovereign immunity would protect it, absent negligence, for honeybee apiaries located on city property. The Edina City Attorney can be consulted for verification. Under MN Stat. Article 13, Section 11, in some circumstances it is possible for an apiary owner to be compensated for their bees if killed by pesticide. See https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=312&vear=2014&tvpe=0#Iaws.13.8.0 Speak Up Edina — During the month of April 2014, 32 residents registered their opinions on beekeeping and 100% were in support of allowing beekeeping in Edina. Other Cities Permitting Beekeeping - For a complete list of the eleven metro cities permitting beekeeping, see list compiled by the University of Minnesota Bee Lab at http://www.beelab.umn.edu/Resources/Ordinancesregardingbees/index.htm Five cities bordering Edina allow beekeeping. This includes the following. Given that honey bees forage over at least two square miles, Edina already has many foraging honeybees. Bloomington — Sect. 12.116(a)(2) — One acre per apiary not exceeding 24 cubic ft in apiary size. Not allowed on properties having 3 or more dwelling units. Owner must live in the dwelling on the property. • Eden Prairie - New ordinance passed 1-21-14, upon which Edina's proposed beekeeping ordinance is based. Registration is required with the Eden Prairie Police Department. As of 5-8-14 Eden Prairie had 16 beekeeping registrations. 191 neighbor notification letters were sent (average 12 per registration) and 8 inquiries (questions, concerns) were received. Appeals must be made within 30 days of an approved registration. No beekeeping registration appeals were fled. Jim Schedin, the Eden Prairie staff person responsible for enforcing the Eden Prairie beekeeping ordinance e-mailed the Edina City Council on 9-19-14 that "Since the eleven apiaries have begun operations I have received zero complaints and zero inquiries from neighbors. The apiaries have become a non -issue in terms of complaints and in terms of staff time dedicated to registrations and inspections." Hopkins — City Code does not address honey bees, so they are allowed. Minneapolis - Section 74.80 — Must get a permit from Mpls Animal Care and Control. Requires approval of 80% of neighbors within 100ft (repealing this provision is under consideration); this provision likely cannot be implemented in a Plan B City such as Edina, as it can in charter cities such as Minneapolis. The opinion of Edina City Attorney is needed if such a provision is proposed. Richfield - Section 905.41 - Bees are considered non-domestic animals. All non-domestic animals are prohibited. St Louis Park — Not addressed in city ordinance, so they are allowed as long as they are not a nuisance Proposed Edina Beekeeping Registration Process Other Cities - The Edina beekeeping ordinance is modeled upon the Eden Prairie beekeeping ordinance, which is based on the Minnesota Hobby Beekeeper Association's model ordinance. Hopkins and St. Louis Park have no registration, licensing or permitting requirements. A simple registration like Eden Prairie requires is all that is recommended by the LFWG/EEC given that Edina is nearly (with the exception of Richfield) completely surrounded by cities allowing honey beekeeping. Honey bees forage in an area of approximately two square miles such that Edina already has honey bees in the city. Nationwide, most cities that allow beekeeping are beginning to loosen their beekeeping requirements after encountering very few (if any) problems. Registration - A simple apiary registration serves to make the City aware of where bee keeping activities are being conducted. This is necessary so that if Police Officers are responding to a call, they will be alerted to be careful when walking through the backyard of a beekeeper such that they don't bump an apiary or stand in front of its fly zone. A $20 initial registration fee is proposed because there is cost and staff time involved in sending out neighbor notification letters. Neighbor Notification - As a courtesy, property owners within 200 feet of any lot line of the apiary site will receive written notification of their neighbor's intent to establish an apiary. An Edina resident seeking to register an apiary would not need a neighbor's signature of approval, which could be denied by the neighbor for no more reason other than for spite. Renewal - A registration renewal is proposed because beekeepers may forget to notify the City of their discontinuance of the hobby. Police officers need to be aware of active apiary locations for the officer's safety. No licensing fee is proposed to be associated with the annual beekeeping registration renewal because subsequent neighbor notification letters will not be sent, thus very little staff time will be required. Apiary Inspection and Registration Approval - The City must wait a minimum of two weeks after receiving the apiary registration application before approving or denying the registration. During that time, as in Eden Prairie, the designated official - Animal Control Officer in the case of Edina - will make at least one apiary site inspection to confirm that the apiary complies with all city code in terms of setback, number of colonies, water source, etc. Only upon a finding of compliance with all applicable city ordinances will the registration be granted. During that time, neighbors are free to comment or voice concerns to the designated City official. Impact of neighbor Comments Prior to Registration Approval — Neighbor comments prior to approval of the apiary registration will not impact whether or not the registration is approved. Only the applicant's compliance with code will determine approval. In the experience of Eden Prairie, once the