Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-01-27 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
Agenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Wednesday, January 27, 2016 7:00 PM ' I. Call To Order 11. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes 1 V. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit - Edina Public Schools, 6754 Valley View Lane B. 6629 West Shore Dr. Variance Request C. City Code Amendment - Signs in the PID District VI. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. 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 tonightt agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. ' VII. Reports/Recommendations A. 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update - Overview and Schedule VIII. Correspondence And Petitions IX. Chair And Member Comments 4 X. Staff Comments XI. Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda #,. Cary Teague January 27, 2016 V.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Background Information The Edina Public Schools are proposing to build a 142,000 square foot addition to the existing high school located at 6754 Valley View Road. (See location on pages Al—A4.) The additional space would be used to house the 9th grade, which is moving from South View and Valley View Middle Schools. This project is part of the successful referendum passed by the voters of Edina in May of 2015. The addition would be located on the northwest side of the existing high school, to have the least amount of impact on the existing site and existing building as possible. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Crosstown Highway 62 and single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-den§ity residential. Westerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 86 acre site contains the Edina High School, Valley View Middle School, large parking fields, and athletic facilities including tennis courts, baseball and softball fields, football/soccer/lacrosse fields. (See page A4.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Public/Semi-public Zoning: R-1, Single -dwelling district Grading & Drainage Drainage patterns would generally remain the same. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable. The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. Final grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval of the city engineer at the time of building permit application. The proposed plans will also require a review and approval by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site 208 overstory trees would be required. That includes existing landscaping and trees on the site. There are well over 200 existing trees on the site. Most are located along the north and west lot line and east of the building. (See page A3.) The applicant has provided a landscape plan to include an additional 47 overstory trees, with a full complement of understory shrubs and bushes. (See landscape plan on pages A36 -A41.) Parking 4 The parking calculations are based on the capacity of the largest place of assembly. Parking spaces equal to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly is required. There is a shared parking arrangement between the Valley View Middle School and the Edina High School. The capacity of the each of the largest place of assembly is 2,090 at the High School (gymnasium) and 578 at the Middle School (Auditorium). .Therefore, the required number of parking spaces is 889 for the campus. Within all of the parking fields on the site there would be a total of 983 stalls. Therefore, the campus provides enough parking spaces per City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant also performed a parking study to make sure that they were providing enough parking stalls. SRF conducted that study which is attached on pages A7 -A18. The study concludes that the site does have adequate parking. Bike Facilities Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. 2 Based on the number of parking stalls required, 45 bike racks are required. The applicant has indicated that there would be at least 45 bike racks located on the site for students and teachers. This shall be made a condition of approval and would be verified at the time of building permit. Building Design The new building would be constructed with brick and metal panels to match and complement the existing structure. (See building elevations on pages A21 -A22.) A materials board will be presented by the school district at the public hearings. The materials meet the city's minimum standards for construction. Conditional Use Permit t Per Section 36-305 of the City Code, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; The proposed addition to the school would not impact the above. There would be adequate utilities and services provided to the site. Traffic and parking studies were conducted by SRF Consulting which concludes that the addition would be adequately parked (See pages A7 -A18), and would not have a negative impact on existing roadways subject to a realignment of the west access to align with Chapel Lane, and providing a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour. (See page A91 in the traffic study. The whole traffic study is found on pages A65 -A94.) s 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; As mentioned above, the proposal will not generate traffic beyond the capacity of the streets serving the property. (See pages A65 -A94.) Improvements are recommended to minimize the impacts to the roads, including a realignment of the west access to align with Chapel Lane, and providing a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour. (See page A91.) 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; The proposed addition meets all setback and city code regulations; there would be no undue adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare. The use of the property remains the same as exists today. 9 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; The addition would be constructed to match the existing school. (See building renderings on page A21.) The addition would have no impaction development in the vicinity. 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the . district in which it is located as imposed by this chapter; and The new addition would conform to all applicable zoning ordinance requirements. 6. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The two schools exist on the site today, and are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District. The use is consistent with the Public/Semi Public designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance Table 9 Primary Issue 4 Is the proposed new building addition reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: City Standard Proposed . Front — Valley View Road 50 feet 500+ feet Side West 50 feet 250+ fee Rear — North 50 feet 300+ feet Side — East 50 feet 500+ feet Lot Size 10 acres + I acre per each 150 ' 86 acres students = 35 acres Building Height 40 feet 29-39 feet (See page A22) (Existing school is taller) Over -story Trees 128 trees required 242 trees existing on the site (number is based on the perimeter of the site) Parking 1/3`d the max. capacity of the largest Y 983 Proposed place of assembly High School — 2,090 (Gym) Middle School — 578 (Aud.) (889 spaces required) Bike Parking 5% = 45 45 minimum Primary Issue 4 Is the proposed new building addition reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings. As demonstrated on pages 2-3 of this report the six findings for a Conditional Use Permit would be met. 2. The proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards. All setback requirements would be met. 3. The proposed addition would be built to blend in with the existing school. 4. The addition addresses building space needs at the school. 5. The parking and traffic study done by SRF has demonstrated that the existing roadways and parking lot would support the addition, with some conditions. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to build an addition to the Edina High School at 6754 Valley View Road. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions Per Section 36- 305 of the City Code. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The addition addresses building space needs at the school. 4. The parking and traffic study done by SRF has demonstrated that the existing roadways and parking lot would support the addition. 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 December 23, 2015. • Grading plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Landscaping plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building elevations date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 5 2. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the watershed district's requirements. 3. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated January 20, 2016. 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 5. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 6. A building permit must be obtained within two years of City Council approval. Deadline for a city decision: February 16, 2016 0 0 I i R A( A a A3 0 December 23, 2015 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Edina Public Schools — ISD #273 Edina High School Additions and Renovations Written Description for Conditional Use Permit Submittal A Op I I CCWJI-� V 4� C4� 1v C - Independent School District #273, Edina Public Schools, passed a successful referendum in May of 2015 to create personalized and extended learning environments, update special education and media center spaces, provide secure entries, and incorporate flexible furniture throughout their existing buildings. An element of this request was to build an addition at Edina High School to house 911 grade, which is currently in the two middle schools (South View and Valley View). This will allow for classrooms in the middle schools to be converted to extended learning environments while aligning grade organizations with standards (comprehensive grades 9-12 experience). As a result, a 142,000 SF addition at the High School is required to create enough capacity to support 91h grade as well as replace classrooms taken "offline" within the existing building to create extended learning environments. The location of the addition has been carefully studied to work well with existing topography and grades, connect to the existing building intuitively, avoid disrupting utilities and easements, and integrate well with the existing building massing. Approx. 70,000 SF of the existing building (total existing square feet: 411,717 SF) is being renovated to create these extended learning environments as well as accomplish renovations to media center and special education areas. The existing building was completed in 1972, with renovations done in 1990 and major additions completed in 2005. A guiding principle of the Core Planning Team, a group of parents, teachers, students and administrators who assisted in the design of the project, was a holistic final product. To accomplish this, the addition uses language of the existing building and will have matching brick colors (light and dark) and glass (clear and ceramic fritted). The metal panel selection aims to complement the existing copper panels while reducing maintenance needs on the District. These materials can be seen on the materials sample board. Exterior design language: • Area'A' — Existing EPAC Entry / New Main Entry: o Exterior finish is composed mostly of metal panels. o Multiple masses that interconnect with each other and a variety of roof heights. o Large storefront/curtainwall systems with vertical mullions and mixture of translucent and clear glazing. • Area'B' — Existing Science Classrooms / New Classroom Volume: o Punched window openings. o Majority of the fagade is long horizontal elements of light brick with smaller portions of metal panel and dark brick. o Irregular sized windows placed in a somewhat (dis)-organized manner. Area 'C' — Existing Cafeteria and Commons / New Event Entry and Maker Labs: o Large storefront/curtain wall systems that wrap corners. tQ • Exterior finish slbrick. AreaD'EExstngMusic and Art Classrooms / New Activity Labs and Gymnasium: o Irregular and unique windows/metal panel areas. o Mixture of translucent and clear glazing and vertical mullions. F� o Exterior finish composed of light brick with a dark brick base. o Large spaces of brick fagade between architectural elements. Another goal of the Core Planning Group was to create intuitive circulation throughout the project, both within the building and on-site. The site plan and its many iterations have worked to achieve this. The District has met on several occasions with the City and nearby neighbors to discuss the project, including its timeline, to answer questions and discuss concerns. We have also met several times with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and submitted all storm water management plans to them. I have included one copy of the 404 page storm water management plan document as well as included a digital version. We discussed this with Kris Aaker in lieu of providing 30 copies of this long report. I have attached a copy of the parking study completed by SRF Consulting. Per our recent discussions, SRF has expanded their scope to include traffic components of Valley View Road. As soon as they have completed their analysis we will forward this report to you. My understanding is they have completed their observations and counts and are now in the analysis phase. ALTA Planning completed an on-site circulation study including bicyclist and pedestrian recommendations that we have taken into account. I have included a copy of this report as well. There is no plan to change the signage on Valley View Road and as such I have not included any plans for this. Wold Architects and Engineers is a firm focused on public environments; we have been working with School Districts with the master planning of their educational facilities and providing design services for over 47 years. As a client -service focused firm, we believe our role is much more than just a facility designer. Because facility issues are ongoing, we offer our continuing support from initial space needs analysis, through design and construction, to continuing post -occupancy. Our 100+ person, multi -disciplinary staff provides facility analysis, facility planning and programming, architectural design and specifications, mechanical and electrical design and specifications, space planning, interior design, cost estimating, and construction administration. We are currently working with several School Districts executing referendum -funded work of similar scales, including Wayzata High School Addition (ISD #284), various Elk River additions (ISD #728), and Shakopee High School Addition and Renovation (ISD #720). Please feel free to call or email with any questions. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Sal Bagley cc: Margo Bauck, ISD#273 Eric Hamilton, ISD #273 Nick Marcucci, Wold Architects and Engineers Vaughn Dierks, Wold Architects and Engineers Dave Rey, AJA KGlNetRS VOIRld P%hNyNRS. Caiisul[ip� �ivvP, lrt[.:" ''RDRAFT' Memorandum SRF No. 9034 To: Vaughn Dirks, AIA, LEED-AP Wold Architects and Engineers From: Matthew Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Emily Gross, EIT, Engineer Date: November 20, 2015 Subject: Edina High School Parking Assessment Introduction As requested, SRF has completed a parking study at the Xoihii High School/Valley View Middle School campus in the City of Edina, Minnesota. The seh"ool campus is located north of Valley View Road between St. Patricks Lane and Antrim Road (see" Figure 1 ]?fgject Location). The study was initiated to understand changes at the campus due,10 the Edina Public Scli'oRol District plan to relocate all 9th grade students to the high school, includidg the 9th grade stud8I at South View Middle School. Therefore, the main objectives of this study are to .review the etisting parking supply/ demand and determine if the proposed parkingsupply vi llbe`adequate to meet<fl e future parking demand on campus. The following id &rimation summarizes 4hb results of the parking study. Existing Conditions _x The following informationpv as,coJlected to identify, e_xisttng,rparking'conditions at the Edina High School/Valley ViewVliddle SchObl:campus. • Student enrollment and .staff information wasieviewed for the campus. o Edina;High hool (grades 10 12) 2,Q15 studerlts and 220 full -/part-time staff o Valley View Addle School,'(grades 6-9)':11,;364 students and 130 full -/part-time staff • Edina'High School hours$are froM,8:25 a.m. to `3:10 p.m. • Valley vie- w, fr Middle School Hours are om 7:45 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. • A parking space inventory by designation (i.e. staff, visitor, handicap accessible (ADA), or student) was completed for the campus: Graphic illustrations for the northwest, southwest, northeast, and southeast parking lots are included in the Appendix. • All student parking spaces require a permit. Currently the school provides 425 yearly student permits ($300/year) and an additional 25 daily student permits ($3/day). • An additional 30 student parking permits are offered for the Calvary Lutheran Cbi, which is located on Antrim Road south of Valley View Road. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 1 763.475.0010 1 WWW.SRFCONStVCOM A-7 Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers November 20, 2015 Page 3 • Based on discussions with school staff, the student demand for parking permits exceeds the number of permits available. The school has implemented a rating system to determine which students receive parking permits. The system prioritizes seniority and carpooling. Students in 10th grade or under are not eligible for the parking permits. • Existing off-street parking utilization surveys were collected by SRF on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., which correspond with our understanding of the peak parking periods. This data is summarized in Table 1. o Parking counts were also collected at the Calvary Lutheran Church. The church has a parking supply of 57 spaces. During both the 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. parking counts, 28 spaces were occupied. Table 1- harking Utilization Surveys Lot Parking Type Parking Supply Tuesday, October 27 9:30 a.m. Spaces Percent Occupied Occupied Wednesday, October 28 1:30 p.m. Spaces Percent Occupied Occupied Student 241 204 85% 209 87% Staff 15 15 100% 14 93% Northwest Visitor 15 11 73% 15 100% ADA 6 0 0% 3 50% � Subtota ' 217 230 83°� = 241;. 87% Student 261 236 90% 227 87% Staff 31 25 81% 24 77% Southwest Visitor 8 4 50% 0 0% ADA 11 6 55% 3 27% _.. Subtotal 311' 271` 87% 254 $2%; Student 0 -- -- -- Staff 80 54 68% 62 78% Northeast Visitor 0 -- -- -- -- ADA 2 0 0% 0 0% Subtotal 82: 54 66%; 62. 76%' Student 0 -- -- -- -- Staff 194 .138 71% 137 71% Southeast Visitor 2 1 50% 0 0% ADA 3 0 0% 1 33% Subtotal 199 139 70% 138 69% Student 502 440 88% 436, 87% Staff 320 232 73% 237 74% Total ` Visitor 25 16 64% 15 ADA . 22 6 27%' Subtotal 869 694 80% 695 � 80% * I ercent occupied greater than 85 percent is bolded. 'NI Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers November 20, 2015 Page 4 • Results of the parking counts indicate that overall the school campus has a sufficient parking supply. However, the following should also be considered: o There are approximately 350 high school and middle school staff on campus, which includes both part- and full-time staff. The staff parking supply is 320 spaces and the maximum observed occupancy for the campus was 237 spaces (Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.). This indicates that staff are likely parking in student spaces. School staff also confirmed that this does occur. o As previously mentioned, there are 450 student permits (425 yearly and 25 daily). Based on the parking supply inventory, there are 502 spaces available for student parking. The maximum parking demand for students was 440 spaces (Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.), although that likely includes some staff parking. o Student, staff and visitor parking in the northwest lot is highly desirable, based on a comparison of the utilization counts in this lot to the other parking lots on campus. o While the visitor parking was 64 percent occupied on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. (maximum of the two observation days), the school staff indicated that occasionally all visitor spaces are occupied. This tends to be on days with special events going on at the school. Edina High School Expansion A graphic of the proposed Edina High School expansion site plan is shown in Figure 2. As part of this project, 9th grade students in the Edina Public School District will relocate to the high school, which includes 9th grade students from both Valley View Middle School and South View Middle School. South View Middle School, which is not located on the campus, currently has approximately 325 9th grade students. However, since 9th grade students will not be eligible for parking permits, the primary parking demand increases are expected to be from the additional staff needed to accommodate the relocated 9th grade students. Based on information provided from the school, the total campus staff is expected to increase to 418 people (302 high school staff and 116 middle school staff) when the high school changes to grades 9 through 12. Given that site modifications are expected as part of the expansion, a total of 972 parking spaces are proposed, which is a 103 space increase from current conditions. This includes 25 bus parking and 20 ADA spaces. AW ,1 [1 � rroposea oite rias t\' Aurin') Consulting Group, Inc- Edina High School 009034 City of Edina Ad November 2015`'` Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers November 20, 2015 Page 6 Parking Analysis To determine if the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the future parking demand, a parking analysis was completed. The following information summarizes the assumptions: • The future staff parking supply was assumed to be equivalent to the number of part- /full-time staff, which is 418 parking spaces. o It is understood that it is unlikely that all staff will be on campus at the same time. However, it is good practice for the parking supply to exceed the parking demand in order to reduce unnecessary circulation of vehicles looking for parking and the perception of inadequate parking. • While the total visitor parking supply was observed to be sufficient under existing conditions, school events may result in higher utilization than what was observed during the parking counts. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain a minimum existing supply of 25 spaces. o By relocating 9th grade students at South View Middle School to Edina High School, approximately 325 additional students will be at the high school/middle school campus, which is a nine (9) percent increase in total students. The increase in students on campus is expected to directly impact the visitor parking demand. • To accommodate buses, the proposed site plan provides 25 spaces for bus parking. • The minimum number of ADA spaces required for a parking supply of 972 spaces in 20 spaces based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code. • The remaining spaces available for student parking is 484 spaces. Student parking permits are expected to continue to only be available to 11 th and 12th grade students. With the increase in student enrollment on campus due to 9th grade relocating to the high school, the student parking demand is not expected to change from the current parking demand. However, the minimum required parking to accommodate the existing 450 student parking permits is 450 spaces. o Since the student permit demand exceeds the permit supply, if additional spaces are provided it is expected that students will apply for those permits. • In summary, the minimum parking supply needed to accommodate the proposed expansion parking demand is 938 spaces (see Table 2). At -a Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers `Table 2 : Proposed Expansion Pairing Summary November 20, 2015 Page 7 Parking Type Existing Parking Supply Proposed Parking Supply increase J (Decrease) Minimum Required Parkin g Supply Student 502 484 (-18) 4501,1) Staff 320 418 +98 418 f2) Visitor 25 25 0 25 Bus - 25 +25 25 ADA 22 20 (-2) 20,31 Total 869 972 +103 938 (1) Assumes no change to the current number of student parking permits currently allotted. (2) Assumes one parking space per part/full-time staff people. (3) Minimum ADA spaces needed based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code. Findings/Conclusions Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • The proposed parking supply of 972 spaces is expected to be sufficient to meet the future parking demand. • The minimum parking supply needed to accommodate the proposed expansion is 938 spaces. Any spaces in excess of 938 spaces would allow the school to provide additional student permits. H:IProjectsi09000�90341TSIReporti9034__DRAFT EdinoHighSchoolExp_Parking 151120.docx Aq Appendix A4 ON I Southwest Lot - Parking Supply Type High School Figure B Edina Hi Consulting Group, inc. g 009034 City of Edina November 2015 f /� .11 14t') VALLe"M ----------- ------ -------------- ---------- ------- SITE SURW"y —roR EDINX PUBLIC SCROOLS -- OF - E'DINX 1AIGIA SCIA00L 1.1 ur —LE .111 14:6:1 ...... ...... E, . ..... ..... ... . .... . Hakonson Anderson Assoc., Inc. ' EDINA HIGH SCHOOL IMA 1U.L'IC' SCHOOLS MN m n..,.o =a ...•.< ..... �I i ha' ` \ , �. I a. ax.una«.a..�.,arrcnro.a...xa a^ ox-w,.nmax.ro.=.owxrv,=oarEa I , ---...__.- .cn..a,oa..=a.xro,x.n a.ua I • a.r.�axaar�..aaw-r,xx, —'-- \1—�—.noeu,.�x-eixomno.-n<=.x,o,ncxnc<raaA=.uxe ---------'i SITE STATISTICS: �xare .v ..u.o.v.usarnu. Lm`"nar.uai. = a=.ua ,xr,LLMc.avow..nx�xoar.�a.nw�n.a-=san==s r i i EDINA HIGH SCHOOL mea vu�r waw novo amxn wy aa.ae INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 r waw xo eaxn, w,wusm aaaac architects engineers www.woldaoxom QN�N�O ti0 PLAN FINISHING SGC NOT FOR CONST ION C1.30 WoL ISD #273: EDINA Pb,. -.j SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 9 NORM ELEVATION ti In nml 1171� _=11 In 4 SGO ELEVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR CUP NDN Comm No: 152091 NOW GyVM Low16R— sv,l ..-.►,..�X1S. S H>~iGNT hs YVtbS`C oxItY1Nb -tot of WMA,�� 4 � � ►tl+� Tal of WRO, 3 -i" V-0 H1dN SntoE 4 E16WT !1S LooS W►vSlc. �gb1'(IoN Cur -(of ofWN�� �' ""�.. ( 1 SoQ AF WM��3h��4u _ k0�-0" H1dH&�- TNhN iMoST OF �XI�T1N� 1. 1 f jai ' P rl fy S H>~iGNT hs YVtbS`C oxItY1Nb -tot of WMA,�� 4 � � ►tl+� Tal of WRO, 3 -i" V-0 H1dN SntoE 4 E16WT !1S LooS W►vSlc. �gb1'(IoN Cur -(of ofWN�� �' ""�.. ( 1 SoQ AF WM��3h��4u _ k0�-0" H1dH&�- TNhN iMoST OF �XI�T1N� 1. 1 ISD #273: EDINA PUBLIC SOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RE TION DECEMBER 23, 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION _ FLOOR PLAN - ATHLETICS LEVEL OVERALL prs rl\1 Comm No: 152091 ADDITION Him EXISTING BUS DROP OFF/ STUDENT ENTRY k I P, -L T- ISO #273: EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 efL,Z011 LOWER LEVEL OVERALL 11115'Vl NL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL OVERALL Comm No: 152091 EXISTING ADDITION 1-111OLKING TRACK ISO #273: EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 efL,Z011 LOWER LEVEL OVERALL 11115'Vl NL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL OVERALL Comm No: 152091 ISD #273: EDINA PUBLIC SI ILS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENuvATION 010 DECEMBER 23, 2015 EXISTING I'' OPTIONSr---_._.—� �. SUITE CAFETERIA LL ADDITION 1 _ _ rxn .xm «<:pox I u ra __ cvmiusmm I— �u°uc v" i MAIN OFFI'E �"7� y — �g L"'�r�s o°mr � MAIN ENTRY EVENT ENTRY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL OVERALL ADDITION EXISTING GO Comm No: 152091 WCL ISD #273: EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 cl "EDIA 'A -Tl 1:1 -AA.AA lAA.. STUDENT ITT -LA UNION SPECIAL —SERVICE�L T._ SPECIAL IC UITE_ EXISTINGaow a 1 UITU7 DEN EPAC SERVICES rET "E. AUDITORIUM ADDITION j Ej SO" I- ' II 17, 7:fICK AUDITOR UM Sul -F-L! -------- --- ------ ------- All .