Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-01-20 City Coumcil Meeting Packet
Agenda City Council Meeting City of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Community Comment or Public Hearing: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 9979683. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta: member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Pledge of Allegiance IV.Approval Of Meeting Agenda V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Mayor will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. The City Manager will respond to questions raised during Community Comments at the next meeting. A.City Manager's Response to Community Comments VI.Adoption Of Consent Agenda All agenda items listed on the Consent Agenda will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless requested to be removed by a Council Member. If removed the item will be considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Council Members present to approve, unless otherwise noted in consent item.) A.Approve Minutes: Work Session and Regular, Jan. 5, 2020 B.Approve Payment of Claims C.Request for Purchase: Fire Station No. 1 Basement Renovation Design Services D.Request for Purchase: Design Services for Retaining Wall Replacement E.Request for Purchase: Painting South Ramp in the 50th & France District F.Set 2021 Date for Board of Appeal and Equalization G.Resolution No. 2021-13: Accepting Donations VII.Public Hearings During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after sta= and/or applicants make their presentations. The following guidelines are in place to ensure an e?cient, fair, and respectful hearing; limit your testimony to three minutes and to the matter under consideration; the Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary; avoid repeating remarks or points of view made by previous speakers. The use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A.PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-12: Approving Right-of- Way Easement Vacation at 5932 Abbott Avenue South VIII.Reports/Recommendations: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A.Resolution No. 2020-122, 2020-123 and Ord. Number 2020-16; Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning Revised Overall Development Plan, Preliminary Development Plan and Consideration of a EAW for 6600-6800 France Avenue B.Sketch Plan Review for 4917 Eden Avenue C.Resolution No. 2021-15: Authorizing a Pro-Rated Liquor License Fee Refund for On-Sale Liquor License Holders D.Approve Proposed 2021 State Legislative Priorities Statement IX.Correspondence And Petitions A.Correspondence B.Commission Correspondence (Minutes and Advisory Communication) 1.Minutes: Parks & Recreation Commission Dec. 8, 2020 X.Aviation Noise Update XI.Mayor And Council Comments XII.Manager's Comments A.Public Hearing and Correspondence Procedures B.Prep Memo for Jan. 20, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting XIII.Calendar of City Council Meetings and Events XIV.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 ampliJcation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Other From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:City Manager's Response to Community Comments Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: City Manager Neal will respond to questions asked at the previous council meeting. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Minutes From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Approve Minutes: Work Session and Regular, Jan. 5, 2020 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Minutes as presented. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: Draft Regular Meeting, Jan. 5 Minutes: Draft Work Session, Jan. 5 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING JANUARY 5, 2021 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and stated the meeting was being held remotely in compliance with Governor Walz’ Stay at Home Order then shared the procedure for public hearing and community comment. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland. Absent: None. II.A. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE Manager Neal shared photographs from the oaths of office ceremony, welcomed new members, and thanked all members for their public service. Mayor Hovland and Members Jackson and Pierce shared comments that outlined goals for their service. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED AS PRESENTED Member Pierce made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, to approve the meeting agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Janet Kitui, 7201 York Avenue South, #519, shared concerns regarding campaign practices by Member Jackson’s campaign team during the election cycle. V.A. CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY COMMENTS There were no Community Comments at the last meeting. VI. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED AS PRESENTED Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, approving the consent agenda as presented: VI.A. Approve minutes of the Special Meeting of December 7, Work Session and Regular Meetings of December 15, 2020 VI.B. Approve payment claims for Check Register Claims Pre-List dated December 17-31, 2020, totaling $4,763,576.72; Credit Card Transactions October 27-November 25, 2020, totaling $64,384.40 VI.C. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-01; Designating Official Newspaper for 2021 VI.D. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-02; Signatory Resolution VI.E. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-03; Designating Official Depositories VI.F. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-04; Designation of Director and Alternate Director of LOGIS VI.G. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-05; Designation of Director and Alternate Director of Suburban Rate Authority VI.H. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-06; Appointment to Edina Firefighters Relief Association Minutes/Edina City Council/January 5, 2021 Page 2 VI.I. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-07; Authorizing Facsimile Signatures by Public Officials VI.J. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-08; Approving Mayor’s Appointment of the Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the City of Edina VI.K. Approve Annual Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector VI.L. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-09; Dispensing with Statutory Requirements for Review by Planning Commission for Acquisition of Real Property VI.M. Approve Amended US Solar Agency Agreement VI.N. Approve 2021 Board and Commission Reappointments VI.O. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-10; Accepting Donations Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD– Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VII.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122, 2020-123, AND ORDINANCE NO. 2020-16; ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT/PRELIMINARY REZONING REVISED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF AN EAW FOR 6600-6800 FRANCE AVENUE – CONTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 2021 Community Development Director Teague stated the City Council was asked to consider a proposal to redevelop the 22-acre parcel at 6600-6800 France site, known as the Southdale Office Center. The applicant was proposing a significant change to the development plans which was approved for this site in 2017 but in 2020 the Planning Commission considered the proposal and unanimously recommended denial of the request that included determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not necessary. In 2017, this site was rezoned to PUD for a mixed-use development project (The Avenue on France). Although the Southdale Design Experience Guidelines were not finalized at that time, the approved plans followed the established principles. The plans included below-grade parking; a north-south and east-west woonerf for high quality pedestrian and vehicular movement through the site; preservation of the mature oaks; 50-foot setbacks from France Avenue with green space and sidewalks, storefronts on France with the new retail buildings. The approved plans were found to meet the PUD standards to justify a doubling of the density on the site. As proposed, at full built out, the site would include a 9-story, 150-foot tall 230,375 square foot office building; a 4-story, 70-foot tall 70,000 square foot medical office building; a new 12,000 square foot restaurant (Tavern on France); a 20,000 square foot water treatment plant; three above-grade parking structures with the north ramp available for public parking; and a 13-story (157-foot tall) and 6-story apartment building totaling 239 units. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10 percent of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy and final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. Mr. Teague said the request required a rezoning to amend the original PUD approved in 2017 that included the overall development plan and consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Mr. Teague stated staff believed an EIS would not be needed as impacts could be addressed through conditions of approval as well as traffic impact requirements and stormwater management. Ashley Payne, Kimley Horn, commented regarding the proposed EAW process and its purpose to inform the public and potential impacts and mitigation strategies among others. She explained after all comments were received, the City would make a determination. Mike Spack, Spack Consulting, spoke about the parking and transportation impact study conducted to determine the need for additional turn lanes, signals, timing, etc. based on 2024 traffic forecasts and once the project was fully built. He also spoke about how traffic patterns had changed since the pandemic and concluded one improvement needed upon completion would be to include two left-turn lanes within the site plan and stated the 2,800 proposed parking stalls met Code requirements. The Council asked questions regarding traffic impacts on 66th Street, siting of the water treatment facility, the decision to table consideration of an additional fire station on this site, and parking capacity differences from local data versus Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. Director of Engineering Millner Minutes/Edina City Council/January 5, 2021 Page 3 responded siting of the water treatment facility was needed most in this area of the City and further explained the partnership with the developer for inclusion of the facility within this development. Mr. Spack explained how the ITE data was based on national parking needs and was approximately double than local parking needs. The Council shared concerns raised by nearby residents who currently had difficulty exiting their building because of traffic and if a right-out only could be created during peak times or permanently. The Council confirmed the previously approved Avenue on France project could still be built after required Planning and Council review processes per the zoning ordinance then spoke about connectivity and constraints that led the developer to propose something so different than previously approved. The Council also spoke more about challenges in meeting the design experience guidelines and recommendations from the Field Office Consultant. Andy McIntosh, McGough Development, introduced the team for the proposed project then spoke about community desires, economic feasibility, and market realities. He shared data on future office space post- COVID-19 that showed vacancy and rents would return by 2025 but include a balance of onsite and remote work. He explained how that resulted in a need to enhance office space with collaboration space, medical, health and wellness space. Mr. McIntosh spoke about the public benefits the project offered that included the water treatment facility, parking for community events, stormwater management, adherence to the design experience guidelines, and others. He commented on the importance of district parking Victor Pechaty, HGA Architects, shared the proposed site plan that highlighted green space and tree preservation, concealed parking structures, programmed pedestrian activity, and others. The Council asked questions regarding phased projects impacts such as dust and noise, why the project did not include the 200-foot blocks along 66th Street, and the shadow study conducted compared to Point of France. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m. Public Testimony Paul Nelson, 5220 Duggan Plaza, Chair of Economic Development Committee/Edina Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. Richard Thieme, 6566 France Avenue South, Point of France Board of Directors, addressed the Council. Jim Jensen, 6924 Dawson Lane, addressed the Council. Julee Quarve-Peterson, 6566 France Avenue South, #1103, addressed the Council. The Council asked questions raised during public testimony that included constraints versus the approved 2017 design and confirmed the proposed parking was double and would change. Mr. McIntosh replied the proposed design was due to groundwater and parking needs, what the market could bear, and how parking could not be below grade in that volume. He explained the proposed parking was driven by market requests and not driven by personal auto usage, thereby resulting in fewer stalls. The Council asked further questions regarding the design experience guidelines, public district parking benefits, land for water treatment facility, public easements around the site, the affordable housing component, and why the 2017 project was no longer viable. Mr. McIntosh explained the 2017 version include a disproportionate weight of community desires and while they understood it was supported by the community, it positioned three-quarters of the parking below grade which was not feasible. He commented about guidelines versus standards, the need to understand the intent, garner more approval, and help understand guidelines to this and future projects. Mr. Pechaty explained how the team had reviewed guidelines in much detail and if any element was not in compliance, they welcomed input to address. Mr. Minutes/Edina City Council/January 5, 2021 Page 4 Teague explained the guidelines were not intended to be standards but a tool to evaluate justification for an increase in density. Member Staunton moved to extend public hearing to noon on January 13, 2021, and take final action on Resolution No. 2020-122, approving zoning ordinance amendment/preliminary rezoning, revised overall development plan, and preliminary development plan; 2020-123 making a negative declaration of need regarding an Environmental Impact Statement; and Ordinance No. 2020-16 amending the Zoning Ordinance to the PUD-11, Planned Unit Development-11, The Avenue on France District at 6600-6800 France Avenue, at the January 20, 2021, meeting. Member Jackson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Brindle, Fischer, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VIII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. EMERGENCY REGULATION 2021-01 IMPOSING A CAP ON THIRD-PARTY FOOD SERVICE DELIVERY FEES DURING THE COVID-10 EMERGENCY – RESOLUTION NO. 2020-01 ADOPTED Economic Development Manager Neuendorf stated that for many months Edina restaurateurs had shared concern with high fees and commissions charged by third-party food delivery service providers and how the highest fees were not passed on to the consumer but paid for by the restaurant operator usually without the knowledge of the consumer. Many larger cities throughout the United States had enacted limits on these third-party fees with the intention of allowing local brick and mortar restaurants to operate profitably during the pandemic. He said the proposed regulation was modeled after recently adopted Minneapolis regulations and use of the same language was intended to create an equal regulatory environment with consistent expectations for consumers, restaurant operators and food service delivery platforms. He commented while this regulation would be difficult to enforce, staff believed enactment was important to assist restauranteurs during this time. The Council asked if complaints would be filed by the restaurants and what delivery fees were prior to the pandemic. Mr. Neuendorf said he was unsure of the fee structure prior but confirmed the regulation would expire with the Governor’s executive orders and while an unusual action, staff felt this was appropriate and that time was of the essence. Member Staunton moved to adopt Resolution No. 2020-01 imposing a cap on third-party food service delivery fees during the COVID-19 emergency. Member Anderson seconded the motion. VIII.B. ANNUAL APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR – APPROVED Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Member Pierce, to appoint Member Staunton as Acting Mayor for 2021. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.C. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS – APPROVED Member Jackson made a motion, seconded by Member Pierce, to approve appointment of Mary Brindle to the Noise Oversight Committee of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. Member Jackson made a motion, seconded by Member Anderson, to approve appointment of Member Staunton to the Edina Community Education Advisory Board. Rollcall: Minutes/Edina City Council/January 5, 2021 Page 5 Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, to approve appointment of Member Pierce to serve on the I-494 Corridor Coalition. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Pierce, to approve appointment of Members Anderson and Jackson to serve on the School/Edina Partnership Committee and Member Jackson to serve on the Southwest Cable Commission. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS - Received IX.A. Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council’s receipt of various correspondence. IX.B. COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE (MINUTES AND ADVISORY COMMUNICATION) 1. MINUTES: TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 2. MINUTES: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 12, 2020 3. ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 X. AVIATION NOISE UPDATE – Received XI. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS – Received XII. MANAGER’S COMMENTS – Received XII.A. LIQUOR LICENSE FEES FOR 2021 – Received XIII. CALENDAR OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND EVENTS – Received XIV. ADJOURNMENT Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:31 p.m. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Allison, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, January 20, 2021. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the January 5, 2021, meeting available. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING JANUARY 5, 2021 5:30 P.M. Mayor Jim Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, and Mayor Hovland. Staff attending the meeting were: Scott Neal, City Manager; Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager; MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator; Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications Director; Ryan Browning, I.T. Director; Chad Millner, Engineering Director; Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske and Sharon Allison, City Clerk. BOARDS AND COMMISSION 2021 INTEVIEW PROCESS Community Engagement Coordinator MJ Lamon explained that staff would like to change the current interview process to one that meets the City’s goal to Foster an Inclusive and Engaged Community. The new process would focus on candidate experience during the 10-minute interview striving for a balance between panel participation, time for candidates and interviewers to get to know each other and creating a welcoming space; and access to an equitable process that includes similar interview process for all applicants by having the same panel members in all interviews, as much as possible. Staff recommended the interview panel be made up of two Council members, the City Manager, and at least two commission chairs that would attend all interviews for consistency, record interviews and for appointments to be brought to the full City Council for approval. The Council discussed their experience with the interview process and the pros and cons of interviewing approximately 50 candidates in a couple days for 10-minutes each. Mayor Hovland and Member Jackson volunteered to be on the interview panel and Member Pierce volunteered to be an alternate. The panel will also include two commission chairs and one alternate, and the interviews will not be recorded. PUBLIC HEARING AND CORRESPONDENCE PROCEDURES Discussion was postponed because of a lack of time; therefore, staff will continue to use the BetterTogether website for the public hearing process. BOARDS AND COMMISSION GOVERNING DOCUMENTS Lamon explained that the three governing documents, City Code, bylaws, and policies and procedures, had duplicating and conflicting information and recommended rescinding the bylaws and updating the policies and procedures and bringing this to Council for final approval. Council agreed with staff’s recommendation. ADJOURNMENT Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting. Jackson seconded the motion. All members voted “aye;” motion carried. Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, _____________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk Minutes approved by the Edina City Council Jan. 20, 2021. _____________________________ James B. Hovland, Mayor Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Claims From:Don Uram, Finance Director Item Activity: Subject:Approve Payment of Claims Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve claims for payment: Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 01.08.21 TOTAL $174,879.35 Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 01.15.21 TOTAL $115,831.11 INTRODUCTION: Claims information for approval is attached. This is the first claims report using our new ERP software Tyler Munis. As a result you will notice some differences in the way claims are presented. We continue to work on how claims are reported to ensure that the information is clear and concise. ATTACHMENTS: Description Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 01.08.21 TOTAL $174,879.35 Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 01.15.21 TOTAL $115,831.11 01/07/2021 10:29 |City of Edina, MN |P 7 LJefferson |A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL |apcshdsb JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED FUND SUB FUND DUE TO DUE FROM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 1000 General 148,715.08 2600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 13,750.29 4000 Capital Projects 8,820.00 5200 Braemar Golf Course 85.34 5300 Aquatic Center 46.80 5600 Braemar Field 279.24 5800 Liquor 2,398.32 6100 Equipment Operations 784.28 9999 Pooled Cash Fund 174,879.35 ----------------- ----------------- TOTAL 174,879.35 174,879.35 ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Lonnia Jefferson ** City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 1Page Detail Invoice List CHECK RUN:20210109 01/08/2021 DUE DATE:01/08/2021 CASH ACCOUNT:9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP VENDOR REMIT PO TYPE DUE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT VOUCHER CHECK ACUSHNET COMPANY135922 0001 INV 01/17/2021 9100070085 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 52052006 5510 Ret Sales CGS 44.10 44.10 ACUSHNET COMPANY135922 0001 INV 01/18/2021 910076170 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 52052006 5510 Ret Sales CGS 41.24 41.24 CHECK TOTAL 85.34 SUPERION LLC141470 0001 INV 12/17/2020 297986 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 13013000 6230 Pol Ad Gen SrvCntrcts 138,523.07 138,523.07 CHECK TOTAL 138,523.07 EDINALARM INC 103594 0000 INV 09/05/2020 55567 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 58158100 6250 Sthdl AdGe Alarm Serv 2,079.17 2,079.17 CHECK TOTAL 2,079.17 GLEASON ENTERPRISES L143454 0000 INV 11/11/2020 84211 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 58258201 6103 Grnd Sell Prof Svrs 115.15 115.15 CHECK TOTAL 115.15 HAWK ANALYTICS INC 140001 0000 INV 12/10/2020 INV23906 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 13013000 6105 Pol Ad Gen Dues&Sub 3,995.00 3,995.00 CHECK TOTAL 3,995.00 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOC124002 0000 INV 01/04/2021 17975836 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 26126106 6103 Grnd 2 TIF Prof Svrs 13,750.29 13,750.29 City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 2Page Detail Invoice List CHECK RUN:20210109 01/08/2021 DUE DATE:01/08/2021 CASH ACCOUNT:9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP VENDOR REMIT PO TYPE DUE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT VOUCHER CHECK CHECK TOTAL 13,750.29 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING130477 0000 INV 07/09/2020 537522-A ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 5800 1354 Liquor BS Inv Beer 204.00 204.00 CHECK TOTAL 204.00 MED ALLIANCE GROUP IN121441 0000 INV 01/15/2021 203491 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 12012000 6510 Fire Gen SupFrstAid 209.28 209.28 CHECK TOTAL 209.28 MILLER TOWING INC122201 0001 INV 09/03/2020 273064 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 61061004 6180 PW Equip Rep&Maint 400.00 400.00 CHECK TOTAL 400.00 MINNESOTA AIR INC100522 0001 INV 01/13/2021 1748863-00 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 17017006 6530 Bldg Maint ReprParts 558.18 558.18 CHECK TOTAL 558.18 MOBILE HEALTH SERVICE103944 0000 INV 01/18/2021 38643 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 13013000 6104 Pol Ad Gen Conf&Schls 625.00 625.00 CHECK TOTAL 625.00 MUELLER, TODD 122036 0000 INV 01/15/2021 6751 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 10800000 6406 Finance SupOther 221.35 221.35 CHECK TOTAL 221.35 City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 3Page Detail Invoice List CHECK RUN:20210109 01/08/2021 DUE DATE:01/08/2021 CASH ACCOUNT:9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP VENDOR REMIT PO TYPE DUE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT VOUCHER CHECK NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP INC125089 0001 INV 01/15/2021 110489 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 14014001 6610 Gen Mntce Saf Equip 199.95 199.95 NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP INC125089 0001 INV 01/13/2021 782673 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 14014001 6610 Gen Mntce Saf Equip 199.95 199.95 CHECK TOTAL 399.90 INNOVATIVE BUILDING &999999 0000 INV 12/30/2020 ED183831-REFUND ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 12100000 4115 Build Insp Perm Mech 163.30 163.30 CHECK TOTAL 163.30 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC 100999 0000 INV 01/07/2021 13093276 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 53053000 6105 Admin Dues&Sub 46.80 46.80 CHECK TOTAL 46.80 STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA IN101007 0000 INV 01/17/2021 64 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 56056000 6105 Admin Dues&Sub 279.24 279.24 CHECK TOTAL 279.24 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESA105874 0000 INV 02/02/2021 10175958 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 61061004 6583 PW Equip Tire&Tube 392.00 392.00 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESA105874 0000 INV 12/30/2020 10175172 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 61061004 6583 PW Equip Tire&Tube 307.20 307.20 City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 4Page Detail Invoice List CHECK RUN:20210109 01/08/2021 DUE DATE:01/08/2021 CASH ACCOUNT:9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP VENDOR REMIT PO TYPE DUE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT VOUCHER CHECK SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESA105874 0000 CRM 08/25/2020 10172205 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 61061004 6583 PW Equip Tire&Tube -314.92 -314.92 CHECK TOTAL 384.28 SUDDATH RELOCATION SY133512 0001 INV 12/17/2020 665940 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 10210201 6406 Elections SupOther 1,980.00 1,980.00 SUDDATH RELOCATION SY133512 0001 INV 12/17/2020 665941 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 10210201 6406 Elections SupOther 2,040.00 2,040.00 CHECK TOTAL 4,020.00 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES IN146436 0000 INV 01/15/2021 045-323966 ACCOUNT DETAIL LINE AMOUNT 1 40300000 6103 Finance CP Prof Svrs 8,820.00 8,820.00 CHECK TOTAL 8,820.00 24 INVOICES WARRANT TOTAL 174,879.35 174,879.35 City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 5Page Check Run Summary CHECK RUN:20210109 01/08/2021 DUE DATE:01/08/2021 FUND ORG ACCOUNT AMOUNT AVLB BUDGET 1000 10210201 Elections 1000.GEN.GG.ADM.1020.10201.0000.0000.640 Elections - SupOther 4,020.00 5,980.00 1000 10800000 Finance 1000.GEN.GG.FIN.1080.00000.0000.0000.640 Finance - SupOther 221.35 11,278.65 1000 12012000 Fire General 1000.GEN.PS.FIR.1200.12000.0000.0000.651 Fire Gen - SupFrstAid 209.28 82,026.29 1000 12100000 Building Inspections 1000.GEN.PS.FIR.1210.00000.0000.0000.411 Build Insp - Perm Mec 163.30 0.00 1000 13013000 Police Admin General 1000.GEN.PS.POL.1300.13000.0000.0000.610 Pol Ad Gen - Conf&Sch 625.00 56,874.58 1000 13013000 Police Admin General 1000.GEN.PS.POL.1300.13000.0000.0000.610 Pol Ad Gen - Dues&Sub 3,995.00 53,248.00 1000 13013000 Police Admin General 1000.GEN.PS.POL.1300.13000.0000.0000.623 Pol Ad Gen - SrvCntrc 138,523.07 182,051.00 1000 14014001 General Maintenance 1000.GEN.PW.PWK.1400.14001.0000.0000.661 Gen Mntce - Saf Equip 399.90 8,600.10 1000 17017006 Building Maintenance 1000.GEN.PK.P&R.1700.17006.0000.0000.653 Bldg Maint - ReprPart 558.18 16,441.82 FUND TOTAL 148,715.08 2600 26126106 Grandview 2 TIF 2600.SPC.GG.DEV.2610.26106.0000.0000.610 Grnd 2 TIF - Prof Svr 13,750.29 -13,750.29 FUND TOTAL 13,750.29 4000 40300000 Finance Capital Proje 4000.CAP.GG.FIN.4030.00000.0000.0000.610 Finance CP - Prof Svr 8,820.00 -20,160.00 FUND TOTAL 8,820.00 5200 52052006 Retail Sales 5200.ENT.GC.P&R.5200.52006.0000.0000.551 Ret Sales - CGS 85.34 128,461.58 FUND TOTAL 85.34 5300 53053000 Administration 5300.ENT.AQ.P&R.5300.53000.0000.0000.610 Admin - Dues&Sub 46.80 4,853.20 FUND TOTAL 46.80 5600 56056000 Administration 5600.ENT.CA.P&R.5600.56000.0000.0000.610 Admin - Dues&Sub 279.24 0.00 FUND TOTAL 279.24 5800 5800 Liquor Balance Sheet 5800.000.00.000.0000.00000.0000.0000.135 Liquor BS - Inv Beer 204.00 5800 58158100 Southdale - Admin/Gen 5800.ENT.LQ.P&R.5810.58100.0000.0000.625 Sthdl AdGe - Alarm Se 2,079.17 1,220.83 5800 58258201 Grandview - Selling 5800.ENT.LQ.P&R.5820.58201.0000.0000.610 Grnd Sell - Prof Svrs 115.15 -115.15 FUND TOTAL 2,398.32 6100 61061004 Public Works Equip 6100.ISF.PW.PWK.6100.61004.0000.0000.618 PW Equip - Rep&Maint 400.00 120,242.31 6100 61061004 Public Works Equip 6100.ISF.PW.PWK.6100.61004.0000.0000.658 PW Equip - Tire&Tube 384.28 64,101.64 City of Edina, MN Check Run Report generated: User: Program ID: 01/07/2021 10:23:47 Lonnia Jefferson (LJefferson) apwarrnt 6Page FUND TOTAL 784.28 WARRANT SUMMARY TOTAL 174,879.35 GRAND TOTAL 174,879.35 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 12 JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED FUND SUB FUND DUE TO DUE FR 1000 General 5,056.142100 Police Special Revenue 17,500.002600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 199.314000 Capital Projects 15,990.005200 Braemar Golf Course 6,885.415200 Braemar Golf Course 602.675500 Braemar Arena 4,019.745700 Centennial Lakes 367.005800 Liquor 23,297.995900 Utility Fund 177.826100 Equipment Operations 5,466.266200 Information Technology 16,541.746300 Facilities Management 19,657.287100 PS Training Facility 69.759999 Pooled Cash Fund 115,831.11 TOTAL 115,831.11 115,831.11 ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Lonnia Jefferson ** City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 1 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456121 01/15/2021 PRTD 135922 ACUSHNET COMPANY 910095301 12/22/2020 20210115 19.64 ACUSHNET COMPANY 910102832 12/23/2020 20210115 80.52 ACUSHNET COMPANY 910077241 12/21/2020 20210115 29.97 ACUSHNET COMPANY 910087608 12/22/2020 20210115 58.92 CHECK 456121 TOTAL: 189.05 456122 01/15/2021 PRTD 141960 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11VX-VMFF-LYX6 12/19/2020 20210115 55.24 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1WKC-QVYH-R1D3 12/19/2020 20210115 50.24 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11VX-VMFF-Y6X6 12/19/2020 20210115 91.11 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1KFV-WF4Q-QGDM 12/20/2020 20210115 39.10 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1P4V-KPNW-K1M9 12/21/2020 20210115 251.68 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1LTP-MQ1H-97WJ 12/21/2020 20210115 395.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1LTP-MQ1H-M9GP 12/21/2020 20210115 48.58 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1Y4J-NCHK-V6D6 12/21/2020 20210115 814.81 CHECK 456122 TOTAL: 1,745.76 456123 01/15/2021 PRTD 103220 ASCAP 100005630492 12/20/2020 20210115 367.00 CHECK 456123 TOTAL: 367.00 456124 01/15/2021 PRTD 100648 BERTELSON BROTHERS INC WO-1104045-1 12/18/2020 20210115 38.27 CHECK 456124 TOTAL: 38.27 456125 01/15/2021 PRTD 128914 BJKK DEVELOPMENT 30602 12/21/2020 20210115 52.46 CHECK 456125 TOTAL: 52.46 456126 01/15/2021 PRTD 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83889931 12/21/2020 20210115 134.99 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83889932 12/21/2020 20210115 340.32 CHECK 456126 TOTAL: 475.31 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 2 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456127 01/15/2021 PRTD 117040 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 37460DX1 12/21/2020 20210115 43.50 CHECK 456127 TOTAL: 43.50 456128 01/15/2021 PRTD 116408 BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC 36831 11/23/2020 20210115 163.44 CHECK 456128 TOTAL: 163.44 456129 01/15/2021 PRTD 142533 CADD ENGR SUPPLY INC INV122183 12/16/2020 20210115 279.00 CHECK 456129 TOTAL: 279.00 456130 01/15/2021 PRTD 105497 CENTRAL ROOFING COMPANY 27689 12/15/2020 20210115 9,987.00 CHECK 456130 TOTAL: 9,987.00 456131 01/15/2021 PRTD 130618 CHANHASSEN AUTO CENTERS LLC 21339 12/15/2020 20210115 2,595.46 CHECK 456131 TOTAL: 2,595.46 456132 01/15/2021 PRTD 142028 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681495 12/20/2020 20210115 30.25 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681399 12/21/2020 20210115 31.05 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681455 12/21/2020 20210115 36.88 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681310 12/21/2020 20210115 9.86 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681483 12/21/2020 20210115 34.93 CINTAS CORPORATION 4070681106 12/21/2020 20210115 3.69 CHECK 456132 TOTAL: 146.66 456133 01/15/2021 PRTD 146472 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN 100076777 12/01/2020 20210115 3,840.00 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN 100076776 12/01/2020 20210115 3,290.00 CHECK 456133 TOTAL: 7,130.00 456134 01/15/2021 PRTD 100699 CULLIGAN SOFTWATER SERVICE COMPAN 114-10133502-3 12/2012/15/2020 20210115 29.88 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 3 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456134 TOTAL: 29.88 456135 01/15/2021 PRTD 102514 CUTTER & BUCK INC 95438630 12/16/2020 20210115 73.09 CHECK 456135 TOTAL: 73.09 456136 01/15/2021 PRTD 104020 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3718355 12/21/2020 20210115 66.33 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3718239 12/21/2020 20210115 1,013.06 CHECK 456136 TOTAL: 1,079.39 456137 01/15/2021 PRTD 100146 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-403816 12/21/2020 20210115 364.81 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-403056 12/11/2020 20210115 438.68 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-403230 12/14/2020 20210115 -49.28 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-403954 12/22/2020 20210115 -150.30 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-Z23954 12/29/2020 20210115 -76.72 CHECK 456137 TOTAL: 527.19 456138 01/15/2021 PRTD 100158 EXPLORE MINNESOTA GOLF ALLIANCE 230 12/15/2020 20210115 1,995.00 CHECK 456138 TOTAL: 1,995.00 456139 01/15/2021 PRTD 143545 GOLF GENIUS SOFTWARE LLC 105414 12/17/2020 20210115 2,300.00 CHECK 456139 TOTAL: 2,300.00 456140 01/15/2021 PRTD 160003 GRAY, GLENN S ECH-1220-20 12/20/2020 20210115 150.00 CHECK 456140 TOTAL: 150.00 456141 01/15/2021 PRTD 122079 EDINA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICE 2021-1078 12/01/2020 20210115 336.00 CHECK 456141 TOTAL: 336.00 456142 01/15/2021 PRTD 146407 INGCO INTERNATIONAL 424262 11/24/2020 20210115 100.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 4 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456142 TOTAL: 100.00 456143 01/15/2021 PRTD 116776 JASPERSEN ENTERPRISES INC 86276 12/06/2020 20210115 103.00 CHECK 456143 TOTAL: 103.00 456144 01/15/2021 PRTD 132592 JF AHERN CO 415382 12/18/2020 20210115 260.00 CHECK 456144 TOTAL: 260.00 456145 01/15/2021 PRTD 160007 JONES SPORTS COMPANY 10818 12/16/2020 20210115 230.01 CHECK 456145 TOTAL: 230.01 456146 01/15/2021 PRTD 124002 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 17556042 11/30/2020 20210115 4,650.00 CHECK 456146 TOTAL: 4,650.00 456147 01/15/2021 PRTD 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308098040 12/21/2020 20210115 1,605.06 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308098041 12/21/2020 20210115 545.31 CHECK 456147 TOTAL: 2,150.37 456148 01/15/2021 PRTD 102464 LIGHTING PLASTICS OF MINNESOTA INV91879 12/15/2020 20210115 69.75 CHECK 456148 TOTAL: 69.75 456149 01/15/2021 PRTD 141215 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV520052 12/16/2020 20210115 496.50 CHECK 456149 TOTAL: 496.50 456150 01/15/2021 PRTD 101483 MENARDS 30813 12/21/2020 20210115 19.12 CHECK 456150 TOTAL: 19.12 456151 01/15/2021 PRTD 101483 MENARDS INC 30632 12/18/2020 20210115 108.47 MENARDS INC 30582 12/17/2020 20210115 199.31 MENARDS INC 30568 12/17/2020 20210115 5.86 MENARDS INC 30577 12/17/2020 20210115 15.94 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 5 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET MENARDS INC 30565 12/17/2020 20210115 71.38 CHECK 456151 TOTAL: 400.96 456152 01/15/2021 PRTD 100885 METRO SALES INC INV1723477 12/21/2020 20210115 3,321.65 CHECK 456152 TOTAL: 3,321.65 456153 01/15/2021 PRTD 121233 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN IN00158569 12/21/2020 20210115 398.50 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN IN00158574 12/20/2020 20210115 351.00 CHECK 456153 TOTAL: 749.50 456154 01/15/2021 PRTD 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 143488600001 12/16/2020 20210115 2.05 OFFICE DEPOT 127096924001 09/25/2020 20210115 62.44 CHECK 456154 TOTAL: 64.49 456155 01/15/2021 PRTD 151973 PAINTING BY NAKASONE INC 4979 12/11/2020 20210115 21,672.00 CHECK 456155 TOTAL: 21,672.00 456156 01/15/2021 PRTD 142001 RAVE WIRELESS INC INV-30354 12/15/2020 20210115 11,500.00 RAVE WIRELESS INC INV-30421 12/15/2020 20210115 6,000.00 CHECK 456156 TOTAL: 17,500.00 456157 01/15/2021 PRTD 144403 SENTEXT SOLUTIONS 186356 12/20/2020 20210115 299.00 CHECK 456157 TOTAL: 299.00 456158 01/15/2021 PRTD 104098 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B12726696 12/11/2020 20210115 12,153.60 CHECK 456158 TOTAL: 12,153.60 456159 01/15/2021 PRTD 145599 STANDRD SOLAR INC 6169 12/18/2020 20210115 3,885.92 CHECK 456159 TOTAL: 3,885.92 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 01/14/2021 11:41User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 6 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456160 01/15/2021 PRTD 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL IN #M26102 12/14/2020 20210115 254.50 CHECK 456160 TOTAL: 254.50 456161 01/15/2021 PRTD 146436 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-324770 12/21/2020 20210115 11,340.00 CHECK 456161 TOTAL: 11,340.00 456162 01/15/2021 PRTD 120784 WALSH GRAPHICS INC 15802 12/21/2020 20210115 269.58 CHECK 456162 TOTAL: 269.58 456163 01/15/2021 PRTD 135181 WATERFORD OIL CO INC 113346 10/21/2020 20210115 1,058.01 WATERFORD OIL CO INC 113347 10/21/2020 20210115 832.83 WATERFORD OIL CO INC 113680 11/04/2020 20210115 244.89 CHECK 456163 TOTAL: 2,135.73 456164 01/15/2021 PRTD 129820 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Jan-21 12/21/2020 20210115 1,079.25 CHECK 456164 TOTAL: 1,079.25 456165 01/15/2021 PRTD 118395 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC E2020294 12/09/2020 20210115 2,798.24 CHECK 456165 TOTAL: 2,798.24 456166 01/15/2021 PRTD 101103 WW GRAINGER 9753362582 12/21/2020 20210115 124.48 CHECK 456166 TOTAL: 124.48 NUMBER OF CHECKS 46 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 115,831.11 COUNT AMOUNT TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 46 115,831.11 *** GRAND TOTAL *** 115,831.11 Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Derik Otten, Facility Manager Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Fire Station No. 1 Basement Renovation Design Services Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for Fire Station No. 1 Basement Design Services with Oertel Architects for $38,680. INTRODUCTION: In the summer of 2020 Oertel Architects started preliminary design on renovations to the basement of Fire Station No. 1. The renovations would provide election staff and volunteers a place to work and store equipment securely. The renovations create a climate controlled and ADA accessible space. T he improvements include HVAC upgrades, additional stairwell to meet the building code, and a restroom. To install the 2nd stairwell into the basement, the current workout area would be moved to the basement. This request is to approve full design services and contract administration during construction. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Fire Station No. 1 Basement Remodel Design Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100005 Department:Engineering Buyer:Derik Otten Date: 01/08/2021 Requisition Description:Fire Station #1 Basement Design Services Vendor:OERTEL ARCHITECTS Cost:$38,680.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:NEW - NEW PURCHASE SOURCE:SERVIC K - SERVICE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:Fire Station #1 Basement Renovation Design Services BUDGET IMPACT:CIP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:LED lighting will replace existing lighting in the lower level to re Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:The Fire Department and Fire Station #1 provide critical emergency s Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Aaron T. Ditzler, PE, Assistant City Engineer Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Design Services for Retaining Wall Replacement Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for design services for retaining wall replacement with Gale-Tec Engineering Inc for $37,200. INTRODUCTION: Due to a lack of significant remaining service life, a 53-year-old timber retaining wall will be replaced with a combination large block concrete and reinforced soil slope retaining wall along Hansen Road south of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This project is part of the 2021 roadway reconstruction improvements in the Melody Lake A/B, Grandview A and Birchcrest C neighborhoods. See attached detailed Request for Purchase. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Design Services for Retaining Wall Retaining Wall Agreement Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100003 Department:Engineering Buyer:Aaron Ditzler Date: 01/06/2021 Requisition Description:Request for Purchase: Design Services for Retaining Vendor:GALE-TEC ENGINEERING INC Cost:$37,200.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:- PURCHASE SOURCE:SERVIC K - SERVICE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:Design services for deteriorating retaining wall replacement Hansen Rd BUDGET IMPACT:Funding is from the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS)fund ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:The wall will be filled with vegetation to blend with the environment Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:Maintains a sound public infrastructure GALE-TEC ENGINEERING, INC. 801 TWELVE OAKS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 832 WAYZATA, MN 55391 TELEPHONE (952) 473-7193 FAX (952) 473-1492 www.gale-tec.com December 29, 2020 Mr. Aaron Ditzler Assistant City Engineer City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 GTE Project No. 95571-A RE: Proposal for Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Hybrid PMBW and 70° RSS wall along Hansen Road South of the CP Railroad Crossing in Edina, MN Dear Mr. Ditzler: We are pleased to provide you with a proposal for services on the above referenced project. Enclosed please find a brief description of our understanding of the project, a scope of services we will provide and an estimated fee for providing these services. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us. If acceptable, sign and return one copy to act as our authorization to proceed. Respectfully, GALE-TEC ENGINEERING, INC. Stephan M. Gale, P.E. Nathan M. Lichty, P.E. Principal Engineer Project Engineer Enclosure: Terms for Geotechnical Engineering Services Fee Schedule SMG/NML/pjk PROPOSAL/Edina, City of, Hansen Road Wall Reconstruct, Edina, MN City of Edina Hansen Road Retaining Wall Replacement, Edina, MN Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. DECEMBER, 2020 2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPMENT FOR RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT ALONG HANSEN ROAD SOUTH OF THE CP RAIL CROSSING IN EDINA, MN INTRODUCTION The City of Edina is proposing to demolish an existing timber faced retaining wall that supports Hansen Road as part of a 2021 area wide street reconstruction project. The existing wall is approximately 350ft in length, up to 8ft in height and contains approximately two-tiers at some locations. A steep sloping toe is located along the northern portion of the retaining wall alignment, while a residential driveway is located at the wall toe along the southern portion of the alignment. The City has selected to replace the existing wall with a Hybrid wall consisting of a Precast Modular Block Wall (PMBW) at the residential property at 5700 Hansen Road and a 70° Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS) north of the property. The PMBW will be a gravity structure at some portions along the alignment, however, geogrid reinforcement may be required at other portions of the alignment to provide an adequate factor of safety. We propose to prepare drawings with a ReCon Wall Systems, Inc. block with a limestone textured facing. This wall system and architectural facing has been used on previous City of Edina projects, including: West 70th Street, Garden Park, and Interlachen Blvd. Other wall systems could also be considered, if you desire. To the north, you have selected a 70° face Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS). The slope would require select granular backfill, geogrid reinforcement and a slope face consisting of welded wire mesh or geocells filled with topsoil. Excavation for the PMBW/RSS is likely to disturb existing water main and fiber optic utility lines. These utilities would need to be relocated to the opposite side of the street prior to wall reconstruction. GTE will prepare the retaining wall/slope drawings and special provisions, which will be inserted into the City of Edina prepared Plans and Special Provisions for the project. Our proposal includes: 1) a geotechnical stability analysis to determine block sizes and geogrid reinforcement requirements for the PMBW, 2) a stability analysis for the RSS, and 3) the preparation of 90% PMBW and RSS Plans and Special Provisions based on the results of the evaluation. The 90% Plans and Special Provisions will be submitted to the City for review. Final plans and special provisions will be developed based on City review and comments. SCOPE OF WORK Item 1 - We would perform up to three (3) geotechnical wall stability analyses at PMBW and RSS sections to determine the extent of the geogrid reinforcement or block sizes. We would estimate the required excavation limits along the wall alignment and estimate the impacted City of Edina Hansen Road Retaining Wall Replacement, Edina, MN Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. DECEMBER, 2020 3 utilities/streetscape based on the City’s As-built plans of the area. Upon completion of our stability analyses and excavation limits/utilities impacted evaluation, we would prepare a memo discussing our findings for review and use in Roadway/Utility plan preparation by the City of Edina. Item 2 –We would prepare Plans and Specifications for a PMBW for input into your Project Bid Manual. 90% Wall Plans, Special Provisions and a material quantity estimate will be submitted for review and comment. Item 3 –We would prepare Plans and Specifications for a 70 degree RSS for input into your Project Bid Manual. 90% RSS Plans, Special Provisions and a material quantity estimate will be submitted for review and comment. Our plan will not include any field surveying or field verification of heights/location requirements. We shall use documents provided by the City of Edina for grade elevation reference. Field modifications may be required during Construction depending on actual conditions. If modifications to our design are required, we will need to be contacted to review such changes, with review and drawing changes performed at Fee Schedule rates. Additionally, if additional deliverables to those identified herein are required, additional fees will result. Item 4 - A conference call with the City is proposed to discuss the 90% plans and potential edits and comments. Final Wall Plans and Special Provision will then be developed and submitted for insertion into the City’s bid documents. PROPOSED FEE We propose the following fees: Item 1 Geotechnical Wall/RSS Stability Analysis, Excavation Limit & Utility Impact Evaluation $ 7,900 Item 2 90% and 100% PBMW Plans/Specification and Material Estimate for Insertion into City Plans $ 14,900 Item 3 90% and 100% RSS Plans/Specification and Material Estimate for Insertion into City Plans $ 11,600 Item 4 Submit Final Plans/Specification and Meeting/Follow Up and Administration $ 2,800 TOTAL FEE $37,200 We estimate a fee of $37,200. If the City requests changes to the final Plans, once submitted, the changes shall be considered additional. City of Edina Hansen Road Retaining Wall Replacement, Edina, MN Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. DECEMBER, 2020 4 You will be billed hourly based on the attached fee schedule and the proposed scope of work. SUMMARY We look forward to once again working with the City of Edina on a retaining wall project. TERMS FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES THE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made by and between: Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., hereinafter referred to as GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, and The City of Edina, hereinafter referred to as CLIENT. The AGREEMENT between the parties consists of these TERMS, the attached PROPOSAL dated December 29, 2020 and any exhibits or attachments noted in the PROPOSAL. Together, these elements will constitute the entire AGREEMENT superseding any and all prior negotiations, correspondence, or agreements either written or oral. Any changes to this AGREEMENT must be mutually agreed to in writing. CONDITIONS This Agreement includes a preparation of retaining wall plans and installation specifications to be included in the City of Edina bid manual. The CLIENT recognizes that it is probable that soil, water or other conditions may be encountered during construction that may be different than discovered by borings or that assumed for the design. CLIENT recognizes that construction monitoring is a technique employed to reduce the risk of problems arising during construction of retaining walls that could be detrimental to the performance of the wall. CLIENT recognizes that it is impossible to include all construction details in plans and specifications for retaining walls and that the design is particularly sensitive to a need for adjustment in the field, depending upon findings during construction that previously could only be assumed. Since the intent of the design is best understood by the GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, the GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER shall not take any responsibility for the adequacy of his design, specifications or recommendation unless his work includes the construction monitoring necessary to determine whether or not the work performed is in substantial compliance with the intent of the design. CLIENT agrees that it would be unfair to hold the GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER liable for problems that may occur if actual conditions are different than those assumed or if the Contractor does not perform to the intent of the plans and specifications. Accordingly, CLIENT waives any claim against the GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss that results from the work. STANDARD OF CARE CLIENT recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those observed at locations where borings, surveys, or explorations are made, and that site conditions may change with time. Data, interpretations, and recommendations by GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will be based solely on information available to GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER is responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but will not be responsible for other parties’ interpretations or use of the information developed. Services performed by GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER under this AGREEMENT are expected by CLIENT to be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession and practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of geotechnical engineering services. MONITORING If GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER is retained by CLIENT to provide a site representative for the purpose of monitoring specific portions of construction work or other field activities as set forth in the PROPOSAL, then this section applies. For the specified assignment, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will report observations and professional opinions to CLIENT. No action of GEOTECHNICAL EINGEER or GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s site representative can be construed as altering any AGREEMENT between CLIENT and others. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will report to CLIENT any observed geotechnically related work which, in GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s professional opinion, does not conform with plans and specifications. The GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER has no right to reject or stop work of any agent of the CLIENT. Such rights are reserved solely for CLIENT. Furthermore, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s presence on site does not in any way guarantee the completion or quality of the performance of the work of any party retained by CLIENT to provide field or construction related services. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will not be responsible for and will not have control or charge of specific means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or other field activities selected by any agent or agreement of CLIENT, or safety precautions and programs incident thereto. BILLING AND PAYMENT CLIENT will pay GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER in accordance with the procedures indicated in the PROPOSAL and its attachments. Invoices will be submitted to CLIENT by GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, and will be due and payable net 30 days. If CLIENT objects to all or any portion of any invoice, CLIENT will so notify GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of the invoice date, identify the cause of disagreement, and pay when due that portion of the invoice not in dispute. The parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice. In the absence of written notification described above, the balance as stated on the invoice will be paid. TERMINATION This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party seven (7) days after written notice in the event of any breach of any provision of this AGREEMENT or in the event of substantial failure of performance by the other party, or if CLIENT suspends the work for more than three (3) months. In the event of termination, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will be paid for services performed prior to the date of termination plus reasonable termination expenses, including, but not limited to the cost of completing analyses, records, and reports necessary to document job status at the time of termination. RISK ALLOCATION Many risks potentially affect GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER by virtue of entering into this AGREEMENT to perform professional engineering services on behalf of CLIENT. The principal risk is the potential for human error by GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. For CLIENT to obtain the benefit of a fee which includes a nominal allowance for dealing with GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s liability, CLIENT agrees to limit GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s liability to CLIENT and to all other parties for claims arising out of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s performance of the services described in this AGREEMENT. The aggregate liability of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER will not exceed $20,000 for negligent professional acts, errors or omissions, and CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER from and against all liabilities in excess of the monetary limit established above. Limitations on liability and indemnities in this AGREEMENT are business understandings between the parties voluntarily and knowingly entered into, and shall apply to all theories of recovery including, but not limited to, breach of contract, warranty, tort (including negligence), strict or statutory liability, or any other cause of action, except for willful misconduct or gross negligence. The parties also agree that CLIENT will not seek damages in excess of the limitations indirectly through suits with other parties who may join GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER as a third-party defendant. Parties mean CLIENT and GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER and their officers, employees, agents, affiliates, and subcontractors. Both CLIENT and GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER agree that they will not be liable to each other, under any circumstances, for special, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of or related to this AGREEMENT. DISPUTES RESOLUTION All claims, disputes, and other matters in controversy between GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER and CLIENT arising out of or in any way related to this AGREEMENT will be submitted to “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) before and as a condition precedent to other remedies provided by law. If and to the extent CLIENT and GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER have agreed on methods for resolving such disputes, then such methods will be set forth in the “Alternative Dispute Agreement” which, if attached, is incorporated into and made a part of this AGREEMENT. If no specific ADR procedure is set forth in this AGREEMENT, then it shall be understood that the parties shall submit disputes to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. If a dispute at law arises from matters related to the services provided under this AGREEMENT and that dispute requires litigation instead of ADR as provided above, then: 1. the claim will be brought and tried in judicial jurisdiction of the court of the county where GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER’s principal place of business is located and CLIENT waives the right to remove the action to any other county or judicial jurisdiction, and 2. the prevailing party will be entitled to recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, including staff time, court costs, attorney’s fees, and other claim related expenses. GOVERNING LAW AND SURVIVAL The law of the State of Minnesota will govern the validity of these TERMS, their interpretation and performance. If any of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be impaired. Limitations of liability and indemnities will survive termination of this AGREEMENT for any cause. The parties have read the foregoing, understand completely the terms, and willingly enter into this AGREEMENT which will become effective on the date signed below by CLIENT. Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. CLIENT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Stephan M. Gale By By President Position Position Date Date Fee Schedule-2020 FEE SCHEDULE The rates presented are portal to portal, with vehicle mileage, expenses and equipment rentals additional. Overtime for personnel charged at cost plus 25% for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and at cost plus 50% for Sundays or holidays. Engineering Services Engineering/Technical Personnel Rates Engineering Technician I Per Hour $ 70.00 Engineering Technician II Per Hour $ 80.00 Engineer I, Geologist, Scientist I Per Hour $ 90.00 Project Engineer Per Hour $ 145.00 Principal Engineer Per Hour $ 180.00 Word Processing Specialist Per Hour $ 52.00 CADD Specialist Per Hour $ 82.00 CADD Equipment Per Hour $ 18.00 Site Exploration Equipment Rental Services Drilling Services (Includes truck or track mounted drill rig and 2-person crew) Quoted Mobilization, Gopher State Locate, Traffic Cones and Signs and Patching Quoted Hollow Stem Auger and Split Spoon Sampling 0-15 ft Per Foot $ 15.00 Hollow Stem Auger and Split Spoon Sampling 15-50 ft Per Foot $ 20.00 Hollow Stem Auger and Split Spoon Sampling 50-100 ft Per Foot $ 30.00 Shelby Tube – 3” diameter Per Tube $ 40.00 Switch over to Mud Rotary Each $ 120.00 Standby Time Per Hour $ 150.00 Borehole Grouting Per Foot $ 8.00 Laboratory Testing of Soil Moisture Content Per Test $ 28.00 Dry Density (includes Moisture Content) Per Test $ 55.00 Atterberg Limits (LL and PI) Per Test $ 130.00 Consolidation with Time Rate of Settlement Per Test $ 595.00 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Per Test $ 66.00 Torvane Shear Per Test $ 28.00 Hand Penetrometer Per Test $ 12.00 Organic Content of Soil Per Test $ 78.00 Soil Classification Per Sample $ 12.00 Expenses Mileage – Personal Vehicle Per Mile $ 0.58 Direct Project Expenses: Includes travel expenses including car and hotel, special equipment, materials and supplies: transportation and freight; and reproduction services Cost X 1.0 January, 2020 Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.E. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Painting South Ramp in the 50th & France District Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for painting the South Ramp in the 50th and France District with Painting By Nakasone Inc for $21,672. INTRODUCTION: The original quote was under $20,000. Additional locations were added to the scope of work that require council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Painting South Ramp in the 50th & France District Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100007 Department:Engineering Buyer:Chad Millner Date: 01/11/2021 Requisition Description:Painting South Ramp 50th and France Vendor:PAINTING BY NAKASONE INC Cost:$21,672.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:- PURCHASE SOURCE:QUOTE/BD - QUOTE/BID DESCRIPTION:Painting services for the 50th and France South Parking Ramp BUDGET IMPACT:Funded by assessments to the 50th and France Business District ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Maintenance to extend the life of the asset Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:To ensure the district is vibrant and clean Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.F. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Bob Wilson, City Assessor Item Activity: Subject:Set 2021 Date for Board of Appeal and Equalization Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Set Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 5:30 p.m., for the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. INTRODUCTION: On or before February 15 of each year, the County Assessor is required to give written notice to the City Clerk of the day and time when the Board of Appeal and Equalization will meet in the assessment districts in the county. To facilitate this, the City Council is required to select a hearing date between April 1 and May 31 of each year. Staff recommends setting the initial hearing date for Wednesday, April 21, 2021, at 5:30 p.m. This date does not conflict with any religious observances. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.G. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Resolution No. 2021-13: Accepting Donations Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution No. 2021-13 accepting donations. INTRODUCTION: To comply with State Statute, all donations to the City must be accepted by resolution and approved by two- thirds majority of the Council. See attached resolution with list of donations. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-13: Accepting Donations RESOLUTION NO. 2021-13 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed grants and donations on behalf of its citizens. Police Department • Crime Prevention Fund $6,941.67 K-9 Expenses Fire Department • Little Hospice $1,500 General Use • J Patrick and Linda Smith $500 General Use Dated: January 20, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _______ day of ___________________, 2021. City Clerk Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-12: Approving Right-of-Way Easement Vacation at 5932 Abbott Avenue South Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to close the public hearing at noon, Jan. 25, 2021, and to continue action on this item to the Feb. 2, City Council meeting. INTRODUCTION: Bellin Construction have applied for a vacation of the right of way easements at 5932 Abbott Avenue South. Staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-12: Approving ROW Easement Vacation at 5932 Abbott Avenue Public Hearing Notice Application Exhibit Staff Presentation RESOLUTION NO. 2021-12 VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5932 ABBOTT AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application was received on November 30, 2020 from Bellin Construction of 5932 Abbott Avenue South, dedicated in the plat of Harriet Manor Second Addition, requesting that the drainage and utility easement be vacated; and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice was given and the hearing was held on January 20, 2021, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the drainage and utility easement is not needed for public purposes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota: 1. That the following described drainage and utility easement is hereby vacated: That part of the utility and drainage easement as dedicated on Lot 2, Block 1, Michielutti Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota being the south 5 feet of said Lot 2 except the east 10 feet and except that part lying west of a line drawn parallel with and 10 feet east of the west line of said Lot 2 and its southerly extension. 2. The vacation shall not affect the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling the electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, water pipes, mains and hydrants thereon or thereunder, if any, to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto. 3. That the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute all documents necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to affect the transfer of this property. Adopted this 2nd day of February, 2021. Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of February 2, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _____ day of __________, 2021. _______________________________ City Clerk Notice of a Public Hearing through BetterTogetherEdina.org, Telephone and WebEx City Council, Wednesday, January 20, 7 P.M. VIRTUAL NOTICE: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13D.021, and the current state of emergency declared by the Governor of Minnesota and the Mayor-declared local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council has determined that it is not prudent to conduct in-person meetings, nor is it feasible to allow any member of the public to be present at the regular meeting location or any remote sites of any Commission or Council members. All members will participate by virtual means. APPLICANT: Bellin Construction PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5932 Abbott Avenue South, Edina, MN 55424 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the utility and drainage easement as dedicated on Lot 2, Block 1, Michielutti Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota being the south 5 feet of said Lot 2 except the east 10 feet and except that part lying west of a line drawn parallel with and 10 feet east of the west line of said Lot 2 and its southerly extension. REQUEST: Drainage and utility easement vacation. See other side for easement exhibit. MEETING PROCEDURE: The Mayor of Edina has determined that an in-person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the COVID-19 health pandemic. The City Council will instead meet virtually using Webex software. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: Public hearing input can be provided in a variety of ways to the City Council. Options 1 and 2 are available now: 1)Leave a comment online at www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/public-hearings. 2)Leave a voicemail at 952-826-0377. Options 3 and 4 are available the night of the meetings: 3)Watch the meeting •Edina TV (Comcast Channels 813 or 16) •Facebook.com/EdinaMN •EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings 4)Call in to provide live testimony during the meetings. •Call 800-374-0221. •Enter the unique Conference ID for the meeting. The Conference ID is 1548149 for the City Council meeting. •Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. •Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. The Mayor or Chair will ask for testimony in a public hearing after staff and any applicants have made their presentations. MORE INFORMATION: DATE OF NOTICE: A City staff member will introduce you when it is your turn. City of Edina Engineering Department, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439, 952-826-0371. Also, you can visit the Better Together Edina website, www.bettertogetheredina.org/5932_abbott January 6, 2021 S 89°30'54" E 122.26S 00°01'26" E 94.65 7.10S 44°46'10" EMeas 100.0 Plat Meas 95.0 Plat 49.8244.82 49.82 49.82S 89°30'54" E 127.39Meas. 122.93 Plat12S 00°08'06" W 99.651414 14 B L O C K 1SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, "MICHIELUTTI ADDITION"Meas. 127.93 Plat5.0 10.0 A L L E Y A L L E Y14 1428.8F:\survey\michielutti addition - hennepin\01 Surveying - 88918\01 CAD\01 Source\04 Final Plat.dwgDrawn ByScale: 1" = 20'F.B.No.Project No.EASEMENT EXHIBITLOT 2, BLOCK 1,MICHIELUTTI ADDITION89200-Easement to be vacated EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION:That part of the utility and drainage easement as dedicated on Lot 2, Block 1, Michielutti Addition, HennepinCounty, Minnesota being the south 5 feet of said Lot 2 except the east 10 feet and except that part lying west of aline drawn parallel with and 10 feet east of the west line of said Lot 2 and its southerly extension. 04/21/2014 Account No. 1001.4391 City Of Edina, Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 Phone (952) 927-8861 TDD (952) 826-0379 Fax (952) 826-0390 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY VACATION APPLICATION Applicant Print Name Address Street City/State Zip Telephone No. Fax No. I hereby petition the City Council of the City of Edina to vacate all of the following described public right of way pursuant to M.S. 412.851 and Edina Code Section 24-191: Street Alley Utility Easement Drainage Easement Other Legal description of the area proposed to be vacated (Please note all legal descriptions shall be transmitted electronically in a Word documents to the City of Edina City Clerk: Dmangen@edinamn.gov): Does the area proposed to be vacated or any part thereof terminate at or abut upon any public water? Yes No Please note if the area requested to be vacated terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources by the City of Edina thirty days before any Council action. x Attach a copy of a scaled drawing showing in full detail the area proposed to be vacated. x Include the vacation fee of $450.00 with your application. THE MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Private data is available to you, but not to the public. We are requesting this data to determine your eligibility for a license from the City of Edina. Providing the data may disclose information that could cause your application to be denied. You are not legally required to provide the data, however, refusing to supply the data may cause your license to not be processed. Under MS 270.72, the City of Edina is required to provide the Minnesota Department of Revenue your MN Tax ID Number and Social Security Number. The Department of Revenue may supply information to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, this data can be shared by Edina City Staff, Department of Public Safety, Hennepin County Auditor, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Hennepin County Warrant Office, Ramsey County Warrant Office and other persons or entities deemed necessary for verification of information submitted in the application. Your signature on this application indicates you understand these rights. I request that my residence address and telephone number be considered private data. My alternative address and telephone number are as follows: Address Telephone Number Date Initiated Signature S 89°30'54" E 122.26S 00°01'26" E 94.65 7.10S 44°46'10" EMeas 100.0 Plat Meas 95.0 Plat 49.8244.82 49.82 49.82S 89°30'54" E 127.39Meas. 122.93 Plat12S 00°08'06" W 99.651414 14 B L O C K 1SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, "MICHIELUTTI ADDITION"Meas. 127.93 Plat5.0 10.0 A L L E Y A L L E Y14 1428.8F:\survey\michielutti addition - hennepin\01 Surveying - 88918\01 CAD\01 Source\04 Final Plat.dwgDrawn ByScale: 1" = 20'F.B.No.Project No.EASEMENT EXHIBITLOT 2, BLOCK 1,MICHIELUTTI ADDITION89200-Easement to be vacated EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION:That part of the utility and drainage easement as dedicated on Lot 2, Block 1, Michielutti Addition, HennepinCounty, Minnesota being the south 5 feet of said Lot 2 except the east 10 feet and except that part lying west of aline drawn parallel with and 10 feet east of the west line of said Lot 2 and its southerly extension. The CITY ofEDINA Vacation of Easements 5932 Abbott Avenue South Resolution 2021-12 Public Hearing January 20, 2021 The CITY ofEDINAExisting Easements www.EdinaMN.gov 2 Green Arrow: Vacate 5-ft Esmt Red Arrow: Maintain 5-ft Esmt The CITY ofEDINAVacated Area City: Supports Vacated Area Private Utilities: No Issues Noted www.EdinaMN.gov 3 The CITY ofEDINARecommendation Motion to close the public hearing at noon, January 25,and to continue action on the item to the February 2 City Council meeting. www.EdinaMN.gov 4 Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Activity: Subject:Resolution No. 2020-122, 2020-123 and Ord. Number 2020-16; Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning Revised Overall Development Plan, Preliminary Development Plan and Consideration of a EAW for 6600-6800 France Avenue Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-123 declaring that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for the project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-122 denying a Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning, Revised Overall Development Plan and Preliminary Development Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial. The Planning Commission vote was unanimous. INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to consider a proposal to re-develop the 22-acre parcel at 6600-6800 France site, known as the Southdale Office Center. T he applicant is proposing a significant change to the development plans that were approved for this site in 2017. On Nov.18, 2020, the P lanning Commission considered the proposal and unanimously recommended denial of the request. The Commission also recommended that an EIS is not necessary. In 2017, this site was rezoned to PUD for a mixed-use development project (The Avenue on France). Although the Southdale Design Experience Guidelines were not finalized at that time, the approved plans did a nice job of following the principles that had been established. The plans included: below-grade parking; a north-south and east-west woonerf for high quality pedestrian and vehicular movement through the site; preservation of the mature oaks; 50-foot setbacks from France Avenue with green space and sidewalks, storefronts on France with the new retail buildings. (See attached approved plans.) The approved plans were found to meet the P UD standards to justify a doubling of the density on the site. As proposed, at full built out, the site would include the following new structures: A 9-story, 150-foot tall 230,375 square foot office building. A 4-story, 70-foot tall 70,000 square foot medical office building. A new 12,000 square foot restaurant (Tavern on France). A 20,000 square foot water treatment plant. Three above-grade parking structures. The applicant has indicated that the north ramp would be made available for public parking. A 13-story (157-foot tall) and 6-story apartment building totaling 239 units. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10 percent of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. The request requires a Rezoning to amend the original PUD that was approved in 2017, including overall development plan and consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Specifically, the following actions are requested: Resolution No. 2020-123 Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Specific action would be making a negative declaration of the need for an EIS. Resolution No. 2020-122 - Preliminary Rezoning/Zoning Ordinance Amendment to an existing PUD. - Revised Preliminary Overall Development Plan for the entire site. - Preliminary Site Plan for middle parking ramp, office building and retail building. Ordinance No. 2020-16 First Reading of an Ordinance Amendment revising the existing P UD-11 PUD Zoning District. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Memos Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Ordinance and Resolutions Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Responses to Comments on the EAW Traffic and Parking Study Traffic and parking study - addendum 1 Traffic and parking study - addendum 2 Applicant Narrative Revised, Nov. 13 Applicant Narrative and Plans 1 of 3 Applicant Narrative and Plans 2 of 3 Applicant Narrative and Plans 3 of 3 Sustainability Questionnaire AFO Review Design Experience Guidelines Pyramid of Discretion 2017 Approved Plans for the Site Building Height Overlay District Letter from the Chamber of Commerce The Planning Commission is asked to consider a proposal to re-develop the 22-acre parcel at 6600-6800 France site, known as the Southdale Office Center. The applicant is proposing a significant change to the development plans that were approved for this site in 2017. In 2017, this site was rezoned to PUD for a mixed-use development project (The Avenue on France). Although the Southdale Design Experience Guidelines were not finalized at that time, the approved plans did a nice job of following the principles that had been established. The plans included: below grade parking; a north-south and east-west woonerf for high quality pedestrian and vehicular movement through the site; preservation of the mature oaks; 50-foot setbacks from France Avenue with green space and sidewalks, storefronts on France with the new retail buildings. (See attached approved Plans.) The approved plans were found to meet the PUD standards to justify a doubling of the density on the site. The proposed plans shall be reviewed to those same standards to justify increasing the density of the site. The applicant is NOT entitled the density that was approved for the previous request. The underlying zoning of the site is POD, Planned Office District which allowed and FAR of .5; the approved PUD allowed up to 1.0. if the plans approved in the PUD were followed. As proposed, at full built out, the site would include the following new structures: 9-story, 150-foot tall 230,375 square foot office building. A 4-story, 70-foot tall 70,000 square foot medical office building. A new 12,000 square foot restaurant (Tavern on France). A 20,000 square foot water treatment plant. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning, Revised Overall Development Plan, Preliminary Development and EAW consideration for 6600-6800 France Avenue. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Three above grade parking structures. (Public parking would be available in the north ramp) The applicant has indicated that the north ramp would be made available for public parking. A 13-story (157-foot tall) and 6-story apartment building totaling 239 units. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. Buildings that remain include the Bank of America, 6600 France and 6800 France office buildings. The request requires a Rezoning to amend the original PUD that was approved in 2017, including overall development plan and consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). An EAW considers the impacts the project will have on the environment. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from required setbacks, building height, parking spaces and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The applicant has gone through the sketch plan process and has revised the plans in an attempt to respond to neighborhood concerns, the Architecture Field Office (AFO) review comments, and feedback received from the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has noted the following revisions in their narrative: Removed the proposed Public Safety and Fire Substation in response to concerns about noise and traffic. Removed a proposed retail/dining building from the plan to reduce overall site density and parking requirements. Reoriented the new office building and shifted the footprint further east, away from Valley View Road. The height was reduced one story and the size reduced 45,000 square feet. These revisions respond to Cornelia neighborhood concerns about overall height and impact on single family residences. Reduced the overall project density by approximately 55,000 square feet to further reduce parking requirements. Shifted the Center Ramp and Office building to the east, thus retaining an additional 40-45-foot swath of existing oak trees along Valley View Road. Exceeded both the City and Watershed requirements for storm water management on the site, including the incorporation of sustainable landscaping with native plantings and pollinator habitats along much of Valley View Road. Eliminated one leg of the L-shaped Residential building and created a significant open, commons area along 66th in response to Point of France view concerns and the desire to subdivide a continuous “street wall” along 66th street. Completely lined and covered the North parking ramp on 3 sides with Residential units, including walk-out units along Valley View and 66th. Reduced the surface parking on the site – just 7% of what exists today. Reduced the height of the South Ramp one level and lined the west side with the Water Treatment Facility and an outdoor sustainable storm water basin with interpretive and educational paths. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Enhanced the pedestrian experience with wider sidewalks, the addition of streetscape and tree canopy, and numerous plazas, commons, pocket parks and outdoor gathering areas on the site. Incorporated a direct connection from the Cornelia Neighborhood to France Avenue through the center of the site. Increased pervious surface on the site – one acre more than exists today. To accommodate the request the following is required: Consideration of an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Rezoning/Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise the existing PUD. The existing PUD would only allow the development of the plans approved in 2017. A Revised Overall Development Plan and Site Plan Review. Attached is the city attorney’s “pyramid of discretion.” This project is within the “green” zone, meaning this is a legislative decision in which the City has significant discretion when reviewing this application. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Point of France condos; zoned PRD-4, Planned Residential District, and guided HDR, High Density Residential. Easterly: Southdale; zoned PCD-3, Planned Commercial District and guided CAC, Community Activity Center. Southerly: Two banks and an office; PCD-3 & POD, Planned Office District and guided Office/Residential. Westerly: Single family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 21.78 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains office buildings, a restaurant, and a bank. Planning Guide Plan designation: Office/Residential (20-75 residential units per acre); Limited Retail is a permitted use. Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District STAFF REPORT Page 4 Parking Based on the proposal for a total of 945,820 square feet of retail & office space, 2,779 spaces are required. The 239-unit apartment would require 239 underground spaces and 179 surface spaces. The site plan demonstrates 105 surface parking stalls, and 2,768 enclosed stalls for a total of 2,873 stalls; therefore, the plans are code compliant regarding parking. Spack Consulting conducted a parking study and concluded that there is an excess of 847 to 1,541 parking stalls within the development. District parking would be made available in the north parking ramp. (See attached parking study and addendum.) Site Circulation/Traffic The middle access off France Avenue, by the Tavern on France would be eliminated with the construction of the new office building. The northern and southern France Avenue access points would remain but be slightly reconfigured. There would be five access points to Valley View Road, all staying the same as they exist today. The existing interior-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation generally remains the same as it exists today. The pedestrian experience however would be enhanced. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic study. (See attached traffic study.) The study concludes that the existing roadways can be supported by the project. The study recommends: Signal timing updates along France Avenue should be completed to allow for improved operations at the France Avenue site access. An additional left turn lane at the France Avenue/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Entrance should be added as it provides additional storage capacity and reduces blockages of the internal boulevard intersection. All three legs on this approach should extend fully back to the internal boulevard intersection. Valley View Road should be reviewed for a potential road diet in the future. This should occur once volumes have stabilized post Covid-19 and after the development is constructed. The property owner would be required to pay for the above improvements. Landscaping The landscape plan is very extensive and would be an improvement over the approved PUD plan. Based on the perimeter of the site 108, overstory trees would be required. That includes existing landscaping and trees on the site. Overall existing and proposed trees on the site at full development would be 351. (See the attached landscape plan.) The previously approved PUD plan had around 300 existing and proposed trees. A full complement of understory shrubs and bushes are proposed. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined in the attached engineering memo. (See attached memo STAFF REPORT Page 5 dated November 10, 2020.) A developer’s agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks and utilities. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City’s review authority over the grading of the site. Additionally, the conditions required in the November 10, 2020 engineering memo would also be required. Building/Building Material The building materials would be a combination primarily brick and glass, with metal panel and composite wood accents. (See attached renderings.) The proposed restaurant does not appear to meet the City Code requirement and design experience guidelines of providing the 75% transparency of the building facing the south sidewalk and the first 60 feet of height being brick, stone or glass. The restaurant has large metal panels on all sides. Should the project be approved, staff would recommend compliance with these provisions at the time of Final Site Plan approval. The proposed residential and office buildings appear to meet these code provisions. The following are the City Code Section 36-618 requirements regarding the building material: a. All new front building façades in the district that face the public realm must have seventy five percent (75%) transparency (ability to see inside the building) at the ground level. b. All facades on the first vertical 60 feet of a building (above grade) shall use natural materials (brick, stone) facing the public realm (streets, parks, sidewalks). c. No building façade shall be longer than 200 feet without changing direction by a minimum of 90 degrees. d. First floors must have a minimum ceiling height of 20 feet. e. Exceptions may be made to a-d above for an affordable housing project that has over 50% of the units considered to affordable housing as defined in Section 36-612 (1). Mechanical Equipment No mechanical equipment has been shown on the plans, however, it does appear that mechanical equipment screening is proposed. Any rooftop and/or ground level equipment would have to be screened if visible from adjacent property lines. Final Plans must include location of mechanical equipment and the means of screening. No ground level mechanical equipment shall be located within the front yard of the development. Signage The signage allowed on the site would correspond to the use. The office uses would be subject to sign regulations of an office district; the retail uses would be subject to sign regulations of commercial districts; and the residential uses subject to the planned residential district. This would be written into the PUD. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. STAFF REPORT Page 6 (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the city and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the city to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the city's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) 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. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. The applicant would be installing boulevard sidewalks around the entire perimeter of the site. Additionally, the interior drive would have wide sidewalks on both sides with access ground level access to each use. The pedestrian experience would be improved from existing conditions. The City’s transportation planner has reviewed the proposed project and provided a memo to address issues. (See attached memo dated November 10, 2020.) Approval of this project would be conditioned upon meeting the recommendations within the memo. STAFF REPORT Page 7 Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines - City Goals The applicant has responded to the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. However, staff believes that some of the primary fundamental guidelines are not adequately address in this development. Those include connectivity through the site, street typologies, building height, and transition to the neighborhood to the west. Regarding connectivity, the proposed new office building in the middle of the development blocks any north-south flow through the site. The previously approved plan had a north-south woonerf proposed through the site to provide a “western promenade” that would better connect this site in all directions. There is no direct north-south flow through the site as proposed. The proposed plans rely on an enhancement of existing drive aisle connections through the site. The street room typology 1A (transition to the Cornelia Neighborhood) has not been followed. (See the recommended street room typology 1A attached on page 20-21 in the Design Experience Guidelines.) The proposed structure on Valley View Road at the intersection at 66th is 57 feet tall. The street room typology recommends a maximum height of 36 feet. While the structure here is an improvement from sketch plan (previously the parking ramp was exposed), it does not follow City Code requirements or the Design Experience Guidelines. The east-west connections through the site appear to be traditional drive-aisles with sidewalks separated with grass area. The east-west pedestrian connections would allow residents to the west to connect to and through the site to Southdale. Pedestrian improvements would also be made around the entire perimeter of the site with boulevard style sidewalks. These are all very well done, and have been improved since sketch plan, however, they are standard code requirements. The existing and proposed uses are tied together through sidewalk connections. Most of the parking areas would be in the three surface ramps on the Valley View side of the development. Green space and landscaping would be increased. Buildings have been pulled up to France Avenue, but still have the 50-foot setback to the street as outlined in the Experience Guidelines and required by Zoning Ordinance. Mic Johnson, AFO, the City’s consultant on the Greater Southdale Area Vision Plan has reviewed the plans; overall, he believes the plans do not align with the planning and design ideas in the Greater Southdale District Planning Framework. (See attached AFO review.) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 36-253 the following are the regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council STAFF REPORT Page 8 to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. A case could be made for approval and denial of this request. As with similar large development proposals staff has outlined options for approval and denial of this request. (See the recommendation section of this report.) While there a many positive elements within this proposal, however, staff does not believe the applicant has adequately addressed issues raised at the sketch plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council and has not adequately addressed the Southdale Design Experience Guidelines, to justify a project with greater density and height than the previously approved PUD. When comparing the previously approved PUD to the proposed development, there are pluses and minuses. The advantages or pluses in the current proposal include: STAFF REPORT Page 9 Provision of land for the city to construct a water treatment facility. The applicant would come back and go through site plan approval for construction of the water treatment facility, as there are several outstanding issues that would need to be resolved as outlined in the attached city engineer review memo. (See attached engineering memo dated November 10, 2020.) Provision of district parking in the north parking ramp. Users of events at Roselyn Park and the Southdale area in general could park on this site. Enhanced landscaping. Stormwater management improvements. Plan would meet the affordable housing policy. The disadvantages or issues identified by staff include: A less creative site plan compared to the approved plan. A less pedestrian friendly project compared to the approved plan. Three above-grade parking structures facing Valley View Road. The transition area to the Cornelia neighborhood. Plan did not follow the street typology 1A in the Design Experience Guidelines, which suggest 3 story structures, potentially rowhouses along Valley View Road. Site plan does not justify the building heights that are proposed well above the 4- story height requirement for the site. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in this Chapter shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses are all consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned, the site is designated as OR, Office Residential. Uses contemplated within that area within the Comprehensive Plan include: Primary uses are offices, attached or multifamily housing. Secondary uses: Limited retail and service uses (not including “big box" retail), limited industrial (fully enclosed), institutional uses, parks, and open space. Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites. Upgrade existing streetscape and building appearance, improve pedestrian and transit environment. Encourage structured parking and open space linkages where feasible; emphasize the enhancement of the pedestrian environment. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD STAFF REPORT Page 10 include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Office Residential – OR,” which allows for limited retail. Because of that land use designation, uses allowed within the PCD-3, Planned Commercial District would be appropriate, as the PCD-3 is the Zoning District at Southdale to the east. Uses allowed, include retail, office, medical office, restaurant and housing, which is what is contemplated for this site. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed land uses include a mixture of uses including office, retail, restaurant, medical office, a bank, and multi-family residential. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As mentioned, the uses allowed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The densities allowed would be specifically stated in the PUD Ordinance. The residential density proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at 11 units per acre. The proposed FAR of 1.0 would still be consistent with the density allowed at Southdale across the street, which allowed up to 1.0. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The table on page 11 shows how the proposed new building would comply with the POD-2 Zoning Ordinance Standards and the zoning standard in the PUD District. Please note that several of the city standards are not met under conventional zoning. By relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above should be met. The proposal includes improved sidewalks to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street and within the site, compared to existing conditions. The design of the buildings is of a high-quality, and would incorporate improved landscaping and green space, a decrease in impervious coverage, reduction in surface parking, and an infiltration area. The plan is an improvement over existing site condition. However, staff does not believe that the increase in height and density is justified. As mentioned previously, the design experience guidelines should be more closely followed to re-develop this site and justify a PUD. STAFF REPORT Page 11 Compliance Table City Standard (POD-2) Proposed New Building Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street Parking Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet (all buildings) 36 feet (apartments) 20 feet (water treatment plant) * 20 feet (south parking ramp) * 35-50 feet Building Height 4 Stories or 48 feet whichever is less (Approved PUD allowed 8 stories for the residential apartment) 6 stories – Portion of Residential 13 stories – Residential 9 stories – Office 2 stories - Retail Building Coverage 30% 25% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .50 of the tract Tract size = 21.78 acres or 948,736 s.f. 474,316 s.f. MAX (Approved PUD included 873,479 s.f.) .998 of the tract* (947,385 s.f. proposed) Parking Stalls (Site) Mixed Use District Nonresidential = 1/300 s.f. (708,348 s.f.) 2,361 spaces required Residential = 1 enclosed space/unit (239) + .75 spaces exposed per unit (179) 418 spaces required 2,779 total spaces required 105 surface spaces 2,768 enclosed/parking ramp spaces 2,873 Total Parking Stall Size 8.5’ x 18’ 8.5 x 18’ Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Flexibility requested through the PUD Zoning Ordinance Amendment STAFF REPORT Page 12 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The proposed project at full build out would qualify for consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). An EAW was performed by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City of Edina at the applicants’ expense. (See attached EAW.) The guidelines for an EAW are outlined by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The EAW guidelines provide information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. The purpose of an EAW is determine whether a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS) must be done. Based on the findings and conclusions within the EAW, staff does not believe and EIS is needed for this project. The conditions outlined in the EAW and the conditions of approval that would be established by the City would adequately address the impacts of this project. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposal reasonable to justify the revised PUD rezoning of the site? No. Staff does not support the revised rezoning of the site, for the following reasons: 1. Does not adequately address the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. Issues/concerns identified by staff and AFO include: Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity through the site; lack of following the street typology on Valley View Road; building heights; and the transition area to the neighborhood to the west. Regarding connectivity, the proposed new office building in the middle of the development blocks any north-south flow through the site. The previously approved plan had a north- south woonerf proposed through the site to provide a “western promenade” that would better connect this site in all directions. There is no direct north-south flow through the site as proposed. The proposed plans rely on an enhancement of existing drive aisle connections through the site. The street room typology 1A (transition to the Cornelia Neighborhood) has not been followed. (See the recommended street room typology 1A attached on page 20-21 in the Design Experience Guidelines..) The proposed structure on Valley View Road at the intersection at 66th is 57 feet tall. The street room typology recommends a maximum height of 36 feet. While the structure here is an improvement from sketch plan (previously the parking ramp was exposed), it does not follow City Code requirements or the Design Experience Guidelines. Mic Johnson, AFO, the City’s consultant on the Greater Southdale Experience Guidelines has reviewed the plans and also believes the plans do not align with the planning and STAFF REPORT Page 13 design ideas in the Greater Southdale District Planning Framework. (See attached AFO review.) 2. The proposal does not meet the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. (See pages 7-10 of this report.) The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposed project does not create a more creative approach to the land use compared to the approved plan for the site. The project does not provide greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses enough to justify greater height and density. A less creative site plan compared to the approved plan. A less pedestrian friendly project compared to the approved plan. Three above-grade parking structures facing Valley View Road. The transition area to the Cornelia neighborhood. Plan did not follow the street typology 1A in the Design Experience Guidelines, which suggest 3 story structures, potentially rowhouses along Valley View Road. Site plan does not justify the building heights that are proposed well above the 4- story height requirement for the site. 3. When comparing the previously approved PUD to the proposed development, the pedestrian connectivity and experience has been reduced. There is no north south connection through the site, which was a prominent feature of the previous PUD. 4. Items suggested in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are not incorporated into the plan: STAFF REPORT Page 14 “Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites.” The proposal is 17 acres in size but does not provide any vertical mixed use. “Edge” or transitional uses. Moderately sized liner buildings should be encouraged to soften the edge of large-scale superblock development. Medium- density housing types such as townhouses combined with structured parking may also be an appropriate transitional use. • Is an Environment Impact Statement required for the proposed project? No. Based on the EAW done by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City of Edina, and Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. Recommendations and conditions outlined in the EAW would adequately address impacts through conditions of approval for the Rezoning to the revised PUD. Options for Consideration & Recommendation As noted in the above review, staff is recommending denial of the request. However, a case can be made for both approval and denial. Below provide options for the planning commission and city council to consider: Approval Recommend the City Council approve the request for an Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning to amend the existing PUD for the site and find that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses, and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The PUD zoning would: a. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. c. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses. STAFF REPORT Page 15 d. Project is of high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. e. Maintains the efficiency of public streets and utilities. f. Provides a mixture of land uses within the development. h. Project would meet the City’s affordable housing policy. 3. The PUD would ensure that the development proposed would be the only building that would be allowed on the site unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. Addresses the Greater Southdale Area Design Experience Guidelines. The following principles are included: Improved pedestrian connections from existing conditions to move people through and around the site. This includes an improved sidewalk around the perimeter of the site and east-west through the site. Provides additional public space along around the perimeter of the site. High quality design. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. Provides district parking and land for a city water treatment facility. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern present in much of the city will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. i. Provide visual screening and privacy to buffer cars from people, provide visual relief and allow stormwater infiltration in parking lots. ii. Evaluate current parking standards in order to encourage shared parking and minimize the visual impact of surface parking. iii. Landscaping is essential to screen parking areas, buffer adjacent residential uses and create a pedestrian-friendly environment along streets. iv. Encourage the development of parking lots or structures so they can be shared by more than one building on the site or by buildings on neighboring sites, and which can transition over time to other uses if parking needs change. b. Encourage successful mixed-use development. c. Create and maintain housing options that serve a diverse range of ages, household types, and economic situations. d. Ensure that public realm design respects community character, supports of commercial and mixed-use development, promotes community identity, and creates high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. STAFF REPORT Page 16 6. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 7. The proposed uses would be an upgrade to development on the site. 8. Based on the EAW done by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City of Edina, and Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. Recommendations and conditions outlined in the EAW would adequately address impacts through conditions of approval for the Rezoning to the revised PUD. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated October 26, 2020. 2. Final building plans for the new structures, excluding the parking ramps, must be meet Section 4. Sec. 36-579. (3) regarding building materials and transparency at ground level. 3. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 4. Provision of code compliant bike racks for each use near the building entrances. 5. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 6. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 7. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 8. A Developer’s Agreement/Site Improvement Plan Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 8. County approval if necessary, on access to France Avenue. 9. The project must conform to the City’s affordable housing policy. Final determination to be made at final approval. 10. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated November 10, 2020. STAFF REPORT Page 17 11. Compliance with the Spack Consulting Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. The property owner/developer would be responsible to pay for the roadway improvements. 12. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 13. Dedication of public access easements of the east-west sidewalks through the site and around the perimeter of the site. 14. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the fire marshal and building official’s memo dated November 2, 2020. 15. Should the property be subdivided in the future, park dedication would be required for the new uses approved for this development. Park dedication for residential uses is $5,000 per unit. 16. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must demonstrate minimal impact to pedestrian and vehicle movement. 17. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. 18. All buildings must comply with City Code Section 36-618 regarding building materials and transparency. 19. The location of the water treatment facility would be subject to review by both the Planning Commission and City Council, as there are several outstanding issues that would need to be resolved as outlined in the attached city engineer review memo. (See attached engineering memo dated November 10, 2020.) Denial Recommend the City Council deny the request for an Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning to amend the existing PUD for the site and find that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. Does not adequately address the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. Issues/concerns include: Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity through the site; plans do not follow the street typology on Valley View Road; building heights; and the transition area to the neighborhood to the west. 2. Inadequate north south pedestrian and vehicle connections through the site. The proposed new office building in the middle of the development would prevent any north- south flow through the site. The existing PUD for the site requires a north-south woonerf STAFF REPORT Page 18 proposed through the site to provide a “western promenade” that would better connect this site in all directions. 3. The street room typology 1A (transition to the Cornelia Neighborhood) has not been followed. The proposed structure on Valley View Road at the intersection at 66th is 57 feet tall. The street room typology recommends a maximum height of 36 feet. 4. The proposal does not meet the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The proposal does not meet the purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposed project does not create a more creative approach to the land use compared to the approved plan for the site. The project does not provide greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses enough to justify greater height and density. 5. When comparing the previously approved PUD to the proposed development, the pedestrian connectivity and experience has been reduced. 6. Items suggested in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are not incorporated into the plan: “Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites.” The proposal is 17 acres in size but does not provide any vertical mixed use. “Edge” or transitional uses. Moderately sized liner buildings should be encouraged to soften the edge of large-scale superblock development. Medium- density housing types such as townhouses combined with structured parking may also be an appropriate transitional use. STAFF REPORT Page 19 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request subject to the findings listed above. Staff further recommends that an EIS not be required. Deadline for a city decision: February 16, 2020 November 2, 2020 Cary Teague, Community Development Director David Fisher, Chief Building Official & Rick Hammerschmidt, Fire Marshall Southdale Center 6600 to 6800 France Ave Information / Background: A High Rise Apartment Building with a Parking Ramp and Other Buildings. - This would be using the 2020 Minnesota State Building Code with the 2018 International Building Code and the 2020 Minnesota State Fire Code with the 2018 International Fire Code. - NFPA 13-Fire Sprinkler System is required. - NFPA 72 fire alarm systems is required. - Verify fire access roads can meet the angle of approach and departure for our fire department apparatus and can support our aerial towers GVW of 82,000 lbs. with outrigger weights of 75 PSI = 60,450 lbs. per outrigger. - Verify hydrant placement per 2020 Minnesota State Fire Code and Edina Fire Department Policy. - Verify the addresses. - Recommend meeting with staff for 30, 60 and 90 percent meeting before submitted for building permit. - Recommend escrow is provided with the demo and new building permits to assure City standards are met for code compliance. - Notify Contractor about hour of construction 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and no work on Sunday and holidays. A construction management plan will be required at time of building permit providing a tentative schedule for construction. - Provide documentation where all construction workers will be parking through the construction process at time of building permit. Date: November 10, 2020 To: Cary Teague – Community Development Director Chad Millner, PE – Director of Engineering Cc: 6600 France Avenue, Owner and Development Team From: Andrew Scipioni – Transportation Planner Re: 6600-6800 France Avenue – Transportation Review Southdale Office Partners, LLC. is proposing to redevelop 6600-6800 France Avenue, currently occupied by the Southdale Office Center. The proposed redevelopment would remove two existing 3-story office buildings and add six new buildings containing 239 residential units, 238,000 square feet of office, 70,000 square feet of medical office, a water treatment plant, and three parking ramps. Two existing office buildings (6 stories and 7 stories) will remain, and the existing restaurant (Tavern on France) will be relocated to a new 12,000-square- foot building. Spack Solutions completed a traffic impact study (TIS) for this project on behalf of the City. This memo will review the findings of the TIS and provide additional transportation recommendations for the proposed redevelopment. Trip Generation Spack analyzed trip generation using two methods. One method is based on the trip generation rates for various land uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. This manual provides national average traffic generation rates for different land uses. The second method is based on trip generation rates generated from local data collected by Spack. The local data estimates that the proposed development will generate 8,074 total new trips in the 2023 full build scenario (about 2,500 fewer than estimated from the ITE data). Figure 1 shows the distribution of new trips by land use. Figure 1: Trip Generation by Land Use (Local data supplemented by ITE) 1756 22% 830 10% 2542 31% 2946 37% Restaurant Multi-Family Housing Medical Office General Office Spack’s analysis shows that almost 5,500 (almost 70%) of the total new trips will be generated by the proposed office uses, with the restaurant and residential uses accounting for 22% and 10% of the total new trips, respectively. Capacity Analysis Five roadway corridors surrounding the site were studied by Spack (France Avenue, Valley View Road, West 66th, 68th and 69th Streets), as well as 12 adjacent intersections along those corridors (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Study Intersections All study corridors and intersections are projected to operate within acceptable levels through the 2030 build scenario. However, eastbound movements at the site accesses on France Avenue are projected to experience vehicle queuing that extends past the proposed internal boulevard in the 2022 and 2030 build scenarios. Updated signal timing along France Avenue is recommended by Spack to remove some excessive queuing conditions, as well as adding a second outbound left turn lane at Intersection 11 in Figure 2. The latter recommendation may increase crossing distance for pedestrians and cyclists. If implemented, the applicant should consider including a pedestrian refuge island if a crossing extends over more than two lanes of traffic. Spack also notes that Valley View Road along the western border of the site operates within volume-to- capacity ratios that support a future road diet. Figure 3 provides a typical example of a road diet, where a conventional four-lane roadway is reduced to one lane in each direction with a center shared left turn lane. The public right-of-way formerly occupied by travel lanes can then be used for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Figure 3: Road Diet Example (Source: Federal Highway Administration) The 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends buffered bike lanes on Valley View Road, which could be implemented as part of a road diet. The City completed a mill and overlay on this street in 2020 and does not have another maintenance or reconstruction project scheduled within the next 5 years. However, the City will consider implementing a road diet on Valley View Road as part of a future project. Spack also noted that if traffic volumes remain lower than 2018 levels due to the current effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic, all study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably without mitigation. Parking Analysis City Code requires a minimum of 2,896 parking stalls for this mixed-use development and 2,873 parking stalls are proposed on-site. Spack evaluated parking demand for the proposed development using national parking demand data from ITE’s Parking Generation, 5th Edition and Twin Cities data collected by Spack. Table 1 compares the number of proposed parking stalls with the City requirements and estimated demand. Land Use National Data (ITE) Local Data (Spack) Proposed Required by City Code Residential (high rise) 206 143 General Office 1,524 906 Medical Office 275 192 Restaurant 236 311 Total 2,241 1,552 2,873 2,896 Table 1: Proposed Parking Stalls vs. City Requirements and Estimated Demand Spack recommended that a parking variance be granted as the proposed parking supply exceeds the estimated parking demand based on both national and local data. Multi-Modal Facilities 6600-6800 France Avenue is currently bordered by a 5’ sidewalk along France Avenue to the east, West 69th Street to the south and Valley View Road to the east between West 69th and 68th Streets. No bike facilities are present immediately adjacent to the site. A signed bike route exists on portions of Cornelia Drive and Southdale Road to the west and there are on-street bike lanes on West 70th Street to the south. There are a small number of internal sidewalks and five pedestrian crossings to neighboring sites/streets. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends completing the perimeter sidewalk along Valley View Road and West 66th Street, buffered bike lanes on Valley View Road/West 69th Street and standard bike lanes on West 66th Street. While there are no transit stops immediately adjacent to 6600-6800 France Avenue, Metro Transit’s Southdale Transit Center is less than one mile away (less than a 20-minue walk). From here, residents can access several routes that connect to Uptown and Downtown Minneapolis, Best Buy Corporate Headquarters in Richfield, and Southtown and the Mall of America/South Loop in Bloomington. In addition, Metro Transit is in the process of developing the E Line bus rapid transit (BRT) service, which will replace portions of Local Route 6 with faster and more reliable service. The southernmost stop will be the Southdale Transit Center. The E Line is proposed to operate along France Avenue between Southdale, Uptown/Downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities campus. Pending full funding, construction could begin as early as 2023. Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies Table 2 details the ways in which the proposed redevelopment supports current City transportation plans and policies. Table 2: Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goal Assessment 1. Improve mobility for residents, visitors and businesses with a balanced system of transportation alternatives for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 2. Implement a fully multi-modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 3. Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Staff recommends installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of proposed parking (144 stalls) and equipping an additional 5% (144 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. These stalls should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. 4. Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single- occupancy vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicle trips and the use of alternative travel options. The project promotes walking and biking with varied adjacent land uses and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 6. Encourage and support attractive and reliable high- performance transit service and connections. The applicant should consider providing directional signage/information for local transit services or subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees. 7. Develop and manage parking provisions to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride- sharing and bicycle parking. The project is proposed to include 140-145 bicycle parking stalls, 5% of the proposed parking stalls per City Code. These parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The applicant should consider on-site bike repair stations located adjacent to bike parking. 9. Provide for efficient movement of goods within Edina, while minimizing the impacts of freight traffic on other trips and reducing negative impacts on land uses on freight corridors. Turning movements and travel routes for delivery vehicles should be reviewed by the applicant. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (additional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.). 13. Provide and maintain adequate access to and from, and safety on, local and regional roadway adjacent to community redevelopment and other activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code. Living Streets Plan (2015) Principle Assessment 2. Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 5. The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development. The project includes network of internal streets and sidewalks that connect to existing facilities along the perimeter of the development. 13. Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life for the public. The proposed boulevard-style sidewalk along the site perimeter will improve pedestrian safety and comfort adjacent to the property. Similar style sidewalks should be considered along the proposed internal streets. Greater Southdale District Plan (2018) Transportation Goals Assessment 1-A. Regional Roadway Access Maintain adequate regional vehicle accessibility while also minimizing its negative impacts on Greater Southdale area circulation, not only regarding cars and vehicle deliveries, but also transit and bicycle usage, and pedestrian convenience and comfort. Eastbound movements at the site accesses on France Avenue are projected to experience vehicle queuing that extends past the proposed internal boulevard. Updated signal timing along France Avenue is recommended by Spack to remove some excessive queuing conditions, as well as adding a second outbound left turn lane at Intersection 11 in Figure 2. The applicant should consider including a pedestrian refuge island if a crossing extends over more than two lanes of traffic. 1-B. Street Grid Establish a district-wide grid system based on blocks that are approximately 200’ x 200’. Grids are highly connected street networks that are essential for neighborhoods that balance public and private life. To the extent that grids enhance property access, they are important for unlocking land value, increasing economic benefits. The site is proposed to be divided into smaller sections with internal streets and sidewalks. 1-C. Internal Roadways Develop prototype streetscape designs for new streets/roadways created as part of and to service redevelopment, and for possible redesign of existing streets/roadways, emphasizing legibility, pedestrian safety and comfort, street trees and other greenery, energy-efficient, pedestrian-scale lighting, and sustainability and stormwater management techniques. Sketch plan identifies amenities like boulevard trees, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian refuge islands. 1-E. Mobility Hub Develop a strategy for a mobility hub(s) that would: 1. Connect different modes of travel – walking, biking, transit, and shared mobility; 2. Integrate information technology to help travelers find, access and pay for transit and on-demand shared mobility services; and Enhance mobility for travelers of all ages and abilities. Applicant should consider designating some surface parking stalls for car sharing services. These stalls should be placed in visible, convenient locations near pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additional surface parking stalls could be converted to shared bike/scooter parking in the future. 1-G. Parking and Loading Develop a plan to establish public District shared parking facilities in key locations to service public facilities and/or to augment private parking. Future- The proposed parking supply exceeds estimated demand by 632-1,321 stalls, allowing additional capacity for shared district parking. proof parking structures by requiring flexibility and adaptability in above-ground parking structure for possible future changes in use, addressing such issues as floor-to-ceiling height and other relevant features. 2-A. Signature/Gateway Roadways Transform France Avenue, York Avenue, and West 66th Street with traffic-calming measures and beautification measures to discourage an increase in through traffic, enhance pedestrian/bicyclist/transit user safety and comfort, promote adjacent neighborhood livability, and establish a deeper sense of arrival and sense of place for the Greater Southdale District. Extend the identity of the Greater Southdale District beyond its edges while conversely sharing the value of its amenity with neighboring residential areas, i.e. establishing a seam rather than a border. Sketch plan identifies amenities along France Avenue like boulevard trees, gathering areas and plazas at the corners of West 66th Street. 2-B Pedestrian Circulation Create additional opportunities for pedestrians to safely and comfortably cross France and York Avenues by increasing the number of signalized intersections, including mid-block connections or other measures where appropriate, thus reducing the posted speed on these streets and facilitating a slower and more effective traffic signal progression for through traffic. Determine design and costs for: 1. New pedestrian/bike/vehicular intersections; and 2. New pedestrian/bike intersections. Create expanded sidewalks, with double rows of tree canopy, on France Avenue, York Avenue, and West 66th Street. Sketch plan proposes two sidewalks along France Avenue (one straight and edge-of-curb, one meandering and boulevard-style), with trees and vegetation on either side. Staff recommends applicant consider only boulevard-style facilities and provide equal accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists through one wider shared-use path or two separate facilities. 2-C. Bicycle System and Facilities Provide a continuous, on-site route for bicycles that is connected to east/west streets penetrating the site and to provide access to the adjacent neighborhoods. The applicant should consider widening internal sidewalks to 8’ (minimum) to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use or install bicycle pavement markings on internal streets. Travel Demand Management Opportunities The applicant has proposed some strategies to support alternative modes of transportation to, from and within the site and reduce the impact of motor vehicles in the neighborhood. These include: • Bicycle parking • Internal and perimeter sidewalks with boulevard trees and other buffers between motor vehicle traffic • Marked pedestrian crosswalks Other strategies to consider implementing (as previously mentioned) include: • Installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of proposed parking (144 stalls) and equipping an additional 5% (144 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. These stalls should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. • Installing bicycle parking stalls in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The proposed bike repair station should be located adjacent to bike parking. • Widening internal sidewalks to 8’ (minimum) to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use or installing bicycle pavement markings on internal streets. • Maintaining or widening the existing vegetated boulevards to improve user safety and comfort. • Designating some surface parking stalls for car sharing services or shared bike/scooter parking. These stalls should be placed in visible, convenient locations near pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Minimizing the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (directional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.). • Providing directional signage/information for transportation amenities (adjacent transit services, bicycle parking, adjacent parks/trails). • Subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees. DATE: 11/10/2020 TO: 6600 - 6800 France Ave S, Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Ross Bintner, PE, Engineering Services Manager Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner RE: 6600 - 6800 France Ave S – Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, flood risk, and storm water. Plans reviewed included civil, landscape, and stormwater plans, survey, and geotechnical report, application dated 10/19/2020. Review Comment Required For General 1. Existing easements held by the City require Council action to vacate if deemed appropriate and necessary for the project. Consideration of requests can require up to 60-days to process. General Comment 2. Deliver as-build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 3. Maintenance of sidewalks internal to the site to be responsibility of property owner. Maintenance of sidewalks on France Ave, Valley View Rd and 66th Street will be by the City. City snowplowing operations are 5-ft wide on these sidewalks. If owner wants a wider path, this would be the responsibility of the owner. General Comment Survey 4. An existing and proposed site condition survey is required. Grading/Building Permit 4.1 Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Grading/Building Permit Living Streets 5. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Grading/Building Permit 6. Saw cut concrete sidewalk joints on public sidewalks. Grading/Building Permit 7. Public sidewalk to be minimum 8-ft wide with an 8-ft boulevard along France Avenue and 5-ft wide minimum with a 5-ft minimum boulevard along Valley View Road and 66th Street. Grading/Building Permit 8. Sidewalk access along France Avenue will be required during the duration of construction unless short term closures are approved by the City Engineer. Grading/Building Permit 9. Public access easements will be required to allow the public to use the streets and sidewalks internal to the site. Maintenance of all internal streets and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the owner. This aligns with the Southdale Area Design Guidelines. Certificate of Occupancy Sustainability 10. Green roofs reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing amount of greenhouse gas emissions trapped in the atmosphere and energy needs to cool a building. Rooftop solar generates emission-free energy. The Metropolitan Council's Extreme Heat map shows that during an extreme heat event, this area of Edina can be 1.1-6.5 degrees F hotter than surrounding areas. The University of Minnesota's Solar Suitability map rates 6600 France Ave S as "good" for solar roof installations with a grade of 80 out of 100. Staff recommends developers study the other eight structures in this proposal for green or solar roof installations and integrate these technologies into a greater proportion of the rooftop square footage. General Comment 11. Staff recommends that organic recycling be a required provision for all residential and business occupants. General Comment 12. Consider adding space inside parking structure(s) for residents' bikes, to complement existing commitment outside. General Comment 13. Two EV charging stations out of 2,873 parking stalls represents .0007% of parking for electric vehicles. In 2019, 315 electric vehicles were registered in Edina, reflecting an ownership rate of around .006% (~50,000 residents), nearly 10 times the rate of EV needs than the current proposal includes. Staff recommends installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% (143 stalls) of proposed parking distributed across all three parking structures, and an additional 5% (143 stalls) wired for future EV charger installation. General Comment Traffic and Street 14. Review fire access requirements with fire department. Fire truck turning template attached. Grading/Building Permit 15. Provide traffic study and implement City-approved recommendations. See separate transportation review memo. Grading/Building Permit 16. Driveway entrance permit required for entrance reconstruction. Building Permit 17. Road and lane closures on France Ave S must be coordinated with Hennepin County. Street repairs must be completed to the County’s standards. General Comment 18. Consider constructing pedestrian refuge islands where crossings are expected to span more than two travel lanes. General Comment 19. Consider providing directional signage/information for local transit services or subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees. General Comment 20. Bicycle parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The applicant should consider on-site bike repair stations located adjacent to bike parking. Grading/Building Permit 21. Turning movements and travel routes for delivery vehicles should be reviewed by the applicant. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (additional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.). General Comment 22. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code. Grading/Building Permit 23. Applicant should consider designating some surface parking stalls for car sharing services. These stalls should be placed in visible, convenient locations near pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additional surface parking stalls could be converted to shared bike/scooter parking in the future. General Comment 24. The applicant should consider widening internal sidewalks to 8’ (minimum) to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use or install bicycle pavement markings on internal streets. General Comment Sanitary and Water Utilities 25. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Grading/Building Permit 26. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 27. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 28. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit with Public Works. Prior to Starting Utility Work 28.1 Meter required for building service line and combined lines. No meter required for fire only service line. Grading/Building Permit 28.2 Public Works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 29. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 30. A SAC determination will be required by the Metropolitan Council. The SAC determination will be used by the City to calculate sewer and water connection charges Grading/Building Permit 31. A sealed well is located onsite. If any unsealed wells are located during construction, provide a well sealing record to the City, as wells not in use must be sealed by a licensed well contractor per MN Rules, Chapter 4725. Certificate of Occupancy 32. Water Treatment Plant, if located as shown A. Access to the plant seems inadequate. North side appears to be the only side with access. West and East sides are adjacent to parking ramp and storm water management pond. The plant will require multiple egresses due to the chemical rooms and building code requirements. It appears those would need to be on the west side. This would have similar challenges with aesthetics as the plant design on France Avenue. B. Truck turning movements for deliveries and turning will need to be reviewed and space adjusted. C. Opportunity for 1-way truck traffic through the parking structure to unload chemicals needs to be considered. D. Depending on chemical design and delivery, semi-truck access may be needed. E. City to size raw water and distribution water lines into and out of the plant. Easements for watermains will be required. F. Access easement to operate and maintain the plant will be required based on truck turning and delivery needs. G. The land needed for the plant, is it leased or a separate PID? H. Are there common walls with the parking ramp? Concerns with differentiate settlements. The plant will have below grade tanks that could up to 15-ft deep. These could be deeper than the parking garage footing. Footings and below grade tanks will have to be separated. I. Due to footing concerns, plant could utilize above grade storage tanks to avoid buried infrastructure. Prior to Final Zoning Approvals J. Plant will require HVAC systems. It appears the south and west walls are the only options. Staff would need to review the requirements of the plant to see if this space is adequate. Or HVAC is on the roof. How is this intergraded with the esthetics of the structure? K. The preliminary location of the plant is in a current flood shape. Modification to the flood shape and impacts to plant operations will need to be negotiated with the developer. L. Location to stormwater pond concerning. May need to make pond smaller or move location of water treatment plant. MN Department of Health will require separation between water treatment plant and stormwater pond. M. Plant will require an electrical service cabinet and transformer. Where is this located? N. Plant will require a backup generator. Location will need to be negotiated with the developer. Can it be intergraded within the parking ramp? O. Below grade tanks will need to be separated from below grade sanitary sewer by at least 50-ft. 33. Design should provide proper foundation design for trunk sewer realignment: This sewer main is proposed in an area where historic aerial photos and sanitary record drawings indicate a low area existed near the present-day intersection of Valley View and 66th Street. Provide additional soil borings along alignment of relocated sanitary trunk line. Supplement or modify the geotechnical report to include recommendations specific to the trunk sewer line relocation. Grading/Building Permit 34. Sewer and water connection permits required for all connections. France Avenue wet taps to occur at night. City staff to be present to inspect, cost to be paid by developer. Hennepin County permit conditions will apply. Grading/Building Permit 35. Clearly indicate private vs public utilities. Propose public water loop and hydrants. Replace or line remaining existing watermain to bring to new condition. Grading/Building Permit Storm Water Utility 36. Hydraulic and hydrologic report shall meet watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Application looks complete, but watershed is reviewing. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit 37. Development must not increase downstream flood risk; Flood volume comparison seems to show that proposed conditions provide similar or greater flood storage, but staff is unable to confirm the proposed storage is at the correct stages. This item will require further review. Grading/Building Permit Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 38. A SWPPP consistent with the State General Construction Site Stormwater Permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 39. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Grading/Building Permit 40. Retaining walls over 4-ft in height require design by a structural engineer. Grading/Building Permit 41. Any needed closures of France Avenue shall be coordinated with Hennepin County. Grading/Building Permit 42. The streets of Valley View Road and 66th Street shall not be used for construction staging. Any short-term closures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Grading/Building Permit 43. Construction staging or construction fencing shall not impede the City’s ability to snowplow the adjacent streets. If construction fencing removes storage space for snow, developer shall be responsible for snow removal in the street adjacent to any impacts to City operations. Grading/Building Permit 44. Developer shall consider pre-condition surveys of 66th Street, Valley View Rd and France Avenue to aid in determine post- construction impacts caused by the project. Impacts caused by the project shall be the responsibility of the contractor to correct. Grading/Building Permit Other Agency Coordination 45. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 46. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit is required. Grading/Building Permit INPUT DESCRIPTIONINPUT VALUEUNITSOUTPUT DESCRIPTIONOUTPUT VALUEUNITSUNITSVINEdina CobraAVERAGE TIRE TURNING ANGLE LEFT39.7DEGREESWHEELBASE258INCHESAVERAGE TIRE TURNING ANGLE RIGHT39.7DEGREESFRONT AXLESteerTek 24KAVERAGE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT310.7INCHES25.9FEETFRONT AXLE KPI70.87INCHESAVERAGE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT310.7INCHES25.9FEETFRONT AXLE TRACK95.01INCHESOUTSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT361.7INCHES30.1FEETFRONT TIREMichelin XFE 425/65R22.5OUTSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT361.7INCHES30.1FEETFRONT TIRE OVERALL WIDTH16.6INCHESINSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT259.7INCHES21.6FEETFRONT WHEELAlcoa 12.25 X 22.5 AlINSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT259.7INCHES21.6FEETFRONT WHEEL INSET4.68INCHESFRONT AXLE TO FRONT OF GRILL79.37INCHESFRONT BUMPER LENGTH24INCHESFRONT BUMPER WIDTH102INCHESFRONT BUMPER CORNER RADIUS (R) OR CHAMFER (C)? RFRONT BUMPER CORNER RADIUS9 INCHESLEFT TURN CRAMP INSIDE ANGLE43DEGREESLEFT TURN CRAMP OUTSIDE ANGLE36.41DEGREESRIGHT TURN CRAMP INSIDE ANGLE43DEGREESRIGHT TURN CRAMP OUTSIDE ANGLE36.41DEGREESOUTPUT DESCRIPTIONOUTPUT VALUEUNITSUNITSTURNING RADIUS LEFT441.5INCHES36.8FEETTURNING RADIUS RIGHT441.5INCHES36.8FEETCURB‐TO‐CURB RADIUS LEFT449.8INCHES37.5FEETCURB‐TO‐CURB RADIUS RIGHT449.8INCHES37.5FEETWALL‐TO‐WALL RADIUS LEFT507.6INCHES42.3FEETWALL‐TO‐WALL RADIUS RIGHT507.6INCHES42.3FEETRosenbauer Motors v. 10282015mjbTURNING RADIUS CALCULATIONS BASED ON AVERAGE OF INNER AND OUTER FRONT WHEEL CRAMP ANGLES INPUT DESCRIPTIONINPUT VALUEUNITSOUTPUT DESCRIPTIONOUTPUT VALUEUNITSUNITSVINEdina PumpersAVERAGE TIRE TURNING ANGLE LEFT40.6DEGREESWHEELBASE203INCHESAVERAGE TIRE TURNING ANGLE RIGHT40.6DEGREESFRONT AXLESteerTek 20KAVERAGE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT236.6INCHES19.7FEETFRONT AXLE KPI70.87INCHESAVERAGE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT236.6INCHES19.7FEETFRONT AXLE TRACK95.01INCHESOUTSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT287.6INCHES24.0FEETFRONT TIREX Multiway HD XZE 385OUTSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT287.6INCHES24.0FEETFRONT TIRE OVERALL WIDTH15.1INCHESINSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS LEFT185.6INCHES15.5FEETFRONT WHEELAlcoa 12.25 X 22.5 AlINSIDE REAR AXLE TURNING RADIUS RIGHT185.6INCHES15.5FEETFRONT WHEEL INSET4.68INCHESFRONT AXLE TO FRONT OF GRILL79.37INCHESFRONT BUMPER LENGTH24INCHESFRONT BUMPER WIDTH102INCHESFRONT BUMPER CORNER RADIUS (R) OR CHAMFER (C)? RFRONT BUMPER CORNER RADIUS0.125 INCHESLEFT TURN CRAMP INSIDE ANGLE45DEGREESLEFT TURN CRAMP OUTSIDE ANGLE36.26DEGREESRIGHT TURN CRAMP INSIDE ANGLE45DEGREESRIGHT TURN CRAMP OUTSIDE ANGLE36.26DEGREESOUTPUT DESCRIPTIONOUTPUT VALUEUNITSUNITSTURNING RADIUS LEFT349.2INCHES29.1FEETTURNING RADIUS RIGHT349.2INCHES29.1FEETCURB‐TO‐CURB RADIUS LEFT356.7INCHES29.7FEETCURB‐TO‐CURB RADIUS RIGHT356.7INCHES29.7FEETWALL‐TO‐WALL RADIUS LEFT420.2INCHES35.0FEETWALL‐TO‐WALL RADIUS RIGHT420.2INCHES35.0FEETRosenbauer Motors v. 10282015mjbTURNING RADIUS CALCULATIONS BASED ON AVERAGE OF INNER AND OUTER FRONT WHEEL CRAMP ANGLES Date: November 24, 2020 To: Cary Teague – Community Development Director Chad Millner, PE – Director of Engineering Cc: 6600 France Avenue, Owner and Development Team From: Andrew Scipioni – Transportation Planner Re: 6600-6800 France Avenue – Transportation Review Southdale Office Partners, LLC. is proposing to redevelop 6600-6800 France Avenue, currently occupied by the Southdale Office Center. The proposed redevelopment would remove two existing 3-story office buildings and add six new buildings containing 239 residential units, 238,000 square feet of office, 70,000 square feet of medical office, a water treatment plant, and three parking ramps. Two existing office buildings (6 stories and 7 stories) will remain, and the existing restaurant (Tavern on France) will be relocated to a new 12,000-square- foot building. Spack Solutions completed a traffic impact study (TIS) for this project on behalf of the City. This memo will review the findings of the TIS and provide additional transportation recommendations for the proposed redevelopment. Trip Generation Spack analyzed trip generation using two methods. One method is based on the trip generation rates for various land uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. This manual provides national average traffic generation rates for different land uses. The second method is based on trip generation rates generated from local data collected by Spack. The local data estimates that the proposed development will generate 8,074 total new trips in the 2023 full build scenario (about 2,500 fewer than estimated from the ITE data). Figure 1 shows the distribution of new trips by land use. Figure 1: Trip Generation by Land Use (Local data supplemented by ITE) 1756 22% 830 10% 2542 31% 2946 37% Restaurant Multi-Family Housing Medical Office General Office Spack’s analysis shows that almost 5,500 (almost 70%) of the total new trips will be generated by the proposed office uses, with the restaurant and residential uses accounting for 22% and 10% of the total new trips, respectively. Capacity Analysis Five roadway corridors surrounding the site were studied by Spack (France Avenue, Valley View Road, West 66th, 68th and 69th Streets), as well as 12 adjacent intersections along those corridors (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Study Intersections All study corridors and intersections are projected to operate within acceptable levels through the 2030 build scenario. However, eastbound movements at the site accesses on France Avenue are projected to experience vehicle queuing that extends past the proposed internal boulevard in the 2022 and 2030 build scenarios. Updated signal timing along France Avenue is recommended by Spack to remove some excessive queuing conditions, as well as adding a second outbound left turn lane at Intersection 11 in Figure 2. The latter recommendation may increase crossing distance for pedestrians and cyclists. If implemented, the applicant should consider including a pedestrian refuge island if a crossing extends over more than two lanes of traffic. Spack also notes that Valley View Road along the western border of the site operates within volume-to- capacity ratios that support a future road diet. Figure 3 provides a typical example of a road diet, where a conventional four-lane roadway is reduced to one lane in each direction with a center shared left turn lane. The public right-of-way formerly occupied by travel lanes can then be used for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Figure 3: Road Diet Example (Source: Federal Highway Administration) The 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends buffered bike lanes on Valley View Road, which could be implemented as part of a road diet. The City completed a mill and overlay on this street in 2020 and does not have another maintenance or reconstruction project scheduled within the next 5 years. However, the City will consider implementing a road diet on Valley View Road as part of a future project. Spack also noted that if traffic volumes remain lower than 2018 levels due to the current effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic, all study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably without mitigation. Parking Analysis City Code requires a minimum of 2,896 parking stalls for this mixed-use development and 2,873 parking stalls are proposed on-site. Spack evaluated parking demand for the proposed development using national parking demand data from ITE’s Parking Generation, 5th Edition and Twin Cities data collected by Spack. Table 1 compares the number of proposed parking stalls with the City requirements and estimated demand. Land Use National Data (ITE) Local Data (Spack) Proposed Required by City Code Residential (high rise) 206 143 General Office 1,524 906 Medical Office 275 192 Restaurant 236 311 Total 2,241 1,552 2,873 2,896 Table 1: Proposed Parking Stalls vs. City Requirements and Estimated Demand Spack recommended that a parking variance be granted as the proposed parking supply exceeds the estimated parking demand based on both national and local data. Multi-Modal Facilities 6600-6800 France Avenue is currently bordered by a 5’ sidewalk along France Avenue to the east, West 69th Street to the south and Valley View Road to the east between West 69th and 68th Streets. No bike facilities are present immediately adjacent to the site. A signed bike route exists on portions of Cornelia Drive and Southdale Road to the west and there are on-street bike lanes on West 70th Street to the south. There are a small number of internal sidewalks and five pedestrian crossings to neighboring sites/streets. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends completing the perimeter sidewalk along Valley View Road and West 66th Street, buffered bike lanes on Valley View Road/West 69th Street and standard bike lanes on West 66th Street. While there are no transit stops immediately adjacent to 6600-6800 France Avenue, Metro Transit’s Southdale Transit Center is less than one mile away (less than a 20-minue walk). From here, residents can access several routes that connect to Uptown and Downtown Minneapolis, Best Buy Corporate Headquarters in Richfield, and Southtown and the Mall of America/South Loop in Bloomington. In addition, Metro Transit is in the process of developing the E Line bus rapid transit (BRT) service, which will replace portions of Local Route 6 with faster and more reliable service. The southernmost stop will be the Southdale Transit Center. The E Line is proposed to operate along France Avenue between Southdale, Uptown/Downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities campus. Pending full funding, construction could begin as early as 2023. Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies Table 2 details the ways in which the proposed redevelopment supports current City transportation plans and policies. Table 2: Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goal Assessment 1. Improve mobility for residents, visitors and businesses with a balanced system of transportation alternatives for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 2. Implement a fully multi-modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 3. Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Staff recommends installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of proposed parking (144 stalls) and equipping an additional 5% (144 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. These stalls should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. 4. Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single- occupancy vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicle trips and the use of alternative travel options. The project promotes walking and biking with varied adjacent land uses and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 6. Encourage and support attractive and reliable high- performance transit service and connections. The applicant should consider providing directional signage/information for local transit services or subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees. 7. Develop and manage parking provisions to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride- sharing and bicycle parking. The project is proposed to include 140-145 bicycle parking stalls, 5% of the proposed parking stalls per City Code. These parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The applicant should consider on-site bike repair stations located adjacent to bike parking. 9. Provide for efficient movement of goods within Edina, while minimizing the impacts of freight traffic on other trips and reducing negative impacts on land uses on freight corridors. Turning movements and travel routes for delivery vehicles should be reviewed by the applicant. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (additional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.). 13. Provide and maintain adequate access to and from, and safety on, local and regional roadway adjacent to community redevelopment and other activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code. Living Streets Plan (2015) Principle Assessment 2. Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. The project provides facilities for pedestrians and motorists, but is lacking for bicyclists, shared mobility users and transit users. 5. The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development. The project includes network of internal streets and sidewalks that connect to existing facilities along the perimeter of the development. 13. Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life for the public. The proposed boulevard-style sidewalk along the site perimeter will improve pedestrian safety and comfort adjacent to the property. Similar style sidewalks should be considered along the proposed internal streets. Greater Southdale District Plan (2018) Transportation Goals Assessment 1-A. Regional Roadway Access Maintain adequate regional vehicle accessibility while also minimizing its negative impacts on Greater Southdale area circulation, not only regarding cars and vehicle deliveries, but also transit and bicycle usage, and pedestrian convenience and comfort. Eastbound movements at the site accesses on France Avenue are projected to experience vehicle queuing that extends past the proposed internal boulevard. Updated signal timing along France Avenue is recommended by Spack to remove some excessive queuing conditions, as well as adding a second outbound left turn lane at Intersection 11 in Figure 2. The applicant should consider including a pedestrian refuge island if a crossing extends over more than two lanes of traffic. 1-B. Street Grid Establish a district-wide grid system based on blocks that are approximately 200’ x 200’. Grids are highly connected street networks that are essential for neighborhoods that balance public and private life. To the extent that grids enhance property access, they are important for unlocking land value, increasing economic benefits. The site is proposed to be divided into smaller sections with internal streets and sidewalks. 1-C. Internal Roadways Develop prototype streetscape designs for new streets/roadways created as part of and to service redevelopment, and for possible redesign of existing streets/roadways, emphasizing legibility, pedestrian safety and comfort, street trees and other greenery, energy- efficient, pedestrian-scale lighting, and sustainability and stormwater management techniques. Sketch plan identifies amenities like boulevard trees, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian refuge islands. 1-E. Mobility Hub Develop a strategy for a mobility hub(s) that would: 1. Connect different modes of travel – walking, biking, transit, and shared mobility; 2. Integrate information technology to help travelers find, access and pay for transit and on-demand shared mobility services; and Enhance mobility for travelers of all ages and abilities. Applicant should consider designating some surface parking stalls for car sharing services. These stalls should be placed in visible, convenient locations near pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additional surface parking stalls could be converted to shared bike/scooter parking in the future. 1-G. Parking and Loading Develop a plan to establish public District shared parking facilities in key locations to service public facilities and/or to augment private parking. Future-proof parking structures by requiring flexibility and adaptability in above-ground parking structure for possible future changes in use, addressing such issues as floor-to-ceiling height and other relevant features. The proposed parking supply exceeds estimated demand by 632-1,321 stalls, allowing additional capacity for shared district parking. 2-A. Signature/Gateway Roadways Transform France Avenue, York Avenue, and West 66th Street with traffic-calming measures and beautification measures to discourage an increase in through traffic, enhance pedestrian/bicyclist/transit user safety and comfort, promote adjacent neighborhood livability, and establish a deeper sense of arrival and sense of place for the Greater Southdale District. Extend the identity of the Greater Southdale District beyond its edges while conversely sharing the value of its amenity with neighboring residential areas, i.e. establishing a seam rather than a border. Sketch plan identifies amenities along France Avenue like boulevard trees, gathering areas and plazas at the corners of West 66th Street. 2-B Pedestrian Circulation Create additional opportunities for pedestrians to safely and comfortably cross France and York Avenues by increasing the number of signalized intersections, including mid-block connections or other measures where appropriate, thus reducing the posted speed on these streets and facilitating a slower and more effective traffic signal progression for through traffic. Determine design and costs for: 1. New pedestrian/bike/vehicular intersections; and 2. New pedestrian/bike intersections. Create expanded sidewalks, with double rows of tree canopy, on France Avenue, York Avenue, and West 66th Street. Sketch plan proposes two sidewalks along France Avenue (one straight and edge-of-curb, one meandering and boulevard-style), with trees and vegetation on either side. Staff recommends applicant consider only boulevard-style facilities and provide equal accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists through one wider shared-use path or two separate facilities. 2-C. Bicycle System and Facilities Provide a continuous, on-site route for bicycles that is connected to east/west streets penetrating the site and to provide access to the adjacent neighborhoods. The applicant should consider widening internal sidewalks to 8’ (minimum) to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use or install bicycle pavement markings on internal streets. Travel Demand Management Opportunities The applicant has proposed some strategies to support alternative modes of transportation to, from and within the site and reduce the impact of motor vehicles in the neighborhood. These include: Bicycle parking Internal and perimeter sidewalks with boulevard trees and other buffers between motor vehicle traffic Marked pedestrian crosswalks Other strategies to consider implementing (as previously mentioned) include: Installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of proposed parking (144 stalls) and equipping an additional 5% (144 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. These stalls should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. Installing bicycle parking stalls in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). The proposed bike repair station should be located adjacent to bike parking. Widening internal sidewalks to 8’ (minimum) to accommodate shared pedestrian and bicycle use or installing bicycle pavement markings on internal streets. Maintaining or widening the existing vegetated boulevards to improve user safety and comfort. Designating some surface parking stalls for car sharing services or shared bike/scooter parking. These stalls should be placed in visible, convenient locations near pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Minimizing the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (directional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.). Providing directional signage/information for transportation amenities (adjacent transit services, bicycle parking, adjacent parks/trails). Subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees. Transportation Commission Comments Members of the Transportation Commission were given an opportunity to provide comments on the TIS and other transportation impacts of the proposed development. These comments are reflective of individual Commissioners, not the entire Commission; Disappointed in lack of proposed bicycle infrastructure. Recommend reviewing turning movements, travel routes and parking accommodations for delivery vehicles. Noted that the proposal does not minimize or reduce at- or above-grading parking on the site. Noted that the streetscapes along Valley View Road are poorly construed. Recommend a larger study area for the TIS. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Economic Development Phone 952-826-0407 • Fax 952-826-0390 • www.EdinaMN.gov Date: December 1, 2020 To: Edina City Council cc: Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Re: Economic Impact and Financing Tools for 6600-6800 France Avenue This memo pertains to the overall economic impact of the proposed redevelopment of 21.7 acres of commercial property at 6600-6800 France Avenue. In brief, the implementation of the proposed plan would result in a boost to Edina’s local economy. Ultimately, the project would create a 21st century mixed use destination that adds activity and vitality to the Greater Southdale Area. It is important to note that the Greater Southdale Area includes commercial, medical and multi-family uses that serve not only Edina but people from throughout the Twin Cities region. The retail, restaurant and medical businesses in this area rely on customers, clients and patients from throughout the Twin Cities region. The professional, medical and service businesses employ people who live throughout the region and visit Edina during the workday. This proposal is consistent with and a positive addition to the Greater Southdale Area. Direct benefits of the proposed project would include: • Increase in property tax base • Creation of Class A office space designed to consider tenant needs post-pandemic • Creation of modern medical office space • Addition of new restaurant and ancillary retail services • Creation of new jobs likely including professional, medical, and retail service • Addition of new housing units at luxury and likely affordable price points • Creation of temporary construction jobs Additionally, the construction of the proposed project would likely generate fees that are payable to the City of Edina to supplement dedicated funds that are used throughout the City. The types of local fees are likely to include: • Sewer and water access charges (SAC and WAC) • Park dedication fees (TBD) • Building permit fees 6600-6800 France Avenue - Economic Development Memo December 1, 2020 Page 2 The redevelopment budget of this site will include additional costs due to the required demolition, abatement, and utility infrastructure costs that must be borne before new construction can proceed. The budget is also impacted by the required phasing and staging necessary to keep the two existing office buildings functional throughout a multi-year construction effort. For example, new structured parking will have to be built in advance to make up for the removal of the surface parking. Four of the project costs are driven in part by the direction preferred in the Southdale Area Design Guidelines. The following elements raise development costs: • elimination of surface parking in favor of structured parking, • permanent public easement on portions of the structured parking • construction of landscaped and hardscaped areas designated with permanent public easements, and • conveyance of property to the City to be used for a future water treatment facility Cognizant of these expenses, the developer inquired about the possible use of public financing resources to supplement the private equity and debt necessary to move forward with the redevelopment. Possible use of tax increment financing (TIF) was explored. City staff hired Stantec Consulting to evaluate the site for possible designation as a Redevelopment TIF District. In accordance with Edina’s policy regarding Tax Increment Financing, the cost of this study was paid for by the developer. After inspecting and evaluating the site, Stantec determined that the site does meet the standards of Minnesota TIF Statutes and does qualify as a potential Redevelopment TIF District. The use of TIF requires the approval of the Edina City Council and Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority following the extensive procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes. If necessary to bridge a gap in the developers financial pro forma, the use of Tax Increment Financing could be explored further. Grants from Metropolitan Council and MN Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) could also be pursued. At this point, staff provides no recommendation for or against the use of TIF to support eligible expenses for this project. In conclusion, should the proposed redevelopment project be approved, it would make a positive economic addition to Edina and the Greater Southdale Area. # # # January 20, 2021 Mayor & City Council Cary Teague, Community Development Director Summary of Public Hearing Comments Information / Background: Public Participation Opportunities To reduce barriers for participation, the City has added options for participating in public hearings. Public comment options advertised to the public include: 1. Better Together Edina 2. Leave a voicemail 3. Live Testimony the night of the meeting Regardless of the way comments were received, they are all valued and treated equally. In respect to comments, individuals should only have to use one channel. In addition to adding two more channels, the City modified the timeline to give more time to individuals for participation. Comment Summary November 6 notices were mailed and at noon Wednesday, January 13 the public hearing closed, the City received 22 comments on BetterTogetherEdina.org. There were two comments left via voicemail and four live testimonies at the December 1 City Council meeting. The unmodified comments from Better Together Edina are attached to this report. Favor - Added tax base Not in Favor - Concern with the Water Treatment Plant - Height/Density & site design - Length of and living through construction - Traffic - Too much parking STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning Commission On November 18, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. Vote: 7 Ayes and 0 Nays. Date of Contribution Better Together Edina Public Hearing Comments, Rezoning at 6600- 6800 France Ave. (Commons on France), Southdale Office Center 1. 28 Oct 2020, 08:23 AM Other than providing the developers with more profit, I don't understand why the buildings shown on this plan have to be so high or add so much more additional housing. Three-to-four story apartment and condominium buildings seem to be on a scale that fits the area. The contrast between Southdale First Addition and this plan is quite striking. I didn't happen to see what kind of building materials will be used. I'm hoping it's a more traditional brick. I may make more comments as I take a deeper look at the plan. Paul Lawrence. 2. 14 Nov 2020, 12:24 AM Kirsten Gullickson, South Cornelia resident, life-long Edina resident, constantly driving, biking, walking in the 6600-6800 proposed redevelopment area. I am writing to the Edina Planning Commission and the Edina City Council to strongly oppose rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and oppose changes to city redevelopment planning codes to existing setbacks from streets, sidewalks and green parkways between sidewalks and buildings, and I oppose granting variances for building height, and to floor area ratios. This redevelopment plan is squeezing far too many buildings onto the 6600 - 6800 site. The buildings are not only on top of one another, they are on top of the surrounding streets. The amount of traffic generated from these structures that pour onto France Ave. S. and Valley View Rd. will be staggering. France Ave. S. is already a nightmare (pre-pandemic). With the additional structures proposed for the W. 70th St. & France Ave. S. corner, the traffic will be stop-and-go throughout the entire day. The quality of life in an around France Ave. S. will plummet due to constant traffic. This entire area, and the businesses in the area, will become an area to avoid at all costs. Edina and neighboring Richfield are not lacking for new high-density housing. There are enormous apartment/condo complexes surrounding Southdale and now another one is going up behind Target on Hazelton Rd. Edina is a primarily a single-family dwelling residential area, and that is one reason why people move to the area. No one wants to live in the shadow of an office complex that should have half as many buildings on it, and that should be smaller in size than the proposed plan for 6600-6800. Office space is abundant in Edina, yet as we have learned, no one goes into the office during a pandemic. Even once it is deemed safe for workforces to return to office buildings, fully 50% of workers plan to remain working from home. Companies are planning for this, and are reducing their office footprints and moving to smaller spaces. Another pandemic is in the not- too-distant future epidemiologists say, so we should be planning buildings and living units with that at the forefront of our thinking. Edina does not require more retail space. The retail space Edina residents prefer are 50th & France, Centennial Lakes, Galleria, Grandview, Wooddale Ave. & Valley View. Additionally, even after the pandemic is contained through vaccination distribution, people will continue to order a majority of goods online. Take-out food will not go away. In-store, brick & mortar should be small, personal, and easy in-and-out. That's the future, not high- rise apartment buildings overlooking parking lots and adjacent to a water treatment plant and three office buildings. Edina needs additional green space and outdoor recreation space. Sidewalks should be everywhere on every street. Dog parks, pet-friendly dwellings, safe bike lanes are paramount. It is a fallacy to think that high-density will have everyone selling their cars and hopping on scooters and bikes. We have winter six months of the year, so we drive five blocks to pick-up dinner, get groceries, get to basketball practice, pick-up a prescription. Most parents are not going to hop on their fat tire bikes, towing the kids on the back of the bikes with a grocery carrier attached to the kids. We will be in our cars, and the high-density apartment buildings make parking and traffic a nightmare. Edina does not want to transform into a corporate office center casting shadows over whole neighborhoods with lines of cars endlessly waiting to cross France Ave. S.. or navigate from 494 to W. 50th St. Again, I strongly oppose granting rezoning to PUD for the 6600-6800 redevelopment project, and I oppose any change to existing Edina city codes regulating existing building setbacks from streets, sidewalks and greenways between buildings and sidewalks, and oppose changes to existing building height requirements and floor area ratios. Do NOT reduce the square footage of planned apartments in order to cram more apartments/condos into these buildings simply so that the developers can maximize their profits, or so that the city can increase its tax revenue. That is unethical and unwarranted, particularly during a pandemic. People now realize that they require MORE living area, two separate work spaces ideally, and immediate access to outside so that they do not have to be in elevators with others. There will be another pandemic, so plan now for those living situations. My last point is a question regarding the water treatment plant. There is some type of treatment facility in the South Cornelia area at the sector of W. 72nd and Oaklawn Ave. It emits a constant odor that is often nauseating. It would be critically important to ensure that the proposed water treatment plant at 6600-6800 does not emit any type of odor nor, obviously, toxic fumes. Clearly, I know nothing about the water treatment process, so this may not be a concern, but thought that I should mention this. Sincerely, Kirsten Gullickson 3. 15 Nov 2020, 06:00 PM Kelly Veit, Lake Cornelia resident. I reside within 1,000ft of this project. I have followed this development for months and was present for an in- person meeting with the developer. I gave feedback regarding the first sketch plan and the second draft to the developer and to city council by email. I have concerns regarding the use of this space for primarily office space and parking. The Southdale design guide describes building the Southdale area to be uniquely Edina. I feel this current design does not achieve that. The southern end of the area will only offer a view of an office building and a parking garage to those that travel north/south on France Ave and along Valley View. If the residential tower is approved on the northeast/west corners it will form a wall to the area behind it. Why is an additional large office building needed? Plus a medical office building? This site has the potential to be wonderful and a location that residents and others visiting the area could stay and enjoy. Adding these additional office buildings to what is already there takes up valuable space that could be utilized for a more human experience and a draw to Edina. As their design stands there is nothing to inspire a person to visit/live/play in the area. It was mentioned in a city council meeting that this area would be an ideal space to use similar to 50th and France. Connect this area to my neighborhood and bridge the gap between Southdale mall/galleria and us. Townhomes would be nice, small streets with cafes, shopping, and intimate park space would all transition Lake Cornelia to France Ave. This design only serves to create a concrete barrier. In addition to these comments I feel the view of another office tower and parking garages from my home is very undesirable. No matter how well you “camoflage” a parking garage, it will always look like a parking structure. We already have traffic cutting through our neighborhood, I fear this would increase with this development. Per the developer, this plan may take ten years. To think of that level of noise for that long makes me cringe. In summary, Edina can do better. Make Edina and the Southdale area unique and inviting. Not another suburban office park with residential buildings thrown in to try and soften it. The area is enough of a parking lot already. 4. 16 Nov 2020, 06:59 AM My name is Victoria Mousseau and I am a 30-year resident of Edina (Chowen Park) and a loyal patron of both Tavern on France and Total Image of Edina. We need to slow down Edina’s population explosion. We need to leave some natural green spaces. As steward of our planet, we must stop tearing down what is still in good condition just to replace it with something more expensive. I don’t understand how we cannot have the financial resources to provide the recommended third fire station and sufficient police coverage to better control the increasing crime, when we have tripled the value (and tax base) of each house turned into a McMansion and built innumerable expensive multi-unit residences in former parking lots, and in every conceivable nook and cranny of this city. I have lived in the same house for thirty years and the quiet of my suburban neighborhood is now filled with constant construction noise (other than in winter). Beautiful mature trees have been cut down for new construction, just because they are a little bit inconvenient to leave in place. I have accepted that my 70-year-old house will be torn down when I sell it one day. I grew up in a suburb of Boston where old homes - older than any we have here - are valued for their age and idiosyncrasies; they are updated but not destroyed, even if that means 7’ ceilings, low doorways, etc. I am deeply saddened by what has happened here. We need to slow down the change. 5. 17 Nov 2020, 10:25 AM My name is Gregg Swedberg, and am a life long (60 years) resident of Edina. We live in the Lake Cornelia neighborhood. I am generally opposed to tall buildings in the community. I am also generally opposed to the overdevelopment of the Southdale area, but understand the need to reshape that area with the slow death of retail happening now. I really wish we could have an honest depiction of how the area is being developed. In this view, there's nothing happening on 70th and France and the huge new building on Hazelton is missing. (And in the 70th & FRance US Bank plan, the other development is conveniently hidden.) Separately, one might concede that this project has done a decent job of not going too high, and providing some green space. I might be missing it, but I do not see any plans for affordable housing. If it's there, I apologize. The parking garages are a really disappointing feature that I wish we could avoid so close to neighborhoods. In the Centennial lakes area, the parking garages are fine. At 50th and France, they seem to be okay. This one seems a little close. I'm also trying to figure out the fairly organized support of the 70th & France plan while this one seems to be less well-thought-of. I appreciate the chance to feed back. 6. 17 Nov 2020, 09:54 PM As a resident of the Concord neighborhood and working group member of two small area plans, I am concerned about what happens in the Southdale area which has so much potential to be a destination gem and economic driver for our city. I support thoughtful and balanced re-development, but this proposal is all wrong for achieving the right direction for the future of that area. I will be sending a more formal letter to the city council regarding my strong objections to this project and I sincerely hope that the planning commission will do the same—object to this proposal by denying the request for an Ordinance Amendment/Preliminary Rezoning to amend the existing PUD. Among my objections: - The proposal does not meet the strategic direction found in Vision Edina of “Balancing Edina’s Redevelopment, and Enhancing Our Community Fabric and Character.” - The proposal does not meet the aspirations or goals for the Greater Southdale District Plan (GSDP) including this example from its Vision Statement: “We imagine new promenades that bridge nearby neighborhoods with the life of the district, where those seams become places of lasting value. We imagine beautiful outdoor spaces for play, socializing, and respite while accommodating the functional needs of new development.” And that’s just one example of many where this proposal contradicts the GSDP. - The proposed development detracts from rather than complements or enhances the regional medical center corridor in that area of Southdale. Edina has an opportunity to position and expand this specialized corridor that could have lasting economic development benefits for the community. - The proposed development is located on what could be a prestigious corner of Edina and should welcome visitors to a vibrant district. There is no “vibrancy” in this proposal, just a wall of buildings. Whether this proposal or subsequent, much care should be given to how that 22- acre property shapes the gateway of the district. - Finally, I am astounded that the developer is proposing this project will take TEN years to complete! Ten years of construction mess and noise; ten years of traffic detours and distractions; ten years of limbo. A lot can happen in ten years to derail development and Edina could end up with two lackluster, stalled, long-term construction zones: Pentagon Park and this property in Southdale. Please, Planning Commissioners, vote no to this proposal and deny the request. Thank you for your service to Edina, Connie Carrino 7. 25 Nov 2020, 01:09 PM My name is Roberta Thorpe. I live at 6804 Cornelia Drive. I’ve lived here in the Cornelia neighborhood for over 30 years and I want to continue being here. I have great concern about the development at 6600- 6800 France Ave. In my opinion, the density with the condos and apartments is way too high, too tall, and too much. Do we really need more apartments or condos around Southdale? This is not downtown Minneapolis. Let’s put a stop to this and put quality above quantity. Perhaps consider some townhomes in the area. It seems like Edina doesn’t have many townhomes and it might be a nice transition in that area. The other concern are the large parking lots. They’re not only unsightly, but noisy with air and light pollution. I am also concerned about the increased traffic in the area that this project will bring. We do have an elementary school in the neighborhood that will be affected by the increased traffic in our family orientated neighborhood. There is never enough green space around developments along West 70th Street. I would suggest planting more pine trees as they block unsightly walls and other areas, provide year-round green, and help noise and air pollution. I would like to know where the mechanical operational equipment be located? Please no more noise for our neighborhood to listen to. We can do better. Why change these areas when they seem to be working just fine? I would suggest just stopping all the development and let’s see what happens with all the other apartments and condos that are being built in the area. With development comes building noise which is extremely stressful. The “Beep beep beeps” from the equipment can be heard for blocks. So, lets wait and see what the impacts are from other existing developments are and vote no on this item. I don’t understand why residents who are impacted by all of these developments only receive 3 minutes of time to give feedback and ask questions. The developers come in and take as long as they’d like to sell their idea, get feedback, and basically waste a lot of people’s time. Maybe this could be looked at and something done about it. Thank you for listening to me and I think I’ve said it all, but remember that the people living in our neighborhoods are the ones that have to live with the results of all of this development and we should be considered extremely valuable in our comments because of what it will do to our neighborhoods and quality of life. Please vote no. Thank you very much and lets’ not try to fix everything that is already working. - Entered by City Staff 8. 04 Dec 2020, 10:45 AM My name is Bill Gough, I've lived in the Lake Cornelia area for over 30 years. I have several concerns about the new projects being proposed for the Southdale area. Specifically for the 6600-6800 France project, we need to maintain green space along Valley View Road between 66th and 69th Sts. I would suggest a wider green park/corridor/foot and bike path that parallels this road on the east side. This might act as 1) a connection between Rosland Park and Centennial Lakes/Edina Promenade and 2) strengthen the border between the homes west of Valley View and developments closer to France Ave. The apartments being proposed near the corner of Valley View Road and 66th are unimaginative, do not fit with the area, and should be set back further from the roadways. Any development should allow a significant green space all the way along the east side of Valley View to 69th. Here's an idea - construct a new bike/walkway and park space from the corner of Valley View and 66th along the east side of Valley View to 69th. Build a foot/bike bridge across France and lead it to the Galleria, and create foot/bike lanes underneath the Galleria (via existing road/parking) to connect to the Edina Promenade at 70th. This would also create safe, walkable access from our Lake Cornelia neighborhood across France to the Promenade and Centennial Lakes. Currently, because of traffic, I don't consider the walk across France to be inviting to anyone in our area. My other concern is overbuilding. Any development plans should take into account the latest trends in office work, largely brought upon us by the Covid crisis. Can we really expect the same demand in the future for office spaces as we had even a few years ago? It seems like a more forward- thinking development of the property would be to lower the number of new office spaces and likewise cut down on parking lot or ramp space, and instead add townhomes facing the Lake Cornelia neighborhood that are compatible in design with the homes on the west side of Valley View. Thanks for listening. 9. 30 Dec 2020, 07:58 PM First, I would like to welcome all of Edina’s new city council members. As Edina’s city council, your decisions will determine the future direction of our city. It is my hope these decisions will enhance a vision reflecting innovative thinking imagination, and culminating in a memorable community setting supporting business, caring neighborhoods, and individual growth. The 66-6800 location presents a significant opportunity to think beyond parking spaces and high rise buildings that mimic our neighboring MInneapolis. This area of Edina is centrally located and could become another “identity “ or “magnet” for our city similar to “50th and France,” “Southdale” or “The Galleria.” Sadly, the current development plan only promotes an excess of buildings. Serious work and effort went into The Southdale Design Experience Guidelines to provide an approved “guide” and reference for future city planning. The 66-6800 proposed development plan does not meet these guidelines. This tract of city land represents an opportunity for an imaginative, thought-provoking concept for city living. As city council members, I am asking you to consider a new approach in developing this area, an approach not reliant upon how things are and have been, but in how things could be. I am asking you to thoughtfully consider a completely new direction, one driven by imagination and vision. This development should not only be about more apartments and office space, but when finished stand within the community as a landmark enhancing community pride, social involvement, and promoting those environmental and social entities we want for our future. 10. 05 Jan 2021, 01:23 PM I read new Councilmember Jackson’s quote in the January EditionEdina (partial quote): “There’s a group of people who want to go back to the 1950s. We can’t go back to the 1950s. Change is going to happen whether we like it or not.” My first thought was ‘Shots fired! Whoa! Who was that aimed at?’ Not sure, but speculating for discussion... “Change” affecting the Country Club neighborhood--it’s old, right? Bet not! More likely Cornelia, as so many of their homes were constructed in the 1950s and the 6600-6800 France Avenue project is the first redevelopment that the new City Council will be considering during 2021. I get it about being flexible, but, on the other hand, the way that the City’s development process currently works, it seems to me that zoning is more like a false assurance and a hurdle that City leaders hope to overcome in favor of precedent-setting and oversized developments. A development is silent on paper, but in real life there can be negative impacts, such as traffic, noise, lights, odors, shadows, and crowding. And there is a cumulative effect with each new development that is added. This area is supposed to be a transition zone, but instead, what is in the current proposal? A request for multiple variances, not only for building heights, but also for setbacks (including directly across from the Cornelia neighborhood along Valley View Road), parking spaces, and Floor Area Ratio. 1/5/2021 Roberta Castellano 4854 France Ave S 11. 12 Jan 2021, 02:27 PM My name is Bruce Kerber and I live at 6566 France Ave. S., Unit 1211 at the Point of France. It is Tuesday, January 12th at 12:45 PM and I am currently looking out over the proposed project for 6600- 6800 France Ave. area. I am also able to see Southdale quite easily. As I look out at Southdale at the parking lot west of Macy’s/the upper lot, there are currently 6 cars parked in all of that parking ramp space. This is not that unusual for parking during COVID over there. Frankly, it was not all that much better when there was not COVID either. The reason I bring this up is that there is an absolute abundance of vacant and available parking across France Avenue at Southdale. The developer with this new project is proposing to build 4 parking ramps, including what was anticipated to be in excess of 1,500 parking spaces. I am a bit astounded at this. I believe we must do a better job of utilizing current parking in the Southdale area, especially the parking ramps connected to Southdale. The reason the developer proposed the additional parking was so that a proposed employer would feel able to bring in, for perhaps an annual meeting, all their work staff. I find it rather astounding, especially when they were not willing to consider lowering the parking or putting in underground parking in any of the areas in the proposed development. Yet they would spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars more, to create 1,500 additional ramp spaces. That is across France Avenue from all the vacant ramp spaces there are at Southdale. I just believe this project is very poorly designed and I would ask that the City Council deny a permit for it to be built. I think it is far too dense, and frankly, I don’t see any particular community benefit whatsoever with the project as it is proposed. -Entered by City Staff 12. 12 Jan 2021, 06:53 PM My name is Holly Branch and I live at Point of France Condominium What are the opportunity costs if 66-6800 France is not approved? At the January 5th City Council meeting, the Mayor identified the forgone public benefits should the current proposal not be accepted: 1) District parking 2) Water treatment facility 3) Public easements and sidewalks 4) Affordable housing 5) Stormwater management Here are some reasons why these should not necessarily be considered forgone public benefits: 1) The Southdale District currently has a large parking glut. Edina should build for the trend toward less automobile reliance rather than create a problem for future generations to solve. This is a "give to get" that will actually harm Edina. 2) There are other, and perhaps better, sites for a water treatment facility, especially considering that this is a flood plain. City staff stated that they had yet to complete an analysis of this site over others for water treatment. 3) A superior proposal would have more, and better located, public realm as well as improved interconnectivity within the site and to the surrounding neighborhoods. The current plan has most of the public realm located along major streets rather than tucked away from noise and car pollution, like at Centennial Lakes. 4) If this project is not built, it does not mean that we lose affordable housing for Edina. It means that we wait for a better design so that people who need affordable housing can live in an upscale urban village connected to the surrounding area rather than in an isolated poorly designed office park. 5) Rain gardens are a land intensive option for stormwater management. Better options include bioswales, permeable surfaces, terraces, green roofs, and holding ponds. A better design would transform stormwater into a statement public amenity like at Centennial Lakes. What are the opportunity costs if 66-6800 France is approved? The City of Edina will lose the last great opportunity to create a large-scale showcase destination that could stand shoulder to shoulder with some of our other masterpieces, such as Centennial Lakes and Nolan Mains. Because of the scrupulous fiduciary oversight of the Mayor and the City Council, we have seen our tax base grow. That puts us in the fortunate position of not having to accept a proposal that exceeds current zoning ordinances and only partially meets the Southdale District Plan and the Design Experience Guidelines. We can do better. 13. 