neighbors receive the courtesy registration notification, if they have objections they will usually contact the City quickly. Eden Prairie has found that this serves as an opportunity to educate the neighbors and alleviate fears/concerns before they feel the need to file an appeal. This window of time serves to filter out people who may file a written appeal out of ignorance or fear. Jim Schedin, Eden Prairie's official responsible for apiaries stated on 5-6-14 that " It [notification and appeal process] has worked amazingly well - I have had a handful of people contact me and have been able to alleviate their concerns. And although two neighbors threatened to file written appeals even after speaking with me, none of them actually ever followed through with their threat." Limiting initial approval to code compliance reduces staff time by eliminating unnecessary appeals. Appeal — Any resident living within 200 ft of a lot line of an apiary site may file a written appeal of the approval of the initial apiary registration to the City Manager, or their designee, at any time after the approval of the beekeeping registration. By not limiting the window of time for the appeal period, a new neighbor, who was not living within 200 ft of 4 the apiary site lot line at the time of the apiary registration, may appeal. If an appeal is filed, the beekeeper will be notified in writing by the City Manager or their designee. The City Manager, or designee, must then conduct a hearing with the apiary registrant and the person appealing. During the hearing the City Manager, or designee, can mediate between the parties by suggesting such strategies as moving the hives, constructing a flyway barrier, or other management techniques in addition to approving or denying the appeal. After hearing both sides, the City Manager, or designee, renders a decision, which cannot be challenged. Revocation Policy - If a resident appeals the approval of a beekeeping registration, an apiary registration can be revoked. under the following circumstances. Stating that "I'm allergic to bee stings" would not be persuasive to cause a revocation because there are many species of bees and individuals are not allergic to them all, but only to specific species of bees. A note from an emergency room or other physician stating that you, or a family member, have suffered past anaphylaxis due to honey bee stings, would be sufficient to revoke the registration. The registration could also be revoked if the apiary can be shown to have become a habitual nuisance due to improper maintenance despite the City having asked the bee keeper to rectify conditions such as consistent water source, etc. Number of Apiaries - Limitation on the number of apiaries is based upon lot size, starting with two apiaries for lots less than one-half acre and increasing in number up to twleve for those properties that are adjacent to neighboring undeveloped land such as a park natural area, for example. Set Back - The LFWG/EEC's initial proposal was for a 10 ft set back from any lot line phis a flyway barrier when a hive is within 25 ft of a lot line. During the June 3, 2014 Work Session, Council expressed interest in a 20 ft lot line setback without a flyway barrier, which Council found visually unattractive. The 20 ft setback was based on a concern that a projectile thrown over the lot line may hit an apiary, which may incite the honeybees within. Since the June 3 work session, further information as follows has been gathered to demonstrate that a 20 ft lot line setback is unnecessary and would serve only to restrict residents on small lots from having an apiary. A 10 ft lot line set back is adequate with the exception that there will be a 20 ft setback for an apiary from any adjacent dwelling unit on adjacent property in any zoning district and from any public sidewalk. a. Eden Prairie has now had a full summer of experience in 2014 with beekeeping using a 10 ft set back with a flyway barrier for apiaries within 25 ft of a lot line. Eden Prairie staff member Jim Schedin's experience is related in his e- mail to the Edina City Council dated 9-19-14: "My inspections involve me getting within a few feet of each apiary while wearing no protective gear (it's not necessary, as I am not threatening the hive by removing the cover or frames). In total, this summer I have stood within 2-3 feet of over one million honeybees, without any special protective gear and without incident.... I believe that a five foot setback is adequate, but I understand that because of people's misconceptions about honeybees that a ten foot setback might help alleviate some concerns. I am opposed to a twenty foot setback simply because it would effectively prevent most people living on smaller parcels from keeping honeybees. At the end of the day, having a setback requirement of 5', 10' or even 20' feet will not make any difference to the honeybees — if a nearby neighbor has clover or flowers in their yard, the bees will go there." b. LFWG member beekeepers indicate that throwing an object at an apiary such as a rock, tennis ball, golf ball, etc. does not disturb the bees within the apiary, which are bred for gentleness. Honeybees do not take notice of such projectiles, absent actually squishing a honeybee. Edina's Animal Control Officer, Timothy Hunter's e-mail of 9-22-14 states that "I'm not advocating a specific setback, just that there is one because of human activity, not [because of] bee activity. If you pin me down to a distance, I like 10' over 5' and am somewhat ambivalent to 20'." Home Occupation - The Home Occupation ordinance, section 36-1254, has been amended to permit beekeeping so that Edina beekeepers could sell their honey at a local Farmer's