-Al IT -j! ='A All EPAC ENTRY—AA ------ FITNESS 11"11 A! EXISTING All, VOCAL 0 [A A. AODITIDN All .... ... IlAll VOCAL ATHLETICS LEVEL BELOW 0 0—ou S DDO FLAN - UPPER LEVEL OVERALL (942'-O") CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION ok,0\411. FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL OVERALL rl\�*omm No: 152091 NOTES: a w EDINA HIS' LEGEND 6t VALLEY VIER n�AO mwA wt ssaaa O' ro-aucD.c.a,aw.0 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL '' "—iii • o•°ac<c°.ware°u. DISTRICT -273 �..°.°au.uwwwD..°°.�.<u:u.a.ur eras VALLEY Yew ROAD mwA, Awxasau ssADa ..°.<auciwa °.aau<w • . • rr,°c�»sV.ore rcruc�.owm�.ww<uaacca,w. architects :��°�•;,�:°° engineers •.°•D,reu,a°,,,, a, www.woldae.com < .,<•°.maw,,. o-a,.<a.<,°.ire<i ll, A........ ..<.�.a p�•n°•Oec°u<.,.°uamrsan'°aurxiui.w1a•w.a SHEET LEGEND:.erenronA°ua C1.31 C1.32 C1.33 C1.34 C1.35 C1.36 a Q�esOEe PL FINISHING NOT FOR CONSTRUC1 1. w W NOTES: a > x a,.uaxaeaxx.o.x .o a ��j...o>ao xoxa x:,,v xxxwxoNa ..waw„ �.x roaaoxxmuxounxxuxwoxa>.. �.n roax.xuvr.un � wa.a..vemcx, .xorosxocoxvnna�.o us.avw �i:�vnorosw vna:xwowAux� r w .xo.osanaa,avuvepw SHEET LEGEND:xwaxm=i.re co C1.31 C1.32 C1.33 C1.34 C1.35 C1.36 TURNING PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: NOT EDINA HIGH SCHOOL w vw.er vrtW nano WWA x ssase INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT .273 ALLEY YAW POAU WINK ApNN[6oTA 6xa9e MID architects engineers www.woldae.com XWE FOR CO 0k6CTION`"`C1.34 A NOTES: EDINA HIGF LEGEND ar64 vnuev vim N�Ao MINA bun 66430 °"°°O1B0C0NCflE`ei"'" �va°.vsmwxrou,rmuxurou...vme~r INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 6164 VAI—WEW RIAS EEWA. am,NE6MA 66498 �vnovw xmuu vu,veirvxwaw..rExmr �� a� 'movwevxuvxvusvmu~wous."vxxsxr �vn rwev=vxcwre�wxoua..veu ' 1; dil�`Ir11=rl�lv"°was°wewix°wnwx°ev .aewsmawx ux rex=w° • . - vasmxx vwie uxxaxoxvvmx x~xrerwwea,xm architects engineers www.woldae.com JA— SHEET LEGEND:xeecnwaA-r°n C1.31 C1.32 C1.33 C1.34 C1.35 C1.36 Q aw w~ P NAI NHING GO ok NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.35 ~35 �i MN A ----------- NOTES: x EDINA HIGH SCHOOL LEGEND � vnuev naw sono .ru.x.x,x"xaa.-°,row INDEPENDENT SCHOOL r'I ,—'-],. .r'. •"°•^:�cx"cxe,ew.° •wvozsnucxr°urv°irvwu°uz r.vaA,-xr DISTRICT -273 .VALLPVwEwabAD ��vu °a-nwwi x°u,ranuwuousanvwnsxr ,.// / : ax vas[°xuw°urv-nvwx°usz"vaxaxr �av°v°a-°c°ucxs,z,r°"°usr.v-xs EOPl0. -bTA 884ea • ..�wa�� wR .,�,°.x°wxxx,wrvx"x�.mw. °x • :a�Eae x°.,"° architects w"° ® P"°•a engineers °:o� www.woldae.com .x°.°amxw.xwc-T x ur;� SHEET LEGEND: x - —..,..- C1.31 C1.32 C1.33 C1.34 C1.35 C1.36 %LQS PLN NANHING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.36 1.36 431 -Lay � I I r YNN —21 fill inp �J/ MW m v D x x N v 0 O si; p;<<1,' ,�,,,•.; '�',� - ��`°' . rte- t � rr „f'„•:/„ :'`'` _ ;�',` (fig �1 .z, _ _h _ -•'i:..�—:"a'{Pr�f�"l�elYl��?�'�:9�%;;¢1�%;gyp(%r�,;;9;,1„�<' �����!• f ..xxiii iy'+�iiTi�i WI t f' Eu�i ..... ........i/i'ii / rym��uEynexuw�fimm/o$:.j.....I j 'E 9W'W �, xi EB�k �`1 ssE rg rs .F ! ,✓T r _tea--',_ �_ �=i�. �����//:�:C �'� _ g � ®f �•�s �€ E' V E �E e 5 �i�( / T E E. /��\ E \,., '.• \ � � /P° F„ '�s }.� 7^i l !I f; �'^-+_.� `6 ✓`. 5 E _ fid' ` 6(\`t a : kfcf n{y n•..5... f ^+. E 4. � � .� A33 MN T A EDNA HIGH SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT .273 ersA vAi�r vow ROAD mou AuwesorA ss�se MID architects engineers www.woldae.com a W EXISTING D�QINAGE 0k �O� C1.00 MN A "N" Q per C1.01 EDINA HIGI' INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT .273 Bowvnuer vow wow e, raavaFasore ssaae architects engineers www..oldae.com MN NOTES: s, utTaaasxxosxxuxss� xaV cn P�oESMof waala�waoceoxsrwvMeomueeesurnasso>Hemmaassannea LEGEND eoerw..sx xu.ean eonoro Owawxw=a=�ouauamr� ® .xwo,wroxx�ox„x� ®®e rwroaeosxnuxs II II�J LI [tEdr'+, xx`°"°`a,•"xa...a x�dx.m �.x�.oaao,wxrw=e-xaaxroa�a�a,�..uxa IRRIGATION PLAN A EDINA HIGH SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ,273 B>6d VALLEY VEW HORU mW0. MPME89T0. badaa architects engineers www.woldae.com OVE��Q.LL Q p�9CAPE T N 3ONSTRUCT16'0* U.10 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... NOTES: EDINA HIGH - .....,_ ., -. .... i ..,. - _ \....... „cr.nroarEw.�•ww.rux. u.,o ' h EDIxAVMN. A �9a w LEGEND \INDEPENDENT SCHOOL • e` O ..•.•,ravwwuero.. DISTRICT •273 • ..a ® m ro,.o M,•x...� "I. vAuer vow ROAD xa MwxeaO.A Aswr ®mo VN I _ w •,. \\`1 `,' . .r 1 .'I ,,. .. _ ,,.h, r.r.. "� — �—.•o.un.xe..x.e xrs•n,ox.•eraeu.wxa architects I, engineers SHEET SHEET LEGEND:xerm.o.�.,.rw www.woldaescom 1, y a e:.�, J t.:.......`\�., LL 1.40 1.50 I. •.Fi:. .. u ...a y L1.60 L1.70 �' 1 dI- \ f 11 l�l' • �� 1 *a`, ti \ 1 \\ .fn "..',4�,..,�.r&:; '.d;A 1•... - --------------- kZ.v��� ..� ,BALI r v � w,• I I K� * - ,D• . \ �, e '{. �.�s.,i\, , OM QA r h{t Com. 00 LANDSCAPE T/ vtl� f r.. rSr. .x.',.� _ }f �v\\�}CZ=\11� \. �Ay\,•� \'v\ tj�C�GPLAN / � •yt , / � � � �� � � �I >{�"'` \�{'\ rt c t,�\ \�� QZ Y` �� k,r1 � - u,xa `s r' —v � �� ���� ��CI NOT FOR CONSSRAYION w, \ ui NI ■ nU3E29- °°§* ~ . « \�) �\ \ e �\\\ \ ,m ., �- ¥ \r \ \� | / � cz=22 ym tea. )! � cz w ° C4 Is (D ED LL. 0 ■ 0 � � d e )! � , � LL. 0 z ■ MN VA NOTES; EDINA HI L 1111 VrY VIVEW novo 5_ LEGEND 0 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 M, — W R— WI architects SHEET LEGEND: engineers =oIdae.co. L1.20 L1.30 L1.40 U.50 L1.60 L1.70 fflll"iA vo col 90 PLANLANDSCAPE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L1.50 MN NOTES: r EDINA HIGH SCHOOL eo,w.,. r.uu,u ,orrow O.no.�a®amoaousm„ -INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT •273 ® vwroasecoxnuwsrcve fit VALLEY VIEW MAD E.A. MWrHeOTA 00. ®®O ss �taGIaI1Ht1N`wawssouw.cu,x,�,,,o architects SHEET LEGEND:,,,,nratua,o. engineers www.woldae.com L1.20 L1.30 L1.40 Lj.SO L7.60 L1.T0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1. NOTTES'ES: EDINA HI, i I \\ -'j soixn ,.w setae on LEGEND Orrvo.�.no.rorva:.ry INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT�.273 BUS LOT MN .m �o ax e.. wxoieu x. .) x lbt 1 PI \..' SPI! \ r .o °,wue xukxeeo . ° AI' x 11 �� \ `',� � wovnuxxecmexaxeeo • f —,.t f'` !`i f '\a\ \ wi\;•�"\t� ,:� architects SHEET LEGEND: uuxxsu.a. engineers www.woldae.com ri1SR L1.20 L1.30 n u .4DL1.50 ^: 1% �; _ s �.„�, y"y :{ 'K'=r -Y 1 ♦' ., ♦ °t, ! \ °n !((! LIM L1.70 ' r \\rat L 1 t•L 4 I uAF:.F.r-:;,VIEW 1•'41 .. {VIIF7LSF.F .'iI:HClgR_ }i;�'Xj �' ! '' '` �'+ PM ) :•F,� 1 � G 1 r s 1 LANDSCAPE _ I \ n 4 '-�r"*'nr°., L PLAN A i NOT FOR CONSTRUION CT i L1.70 .. .__ ._ . - -- ter:_...,• ... ... ._._ �y ."�i..<:, .� . _ _.: _.. _ I:.�:.•.:. MN i 0 GENERAL NOTES ° _ EDINA HIGH SCHOOL .°x.uxru,mc°ua,nuc,mxvenwm.wau°iwmex.°.>e.xwrsx°mni>wu.>uum ry�SyA NN, Rs,ae . —.T .1 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ,."»exmnmmca,wx-.000ew.,.wxex.°w"m�m,.. DISTRICT -273 cxr°xu>.ux.0°°eranowc">rox>.x°rui.r ev. ..w,o ur°vr. VALLEY MEw RaAO eown. emNNEEorA -aaae architects 14 engineers www.woldae.com OU V-6 6XISTING —T— 30 A. U. LEGEND • wrnxoc x>w. x>exio oxi — �— q�x� WEaxwirecrvux uxsA BENCHMARK; NOT FOR Q *VANG� GRADING 4 CONSTRUCTI C1.40 MN A EDINA HI L NOTES, sown wt cs.eacw xono LEGEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL -- ex�mxucoxmu" DISTRICT -273 -4 —1 architects ,engineers n=.WoIdae.,CO GRADING PLAN �TION C1.41 MN • a NOTES: a . EDINA HIGH SCHOOL nven,°weau °anwxarux. e,µ VFW ROAD _ . _.... _. 1765AVM166188 LEGEND .x i xxrauxe°ia�x"�reixo„° INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ex�n�x°�xro�n DISTRICT •273 1754 i tea_ ear°eE° ax'rounj1pN 1754M LLEY ROAD ------. rweos[ooxiwoiuosNuns wxv[oewAu krnovnu'nonre vn5 v architects engineers www.woldaa.com E SHEE7 LEGEND:n enroc^�onw s��H'� flip ,AyT, f C1.41 C1.42 ......,_. ... . ptp I C1.43 C1.44 r C1.45 C1.46 xl ' ` h" ".. u✓31 " -At a w }' � // / / •�� / 1y'--•—'m� R_rcr~'•1.•._p_l. _.. < xT b W .w.s. • .i4..eer '•� A 'Ilk P NPLANING `. \5i NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1.42 :pbl MN 19, NOTES: SHEET LEGEND:xerenroc.o m. C1.41 C1,42 ClA3 Ci.44 C1.45 C1.46 EDINA H X INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT .273 4 Polo architects engineers www,woldae.com 'r GRAM% PLi NOT FOR CONSTRUCTI""' MN M NOTES: SHEET LEGENQ:—.—,, C1.41 C1.42 G1.43 C1.44 CIA5 C1.46 EDINA HIGH SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Q73 EI VRUEY NEW EWE architects engineers www.woldae.com %'t'CRADING PLAN CIO ok NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.44 MN L NOTES: LEGEND oerx�a.en.w.a.«i.mrow m-, q„'„-� ue oxixare ouwnixoirurm.acuiox `� e.o pvcnm-..en,r<.uwuV.uxa SHEET LEGEND:-sw.raa..— C1.41 C1.42 C1.43 01.44 C1.45 C1.46 EDINA HILI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 rs- vnuev viex xo•o MIDenixn, xuweaoTs essae architects engineers www.woldae.com -.4arA- ��aa\N���P $ %,L% RAN ING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.45 1.45 MN 0 NOTES: LEGEND oRaxw.nxuxaE6�.m,xxi ��,, 5.� ., nnrno xuremnwvxa„ssrmsouxmx 1. w v�-•n urosaaw,ee0u suruxe1 SHEET LEGEND:xe..x,oe.o.ox C1.41 C1.42 C1.43 Cl.” C1.45 C1.46 EDINA HIGH SCHOOL s.6a YAuer — P6A6 own mn 66a16 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT •273 a AIIEY rEn POAO a1PLl WNYE60TA 66a6B all, architects engineers www.woldae.com 00 ti0 RAN lNG 0'F "�} - NOT FOR CONSTRR TION 'r+1.46 MN u¢I� ��.� yivwe�raomi�u-xr sa wxmwo-xnu aeusaocxixnoncunaxAarux¢vv LEGEND e..ra..x.arw•:��mo"�~,xi .wnwrnu w.uu.c — n�xxxa.o�ua,an� Q{�:� .x.we,nuxouanxxx��xxu�uxx. EDINA HIG =, wr, swae W wow INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 ALLEY NEW EOw FgNA MVB1E30TA Milo architects engineers www.woldae.com 41 LD EROSION _ _ —,.,...,_,.____....•_.....___.._._.,,—_�..,� CONTROL �NOT FORC5 NSTRUCTION w C1.60 MN D NOTES: ' EDINA HIGH SCHOOL Eouuvnuer vlEw novo LUL as4ss LEGEND e°srusx=°rxuwmisorro.n INDEPENDENT SCHOOL �.....P°r4„v.°°x DISTRICT .273 -4 v.LLLEY VIEW ROAD -�._ ro°°xro°x Esvu rnwxEsarn swsv architects �•�•=��,ro° engineers www.woldae.com .x°.�x�v.W,vsxoarsx sorrs.L.ux.., src"r,"°w"uni �,r w�.:r n. mdwO .,.,:��M.,.,.��'en....sros...w..�xLsr �•w.�%�,.� 47 .�vsmronx=xirecru�w=xux. J�'%�"•_�•�'••,• ^'�. L91;�j{; �. SHEET LEGEND: C1.61 C1.62 C1.63 C1.64 C7.65 C1.66 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.61 MN . ........... li A NOTES: EDNA HIG ---------- MA W 11431 LEGEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL _7 DISTRICT -273 —D I f_architects ------- engineers www.woldne.com C.M. Wly SHEET LEGEND: nenmrociwua k, — C1.61 q162 C1.64 C1-65 C1.66 E PO ANNTRO"L. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r,o na "62 SO • EH 0 9§ } |. ;:;. e _ ! � cz CD� ° \� � \ \ \ \ SO MN Ml NOTES: ` ° EDINA HIC ®xs ruiss,aew o.D LEGEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT .273 c ver wsw ADHD architects engineers www.wcldae.com .woroH "urr°°n•wwcwa �.�cr dJ5 SHEET LEGEND: C1.61 C1.62 C1.63 C1.64 C1.65 Ci.66 GOKI leoN�N M H �1�EROSION Of AWL GO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m�C1.64 MN NOTES: EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 1711 VW LY'VALL.— MAD LEGEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 071, M. architects engineers www.woIdae.oDm -A.7A- SHEET LEGEND: CI -61 C1.62 C1.63 C1.64 CI -65 C1.66 EROSION CONTROL PLAN I'll I" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.65 NOTES: EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 1711 VW LY'VALL.— MAD LEGEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 071, M. architects engineers www.woIdae.oDm -A.7A- SHEET LEGEND: CI -61 C1.62 C1.63 C1.64 CI -65 C1.66 EROSION CONTROL PLAN I'll I" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.65 MN A NOTES: ' ° EDINA RIC FLDII. AL $6�9VIEW ND.N LEGEND --- enenx°=wmua INDEPENDENT SCHOOL awanx°..mu...nwi DISTRICT 273 :M v—VIEW DD D IM, 11,111=1Z— architects engineers www.woldae.com o..x.ao.w„w„r.°..xwxEr �:a .a,.rA,°.x„Mre=ruaa..,.x. g"1�,="_;:^,. ss••,. �.::pr, SHEET LEGEND:a.rearoci.sor«, C1.61 C1.62 C1.63 C1.64 C1.66 C1.66 CONTROL 2 PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO ok U ' EDINA HIGH SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 olp architects engineers www.woldae.com ;MMA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION—— C1.50 A .. , .. .. .- - .. .. - NOTES: .. w EDINA HIC 67" VAUEY ,VIM ROAD ,. LEGEND eaeraeaxeerxw..Ai-°,.°a, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ' --- a.."xacaxravx DISTRICT -273 :-. - ..i.nxanor„.vxR°x eTfic vAUEr vew Roao -_-'rr-' rx°r°.-O<m.°un eXNA. MPNE90TA 6fi10Y ......... �,... �•` eaa•e„uaeaty owxrtav Z w G ` "_°�"oo x•• architects engineers �� I .mraaeax.a vwaea www.woldae.com ('O Ma .°. aa. M aax a R..A.0 aaR„.x ° lh; .. ;. „w k, SHEET I J / T LEGE ND:xerrxroaseraR S r C1.51 Ca.52 1 f / C1.63 C7.54 C1.55 C1.56 i VV r, '3 0 QV PTz4T`(U -� L � NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.51 • �: `„�� tea. ' ".-. '� 0 QV PTz4T`(U -� L � NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.51 cc U) z 0 -0: 0 U- F - 0 z . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ash �N EMEMS PLA UTILyIT���:p �v 64 OR NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.53 M A ° NOTES: a EDINA HIGH SCHOOL w VAM VM ROM WNA W 65139 LEGEND e xnc° r .nnie°n°.m INDEPENDENT SCHOOL --- wxnx°cxx.xxn DISTRICT •273 m°.°sexwxrounTOM SUWAYM9U880TA 66188 architects engineers www.woldae.com SHEET LEGEND:x«znroc,cxr°n C1.51 C1.52 C1.53 C1.54 C1.55 C1.56 °naoxvE� i I v� i a C a f LITY �� PLAN OF -- - _- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.54 MN MAI NOTES: a ° EDINA HU SCHOOL °ucn ra°v°wauun=maux.ccan E�V�B6N A. LEGEND • °.,",.°;"°r"°"°`"'°°ar°w INDEPENDENT SCHOOL u aaw°°m;r°un DISTRICT "273 o. Asa architects engineers www.woldae.com u• SHE ET LEGEND:°a.°"ro°;>o.°x CI.51C1.52 C1.53 C1.. C1.55 C1.56 =._ oke rY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"�C1.55 pT_ luviff A ---------------- I NOTES: EDNA HIGH SCHOOL EDWA MK E&90 LEGEND 0 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -273 architects engineers www,woldae.com ORD SHEET LEGEND: AveA,om.ronwo.e C1.51 C1.52 CI -53 C1,54 C1.55 C1.56 Do PAI rO� U-, 01 6, am r.ao NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.56 • DATE: January 20, 2016 TO: Edina High School Development Team CC: Cary Teague — Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner P.E. - Director of Engineering Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: Edina High School Site — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject plans for street and utility connections, grading, watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm water. Plans reviewed were dated 12/22/1 S. Survey 1. Apply for vacation of existing sanitary sewer utility easements where pipe alignment change a. Application materials can be found on the City's website and include an application fee of $450 2. Dedicate easements for any new or relocated public utilities. Traffic and Street 3. Include realignment and traffic control options for westerly driveway entrances on Valley View Road in the traffic management study; 1) aligning the west most entrance to make a four way intersection with Chapel Lane. 2) narrow central entrance to create "right in only". 4. Note spring street weight restrictions for delivery of construction equipment and supplies S. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. 6. Submit a construction staging plan a. Detail material and equipment deliveries - access from Creek Valley Road should be limited b. Detail expected working hours and note working hour ordinance 7. Submit to the building department a construction staging plan related to student safety Sanitary and Water Utilities 8. Clearly indicate private vs public utilities. Consider transferring ownership of loop water main and hydrants to City of Edina and dedicating easement for operation and maintenance. 9. Create loop water Fine from Creek Valley Rd to high school water loop. 10. All public utilities shall be constructed to City of Edina standard plates. 11. Sanitary sewer service connection near NW corner of HS addition into MH #9 will require an inside drop connection per Edina Standard Plate No. 206 12. Sanitary sewer realignment will require removal of existing pipe 13. A sanitary sewer bypass pumping plan must be submitted and approved prior to construction 14. Indicate location of water service for drinking fountain at turf field a. If from Creek Valley Road, submit options for a dedicated water meter 15. Infiltration features support wellhead protection guidelines and are located outside of emergency response area. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 /G 3 Storm Water Utility 16. Investigate groundwater mounding at stormwater infiltrative feature on east side of property in relation to neighboring properties to the east. Provide mitigating measures if needed. 17. Evidence of watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed is required for building permit. Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide soil boring and geological report and any environmental investigation reports. 19. A SWPPP consistent with the state general construction site permit is required. Other Agency Coordination 20. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits are required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard. Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov + 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 W 1i�ENGINEERS PLANNERS Consulting Group, Inc. QF S I G N F R S Memorandum SRF No. 0169106 To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Emily Gross, PE, Senior Engineer Date: January 22, 2016 Subject: Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Edina High School expansion located north of Valley View Road between St. Patricks Lane and Antrim Road in the City of Edina (see Figure 1: Project Location). If approved, Edina Public School District plans to expand Edina High School (currently grades 10 through 12) and relocate all 9th grade students from both Valley View and South View middle schools to the expanded Edina High School. Therefore, the main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate traffic and parking impacts under, build conditions, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed expansion. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions/ recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed expansion. The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak period intersection turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of December 14, 2015 at the following study intersections: • Valley View Road/Gleason Road • Valley View Road/West School Access • Valley View Road/Chapel Lane • Valley View Road/Central School Access • Valley View Road/East School Access • Valley View Road/Antrim Road In addition to the intersection turning movement counts, 15 -minute pulse counts were collected along Valley View Road at Rosemary Lane and St. Patricks Lane in order to establish general travel patterns. Historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area, provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (NinDOT), were also reviewed. ONE, CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 I MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 1 763.475.0010 1 WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM AGS' a_ x ILI;q 7.I Project Location Consulting Group, . Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study Figure 1 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 3 Observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Currently, Valley View Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with turn lanes. Valley View Road has a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph), except during school times, when the speed limit is lowered to 20 mph. All remaining roadways are two -lanes with a 30 mph speed limit. The Valley View Road intersections at Gleason Road and Antrim Road are currently all -way stop controlled. All remaining intersections within the study area are side -street stop controlled. Valley View Road, Gleason Road, and Antrim Road are functionally classified as major collectors, while all other study roadways are functionally classified as local streets. It should be noted that traffic control officers are currently located at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection during the a.m. and afternoon school peak hours and at the Valley View Road/West School Access intersection during the afternoon school peak hour. Campus Peak Hour The campus consists of Valley View Middle School and Edina High School. Currently, Valley View Middle School accommodates grades 6 through 9 and the official school hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Edina High School accommodates grades 10 through 12 and the official school hours are from 8:25 a.m. to 3:10 p.m. To determine the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours, driveway counts at the school access locations and traffic volumes on Valley View Road were compared. The school driveway counts indicate that the middle school traffic peaks from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The high school traffic peaks from 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. During the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadway, the school driveway counts were lower than the counts collected near the school start and end times. Based on this review, the study references the a.m. peak hour as 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., the afternoon school peak hour as 2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., and the p.m. peak hour as 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The campus arrival and departure peak hours are summarized in Figure 2. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 3. Figure 2. Campus Arrival and Departure Peak Hours 1 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM High School Peak Hour 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM Hip -h School Peak Hour AGI s C 0 U rn SN X W N� d 7 m IL 6; N 7 m LL. U) I -- (D O O O O O 0) O 41 U d O a_ x D Existing Conditions Gro � Edina High School Expansion Traffic StudyFigure 3 Consulting Croup, Inc. y pans 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 5 Existing Campus Trip Generation To account for the peaking characteristics of the middle school and high school, traffic volumes during the a.m. school arrival, afternoon school departure, and p.m. peak hours were reviewed in 15 -minute intervals. In addition to the driveway counts shown in Table 1, motorists were observed using the drop-off/pick-up area along Valley View Road between the central and east school accesses. Based on observations, approximately 75 drop-offs occurred during the a.m. peak period and 35 pick-ups occurred during the afternoon school peak period. Table 1 Existing 15 -Minute Campus Entering/Exiting Traffic Volumes The central school access is signed as "enter only," although up to approximately 25 motorists were observed exiting the central access during the peak periods. The east school access is signed as bus entrance only from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. and from 2:15 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Once again, several motorists were observed violating this signage. Further discussion regarding site operations is documented later in this study. 441 West Access Central Access East Access Total Time Interval Enter I Exit I Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit AM (Arrival) Peak Hour' 7:30 a.m. 36 96 87 3 39 29 162(19%) 128(32%) 7:45 a.m. 45 57 47 0 22 5 114(13%) 62(15%) 8:00 a.m. 132 50 107 6 21 12 260(31%) 68(17%) 8:15 a.m. 148 103 141 10 22 31 311(37%) 144(36%) Total 1 361 1 306 382 19 104 77 847 (100%) 402(100%) Afternoon (Departure) Peak Hour 3:00 p.m. 6 126 51 9 27 34 84(30%) 169(30%) 3:15 p.m. 1 135 49 12 15 52 65(24%) 199(35%) 3:30 p.m. 11 74 38 2 6 30 55(20%) 106(19%) 3:45 p.m. 30 68 40 1 2 19 72(26%) 88(16%) Total 1 48 403 178 24 50 135 276(100%) 562(100%) PM (Evening) Peak Hour 5:00 p.m. 23 55 57 1 4 30 84(22%) 86(35%) 5:15 p.m. 22 50 57 4 2 16 81(21%) 70(28%) 5:30 p.m. 33 47 55 0 2 4 90(24%) 51(210/.) 5:45 p.m. 46 40 79 0 0 0 125(33%) 40(16%) Total 124 192 248 5 8 50 380(100%) 247(100%) The central school access is signed as "enter only," although up to approximately 25 motorists were observed exiting the central access during the peak periods. The east school access is signed as bus entrance only from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. and from 2:15 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Once again, several motorists were observed violating this signage. Further discussion regarding site operations is documented later in this study. 441 Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis January 22, 2016 Page 6 An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V8.0) to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to delay threshold values shown in Table 2. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Table 2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A < 10 510 B > 10-20 > 10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E >55-80 >35-50 F > 80 > 50 For side -street stop/yield controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side -street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop/yield control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side -street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side -street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Due to the peaking characteristics of schools, the traffic operations analysis was conducted in 15 -minute intervals to understand how traffic operations differ between the peak 15 -minute interval and the overall peak hour (i.e. 60 -minute). The goal of this approach is to understand how quickly traffic operations recover following the peak periods and to determine appropriate initigation. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis for the peak 15 -minute interval shown in Table 3 indicates that the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours, except at the West School Access during the a.m. peak hour and at Gleason Road and the East School Access during the p.m. peak hour. Side -street access to Valley View Road is also difficult at several intersections during the peak hours. It should be noted that this analysis accounts for the traffic control officers which are located at Antrim Road (a.m. and afternoon school peaks) and the West School Access (afternoon school peak). 410 F Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Table 3 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis: 15 -Minute Interval January 22, 2016 Page 7 While it is important to understand the peak 15 -minute traffic operations when evaluating a school because of its peaking characteristics, it is also important to evaluate traffic over the course of the peak hour, which is generally the industry standard approach. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis for the 60 -minute peak period shown in Table 4 indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours. However, multiple side -street approaches operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is common. Table 4 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis: 60 -Minute Interval A.M. Afternoon School P.M. Valley View Road Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Gleason Road() A 7 sec. A 7 sec. E 38 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 8 sec. A/A 5 sec. A/C 25 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (z) A/A 9 sec. A/B 11 sec. B/F 180 sec. West School Access (2) E/F 120 sec. ` B* 14 sec. D/F 131 sec. Chapel Lane(2) A/B 12 sec. A/C 15 sec. A/F 89 sec. Central School Access (2) A/C 20 sec. A/C 17 sec. B/A 7 sec. East School Access (2) A/E : 42 sec. C/F 60 sec. E/C 18 see. Antrim Road (1) C* 25 sec. C* 29 sec. C 17 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach. The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period * Traffic control officer located during peak period. While it is important to understand the peak 15 -minute traffic operations when evaluating a school because of its peaking characteristics, it is also important to evaluate traffic over the course of the peak hour, which is generally the industry standard approach. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis for the 60 -minute peak period shown in Table 4 indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours. However, multiple side -street approaches operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is common. Table 4 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis: 60 -Minute Interval A�� A.M. Afternoon School P.M. Valley View Road Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Gleason Road(') A 6 sec. A 6 sec. D 25 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 5 sec. A/A 4 sec. A/B 10 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/A 8 sec. A/A 5 sec. A/F 93 see. West School Access I2j C/F 55 sec. B* 11 sec. C/F 83 sec.' Chapel Lane (2) A/A 7 sec. A/B 11 sec. A/F 86 sec. Central School Access (2) A/C 17 sec. A/A 8 sec. A/A 7 sec. East School Access (2) A/D 31 sec. C/E 47 sec. D/C 17 sec. Antrim Road() C* 23 sec. C* 29 sec. C 17 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach. The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period A�� Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 8 While all of the intersections operate at overall acceptable levels of service during the 60 -minute peak periods, the following queues were observed in the field and traffic simulation: 0 During the a.m. peak period: o Approximately seven (7) vehicles were observed making a westbound U-turn after utilizing the pick-up/drop-off zone along the north side of Valley View Road. o Northbound queues at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection were observed to extend approximately 500 feet. o Westbound queues at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection were observed to extend approximately 450 feet. • During the afternoon school peak hour: o An eastbound "rolling" queue was observed on Valley View Road between Antrim Road and the West School Access between 3:00 p.m. and 3:20 p.m. o A traffic control officer was observed to briefly stop east/west traffic on Valley View Road at the East School Access to allow all buses to exit the school. • During the p.m. peak hour: o Eastbound queues at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection were observed to extend approximately 500 feet. Proposed Edina High School Expansion The proposed Edina High School expansion site plan is shown in Figure 4. As part of this project, 9th grade students in the Edina Public School District currently at Valley View and South View middle schools would relocate to the Edina High School. The relocation of 9th grade students is expected to increase enrollment on campus from 3,379 to 3,798 students during the 2017/2018 school year. To accommodate the increase in students, the Edina High School is planning to add approximately 142,000 square feet to the existing building. No building modifications were assumed at Valley View Middle School. Given the site modifications as part of the proposed expansion, the parking layout is also expected to be modified. A total of 983 parking spaces are proposed, which is a 114 space increase from existing conditions. This includes 25 dedicated bus parking spaces and 26 accessible (ADA) parking spaces. A detailed parking analysis is included later in this document. Construction of this expansion is expected to be completed prior to the start of the 2017/2018 school year. The Edina High School expansion also is planning to disconnect the internal roadway at the north end of the campus. With this disconnection, motorists entering the school campus at the East Access will no longer have internal access to the northwest and southwest parking areas and vice versa. A7. MN A Consulting Group, Inc. 0169106 January2016 Site Plan Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study Edina, MN I GTESm •« nwtxMioltoo� enosmom LEGEND �•� n architects engineers law - fav r LEGEND .e..ewr«s.,.. SRE STATISTICS: �r RM —w C1.30 Figure 4 Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 10 The following information, provided by school staff, was used to understand future impacts of the proposed expansion: • Valley View Middle School • Existing enrollment: 1,364 students • 2017/2018 school year enrollment: estimated to be 1,020 students (344 fewer students than existing), which accounts for 9th grade students relocating to Edina High School • Staff estimated to decrease from the existing 130 full. -/part-time staff to 116 staff members • Edina High School • Existing enrollment: 2,015 students 2017/2018 school year enrollment: estimated to be 2,778 students (763 more students than existing), which accounts for 9th grade students relocating from both Valley View and South View middle schools • Staff estimated to increase from the existing 220 full -/part-time staff to 302 staff members Traffic Forecasts To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2017 (year of expansion) and year 2027 (10 -years post expansion) build conditions. Year 2017 and year 2027 build conditions take into account general background growth and traffic generated by the proposed expansion. Background Growth To estimate year 2017 and year 2027 background growth, historical traffic volume trends were reviewed in the study area. Based on this review, minimal increases are expected to non -school related traffic in the study area. Therefore, a growth rate of one-half percent per year was applied to existing non -school related a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hour trips at the study intersections. Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed expansion, a trip generation estimate was developed for the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours. As previously mentioned, the middle school and high school have different start and end times, in which the school peak hours differ. Therefore, it is important to understand the difference in middle school and high school trips during each 15 -minute interval of the peak hour to account for the trip generation impacts. Since the middle school is decreasing by 344 students and the high school is increasing by 763 students, the percent of peak hour trips entering/exiting during each 15 -minute interval will change accordingly. Ali Cary Teague, Community Development Director .January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 11 To estimate the existing and future middle school and high school trips generated by the campus, both the existing school driveway counts and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition were reviewed. The peak hour trip rates per student provided by ITE for both the middle school and high school land use were compared to the 15 -minute driveway counts to estimate the peak period trip distribution for both the middle school and high school. To estimate new trips during the p.m. peak hour, the school driveway counts were increased proportionally to the increase in total campus students. The resulting campus 15 -minute trip generation results are shown in Table 5. The relocation of all 9th grade students to the high school is expected to generate an additional 191 a.m. peak hour, 158 afternoon school peak hour, and 78 p.m. peak hour trips. During the peak 15 -minute interval, the relocation is expected to generate an additional 156 a.m.'peak hour, 67 afternoon school peak hour, and 21 p.m. peak hour trips. Table 5 Proposed Expansion Trip Generation Estimates -15-Minute Intervals Existing Delta Year 2017 Time Middle High Middle High Middle High School School School School School School Enter Exit Enter I Exit Enter'l Exit Enter Exit Enter I Exit Enter Exit AM (Arrival) Peak Hour 7:30 AM 156 125 6 3 -40 -32 +2 +1 1 116 93 8 4 7:45 AM 61 37 53 25 -15 -9 +20 +9 46 28 73 34 8:00 AM 24 17 236 51 -6 -4 +89 +20 18 13 325 71 8:15 AM 16 7 295 137 -4 -2 +112 +50 12 5 407 187 Total 1 257 1 186 590 1 216 1 -65 1 -47 +223 +80 192 1 139 813 1 296 Afternoon (Departure) Peak Hour PM (Evening) Peak Hour Campus Campus Campus Middle School Enter Exit High School Enter Exit Middle School High School Mi die School High School Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 3:00 PM 38 110 46 59 -9 -28 +18 +22 29 82 64 81 3:15 PM 17 34 48 165 -4 -9 +18 +62 13 25 1 66 227 3:30 PM 15 11 40 95 -4 -3 +15 +36 11 8 55 131 3:45 PM 13 12 5 1 76 -3 -3 +22 +28 10 9 81 1 104 Total 83 167 193 1 395 -20 -43 +73 +148 63 124 266 1 543 PM (Evening) Peak Hour Campus Campus Campus A11— Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 5:00 PM 84 86 +10 +11 94 97 5:15 PM 81 70 +10 +9 91 79 5:30 PM 90 51 +11 +6 101 57 5:45 PM 125 40 +16 +5 1 141 1 45 Total 380 247 +47 +31 1 427 1 278 A11— Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina IPage 12 The student enrollment estimates for the 2027/2028 school year were not available. Therefore, historical and available future student enrollment estimates for both the middle school and high school were reviewed to determine an expected growth rate to apply to the year 2017/2018 school year student enrollment numbers. Based on this review, the student enrollment is estimated to increase approximately one-half percent per year for both the middle school and high school. The school trips were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 5, which was developed based on existing area travel patterns and engineering judgment. The resultant year 2017 and year 2027 build conditions are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Year 2017 Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the existing roadway network will accommodate year 2017 build conditions, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Once again, the analysis was completed for both the 15- and 60 -minute time periods. Intersections with traffic control officers under existing conditions during the a.m. and afternoon peak hours were assumed to continue under year 2017 build conditions. Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 6 indicate that multiple study intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable overall LOS E or worse during several peak hours. Side -street access along Valley View Road will continue to be challenging during the peak 15 -minute periods, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 6 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis: 15 -Minute Interval A.M. Afternoon School P.M. Valley View Road Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Gleason Road() B 10 see. A 8 sec. F 89 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 4 sec. A/A 7 sec. A/E 46 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/B 13 see. A/B 11 see. B/F 159 sec. West School Access (2) F/F > 3 min. C* 23 sec. E/F 165 sec. ' Chapel Lane (2) A/C 19 sec. A/C 20 sec. B/F " > 3 min. Central School Access (2)' B/F 103 sec. A/C 16 sec. D/A 6 sec. East School Access (2) C/F 135 sec. E/F 163 sec. E/F 131 sec. Antrim Road (i) E* 35 sec. E* 43 sec. D 29 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach. The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period Directional Distribution Figure 5 Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 W O 'Q C 0 U 0 N N } of d rn iL N d m tL N 0 0 w 'o 0 0 rn 0 m A 0 a M: PQ 01 Year 2017 Conditions Consulting Group, inc. Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study Figure 6 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 C N a -im a_ x DI 01 Year 2027 Conditions Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study Figure 7 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 16 Once again, a full peak hour intersection capacity analysis was completed to determine impacts of the proposed expansion over the course of the full 60 -minute peak period. Results of the year 2017 build condition intersection capacity analysis for the 60 -minute peak period shown in Table 7 indicate that multiple study intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable overall LOS E or worse during one or more peak hours. Side -street access along Valley View Road will also continue to be challenging at several locations, particularly at the school access points. Table 7 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis: 60 -Minute Interval A.M. Afternoon School P.M. Valley View Road Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS I Delay I LOS ( Delay ( LOS I Delay A 7 sec. A 6 sec. I F 66 sec Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 4 sec. A/A 4 sec. A/C 22 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/A 9 sec. A/A 7 sec. A/F 125 sec, West School Access (�) E/F >3 min. C* 15 sec. D/F 120 sec. Chapel Lane l2> A/B 11 sec. A/B 12 sec. A/F > 3 min. Central School Access (2) A/F 66 sec. A/B 11 sec. C/A 6 sec. East School Access (2) A/F 79 sec. D/F 106 sec. E/C 19 sec. Antrim Road (1) D* 27 sec. E* 35 sec. C 22 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach. The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period During the a.m. peak hour, the primary issue is at the West School Access where approximately 75 percent of exiting vehicles utilize this access. These exiting vehicles conflict with the high entering volume, resulting in significant delay and queuing issues at this intersection. Currently, the school does not have a traffic control officer located at this intersection during the a.m. peak hour. A traffic control officer located at the West School Access during the a.m. peak hour would be expected to significantly improve the traffic flow for vehicles entering and exiting the intersection. During the afternoon school peak hour, the primary issue is at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection, which is expected to operate near the LOS D/E threshold with a traffic control officer in place. Queues from Antrim Road extend beyond the East School Access, impacting access for these motorists to Valley View Road. The delays and queues identified under existing conditions on Valley View Road from Gleason Road to Antrim Road are expected to increase under year 2017 build conditions without improvements to the roadway network, particularly during the p.m. peak hour. However, the traffic operational issues during the p.m. peak hour are minimally impacted by traffic generated by the school campus. The primary cause of the poor operations along Valley View Road during the p.m. peak hour is associated with cut -through traffic diverting away from Truck Highway 62. Therefore, improvement scenarios at the Valley View Road/Gleason Road intersection were not considered as part of this study based on City staff input. Additional study of this area should be considered in the future. Argo Carq Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Improvement Scenarios JanuaiT 22, 2016 Page 17 Given that it is important to find a balance between intersection operations during peak periods and the cost of infrastructure, a range of improvement scenarios were considered. These scenarios range from minimal impact/low cost to high impact/high cost improvements, which are summarized below. • Improvement Scenario 1: Traffic control officer at the West School Access intersection • Improvement Scenario 2: Traffic signals at the West School Access and Antrim Road • Improvement Scenario 3: Roundabout and realigned access at the West School Access/Chapel Lane and East School Access/Antrim Road intersections • Improvement Scenario 4: Split roundabouts at the West School Access/Chapel Lane and East School, Access/Antrim Road intersections, including an eastbound left -turn restriction at the Central School Access The goal of these scenarios is to provide a better understanding of how these types of improvements would impact area traffic operations along both Valley View Road and its cross -streets. These scenarios are not intended to be all encompassing and could be combined/merged to create additional scenarios. A detailed intersection capacity analysis was conducted for each of these improvement scenarios and is summarized in the Appendix. The improvement scenario intersection capacity analysis results were discussed with City staff to determine a reasonable improvement scenario. Given that the Edina High School expansion has a relatively small impact to intersection operations during the p.m. peak hour along Valley View Road, City staff felt operations at Gleason Road and Antrim Road are existing issues and not directly associated with the Edina High School. However, City staff noted that they regularly receive complaints regarding pedestrian safety at the Valley View Road crosswalk near Chapel Lane. The West School Access and Chapel Lane are currently separated by approximately 60 feet, creating conflict issues for vehicles turning into either access (in addition to the capacity issues identified). The closely spaced intersections also create an unsafe pedestrian crossing location. Therefore, Improvement Scenario 5 was developed to address operations and pedestrian safety at the West School Access and Chapel Lane area. This improvement scenario includes: • Improvement Scenario 5: Realigned West School Access opposite Chapel Lane and implementation of a traffic control officer at this location during the a.m. peak hour (in addition to the afternoon school peak hour). To determine how Improvement Scenario 5 is expected to operate under future conditions, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was completed for both the 15- and 60 -minute peak periods. Results of the intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 8 indicates that the realignment of the West School Access and incorporation of a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour will significantly improve overall intersection operations and side -street delays at this location. Both queues and side - street delays will be better managed, as well as reduced conflicts for pedestrians crossing Valley View Road. Improvement Scenario 5 results were also included in the Appendix for comparison purposes. 'a1 Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina. Table 8 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis: Improvement Scenario 5 Valley View Road Intersection Improvement Scenario 5 A.M. Afternoon School Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay January 22, 2016 Page 18 P.M. Peak Hour LOS I Delay 15 -Minute Interval Gleason Road() A 7 sec. A Gleason Road() B 13 sec. A 7 sec. F $0 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 5 sec. A/A 5 sec. C/A 5 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/C 19 sec. A/A 7 sec. B/F > 3 min.' West School Access/Chapel Lane (2) D* 30 sec. C* 21 sec. D/F 87 sec. Central School Access (2) C/F 155 sec. A/B 10 sec. B/C 16 sec. East School Access (2) C/F > 3 min. D/F 96 sec. E/D 25 sec. Antrim Road() E* 45 sec. E* 40 sec. C 20 sec. 60 -Minute Interval Gleason Road() A 7 sec. A 6 sec. F' 56 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 4 sec. A/A 4 sec. B/A 6 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/B 10 sec. A/A 5 sec. B/F 92 sec. West School Access/Chapel Lane (2) C* 23 sec. C* 15 sec. C/D 34 sec. Central School Access (2) A/F 107 sec. A/A 9 sec. B/A 8 sec. East School Access (2) A/F 91 sec. B/F 64 sec. E/G 20 sec. Antrim Road(') D* 30 sec. E* 35 sec. '' B (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period 19 sec. worst approach. It should be noted that side -street delays are still expected at the Central and East School accesses during the peak periods. However, these are primarily the result of eastbound queues from Antrim Road extending beyond these access locations. Furthermore, slight changes in operations are expected during the p.m. peak hour due to more vehicles being able to access the roadway network. Year 2027 Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the recommended roadway network (Improvement Scenario 5) will accommodate year 2027 build conditions, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Once again, the analysis was completed for both the 15- and 60 -minute time periods. Intersections with traffic control officers under existing conditions during the a.m. and afternoon school peak hours were assumed to remain in place. An Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 19 Results of the year 2027 build intersection capacity analysis for the 15- and 60 -minute time periods shown in Table 9 indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate relatively similar to the year 2017 build conditions. Although operations along Valley View Road are expected to get worse, they are primarily the result of the operations at Gleason Road and Antrim Road reaching capacity. As noted earlier, City staff has expressed a desire to further study these intersection to determine the appropriate level of mitigation to improve operations for the long-term. Therefore, no further recommendations are offered for year 2027 build conditions. Table 9 Year 2027 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis: Improvement Scenario 5 Valley View Road Intersection Improvement Scenario 5 A.M. Afternoon School Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS T Delay LOS I Delay P.M. Peak Hour LOS I Delay 15 -Minute Interval Gleason Road 111 C 23 sec. A 7 sec. F 80 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 7 sec. A/A 6 sec. A/A 7 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) B/F 70 sec. A/A 9 sec. B/F >3 min. West School Access/Chapel Lane (2) F* 55 sec. C* 19 sec. D/F 87 sec.. Central School Access (2) D/F 148 sec. A/C 16 sec. B/C 16 sec. East School Access (2) D/F >3 min. F/F > 3 min. E/D 25 sec. Antrim Road (1) E* 40 sec. E* 52 sec. C 20 sec. 60 -Minute Interval Gleason Road 111 B 11 sec. A 6 sec. F 56 sec. Rosemary Lane (2) A/A 6 sec. A/A 4 sec. A/A 6 sec. St. Patrick's Lane (2) A/C 23 sec. A/A 7 sec. B/F 92 sec. West School Access/Chapel Lane (2) D* 32 sec. B* 14 sec. C/D 34 sec. Central School Access (2) B/F 87 sec. A/B 10 sec. B/A 8 sec. East School Access (2) B/F 144 sec. D/F 170 sec. E/C 20 sec. Antrim Road() D* 1 30 sec. E* 37 sec. B (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all -way -stop control, where the overall LOS and delay are shown. (2) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the The delay shown represents the worst side -street approach delay. * Traffic control officer located during peak period 19 sec. worst approach. Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Parking Analysis Existing Parking Conditions January 22, 2016 Page 20 A parking space inventory by designation (i.e. staff, visitor, ADA, or student) was completed for the campus. Existing off-street parking utilization surveys were collected by SRF on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., which correspond with our understanding of the peak parking periods. This data is summarized in Table 10. Parking counts were also collected at the Calvary Lutheran Church. The church has a parking supply of 57 spaces. During both the 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. parking counts, 28 spaces were occupied. Table 10 - Parking Utilization Surveys Lot Parking Type Parking Supply Tuesday, October 27 9:30 a.m. Spaces Percent Occupied Occupied Wednesday, October 28 1:30 p.m. Spaces Percent Occupied Occupied Student 241 204 85% 209 87% Staff 15 15 1000/0 14 93% Northwest Visitor 15 11 73% 15 100% ADA 6 0 0% 3 50% Subtotal 277 230 83% 241. 87% Student 261 236 90% 227 87% Staff 31 25 81% 24 77% Southwest Visitor 8 4 50% 0 0% ADA 11 6 55% 3 27% Subtotal 311 271 87% 254 82% Student 0 -- -- -- -- Staff 80 54 68% 62 78% Northeast Visitor 0 -- - - -- -- ADA 2 0 0% 0 0% Subtotal `' 82 54 66% 62 76% Student 0 -- -- -- -- Staff 194 138 71% 137 71% Southeast Visitor 2 1 50% 0 0% ADA 3 0 0% 1 33% Subtotal 199 139 70% 138 69% Student 502 440 88% 436 87% Staff 320 232 73% 237 74% Total Visitor 25 16 64% 15 60% ADA 22 6 27% 7' 32% Subtotal 869 694 80% 695 80% * Percent occupied greater than 85 percent is bolded. mL� Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 21 All student parking spaces require a permit. Currently the school provides 425 yearly student permits ($300/year) and an additional 25 daily student permits ($3/day). An additional 30 student parking permits are offered for the Calvary Lutheran Church, which is located on Antrim Road south of Valley View Road. Based on discussions with school staff, the student demand for parking permits exceeds the number of permits available. Theschool has implemented a rating system to determine which students receive parking permits. The system prioritizes seniority and carpooling. Students in 10th grade or under are not eligible for the parking permits. Results of the parking counts indicate that overall the school campus has a sufficient parking supply. However, the following should also be considered: • There are approximately 350 middle school and high school staff on campus, which includes both part- and full-time staff. The staff parking supply is 320 spaces and the maximum observed occupancy for the campus was 237 spaces (Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.). This indicates that staff are likely parking in student spaces. School staff also confirmed that this does occur. • As previously mentioned, there are 450 student permits (425 yearly and 25 daily). Based on the parking supply inventory, there are 502 spaces available for student parking. The maximum parking demand for students was 440 spaces (Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.), although that likely includes some staff parking. • Student, staff and visitor parking in the northwest lot is highly desirable, based on a comparison of the utilization counts in this lot to the other parking lots on campus. • While the visitor parking was 64 percent occupied on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. (maximum of the two observation days), the school staff indicated that occasionally all visitor spaces are occupied. This tends to be on days with special events going on at the school. Proposed Edina High School Expansion With the relocation of 9th grade students from Valley View and South View middle schools to Edina High School, the overall campus student population is expected to increase approximately 419 students from current conditions.. However, since 9th grade students will not be eligible for parking permits, the primary parking demand increases are expected to be from the additional staff needed to accommodate the relocated 9th grade students. Based on information provided from the school, the total campus staff is expected to increase to 418 people (302 high school staff and 116 middle school staffl. As previously mentioned, the proposed expansion includes modifying the parking layout. A total of 983 parking spaces are proposed, which is a 114 space increase from existing conditions. This includes 25 dedicated bus parking spaces and 26 ADA parking spaces. As 5"' Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 22 Estimated Parking Demand To determine if the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the future parking demand, a parking analysis was completed. Student, staff, visitor, ADA, and bus parking needs were considered. Student Parkin Student parking permits are expected to continue to only be available to 11th and 12th grade students. With the increase in student enrollment on campus due to 9th grade relocating to the high school, the student parking demand is not expected to change from the current parking demand. The minimum required parking to accommodate the existing 450 student parking permits is 450 spaces. However, since the student permit demand exceeds the permit supply, if additional spaces are provided it is expected that students will apply for those permits. Staff Parking • The future staff parking supply was assumed to be equivalent to the number of part- /full- time staff, which is 418 parking spaces. It is understood that it is unlikely that all staff will be on campus at the same time. However, it is good practice for the parking supply to exceed the parking demand in order to reduce unnecessary circulation of vehicles looking for parking and the perception of inadequate parking. Visitor Parking The total visitor parking supply was observed to be sufficient under existing conditions, however during school events the visitor parking demand may by higher than when observations were completed. The overall campus student population is expected to increase approximately 419 students from current conditions. The increase in students on campus is expected to directly impact the visitor parking demand. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain a minimum existing supply of 25 spaces. Bus Parking • Based on information provided from the school, under future build conditions 20-25 buses are estimated to serve both Valley View Middle School and Edina High School. Due to the staggering start/end times of the school, the 25 proposed bus parking spaces are expected to be sufficient. ADA Parking • Based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code, a minimum of 20 ADA spaces are required for the school campus (two percent of the total parking supply). Since 26 ADA spaces are proposed, the proposed ADA parking meets the expected demand. In summary, the minimum parking supply needed to accommodate the proposed expansion parking demand is 938 spaces (see Table 11). ho Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Table 11- Proposed Expansion Parking Summary Parking TypeI Existing Parking I Proposed Parking I Increase/ Supply Supply (Decrease) January 22, 2016 Page 23 Minimum Required Parking Student 502 489 (-13) 450(l) Staff 320 418 +98 418 (2) Visitor 25 25 0 25 Bus __ 25 +25 25 ADA 22 26 +4 20(3) Total 869 983 +114 938 (1) Assumes no change to the current number of student parking permits currently allotted. (2) Assumes one parking space per part -/full-time staff people. (3) Minimum ADA spaces needed based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code. City Parking Code The City of Edina Code of Ordinances (Sec. 36-1311) was reviewed to determine if the proposed parking supply meets the minimum required parking spaces. The City Code shown in Table 2 has the following parking requirements for middle schools and high schools: • Public orprivate elementary orjunior high schools. Two spaces per classroom, or spaces equal in number to one- third the maximum seating capacity of the la nest place of assembly, whichever isgreater. • Public orprivate senior high schools and seminaries. One space per classroom plus one space per ten students, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largestplace of assembly, whichever isgreater. The 2017/2018 school year student enrollment forecasts were used to estimate the required parking for the proposed expansion. With the school expansion and relocation of 9th grade students to the high school, the middle school is anticipated to provide 57 teaching stations and the high school is anticipated to provide 114 teaching station. The largest assembly space capacity in both middle school and high school was also reviewed. Based on the City Code parking requirements, for both the middle school and high school the assembly areas have a higher parking requirement than the parking calculations based on the number of students and teaching stations. Further, since the parking lot is not designated between middle school and high school parking areas, the total required parking was compared to the total parking supply. As shown in Table 12, based on City Code the school campus has a minimum parking requirement of 890 spaces. The proposed expansion plans to provide 983 spaces, which is a 93 space surplus. A "�7 Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina Table 12 - City Parking Requirements January 22, 2016 Page 24 (1) Valley View Middle School Auditorium (2) New Edina High School Gym Site Plan Review A preliminary site plan review was conducted to determine potential improvements for consideration. Several of these improvements were identified as part of the intersection capacity analysis. The following site plan improvements are offered for consideration and illustrated in Figure 8. 1) Realign the West School Access opposite of Chapel Lane to create a four -legged intersection and provide a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour. This will improve operations and reduce conflicts between the closely spaced intersections. a. This improvement would require internal site/parking modifications. 2) Relocate the pedestrian crossing from the west side of the Chapel Lane to the east side to reduce potential conflicts. 3) Expand the West School Access to ensure two exiting lanes for a minimum of 125 feet into the site to reduce queuing and delays. 4) Modify and sign the Central School Access to physically eliminate exiting vehicles from the access point and/or provide improved enforcement. 5) Remove the existing pick-up/drop-off area along Valley View Road to improve pedestrian safety and reduce vehicular conflicts along Valley View Road. An Number of Number of Parking Parldrig Classrooms Students Largest Requirement Requirement School (Teaching (Year 2018- Assembly based on based on Stations) 2019) Capacity classrooms/ largest students assembly Middle School57 1,009 578(l) 114 193 (Grades 6-8) High School 114 2,786 2,090(2) 393 697 (Grades 9-12) Total Required 507 890 Proposed Parking 983 983," Surplus/ (Deficit) +476 +93 (1) Valley View Middle School Auditorium (2) New Edina High School Gym Site Plan Review A preliminary site plan review was conducted to determine potential improvements for consideration. Several of these improvements were identified as part of the intersection capacity analysis. The following site plan improvements are offered for consideration and illustrated in Figure 8. 1) Realign the West School Access opposite of Chapel Lane to create a four -legged intersection and provide a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour. This will improve operations and reduce conflicts between the closely spaced intersections. a. This improvement would require internal site/parking modifications. 2) Relocate the pedestrian crossing from the west side of the Chapel Lane to the east side to reduce potential conflicts. 3) Expand the West School Access to ensure two exiting lanes for a minimum of 125 feet into the site to reduce queuing and delays. 4) Modify and sign the Central School Access to physically eliminate exiting vehicles from the access point and/or provide improved enforcement. 5) Remove the existing pick-up/drop-off area along Valley View Road to improve pedestrian safety and reduce vehicular conflicts along Valley View Road. An O a` x 0� � Site Plan Review Figure 8 Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study 0169106 . Edina, MN January 2016 Cary Teague, Community Development Director January 22, 2016 City of Edina Page 26 Conclusions and Recommendations Tlie following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for consideration: 1) The study references the a.m. peak hour as 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., the afternoon school peak hour as 2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., and the p.m. peak hour as 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2) The campus generates approximately 1,249 a.m. peak hour, 838 afternoon school peak hour, and 627 p.m. peak hour trips. 3) Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis for the peak 15 -minute interval indicates that the study intersections operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours, except at the West School Access during the a.m. peak hour and at Gleason Road and the East School Access during the p.m. peak hour. Side -street access to Valley View Road is also difficult at several intersections during the peak hours. 4) Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis for the 60 -minute peak period indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the a.m., afternoon school, and p.m. peak hours. Multiple side -street approaches operate at LOS E or F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is common. 5) The proposed Edina High School expansion would relocate 9th grade students currently at Valley View and South View middle schools to the high school, which is expected to increase enrollment on campus from 3,379 to 3,798 students during the 2017/2018 school year. 6) The relocation of all 9th grade students to the high school is expected to generate an additional 191 a.m. peak hour, 158 afternoon school peak hour, and 78 p.m. peak hour trips on campus. a. During the peak 15 -minute interval, the relocation is expected to generate an additional 156 a.m. peak hour, 67 afternoon school peak hour, and 21 p.m. peak hour trips. 7) Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that multiple study intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable overall LOS E or worse during several peak hours. Side -street access along Valley View Road will continue to be challenging during the peak 15 -minute periods, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 8) Results of the year 2017 build condition intersection capacity analysis for the 60 -minute peak period indicate that multiple study intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable overall LOS E or worse during one or more peak hours. Side -street access along Valley View Road will also continue to be challenging at several locations, particularly at the school access points. 9) The primary operational issues expected upon completion of the proposed expansion include: a. Significant delay and queuing issues at the West School Access during the a.m. peak hour. b. Vehicular and pedestrian conflicts due to the close intersection spacing between the West School Access and Chapel Lane. c. Operations near the LOS D/E threshold and eastbound queuing at the Valley View Road/Antrim Road intersection, even with a traffic control officer in place. No Cary Teague, Community Development Director City of Edina January 22, 2016 Page 27 10) Several improvement scenarios were reviewed to find a balance between intersection operations during peak periods and the cost of infrastructure improvements. These included a combination of access modifications and traffic control changes. Based on this review and discussion with City staff, the following improvements are recommended: a Realign the Wlest School Access opposite of Chapel Lane to create a four -legged intersection. b. Provide a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour at the Wrest SchoolAccess, in addition to the trq�Tic control ofcers already in place. 11) Results of the intersection capacity analysis indicates that the realignment of the West School Access and incorporation of a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour will significantly improve overall intersection operations and side -street delays at this location. Both queues and side -street delays will be better managed, as well as reduced conflicts for pedestrians crossing Valley View Road. 12) Further study of the Valley View Road intersections at Gleason Road and Antrim Road should occur to determine a long-term solution, primarily to address the future p.m. peak hour need. 13) The proposed expansion plans to provide 983 spaces, which is a 93 space surplus based on the City Code requirements. No parking issues are expected. 14) Other site plan improvements offered for consideration, include: a. Relocate the pedestrian crossing from the west side of the Chapel Lane to the east side to reduce potential conflicts. b. Expand the Wrest SchoolAccess to ensure two exiting lanes for a minimum of 125 feet into the site to reduce queuing and delays- e. elays c. Mod and sign the Central School Access to physically eliminate exiting vehicles from the access point and/orprovide improved enforcement. d. Remove the existing pick-upl drop-off area along Valley View Road to improve pedestrian safety and reduce vehicular conflicts along Valley View Road. H.\Projects\09000\9106\TS\Report\9106 FINAL EdinaHigliScboolTmfcStudy_160122.doct APPENDIX A1'01, IE WON I Improvement Scenarios Figure X ooa,wans c;,. ,1— Edina High School Expansion Traffic Study 0169106 Edina, MN January 2016 Table Al Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Table (Improvement Scenarios) Level of Service Analysis Period / Scenario15-Minute (60 -Minute) Gleason Rosemary St. Patrick's West School Chapel Central East School Antrim Road Lane Lane Access Lane School Access Access Road Existing A (A) A/A (A/A) A/A (A/A) E/F (C/F) A/B (A/A) A/C (A/C) A/E (A/D) D (C) Year 2017 No Improvements B (A) A/A (A/A) A/B (A/A) F/F (F/ F) " A/C (A/B) B/F (A/F) C/F (A/F) E (D) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 1 B (A) A/A (A/A) A/C (A/B) C (B) C/F (B/F) C/E (B/D) D/F (B/F) E (D) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 2 B (A) A/A (A/A) A/E ;(A/C) C (B) A/F (A/E) B/F (A/F) C/F (A/F) B (B) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 3 B (A) A/A (A/A) A/C (A/A) C -7T (A) A/F (A/F) E (C) ,Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 4 C (B) B/C (A/A) C/F (A/C) —(A—) A (A) A/A (A/A) A (A) E '(C) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 5 B (A)A/A (A/A) A/C (A/B) D (C) C/F (A/F) C/F (A/F) E (D) Existing A 7(A) A/A (A/A) A/B (A/A) B (B) A/C (A/B) A/C (A/A) C/F (C/E) D (D) Year 2017 No Improvements A A/A (A/A) A/B (A/A) C (C) A/C (A/B) A/C (A/B) E/F (D/E) F ;(E), Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 1 No Change from No Build Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 2 A (A) A/A (A/A) A/B (A/A) B (B) A/D (A/C) A/C (A/B) A/D (A/C) A (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 3 A (A) A/A (A/A) A/A (A/A) A (A) A/C (A/A) A (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 4 A (A) A/A (A/A) A/A (A/A) B (A) A (A) A/A (A/A) A (A) A (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 5 A (A) A/A (A/A) A/A (A/A) C (C) A/B (A/A) D/F (B/F) E (E) Existing E (D) A/D (A/B) A/F (A/F) D/F (C/F) °�/F (A/F) B/A (WA) E/C (D/C) C (C) Year 2017 No Improvements f (F) A/E (A/C) B/F (A/F) F./F (D/F) B/F (A/F) D/A (C/A) E/F (D/C) D (C) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 1 No Change from No Build Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 2 F (E) " A/B (A/A) A/C (A/A) A (A) A/C (A/C) A/A (A/A) A/D (A/C) A (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 3 . F (E) A/C (A/A) A/C (A/B) A (A) A/B (A/B) B (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 4 F (E) A/B (A/A) A/B (A/B) A (A) A (A) A/A (A/A) B (A) A (A) Year 2017 Improvement Scenario 5 F (F) C/A (A/A) B/F (B/F) D/F (G/D) B/C (B/A) E/D ;(E/C) C (C) Improvement Scenario 1: Traffic control officer at the West School Access Improvement Scenario 2: Traffic signals at the West School Access and .Antrim Road Improvement Scenario 3: Roundabout and realigned access at the West School Access/Chapel Lane and East School Access/Antrim Road Improvement Scenario 4: Split roundabouts at the West School Access/Chapel Lane and East School Access/Antrim Road, including eastbound left -turn restriction at the Central School Access Improvement Scenario 5: Realigned West School Access opposite Chapel Lane and implementation of a traffic control officer during the a.m. peak hour (in addition to the afternoon school peak hour). December 23, 2015 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50" Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Edina Public Schools — ISD #273 Edina High School Additions and Renovations Conditional Use Permit Submittal Dear Cary / City of Edina Planning Department, Attached you will find documents related to the Edina High School Additions and Renovations Conditional Use Permit Application. I have also included a CD with all these items included digitally. • Written description of the project describing the intended use of the property and why the City should approve the request, including Wold's description and similar projects. • Physical Material sample board showing metal panel and coping colors, two brick colors (matching existing), and two glass samples (matching existing) • 1 copy of Stormwater Management Report (404 pages) Three (3) Full -Size 30x42 plan sets and thirty _(30)11x17 plan sets of the following drawings: • Draft Parking study by SRF Consulting (full traffic study forthcoming) • On-site circulation study by ALTA Planning to support bicyclists and pedestrians • Floor plans showing location, arrangement, and floor area of existing and proposed uses (total existing building: 411,000 SF, total new area: 142,000 SF) (4 pages) • Elevation drawings of all new additions and enlargements to existing buildings including a description of existing and proposed exterior building materials. These drawings show a dark dashed line with labels between new building and existing buildings and are rendered in color. All brick and glass types are to match existing, while our new metal panel color is to complement the existing copper without providing a maintenance issue for the District. (1 page) • Site Plans: C1.30 -C1.36 (7 pages) • Registered Survey showing existing and proposed structures, lot lines, pertinent dimensions, lot acreages and wetland delineation. (4 pages) • Existing Drainage Plan: C1.00 (1 page) • Proposed Drainage Plan: C1.01 (1 page) • Landscaping Plans: 1-1.10-1-1.70 (7 pages) • Grading Plans: C1.40 -C1.46 (7 pages) • Erosion Control Plan: C1.60 -C1.66 (7 pages) • Utilities Plans: C1.50 -C1.56 (7 pages) • Civil/Site related details: C2.10 -C2.11 (2 pages) Please feel free to call or email with any questions. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Sal Bagley cc: Margo Bauck, ISD #273 Eric Hamilton, ISD #273 Nick Marcucci, Wold Architects and Engineers Vaughn Dierks, Wold Architects and Engineers Dave Rey, AJA December 23, 2015 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50`h Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Edina Public Schools — ISD #273 Edina High School Additions and Renovations Written Description for Conditional Use Permit Submittal Independent School District #273, Edina Public Schools, passed a successful referendum in May of 2015 to create personalized and extended learning environments, update special education and media center spaces, provide secure entries, and incorporate flexible furniture throughout their existing buildings. An element of this request was to build an addition at Edina High School to house 91h grade, which is currently in the two middle schools (South View and Valley View). This will allow for classrooms in the middle schools to be converted to extended learning environments while aligning grade organizations with standards (comprehensive grades 9-12 experience). As a result, a 142,000 SF addition at the High School is required to create enough capacity to support 91h grade as well as replace classrooms taken "offline" within the existing building to create extended learning environments. The location of the addition has been carefully studied to work well with existing topography and grades, connect to the existing building intuitively, avoid disrupting utilities and easements, and integrate well with the existing building massing. Approx. 70,000 SF of the existing building (total existing square feet: 411,717 SF) is being renovated to create these extended learning environments as well as accomplish renovations to media center and special education areas. The existing building was completed in 1972, with renovations done in 1990 and major additions completed in 2005. A guiding principle of the Core Planning Team, a group of parents, teachers, students and administrators who assisted in the design of the project, was a holistic final product. To accomplish this, the addition uses language of the existing building and will have matching brick colors (light and dark) and glass (clear and ceramic fritted). The metal panel selection aims to complement the existing copper panels while reducing maintenance needs on the District. These materials can be seen on the materials sample board. Exterior design language: • Area'A' — Existing EPAC Entry / New Main Entry: o Exterior finish is composed mostly of metal panels. o Multiple masses that interconnect with each other and a variety of roof heights. o Large storefront/curtainwall systems with vertical mullions and mixture of translucent and clear glazing. • Area'B' — Existing Science Classrooms / New Classroom Volume: o Punched window openings. o Majority of the fagade is long horizontal elements of light brick with smaller portions of metal panel and dark brick. o Irregular sized windows placed in a somewhat (dis)-organized manner. • Area'C' — Existing Cafeteria and Commons / New Event Entry and Maker Labs: o Large storefront/curtain wall systems that wrap corners. o Exterior finish composed mostly of light brick. • Area `D' — Existing Music and Art Classrooms / New Activity Labs and Gymnasium: o Irregular and unique windows/metal panel areas. o Mixture of translucent and clear glazing and vertical mullions. o Exterior finish composed of light brick with a dark brick base. o Large spaces of brick fagade between architectural elements. To: Vaughn Dirks, AIA, LEED-AP Wold Architects and Engineers From: Matthew Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Emily Gross, EIT, Engineer Date: November 20, 2015 Subject: Edina High School Parking Assessment Introduction SRP No. 9034 As requested, SRF has completed a parking study at the,5 " High School/Valley View Middle School campus in the City of Edina Minnesota. The sc ailt�s is located north of Valley View Road between St. Patricks Lane and Antrim Road '\lgure 1ject Location). The study was initiated to understand changes at the campus du , `e Edina Public 5*sol District plan to relocate all 9th grade students to the high school inc % g the 9th grade studio,!at South View Middle School. Therefore, the main objectives of this are to review the e ftwi g parking supply/ demand and determine if the proposed parking sup ill. equate to me& Jf e future parking demand on campus. The following iaton summarlc results of the parktrlg study. Existing Conditions at the Edina High n waspiewed for the campus. ,015 stuc is and 220 full -/part-time staff " 9A- f students and 130 full -/part-time staff a.m. to 3:10 p.m. )m 7:45 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. • A parking spaelnventory by designation (i.e. staff, visitor, handicap accessible (ADA), or student) was completed fair• the campus .Graphic illustrations for the northwest, southwest, northeast, and southeast parking lots are included in the Appendix. • All student parking spaces require a permit. Currently the school provides 425 yearly student permits ($300/year) and an additional 25 daily student permits ($3/day). • An additional 30 student parking permits are offered for the Calvary Lutheran Church, which is located on Antrim Road south of Valley View Road. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 1 763.475.0010 1 WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM EN.rtNEERS PLANNERS DESIGNERS Consulting Group, Inc: To: Vaughn Dirks, AIA, LEED-AP Wold Architects and Engineers From: Matthew Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Emily Gross, EIT, Engineer Date: November 20, 2015 Subject: Edina High School Parking Assessment Introduction SRP No. 9034 As requested, SRF has completed a parking study at the,5 " High School/Valley View Middle School campus in the City of Edina Minnesota. The sc ailt�s is located north of Valley View Road between St. Patricks Lane and Antrim Road '\lgure 1ject Location). The study was initiated to understand changes at the campus du , `e Edina Public 5*sol District plan to relocate all 9th grade students to the high school inc % g the 9th grade studio,!at South View Middle School. Therefore, the main objectives of this are to review the e ftwi g parking supply/ demand and determine if the proposed parking sup ill. equate to me& Jf e future parking demand on campus. The following iaton summarlc results of the parktrlg study. Existing Conditions at the Edina High n waspiewed for the campus. ,015 stuc is and 220 full -/part-time staff " 9A- f students and 130 full -/part-time staff a.m. to 3:10 p.m. )m 7:45 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. • A parking spaelnventory by designation (i.e. staff, visitor, handicap accessible (ADA), or student) was completed fair• the campus .Graphic illustrations for the northwest, southwest, northeast, and southeast parking lots are included in the Appendix. • All student parking spaces require a permit. Currently the school provides 425 yearly student permits ($300/year) and an additional 25 daily student permits ($3/day). • An additional 30 student parking permits are offered for the Calvary Lutheran Church, which is located on Antrim Road south of Valley View Road. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 1 763.475.0010 1 WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM 961 110S I Project Location Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School Figure 1 009034 City of Edina November 2015 Mr. Vaughn Dirks November 20, 2015 Wold Architects and Engineers Page 3 • Based on discussions with school staff, the student demand for parking permits exceeds the number of permits available. The school has implemented a rating system to determine which students receive parking permits. The system prioritizes seniority and carpooling. Students in 10th grade or under are not eligible for the parking permits. • Existing off-street parking utilization surveys were collected by SRF on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., which correspond with our understanding of the peak parking periods. This data is summarized in Table 1. o Parking counts were also collected at the Calvary Lutheran Church. The church has a parking supply of 57 spaces. During both the 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. parking counts, 28 spaces were occupied. Table 1- Parking Utilization Surveys Tuesday, October 27 Wednesday, October 28 Lot Parking Type Parking 9:30 a.m. 1:30 p.m. Supply Spaces Percent Spaces Percent Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Student 241 204 85% 209 87% Staff 15 15 100% 14 93% Northwest Visitor 15 11 73% 15 100% ADA 6 0 0% 3 50% ... _.. ..�,. Student 261 236 90% 227 87% Staff 31 25 81% 24 77% Southwest Visitor 8 4 50% 0 0% ADA 11 6 55% 3 27% Student 0 -- Staff 80 54 68% 62 78% Northeast Visitor 0 ADA 2 0 0% 0 0% Student 0 -- Staff 194 138 71% 137 71% Southeast Visitor 2 1 50% 0 0% ADA 3 0 0% 1 33% * Percent occupied greater than 85 percent is bolded. Mr. Vaughn Dirks November 20, 2015 Wold Architects and Engineers Page 4 • Results of the parking counts indicate that overall the school campus has a sufficient parking supply. However, the following should also be considered: o There are approximately 350 high school and middle school staff on campus, which includes both part- and full-time staff. The staff parking supply is 320 spaces and the maximum observed occupancy for the campus was 237 spaces (Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.). This indicates that staff are likely parking in student spaces. School staff also confirmed that this does occur. o As previously mentioned, there are 450 student permits (425 yearly and 25 daily). Based on the parking supply inventory, there are 502 spaces available for student parking. The maximum parking demand for students was 440 spaces (Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.), although that likely includes some staff parking. o Student, staff and visitor parking in the northwest lot is highly desirable, based on a comparison of the utilization counts in this lot to the other parking lots on campus. o While the visitor parking was 64 percent occupied on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. (maximum of the two observation days), the school staff indicated that occasionally all visitor spaces are occupied. This tends to be on days with special events going on at the school. A graphic of the proposed Edina High School expansion site plan is shown in Figure 2. As part of this project, 9th grade students in the Edina Public School District will relocate to the high school, which includes 9th grade students from both Valley View Middle School and South View Middle School. South View Middle School, which is not located on the campus, currently has approximately 325 9th grade students. However, since 9th grade students will not be eligible for parking permits, the primary parking demand increases are expected to be from the additional staff needed to accommodate the relocated 9th grade students. Based on information provided from the school, the total campus staff is expected to increase to 418 people (302 high school staff and 116 middle school staff) when the high school changes to grades 9 through 12. Given that site modifications are expected as part of the expansion, a total of 972 parking spaces are proposed, which is a 103 space increase from current conditions. This includes 25 bus parking and 20 ADA spaces. �"°* K .�,� rrj ra A.__. r ��"x �.✓"` i'w�y �.. ;h'� � K r{$ ".