12 Jan 2021, 09:39 PM I am Richard Thieme. I live in the Point of France and serve on the Board of Directors. In that capacity, I made the following statement to the City Council on behalf of the Board of Directors of Point of France concerning the 6600-6800 redevelopment project. But first, I am adding comments in response to what I heard during that meeting. (1) Developers were asked to show how the project looked when approached from the street level on Valley View. They showed instead an aerial view from a helicopter. The street level view of concrete and glass and a minimum of green does NOT look at all like that. But the council member said, when Andy finished, "Perfect." No, not perfect at all. An evasion. (2) Developers claim to include the "spirit" not the "letter" of all guidelines for the Southdale area. That is a weasel word which translates into: no, we do not follow the guidelines, we go longer and higher and denser than they specify, but we will try to get the Council to ignore that. (3) The horrendous noise of pile drivers for 10-12 years is really unthinkable. Point of France is inhabited by people who are mostly in their 60s 70s 80s and 90s. An assault like that on our well-being, and on our physical and mental health, will drive values down but we will take the lower prices in order to escape the din. People will leave. I urge you to think about - once again - the weasel words used to excuse this fact. Andy said, well, it's no different than one project, then another, then another. That's true! That's the problem, not a solution, even if they manage to achieve a minimal standard to be within the law. That law -- 7 until 7 five days a week and 9 to 5 on Saturday -- ought to be rethought. (4) All of us - and I am on the Board and speak to a lot of people - WANT a project to be built that complies with quality of life issues, the overall guidelines, and the use of a large tract for more than maximizing the developers' profits. We do NOT want to end proposals for redevelopment. We want, however, something, imaginative and neighborhood friendly. (4a) It sounded as if the Mayor may think that following all recs from the review process to reject this particular proposal will mean no one will want to build ever again on that choice land. I disagree with that assessment. The economics will favor development, but in a better way for all - it is not true, as the developers claimed, that the only way to make money is saturating the land with excessive parking in multiple garages, when they chose to build those office buildings to justify that claim in the first place rather than use the space to better advantage. That diagonal building they want to keep distorts plans but they do keep it rather than - as happens up and down France - removing it for a new project. (5) The former proposal saved the mature oak trees along Valley View. Suddenly the trees are gone and are replaced with an unbroken row of town houses. How did that happen? (6) At some point the developers mention the Pentagon office park as an example of the premiere office park in Edina - but they showed a picture of something else, while saying, look at it, but not showing it. I believe we all know that the Pentagon park is in trouble and has slipped from its moorings as a major revenue-generator and prime location. No one I know considers it the premiere office park in Edina. There's more but that's enough. I ask the Council to create the opportunity for a worthwhile project that serves all of us. I know we can do that. And here's the text I read at the last meeting: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Point of France and share our concerns about the impacts of this project across from our homes. Our concerns overlap with those of everyone who lives, works, and transits through the Southdale area. A key concern is the negative legacy this unimaginative project would bequeath to our children and the next generation of Edina residents. It would suggest that quality-of-life issues are secondary and lots with chock- a-block office buildings and parking garages are primary. There are good reasons why Edina planners unanimously voted no to this project as it currently exists. Centennial Lake, by contrast, is a beautifully designed, imaginative space with paths and green space that invites walking, activities and dining out. Planners staring into a quarry did not jump to that design. It took imagination, hard work, and a commitment to enhancing the area in every way. The Commons on France proposal does not do that. Specifically: The project violates the Guidelines and spirit of the Greater Southdale District Plan. Density of both office and residential space is excessive. Proposed buildings exceed the 4-story allowance in height and the 200-foot allowance in length. There is a dearth of walking space through green areas and inadequate connectivity to the neighborhood. A virtually unbroken wall turns 66th Street into an obstacle, not an invitation. There is no relief from glass and concrete. These facts do impact property values and quality of life. Traffic will increase. Privacy will diminish and obstructive views increase. Air, noise, and light pollution - with 66th Street icier due to shadows - will be worse over the long 10-12 years of projected construction 10-12 years of noise, trucks, and above all, pile drivers pounding the neighborhood from 7 to 7 Monday through Friday and from 9 to 5 on Saturday. Really? Think about it: Homeowners will need to keep windows closed at all times. Balconies will rarely be used. Construction dirt and dust will be visible. Air conditioners and furnaces will run constantly to filter the air. The horrific noise, will - this is documented - impact mental and physical health. Meanwhile taxpayer support from those same homeowners through TIF will be significant. Commons on France is not neighborhood or neighbor friendly, it is developer friendly. Send this plan back to the drawing board - please. Invite a better plan that enhances the neighborhood by providing green space and fewer buildings and is celebrated for its design. That is the legacy we hope to give subsequent generations. That is the future we owe to our children. Thank you. Richard Thieme 14. 12 Jan 2021, 09:42 PM I am Richard Thieme. I live in the Point of France and serve on the Board of Directors. In that capacity, I made the following statement to the City Council on behalf of the Board of Directors of Point of France concerning the 6600-6800 redevelopment project. But first, I am adding comments in response to what I heard during that meeting. (1) Developers were asked to show how the project looked when approached from the street level on Valley View. They showed instead an aerial view from a helicopter. The street level view of concrete and glass and a minimum of green does NOT look at all like that. But the council member said, when Andy finished, "Perfect." No, not perfect at all. An evasion. (2) Developers claim to include the "spirit" not the "letter" of all guidelines for the Southdale area. That is a weasel word which translates into: no, we do not follow the guidelines, we go longer and higher and denser than they specify, but we will try to get the Council to ignore that. (3) The horrendous noise of pile drivers for 10-12 years is really unthinkable. Point of France is inhabited by people who are mostly in their 60s 70s 80s and 90s. An assault like that on our well-being, and on our physical and mental health, will drive values down but we will take the lower prices in order to escape the din. People will leave. I urge you to think about - once again - the weasel words used to excuse this fact. Andy said, well, it's no different than one project, then another, then another. That's true! That's the problem, not a solution, even if they manage to achieve a minimal standard to be within the law. That law -- 7 until 7 five days a week and 9 to 5 on Saturday -- ought to be rethought. (4) All of us - and I am on the Board and speak to a lot of people - WANT a project to be built that complies with quality of life issues, the overall guidelines, and the use of a large tract for more than maximizing the developers' profits. We do NOT want to end proposals for redevelopment. We want, however, something, imaginative and neighborhood friendly. (4a) It sounded as if the Mayor may think that following all recs from the review process to reject this particular proposal will mean no one will want to build ever again on that choice land. I disagree with that assessment. The economics will favor development, but in a better way for all - it is not true, as the developers claimed, that the only way to make money is saturating the land with excessive parking in multiple garages, when they chose to build those office buildings to justify that claim in the first place rather than use the space to better advantage. That diagonal building they want to keep distorts plans but they do keep it rather than - as happens up and down France - removing it for a new project. (5) The former proposal saved the mature oak trees along Valley View. Suddenly the trees are gone and are replaced with an unbroken row of town houses. How did that happen? (6) At some point the developers mention the Pentagon office park as an example of the premiere office park in Edina - but they showed a picture of something else, while saying, look at it, but not showing it. I believe we all know that the Pentagon park is in trouble and has slipped from its moorings as a major revenue-generator and prime location. No one I know considers it the premiere office park in Edina. There's more but that's enough. I ask the Council to create the opportunity for a worthwhile project that serves all of us. I know we can do that. And here's the text I read at the last meeting: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Point of France and share our concerns about the impacts of this project across from our homes. Our concerns overlap with those of everyone who lives, works, and transits through the Southdale area. A key concern is the negative legacy this unimaginative project would bequeath to our children and the next generation of Edina residents. It would suggest that quality-of-life issues are secondary and lots with chock- a-block office buildings and parking garages are primary. There are good reasons why Edina planners unanimously voted no to this project as it currently exists. Centennial Lake, by contrast, is a beautifully designed, imaginative space with paths and green space that invites walking, activities and dining out. Planners staring into a quarry did not jump to that design. It took imagination, hard work, and a commitment to enhancing the area in every way. The Commons on France proposal does not do that. Specifically: The project violates the Guidelines and spirit of the Greater Southdale District Plan. Density of both office and residential space is excessive. Proposed buildings exceed the 4-story allowance in height and the 200-foot allowance in length. There is a dearth of walking space through green areas and inadequate connectivity to the neighborhood. A virtually unbroken wall turns 66th Street into an obstacle, not an invitation. There is no relief from glass and concrete. These facts do impact property values and quality of life. Traffic will increase. Privacy will diminish and obstructive views increase. Air, noise, and light pollution - with 66th Street icier due to shadows - will be worse over the long 10-12 years of projected construction 10-12 years of noise, trucks, and above all, pile drivers pounding the neighborhood from 7 to 7 Monday through Friday and from 9 to 5 on Saturday. Really? Think about it: Homeowners will need to keep windows closed at all times. Balconies will rarely be used. Construction dirt and dust will be visible. Air conditioners and furnaces will run constantly to filter the air. The horrific noise, will - this is documented - impact mental and physical health. Meanwhile taxpayer support from those same homeowners through TIF will be significant. Commons on France is not neighborhood or neighbor friendly, it is developer friendly. Send this plan back to the drawing board - please. Invite a better plan that enhances the neighborhood by providing green space and fewer buildings and is celebrated for its design. That is the legacy we hope to give subsequent generations. That is the future we owe to our children. Thank you. Richard Thieme 15. 13 Jan 2021, 06:08 AM Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council members, The city of Edina has a unique opportunity with the 22 acre 6600-6800 site to expand and enhance two neighborhoods - Lake Cornelia and Point of France. The current development proposal has too much emphasis on high rise rental apartments , parking structures and office buildings that we may not need in the future. There is also too much focus on rental vs. home ownership in this plan. People want to live in Edina and raise their families in our unique city. Unfortunately the supply of available homes for sale is very tight. The focus of this site should be to expand the single family Lake Cornelia neighborhood with a community of single family homes, town homes and/or brownstones. A mix of some office space, retail and restaurants to enhance the area is still possible. The development plan should include the demolition of the 6600 building as it is 50 years old, out of date and causes design restrictions because of its placement. There are already several large rental developments underway and planned for Edina south of the Crosstown at 66th and Xerxes, the US Bank site, the Guitar City site (underway) and the 72nd and France re-development. To add more apartments to this site is questionable. The council should follow the Greater Southdale Design Guidelines and not approve any variances to the building height and setbacks which would create an ugly concrete canyon on 66th between France and Valley View. Lastly, with all of the new rental developments planned and underway , the Council should require a more thorough traffic analysis for France Avenue, 66th and Valley View to ensure traffic congestion is minimized and not rely on picking a point on a trend chart as described in the last Council meeting. Please listen to the residents of Edina and vote NO to the proposed development plan. LaMar and Mary Jo Boettner 6566 France Ave Unit 305, Edina 16. 13 Jan 2021, 07:12 AM Jeff Golden Point Of France 6566 France Avenue South #609 Edina, Minnesota 55435 Dear Mayor Hovland: I had the opportunity to listen to the City Council meeting on January 5th 2021. There were a number of comments made and as a resident of Edina, bring great concern to me. The Greater Southdale Area has the potential to be a destination location and economic driver for our municipality. My wife and I support a well thought out and balanced redevelopment. However, the current proposal does not achieve this at all. Not even close. First and foremost, I believe you stated that the Southdale Design Guidelines ought not apply to the 66-6800 project as it is a “redevelopment”. The citizens and the council have worked long and hard over the years to create acceptable guidelines and nowhere does it state that a redevelopment is excused from this. If you and the council allow a waiver for this project, it only sets a precedent for future developments in Edina. This “redevelopment” if we can call it that, is nothing but a lousy patchwork of some old buildings cobbled together with some new structures. And a cobbled arrangement to “make things work”. To be honest, it is a joke and an embarrassment to the citizens of Edina. Many responses that came from Andy Mcintosh of McGough that evening referenced “this would not be economically feasible” or the “expense to do that does not make sense”, etc., etc. My feeling is if the project can’t be done right, and to create a community asset that has benefit for all, then don’t do the project. This is a 16 acre plot of land. And those buildings in the center of the plot are at an angle. They don’t even fit. A complete hodgepodge of metal, glass and concrete. Mr. Mayor, you made a statement that if you and the council turned down this project, no other developer would want to build in Edina in the future. To be honest, that is hogwash. You have been the mayor here for the past 15 years. If anyone knows the value of our municipality, it would be you. Edina is one of the most sought after suburbs in the entire Minneapolis area. It has a prestige like no other. And because Edina is one of those prestige suburbs, we should never be concerned about developers coming here to make our city even better! Compromising 16 acres should never be our direction. Density issues, traffic, height of the apartment buildings, noise, pollution, pile driving, vibration, and looking at an unsightly mess for 12 years is just unacceptable. While I understand that this is a big plot of land to develop, (16 acres), it should not take 12 years to complete. Three to five years is more in line. If McGough can’t find a way to successfully develop the land, the owners should go shopping for another developer. My wife and I support a visionary project that will embrace an iconic suburb. Reject this project as proposed. Let’s do this right and send this plan back to the drawing board without reservation or hesitation. As always, thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Jeff and Jean Golden 6566 France Avenue South #609 Edina, Minnesota 55435 17. 13 Jan 2021, 07:30 AM Bill Bednarczyk, 6566 France Ave. S. #1004 - Point of France 1/12/21 RE: 6600-6800 Project TO: Mayor Hovland, City Council Members: I am in disbelief with the comments made at the January 5, 2021 public hearing by the developer, some City Council members and the Mayor regarding the design plans for 6600-6800. Each of your comments, taken as a whole, is very worry some to me as a VOTER and resident of Edina. It is apparent that maintaining “happy” relationships with this developer, future developers, a quest to maximize tax base and density coupled with your propensity to grant variances are the guidelines in evaluating this project. It is also apparent, that the Point of France (“stack” of 145 resident homes) would be viewed differently if we were 145 rooftops. Some of you certainly saw “rooftops” when you rejected the Estelle project for similar concerns raised by the Cornelia neighbor. In my opinion, most of you see the Point of France as just another office building with 145 offices. Folks, real people live here! Blowing off the Greater Southdale Design principles by debating 6600- 6800’s status as redevelopment and not subject to those guidelines is just wrong on so many levels. It is like telling the recovering alcoholic that he/she can forego the twelve 12 steps because their drug of choice is now cocaine. Of real concern is optics. By approving the project, it would appear you are bailing out an investment group that apparently did poor due diligence in assessing the economic feasibility before making the purchase. A low water table just didn’t appear after the purchase. Our community should not be saddled with the consequences of their investment decision. Their purchase decision sits squarely with them. The accountability stops with them and the developer. It is time for you folks to stand up for the well studied design principles, the neighborhood, the voters, and your community. Reject the project as proposed. As you know, the planning commission with their staff detailed analysis rejected the proposal. This project, as I stated in my December letter (included), will define the Northern Gateway to Edina. It is just not another dense commercial “redevelopment”. Given the challenging times we are all experiencing, this is your opportunity to leave a legacy for the next generation and to exhibit much needed courage and leadership as elected officials. Continuing your myopic view and approving some of the same is safe and requires no vision or conviction. Send these folks back to the drawing board to get their creative juices flowing to design a plan that “wows” the community, supports residential property values, enhances and truly defines Edina as a distinctive suburban community. This is not ordinary “dirt”. 6600-6800 is unique. I submit it is the Northern Gateway to Edina-our first impression. Thanking you in advance for your NO vote. NO to reject this proposal. W.W. Bednarczyk, 6566 France Ave. So. #1004, Edina. 18. 13 Jan 2021, 07:42 AM We, Connie and George Weinman, have lived at 6566.France Ave S,Point of France, for nearly fourteen years. We owned a home in Edina for nine years prior to moving to POF. Let me list several items for your consideration: 1. Four years ago this property was owned by Mr. Dennis Doyle and his company Windamere. Since his disability the property has changed hands and is now owned, I understand, by Wildamere (note the subtle name change) and Olympus Ventures. Now I can understand why they may request TIF financing which means the owner/residents of Edina will be asked to help finance the project. 2. Mr. McIntosh presented a trefoil of intertwined circles representing three criteria that must be considered: Community’s Desires, Market Realities, and Economic Feasibility. During the presentation it became obvious that economic feasibility was their dominant concern. 3. Parking concerns was a driving factor for the developer. Mr. McIntosh indicated that 2,800 parking stalls would be needed for a major company to entertain an annual employee appreciation day. The requisite parking spaces for the proposed plan would require only 1,300 parking spaces. Adding the additional 1,500 parking spaces would raise the cost of the project by $27,000,000.00 to $33,000,000.00 using the low end/high end cost of 18-22K for a four or five level parking ramp(s) using the numbers Mr. McIntosh provided in his presentation. There are three ramps in the proposal. 4. A creative way to help manage this cost is to wrap the northern ramp with a five story wall of apartments which would face 66th Street. This would make it possible to provide the requisite affordable housing units. 5. Mr. McIntosh’s rational for proposing a thirteen story rental housing building was/is that there is a thirteen story residential building across the street. No mention was made of the iconic Point of France building which has 140 homes of condominium owners who have pride of ownership in their homes and have preserved and enhanced their POF homes and its exterior for forty five years. Contrast that with the need and desire to maintain and enhance a thirteen story rental property. What will it look like in forty five years? 6. Need we say anything about visual privacy for residents of apartment buildings and residents of POF? 7. And I still struggle with Mr. McIntosh’s response when responding to a question of why move the medical building from the northern end of the development near the M-Health Fairview Southdale Hospital and Medical Center to the southern end of the proposed development. He stated that it would make it more attractive for another medical system/provider to enter this market. Fairview Southdale has been a good neighbor for decades. 8. Mr. McIntosh, McGough Development, and HGA Architects have worked long and hard on this proposal. They are talented, skillful, and creative. Maybe the development of this project and parcel of sixteen acres of prime real estate in the City of Edina would best be served by demolishing all the buildings, rather than having to work around one building. The site could then be developed by stages that would maximize the developers’ creativity. 9. The North Face of Edina on France Avenue could become a showcase of pride for the City of Edina rather than settling for this proposal at this time. Thank you for your kind attention to this lengthy missive. -Entered by City Staff on behalf of Connie and George Weinman 19. 13 Jan 2021, 09:26 AM Bill and Kathy Fredell 6566 France Avenue South, #710 Edina, MN 55435 We have been following the proposals, discussions, and decisions relating to the 7100 and the 6600-6800 France Avenue Redevelopments. These comments relate primarily to the 6600-6800 Redevelopment Area Proposal. During the January 5 online meeting surrounding this topic, we heard lengthy discussions relating to market forces and how the needed parking spaces are reflective of these factors. In addition, we heard that the constraints of the existing structures that will remain explain why new building designs are not optimal and why the Greater Southdale Development Plan (GSDP) concepts could not be respected and incorporated into the proposal. For these reasons, the Developer is asking the City Council to allow zoning variances to accommodate greater density and building heights. The Developer is also asking the Council to “forgive” adherence to several of the Greater Southdale Development Plan goals. Why this proposal does not make sense. Zoning requirements have been carefully developed to protect the long- term viability of Edina and, especially, to protect the living experience and neighborhoods. “Relaxing” the zoning ordinances for this development provides no discernable benefit for Edina nor its citizens. Creating large, tall buildings with solid walls of 520 feet along W. 66th Street and over 1500 above-ground parking stalls detract and add nothing positive to our community. Zoning requirements are particularly important for this development as it abuts two Edina residential neighborhoods as well as parkland used by many Edina citizens. The proposal is present-oriented, not at all futuristic. With the advent of self-driving vehicles, home officing, and enhanced transportation systems, this development falls far short of addressing any of these probable trends. In addition, it does not address goals of the GSDP. The proposed development does not provide pedestrian-friendly areas, increase pedestrian walkability, nor does it provide for future links with the promenade -- all of which are key goals of the GSDP. While we understand the developer’s desire to redesign this area to maximize profits, this should not be done at the expense of Edina residents by relaxing zoning ordinances and disregarding the GSDP goals. We encourage the City Council to deny this proposal as currently designed. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter 20. 13 Jan 2021, 09:41 AM One concern about the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is the manner by which the City redirected focus from the Southdale site to 66-6800 France, especially given that it occurred in the wake of resident protest of the Dublin site. The City Council (CC) voted to discontinue the WTP at Dublin and return the WTP to Southdale on 6-18-2019. At the 9-4-2019 CC Work Session meeting (CCWS) at 5:30pm, the Agenda included a WTP “Concept Validation” for the Southdale site. At the 9-4-2019 CC Regular meeting (CC-Reg) at 7pm, an RFP for additional design services for the WTP Southdale Concept Validation was in the Consent Agenda. However, during the CCWS, it was verbally stated that Wildamere was going to explore the possibility of the WTP at 66-6800 France, and Chad said he would pull the item from the CC-Reg Consent Agenda. For the public, however, the WTP Southdale Concept Validation appeared on the CC-Reg Consent Agenda. During the CC-Reg, neither the CC nor the City Manager identified that the WTP Southdale Concept was being removed, or that it had been removed, from the Consent Agenda. For anyone who watched the CC-Reg then, or even if you watch it today and follow the Agenda, it appears that the CC actually approved the RFP for additional planning for the WTP Southdale Concept. However, in the CC-Reg Minutes, the WTP Southdale Concept Validation line item was struck through, and there is no explanation as to why. From there, roughly 8-9 months passed before the Cornelia neighbors learned that a WTP was being considered adjacent to Valley View Rd in the redevelopment plans for the 66-6800 block. 1/13/2021 Roberta Castellano 4854 France Ave S 21. 13 Jan 2021, 09:44 AM My understanding is that the Water Treatment Plant will have chemical spaces that will be ventilated to the outside. Regardless of where the WTP is to be located, I would think that the CC could help to meet the good neighbor test if the neighbors could be assured that they would not be experiencing chemical vapors. I am quite certain that this is not like a homeowner throwing a third of a cup of bleach into the laundry, and yet, at this point, I have not found an explicit discussion about this matter, so I do not know what the implications of the chemical space ventilation might be. 1/13/2021 Roberta Castellano 4854 France Ave S 22. 13 Jan 2021, 09:52 AM Is water quality (relating to water age) DOA? The Water Treatment Plant (WTP) appears to me to be a political football—or hot potato. Rejected at the Dublin site, and returned to Southdale. If I am remembering correctly, Southdale businesses have expressed concerns about the WTP. Wildamere is now proposing the WTP at 66-6800 France as a public benefit in a “give to get”, which, if approved, would eliminate any WTP concerns with the Southdale block businesses. Given these events, the current location seems to suggest that Cornelia has the lowest status on the political totem pole. As the WTP is passed around, I can’t help but reflect upon the astonishing water age improvements in large swaths of the city, projected to occur if the WTP were to be located at the Dublin site. At the CC 2-5-2019 meeting, there was some hesitation about the Dublin site. In recognition of the hesitation, Ross had suggested that Engineering could ‘cast a wider net’ to see if there might be a way to achieve the same water quality improvements without a WTP at Dublin. After discussion, the CC said ‘no’ to the net casting, and voted to continue forward with the next step in the process for the Dublin site. A few months later, on 6-18-2019, the CC rejected the Dublin site. In the year and a half since then, to the best of my knowledge, the CC has not directed staff to ‘cast the wider net’. That is to say, I have not located anything in the meeting records. Wouldn’t it make sense to do this research in conjunction with a WTP discussion? In other words, a more comprehensive reexamination of the system? 1/13/2021 Roberta Castellano 4854 France Ave S DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION JANUARY 5, 2021 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX ORDINANCE NO. 2020-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE PUD-11, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-11, THE AVENUE ON FRANCE DISTRICT AT 6600-6800 FRANCE AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-504 Planned Unit Development District-11 (PUD-11) – The Avenue on France (a) Legal description: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 24 lying Easterly of the Westerly line of Valley View Road except that part thereof lying South of the North line, and its Westerly extension, of the plat of South Office Park First Addition. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re-development plans, including the master development plan for the site received by the City on ___________ except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2021-___ on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: All uses allowed in the POD-2 Zoning District All uses allowed in the PCD-2 Zoning District Multifamily Residential (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the POD-2 Zoning District. All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-2 Zoning District (e) Conditional Uses: All conditional uses allowed in the POD-2 Zoning District. All conditional uses allowed in the PCD-2 Zoning District (f) Development Standards. In addition to the development standards per the POD- 2, and PCD-2 Zoning District, the following shall apply: Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 2 New Building Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street Parking Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street 50 feet (all buildings) 35 feet (apartments) 20 feet (water treatment plant) 20 feet (south parking ramp) 35-50 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet Building Height 6 stories – Portion of Residential 13 stories – Residential 9 stories – Office 2 stories - Retail Building Coverage 25% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 of the tract* Parking Stalls (Site) 105 surface spaces 2,768 enclosed/parking ramp spaces 2,873 Total (g) Signs shall be regulated per the POD-2 Zoning District for the office uses and PCD-2 for retail uses, and PRD, for the residential uses. New Building Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street Parking Setbacks Front – France Ave Front – Valley View Front - 66th Street 45 feet 100 feet 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Building Height 8 stories and 96 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 of the tract Parking Stalls (Site) 488 surface spaces 1,399 underground spaces 1,887 Total Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 (h) The residential housing on the site shall include 10% of all the dwelling units to meet the City’s definition of affordable housing. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 4 I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of _______, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of ____________, 2021. ________________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT/PRELIMINARY REZONING, REVISED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6600-6800 FRANCE AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The applicant is proposing to re-develop the 22-acre parcel at 6600-6800 France site, known as the Southdale Office Center. 1.02 The applicant is proposing a significant change to the development plans that were approved for this site in 2017. 1.03 In 2017, this site was rezoned to PUD for a mixed-use development project (The Avenue on France). The approved plans were found to meet the PUD standards to justify a doubling of the density on the site. 1.04 As proposed, at full built out, the site would include the following new structures: A 9-story, 150-foot tall 230,375 square foot office building. A 4-story, 70-foot tall 70,000 square foot medical office building. A new 12,000 square foot restaurant (Tavern on France). A 20,000 square foot water treatment plant. Three above grade parking structures. (Public parking would be available in the north ramp) The applicant has indicated that the north ramp would be made available for public parking. A 13-story (157-foot tall) and 6-story apartment building totaling 239 units. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. 1.05 Buildings that remain include the Bank of America, 6600 France and 6800 France office buildings. 1.06 The request requires a Rezoning to amend the original PUD that was approved in 2017, including overall development plan and consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). 1.07 The applicant has gone through the sketch plan process and has revised the plans in an attempt to respond to neighborhood concerns, the Architecture Field Office (AFO) review comments, and feedback received from the Planning Commission and City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 2 1.08 On November 18, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended denial of the Request. Vote: 7 Ayes and 0 Nays. 1.09 On January 5th, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing and considered the request. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses, and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The PUD zoning would: a. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. c. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses. d. Project is of high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. e. Maintains the efficiency of public streets and utilities. f. Provides a mixture of land uses within the development. h. Project would meet the City’s affordable housing policy. 3. The PUD would ensure that the development proposed would be the only building that would be allowed on the site unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. Addresses the Greater Southdale Area Design Experience Guidelines. The following principles are included: Improved pedestrian connections from existing conditions to move people through and around the site. This includes an improved sidewalk around the perimeter of the site and east-west through the site. Provides additional public space along around the perimeter of the site. High quality design. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 3 The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. Provides district parking and land for a city water treatment facility. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern present in much of the city will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. i. Provide visual screening and privacy to buffer cars from people, provide visual relief and allow stormwater infiltration in parking lots. ii. Evaluate current parking standards in order to encourage shared parking and minimize the visual impact of surface parking. iii. Landscaping is essential to screen parking areas, buffer adjacent residential uses and create a pedestrian-friendly environment along streets. iv. Encourage the development of parking lots or structures so they can be shared by more than one building on the site or by buildings on neighboring sites, and which can transition over time to other uses if parking needs change. b. Encourage successful mixed-use development. c. Create and maintain housing options that serve a diverse range of ages, household types, and economic situations. d. Ensure that public realm design respects community character, supports of commercial and mixed-use development, promotes community identity, and creates high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. 6. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 7. The proposed uses would be an upgrade to development on the site. 8. Based on the EAW done by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City of Edina, and Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. Recommendations and conditions outlined in the EAW would adequately address impacts through conditions of approval for the Rezoning to the revised PUD. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan and Overall Development Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 4 1. The proposed land uses, and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The PUD zoning would: a. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. c. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses. d. Project is of high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. e. Maintains the efficiency of public streets and utilities. f. Provides a mixture of land uses within the development. h. Project would meet the City’s affordable housing policy. 3. The PUD would ensure that the development proposed would be the only building that would be allowed on the site unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. Addresses the Greater Southdale Area Design Experience Guidelines. The following principles are included: Improved pedestrian connections from existing conditions to move people through and around the site. This includes an improved sidewalk around the perimeter of the site and east-west through the site. Provides additional public space along around the perimeter of the site. High quality design. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. Provides district parking and land for a city water treatment facility. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern present in much of the city will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. i. Provide visual screening and privacy to buffer cars from people, provide visual relief and allow stormwater infiltration in parking lots. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 5 ii. Evaluate current parking standards in order to encourage shared parking and minimize the visual impact of surface parking. iii. Landscaping is essential to screen parking areas, buffer adjacent residential uses and create a pedestrian-friendly environment along streets. iv. Encourage the development of parking lots or structures so they can be shared by more than one building on the site or by buildings on neighboring sites, and which can transition over time to other uses if parking needs change. b. Encourage successful mixed-use development. c. Create and maintain housing options that serve a diverse range of ages, household types, and economic situations. d. Ensure that public realm design respects community character, supports of commercial and mixed-use development, promotes community identity, and creates high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. 6. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 7. The proposed uses would be an upgrade to development on the site. 8. Based on the EAW done by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City of Edina, and Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. Recommendations and conditions outlined in the EAW would adequately address impacts through conditions of approval for the Rezoning to the revised PUD. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated October 26, 2020. 2. Final building plans for the new structures, excluding the parking ramps, must be meet Section 4. Sec. 36-579. (3) regarding building materials and transparency at ground level. 3. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 4. Provision of code compliant bike racks for each use near the building entrances. 5. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 6. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 6 7. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 8. A Developer’s Agreement/Site Improvement Plan Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 9. County approval if necessary, on access to France Avenue. 10. The project must conform to the City’s affordable housing policy. Final determination to be made at final approval. 11. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated November 10, 2020. 12. Compliance with the Spack Consulting Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. The property owner/developer would be responsible to pay for the roadway improvements. 13. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 14. Dedication of public access easements of the east-west sidewalks through the site and around the perimeter of the site. 15. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the fire marshal and building official’s memo dated November 2, 2020. 16. Should the property be subdivided in the future, park dedication would be required for the new uses approved for this development. Park dedication for residential uses is $5,000 per unit. 17. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must demonstrate minimal impact to pedestrian and vehicle movement. 18. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. 19. All buildings must comply with City Code Section 36-618 regarding building materials and transparency. 20. The location of the water treatment facility would be subject to review by both the Planning Commission and City Council, as there are several outstanding issues that would need to be resolved as outlined in the attached city engineer review memo. (See attached engineering memo dated November 10, 2020.) RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 7 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on January 20, 2021. ATTEST: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of __________________, 2021. _________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 DENIAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT/PRELIMINARY REZONING, REVISED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6600-6800 FRANCE AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The applicant is proposing to re-develop the 22-acre parcel at 6600-6800 France site, known as the Southdale Office Center. 1.02 The applicant is proposing a significant change to the development plans that were approved for this site in 2017. 1.03 In 2017, this site was rezoned to PUD for a mixed-use development project (The Avenue on France). The approved plans were found to meet the PUD standards to justify a doubling of the density on the site. 1.04 As proposed, at full built out, the site would include the following new structures: A 9-story, 150-foot tall 230,375 square foot office building. A 4-story, 70-foot tall 70,000 square foot medical office building. A new 12,000 square foot restaurant (Tavern on France). A 20,000 square foot water treatment plant. Three above grade parking structures. (Public parking would be available in the north ramp) The applicant has indicated that the north ramp would be made available for public parking. A 13-story (157-foot tall) and 6-story apartment building totaling 239 units. The applicant would meet the City’s affordable housing policy by providing 10% of the units within the project or contribute financially per the policy. Final dedication would be determined at the time of final approval. 1.05 Buildings that remain include the Bank of America, 6600 France and 6800 France office buildings. 1.06 The request requires a Rezoning to amend the original PUD that was approved in 2017, including overall development plan and consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). 1.07 The applicant has gone through the sketch plan process and has revised the plans in an attempt to respond to neighborhood concerns, the Architecture Field Office (AFO) review comments, and feedback received from the Planning Commission and City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 2 1.08 On November 18, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended denial of the Request. Vote: 7 Ayes and 0 Nays. 1.09 On January 5th, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing and considered the request. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Denial is based on the following findings: 1. Does not adequately address the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. Issues/concerns include: Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity through the site; plans do not follow the street typology on Valley View Road; building heights; and the transition area to the neighborhood to the west. 2. Inadequate north south pedestrian and vehicle connections through the site. The proposed new office building in the middle of the development would prevent any north-south flow through the site. The existing PUD for the site requires a north-south woonerf proposed through the site to provide a “western promenade” that would better connect this site in all directions. 3. The street room typology 1A (transition to the Cornelia Neighborhood) has not been followed. The proposed structure on Valley View Road at the intersection at 66th is 57 feet tall. The street room typology recommends a maximum height of 36 feet. 4. The proposal does not meet the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The proposal does not meet the purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 3 The proposed project does not create a more creative approach to the land use compared to the approved plan for the site. The project does not provide greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses enough to justify greater height and density. 5. When comparing the previously approved PUD to the proposed development, the pedestrian connectivity and experience has been reduced. 6. Items suggested in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are not incorporated into the plan: “Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites.” The proposal is 17 acres in size but does not provide any vertical mixed use. “Edge” or transitional uses. Moderately sized liner buildings should be encouraged to soften the edge of large-scale superblock development. Medium-density housing types such as townhouses combined with structured parking may also be an appropriate transitional use. Section 3. DENIAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, denies the request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan and Overall Development Plan. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on January 20, 2021. ATTEST: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122 Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of __________________, 2021. _________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2020-123 A RESOLUTION MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED REGARDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6600-6800 FRANCE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. WHEREAS, the City of Edina prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the 6600-6800 France Development pursuant to Minnesota Rules 441 O; and WHEREAS, the EAW was distributed to the agencies and public for the required 30- day comment period November 2, 2020; and WHEREAS, the preparation of the 6600-6800 France Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential for environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate those impacts; and WHEREAS, the development is expected to comply with all the City of Edina and review agency standards; and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHAREAS, as required by City Code the Planning Commission of the City of Edina reviewed all the information in the staff report dated November 18, 2020 and the EAW, and agreed with the findings detailed; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina reviewed all the information in the in the staff report dated November 18, 2020 and the EAW and the Planning Commission's recommendation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina hereby makes a negative declaration of need regarding an environmental impact statement for the 6600-6800 France Avenue development project. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-123 Page 2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on January 20, 2021. ATTEST: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of __________________, 2021. _________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk COMMONSonFRANCE Environmental Assessment Worksheet October 2020 Prepared for: Southdale Office Partners, LLC Prepared by: COMMONSonFRANCE EAW i October 2020 Table of Contents 1. Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Proposer ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description.................................................................................................................................................... 2 7. Cover Types................................................................................................................................................................. 4 8. Permits and Approvals Required .......................................................................................................................... 4 9. Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms ..................................................................................................... 6 11. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................................. 11 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)..................... 12 14. Historic Properties................................................................................................................................................... 14 15. Visual ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14 16. Air ................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 17. Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 18. Transportation .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................ 19 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects .............................................................................................................. 19 RGU Certification ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 List of Tables Table 1: Project Magnitude ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................................................. 4 Table 4: State-Listed Species Within One Mile of the Project Site ................................................................... 13 Table 5: Peak Hour Vehicle Traffic Generation, 2020 Partial & 2030 Full Build Scenarios ........................ 17 List of Figures Figure 1: County Map .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2: USGS Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3: Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4: Water Resources............................................................................................................................................ 25 List of Appendices Appendix A: Site Plan Appendix B: Agency Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Impact Study COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 1 October 2020 July 2013 Version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB’s) website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidance Documents.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title COMMONSonFRANCE 2. Proposer Proposer: Southdale Office Partners, LLC Contact Person: Shawn Smith Title: Vice President – Acquisitions & Development Address: 6800 France Avenue S #555 City, State, ZIP: Edina, MN 55435 Phone: 952.746.3404 Email: ssmith@wildamere.com 3. RGU RGU: City of Edina Contact Person: Cary Teague Title: Community Development Director Address: 4801 W 50th Street City, State, ZIP: Edina, MN 55424 Phone: 952-826-0369 Fax: 952-826-0389 Email: cteague@EdinaMN.gov COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 2 October 2020 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Check one: Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 32 (Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects) 5. Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: Edina PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 30, Township 28N, Range 24W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Lower Minnesota River GPS Coordinates: 44.881095 decimal degrees (latitude), -93.330399 decimal degrees (longitude) Tax Parcel Number: 3002824410046 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project (see Figure 1) • US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2) • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. (see Figure 3 and Appendix A) 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor (approximately 50 words). Southdale Office Partners, LLC is proposing a phased redevelopment at 6600-6800 France Avenue in Edina, Minnesota. The 21-acre site will include an office building, medical building, residential building, ground floor retail/ restaurant, and three above-ground parking structures. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion, include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize 1) construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes; 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes; 3) significant demolition, removal, or remodeling of existing structures; and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. Southdale Office Partners, LLC is proposing a new mixed-use development at 6600-6800 France Avenue in Edina, Minnesota. The 21-acre site sits at the southwest corner of France Avenue and 66th Street. The site currently has approximately 455,000 square feet of multi- COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 3 October 2020 tenant office space in four buildings, the Tavern on France restaurant, and approximately 1,502 surface parking stalls. The proposed development will include the demolition of two existing buildings, retain 361,000 square feet in the existing 6600 and 6800 buildings, up to 245,100 square feet of new office building and podium, up to 70,000 SF of medical office building, up to 239 units of residential housing in two buildings, one 12,000 square foot retail/restaurant building, one 20,000 square foot municipal domestic water treatment facility, and up to 2,784 parking stalls. The first phase of the proposed development will start construction in 2021/2022, and it is anticipated to be complete in 2023/2024. Active uses for residential, office, and retail will be oriented toward the exterior edges of the development along France Avenue. Green space and pedestrian areas will be oriented off Valley View Road and toward the adjacent neighborhood. The project site will have six main access points, including two full access points off France Avenue and four access points off Valley View Road (see Appendix A for the site plan). Three of the access points off of Valley View Road and both full access points off of France Avenue will provide bicycle and pedestrian connections through the site. The boulevard areas will be highly landscaped and will allow for pedestrian flexible space. Outdoor terraces will be provided for the office and residential buildings, which will activate the proposed development site. c. Project Magnitude Table 1: Project Magnitude Measure Magnitude Total Project Acreage 21 acres Linear Project Length Not applicable Number and Type of Residential Units 239 multi-family residential dwelling units New Commercial and Office (square feet) 327,100 square feet Industrial Building Area (square feet) 20,000 square feet (municipal domestic water treatment facility) Institutional Building Area (square feet) Not applicable Structure Height(s) Office building – 9 stories Medical office building – 4 stories Residential building – 13 stories Parking ramps (3 structures) – up to 5 decks d. Explain the project purpose. If the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the project is to redevelop an existing commercial site into a mixed-use development. e. Are future stages of this development, including development on any other property, planned or likely to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 4 October 2020 Not applicable. f.Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and past environmental review. Not applicable. 7.Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Table 2: Cover Types Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Wetlands 0.0 0.0Deep Water/Streams 0.0 0.0Wooded/Forest 0.0 0.0 Brush/Grassland 0.0 0.0Cropland0.0 0.0Lawn/Landscaping 4.3 5.7Impervious Surface 16.7 14.35 Stormwater Pond (Infiltration Basin) 0.0 0.95 Other (describe)0.0 0.0 Total 21.0 21.0 8.Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications, and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100. Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Minnesota Department of Health Watermain permit To be applied forMinnesota Department of Labor and Industry Plumbing permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water appropriation permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit To be applied for Notice of Intent for Building Demolition To be applied forNine Mile Creek Watershed District Stormwater permit To be applied for COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 5 October 2020 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Hennepin County Right-of-way permit To be applied for Driveway permit To be applied for City of Edina Planned Unit Development (PUD) and site plan approval To be applied for Building permits To be applied for Demolition permit To be applied for Erosion control, grading, and stormwater permit To be applied for Preliminary and final plat To be applied for EIS need decision In process 9. Land Use a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. The existing site consists of four office buildings, a restaurant, and associated surface parking lots. The site is bounded by West 66th Street on the north, France Avenue South on the east, West 69th Street on the south, and Valley View Road on the west. The land use adjacent and nearby is residential, commercial, medical, and office. There are no parklands or trails within or adjacent to the project site; however, Cornelia Park, Cornelia School Park, and the Edina Promenade are within one-half mile of the project site. There are no prime or unique farmlands within or adjacent to the project site. ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. According to the draft City of Edina Future Land Use Map,1 the planned land use for this site is Office Residential. Primary uses for this type of classification include offices and attached or multifamily housing. Secondary uses include limited retail and service uses, limited industrial, institutional uses, and parks and open space. Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites. The Edina City Council adopted a small area plan for the Greater Southdale District, which includes the project site, in 2018.2 The Greater Southdale District Plan advances the core principles of the City’s comprehensive plan but adapts the planning approach to the local context. The project site adheres to elements of the Greater Southdale District Plan by acting as a transition area between the Greater Southdale 1 Available at https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8095/03-Land-Use-Chapter-PDF. 2 Available at https://www.edinamn.gov/1539/Greater-Southdale. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 6 October 2020 District and adjacent residential neighborhoods. This is accomplished through the inclusion of surrounding sidewalks and storefronts on France Avenue. Thrive MSP 2040 is the Metropolitan Council’s future vision for the region and includes policy plans on transportation, housing, water resources, and regional parks.3 Thrive MSP 2040 identifies Edina as an urban community, which is a transition city between the urban core and suburban communities. Urban communities are expected to plan for forecasted population growth at a higher density of at least 10 units per acre for redevelopment. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The project site is currently zoned PUD—Planned Use Development. The project site is not located within a shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic river, critical area, or agricultural preserve. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The project is compatible with the planned land use for the project site. The proposed development supports the objectives of the Greater Southdale District Plan in the following ways: • The arrangement of blocks can provide for a higher density, mixed-use environment with walkable streetscapes. • Retail and needed services will be expanded. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. No incompatibility has been identified; however, as indicated by the City, a PUD will be required for the site. 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms a. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County (2018),4 bedrock geology of the project site consists of St. Peter Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, friable quartzose sandstone. The estimated depth to bedrock is approximately 151 to 225 feet. The surficial geology consists of fine-grained sand to sandy gravel of mixed provenance. 3 Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Publications-And-Resources/Thrive-MSP-2040-Plan-(1)/ThriveMSP2040.aspx. 4 Available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/200919 COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 7 October 2020 No sinkholes, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions were identified in the project area. b. Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, there are two soil types within the site: Urban land—Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Urban land—Udipsamments (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Due to the location of the site and the classification of the soil, the soil type is not rated for an erosion hazard rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. According to MnTOPO, the topography of the site varies from 864 to 884 feet in elevation. Site grading for the proposed development will occur. Excavation will be needed to accommodate the building foundations and construction of the proposed infrastructure for the site. 11. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. No surface water resources (wetlands, lakes, streams, etc.) are located within the project site. Within one mile of the site there are five Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public water wetlands and five DNR public water basins. There are no DNR public water watercourses. There are also two impaired waters within one mile of the project site: Lake Edina and Lake Cornelia (see Figure 4). ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 8 October 2020 According to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report dated April 28, 2017, the depth to groundwater in this area is varies from approximately 14 to 30 feet below the existing surface elevations. The project site is within the Edina, Richfield, and Bloomington drinking water supply management areas, which are ranked as low and medium vulnerability in this area, and the Edina and Bloomington wellhead protection area. According to the Minnesota Well Index, there are no wells within the project site or within 150 feet of the project site. If any wells are encountered during construction, they will be caped and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health regulations. b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Based on the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Available Charge determination standards for the proposed improvements with the proposed uses (see metrics listed in Table 1, the maximum wastewater flows are projected to be approximately 126,754 gallons per day (gpd) at full buildout. The average daily flow is assumed to be approximately 31,689 gpd. Wastewater is expected to be equivalent to domestic strength wastewater. In the event a specific user would have wastewater stronger than domestic strength wastewater, a pretreatment facility would be required to be installed. Wastewater from the project site will be discharged into the existing 24-inch Valley View trunk sewer. An existing 24” trunk sewer that runs through the north end of the site will be relocated along Valley View Road and reconnect into the Valley View Trunk Line. The residential tower, multifamily wrap, north parking ramp, and existing 6600 building will discharge into this relocated line. The South end of the site will be serviced by a 12” Sewer Line that runs down the center of the proposed access drive. The central office tower, central parking ramp, retail building, medical office building, south ramp, water treatment facility, and the existing 6800 France building will connect into this new 12” sewer. This sewer line then discharges into the 24” trunk sewer line located in Valley View Road. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Not applicable. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 9 October 2020 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. No applicable. ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. There currently are no stormwater management practices on the site. The existing site drains to three separate discharge locations along Valley View Road and ultimately to Lake Cornelia. These three existing outfalls flood in the 10- and 100-year storm events. The project proposer will be required to maintain the existing flood storage and provide the following: 1.1 inch of volume reduction over the impervious area; 90 percent total suspended solids (TSS) and 60 percent total phosphorus (TP) removals; and rate control for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm. The proposed project will treat stormwater via three surface infiltration basins located at the existing discharge locations as well as two underground perforated pipe galleries. Total flood storage required by the City of Edina is 226,512 cubic feet and total flood storage provided is 265,609 cubic feet. Volume reduction required by Nine Mile watershed is 58,018 cubic feet and volume reduction provided is 59,847 cubic feet. Pretreatment will be provided via isolator rows in the underground systems as well as sump manholes for the surface infiltration basins. The proposed BMP’s, excess flood storage, and increase in green space vastly reduces the rate of water leaving the site in the 2, 10, and 100-year storm. These BMP’s have been designed to meet all of the requirements set forth by the City of Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Erosion control measures will be provided through silt fence, bio-rolls, inlet protection, rock construction entrances, sediment traps, and erosion control blankets within the infiltration basins. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 10 October 2020 water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Limited dewatering may be needed during construction; if needed, it will be based on the final building and site design of the below-grade parking ramps and any seasonal fluctuation in the groundwater. Any dewatering by the contractor would follow state permitting guidelines. As previously noted, there are no known wells on the project site. The overall development will connect to the city water system along France Avenue at the two site entrances and provide an internal looped system with services and hydrants stub outs. The City has indicated that there is adequate water infrastructure to service the development; however, booster pumps may be needed as part of the final plumbing and fire suppression system design. iv. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. No wetland features or surface waters were identified within the project site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. No impacts to surface water features are anticipated. Erosion control best management practices will be installed to minimize sedimentation and erosion during construction. No waterways or waterbodies are located within the project site; therefore, no change to the number or type of watercrafts is anticipated. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 11 October 2020 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a. Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A Phase I ESA was completed in March 2006 to determine if any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) are located within the project site. The ESA included the properties at 6600, 6700, 6740, 6750, 6800, and 6868 France Avenue South. The Phase I ESA identified the following historical RECs: • Four underground storage tanks (USTs). The tanks and surrounding soils were excavated in 1990 and analyzed for organic vapors and total hydrocarbons (THC). THC was not detected in three of the four UST removal locations. • Stained soils exuding a moderate fuel oil odor were identified at the service line coupling and at the east end of the fourth UST basin formerly located at 6600 France Avenue South. The petroleum impacted soil was removed and treated, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) states that no further investigation or cleanup work in response to the release is required. The Phase I ESA did not identify any new RECs but recommends continued adherence to the previously developed Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Programs in order to properly maintain the asbestos-containing and presumed asbestos-containing materials on the site. b. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Demolition debris and earth materials will be generated during demolition of the existing buildings and associated parking lots. Demolition debris is inert materials such as concrete, brick, bituminous, and rock. The solid wastes generated during demolition will be recycled or disposed of at a state-permitted landfill. Construction of the proposed project will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Hazardous waste products are not anticipated to be produced or stored within the proposed development. c. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 12 October 2020 method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. No aboveground or underground storage tanks have been identified within the project site. A new fuel tank for an emergency generators are anticipated as part of the proposed development. Any hazardous waste materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project will be disposed of in the manner specified by local or state regulations or by the manufacturer. A spill prevention plan will be developed, and proper spill prevention controls will be in place for any vehicle refueling or maintenance that occurs on site during construction. d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. Removal of the existing buildings and parking lots may generate new hazardous waste. It is not anticipated for there to be unregulated fill that has been previously placed on the site. If regulated waste is encountered, an Abatement Plan would be prepared by the contractor to address removal and proper disposal of any regulated materials. The plan would be reviewed by the MPCA prior to demolition. Following abatement and demolition activities, a comprehensive Abatement Closeout Report would be prepared, which would document the removal, management, and disposal of the regulated materials. This report would be submitted to the MPCA for final closeout. Regulated material and/or waste will be managed in accordance with state requirements. No known toxic or hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated on the site during operation of the proposed development. Toxic or hazardous waste to be stored on the site during construction will include fuel and oil necessary to operate heavy construction equipment and during operations may include commercial cleaning supplies. 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. The existing project site is impervious surface that has been previously disturbed through construction of commercial buildings. Due to fragmented and low-quality habitat, the wildlife that inhabit this area are generalist species adapted to highly disturbed conditions. These species are generally more tolerant of human presence and activities and have demonstrated by their presence that they adapt readily to the human environment. The project site is not located within any regionally significant ecological areas (RSEAs). COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 13 October 2020 b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System was conducted per license agreement LA-965 for the project site and within approximately one mile of the project site. The database includes the known occurrences of any state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. The review identified one species that may be found near this area (see Table 4). No sites of biodiversity significance exist within one mile of the project site. Table 4: State-Listed Species Within One Mile of the Project Site Species Group Status Last Observed Habitat Blanding’s turtle Reptile Threatened 1993 Upland and lowland prairies, floodplain and wet forests, forested rich peatland, wet meadow/carr, marsh, small and medium rivers and streams, large rivers, and savanna The project site is within a high potential zone for the rusty patched bumble bee.5 However, the impervious nature of the site does not provide potential suitable habitat for the species. No known northern long-eared bat hibernacula or maternity roost trees are located in the project area.6 Minimal trees are located within the project site that would provide potential suitable habitat for the bats. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Based on the highly disturbed nature of the project site, no impacts to listed species are anticipated. The site has a lack of suitable habitat for the Blanding’s turtle, rusty patched bumble bee, and northern long eared bat. No impacts to fish, wildlife, or plant communities are anticipated. A request for concurrence was submitted to the DNR and is currently pending (see correspondence in Appendix B). The proposed project would not result in the introduction of invasive species. Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mix. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. 5 Available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest.endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html 6 Townships Containing Documented Northern Long-Eared Bat Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula Entrances in Minnesota. Available at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota_nleb_township_list_and_map.pdf COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 14 October 2020 No adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, or sensitive ecological resources are anticipated as a result of redeveloping this site. 14. Historic Properties Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. A search of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s Statewide Inventory was requested to identify known historic properties and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project. No properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places were identified. The Statewide Inventory also has no archaeological records in the project area. In addition, the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist Public Viewer Map indicates there are no known archaeological sites and no known Minnesota Indian Affairs Council archaeological or cultural sites within the section in which the project site is located (Section 30, Township 28N, Range 24W). 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The project site is an existing commercial development with five buildings ranging from one to seven stories and associated surface parking lots. The proposed development would include three buildings with heights of four, nine, and 13 stories and three above-ground parking structures up to five decks high. The 13-story residential tower would be slightly taller than the existing 13-story Point of France building on the north side of 66th Street ; however, the other proposed buildings would be comparable to surrounding heights. The proposed project is compatible with planned land use for the area, and lighting will be in conformance with city ordinances. The proposed project has been designed to orient the active residential office and commercial uses off of France Avenue and provide green space and active boulevard along Valley View Road adjacent to the neighborhood. This provides a setback from the proposed development to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. The project is not near any unique scenic views or vistas. Adverse visual effects are not anticipated. Renderings of the proposed development are included in Appendix A. 16. Air a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 15 October 2020 criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. No stationary source air emissions are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. b. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are generally highest where vehicles idle for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest in vicinity of signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed as screening method designed to identify intersections that will cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. c. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. The project would generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions would be controlled by watering, sprinkling, or calcium chloride application, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. The construction and operation of the project are not expected to generate objectionable odors. Dust and odors are not anticipated to have a significant impact on human health, quality of life, or the environment. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 16 October 2020 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. The project site is an existing commercial development surrounded by residential and commercial uses and city and county roads that generate noise. Nearby sensitive receptors include single-family housing west of the site, Point of France Condominiums north of the site, and Southdale Medical Center northeast of the site. Noise will be temporarily generated by construction activities. The Edina Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Construction of the project would adhere to the requirement identified in the Edina City Code, Section 23-124, which states, “No person shall engage in or permit construction and repair activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas-powered motor vehicles or machine or other power equipment, audible beyond the property line of the property where the activity is occurring, except: • For projects requiring a building permit with a building project value of more than $50,000.00. • Monday – Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. • Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. • Sundays and holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas), no work.” Operations of the project will generate noise consistent with the existing commercial and residential uses in the area and are not anticipated to affect quality of life. Building design will incorporate noise reduction technologies in interior spaces. 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking There are approximately 1,500 existing surface parking stalls on the site. The total proposed parking would provide a minimum of 2,784 parking stalls (excluding the existing 92 parking spaces under 6600 and 6800) , including the construction of three above-ground parking structures up to five decks high. Traffic Generation Trip generation analysis was performed for the site based on the methods published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Trip generation COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 17 October 2020 rates are also based on local data collected by Spack Solutions. Per the procedure in the Trip Generation Manual, local trip generation data is used when possible and supplemented with national ITE data when local data is not available, as local data is generally newer and accounts for an area’s specific characteristics and driving habits. More detailed information on the traffic generation is provided in the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix C). Table 5 provides a summary of total trips generated by the proposed development using local data. Trip generation using ITE data can be found in Appendix C. Table 5: Peak Hour Vehicle Traffic Generation, 2020 Partial & 2030 Full Build Scenarios Description Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out In Out 2020 Partial Build Scenario General Office 510 510 128 19 18 108 General Office 421 421 105 16 14 89 General Office 706 706 177 27 24 149 Medical Dental Office 1,271 1,271 140 79 128 248 Total 3,049 3,049 550 141 184 594 2030 Full Build Scenario General Office 459 459 115 17 16 97 General Office 379 379 95 14 13 80 General Office 635 635 160 24 22 134 Medical Dental Office 1,271 1,271 126 71 115 223 Multi-Family Housing 415 415 10 49 53 28 High Turnover/Sit Down Restaurant 878 878 28 15 100 56 Total 4,037 4,037 534 190 319 618 Availability of Transit No transit service is currently provided adjacent to the project site on France Avenue, Valley View Road, 69th Street, 68th Street, or 66th Street. Bus stops are located near the project site at Southdale Mall and approximately two blocks south on France Avenue and one block east on 66th Street. These routes provide access to downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. The existing and forecasted turning movement volumes along with the existing intersection configurations and traffic control were used to develop the average delay per intersection in each study scenario. The delay calculations were done in accordance with the Highway COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 18 October 2020 Capacity Manual, 6th Edition using the Vistro software package. The study intersections closest to the proposed development and where the greatest impact is expected were reviewed in the Traffic Impact Study (included in Appendix C). They include: • Valley View Road/66th Street • Valley View Road/Driveway 1 • Valley View Road/Driveway 2 • Valley View Road/68th Street • Valley View Road/Driveway 3 • Valley View Road/Driveway 4 • Valley View Road/69th Street/Driveway 5 • France Avenue/66th Street • France Avenue/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit • France Avenue/Driveway 7 • France Avenue/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Entrance • France Avenue/69th Street Based on the analysis, all study intersections and corridors are projected to operate within acceptable bounds through the 2030 build scenario when looking at the overall intersection. However, some movements at certain signalized intersections begin to see operations fall above the preferred bounds with respect to queueing during the build scenario, specifically: • During the 2022 and 2030 PM Peak Hour, the eastbound through/left turning movement lane at France Avenue/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Entrance begins to see queues backup past the internal boulevard intersection. • During the 2030 build scenario PM Peak Hour, the France Avenue/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit experiences queues that backup past the internal boulevard intersection. Signal timing updates along France Avenue would remove the excessive queueing from the France Avenue/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit but do not fully fix the queueing at France Avenue/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Entrance. The addition of a second outbound left turn lane at this intersection would remove queueing from the highest volume scenario, the 2030 PM Peak Hour. More detailed information on the traffic analysis is provided in the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix C). c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. Based on the traffic analysis provided in the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix C), the following items are recommended: • Signal timing updates along France Avenue should be completed to allow for improved operations at the France Avenue site access. • An additional left turn lane at the France Avenue/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Entrance should be added as it provides additional storage capacity and reduces blockages of the internal boulevard intersection. All three legs on this approach should extend fully back to the internal boulevard intersection. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 19 October 2020 The project proposer will work with the City and County to implement the traffic mitigation measures outlined above. Traffic mitigation measures will be finalized as design progresses for the proposed development. 19. Cumulative Potential Effects a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative potential effects are defined as “the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”7 The geographic areas considered for cumulative potential effects are those near the project site (within approximately one-half mile), and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. Reasonably foreseeable future private development projects within approximately one-half mile of the project site include a mixed-use development at 7001 and 7025 France Avenue South The City also approved construction of a new water treatment plant and has considered a variety of site options; however, this project is currently on hold.8 Note that the municipal domestic water treatment plant noted is included in this project. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. The reasonably foreseeable future private development projects may result in impacts to transportation and utilities. However, impacts from future developments will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. All known potentially adverse environmental effects are addressed in the preceding EAW items. 7 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a 8 More information is available at https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/watertreatmentplant. COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 20 October 2020 RGU Certification The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: •The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of myknowledge. •The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages, or componentsother than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connectedactions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and60, respectively, •Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title 10-26-20 Community Development Director COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 21 October 2020 Figures COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 22 October 2020 Figure 1: County Map COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 23 October 2020 Figure 2: USGS Map COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 24 October 2020 Figure 3: Existing Conditions COMMONSonFRANCE EAW 25 October 2020 Figure 4: Water Resources COMMONSonFRANCE EAW October 2020 Appendix A Site Plan FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 6COMMONSM asterplanFRANCEonPreliminary Development Plan Application | 10.19.2020 1COMMONSMaster Plan FRANCE AVENUE W 66TH STREETW 69TH STREETVALLEY VIEW ROA D 0’ 50’ 100’ 200’400’ E1 E1 E2 O1 R1 H1M1 M1 R1 O1 H1 H2 H2 W1 P1 P2 P3 W1 E2 P1 P2 P30’ 50’ 100’ 200’400’ FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 7COMMONSAerial View from Southeast FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 8COMMONSAerial View from N orthwest FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 56COMMONSView of C entral C ourt From France Ave FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 66COMMONSView from Valley View FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 79COMMONSAerial View From N ortheast COMMONSonFRANCE EAW October 2020 Appendix B Agency Correspondence 1 Haase, Rachel From:Payne, Ashley Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:23 PM To:Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Subject:Species review request for COMMONSonFRANCE, Edina, MN Attachments:USGS Map.jpg Hello, Kimley‐Horn has been contracted to complete an EAW for a redevelopment project at 6600‐6800 France Avenue in Edina, Hennepin County, MN. Wildamere Capital Management and Olympus Ventures are proposing to redevelop a 21‐ acre existing commercial site. The proposed redevelopment would include the construction of six buildings that include commercial, office space, residential units, retail, and parking. A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System database was conducted per license agreement LA‐965 for the area within one mile of the project site, and records for two species were identified: Two records for Blanding’s turtle were located within one mile of the project site. Blanding’s turtle is a state‐ listed threatened species and was last seen southwest of the project site in 1989 and southeast of the site in 1993. Potential habitat does not exist within the project site; therefore, no impact is anticipated. Two records for rusty‐patched bumble bee were located within one mile of the project site. The rusty‐patched bumble bee is on the state species watchlist and was last seen northeast of the project site in 1986 and southeast of the site in 2015. The project site is also located entirely within the RPBB high potential zone. Based on a review of the existing site conditions, no potential suitable habitat for the RPBB was identified. The project will incorporate drought tolerant native plantings into the project site to promote pollinators. There are no regionally significant ecological areas (RSEAs) within one mile of the project site. Based on the above information, no adverse impacts to the listed species are anticipated. We would like to request concurrence with the above findings. Thank you! Ashley Ashley Payne, CMWP Kimley-Horn | 323 South Broadway, Rochester, MN 55904 Direct: 507 216 0763 | Mobile: 507 251 6096 From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO To:Peterson, Kestra Cc:Haase, Rachel Subject:RE: Database Search Request Date:Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:09:47 PM Attachments:image001.png image005.png image006.png image007.png History.xls Hello Kesta, Please see attached historic data report. Our database has no archaeologic records for the project area. Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201- 3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/. Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us. Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience. From: Peterson, Kestra <Kestra.Peterson@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:56 PM To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Cc: Haase, Rachel <Rachel.Haase@kimley-horn.com> Subject: Database Search Request Hello, I would like to request a database search for a proposed project located in the southwest quadrant of the France Avenue/W 66th Street intersection in Edina (NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 30, Township 28N, Range 24W). The location is shown on the attached USGS and existing conditions maps. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you, Kestra Kestra Peterson Kimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 Main: 651-645-4197 | Direct: 651-456-8167 Celebrating 13 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For COMMONSonFRANCE EAW October 2020 Appendix C Traffic Impact Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • ................................................................................ 1 ..................................................................... 3 ...................................................................... 6 ..................................................................... 11 ........................................ 24 ......................................................................................... 25 ................................................................................... 3 .......................................................................................... 7 ...................................................................................... 8 .......................................................................... 12 .......................................... 13 .......................................... 13 ................ 14 ................ 15 ......................................... 16 ........................................ 17 ..................................................... 18 ...................................................................... 20 ................................................................... 21 • • • • • • Congested: volume/capacity of 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 66th S W of Valley View Rd 66th St btwn of Valley View Rd and France Ave 66th Street E of France Ave France Ave N of 66th St France Ave btwn 66th St & 69th St France Ave S of 69th St 69th St E of France Ave 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th St Valley View Rd N of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)2030 Build Retimed 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)2030 PM Average Queue 2030 PM 95% Queue Retimed 2030 PM Average Queue Retimed 2030 PM 95% Queue Internal Storage Capacity 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • COMMONSonFRANCE 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions Findings of Fact 1. Southdale Office Partners, LLC is proposing a phased redevelopment at 6600-6800 France Avenue in Edina, Minnesota. The 21-acre site will include an office building, medical building, residential building, ground floor retail/ restaurant, and three above-ground parking structures. The proposed development will include the demolition of two existing buildings, retain 361,000 square feet in the existing 6600 and 6800 buildings, up to 245,100 square feet of new office building and podium, up to 70,000 SF of medical office building, up to 239 units of residential housing in two buildings, one 12,000 square foot retail/restaurant building, one 20,000 square foot municipal domestic water treatment facility, and up to 2,784 parking stalls. 2. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was required for the project in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 32 (Mixed residential and industrial- commercial projects). 3. The City of Edina is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). 4. The EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300. 5. The EAW is incorporated by reference in this Record of Decision. 6. The EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 2, 2020. The EAW was sent to all persons on the EQB Distribution List and was posted on the City’s website. 7. The 30-day public review and comment period opened on November 2, 2020 and ended on December 2, 2020. Seven comment letters were received and are included in Appendix A. 8. Based on the comments received, the City does not find any corrections are necessary to the EAW. 9. The proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the above findings and the evaluation of the following four criteria per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, subpart 7: a. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects b. Cumulative potential effects c. Extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation on ongoing public regulatory authority d. Extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Conclusions Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. An EIS is not required for the COMMONSonFRANCE Development. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Response to Comments Comments received during the 30-day EAW comment period are included in Appendix A. Responses to substantive comments are included in Appendix B. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Appendix A Comments Received COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Appendix B Response to Comments COMMONSonFRANCE B-1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions Agency or Group Providing Comments Comment Response Minnesota Department of Transportation Thank you for the opportunity to review the plat for Commons on France. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the plans and has no comments, as the proposed project should have little or no impact on MnDOT’s highway system. Your comment has been noted. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Your comment has been noted. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Page 9, Stormwater. The DNR appreciates the improvement to stormwater the project will bring to the site and recommends that the project use stormwater to irrigate landscaping on the site where possible. The reuse of stormwater to irrigate landscaping will be evaluated as the design progresses. Page 9, Stormwater. Stormwater infiltration basin failure is a well-documented issue within Minnesota. Given the highly disturbed nature of the soils within the project area, infiltration basins placed in former parking lots are unlikely to retain enough soil structure to have much hydrologic connection to surficial groundwater. Your comment has been noted for use during design of the infiltration basins. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Consider using stormwater ponds instead. If infiltration basins will be used, in order to increase the likelihood of success, we recommend that infiltration tests be performed to verify design infiltration rates. Construction BMP’s should be followed and any excavation should be in a manner that maintains soil structure in an un-smeared and un-compacted condition. We recommend that no grading activities within infiltration basins be performed when the soil moisture content at the depth of excavation is below the plastic limit. These 2018 standards and procedures are recommended by MnDOT to improve infiltration basin performance. Page 9, Stormwater. The large amount of impervious surfaces within the project area, particularly for parking, will require the application of road salt for winter maintenance. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city applicator participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. The developer will look for ways to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to downstream waters. The project will comply with all City, Watershed District, County, and State rules for stormwater management and will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the City for compliance. Page 10, Water Appropriation. Please note that if it is necessary to use sumps and pumps to keep the underground parking from being damaged by groundwater, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the facility if it will pump more than 10,000 gallons of water per day, or more than one million gallons per year. Your comment has been noted. Page 12, Wildlife. DNR concurs that impacts to wildlife are unlikely. Your comment has been noted. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 15. Dust and Odors. If the water that is used for dust control is obtained from a water source that is not a municipal water supply system, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required for taking the water if the volume exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. The application of calcium chloride for dust control is discouraged in areas that drain to public waters. Your comment has been noted. A Water Appropriation Permit will be required for taking the water if volume exceeds 10,00s gallons per day. Metropolitan Council Item 9 – Land Use (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) The EAW site is the northeast corner of TAZ #1587, which encompasses the area between France Avenue and Highway 100. The City’s 2040 comprehensive plan expects this TAZ to gain an additional 40 households and 250 jobs by 2040. There is no expected rise in population during this time period. The current TAZ allocation appears insufficient. Council staff recommend the allocation for TAZ #1587 be increased prior to the redevelopment of this site. The City can modify the TAZ allocation through correspondence with Council staff, separate from this EAW. The City will continue to monitor growth in the vicinity and will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council accordingly. Item 13.b – Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) The project is adding over two acres of landscape and stormwater ponds to a 21-acre site. The EAW states that Blanding’s Turtles and the Rusty-Patched bumble bee were historically present on this site. Council staff recommend vegetation that could reintroduce a habitat for these wildlife. Guidance on how to provide a suitable and sustainable habitat to these endangered species may be found on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s “Midwest Region Endangered Species – Rusty Patched Bumble Bee” webpage, and the MN DNR’s “Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet”. Such priorities would support the City of Edina’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Habitat policy “Encourage native plants, especially pollinator-friendly plants.” Given the highly disturbed project vicinity, wildlife impacts are not anticipated for the proposed project. Native landscaping will be incorporated into design of the proposed development. Wildlife friendly erosion control methods to minimize impacts to turtles or other wildlife in the project vicinity. Item 16. Air, B. Vehicle Emissions (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) Your comment has been noted. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Council staff recommends the adoption and integration of electric vehicle charging infrastructure or infrastructure that supports the future implementation of electric vehicle charging. Council staff recommends the integration of supporting infrastructure for shared mobility. Guidance can be found in the Great Plains Institute’s “Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready” guideline document. Such actions would be in support of the following Transportation Policy Actions in the City’s 2040 comprehensive plan update: • Develop and manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride sharing (car pools and van pools), and bicycle parking. • Invest in infrastructure to support the continued growth in low- to zero-emission technology and support regional and statewide efforts to educate and adopt electric vehicles. Item 18 – Transportation (John Dillery, 612-349-7773) On page 17, there is a description of the available transit service near the proposed project site. Existing Route 6, which stops two blocks north from the northside of the development, and the planned METRO E Line Bus Rapid Transit service, which will have a stop at the Southdale Transit Center. Local transit service is currently not planned on the south end of the redevelopment. Your comment has been noted. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Item 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) The proposed development maintains the existing urban heat island (UHI) effect, which increases the demand on the electrical grid to meet cooling load requirements, increases the cost of living due to higher cooling load demands, exacerbates the impacts of heat waves, and increases the vulnerability people most at risk to such heat events, those 65 and older (Minnesota Department of Health “MN Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment”, page 20). The City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 30% or more by 2025, and 80% reduction by 2050, can be achieved by implementing the recommendations below. The proposed development will maintain high levels of electrical and natural gas density of consumption, which will continue to drive greenhouse gas emissions. The following recommendations help reduce greenhouse gas emissions: • Consider the integration of green roofs and trees into the site design as they increase energy efficiency, decrease operating and living costs, and decrease the consumption of electricity and natural gas on site. • Consider the integration of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems into the rooftop design and utility of the proposed development, as well as into the above-ground parking design. This project proposes 14 acres of impervious rooftop and parking surfaces. Approximately 5 acres of rooftop surfaces can accommodate the development of one megawatt of solar electricity production. One megawatt of annual electricity production would more than meet the annual electricity needs of the 239 proposed units. Your comment has been noted. Impervious surface is being reduced with the proposed project by introduction of landscaped green space and incorporation of parking lot islands, thereby reducing the existing urban heat island effect. The project proposer will work with the City on additional resiliency efforts for incorporation into the project if they are deemed financially feasible. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Hennepin County Question 18. Transportation, EAW pages 16 - 21 The EAW noted that the proposed development is expected to generate upwards of 1000 total new trips during the typical weekday. To accommodate this additional traffic a series of mitigation efforts have proposed and modelled in the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix C) including: Page 1 Signal timing updates along France Avenue should be completed to allow for improved operations at the France Avenue site access. Retiming individual signals along France Ave is not supported by Hennepin County, as they are proposing to retime individual intersections, when France Ave is a coordinated corridor for signal timings. All mitigations need to be established using existing France Ave signal timings. Page 4 Hennepin County does not support using traffic counts collected during this anomalous Covid period. Only Pre-Covid counts should be used. Page 4 Please clearly state the source of the ADT data used. Page 7 Please clarify how any of these projected numbers could decrease in the 2030 Full Build Scenario? Also, the full build scenario projection should be for the year 2040. Page 8 Please provide what were the comparison sites were used to derive this local data. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Page 15 Please see the first comment above regarding retiming signals along France Avenue. Signal timing updates to eliminate blockages is not acceptable as France Ave is a coordinated system. The proposer should make adjustments to site driveway approaches to France Ave and their site plan while using current France Ave signal timings to identify Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions mitigations for internal site intersection blockages. Blockages of these internal intersection are a concern of the county as those blockages could spill back queues onto France Ave. In the Full build scenario, at the north intersection the eastbound queues for left turns are 200+ feet, which backs up into the internal intersection proposed on the site, this needs to be mitigated by considering dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane. In the Full build scenario, at the south intersection the eastbound queues for left turns are 300+ feet, which backs up into the internal intersection proposed on the site, this needs to be mitigated by considering dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane. Also consider longer intersection throat for additional queuing. The two access points off France Ave need right turn lanes on SB France Ave. This would be a safety mitigation, as well an operations mitigation. Page 17 Modifying the cycle length is not acceptable to Hennepin County. Mitigations need to be developed based on existing cycle lengths (120-140 Secs) Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Page 22 Residential loading zone and Uber/Lyft pick up/drop off should be in locations that do not impact operations for entrances / exits onto France Ave and operations of France Ave itself. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Page 22 The walking path should be combined with the existing sidewalk along France Ave to create a pedestrian facility that is separated from France Ave with a boulevard. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 23 The existing channelized turn lane at 69th St should be removed to increase driver compliance with yielding to pedestrians, and increase safety for vehicles and pedestrians Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Page 23 Truck access should be consolidated in support of a walkable corridor and site. Similarly, the city and developer need to identify that specific truck access and ensure that is designed for trucks. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Page 23 Many conclusions assume signal retiming of France Ave signals. Again, mitigations need to be established using existing France Ave signal timings. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. Hennepin County recognizes the need for the above mitigation efforts to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by this project. However, the mitigation efforts noted above are not insignificant and may require additional ROW and design that meets Hennepin County standards. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. It is also important to recognize that the developer and the city will be expected to cover the cost of these improvements and secure Hennepin County approval of the design before implementation. Thank you for your comment. These comments have been addressed as a separate addendum to the traffic study which is included in Appendix C. MCEA Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (“MCEA”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the COMMONSonFRANCE mixed-use development (“the Project”). This is an opportunity to continue the conversation around analyzing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the EAW process for residential and commercial developments. While MCEA appreciates the work that the City of Edina (“the City”) has done to create a comprehensive EAW for the Project, the EAW The State of Minnesota has not adopted any additional methods of quantifying the potential impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no agreed upon method to quantify the change in greenhouse gas emissions relative to a specific site or project. The developer has incorporated the following practices into the design, COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions omits a potentially significant environmental impact: climate change. In order to comply with Minnesota law and policy, the EAW must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions that the development will emit, possible mitigation measures to reduce those emissions, and the impacts of climate change on the Project. Revising the EAW to include this analysis would also enable the City to promote smarter, cleaner, and more resilient growth. For this reason, MCEA respectfully requests that the City revise the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) to include this vital information. construction, and operation of the proposed redevelopment. The proposed redevelopment will meet the City of Edina’s sustainability requirements which are more stringent than other municipalities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Resources (Item 11) Table 3 should indicate that an MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit may be required. Your comment has been noted. A MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit may be required and has been noted by the developer. Design wastewater flow calculations should be included for average daily flow and peak flow. The total number of each development type and the design flow per unit should be itemized. Supplemental Wastewater information is included in Appendix D. Table 5 is good summary of the unit types that should be itemized. If different per unit design flows are used for the same land use type, those should also be listed. For example, residential development may have different design flow per unit for single-family, townhome, or apartments. Supplemental Wastewater information is included in Appendix D. The sewer connection locations to the city sewer, direction of flow, and the sewer route to the wastewater treatment plant should be shown on a map. The design capacity, current flow, and capacity after the redevelopment should be shown for sewers downstream to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Information, as to whether the existing sewer systems have adequate capacity at full build out or if expanded sewers will be needed in the future, should be provided. Coordination with the City was completed to determine capacity of the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development. The existing system has capacity to accept the redevelopment of the site. COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions The capacity of the WWTP and capability to accept this increased flow should be discussed. Questions regarding wastewater should be directed to Dave Sahli at 651-757-2687 or David.Sahli@state.mn.us. Coordination with the City was completed to determine capacity of the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development. The existing system has capacity to accept the redevelopment of the site. The EAW identifies the two lakes located within 1 mile of the site that have construction-related impairments. However, there is no mention of additional best management practices (BMPs) required due to the impaired waters. If there is a discharge point on the site that will drain to either of the lakes, then the BMPs need to include the requirement to immediately begin stabilization of soils on portions of the site where the soils will be inactively worked for 7 days or more. The site will discharge into the existing City storm sewer system. The proposed project will provide pre-treatment of stormwater runoff prior to entering the storm sewer system which is an improvement from the current condition. Soils will be stabilized within 7 days. The MPCA also suggests incorporation of green infrastructure practices into the redevelopment to improve existing urban conditions and reduce stormwater runoff, such as utilizing pervious surfaces where feasible to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces at the site. Also, consider water storage and reuse, green roofs and tree trenches to capture stormwater on the site. Please direct questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us. Your comment has been noted. The MPCA recommends that mufflers be used on construction equipment used throughout the process, as appropriate, to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on nearby existing residences or shoppers. Your comment has been noted. As to noise in the area post-construction, the MPCA appreciates that the buildings being planned will attenuate noise for indoor use. Given the proximity of the planned residential structures to Southdale Mall, and being situated on the corner of France and 66th, the MPCA recommends the Project proposer and the city of Edina also consider noise outside, particularly if the residential structures include outdoor The outdoor amenity spaces will be set back from the existing roadways to minimize noise impacts to these areas. Noise mitigation technologies will be included in the design of the buildings to minimize the noise to the residents COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions spaces like balconies or rooftop amenities. Both the existing and planned residential dwellings and medical spaces fall under the most stringent state noise standards, and Responsible Governmental Units have a responsibility to avoid new land uses that could result in outdoor noise exposure over the standards, whenever possible (Minn. R. ch. 7030.0030). For noise related questions, please contact Fawkes Char at 651-757-2327 or Fawkes.Char@state.mn.us. and visitors and employees of the medical office building. COMMONSonFRANCE C-1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions Appendix C Addendum to the Traffic Study COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Appendix D Supplemental Wastewater Information COMMONSonFRANCE Findings of Fact and Conclusions Proposed Units/SF Conversation rate (unit/SF) SAC total Restaurant 12,000 300 40 Residential 239 1 239 Proposed Office 245,000 2650 92 Medical Office 70,000 2150 33 Water Treatment Facility 20,000 7000 3 Parking Garages estimate (floor drains) 150 4.25 35 Total SACS 442 1SAC = 274 gpd 274 Maximum Total Estimated Flow (gpd) 121,152 Average - Factor of 4 (gpd) 30,288 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ................................................................................ 1 ..................................................................... 3 ...................................................................... 6 ..................................................................... 11 ........................................ 24 ......................................................................................... 25 ................................................................................... 3 .......................................................................................... 7 ...................................................................................... 8 .......................................................................... 12 .......................................... 13 .......................................... 13 ................ 14 ................ 15 ......................................... 16 ........................................ 17 ..................................................... 18 ...................................................................... 20 ................................................................... 21 • • • • • • Congested: volume/capacity of 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 66th S W of Valley View Rd 66th St btwn of Valley View Rd and France Ave 66th Street E of France Ave France Ave N of 66th St France Ave btwn 66th St & 69th St France Ave S of 69th St 69th St E of France Ave 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th St Valley View Rd N of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)2030 Build Retimed 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)2030 PM Average Queue 2030 PM 95% Queue Retimed 2030 PM Average Queue Retimed 2030 PM 95% Queue Internal Storage Capacity 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Attachments • • • • • • • • • • Attachments • • • Attachments ................................................................................ 1 ..................................................................... 3 ...................................................................... 6 ..................................................................... 11 ........................................ 24 ......................................................................................... 25 ................................................................................... 3 .......................................................................................... 7 ...................................................................................... 8 .......................................................................... 12 .......................................... 13 .......................................... 13 ................ 14 ................ 15 ......................................... 16 ........................................ 17 ..................................................... 18 ...................................................................... 20 ................................................................... 21 Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments • • • Attachments Attachments • • • Attachments Congested: volume/capacity of 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 66th S W of Valley View Rd 66th St btwn of Valley View Rd and France Ave 66th Street E of France Ave France Ave N of 66th St France Ave btwn 66th St & 69th St France Ave S of 69th St 69th St E of France Ave 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th St Valley View Rd N of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Attachments 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Valley View Rd/66th St France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s Attachments 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 Attachments 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)Existing 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Queue = 5 Attachments 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 France Ave/66th St France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent France Ave/69th StAverage Delay (seconds)2030 Build Retimed 2030 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s Attachments 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)2030 PM Average Queue 2030 PM 95% Queue Retimed 2030 PM Average Queue Retimed 2030 PM 95% Queue Internal Storage Capacity Attachments 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 69th St Btwn Valley View Rd & France Ave Valley View Rd S of 66th StVolume to Capacity RatioExisting 2022 No-Build 2022 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments • • • • • • • • • • • • • Attachments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Attachments Attachments • o • o • o • o Attachments 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center EntAverage Delay (seconds)2022 Build 2030 Build 2040 Build LOS E = 55s LOS C = 20s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 France Ave/Driveway 6/Southdale Center Exit France Ave/Driveway 8/Southdale Center Ent95th Percentile Queues (vehicles)2022 PM Average Queue 2022 PM 95% Queue 2030 PM Average Queue 2030 PM 95% Queue 2040 PM Average Queue 2040 PM 95% Queue Internal Storage Capacity Queue = 3 Attachments • • • Attachments Attachments Attachments Attachments FRANCEon Prelim inary D evelopm ent Plan Application | 10.26.2020 6COMMONSM asterplanFRANCEonPreliminary Development Plan Application | 10.19.2020 1COMMONSMaster Plan FRANCE AVENUE W 66TH STREETW 69TH STREETVALLEY VIEW ROA D 0’ 50’ 100’ 200’400’ E1 E1 E2 O1 R1 H1M1 M1 R1 O1 H1 H2 H2 W1 P1 P2 P3 W1 E2 P1 P2 P30’ 50’ 100’ 200’400’ Attachments • • • • • • • • • • • We are excited to introduce COMMONSonFRANCE. COMMONSonFRANCE is the proposed redevelopment of one of Edina’s original office parks, Southdale Office Center, at 6600-6800 France Ave South. Southdale Office Partners, LLC and the project team of McGough, HGA, Cunningham Group, Kimley- Horn, and Cushman & Wakefield are proposing the rezoning and overall development plan for this mixed-use revitalization and expansion of the 1970s era property. We are not currently seeking final development approval for any phase of the project. That future approval would be determined following review of compliance with codes, the redevelopment contract, and substantial conformance with the overall development plan. The 21-acre site sits at the southwest corner of France and 66th Street, one of the busiest intersections in the City and an important northern gateway to the City’s Greater Southdale District. Currently, the site has approximately 455,000 sf of multi-tenant office space, spread over 4 buildings, the Tavern on France restaurant, and approximately 1,500 surface parking stalls. The site is fully developed today, but underutilized; a nearly 13-acre sea of surface parking stalls is needed to serve the companies and employees that occupy Southdale Office Center. The proposed consolidation of that parking offers an opportunity to introduce higher density, an enhanced public realm and infrastructure, and a vibrant mix of uses to the site at this important intersection. The project objectives have remained consistent throughout the effort and include: • Expanding and enhancing the connected office park, creating new (COVID-adapted) environments for people to collaborate, create, mentor, and innovate. • Using the Greater Southdale District Plan and Design Experience Guidelines, along with benchmarking for market viability, to guide improvements to the site in support of the City’s vision. • Introducing new amenities to the site – dining, service retail, plazas and commons, pocket parks and tree-lined walks – that will benefit both tenants, residents, neighbors, and those visiting the site. • Increasing storm water management on the site to mitigate neighborhood flooding and improve water quality in Lake Cornelia. • Incorporating sustainable strategies into the planning, design and operations focusing on human health impact, energy efficiency and climate change. • Offer a cost-effective solution for the City’s domestic water treatment requirement. COMMONSonFRANCE contemplates a multi-phase redevelopment that will ultimately offer: 600,000 square feet of amenity-rich Class A, multi-tenant office in three buildings (two existing and one new); 70,000 square feet of modern medical office; 239 units of residential housing in two buildings along 66th, across the street from Rosland Park; one easily-accessed 12,000 square foot retail/dining building; a municipal domestic water treatment facility; related parking; and a site featuring commons, plazas, pedestrian corridors, and pocket parks for the enjoyment of tenants, residents, neighbors, and visitors. The site was entitled for redevelopment in 2016/2017. The proposed concept at the time (nearly 900,000 square feet of office, medical office, lodging, residential, and retail), though lauded for aligning closely with many of the ideals of the Design Experience Guidelines, proved to rely too heavily on below- grade parking and destination retail, making the project not feasible financially. The high-water table at the site prevented the contemplated 1,400 stalls of below-grade parking from being delivered at a price- point that building users were willing to pay. The retail industry has shifted drastically in the last 4 years, and most dramatically within the last year! Destination and soft-goods retailers – those that still desire an in-store experience for their customers - want to be on the east side of France Avenue for the co-tenancy opportunities at Galleria and Southdale Mall and are willing to pay a premium for that location. The mix of below-grade, structured and surface parking now proposed can be delivered at a more optimal price-point, one that better aligns with market conditions. The limited amout of retail now proposed is service- and dining-focused, catering to the users of the site and those in the neighborhood. Recognizing that COMMONSonFRANCE will be a significant change to the neighborhood, over the last months we have engaged with a diverse group of stakeholders: the owners of the site (each of whom have businesses that operate in the existing office park), City Staff in a variety of departments, Planning Commissioners, Council Members, our commercial/retail neighbor at Southdale Mall, neighbors in the Lake Cornelia single-family neighborhood, and neighbors in the Point of France mid-rise building to the north, both through the formal Sketch Plan process as well as in less formal meetings and exchanges, in- person and virtually. Following the submittal of the Sketch Plan and having received feedback from stakeholders, we have made numerous substantive changes to the plan: • Removed the proposed Public Safety and Fire Substation in response to concerns about noise and traffic. • Removed a proposed retail/dining building from the plan to reduce overall site density and parking requirements. • Reoriented the new office building and shifted the footprint further east, away from Valley View Road. The height was reduced one story and the size reduced 45,000 square feet. These revisions respond to Cornelia neighborhood concerns about overall height and impact on single family residences. • Reduced the overall project density by approximately 55,000 square feet to further reduce parking requirements. • Shifted the Center Ramp and Office building to the east, thus retaining an additional 40-45 foot swath of existing oak tress along Valley View Road. • Exceeded both the City and Watershed requirements for storm water management on the site, including the incorporation of sustainable landscaping with native plantings and pollinator habitats along much of Valley View Road. • Eliminated one leg of the L-shaped Residential building and created a significant open, commons area along 66th in response to Point of France view concerns and the desire to subdivide a continuous “street wall” along 66th street. • Completely lined and covered the North parking ramp on 3 sides with Residential units, including walk-out units along Valley View and 66th. • Significantly reduced the surface parking on the site – just 7% of what exists today! And the largest proposed surface lot provides a great opportunity for future development along France Avenue if/when there is no longer the need for handicap and guest parking at the current quantities. • Reduced the height of the South Ramp one level and lined the west side with the Water Treatment Facility and an outdoor sustainable storm water basin with interpretive and educational paths. • Significantly enhanced the pedestrian experience with wider sidewalks, the addition of streetscape and tree canopy, and numerous plazas, commons, pocket parks and outdoor gathering areas on the site. • Incorporated a direct connection from the Cornelia Neighborhood to France Avenue through the center of our site. • Increased pervious surface on the site – one acre more than exists today! These fundamental plan changes have addressed many of the concerns we heard from neighbors and other stakeholders. We acknowledge that some neighbors still have concerns with the plan, including critiques related to the positioning of buildings and uses on the site, changes to views, apprehension about the impacts to neighbors during construction, desires for even more parks and green areas, and concerns about negative impacts on property values. Given that this is a large site with distinctly different neighbors and uses on the north, west and east, we’ve done our best to reconcile those transitions and the diverse feedback we received from the stakeholders that reviewed the Sketch Plan. We acknowledge that this will be a change for the site and the 66th and France intersection, one of the most important intersections in the City. McGough and the property owners will work with City staff and neighbors through the phased project to mitigate any negative impacts from the construction. While attempting to design a market-viable project and face the reality of the reliance on personal automobiles in suburban America, the team has also been guided by “The Vision” of the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines (March 5, 2019) (“GSDDEG”). COMMONSonFRANCE aligns well with that vision and the 50-year evolution contemplated through aspirational statements. Some language from “The Vision” document and the examples of applications on COMMONSonFRANCE: “Flexibility is not a right, but rather the natural by-product of a fair exchange for benefits, collaboration, and quality in development.” • The project recognizes the “Give to Get” philosophy of the GSDEG and proposes several significant public benefits: o The donation (or alternative beneficial transfer) of land to the City for the construction of a municipal water treatment facility, adjacent to the south parking ramp and contingent on the developer’s ability to finance the project o Transforming a 21-acre site with no stormwater management solution in place currently to a site that exceeds the stormwater management and treatment requirements of the City and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District o Providing over 350 district parking stalls in the north ramp to meet the overflow needs of events at Rosland Park and other district gatherings. This would replace the district parking that currently occurs on the surface lot north of the 6600 building. o A 50’+ setback is provided along the majority of France Ave, 66th Street, and Valley View Road, with wide sidewalks, tree canopy, and generous greenspace to create an enhanced pedestrian experience. This equates to 4.5+ acres of land – 20% of the site! Zoning requires a setback of 35’ on 66th and Valley View. With the 50’+ setback, we’ve created an extra acre of public realm and greenspace lining the project, ensuring a better experience for all users and visitors to the site! “Public and civic services accommodate a growing and diverse district and community population.” • The introduction of a stormwater system that has capacity beyond the needs of our site and the enhanced services that residential, medical and retail/dining introduce to this important mixed- use economic hub. “Transitions at the district’s edges recognize compatible use and scale and neighboring uses are perpetuated on their terms.” • We have matched use and scale along 66th and provided both a significant natural buffer and structures with transitioning height along Valley View Road. “Investment in the public realm is reflected by a commensurate investment as private parcels evolve.” • In addition to the 4.5 acres of landscaped and tree-lined boulevard created by the 50’ build- to/setback line, COMMONSonFRANCE is sprinkled with numerous commons, plazas, pedestrian walks, and parks. The public realm is receiving major investment! “(The District’s) role as regional and local center for living, shopping, working, learning, entertainment, hospitality, and medical services is enhanced.” • Southdale Office Center currently serves nearly 1,500 employees of its tenant companies. This project would enhance and expand the working, learning and medical service experience, while introducing wonderful living options and an upgraded dining and shopping experience. “Storm water is a valued resource by making it part of the experience of the district.” and “Storm water remains visible as an amenity, allowing it to become a central part of the experience of each site.” • Surface rain gardens and infiltration ponds with sustainable landscaping will ring the site and supplement below-grade storage vaults. “The district’s form encourages healthy living habits, particularly through walking.” • Parking on site will be consolidated in three main ramps, thus encouraging walking to various buildings throughout the project. The site offers a full perimeter, landscaped walking experience, measuring one-mile. Through public plazas at key edges and intersections, the plan offers intuitive pedestrian connections to Rosland Park, the Southdale Medical campus, Southdale Mall, Galleria or any of the walkable amenities in the District. Trading existing pavement for a series of landscaped walks, pedestrian oriented plaza drop-off zones, and parks/plazas, creates an inviting pedestrian experience throughout the site. “Infrastructure aligns with the creation of public space in the district, sharing space and resources that result in compelling, attractive and high-functioning civic spaces.” and “Parks and publicly accessible spaces are clearly visible and directly accessible from the public realm.” • Throughout COMMONSonFRANCE, but specifically at three areas along France Avenue, there will be plaza and park space used in common by tenants, residents, patrons and visitors, a great mingling. “Buildings for living strongly orient to the public spaces of each neighborhood within the District.” • The proximity to Rosland Park, a special amenity to not just the Southdale District but the entire City, is the main reason for introducing Residential on the north end of the site. “Encourage district evolution based on incremental change and the creation of a great pedestrian experience.” and “Transportation recognizes trends, including autonomous vehicles and a time when parking structures aren’t needed for public parking.” • As the use of personal automobiles continues to evolve, the need to park those vehicles will hopefully diminish. The phased delivery of this project allows us to react to that evolution and only deliver the parking warranted and required at the future date of that phase. We all would prefer to incorporate other uses on the site if possible. “Wide landscaped boulevards encourage pedestrian activity and create a distinct district signature.” • The boulevards along France, 66th and Valley View total more than 4.5 acres of tree-canopied, pedestrian-friendly buffer and will be one of the signature features of COMMONSonFRANCE. “Spaces on sites are considered for people first, including connections between sites; then the ways structures are placed; and then places to store cars are found.” • One of the fundamental objectives of COMMONSonFRANCE was to enhance the existing office park by introducing new Class A amenities. The nearly 1,500 workers and visitors of Southdale Office Center were central to early planning. How do they access the site? What District amenities are important connections? What do they value about the existing office park? What enhancements would improve innovation and the daily experience? That process led to the positioning of the new office building, allowing for connections to both the existing 6600 and 6800 France buildings. Parking was positioned below grade and a ramp in the remaining area. A similar approach was taken for the Residential on the north and the Medical Office on the south. “Collaboration leads to a superior result, with the community’s expectations clearly framed as part of the deliberation.” • The Sketch Plan process and engagement with neighbors has challenged us to bring forward the best plan possible. COMMONSonFRANCE is the product of the collaboration of a diverse group of stakeholders. “The Framework” and “The Guidance” of the GSDDEG were also influential in the planning of COMMONSonFRANCE. Some key concepts that are incorporated to highlight: • The 200’x200’ grid (DEG pp 7): Recognizing the curvilinear site boundary, the existing curb cuts to the county road, and geometry of the existing office buildings, the DEG diagrams do not illustrate a 200’ x 200’ subdivision. However, the proposed plan seeks to incorporate the spirit and concept of subdividing a super block. The plan expands and enhances east-west connections into landscaped multi-modal experiences and further subdivides the site in both N- S and E-W orientations. • Potential building sites (DEG pp8): COMMONSonFRANCE affirms and responds to the four criteria offering the greatest opportunity for redevelopment: sites with dominating surface parking, sites critical to district success, a promenade connection, and repurposing underutilized land. • Space Between Buildings/Street Rooms and Seams (DEG pp 9,10): The proposed development eliminates almost all surface parking and dedicates space between proposed buildings to a variety of public realm experiences. Plazas surfaced with decorative pavers, formal green space and courtyards, and natural greenspace featuring trees and indigenous flora. Vehicular drop-off and visitor parking are rendered as secondary functions within paved urban plazas. Proposed buildings are positioned to create edges and seams framing outdoor environments. • Connections and Intersections (DEG pp 15,17): COMMONSonFRANCE realizes the vision for a West Promenade along Valley View Road connecting W. 69th and the Rosland Park. A minimum 50’ landscape buffer is provided between the east edge of Valley View Rd. and new building development. A much wider green space is provided at the west-center portion of the site to maximize the protection of existing oak trees. Pedestrian paths meander within the green buffer linking small plazas at the W. 68th St. and W. 66th St. intersections. The intersection plazas mark opportunities for connection to adjacent neighborhoods and amenities. • Building form (DEG pp 16): Each proposed building is designed with a stepped and setback massing profile. As building mass increases in height, upper levels step back to ease the visual transition from the street scape. Valley View Rd., and the majority of W. 66th St., are lined with low residential building forms, the civic water treatment facility, and a recessed parking structure, all set behind a foreground of landscape. The mid-rise residential building at the intersection of W. 66th St. and France Ave. features multiple massing setbacks offering outdoor terraces to residents. The new office building steps back at 3 different heights facing the south plaza, France Ave. and north plaza. • Street Room typologies 3 (DEG pp 28,29) and 5 (DEG pp 32,33): This large site has both Street Room Typology 3 (SRT3) and 5 (SRT5) contemplated. It is important to note that SRT3 (New local streets) describes both the possible application to create parks and plazas, extensions of the public realm, as well as the necessity of primary vehicular access routes to parking and buildings. COMMONSonFRANCE incorporates both applications of SRT3, “based on the nature of uses within the larger superblock structure.” France and 66th are both considered gateway streets (The Boulevards) under SRT5, with high traffic volumes and the recognition “that the district has a role in the broader metropolitan region-providing employment, health, retail, entertainment and a wide range of housing options.” These corridors also have an opportunity to convey the district’s identity to the greatest number of people. SRT5 recommends the creation of a “uniform street wall of 60’…”. Buildings may rise above the 60’datum with a 2’ step back and may rise above a 105’ datum with a 10’ step back. The COMMONSonFRANCE plan proposes low-rise residential structures along W. 66th St. Only the narrow width of the mid-rise residential structure at W. 66th and France Ave. avails itself of the allowable height while maintaining the desired 50’ landscaped setback. We are familiar with the City’s Affordable Housing Policy and intend to comply either by providing the proportionate share of affordable units on site or through payment of a Total Buy In, for deposit in the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That determination will be made when we seek final development approval for that future phase of the project. This is a great opportunity to revitalize an aging office park and seek the highest and best uses for the site and the district. To achieve a meaningful revitalization, the development will need to incorporate greater density to generate the investment needed to make the necessary improvements. France Avenue can serve the City as a corridor that is able to accommodate more density and a mix of uses. Concentrating growth on corridors like this allows for the creation of green space, amenities, and lower- density residential neighborhoods elsewhere. We request the City continue to consider the creation of a tax increment financing district at the site to assist in offsetting the costs associated with the public goals achieved through the redevelopment of the site. The Design Experience Guidelines and the feedback and critique the project has received from all the stakeholders has helped us prepare a new vision for COMMONSonFRANCE that will transform the southwest quadrant of France and 66th into vibrant, thriving corridors, welcoming employees, residents and visitors to the Greater Southdale District. PROGRAMMED SPACE CODE AREA NOTES STALLS BUILDING HEIGHT PROGRAM NOTES EXISTING 6600 FRANCE E1 198,000 3 /1,000 594 6800 FRANCE E5 163,000 3 /1,000 489 NEW CLASS A CORPORATE OFFICE BLDG O1 230,375 9 Stories 4 /1,000 922 (1) Level Podium: 18' + (8) Typical Floor: 14' + (1) Mechanical Enclosure: 18' = 150'Area expressed as RSF; GSF = 230,375 @ 95% eff. = 242,500 OFFICE BLDG PODIUM/LINK TO 6600 & 6800 15,000 0 incl. in above (Podium includes: lobby, cores, amenity programs, and concourse circulation)Area expressed as RSF; GSF = 15,000 @ 95% eff. = 15,800 MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING M1 70,000 4 Stories 5 /1,000 350 (4) Typical Floor: 14' + 14' Mech. Enclosure = 70' SOUTH RETAIL (TAVERN ON FRANCE)R1 12,000 120 WATER TREATMENT PLANT W1 20,000 0 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING H1 239,010 1.2 /Unit 357 13 Levels = 160' to top of elevator overrun Area expressed as RSF; GSF = 239,010 @ 75% eff. = 319,095 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PODIUM incl. above 0 Lobby, core, building offices (leasing/building services), amenities, building services TOTAL PROGRAMMED SPACE 947,385 2,832 PARKING PROVIDED 6600 PARKING (Below Building)38 6800 PARKING (Below Building)54 SURFACE PARKING n/a 105 CLASS A OFFICE BLDG PARKING (Below Building)1 Level 71 n/a - below grade Assumes 1 level below building CLASS A OFFICE BLDG PARKING (Central Ramp)P3 5 Level 1,020 (6) 11'6 = 62' (top level is guard rail only)Assumes 6 levels from Valley View grade PARKING RAMP "A" (North)P1 6 Level 822 See Cunningham Assumes 6 levels from Valley View grade - See Cunningham PARKING RAMP "B" (South)P2 5 Level 673 (5) 11'-6" = 36' (top level is guard rail only)Assumes 1 level below Valley View grade/4 above MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING (Below Building)1 Level 90 n/a - below grade Assumes 1 levels below France Ave grade - See Cunningham TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 2,873 945,820 997,247 1.05 1,590,847 1.68 COMMONS on FRANCE - PROGRAM TRACKER 10/14/2020 - Master Plan BUILDING PARKING REQ'D RATIO Building Area (Gross SF) + Covered Parking at or Above Grade TOTAL FAR (Building + Parking) FAR CALCULATIONS Total Site Area (SF) Building Area (Gross SF) TOTAL FAR (Building Only) VICINITY N.T.S.SITE EDINA, HENNEPIN, MN 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCHWHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A 30x42 SHEET.3. ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/ORUTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDINGPOSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES.4. ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES,AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. NOTES: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTHGA 420 NORTH 5TH STREET, SUITE 100TELEPHONE: 612-758-4477 CONTACT: BRIT ERENLER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERBRAUN INTERTEC 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVENUEBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 TELEPHONE: 952-995-2000CONTACT: PROJECT TEAM: SURVEYORSUNDE LAND SURVEYING 9001 E BLOOMINGOTN FWY, SUITE 118BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 TELEPHONE: 952-886-3130FAX: 952-888-9526 CONTACT: JON DICKEY ENGINEERKIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: TOM LINCOLN767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 DEVELOPER MCGOUGH DEVELOPMENT 2737 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH,ST. PAUL, MN 55113 TELEPHONE: 651-634-7787CONTACT: ANDY MCINTOSH COMMONSonFRANCE FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION ARCHITECTHGA 420 NORTH 5TH STREET, SUITE 100MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 TELEPHONE: 612-758-4226CONTACT:VICTOR PECHATY, AIA CROSSTOWN HWY W 66TH ST W 70TH ST OWNER/DEVELOPEROLYMPUS VENTURES LLC 6600 FRANCE AVENUE, #550EDINA, MN 55435 TELEPHONE: 952-324-8900 OWNER/DEVELOPERWILDAMERE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 6800 FRANCE AVENUE, #555EDINA, MN 55435 TELEPHONE: 952-746-3400 ARCHITECTCUNNINGHAM GROUP201 SE MAIN STREET #325MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414TELEPHONE:612-379-3400 CONTACT:DAVE STAHL Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C000 COVER SHEET C100 GENERAL NOTES V-100 SURVEY NORTH V101 SURVEY MIDDLE V102 SURVEY SOUTH C200 OVERALL DEMOLTIION PLAN C201 DEMOLITION PLAN NORTH C202 DEMOLITION PLAN MIDDLE C203 DEMOLITION PLAN SOUTH C300 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 1 C301 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 2 C302 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS C303 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS C400 OVERALL SITE PLAN C401 SITE PLAN NORTH C402 SITE PLAN MIDDLE C403 SITE PLAN SOUTHC404SITE DETAILS C405 SITE DETAILS C500 OVERALL GRADING PLAN C501 GRADING PLAN NORTH C502 GRADING PLAN MIDDLE C503 GRADING PLAN SOUTH C504 GRADING DETAILS C505 SOUTH UNDERGROUND SYSTEM C506 NORTH UNDERGROUND SYSTEM C600 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C601 UTILITY PLAN NORTH C602 UTILITY PLAN MIDDLE C603 UTILITY PLAN SOUTH C604 UTILITY DETAILS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MN DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" (LATEST EDITION) AND BECOMEFAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALLWORK SHALL CONFORM AS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCTTHE FACILITY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEAPPROPRIATE APPROVING AUTHORITIES, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALLCLEAR AND GRUB ALL AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, REMOVING TREES, STUMPS, ROOTS, MUCK,EXISTING PAVEMENT AND ALL OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 3. THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS QUALITY LEVEL "D" UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ACSE 38/02,ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF SUBSURFACE QUALITY DATABY THE FHA. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TOTHE ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLYVERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE IS NOT MADE THAT ALL EXISTINGUNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELYACCURATE. FINDING THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL BE DONE BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK IN THE VICINITY. FURTHERMORE,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES DUE TO THECONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.THE OWNER OR ENGINEER WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR COST INCURREDBECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, NOR FORTEMPORARY BRACING AND SHORING OF SAME. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO SHORE, BRACE, SWING ORRELOCATE A UTILITY, THE UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT AFFECTED SHALL BE CONTACTED ANDTHEIR PERMISSION OBTAINED REGARDING THE METHOD TO USE FOR SUCH WORK. 4. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH MAYHAVE BURIED OR AERIAL UTILITIES WITHIN OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BEFORE COMMENCINGWORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 48 HOURS MINIMUM NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIESPRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ANDBONDS IF REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES ONE COPY OF THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SPECIALCONDITIONS AND COPIES OF ANY REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. 7. ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEOWNER AND ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NO FIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGNARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER. 8. ALL COPIES OF COMPACTION, CONCRETE AND OTHER REQUIRED TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THEOWNER DIRECTLY FROM THE TESTING AGENCY. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING AND MAINTAINING AS-BUILT INFORMATIONWHICH SHALL BE RECORDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES OR AT THE COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATECONSTRUCTION INTERVALS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THEOWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AS REQUIRED. ALL AS-BUILTDATA SHALL BE COLLECTED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SERVICES AREENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10. ANY WELLS DISCOVERED ON SITE THAT WILL HAVE NO USE MUST BE PLUGGED BY A LICENSED WELLDRILLING CONTRACTOR IN A MANNER APPROVED BY ALL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALLBE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY WELL ABANDONMENT PERMITS REQUIRED. 11. ANY WELL DISCOVERED DURING EARTH MOVING OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THEAPPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER DISCOVERY IS MADE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWNON THE PLANS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY KNOWN EXISTING OR OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IFANY CONFLICTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONOF ANY PORTION OF THE SITE WORK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER OF ANIDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER OF ANYOBLIGATION TO PAY FOR A RELATED CHANGE ORDER. 13. SHOULD CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY DEBRIS LADEN SOIL, STRUCTURES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THEDOCUMENTS, OR OTHER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONTACTTHE ENGINEER AND OWNER. TYPICAL OWNER/ENGINEER OBSERVATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THEFOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: - PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, BASE INSTALLATIONASPHALT INSTALLATION, UNDERGROUND PIPING AND UTILITIES INSTALLATION,INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES, CHECK VALVES, HYDRANTS, METERS, ETC., SIDEWALKINSTALLATION, CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER MAINS, TESTS OF UTILITIES 3RD PARTY TEST REPORTS REQ'D TEST REPORTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSE OUT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: - DENSITY TEST REPORTS- BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS OF WATER SYSTEM- PRESSURE TEST OF WATER/SEWER- LEAK TESTS ON SEWER SYSTEM AND GREASE TRAPS- ANY OTHER TESTING REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY/MUNICIPALITY WATER STORM SEWER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GRAVITY SEWER LATERALS, MANHOLES, GRAVITY SEWER LINES,AND DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS, MEANS OFTRANSPORTATION AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN FULL AND COMPLETEACCORDANCE WITH THE SHOWN, DESCRIBED AND REASONABLY INTENDED REQUIREMENTS OF THECONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THECONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THEMOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 2. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCOMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THENOTES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THIS SHEET. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED VEGETATION IN KIND, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4. DEFLECTION OF PIPE JOINTS AND CURVATURE OF PIPE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS. SECURELY CLOSE ALL OPEN ENDS OF PIPE AND FITTINGS WITH A WATERTIGHT PLUGWHEN WORK IS NOT IN PROGRESS. THE INTERIOR OF ALL PIPES SHALL BE CLEAN AND JOINT SURFACESWIPED CLEAN AND DRY AFTER THE PIPE HAS BEEN LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. VALVES SHALL BEPLUMB AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 5. ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE COATING OR LINING IN ANY D.I.PIPE FITTINGS. ANY PIPE OR FITTING WHICH IS DAMAGED OR WHICH HAS FLAWS OR IMPERFECTIONSWHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR OWNER, RENDERS IT UNFIT FOR USE, SHALL NOT BE USED.ANY PIPE NOT SATISFACTORY FOR USE SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROMTHE JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6. WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOCOMBUSTIBLES BEING BROUGHT ON SITE. 7. ALL UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE PAVING SHALL BECOMPLETELY BACK FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY'SSPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCYREQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 8. UNDERGROUND LINES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRIORTO BACK FILLING. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ANY AND ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY THESPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ANY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. THESE TESTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOTBE LIMITED TO, INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION, TELEVISION INSPECTION AND A MANDREL TEST ONGRAVITY SEWER. A COPY OF THE TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE UTILITY PROVIDER, OWNERAND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 10' AND A VERTICALCLEARANCE OF 18" BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND LINES. 11. IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARYTO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. 12. ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE ISWATERTIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL STORMSEWER MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFICBEARING RING & COVERS. MANHOLES IN UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LIDS SHALLBE LABELED "STORM SEWER". EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BEADJUSTED TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. 14. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY LAND SURVEYORS. IF THECONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WITHOUTEXCEPTION, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY, AT THEIR EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY AREGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. 15. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TOSAME. 16. ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED MORTAR FROM INVERT IN TO INVERTOUT. 17. ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER BY PREFABRICATED WYES OR AT STORMSTRUCTURES. ROOF DRAINS AND TRUCK WELL DRAIN SHALL RUN AT A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE, UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE, AND TIE IN AT THE CENTERLINE OF THE STORM MAIN. 18. ALL ROOF AND SANITARY SEWER DRAINS SHALL BE INSULATED IF 7' OF COVER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THAT ARETO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 20. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ABOVE ANDBELOW-GRADE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AS SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITYTO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF EACH PRIOR TO THE START OFCONSTRUCTION. 21. A MINIMUM OF 5' SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UTILITIES AND TREES UNLESS A ROOT BARRIER ISUTILIZED. 22. GAS, PHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DRY UTILITYCOMPANIES MAY ALTER THE DESIGN LAYOUT DURING THEIR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATEFINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 23. COORDINATE UTILITY INSTALLATION WITH IRRIGATION DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. 24. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PERIMETER WALL DIMENSIONSARE TO INSIDE WALL FACE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT WALL WIDTH ANDSPECIFICATIONS. 25. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS). FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS, AND MATERIALSSPECIFICATIONS. 26. REFERENCE M.E.P. PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 27. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE STRUCTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENTDIMENSIONS AND PAD PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS. 28. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE M.E.P PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR LIGHT POLE WIRING. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF ALL EXISTING ANDPROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDING GRADES AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION.THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED AND SHALL ADJUST BMP'S ASNECESSARY AND REGRADE WASHOUTS WHERE THEY OCCUR AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL A GRASSSTAND IS WELL ESTABLISHED OR ADEQUATE STABILIZATION OCCURS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THERE IS POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS SO THATSURFACE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY TO NEW OR EXISTING DRAINAGE OUTLETS. CONTRACTORSHALL ENSURE NO PONDING OCCURS IN PAVED AREAS AND SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ANY GRADINGDISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OFPAVEMENT OR UTILITIES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL MANHOLE COVERS, VALVE COVERS, VAULT LIDS, FIRE HYDRANTS,POWER POLES, GUY WIRES, AND TELEPHONE BOXES THAT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISTURBEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TOMATCH THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADES. 5. BACKFILL FOR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED PER DETAILS, STANDARDS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SO THATTHE UTILITY WILL BE STABLE. WHERE UTILITY LINES CROSS THE PARKING LOT, THE TOP 6 INCHES SHALLBE COMPACTED SIMILARLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT. UTILITY DITCHES SHALL BE VISUALLYINSPECTED DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT UNDESIRABLE FILL IS NOT USED. 6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT COMPLETIONOF WORK. ALL UNPAVED AREAS IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEREGRADED AND SODDED. 7. AFTER PLACEMENT OF SUBGRADE AND PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL TESTAND OBSERVE PAVEMENT AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF PONDING. ALL AREAS SHALL ADEQUATELY DRAINTOWARDS THE INTENDED STRUCTURE TO CONVEY STORM RUNOFF. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELYNOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED. 8. WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLSAW CUT FULL DEPTH FOR A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT JOINT AND REPLACE THE PAVEMENT WITH THE SAMETYPE AND DEPTH OF MATERIAL AS EXISTING OR AS INDICATED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PROTECTION OVER ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR THE DURATION OFCONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURESSHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AS REQUIRED DURING AND AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDEPOSITIVE DRAINAGE FLOWS. 10. IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY APPLICABLE REQUIRED PERMITS.THE CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION. 11. FIELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT INTERVALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONALAGENCY OR TO MN/DOT STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THEJURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALLGOVERN. 12. ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED AS PER PLANS. THE AREASSHALL THEN BE SODDED OR SEEDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED ANDMAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS. ANY AREAS DISTURBED FORANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR ATNO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL EARTHEN AREAS WILL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHEDAS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL OF DUST AND DIRT RISING ANDSCATTERING IN THE AIR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE WATER SPRINKLING OR OTHERSUITABLE METHODS OF CONTROL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNINGREGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 14. SOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON EXPOSED SLOPES WITHIN 48 HOURSOF COMPLETING FINAL GRADING, AND AT ANY OTHER TIME AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT EROSION,SEDIMENTATION OR TURBID DISCHARGES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPE ISLAND PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER PLANTINGAREAS ARE NOT COMPACTED AND DO NOT CONTAIN ROAD BASE MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLALSO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL FROM ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO BE PLANTEDAND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATION. 17. ALL CONCRETE/ASPHALT SHALL BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECH REPORT, CITY OF EDINA AND MN/DOTSPECIFICATIONS. 18. SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 19. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 20. IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE OWNER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONSAND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 21. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING EXISTING UTILITIES, AND SHALLREPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES THAT OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUTCOMPENSATION. 22. BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE. 23. ALL PROPOSED GRADES ONSITE SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS.ANY SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLANKET. 24. ADHERE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY IN THE GENERAL N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT ANDSTORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITHCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 25. ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUSGRADE. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE MINIMUM GRADES ARE MET WITHIN PAVED AREAS, 1.2% FOR ASPHALTPAVING AND 0.6% FOR CONCRETE PAVING. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ("SWPPP") IS COMPRISED OF THE EROSION CONTROLPLAN, THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONSOF THE SWPPP, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTIONSHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MNNATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOMEFAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCALREQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENTADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 4. SITE ENTRY AND EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT THETRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED,WASHED, OR TRACKED ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WASHING ISREQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT SHALL BE DONE INAN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALLFINES IMPOSED FOR DISCHARGING SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS OF STABILIZATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7DAYS OF THE LAST DISTURBANCE ON ANY AREA OF THE SITE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BYTHE GENERAL PERMIT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALLALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, ANDAREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES. 8. ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) SHALL BEDETAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED. 9. SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ONSITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ON SITE. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS ANDOTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 11. RUBBISH, TRASH, GARBAGE, LITTER, OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO SEALEDCONTAINERS. MATERIALS SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE PREMISES THROUGH THE ACTION OFWIND OR STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. 12. ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE INITIATED ASSOON AS IS PRACTICABLE. 13. ALL STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILES, SPOILS, ETC. SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THEY WILL NOTADVERSELY AFFECT STORM WATER QUALITY. OTHERWISE, COVERING OR ENCIRCLING THESE AREAS WITHSOME PROTECTIVE MEASURE WILL BE NECESSARY. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-ESTABLISHING ANY EROSION CONTROL DEVICE WHICHTHEY DISTURB. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DEFICIENCIESIN THE ESTABLISHED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE ORSTORM WATER POLLUTION, SEDIMENTATION, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS. UNAUTHORIZED POLLUTANTSINCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) EXCESS CONCRETE DUMPING OR CONCRETE RESIDUE, PAINTS,SOLVENTS, GREASES, FUEL AND LUBRICANT OIL, PESTICIDES, AND ANY SOLID WASTE MATERIALS. 15. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OFLAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROJECT. 16. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. CHANGES ARE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BY THEDESIGN ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DIVISION. 17. IF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS APPROVED CANNOT CONTROL EROSION AND OFF-SITESEDIMENTATION FROM THE PROJECT, THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND/ORADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE. ANY REVISIONS TO THE EROSIONCONTROL PLAN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE ALL MEASURES STATED ON THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATERPOLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY ALLJURISDICTIONS UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OFTHE SITE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED BY A CERTIFIEDPERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A 0.5" RAINFALLEVENT, AND CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OFUNDERMINING, OR DETERIORATION. 1. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREASSHOULD BE FERTILIZED, WATERED AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTSREFER TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BEREMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSINGOF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 4. THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FORPARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING ASCONDITIONS DEMAND. 5. ALL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 2CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. PAVING AND STRIPING NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION, MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP WITHIN JURISDICTION'S RIGHT-OF-WAYSHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL OR COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION)OR MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) IF NOT COVERED BY LOCAL OR COUNTYREGULATIONS. 2. ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO MANUALON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D) AND CITY STANDARDS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FIRE LANES, ROADWAY LANES, PARKINGSTALLS, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOLS, ACCESS AISLES, STOP BARS AND SIGNS, AND MISCELLANEOUSSTRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4. ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EXTEND THROUGH THE CURB. 5. THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF OFFSET JOINTS AT RADIUS POINTS SHALL BE 2 FEET. 6. ALL JOINTS, INCLUDING EXPANSION JOINTS WITH REMOVABLE TACK STRIPS, SHALL BE SEALED WITH JOINTSEALANT. 7. THE MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES OF ALL CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS INTHE A.C.I. (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A SECOND COATING OVER ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCEBY OWNER FOLLOWED BY A COAT OF GLASS BEADS AS APPLICABLE PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9. ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT, CURBS AND/OR SIDEWALKS DAMAGED OR REMOVED WILL BE REPAIRED BY THECONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 10. BEFORE PLACING PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SUITABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES (PER A.D.A).GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALLCONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPESEXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NOCASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSTALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNALBUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEERIMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTORCHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 11. MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING IS TWICE THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN FEET. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROJECT B1700239BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATIONDATED APRIL 28, 2017 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES,DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITHSUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FORDEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ANDCOORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND/OR THE CITY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNINGPORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYINGALL FEES AND CHARGES. 5. THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMESNO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OFPROPOSED WORK. 6. ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITHCAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PRECEDING WITH THE WORK. 7. ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDEDFOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHINANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8. CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. (AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDINA, <COUNTY> COUNTY AND MN/DOT. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WILL BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 11. CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDINGPAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLYAVAILABLE TO THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WITHTHE CITY OF EDINA DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED. 13. REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS. 14. ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES. 15. IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MNREQUIREMENTS. 16. IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT APERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING J-BARRIEREXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGNEXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASINEXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WELLEXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLEREXISTING ROOF DRAINEXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOXEXISTING GUY WIREEXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C202LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING J-BARRIER EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WELLEXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLEREXISTING ROOF DRAINEXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLEEXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NORTHKEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE S VALLEY VIEW RD W 66TH STREETNORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C201MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C203LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING J-BARRIEREXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGNEXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASINEXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WELLEXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLEREXISTING ROOF DRAINEXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOXEXISTING GUY WIREEXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NORTHKEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY V IEW R D W 66TH STREETNORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C202LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINEEXISTING CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING J-BARRIEREXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONEEXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGNEXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASINEXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WELLEXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLEREXISTING ROOF DRAINEXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOXEXISTING GUY WIREEXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NORTHKEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE S VALLEY VIEW RD W 66TH STREETNORTH EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1. ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BEINSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4. WITHIN TWO WEEKS (14 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BESTABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FORMATERIALS. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDINGTHE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THECONSTRUCTION. 7. ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THECONTRACTOR. 8. REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTOEXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS ASNECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATERFROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. UPON IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: TRAILER,PARKING, LAYDOWN, PORTA-POTTY, WHEEL WASH, CONCRETE WASHOUT, FUELAND MATERIAL STORAGE CONTAINERS, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, ETC.,IMMEDIATELY DENOTE THEM ON THE SITE MAPS AND NOTE ANY CHANGES INLOCATION AS THEY OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. BMP AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERTS.2. CONSTRUCT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (1), CONCRETE WASHOUTPIT (1) AND INSTALL SILT FENCE.3. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA.4. CONSTRUCT AND STABILIZE DIVERSIONS AND TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS.5. PERFORM CLEARING AND GRUBBING OF THE SITE. PERFORM MASS GRADING.ROUGH GRADE TO ESTABLISH PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS.6. START CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES.7. TEMPORARILY SEED WITH PURE LIVE SEED, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION,DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL BE INACTIVE FOR 14 DAYS OR MORE OR ASREQUIRED BY NPDES AND/OR CITY OF EDINA GRADING PERMIT. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: ROCK ENTRANCE INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SAFETY FENCE BIOROLL LEGEND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET NORTHIP SF CE INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE CONCRETE ENTRANCE RP RIPRAP KEYNOTE LEGEND BIOROLL EB EROSION CONTROL BLANKET BL ST TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES1. ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4. WITHIN TWO WEEKS (14 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD,OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE,AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT INFRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7. ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVEDAREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALLCONSTRUCTION AREAS. 11. CONTRACTOR TO RESTORE INFILTRATION POND AFTER USE AS A TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION POND. UPON IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: TRAILER, PARKING, LAYDOWN, PORTA-POTTY,WHEEL WASH, CONCRETE WASHOUT, FUEL AND MATERIAL STORAGE CONTAINERS, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, ETC.,IMMEDIATELY DENOTE THEM ON THE SITE MAPS AND NOTE ANY CHANGES IN LOCATION AS THEY OCCURTHROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. BMP AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TEMPORARILY SEED, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, DENUDED AREAS THAT WILL BE INACTIVE FOR 7 DAYS ORMORE.2. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS, STORM SEWERS, UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, CURBS AND GUTTERS.3. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION AT ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES AS EACH INLET STRUCTURE ISINSTALLED.4. PERMANENTLY STABILIZE AREAS TO BE VEGETATED AS THEY ARE BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE.5. PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING.6. PAVE SITE AND INSTALL STRIPING.7. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION DEVICES FOR PAVED AREAS AS WORK PROGRESSES.8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION OVER ALL AREAS.9. OBTAIN CONCURRENCE WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN FULLY STABILIZEDTHEN:1. REMOVE ALL REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION ADN SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES2. STABILIZE ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL OF BMPS. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: ROCK ENTRANCE INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SAFETY FENCE BIOROLL LEGEND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TEMPORARY TURF ESTABLISHMENT,SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAIL NORTHIP SF CE INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE CONCRETE ENTRANCE RP RIPRAP KEYNOTE LEGEND BL BIOROLL EB EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSECTIONNTS PLAN NTS ®™ FILTREXX® SEDIMENT CONTROL NTS ®™™ ®™ NOTE TO GC: THE GOAL OF A CONSTRUCTION EXIT AND ASSOCIATED WHEEL WASH AREAS IS TOELIMINATE TRACK OUT. SIMPLY MANAGING TRACK OUT THROUGH DESIGNATED OR CONTINUALSTREET SWEEPING IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE. WHILE STREET SWEEPING IS ANACCEPTABLE PRACTICE FOR REMOVING DUST AND MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF FINE SEDIMENT,OBSERVABLE TRACK OUT FROM THE PROJECT SHOULD TRIGGER THE USE OF ADDITIONALMEASURES (WHEEL WASH), CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE EXITS, OR DISCONTINUINGVEHICLE TRAFFIC UNTIL CONDITIONS ON-SITE HAVE IMPROVED. TRACK OUT IS A SEDIMENTRELEASE. ALL SEDIMENT RELEASES MUST BE REPORTED TO THE SWCT VIA THE ONLINECRITICAL INCIDENT REPORT. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: 1. ALL SITE ACCESS MUST BE CONFINED TO THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT(S). BARRICADE TOPREVENT USE OF ANY LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT(S) WHEREVEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT MAY ACCESS THE SITE.2. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING, JERSEY BARRIERS, ORBOTH ALONG THE SIDES OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTIONTRAFFIC FROM SHORT CIRCUITING/BYPASSING THE EXIT.3. PROVIDE SEDIMENT TRAP ON DOWN GRADIENT SIDE (OR BOTH SIDES) AS REQUIRED.SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AT A MINIMUMSETBACK DISTANCE AS REQUIRED PER LOCAL JURISDICTION.4. IF THE ACTION OF VEHICLES TRAVELING OVER THE GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION EXIT(S) ISNOT SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT TRACKING OF DIRT, DUST OR MUD, THEN TIRES MUST BEWASHED BEFORE THE VEHICLES ENTER A PUBLIC ROAD. ALL WASH WATER MUST BEROUTED TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER TREATMENT AREA AND SHALL NOT BE DIRECTLYDISCHARGED OFF-SITE.5. LOCATIONS WHERE VEHICLES ENTER AND EXIT THE SITE MUST BE INSPECTED FOREVIDENCE OF SEDIMENT TRACKING BEYOND THE PERMITTED PROJECT AREA. ALLMATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED FROM VEHICLES ONTO ROADWAYSOR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.6. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITED ON THE ROADWAY SHALL BE SWEPT AS NECESSARY (ANDWITHIN THE SAME DAY AS DISCOVERY) AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER.SEDIMENT SHALL NOT BE WASHED INTO STORM SEWER SYSTEMS.7. EXIT(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWOF MUD BEYOND THE EXIT(S). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THECONSTRUCTION EXIT(S) AS CONDITIONS DEMAND.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TURN THE STONE WHEN THE SURFACE BECOMESSMOOTH AND SURFACE VOIDS ARE FILLED TO MAINTAIN EFFECTIVENESS OFCONSTRUCTION EXIT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT VOIDS BELOW THE SURFACE BECOME FILLEDAND THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE. AT SUCH A TIME THECONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THE INEFFECTIVE STONE AND REPLACE PER DETAIL.9. IF EXIT BMP IS STILL INEFFECTIVE, GC MUST CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND SUBMIT AN RFIAS NECESSARY. CONSTRUCTION EXIT 6. PLACE STAPLES/STAKES PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPROPRIATE SLOPE BEING APPLIED. IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS AS PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATION. STAPLES/STAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE BLANKET.PORTION OF BLANKET BACK OVER SEED AND COMPACTED SOIL. SECURE BLANKET OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OFBACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12"DETAIL 2. ANCHOR THE BLANKET WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH.WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" OF BLANKET EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH AS SHOWN IN2. BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE BY ANCHORING THE BLANKET IN A 6" DEEP X 6" WIDE TRENCH 5. CONSECUTIVE BLANKETS SPLICED DOWN THE SLOPE MUST BE PLACED END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH AN APPROXIMATE PLACE THE EDGE OF THE OVERLAPPING BLANKET (BLANKET BEING INSTALLED ON TOP) EVEN WITH THE SEAM STITCH4. THE EDGES OF PARALLEL BLANKETS MUST BE STAPLED WITH MINIMUM 6" OVERLAP. TO ENSURE PROPER SEAM ALIGNMENT, 3. ROLL THE BLANKETS (A.) DOWN OR (B.) HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THE SLOPE. BLANKETS WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPRIATE SIDE ON THE PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED BLANKET. 3" OVERLAP. STAPLE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS ENTIRE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL BLANKETS MUST BE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPLES/STAKES 1. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING BLANKETS, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION OF LIME, FERTILIZER, AND SEED. 1. IN LOOSE SOIL CONDITIONS, THE USE OF STAPLE OR STAKE LENGTHS GREATER THAN 6" MAY BE NECESSARY TOPROPERLY SECURE THE BLANKETS. NOTES: BLANKET WIDTH. 2. FOLLOW EROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL SPECIFICATION FOR PRODUCT SELECTION. N.T.S. POLYESTER SLEEVE FILTER ASSEMBLY EX. CURB DI-23METAL BASKET EX. CB 8'6'8' (2" TYP.) GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE1.90 IN OD, 2.70 LB/FT1.66 IN OD, 2.27 LB/FTGALVANIZED STEEL PIPE(TYP.) TOP RAIL POST (TYP.) WIRES, 2" MESH, TOP ANDFINISHED SIZE GALVANIZED STEELN0.9 GAGE, 0.148" ± 0.00", BOTTOM SELVAGES TWISTEDAND BARBED CONFORMINGTO ASTM A392, A491, F668,OR F573. ASPHALTPAVINGFILL VOIDED AREA AROUNDPOST WITH SAND ENDURO SHADE CLOTH BY HENDEEENTERPRISES, INC. (OR EQUAL)TEL:1-800-231-7275 POST MUST BE EMBEDDED AMINIMUM 2' INTO PAVING. EROSION CONTROLBLAKET(SLOPE INSTALLATION) TEMPORARY FENCEN.T.S. WIMCO INLET PROTECTION (METAL BASKET TYPE)N.T.S. TREE PROTECTION N.T.S. CLEAR OUT SEDIMENT AND RESTORETO INFILTRATION BASIN AFTER USE PROPERTY SUMMARY COMMONSonFRANCE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 978,858 SF (22.47 AC) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0 SF (0.0 AC) NET PROPERTY AREA 22.47 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 15.03 AC PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 7.44 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 21.86 AC ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING PUD PROPOSED ZONING PUD PARKING SETBACKS 10' BUILDING SETBACKS FRANCE = 50'VALLEY VIEW = 50'66TH STREET= 50'NORTH NORTHMATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C402KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY V IEW R D W 66TH STREETNORTH NORTHMATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C401MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C403KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE S V A LL EY VIE W R DW 66TH STREETNORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C402KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY V IE W R D W 66TH STREETNORTHNORTH APPROVED SUBGRADE SHALL MEET OREXCEED PERMEABILITY ASSUMPTIONS 12" DEPTH OPEN-GRADED BASERESERVOIR- ASTM NO. 57 STONE (3/4") 1-1/2" OPEN-GRADED BEDDING COURSE-ASTM NO. 8 AGGREGATE (3/8") PAVERS NOTE:1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MOCK-UP OF PAVER PATTERN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. NO VERTICAL DEVIATIONS GREATER THAN 14" HIGH MAXIMUM3. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS/MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. PERMEABLE JOINT MATERIAL-ASTM NO. 8, 89, OR 9 AGGREGATE 12" 6" 8" 6" 7 1/2" 13 1/2" 3/8" 7" 24" 3/8" 7" 12"48"12" 12" ASPHALT CONCRETE APPROVED DENSEGRADED AGGREGATE HOT TAR SEAL PROPOSED 4" CONCRETEWALKWAY (SEE DETAIL) 24" 14" RADIUS 6" FULL DEPTH ASPHALT(SEE DETAIL) 4" THICK, APPROVED CLEANCRUSHED STONE APPROVED COMPACTEDSUBGRADE HOT TAR SEAL 9" B612 CURB & GUTTER(OUTFALL)CONCRETE RIBBON CURB(OUTFALL) B612 CURB & GUTTER PERVIOUS CONCRETE PAVER:TYPE 'A' (PEDESTRIAN DUTY) CONCRETE WALKWAY TOASPHALT TRANSITION DETAIL FOR SIDEWALK TO ASPHALT TRANSITION(TYPICALLY 4" THICK CONCRETE) CONCRETE TO ASPHALTTRANSITION DETAIL CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENTSTANDARD DUTY ASPHALT HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR CONCRETE MAT TO ASPHALT TRANSITION(ALREADY 6" - 10" THICK CONC.) UNDERDRAIN, SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGEPLANS, INVERT=15" BELOW BEDDING 1'-6"4'-0"5'-0" (MIN)-5'6" (MAX)3'-0"3500 P.S.I. GROUND/PAVING P.C. CONCRETE SURFACE OF CONCRETESLOPE TOP ACCESSIBLEVAN IS NOT REQUIRED.POST WHEN PIPE BOLLARDSEE BREAK AWAY TUBE PENALTY SIGN WITH WORDING LOCAL LAWAS REQUIRED BY STATE OR USE 6" SCH. 40 STEEL PIPE FILLED W/CONCRETE WITH TOP ROUNDED WITHBLACK IDEAL SHIELD ONLY WHENSIGN IS IN PAVED AREA OR SIDEWALK 3" MIN. NOTES:1. ALL SIGNS SHALL COMPLY WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATION'S "MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES", LOCAL CODES AND AS SPECIFIED.MOUNT SIGNS TO POST IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 2.GALVANIZED SQUARE TUBE POST TUBES - 2"x2"x3/16" 14gaPOST TUBE SHALL MEET ASTM A1011 GRADE 50.POST TUBE GALVANIZED AS PER ASTM A653 GRADE 90. ANCHOR TUBE - 2-1/4"x2-1/4"x3/16" 14gaHEAVY DUTY ANCHOR TUBE SHALL MEET ASTM A500 GRADE B.STRUCTURAL TUBE AND STEEL SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED PER ASTM A123. THE UPPER SIGN POST SHALL TELESCOPE INSIDE THE ANCHOR TUBE A MINIMUM OF 12". THE ANCHOR TUBESHALL BE A MINIMUM 48" DEEP WITH 3" MIN. 4" MAX. EXPOSED ABOVE FINISH GRADE. SINGLE POST SQUARE TUBEGALVANIZED EDGE OF TRAVEL WAY4'-0" 4" TYP. 16" 15° ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL DETAIL 10"6"1'-7"9"16"22"3'-10"4'-6" 10" 2" 2" NOTE:1. ALL TRAFFIC MARKINGS TO BE THERMOPLASTIC AS PER DIMENSIONS SHOWN. ACCESSIBLE PARKING DETAIL STRIPING - 4"TRAFFIC WHITE PLAN VIEW OF ADA PARKING B A A ONE SPACE ADJACENT TO ACCESSAISLE TO BE DESIGNATED "VANACCESSIBLE SPACE" ON SIGNAGE. VAN NO PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNWITH BOLLARD SEE DETAIL.ACCESSIBLE SIGNS TO BE INACCORDANCE WITH ADA ANDMNDOT STANDARDS B 7" 6" TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW NORTH GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITYLOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443HDPE PER ASTM 3212PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEPSLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMININGOF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THEPROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BERE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. INNO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALLLONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS.SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIACANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER INLANDSCAPE AREAS. 18. ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHEREPAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. GRADING PLAN NOTES KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY V IE W R D W 66TH STREETNORTHMATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C502NORTHGRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITYLOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443HDPE PER ASTM 3212PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEPSLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMININGOF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THEPROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BERE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. INNO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALLLONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS.SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIACANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.0% 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C501KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY V IEW R D W 66TH STREETNORTHMATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C503NORTHGRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITYLOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443HDPE PER ASTM 3212PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEPSLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMININGOF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THEPROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BERE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. INNO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALLLONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS.SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIACANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.0% 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITYLOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443HDPE PER ASTM 3212PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEPSLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMININGOF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THEPROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BERE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. INNO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALLLONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS.SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIACANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.0% 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER INLANDSCAPE AREAS. 18. ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHEREPAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. GRADING PLAN NOTESMATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C502KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY VIE W R D W 66TH STREETNORTHNORTH CLASS II RIPRAP PER MnDOT 36016-INCH DEPTH CUSHION LAYER-GRANULAR FILTER PERMnDOT 3601. PLACEFILTER PER MnDOT SPEC2511. THE CUSHION LAYERIS INCIDENTAL. GEOTEXTILE FILTER PERMnDOT SPEC 3733 CLASS II RIPRAP AT RAIN GUARDIAN SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 1504" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PERANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. N THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITHMECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18"VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE,MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANYEXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ONTHE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. KEYNOTE LEGEND CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN STUB WITH GATE VALVE WETTAP EXISTING WATERMAIN WITH GATE VALVE X" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE X" FIRE SERVICE CORE DRILL AND CONNECT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SERVICE CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ADJUST EXISTING CASTING TO NEW RIM ELEVATION A B C D E F G H I SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED NORTH UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 1504" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PERANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUEBOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDEEDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. N THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTINGAND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINEOF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVEFINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TOMATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ISBASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOTTO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURSBEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TORELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICECOMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C602KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE SVALLEY VIE W R D W 66TH STREETNORTHNORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C601MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C603KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE S V AL LE Y V IEW R D W 66TH STREETNORTHUTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 1504" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PERANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUEBOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDEEDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. N THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTINGAND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINEOF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVEFINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TOMATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ISBASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOTTO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURSBEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TORELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICECOMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED NORTH MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET C402KEY MAP N.T.S. FRANCE AVE S V A LL EY VIE W R D W 66TH STREETNORTHSANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 1504" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PERANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUEBOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDEEDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. N THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTINGAND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINEOF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVEFINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TOMATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ISBASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOTTO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURSBEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TORELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICECOMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING.NORTH Development Questionnaire Over What this is: A brief questionnaire to help community decision makers understand how this development aligns with key focus area of sustainability that ensures both developers and the community long-term value. Why? Through the 2014 Visioning process, environmental stewardship is one of seven strategic focus areas. Vision Edina’s Environmental Stewardship states: “There is a growing awareness of the impact that the built environment has on the natural environment, and the individual and collective responsibility we all have towards good environmental stewardship. Community residents and stakeholders believe that Edina can take an active and ambitious internal and regional leadership role in promoting more comprehensive recycling, smart building, and energy efficiency practices. These themes couple well with the parallel benefits in smarter urban planning, increased transportation options, and application of technology.” Questions Answers Sustainable Design & Energy Have you utilized Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance and/or Centerpoint Energy’s Builder and Developer programs for this development? EDA program will be used when individual buildings get to the appropriate stage of design to engage in the EDA process. Ownership team intends to evaluate Xcel energy programs for the existing buildings on the site. Will the buildings meet SB2030 energy goals and/or will they be Energy Star certified? If not, please share the steps you are taking to support energy conservation. Energy conservation is being considered during design through building orientation studies, building envelope optimization, and mechanical and electrical systems design and equipment selection. Energy Star certification may be considered for some of the buildings. Will affordable housing be a part of this development and if so, have you connected with Xcel Energy and Centerpoint Energy for the additional rebates they give to affordable housing? We are familiar with the City’s Affordable Housing Policy and intend to comply either by providing the proportionate share of affordable units on site or through payment of a Total Buy In, for deposit in the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That determination will be made when we seek final development approval for Development Questionnaire Over that future phase of the project Will you optimizing the roof by installing a green roof or solar ready? Residential building roof will be solar ready. Will there be any renewable energy generation on site? On-site renewable energy will be considered. Will there be purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs)? RECs will be considered when the development gets farther into design. Comments: As noted above, energy conservation is being considered during design through building orientation studies, building envelope optimization, and mechanical and electrical systems design and equipment selection. Managing Water What percent of the property is pervious surface before the redevelopment? What is the percent post development? 27% current pervious 31.4% proposed pervious What new services will be pervious? (i.e. Sidewalks, driveways, overflow parking) Select pedestrian areas along France Avenue with pervious pavers. How will the landscaping support the natural ecosystem? What % of landscape, % Rain gardens, % native plants, % pollinator friendly plants? Native vegetation in all stormwater basins, rain garden, and perennial planting areas. Of the overall site area of 21.69 acres: 31% planted landscape areas .7% rain gardens 11% native vegetation with pollinator friendly species Comments: Currently there isn’t on-site stormwater management. The stormwater management solutions proposed for the site comply with City’s requirement to store water from 10-year and 100-year storm events on site. The proposed design will add about 1 acre of pervious surface plus an additional ¼ acre of pervious pavers. Managing Tree Canopy What percent of the property is covered by tree canopy before redevelopment? What is the percent post development? Existing: ~ 276,000 sq ft Proposed Post Development: ~ 295,000 sq ft Will you be replanting/replacing trees at least four to five inches in diameter to positively impact the tree canopy (ordinance requirement is only 2.5 inches in diameter)? The overstory trees within the two pedestrian commons, and main pedestrian connections will be mature trees of at least 4 caliper inches. Comments: The proposed development includes tree placement for a greatly enhanced pedestrian experience compared to the current site. Development Questionnaire Over Managing Waste During construction, how will you manage construction waste? Will demolition of current structures meet LEED Green Building Demolition and/or B3 State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines? During construction and demolition, waste management plans that mirror B3 and LEED waste management guidelines will be in place. Will you have a waste management plan when building is operational? Yes, Operations Waste Management plans will be in place when buildings are operational. Will a recycling service be provided to those in residential units? To all businesses on site? Yes, recycling service will be provided to residential units and businesses on site when buildings are operational. Will an organic recycling service be provided to those in the residential units? To all businesses on site? Organic recycling service will be considered when buildings are operational. Comments: As the availability of organic recycling services is in flux in the market, the feasibility of organic recycling service will be evaluated when the buildings become operational. Sustainable Transportation Bike Parking near main entrance for guests? Space in parking structure (e.g. bike corral, bike lockers) for residents’ bikes? Yes, bike parking will be provided close to building entrances. How many EV charging stations will you install? Will you lay conduits for future EV charging and if so, how many stalls? Yes, 2 EV charging stations will be provided in the North ramp and if user demand warrants additional supply of EV stations at the time the north portion of the site is developed, Developer will reserve physical capacity and power for future installation. Will there be parking spaces provided for car-sharing vehicles to support reduction in overall number of cars? The project will consider dedicated parking in ramps for ride sharing services and carpool vehicles. Comments: In alignment with the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines, the proposed site design and improvements will enhance the pedestrian connections and increase walkability. The layout of the site breaks up the block into smaller sections and offers new pedestrian and bike connections to the adjacent Rosland Park and Lake Cornelia. 2200 Zane Ave N | Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com Cary: Per your request, we reviewed the proposal for the redevelopment of the current Southdale Office Center at 6600-6800 France Avenue based on our experience working with the Greater Southdale Work Group to craft a physical vision for the future district, translating their guiding principles to the built environment. The resulting vision for development in the Greater Southdale District is to create an enhanced human experience along existing major and new connector streets, with overall experience shaped via landscape setbacks, building step backs, a hierarchy of street typologies, transparency at street level, a minimized impact of the car, and managing storm water as an amenity. The outcome of our collaborations with the Work Group is described in the urban design chapter of the Greater Southdale District Plan and resulted in the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. As you are aware, we had some significant concerns about the Sketch Plan submittal for this parcel, which were articulated in our memo dated August 4, 2020, as well as in a subsequent document we provided to the development team illustrating how their Sketch Plan proposal could be brought into greater conformance with the intent of the Design Experience Guidelines and District Plan (attached). Many of these concerns remain with the current proposal. Streets and Street Rooms The development pattern currently imagined by the development team, although illustrated with renderings of lively public space, with screened above-grade parking and treed landscaping, does not meet the Guidelines of providing an integrated public realm with a people-centric ground level activity at the base of all buildings, and a street room experience for pedestrians that is continuous from one street room to the next. Instead, the proposed development has not evolved significantly, recalling typical suburban developments with occupied buildings near unoccupied car parks. Unfortunately, the unoccupied parking buildings in this proposal still far outweigh the buildings intended for people—including in their proximity to the Cornelia neighborhood. This unfortunate balance is exactly what the Experience Guidelines are trying to prevent. The intent of the “Street Room” – the foundation of the District Urban Plan and Experience Guidelines – is to convey continuity of pedestrian experience throughout the District. This means that it is important to be consistent in providing spaces along the streets that are occupied by people… not public spaces that are accessed through and between buildings, or pathways that are not occupied or programmed for human interaction and activity. To City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date November 11, 2020 2 As the Guidelines state, all streets are rooms and all buildings have no back side—they are all important and must be considered as an integrated part of the whole district structure of street rooms. This proposal falls short on both fronts. The current proposal has made little effort to establish streets through the development that are aligned and connected within the overall development and with other streets in the district, in particular a potential extension of the West Promenade. For example, as recommended in the Sketch Plan review, the development team moved the new office building closer to France Avenue. However, its orientation and location has now divided the site into a north and south half, blocking a potential connection between the housing at the north to the future West Promenade. Site Plan and Public Realm The proposed concept to integrate the two existing office buildings with an additional office building and new public amenities that make the existing buildings more marketable is a good financial model for leasing office space. However, in this proposal, it is being realized in as a suburban office park model that will leave most of the overall site empty after 5pm. When everyone leaves to go home for the evening, all the energy represented in the renderings will go home as well. This has been occurring in U.S. cities for the last 70 years. There are no surprises as to the outcome of this type of “urban plan.” When the City considers the addition of office space, the consideration for housing should match. People who work in office buildings and live nearby and walk to work will help support services and places that meet their daily needs for shopping, entertainment, and social/cultural interactions. The urban design of the site would then focus more on how people live rather than how they arrive at 8am, park their cars and then leave at 5pm. The streets and services for a 24/7 site would be extended to the adjacent neighborhood, serving both. In addition, places where there is a greater balance between work space and living space require significantly less parking. The pocket park between the one-story retail building and the new office building’s conference center as suggested by Council Member Fischer is a good idea in principle. However, without significant density- supporting public realm related activities, the adjacent restaurant and private conference space will not generate the kind of daily activity shown in the rendering. There are many examples of well-designed public squares and pocket parks, but if they are not located where there is a diversity of pedestrian traffic or at pedestrian crossroads, they are seldom used. The park in this proposal is not designed to be a catalyst but rather is an afterthought. Considering the way in which density has been distributed across the site it is unlikely the plaza will receive the attention public places need to support the social needs of the community. Recommendations on Next Steps We understand there is a budget/proforma that must be paid attention to, and we know there is a program that must be met. But we also know there are many ways to solve design and program problems to meet an owner or developer’s budget and proforma. Many cities recognize their various districts and neighborhoods have a culture, a way of growing, a way of maintaining their character – or, in the case of Edina, a new way to see how they would like their community to work, look and feel. The Experience Guidelines were a result of this desire: to transform the past suburban context into a place without parking lots, or visible parking structures, into a place of blocks and streets that were focused on the experience of residents and visitors. The development should invite the community/neighbors to go to the site, to walk through it, to stay – as a place that represents them. Everyone who will eventually live there will do so because they are excited to be there. The role of the City and the community is to provide guidance to developers and architects about the desire, hopes, and the policies and guidelines that are important to residents of the Southdale district and the broader community – which can then be balanced with the owner’s objectives of meeting budget, proforma, and program. 3 Our 4-year-long process with the Work Group focused on creating a framework, a plan, and a set of guidelines and principles that would support the type of experiences the residents and community wanted to see in the District. We articulated characteristics of street rooms by the scale of building walls, defining the qualities of natural light and connection from one street room to the next to enhance the daily experience of people that live in the adjacent Cornelia Neighborhood and potential new residents of the Greater Southdale District. Based on this work, we recommend that the proposal not be accepted as is. However, we do believe the north end of the site, with some modifications – such as excluding public parking and lining the south side (fourth side) of the parking, thereby making the entire north end housing have active pedestrian experiences on all sides – could be approved in meeting the goals of the Guidelines and District Plan. Perhaps the overall PUD request could be developed in phases in lieu of speculating on future site options that may not happen, where the design of each phase could build on the last in meeting the City of Edina’s goal for a people- oriented Greater Southdale District. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic Attachment: Sketch Plan review follow up memo to Development Team, dated August 7, 2020 Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 Table of Contents A. Preface What are Design Experience Guidelines? 1. Introduction page 1 Placemaking Through the Lens of Experience 2. The Vision pages 3-5 The Greater Southdale District Experience 3. The Framework pages 7-11 The 200’ x 200’ Grid Street Rooms and Seams 4. The Guidance pages 13-35 Public Realm Experience Transitions and Connections Street Room Typologies 5. Implementing and Measuring Experience page 37 Ten Things to Remember Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page c APreface What are Design Experience Guidelines? Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page A1 For nearly four years, a Work Group comprised of Edina residents and business leaders contemplated the future evolution of the Greater Southdale District, using the notion of “experience” as the foundational element from which to shape the district over the next 50 years. The first phase of the Work Group’s efforts consisted of developing Working Principles that would guide the group’s efforts into subsequent stages as well as suggest a dialog for considering new introductions within the district. Phase Two translated these principles into an urban design framework plan that proposed enhanced connections across existing major streets, introduced a new block framework to encourage walkability, and posed design strategies to create an improved public realm and promote higher quality, pedestrian-oriented development. The broader experience the urban design framework strives to achieve is the creation of a Greater Southdale District that connects seamlessly between the existing urban and residential fabric, maximizes the development potential of each site, enhances walkability and livability, and encourages interaction among current and future residents, businesses, and institutions. The urban design framework is the foundation to the Greater Southdale District Plan, a part of the City of Edina 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines is a companion to those documents, outlining high-level planning and design strategies for public realm, site, and building design supporting the desired experience outcomes. The Design Experience Guidelines sets baseline guidance for developers, designers, City of Edina staff, Planning Commissioners and members of the City Council when proposing, designing or evaluating proposed introductions within the Greater Southdale District. Use of the Design Experience Guidelines The Design Experience Guidelines apply to proposed development within the Greater Southdale District and former Pentagon Park, and should be referred to when embarking on new development or redevelopment. The Design Experience Guidelines also offer direction for new public realm features and the reimagining of existing public infrastructure. The document does not stand alone; it must be considered as part of a larger set of district goals, urban design framework and patterns, and policy guidance outlined in the Greater Southdale District Plan and the 2018 City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. Together, these documents set forth A. Preface What are Design Experience Guidelines? Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page A2 City expectations for the future form of the Greater Southdale District, and inform all potential projects within the district. The Design Experience Guidelines are not a substitute for City of Edina zoning codes and ordinances, but instead provide substantial background for developers and design teams and a framework from which to approach proposed projects within the district. The Design Experience Guidelines clarify the dimensional characteristics of eight different Street Room typologies that together form the experience within the district. The physical qualities of each street room’s height and width, and shaped by the architecture of the district, informs the design of the public realm on streets that connect and bind the human experience of the district. These physical characteristics also shape the experience of transition – transitions from existing single-family neighborhoods and transitions into and out of the district, outlining gradual changes in building scale within these critical transition areas to bridge between one- and two-story residences and the greater intensity of the Greater Southdale District. In conjunction with the Urban Design chapter of the Greater Southdale District Plan, this document provides both a philosophical and practical framework to facilitate discussion among the City, development teams, and the community when considering proposals for change within the district. During the recommended Sketch Plan review process (described on page 70 of the Greater Southdale District Plan), the Design Experience Guidelines are intended to facilitate dialog about broader district goals, patterns and connections, building massing, programmatic opportunities and shared public realm connectivity. Dialog at this point in the review of a proposal requires imagination, looking beyond the immediate site to imagine the creation of a consistently positive human experience, requiring a proposal to recognize the ways in which it influences that experience on adjacent and nearby sites. Once a proposal progresses beyond the Sketch Plan, the document is used as a test of outcomes and touchstone to measure how every proposal meets the desired district experience. Further specific design details related to landscaping, curb and intersection design, stormwater management and daylighting, lighting standards, street furniture, and a host of other factors related to the experience of the district will be described in future versions of this or a similar document as the need for direction related to those features becomes better understood. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page A3 1 Introduction Placemaking Through the Lens of Experience Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 1 Places link our past to the future. Within every community there exists a context of memory and identity. That context is made up of the choices/ decisions of the past and is inseparable from the physical identity of place; how buildings and streets look, and what parks and open space feel like. These choices are integral to what a place will become. By describing the evolving Greater Southdale District through experience criteria shaped by the physical context, a framework emerges for how streets will be structured, the relationship of open space to buildings, and how together the designed environment will support the desired experience outcome. To expand this basic idea into contemporary design is to be both democratic and innovative. What it means to be democratic is to encourage everyone to contribute to the possibilities of a new experience within the notion that its comes from what is unique about living in Edina. To be innovative is to reach beyond current conditions to create an extraordinary place and experience. Placemaking is not an act of invention... it is the study of how a unique place in world works, in combination with bringing contemporary design into alignment with the existing characteristics. The tools created via a collaborative process of engagement with the Greater Southdale Area Work Group takes this approach to the planning of the overall district, with the intent of providing the community, civic leaders, developers and designers the inspiration to think about the possibilities of this place in new and enterprising ways. 1. Introduction Placemaking Through the Lens of Experience In the making of the Greater Southdale District we must: • Support the public realm • Create equity throughout • Respect the larger context • Express the collective nature of community • Attend to all street rooms equally • Represent the whole in all actions • Put the collective before individual expression • Act to support the next 200 years of the Edina community — Architecture Field Office, 2018 Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 2 2 The Vision Aspirations for the Greater Southdale District Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 3 Background and Context Collectively, for nearly four years, the Greater Southdale Area Work Group has focused on building upon our community’s history of innovation, engagement and community commitment to create a vision for the possibilities of the Greater Southdale District. This work has culminated in the Greater Southdale District Plan (adopted December 2018) and the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. Change is inevitable within the district. In the past five years alone, over 1,500 new housing units have been constructed or are underway, along with myriad other commercial projects. This is a tremendous opportunity in time, and in the broader evolution of our community. We can transform the physical environment of the Greater Southdale District from a traditional car-oriented suburban commercial district with its sea of surface parking lots and ‘superblocks,’ into a vibrant place whose character is neither urban nor suburban, but blends the best characteristics of both to create a place that is uniquely of Edina. This new model will support all modes of transportation (cars, buses, bikes, scooters, and pedestrians) and serve future generations of Edina residents, employers, and visitors. It will complement, not compete with, the single family neighborhoods that have historically defined much of the community’s fabric. Within the broader 750+ acre Greater Southdale District, and the former Pentagon Park, there exist a remarkable variety of assets. This plan connects those assets with a new street grid that overlays a human scale and allows access via a variety of transportation options. The plan sets forth a strategy to bridge between adjacent single family neighborhoods and the more commercially focused areas of the district. And, it uses public realm infrastructure— including parks, plazas, green streets, woonerfs, and waterways that manage stormwater—as the connective tissue that gives the district its unique identity. Together, these attributes will set the stage for a remarkable daily experience for those who live, work and play within the Greater Southdale District. Aspirations for the Future Greater Southdale District The Greater Southdale Work Group summarized the overall districtwide vision and land use strategies as part of the District Plan. These aspirations, which follow, are at the foundation of design policy parameters and the overall experience we are striving to shape as the Greater Southdale Area evolves over the next 50 years. 1. Imagine Greater Southdale District evolution organized around human activity, with vibrant pedestrian-focused streets, beautiful parks and public spaces, and endearing and enduring buildings where: • A sense of invention is expected from new introductions, both public and private, that build on the district’s spirit of innovation. • Its role as regional and local center for living, shopping, working, learning, entertainment, hospitality, and medical services is enhanced. • Other Edina neighborhoods, near and distant, benefit from investment in the district and the evolution of each parcel. • Investment in the public realm is reflected by a commensurate investment as private parcels evolve. • Public and civic services accommodate a growing and diverse district and community population. • Transitions at the district’s edges recognize compatible use and scale and neighboring uses are perpetuated on their terms. 2. The Vision The Greater Southdale District Experience Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 4 2. Make the Greater Southdale District the model of healthy urban living where: • The district’s form encourages healthy living habits, particularly through walking. • The design of buildings and spaces, both public and private, attract the widest possible range of the district’s population. • Storm water is a valued resource by making it part of the experience of the district. • Emissions and pollutants are mitigated through the introduction of significant tree canopy and limiting idling vehicles on streets, creating a more inviting walking experience along the district’s streets. • Sustainable solutions result in a stock of healthy buildings that compel healthy activity for their occupants. • Public features mitigate impacts of non-local infrastructure, especially to contain the ill effects of adjacent highways. 3. Invent sustainable infrastructure matching the district’s sense of innovation where: • Mutually-supportive and forward-looking infrastructure is the norm, looking beyond baseline utilitarian functions of a single site to create a broadly supportive district infrastructure. • Infrastructure aligns with the creation of public space in the district, sharing space and resources that result in compelling, attractive and high-functioning civic spaces. • Care for and perpetuation of public infrastructure anticipates daily human activity in all seasons. 4. Create neighborhoods of activity within the broader mixed-use patterns of the district where: • Logical boundaries based on reasonable walking distances are established, with major streets as seams binding the activity of each side into an inviting and accessible public space. • Focal points of public activity are found within each neighborhood. • Key community services and facilities are present and help define the fabric of the District. • Core services are delivered within each neighborhood or in an adjacent neighborhood. • Neighborhoods are linked along street and park corridors highlighted by visible human activity. 5. Offer a spectrum of living opportunities integrated through the district where: • Housing orients to a variety of income levels and household types. • Ownership options constitute a significant portion of the living opportunities in the area. • “Missing Middle” living opportunities (duplexes, triplexes, side-by-side or stacked townhouses, rowhouses with multiple units, and small buildings with four to six apartments) allow a broader range of Edina residents, workforce members and others to consider relocating to the District. • Buildings for living strongly orient to the public spaces of each neighborhood within the District. 6. Expand significantly the number and extent of parks and public spaces where: • Opportunities for the introduction of another large signature public space complement the programming and activities available at Centennial Lakes. • An extension of the Promenade to Strachauer Park links neighbors and activity to the district. • New promenades on the East and West edges of the District create movement corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists and serve as vital places for a transition between neighborhoods and the District. • Parks and publicly accessible spaces are clearly visible and directly accessible from the public realm. • Spaces for visible human activity and occupation, either public or publicly accessible, occur on every block. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 5 7. Encourage district evolution based on incremental change and the creation of a great pedestrian experience where: • A basic framework of streets and blocks encourages pedestrian activity and well-considered buildings. • A rich variety of public or publicly accessible spaces are woven into the experience of the district. • Sites and buildings support a pedestrian experience first, with storage of cars not a focus. • Development on each site links to adjacent streets and to neighboring sites to create continuous, safe, and inviting pedestrian experiences. 8. Build (or plan for) a street network encouraging pedestrian movement across and through the district where: • Walkable block lengths (200 feet) are the baseline framework for development. • Enhanced and more frequent street crossings facilitates pedestrian movement. • Wide landscaped boulevards encourage pedestrian activity and create a distinct district signature. • Community corridors within and extending well beyond the district enhance bicycle and pedestrian access while accommodating vehicle traffic on pedestrian terms. 9. Imagine transportation in the district where: • Cars are not the focus and streets accommodate more than vehicles. • Major streets balance access and mobility. • Some streets serve as community corridors, linking to other community destinations with features that allow for movement in addition to cars. • Transit is a baseline service, both within the district and to non-Edina locations. • Transportation recognizes trends, including autonomous vehicles and a time when parking structures aren’t needed for public parking 10. Expect the delivery of high quality, well-designed buildings and sites where: • Spaces on sites are considered for people first, including connections between sites; then the ways structures are placed; and then places to store cars are found. • Visible human activity is prominent and integrated at every site. • People are brought to the streets via major building entries oriented to major streets. • Storm water remains visible as an amenity, allowing it to become a central part of the experience of each site. 11. Frame development guidance for evolution where: • Development review includes the desired experience, not solely quantitative thresholds. • Accommodation of adjacent and near parcels are considered in the evolution of a single parcel. • Early reviews focus on ideas, patterns and relationships, not specific and engineered plans, with that part of the review process based in dialog, not presentation and reaction. • Demonstrations of quality and especially quality from a long-term perspective are baseline considerations. • Collaboration leads to a superior result, with the community’s expectations clearly framed as part of the deliberation. • Flexibility is not a right, but rather the natural by-product of a fair exchange for benefits, collaboration, and quality in development. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 6 3 The Framework Building Blocks to Support the Vision Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 7 3. The Framework Building Blocks to Support the Vision THE 200’x200’ GRID There is an expectation of the street grid: it is democratic, it is uniform, it is connective. The uniform grid and the buildings that line the grid give the city its form. The space between buildings is used for access for pedestrians and vehicles; for entrance into both public and private buildings; and to provide light, air, and common green or social spaces. To break down the scale of the ‘superblocks’ that currently characterize the district’s overall land use framework, three distinct street grid patterns were considered, to inform what how the Greater Southdale District might transform into a more uniform and connected community. Small Portland blocks (200’ x 200’) were compared to the long blocks of New York City (200’x600’) and the larger square blocks of Minneapolis (350’ x350’). The Work Group focused on Portland as a model because of its walkability, and the scale of its buildings resulting from the 200 foot restriction on the length of building elevations fronting the public realm. Further studies analyzed land ownership patterns, size of property and generally how connections could made through the superblocks. It was concluded that the 200’ x200’ foot system was more adaptable to variety of site conditions supporting a more engaging public realm and opportunities for a better community experience. Considerations Width of street Sunlight in public spaces View corridors Building scale – height, length and footprint Transparency at street level Landscape, lighting and street furniture Streets and public realm paving Courtyards and pocket parks Cultural context – pride of place, historical framework Framework Vision: Block Organization Based on the Portland 200’ x 200’ square block layout This diagram overlays the general dimensions of the Portland block model on our primary test sites. Based on existing conditions, variations can occur in the nominal 200 by 200 square grid. N Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 8 c 180,000 200,000 180,000 200,000 Existing Sites: The criteria for buildings sites: Large parking area serving 1 story building Sites that are critical to the overall success of development in the district Important connections that would extend the public realm assets such as the Promenade Under utilized land that can be repurposed to serve the public realm goals of the district : Potential Building Sites This diagram illustrates those parcels within the Greater Southdale Area and adjacent Pentagon Park that are potential redevelopment opportunities. Criteria to measure the opportunity inherent in these sites include: • Sites that currently have large, dominating surface parking lots. • Sites that are critical to the overall success of development in the district. • Important connections that would extend existing public realm assets such as the Promenade. • Underutilized land that can be repurposed to serve the public realm goals of the district. NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 9 Potential Building Sites The diagram at right illustrates how the basic principle of a 200’ x 200’ grid can be applied nominally on potential redevelopment sites throughout the district without consideration of property line. It is recognized that land ownership will influence the ultimate form of the grid. Other considerations influencing block pattern: • Building scale • Public realm connections • Connections through blocks • Pedestrian-oriented street intersections The Space Between Buildings As a result of the 200’ x 200’ block pattern, the space between buildings becomes an important asset in shaping the overall sense of landscape and continuity of public realm throughout the district. Because the superblocks have primary responsibility for serving the vehicular traffic needs of the district, access to the smaller blocks for drop-off, service and parking can be planned to stay at the perimeter of a block, allowing for the spaces between the remaining block to be used for a network of green spaces that support the health and wellbeing of the community. c 180,000 200,000 180,000 200,000 v The Space between Buildings: As a result of the 200x200 foot block pattern is the space between building that becomes an important asset to the overall sense of landscape throughout the district. Because the super blocks have primary responsibility for the larger traffic needs of the district, access to the smaller blocks for drop off, service and parking can be planned to stay at the perimeter allowing the spaces between the remaining block to used for pocket parks, gardens, play areas and many other activities that support the health and well being of the community. The “space between” Buildings –as places and connections to larger community pathways ParksPocket parksRecreationPlay areasGardensStorm water managementWet landsWater ways : Opportunities for the “Space Between” buildings to become places and connections to larger community pathways: • Parks • Pocket Parks • Recreation • Play Areas • Gardens • Stormwater Management • Wetlands • Waterways c 180,000 200,000 180,000 200,000 v Block Pattern: The basic principal of a 200’X200’ grid was applied nominally throughout the district without consideration of property line. It is recognized that land owner ship will influence the ultimate form of the grid. Considerations: building scale public realm connections through block connections Pedestrian oriented street intersections (see intersection diagram) : N N Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 10 STREET ROOMS AND SEAMS With changes in the way people are living in cities and suburban environments, it is important to seek new ways in which our communities can be experienced without sacrificing the spatial and architectural values of existing neighborhoods. Defining the way in which transitions are seen and developed, and the way each street can have a different character, use and form, puts the emphasis on the public qualities of the public realm rather than on the buildings themselves. In this way buildings can develop based on highest and best use without compromising characteristics of existing community life. Respect of context can bring about a degree of commonality where every building is not required to mirror its context but rather, support a connected and meaningful community experience. The intention in the design visioning process for the Greater Southdale District was to create a new paradigm for suburban mixed use districts, in which individual buildings respect their context and each other. The ensembles created as part of this process are Street Rooms. In this approach, the geometry of the city plays an important part in the definition of the street room, by width of street, length of block, solar orientation and axis as it relates to other grids defining other public rooms of the city like courtyard, plazas and parks. The real identity of the city is closely related to how the city is seen up close, making it possible to understand the true character of a place. It is these up close characteristics that make a city unique. This holistic approach depends on an attitude of relational subjectivity in articulating the components of each street room. This means that each wall of a building is studied as a part of the street that it faces and in conjunction with the building directly across the street. Scale, color, material and construction details are considerations in the whole composition of the street room—allowing the street to communicate a sense of place and completeness. A district full of street rooms promotes activity and social discourse while signifying the possibility of new functions. The street room is a source of sense of community even when it is not in use, thereby stabilizing the overall fabric of the public realm. Street Rooms within the Greater Southdale District Throughout the Greater Southdale District, the public realm is defined by a series of street rooms. These rooms are further defined by edges, referred to as the “seam” between the volume of the street and the form of the building—which together, create the experience at a pedestrian scale. Seams dictate the basic height of the defining street room wall (i.e. the building podium) but not necessarily the rest of the building form, allowing buildings to respond to their context on all four sides of the building and creating a form that is appropriate for each street room surrounding it. This creates variety throughout the district, and supports the notion that there are transitions between characteristics of neighborhoods that are different in scale, program and building type. As an example, transitions from single family houses to 36-foot-tall or 60-foot-tall buildings will not have the same criteria as transitions from a podium base to taller structures sitting on the podium. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 11 The following considerations all factor into the development of public realm and street rooms. These ideas should be utilized and considered by decision-making bodies when reviewing proposed development projects. • Transparency of building walls in the public realm can be both private and public. When the ground plane is connected along and through the building wall, it creates a link to experience the richness of activities in the public realm • Buildings could be sited perpendicular to streets, allowing vistas and pathways through the new street grid. • Buildings can create a very consistent form and a clear sense of place within the public realm. Each building is part of the next – both internally and externally. Regardless of building age, the continuity of scale, rhythm and materials of each building that lines the street creates a sense of room. • Continuity of building material quality is contained within each stone, brick, window pattern and cornice to define the edges of the public realm and the street room • Continuity of architectural language in the edges of shapes and rhythm of openings define a street room into horizontal and vertical forms that frame the experience of being in room – whether interior or exterior. The architectural language of the street should not be replicated but rather understood and transformed in each new building within the context of its particular location within the Greater Southdale District. • Buildings frame the public rooms of the district (parks, pocket parks, playgrounds, etc.) and should represent the scale required to meet the needs of the community. Moving through these spaces, one should easily see choices for other desired destinations. • Good street rooms provoke a culture’s spatial imagination, social discourse and creative energy. The street typologies and corresponding guidelines on building form define experience and spatial form that connects the district together. • The structure of the street rooms is organized to support residents, defining a particular place within a neighborhood and the overall district. The memory of experiences in each of these rooms provides the experience of sense of place and connects to other places within the Greater Southdale District. • Walking is a shared experience. An engaging walk can be short, long, slow, quick, or meandering – in weather that is wet, calm, windy, sunny, bright, cold, hot, or snowing – in places that appear open, closed, low, tall, long, narrow, wide or expansive. The experience of walking through the street rooms must be full of events connecting to a broader set of experiences. • The materials of the walls that make up the street room define the characteristics of the public realm. A certain part of this will depend on the age of the street, the program of the building and the design style in which they were constructed. All of these factors, in whatever form, are read and experienced in different ways and need to be delineated clearly. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 12 4 The Guidance Shaping the Greater Southdale District Experience Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 13 4. The Guidance Shaping the Greater Southdale District Experience Overlaying a new street network and street grid is a fundamental strategy in breaking down the scale of the existing massive ‘superblocks’ within the Greater Southdale District and improving the public realm experience. All new development should begin with the premise of the 200-foot-square block as the measure by which a building footprint is determined. The space between buildings are streets—which could be for cars, bikes, pedestrians only, or transformed into parks and open space. By connecting the design of streets with the concept of street rooms, the district will transform to one that is human-scaled, comfortable, green, and flexible for change and evolution over the next 50 years. While each street room and neighborhood will provide a distinctive experience, there are certain characteristics that are common to streets throughout the Greater Southdale District, helping to creating a holistic experience for pedestrians and bicyclists, transit-riders, and drivers alike. Buildings lining the public realm/street room will incorporate a mix of uses, including housing, workplace/office, cultural, community, and commercial/retail space— setting the stage for a rich variety of experiences. The overall public realm experience within the Greater Southdale District is supported by: • Consistent building setbacks that create the opportunity for an expansive public realm within the district and sub-district. • More frequent intersections to promote pedestrian connections within the district and to neighboring districts. • Distinctive sidewalks that support the pedestrian experience, separate and dedicated bikeways, and appropriate number lanes of vehicular traffic. • Wide sidewalks with places for gathering, play areas, gardens, outdoor cafes, etc. • Publicly-accessible pocket parks and courtyards along the street and sidewalk extend the public realm of the sidewalk in between buildings. • Separate and dedicated bikeways, and an appropriate number of lanes of vehicular traffic. • Integrated signage and lighting systems that offer safety, interest and diversity to the pedestrian. • Consistent signage that reflects sub-district identity to promote wayfinding within the larger Southdale District, identifying characteristics of the street and public amenities. • Pedestrian and vehicular paving (permeable) that is unique to a sub-districts streets and sidewalks. • Trees that vary in species, installed in rows or clumps, and spaced to create visual interest and promote a range of experiences such as shaded groves with benches, or a sun-dappled outdoor cafe, along the street. • Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access routes through larger blocks. • Safe, comfortable places where people can stop, view, socialize and rest. These may incorporate “landing zones” for ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft — particularly near primary gathering places and public rooms along the Promenade, connector streets and future East and West Promenades. These places of respite should not conflict with other sidewalk uses. • Different, and defined, zones on all sidewalk: building frontage zone, street furniture zone, movement zone, and the curb. Cafes and outdoor seating can be located in the building frontage zone, extending the activity of a building to include the sidewalk. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 14 • Transit stops that are designed to provide districtwide continuity, reinforcing the qualities of the Greater Southdale District. • Integrated plantings, water features and/or art to enhance public open space. • Stormwater that is daylighted and used as a water feature or amenity, integrated into the overall experience of the street and the district. • Street parking provided at the curb to support a mix of activities for both residential and commercial activities. • Varied landscaping and street trees that create a canopy over the street. Consider the changing climate when selecting plant species with the understanding that indigenous plant materials may not always be the most appropriate choice. • Building equipment, mechanical exhaust systems and/or service areas concealed in a manner that does not detract from the pedestrian environment. • The public realm is for both summer and winter conditions and as such must be planned to be easily maintained in all conditions. Building owners and city stakeholders should plan for maintenance, operations and upkeep within the public realm. This includes prompt and thorough snow removal on every reach of the sidewalks, care and feeding of trees, landscape and decorative planters (which should be changed on a seasonal basis). Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 15 PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC REALM EXPERIENCE The following guidance is provided to assist the community, civic leaders, designers and developers in understanding the vision and baseline parameters related to both building and public realm within the Greater Southdale District. Connections • The overall strategy is to connect intersections, incorporate street typologies, and incorporate green systems to add value to the experience of the district. • The public realm is to be connected continuously north-south from Centennial Lakes, the Promenade, the Galleria, Southdale Center, Fairview Southdale, to Strachauer Park. All new development shall support that goal. • The public realm should be connected east-west from Edinborough Park to Centennial Lakes, west of France to Pentagon Park and Fred Richards Park to Highway 100 on the west. This will set up future connections to districts to the west—such as 70th and Cahill—supporting an overall vision of a more connected and integrated Edina community. • The district must be connected continuously east-west from the Cornelia neighborhood to Yorktown Park. • New north-south promenades should be created on the west side of France and east side of Xerxes as part of the broader strategy to sensitively transition to single family residential neighborhoods. • Expand Centennial Lakes Park to France Avenue… celebrate this important public amenity by making it more visible as a gateway into the district. • Create a dynamic landscape that includes water, especially stormwater expressed as part of landscape, to create public amenity spaces. • Streets within the superblocks, East and West Promenades, and extension of the Promenade north to Strachauer Park should be surfaced with pavers to promote a dominance of pedestrians and bikes over vehicles. • New parks and plazas shall be either public or publicly-accessible, not private, in nature. • Increase number of sidewalks, pathways, and smaller parks/gardens to better address mobility. Incorporate places to sit throughout the district. • New trees should provide continuity of the street room experience with canopies that are consistent with the Street Room Typology to enhance the continuity of pedestrian experience. Intersections • Street Room Typologies overlay each other, unifying the overall district experience through the recognition of unique conditions that evoke unique design responses based upon location. • Street Room Typologies connect intersections throughout the district, linking experiences together from one neighborhood to the next. • Street Room Typologies with lower façade heights take president over those with higher façade heights at these points of intersection. • The architecture of a façade of one block making up an intersection should be conceived as part of all corners of the intersection. • Crosswalks at intersections need to be an integral part of the public realm and continue the overall street room experience from one block to another. • The hierarchy of intersections will change based on an evolving context and investment in the intersection experience. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 16 Street Room Form • Building setbacks are to be considered as a part of the overall landscape and public amenities, and should be designed to create a continuous pedestrian experience along major corridors to support “pools of human activity.” • Every new development should connect all publicly-accessible spaces such as pocket parks, courtyards and plazas to the street room typology. • Along all major corridors, seventy five percent (75%) of face of building walls need to be at the setback line to support the creation of a ‘street room.’ • All new building façades in the district must have seventy five percent (75%) transparency at the ground level. • All building façades are prime (including parking) and must be designed accordingly. There is no back side of a building. • All facades on the first vertical 60 feet of a building (above grade) shall use natural materials facing the public realm. • Above 50-60 feet, glass, precast panels with brick/tile are the preferred material palette. Metal panel can be used as a secondary part of a wall system. • No building façade can be longer than 200’ without changing direction by a minimum of 90 degrees. Building Form • Ground floors should have a minimum ceiling height of 20’ for flexibility. This floor-to-floor height will allow the space to accommodate commercial, two floors of parking, or two-story townhouses. • Above-grade parking structures should be designed with flat floorplates to allow for future conversion and lined with programmable public realm space to minimize the visual impact of car storage. • Within 50-60 feet of the ground, it is preferred that rooftops be programmed to accommodate residential or public user activities (e.g. a restaurant or terrace). • Rooftops facing the Promenades must be functional and programmed to provide interest and variety along these important pedestrian spines. • All development services, including rooftop mechanical systems, should be located within buildings and should not be visible from the public realm, or semi-private and private areas of the development. The exception are rooftop-mounted solar panels, which should be located on the highest point of the buildings. • Building footprints above 60 feet should be no greater than 12,000 SF for residential use and 24,000 SF for commercial space. • Design buildings for flexibility and adaptability in the future, including use of structural systems that will allow a building’s function to fundamentally change. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 17 TRANSITION AND CONNECTIONS Within the Greater Southdale District, a new network of streets will provide both commercial and resident access to new mixed- use buildings along France and York Avenues, keeping traffic out of the adjacent single family neighborhoods. These new streets offer the opportunity for new development to more gradually transition from the scale of the existing single family neighborhoods and the commercial heart of the Southdale District. New development within transition zones is expected to balance scale and building use between these single family neighborhoods and the higher density, more commercially focused Greater Southdale District. West and East Promenades The character of the West and East Promenades, new north-south streets that run to the west of France Avenue and the east of York Avenue, to are envisioned as woonerfs—shared streets for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. This typology creates opportunities for multiple access to buildings for both below grade parking and service, as well as temporary/short-term parking for retail and building drop offs. Within the woonerf concept, pedestrians have priority over cars, and as a shared street, cars are forced to slow down and travel with caution. Because of their organization, these streets also can support a variety of uses, with building types catered to residential uses such as townhomes, with considerations for retail space that support less intensive commercial needs of adjacent neighborhoods. The sense of scale by way of width of street to height of building is maintained by creating a street form that is no less than 60 feet high at its edges, with developments potentially increasing in height as buildings reach the edge of the boulevards, and descending in height as they move to the single family neighborhoods, providing an edge to the east and west transition zones. Primary East-West Streets East-west streets through the Greater Southdale District connect existing single family neighborhoods to the heart of the district. The design of these streets is intended to respect the neighborhood scale and context in a meaningful way, with an ample tree canopy, extensive setbacks and consistently-scaled buildings at the face of the public realm. By employing these characteristics, the landscape experience serves as a bridge, knitting together the single family residential neighborhoods and the greater intensity of the district. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine 66TH STREETVALLEY VIEW RD.66TH STREET69TH STREET70TH STREETHAZELTON RD.GALLAGHER DRPARKLAWN AVE76TH STREET77TH STREETMINNESOTA DR72ND STREETEDINBOROUGH WAY YORK AVENUE FRANCE AVENUE XERXES AVENUE BARRIE RD78TH STREETN Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 18 STREET ROOM TYPOLOGIES A hierarchy of streets and pathways within the district is the framework for public realm development and related building form. Each street across the district has a role in how it serves pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles in connecting sub-districts, adjacent single family neighborhoods, and the overall Greater Southdale District and creating a unified sense of place. It is the intent that street typologies define the public realm experience: the space between buildings, dimensions of building setbacks from the street, heights of facades at the building face at the street and building step backs, where the façade of the building steps back from the volume of the street room. Street Room Typology 1: Promenades and Transition Zones Promenades are new woonerf-type streets on the west side of France Avenue and on the east side of York Avenue. Within this typology, there are several different variations for new building development in these important transition zones, responding to and respecting the context of adjacent single family neighborhoods. Street Room Typology 2: Cornelia Overlay Zone With the understanding that there is special sensitivity related to new building development near the Cornelia neighborhood, this is a special zone governing the design of the public realm/street room on the east side of France Avenue between the north side of 69th Street and Gallagher Drive. Buildings within this zone will be expected to maintain the east side of the France Avenue street room, but will be of a lower overall scale than new Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6 Central Promenade Spine 66TH STREETVALLEY VIEW RD.66TH STREET69TH STREET70TH STREETHAZELTON RD.GALLAGHER DRPARKLAWN AVE76TH STREET77TH STREETMINNESOTA DR72ND STREETEDINBOROUGH WAY YORK AVENUE FRANCE AVENUE XERXES AVENUE BARRIE RD78TH STREETN Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 19 buildings at the north or south ends of France. Street Room Typology 3: New Local Streets These are new 60’ wide streets internal to existing superblocks. These streets will be constructed as new buildings are added to the district, and will help create the new network of streets and pedestrian pathways throughout the Greater Southdale District. Some of these spaces between buildings may become parks or plazas, extending the public realm. Others will become primary vehicular access for drop off and pick up, as well as access to parking and primary building services. Street Room Typology 4: Primary East-West Streets The existing 69th Street, 70th Street, Hazelton Road, Parklawn Avenue and West 76th Street are important connections through the district from east to west. This typology is intended to respect the neighborhood scale and context in a meaningful way, with an ample tree canopy, extensive setbacks and lower scale buildings at the face of the public realm. By employing these characteristics, the landscape experience of the single family residential neighborhoods is extended through the Greater Southdale District. Street Room Typology 5: The Boulevards France Avenue, York Avenue, West 66th Street and West 77th Street are the district’s gateway streets. They carry the highest traffic volumes and are intended to have higher transit volumes than any other streets within the district. These streets will have the greatest impact in conveying the overall identity of the district: a consistent 50 foot setback with a double row of trees will extend the length of these streets, while consistency in building heights along the street edge will form the edge of the street room—bridging between the lower intensity and transitional areas and the higher intensity zones within the Greater Southdale District. Street Room Typology 6: Central Spine The Central Spine comprises the existing Promenade, its potential expansion northward, and future connections to the west to Fred Richards Park. This important pedestrian network is an attractive destination for both residents and visitors alike. New development along the spine must respond to and respect this important public amenity. Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 20 The sub-district to the west side of France between 69th and Parklawn is a unique transition zone within the Greater Southdale District. Any proposed developments within this zone should be approached with special sensitivity. This means that the street experience within that zone should be perceived as connected to the Cornelia neighborhood through landscaping and trees, and buildings that gradually transition in both height and function and use between lower intensity neighborhoods to the more commercially-focused district on the east side of France Avenue. The West Promenade, a new north-south pedestrian, bike and vehicle street/woonerf that accommodates service access, is envisioned between France Avenue and the Cornelia neighborhood. This new shared street is intended to provide service access to new developments along France (keeping vehicular traffic out of single family neighborhoods), and providing a new framework to support the transition from townhouses and lower-scale residential buildings on the west side of the West Promenade, to slightly taller buildings on the east side of the West Promenade. Street Room Typology 1A West Promenade / Transition to Cornelia Neighborhood Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 21 Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 1A West Promenade / Transition to Cornelia Neighborhood As illustrated in the section above, within this transition zone, building heights will step up incrementally, from those that are adjacent to single family homes to those that are facing France Avenue to provide a more gradual transition from the residential neighborhood to the more commercially-oriented Southdale District. The street room experience within Typology 1A will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • New buildings that are adjacent to single family residential properties, on the west side of the West Promenade, should not exceed 36 feet in height. Townhomes are the preferred residential typology in this area of the transition zone. • All ground level space east of the West Promenade should have 20-foot floor-to-floor height. This dimension allows for flexibility to accommodate one level of retail space along the street, or two-story townhomes facing the West Promenade. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. • On the east side of the West Promenade, building faces should not exceed 50’ in height. Any height above that limit should step back 20 feet from the facade of the building. • On France Avenue, a 50 foot setback is required from curb to face of building with a maximum building height of 60 feet. • On individual developments, should the City choose to permit height above the 60-foot height limit, it is recommended that additional height above 60 feet step back from the face of the building by a minimum of 10 feet in depth and 12 feet in height. Street Typologies West Promenade Transition to the Cornelia Neighborhood A “Woonerf” reallocates the public right-of-way to create a place for people and plantings while accommodating slow-moving vehicles. The street is elevated so it is flush with the sidewalk, allowing for a continuous walking surface. When the street is closed for public events such as a festival, the area becomes a public plaza. The proposed building setbacks and building step-backs are intended to create a gradual transition in use and scale from the existing Cornelia Neighborhood on the west to France Avenue to the east. Between a transitional Street “Woonerf” is used as both a collector for neighborhood needs and a barrier against additional vehicular traffic flowing into the neighborhood. This street-park hybrid is considered as public open space and needs to be programmed. With a perpetual festival permit in place, the street becomes a venue for community events such as salsa dancing, a wine crush or a pop-up playground. Within the district it is the intention to define a series of street rooms each having their own characteristics and connections to the existing neighborhoods and other parts of the district to enhance the experience of the pedestrian creating both a sense of place and safe environment to be in. The West Promenade is intended to be a pedestrian and bicycle collector between the existing residential neighborhood. A1 Traffic Lanes 50 Foot Setback France Avenue 50 Feet West Promenade “Woonerf” (60’ wide Street) Single Family ResidenceTownhouses 36 Feet maximum 20 Foot Step Back Mixed Use Buildings 60 Feet Maximum Neighborhood Street 15 Foot Front Yard Setback60 Feet Maximum Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 22 Street Room Typology 1B West Promenade Between Parklawn and Minnesota Drive South of the zone designated as Street Room Typology 1A (where the Cornelia transition area immediately abuts single family neighborhoods), the Street Room experience shifts to respond to its changing context. It becomes one that is more commercial in nature and in concert with the expected higher intensity in the southwest quadrant the Greater Southdale District. As the West Promenade extends south into Typology 1B, it continues to serve pedestrian, vehicular and service access. Uniform building heights on each side of the West Promenade are intended to support the transition from existing multi-family housing to taller buildings at the south end of France Avenue near the gateway from 494. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 23 Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 1B West Side of France Between Parklawn and Minnesota Drive Within this zone, existing buildings are more commercial in nature and do not immediately abut single family neighborhoods. This unique condition lends itself to new development along the West Promenade that is still lower in scale, without the preference for townhomes or smaller scale buildings along one edge, as in Typology 1A. The street room experience within Typology 1B will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • Building faces at the West Promenade within Typology 1B shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Any height above that limit should step back 20 feet from the facade of the building. • All street level space shall be 20 feet, floor-to-floor in height. This dimension allows for flexibility for retail space (on France) and two-story townhomes facing the West Promenade. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. • Building faces on the east side of the West Promenade are intended to provide continuity in scale and experience from Street Room Typology 1A and from one side of the street to another. West Promenade“Woonerf”(60’ wide Street) 20 Foot Step Back 50 Feet 20 Foot Step Back Street TypologiesWest Promenade A2 A “Woonerf” reallocates the public right-of-way to create a place for people and plantings while accommodating slow- moving vehicles. The street is elevated so it is flush with the sidewalk, allowing for a continuous walking surface. When the street is closed for public events such as a festival, the area becomes a public plaza. This street-park hybrid is considered as public open space and needs to be programmed. With a perpetual festival permit in place, the street becomes a venue for community events such as salsa dancing, a wine crush or a pop-up playground. 60 Feet 105 Feet 20 Foot Step Back 2 Foot Step Back Traffic Lanes 50 Foot Setback France Avenue 60 FeetMaximum Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 24 Street Room Typology 1C East Promenade and Xerxes Avenue: Transition to Richfield Similar to the transition strategy on the west side of France Avenue, on the east side of the district, the existing Xerxes Avenue South is recast as the East Promenade to transition between the single family Richfield neighborhood to the east and the more commercially focused Greater Southdale District on the west. The general character of Xerxes is single family housing on the Richfield side and multi-family residential backed up to commercial on York Avenue. The intent of this typology is to have townhouses along the street, set back to a taller building above, creating an scale appropriate to the existing character of the street. Xerxes is bisected by Yorktown Park and Adams Hill Park, near the Southdale YMCA. When Xerxes transitions through Yorktown Park and Adams Hill Park, the street becomes more woonerf-like, without vehicular traffic. This street-park hybrid is considered as public open space and needs to be programmed. This typology extends along the north end of Xerxes between 65th and Highway 62 without the woonerf designation. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 25 The street room experience within Typology 1C will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • On both Xerxes Avenue north of 65th and on the East Promenade, a 15-foot “front yard” setback is required from curb to face of building. • Building faces at the East Promenade across the street from single-family homes shall not exceed 36 feet in height. Height above that limit shall step back 20 feet from the facade of the building, and shall not exceed 60 feet in height. Any further height shall step back an additional 20 feet, to a maximum height of 84 feet. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. • See Street Room Typology 5 for description of dimensional characteristics of new development facing York Avenue. Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 1C East Promenade and Xerxes Avenue: Transition to Richfield Street TypologiesEast Promenade Transition to the Richfield Neighborhood The East Promenade Transition on Xerxes Avenue South is between the Richfield neighborhood to the east and the Southdale District on the west. The character of the street is bisected buy Adams Place Park that is east York Avenue and the Southdale YMCA. The general character of the Xerxes is single family housing on the Richfield side and multi-family residential backed up to commercial on York Avenue. The intent of the building step back with townhouses transition to taller building creating an scale appropriate to the existing character of the street. When Xerxes transitions to Adams Place Park the character of the street becomes more Woonerf like in without vehicular traffic. This street-park hybrid is considered as public open space and needs to be programmed. With a perpetual festival permit in place, the street becomes a venue for community events such as salsa dancing, a wine crush or a pop-up playground. A3 50’ height limit East Promenade Existing Neighborhood Street Single Family Residence 36 Feet 60 Feet 20 Foot Step Back 20 Foot Step Back 15 Foot Front Yard Setback 84 Feet Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 26 Street Room Typology 2 Cornelia Overlay at France Avenue As a reflection of the scale of buildings east of the West Promenade in Street Room Typology 1A, Typology 2 extends the scale of this potential new development to the east side of France Avenue from Gallagher Drive to south of 68th Street. This strategy is intended to frame the street room experience along this corridor with similarly scaled buildings that are respectful of the nearby single family neighborhoods. The goal is to establish this zone along France as a more commercially-focused corridor (rather than residential) while employing similar height buildings as on the west side of France within the Cornelia transition zone. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 27 The street room experience within Typology 2 will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • On France Avenue, a 50-foot setback is required from curb to face of building with a building podium height of 60 feet. Above the 60-foot height limit, additional height should step back 10 feet from the face of the building, to a maximum height of 84 feet. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 2 Cornelia Overlay at France Avenue 84 Feet France Avenue 60 Feet Traffic Lanes50 Foot Setback 10 Foot Step Back Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 28 Street Room Typology 3 New Local Streets These new local streets, created as part of the strategy of breaking down the scale of the existing superblocks, will augment the current street network, providing new circulation options that can connect residents and visitors across the district, and support community life. Creating internal pedestrian walkways, with accommodation for bicycles and potentially cars, combined with existing public and private infrastructure, supports connections within and outside the block. The width of these new local streets, and the corresponding building form is based on the nature of the uses within the larger superblock structure. Streets can be lined with a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, or retail. They contain shady places to walk the dog or sit and have a coffee connecting to neighborhood parks, places of worship, and schools. Unique to the Greater Southdale District, some of these local streets may become linear parks between buildings, with vehicular access limited only to emergency responders. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 29 Street Typologies60’ Wide Connector Street Typical 60’ Wide Local Street (within super-blocks) 105 Feet 20 Foot Step Back 60 Feet 2 Foot Step Back 2 Way Traffic Plus Parking 12’ Sidewalk 12’ Sidewalk It is recommended that buildings above 60 feet step back a minimum of 20 feet when there is an opposing building at the street edge Podium Heights can vary The intent is to create a street that provides a access from roads that are bordered by France and York and are connected by east /west streets such as ParklawnAve, ParklawnCourt, Hazelton Road, W 70th, W 69th, W 65th. Internal street within the supper block provide interconnections between supper block connecting residents across the district north and south supporting potential for community space. By creating pedestrians walkways with existing public and private infrastructure thereby supporting connections within and outside the block. The street width is based on the nature of the uses within the larger super block structure. They can be lined with a mix of uses, including residential and retailwhile providing connectivity within a neighborhood. They contain shady places to walk the dog or sit and have a coffee connecting to neighborhood parks, places of worship, and schools. Unique to the Greater Southdale District, many of the Connector Streets may become entirely devoted to landscaping. B The street room experience within Typology 3 will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • New local streets should be 60 feet in width. Those streets which carry vehicular traffic should comprise two traffic lanes with two lanes of parking or pick-up/drop-off. Sidewalks should be located on each side of these vehicular streets as illustrated in the diagram above. • Minimizing vehicular access to provide drop off, service and parking can be planned to share the vehicular needs of blocks allowing the remaining spaces between the remaining blocks to be used in a variety of ways for the benefit of the community. This “space between” buildings can be transformed into pocket parks, gardens, play areas, plazas, wetlands, and many other activities that support the health and wellbeing of the community. • Building podium heights can vary, from 36 feet up to 60 feet. • Above the 60 foot height limit, the long sides of a rectangular or “L” shaped building need to step back 20 feet from the street room facade (as illustrated in the building at left in the diagram above), and the narrow ends need to step back 2 feet from the street room facade (building at right in diagram above). This minimizes the impact of the taller building form on sunlight at the street, and provides a lower-scale building at the street, resulting in a more cohesive and comfortable pedestrian experience. The footprint on taller residential buildings should not exceed 12,000 SF, while taller commercial buildings are permitted larger footprints of up to 24,000 SF for efficient space utilization. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. Vehicular access to the buildings should be as close as possible to primary superblock streets (e.g. Typology 4 or 5). Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 3 New Local Streets Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 30 Street Room Typology 4 Primary East-West Streets These streets, including 69th Street, 70th Street, Hazelton Road, Parklawn Avenue, and West 76th Street, serve an important role within the district. These are unique streets in that they form the district’s superblocks with France and York Avenues, keeping traffic out of adjacent single family neighborhoods while connecting to the neighborhoods through the 30 foot setbacks that are landscaped to provide a pedestrian focused experience. This typology is intended to respect the neighborhood scale and context in a meaningful way, with an ample tree canopy, extensive setbacks and consistently-scaled buildings at the face of the public realm. By employing these characteristics, the landscape experience of the single family residential neighborhoods is extended through the Greater Southdale District. Street Room Typology 4 consists of streets that are between 110 and 125 feet wide, with two lanes of traffic in each direction, a center median and no parking. Several of these existing streets feature roundabouts. These streets provide access to parking and building services for buildings in Typology 3, as described previously. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 31 The street room experience within Typology 4 will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • Within this typology, a 30 foot setback is required from curb to face of building with a building podium height of 60 feet. Above the 60-foot height limit, additional height should step back 30 feet from the face of the building, to a maximum height of 105 feet. Any height about 105 feet should step back and additional 10 feet from the face of the building. • Building podiums along these streets need to maintain as closely as possible the 60-foot height limit while still adhering to the guidance of 75% of building face at the setback line to create the fundamental experience of the street room. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 4 Primary East-West Streets Existing East West Streets 60 Feet 20 Foot Step Back 30 Foot Step Back Traffic Lanes30 Foot Setback 30 Foot Setback 69thStreet, 70thStreet, Hazelton Road, ParklawnAvenue and 76th Street are unique streets to the Greater Southdale District. They form a super grid with France Avenue and York Avenue, keeping traffic out of adjacent single family neighborhoods while connecting to the neighborhoods through the 30 foot setback that are landscaped to provide a pedestrian focused experience. The streets act as collectors that provide a balance between pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Local streets and Woonerfs perpendicular to these streets will provide access to shops, galleries, restaurants, hotels, offices, and residential uses. Tree shaded benches in the streetscape will provide a place for pedestrians to rest, storm water management and bicyclists can use these streets to connect from home to small outdoor cafés and other amenities. Street TypologiesPrimary East-West Streets C Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 32 Street Room Typology 5 The Boulevards Streets that are included in this typology include the primary district boulevards such as France Avenue, York Avenue, W 66th Street and W 77th Street. In addition to being the widest streets in the district, they also currently carry a high volume of vehicular traffic. The intent of this typology is to create streets that connect the Greater Southdale District to the larger Edina community. These commercially-focused streets will reinforce the district’s unique role in serving Edina’s neighborhoods, while at the same time, recognizing that the district has a role in the broader metropolitan region—providing employment, health, retail, entertainment, and a wide range of housing options. The streets that fall into Typology 5 will have the greatest impact in conveying the overall identity of the district, with wide, multi-use streetscapes lined with a double row of trees within a consistent 50-foot setback. Medians may also be present in the boulevard streetscape to accommodate plantings and/or mass transit lines and stations. In many cases, boulevards will be adjacent to the tallest buildings in the district and will be the locations for transit stops. Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 33 Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 5 The Boulevards On these wide streets, a sense of scale is maintained by creating a uniform street wall of 60 feet, with taller structures stepping back from this 60-foot datum. This consistency in building heights along the street will form the edge of the street room—bridging between lower intensity and transitional areas, and the higher intensity zones within the Greater Southdale District. The street room experience within Typology 5 will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • On France Avenue, a 50 foot setback is required from curb to face of building with a minimum building height of 60 feet (diagram at left). Above that 60 foot height, the building face should step back two feet to create a cornice line, and can then extend to 105 feet. Above 105 feet, building faces must step back an additional 10 feet (as illustrated in diagram at right, above.) • Building podiums along these streets need to maintain as closely as possible the 60-foot height limit while still adhering to the guidance of 75% of building face at the setback line to create the fundamental experience of the street room. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. • Parking and building services should not be accessed via these streets. • Incorporate 10- to 12-foot wide sidewalks that create opportunities for gathering, outdoor cafes, pavilions, etc. • Within the 50-foot setback, trees should be planted in a double row to add a strong canopy for pedestrian activity. Street Typologies Boulevards France Avenue, York Avenue, W 66th Streetand W 76th and W 77th: multi-modal thoroughfares within the Greater Southdale District. They have wide, multi-use streetscapes lined with a double row of trees. Medians may also be present in the Boulevard streetscape to accommodate plantings as well as mass transit lines and stations. In many cases, Boulevards will be adjacent to the tallest buildings in the district and will be the locations for transit stops. D A 50 feet setback is required from curb to face of building with minimum building height of 60 feet with a maximum building height of 105 feet. Any part of the building above 105 feet requires a 20 foot step back. Preferred building materials: Concrete, steel or heavy timber structural frame. 60 Feet 105 Feet 10 Foot Step Back 2Foot Step Back Traffic Lanes50 Foot Setback France AvenueFrance Avenue 60 Feet Traffic Lanes50 Foot Setback Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 34 Street Room Typology 6 Central Promenade Spine The Central Promenade Spine is intended to connect the Greater Southdale District from the west at Highway 100, extending east to the heart of Centennial Lakes and beyond to Edinborough Park. This Central Spine also extends the existing Promenade north through the Galleria and Southdale Center, and north across a future green lid over Highway 62 to Strachauer Park. The Central Promenade Spine traverses through a variety of building types, ranging from townhouses to multi-family housing, to low scale commercial/retail buildings, to mid-rise office buildings. As the physical form of buildings along this spine evolves, natural sunlight light and limited shadow will determine the experiential use of the space. Creating maximum height of 36 feet at its edges will support a mix of uses fronting the spine. Height above this 36 foot limit will step back from the building face, maximizing the program of new buildings rising along its edges without compromising the experience of walking and biking through a park- like environment Transition Zones 1A West Promenade 1B West Promenade (South) 1C East Promenade 2 Cornelia Overlay 3 New Local Streets 4 Primary East-West Streets 5 Boulevards 6Central Promenade Spine NPARKLAWN AVE.76TH STREETMINNESOTA DR.GALLAGHER DR.72ND STREETHAZELTON RD.70TH STREET69TH STREET66TH STREET65TH STREETFRANCE AVE. YORK AVE. VALLEY VIEW RD. BARRIE RD. XERXES AVE. EDINBOROUGH WAY77TH STREET78TH STREET Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 35 The street room experience within Typology 6 will be shaped by the following experience guidelines: • The 36 foot height along the Central Spine encourages a mix of uses focused on entertainment venues such as restaurants, gathering places or community-oriented facilities that provide destinations to come to and stay at. These lower-scale buildings that line the Promenade should reflect its stature as a special community amenity, with a rich variety of architectural experiences that front this park-like environment. • Above 36 feet, buildings shall step back 20 feet to the 60 foot podium height. Above 60 feet, buildings shall step back an additional 20 feet. • Buildings above the 60 foot height limit should be oriented to maximize the amount of sun on the Promenade. • Locations where Typology 6 intersects Typology 4 and 5 are critical to reinforce the idea of the linear public spine that connects this entire district. These intersections are the gateway to the Spine and should have a unique architectural response. • All parking, other than short-term retail or guest parking, and building services need to be located below grade or hidden within the building. If on ground level or above, parking and/or building services must be surrounded on all sides by program space such as commercial or housing. Dimensional Characteristics of Street Room Typology 6 Central Promenade Spine Street TypologiesCentral Promenade Spine The Central Promenade Spine is intended to connect the Greater Southdale District from the west at Highway 100, east to the heart of Centennial Lakes, along the existing Promenade north through The Galleria and Southdale Mall and north to Strachauer Park. The Central Promenade Spine transverses through different building types from 2 and 3 story Townhouses to 1 and 2 story commercial/retail buildings to 6 story office buildings. In imagining the future of the spine natural sunlight light and limited shadow will determine the experiential use of the space. Creating maximum height of 36 feet at its edges support a mix of uses fronting the spine while not limiting additional height to maximize the program of new building rising along its edges will not compromise the experience of walking and biking through a park like environment 50’ height limit Central Promenade Spine 36 Feet 60 Feet 20 Foot Step Back 20 Foot Step Back 105 Foot Maximum 15 Foot Front Yard Setback E Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 36 5 Implementing and Measuring the Guidance Ten Things to Remember Greater Southdale District | Design Experience Guidelines March 5, 2019 page 37 1. Every new development begins with the 200’ x 200’ block, or some variation based on context. 2. Every block or building in a development will need streets to connect between buildings. Not all of these streets will need to accommodate vehicles, providing the opportunity for parks, plazas or courtyards—important parts of the public realm. 3. Buildings will not be greater than 200 feet in length, thereby minimizing the negative impact continuous walls can have on a comfortable pedestrian experience. 4. All streets are not equal. The plan outlines a hierarchy that is driven by the kind of experiences that are expected on these streets and how they facilitate an enlivened public realm. 5. Designated transition zones are about maintaining the quality of life in these areas without restricting growth in other parts of the district. 6. Promenades and East-West Streets are the bridge between single family neighborhoods, such as the Cornelia neighborhood of Edina and the west side of Richfield, to more intense parts of the district. 7. Street Rooms will intersect and overlap each other in many circumstances. At these intersections, lower building heights should prevail, giving the smaller scaled building precedence over larger scale buildings. 8. Building footprints above 60 feet in height are limited to 12,000 SF for residential uses, and 24,000 SF for commercial. 9. Within the first 60 vertical feet of a building, primary materials systems that are more traditional like brick, stone, glass wall systems are preferred. Above 60 feet, other materials such as metal wall systems within a larger curtainwall system, can be introduced. These baseline parameters should not be a deterrent to architectural innovation but rather are intended to serve as a measure of quality and continuity throughout the district 10. Transparency at the ground level facing the public realm is key to the individual experience and is a catalyst for how to activate and maintain a community-based approach to daily life and experience. 