Market, if desired, but cannot sell honey directly from their home. Chicken Keeping Benefits - The benefit of a limited number of hens (a maximum of 4 female Gallus gallus domesticus) is that they are interesting companion animals, which can be used as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) gardening program given their appetite for insects. They can also be used as a source of fresh eggs and fertilizer. In order to foster bee keeping, residents must greatly reduce using herbicides and pesticides. Chickens are a nonchemical, environmentally sound method of reducing garden pests such as slugs or Japanese beetles. Chickens lay eggs for 4 — 5 years, but live for 10 — 12 years, thus must be viewed as companion animals. Only hens, not roosters, will be permitted given that hens are nearly silent. Only roosters crow. Chicken Keeping Registration Process — None is proposed. Other Cities Permitting Henkeeping - At least 12 metro cities allow the keeping of hen chickens, including three cities on Edina's boundary. This includes Bloomington, Burnsville, Centerville, Circle Pines, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, New Brighton, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, and Shoreview. Other metro cities allowing chickens do not allow roosters. At least three metro cities prohibit keeping chickens - Eden Prairie, Wayzata and White Bear Lake. Number of Hens — Four was chosen because, as a flock animal, two can keep each other company. Since hens lay for only 4 or 5 years, if the hens are desired for eggs, one needs to get two younger hens after the first two stop laying after 4 or 5 years, resulting in a total of four. Since chickens live about 10 years, the first two will probably die by the time the second two stop laying and then two younger hens can be obtained while maintaining a total of four hens. Cities that have a specified a ceiling on the number of hens in residential settings generally allow a maximum of four. This includes Bloomington, Centerville and Shoreview. Golden Valley allows up to 3 laying hens. Robbinsdale requires permission for more than two chickens. New Brighton has no restrictions on chickens but has an Urban Farm Task Force report recommending a "fowl tried matrix" to set a limit on poultry based on lot size up to a maximum of 24 birds. LFWG Educational Programs for Keeping Chickens and Bees To foster residential chicken and beekeeping, the following educational programs have been completed. Friday, March 21, 2014 — Free movie "More than Honey" — 7:00 pm Council Chambers sponsored by the Edina Park and Recreation Department and the Energy and Environment Commission's Local Food Working Group and EEC's Education and Outreach Working Group. Approximately 110 members of the public attended and offered many supportive comments on chicken and beekeeping. After the movie the LFWG members Dianne Plunkett Latham, Flora Delaney, Virginia Kearney and Geofrey Bodeau led a panel discussion while Jamie Bodeau passed out samples of honey produced by their honey bee colonies in Taylors Falls. 2. Saturday, April 19, 2014 - "Planting for Pollinators" - 10 a.m. in the Terrace Room of Arneson Acres Park, 4711 W. 70th St. Elaine Evans, a Ph.D. candidate in the University of Minnesota Bee Lab, and the University's foremost expert on planting for pollinators was the presenter. Sixteen members of the public heard the free program about what kinds of flowers residents can plant to attract pollinators as well as common non-native plants to avoid because they offer no food for pollinations. She explained how to design your yard to attract native bees by providing nesting areas for them. 3. Saturday, May 24, 2014 - "Integrated Pest Management to Preserve Pollinators" - 10 a.m. in the Terrace Room of Arneson Acres Park, 4711 W. 70th St. The speaker was David Tobelmann, a Hennepin County Master Gardener, who explained what kinds of chemicals are implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and provided alternatives for managing insect pests in your yard. There was no charge to attend. Five attended this program given over the Memorial Day weekend. Hen Nugget appeared and demonstrated what affectionate and quiet companion animals that hens are. After passage of the proposed bee and chicken keeping ordinances, the following educational programs are proposed to be offered: Ci 1. "Bee Keeping Basics." Date TBA. Arneson Terrace Rm on a Saturday morning. Consider someone from Dr. Marla Spivak's Bee Squad program for a speaker. See http://beelab.umn.edu/BeeSquad/. Consider also a speaker from the Minn. Hobby Beekeeper's Association at www.MNBeeKeepers.com. In the alternative, or in addition, the LFWG can advertise an Edina Community Education beekeeping class. 2. Consider purchasing an apiary from the U. of MN Bee Squad, which will deliver it, set it up and tend it for the City of Edina at a cost of approximately $3,000 for two years. A generous resident has pledged $2,000 towards this. The U. of MN Bee Squad would then use the apiary for research. See http://www.thebeezkneezdeliveiy.com/hostsites/ for more information on the Bee Squad Colony in a Bottle program. As an alternative to continuing to annually find a U. of MN Colony in a Bottle, find an Edina resident who would be trained by the U. of MN Bee Squad to assume maintenance of the apiary after a few years. For more information and a listing of Edina locations that were considered, see LFWG/EEC document on Considerations for a Proposed Honeybee Colony on City Property, which recommended Braemar Park as the best location. After passage of the chicken keeping ordinance the following educational program is proposed to be offered: 1. "Keeping Chickens as Companion Animals, as a Component of a residential IPM Program, and as Local Food" — Date TBA. Virginia Kearney to find a speaker such as Al Bourgeois, "the Chicken Enthusiast of St. Louis Park" for a free program in the Arneson Terrace Room on a Saturday morning. For a video on how to get started with chickens, see video series at www.Extension.UMN.Edu/small-farms. 