- F \�.. l � pe- ,erC/ �� r- ,s 40, t RO SE k Y prr#} I4 V \ ` � 5 4' oil" 5"::,., 11 !i , y iK \ ...... v \ < r ff!! \ ''s 3 S Q lit!" 1% p i Lj l m -. �d l 4-1 J f ja � �[ fy ii.. j�{."`.+.,r,..,�. `"`.,rte}➢ _ �°°'ih 3. .::C � i,' `"� Br fi'.;� .Y.�l h� �.� � X �_�... , N n` , ILI ►9 I Proposed Site Plan Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School 009034 City of Edina November 2015 Figure 2 Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers Parking Analysis November 20, 2015 Page 6 To determine if the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the future parking demand, a parking analysis was completed. The following information summarizes the assumptions: • The future staff parking supply was assumed to be equivalent to the number of part- /full-time staff, which is 418 parking spaces. o It is understood that it is unlikely that all staff will be on campus at the same time. However, it is good practice for the parking supply to exceed the parking demand in order to reduce unnecessary circulation of vehicles looking for parking and the perception of inadequate parking. While the total visitor parking supply was observed to be sufficient under existing conditions, school events may result in higher utilization than what was observed during the parking counts. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain a minimum existing supply of 25 spaces. o By relocating 9th grade students at South View Middle School to Edina High School, approximately 325 additional students will be at the high school/middle school campus, which is a nine (9) percent increase in total students. The increase in students on campus is expected to directly impact the visitor parking demand. • To accommodate buses, the proposed site plan provides 25 spaces for bus parking. • The minimum number of ADA spaces required for a parking supply of 972 spaces in 20 spaces based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code. The remaining spaces available for student parking is 484 spaces. Student parking permits are expected to continue to only be available to 11th and 12th grade students. With the increase in student enrollment on campus due to 9th grade relocating to the high school, the student parking demand is not expected to change from the current parking demand. However, the minimum required parking to accommodate the existing 450 student parking permits is 450 spaces. o Since the student permit demand exceeds the permit supply, if additional spaces are provided it is expected that students will apply for those permits. In summary, the minimum parking supply needed to accommodate the proposed expansion parking demand is 938 spaces (see Table 2). Mr. Vaughn Dirks Wold Architects and Engineers Table 2 - Proposed Expansion Parking Summary November 20, 2015 Page 7 Parking Type Existing Parking Supply Proposed Parking Supply Increase / (Decrease) Minimum Required Parking Supply Student 502 484 (-18) 450(1) Staff 320 418 +98 418 (2) Visitor 25 25 0 25 Bus 25 +25 25 ADA 22 20 (-2) 20(3) Total 869 972 +103 938 (1) Assumes no change to the current number of student parking permits currently allotted. (2) Assumes one parking space per part -/full-time staff people. (3) Minimum ADA spaces needed based on the Minnesota Accessibility Code. Findings/Conclusions Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • The proposed parking supply of 972 spaces is expected to be sufficient to meet the future parking demand. • The minimum parking supply needed to accommodate the proposed expansion is 938 spaces. Any spaces in excess of 938 spaces would allow the school to provide additional student permits. H:lProjectsI0900019034ITSIReportl9034_DRAFT EdinaHighSchoolExp Porking_151120.docx Appendix 641 Northwest Lot - Parking Supply Type Figure A Consulting Group, Inc Edina High School 009034 City of Edina November 2015 \J � Southwest Lot - Parking Supply Type Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School Figure B 009034 City of Edina November 2015 10 Northeast Lot - Parking Supply Type Figure C Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School 009034 City of Edina November 2015 ON I Southeast Lot - Parking Supply Type Figure D Consulting Group, Inc. Edina High School 0159034 City of Edina November 2015 I o e In PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 27, 2015 B-16-01 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the requested variances to allow the construction of a new second story, expansion of an existing main floor deck with new lower level patio and porch underneath the deck expansion and a lower level storage room addition on an existing, legally, non -conforming home. Project Description Tony Burger (applicant) is requesting variances to complete additions to his existing home located at 6629 West Shore Drive. The requested variances are as follows: 1. Side Yard Setback on Lower Level: The request is for a 1.5 ft. side yard setback, (3.5 ft. variance); to install a new stair that replaces an existing stair due to grade change. The side yard setback encroachment of the foundation storage unit wall is 2.1 ft., (7.9 ft. variance). A proposed patio below the deck will be .5 ft., (4.5 ft. variance), from the east side yard. 2. Rear Yard Setback on Lower Level: The request is for a 15.4 ft. rear yard setback, (9.6 ft. variance), from the current property line on the North east corner of the grade level porch. 3. Side Yard Setback Main Floor: The request is for a .5 ft. side yard setback, (4.5 ft. variance), or a new deck extension of an existing non- conforming main floor deck. 4. Side Yard Setback 2nd Floor: The request is for a 5.1 ft. 2nd floor side yard setback, (4.9 ft. variance), to add 2nd floor structure in the North West corner over the existing Main Floor Structure. 5. Rear Yard Setback 2nd Floor: The request is for a 22.5 ft. 2"d floor Rear yard setback, (2.5 ft. variance), to add 2' floor structure area. The 2nd floor addition will be within the footprint of the existing Main Floor Structure below. 6. Grading Encroachment: The requested variances include a plan to remove an unnatural hillside on the property and adjoining Park property that abuts the North side structure of the property and restore to its natural/ original grade, in line with the rest of the property and neighborhood. The request is to encroach into the adjoining city property to alter grade to a natural elevation across the North side of the property. The grading changed has been outline within the proposed Grading Management plan and accepted by the City of Edina Engineering Water Resource Department. The subject property is located in a neighborhood with single -level, two story and multi-level homes. The homeowner is proposing to add a second story addition to the main level, enlarge the main floor deck area to include a new outdoor stair, increase the lower level footprint to include an expanded storage room, new covered patio and screened porch underneath the expanded deck, (all with portions within nonconforming locations). The new second floor above the main floor will overlap the side and rear setback at the same nonconforming side and rear yard setbacks as the existing main floor. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback for living space and 5 foot side yard setback for patio and deck area from the north property line. The required rear yard setback to the east is 25 feet. The variances are necessary to build within the existing footprint and expand deck and porch area because the existing home is nonconforming regarding side and rear yard setback. This same plan was introduced to the Park Board, Planning Commission and City Council last summer as a possible land exchange with adjacent park property, (to avoid variances and any other conflict with the City). The City Council did not support a land exchange and advised the homeowner to instead pursue variances. The owner is before the Planning Commission with the same plan as proposed previously in the hopes of implementing the plan. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The applicant purchased the home in 2004 with three reconstruction goals in mind for the home: 2 1. Remodel the main floor of the house and extend the main level deck towards Park property/Lake Cornelia. 2.. Remove the existing basement pool, remodel the existing basement, add to an existing storage room, add a patio and porch beneath the expanded deck above and create a walkout towards the Lake. 3. Add a second story above the remodeled main floor. The removal of the basement swimming pool and main floor and lower level interior remodel are complete. The applicant is now ready to request variances to expand the main floor deck, add to a lower level storage room, add a patio and porch underneath the expanded deck and add a second story to the main floor. Even with the requested variances, the proposed plan requires encroachment into the park land. When the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the basement foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and the applicant's property. Without removal of the hill, the owner cannot do a walk out from the basement as indicated on the grading plan, without encroaching into the park land. It should be noted that all of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward the Lake. The City Attorney has drafted an encroachment agreement between the owner and the City based on the grading plan that would become a condition of any variance approval, (the agreement is attached for reference). At the time of purchase, the owner was aware that there is a city park between his property and Lake Cornelia, however, was not aware that the park property is just four feet from the Northwest corner the house. It should be noted that in 2007, the property received a variance to build a similar addition and regrade. The owner never built the addition, therefore, the variance expired. The house is non -conforming with regard to current side and rear property lines. The owners cannot move forward with the plan without variances. As stated previously, a land exchange with the City was presented to the Park Board, Planning Commission and the City Council in July —August of 2015 instead of a request for variances. The land exchange would have added enough property to the subject lot so as to conform with the required setback to the north and a re - grade of the property to create a walk -out without encroaching onto park property. The exchange would not, however, have avoided a variance for the lower level porch from the 25 foot rear yard setback requirement. Ultimately the land exchange concept was rejected by the City Council instead they encouraged the owner to pursue variances; (staff reports and minutes of meetings are attached for reference). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses 3 Northerly: Single -dwelling homes/Park property/Lake Cornelia Easterly: Single -dwelling homes Southerly: Single -dwelling homes Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 38,600 square feet with a 1 story home that is deeply setback from the street and adjacent to park property. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Engineering Review Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District An Engineering memo is attached. Engineering states that they have no concerns with the plans as submitted. Building Design The proposal is to construct a 2nd story above the existing first floor, expand the main floor deck to the north and on the lower level, expand a storage area, add a porch, covered patio and access stair. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: C! City Standard Proposed Front — Avg. of adjacent .+ 200 feet Side yard 10 feet living/5 feet deck/patio. 2.1/5.2*feet living space 1.5/.5 *feet patio/deck Rear Yard 25 feet 15.4/22.5*feet Building Height 2 % stories/38.6 feet 2 stories/37.5 feet, feet to ride feet to ridge Lot coverage 25% 10% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: C! 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. The intent is to utilize the existing structure in its entirety, since footprint expansion is minimally possible in areas desired without additional variances given existing nonconforming setbacks to the north and east. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the large lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home will remain essentially the same with the exception of the expansion of the storage room, covered patio, deck and the addition of a porch. All of the proposed improvements will not significantly impact adjacent homeowners. Sightlines will not change for neighboring properties. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing nonconforming conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and neighboring structures will essentially remain the same. 4. The home improvements and 2nd floor height increase would provide enough space to accomplish a 2nd floor without having to completely reconfigure the property, (not a tear-down/re-build). If it weren't for the proximity of the existing house to the north and east lot line limiting expansion options, the lot could accommodate much more building area and coverage. A rebuild of the property could support a 9,650 square foot building pad, (25% of lot area), and 2 % floors above a basement walkout, much more than proposed given the lot size and configuration. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 9) 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 5 the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. A practical difficulty is the original placement of the home at an angle and located very close to the north and east lot lines in a non -conforming location. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the inability to modify the existing main floor or increase the roof height above the nonconforming 1St floor in order to provide a second floor. The ordinance does not allow a 2nd floor above the home at existing nonconforming setbacks without the benefit of a variance. The alternate setback standard only applies for improvements on the same level as an encroachment. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home will remain relatively the same and spacing between neighboring structures will remain the same. The added second floor will be similar to other two story homes in the vicinity. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it utilizes existing setback conditions with the exception of deck, covered patio and porch addition, none of which will impact the surrounding neighboring homes. b. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for a full second floor without a variance; existing lot size would allow for much more building area if the existing structure were to be removed. Owner simply wishes to upgrade the existing home. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: n 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: • Architectural site plans date stamped: 12/30/2015. • Building plans/ elevations date stamped: 12/30/2015. • Engineering memo dated: January 20, 2016. • Signed encroachment agreement between the City of Edina and the property owners. Deadline for a city decision: March 1, 2016 7 DATE: January 20, 2016 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 6629 West Shore Drive - Special Review 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 plans propose to construct multiple additions on the north side the home along with grading for said additions. The primary concern when reviewing the plan was the FEMA flood elevation of 864', the proposed grading is all elevated at 866' (2' above 864') or higher which is the requirement of the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. Grading and Drainage All grading appears to be situated at 866' or higher, leaving the FEMA flood plain of 864' unaffected. Erosion and Sediment Control No comment Street and Curb Cut No comment Water and Sanitary Utilities No comment Other Items A Nine Mile Creek watershed permit will be required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wrr.EdinaMN.gov•952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016 by James B. Hovland and by Scott Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public PROPERTY OWNER: Tony Burger Elizabeth Burger STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Tony Burger and Elizabeth Burger, husband and wife. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A. 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 RNK 185ii7vi Payflow Link City of Edina ePermits Your transaction was approved! Reference M ASOFDD7COADB Total Amount: $5.00 Bill To: EprApp 4801 50th St W Edina MN 55424 9528260372 eprapptest@edinamn.gov VIEW ORDER SUMMARY https://payflowlink.paypal. com/submitTransaction.do Page 1 of 1 1/5/2016 VARIANCE APPLICATION ODe?P,''1MENv vN,N CASE NVMBERP , ATE N or - FEE PAI City of Edina Planning Department * www.c!Wgfedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 56424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 8260389 ...... Y ..... ...Y--..-...i..YYY---o-rr-w-Mn------.-..Y----------YY-Y---•--.n.-..--..-------......-.... .----......--rY-r-r-- FEE: RES - $450,0® NON -RES " $700:.00 APPLICANT: NAME: l��a I 7Zr (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: Gs !M PHONE:C� g12�- V73 -L EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME- _(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: GG -V) WL6' 660.c , CJ,- _PHONE: G11-llro' 1121 - 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: kvi i,Je.S HdLk= j3c'4Ut' PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D.# 9 �1431 , Z0`14 1 EXP NATION OF REQUEST: 6" 5ID-6 KAg& 5919ACK 9* DSK-- _ vow Z ARCHITECT: SURVEYOR: (Use reverse NAME; 1�• e 45tor� •l.G '" �"v�r+ l t nt-} PHONE: Cll- 461-, `100b EMAIL: OR NAME:PHONE:qkA 1" 30 %�p'h EMAIL: % ,01 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 wily Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordlnance and that the use Is reasonable C Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district Be In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood ,,, _ : _ NO E9 ❑ S ❑ E. ❑ 2 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) 11917 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the appllcation, Copies must be collated. •� �;,����t�?�ive� is<,:qui��� �l��sr$fefc�� �hrbr'�A f�° ���! .�� I z=� s �•ro � k � s =•s 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. tF�ai 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 Comml'ssion 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 6629 West Shore Drive Variance Package request: Request of Variance: 1. Side Yard Setback on Lower Level: The request for variance is a 1.5 ft. side yard set back with the current property to install of a new stair that replaces an existing stair due to grade change. The side yard setback encroachment on the foundation wall is 2.1 ft on the Lower Level walkout of the garage and storage unit. 2. Rear Yard Setback on Lower Level: The request for variance is a 15.4ft Rear Yard Setback from the current property line on the North east corner of the grade level porch addition with an encroachment of 9.6ft into the current setback requirement. 3. Side Yard Setback Main Floor: The request for variance is a 6 in. Side Yard Setback with the current property line for a new deck to connect to an existing non- conforming deck. The current structure encroaches on the setback 5.0 ft on 4. Rear Yard Setback on Main Floor: The request for variance is 15.4 ft Rear Yard setback for a Main floor Deck addition with an encroachment of 9.6 ft for the new addition. The current structure encroaches into the Rear Yard Setback 5 ft. S. Side Yard Setback 2nd Floor: The request for Variance is a 5.1 ft 2nd floor side yard set back adding a 2nd floor structure in the North West corner over the existing Main Floor Structure. 6. Rear Yard Setback 2nd Floor: The request for Variance is a 22.5 ft 2nd floor Rear yard set back adding a 2nd floor structure. 2nd Floor addition is inside of the existing Main Floor Structure 7. Grading Encroachment: The request for variance would be to remove unnatural hillside on the property and adjoining Park property that abuts the North side structure of the property and restore to its natural/ original grade and in line with the rest of the property and neighborhood. The request is to also encroach into the adjoining city property to alter grade to a natural elevation across the North side of the property. The grading changed has be outline with the proposed Grading Management plan and accepted by the City of Edina Engineering Water Resource Department. 6629 West Shore Drive Variance Package request: The Proposed Variances will: Relieve Practical Difficulties in Complying with the Zoning Ordinances and that the use is Reasonable: 6629 West Shore Drive is a unique structure. It was the first dwelling built in the Lake Cornelia neighborhood and was the model home for suburban Edina development. The other properties that surround it were.built after the original structure was built and plotted. The current home sits on .89 acre lot and the structure was original built beyond the current City Setback Requirements and the adjoining property is City Park property on the north side. The request to add a 2nd floor to the property is requiring a variance based on the current location of the structure on the property which is causing practical difficulty to add a 2nd story to the structure and add on to the North side of the property which is built to emphasize the views of the park land. The existing home originally when build had an indoor swimming pool in the middle of the home, which no longer exists inside of the home. Because of the swimming pool structure the original builder installed a hill of dirt to retain the foundation walls to maintain the swimming pool. The hillside is unnatural to the property, neighboring property and homes, and the adjoining Park property. The request to alter the grade back to a more natural slope is difficult to create without a request to encroach upon the adjoining property because of the current location of the structure on the property. Correct Extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district: This current property in unique in size and is one of the larger acreage properties in the vicinity. The extraordinary circumstance is that the original structure encroaches beyond the current side yard and rear yard setbacks requirements of the city. The structure is also not parallel with the street. The Front of the house is on the side yard of the property therefore requiring additional variances due to an existing circumstance Be in Harmony with the General Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance: The request for variance of the 2nd floor addition to the home is in harmony with the current zoning ordinance for a single family residential structure and is fitting with the size and structure of other 2nd story homes in the area Not Alter the essential Character or a Neighborhood The deign and structure of the addition is fitting with the character of the neighborhood and is similar size and mass of structure with other neighboring homes. Due to the size of the property, the addition will be a minimal impact to other neighbors and the set back line that has the greatest encroachment is on Park property. The removal of the unnatural hillside is also fitting with other neighboring homes has share the same North Park property line. The improvement to grade change will allow for a more natural landscape into the park. [Reserved for Recording Data] ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of , 2016, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and TONY BURGER and ELIZABETH BURGER, husband and wife ("Owner") 1. BACKGROUND. Owner is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Edina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Dalsin 1st Addition (Parcel ID No. 30-028-24-31-0044) having a street address of 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina, Minnesota 55435 ("Subject Property"). The City owns a public park abutting the Subject Property. Owner has requested permission to grade the unimproved abutting public park in conjunction with building a second story addition, deck and patio expansion of the existing home on the Subject Property. 2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves the encroachment for grading purposes in accordance with the grading plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Owner must grade the area in accordance with Exhibit "A." Owner may not remove any trees in the encroachment area. All areas disturbed by the grading shall be reseeded within forty-eight (48) hours after the completion of the work, unless authorized and approved by the City Engineer. Seed shall be in accordance with the City's current seeding specifications. All is5li7A 1 L oe .wxLicz� - EXISTING VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND a a HOUSE (EXISTING DECK TO SE REMOVED) ELEVATIONS WITH PROPOSED PLANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY LAKE CORNELIA n W 0 f Vd HOUSE 3180 SF DECK = 300 SF O A3� -ALHC -150 SF 0 20 40 60 - --- SK`FENCE g /�'" PROPOSED ADDITION \� (H65.0) w, II - � - MATCH EXIST/NG FLOOR ELEVATIONS LOT AREA = 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC X 25% = 9650 SF HC ALLOWED SCALE IN FEET =EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. CO V£RED PATIO/ 1�%' RELOCATE (VERIFY) \ j 1� .p°'' �> �� HOT TUB`866\- F X(998.0)= PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION =DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE STAIR LAAO/NG ON 1.5 FT. HT. RETAINING WALL/ON DRIVE / \ COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE�- LA'NOSCAPE,STONE —\ / Jy( GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION i FOUNDATION ELEVATION q-47.28" £% bxrsr. corrc sram_> SJ-;, db�zs d' zos 15_a 9 NLs5Q��- LFE=866.7 m5C ��^ `; -3.3 FT HT RETAINING WALL ydfi TFE = TOP OF LIFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATIONI I 10pE X90- �E H� .L fI ^�I � I 6dn0 6fiM1 - _ JI5 F I ' ell,^ GFE=866.0 1 - = 300 SF EXISTING HOUSE xos� v V� / Vi -a - - _�-z15 TOTAL = 531 SF / 1.4$ EXIOUSESTING ` E 1� H [e 21p I / / RETABJIl�G { �o (866.5) TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED - 3711 SF / 9.67 TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION W b9.5) al } Ya �- eM1d'fi* (0680 I, ill 11r (BiT jg52.O9 T\ RE f 'CL`SbE sa�--'_ i __`_-•. B>2 LCA r \ N 87°02'23" W \ \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN IST j ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. STRUCTURE HARDCOVER V' EXISTING VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND a a HOUSE (EXISTING DECK TO SE REMOVED) ELEVATIONS WITH PROPOSED PLANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY ADDRESS - 6629 WEST SHORE DRIVE PID 30-028-24-31-0044 W 0 Vd HOUSE 3180 SF DECK = 300 SF O A3� -ALHC -150 SF , \� 3°53 p 6 TOTAL = 3330 SF / 8.6% LOT AREA = 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC X 25% = 9650 SF HC ALLOWED Z) W J W m m % `O� m, \ j 1� PROPOSED SCPDRCH = 231 SF F d1'+' •m��N / \ COVRDPORCH = 450 SF DUE TO SNOW COVER SOME SURFACE o ydfi -ALHC - 150 SF STRUCTURES ARE SHOWN APPROXIMATE <) 1 - = 300 SF g TOTAL = 531 SF / 1.4$ SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED - 3711 SF / 9.67 TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION W ? EXISTING VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND a a HOUSE (EXISTING DECK TO SE REMOVED) ELEVATIONS WITH PROPOSED PLANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY rd 831VMW801S aNd 1081N00 NOISOEI ONIang 31LLL ONVAtltla ao-Noss-% 'ONl'13fOLd tltgSg g °ll I E"ap LW�Um"z 3 $ a$Y ft o m5i. SZ `(i t2. a 9gysg�33 aEF w 8 tlm�r Airy Eij, 3� $ 111H s-; 33 118 & 3 s e E¢ k 8 ■ ���Y g Y 41, \H1qagfg �8 �Y[b:\\im l1fms 111 a �N111 5H ggyyy gq 2 Yq E"J 2 ��'^� -p 56`Ye a 9 a [Y 8�@�� me» RR `a it I $ 91e[i 9Y.=km 85 kgs` 9 91 jig Winp "n 5 �$�. � �� a3g�g3m'3� R � x4 my S 3m§ L i a�k6Yk ��x$E � anI�i§� w3� a k y Qi4e 81 g16aE�111 9A 9 61A7 � 0 gig mAmB>�`��s 8� iSQ Ss i 5€i 8a s z S6�3 k ®. c"qy, q8 BiyA. �€ �A1 — —�LJ 9 _ __1 g z ttell CL ! LLJ LLI o CL HVI f �_a .��iPa �e ➢ 4 / 4 0fl§F gill! Z� l�3 � a 1 =a 3O } s .5 R }}' 111 � tj nag 9 , gg e 88 BURGER RESIDENCE 6629 WEST SHORE DR. EDINA, MN 55435 IP�C� gET DRAWING LIST `'A10129115 ARCHITECTURAL Tl TITLE SHEET A2 LOWER FLOOR FINISH A3 MAIN FLOOR FINISH A4 UPPER FLOOR FINISH A5 - ROOF PLAN A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 BUILDING SECTION OF G� I v SiRi NUMViR nA- PRG,CCf MME & ADDP.�55 KV15ION IAC �U\ar p�51b�NC� 3m =r". N'AMN 6629 M5151M np WINA, MN 95455 nni�rt i1p �EEf NW�DiI: {� �J I I ��PPO,eCf NAA9 & APM5555 In\ I fir! MVIAON LLC V U�VIV� 1\V TVI V�V "'m Y... ViFtt! 1 6629 M5f 510T np WINA, MN 95455 A �iEf NIJM�3ER RRO.ECf NAht aVM55 REVISION Uc wRrurF is (bl]; 9b29CC0 6629 WM5f 5HOM W WINA, MN 55435 MV151ON Lcc �UI\��I\ I\Ii Jl�lil Vli� �12i lnq;, e. A ' �1612) 6629 WtSf „ 1Yh1'ytA.IfN ri10k"� t71; �v: cu WINA, MN 59455 EPr NIIMUER 7RO.EGr VAMP & P1i 55 _ MVI5ION I.I C i� II jII Iii LN25f 1. WR(ZAIA IR.' (WZ; 4G2.4ntl �� 6629 WE515N0 n� xw exasucrne Ityro Me �DINA, MN 55'}35 / 2 EPr NIIMUER 7RO.EGr VAMP & P1i 55 _ MVI5ION I.I C i� II jII Iii LN25f 1. WR(ZAIA IR.' (WZ; 4G2.4ntl �� 6629 WE515N0 n� xw exasucrne Ityro Me �DINA, MN 55'}35 �IEEf NUM6iR 7RO,gCf NAME & AM55 MV15DN UC pLkP, pt5lpmN wFr NH >,;z, 6629 M5f 5HRr rf �,k,, �h - I one rl?INA, MN 55435 o / w �IEEf NUM6iR 7RO,gCf NAME & AM55 MV15DN UC pLkP, pt5lpmN wFr NH >,;z, 6629 M5f 5HRr rf �,k,, �h - I one rl?INA, MN 55435 SFEEi NIJMI3EI: rj� NKO,&Cf NM"i & PD 55 WM51ON LLC ® �Vp\ Pt51n a wR2nrA uN O coiz sozxro _ i fn S wwwxniaaau+tox. • O 829 N�St SNORE 17p F. E INA, MN 554455 5�,55 NW "VNIM o:mmr,KnaMxM dQ �Wwl15w 6Z99 L�b'Z46 (LIN) '�15 �IW14il 211 NO151A33 553�'aaV a 173'Odd Y3nWnN 1335 M TJON5153M 6299 311 N061A33 5533AQd 8 ";.11,o d �3�M1NI6V 13x5 N d O 7 a u> u7 � * uva ausw � ru oa xu �xuzm sn na yn o -i .ms o -a ..n�"s-a-a IV.D. Request for Purchase, Authorize Non -Invasive Watermain Pipe Condition - --arc ing the bid to the recommended bidder, Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. at $37,61111.-- - -- IV.E. Authorize Professional Services, Bolton & Menk Inc. resu Sewer Rehabilitation Design and Construction Services IV.F. Accept Traffic Safety Committee Reports June 3 and July I, 2015 IV.G. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-79, Requesting Variance from Stai Operation for Tracy Avenue IV.H. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-80, Requesting Variance from Stai Operations for Parklawn Avenue IV.I. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-81, Authorizing Joint Powers A n Financial Crimes Task Force IV.J. Approve Site Plan I -year Extension for Vernon Ave ousing, Street, Robert Kimmel and Jerry O'Brien00 Rollcall: Ayes: Staunton, Stewart, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. State Aid for State Aid with Minnesota 5109-5125 West 49th V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PR, NTATIONS V.A. JULY SPEAK UP EDINA REPORT: ESENTED - TOPIC: TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Communications Coordinator Gilgenb resented a summary of July opinions, both pros and cons, collected through Speak Up, Edina rel ` g to Transportation Option. V.B. 20151MAGES OF5 1 PHOTO CONTEST WINNERS - PRESENTED Mr. Gilgenbach shared t hers of the 2015 Images of Edina photo contest as follows: Living People - "Sunset at Braemar" .. . ryan Singer, Living Plants and Wildlife - "Centennial Lakes Babies" by Becky Parkin, Learning, ', . 'pe and Happiness" by Julie Prior -Miller, Raising Families - "Wheee!" by David Murphy, Doin iness - "Say Cheese!" by Lisa Hafey, Readers' Choice - "What an Edina Kid Does in the Winter W ' aiting for the School Bus" by Ryan Gordon, and Best in Show - "Sunset at Braemar' by Bryan r.- PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD - Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented a request from Liz and Tony Burger for a propose land exchange (lot line adjustment) between the City of Edina and the Burgers. In 2008, the Burger received a variance to build the same addition that they were hoping to complete now, but the varianc had expired. The home was non -conforming and with the current property line, the owners had no wa: of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. Mr. Teague presented a map of the area and drawing of the proposed land exchange. c . d s e�- Proponent Presentation Tony Burger, 6629 West Shore Drive, explained there were'four possible options including land exchange, land purchase, variance, or not allowing the addition. Mr. Burger stated that he was okay with any of the first three, but was nervous about applying for the variance because several member of the Planning Commission had stated reluctance about granting a variance. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Public Testimony Edward Hayward, 6625 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Ralph Zickert, 4311 Cornelia Circle, addressed the Council. Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/August 18, 2015 Bradley Hunt, 6636 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Rosemary Utne, 4529 Laguna Drive, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Stewart, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Staunton, Stewart, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council discussed the different options that would allow the property owners to build the addition. The alternate land exchange suggested by Mr. Zickert presented a problem because a variance would still be required for the porch. Attorney Knutson answered a question of the Council relating to the variance as an impediment to a future buyer. He explained that while it would depend on the buyer, the variance would be permanent. n ,Ob 4 r4u1 7301 OHMS LANE, SUNOPTA — RESOLUTION NO. 2015-82 — REFERRED TO STA R CONSIDERATION ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 Senior Planner Presentation Senior Planner Repya presented the request from SunOpta to appeal the decision 'the Planning Commission denying the request for a Variance to allow a wall sign that did not hav ntage on a public street. SunOpta was requesting a variance to allow the installation of a 58.75 s e foot wall sign on the top floor of the East elevation on its building at 7301 Ohms Lane. The pro had one street frontage on Ohms Lane. Edina's Sign Code #36-1715 provided for one wall sign a one monument sign per street frontage in the Planned Office District. Staff recommended uph.ing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance.; Ms. Repya answered questions of the Council relating to;tthe Ordinance being applied, interpreting the language of the Ordinance, and the size of the signs.«`" Proponent Presentation' Dan Turney, SunOpta, described SunOpta a�,a'natural organic food company that had been in the building for three years and gone through five expansions so far. The company was requesting the wall sign on the East elevation instead of the allowed Vest elevation for identification and advertisement purposes on the more travelled Highway side of thetlding. Mr. Turney answered questi�*s of the Council relating to the floors of the building that it operated, type of business activities at the1bcation, and types of visitors. Mayor Hovland operl the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Public Testimony Brandon OttVg, 7301 Ohms Lane, property owner, addressed the Council. Jim GrV, 5513 Park Place, addressed the Council. w Stewart made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Staunton, Stewart, Swenson, Hovland Page 3 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director Date: August 18, 2015 0 (Le Cn 0 • jn �9 • PORA� Jess Agenda Item #: VI.A. Action ❑x Discussion Information ❑ Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Land Exchange (Lot Line Adjustment) 6629 West Shore Drive. Liz and Tony Burger Action Requested: Liz and Tony Burger are requesting approval of a lot line adjustment. Information / Background: The City Council requested that the Planning Commission and Park Board provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange (lot line adjustment) between the City of Edina and Liz and Tony Burger, the property owners at 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina. (See property location on pages A I -A3 of the Planning Commission staff report.) Minutes from both the Planning Commission and Park Board are also attached. Background The Burgers purchased the home at 6629 West Shore Drive in June of 2004. The Burgers state that at the time of purchase they were aware that there was a city park between their property and Lake Cornelia. They state, however, that they were not aware that the park property is a just four feet from the Northwest corner the house. When the Burgers purchased the house, they had three reconstruction goals for the home: 1. Remove the existing pool 2. Redo the existing basement and main level of the house 3. Expand upward via a second story and create a walkout towards the lake The first two phases of construction are complete and the owners wish to complete phase three. In 2008, the Burgers received a variance to build the addition. However, the economy took a down turn, and the never built the addition, therefore, the variance expired. The house is non -conforming and with the current property line, the owners have no way of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. Even with a variance, the construction would require encroachment into the park land. When the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and private property. Without removal of the hill, the owners cannot do a walk out from the basement, without encroaching into the park land. All of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 A / 111VAwlewl �/����G•��� REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 the lake. The homeowners state that they are simply asking for the same right as the neighbors. The hill is unnatural and unnecessary since the pool has been removed. The homeowners also want to expand their deck. Eight out of the nine houses on the park have large decks that provide views of the lake. The Burgers are the only exception. Although the owners did not add the second story addition that received the variance, they did complete work on the main level of the house which reduced the number of bedrooms and added structures to support the future 2nd story. The house does not work for their family but have no way to expand it due to the location of the park lot line. The applicant is therefore requesting a land trade, so that they may build the addition without the need for variance or encroachment into the park. This would potentially allow the property owner to complete the project and not diminish or reduce the total acreage for the Edina public park land. The homeowners have worked with a surveyor who has provided a possible solution. In this proposal, the City and property owner would exchange the same square footage of property and allow the desired home renovation project. Planning Commission Consideration: On August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the request. (See attached minutes.) Parks Commission Consideration: On July 14, 2015, the Park Board considered the request. (See attached minutes.) There was no clear consensus from the Park Board or the Planning Commission in regard to the lot split, a sale of land to the Burgers, or a setback variance for the addition. The Park Board seemed to favor a variance process; however, the several members of the Planning Commission were reluctant to grant a variance. In regard to the sale of property, some believed a sale to be reasonable; however, there was some reservation in regard to setting a precedent for similar requests. Both the Planning Commission and Park Board wanted to see the existing structures that are located on city property removed under any scenario. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes from the July 22, 2015 Edina Planning Commission meeting • Minutes from the July 14, 2015 Park Board meeting • Planning Commission Memo, July 22, 2015 • Park Board memo dated July 14, 2015 • Proposed Land Purchase Area submitted by the applicant. Acting -chair Carr noted that a number of residents expre ed concerns with lighting, noise pollution, sc eening, landscaping and drainage and ked the applicant(s) to address those conchrns. Ms. McCloud with grapxlcs explained the grade of tVA parking areas, landscaping plans and screening. Ms. McCfXd did note the site is r#her shady; however, the vegetation proposed should thrive in tk environment. h The discussion ensued with Com issioners noting the importance of landscape - landscaping should minimize impact o Commissioners suggested that the ch the buffering. Commissioners also nc be moved and that during constructio R- I residential construction maintena Motion espec e ressing support for the revised plans; rralong the east boundary line (this Zing lot from the next door neighbor). nd neighbor to the east work together on ey believe the construction driveway should Surch should comply with aspects of the plan` Commissioner Olsen movedFto recommend CoAditional Use Permit approval with Variances b ed on staff findings an subject to staff conditions with the additional follow g conditions: a) Constr tion must follow the Residential Constructio Maintenance Plan; and b) Relocate temporary construction driveway. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Lot. Division. Liz and Tony Burger. 6629 West Shored Drive, Edina, MN ��Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Burgers purchased the home at 6629 West Shore Drive in June of 2004. The Burgers state that at the time of purchase they were aware that there was a city park between their property and Lake Cornelia. They state, however, that they were not aware that the park property is a just four feet from the Northwest corner the house. When the Burgers purchased the house, they had three reconstruction goals for the home: remove the existing pool, redo the existing basement and main level of the house; and expand upward via a second story and create a walkout towards the lake Teague noted the first two phases of construction are complete and the owners wish to complete phase three. In 2008, the Burgers received a variance to build the addition. 7 (le W., /eli��, However, The economy took a down turn, and the never built the addition, therefore, the variance expired. The house is non -conforming and with the current property_line, the owners have no way of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. Even with a variance, the construction would require encroachment into the park land. Teague explained that when the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and private property. Without removal of the hill, the owners cannot do a walk out from the basement, without encroaching into the park land. All of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward the lake. The homeowners state that they are simply asking for the same right as the neighbors. The hill is unnatural and unnecessary since the pool has been removed. The homeowners also want to expand their deck. Eight out of the nine houses on the park have large decks that provide views of the lake. The Burgers are the only exception. Although the owners did not add the second story addition that received the variance, they did complete work on the main level of the house which reduced the number of bedrooms and added structures to support the future 2nd story. The house does not work for their family but have no way to expand it due to the location of the park lot line. The applicant is therefore requesting a land trade, so that they may build the addition without the need for variance or encroachment into the park. This would potentially allow the property owner to complete the project and not diminish or reduce the total acreage for the Edina public park land. The homeowners have worked with a surveyor who has provided a possible solution. In this proposal, the City and property owner would exchange the same square footage of property and allow the desired home renovation project. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Lot Line Adjustment at 6629 West Shore Drive subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The existing and proposed structure would meet building setback requirements. 3. Current encroachments into City property would be removed. Approval is also subject to the following condition: 1. All existing structures must be removed from the city property and the area seeded prior to staff filing the resolution for lot line adjustment that legally creates the new lots. Teague asked Commissioners to note that before them is a new proposal from the applicants to purchase land from the City. Teague said at this time the lot division is before them; however, the Commission can discuss other options. Appearing for the Applicant Liz and Tony Burger, applicants and property owners. Discussion Acting -Chair Carr questioned if the Commission approves the requested "lot line adjustment" would approval prohibit City access to the lake. Planner Teague responded if the lot line adjustment was approved the City would continue to be able to access the lake. Commissioner Hobbs noted that in his opinion one way or another the City should get this issued cleared up. He said in appears to him the house is very close or over the line already. Teague agreed this needs to be cleared up; however, the house is on the subject lot, but very close. Commissioner Strauss pointed out the Burger's also requested an option to buy the property; adding if the Commission and Council would entertain a land sale he could not support that. Continuing, Strauss pointed out if the Burgers were to purchase City park property what would prevent other property owners along the lake from requesting the same. Planner Teague stated he agrees the City typically does not sell park land or any City land; however the Council wanted the Commissions opinion on the "land swap". Teague noted purchasing the land was a recent request. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion with the land swap the City does not come out ahead. She added the play structure should be removed regardless, and that her preference would be purchase of the property; reiterating the land swap in her opinion does not benefit the City. Commissioner Nemerov said he agrees with Commissioner Hobbs; this needs to be cleared up as soon as possible. The land sale raises complicated issues of valuation. With the "swap" the configuration is very awkward, and as mentioned by Commissioner Strauss with the sale; what would prevent other land owners around the lake from requesting the same. Concluding, Nemerov said he also agrees that regardless of what the Council decides the play area needs to be removed. Commissioner Thorsen stated in his opinion the land swap works best. He added it may look messy but he doesn't want the City to get into the habit of selling off pieces of parkland. Acting -Chair Carr said in her opinion there are disadvantages in both the "land swap" and purchase. Carr pointed out there is another option available to the Burger's and that would be to go through the variance process. Carr stated she favors that option. A discussion ensued on the three options presented to the Commission. 1) lot line adjustment (as submitted); 2) land sale (as suggested by the Burgers); and 3) variance. Commissioners indicated the following: Acting -Chair Carr — stated she supports the variance option first, then sale and lastly lot line adjustment. Commissioner Forrest; indicated she cannot support the variance option or swap. Commissioner Hobbs; stated he cannot support the variance option and cannot support the lot line adjustment because in his opinion the rearrangement is awkward. Hobbs stated he could support sale of the land. Commissioner Strauss reiterated he was against the sale of park land. Commissioner Olsen indicated she could support the sale of the land; however, she said she can't support a variance. Commissioner Nemerov stated he leans to the City selling the piece of land. Nemerov reiterated the land swap creates an awkward configuration. The discussion continued with Commissioners indicating that the Council is the body that needs to make the decision on the land sale presented by the Burgers. Acting -Chair Carr thanked the Burgers, adding it appears the Commission is split on how to proceed with the request, adding the Commission comments would be forwarded to the City Council for their review and action. VIII. CORRESPOI+tDENCE AND PETITIONS Acting Chair Carr acknodged back of packet mater' s. IX. CHAIR AND COMMIS ON COMMEt S Commissioner Olsen indicated thateeti before the City Council is scheduled for August 5`h to approve continuation oft rance Southdale Work Group process Stage 2. She indicated if the Council grants ahead" the "Group" will attempt to meet the following Monday at the Cham . Commissioner Nemerov infor ed Commissioner a toured the new emergency facility at Fairview South dalep ospital and said the sig ackage approved worked great. X. STAFF COM Planner Teague reported that Bank of America took the feedbaNrom the Commission and will return with a four sided building when they return for formal application. 10 o�9e Cn PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 22, 2015 VII.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange (lot line adjustment) between the City of Edina and Liz and Tony Burger, the property owners at 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina. (See property location on pages Al -A3.) Background The Burgers purchased the home at 6629 West Shore Drive in June of 2004. The Burgers state that at the time of purchase they were aware that there was a city park between their property and Lake Cornelia. They state, however, that they were not aware that the park property is a just four feet from the Northwest corner the house. When the Burgers purchased the house, they had three reconstruction goals for the home: 1. Remove the existing pool 2. Redo the existing basement and main level of the house 3. Expand upward via a second story and create a walkout towards the lake The first two phases of construction are complete and the owners wish to complete phase three. In 2008, the Burgers received a variance to build the addition. However, The economy took a down turn, and the never built the addition, therefore, the variance expired. The house is non -conforming and with the current property line, the owners have no way of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. Even with a variance, the construction would require encroachment into the park land. When the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and private property. Without removal of the hill, the owners cannot do a walk out from the basement, without encroaching into the park land. All of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward the lake. The homeowners state that they are simply asking for the same right as the neighbors. The hill is unnatural and unnecessary since the pool has been removed. The homeowners also want to expand their deck. Eight out of the nine houses on the park have large decks that provide views of the lake. The Burgers are the only exception. Although the owners did not add the second story addition that received the variance, they did complete work on the main level of the house which reduced the number of bedrooms and added structures to support the future 2nd story. The house does not work for their family but have no way to expand it due to the location of the park lot line. The applicant is therefore requesting a land trade, so that they may build. the addition without the need for variance or encroachment into the park. This would potentially allow the property owner to complete the project and not diminish or reduce the total acreage for the Edina public park land. The homeowners have worked with a surveyor who has provided a possible solution. In this proposal, the City and property owner would exchange the same square footage of property and allow the desired home renovation project. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Primary Issue Low-density residential R-1, Single-family residential • Is the proposed lot line adjustment reasonable? Yes. The resulting lot line shift does not create an additional lot. The division is an even swap of land between the City and the applicant. As demonstrated in the attached pages A2 -A3, there is an existing play structure area that that currently encroaches on City property. With the lot line adjustment it would encroach even further. As a condition of approval, the structures should be removed and the area seeded with grass. The Council also requested that the Edina Park Board provide review and comment. The Park Board reviewed the request on July 14th and provided some of the following comments: ➢ Consider a smaller swap of land. ➢ Consider simply selling a portion of the City property. Money's could then be invested into improvements in the land. ➢ Consider a variance. ➢ Removal of the play structure from City property. ➢ Consideration was given to requiring a public access to West Shore Drive, however, ultimately there was not support by the Board, the applicant or the closest neighbor. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Line Adjustment at 6629 West Shore Drive." Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The existing and proposed structure would meet building setback requirements. 3. Current encroachments into City property would be removed. Approval is subject to the following condition: All existing structures must be removed from the city property and the area seeded prior to staff filing the resolution for lot line adjustment that legally creates the new lots. N /+ 1 AQ LAN () k� LAIJO I RADE A EA6 20 40 60TCH OOR FEET ER# (V ;CALF IN EXITSTWII.,G, C RET WA DE j?rrA ,03� = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. NG v o 0 9913-0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 7. DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE TI 6 10 :)H = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG 6 . ins j r .5 - I HL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE ;233 15.4' 4 =E = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION `7-9-47' EXIST. CONC STAR --E — TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION% N 0 FE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION LFE=865.7 r s 4 - 20. -------- eg" 1 5 GFE=866.0 5 12J52 SFI EXISTING -- - ---------w HOUSE LU 866.0 ly, 2 XISTING RETAINW FFE=875.3 ROUSE (866. (86 5) mi 7. 5 16 569 10 SIDE SBL !ETA1AWG "WA 7 LL , A N 8 w 98.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN 1ST ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. STRUCTURE HARDCOVER .0 EXISTING ADDRESS — 6629 WEST SHORE DF HOUSE = 3180 SF PID#30-028-24-31-0044 DECK = 300 SIF k3 —ALHC-150 SF TOTAL 3330 SF / 8.67o LOT AREA = 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC X 25% - 9650 5" ''C ALLOWED PROPOSED sports. She no she has a concern on this location as it does not have restrooms or water and requested staff re rches other areas. Chair Gieseke stated t St. Cloud courts look very nice and asked if we Id have wind screens like St. Cloud has around the urts. Ms. Kattreh replied that is something; at would be included in the quotations and discuss with%e donor. Member McCormick noted the Kattreh stated that will be disci Member Jones stated the board is very aA construction 100% and it fits well within tl amenities and these courts will fit well for include maintenance. are a distance away,*d asked about porta-potties. Ms. of s type of donation as they are financing the an. The senior citizens have been requesting Kattreh added she will make sure budgets will VI.B. Park Board Retreat — Tuesday ug. I S:30 — 9:30 p.m. at Centennial Lakes Park Member McCormick informed the Par and that air Gieseke and herself have been planning the Park Board retreat which will re ac a regular Aug. I Park Board meeting. This retreat will take place at the Hughes Pavilion at Ce nnial Lakes Park. It scheduled to run from 5:30 to 9:30 p.m. and dinner will be provided. She ad to dress casually becau they will be playing bocce at the croquet and lawn games area at Cen ial Lakes Park. Membe/Gro—Jacobsoln, ked ' the pre -work needs to be completed McCorre-work is for member preparation only The Med to be on the following groups: cobson, Nelson, Strother nes, Good, Chowdhury reene, Cella, Colwell Gieseke stated he would like a picture taken at the retreat. to the retreat. Member will not be collected. 