5. Implementing and Measuring the Guidance Ten Things to Remember DJRARCHITECTURE INC. The Avenue on France13 Masterplan - The Avenue on France This Masterplan shows new construction of a Medical Office Building, (3) Retail Buildings, Residential, Hotel and Office that will replace (2) 3-story office buildings in the middle of the site that are not compliant with current ADA standards. The Masterplan also shows new construction of (3) areas of underground parking to meet the needs of the site and reduce the amount of surface parking on the site. N BANK OF AMERICA 1F 7,190 SF Under Permit RETAIL II-A 2F 25,748 SF EX. 6800 OFFICE 7F To Remain TAVERN ON FRANCE 1F To Remain OFFICE 6F 116,000 SF EX. 6600 OFFICE 6F To Remain RETAIL II-B 2F 23,093 SF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 6F 155,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 8F 105,280 SF 70 Units RETAIL 1F 6,500 SF HOTEL 4F 72,350 SF 100 Rooms Site Data:Area Table: Phase I Phase II-A Phase II-B Phase III Phase IV Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Existing Existing Existing Allowable Actual Notes BOA Retail Retail MOB Office Hotel Residential Retail Total (New) 6600 6800 Tavern Total (Existing) Total (Site) Site Area:n/a 948,632 SF 21.78 acres L8 13,160 FAR:0.5 (474,316 GSF).92 (880,979 GSF)377,008 SF Existing/ 503,971 SF New L7 13,160 Height:48'-0"85'-0"HOD-4 Height Zone L6 25,000 20,000 13,160Lot Coverage:30%24.2% est.229,598 SF Subject to Survey L5 25,000 20,000 13,160 L4 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L3 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L2 7,003 6225 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160L17,190 18,745 16,868 30,000 16,000 18,500 13,160 6,500 Total 7,190 25,748 23,093 155,000 116,000 72,350 105,280 6,500 503,971 SF NEW 198,763 163,855 7200 377,008 SF Ex. 880,979 SF Parking Summary: Surface to Remain Required (New)Basis of Calculation EMC Sec. 36-1311 New Parking Provided Total Parking Res. 2015-113 Total ParkingOffice4881084 271,000 SF of New Office 450 underground (North)(Per Count)(Varience) (Per code)Hotel 125 100 Room Hotel (est.)450 underground (Middle) Residential 123 70 units per EMC Sec. 36-1311 (w)400 underground (South) Retail 284 55,341 SF of New Retail 99 underground (Phase II)157 Total 488 2394 New Stalls To be provided by underground parking 1399 underground 1887 Stalls 157 Stalls 2044 Stalls Site Data:Area Table: Phase I Phase II-A Phase II-B Phase III Phase IV Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Existing Existing Existing Allowable Actual Notes BOA Retail Retail MOB Office Hotel Residential Retail Total (New) 6600 6800 Tavern Total (Existing) Total (Site)Site Area:n/a 948,632 SF 21.78 acres L8 13,160 FAR:0.5 (474,316 GSF).92 (880,979 GSF)377,008 SF Existing/ 503,971 SF New L7 13,160 Height:48'-0"85'-0"HOD-4 Height Zone L6 25,000 20,000 13,160 Lot Coverage:30%24.2% est.229,598 SF Subject to Survey L5 25,000 20,000 13,160 L4 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160L325,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L2 7,003 6225 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L1 7,190 18,745 16,868 30,000 16,000 18,500 13,160 6,500 Total 7,190 25,748 23,093 155,000 116,000 72,350 105,280 6,500 503,971 SF NEW 198,763 163,855 7200 377,008 SF Ex. 880,979 SF Parking Summary: Surface to Remain Required (New)Basis of Calculation EMC Sec. 36-1311 New Parking Provided Total Parking Res. 2015-113 Total Parking Office 488 1084 271,000 SF of New Office 450 underground (North)(Per Count)(Varience) (Per code) Hotel 125 100 Room Hotel (est.)450 underground (Middle)Residential 123 70 units per EMC Sec. 36-1311 (w)400 underground (South)Retail 284 55,341 SF of New Retail 99 underground (Phase II)157 Total 488 2394 New Stalls To be provided by underground parking 1399 underground 1887 Stalls 157 Stalls 2044 Stalls Site Data:Area Table: Phase I Phase II-A Phase II-B Phase III Phase IV Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Existing Existing Existing Allowable Actual Notes BOA Retail Retail MOB Office Hotel Residential Retail Total (New) 6600 6800 Tavern Total (Existing) Total (Site) Site Area:n/a 948,632 SF 21.78 acres L8 13,160 FAR:0.5 (474,316 GSF).92 (880,979 GSF)377,008 SF Existing/ 503,971 SF New L7 13,160Height:48'-0"85'-0"HOD-4 Height Zone L6 25,000 20,000 13,160 Lot Coverage:30%24.2% est.229,598 SF Subject to Survey L5 25,000 20,000 13,160 L4 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L3 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160 L2 7,003 6225 25,000 20,000 17,950 13,160L17,190 18,745 16,868 30,000 16,000 18,500 13,160 6,500 Total 7,190 25,748 23,093 155,000 116,000 72,350 105,280 6,500 503,971 SF NEW 198,763 163,855 7200 377,008 SF Ex. 880,979 SF Parking Summary: Surface to Remain Required (New)Basis of Calculation EMC Sec. 36-1311 New Parking Provided Total Parking Res. 2015-113 Total ParkingOffice4881084 271,000 SF of New Office 450 underground (North)(Per Count)(Varience) (Per code) Hotel 125 100 Room Hotel (est.)450 underground (Middle) Residential 123 70 units per EMC Sec. 36-1311 (w)400 underground (South)Retail 284 55,341 SF of New Retail 99 underground (Phase II)157 Total 488 1616 New Stalls To be provided by underground parking 1399 underground 1887 Stalls 157 Stalls 2044 Stalls æ ¹» ¹» æ æ æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ æ ñ æ ¹º ñ æ ñ 40THSTW AVEAVEAVES(CORDNO17)NATCHEZAVESGRIMESFRANCEAVESKIPLINGLYNNMONTEREYNATCHEZAVES(UNDEVELOPED)(CORDNO17)AVEAVEAVEOAKDALEAVEFRANCEAVESDRC T O T T A W A LITTLEST (CORDNO17)CROCKERLYNNNATCHEZAVES GRIMESSCOTTTERFRANCEAVESMORNINGSIDE RD OAKDALEAVE SWST SUNNYSIDEAVE BRANSON AVEST CURVE AVE44THGRIMES2NDSTS GLEN PL 3RD ST S SPRUCERD SPRUCERD 45THSTW SUNNYSIDERD MERILANEDEARBORNCT 44THSTWDRAVE MEADOWGROVEPLARTHURSTAVETERMAITLARDVERNONJOHNSTTHIELENAVE44THSTW(CORDNO20)COOLIDGEAVEBROOKAVEANNAWAYTOWNESDEARBORNCTSUNNYSIDEBROOKSIDEWRDBELMORELASTBELMORELA MEADOW44THBROOKSIDECT44THSTWWESTRDMONROEAVE(TOWNESCIR)ADAMSAVEHARRISONAVEMADISONAVEMOTORST TOWNESCIRJEFFERSONAVEAVESUNNYSIDEVANBURENAVEAVEMACKEYRD RDJACKSONAVEBLAKE R D SAVEGRIFFITSTSUNNYSIDEBROOKSIDEAVE AVE47THSTWOXFORDAVEMOOREAVEBLVDTYLERAVECIRCLEAVEAVEVANDERVORKAVEPARKSIDELANORTHAVERUTLEDGEAVECIRSTATEHWYNO100STATEHWYNO100JOHNSTARTHURSTTOWNES RD RD(BROOKSIDETER)MEADOWEASTLAURAAVEANNAWAYDRMALONEYAVEMALONEYAVEAVEOAKSEASTDIVISIONSTCIRCLERDCTBRIDGELABRIDGELACASCADELA CIRCLE WHITEWMENDELSSOHN RDBRIDGE LAJOHNSTTYLERSPUR 48THSTWARTHURST(CORDNO20)ROLLING LA RDCIR MERILANE LARUTLEDGEAVE RDPARKSIDELA MOORLANDEDINBROOKBROOKSIDEAVEOXFORDAVEGREENTERWATERMAN AVEWATERMANAVE ECOOPERCIRWATERMANAVE 48THSTWCRESCENT BROWNDALELINCOLN 48THSTWPKWY WOODDALEBYWOOD WEST PADDOCKBISSEN C IRRDWAY EDINADR HOLLYWOODRDBLAKERDS TOWNESRDDREXELARDENBRUCEMAPLERDWOODHILL CASCOCOOPERAVE49THSTWSTATEHWYNO100RUTLEDGEMILLPONDPLRDVANDERVORKCLUBRDORCHARDLARIDGERDRIDGEPRESCOTTCIRAVECLUBCOUNTRYWESTBROOKLASUNNYSLOPEHOLLYWOODRDBLAKERDINTERLACHENCTGREENFARMSCIRPLINTERLACHENBLVD(CORDNO20)W7THST INTERLACHENBLVDBLVDINTERLACHEN COUNTRYSUNNYSLOPE(CORDNO20)INTERLACHENBLVD 49TH STW(CORDNO20)INTERLACHEN PL (CORDNO17)DRBLUFF WOODDALEAVEBLVD HALIFAXAVECTLACIRLACHENEDINADALEDRINTERTERTER 50THSTWINTERLACHENBLAKERDBENDSKYLINEDR(SUMMITAVE)AVEHILLTOPLA AVESUNNYSLOPE BROWNDALEAVE SKYLINEDR DR50TH ST W J U A N IT AA V EOAKDALEKELSEYPARKRIDGERD AVECT AVEWOODSHAROLD51STSTW INDIANOLALA BRUCELAKELSEYWOODDALEBLOSSOMCTVERNONDRSCRIVERSCHAEFERRD JUANITAAVEWILLIAMAVEOXFORDAVEBEDFORDAVE 51STSTW LAKERIDGERD HANKERSONAVESLINCOLNDRSKYLINEEDEN AVE MIRRORLAKESDRGREENFARMSRD51STSTW51STSTWRD(LINCOLNCIR)(CORDNO158)APPLELACHALICECT BRUCEAVEARCADIAAVE AVEMALIBUSTATEHWYNO100BROOKSIDEAVE(CORDNO17)ARDENWOODDALEGLEN52NDSTW HALIFAXAVEINDIANOLAG ORG AS AVEJUANITAAVERD WOODDALEAVEGREEN WILLSONRDNORTHWOODDR DRFOXRIDGEMEADOW (CORDNO158)NORTHWOOD 52NDST WLAEDENAVEFOXLINK52NDSTWMEADOWFARMS RD STATE HWY NO 100 RDLACROYDENLAGRANDVIEWLA GLENGARRYPKWYGREENFARMSCT DRHIDDEN WAYLA WILLSON RD LARADALAAVEDUNDEE (CORDNO17)BLVDMALIBUDRRDRDRD53RDSTWWAY)SCHAEFERRDVERNONEVANSWOODLALOCHLOYHIGHWOODDRW AVELOCHLOYDRWESTWOODCT (VILLAEDENDONCASTERGREENFARMSRDBLAKERDLINCOLNDREVANSWOODLADUNCRAIG ST W53RDCIRCHANTREYDRMIRRORLAKESRDWRD HALIFAXTERDRLAWOODDALEAVESOUTHDRBLVDAYRSHIRE WESTWOODCTTELEMARKTR MINNEHAHA PINEWOODTRRDWILLOWWOODHIGHWOODPARKWOODKELSEY LARADAFRANCEAVESEDENMOORGROVERDPINE STSHERWOODRDGLENBRAE KELLOGGAVEOAKLAWNAVEBROOKVIEW AVE DRAYRSHIREBLVDAYRSHIREBLVDRDDRRICHWOODAKERSLA 54TH ST W54THSTW 54THSTWDRVERNONAVEPARKWOODHIGHWOODWCIRDRLARADALACIRAYRSHIREMALIBUPARKWOODRDMALIBUDRPKWYDRGOLFTERMALIBUDRRICHMOND ABBOTTPLRICHMONDLA RICHWOODRDBLVDCIR AVESLADRTERFULLERSTRDRDRDIDYLWOODDRWAYGLENGARRYRDLAKEVIEWIDYLWOODLAWINDSORAVEGOLFPARKWOOD XERXESAVESMIRRORL AKESDRAVENORMANDALERDSTAUDERLAKEVIEW DRLAKEVIEWBLAKERDKNOLLMALIBUCHANTREYHIGHWOODDRWINDSORWINDSORAVEDUNDEEAVE DREWDR AVESCHAEFERRDBROOKVIEWAVEKELLOGGAVEDR IDYLWOODPLOAKLAWNAVEMALIBU WWILLSONDONCASTERDR 55THST W 55THSTW 55THSTWDEVERKNOLLDRSAXONYRDMERRITTCIRDRDRAVEVERNONAVEDRBEARDDRDRKENTAVELACODEDROAKEWINGCIRHALIFAXLONDONDERRYGOYALA(STATEHWYNO100)DR(CORDNO158) STAUDERCIR PARKPLCONCORDHIGHWOODHIGHWOODPARKWOOD PLEDENPRAIRIERD LEXINGTON (CO R D NO 31) AVELESLEELADUNDEERDGATEPARKRD 56TH STWVERNONAVE W55THST CIRFIELDWAYJEFFREYLASTJOHNSWKNOLLWOODCREST STAUDER ST 56TH ST W 56THWINDRDDR 56THSTWYVONNETER56THSHEATHERLACIR(CORDNO158)WOODLANDAVERIDGEPARKSTW CIRHAWKESTERDRKAYMARDR RDSCHAEFERDRNEWPORTDRHIGHWOODDRDOVREDR GARDENAVELINCOLNDRDRHAWKESCAMELBACKDR DR TOWERSTWARDENAVE57THSTWRD57THSTWRDBLAKERDRD DLAPRAIRIEDRNA(VERNONLA)LDCONTINENTALOD ALE AVE OLAKEWRDCODEAVEEDENNORMANDALE CT WYCLIFFE BERNARDPLNORMANDALERDRDDEVILLEBISCAYNEBLVDBISCAYNEBLVDTRA CY AVEPARKWOODLALALAVIEW SOUTHVIEWLA RDJOHNSONDRCIR MELODY(DUNCAN BERNE HANSENRD57THSTW SRD WOODLANDRDWWARDENAVEVERNONAVEMEROLDDR LA)BISCAYNE BLVD WOODLANDWARDEN AVE WOODLANDLONDONDERRY SMELODY S(TUCKER WOODLAND AVEOLINGERRD(STATEHWYNO100)WILLSONPARKWOODLALA)XERXESAVES(BLAKE AVEAVEAVERIDGE CONCORD TER YORKGROVECIRLONDONDERRYRD GROVEST GROVEST AVERD)EWINGAVESZENITHBEARDAVESCHOWENAVESDREWAVESABBOTTGROVE STCIRSCHAEFER WYCLIFFERDPHILBROOK LASHERMANCIRJOHNSCONCORD (CORDNO17)LONDONDERRYDR FAIRFAX(CORDNO31)GROVESTSCHAEFER OAKLAGROVEST GARDENAVE58THSTW 58TH ST WSHERMANCIR 58TH ST W58THSTW 58THSTWOAKLALO ND O ND ER R Y DRJOHNSONDRRD EASTVIEW DR VIEW AMY DR LYLECIR AVE AVE(HCSAHNO159) LA DALEAVESTUARTAVELAHANSENRDAVEBENTONGRIMESDRBENTONAVEBENTONAVEBENTONAVEBENTONNORMANDALERDTAMARACLATRACYAVEARBOURAVECODEAVELINCOLNDRAVEAVEBERNARDPLAVEAVEAVEAVEAVETINGDALEAVECONCORDRDVERNONAVEOLINGERRDCRESCENTDR59THSTW59THSTWWALNUT 59THSTWASPENRD59THSTWEWINGAVESDREWAVESCHOWENAVESHALIFAX59THSTWSUNRDBEARDAVESOLINGER(STATEHWYNO100)VIEWLAXERXESAVESOLINGER STJOHNSCOUNTRYSIDERD ASHCROFTJOSEPHINEAVEBLVD FAIRFAX(LANGFORDDR)CIR RUTHDRAVEGLEASONRDKILLARNEYLAABBOTTAVESZENITHAVESRD YORKAVESSCHOOL60THSTW (CORDNO31)(LANGFORDCT)60THSTW CIR(LANGFORDDR)OLINGER HIGHLAND RDARBOUR WILLSONRDLINCOLN DR SCHAEFERRDARBOURSTATEHWYNO169 60THSTW60THSTWTAMARACAVE60THSTW60THSTWHANSENRD60THSTWLAVIEWLACLOVERRIDGEDRGRIMESPORTERAVEKILLARNEYLAFORSLINLAAVEPOLAR(STATEHWYNO100)GLACIERPL VERNON DR AVE60THST W61STSTSTWGLEASONRD61STSTWHUNTERWALNUTCIR DREWAVESHALIFAX EWING AVE SCHO WE N AVE SAVEFAIRFAXAVETINGDALEAVEARBOURAVEOLINGER BLVD DR61ST VALLEYSTWWESTRIDGEAVEOLING ER RD VALLEY VIEWRD BEAR D AVE SBIRCHCRESTDR61STSTWARBOURLARIDGEWAY XERXESAVESCODEAVETRACY NORMANDALERDJEFF PLARCTICWAY AVE61ST ST WHANSENRDBLVDVERNONAVE AVECRESCENTAVEWATERFORDCT(WELLESLEYPL)BIRCHCRESTDR VIEWVIRGINIACTWILRYANRD KELLOGGCONCORDRDYORKAVESOAKLAWNRYANAVEVIRGINIAPARNELL RD CURCHOWENARCTICWAYBROOKVIEWHABITAT PLLA (CO RD N O 31)(HCSAHNO158)ST.JOHNSVERNONCT OLINGERBLVD OLINGERBLVD 62NDSTWROUSHARRD 62ND STWVER BEARDNO62NDRDN ZENITHAVESABBOTTAVESCT DRASHCROFTWESTRIDGE CRESTLA STWMILDRED (ORIOLELA)CT CRESCENTGLEASON WYMANAVE62NDSTWRD62NDSTW 62ND ST WVERNONHILLSRDMADDOXLAROLFCOLONIAL MADDOXLAHILLSIDERD AVE WILRYANAVEVALLEYVIEWVALLEYVIEWAVEPLHANSENROBERTS(SANDPIPERCT)RD(VILLALA)STATEHWYNO62 RYANAVETRACYAVELA GARRISON(REDFOXLA) STATEHWYNO62BLVD LADARCYMCCAULEYTRLALA BEARDPLGARRISONPAR NELLAVEVIRGIN A AVE WAY NORMANDALE RDCHOWENAVESDR(CORDNO158)CONCORDAVEDR 63RD ST WCRESCENTSTATEHWYNO62CT)(PHEASANT AVEPOST WCOLONIALCT(FALCONCT)ST STATEHWYNO62 (REDFOXCT)PARKLA WST63RDGLEASONRD NANCYLA63RDMCCAULEY STATE HWY NO 62HILLSIDE HERITAGEMCINTYRETREWINGRDLATRBROOKVIEWAVEWVIEW XER XES A VE S RDMCCAULEYCIRSTATEHWYNO62 (CO RD NO 31)HALIFAXAVEAVEMCCAULEYTR VALLEYTIMBER ROLFAVEASHCROFTPT TINGDALEAVEWOODDALEAVEEPEACEDALEAVERIDGEVIEWDRGMILDREDAVEDWARRENAVEIR LA SSTATEHWYNO62(STATEHWYNO100)REB WHITINGAVE WHITINGAVE WILRYANAVEMCCAULEYTER MITVALLEYVIEWRDSTJOHNS MILLERS JOSEPHINEAVEROS EC THOLBORNAVE 64THSTW64THSTW 64THSTW64THSTW64TH64THSTWLARIDGESTATEHWYNO62DRTIMBERDORONLA(COLONYWAY)AVEGLEASON MILDREDAVEDORONHILLSPASS DR LIMERICKDRLIMERICK RIDGEVIEWDORONLAINDIAN YORKAVESW ATE R LA LIMERICKDR XERXESAVESNORMANDALERDAVEVALLEYLAINDIANPONDCIRMARGARETSLA LA VALLEYVIEWRD 65TH ST WDCIRRSCHEROKEETRACYLLIVALLEYHRIDGEVIEW65THSTW65THSTW65THSTWN 65TH ST WAICREEKVALLEYRDRDINDIANDROLFAVENIWILRYANAVEWARRENAVERYANAVETING DALE AVEJOSEPHINEAVEVALLEYVIEWRD FRANCEAVESTR RIDGEVIEWDR 31)BARRIERDCREEK WESTSHOREDRPARNELLAVEHILLSNONORDICDRTRSCANDIARDCT SHERWOOD(CORD HILLSIDE (STATEHWYNO100)BALDERLA (CORDNO17)BRENDANCT INDIANDAKOTAHILLS DRINDIANHILLSCIRARROWHEADPASS NAVAHO CHEROKEETRTR RDHILLSRD HILLSIDEINDIAN 66TH ST WRDSCANDIARD (CORDNO53)66THSTW 66THSTW W66THSTWST66TH CORNELIACIRAVEDR66THSTWINDIANWAYWRDDRIRDNCDISCANDIARDIVALLEYRDDAWARRENNRHOILNLWESTS SOUTHDALERDLALAGRACETERRDRDPASSPAWNEEDRTRLACIRRDCHEYENNETR APACHE RD CAHILL XERXESAVESDRTRACYAVE LADAKOTABLACKFOOTCREEKVALLEYRD RDSHORELIMERICKIROQUOISTRNOBCREEKVIEWRDMOHAWKTRNORMANDALERDLOISLADANENSLIMERICKHILL DRSALLYWESTTR (CORDNO31)T DRSALVALLEYBA LAGUNANSCIRGLEASONRDLAAVECAHILLDRMEA DOW R IDGE 68THSTWWESTYSUSANAVETRRGALWAYAMEHILLSIDES (CORDNO17)ODRRROYCARPAYTONCTTRACYRDSAMUELRDDUGGAN YORKAVESBALFANZ(STATEHWYNO100)RDPLAZA68TH68THSTWSTW(CORDNO39)VALLEYVIEWRDVALLEYVIEWRD DANENS OAKLAWNRUPPERIRDDRCSIOUXTRGALWAYDRHARVEYLAPLDUGGANTRIROQUOISDRHILLSIDECHAPELLADRENRIDGEVIEWDR YORKAVES DRNBRITTANYECHAPELYEH LACVALLEYVIEWRD TER FRANCEAVESPLAZAPAIUTE NORMANDALERDMCCAULEY CHEYENNE JUDSONLABROOKDRBROOKDRLADR XERXESAVESLAWILFORDTRSCIRDRPLAZADUGGANADRL69THSTTIFTONANTRIMRDW POINTSHORETRACYAVEBROOK CRESTONCHAPELDAKOTATR 69THSTWY 69THLTERLALDAWSONLA RD AVE CORNELIAST 69TH ST WDRWAYAWSSHANESTPATRICKSLAHILLCRESTABERCROMBIEDRGLEASONCIRDRDRLADUNBERRYSTATELIMERICKERINSOUTHDALEEVERETTPAIUTECIRNORMANDALERDDRMCGUIRERDMCGUIRERDHWYTERRACEW69üSTVIEWRABUNABERCROMBIECREEKOVERHOLTPASSRDVIEWLAVALLEYVIEWRDDUNBERRY(STATEHWYNO100)NO TIFTON (CORDNO31)LAMARKCHURCHPLVALLEY169SHAWNEECIRWESTDRDUBLINABERCROMBIEDRPAIUTEDRWOODDALECIRGLEASONMOCCASINVALLEYRD DRTUPASCOTIADR 70THSTW 70TH ST W70THSTW70THSTW70THSTWMARKTERRACEDRSCOTIAMOCCASINCIRLEEWESTONRDVALLEYSDRDRVALLEY70THCIRDRWTRDUBLIN VILLAGEDRCIR ST W SAN DELLAVE CIR ANTRIMRDLANHAM LA ANDOVER RD TRKERRY LARKSPURMCCAULEY MAVELLEDRSALLY LAMARKTERRACEDR 70TH LAXERXESAVESBLVDDRAVEAVE (CORDNO31)CIR (CORDNO17)AVERDHILLAWAYCT(FORMERLYHCSAHNO18,PLAT18)CAHILLRDBRAEBURN MAVELLECOMANCHECTRDGLEASONRDDOWNRDANTRIMLATUPABELVIDERELAVIEWAVE RDRDASPASIATERMARKVALLEYRDWEXFORDRDDRCORNELIADRVIEWANTRIMTERRACE AMUNDSON WESTSHOREMETROBLVDHAZELTONRD HAZELTON(OAKGLENRD)CTLOCHMOORDRDR LADOWNRD BRISTOLHEATHERTONGLOUCHESTERCLAREMORECTDR KELLOGGSTATEHWYNO169CLAREMOREDRAVELANHAMLAMARKTERRACEDRNORMANDALERD(STATEHWYNO100)VALLEYVALLEYVIEWRD LYNMARASPASIA WOODDAL ETRILLIUMFLEETWOOD CIR FRANCEAVESAMUNDSONSHANNON CLAREMORELEEDUNHAMDRDR DRMETROBLVD 72NDSTWLALANTANALADUNHAMDRRDVALLEYBRISTOLVDACIRHEATHERTONRL72NDSTWLEWYEIVHILARYLNTRALEEHILARYCIRSHANNONRDGLEASONLNLADRLNDRELLSWORTH(FORMERLYHCSAHNO18,PLAT18)(LEWISSCHEY FRANCEAVESAVEHILARY AVERIDGE TRILLIUMDUNHAMPKWY)(STATEHWYNO100)HIBISCUS DRAVE ELLSWORTHDR MONARDOLAYORKAVESSHANNONFRONTAGERD WESTSHOREDRFONDELL DRCORNELIADRNORMANDALERD (COVENTRYVIEW)GLOUCHESTERDR73RDSTWCAHILLRDSTATEHWYNO169 DRAVEGLEASONRD FONDELLDRKEMRICHTARARDDR PL)WOODDALE(COVENTRYDRBUSHLAKERD LA)(CORDNO31)OAKLAWNGLEASONRD XERXESAVE S PHLOXLA GALLAGHERCLAREDONDR(COVENTRYCORNELIADRGILFORDDRGILFORDDR DEWEYHILLRDDRAVE(COVENTRYCT)DEWEYHILLRD DEWEYHILLRDRDHARRISDEWEYHILL 74THSTWLAJOHNSHANNONWESTOAKLAWNAVELA)AVEHIBISCUSRDAVEHIBISCUSAVEGALLAGHERDRFRONTAGERD (COVENTRYAVEPARKLAWNPARKCIR AVEPARKLAWNDRIKOLA74THSTWCOVENTRYWAY74THSTW YORKTERLN PARKLAWNBLVD YORKAVESWAY(FORMERLYHCSAHNO18,PLAT18)NORMANDALERDHILARY KELLOGGAVESHANNONCIR DELANEYBLVDXERXESAVESLASHOREDRMETRO 75THSTWSEDUMHYDEPARKLA(CORDNO17)CAHILLRD(STATE HWY NO 100)FRANCEAVESWESTHYDEPARKDR EDINBOROUGHWAYPOPPYLA PARKLAWNCTSTATEHWYNO169POPPY (CORDNO31)GLEASON LATRBONNIEBRAEDR DRBRAKE76THSTWLONG76THSTWSHOREWEST ST76TH W76THSTWDELANEYBLVD CTLONGBRAKECIRTR (PONDWOOD NORMANDALERDMETROBLVDBRAKE PARKLAWNAVELONG (COBUSHLAKERDBLVDDR)BLVD)CAHILLRDRDSTONEWOOD NOGLEASONRD(STATEHWYNO100)31)(WOODVIEWCT)(DELANEYGLASGOW INDUSTRIALTER YORKAVES DR WST EDINA (CORDNO17)EDINAINDUSTRIALBLVD 77TH ST W 77THSTW78TH FRANCEAVESEDINBOROUGHWAYRDLAKECT (D ISK DR)LOCHMEREXERXESAVES(OLDSTHWYNO5)BUSH MARTHCTTANGLEWOOD SHAUGHNESSYRDCOMPUTERAVECECILIACIRWST78TH 78THSTW VIKINGDR MINNESOTADR MINNESOTADR 78THSTW (CO R D NO 169) 78THSTW78THSTW (STATEHWYNO5)INTERSTATEHWYNO494 NORDICCIR INGLEWOOD RD LAKEVIEW INTERSTATEHWY94 TIMBERRIDGE CTDREWAVES(CORDNO17)FRANCEAVESFRANC E AVE S(CO RD NO 17)FR ANC E A VE S WOOD DREN D (CORDNO17)FRANCEAVES49THSTW FRANCEAVESFRANCEAVES(CORDNO17)(CORDNO17)FRANCEAVESALDEN42NDSTWEVAAVE42NDSTW BRUCEPL WOODDALEKELLOGGPLAVE41STSTW AVEWOODDALERD E STSHOREDRKELLOGGEDGEBROOK RDWSUNNYSLOPERICHMOND WARWICKCODEAVEKENNEYPLNAOMIDRCIRCLEDR OHMSTIFTONDRHANSENRDCIR AMUNDSONAVE TUPA HYDE TERGLEASONKRESSEKINGSBERRY SAOENLGCT PASSPAIUTE OLLEB BRORRDMud Lake LakeEdina Mirro r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Mel o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial LakeMinneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation PublicWorks GraceChurch PublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewMiddle School CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewMiddle School Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran ColonyParkBaptist St PatricksCatholic CreekValley Baptist NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessor CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterian ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStation CalvinChristianSchool SEEDETAILLEFTCENTER SEEDETAILUPPER LEFT CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL VILLAGE DR CAHILL RDW 70TH ST AMUNDSON AVESEEDETAILLOWERLEFT Building Height Overlay DistrictsCity of EdinaHennepin County, MinnesotaAppendix A /Planning DeptDecember, 2013 Legend æ Church ñ City Buildings ¹»Private School ¹ºPublic School HOD-2 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, whichever is less. HOD-3 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 3 stories or 36 feet, whichever is less. HOD-8 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 8 stories or 96 feet, whichever is less. HOD-9 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 9 stories or 108 feet, whichever is less. HOD-10Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 10 stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 12 stories or 144 feet, whichever is less.HOD-12 HOD-4 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks,but shall not exceed 4 stories or 48 feet, whichever is less. VALL E Y V I E W R DWOODDALE AVEKELLOGG AVEOAKLAWN AVEBROOKVIEW AVEW 62ND ST VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL W 49TH ST W 50TH ST W 49 1/2 ST FRANCE AVEW 51ST STHALIFAX AVE50TH & FRANCE DETAIL W 54TH ST FRANCE AVEFULLER ST 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETAIL ñEDEN AV E W 50TH S T WILSON RDHWY 100CITYHALL GRANDVIEW DETAIL EDEN AVEVERNON AVEBROOKSIDE AVEARCADIA AVEW 52ND ST W 53RD STGRANDVIEW LAINTERLACHEN BLVD HWY 100GRANDVIEW SQLIN K R D 44TH & FRANCE DETAIL MORNINGSIDE RD W 44TH ST SUNNYSIDE RDFRANCE AVESite Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Activity: Subject:Sketch Plan Review for 4917 Eden Avenue Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. Provide the applicant non-binding comments on a potential future land use request. INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4917 Eden Avenue, which is currently occupied by a Perkins Restaurant. See attached plans and narrative. T he applicant would tear down the existing Perkins building and build a seven (7) story, 208-unit apartment and a four (4) story, 52,000 square foot office building. This site is impacted by the 2016 Grandview Transportation Plan. The Plan calls for a proposed roadway on this site that would accommodate a new exit ramp off 100 and a frontage road. See attached pages from the Grandview Transportation Plan. That frontage road would be located where the office building is proposed; therefore, an alternative plan has also been submitted by the applicant with the office building removed. The request would require the following: Rezoning from PCD-1, P lanned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District (the south parking lot is zoned AP D) to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from setback, height, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is also used to ensure the affordable housing on the site. ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning Commission Staff Memo, Jan. 13, 2021 Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative Related Pages from the Grandview Transportation Plan Site Location, Zoning Height & Comp Plan City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: January 13, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4917 Eden Avenue The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4917 Eden Avenue, which is currently occupied by a Perkins Restaurant. (See attached plans and narrative.) The applicant would tear down the existing Perkins building and build a seven (7) story 208-unit apartment and a four (4) story 52,000 square foot office building. This site is impacted by the 2016 Grandview Transportation Plan. The Plan calls for a proposed roadway on this site that would accommodate a new exit ramp off 100 and a frontage road. (See attached pages from the Grandview Transportation Plan.) That frontage road would be located where the office building is proposed; therefore, an alternative plan has also been submitted by the applicant with the office building removed. The request would require the following: 1. Rezoning from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District (the south parking lot is zoned APD) to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from setback, height, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is also used to ensure the affordable housing on the site. The tables on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing PCD-1 Standards on the lot. The first table is for the Option A, which is the office and housing. The second table is for Option B, which is for just the housing. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table – Option A (with office) City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – Eden Avenue Front – Wilson Road Side – Highway 100 Side – South 35 feet or bldg. height 35 feet or building height 35 feet or building height 25 feet 10 feet* 10 feet* 10 feet* 15 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 4 stories (office)* 7 stories (housing)* Density 20-100 units per acre (2.08 acres) 100 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0% 3.0%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit = 208 spaces required Office = 1 space per 200 s.f. = 203 spaces required 170 spaces* 30 surface spaces 153 spaces* (shared parking is planned between the two uses) *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Compliance Table – Option B (Housing only) City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – Eden Avenue Front – Wilson Road Side – Highway 100 Side – South 35 feet or bldg. height 35 feet or building height 35 feet or building height 25 feet 10 feet* 30 feet* 100+ feet* 15 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 7 stories* Density 20-100 units per acre (2.08 acres) 100 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0% 2.4%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit = 208 spaces required 292 spaces* 9 surface spaces *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Issues/considerations: Proposed Options/Density. The development density in Option A appears to be too much for the site. An FAR of 3.0 is very high for Edina. The residential density proposed is at the top of the allowed range per the comprehensive plan, and the site would have an office building that would generate traffic. This would seem to be too much for the site; therefore, staff would endorse Option B when comparing the two. While the FAR in Option B is relatively high at 2.4, the use of residential would not generate a significant amount of traffic compared to an office use at a similar FAR. For comparison, the recently approved 70th and France (US Bank Site) project has an FAR of 2.1. Grandview Transportation Plan. Option B provides the opportunity for the city to acquire the land needed to implement the Grandview Transportation Plan and construct a new frontage road and off ramp from Highway 100. This would be a “give to get” to help justify a PUD the maximum density allowed in the Comprehensive Plan for the site. The land could be dedicated by an easement for future right-of-way. Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required. Affordable Housing. The applicant proposes to provide 20% of the units to families earning 60% AMI within the project to meet the City’s Affordable Housing Policy. Setbacks. The setback proposed on Eden Avenue at 10 feet appears to close to the road, especially given the 7-story height. Perhaps the building could be shifted ten feet to the south? Proposed heights. The proposed height of 7 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. Given the site’s constraints regarding size and the proposed frontage road location, the added height seems appropriate to obtain affordable housing units and the additional right-of-way. Landscaping. The proximity to highway 100 increases air pollution exposure and associated health risks to the lung and heart. Consider using trees as a natural buffer between highway 100 and the residential structure to reduce air pollution effects, as well as other effects like noise pollution. This could be accomplished in Option B within the future roadway easement area. Sustainability. Green roofs and rooftop solar in shown in this initial concept. This should remain in any formal submittal. December 22th, 2020 4917 EDEN AVE. EDINA, MINNESOTA RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Vicinity Map LEGEND Project Site Parks / Recreation Area 1. Edina Parks Recreation 2. Edina Country Club 3. Utley Park 4. Wooddale Park 5. Arden Park 6. Arden Park Rink 7. Todd Park 8. Highlands Park 9. Garden Park Education 1. Edina Cahill Historical School 2. Our Lady of Grace Catholic School 3. Highlands Elementary School Civic Facilities 1. Edina Police Department 2. Edina City Hall 3. Church 4. Edina Hennepin County Library 5. Minnepolis Heart Institute - Edina 6. Funeral Home Neighborhood Amenities 1. Bloomington Lake Clinic - Edina 2. Grocery / Convenience Stores 3. UPS/Postal Service 4. CenturyLin - Telecom Provider Transportation Bus L1 = 46,146, 568 L2 = 46,146, 568, 587 Train 1/2 MILE 1/4 MILE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 45 1 2 2 6 2 3 # L1 L1 587 L2 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Photographs SOUTHWEST VIEW SITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM EAST ACROSS HIGHWAY 100 - VIEW FROM WESTSITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM SOUTHEASTVIEW FROM NORTHSITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM NORTH RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN CONTEXT - Connectivity 2. EDEN AVE ABOVE HIGHWAY100 1. EDEN AVE + WILSON RD INTERSECTION 3. WILSON RD 5. HIGHWAY 1004. EDEN AVE SITE 14 2 5 3 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Current Aerial Map True North 0 25 50 100 200 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Diagram - Option A (Residence & Office) + 930 + 934.5 3 DROP OFF + 935 DN12%+ 937 + 935 + 927 COURT YARD OFFICE BUILDING RESIDENTIALBUILDING SURFACEPARKING 1 5 '10'15'10' 10.29.2020 True North 0 25 50 100 200 MN DOT LAND RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN FLOOR PLANS - Option A (Residence & Office) Lower Basement Upper Basement Ground Level Level 2 - 6 Level 7 BUILDING DATA • UNIT COUNT: 208 • RESIDENCIAL GRSF: 222,574 SF OFFICE GRSF: 40,670 SF • PARKING COUNT: RESIDENCE: 170 Stalls OFFICE: 153 Stalls SURFACE PARKING: 30 Stalls • SITE: 90,553 SF A (RESIDENTIAL): 62,457 B (OFFICE): 27,927 • UNITS PER ACRE: 100 • BUIILDING HEIGHTS: 75’ - 7 Stories Note: Shared parking, housing to utilize office nights and weekends MN DOT MN DOTMN DOT MN DOT MN DOT 52,000 SF OPTION B NEW FRONTAGE ROAD + SITE IMPACT: RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - City Roadway Diagram - Option B True North NEW OFF RAMP/ ROADWAY SPLITS THE SITE NEW N-S CONNECTION ON EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 100 True North62' - 6"6' - 6"28' - 0"28' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0" 230' - 0"307' - 8"249' - 4"156' - 11"SITE C65,384 ft2 SITE B40,512 ft2 EDEN AVEHIGHWAY 10050th & VERNON258' - 0" 228' - 11" 10'15'1 5'10' E D E N A V E +8,502 SF SITE A80,086 GSF1.84 Acres 88,588 GSF2.03 Acres170' - 6"GRANGE ROADWILLSON RDOFF RAMP/ NEW ROADGOLF COURSE EDINA CITY HALL MN DOT LAND PROJECT SITE POTENTIAL SITE POTENTIAL SITE RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Diagram - Option B (Residence Only) 15 '10'15'10'+ 930 + 934.5 DROP OFF + 935 + 937 + 935 + 927RESIDENTIALBUILDING COURT YARD PROPOSEDROAD10.29.2020 True North 0 25 50 100 200PROPOSED ROADMN DOT LAND RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Lower BasementUpper Basement Ground Level Level 2 - 6 Level 7 FLOOR PLANS - Option B (Residence Only) BUILDING DATA • UNIT COUNT: 208 • RESIDENCIAL GRSF: 218,832 SF • PARKING COUNT: 292 Stalls SURFACE PARKING: 9 Stalls • SITE: 90,553 SF • UNITS PER ACRE: 100 • BUILDING HEIGHT: 75’ - 7 Stories MN DOTMN DOTMN DOT MN DOT MN DOT CONTEXT + DESIGN CONCEPTS EXTERIOR DESIGN: RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Immediate Site Context GRANGE HALL EDINA CITY HALL EDINA EXECUTIVE PLAZA OUR LADY OF GRACEEDINA COUNTRY CLUB RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Architectural Context 5000 FRANCE AVENUE AVIDOR NOLAN MAINS, MARKET STREET RESTORATION HARDWARE5200 FRANCE AVENUE RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Character Images HOMES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Initial Concept RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Vinettes EDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK - VERANDA + WALKUP UNITS WEST ELEVATION - LINK + WALKUP UNITS COURTYARD - LOOKING EAST WILSON ROAD - ENTRY PORTAL + COURTYARD EDEN AVENUE - WALKUP UNITS Memorandum TO: City of Edina City Council, Planning Commissioners, and Planning Staff COPY: Nick Walton & Kyle Brasser – Reuter Walton, Carol Lancing – Faegre Drinker Mike Kyrch & Jeff Ellingson – BKV Group FROM: Chris Palkowitsch, AIA – BKV Group DATE: 12/15/2020 RE: 4917 Eden Avenue Redevelopment Reuter Walton with BKV Group is reviewing redevelopment options for 4917 Eden Avenue, located at the southwest corner of Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road. This site is 2.08 acres (90,553 SF) and is currently the Perkins Restaurant. We are proposing a mixed-use development with 208 housing units in a seven-story building fronting Eden Avenue and Willson Road and a four-story, 52,000 SF office building to the west of the residential building along Highway 100. The site may potentially be impacted by a roadway reconfiguration. The 2016 Grandview Transportation Study proposes using the west side of the site for a new frontage road. In response to the 2016 Study proposal, we have created a second plan, Option B, that would omit the office building from the development, creating a residential-only project. Under either option, 20% of the units will be affordable to families earning 60% AMI, in accordance with the City of Edina affordable housing policy. Reuter Walton is open to proceeding with the either option but needs clear direction for how to proceed. Development options that address both site configurations have been developed and are discussed below and displayed in the graphic package that accompanies this memo. Site & Zoning Currently the site is zoned PCD-1 (Planned Commercial District) and APD (Automobile Parking District). The future land use designation for the site in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is Mixed- Use Center (Grandview area). See Table 3.6 for Grandview information related to the MXC future land use category. The table sets forth density and intensity guidance of 20-100 units per acre . Option A proposes a mixed-use project at 100 units per acre. Under Option B, due to a reduction in the site area, we are proposing a residential-only project of 113 units per acre. Edina Comprehensive Plan (Table 3.6) We propose to rezone the site with as a Planned Unit Development District (PUD). This will allow the development team an opportunity to work collaboratively with the City and the community to create the best project for the site. Development + Site Impacts Design Option A is based on the existing site boundaries. Option A is a mixed-use development with 208 housing units in a seven-story building fronting on Willson Road and a four-story, 52,000 SF office building to the west of the residential building that would be accessed from Eden Avenue. Option B is based on impacts of the August 31, 2016 Grandview Transportation Study. The 2016 Study creates frontage roads on the east side and west side of Highway 100 that connect directly to redesigned on and off ramps from the Highway. The proposed east frontage road in the 2016 Study bisects the 4917 Eden site and impacts the potential development footprint. It also creates potential additional developable sites to the north of 4917 Eden Avenue. The proposed design for Option B, omits the office building from the development to allow for the new frontage road. This changes the project into a residential-only project. If the 2016 Study is the City’s preferred plan, Reuter Walton is interested in working with the City on selling a portion of the land to allow for the east frontage road. Project Design The design of the project takes into consideration the Community Design Guidelines of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan notes that, “[a]s a largely developed city, Edina’s future growth will be built on infill and redevelopment sites and will need to fit in, improving the character of surrounding areas.” The Plan includes the following overall principles to guide redevelopment. Chapter 3 Design Principles 1. Design buildings with an interesting and varied pedestrian-scaled street frontage, as expressed through building massing, façade articulation, materials, and details. 2. Recognize that diverse architectural styles can be employed to achieve city-building goals. 3. Position buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by facing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. 4. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. 5. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. The project is being designed to create a positive impact for the community through the redevelopment of the site to a high quality visual, pedestrian, resident, employee, and patron experience. The seven-story residence is V-shaped and is open toward the Edina Country Club Golf Course, creating a building that is connected to and relates to the open space of the golf course. The massing of the housing building is broken down by a copper lined glassy link between the two primary housing bars of the building. The top floor of the building is stepped back on the primary street facades to lessen the impact of the building’s height. The main corner of the housing building is at the intersection of the Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road. The building is setback from this corner to allow for an Art Plaza. This corner area also serves as the primary residence entry. It is defined by the two-story veranda and copper lined vehicle entry portal. The veranda concept was designed to complement the two- story entry fin of City Hall. Additionally, the veranda creates a large “front porch” for this building, creating a strong pedestrian presence and design reference to the single-family homes around the golf course. Vehicles access into the two-level, below grade parking garage is south on Willson Road, utilizing the naturally low side of the site to minimize surface ramping. The design of the building features an active and enjoyable pedestrian experience with walk-up units and robust landscaping wrapping around the project. The roof of the housing building will feature a photovoltaic array and garden boxes for the residents. We are still exploring additional sustainable features for the building. The office building in Option A is located on the west side of the site. The building is pulled to the edge of the site toward Highway 100 to maximize the open space on the remainder of the site. The office building is separated from the housing building by its surface parking lot and drop off area. The office building is set back and separated from Eden Avenue by a green space owned by MnDOT. Wide sidewalks are utilized to connect the office building to Eden Avenue and the housing building. A second ramp leads from the surface parking area down into the below grade parking structure. The garage would be shared by both the apartment and office buildings, with the intent to provide additional parking for residents and their guests during the non-peak hours of the office use. The exterior design of the apartment building has been influenced by residents and nearby stake holders. The design team initially completed a design that had a more modern aesthetic inspired by new buildings in Edina. Through the feedback received, Reuter Walton had the design team create a more contextual design based on buildings and homes in the area. The design team started by reviewing local context examples in the Grandview area, near 50th & France and homes in the Sunny Slope neighborhood and around the gold course. The current design incorporates traditional and historic elements of the local Edina context into an updated and refined design concept. The building features buff stone at the first two levels and at the veranda delineating a strong base. The buff stone was selected to complement the stone on City Hall. Similar to City Hall, copper panels are utilized on the building as an accent material, placed on the underside of the veranda and at the vehicle entry portal to create richness within the design. Copper is also used on the building trellises, the glassy link, and light fixtures. The building has white brick as a primary material from levels 3-6. The brick features additional detail at the capitals and at the columns. The mid-gray painted material will be cement board siding and trim. If the project proceeds under Option A including the office building, the exterior of the office building will be reexamined and designed to both complement and be distinctive from the updated exterior housing design. Select Specific Design Items that Meet the Intent of the 2040 Guidelines Pedestrian Friendly Focus a) Interesting and active street edges with the main entries and walk-up units. b) New sidewalks with boulevards separating pedestrians from the street edge. c) Incorporation of an Art Plaza at the corner Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road d) Robust and interesting landscaping and vegetation. e) Primarily enclosed and below grade parking with limited surface space for convenience and drop offs. Building Placement & Design a) The housing building is located near the street edges but set back to allow for additional greenspace. The office building is near the property line but away from the street as that green space is not part of the site. b) The housing building is designed to meet the primary corner with a visually distinct and attractive building, with a two-story veranda wrapping the corner and a stepping back of the building above. c) Windows and entries are located throughout the street facing facades. Façade Articulation a) The facades of both buildings clearly articulate the base, middle and top. b) The drop-off area for the housing is clearly defined and integrated into the veranda with a well detailed and appointed portal. c) The housing building façade is broken down into smaller masses through step backs and material articulation. Building Height Transition a) The housing building is seven stories tall. At the intersection of the Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road, the height of the building and massing are broken up by the two-story corner veranda and the step back at the top level. The top-level step back continues along Eden Ave on the north elevation and is also on the west elevation. b) The office building steps the overall development down to the west. Schedule The development team has had preliminary meetings with City staff to review the viability of the project and the impacts of the Grandview Area traffic studies. As a next step, we would typically go to the neighbors/neighborhood first for input. However, due to the lack of clarity about the site boundaries, we are first seeking guidance from the Planning Commission and City Council. We intend to follow up with the neighbors for their input after we understand our site boundaries. Following Sketch Plan Review in January 2021, we hope to move forward with Preliminary and then Final Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Rezoning applications as expeditiously as possible in order for Reuter Walton to meet the closing deadline of August 2021 for acquisition of the site. [End of Memo] City of Edina Grandview District Transportation Study August 31st, 2016 Timeline for Change2 City of Edina Grandview District Transportation Study 19 Figure 2.6 Diagrams of proposed improvements for walking and biking access, auto circulation and parking, and transit access and enhancements. Diagrams were developed during the Imagine Week phase of the Transportation Study. EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 DR LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY10 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY10 0 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS 1 1 4 4 5 EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 D R LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY1 0 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY100 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map 5 6 7 AUTO CIRCULATION AND PARKING 6 6 6 7 8 9 10 EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 DR LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY10 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY10 0 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map 11 TRANSIT ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENTS LEGEND CROSSWALKS SEPARATED WALK AND BIKE PATHS VEHICULAR CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT ROADWAYS EXISTING HIGHWAY RAMP ACCESS IMPROVED INTERSECTION IMPROVED BUS FACILITIES HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT LINE POSSIBLE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION Mid Term Changes 1. Create separated bike lanes and pedestrian paths on Vernon Ave- nue and Eden Avenue 2. Improve pedestrian circulation by Jerry’s and general retail 3. Create activation zones along streetfront of Vernon Avenue 4. Add more pedestrian crossings on Vernon Avenue 5. Expand walk/bike connections within district interior and improve circulation 6. “Right-sizing” design for Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue 7. Integrate highway ramp circulation with district street network 8. Develop district parking strategy 9. Free-right turns replaced with controlled intersection onto Highway 100 northbound 10. Remove northbound looping ramp 11. Transit schedule and frequency improvements 2 20 Timeline for Change • Continue rationalizing motorist access points in order to better manage traffic flow, especially the intersection of Eden and Vernon which is described in more detail in Chap- ter 3, Section 7 “Grandview Neighborhood.” • Unlock new parcels for long-term development, open space, or public use • Set the stage for long-term transportation investments • Improve the character of Vernon by creating “activation zones” of increased, though possibly transient, use immedi- ately adjacent to the sidewalks. • Continue the process of improving transit facilities to en- courage use by working with Metro Transit to relocate the bus stop at Eden and Vernon when that intersection is re- constructed, by providing more accessible park-and-ride facilities as parking is constructed throughout the area, and by adjusting service schedules and types to meet increasing demand. • Support the goals of Safe Streets for Seniors, Safe Routes to Schools, and Living Streets by incorporating those critical design principles into every applicable project. • Continue to incorporate best management practices for sustainability and resiliency into every applicable project, including stormwater solutions, materials selection, incor- poration of greenspace, energy efficiency, reduction of heat island effects, and support for all modes and abilities. Note that each scenario is cumulative, so the Mid Term Changes scenario includes all early action items and Short Term improve- ments. This provides the greatest flexibility, and allows the City to advance any of these improvements as conditions change or as funding becomes available. Analysis of these improvements are further described in Chapter 4, Transportation Analysis. 2 22 Timeline for Change Figure 2.8 Proposed Long Term Changes to the Grandview District transportation network. City Hall VERNON AVEHIGHWAY 100EDEN A V E 53RD ST 52ND ST Jerry’s Former Public Works Redevelopment Site 50TH ST These improvements are intended to complete the vision of the Framework Plan, establishing the character and scale for devel- opment of the plan and the necessary transportation improve- ments that can support such development. Though the Long Term Changes scenario envisions a grand scale of development over several decades, it also describes the requisite transpor- tation investments that should be in place when that level of development is pursued (Figure 2.8). The Long Term improvements target the following changes: • Complete key pedestrian and bicycle connections • Complete simplification of highway access • Facilitate high-capacity transit connections • Support delivery of the Framework Plan • Outline character of ongoing development and transporta- tion improvements • Improve the character of Vernon by creating “activation zones” of increased, though possibly transient, use immedi- ately adjacent to the sidewalks. • Continue the process of improving transit facilities to en- Long Term Changes GRANGE RDARCADIA AVEGRANDVIEW SQ SHERWOODRDIN T E R L ACH EN B L VD Average modeled development density 120 dwelling units per acre Timeline 15-30 years Timeline for Change2 City of Edina Grandview District Transportation Study 23 Figure 2.9 Diagrams of proposed improvements for walking and biking access, auto circulation and parking, and transit access and enhancements. Diagrams were developed during the Imagine Week phase of the Transportation Study. EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 DR LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY1 0 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY100 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map * * 1 2 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 DR LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY1 0 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY100 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map * * 4 5 3 4 AUTO CIRCULATION AND PARKING EDENVERNON 50TH HIGHWAY 100WILSONARCADIA49TH NORMANDALESHERWOOD50TH ST W TO SB HWY100 52ND GRANGE53 DR LINKHANKERSON DALEIN T E R L A C H E N GNUOY SUG BROOKSIDEEDEN AVE TO SB HWY100 G WEIVDNAR 50TH ST W TO NB HWY100NB HWY100 TO EDEN AVESUMMITPINEWOOD SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WWESTBROOKSB HWY10 0 T O V E R N O N A V E S GRANGE RD TO NB HWY 1 0 0 GRANDVIEWHIGHWAY 100 BROOKSIDE VERNON50TH ST W TO NB HWY100 0040200Feet ¯Edina GrandView District Transportation Study Legend Street Centerline Railroad Building Footprints Parcels Study Area Base Map * * * * 6 7 8 TRANSIT ACCESS AND ENHANCEMENTS 6 LEGEND CROSSWALKS SEPARATED WALK AND BIKE PATHS VEHICULAR CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT ROADWAYS EXISTING HIGHWAY RAMP ACCESS IMPROVED INTERSECTION IMPROVED BUS FACILITIES HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT LINE POSSIBLE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION Long Term Changes 1. Complete walk/bike connections within district interior 2. Pedestrian and bike bridge across Highway 100 3. Remove unsafe segment of road 4. New off-ramp frontage road system 5. Complete street network within district interior 6. Proposed transit center locations to serve both rail and bus users 7. New bus stop and turn-around in conjunction with transit center 8. Potential for high capacity transit through the district 2 24 Timeline for Change courage use by working with Metro Transit to enhance and maintain bus stops, add a transit center, and adjust service schedules and types to meet increasing demand. • Support the goals of Safe Streets for Seniors, Safe Routes to Schools, and Living Streets by incorporat- ing those critical design principles into every applicable project. • Continue to incorporate best management practices for sustainability and resiliency into every applicable project, including stormwater solutions, materials se- lection, incorporation of greenspace, energy efficien- cy, reduction of heat island effects, and support for all modes and abilities. The Long Term Changes scenario (Figure 2.9) delivers on the vision for the Grandview District described in the Framework Plan. It envisions all major components of the Framework Plan in a way that respects its setting with- in Edina, and allows for safe multi-modal connections to, through, and within the District. The transportation im- provements envisioned and analyzed in this document are intended to support the level of development envisioned in each scenario. They are also intended to denote a level of trans- portation investment that will support and facilitate the scale of development considered in the Framework Plan. Analysis of the performance of these improvements are further described in Chapter 4. The Long Term Changes scenario is the culmination of that vi- sion in many ways, though it is not necessarily the end game. Each scenario takes a substantial step towards the Long Term goal for the Grandview District and sets up the ability grow beyond this scenario, within key parameters. The next section of this chapter describes additional infrastructure and land use improvements for the District. These are more substantial than what might be delivered in the readily foreseeable future. How- ever, the community acknowledges that such a future exists. The Far Term Changes scenario therefore describes the Dis- trict vision in the event that more substantial funding becomes available or more intense, more rapid development occurs, and sets the tone for improvements that may be beyond the scope of this analysis. Figure 3.1 Long Term Changes Master Plan showing Focus Areas throughout the Grandview District and beyond. CHAPTER Introduction 1 – Jerry’s Connection from Eden 2 – Arcadia + Public Works Site 3 – School Bus Site + New Ramp 4 – Vernon Avenue & W. 50th St. 5 – Interlachen Boulevard 6 – Eden Avenue Focus Areas 3 7 – Grandview Neighborhood 8 – Highway Access 9 – Highway 100 Ped/Bike Bridge 10 – Transit Center 11 – Our Lady of Grace 12 – Beyond Study Area City Hall VERNON AVEHIGHWAY 100GRANGE RDARCADIA AVEEDEN A V E GRANDVIEW SQ SHERWOOD RD52ND ST INTERLACHEN BLVD 50TH S T 1 2 3 4 5 4 6 11 7 8 8 8 8 9 10 (12) (12) 44 Focus Areas 3 H 6 – Eden Avenue As one of the primary corridors connecting Grandview to the surrounding neighborhoods, Eden Avenue plays a significant role in the overall transportation network in Edina. Currently, the design of Eden Avenue prioritizes motorized ve- hicle movement; there are no bicycle facilities and the corridor has limited sidewalk space (Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28). In ad- dition, there are several intersections that are uncomfortable for people to cross by foot due to high speeds of turning ve- hicles and faded or unmarked crosswalks. The crossing shown in Figure 3.28 requires people walking or biking to navigate multiple lanes of high-speed traffic entering the Highway 100 southbound ramp. As shown in Figure 3.27, the existing condition under the rail- road bridge is not pedestrian-friendly. Figure 3.31 shows a proposed cross-section of Eden Avenue that includes space for people walking, bicycling, and driving. People on bikes riding Figure 3.28 Existing pedestrian crossing at Eden Avenue and the southbound Highway 100 entrance ramp. Figure 3.29 Proposed plan of Eden Avenue; 1” = 200’. EDEN AV E HWY 100ARCADIA AVEHWY 100SB ENTRY RAMPHWY 100 NB EXIT RAMP / NEW FRONTAGE RDWILSON RDGRANGE RDNEW FRONTAGE RDG Figure 3.27 There is a complete lack of pedestrian facilities on the north side of Eden Avenue, looking east toward railroad bridge. Former Public Works Redevelopment Site 48 Focus Areas 3 8 – Highway Access Highway 100 plays a significant role in the Grandview District providing access to and from regional routes by intersecting with 50th Street and Eden Avenue in a combined diamond/ cloverleaf intersection configuration. In order for the devel- opment of the District to be fully implemented, access to and from Highway 100 remains an important element of the trans- portation system, but it is also acknowledged that the existing interchange severely limits pedestrian and bicycle connections on either side of the Highway (Figure 3.38). The proposed reconfiguration of the Highway 100 interchange at both 50th Street and Eden Avenue would facilitate enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access while increasing safety as well as enabling developable parcels adjacent to the highway. Figure 3.39 shows the proposed west side configuration at both 50th Street and Eden Avenue. At 50th Street the signalized in- tersection with Highway 100 remains with the addition of a southbound right turn lane which replaces the free-right turn ramp that forces pedestrians and bicyclists to cross wide ramps with fast-moving vehicles. The eastbound free right turn lane to the southbound frontage is also removed to be replaced by a shared through/right-turn lane. The removal of these “free” right turn movements enables a continuous sidewalk with cross- walks to be implemented on both the north and south sides of 50th Street. A new intersection at Eden Avenue is created with the frontage road meeting Eden Avenue at grade at a signalized intersection. The existing southbound ramp from Eden Avenue which currently merges with the frontage road ramp is replaced by a single ramp to remove the merging area that is an exist- ing safety concern. The new west side frontage road provides opportunities for not only vehicular access to the Grandview District and Highway 100 but also for an enhanced multi-modal experience with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. On the east side of Highway 100 (Figure 3.39), the cloverleaf ramps are removed to enable development parcels to be creat- ed adjacent to the Highway with access provided by a frontage road mimicking the configuration on the west side. Access to northbound Highway 100 from 50th Street is provided from both eastbound and westbound 50th Street at a signalized in- tersection which enables the intersection footprint to be nar- rowed from the existing ramps with associated safety improve- ments for pedestrians and bicyclists. Access from northbound Highway 100 is enabled by a reconfigured ramp at Eden Ave- nue leading to the frontage road which also provides access to Grange Avenue and City Hall. These changes were analyzed for their traffic impacts on local streets, as described in Chapter 4. The changes on the east side of Highway 100 would require the relocation of the historic structures in Frank Tupa Park. Those structures are not at their historic location and a sep- arate process was already underway to determine if a more historically suitable and publicly accessible location is available. Reconstructing the ramps does not necessitate the elimination of the park itself, which could be reconfigured to complement the pedestrian bridge over Highway 100 and connectivity to the campus of City Hall. Figure 3.38 Existing redundant ramps and under-utilized space on east side of Highway 100. City of Edina Grandview District Transportation Study 49 Focus Areas3 Figure 3.39 Plan of the new ramp configuration on the west and east sides of Highway 100, showing the integration of the ramp system with the District road network, servicing new developable parcels; 1” = 200’.GRANGE AVENew Development VERNON A V E / 5 0 T H S T R E E T HIGHWAY 100NEW FRONTAGE ROADNew Development New Development EDEN A V ENEW FRONTAGE ROADARCADIA AVENew Development New Development New DevelopmentNew Development New Development New Development Former Public Works Redevelopment Site 50 Focus Areas 3 9 – Highway 100 Ped/Bike Bridge Figure 3.40 Plan of a pedestrian/bike bridge over Highway 100, between Vernon and Eden Avenues; 1” = 200’. Pedestrian and Bike Bridge EDEN A VE VERNON AVE 50TH S T With the goal of celebrating more non-motorized transporta- tion users in the Grandview area, convenient connections for people walking and biking across Highway 100 are important for the District and the City of Edina as a whole. Currently, travel in the Grandview District by bike or foot re- quires the use of Vernon Avenue/50th Street or Eden Avenue. While there are plans to make walking and biking more com- fortable on these corridors, both would require substantial in- vestments to either retrofit or replace the current bridges over Highway 100. A bridge in the center of the study area for the exclusive use of non-motorized traffic would connect Edina City Hall with the central commercial area around Jerry’s Foods. As development continues on the land between Jerry’s and City Hall, this bicycle and pedestrian connection will further enhance the walking and biking network in the District. It is likely that this is in lieu of a complete “Grandview Green” as envisioned in the Far Term scenario in Chapter 2. Figure 3.40 shows the proposed location for the non-motorized bridge over Highway 100 connecting the east and west sides of the study area. The span would provide a direct connection for those traveling on foot or by bike within the District. Figure 3.41 Panoramic view of the proposed pedestrian and bike bridge area, looking east. Vernon Avenue is on the left, and Eden Avenue is on the right. EdinaMN.gov 1 8 Site EdinaMN.gov 2 Site EdinaMN.gov 3 Site Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.C. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Scott Neal, City Manager Item Activity: Subject:Resolution No. 2021-15: Authorizing a Pro-Rated Liquor License Fee Refund for On-Sale Liquor License Holders Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution No. 2021-15 authorizing a pro-rated liquor license fee refund for on-sale liquor license holders. INTRODUCTION: The pandemic has created unusual financial hardships for restaurants and bars in Edina. In order to comply with City Code and Minnesota State Statutes, restaurants and bars must purchase a liquor license(s) from the City. Because these businesses were shut down or operationally compromised throughout most of 2020, they did not receive full value for their liquor license fee. The City cannot alleviate the overall financial hardships faced by these businesses caused by the pandemic, but we can provide them a small amount of relief by modifying our liquor license user fees for 2021. Staff are proposing that we reduce the cost of our liquor licenses for 2021 by 50%. Our total liquor license revenue in 2020 was approximately $325,000. The estimated cost of this proposal then for 2021 is $162,500. Or, put another way, less than one half of one percent of our projected General Fund 2021 revenues. The hospitality sector has been hit very hard by the economic impacts of the pandemic. I believe this proposal is affordable, simple to implement and targeted directly to a group of local small businesses in the community who need it to survive. I recommend the Council approve the proposed resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-15: Authorizing a Pro-Rated Liquor License Fee Refund for On-Sale Liquor License Holders 1 213484v1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-15 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PRO-RATED LIQUOR LICENSE FEE REFUND FOR ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDERS WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the Governor of the State of Minnesota issued Executive Order 20-01 Declaring a peacetime emergency and coordinating Minnesota’s strategy to protect Minnesotans from COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, Edina Mayor Hovland issued a proclamation declaring a local emergency due to COVID-19 and on March 17, 2020, the Edina City Council adopted a resolution extending the Mayor’s proclamation; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 crisis and subsequent state executive orders continue to restrict the operations of in-person dining establishments within the city; and WHEREAS, in-person dining establishments with on-sale liquor licenses often rely on alcoholic beverage sales in order to operate; and WHEREAS, while the State’s peacetime emergency is in effect, in-person dining establishments have been at times unable to sell alcoholic beverages; WHEREAS, the Council desires to provide additional financial relief for these on-sale liquor license holders; and WHEREAS, the City has the ability to refund on-sale liquor license fees on a pro-rated basis through Minn. Stat. §340A.408 subd. 5; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, dining establishments are still not allowed to operate at full capacity and may not be allowed to operate at full capacity for a significant portion of 2021; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota: 1. Licensed establishments that held an on-sale liquor license in 2020 and are renewing their on- sale liquor license in 2021 are eligible to receive a refund in the form of a credit applied to their 2021 license fees. 2. Eligible licensed establishments that paid the 2020 on-sale liquor license fee in full shall receive a 50% credit against their 2021 renewal fee. 3. Liquor license fees shall automatically readjust to normally set rates on January 1, 2022. Dated: January 20, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 2 213484v1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _______ day of ___________________, 2021. City Clerk Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.D. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Scott H. Neal, City Manager Item Activity: Subject:Approve Proposed 2021 State Legislative Priorities Statement Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve proposed 2021 State Legislative Priorities Statement. INTRODUCTION: The proposed 2021 State Legislative Priorities Statement was prepared by staff based on the City Council’s approved 2020 State Legislative Statement and upon new legislative priorities that have arisen during the past year. Staff seeks Council’s approval of the proposed Legislative Priorities Statement to establish the legitimacy of our legislative advocacy activities during the 2021 state legislative session. In addition to the City’s proposed legislative priorities, I have also included the legislatives priorities of the League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities and the Municipal Legislative Commission. The City’s membership in these three organizations implies our general support for their legislatives priorities. There is no need for specific Council approval of these priorities. They are included for your reference only. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2021 Legislative Priorities LMC 2021 Legislative Priorities Metro Cities 2021 Legislative Priorities MLC 2021 Legislative Priorities January 20, 2021 Mayor and City Council Scott Neal, City Manager Risi Karim, City Management Fellow 2021 DRAFT State Legislative Priorities Information / Background This staff report provides background regarding the draft legislative priorities for 2021. The 2021 state legislative session begins on January 5,2021 Association Legislative Priorities The City of Edina belongs to. The Municipal Legislative Commission, Metro Cities (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities), and The League of Minnesota Cities Each of these associations have a set of legislative priorities adopted annually. In most cases, the City of Edina’s interests align with these organizations. Each association’s 2021 priorities handout is attached in the packet. City of Edina Legislative Priorities The following priorities in the 2021 legislative session. These priorities are in addition to supporting the three association policies above. Development of Parks Park Dedication Fees for Multifamily Redevelopment Projects • Current state law does not allow statutory cities to capture park improvement district fees from certain types of multifamily buildings because they are not subdivisions. Multifamily buildings and apartments generate significant demands to parks and outdoor amenities. • Support legislation to provide authority for statutory cities to collect fees for park improvements if a property is redeveloped and creates new demands on the park system. • By changing the legislation around the park improvement funds, cities could more evenly distribute the costs for maintaining and creating new parks. Local Option Sales Tax • Edina is home to a number of regionally significant parks that have substantial capital funding needs in their master plans. Examples include Fred Richards Park and Braemar Arena. The City seeks legislative authorization to offer Edina residents the opportunity, via a local referendum, to impose a local option sales tax to fund capital improvements to regionally significant parks and recreational amenities. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Local Authority Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax Allocation • In 2015, state legislation was passed to reallocate $32 million of the sales tax collected from leased vehicles from the State’s general fund, 50 percent to Greater Minnesota and 50 percent to metro counties through the County State Aid Highway fund. To balance funding for transit and roads/bridges, the new law excluded Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving their percentage of funding. Instead, the other five metro counties split the proceeds generated in Hennepin and Ramsey counties. With the elimination of the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) in 2017, all seven metro counties now collect their own local transportation sale tax, but the exemption still blocks Hennepin and Ramsey counties. • The City of Edina advocates for returning to the original intent by eliminating the exemption of Hennepin and Ramsey counties and distributing the sale tax on lease vehicles, per the county state aid formula, to all metro counties. Distributing Hennepin and Ramsey county proceeds to the other five metro counties puts cities in Hennepin county at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing county funds for road and bridge projects. This change would provide an estimated $10.7 million in additional funding to Hennepin County to be used on roads and bridges. Utility Franchise Fees • Preserve current legal structure for utility franchise fees for local governments. Utility franchise fees allow costs to be shared by all users versus only property owners. • Edina uses utility franchise fees for the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) and Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) funds. Both funds are vital to the City’s progress in sustainability and pedestrian/cyclist safety. Municipal Liquor • Edina has operated a municipal liquor since it was established by a local referendum in 1948. The liquor operation generates over $1 million annually in profit. These profits fund Edina’s recreation facilities, such as the ice arena, art center and aquatic center, as part of the City’s effort to reduce the cost of user fees and encourage greater access. The City’s recreation programs serve children and families from all over the metro area, and not just Edina. • Continue support of municipal liquor stores and recognize their ability to generate profit that is transferred back into local community programs and amenities. • Oppose proposals that diminish the ability of municipal liquor stores to provide fiscal and local control benefits to their community. Public Notices in Newspapers • The Legislature should eliminate outdated and unnecessary city publication requirements that are no longer relevant or representative of the technology that has significantly increased access to government. These requirements are unnecessarily costly to the city. In 2019, Edina spent approximately $21,052 on public notices. Cities should have the authority to determine whether web publication should replace or supplement newspaper publication based on the unique needs of each community. • Cities should have the authority to a) Determine whether web publication should replace or supplement newspaper publication. b) Designate an appropriate publication that reaches the maximum number of residents possible. c) Use alternative means of communication to fulfill statutory requirements such as city newsletters, cable television, video streaming, email, blogs and city websites. d) Expand the use of summaries where information is technical or lengthy by removing the requirement for Council approval of summary publications. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3 Increase City Manager Purchasing Agency to at minimum Adjust for Inflation. • The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of statutory Plan B cities. State law requires purchases and contracts over $20,000 are recommended by the manager but require additional approval by the City Council. There are only 18 Statutory Plan B Cities in MN. • In Edina, this approval is obtained through Requests for Purchase on the Consent agenda. • The $20,000 statutory threshold has not been raised since 2004. This does not account for standard inflation over the past 15 years. • The City of Edina supports a raise in legal maximum allowed., Repeal Statutory Salary Limitation on City Employees • Minnesota law limits the salaries of city employees to 110% of the Governor’s salary, with an annual inflationary adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index. • Locally elected City Council Members and Mayors are in the best position to determine the needs of their communities, including the compensation of city employees. • The artificial cap on salaries places Minnesota cities at a disadvantage when recruiting and retaining talented individuals. o No other state in the nation has a similar cap, which puts Minnesota cities at a disadvantage when recruiting nationally. o Between 1998 and 2003, the Legislature exempted entities including school districts, hospitals, clinics, and health maintenance organizations owned by a government organization from the salary limitation. During the 2018 session, the Legislature expanded that exemption by allowing the Metropolitan Airports Commission to be exempt from the salary limitation. This puts cities at a disadvantage when competing with other political subdivisions for talent. The Legislature should end the salary cap altogether and be consistent with all political subdivisions. • The artificial cap results in salary compression making it difficult to attract leadership positions. • Public employee salaries are public data. In addition, Minnesota law already requires that each political subdivision post the salaries of its three highest-paid employees on its website, so the salaries of key employees are readily known to the local taxpayers and voters who provide the ultimate check on the actions of city councils. Local Environmental Protection Measures • Adopt enabling legislation to allow cities to implement local environmental protection measures. • The City Council requests the State Legislature adopt enabling legislation allowing local governments to devise and implement environmental protection measures, including such measures as plastic bag and Styrofoam food packaging bans and maintain authority for fees of said products. Environment Advanced Energy Standards • Support the work cities have done around Advancing Building Performance Standards that would apply to any newly constructed and renovated commercial and multifamily development. • Buildings account for about 40 percent of all the energy used in Minnesota. Energy codes are among the most cost-effective way to impact the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of new construction. Since 2009, Minnesota’s energy code has saved homeowners and businesses, reducing energy bills by about $160 million. While the Minnesota energy code is a mandatory statewide code, local governments are restricted from setting more ambitious standards. If Minnesota wants to meet state climate goals, cities need other options for improving the baseline energy requirements for buildings. • Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, Rochester, Saint Louis Park, and Saint Paul with over 20 engaged cities have convened city-led workshops to identify common interest and solutions. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 4 Local Environmental Public Health Programs • The City of Edina supports the authority and opportunity of all cities and counties to locally operate delegated food, pool and lodging establishment regulatory programs supported by a local fee structure. • The City of Edina supports legislation that provides continued support of locally delivered environmental public health services. • The City of Edina supports a unified retail food safety system in a single state agency, which supports delivery of food safety program activities by local jurisdictions. Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Municipal Grant Program • Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clean water (ground and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at regional wastewater plants. • The Metropolitan Council identifies cities contributing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the regional wastewater system and charges the city for the excess. • The City of Edina supports state financial assistance to cities for metro area I/I mitigation, such as the Municipal State Bond Grant Program. Transportation Municipal State Aid (MSA) Funding • The City of Edina has 40.85 miles of roads designated as MSA. The funding is a vital part of maintaining these high-quality connections. The City of Edina asks for continued support of municipal state aid funding. The state aid road system was developed to provide vital, high-quality connections necessary for the overall state highway network to work well. The roads that are on the state aid system typically carry heavier traffic volumes, connect major points of interest and provide an integrated and coordinated road system. Street Improvement Districts • Enable legislation that would allow cities to create street improvement districts as a long-term replacement plan of special assessment financing of street improvement projects. • Almost 85 percent of municipal streets are ineligible for municipal state aid (MSA) funds and must be paid for with property taxes, special assessments or other funding sources such as franchise fees. Maintenance costs increase as road systems age, and no city is spending enough on roadway capital improvements to maintain a 50-year lifecycle. For every $1 spent on maintenance, a road authority, and therefore taxpayers, save $7 in repairs. • Cities need greater resources and flexible policies in order to meet growing demands for street improvements and maintenance. Enabling legislation that would allow cities to create street improvement districts (like sidewalk improvement districts already allowed under Minn. Stat. § 435.44) would allow cities to use this tool as a long-term replacement plan of special assessment financing of local street improvement projects. Local Bridge Replacement Program (LBRP) Funding • The Local Bridge Replacement Program provides local agencies transportation funding for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or removal of bridges or structures. The City of Edina has 27 local bridges. • The program is financed by the passage of specific legislation allocating general obligation state bond funds. The program does not receive enough funding. In 2019, there were $36 million dollars in waitlisted unfunded bridge projects, including a request from the City of Edina on the Minnehaha Creek and Wooddale Ave bridge. • The City of Edina supports funding dedicated to the Local Bridge Replacement Program to provide safe bridges. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 5 Public Safety Funding of Fire Resources, Training and Statewide Response Teams • The Edina Fire Department relies on State funding for training through the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education (MBFTE). Edina is one of the primary departments that makes up the MN Task Force 1 Statewide Response Team. • The department relies on the appropriation of the dedicated revenue funds from insurance surcharge proceeds to fund vital functions of the Minnesota Fire Service. This funding has been approved by the Minnesota Legislature in the past. The MN Fire Service requests approximately $13 million to be appropriated from the dedicated revenue account to fund the State Fire Marshal’s office, the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education (MBFTE) and the Statewide Response Teams (HAZMAT, Task Force 1 Structural Collapse Team and Air Rescue Team). • The City of Edina supports broader discretion in the use of the Fire State Aid it receives. Railroad & Hazardous Substance Safety Training and Funding • Support railroad safety by requiring railroads to continue to provide training to responders and to share planning, response and rail line activity information with responders and emergency managers. • Edina has one active railway that carries two freight trains a day through the city. Residential Fire Sprinklers • Oppose efforts to statutorily limit the use of residential fire sprinklers. Sprinklers protect occupants, firefighters, and property from fires. Recent Minnesota studies show the cost of installing residential fire sprinkler systems averages $1.15 per sprinklered square foot, or approximately 1 percent of new home construction. • Support the inclusion of professionals and industry experts in the creating or writing of any code parameters, particularly as it relates to the installation of fire suppression systems in residential building code. Retail Fireworks Sales • Oppose the expansion of legal firework sales in Minnesota. Fireworks cause injury and pose a serious fire risk to humans and animals. Oppose expansion of aerial and audible fireworks in Minnesota to protect residents from serious risk of injuries and property damage. Fire State Aid • Current state law requires cities with FRAs pass the entire amount of Fire State Aid received from the state to the FRA. • Support broader discretion for the use of the Fire State Aid. While the current state requirements work well for City’s that only have paid on-call or volunteer firefighters, there are significant challenges for Cities, like Edina, that have combination (career and paid on-call) firefighters. The law passed last year allows VFRA to negotiate between Cities and the associations to share some of those funds. Housing Protect Low- and Moderate-Income Tenants • Tenant Protection in Affordable Housing Property Ownership Change o A preference would be a statewide tenant protection plan, but in lieu of that support city’s ability to enact tenant protections to support access to affordable housing and housing stability for tenants. Amend State statute 471.9996 to allow for a 90-day tenant protection period following the transfer of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) property ownership. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6 o Currently state statute prohibits any local adoption of an ordinance to control rents on private residential properties unless the ordinance is approved in a general election. Investment buyers have been purchasing NOAH multi-family residential properties, rehabilitating properties and increasing rents. In some cases, new owners have non-renewed the leases of existing tenants with minimal notice and/or implemented substantial rent increases with minimal notice. A 90-day period that would prohibit rent increases and non- renewals would allow time for existing residents in these situations to seek alternative housing. • Eviction Expungement Reform o Records of unlawful detainer filings remain on a tenant’s public record regardless whether the matter was settled or dismissed prior to the court hearing or if the tenant prevails at the hearing. In these cases, the eviction record is not a reasonable predictor of future tenant behavior and should be expunged since the existence of this record impedes the ability of the renter to secure suitable rental housing in the future. o The City supports legislation that would expand the eligibility for discretionary and mandatory expungements for eviction case court files. Support Regulatory Tools for Affordable Housing • 4d Tax Classification Tax Rate Program o The 4d low-income property tax program is run by the state and provides a property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental properties. The program provides an incentive for market-rate properties to designate a portion of their units as rent-restricted and provide tax relief to existing rent-restricted properties. o Although preservation of the program is the top priority, the City supports evaluating the 4d low-income property tax program to determine how program changes could affect renters, landlords and property taxpayers. Studies should include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives. • Affordable Housing Tax Reduction o Bifurcate property taxes for the value of the land and the value of the building. o Land Trust Program: Edina has 16 land trusts residential properties, with property values in the city rapidly increasing. The high property values and corresponding taxes are impacting the ability for land trust homeowners to remain in their home. The city supports reducing property taxes for owners of land trust housing by making the land held by the Land Trust Tax Exempt with the homeowner paying property taxes on the value of the house only. o Multifamily Development For 100% affordable multifamily developments where the land is owned by a nonprofit or government entity and leased to the building owner, building owner will pay a property tax based on the value of the building with the value of the land tax exempt. • Affordable Housing Fee on Development o The City of Edina requires a contribution into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund on new multi-family residential development. A contribution for all new development, including single-family homes or non-residential development, would help increase the trust fund for future housing projects and initiatives. o The city supports legislation that would allow for the collection of a portion of the permitting fee, particularly on tear-down rebuilds, to contribute to affordable housing on all new development. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7 Create New Funding Sources for Affordable Housing • Affordable Housing Financing Bonding Authority o The legislature provides bonding authority to construct affordable housing. The demand for affordable housing continues to rise, meriting the need for additional financing. o The city supports an effective bonding bill that provides Housing Infrastructure (HIB) and General Obligation (GO) Bonds to fund affordable housing to serve low-income households. • Establish Revenue Resource for Affordable Housing o The need for affordable housing in the State has grown to crisis proportion, requiring a larger response than local jurisdictions can provide on their own. Increased State level funding is critical to enable local jurisdictions to enact programs to facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable housing, including subsidized and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). o The City supports establishment of a financing source to fund local and regional programs to facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable housing. • Affordable Housing Trust Funds o In the 2017 session, the legislature passed language that enables cities to set up and resource Affordable Housing Trust Funds (AHTFs). The City of Edina created an Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2019. o The City supports legislation that establishes a dedicated revenue source for AHTFs, including a state match for local and regional housing trust fund investments and policies in support of affordable housing. • Tax Credit Contribution Fund o The housing market depends on federal tax credits to build affordable housing. Federal funding is increasingly volatile. A state-run program would simplify and increase participation in supplying adequate housing for all. The Minnesota Tax Credit Contribution Fund incentivizes private investment and promotes community and economic development. o The program is capitalized by contributions from taxpayers that have state income or corporate/insurance premium tax liabilities. In exchange for contributions to affordable housing, participating taxpayers receive credit against their state income tax liability equal to their contribution to a specific development or the general loan pool. Participation in the program is simple, and the credit is flexible, easy to use statewide, leverages significant private equity, and boosts local businesses. o The city supports the establishment of a tax credit contribution tool to incentivize private investment and promote community and economic development. • Use of Pooled Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for Affordable Housing o Currently, state statute allows for the pooling of tax increment financing to be utilized for affordable housing within the defined redevelopment area of the city. However, the pooled TIF must be maintained in a separate fund with ongoing annual reporting requirements. o Allowing cities with established Affordable Housing Trust Funds to deposit the pooled TIF in those funds will allow for greater flexibility in the use of the pooled TIF for qualified costs to facilitate the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing while alleviating the administrative burden of annual reporting. o Support legislation that would allow the City to deposit pooled TIF for affordable housing in Edina’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 2021 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES The League of Minnesota Cities promotes excellence in local government through effective advocacy, expert analysis, and trusted guidance for all 853 Minnesota cities. ©2020 League of Minnesota Cities. All Rights Reserved. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Allow cities to adequately navigate and respond to economic challenges. Due to the projected state budget deficit for fiscal year 2022-2023, League IGR staff will focus on protecting, preserving, and defending the ability of cities to adequately finance and provide important municipal services. This includes advocating for funding of local government aid, defending against unfunded mandates, and preserving city authority to establish and collect infrastructure fees. MinnesotaCities MinnesotaCities #LMCleg lmc.org lmc.org/policies Ensure cities have tools to effectively respond to COVID-19 and manage city operations. The pandemic has created an unprecedented strain on city budgets and operations as cities work tirelessly to provide services to residents. To do so, cities must retain local control and flexibility in conducting city operations in an open and transparent way; cities must also have direct access to state and federal funds to continue to respond to COVID-19. Partner to create safe and inclusive communities and address racial inequities. The recent killing of George Floyd has again illuminated deep and systemic racial inequities in communities across Minnesota. As cities continue to work on ending and preventing racism, state partnership is needed to address issues related to policing, housing, and employment practices. Legislative Policies January 2021 Metro Cities Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 145 University Ave. W. St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Website: www.MetroCitiesMN.org Fax: (651) 281-1299 Twitter: @MetroCitiesMN Ms. Patricia Nauman Mr. Charlie Vander Aarde Mr. Steven Huser Ms. Jennifer Dorn Executive Director Gov’t Relations Specialist Gov’t Relations Specialist Office Manager (651) 215-4002 (651) 215-4001 (651) 215-4003 (651) 215-4004 Patricia@MetroCitiesMN.org Charlie@MetroCitiesMN.org Steven@MetroCitesMN.org Jennifer@MetroCitiesMN.org Table of Contents 2021 Legislative Policies Municipal Revenue & Taxation 1 1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship 1 1-B COVID-19 Pandemic Assistance 2 1-C Revenue Diversification and Access 2 1-D Restrictions on Local Government Budgets 3 1-E Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements 3 1-F Local Government Aid (LGA)3 1-G State Property Tax Relief Programs 4 1-H Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value 5 1-I Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program (MVHE)5 1-J Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program 5 1-K Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits 6 1-L State Property Tax 6 1-M Class Rate Tax System 7 1-N Regional Facility Host Communities 7 1-O Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases 7 1-P City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance 7 1-Q Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA)8 1-R State Program Revenue Sources 8 1-S Post-Employment Benefits 9 1-T Health Care Insurance Programs 9 1-U State Budget Stability 9 1-V Taxation of Electronic Commerce 9 1-W Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property 10 1-X Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property 10 1-Y Vehicle Title and Registration System (VTRS)10 1-Z Special Assessments 11 General Government 12 2-A Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority 12 2-B City Enterprise Activities 12 2-C Firearms on City Property 12 2-D 911 Telephone Tax 13 2-E 800 MHz Radio System 13 2-F Building Codes 13 2-G Administrative Fines 14 2-H Residential Programs 15 2-I Annexation 15 2-J Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact 16 Table of Contents 2021 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development 23 Policies 3-A to 3-J: Introduction 23 3-A City Role in Housing 23 3-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing 23 3-C Inclusionary Housing 25 3-D Metropolitan Council Role in Housing 25 3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need 26 3-F Housing Performance Scores 27 3-G State Role in Housing 28 3-H Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing 30 3-I Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk 32 3-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement 33 3-K Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness 33 3-K (1) Economic Development 34 3-K (2) Redevelopment 35 3-K (3) Workforce Readiness 36 3-L Tax Increment Financing (TIF)36 3-M Eminent Domain 38 3-N Community Reinvestment 39 3-O Business Incentives Policy 40 3-P Broadband Technology 40 3-Q City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development 41 3-R Impaired Waters 42 Metropolitan Agencies 43 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance 43 4-B Regional Governance Structure 44 2-K Urban Forest Management Funding 16 2-L Pollinator Habitat Resources 17 2-M Regulation of Harmful Substances and Products 17 2-N Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority 17 2-O Organized Waste Collection 18 2-P Election Administration 18 2-Q Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency 19 2-R Water Supply 19 2-S Regulation of Message Therapists 20 2-T Peace Officer Arbitration Reform 21 2-U Public Safety Training and Resources 21 2-V Race Equity 21 Table of Contents 2021 Legislative Policies 4-C Comprehensive Analysis and Oversight of Metropolitan Council 44 4-D Funding Regional Services 45 4-E Regional Systems 45 4-F Regional Water Supply Planning 46 4-G Review of Local Comprehensive Plans 47 4-H Comprehensive Planning Process 48 4-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule 48 4-J Local Zoning Authority 48 4-K Regional Growth 49 4-L Natural Resource Protection 50 4-M Inflow and Infiltration (I/I)51 4-N Sewer Availability Charge (SAC)52 4-O Funding Regional Parks & Open Space 53 4-P Livable Communities 53 4-Q Density 54 Transportation 56 Transportation Policies and Funding Introduction 56 5-A Road and Bridge Funding 56 5-B Regional Transit System 57 5-C Transit Financing 58 5-D Street Improvement Districts 59 5-E Highway and Bridge Turn Backs & Funding 59 5-F “3C” Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials’ Role 60 5-G Electronic Imaging for Enforcement of Traffic Laws 60 5-H Transportation Network Companies and Alternative Transportation Modes 60 5-I Airport Noise Mitigation 61 5-J Funding for Non-Municipal State Aid (MSAS) City Streets 61 5-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula 62 5-L Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads 62 5-M Plat Authority 62 5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget 63 5-O Transit Taxing District 63 5-P Complete Streets 63 Committee Rosters 65 Municipal Revenue & Taxation 65 Housing & Economic Development 66 Metropolitan Agencies 67 Transportation & General Government 68 2021 Legislative Policies 1 Municipal Revenue & Taxation 1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship A functional state and local fiscal relationship must emphasize adequacy, equitability, sustainability and accountability for public resources and effective communication among the state, cities, and public. An effective partnership must also emphasize practices that strengthen collaboration and partnership between the state and local units of government. Services provided by cities are traditionally funded through a combination of property taxes, fees and state aids. Increasingly, cities are bearing more costs for services that have historically been the responsibility of the state. Metro Cities supports a state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the following: •Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that emphasizes maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication between the state and local units of government and the public. •Reliable, stable and adequate revenue sources including the property tax and local government aids, and dedicated funds to meet specific local government needs. Metro Cities opposes diverting dedicated funds or local aids for the purpose of balancing state budgets. •Sufficient revenue sources available to cities that allow cities to address local needs and citizens to receive adequate services at relatively similar levels of taxation, and that maintain local, regional and state economic vitality and competitiveness. •Full state funding to cover mandates enacted by the state, and flexibility for local governments in implementing state mandates to ensure local costs are minimized. •Local decision-making authority with regard to the terms and conditions of employment for local government employees, including compensation, recognition, and benefit decisions. •Adequate and timely notification regarding new legislative programs or modifications to existing state programs or policies to allow cities sufficient time to plan for implementation and to manage any effects on local budgeting processes. •Support for cooperative purchasing arrangements between the state and local units of government. Such arrangements must be structured to be able to address unexpected delays or other challenges in the procurement of goods, so that any disruptions to local government operations and services that may result from such delays are minimized. State officials should seek local feedback in the vetting of product vendors. •The concept of performance measuring, but opposition to using state established Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 2 measurements to determine the allocation of state aids to local governments or restrict the ability of local governments in establishing local budgets and levies. 1-B COVID-19 Pandemic Assistance In response to the COVID-19 pandemic Governor Walz, using the Legislative Advisory Commission and following recommendations made earlier this year by the Legislature, distributed $841.4 million of the state’s allocation of the Coronavirus Relief Fund to cities, counties and townships. Metro Cities supported the distribution of this funding. These funds are allowed for unbudgeted expenses needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic, including certain personnel costs and local service and operational improvements and modifications required to ensure public health and safety. Metro Cities is monitoring updates to federal guidance and providing feedback to state officials as municipalities certify local COVID-19 expenses. Metro Cities recognizes the state-imposed deadline of November 15, 2020 by which cities must spend their CRF distribution so that any unused and returned funds can be repurposed prior to the federal deadline of December 30, 2020 for CRF expenditures. The deadline, however, is tightly abbreviated, and cities support modifications to this deadline to be able to cover eligible costs that cannot be paid by the November 15th deadline. With new federal guidance that now allows CRF recipients an additional 90 days beyond December 30, 2020 to spend funds, Metro Cities supports a modification of the November 15, 2020 deadline to allow cities to retain funds for encumbered expenses that will come due by December 30, 2020 but are not yet paid by November 15, 2020. This will provide cities with the ability to use CRF funds for federally eligible expenses that may require additional time to be paid beyond November 15, 2020. Metro Cities supports additional federal assistance to municipalities to address revenue losses including property taxes, utility and permit fees, local sales taxes and other revenue streams, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Metro Cities supports state financial assistance to address the long-term financial effects of the pandemic on local government budgets and revenues, and changes to state laws to allow cities temporary flexibility in the use of unobligated tax increment financing (TIF) increment and unobligated local sales and lodging tax revenues, to address local financial challenges resulting from the pandemic. 1-C Revenue Diversification and Access Metro Cities supports a balanced and diversified revenue system that acknowledges diverse city characteristics, needs and revenue capacities and allows for greater stability in revenues. Metro Cities is monitoring the effects of 2019 laws that modified statutory requirements for local option sales taxes and continues to support the ability of a city to impose a local option sales Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 3 tax for public improvements and capital replacement costs using local processes specified by law but without the need for special legislation. Metro Cities supports having local sales tax referendums conducted at a general or special election. The Legislature should recognize equity considerations involved with local sales taxes and continue to provide aids to cities that have high needs, overburdens and/or low fiscal capacity. Metro Cities supports a modification to state laws governing local lodging taxes to allow cities to impose up to a five percent local lodging tax, and the ability of cities to modify the uses of revenues to meet local needs. Metro Cities supports current laws providing for municipal franchise fee authority and opposes statutory changes such as reverse referendum requirements or other constraints that would reduce local authority and flexibility for establishing, amending, or renewing franchise fees and interfere with local public processes and goals for establishing such fees. 1-D Restrictions on Local Government Budgets Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy and valuation freezes, or other restrictions on local government budgeting and taxing processes. Such restrictions undermine local budgeting and taxing processes, planned growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and their residents by allowing the state to decide the appropriate level of local taxation and services, despite varying local conditions and circumstances. 1-E Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements State laws require cities to prepare and submit or publish numerous budget and financial reports. These requirements often create significant costs to cities, and some requirements result in duplication. Additional reporting requirements should have a clearly defined statement of public purpose and need not covered under existing requirements and should balance the need for additional information with the costs of compiling and submitting the information. Considering the numerous existing reporting requirements, Metro Cities supports reducing the number of mandated reports. Metro Cities supports efforts to consolidate municipal government financial reporting requirements in the Office of the State Auditor, including an electronic submission alternative to any remaining paper filing requirements, and to authorize the use of web publication where newspaper publication is currently required. 1-F Local Government Aid (LGA) Metro Cities supports the city Local Government Aid (LGA) program as a means of Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 4 ensuring cities remain affordable places to live and work while meeting basic public service needs of residents and businesses. Metro Cities’ policies recognize that the state’s prosperity and vitality depend significantly upon the economic strength of the metropolitan region, and that cities within the region play critical roles in fostering the economic development, job creation and business expansion that underpin the state’s economic health. Metro Cities supported 2013 statutory modifications to the LGA program to better address the needs of cities across the state and of metropolitan cities in their support of the state’s economic growth. Metro Cities continues to support a formula-based LGA program that recognizes variances in city characteristics and capacities and emphasizes stability in the distribution of aids. While the 2013 modifications improved LGA formula factors to better recognize city needs and capacities, the distribution of aid continues to be geographically disparate and unstable for some cities. Metro Cities supports further examination of the LGA formula to ensure that metropolitan city needs are adequately addressed in the LGA formula, and opportunities for input by metropolitan city officials as program modifications are considered. To ensure appropriation levels are adequate to meet program objectives, Metro Cities supports increasing the LGA appropriation to address cities’ unmet need as defined by the LGA formula as well as increases in the LGA appropriation to account for inflation. By way of reference, the total need identified in the LGA formula for 2020 is estimated at $776.4 million, whereas the current funding is set at $560.3 million, putting the remaining need at $212.0 million. Metro Cities supports formula-based allocations for increases to the LGA appropriation, and opposes freezes of the LGA appropriation, reductions of LGA for balancing state budget deficits, and diversions of the LGA appropriation to other purposes or entities. Metro Cities also opposes artificial limits or reductions that single out specific cities, and further opposes using LGA as financial leverage to influence particular activities and policy decisions at the local level. 1-G State Property Tax Relief Programs Metro Cities supports state funded property tax relief programs paid directly to homestead property taxpayers such as the “circuit breaker” program and enhanced targeting for special circumstances. Metro Cities also supports the renter’s credit program. Metro Cities supports an analysis of the state’s property tax relief programs to determine their effectiveness and equity in providing property tax relief to individuals and families across the state. Metro Cities supports efforts by the Minnesota Department of Revenue to expand outreach and notification efforts about state property tax relief programs to homeowners, and Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 5 notifications to local units of government to support such efforts. Metro Cities also supports legislative modifications to make tax relief payments to taxpayers automatic. Metro Cities supports the use of the Department of Revenue’s “Voss” database to link income and property values, and the consideration of income relative to property taxes paid in determining eligibility for state property tax relief programs. Updates to the database should occur in a timely manner and data reviewed periodically to ensure the database’s accuracy and usefulness. 1-H Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value Metro Cities opposes the use of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation purposes, since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of property and create disparities between properties of equal value. 1-I Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program (MVHE) The Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program (MVHE) provides property tax relief to qualifying homesteads, through reductions in property tax values, which shifts property taxes within jurisdictions. The MVHE replaced a former Market Value Homestead Credit Program, which provided credits on local government tax bills to qualifying properties, with reimbursements provided by the state to local governments. Metro Cities opposes restoration of the former Market Value Homestead Credit, as reimbursements to local governments were inconsistent, and encourages further study of the exclusion program, with input by city officials, to determine the program’s overall efficacy and its effects on local tax bases. 1-J Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program The Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971, was created for the purposes of: •providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by the growth of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources; •promoting orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations on the location of business and infrastructure; •establishing incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area as a whole; •helping communities at various stages of development; and Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 6 •encouraging protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space and wetlands. Metro Cities supports the Fiscal Disparities Program. Metro Cities opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund specific state, regional or local programs, goals or projects as such diversions contradict the purposes of the program. Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only be considered within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts of the state’s property tax, aids and credits system. Any proposed legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program must be evaluated utilizing the criteria of fairness, equity, stability, transparency and coherence in the treatment of cities and taxpayers across the metropolitan region and must continue to serve the program’s intended purposes. Metro Cities opposes legislation that would allow for capturing and pooling growth in residential tax capacity to fund specific programs or objectives. Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities program must include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives. 1-K Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits Metro Cities strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state constitution, as such limits eliminate flexibility by the Legislature or local governments to respond to unanticipated critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations. When services such as education, public safety and health care require increased funding beyond the overall limit, other publicly funded services potentially stand to receive inadequate resources. Constitutional limits result in reduced revenue bases during times of economic downturn and the inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity returns. 1-L State Property Tax The state levies a property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property. Since cities’ only source of general funds is the property tax, Metro Cities opposes extension of the state property tax to additional classes of property. Metro Cities opposes using the state property tax to fund specific programs or objectives generally funded through state income and sales tax revenue. In the interest of increasing transparency, Metro Cities supports efforts to have the state provide information on the property tax statement regarding the state property tax. Metro Cities opposes exempting specific classes of property under the tax as such exemptions shift the costs of the tax onto other classes of property. Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 7 1-M Class Rate Tax System Metro Cities opposes elimination of the class rate tax system or applying future levy increases to market value since this further complicates the property tax system. 1-N Regional Facility Host Communities Municipalities hosting regional facilities such as utilities, landfills or aggregate mining incur costs and effects such as environmental damage or lost economic development opportunities. Communities should be compensated to accommodate the effects of facilities that provide benefits to the region and state. Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to offset the negative effects of these facilities and activities on host communities. Metro Cities would prefer that municipalities be allowed to collect a host fee that may be adjusted when state decisions affect those fees. 1-O Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases Metro Cities supported the 2013 reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for purchases of goods and services made by cities. This reinstatement does not apply to all local government purchases. To ensure citizens receive the full benefit of this exemption, the law should treat purchases of all local government units the same, including purchases made by special taxing districts, joint powers entities, or any other agency or instrumentality of local government. Metro Cities supports simplifying the process on the exemption for construction materials that is complex and cost ineffective or converting the process to a refund program. Metro Cities supports granting an extension of the motor vehicle sales tax exemption to all municipal vehicles that are used for general city functions and are provided by governmental entities. Currently, only certain vehicles, including road maintenance vehicles purchased by townships, and municipal fire trucks and police vehicles not registered for use on public roads, are exempt from the MVST. 1-P City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance Metro Cities opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances, or to use city fund balances as a rationale for reducing state aids or property tax payment delays. These funds are necessary to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high level bond ratings. Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 8 1-Q Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary contribution increases and a sixty percent employer/forty percent employee split for the PERA Police and Fire Plan. Metro Cities also supports state assistance to local governments to cover any additional contribution burdens placed on cities over and above contribution increases required by employees. Cities should receive sufficient notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting purposes. Metro Cities opposes benefit improvements for active employees or retirees until the financial health of the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are restored. Metro Cities supports modifications to help align PERA contributions and costs, and reduce the need for additional contribution increases, including a modification of PERA eligibility guidelines to account for temporary, seasonal and part-time employment situations, the use of pro-rated service credit and a comprehensive review of exclusions to simplify eligibility guidelines. Further employer contribution rate increases should be avoided until other cost alignment mechanisms are considered. Metro Cities supports cities and fire relief associations working together to determine the best application of State Fire Aid. Flexibility in the application of State Fire Aid, where combination departments exist, will ensure that fire services can be provided in the most cost- effective means possible. Regarding police pension contributions, Metro Cities supports a proactive review of factors contributing to the financial status of police and fire pension plans, to ensure that structural adjustments are considered in conjunction with potential increases in employee and employer contribution rates. Specifically, an area that could be considered is contractual overtime impacts on pension levels. Metro Cities supports removing the sunset of the PERA aid that is paid to local units of government to help address increased employer contribution costs. 1-R State Program Revenue Sources Metro Cities opposes any attempt by the state to finance programs of statewide value and significance, that are traditionally funded with state revenues, with local revenue sources such as municipal utilities or property tax mechanisms. Statewide programs serve important state goals and objectives and should be financed through traditional state revenue sources such as the income or sales tax. Metro Cities further opposes substituting traditionally state funded programs with funding mechanisms that would disparately affect taxpayers in the metropolitan area. Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 9 1-S Post-Employment Benefits Metro Cities supported statutory changes that allow local governments to establish trusts from which to fund post-employment health and life insurance benefits for public employees, with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis, in recognition that cities have differing local needs and circumstances. Cities should also retain the ability to determine the level of post-employment benefits to be provided to employees. 1-T Health Care Insurance Programs Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs but opposes actions that undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs. Metro Cities encourages a full examination of the rising costs of health care and the impacts on city employers and employees. Metro Cities also supports a study of the fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling retirees separately from active employees. 1-U State Budget Stability Metro Cities strongly supports a state revenue system that provides for stability, flexibility and adequacy in the system, reduces the volatility of state revenues and improves the long- term balance of state revenues and expenditures. Metro Cities supports a statutory budget reserve minimum that is adequate to manage risks and fluctuations in the state’s tax system and a cash flow reserve account of sufficient size so that the state can avoid short term borrowing to manage cash flow fluctuations. Metro Cities also supports an examination of the property tax system and the relationships between state and local tax bases, with an emphasis on state budget cuts and effects on property taxes. State budget deficits must be balanced with statewide sources and must not further reduce funding for property tax relief programs and aids to local governments that result in local governments bearing more responsibility for the costs of services that belong to the state. 1-V Taxation of Electronic Commerce Metro Cities supports efforts to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration by retailers and states. Metro Cities supports policies that encourage remote retailers to collect and remit state sales taxes in states that are complying with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Metro Cities opposes legislation that allows accommodation intermediaries such as online travel companies a tax exemption that terminates obligations to pay hotel taxes to state and local governments, or otherwise restricts legal actions by states and localities. The Legislature in 2011 clarified that these services are subject to state sales tax. Metro Cities Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 10 supports statutory changes to further clarify that all lodging taxes, whether administered by the state or locally, apply to total charges, including charges for services provided by accommodation intermediaries. 1-W Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property Metro Cities supports city authority to collect payments from tax exempt property owners to cover the costs of services to those entities, similar to statutory authority for special assessments. Metro Cities opposes legislation that would exempt nonprofit entities from paying user fees and service charges. 1-X Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property Metro Cities supports changes to state laws governing the proceeds for tax forfeited properties. Currently, counties can recover administrative costs related to a property before other allocations are made and the law allows for the county to recoup a percentage of assessment costs once administrative costs are allocated. The result is often no allocation or a very low allocation, and usually insufficient level of proceeds available for covering special assessments, unpaid taxes and fees to cities. State processes addressing tax-forfeited properties can have implications for local land use plans and requirements and can result in unexpected and significant fiscal impacts on local communities. The current process also does not require the repayment of unpaid utility charges or building and development fees. Metro Cities supports statutory changes that balance repayment of unpaid taxes and assessments, utility charges and other fees and that more equitably allocates the distribution of proceeds between counties and cities. 1-Y Vehicle Title and Registration System (VTRS) Issues associated with the rollout of the state MN Licensing and Registration System (MNLARS) have caused significant unanticipated and ongoing disruptions to services provided by local deputy registrars. Some registrar offices have relied on other local revenues, such as the property tax, to manage normal expenses due to unresolved glitches in the system and a shift from the state to the local level for additional processing time. These challenges have also created a high potential for negative public perceptions on local government services, on an issue over which local governments have no ability to control. In 2019, state officials elected to replace the MNLARS system with the Vehicle Title and Registration System (VTRS). Metro Cities supports state funding to compensate local deputy registrars for unanticipated, increased costs associated with implementation of the new system, and the shifting of per-transaction processing burdens that may result from the implementation of VTRS. Municipal Revenue & Taxation 2021 Legislative Policies 11 As the state works to identify efficiencies in the vehicle registration process and system, policy makers must consider the effects of changes on the financial viability of deputy registrars resulting from decreases in transaction fees collected by local registrars. Metro Cities supports increases to existing transaction fee levels that are set by state law, to ensure that local deputy registrars can sufficiently function and meet continually evolving local registrar service needs and address any necessary modifications to registrar operations to ensure these services can be provided safely to the public. 1-Z Special Assessments When property owners challenge special assessments based on application of the special benefit test, some courts have interpreted “benefits received” to mean the one-year increase in property value that is directly attributable to a construction project. There is currently no consistency between state laws and rulings by some courts on the term “benefits received”. Metro Cities supports modifications to state laws governing special assessments for construction projects or other improvements arising from legislative authority to clarify the definition of “benefits received”. The modified definition should more closely align with how special assessments are calculated and recognizes that the benefit of the improvement to a property may be realized over time and not within one year. 2021 Legislative Policies 12 General Government 2-A Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority To serve their local citizens and communities, city officials must have sufficient local control and decision-making authority. Metro Cities supports local decision-making authority and opposes statutory changes that erode local authority and decision making. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1, provide cities authority to regulate and set local ordinances for zoning. Metro Cities supports existing state laws that provide for this authority. Metro Cities supports statutory changes that give local officials greater authority to approve or deny variances to allow flexibility in responding to the needs of the community. Metro Cities also supports the removal of statutory barriers to uniform zoning ordinance amendment processes for all cities, regardless of city size classification. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of legislative mandates that increase local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. Unfunded mandates potentially increase property taxes and impede cities’ ability to fund traditional service needs. To allow for greater collaboration and flexibility in providing local services, Metro Cities encourages the removal of barriers to coordination between cities and other units of government or entities. 2-B City Enterprise Activities Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city to provide a desired service while maintaining financial and management control. The state should refrain from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the benefit of community residents. Metro Cities supports cities having authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community needs, local preferences or state mandates, or that help ensure residents’ quality of life. 2-C Firearms on City Property Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns and other weapons in city-owned buildings, facilities and parks and to determine whether to allow permit-holders to bring guns into municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is not Metro Cities’ intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots, on city streets, city sidewalks or on locally approved hunting land. Metro Cities supports local control to allow or prohibit handguns and other weapons on city-owned property. General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 13 2-D 911 Telephone Tax Public safety answering points (PSAPs) must be able to continue to rely on state 911 revenues to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and operational support and dispatcher training. Metro Cities supports state funding for technology and training necessary to provide the number and location of wireless and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to police, fire and first responders. 2-E 800 MHz Radio System Metro Cities urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain required infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) as well as provide funding for operating costs, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate effectively. Metro Cities supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously the Metropolitan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800 MHz radio system, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System unless they so choose. 2-F Building Codes Thousands of new housing units as well as commercial and industrial buildings are constructed annually in the metropolitan area. The State Building Code (SBC) sets statewide standards for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings and other structures governed by the code. A building code provides many benefits, including uniformity of construction standards in the building industry, consistency in code interpretation and enforcement, and life- safety guidance. Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the Construction Code Fund, with proportional distribution based on the area of enforcement where fees were received. Metro Cities further supports efforts by the state, cities and builders to collectively identify appropriate uses for the fund, including education, analysis of new materials and construction techniques, building code updating, building inspector training, and development of performance standards and identification of construction “best practices.” Metro Cities supports including the International Green Construction Code as an optional appendix to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate parts of those guidelines in their communities. Metro Cities also supports adopting the international energy conservation code to the state building code without amendments. Metro Cities does General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 14 not support legislative solutions that fail to recognize the interrelationships among builders, state building codes and cities. Metro Cities supports efforts to increase awareness of the potential impacts and benefits of requiring sprinklers in new homes and townhouses. Metro Cities supports discussion and the dissemination of information on these impacts via the code adoption process through the Department of Labor and Industry. Metro Cities supports adopting and amending the State Building Code through the rulemaking process and opposes legislative changes to the building codes absent unusual or extraordinary circumstances. As energy costs continue to rise, more attention must be paid to the poor energy efficiency of much of the existing housing stock as well as commercial and industrial buildings. Homes and other buildings that are energy inefficient are more costly to maintain and create added cost to ownership and occupancy. Making homes and buildings more energy efficient will make them more affordable to operate and will help the state achieve energy demand goals and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Metro Cities supports state funding and technical support for programs that provide support for property owners for weatherization and energy efficiency improvements, including programs available for local governments. While a single set of coordinated codes helps provide consistency in code administration and enforcement, implementation of sustainable building design, construction, and operation does not readily integrate with the existing state building and energy code system. As a result, many cities are interested in adopting stronger local standards for sustainable development and conservation. Metro Cities supports authorizing cities to employ stronger local standards for sustainable development and conservation that will help inform the state code development process. The state should include an optional sustainable appendix to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate parts of guidelines in their communities. 2-G Administrative Fines Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing costs to local units of government. The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs. Metro Cities supports the administrative fine authority that allows cities to issue administrative fines for defined local traffic offenses and supports further modifications to enhance functionality of this authority. Metro Cities continues to support cities’ authority to use administrative fines for regulatory ordinances such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public safety and nuisance ordinances. Metro Cities supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher-level state traffic and criminal General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 15 offenses. Metro Cities also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party. 2-H Residential Programs Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential programs have appropriate care and supervision and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of residential programs. Historically, federal and state laws have discouraged the concentration of residential group homes so as not to promote areas that reinforce institutional quality settings. Under current law, operators of certain residential programs are not required to notify cities when they intend to purchase single-family housing for this purpose. Cities do not have the authority to regulate the locations of residential programs. Cities have reasonable concerns about high concentrations of these facilities in residential neighborhoods, and additional traffic and service deliveries surrounding these facilities when they are grouped closely together. Municipalities recognize and support the services residential programs provide. However, cities also have an interest in preserving balance between residential programs and other uses in residential neighborhoods. Providers applying to operate residential programs should be required to notify the city when applying for licensure to be informed of local ordinance requirements as a part of the application process. Licensing agencies should be required to notify the city of properties receiving licensure to be operated as residential programs. Metro Cities supports changes to Minn. Stat. § 245A.11, subd. 4, to allow for appropriate non-concentration standards for all types of cities to prevent clustering. Metro Cities supports statutory modifications to require licensed agencies and licensed providers that operate residential programs to notify the city of properties being operated as residential programs. Metro Cities also supports the establishment of appropriate non- concentration standards for residential programs, to prevent clustering, and supports enforcement of these rules by the appropriate county agencies. 2-I Annexation Attempts have been made in recent years to reduce tensions between cities and townships in annexations. A Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force worked to develop recommendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township officials to better communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. While the task force defined differences between cities and townships, no significant advancements were made in creating best practices. Metro Cities supports continued legislative efforts to develop recommendations regarding best practices and annexation training for city and township officials to better communicate and plan for potential annexations. Further, Metro Cities supports substantive changes to the state's annexation laws that will lead to better land use planning, General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 16 energy conservation, greater environmental protection, fairer tax bases, clarification of fee reimbursement and fewer conflicts between townships and cities. Metro Cities also supports technical annexation changes that are agreed to by cities and townships. 2-J Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact Many issues including, but not limited to, a metropolitan area groundwater monitoring network, emerald ash borer management, and the cleanup of storm-water retention ponds, come with significant local costs, and have effects that reach beyond municipal boundaries. Metro Cities supports the availability of statewide funding sources to address local issues that have regional or statewide significance or are caused by state or regional actions. Metro Cities opposes any requirement to enact ordinances more restrictive than state law in exchange for access to these funds. 2-K Urban Forest Management Funding Urban forests are an essential local infrastructure component. Dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, drought, storms, and emerald ash borer threaten public investments in trees and controlling these issues can be greatly consequential for city budgets. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through its Urban and Community Forestry program, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, through its Shade Tree and Invasive Species program, have regulatory authority to direct tree sanitation and control programs. Although these programs allow for addressing some tree disease, pest, and other problems, funding has been inadequate to meet the need of cities to build capacity for tree programs and respond to catastrophic problems. Cities share the goal of the state’s Re-leaf Program—promoting and funding the inventory, planning, planting, maintenance, and improvement of trees in cities throughout the state. In addition, economic and environmental gains for storm water management, climate change mitigation, air quality management, tourism, recreation, and other benefits must be protected from tree loss. A lack of timely investment in urban forests costs cities significantly more in the long run. Cities are facing immediate costs for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of emerald ash borer (EAB) as it spreads across the state. The state has no program to assist cities in covering those expenses. Metro Cities supports funding for a state matching grant program to assist cities with building and increasing capacity for urban forest management, meeting the costs of preparing for, and responding to, catastrophic urban forest problems and preventing further loss and increasing canopy coverage. Specifically, direct grants to cities are desperately needed for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of trees related to management of EAB. The state should establish an ongoing grant program with annual funding that is usable for those activities. General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 17 2-L Pollinator Habitat Resources Recent declines in the abundance of pollinator insects, such as bees and butterflies, have been identified by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as a threat to food security, as these insects are an important method of plant pollination. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the main threats facing pollinators are habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation. Pollinators lose food and nesting sites they need to survive when native vegetation is replaced by roadways, manicured lawns, crops and non-native gardens. This can have added detriment to pollinators that migrate. Research has shown that providing these insects with more habitat can create the conditions for these insect populations to recover. Converting traditional grass lawns has been identified as way to increase pollinator habitat. The Minnesota Legislature created the Lawns to Legumes program, which provides grants to private homeowners to convert traditional lawns to pollinator friendly landscape. Metro Cities supports state funding for the Lawns to Legumes program and supports expanding eligibility of this program to cities. Metro Cities supports state funding to programs that create pollinator habitat on both public and private lands. 2-M Regulation of Harmful Substances and Products In metropolitan regions where most cities share boundaries with other cities, local bans of harmful drugs and substances such as synthetic drugs, which have been found to be dangerous, do not eliminate access to these products unless all cities take the same regulatory action. Metro Cities supports statewide regulation and prohibition of products or substances in circumstances where there is evidence that products present a danger to anyone who uses them, where there is broad local support for a ban and where corresponding regulatory issues have regional or statewide significance. In addition, the Legislature should provide for the regulation of products that are known to damage water quality, sewer collection, and storm and wastewater treatment systems, not just at the treatment and infrastructure maintenance levels, but at the consumer and manufacturing levels, through accurate labeling of products, public education, and recycling and re-use programs. 2-N Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority Cities are authorized to enact ordinances that disallow the placement of private wells within city limits to ensure both water safety and availability for residents and businesses. This authority is important for the appropriate management of local water supply conservation efforts. Municipal water systems are financially dependent upon users to operate and maintain the system. A loss of significant rate payers resulting from unregulated private well drilling would economically General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 18 destabilize water systems and could lead to contamination of the water supply. Metro Cities supports current law authorizing cities to regulate and prohibit the placement of private wells within municipal utility service boundaries and opposes any attempt to remove or alter that authority. Metro Cities supports funding that can be used to cap private wells. 2-O Organized Waste Collection Cities over 1,000 in population are required by law to ensure all residents have solid waste collection available to them. A city can meet the statutory requirement by licensing haulers to operate in an open collection system, authorize city employees to collect waste, or implement organized collection through one or multiple haulers to increase efficiency, reduce truck traffic and control costs to residents. Metro Cities supports current laws that allow cities to work with existing haulers to achieve the benefits of organized collection or investigate the merits of organized collection without the pressure of a rigid timeline and requirement to pass ‘an intent to organize’ at the beginning of the discussion process. Metro Cities opposes any legislation that would further increase the cost or further complicate the process cities are required to follow to organize waste collection or prohibit cities from implementing, expanding or using organized waste collection. Metro Cities supports state funding to local governments to increase the availability of material and organic recycling. 2-P Election Administration Cities play a critical role in managing and ensuring the integrity of elections. Any changes made to election laws should not place undue financial or administrative burdens on local governments. Metro Cities supports reimbursement by the state to local units of government for any costs associated with changes to election laws. Metro Cities supports laws to increase efficiencies in administering absentee ballots, to reduce the potential for errors and to improve absentee balloting processes. State laws that allow the filling of municipal vacancies by special election on one of four days specified in law, can create logistical and financial challenges for municipalities. Metro Cities supports changes to state laws that allow sufficient flexibility for municipalities in addressing vacancies in municipal offices. Metro Cities further supports: •Laws allowing in-person absentee voters to place their ballots in a secure tabulator, and statutory changes to allow this for the duration of absentee voting; •Establishing an earlier deadline for ending in-person absentee voting; General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 19 •Revising absentee ballot regulations to allow any person 18 and older to witness the absentee process and sign the envelope as a witness; and •Authorizing cities with health care facilities to schedule election judges to conduct absentee voting at an earlier date in health care facilities. 2-Q Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency Minnesota cities are authorized by Minn. Stat. 216B and Minn. Stat. § 301B.01 to require a public utility (gas or electric) that provides services to the city or occupies the public right of way within a city to obtain a franchise. Several metro area cities have entered agreements that require the utility to pay a fee to help offset costs of maintaining the right of way. Cities are also adopting energy policies that use renewable energy resources to light or heat public facilities. Policies and programs have also been instituted in cooperation with the public utility franchisee to increase energy efficiency for all users. Cities also contract, at city expense, with public utilities to “underground” wires. State laws also require energy companies to provide more electric energy from renewable sources. The specific amounts vary by type of utility. Metro Cities supports: •State policies adopted by legislation or through rules of the Public Utility Commission that provide cities with the authority to include city energy policies and priorities in a franchise or similar agreement with a franchisee; and •Greater accountability and transparency for city paid costs associated with underground utility and similar work performed by electric utilities as part of a local project. 2-R Water Supply Municipal water suppliers are charged with meeting the water supply needs of their communities and work to do so with safe, reliable and cost-effective systems that are sustainable both for established cities and for all future growth. The aquifers in the metropolitan area cross municipal boundaries and therefore require a coordinated regional approach to planning for their future availability. Currently, approximately 75% of municipal water supply in the metropolitan area comes from groundwater. With proper management of the resource, the current water supply in the region is adequate; however, Metropolitan Council projections predict localized declines in aquifer availability due to population growth estimates if current usage levels are maintained. Regulation of water is complex and compartmentalized. Various agencies permit its use, plan for its availability, regulate stormwater, treat wastewater and protect the safety of water. To ensure General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 20 that water supply remains adequate and sustainable across the region, we must understand how much water can be sustainably drawn from the aquifers and what effect increases in re-use, conservation and recharge can have on the sustainability and availability of both groundwater and surface water. Many of these strategies cross agency jurisdictions and will require improved coordination and cooperation. Municipal water suppliers have made significant infrastructure investments in their systems based on calculated water availability and DNR permits. Proposals to reduce the reliance on groundwater by switching municipal water systems from groundwater to surface water supplies will come with significant costs that could place excessive burdens on local resources. The outcomes and benefits of re-balancing the mix of groundwater and surface water use for specific municipalities and the region must be identifiable before any projects are undertaken. The sustainability of our water supply is an issue of regional and statewide significance and the expense of any necessary projects that benefit the region should not fall on individual cities. Any attempts to address water supply sustainability must also take into account all water users, including municipal water suppliers, industry, private wells, agriculture and contamination containment. The metropolitan region must consider the effects of groundwater use beyond the borders of the metropolitan area on the region’s groundwater availability and the cost of treating contaminants in surface water that comes into the metropolitan area for use. Metro Cities supports the removal of barriers to wastewater and storm water re-use, improved inter-agency coordination, clarifying the appropriate roles of local, regional and state governments with respect to water, streamlining and consolidating permit approval processes and the availability of statewide resources to plan for and ensure the future sustainability of water supply in the metropolitan area. Metro Cities also encourages the Metropolitan Council, in consultation with municipalities, to find ways to re-use wastewater and to develop other strategies to improve conservation. Metro Cities supports state funding for costs associated with converting water supply from groundwater to surface water and funds to encourage and promote water conservation as a strategy to improve water sustainability and to improve and protect water quality. 2-S Regulation of Massage Therapists In the absence of statewide regulation for massage therapy practitioners, many cities have enacted local ordinances that require massage therapists to obtain a local professional license to assist law enforcement in differentiating between legitimate providers and illegitimate businesses fronting as massage therapy establishments. Metro Cities supports statewide registration or licensure of massage therapists to aid local law enforcement efforts in this area. Metro Cities supports cities’ ability to continue to license massage therapy businesses. General Government 21 2-T Peace Officer Arbitration Reform Many municipalities in the metropolitan area provide law enforcement services and employ licensed peace officers. To ensure the public’s safety and trust, and to strengthen collaboration between citizens and peace officers, cities must have the authority to effectively govern local law enforcement agencies. City officials are ultimately responsible for the safety and protection of the local community. Metro Cities supports statutory arbitration reforms to allow for the discipline, including removal, of law enforcement officers who have been found to have violated local law enforcement agency policies. Metro Cities further supports a reasonable standard of review in law enforcement arbitration cases, which would limit the determination of arbitrators to whether the actions of an employer were reasonable and consistent with city and agency policies. Metro Cities further supports using administrative law judges (ALJs) or arbitration to address grievances and discipline related to police misconduct. 2-U: Public Safety Training and Resources Metro Cities acknowledges that the tasks public safety responders have been asked to address are increasingly the result of inadequate social services and programs. Metro Cities recognizes the need for adequate resources for social service and mental health services and programs to help reduce the need for public safety responders to perform these services. Metro Cities supports state funding for public safety responders training, including training for crisis management, cultural awareness and implicit bias, mental health and de- escalation, and supports funding for equipment such as body cameras. 2-V: Race Equity In the seven-county metropolitan region, people of color represent 29% of the population, and this percentage is expected to grow to 40% by 2040, according to the current population forecast from the Metropolitan Council. As racial and ethnic diversity increases in the region, people of color continue to experience significant barriers in housing, employment, criminal justice, public infrastructure, health, and education, and disparities are becoming more apparent with the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest that is occurring in many communities. Across the metropolitan region, many cities are working to examine local policies and systems, to revise the delivery of public services, and to allocate resources to help advance race equity. All levels of government as well as the nonprofit and business sectors have roles to play in 2021 Legislative Policies General Government 2021 Legislative Policies 22 addressing race inequities and must work collaboratively to ensure that services and resources are considered, designed and implemented in a comprehensive, purposeful, informed and inclusive way to achieve race equity. Metro Cities supports: •An examination and revision of existing state, regional, county and city laws, ordinances and policies to address racial disparities; •State, regional, county and city resources to assist with comprehensive data collection, disaggregation and sharing to ensure informed policy and funding decisions at all levels of government; •Funding to assist in the development of tools and resources that advance racially equitable outcomes; •Activating partnerships among state, regional, and local governmental institutions and other entities to advance race equity. Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 23 Policies 3-A to 3-J: Introduction While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity, all levels of government – federal, state, regional and local – have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing in Minnesota. Adequate affordable housing is a significant concern for the metropolitan region and effective approaches require participation from all levels of government, the private sector and nonprofit groups. 3-A City Role in Housing While local government financial resources constitute a relatively small portion of the total costs of providing housing, many cities take on a significant administrative burden by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide housing and redevelopment authorities and community development agencies. Cities are responsible for most ground-level housing policy in Minnesota, including land use planning, code enforcement, rental licensing, and often the packaging of financial incentives. Cities are responsible for ensuring the health and safety of residents and the structural soundness and livability of the local housing stock through building permits and inspections. Cities establish fee structures for residential development to cover the costs of growth and corresponding needs for public infrastructure. It is the responsibility of cities to periodically review local requirements such as land use regulations and ordinances to ensure that they are consistent with these purposes. Metro Cities strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities’ authority to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner. Metro Cities supports exceptions to the land use timelines in M.S. 15.99 in event of extenuating local and state circumstances. Metro Cities supports local authority determination when exercising the use of exceptions, recognizing projects may be in different stages of approval. If a state of emergency limits the ability of city staff to complete a land use review, it should not result in de facto approval of an application. 3-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Metro Cities supports housing that is affordable and appropriate for people at all stages of life. A variety of housing opportunities are important to the economic and social well-being of individual communities and the region. The region faces challenges in meeting the existing and future housing needs of low and moderate-income residents. Existing housing stock is aging, Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 24 with roughly half older than 40 years old, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Older housing stock can be more affordable; however, it requires investments to remain viable. Private investors have purchased subsidized and unsubsidized rental units, made improvements and charged higher rents that have made access to previously affordable units prohibitive for low and moderate-income residents. The Metropolitan Council has projected the region will add nearly 35,000 households between 2021 and 2030 that will need affordable housing and require a subsidy of $5 billion to meet the needs of households earning up to 50 percent area median income. Cities should work with the private and nonprofit sectors, counties, state agencies and the Metropolitan Council to ensure the best use of new and existing tools and resources to produce new housing and preserve existing affordable housing. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and life cycle housing by: •Applying for funding from available grant and loan programs; •Using city and county funds to support affordable housing. This can include creating a local or regional housing trust fund to support affordable housing; •Providing information, encouraging participation and incentivizing participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to landlords; •Working with developers and residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing neighborhoods, including locations with access to amenities and services; •Working with the state and Metropolitan Council to recognize the relationship between housing and mobility options, including transit and pedestrian routes; •Periodically examining local requirements, policies and review processes to determine their impacts on the construction of affordable housing; •Considering criteria under which a city may change its fee structure in support of additional affordable housing; •Supporting housing options that meet a city’s current and future demographics, including family size, age, mobility, and ability levels; •Supporting housing design that is flexible, accessible and usable for residents with varied abilities at multiple stages of life; •Supporting housing with supportive services for people with disabilities; •Employing innovative strategies to advance affordable housing needs such as public- private partnerships or creative packaging of regulatory relief and incentives; •Using available regulatory mechanisms to shape housing communities; Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 25 •Recognizing the inventory of subsidized and unsubsidized (naturally occurring) affordable housing; and •Working collaboratively with buyers and sellers of naturally occurring affordable housing to retain affordability. 3-C Inclusionary Housing While Metro Cities believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform, density bonuses as determined by local communities, and fee waivers, Metro Cities does not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve desired levels of affordability solely through these steps. Several cities have established local inclusionary housing policies, in some cases requiring the creation of affordable units if the housing development uses public financial assistance or connecting the policy to zoning and land use changes. The Metropolitan Council, in distributing the regional allocation of housing need, must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Metro Cities supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed-use neighborhoods throughout a city. Metro Cities supports a city’s authority to enact its own inclusionary housing policy. However, Metro Cities does not support passage of a mandatory inclusionary housing state law imposed on local governments that would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to households at specific income levels. 3-D Metropolitan Council Role in Housing The Metropolitan Council is statutorily required to assist cities with meeting the provisions of the Land Use Planning Act (LUPA). The LUPA requires cities to adopt sufficient standards, plans and programs to meet their local share of the region’s overall projected need for low and moderate-income housing. The Council’s responsibilities include the preparation and adoption of guidelines and procedures to assist local government units with accomplishing the requirements of the LUPA. The Metropolitan Council also offers programs and initiatives to create affordable housing opportunities, including the Livable Communities Act programs and operation of a metropolitan housing and redevelopment authority. Unlike parks, transit and wastewater, housing is not a statutory regional system. The Metropolitan Council’s role, responsibilities and authority are more limited in scope, centered on assisting local governments by identifying the allocation of need for affordable housing, Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 26 projecting regional growth and identifying available tools, resources, technical assistance and methods that cities can use to create and promote affordable housing opportunities in their communities. The Metropolitan Council should work in partnership with local governments to ensure that the range of housing needs for people at various life cycles and incomes can be met. Metro Cities opposes the elevation of housing to “Regional System” status. Metro Cities supports removing the Metropolitan Council’s review and comment authority connected to housing revenue bonds under Minn. Stat. § 462C.04. In 2014, the Metropolitan Council released a housing policy plan, the first of its kind in nearly 30 years. A housing policy plan should include defined local, regional and state roles for the provision of housing in all sectors, identify the availability of and need for tools and resources for affordable and life-cycle housing, be explicit in supporting partnerships for the advocacy for state and federal resources for housing, and encompass policies, best practices and technical guidance for all types of housing. A plan should also recognize the diversity in local needs, characteristics and resources. Metro Cities supports strategies such as regional and sub-regional cooperation and the sharing of best practices among local governments and other entities and partners to address the region’s affordable housing needs. A policy plan should allow for ongoing research and analysis by the Metropolitan Council to provide communities with timely and updated information on regional and local housing needs and market trends as regional and local needs change and evolve. Metro Cities supports the solicitation and use of local data, inputs and analyses and local governments’ review of such data. Metro Cities supports continued city representation in any updated or new regional housing policy plan. 3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need The affordable housing need allocation methodology determines the number of needed affordable housing units for the metropolitan region and distributes the need by assigning each city its fair share through an affordable housing need number. Minn. Stat. § 473.859 requires cities to guide sufficient land to accommodate local shares of the region’s affordable housing need. Metro Cities supports additional Metropolitan Council resources to assist cities in meeting cities’ share of the region’s affordable housing needs. Metro Cities supports the creation of a variety of housing opportunities. However, the provision of affordable and lifecycle housing is a shared responsibility between the private sector and government at all levels, including the federal government, state government and Metropolitan Council. Land economics, construction costs and infrastructure needs create barriers to the creation of affordable housing that cities cannot overcome without assistance. Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 27 Therefore, Metro Cities supports a Metropolitan Council affordable housing policy and allocation of need methodology that recognizes the following tenets: •Regional housing policies characterize individual city and sub-regional housing numbers as a range of needs in the community; •Cities need significant financial assistance from the federal and state government, as well as the Metropolitan Council, to make progress toward creating additional affordable housing and preserving existing affordable housing; •Metropolitan Council planning and policies must be more closely aligned to help ensure that resources for transportation and transit are available to assist communities in addressing their local share of the regional affordable housing need and to ensure that all populations have adequate mobility to reach jobs, education and other destinations regardless of where they live; •The Metropolitan Council will not hold cities responsible if a city does not meet its affordable housing need number. However, efforts to produce affordable housing may be considered when awarding grants; •The Metropolitan Council, with input by local government representatives, should examine the allocation of need methodology with respect to the relationship between the regional allocation and the local share of the need. The formula should also be routinely evaluated to determine if market conditions have changed or if underlying conditions should prompt readjustment of the formula; •The Council should use a methodology that incorporates data accumulated by individual cities and not limited to census driven or policy driven growth projections; •The formula should be adjusted to better reflect the balance and breadth of existing subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing stocks; and •The Council should work with local governments through an appeals process in order to resolve any local issues and concerns with respect to the need allocations. 3-F Housing Performance Scores The Metropolitan Council calculates a city’s housing performance score annually. Scores are determined using an annual city survey as well as Council data. The Council uses city Housing Performance Scores when scoring the Regional Solicitation for federal transportation points. Until 2020, the Council used Housing Performance Scores in Livable Communities grant program scoring criteria. Cities may review their own as well as other cities’ Housing Performance Scores periodically to gauge recent activity on affordable housing preservation and Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 28 new construction. Metro Cities supports Housing Performance Score criteria that recognize varying local resource capacities, tools, programs and policies to support housing production and the market nature of housing development, and that do not limit cities to a prescriptive list of tools and policies. The criteria for determining the score should adequately recognize the current tools, policies and resources employed by local governments. Metro Cities supports a process for local governments to review, comment on and appeal preliminary Housing Performance Scores as well as provide additional information to be used in calculating the scores. Metro Cities supports a consistent schedule for sending the annual housing production survey to cities. In considering Housing Performance Score uses and criteria: •The Council should engage in a periodic review of the formula; •Any proposed new, deleted, or expanded uses or programs in which the Housing Performance Scores would be used should be reviewed by local officials and Metro Cities; and •The Council should recognize market factors such as downward economic cycles when setting timelines and look-backs in calculating recent affordable housing production. 3-G State Role in Housing The state must be an active participant in providing funding for housing, including direct funding, financial incentives and initiatives to assist local governments and developers to support affordable housing and housing appropriate for people at all stages of life. State funding is a major and necessary component for the provision of housing. Current resource levels are insufficient to meet the spectrum of needs in the metropolitan region and across the state. Primarily through programs administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the state establishes the general direction and prioritization of housing issues, and financially supports a variety of housing, including transitional housing, privately and publicly owned housing, supportive housing, senior housing, workforce housing and family housing. Minnesota’s low-income rental property classification, commonly known as class 4d, allows landlords to certify qualifying low-income rental property. The state must continue to be an active partner in addressing life cycle and affordable housing needs. Workforce housing is generally defined as housing that supports economic development and job growth and is affordable to the local workforce. A statewide program, administered through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, supports workforce homeownership efforts in the metropolitan area. State policies and funding should recognize that affordable housing options Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 29 that are accessible to jobs and meet the needs of a city’s workforce are important to the economic competitiveness of cities and the metro region. In addition, significant housing related racial disparities persist in Minnesota, especially as it relates to the percentage of households of color who pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, and as it relates to the significant disparity gap in homeownership rates. Metro Cities supports: •Increased, sustainable and adequate state funding for new and existing programs that support life cycle, workforce and affordable housing, address homeownership disparities, address foreclosure mitigation, address housing for families with children, and support senior, transitional and emergency housing for the metro region; •A state match for local and regional housing trust fund investments and local policies in support of affordable housing. State funds should be issued on a timeline that works with a city’s budget process; •Private sector funding for workforce housing; •Housing programs that assist housing development, preservation and maintenance of existing housing stock, including unsubsidized, naturally occurring affordable housing that is affordable to residents throughout the low-to-moderate income range; •State funded housing programs, including housing assistance, to help with affordability; •Housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in census blocks with emerging or high concentrations of poverty, where the private market might not otherwise invest, as a means of creating mixed-income communities and reconciling affordable housing with community development goals; •Continuing the policy of using the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s investment earnings for housing programs; •City input into state legislation and administrative policies regarding distribution of tax credits and tax-exempt bonding; •Exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the development and production of affordable housing; •Consideration of the use of state bond proceeds and other appropriations for land banking, land trusts, and rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing; •Programs that help avoid foreclosures, improve homeownership rates and reduce racial disparities through homeownership assistance programs and counseling services, including pre-purchasing counseling to improve financial wellness and inform homeowners Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 30 and potential homeowners of their rights, options and costs associated with owning a home; •State tenant protection policies as well as a city’s ability to enact tenant protections to support access to affordable housing and housing stability for tenants; •Housing stability for renters through policies that mitigate the impact of or reduces the number of evictions filed; •Policies that encourage public housing authorities and owners of federally assisted housing to consider a holistic approach to selecting tenants during the application and screening process, and avoid excluding tenants solely based on criminal records; •Exploring best practices toward increased housing affordability for residents, housing maintenance standards and providing quality housing for residents. Cities should work with rental housing owners and operators when establishing best practices; •Preserving the state 4d low-income property tax program which provides a property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental properties. Metro Cities supports evaluating the 4d low-income property tax program to determine how program changes could affect renters, landlords and property taxpayers. Studies should include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives. Metro Cities opposes any changes to the 4d program that substantially increases the tax responsibility for residents and businesses or increases the tax benefit for landlords without including increased benefits for renters of 4d units including but not limited to deeper affordability or property reinvestment. Metro Cities supports the implementation of a reporting process for landlords and a sunset period for any changes made to the program to evaluate the range of impacts that expanding the program may have; •An affordable housing tax credit to help spur construction and secure additional private investment. This incentive could be used in conjunction with city, regional, or other state incentives; and •Maintaining existing municipal authority to establish a housing improvement area (HIA). If the Legislature grants multi-jurisdictional entities the authority to create HIAs, creation of an HIA must require municipal approval. 3-H Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and increase affordable and workforce housing. Providing working families access to housing is an important piece to the economic vitality of the region. Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of funding for affordable and workforce housing. Federal investment in affordable and workforce housing will maintain and increase the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 31 make housing more affordable through rental assistance programs such as the Section 8 housing choice voucher program. In July 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a final rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) with an aim to provide communities that receive HUD funding with clear guidelines to meet their obligation under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to promote and reduce barriers to fair housing and equal opportunity. HUD has since provided new guidance to comply with the AFFH rule. Opportunity Zones is a community development program established by Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors to re-invest their unrealized capital gains into Opportunity Funds that are dedicated to investing into Opportunity Zones. The tax incentive is available for up to ten years. 128 census tracts were designated as Opportunity Zones in 2018. The United States Treasury released rules on April 17, 2019 which provide guidance and clarification for investors and fund managers. It is anticipated that the Act may be a useful tool in spurring development in low- income communities and could help with business development and jobs. There are also questions about what impact the Act will have on the residents that live and businesses that operate in these communities today. For example, while development may have positive impacts such as increasing tax base or job opportunities, robust development could have unintended consequences such as displacement of current residents and businesses. Metro Cities urges the federal government to seek regular input from communities, especially from individuals and businesses within Opportunity Zones, regarding how the tool is being used, whether the tool is encouraging new development opportunities, and how community members who live in the Zones are impacted. The State of Minnesota should utilize community development resources to stimulate investment in Opportunity Zones and adopt policies that ensure that local residents, workers and businesses benefit from the investments. Metro Cities supports: •Preserving and increasing funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and the federal HOME program that are catalysts for creating and preserving affordable housing; •Preserving and increasing resources and incentives to sustain existing public housing throughout the Metro Area; •Maintaining the federal tax credit program to help spur construction and secure additional private investment, including making the four percent Low Income Housing Tax Credit a fixed rate as was done with the nine percent credit in 2015; Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 32 •Creating and implementing a more streamlined procedural method for local units of government to participate in and access federal funding and services dealing with grants, loans, and tax incentive programs for economic and community development efforts; •Additional resources to assist communities to meet obligations to reduce barriers to and promote fair housing and equal opportunity; •Maintaining and increasing resources to Section 8 funding and to support incentives for rental property owners to participate in the program; and •Federal funding to provide short-term assistance for HRAs to facilitate the sale of tax-exempt bonds. 3-I Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk Abandoned residential and commercial properties can harm communities when vacant buildings result in reduced property values and increased crime. The additional public safety and code enforcement costs of managing vacant properties are a financial strain on cities. Metro Cities supports solutions to vacant and boarded properties that recognize: •Prevention is more cost effective than a cure; •The causes of this problem are many and varied, thus the solutions must be as well; and •It is not simply a “city” problem so cities must not be expected to bear the bulk of the burden of mitigation. Further, Metro Cities supports: •Registration of vacant and boarded properties; •Allowing cities to acquire vacant and boarded properties before deterioration and vandalism result in unsalvageable structures, including providing financial tools such as increasing eminent domain flexibility; •Improving the ability of cities to recoup the increased public safety, management, and enforcement costs related to vacant properties; •Improvement of the redemption process to provide increased notification to renters, strengthen the ability of homeowners to retain their properties, and reduce the amount of time a property is vacant; Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 33 •Expedition of the tax forfeiture process; •Increasing financial tools for neighborhood recovery efforts, including tax increment financing; and •Year-round notification by utility companies of properties not receiving utility service. 3-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement A Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling, Morris v. Sax, stated that provisions of the city of Morris’ rental housing code were invalid because there were subjects dealt with under the state building code and the city was attempting to regulate these areas “differently from the state building code.” Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subdivision 1 states: “The State Building Code is the standard that applies statewide for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, and use of buildings and other structures of the type governed by the code. The State Building Code supersedes the building code of any municipality.” Subdivision 2 states: “A municipality must not by ordinance, or through development agreement, require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enacting or enforcing an ordinance requiring existing components or systems of any structure to be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition or in good repair, but not exceeding the standards under which the structure was built, reconstructed, or altered, or the component or system was installed, unless specific retroactive provisions for existing buildings have been adopted as part of the State Building Code. A municipality may, with the approval of the state building official, adopt an ordinance that is more restrictive than the State Building Code where geological conditions warrant a more restrictive ordinance. A municipality may appeal the disapproval of a more restrictive ordinance to the commissioner.” Metro Cities supports the ability of cities to enforce all housing codes passed by a local municipality to maintain its housing stock. 3-K Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness The economic viability of the metro area is enhanced by a broad array of economic development tools that create infrastructure, revitalize previously developed property, provide incentives for business development, support technological advances, support a trained workforce, and address disparities in economic development and workforce development. It should be the goal of the state to champion development and redevelopment by providing enough sustainable funding to assure competitiveness in a global marketplace. The state should recognize the relationship between housing and economic development. Economic development and redevelopment are not mutually exclusive – some projects require a boost on both counts. The State of Minnesota should recognize cities as the primary unit of government responsible for the implementation of Housing & Economic Development 34 economic development, redevelopment policies and land use controls. 3-K (1) Economic Development For purposes of this section, economic development is defined as a form of development that can contain direct business assistance, infrastructure development, technical assistance and policy support with the goal of sustainable job creation, job retention, appropriate state regulation or classification, or to nurture new or retain existing industry in the state. The measure of return on investment of public business subsidies should include the impact (positive or negative) of “spin- off development” or business development that is ancillary and supportive of the primary business. A strength of the regional economy has been its economic diversity. Multiple industry clusters and sectors employ a specialized, trained workforce and support entrepreneurs in developing new businesses. Partnerships and collaborations among the state and local levels of government, higher education and industry should continue to develop, to commercialize new technologies and to support efforts to enhance the economic vitality of the region. While cities are the primary unit of local government responsible for the implementation of economic development, counties have an interest in supporting local economic development efforts. Any creation of a county CDA, EDA or HRA with economic development powers should follow Minn. Stat. § 469.1082 that requires a city to adopt a resolution electing to participate. Cities can work with the public and private sectors to support the region’s economic growth by reducing barriers to economic participation by people of color. Metro Cities supports state funded programs that support new and expanding businesses, infrastructure development and public-private partnerships. This includes the Minnesota Investment Fund, Job Creation Fund and Angel Tax Credit. Programs using statewide funding should strive to award funds balanced between the metro region and greater Minnesota. Metro Cities supports competitive funding for statewide grant programs such as the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) as opposed to direct legislative appropriations for projects from these funds. Metro Cities supports a percentage of MIF loan repayments to cities. The state should provide administrative support and technical assistance to cities that administer these programs. Applications for state MIF funds should allow a city to indicate support for a MIF grant or a loan. Metro Cities supports economic tools that facilitate job growth without relying solely on the property tax base; green job development and related innovation and entrepreneurship; programs to support minority business start-ups; small business financing tools including a state new markets tax credit program mirrored on the federal program; tools to attract and retain data centers and other IT facilities; and maintaining existing municipal authority to establish a special service district (SSD). Metro Cities supports further study of allowing mixed-use buildings that have both commercial and residential uses to be included in an SSD. 2021 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development 35 3-K (2)Redevelopment Redevelopment involves the development of land that requires “predevelopment.” The goal of redevelopment is to facilitate the development of “pre-used” land, thereby leveling the playing field between greenfield and brownfield sites so that a private sector entity can rationally choose to locate on land that has already been used. The benefits of redevelopment include a decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), more efficient use of new or existing public infrastructure (including public transit), ameliorated city costs due to public safety and code enforcement, and other public goods that result when land is reused rather than abandoned and compact development is encouraged. Metro Cities supports increased funding from state and regional sources. The Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities Act programs fund redevelopment activities that support cleanup and tax base revitalization. Metro Cities supports allowing a maximum levy amount for this program, as provided under law. Metro Cities supports increased and sustained state funds for DEED-administered programs like the Redevelopment Grant Program and Demolition Loan Program, dedicated to metropolitan area projects, innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure grants, as well as increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup and Investigation Grant Program. The expansion of transit service throughout the region brings opportunity for redevelopment and transit-oriented development (TOD). Metro Cities supports financing, regulatory tools and increased flexibility in the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to nurture TOD. Metro Cities supports funding Transit Improvement Areas (TIAs) and ensuring that the eligibility criteria encourage a range of improvements and infrastructure and accommodate varying city circumstances and needs. Correcting and stabilizing polluted soils and former landfill sites allows cities to redevelop and reuse properties. Metro Cities supports expansion of existing tools or development of new funding mechanisms to correct unsuitable soils as well as city authority to redevelop land previously used as landfills and dumps. If a city receives initial approval from a state regulatory authority, a city’s redevelopment project approval should be considered final. Local governments and cities may choose to revitalize historic structures rather than construct new buildings. Metro Cities supports extension of the sunset of the state income tax credit and maintaining the federal tax credit for preservation of historic properties. Metro Cities supports collection of the state refund for the historic expenditures over one year. Metro Cities supports state funding to allow cities and/or their development authorities to assemble small properties so that business expansion sites will be ready for future redevelopment. 2021 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 36 3-K (3) Workforce Readiness A trained workforce is important to a strong local, regional and state economy. Cities have an interest in the availability of qualified workers and building a future workforce based on current and future demographics, as part of their economic development efforts. Cities can work with the public and private sectors to address workforce readiness to include removing barriers to education access, addressing racial disparities in achievement and employment gaps, and the occupational gender gap. The state has a role to prepare and train a qualified workforce through the secondary, vocational and higher education systems and job training and retraining programs in the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), including youth employment programs. Metro Cities supports: •Increased funding for the Job Skills Partnership, youth employment programs and other workforce training programs administered by the state that lead to jobs that provide a living wage and benefits, and help address racial disparity gaps in employment; •Innovative workforce programs and partnerships that foster workforce readiness for a full range of jobs and careers, including skilled municipal jobs and current high opportunity areas such as manufacturing and construction; •Investments in programs that address the gender wage gap, including training for women to enter nontraditional careers; •A payroll tax credit for job training programs that invest in employees; and •A city’s authority to tie workforce requirements to local public finance assistance. 3-L Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) continues to be the primary tool available for local communities to assist economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, statutory changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use. At the same time, federal and state development and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking. The cumulative impact of TIF restrictions, shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources and highly restrictive eminent domain laws constrain cities’ abilities to address problem properties, which leads to an accelerated level of decline of developed cities in the metropolitan area. Thus, the only source of revenue available to accomplish the scope of redevelopment necessary is the value created by the redevelopment itself, or the “increment.” Without the use of the increment, development will either not occur or is unlikely to be optimal. Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 37 Metro Cities urges the Legislature to: •Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly or indirectly reduce the effectiveness of TIF; •Not adopt any statutory language that would allow a county, school district or special taxing district to opt out of a TIF district; •Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so that a Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in addition to railroad property; •Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects; •Amend MN Statutes to clarify that tax increment pooling limitations are calculated on a cumulative basis; •Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects; •Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and if warranted provide cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls; •Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit-related TIF districts in order to shape development and related improvements around transit stations but not require the use of TIF districts to fund the construction or maintenance of the public transit line itself unless a local community chooses to do so; •Allow TIF eligibility expansion to innovative technological products, recognizing that not only physical items create economic value; •Support changes to TIF law that will facilitate the development of “regional projects”; •Shift TIF redevelopment policy away from a focus on “blight” and “substandard” to “functionally obsolete” or a focus on long range planning for a particular community, reduction in greenhouse gases or other criteria more relevant to current needs; •Encourage DEED to do an extensive cost-benefit analysis related to redevelopment, including an analysis of the various funding mechanisms, and an analysis of where the cost burden falls with each of the options compared to the distribution of the benefits of the redevelopment project; •Support TIF for neighborhood recovery efforts in the wake of the foreclosure crisis; •Consider creating an inter-disciplinary TIF team to review local exception TIF proposals, using established criteria, and make recommendations to the legislature on their Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 38 passage; •Encourage the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more efficient and streamlined reporting process. There are an increasing number of noncompliance notices that have overturned longstanding practices or limited statutorily defined terms. The Legislature has not granted TIF rulemaking authority to the State Auditor and the audit powers granted by statute are not an appropriate vehicle for making administrative or legislative changes to TIF statutes. If the State Auditor is to exercise rulemaking authority, the administrative power to do so must be granted explicitly by the Legislature. The audit enforcement process does not create a level playing field for cities to challenge the Auditor’s interpretation of statutes. The Legislature should provide a process through which to resolve disputes over TIF policy that is fair to all parties; •Clarify the use of TIF when a sale occurs after the closing of a district; •Revise the substandard building test to simplify, resolve ambiguities and reduce continued threat of litigation; and •Amend TIF statutes to address, through extending districts or other mechanisms, shortfalls related to declining market values. •Metro Cities supports statutory modifications to TIF statutes to provide temporary flexibility for municipalities in the use of unobligated TIF increment as cities address local revenue challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Metro Cities opposes changes to TIF laws that would mandate the forgiveness of loans by a TIF authority to a business. 3-M Eminent Domain Significant statutory restrictions on the use of eminent domain have resulted in higher public costs for traditional public use projects like streets, parks, and sewers, and have all but restricted the use of eminent domain for redevelopment to cases of extreme blight or contamination. The proper operation and long-term economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the ability of a city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment and reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of individual residents or business owners. Eminent domain is a critical tool in the reinvestment and reinvention process and without it our cities may deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public reacts. Metro Cities strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature to revisit eminent domain laws to allow local governments to address redevelopment problems before those conditions become financially impossible to address. Specifically, Metro Cities supports: Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 39 •Clarifying contamination standards; •Developing different standards for redevelopment to include obsolete structures or to reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist in the metro area; •Allowing for the assembly of multiple parcels for redevelopment projects; •Modifying the public purpose definition under Minn. Stat. 117 to allow cities to more expediently address properties that are vacant or abandoned in areas with high levels of foreclosures, as well as address neighborhood stabilization and recovery; •Providing for the ability to acquire land from “holdouts” who will now view a publicly funded project as an opportunity for personal gain at taxpayer expense; i.e. allow for negotiation using balanced appraisals for fair relocation costs; •Examining attorney fees and limit fees for attorneys representing a property owner; •Allowing for relocation costs not to be paid if the city and property owner agree to a sale contract; •A property owner’s appraisal to be shared with the city prior to a sale agreement; and •Appropriately balanced awards of attorney fees and costs of litigation with the outcome of the eminent domain proceeding. 3-N Community Reinvestment Communities across the metropolitan region have aging residential and commercial structures that need repair and reinvestment. Reinvestment prevents neighborhoods from falling into disrepair, revitalizes communities and protects a city’s tax base. Metro Cities supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals. Historically, the state has funded programs to promote reinvestment in communities, including the “This Old House” program, that allowed owners of older homestead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the home and “This Old Shop” for owners of older commercial/industrial property that make improvements that increase the property’s market value. Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 40 3-O Business Incentives Policy Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the Business Subsidy Act, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 116J.993, but should look to technical changes that would streamline both state and local processes and procedures. The Legislature should distinguish between development incentives and redevelopment activities. In addition, in order to ensure cohesive and comprehensive regulations, the legislature should limit regulation of business incentives to the Business Subsidy Act. Metro Cities supports additional legislation that includes tools to help enhance and facilitate economic development and job creation. Metro Cities supports increased flexibility for meeting business subsidy agreements during a state of emergency. 3-P Broadband Technology Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs and availability of traditional infrastructure - roads, rail and utilities - the 21st century economy is dependent on reliable, cost effective, high bandwidth communications capabilities. This includes voice, video, data and other services delivered over cable, telephone, fiber-optic, wireless and other platforms. The state has increased its role in expanding broadband infrastructure across the state by funding broadband access for residents and businesses. The Governor’s Broadband Task Force regularly recommends updates to state broadband speed goals and funding levels to expand statewide broadband access. The Office of Broadband Development in the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) supports the role of broadband in economic development. The Office coordinates broadband mapping and administers state broadband grant funds. Cities play a vital role in achieving significantly higher broadband speeds. Local units of government are contributing to increasing broadband capacity and ensuring internet connectivity, reliability, and availability. However, attempts have been made in Minnesota and other states to restrict or stop cities from facilitating the deployment of broadband services or forming partnerships with private sector companies to provide broadband services to unserved or underserved residents or businesses. Restricting municipal authority is contrary to existing state law on electric utility service, telecommunications, and economic development. Metro Cities opposes the adoption of state policies that further restrict a city’s ability to finance, construct or operate broadband telecommunications networks. Metro Cities supports: •State policies and support programs that substantially increase speed and capacity of broadband services statewide, including facilitating solutions at the local level. The state should offer incentives to private sector service providers to respond to local or regional needs and to collaborate with cities and other public entities to deploy broadband infrastructure capable of delivering sufficient bandwidth and capacity to meet immediate and future local needs as well as policies which seek to position Minnesota as a state of Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 41 choice for testing next-generation broadband; •Metro eligibility for broadband funds, including increased capacity for areas with existing levels of service; •Testing and review of street-level broadband speeds and updating of comprehensive statewide street-level mapping of broadband services to identify underserved areas and connectivity issues. •Programs and projects that improve broadband adoption, achieve significantly higher broadband speeds, and support efforts to improve digital inclusion by ensuring that robust and affordable Internet connectivity is widely available to all Minnesotans. •Municipal authority and encouragement of local governments to play a direct role in providing broadband service. This includes repealing Minn. Stat. § 237.19. The state should clarify that cities have the authority to partner with private entities to finance broadband infrastructure using city bonding authority; •Local authority to manage and protect public rights-of-way including public and private infrastructure, to zone, to collect compensation for the use of public assets, or to work cooperatively with and respond to applications from the private sector. Cities may exercise local authority over zoning and land-use decisions for siting, upgrading, or altering wireless service facilities and exercise regulations of structures in the public right-of-way; and •Public-private collaborations that support broadband infrastructure and services at the local and regional level, including partnerships and cooperation in providing last-mile connections. 3-Q City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Historically, cities have played a major role in environmental protection, particularly in water quality. Through the construction and operation of wastewater treatment and storm water management systems, cities are a leader in protecting the surface water of the state. In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on protecting ground water and removing impairments from storm water. In addition, there is increased emphasis on city participation in controlling our carbon footprint and in promoting green development. Metro Cities supports public and private environmental protection efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to further protect surface and ground water. Metro Cities also supports “green” design and construction techniques to the extent that those techniques have been thoroughly tested and are truly environmentally beneficial, economically sustainable and represent sound building practices. Metro Cities supports additional, feasible environmental protection with adequate funding and incentives to comply. Metro Cities supports state funding for municipal renewable energy objectives. Housing & Economic Development 2021 Legislative Policies 42 Green jobs represent employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that are part of the green economy, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 116J.437, including the four industry sectors of green products, renewable energy, green services and environmental conservation. Minnesota’s green jobs policies, strategies and investments need to lead to high quality jobs with good wages and benefits, meeting current wage and labor laws. 3-R Impaired Waters Metro Cities supports continued development of the metropolitan area in a manner that is responsive to the market but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and metro area. Since all types of properties are required to pay storm water fees, Metro Cities opposes entity-specific exemptions from these fees. Metro Cities supports the goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts at both the federal and state level to implement it. Metro Cities supports continued funding of the framework established to improve the region’s ability to respond to market demands for development and redevelopment, including dedicated funding for surface water impairment assessments, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, storm water construction grants and wastewater construction grants. Local units of government should not bear undue cost burdens associated with completed TMDL reports. As recent TMDL reports show, non-point agricultural sources are producing more runoff pollution than urban areas at a rate of 13:1. Cities must not be required as primary entities for funding the clean-up and protection of state and regional water resources. Benefits of efforts must be proportional to the costs incurred and agricultural sources must be held responsible for their share of costs. Metropolitan Agencies 43 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to a majority of the state’s population and businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. The region faces both significant challenges and opportunities, the responses to which will determine the future success of the metropolitan region and its competitiveness in the state, national and world economies. The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and service delivery. The region’s cities are the Metropolitan Council’s primary constituency, with regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation and the delivery of public services. To function successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments. The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve these goals. City governments are responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization and should not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent of the region’s cities. Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning throughout the metropolitan area. Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level by individual local units of government. The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues and be required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces. The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation of the regional development guide, policy plans, systems statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency, balance and Council adherence to its core mission and functions. These processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are released for comment and finalized. Any additional functions for the Metropolitan Council should not be undertaken unless authorized specifically by state law. 2021 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 44 4-B Regional Governance Structure Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four-year, staggered terms for members to stabilize ideological shifts and provide for continuity of knowledge on the Council, which is appropriate for a long-range planning body. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Metro Cities supports expanding the nominating committee from seven to 13 members, with a majority of a 13-member committee being local elected officials. Of the local officials appointed to a nominating committee, two thirds should be elected city officials, appointed by Metro Cities. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Metro Cities supports having the names of recommended nominees or other individuals under consideration for appointment to the Council by the Governor to be made public at least 21 days prior to final selection by the Governor, and a formal public comment period before members are appointed to the Council. Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner, commit to meet with local government officials regularly and who are responsive to the circumstances and concerns of cities in the district that they represent on the Council. Council members should understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making. A detailed position description outlining the required skills, time commitment and understanding of regional and local issues and concerns should be clearly articulated and posted in advance of the call for nominees. Metro Cities supports opportunities for local officials to provide input during the decennial legislative redistricting process for the Metropolitan Council and supports transparency in the redistricting process. 4-C Comprehensive Analysis and Oversight of Metropolitan Council Metro Cities supports the 2016 study of the Metropolitan Council’s governance structure conducted by the Citizens League, the recommendations of which are largely consistent with Metro Cities’ governance policies. The metropolitan region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges for the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure. Metro Cities supports an objective study of the Metropolitan Council’s activities and services as well as its geographical jurisdiction to ensure that the Metropolitan Council’s services are positioned to be effective and adequate in addressing the future needs of the region. Such work must include the participation of local officials. The Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 45 should also examine its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region. Metro Cities supports appropriate legislative oversight of the Metropolitan Council to regularly review the Council’s activities, and to provide transparency and accountability of its functions and operations. 4-D Funding Regional Services The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund regional services and activities through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The Council should set user fees through an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected. Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return. 4-E Regional Systems Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of the regional systems and the Metropolitan Council’s authority over them is clearly outlined in state law. The Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems. Systems plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council should be specific in terms of size, location and timing of regional investments to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. Systems plans should also clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency with regional systems. Additional regional systems should be established only if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern best addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and established regional or state funding sources. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established. Water supply and housing do not meet necessary established criteria for regional systems. Any proposed additional system must have an established regional or state funding source. Metropolitan Agencies 46 4-F Regional Water Supply Planning The Metropolitan Council is statutorily authorized to carry out regional planning activities to address water supply needs of the metropolitan area. A Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC) that includes state agency representatives and local officials was established to assist the Council in developing a master water supply plan that includes recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and state governments, streamlining and consolidating approval processes and recommending future planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a framework for assisting communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local decision-making processes. Many cities also conduct their own analyses for use in water supply planning. As the Metropolitan Council continues its assessment of the region’s water supply and water sustainability, it must work cooperatively with local policymakers and professional staff throughout the region on an on-going structured basis to ensure a base of information for water supply decision-making that is sound, credible and verifiable, and considers local information, data, cost-benefit analyses and projections before any policy recommendations are issued. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter-relationships of wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Master Water Supply Plan. Further, regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses between the regional and local units of government. Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities to address regional water supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute. Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena. Further, while Metro Cities supports regionally coordinated efforts to address water supply issues in the metropolitan area, Metro Cities opposes the elevation of water supply to “Regional System” status, or the assumption of Metropolitan Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. Metro Cities supports the technical advisory committee to the MAWSAC that maximizes participation by municipal officials and helps to ensure sound scientific analyses and models are developed with local expertise and input, before legislative solutions are considered. Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply planning activities must be consistent with activities prescribed in Minn. Stat. § 473. 1565, and support activities specifically within the region. 2021 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 47 4-G Review of Local Comprehensive Plans In advance of the next comprehensive planning cycle, the Metropolitan Council should work with Metro Cities and local officials to address challenges and concerns identified by city officials with the 2018 comprehensive planning process and undertake any necessary improvements. Local officials have identified a number of concerns with the submission and review processes for 2018 local plans including requests for information beyond what should be necessary for the Metropolitan Council to review local plans for consistency with regional systems, regional requirements that evolved as local plans were prepared and finalized, and finding plans to be incomplete or requiring detailed information on items of a local rather than regional nature, among others. In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should: •Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four system plans; •Be aware of statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and development applications; •Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact on systems plans; •Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA); •Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues. When a city’s local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Metropolitan Council’s systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeal process that includes a peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a city’s local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Metropolitan Council’s systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate, good faith efforts to meet Metropolitan Council requirements; •Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the Council’s system plans and policies; and •Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government, among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be subject to the same qualifications and/or regulations as the city. Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 48 4-H Comprehensive Planning Process Metro Cities supports examining the comprehensive planning process to make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient and avoids excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by municipalities in the planning process. Metro Cities supports resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive planning process, including planning grants and technical assistance. Metro Cities supports funding and other resources from the Metropolitan Council for the preparation of comprehensive plan updates, including grant funding. Grants and other resources should be provided to all eligible communities through a formula that is equitable, and recognizes varying city needs and capacities. 4-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council every 10 years. A city’s comprehensive plan represents a community’s vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop, ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services, protect natural areas and meet other community objectives. Metro Cities recognizes the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the release of census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided with financial resources to assist them in preparing the next round of plans. Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning because of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive planning schedule, Metro Cities’ supports financial and other resources to assist cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts. Metro Cities supports a 10-year time frame for comprehensive plan update submissions. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council’s consideration to reduce requirements for 10-year Comprehensive Plan updates for cities under 2,500. 4-J Local Zoning Authority Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities’ comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 49 Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions and opposes the creation of non-local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions, and statutory modifications that would diminish the ability of cities to set and implement local zoning ordinances and policies. 4-K Regional Growth The most recent regional population forecast prepared by the Metropolitan Council projects a population of 3,738,047 people by 2040. Metro Cities recognizes cities’ responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development that will result in a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved environmental health. In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate state and regional financial resources and incentives and maximum flexibility for local planning decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub-regional cooperation and coordination. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region’s high quality of life: •Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment; •Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and •New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second-ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment. In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies: •The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in the areas of transportation and transit, community reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council; •The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and federal transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the metropolitan area; Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 50 •The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner; •The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its many partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development authorities and nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible in their approach; •Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and •Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the “true” metropolitan region extends beyond the traditional seven-county area and the need to work collaboratively with adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental, transportation, and land use issues that cannot be solved by the seven-county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council’s growth management policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area. Metro Cities opposes statutory or other regulatory changes that interfere with established regional and local processes to manage growth in the metropolitan region, including regional systems plans, systems statements, and local comprehensive plans. Such changes erode local planning authority as well as the efficient provision of regional infrastructure, disregard established public processes, and create different guidelines for communities that may result in financial, environmental and other impacts on surrounding communities. 4-L Natural Resource Protection Metro Cities recognizes the Metropolitan Council’s efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that: •The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi-county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state’s population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the metropolitan area’s borders, and the numerous entities that are involved in protecting the natural resources of the region and state, neither the region nor individual metropolitan communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these resources; •The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/A) is not a Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 51 regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act; •The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and •Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public park, nature preserve, or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government. The Metropolitan Council’s role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040 regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal operations (wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to provide information, best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses to climate change. Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources. 4-M Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) The Metropolitan Council has identified a majority of sewered communities in the metropolitan region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the regional wastewater system or to be on the threshold of contributing excessive inflow and infiltration. Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clear water (ground and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at regional wastewater plants. The number of identified communities is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area can be affected. The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of I/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities meet certain parameters through local mitigation efforts. Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because of its potential environmental and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect development capacity of another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs in their ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive I/I. Therefore, managing I/I at a regional as well as local level, is critical to effective mitigation and cost management. Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews of the methodology used to measure excess I/I to ensure that the methodology appropriately normalizes for precipitation variability and the Council’s work with cities on community specific issues around I/I. Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for metro area I/I mitigation through Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 52 future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation and encourages the Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations. Metro Cities also supports resources, including identified best practices, information on model ordinances, public education and outreach, and other tools, to local governments to address inflow/infiltration mitigation for private properties. Metro Cities recognizes recommendations made by a 2016 Inflow/Infiltration Task Force that support considering the use of a portion of the regional wastewater charge for private property inflow/infiltration mitigation. Any proposal to utilize the wastewater fee for this purpose must include the opportunity for local officials to review and comment on specific proposals. Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection systems. 4-N Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency, simplification and lower rates. Metro Cities supports principles for SAC that include program transparency and simplicity, equity for all served communities and between current and future users, support for cities’ sewer fee capacities, administrative reasonableness, and weighing any program uses for specific goals with the impacts to the program’s equity, transparency and simplicity. As such, Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize and/or incent specific Metropolitan Council goals and objectives. Input from local officials should be sought if the SAC reserve is proposed to be used for any purpose other than debt service, including pay-as-you-go (PAYGO). Metro Cities opposes increases to the SAC rate while the reserve is projected to exceed the Metropolitan Council’s minimum reserve balance, without the express engagement of city officials in the metropolitan area. Metro Cities supports modifications that were recommended by local and business officials and adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2018 to use gross rather than net square feet in making SAC determinations, to combine use categories, to adjust the grandfather credit date and to not require a new SAC determination for business remodels that do not change the use of the property. These changes are intended to help simplify the SAC program for users, and to reduce incidents of “surprise” SAC charges. Metro Cities supports current SAC policy that enhances flexibility in the SAC credit structure for redevelopment purposes and supports continued evaluation of SAC fees to determine if they hinder redevelopment. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any proposed changes to the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of MCES’ customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports continued Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 53 outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge and understanding of SAC charges and policies. Any modifications to the SAC program or structure should be considered only with the participation and input of local officials in the metropolitan region. Metro Cities supports a “growth pays for growth” approach to SAC. If state statutes are modified to establish a “growth pays for growth” method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council should convene a group of local officials to identify any technical changes necessary for implementing the new structure. Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize a SAC ‘transfer’ mechanism when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt service obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within parameters prescribed by state law and with appropriate notification and processes to allow local official input and should include a timely ‘shift back’ of any funds that were transferred from the wastewater fund to the SAC reserve fund. Efforts should be made to avoid increasing the municipal wastewater charge in use of the transfer mechanism. 4-O Funding Regional Parks & Open Space In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improvement of these parks in a manner that is equitable with funding for state parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota. Metro Cities supports state funding for regional parks and trails that is fair, creates a balance of investment across the state, and meets the needs of the region. 4-P Livable Communities The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is administered by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, tax base revitalization, job growth and preservation, brownfield clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly development, and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which is widely accepted and utilized by cities. Since its inception in 1995 the LCA program has generated billions of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region. Metro Cities monitors the LCA programs on an ongoing basis and supports any necessary program modifications to ensure that the LCA program criteria are flexible and promote the participation of all participating communities, and to ensure all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 54 Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the LCDA to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in the location, in order to support important development and redevelopment goals. Metro Cities supports the findings of a recent local official working group that identified the need for the Metropolitan Council to expand its outreach to communities on the LCA programs and to continue efforts to ensure that LCA criteria are sufficiently flexible to meet the range of identified program objectives. These efforts should include ongoing opportunities for structured input by Metro Cities and local officials. Metro Cities supports the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable Communities Act and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain flexibility in statutory goals or program requirements and criteria. Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Act programs and the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program. Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages among the goals, municipal objectives, and Metropolitan Council system objectives. Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement areas, as defined in statute, if funding levels for general LCA programs are adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to participating communities. Any proposed program modifications should be considered with input by local officials before changes to LCA programs are enacted or implemented. Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering administrative program costs. Remaining interest earnings should be considered part of LCA funds and used to fund grants from established LCA accounts per established funding criteria. 4-Q Density Metro Cities recognizes the need for a density policy, including minimum density requirements, that allows the Metropolitan Council to effectively plan for and deliver cost-efficient regional infrastructure and services. Regional density requirements must recognize that local decisions, needs and priorities vary, and that requirements must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate local circumstances as well as the effect of market trends on local development and redevelopment activity. The Metropolitan Council asks cities to plan for achieving minimum average net densities across all areas identified for new growth, development or redevelopment. Because each community is different, how and where density is guided is determined by the local unit of government. Regional density requirements should use minimum average net densities. Metro Cities opposes parcel-specific density requirements as such requirements are contrary to the need for local flexibility in a regional policy. Metropolitan Agencies 2021 Legislative Policies 55 Any regional density policy must use local data and local development patterns and must accommodate local physical and land use constraints such as, but not limited to, wetlands, public open space, trees, water bodies and rights-of-way, and any corresponding federal and state regulations imposed on local governments when computing net densities. The Metropolitan Council must coordinate with local governments in establishing or revising regional density requirements and should ensure that regional density and plat monitoring reports comprehensively reflect local densities and land uses. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 56 Transportation Policies and Funding Introduction Metro Cities supports a comprehensive transportation system as a vital component in planning for and meeting the physical, social and economic needs of the state and metropolitan region. A comprehensive transportation system includes streets and bridges, transit, and multi-modal solutions that work cohesively to best meet state, regional and local transportation needs. Adequate and stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high quality, efficient and safe transportation system that meets these needs and that will position the state and region to be economically competitive in the years ahead. Failure to maintain a functional transportation system will have adverse effects on the state’s ability to attract and retain businesses and create jobs. Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local policymakers so that the transportation system can meet the needs of the state’s residents and businesses as well as projected population growth. Funding and planning for regional and statewide systems must be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local levels to optimally achieve long-term needs and goals. 5-A Road and Bridge Funding Under current financing structures that rely primarily on local property taxes and fees as well as the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) receipts, road and bridge needs in the metropolitan region continue to be underfunded. Metro Cities strongly supports stable, sufficient and sustainable statewide transportation funding and expanded local tools to meet the transportation system needs of the region and local municipal systems. Consideration should be given to using new, expanded and existing resources to meet these needs. Metro Cities supports the use of dedicated taxes and fees to fund transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities lack adequate tools and resources for the maintenance and improvement of municipal street systems, with resources restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating authority be granted to municipalities and that state resources be made available for this purpose to aid local communities and relieve the burden on the property tax system. Metro Cities supports Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) funding. MSAS provides an important but limited revenue source that assists eligible cities with street infrastructure needs and is limited to twenty percent of a city’s street system. Metro Cities supports state funding to assist cities over-burdened by cost participation responsibilities from improvement projects on the state’s arterial system and county state aid highway (CSAH) systems. Metro Cities supports state funding for state highway projects, including congestion, Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 57 bottleneck and safety improvements. Metro Cities also supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction, to offset the impacts of regional transportation construction projects on businesses. Metro Cities opposes statutory changes restricting the use of local funds for transportation projects. Metro Cities opposes restrictions on aesthetic related components of transportation projects, as these components often provide important safety and other benefits to projects. Metro Cities supports further research into the policy implications for electric and automated vehicles on roadways, transit, and other components of transportation systems. Metro Cities encourages the state to study the impact of electric and automated vehicles on transportation related funding and policies. 5-B Regional Transit System The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system as part of a comprehensive transportation strategy that serves all users, including commuters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, a network of bike and pedestrian trails, bus rapid transit, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit, streetcars, and commuter rail corridors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region’s changing travel patterns. Current congestion levels and forecasted population growth require a stable, reliable and growing source of revenue for transit construction and operations so that our metropolitan region can meet its transportation needs to remain economically competitive. Metro Cities supports an effective, efficient and comprehensive regional transit system as an invaluable component in meeting the multimodal transportation needs of the metropolitan region and to the region’s economic vibrancy and quality of life. Metro Cities recognizes that transit service connects residents to jobs, schools, healthcare and activity centers. Transit access and service frequency levels should recognize the role of public transit in addressing equity, including but not limited to racial and economic disparities, people with disabilities and the elderly. Metro Cities supports strategic expansion of the regional transit system. Metro Cities supports a regional governance structure that can ensure a measurably reliable and efficient system that recognizes the diverse transit needs of our region and addresses the funding needs for all components of the system. These regional governance structures must work with and be responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. Metro Cities recognizes the need for flexibility in transit systems for cities that border the edges of the seven-county metropolitan area to ensure users can get to destinations outside of the seven-county area. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to coordinate with collar counties so that riders can get to and from destinations beyond the boundaries of the region. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 58 Metro Cities opposes statutory changes restricting the use of local funds for planning or construction of transit projects. Restricting local planning and funding limits the ability of cities to participate in transit corridor planning and development. State and regional policymakers must coordinate with local units of government as decisions are made at the state level on transit projects that also involve municipal planning, funding and policy decisions. Metro Cities is opposed to legislative or Metropolitan Council directives that constrain the ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box. In the interest of including all potential options in the pursuit of a regionally balanced transit system, Metro Cities supports the repeal of the gag order on the Dan Patch Commuter Rail Line and opposes the imposition of legislative moratoriums on the study, planning, design, or construction of specific transit projects. In the interest of safety and traffic management, Metro Cities supports further study of rail safety issues relating to water quality protections, public safety concerns relating to derailments, traffic implications from longer and more frequent trains and the sensitive balance between rail commerce and the quality of life impacts on the communities through which they pass. The COVID-19 crisis has had dramatic effects on public transit service, including changing business practices that are likely to substantially reduce transit demand for the foreseeable future. Adverse economic effects threaten revenues available to fund transit operations. Suburban transit providers are concerned that funding challenges may be used to attempt to justify a repeal of their authorizing legislation and to consolidate transit services into a single regional entity. This would result in reverting to conditions existing nearly 40 years ago when inadequate service caused twelve suburbs to elect not to be part of the traditional transit system. Metro Cities strongly supports the autonomy of suburban transit providers to conduct operations to meet demonstrated and unique needs in their designated service areas independent from the operations of other regional transit providers. 5-C Transit Financing Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will mean increased demand for various modes of transit in areas with and without current transit service. MVST revenue projections are unpredictable, and the Legislature has repeatedly reduced general fund support for Metro Transit, which contributes to persistent operating deficits for regional transit providers. Operating subsidies necessary to support a regional system should come from regional and statewide funding sources and not local taxpayers. In recent years, state and regional resources for transit have diminished, with costs shifting to local taxpayers in the metropolitan area. A Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 59 system of transit provides significant economic benefits to the state and metropolitan region and must be supported with state and regional revenue sources. In addition, capital costs for the expansion of the regional transit system should be supported through state and regional sources, and not the sole responsibility of local units of government. Metro Cities supports stable and predictable state and regional revenue sources to fund operating and capital expenses for all regional transit providers and Metro Mobility at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that lack sufficient transit service options. Metro Cities continues to support an advisory role for municipal officials in decisions associated with local transit projects. 5-D Street Improvement Districts Funding sources for local transportation projects are limited to the use of Municipal State Aid Street Program (MSAS), property taxes and special assessments. In addition, cities under 5,000 in population are not eligible for MSA. With increasing pressures on city budgets and limited tools and resources, cities are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain aging streets. Street improvement districts allow cities in developed and developing areas to fund new construction as well as reconstruction and maintenance efforts. The street improvement district is designed to allow cities, through a fair and objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city in which fees are raised on properties in the district and spent within the boundaries of the district. Street improvement districts would also aid cities under 5,000 with an alternative to the property tax system and special assessments. Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street improvement districts. Metro Cities also supports changes to special assessment laws to make assessing state-owned property a more predictable process with uniformity in the payment of assessments across the state. 5-E Highway and Bridge Turn Backs & Funding Cities do not have the financial capacity and in many cities the technical expertise other than through significant property tax increases, to absorb additional roadway or bridge infrastructure responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turn backs. Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads (Minn. Stat. § 161.16, subd. 4) on a phased basis using functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continued maintenance. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 60 Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county or state roads or bridges without the consent of municipality and the total cost, agreed to by the municipality, being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner. The process for establishing state policies to assign a shared cost participation for newly constructed or rebuilt bridges over trunk highways to local officials, must include input by the local municipalities affected, and any assigned shared costs and responsibilities must be agreed to by the municipalities. 5-F “3C” Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials’ Role The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) was developed to meet federal requirements, designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. Input by local officials into the planning and prioritization of transportation investments in the region is a vital component of these processes. Metro Cities supports continuation of the TAB with a majority of locally elected municipal officials as members and participating in the process. 5-G Electronic Imaging for Enforcement of Traffic Laws Enforcement of traffic laws with cameras and other motions imaging technology has been demonstrated to improve driver compliance and safety. Metro Cities supports local law enforcement agencies having the authority to use such technology, including photos and videos, to enforce traffic laws. 5-H Transportation Network Companies and Alternative Transportation Modes The introduction of transportation network companies (TNC) such as Lyft and Uber, vehicle sharing and other wheeled transportation modes such as bicycles and scooters, require the need for local officials to determine licensing and inspection requirements for these modes, and to address issues concerning management over public rights-of-way. Cities have the authority to license rideshare companies, inspect vehicles, license drivers and regulate access to sidewalks and streets. The use of autonomous delivery robots and aerial drones in public rights-of-way is also becoming more prevalent and cities must maintain and enhance the authority necessary to regulate the use of these vehicles to ensure safe use of the public right of way. Metro Cities supports the authority of local officials to regulate and establish fees on these transportation modes. Emerging and future transportation technologies have potentially significant implications for local public safety and local public service levels, the needs and impacts of which vary by community. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 61 5-I Airport Noise Mitigation Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airports are significantly impacted by noise, traffic and other numerous expansion-related issues: •Metro Cities supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted communities greater representation on the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Metro Cities wants to encourage continued communication between the MAC commissioners and the cities they represent. Balancing the needs of MAC, the business community and airport host cities and their residents requires open communication, planning and coordination. Cities must be viewed as partners with the MAC in resolving the differences that arise out of airport projects and the development of adjacent parcels. Regular contact between the MAC and cities throughout the project proposal process will enhance communication and problem solving. The MAC should provide full funding for noise mitigation for all structures in communities impacted by flights in and out of MSP; and •Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures and the work of the Noise Oversight Committee to minimize the impacts of MAC operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and concerns of impacted cities and their residents. The MAC should provide full funding for noise mitigation for all structures in communities impacted by flights in and out of MSP. 5-J Funding for Non-Municipal State Aid (MSAS) City Streets Cities under 5,000 in population do not directly receive any non-property tax funds for collector and arterial streets. Cities over 5,000 residents have limited eligibility for dedicated Highway User Tax Distribution Fund dollars, which are capped by the state constitution as being available for up to twenty percent of streets. Current County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distributions to metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Possible funding sources include the five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts, street improvement districts, and/or state general funds. The 2015 Legislature created a Small Cities Assistance Account that is distributed through a formula to cities with populations under 5,000. The Account has received periodic one-time appropriations, but no stable or dedicated source of funding. Cities need long-term, stable, funding for street improvements and maintenance. Metro Cities supports additional resources and flexible policies to meet local infrastructure needs and increased demands on city streets. Metro Cities also supports sustainable state funding sources for non-MSAS city streets, including funding for the Small Cities Assistance Account as well as support for the creation and funding of a Large Cities Assistance Account. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 62 5-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula Significant resource needs remain in the metro area CSAH system. Revenues provided by the Legislature for the CSAH system have resulted in a higher number of projects being completed, however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing activities, encumbering an already over-burdened local funding system. When the alternative is not building or maintaining roads, cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but also pay upward of fifty percent of county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in projects involving county roads. CSAH eligible roads were designated by county engineers in 1956 and although only 10 percent of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50 percent of the vehicle miles traveled. The CSAH formula passed by the Legislature in 2008 increased the amount of CSAH funding for the metropolitan area from 18 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2011. The formula helps to better account for needs in the metropolitan region but is only the first step in addressing needs for additional resources for the region. Metro Cities supports a new CSAH formula more equitably designed to fund the needs of our metropolitan region. 5-L Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads State statutes direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to submit detailed plans, with city cost estimates, at a point one-and-a-half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for community input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, it may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeals board are binding on both the city and MnDOT. Metro Cities supports the municipal consent process and opposes changes to weaken municipal consent or adding another level of government to the consent process. Metro Cities opposes changes to current statutes that would allow MnDOT to disregard the appeals board ruling for state trunk highways. Such a change would significantly minimize MnDOT’s need to negotiate in good faith with cities for appropriate project access and alignment and would render the public hearing and appeals process meaningless. Metro Cities also opposes the elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for these reasons. 5-M Plat Authority Current law grants counties review and comment authority for access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities opposes any statutory change that would grant counties veto power or that would shorten the 120-day review and permit process time. Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 63 5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget The state has failed in its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintaining major state roads. MnDOT should be required to meet standards adopted by cities through local ordinances, or reimburse cities for labor, equipment and material used on the state’s behalf to improve public safety or meet local standards. Furthermore, if a city performs maintenance, the city should be fully reimbursed. Metro Cities supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining state-owned infrastructure and property, including, but not limited to, sound walls and right of way, within city limits. Metro Cities supports cooperative agreements between cities and MnDOT, which have proven to be effective in other parts of the state. Metro Cities supports adequate state funding for the maintenance of state rights-of-way. 5-O Transit Taxing District The transit taxing district, which funds the capital cost of transit service in the Metropolitan Area through the property tax system, is inequitable. Because the boundaries of the transit taxing district do not correspond with any rational service line nor is being within the boundaries a guarantee to receive service, cities within and outside of the taxing district are contributing unequally to the transit service in the Metropolitan Area. This inequity should be corrected. Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund both the capital and operating costs for transit at the Metropolitan Council. However, Metro Cities does not support the expansion of the transit taxing district without a corresponding increase in service and an overall increase in operational funds. To do so would create additional property taxes without a corresponding benefit. 5-P Complete Streets A complete street may include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes and more. A complete street in a rural area will differ from a complete street in a highly urban area, but both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road. Metro Cities supports options in state design guidelines for complete streets that would give cities greater flexibility to: •Safely accommodate all modes of travel; Transportation 2021 Legislative Policies 64 •Lower traveling speeds on local streets; •Address city infrastructure needs; and •Ensure livability in the appropriate context for each city. Metro Cities opposes state-imposed mandates that would increase street infrastructure improvement costs in locations and instances where providing access for alternative modes including cycling and walking are deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as determined by local jurisdictions. Committee Rosters 2021 Legislative Policies 65 Municipal Revenue & Taxation Chair, Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager, Roseville Brooke Bordson Sr. Project Coordinator Met Council Sarah Brown Debt Manager St. Paul Daniel Buchholtz City Administrator Spring Lake Park Gary Carlson IGR Director LMC Jim Dickinson City Administrator Andover Lori Economy-Scholler Chief Financial Officer Bloomington LaTonia Green Finance Director Brooklyn Park Dana Hardie City Manager Victoria Chris Heineman City Administrator Little Canada Lisa Herbert Finance Director Rogers Chris Hetland Assistant City Manager Cottage Grove Tom Lawell City Administrator Apple Valley Kristi Luger City Manager Excelsior Melanie Mesko Lee City Manager Burnsville Justin Miller City Administrator Lakeville Fatima Moore Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Darin Nelson Finance Director Minnetonka Alysen Nesse Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Amanda Novak Councilmember Elko New Market Loren Olson Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Richard Paul Councilmember Blaine Candy Petersen Councilmember North St. Paul Dan Ryan Councilmember Brooklyn Center Michael Sable Assistant City Manager Maplewood Christian Taylor Policy Associate St. Paul Vince Workman Councilmember Burnsville ThaoMee Xiong Intergovernmental Relations Director St. Paul Nyle Zikmund City Administrator Mounds View Committee Roster 2021 Legislative Policies 66 Housing & Economic Development Chair, Bryan Hartman, HRA Program Manager, Bloomington Douglas Anderson Mayor Lakeville Myron Bailey Mayor Cottage Grove Karen Barton Community Development Director St. Louis Park Karl Batalden Community Development Coordinator Woodbury Josh Berg Councilmember Elko New Market Kim Berggren Director of Community Development Brooklyn Park Brooke Bordson Sr. Project Coordinator Met Council Jody Brennan Councilmember Shakopee Kirt Briggs Mayor Prior Lake Connie Buesgens Councilmember Columbia Heights Gary Carlson IGR Director LMC Aaron Chirpich Community Development Director Columbia Heights Nathan Coulter Councilmember Bloomington Marty Doll Community & Economic Development Director Victoria Jenni Faulkner Community Development Director Burnsville Larry Fonnest Councilmember Golden Valley Ben Gozola Asst. Director of Community Assets & Development New Brighton Janice Gundlach Community Development Director Roseville Stephanie Hawkinson Affordable Housing Development Mgr. & Planning Edina Chris Hetland Assistant City Manager Cottage Grove Joe Hogeboom Director of Community & Economic Development Maple Grove Taylor Hubbard Councilmember Chaska Steve Juetten Community Development Director Plymouth Irene Kao IGR Counsel LMC Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative LMC Fatima Moore Government Relations Minneapolis Steve Morris Councilmember Woodbury Alysen Nesse Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Bill Neuendorf Community Development Director Edina Bruce Nordquist Community Development Director Apple Valley Loren Olson Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Heather Rand Community Development Director Inver Grove Heights Dan Ryan Councilmember Brooklyn Center Michele Schnitker Deputy Community Development Director St. Louis Park Cara Schulz Councilmember Burnsville Tracy Shimek Housing & Economic Development Coordinator White Bear Lake Lori Sommers Senior Planner Plymouth Bob Streetar Community Development Director Oakdale Christian Taylor Policy Associate St. Paul Alyssa Wetzel-Moore Community Development Director MHFA Julie Wischnack Community Development Director Minnetonka Wendy Wolff Councilmember Met Council ThaoMee Xiong Intergovernmental Relations Director St. Paul Committee Rosters 2021 Legislative Policies 67 Metropolitan Agencies Chair, Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan Susan Arntz City Administrator Waconia Brooke Bordson Sr. Project Coordinator Metropolitan Council Matt Brown Economic Development Coordinator Coon Rapids Deborah Calvert Councilmember Minnetonka Jim Dickinson City Administrator Andover Tom Fletcher Councilmember Greenwood Dana Hardie City Manager Victoria Elizabeth Kautz Mayor Burnsville Lisa Laliberte Councilmember Roseville Gregg Lindberg Deputy City Manager Burnsville Fatima Moore Government Relations Minneapolis Alysen Nesse Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Loren Olson Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Dan Ryan Councilmember Brooklyn Center Michael Sable Assistant City Manager Maplewood Jay Stroebel City Manager Brooklyn Park Christian Taylor Policy Associate St. Paul Wendy Wulff Councilmember Metropolitan Council ThaoMee Xiong Intergovernmental Relations Director St. Paul Nyle Zikmund City Administrator Mounds View Committee Rosters 2021 Legislative Policies 68 Transportation & General Government Chair, Jason Gadd, Mayor, Hopkins Susan Arntz City Administrator Waconia Geralyn Barone City Manager Minnetonka Josh Berg Councilmember Elko New Market Brooke Bordson Sr. Project Coordinator Met Council Jody Brennan Councilmember Shakopee Anne Finn Assistant IGR Director LMC Tom Fletcher Councilmember Greenwood Mary Hamann-Roland Mayor Apple Valley Gary Hansen Councilmember Eagan Chris Hartzell Engineering Director Woodbury Mike Huang Councilmember Chaska Irene Kao IGR Counsel LMC Dan Kealey Councilmember Burnsville Larry Kraft Councilmember St. Louis Park Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative LMC Ann Lindstrom IGR Representative LMC Mark Maloney Public Works Director Shoreview Tom McCarty City Administrator Stillwater Mary McComber Mayor Oak Park Heights Mark McNeill City Administrator Mendota Heights Fatima Moore Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Steve Morris Councilmember Woodbury Heidi Nelson City Administrator Maple Grove Alysen Nesse Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Loren Olson Government Relations Representative Minneapolis Ryan Peterson Public Works Director Burnsville Dan Ruiz Public Works Director Brooklyn Park Dan Ryan Councilmember Brooklyn Center Craig Schlichting Director of Community Assets & Development New Brighton Donna Schmitt Mayor Columbia Heights Dave Shoger Public Works Director Victoria Christian Taylor Policy Associate St. Paul Michael Thompson Public Works Director Plymouth Tom Weidt Mayor Hugo Wally Wysopal City Manager Fridley ThaoMee Xiong Intergovernmental Relations Director St. Paul Nyle Zikmund City Administrator Mounds View The MLC is an association of 19 suburban communities providing a voice at the capitol to promote transparency, accountability and equity in public policy decisions. 2021 Legislative Priorities Municipal Legislative Commission Local Control •Preserve Local Authority in Land use and Development Activity •Oppose Fiscal Limitations on City Officials (i.e. Levy Limits, and Reverse Referenda) •Preserve the Integrity of the Fiscal Disparities Program •Support Repeal of the Local Government Salary Cap mlcmn.org Economic Recovery •Support for Small Business •Support Increased Investments in Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) •Support Increased Investments in the Job Creation Fund Transportation and Infrastructure •Support a Comprehensive Transportation Bill •Invest in Transportation Economic Development (TED) •Invest in Corridors of Commerce •Support City Authority to Impose Infrastructure Fees MLC Policy Positions City Population Jobs Apple Valley 53,429 16,268 Bloomington 89,654 91,785 Burnsville 62,657 35,073 Chanhassen 26,266 15,323 Eagan 68,347 59,530 Eden Prairie 63,456 62,893 Edina 52,535 44,581 Inver Grove Heights 35,381 10,931 Lakeville 64,334 17,276 Maple Grove 66,903 35,898 Minnetonka 53,713 49,366 Plymouth 78,351 55,488 Savage 31,407 8,551 Shakopee 41,506 26,841 Shoreview 26,480 11,117 Woodbury 70,840 24,826 MLC City Statistics •Total Population: 970,675 • Total Jobs: 619,470 •MLC cities generate approximately 23% of sales tax in MN • Total Legislators in MLC Delegation: 46 MLC Government Relations Team Tom Poul • tpoul@messerlikramer.com • 651-260-0696 Katy Sen • ksen@messerlikramer.com • 612-280-2249 Shiloh Larson •slarson@messerlikramer.com • 651-556-9205 MLC Cities - Population and Jobs Data from https://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/Default.aspx mlcmn.org • Supports individual property tax relief through the circuit breaker program • Supports preserving the integrity of the Fiscal Disparities Program • Opposes automatic inflationary increases in LGA • Supports policies that preserve local control over development decisions so existing taxpayers are not required to subsidize growth • Supports state funding for new early-voting responsibilities that fall on cities • Supports regional capital bonding equity Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Other From:Jennifer Garske, Executive Assistant Item Activity: Subject:Correspondence Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Attached is correspondence received since the last City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Correspondence 1-20-21 City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council Jeff Golden 6566 France Avenue South #609 Edina Minnesota 55435 9525930707 no dashes or spaces J.A.Golden@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. To Edina City Council and Mayor Jim Hovland: As a property owner at Point Of France, I am most concerned with the proposal from McGough Development for the 66-6800 site. Issues consisting of the following: Density of both residential and office spaces Height of buildings - proposed buildings exceed the 4 story allowance Length of buildings - proposed buildings exceed 200' allowance Increased traffic issues Air/noise/light pollution 10-12 years of construction Lack of green space Little connectivity to surrounding area Not enough public realm Does not transition between residential and business areas Not compliant with Southdale Design Experience Guidelines Does not meet the spirit of the Greater Southdale District Plan Requesting taxpayer support through TIF Obstructed views and lack of privacy Safety and accessibility concerns for pedestrians and bikers Icy roads on 66th Street from shadows Property values and salability will decline Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png POF 1.jpg 1.97MB POF 2.png 5.73MB City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Nextdoor Poll on where a new fire station should be built. It is pretty clear from the Nextdoor Poll that Edina residents do not want to use park property for a new fire station and do not want to spend taxpayer money on purchasing a private property which leaves the only practical land for a new fire station being the old public works site . NEXTDOOR: Where should the City of Edina build a much needed fire station? The city of Edina hired consultants that told the Edina city council that the city of Edina needs a third fire station to primarily provide fire/EMS service to the northeast portion of Edina. Fire station #2 on York Ave does not house a fire truck. Where should this new fire station be built? Utley Park (50th St/Wooddale) 13% former site of the city of Edina maintenance facility in Grandview 49% purchase the Convention Grill (France/Sunnyside) 17% none of the above 10% no opinion 11% 557 votes https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/? post=168344140&comment=501547608 Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. How should the city of Edina handle future street assessments? NEXTDOOR.com Poll Street assessments should continue to be paid 100% by adjacent property owners 27% All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes 32% 50% of the street reconstruction paid for by property owners and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes 16% Before making any decision provide more data on street reconstruction costs from similar suburbs 19% No opinion 6% 333 votes https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/? post=171341033&comment=518069604 Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Scott Neal 2015: With patience, Pentagon Park can fuel its own success Edina Sun Current Guest column With only a fast food store and an empty and locked parking ramp at Pentagon Village how may more years do we have to be 'patient'? By Scott Neal Guest Columnist When first developed in the 1960s, Pentagon Park was a cutting- edge suburban office development. It was a modern, multi-tenant office complex on the edge of the metro area. It was a successful real estate development, provided professional jobs in the southwest metro area comparable to those found in downtown Minneapolis and paid significant property taxes. https://www.hometownsource.com/sun_current/opinion/columnists/wi th-patience-pentagon-park-can-fuel-its-own- success/article_9d425db1-8e2b-5d2c-82ee-b8c01b9b7587.html Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. France Avenue Upgrades & West 58th Street Roadway Reconstruction and France Avenue Traffic Signal Update Did the city of Edina use the guidance of the National League of cities on the use of 'data and evidence" on deciding to do this project? There is no document explaining why this project had to be done. National League of Cities Announces Commitment to Enhance Cities’ Use of Data and Evidence https://www.nlc.org/post/2018/08/23/national-league-of-cities- announces-commitment-to-enhance-cities-use-of-data-and- evidence/ When Collins Electric removed the traffic signals they also removed the integrated street light. Why can't temporary street lights be installed at France/58th? Was the Edina Public Schools transportation notified that this intersection is no longer lit and suggest school buses use another route for safety? Why haven't any project costs been published? Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council Frenkel David 4510 LAKEVIEW DRIVE EDINA MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Does the city of Edina have a plan to deflate and remove the Edina Dome this spring at Braemar Field? The Edina Dome under state building code is a temporary building and is not allowed to be inflated for more than 6 months a year. The city was given permission by the state to leave it up all summer but it was never designed or installed to be a permanent structure and should be deflated this spring. The Edina dome is a temporary structure because it has no fire suppression system. Leaving the Edina dome inflated during the summer also incurs significant utility expense while getting no income since it has to be closed. The city has used MN Dept of Corrections prison labor in the past which is the main reason the dome was left since the prison labor was not available last year and will probably not be available this spring. I would suggest contacting Holy Angels Academy in Richfield to see how they took down their 2 similar domes last spring https://www.academyofholyangels.org/ Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council Frenkel David 4510 LAKEVIEW DRIVE EDINA MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. (UPDATE) Does the city of Edina have a plan to deflate and remove the Edina Dome this spring at Braemar Field? A parent at Holy Angels informed that me that Holy Angels gets students and parents to volunteer to put their domes up and take them down! Maybe the Edina athletic organizations that lobbied for the Edina dome could volunteer to put up and take down the Edina dome. This would reduce the significant operating deficit of the Edina dome that these athletic organizations said would break even which has never happened. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Why is Centurylink rolling out fiber optic Internet to most of Richfield but very little to Edina? Most people in Edina have relatively slow Internet access over copper wire. Why didn't the city of Edina work with Centurylink to roll out fiber optic in all of Edina and not just Edina city hall and Edina Public Schools? Twenty (20) years ago I had Verizon Fiber optic Internet access to my home in Virginia, I have had copper Internet access since I moved to Edina. We live in a high tech information age fueled by the Internet. Many in Edina are working from home with children doing virtual education with slow Internet access. Infrastructure is the responsibility of the city manager who evidently feels fiber Internet access is not important to Edina residents. https://www.centurylink.com/home/fiber/plans-and- pricing/minneapolis-minnesota/ Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council Frenkel David 4510 LAKEVIEW DRIVE EDINA MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Arden Park sidewalk snow removal The heavily used 6' sidewalk along the west side of Arden Park along Brookview Ave needs to be plowed. For some reason when Arden Park was redesigned there was no consideration taken as to snow removal. The main path through Arden Park is 8 ft which is wide enough for a truck to plow but most of the perimeter sidewalks are 6 ft which is too narrow for a truck. This is a classic case of poor design for efficiency of removing snow. All public works projects should take into detail the need for snow removal for walkways, roads and stairs. I will thank city staff for removing the ice off the sidewalk next to the Arden Park building left over from flooding the skating rink. I would suggest city staff look at Lynnhurst Park in Minneapolis to see how they use a dirt berm to contain water used to flood for a skating rink. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. New Law Aims to Help Localities Shift to '.Gov' Web Addresses Many local governments rely on “.com” or “.org” URLs, making it easier for cyber criminals to trick users with imposter websites. (like https://www.bettertogetheredina.ORG) Local governments are in line to get additional federal help shifting to web addresses that end in “.gov” under legislation that was part of the giant spending and coronavirus relief package President Trump signed into law at the end of the year. https://www.route-fifty.com/tech-data/2021/01/local-government-dot- gov-web-addresses/171209/ https://www.bettertogetheredina.ORG Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Nextdoor Poll: Is is time for a new Edina city manager? Yes, replace the current Edina city manager 66% No, renew the city managers contract 16% No opinion 18% 162 votes https://nextdoor.com/p/sjFJ-_bKc5Cr?view=detail The Edina City council has to realize that the residents of the city of Edina desire a new city manager. Under state statute it is an operations position not a policy position. League of MN Cities Hiring a City Manager or Administrator Toolkit https://www.lmc.org/resources/hiring-a-city-manager-or- administrator-toolkit/ Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council Austin Weigel 4506 Lakeview Dr Edina MN 55424 no dashes or spaces aweigel@gmail.com Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. regrading the passing of....Emergency Regulation No. 2021-01 Imposing a Cap on Third-Party Food Service Delivery Fees During the COVID-19 Emergency. Economics is complicated w/ lots of tradeoffs. I'm glad you're passing some language that regulates more transparency to consumers about pricing; HOWEVER, the portion of this regulation that delves into PRICE FIXING of a private company's service strikes me as illegal and joining a dangerous trend of top down planning that only a socialist could love. Price fixing won't work. Whatever you think you've gained in improving the margins for our struggling restaurants will be whittled away in other less seen tradeoffs, like reducing the incentive for new players to enter the market w/ a better product and lower fees. Please in the future, look for ways to incentivize competition (not reduce it), lower barriers to entry, and continue to support transparency of pricing. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. January 10, 2021 Governor Walz Joins States Across U.S. in Ordering Flags Flown at Half-Staff to Honor Capitol Police Officers In accordance with a proclamation issued by the President, Governor Tim Walz today directed all flags at state and federal buildings in Minnesota to be flown at half-staff, effective immediately, until sunset on Wednesday, January 13, 2021 to honor the service and sacrifice of United States Capitol Police Officers Brian D. Sicknick and Howard Liebengood. Individuals, businesses, and other organizations also are encouraged to join in lowering their flags to honor the officers who died following the insurrection at the United States Capitol. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Mayor & City Council David A Frenkel 4510 Lakeview Drive Edina MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Plymouth Public Safety director and Update on Nextdoor Poll on Edina City Manager (215 votes): Is is time for a new Edina city manager? Yes, replace the current Edina city manager 67% No, renew the city managers contract 17% No opinion 16% 215 votes https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=172635634 The city of Edina should look at the city of Plymouth Public safety model where there is a public safety director and not a fire and police chief: https://www.plymouthmn.gov/departments/public-safety/ The police and fire departments were merged in 2015 to streamline services and resources. The department is housed in the Public Safety Building. The Plymouth Public Safety Department is committed to providing progressive, proactive and professional fire, police and emergency management services to the community. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Comments * File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Mayor & City Council William C. Melton 6566 France Ave S Apt 703 Edina MN 55435 16127160572 no dashes or spaces wcmelton123@gmail.com Many thanks to all of you for your careful consideration of this issue. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png Letter to Edina City Council 20.01.12.pdf 58.96KB Mayor Hovland and Members of the Edina City Council: I have lived in Edina since 1982 (with one brief interruption) and have lived in the Point of France condominium since 2012. I have been a professional economist for over forty years. I’m writing to encourage you to oppose the latest proposal for development of the 6600-6800 France area. (I serve on the board of Point of France, but I’m writing as an individual and not as an official representative of Point of France.) I shall concentrate on the economic aspects of the proposal. The proposal is deeply pessimistic. The presentation did not include assumptions about the national and local economies, but clearly they are very grim. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US economy was hit by the steepest, and shortest, recession on record. The recovery started around midyear. Although data are incomplete, it seems clear that Minnesota fared much better than the nation. The hardest-hit sectors, in the US as well as Minnesota, include the transportation and hospitality industries. The carnage has extended to all forms of retail, other than online- based. Small firms have been hit especially hard. However residential construction has recovered far faster than almost anyone would have expected. Against this backdrop it is understandable that the new proposal dropped the hotel that featured in the approved 2017 plan, eliminated almost all public space, and bulked up residential space. I think this is an over-reaction. The pandemic probably will be largely behind us later this year. New economic stimulus measures are probably on the way. And the Federal Reserve has made clear that interest rates will remain at rock-bottom levels for several years. IHS-Markit, generally regarded as the best US economic forecaster, looks for a significant acceleration of US GDP growth in the second half of this year. Stronger growth paired with rock-bottom interest rates would be a near- perfect environment for real estate investment. My sense is that opposition to the latest proposal is near-unanimous among Edinans who live close to the area. However I believe that a large majority are supportive of development. They just want it to conform to the Southdale Design Guidelines. The Guidelines are a compelling vision for the Southdale area during the decades ahead. We would do a disservice to Edina if we were to undermine that vision because of short-term economic pessimism. William C. Melton 6566 France Avenue, #703 Edina 55435 City of Edina Correspondence Submission If you are leaving comments for a public hearing being heard by Council or the Planning Commission, go to https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings Correspondence Selection * Data Practices Advisory: Any information submitted through this form will be emailed to all City Council Members and submitted for inclusion in the next public “Council packet.” Council packets are permanent records of materials prepared for City Council meetings. Council packets are public documents that are available in print, published on the City’s website and maintained in permanent electronic records. You are not required to complete any fields of this form. However, if you do not provide your name and street or email address, your comments will not be included in the Council packet. Open Meeting Law City Council Members receive and consider all feedback sent through this form. Because of the open meeting law, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. For that reason, you might not receive a response from them. You might also receive a response from a City staff member. Email City Council: If you only want to email the City Council and not send your comments for publishing, contact members at CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov. Contact Executive Assistant Jennifer Garske, at JGarske@EdinaMN.gov, if you have any questions or require assistance. Council Packet Deadline Correspondence must be received by noon the Friday prior to a City Council meeting in order to ensure it is published in the packet prior to the Council meeting. Submissions after that time may be included in a future Council packet. Name * Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Comments * Mayor & City Council Frenkel David 4510 LAKEVIEW DRIVE EDINA MN 55424 6122371966 no dashes or spaces frenkel@att.net Sidewalk Cobblestones damaged in front of USBank and BMO Harris at 50th/France. I complained about the damaged sidewalk in front of USBank on Halifax last summer and a quick asphalt repair was done which did not last long. With empty store fronts and now broken sidewalks the appeal of 50th/France will continue to decline. The empty store fronts at Nolan Mains are not helping. File Upload By submitting this form, I have read and agree to the Data Practices Advisory above. Attachments allowed: pdf, jpg, png Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: B.1. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Minutes From:Perry Vetter, Parks & Recreation Director Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Parks & Recreation Commission Dec. 8, 2020 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission from Dec. 8, 2020. INTRODUCTION: See attached minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: Parks & Recreation Commission Dec. 8, 2020 Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved: Jan. 12, 2021 Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Edina Parks & Recreation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Dec. 8, 2020 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order Chair Ites called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were Commissioners Strother, Willette, Mork, Nahlovsky, McAwley, Sorem, Dahlien, Doscotch, Good, Miller, Nelson and Ites Staff present: Staff Liaison Perry Vetter, Assistant Director Parks & Natural Resources Tom Swenson, Assistant Director Recreation & Facilities Tracy Petersen, Administrative Coordinator Janet Canton, Recreation Supervisor Nicole Gorman, City Forester Luther Overholt, Centennial Lakes General Manager Tom Shirley and Braemar Golf Course General Manager Joe Abood III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by McAwley to approve the meeting agenda. Motion seconded by Nelson. Roll call vote. Motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Good to approve the Nov. 10, 2020 minutes. Motion seconded by Strother. Roll call vote. Motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations A. Special Project Request: Bocce Ball Court at Kojetin Park Assistant Director Swenson informed the commission this is a special project request for a bocce ball court at Kojetin Park. He informed the commission this meeting is to gather feedback on the request, thoughts, issues you may identify, etc. No decisions will be made at this time. He indicated the resident who has made this request and is interested in donating money towards this project was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. City Forester Overholt gave an introduction of the special project and Assistant Director Swenson touched on a few items from the staff report. Commissioners gave their feedback and asked questions. Staff Liaison Vetter suggested because of the opportune questions being asked they should try schedule an additional time when the resident would be available to answer some of the questions for the Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved: Jan. 12, 2021 proposal. It was indicated the commission would need more information and would like to hear from the resident before moving forward. Commissioner Good asked if they could provide more online visibility to this process and show a list of special project requests they have received and reviewed and what the status is of those items. Staff Liaison Vetter indicated they just received notice from the Communications Department they are redoing some of their website pages on the Parks & Recreation administrative side. There is a content phase they will need to go through over the next couple of months so they can keep this in mind as they approach it to see where a strategic spot may be for this. B. Operational Update on COVID-19 Guidance Staff Liaison Vetter provided the commission with a quick update on the impact they have recently gone through with the COVID 19 pandemic. He gave an overview of everything that has happened since March 13 to present. He noted what they are hearing from the community is they would like more outdoor rather than indoor activities and more household rather than organized activities. The primary concern is not just what can we do in the park system versus what should we do in the park system for operations. He pointed out that it does not just impact city operations, patrons and participants, but their tenant partners General Sports, Velocity and Red River Kitchen as well. There is also a trickle-down effect that that impacts their 14 athletic associations who are dealing with the same things such as refunds, credits, etc. Staff Liaison Vetter indicated they usually discuss fees at the December meeting; however, they are going to hold off on that until January to see what the conditions are at that time. C. Season Recap: Centennial Lakes Park Operations Liaison Vetter introduced Tom Shirley, General Manager of Centennial Lakes and noted that General Manager Shirley recently celebrated 30 years working for the City of Edina. General Manager Shirley gave an update on what has been happening at Centennial Lakes. • There were a lot more walkers and joggers as well as picnickers with their restaurant carryout food. • The putting course opened a little later in the year. There were 16,000 rounds played; last year there were 23,000 rounds played. • The new Scottish Line nine-hole course opened in the lawn games area to which there were a little over 3,000 users. • Assistant Director Petersen was able to get a grant, so they were able to bring the paddle boat rental to the pavilion and hired a separate staff to operate it. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved: Jan. 12, 2021 • The Farmer’s Market this year was held at Rosland Park in the Aquatic Center’s parking lot. There were approximately 17 to 18 vendors. The vendors and the community really enjoyed having it at the Rosland Park location. General Manager Shirley informed the commission they will be opening all three ponds for ice skating once the weather permits. They will do everything as they did before except the building will stay closed. They will be adding a lot more seating outside and hope at some point they will be able to use the fireplace as well as the fire pit and heaters. The restrooms will be open on the outside of the building. D. Season Recap: Braemar Golf Course Operations Joe Abood, General Manager of Braemar Golf Course, gave an update and presentation on what has been happening this year at the various Braemar golf operations. He noted it was a unique and successful year as they went through the ups and downs. General Manager Abood went over the timeline and financial results of what took place at Braemar Golf Course. • Braemar Golf Course needed to be turned into a call center; however, the city’s phone system is not set up to be a call center so they needed to modify it. Staff took approximately 1,200 calls per day. Also, because the current POS system did not have the ability to take online payments all payments had to be done over the phone. • Safety measures were able to get in place so the main clubhouse could be open for retail only. • Additional staff was hired so they could get a golf car rental operation going. They needed to create a few different positions where the golf cars were cleaned on a regular basis. • Red River Kitchen was able to open in June; however, they were not allowed to have banquets. • There were 74,000 rounds of golf played at Braemar Golf Course. • The driving range had a phenomenal year and was up $183,000 from the previous year. • The addition of TopTracer at the golf dome was an unbelievable addition for them. Braemar is one of the top locations for TopTracer for a couple of their awards and were one of the top locations in the world. • There were 1,742 juniors in the junior golf program this year and they also had a Junior Club Championship for the first time with 102 junior participants. They had the largest junior league in the region for the PGA. • Golf, Inc. named them “Development of the Year” honorable mention which is something that is worldwide. Richard Mandell received a design excellence award within his field which is very good for Braemar. They have also maintained the fact that they have a top 50 driving range and a top 50 golf dome. • Construction was completed on the new championship tee on hole 17. The process is still being worked through for a walking bridge on hole 16. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved: Jan. 12, 2021 General Manager Abood pointed out that Jay Meyerhoff has done a phenomenal job with the junior program and Jeff Mold and his staff have done a phenomenal job, the course conditions are doing extremely well. General Manager Abood indicated that during the winter when they have snow, they will be grooming a trail around the driving range so they will have a multi-use trail for people to come out and walk, walk their dogs, etc. They also received a grant this year for snowshoes so that is another thing why are looking at in conjunction with the Parks & Recreation Department. Staff Liaison Vetter indicated that General Managers Shirley and Abood and their staff have done a fantastic job this year under quite extraordinary circumstances. Commissioners asked questions. E. 2020 Commission Work Plan Updates The following 2020 Work Plan updates were given. Initiative #4 - Develop criteria that incorporates sustainability and equity for prioritizing capital improvements for park infrastructure needs, including playground equipment, warming houses and core amenities for expansion and replacement. Parks and Recreation Commission will create the criteria and both Energy and Environment commission and Human Rights & Relations commission will appoint up to 2 members for feedback on final criteria before it goes to council. Commissioner Nelson informed the commission they are currently waiting for feedback from the Parks & Recreation Commission and then they will be able to take it to the next level. Staff Liaison Vetter noted that the commission will weigh in on it at the January Parks & Recreation Commission meeting and from their it will go to the City Council. Initiative #7 - Study and report on the strategic goal of 15% of Edina land dedicated to parks and green spaces. Commissioner Good informed the commission they recently met with staff and the direction they are taking is looking at the four quadrants in Edina. The concept is looking around surface capabilities and how the parks and available space are providing opportunity across those four quadrants. They are looking at active acres, passive acres and enterprise acres. They have then layered on data from a national perspective and began to look at where Edina fits in across the communities of similar size. It then becomes a little more granular for what service attributes they have whether it is ice sheets, playgrounds, ice amenities, skate parks, dog parks, etc. This allows them to have a little bit deeper and different look than just saying 15% of their land use is parks and green space. There is more work to be done to continue to refine that data. They will then look at that data and see what the data tells them and what they might potentially do about it when they think about their strategic initiatives and their new comprehensive plan. VI. Chair and Member Comments • Commissioner Strother indicated she appreciates the updates on the facilities and the pandemic response. She cannot imagine how quickly the staff has had to pivot to the Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved: Jan. 12, 2021 changing landscapes and changing laws and she appreciates all the work that has been done. Staff Liaison Vetter indicated it has been challenging but staff has been doing a fantastic job. VII. Staff Comments Staff Liaison Vetter gave the following updates: • Parks & Recreation are trying to take advantage and get as much work done as they can working with the new facility division from the Engineering Department. They have been a tremendous help in getting things squared away at some of the facilities. • Assistant Director Petersen and her staff have been working hard on the infrastructure side of the enterprise facilities. • Park Maintenance staff has completed the city’s portion of the Highlands Park hockey rink light project. • Assistant Director Petersen and her staff are not only continuing with the RECtivity boxes, but the “Hunt for the Yeti” and the “Fit Kit” activities are all being rolled out. VIII. Calendar of Events A. Upcoming Meetings and Events Staff Liaison Vetter informed the commission the Parks & Recreation Commission meetings will be held on the second Tuesday of each month for 2021. As far as the annual receptions those are to be determined. The January Parks & Recreation Commission meeting will be a virtual meeting. IX. Adjournment Motion made by McAwley to adjourn the Dec. 8, 2020 meeting at 8:43 p.m. Motion seconded by Strother. Roll call vote. Motion carried. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: XII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Lisa A. Schaefer, Assistant City Manager Item Activity: Subject:Public Hearing and Correspondence Procedures Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: The staff report contains information regarding changes to submitting online public hearing comments and Council correspondence. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Public Hearing Correspondence Process January 19, 2021 Mayor and City Council Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager Changes to Virtual Public Hearing and Council Correspondence Process Information / Background: We planned a brief discussion for the Jan. 5 Council Work Session to collect feedback from Council Members regarding our virtual public hearing process and other methods of contacting City Council. That discussion did not occur due to time constraints. However, I solicited feedback from individual Council Members on ways staff can improve this process. Process for Virtual Public Hearings Public hearings are one way that the City Council collects feedback on specific decisions. Public hearings are usually conducted by the City Council, Planning Commission or Housing & Redevelopment Authority. The goal of a public hearing is to ensure all perspectives have been surfaced and considered prior to making a final decision. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City currently conducts public hearings virtually. Since virtual meetings began, we have implemented a number of alternatives for people to provide comments for public hearings. Based on feedback received from Council, residents, and staff, we are making a few modifications to this process to provide greater consistency between all comments received (online and in person). These modifications include: • Information required to submit comments. Individuals are no longer required to register on BetterTogetherEdina.org to submit a public hearing comment. Name and address are required and will be published as supplied, regardless of the method used. Individuals will still have the opportunity to submit comments on BetterTogetherEdina.org/Public-Hearings. • Access to public hearing comments. Online and voicemail comments will be compiled and published with the related agenda item in the Council meeting packet, instead of published on BetterTogetherEdina.org. • Deadline for online and voicemail comments. Staff requests voicemail and online public hearing comments close at noon the Monday following the live hearing to allow more time for staff to compile data for the Council packet. STAFF REPORT Page 2 There will continue to be three ways for individuals to submit comments for a public hearing. Regardless of the methods used, individuals are asked to provide their name, address and comment. Individuals only need to participate using one method. All comments are valued and considered regardless of the method. METHOD SUBMIT COMMENTS VIEW COMMENTS Phone-in live Call-in live during public hearing. Phone number & meeting code published in packet and on BetterTogetherEdina/Public-Hearings Live stream or video recording of public meeting. Online Comment form BetterTogetherEdina.org/Public-Hearings Complete webform with name, address, & comment. Council packet with agenda item where decision is made. Voicemail comment Call 952-826-0377 Leave a message with your name, address & public hearing comment. Council packet with agenda item where decision is made. (Staff will transcribe & include with online comments) The public hearing schedule, instructions and project information will continue to be posted online at BetterTogetherEdina.org/Public-Hearings. There will be some transition with public hearings currently in process. Staff will work to ensure instructions are clear and easy to find. Other ways for members of the public to contact the City Council Over the last few years, the City has added several new ways to communicate with the City, including the launch of BetterTogetherEdina.org, expanded use of various social media platforms, and additional virtual or remote methods due to COVID-19. We have also added several additional methods due to COVID-19. When considering whether to add to or change our methods for communication, we want to ensure that: 1) additions provide more residents and stakeholders with access, 2) residents, Council and staff are clear on how and when the communications methods are used, and 3) staff and Council effectively track and respond to the communications channels. Council Correspondence Form The “Council Correspondence Form” was implemented in 2017, prior to the launch of BetterTogetherEdina.org. Individuals used the Council Correspondence Form to submit comments for inclusion in the correspondence section of the City Council meeting packet. Staff prepare City Council meeting packets to provide the City Council with information needed for items on the scheduled agenda. This form has not been a very effective method for the City because 1) it is not heavily utilized and does not increase the number of residents or stakeholders who can access the Council 2) many comments submitted are intended for a specific public hearing, 3) there are other methods available to the public that are more effectively tracked and allow staff to respond to. We will continue to offer multiple ways for individuals to contact City Council, including: STAFF REPORT Page 3 CONTACT METHOD INFORMATION & ACCESS Public Hearing Comments Public hearings are one way that the City collects feedback on specific decisions before the City Council. View the list of scheduled public hearings and instructions for providing comments can be found at BetterTogetherEdina.org/public-hearings. Community Comment at City Council Meeting Residents or other members of the public can publicly comment during the “Community Comment” portion of City Council meetings. Email the City Council Emails sent to CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov are received and read by the Mayor and all Council Members. Due to open meeting laws, Council Members cannot engage in back-and-forth emails involving a quorum of three or more members. As a result, individuals might not receive a response from all members, or a response might come from a staff member. Staff is available to assist any member of the public in receiving a response. Contact the Mayor or individual Council Members The Mayor and Council Members can be contacted individually by phone, email or letter at the contact information on the City’s website: City Council. Better Together Edina Individuals can publicly comment or ask questions on BetterTogetherEdina.org, according to the rules of use on the site. Staff monitors the site and responds to questions. Official Social Media channels Individuals can publicly comment or ask questions on the City’s various social media sites, according to the rules of use on the site. Individuals who previously used the “Council Correspondence Form” can still communicate with the Council (or City staff) in several ways, including: • Speak during a City Council meeting during the “Community Comment” portion of the agenda or comment online at BetterTogetherEdina.org or if they want comments or questions to be publicly viewed and responded to. • Use any of the three methods for submitting public hearing comments (in person, voicemail or online) if the topic is related to a scheduled public hearing. • Email CityCouncil@EdinaMN.gov to send an email to all Council Members. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: XII.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: From: Item Activity: Subject:Prep Memo for Jan. 20, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Prep Memo for Jan. 20, 2021 1 Sharon Allison From:Scott H. Neal Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:04 PM To:James Hovland; Kevin Staunton; Ron Anderson; James Pierce; Carolyn Jackson Cc:Lisa Schaefer; Sharon Allison Subject:Prep Memo for January 20, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting Good Afternoon Everyone – Closed Session Reminder that our closed session to confer with legal counsel on the Tengdin matter starts at 5:00pm. We have 20-25 minutes for this update. We will want to stick to the allotted time so that we are not late for the Work Session at 5:30pm which will have a large number of attendees. Work Session Mayor Hovland will facilitate the Work Session. We will have time for legislators to tell us what they expect in the session and to react to some of the items in our legislative priorities. They know the legislative priorities are still draft and that you will be considering giving them final approval at tonight’s meeting. Council Meeting I have received no requests to remove anything from the Consent Agenda. Our one public hearing tonight should be somewhat perfunctory. Cary Teague will give a brief presentation on the sketch plan tonight prior to the developer’s presentation. This is not typical, but is advisable because of some unique aspects of the proposal. That’s all I have this afternoon. Scott Scott H. Neal, City Manager 952-826-0401 | Fax 952-826-0390 sneal@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Follow me on Twitter. Date: January 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: XIII. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Other From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Calendar of City Council Meetings and Events Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only. INTRODUCTION: Date Time Meeting/Event Location Wed, Jan. 20 5:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Tengdin Lawsuit; Joint Meeting with State Legislative Delegation Virtual 7:00 p.m.City Council Regular Meeting Virtual Thurs, Jan. 28 7:30 a.m.Housing and Redevelopment Authority Virtual Tues, Feb. 2 5:30 p.m.City Manager Performance Review Virtual 7:00 p.m.City Council Regular Meeting Virtual Thurs, Feb. 11 7:30 a.m.Housing and Redevelopment Authority Virtual Mon, Feb 15 PRESIDENTS DAY – CITY HALL CLOSED Wed, Feb. 17 5:30 p.m.Use of Task Forces / Engagement - Tentative Virtual 7:00 p.m.City Council Regular Meeting Virtual Thurs, Feb 25 7:30 a.m.Housing and Redevelopment Authority Virtual