7 From: schedvi@hotmail.com To: mail@edinamn.gov Subject: Honeybees Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:33:05 -0500 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I was recently contacted by Dianne Latham of the Edina Energy & Environment Commission about the topic of honeybees and was asked to come and address the Edina City Council on October 7th, 2014. Although I would enjoy addressing the council on the topic of honeybees, I think it's important to send you an email so that I can cover all of my points. I feel that I have a unique perspective to offer for a number of reasons: • 1 am a lifelong Edina resident who lives on a relatively small parcel on the northeast side.As a father of a child with life-threatening allergies who must carry an epi -pen, I was a biased, anti -honeybee opponent before being tasked by the Eden Prairie City Council to research honeybees. • After researching honeybees, I authored the honeybee ordinance that is now in place in the City of Eden Prairie. This is the ordinance that the EEC is now using as a general model. • Since January of 2014 1 have registered sixteen (16) apiaries in the City of Eden Prairie. Of those 16, 1 have personally inspected eleven (11) operating apiaries. My inspections involve me getting within a few feet of each apiary while wearing no protective gear (it's not necessary, as I am not threatening the hive by removing the cover or frames). In total, this summer I have stood within 2-3 feet of over one million honeybees, without any special protective gear and without incident. • Since the eleven apiaries have begun operations I have received zero complaints and zero inquiries from neighbors. The apiaries have become a non -issue in terms of complaints and in terms of staff time dedicated to registrations and inspections. One thing that I would like to address is the topic of setback requirements. I believe that a five foot setback is adequate, but I understand that because of people's misconceptions about honeybees that a ten foot setback might help alleviate some concerns. I am opposed to a twenty foot setback simply because it would effectively prevent most people living on smaller parcels (such as mine) from keeping honeybees. At the end of the day, having a setback requirement of 5', 10' or even 20' feet will not make any difference to the honeybees — if a nearby neighbor has clover or flowers in their yard, the bees will go there. In fact, if any of you have clover or flowers in your yard right now, you are most likely visited by hundreds of honeybees and other native pollinators every day. By having stricter setback requirements, the City will in effect be appeasing the uniformed (of which I used to be a member) and will be limiting the number of residents that can enjoy the hobby. The City will not, however, be limiting the number of honeybees that will come to residents yards (they travel several miles). As I have said, I am the parent of a child with life-threatening allergies. That burden comes with never-ending worries about exposure to certain toxins. But having conducted extensive research on honeybees, having registered and personally inspected apiaries and having conducted in-depth interviews with beekeepers (while standing next to active hives), I would have no objections with any of my neighbors having hives, nor would it matter to me if the setback requirement was as little as five feet. Honeybees are simply that much of a non -issue. Thank you for your consideration, Jim Schedin 6041 Wooddale Ave Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: November 12, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Tree Preservation Ordinance MEMO Based on feedback from the October 21" Work Session with the City Council, attached is a draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance that the Planning Commission has been working on over the past several months. The text highlighted in green is based on feeback from the City Council. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the Ordinance and make recommendations. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 DRAFT 11-1-14 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION Ill. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 10-82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long-term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well-being of the city. The goal of this Section is to preserve as much as practical Edina's high valued trees, while allowing reasonable development to take place and not interfere with how existing property owners use their property. The purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population. c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2 rosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text XXX — Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX h. Maintain buffers between similar land uses and establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses. (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets one of the following: L a decidiuous tree that is at least Minches dbh, except box elders, elm, poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust, fruit tree species, and mulberry. ii. a coniferous tree that is at least 20 feet in height. b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, 1Eor as defined as an invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. c. Critical Root Zone. The minimum area around a tree that must remain undisturbed. The critical root radius is calculated by measuring the tree's diameter at breast height. For each inch of tree diameter, 1.5 feet of root zone radius must be protected. For example, if a tree's dbh is 10 inches, then its critical root zone radius is 15 feet (10 x 1.5 —15). (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a eeFtified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health_approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show. how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (5), it must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the following conditions: Protected trees must be replaced with species of a similar type that are normally found growing in similar conditions and that are included on the list of acceptable replacement species on file with the city. (We will need to create a list. b. Replacement trees must be varied by species Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX c. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed g• I0 Replacement trees must be at least two and one-half inches (2.5") in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation. s it must be The city may allow larger balled and burlapped or spade moved trees if these trees are accompanied with a three year guarantee. Other size substitutions, based on site characteristics, may be allowed at the reasonable discretion of If the city determines in its reasonable discretion that there is no appropriate location for some or all the required replacement trees, those trees may not (5) Protected Trees may be removed without mitigation, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or remodeled building. b. Within a ®radius of driveways and parking areas. (6) DUFiRg the demelitien and building PeFFAR PFKesses, the pef:Fnit heldeF shall net to the PFE)t ete d T-Fee,in reenneEtion With S Gh E ..StFU..W.,.. The suFVey .st Before construction, grading or land clearing begins, city -approved tree protection fencing or other method must be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing must be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. The fencing must be inspected by city staff before site work begins. Existing text— XXXX Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (7) No construction, compaction, construction access, stock piling of earth, storage of equipment or building materials, or grading may occur within the critical root zone areas of trees to be protected. ■ If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above. Section 2. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Subsection 32-7. (Subdivisions.) Variances are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 32-7. Variances. (a) Grant by Council. In connection with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision the Council may grant variances from the provisions of this Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual hardship exists as to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that: xv— ►,v— (2) The h rl h' is d to the n-.rt*GU! .r nhySeeal JArrVUAQfinSJ, shape eF t. pe ffaphieal n.ditien of the land; OF .d (3l Th condition •t' .. � hieh the Fequest f„r ' YaFeaRee is based aFe unique cam -the pFepeFtybeing platted eF subdivided andgene++ rally applieable to ether_ n eFt..• OR =% 9KNIFNERM, L f� � lai�!11iJ Existing text – XXXX 4 Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant reasonable use of their land. (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. (3) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc. A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. (b) Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and objectives of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions may be made a part of any Development Contract required by article IV of this chapter. (c) Variances from Section 36. When Variances are requested from Section 36, requirements for lot areas and dimensions, the Planning Commission and City Council may consider the following criteria in addition to Section 36-98: (1) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters: a. The suitability of the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and b. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (2) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. (3) The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (4) The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of chapter 36 including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the floodplain overlay district provisions of chapter 36. (5) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. (6) The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with any easements of record or on the ground. (7) The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets. (8) The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed ' or located so as to prevent or deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. (9) The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. Existing text — XXXX 6 Stricken text — XXXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (10) The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision. (11) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Section 4. Chapter 32. Article Ill. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 32-130. Considerations. Existing text - XXXX 7 Stricken text - XXXX Added text-XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX development, indicated the ehaFacteF and symmetFy ef the neighbeFheed as evidenced and by, but net limited +., the fellewing .~.