14(A I OF �c VI.C. Proposed Land Exchange — 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina Ms. Kattreh indicated the City Council has requested that the Park Board provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange between the City of Edina and Liz and Tony Burger, the property owners at 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina. The Planning Commission will also be reviewing this proposal at the July 22 Planning Commission meeting. Tony and Liz Burger were present at the meeting. Ms. Kattreh explained the situation to the Park Board. Ed Hayward, 6625 W. Shore Dr., indicated he is the neighbor to the north and stated they are not happy about the proposed public access running along the side of his property. It seems like a strange configuration for a land swap and he would rather see a variance. He added there is another access to the park that can be used. He pointed out he is not opposed to the concept of the land exchange. Member Good asked Mr. Hayward if there is a lot of activity in the park behind the houses and Mr. Hayward stated there generally is not much activity except for the Fourth of July fireworks. Member Jones asked if the access was not right on property line and moved onto the Burger property would that be better. Mr. Hayward stated that does not seem very feasible and noted mowing would be a concern and awkward. '4elz 16r!� Ms. Kattreh stated the Burgers do have the option of applying for a variance with the Planning Commission. Member Good asked if there was an option of having the city sell a piece of land to the Burgers instead of a swap. Ms. Kattreh stated it has not been a popular option historically with the Park Board or with the City Council as they do not want to sell parkland. Chair Gieseke stated in this case the city may benefit from selling some of the park land as it would be a win for the city. Member Nelson asked if there is another area that could be considered in the swap. Ms. Kattreh stated this portion was brought to staff by the Burgers. She noted they could start over and look at all options again. Mr. Burger indicated the surveyor came up with the line drawing and noted they wanted to keep the park continuous. He commented it is not a highly used park except for the Fourth of July. Member Greene asked Mr. Burger if he would be interested in purchasing a piece of park land to which Mr. Burger replied he would. Member Greene suggested the discussion end right now and staff goes back to determine a fair selling price and have Mr. Burger come back with a revised plan. Member Jones asked how many times a request has been made to purchase park land and Ms. Kattreh stated it's happened approximately four times in four years. Member Jones asked if a precedent would be set and Ms. Kattreh stated she has heard from council and the city does not have a strong interest in selling park property. Other neighbors may want the same thing; a little more park land to add to their property. Member Strother suggested a variance may be more suitable to eliminate people walking very closely to the homes when entering the park. Ms. Burger stated that piece of land is called a breezeway. It's not supposed to be a stopping place for people entering the park. Mr. Burger stated since he has lived there approximately six to seven people have walked through that area. Member Jones asked if the property floods and Mr. Burger stated they have had some flooding in the garage; the park land does not flood. Member Jones asked if there is a path along the lake to which it was noted there is an open area off of 66th Street. Mr. Burger informed the Park Board they mow and irrigate the area and that the city stops mowing at the Hayward's property line. Member Jones asked if this would be an appropriate place for a nature path. Ms. Kattreh stated she is not aware that that option has ever been explored and added she does not want a misaligned lot line. Member McCormick asked if Mr. Burger if he was ok with the repositioning of the play structure. Mr. Burger stated the play structure is already on park property and he would have no problem moving it. Ms. Kattreh stated staffs recommendation was difficult due to precedence, gaining access for the city, and the way the property line is configured it is challenging. It is neither hurting the city nor providing a benefit. Ms. Kattreh pointed out she needs to report back to the Planning Commission and would like to get a consensus from the Park Board. Member Nelson indicated she would prefer going with the variance Member Jones indicated she can appreciate the situation but does not want to set a precedent and is against selling park land. She does not agree with the proposed swap with creating a jagged lot line to the east and that connectivity to West Shore Drive would be her preference. She would like to refer to a guiding principle and if a variance is given a pathway should be created from Laguna Drive to 66th Street either by land swap or a variance. Member Jacobson indicated this is a grey area whether it is a park or not because if it is truly parkland the residents should have access. She does not care for the land swap and would prefer a sale but she does not feel it is up to the Park Board to decide that. She would favor selling the land to the Burgers and create access from Laguna Drive. She added the variance process would serve well. Member Greene indicated he is in favor of the variance. Chair Gieseke indicated he is in favor of the variance and is not in favor of a land swap as there are many issues with it; the neighbors would not appreciate it and it would set a precedent. He noted a minimal land sale would be an option and would make the access at Laguna better. Member Cella indicated this isn't really something the Park Board should approve. She is in favor of making all park land accessible to residents and stated this is more a Planning Commission matter to decide if a variance is to be granted. Member Strother indicated she has concerns with a variance and is concerned this park with a lake is not accessible to residents. She does not think a variance would benefit the. city. She stated she does not know the history of swaps and/or sales in the past but if the money from the sale could be used to improve access she would be in favor of that. Member McCormick indicated this is a unique situation and does not make a lot of sense. She feels the Burgers should determine how much park land would be needed to make their plan a reality and have the city look at a possible sale. She would be in favor of a variance or make the swap without the jagged lines. Member Good indicated if the Burgers have an interest in pursuing a variance they should do so and it is not the expertise of the Park Board. He would not be in favor of the swap as it is proposed. He would be in favor of a sale. Student Member Colwell indicated Student Member Asef and himself would be in favor of selling the park land. He believes a trail could be put in without infringing on the homeowner's property and that a partial swap might be possible. Student Member Chowdhury indicated he does not see what the park land would be used for in the future and does not think a precedent would be set. Chair Gieseke stated he likes the idea of a much smaller land swap because it is less obtrusive with compensation for the city. VII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENT Member Jones stated she would like to comment on what is going on with Grandview. She indicated the latest round of proposals have a fairly large community area bringing the senior center and art center facilities at Grandview. The city will work on the design of that building. She commented after To: Park Board From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: July 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Land Exchange — 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina W19 a Agenda Item M VI.C. Action ❑ Discussion Information ❑ Action Requested: Provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange at 6629 West Shore Drive. Information / Background: The City Council has requested that the Park Board provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange between the City of Edina and Liz and Tony Burger, the property owners at 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina. The Planning Commission will also be reviewing this proposal at the July 22 Planning Commission meeting. • The Burgers purchased the home at 6629 West Shore Drive in June of 2004. The. Burgers state that at the time of purchase they were aware that there was a city park between their property and Lake Cornelia. They state, however, that they were not aware that the park property is just four feet from the northwest corner the house. When the Burgers purchased the house, they had three reconstruction goals for the home: 1. Remove the existing pool 2. Redo the existing basement and main level of the house 3. Expand upward via a second story and create a walkout towards the lake The first two phases of construction are complete and the owners wish to complete phase three. In 2008 the owners applied for and were granted variances to build the addition. The economy went into a financial crisis and home loans were unavailable for the work they wanted to do. Because the applicant never picked up a building permit to build the addition, the variance expired. The house is already non -conforming and with the current property line, the owners have no way of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. When the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and private property. Without removal of the hill, the owners cannot do a walk out from the basement, without encroaching into the park land. All of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward the lake. The homeowners state that they are simply asking for the same right as the neighbors. The hill is unnatural and unnecessary since the pool has been removed. �J City of Edina - 4801 W. 50d01h St - Edina, MN 555424,y� REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 2 The homeowners also want to expand their deck. Eight out of the nine houses on the park have large decks that provide views of the lake. The Burgers are the only exception. When the permit and variance were granted in 2008, although the owners couldn't afford to add the second story, they completed work on the main level of the house which reduced the number of bedrooms and added structures to support the future second story. The house does not work for their family, but they have no way to expand it. The applicant.is, therefore, requesting a land trade, so that they may build the addition without the need for variance or encroachment into the park. This would potentially allow the property owner to complete the project and not diminish or reduce Edina public park land. The homeowners have worked with a surveyor who has provided a possible solution. In this proposal, the city and property owner would exchange the same square footage of property and allow the desired home renovation project. If the Park Board is supportive of the land trade, staff would recommend that the existing play structure be removed from the park property and the area be seeded with grass (see the attached maps which show the play structure currently encroaches into city property). The Park Board is also asked to consider a requirement to obtain the park land in a strip of land down to West Shore Drive to provide public access into the publicly -owned land. Attachments: A. Site Map B. Subject Property C. Land Exchange Site Map D. Land Survey LAKE CORNEWA Gl 0 20 40 60 �'�•�, _ µf �+ Jr' PROPOSED~ADDITIQNS SCALE IN FEET �,— MATCH EYI$TING ,A'S = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. FLOOR ELE.I%A'T/QNS tin X(99H-0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION / ra" ACIWN ..•.• = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE �! r� l \1' I l ~• COH = CANT14EVEREU OVERHANG r ` 233,79 �' I J t• ="'LN `\• ' OHL s OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE / 28'r C �1 Df. . N��'k�'Q , �'•� ''' GFE y GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION' (ap- 9""'�•^ u 7qs 1>,5 \ TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION 75.4 r IO=�;:...--" "� 43 " c DE!!'K - LFE ++ LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATIONd, I/' •- .. j."-''-�-_-_ - , LFF=,'rA? e 'CHI ...._- •r J I � „ I n EXISTING HOUSE *.o Nfi'"• EXISTING •1 /tel F II %( - /,,, ..b ,.._•pri Zco aap I I o HOUSE ! ,� .t I Iq 1 i _ ('• I. j6�Yy \ 2 • 1 Z 1 1- `��L'`. �W 4.L zqT rt:=!S'f!xJ ql V. 10 \\ •`I \\,� -RE MWINO W ALL ' - N 67 02'23„ _I •,'t , •�\ `'•.,� / / �. �` _ w 9&00, / \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN IST STRUCTURE HARDCOVER ADDITION, HENNEPIN 'CO., MN-. ,N , . •''�.�'J EXISTING ADDRESS - 6629 WEST SHORE DRIVE HOUSE . 3180 SF PID#3D-028-24-31-0044 ✓ DECK, = 300 SF 1 -ALHC -150 SF y \ /+.�✓ / TOTAL = 3330 SF / 8.6% ' LOT AREA = 36600 SF/ 0.69 AC atv' --}' /I \y/ PROPOSED X 25% = 9650 SF HC ALLOWED PORCH = 231 SF DECK = 300 SF DUE TO SNOW COVER SOME SURFACE Q l '` ._ R� -AL.HC - 150 SF STRUCTURES ARE SHOWN APPROXIMATE TOTAL +! 537 SF / 7.4T TOTAL LWISTINC AND SURVEY IS ET TO CHANGE PER • PROPOSED s 3711 SF / 9.69 TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION �NG SEVERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ,(EXIST/NO DECK TO BE REMOKED) ELEVATIONS WITH PROPOSED PLANS - n VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY CITY OF EDINA PLANNING # B-07-49 IN RE PETITION OF: 6629 West Shore Drive, an 8.57 foot and a 4 foot side yard setback variance and a 9.6 foot rear yard setback variance For a Variance under Ordinance No.'s 850, 815,1046, and 460 The above entitled Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Edina at a regular (syeoial) meeting thereof has duly considered the above petition and after hearing, and examining all of the evidence and the file herein does hereby: FIND AS FACT: 1. Petition Filed: 2. Fee Paid: 3. Notice Mailed: November 19, 2007 $200.00 November 26, 2007 4. The Proposed Variance Would: A. Relieve and undue hardship B. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to the other property in the vicinity of the zoning district. C. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. D. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Conclusions: YES NO FA X X 0 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The variance should tnet) be granted as requested. PLANNING # B-07-49 3. Conditions to the granting of said variance: Subject to the plans presented. 4. This Order shall be effective December 6, 2007 , however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall have commenced within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By: ® �� Chairperson Dated: December 6, 2007 Order Mailed to Petitioner December 7, 2007 Time to appeal expires December 16, 2007 (Notice of Appeal shall prevent the issuance of a building permit until said Appeal has been determined.) 9j == o%�el�l1�` MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTE SUMMARY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6,2007,5:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50'" STREET Rose -Mary Utne, Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Mary Vasaly and Ed Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 4, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. B-07-49 NEW BUSINESS: Anthony and Elizabeth Burger 6629 West Shore Drive Request: 8.57' side yard setback variance and a 4' side yard setback variance for deck and a 9.6' rear yard setback variance for a porch Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached tuck -under three car garage located on the east side of West Shore Drive. The property is large, odd shaped, deep lot that backs up to park property adjacent to Lake Cornelia. The park property is unimproved and does not have direct public access. All of the lots along the east side of Lake Cornelia and north of Laguna have public property along Lake Cornelia beyond their rear lot lines. Visually it looks as if the residential lots extend down to the lake; however, they all have public property adjacent and along Lake Cornelia. All of the homes along West shore drive are located closer to the street than the subject.home. Review of the site survey reveals that the subject home was built at the far eastern end of the lot and with substandard setbacks. The �,�/Qil%�i G��ll/•Clvl. fJO•Q/l�iL//�/ll�� ���0��� north side yard setback is 5 ft from the side lot line and the rear, (east), setback is 20 ft. The required side yard setback is 10 ft plus more must be added given wall height and 25 ft for the rear yard setback. Visually it appears that there is plenty of lot area around the north and east sides of the home, however, the house is actually right up against park property. The owners are proposing a %2 story addition to their existing home, a porch addition to the lower level and deck rebuild on the main level. The additions will be part of a dramatic transformation of the home. The plan requires an 8.25 ft side yard setback variance to add a second story given the existing nonconforming, north side yard setback and given the added height. The second floor will not bring the north building wall any closer to the side yard than the existing side wall. The proposed porch and second story addition requires a variance from the 25 ft rear yard setback. The home is currently 20 ft from the rear lot line and is nonconforming. The second floor addition would maintain the existing nonconforming 20 ft rear yard setback. The proposed porch is an expansion of the building footprint with a 9.6 ft encroachment proposed into the rear yard setback. The new deck on the main level will replace an existing deck, however, would be closer to the side lot tine than the existing deck. The new deck will allow a walkway connection to the open porch remodeled above the garage. The deck is proposed to be approximately 1 ft from the north side lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new additions maintain the current required setback. The subject home is already nonconforming with most improvements requiring a variance from the current code. The homeowners have indicated that the original house was built with setbacks allowed to be less than current standards and that the granting of variances would correct extraordinary conditions not created by the applicant. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of the existing home relative to the required setbacks. b. The existing home was designed at an angle to the lot lines and with nonconforming setbacks which allows for impressive views, but has. severely limited the expansion potential of the structure. c. The variances would allow for the original structure to remain with limited impact on existing setback. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The encroachment would be adjacent to vacant property held by the City of Edina that would remain as a buffer around the lot. b. The improvements would follow the architecture of the home, would be similar to improvements down the block and should have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setbacks and inability to relocate the improvements. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated November 16, 2007. 2) The variance will expire on December 6, 2008, unless the city has Issued; a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 3) Subject to the restrictions as requested by John Keprios - Park and Recreation Director in a memorandum date November 21, 2007 and attached for reference. The proponent, Mr. and Mrs. Burger were present. Mr. Scott Durand, architect and Mr. Gordon Johnson attorney were also present. Member Fischer referred to the survey and questioned if any structures are located on city property. Ms. Aaker responded there is a play system and driveway that are partially located on city property. Ms. Aaker said this isn't really a problem, pointing out the driveway will be relocated. Member Staunton questioned how this house ever got to be located where it is. Ms. Aaker explained the original property was very large and the lots were developed then platted, which created non -conforming structure(s). Ms. Aaker stated this house is in a very unusual location based on the size of the lot. Member Utne told Board Members this is her neighborhood, adding the original owner of this house also developed and constructed the 6 other adjacent homes. Member Utne explained the original plat contained only two lots, adding the original "homestead" also contained a small golf course and Ball Park, the subject house. was constructed and after construction the property was divided up. Mr. Durand, told the Board this property was very carefully reviewed during the design process, adding there is plenty of space on this lot, it's large, but because of the house placement any addition or changes to the house creates the necessity to seek variances. Continuing, Mr. Durand added he honestly doesn't know why the existing house was constructed in this location, maybe to take better advantage of views, reiterating no one really knows the reasoning behind the present house placement. Mr. Durand -said he believes in this instance a hardship really exists, nothing can be done to this house without variances. Mr. Durand noted the house isn't that visible from West Shore Drive, and if the City wants the property owners to remove the existing sand box and swing -set they will. Mr. Johnson told the Board Mr. and Mrs. Burger agree to the conditions laid out 3 in the staff report. A brief discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that this lot is very unique in Edina, acknowledging there is a clear hardship present due to the unusual placement of the house. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. MEMO ,9ZNA' �l City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 4, �"1' ow e Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com H p .,CID . Date: January 27, 2016 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Signs in the PID Zoning District. Children's Minnesota is planning to move their corporate campus to 5901 Lincoln Drive in Edina. The existing building would be home to 750 Children's Minnesota employees. The property is zoned PID, Planned Industrial District. Offices are an allowed use in all PID Zoning Districts. Edina's sign ordinance allows industrially zoned property one sign per building. Property that is zoned POD, Planned Office District is allowed one wall sign per building and one free standing sign per street front. (See page 2 of this staff memo for a comparison of the signage allowed in the two districts.) Children's would like to have a second sign on the property to assist with way finding due the size of their site. To accommodate their request, staff recommended that they apply for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, rather than pursuing a variance, so that property zoned Office and Industrial have the same signage requirements. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A I -A6a.) Within Edina, a large number of office buildings are located in the PID Zoning District. See the attached map on page A14, which shows the existing office buildings in the industrial district. While this map demonstrates buildings that are purely office, many others include a combination of office and warehouse. For industrial property that is located on a corner or even one that has three street frontages; they are allowed only one sign on the whole property. While property zoned office is allowed one sign per street frontage. (See attached examples on pages A7 -A 12.) Staff has heard numerous complaints from industrial property owners and tenants over the years that wanted to add signage to their site but were unable to, due to these restrictions. One of the bigger concerns that we have heard is in regard to way finding. The Planning Commission issued a variance this past summer to allow a second sign for a vet clinic at 7701 Cahill Road, which is zoned PID. One of the findings in that instance was to assist with way finding to the site. (See pages A 13-A 14.) Because of the complaints heard over the years, and the variance that was recently granted, staff recommended the applicant pursue the Ordinance Amendment rather than a Variance. The proposed Ordinance Amendment would be equitable for all uses in the PID and POD districts and would help with way finding to all businesses in the PID District. Page 2 is a signage comparison of the PID and POD Districts City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO w9iA,:j o e Sec. 36-171 S. - Regional Medical District and Planned Office District. (a) Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in the regional medical district and planned office district: (b) Special provisions. In the Regional Medical District only, one wall sign for each accessory retail use is permitted. Each permitted sign must be attached to the ground floor level and may not exceed 15 percent of the ground floor wall area of the accessory use. Sec. 36-1716. - Planned Industrial District. (a) Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in the planned industrial district: ype Maximum Number Maximum Area IMaximum Height Building identification of Building for Building Maximum Use Identification Identification Height Signs Signs One wall sign per building frontage 86 square feet total between the two signs, Buildings four and one freestanding sign per ith no individual sign being greater than 50 8 feet stories or less frontage square feet Building moreOne wall sign per building per 120 square feet total between the two signs, than four rontage and one freestanding sign ith no individual sign being greater than 80 8 feet stories per frontage square feet (b) Special provisions. In the Regional Medical District only, one wall sign for each accessory retail use is permitted. Each permitted sign must be attached to the ground floor level and may not exceed 15 percent of the ground floor wall area of the accessory use. Sec. 36-1716. - Planned Industrial District. (a) Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in the planned industrial district: ype IMaximum Number IMaximum Area IMaximum Height Building identification 10ne per building 180 square feet 18 feet (b) Special provisions. In multitenant buildings only, one wall sign is permitted for each tenant having a private entry. The maximum sign area of each sign is 24 square feet. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2016-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGNS IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 36-1716. Planned Industrial District Signage Standards are amended to be consistent with the Planned Office District Standards as follows: Sec. 36-1715. - Regional Medical District and Planned Office District. (a) Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in the regional medical district and planned office district: (b) Special provisions. In the Regional Medical District only, one wall sign for each accessory retail use is permitted. Each permitted sign must be attached to the ground floor level and may not exceed 15 percent of the ground floor wall area of the accessory use. Sec. 36-1716. - Planned Industrial District. (a) Permitted sians. The following signs are permitted in the planned industrial district: Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Type of Building for Building Maximum Use Identification Identification Height Signs Signs Buildings four One wall sign per building 86 square feet total between the two 8 feet Buildings four frontage and one freestanding signs, with no individual sign being 8 feet stories or less sign per frontage greater than 50 square feet Building more One wall sign per building per 120 square feet total between the 8 feet than four frontage and one freestanding two signs, with no individual sign 8 feet stories sign per frontage being greater than 80 square feet (b) Special provisions. In the Regional Medical District only, one wall sign for each accessory retail use is permitted. Each permitted sign must be attached to the ground floor level and may not exceed 15 percent of the ground floor wall area of the accessory use. Sec. 36-1716. - Planned Industrial District. (a) Permitted sians. The following signs are permitted in the planned industrial district: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Maximum Type Maximum Number Maximum Area Height One wall sign per building 86 square feet total between the Buildings four frontage and one freestanding two signs, with no individual sign 8 feet stories or less sign per frontage being greater than 50 square feet One wall sign per building per 120 square feet total between the Building more than frontage and one freestanding two signs, with no individual sign 8 feet four stories sign per frontage being greater than 80 square feet Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX (b) Special provisions. In multitenant buildings only, one wall sign is permitted for each tenant having a private entry. The maximum sign area of each sign is 24 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXX Added text — XXXX IIIIIIIt WAKEFIELD NorthMarq Cary Teague Planning Department The City of Edina 4801 W. 50'' Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for 5901 Lincoln Drive Dear Cary, 3500 American Blvd 1N Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55431 Tel +1 952 831 1000 cushwakenm.com As part of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application, please see below as to why this amendment is being requested. The Lincoln Drive property is currently zoned PID, which is inconsistent with the current use of the property. The signage available for a PID zoning is more restrictive than a POD, which is more consistent with the function that Children's is locating to the northern portion of the property. Children's will be relocating 750 employees to this facility, which will house all of their administrative functions that do not need to be located on a hospital campus. Children's has adjusted their signage to conform to the POPD zoning, as part of this application, as opposed to seeking a variance. Sincerely, t en H. Brown, CC Executive Director Healthcare Advisory Group A( Monument Qty: 1(2 faces) 68" 51 /2" 181/4" 121/4" 1441/8" 108 5/8" Any and all artwork provided on this page is the property of Fourth Dimension CNC and is protected by all applicable copyright laws and can only be used by permission from Fouth Dimension CNC. 9 3/8" 13.77 sq ft F— 1 .36 sq IT Foc.rrth � ; Dirner►sion F 601/4" 102" IDS, Remove Existing. Double Face Sign Panels N .125"aluminum faces painted PMS 280 Dark Blue with water -jet cut copy backed with 7328 white acrylic ,�O White LED lighting behind "Children's MINNESOTA" ph: 651.481.9036 fx: 651.481.0613 3M opaque 220-10 White vinyl copy for"Business Campus" �S, 1209 West County Road C, Suite 100 Arden Hills, MN 55112 www.fourthdimensioncnc.com CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE ms FILE NAME CUSTOMER CITY DRAWING/REVISION REVISION DATE SALES ( Childrens - Eagan (\Childrens Eagan Q 5 \ 12.11.15 Q Jim Davis 1 PROJECT ADDRESS STATE ORIG. DATE SCALE DESIGN Exterior Signage t,. k MN ` 12.3.15 ` NTS - In proportion ` Corrine 11° p ph: 651.481.9036 fx:651.481.0613 e 1209 West County Road C, Suite 100 Any and all artwork provided on this page Is the property of Fourth Dimension CNC and Is protected by all applicable copyright laws and can only be used by permission from Fouth Dimension CNC. �N" 0 4 205 Arden Hills, MN 55112 '714we h oa wr+NA�" www.fourthdimensioncnc.com CUSTOMER APPROVAL FILE NAME CUSTOMER CITY DRAWING/REVISION DATE SALES r Childrens - Eagan <Childrens < Eagan ` 6 (REVISION \ 12.15.15 ) Q Jim Davis PROJECT ADDRESS STATE ORIG. DATE SCALE DESIGN `Exterior Signage MN 11.11.15 � NTS - In proportion Corrine i 9 Flat Cut Address Qty:1 601 /8" Any and all artwork provided on this page is the property of Fourth Dimension CNC and Is protected by all applicable copyright laws and can only be used by permission from Fourth Dimension CNC. l 0 n n 3D 0 we 101, ZIP 0 1/4" 1/4" aluminum letters painted Asko Noble Satin White Flush stud mount with silastic silicone adhesive Include pattern I ph: 651.481.9036 fx:651.481.0613 e 1209 West County Road C, Suite 100 Arden Hills, MN 55112 7lwb—siln+dMYr" www.fourthdimensioncnc.com CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE FILE NAME CUSTOMER CITY DRAWING/REVISION REVISION DATE SALES Childrens - Eagan �Childrens Eagan 6 12.15.15 < Jim Davis ,! PROJECT ADDRESS STATE ORIG. DATE SCALEDESIGN e Exterior Signage `. l MN 11.11.15 l NTS - In proportion Corrine J Halo Lit Illuminated Letters Qty:1 _ 7" 213/8" 431 /2" 71/211 5/8" Fabricated aluminum can painted Asko Noble Satin White 3" deep "Children's" 1"deep "Business Center" 1 1/2"Aluminum spacer with 10/24 threaded rod with 2" embed Secure with Epoxy Adhesive White LED's Power Supply (remote) Acrylic backer 132" Any and all artwork provided on this page Is the property of Fourth Dimension CNC and Is protected by all applicable copyright laws and can only be used by permission from Fouth Dimension CNC. n 9, :0 -T (BT1 a a K � H H 1� 2 Q) U/�r_ 1"deep 1-3" 11/2" Final electrical connection (by electrical contrator) 39.875 SQ FT 3"deep Y Weep holes f Required by UL ph: 651.481.9036 fx: 651.481.0613MJ I i&2 e 1209 West County Road C, Suite 100 p Arden Hills, MN 55112 J� ® '►�++� �►+" www.fourthdimensioncnc.com CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE Q, FILE NAME CUSTOMERDRAWING/REVISION REVISION DATE � S IE CITY Eagan Business Campus QChildrens Eagan 2 Q 12.9.15 J Jim Davis PROJECT ADDRESS STATE ORIG. DATE SCALE DESIGN Exterior Signage MN 12.3.15 NTS - In proportion Corrine `° # I Mari �. Y, py ; �A `l 4 iL .V`_.'-# eG rovje Raw 3pu k4 —.� Far n+ od Ra lid- =� r e s r p.-{'�.> a°a .r 1 55�! tent�I ,. s Idrhuo ac �? � ,>`s,,--� + � , `y4.� i 1 '° jj i—jr=—r—�-�^ f' J'� • ` k' # .✓" ,� 2 ' r P;t4 G�� � S+P_17d..ISa iR� ,�L. y_ _ '�._ ,� �,t F2 yee_ i � #�r#d tVa• � - �- E '�r.�effx � L'an � # !r'�"G'# _ v GSaCrhe.{r'L # -'f �+�'y��! f y 'i r -..# 'Henke Terr4� - �� � _-•Y-__ � '� ?,�.:. � .'y L j' fd - _�Y I,,,.�` f �C , �. + 4 .t'LP• dt� '�--„I` u.,... 1 t klstrsyitis �atllavasi!��ti s 1 �r ia]ij ` r {" tl- ParWWOod Lane C yJi.`S,SrIGt vo i seen fu.3 v ' t + L Cn a +t its r pc .' ' e �� £ I �1 JJ ;tet , t„t s Y s k Park r 1 f 1 i �� ,,r t prcik 14vY ^t irf .Plflard h h � �" Y � C SZ y 1 r...�9h11 Parcel Map Scale: 1" = 1600 ft. N ID: 31-117-21-32-0002 ! A -T -B: --- ---- � Print Date: 1/22/2016 Owner i Market Name: I Total: Parcel 5901 State Hwy No 169 Tax Address:. Edina, MN 55436 i Total: Property Commercial -Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 21.58 acres ! Sale COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 Area: 939,910 sq ft Code: A Think'Greed1l �nq Bing Maps bpting mew Notes Type your notes here Page 1 of 1 W 70ti, St to bfng .73rd: St W if t i unvA5 L 46f- Al Page 1 of 1 7i�1 Ohms h$ �j 7171 8 �mS Bing Maps W ling maps Notes Type your notes here Page 1 of 1 A0 Lewey wo Rd - NINE MILE NOFTH 9' t 74th $4 W �9 { 76th st W W ?ft 4vd Indy r �a t r Edina At"d 1 7 5 W"",RCoipo� ERE A0 Page 1 of 1 s � �v \.4. W,54- At( Parcel Map Scale: 1" = 50 ft. N 08-116-2143-0029 A T-Bc ID: Print Date: 9/18/2015 Owner 7701 Cahill Road LIc Market Name: Total: Parcel 7701 Cahill Rd Tax Address: Edina, MN 55439 Total: Property Commercial -Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead Date: implied, Inducting fitness of any particular stead: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.62 acres Sale �1 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: 27,148 SCI ft Code:COPYRIGHT A Thlnk•Greeril k I a Cb a pt / zs'z N / f. y �p ��tR71n8 ort �4Q W �\\ 1� •� NUS! Y y >ny Q Mom ati���� 0� sod I Min, __._ . — - ____ . .— . _ . of / N Usalo �aber3s ��vra RESOLUTION NO. B-15-16 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina City Code Chapter 36 Article VIII Districts and Districts Regulations AT 7701 Cahill Road, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: y Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Jill Eversman/Edina Pet Hospital requested a variance to allow a second building identification sign and a setback variance from 20 -feet to 10 -feet. 02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Atwood Station Second Addition, Hennepin County, MN. 1.03 Edina City Code Chapter 36 allows one building identification sign not to exceed 80 square feet in area. The setback for the proposed sign is 20 -feet; however, a 10 -foot setback variance from the back face of the curb is also requested. 1.04 The applicant is proposing to; allow the installation of square foot monument sign 10 -feet back from the curb setback is required. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Chapter 36 Division II Administration authorize the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to grant variances. 1.06 On September 30, 2015, the Edina Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The Board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS. 2.01 Edina City Code Chapter 36 Division 2 Article 2 states that- the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Section; that the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan; and that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Section. "Practical CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 w F.d in a MN. unv . 952-927-8861 . Fax 952-826-0390 Difficulties" means that (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and the unique circumstance were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) 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 propefty exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS. Approve Variance 3.01 There are practical difficulties in complying with this Section: 1. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of utilities and mature trees along the south lot line that would prevent the applicant from building a larger sign to meet City Code requirements. 2. The building and site in general sits lower than the street; the building is screened by mature trees as traffic approaches the site from the east on 78th. Customers may miss the turn on Cahill, as there is no building identification along West 78th Street. 3. The two signs combined would be less than half of the square footage allowed for monument signs on the site. Section 4. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Edina Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the above-described variance, subject to the above findings. 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 August 17, 2015 • Sign plans and elevations date stamped August 17, 2015. F WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETAIL GRANDVIEW DETAIL CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL Zoning Map k� City of Edina Hennepin. County, Minnesota 8 60TH & FRANCE DETAIL 66TH & FRANCE DETAIL VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL SOUTHDALE DETAIL 6C�tce. lv� 4ht 010 REE 1p ............. .... LMJ .......... .. 0 UE 0 v ) I e Existj0Wicf \MIJ 'R" 4' - - T—�� J,yr-, Mud Lake - ----------- ---- - - -- TIT T:ESE CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL C recl, NV F 0- C -JIM, OF EDINA �9�rTA, City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com o Pi N En O Date: January 27, 2016 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Re: 2018 Edina Comprehensive Plan Update Overview Information and Background The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act requires local units of government to submit Comprehensive Plan updates every ten years with the next update scheduled for 2018. The Met Council reviews the plan amendments to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans, conformity with adopted plans of the Council and compatibility with plans of other local jurisdictions. The City of Edina's Comprehensive Plan is a public document that describes a vision for how the community wants to develop over a specified time period. Edina has always been a community that has recognized the importance of its past while preparing itself for the future. From its incorporation in 1888 as a milling area on the banks of Minnehaha Creek, Edina has evolved to be a model among municipalities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has been an innovator and leader in many ways as evidenced by being the first Minnesota Village to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1929, construction of the Country Club neighborhood in 1924, establishing and upgrading the 50th and France commercial neighborhood starting in the 1930s, opening of Southdale Center in 1956 as the nation's first fully enclosed, climate -controlled regional shopping mall, development of Centennial Lakes and Edinborough, which have become contemporary models for the integration of commercial and residential land uses. Edina has achieved these and many other successes as a community in a number of ways. One of the key attributes of the community's success has been the interest in proactively preparing itself for the future. A key element in preparing for future success ' is revising and updating Edina's Comprehensive Plan to reflect and promote Edina's vision for the future. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO,. w91N�\ A oe't4 i t4 �O Vision Edina In May of 2015, The Strategic Vision and Framework or "Vision Edina" was adopted by the City Council and was based on the previous Edina Vision 20/20 planning work adopted 15 years prior. Vision Edina is a long-term strategic framework that helps our community understand and guide the important decision-making that will impact Edina's future. The framework lays out the key issues identified by our community, which we need to be focusing our attention and resources on, over the coming years. Vision Edina serves as an important foundation for the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Council regional planning effort now identified as Thrive MSP 2040 has specific Plan Elements that need addressing in Edina's Comprehensive Plan Update. Local plans are required to include specific content areas. Those new requirements have been added by the Council since the last Comprehensive Plan Update and will need to be incorporated into Edina's 2018 Plan. Many of those required elements are already in the current Plan with those new Plan Elements 2018 highlighted after the following list of current chapters within Edina's 2008 Plan. The Met Council provides local planning handbooks for all cities and municipalities under their jurisdiction to assist in Comprehensive Plan Updates. The handbook for Edina provides specific and tailored data and information on demographics, housing, current land use quantities, future projections and more. The handbook will be an extremely useful tool, providing basic data that can be easily incorporated into the Update. In past updates, countless hours have been spent by our consultants and staff compiling this data, working through the projections and making revisions. Time and money will be saved by having this data available up front. Update The Comprehensive Plan Update is an update of the existing plan that responds to changes within the community that have occurred over the past 10 years. It is a review and restructure of portions of the existing plan to better reflect community vision. The Plan that we have is a working document that needs updating, not totally rewritten. It is the time to determine what remains valid, what needs updating, and what must be added. It should be noted that the majority of land use within the city is zoned low density single dwelling unit district and will remain as such. Some areas designated for change identified in the current Comprehensive Plan including the Grandview and Greater Southdale areas are under study and are anticipated to produce plans that will be adopted as part of the City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO Comprehensive Plan Update. The Valley View and Wooddale Small Area Plan was completed and adopted into the Comp Plan in 2015. Study areas outstanding that need consideration in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update for Small Area Plans are the 44th and France, 50th and France, Grandview and the 70th and Cahill areas. Current Contents of the Edina Comprehensive Plan: • Community Profile/Demographic Background • Land Use • Housing Element • Heritage Preservation • Transportation • Water Resource Management • Parks and Recreation • Energy and Environment • Community Services • Implementation The following is a list of existing elements in Edina's current Comp Plan and an indication of those who may be responsible for review and updating content: Community Profile/Demographics (Community DevelopmentlPlanning DepartmentlConsultant) • Review and update population, housing, employment trends and challenges and build on the Met Council's Local Planning Handbook information regarding demographics, housing, future projections, Community Profile, etc. Land Use (Planning Commission/Community Development/Planning Department/Consultant) • The Land Use section needs to be updated to reflect current land use and add all new Met Council required Plan Elements. • The updated plan needs to reflect Edina's attitude on future growth. The majority of Edina's land is fully -developed and will likely see little change. Edina needs to grow and change and shape that change to better meet the demographic changes it will experience in the coming two decades. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO A, o e'_ V� O • Specific area plans need to be included (44th and France; 50th and France; 70th and Cahill; and Grandview). • The Southdale Area Planning Framework and Grandview Transportation Study will need to be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Southdale and Grandview Plans will need to be done in conjunction with the work on the Transportation chapter. • The goals, policies, and objectives of this chapter should be reviewed and revised to speak to overall livability and the desire to have Edina be a more full service urban community offering life- cycle housing with walking, biking and transit options to a flourishing business community. Housing (Community Development/Planning Department/Consultant) • Add all new required Met Council Plan Elements. • Add text/explaination and a map of the City Council approved neighborhoods. • Summarize/include the Policy on Affordable Housing adopted by the City Council in 2015 as a response to housing demand and opportunities, stemming from a desire to foster diversity. • Include a discussion of schools and the Districts and their importance to the community and its future. Heritage Preservation (Heritage Preservation Board/Planning Department) • Update Current Conditions/Historic Context and Inventory. • Identify any new trends and challenges. • Review and update Goals and Policies. Transportation (Engineering/Transportation Commission/Consultant) • Add new required Met Council Plan Elements. • Transportation Commission findings need to be updated in the Plan. • Traffic safety changes need to be updated in the plan. • Include the 2015 Living Streets Plan in the Comp Plan Update. • Traffic changes and congested areas need to be identified. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 .r Water Resource Management (Engineering Department/Consultant) • Add all new required Met Council Plan Elements. MEMO • Storm sewer, sanitary sewer and other utilities need to be addressed given land use changes and forecasts. Review and address wastewater capacity in the Southdale area. • Flood Plain maps and areas of concern need to be updated and addressed. • Water and wellhead protection should be updated in the Plan. Parks and Recreation (Parks and Recreation Department) Update current conditions including the conversion of the Fred Richards golf course, updates to Breamar golf course and the 9 -Mile Creek/3 Rivers corridor among others. • Identify trends and challenges going forward. • Review and revise goals and polices as needed. Energy and Environment (Energy and Environment Commission) • Review and revise/update all sub -sections of the chapter including: Climate change and global warming, energy, solar protection, residential/commercial/industrial/city energy consumption, waste and air. • Add all new required Met Council Plan Elements including "Resilience" requirements. Community Services (Police and Fire, IT, Communications, Engineering and Community Developmentl Planning Departments) • Police and Fire departments will be asked to determine what they feel their needs might be in the next ten years. Much will depend on what is foreseen in the changes in demographics over the last ten years, and the demographic projections, including changes in the workforce population. The following are two new Plan Elements required by the Met Council for 2018 Comp Plan Updates. There are 8 required Plan Elements; however, 6 have already been part of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan Update will address all 8 Elements as required by the Met Council. *Resilience (Energy and Environment Commission, Health, Community Development/Planning/Consultant) • This is a new Plan Element required by the Met Council that is meant to integrate strategies into the Update for communities to be more resilient in the face of changing climate. This will more than likely be/has been integrated into the Climate Change and Global Warming sub -chapter of the Energy and Environment portion of the Comp Plan Update. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 r� MEMOw A. 0 e -7, 0 lAFf9 • Add a "Healthy Communities" or public health and wellness section to the Comp Plan Update. This will tie- in with other sections of the Plan including Park and Recreation, Transportation, etc. *Competitiveness (Economic Development, Community Development/Planning Departments, Consultant) • Create a new chapter that satisfies the Met Council's Plan Element. Identify activities that directly aim to retain, attract and grow businesses that bring wealth and prosperity to Edina Concluding Comments This is a general over -view of the required elements, areas of responsibility and tools available that are associated with Edina's 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update. Attached is a general draft timeline schedule of tasks and target dates associated with the final submission to the Metropolitan Council and City Council approval and adoption. Moving forward the Planning Commission is being asked to review the current Comprehensive Plan to affirm areas of the plan that endure and continue to guide a successful community and identify those areas of the Plan that are outdated or need change and attention given the last 10 years. What works in our current plan and what needs to be revised, changed, or addressed? The Planning Commission is asked to review and comment on the draft timeline schedule of tasks and target dates as well. We will continue discussion on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update as a reoccurring agenda item on all upcoming Planning Commission Meetings. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Comprehensive Plan Update Edina, Minnesota Project Schedule for staff and consultants DRAFT 01-14-16 Track / Task Description2016 2017 2018 .—I..I —I-. I— I R I I A I R A I I 1 I In In Ii-%IKI lnl I Ic IRA IA IRA I I I IA IC 1(l1AI II11 IS 10 IV 1D 1J ir livilm livilo J IA io v ilm v a i — i — Track 1: Project Start-up, Project Mgt and Communications Task 1: Project start-up, Task Force formation Task 2: Mtgs between Task Force, City staff and consultants Task 3: Liaison with Dist. 5 Met Council Member and Sector Rep. Track 2: Review of Prev. Work/inventory/Assessment Task 1: Review previous comp. plan, Met Council system statement Task 2: Interviews with key stakeholders Task 3: Assemble background data Track 3: Public Engagement and Review Process Task 1: Mtgs with Planning Commission Task Force (19) Task 2: Mtgs/Community Forums (SAP planning) with public (12); focus groups Task 3: Mtgs with School Districts Task 4: Mtgs with Planning Commission (7) Task 5: Mtgs with City Council (7) Task 6: Web Site updates; media briefings Track 4: Develop City-wide Plan Components Task 1: Intro, Background, Existing Conditions; Vision/Goals Task 2: Land Use and Urban Design element Task 3: Housing element Task 4: Heritage Preservation element Task 5: Transportation (inc. Aviation) element Task 6: Water Resource Management element Task 7: Parks and Open Space (inc, natural resources) element Task 8: Community Services and Facilities (City Admin., Health, Public Safety, Schools, IT, and Communications and Marketing) element Task 9: Implementation Program (Official Controls, CIP, Hsg Imp.) Task 10: Draft/compile Final Comp Plan, inc. Exec. Summary Track 5: Final Products and Review Process Task 1: Review by adjacent cities and school districts (up to 6 mos.) Task 2: Review by Met Council (up to 120 days) Task 3: Final Public Hearing and Adoption by City Council Task 4: Complete final Comp Plan document (print and digital) WCL ISD #273: EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 BUS DROP OFF/ STUDENT ENTRY it FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL OVERALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL OVERALL Comm No: 152091 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL OVERALL I" z 30'-0' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL OVERALL Comm No: 152091 WCL ADDITION ATHLETICS LEVEL BELOW ISI _OOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL OVERALL (942'-O") CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMISSION FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL OVERALL ISD #273: EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION AND RENOVATION DECEMBER 23, 2015 i ANY SCENE Sw e is EPAC ENTRY Comm No: 152091 BURGER RESIDENCE 6629 WEST SHORE EDINA, MN 55435 DRAWING LIST: ARCHITECTURAL T1 - TITLE SHEET A2 - LOWER FLOOR FINISH A3 - MAIN FLOOR FINISH A4 - UPPER FLOOR FINISH A5 - ROOF PLAN A6 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 - BUILDING SECTION w /cE sEz v 2915 10l NV -IJ Ok\ C ' }gAAO- a 9Vf NUAAMP WOICt NAME & APM55 MV151ON LLC C�UpG�� p�51n�NC� F3t� rK. war�/,rA, MN (61A C 2 •. '1J,MN.�EVI'�IONMNM . • 6629 M5T 5N0M W SPINA MN 55 }35 O O 0 Elb ------ UL---1 ------- T LA= 4" ILAA-V" 15-7 514- r -Or V--) IX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lj- HPIR MATCH - - - - - - - EXST II ------ 11 :::: z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - \ DAR 'k, II OAS FIREPLACE II CANWT C-ADWEr - 1E1- - - - -- MArW D*T I - 6L& - LEZ - - - - - - - Q PLVR 4VW PATIO II II IN f II II O MEET NUM13EV CROILIf NAW & WM55 ffV1510N LLC 1F?'LAKL %,. WP(ZAfA, MN 2�tZ�0(10 6629 M5T 5HOM, PP, ZI.K' \ 1510NMKOM �up"6�p\ P\�51p�mc� FONA, MN G O� : 4 N: 4 -Y Z 3 .......... \ UPP5G,VE \ \ Ti IZJ r 41 li ------------------------ --- \ I I I I I I I I EI0 v n — rEw II �— II nAru+ II ------------- -- --------------- ------ ----------- 6As � II II II II yEll IQ � � II I I 0 \ \ \ II \ I I _ \ rFBI-ACE \ \ II — — — — — GAMET GMPET — — --- — \ - - - - - - MATCH [ ST 5/W' � \ I ,n)W PATIO a I IIS I r, POOR \ I � v II II II II r 51fEf NUMM PROJECT NAW & Al2PM55 MV15ION LLC pur\c6p p�51b�NC� MVA,MN v66291N�5t 5N0W PF,I Elm NANA, MN 55455 jh PS L------------------------� SNEET NUM P, pWJEC1 NAME & APM55 MV15ION LLC 13UpG�p r�51nFNCF `3` 5T 111. WF2A1A, MNATAA SNOWWW.kT\ 5U&N 6629 M I • • V1�51" r?� by " FPINA, MN 5 43 Irl n%r_Ol 5WET NUMME ROXCt NAME & AI7M55 MV1510N LLC PUpCp P�51PFNC� �.3thfsre. WAVIAfA. MN .I Ito 66291N�515N0� PP, NANA, MN 55435 51tET NUMIXF TOJECT NAME & WM55 MVI5ION LLC PUpG�p p�51nwFnArR. MN�Nc� 43`TA,A (b 2., 9O AC'00 IWMN.PCV ISIaJMN.COM Ito 6629 V1�51" SNOt?� f7p FnINA, MN 5 2435 9-fff NUMMV MO.IECT NAME & A19M55 ITV15ION LLC PUpG�p p�51b�NC� WF2AM AR, MN A--B 6WVYYV.K 150 MWOM 629 V1�5T 5N0� by RANA, MN a'si 1/Y' a' -O 5/a" [[ D(KrIN6 r R rO PLR EXIS1M6 PUTS r -a 0/4" 91-1 Va" EX165M R TO RR W-0 5/b" i -a %/A" 8'- 1/9" P` IXISTWdP! RATE Fn r�i < ❑ \�-EN ------------ W. 60' DIA RN_ rO �ReoE 57ANi - - a EEI El � Li JA a A MIME M3 EEE F11 _ �13 JR � y y N 57-6" X7-6" � Y9'si 5/a" R N �J rll r rn '�6-0 D � N (y�1 L G A� 70rn D 9-fff NUMMV MO.IECT NAME & A19M55 ITV15ION LLC PUpG�p p�51b�NC� WF2AM AR, MN A--B 6WVYYV.K 150 MWOM 629 V1�5T 5N0� by RANA, MN