-hers• a. The suitability stybdivi3+o„-relative the size to the size and shape of lets on in the the -neigh PFOpesedat W188d; a^d e -h. The eempatibility the ffepesed USe .,f+he -rite of plat or and the the subdivi-sien .density size, shape, and leeatien ;Hith the uSe of pFepE)sed I.,+S _;;Rd -AF-Fangement iR the density n ghh.,Fh...,.d ef the lets and , t-lie—eiAvir^ORPAent,--including but net limited tem tepe faphy, steep slepea SteFage AP_P_.H_S OR and 49M the site-. , and cempliance by the--pressed--plat n -r n, and -t-krcprepesed Existing text - XXXX 7 Stricken text - XXXX Added text-XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (4The —eepApl+anee of t-he—pFOpesed plat 19rsebdivFsio, , and the--PFOPesed deyelep..en+ 404th the nelinierI ehiectiyer I geals and regUirements of ehapter 6 9nelu Jing, without limitation, dirtriGt PFeViSieAS of the let ehapter 24 size PFeViSieRSand the fleedplain eveda (5) The impaet of the PFE)pesed plat OF SU1361-ViSiGA, nrl PFePe.sed de ele m the health, safety and R Fal • elfaFe of the public ' the eenfliet of such the .,.J design er imnrevementr , with any earervien+r ef_rererd Ar AR 01-1 • (1-1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. (-12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX • (1-1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. (-12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 13) Comply with Section 10-82. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX day of , 2014. W, City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 10 Timecards ITYof n'INA Benefits & Wellness Edinet Employee Portal Keep up to date, share ideas and make Edina a great place to work. Welcom Calendar Gallery Directory 1QS Policies Safety Thursday, November 06, 2014 Nov. 4 Council Summary The City Council began its evening with a work session to receive an update on our Vision Edina initiative. Following that update, Council discussed a proposed Donations, Sponsorships & Advertising Policy. Council members liked the proposed update and asked staff to include it on the Nov. 18 meeting agenda for formal approval. Fallowing the Work Session, the Council met in regular session and made the following decisions: • Approved an amended calendar of City public meetings for 2015. • Approved a permanent easement at 7235 France Ave. (Macy's) to facilitate the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. • Approved an engineering services agreement with WSB Engineering for the France Avenue Corridor Improvement Project. • Approved an engineering services agreement with WSB Engineering for final design engineering services for the 2015 Valley View Road Neighborhood Reconstruction Project. • Approved a lot division at 5320 Kelsey Terrace. • Approved a new agreement with Edina Public Schools to provide the school district with School Resource Officers. • Approved a new three-year contract with the Leach Law Firm to provide the City with criminal prosecution services. • Conducted a public hearing on an ordinance to amend the City Code to reflect changes in the way the City manages residential redevelopment projects. » Conducted a public hearing on the City's proposed Sidewalk Facilities Map. Following the public hearing, the Council asked staff to hold public meetings in each quadrant of the community in the next few weeks. The Council agreed to defer action on the plan until its first meeting in December. • Approved a development partnership agreement with Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group for the redevelopment of the former Public Works site in the Grandview commercial district. • Approved first reading of an ordinance setting parking fees for the municipal parking ramps at 50"' & France. The election to fill two seats on the City Council was held Tuesday, November 4. Although the results are not yet final, it appears Kevin Staunton and Bob Stewart were elected by the voters of Edina to four-year terms. Their terms will begin Jan. 3, 2015. Return to list. FEATURED VIDEO MOST POPULAR UPCOMING BIRTHDAYS HOT LINKS ............................................. November, 11 City Slick Jesse Buy It, Sell It Communications & Technology Field Updates Services Department Gallery November 14 Important Documents Lauryn Videos Communications & Technology Work Plan Services Department Board & Commission January 27 Toolbox Luther Public Works Department 2014 City Of Edina, Minnesota NAME TERM J F M A M J J A S O N D Work Session Work Session #of Mtgs; :At ene dan-go Meetings/Work Sessions '' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Madison Seeley Student 1 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. 11 Ill2 Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. 90% Forrest, Arlene 2/1/20161111 Special Meeting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 90% Olsen, Jo Ann 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 76% Platteter, Michael 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 86% Potts, Ken 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 33% Lee, Susan 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 ill Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 82% Scherer, Nancy Nyrop 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 67% Schroeder, Michael 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 62% Staunton, Kevin 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 86% Carr, Claudia Halva, Taylor 2/1/2016 Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 17 76% 81% Kilberg, Benjamin Hobbs, Steve 9/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 4 57% 100% A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the 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 given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting. NOTES: