Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-07-27 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Ag enda Planning Commission City Of E dina, Minnesota City H all, Council Cham ber s Wednesday, July 27, 2022 7:00 PM Participate in Public H ear ing(s). Call 888-504-7949. E nter Participant Passcode 813740. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. An operator will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Com m u n ity Com m ent During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. G enerally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. V.Pu b lic Hea rings A.B-22-13, 5916 Kellogg Ave. 3.8% im pervious su rface va ria n ce request B.Site Plan Review with m u ltiple Va ria n ce for 4404 Va lley View Roa d C.Prelim ina ry Rezon ing & Prelim in ary Developm en t Plan for Solh em Com pa n ies at 4600 and 4620 77th Street W est. VI.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.2023 Pla n n ing Com m ission W ork Pla n VII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents VIII.Sta9 Com m ents IX.Adjournm en t 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 ampli=cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: July 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-22-13, 5916 Kellogg Ave. 3.8% impervious s urfac e variance request Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the variance as requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he request is for a 3.8% impervious surface variance to the 50% requirement allowing an addition of a detached garage in place of an existing detached garage at 5916 Kellogg Ave. T he new garage location will improve upon the impervious surface AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Engineering Memo Site Location Narrative Survey Plans SWMP Staff Pres entation July 27, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-22-13, A - 3.8% impervious surface variance to the 50% requirement allowing replacement of a detached garage while reducing impervious surfaces on the lot at 5916 Kellogg Ave. Information / Background: The subject property is approximately 6,618 square feet in area, consisting of a two -story home with a detached two-car garage, located on the west side of Kellogg Ave. The existing two-story home was built in 2015. The applicant proposes to demolish, rebuild, and reorient the existing garage. The request is for a variance to the 50% impervious surface limit. The applicant is proposing an impervious surface variance with new garage the same size as existing, however, with less driveway area improving upon/reducing the impervious surface on the property. The existing site is over the maximum 50% impervious surface requirement. The project reduces the amount of existing impervious surface on-site, however, will still exceed the maximum requirement. The proposed plan will bring the property closer to conformance. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features 5916 Kellogg Ave. is a two-story home with a detached garage built in 2015. The proposed garage will be rebuilt to the same size and moved to the southwest corner of the lot conforming to the height, setback and building coverage requirements. The new garage will improve upon the existing nonconforming impervious surface requirement. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage Proposed grading and drainage paths are included in the storm water management plan. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in a memorandum. Compliance Table/Garage City Standard Proposed North Side – West Rear- South Side– East Front– 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet feet feet feet feet feet Building Coverage Impervious surface Coverage 30% 50% 29.8% 55.1% existing 53.8% proposed* Height 18 feet 16.83 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: STAFF REPORT Page 3 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. The practical difficulty is that the existing maximum impervious surface is over the required maximum by 5.1% with the garage repositioning reducing hard surface coverage by 1.3%. The impervious surface ordinance was adopted recently after the home was built in 2015. The property existed with more coverage than currently allowed. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing garage behind the house is oriented at an angle to the south lot line. The homeowner desires to move the garage south with the door facing east to the street for better access and less driveway surface. The new garage is the same size as the existing garage and will not increase building coverage. The new plan reduces impervious surface and moves the lot closer to compliance. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicant is hoping to rebuild the garage with the same dimensions in a more practical location on the yard. The new garage will be seamless and will look as if it were part of the original plan for the lot. There are garages of similar scale and location in the area. Recommended Action: Approve a 3.8 % impervious surface variance for the property at 5916 Kellogg Ave. So. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: Survey dated: July 1, 2022. Elevations and building plans dated: July 1, 2022. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Deadline for a city decision: July 27, 2022. DATE: 7/12/2022 TO: Cary Teagu e – Plan ning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 5916 Kellogg Ave - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and u tility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the req uest of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included existing and proposed surveys and street views dated 7/1/2022. Summary of Work The applicant proposes to demolish , rebuild , and reorient the existing garage. The request is for a variance to the 50% impervious surface limit. Easements No comment. Grading and Drainage Site drains to Minnehaha Creek through neighboring properties and Pamela Park. Existing and proposed drainage is south to private property. Stormwater Mitigation The site has and proposes greater than 50% impervious surface coverage, triggering category 2 of City of Edina Building Policy SP -003 standard. Rate control to private property is achieved by reducing the amount of impervious. A final grade as -built survey and inspection may be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development No comm ent. Erosion and Sediment Control Perimeter control will be required around the excavation. Street, Driveway Entrance, Public Utilities Driveway entrance work is not proposed; permit not required. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required , applicant to verify with the district. A well is not located onsite. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will not be required . Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 July 19, 2022 1 in = 47 f t / Property: 5916 Kellogg Ave Summary of Proposal We are requesting a variance to the requirement that impervious surface be limited to 50% of lot coverage. Our proposal would decrease our non-conforming coverage from 54.9% (existing) to 53.8% (proposed). The two-car garage on our property currently sits at an angle in our backyard with the garage door facing our neighbor's home to the South. We propose to move the garage to the Southwest corner of our property and rotate the garage so that the garage door faces Kellogg Ave. We will be reducing the size of the garage from 543 Sq. Ft. to 528 Sq. Ft. We will also be reducing the size of the driveway from 1,305 Sq. Ft. to 1,235 Sq. Ft. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable The current garage is set at an angle to the house, such that it occupies most of the backyard. As a result, the backyard is divided into 3 separate, awkward small triangles of grass, none of which alone are large enough for family enjoyment. Further, Kellogg Ave is a busy neighborhood street. A June 2021 study by the City of Edina showed that 350 cars per day utilize the Kellogg and 60th intersection just south of our home. We (along with multiple neighbors) have contacted the City of Edina about concerns with the speed of traffic. We have two young children, ages 6 and 3. Due to the traffic volume, we do not feel comfortable letting our children play in the front yard without constant supervision or playing activities where a ball (or item) could roll into the street. A contiguous and functional backyard, even a small one such as the proposed, is reasonable to address the above issues and concerns and allow our kids to play safely away from traffic. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district When the prior owners re-built this home in 2015, the garage site and size was left untouched. As the existing survey shows, the garage sits at an angle occupying most of the backyard. We have made no changes to any structures on the property. Included in the documents is an aerial picture of the immediate neighborhood. Our home is the only home in the immediate area with a detached garage at an angle to the house and road. All other houses in the immediate area either have garages in front of the home or have a detached garage that is in the backyard with the garage door facing the road. The latter option is what we propose. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance With this ordinance adopted in January 2022, the planning commission intended to minimize and reduce the impervious surface coverage on single dwelling residential lots. Our proposal is entirely in line with the spirit of this ordinance. The table below shows that by completing the proposed project we will be reducing both the building coverage and impervious surface coverage: CITY OF EDINA JUL. 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Current Proposed Reduction % Building Coverage 30.60% 29.80% -2.61% Impervious Surface Coverage 54.90% 53.80% -2.00% Notably, this will bring our property from non-conforming on the building coverage requirement into conforming. Additionally, the size of the new garage will also decrease slightly. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood As stated previously, our home is the only home in the immediate area with a detached garage at an angle to the house and road (please see included aerial photograph). The proposed project will bring our property more in line with the character of the neighborhood by squaring our garage along the lot line and facing the garage door toward the street, like other homes in the neighborhood. The garage will be built to match the home and have a slightly smaller footprint. CITY OF EDINA JUL 01 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT LEGEND = CATCH BASIN = GAS METER = FIRE HYDRANT 0 = POWER POLE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PED. H ELEC. TRANSFORMER WELL = GATE VALVE UGHT POLE *0 = TREE = MICE UNE SANITARY SEDER UNE WATER UNE GAS UNE STORM DRAIN UNE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNE - CONCRETE SURFACE 959 891.4 8 2.1 892.3 X 891,3 892.2 X 892.E 889. X 892.2 A 35.3 89132& 889 889.6 889.3 I 889.9 --132.49-- N 89 56'02" E L 30 ELE5=898.1 EXISTING DWELLING 34.9 SA S 89'55'18" W BITUMINOUS DRIVE --132.16- 4.8 894.8 ,893. 893.5 . 893.9 894 0 893.0 893.8 .8 :b( 893* 8837 . t 893.8 X 893.7 RETsPr--- 893. X 8 2.%,„ 89L5 894.0 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.-394.5 z 0 I of • CFI Ls) 0 ..t 1 890.5 890.7 890 891.0 892.1 BITUMINOUS I DRIVE PROJECT BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV.-589.9 EASING DWELUNG ENTRANCE--...- ELEV...893.7 CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY BENCHMARK /1292 TOP NUT HYDRANT AT CORNER OF KELLOGG AVE. AND 60TH ST.--.. TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV.=877.81 arm LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 13, FAIRFAX, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 5. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 6. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. 7. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes iron survey marker, found, unless otherwise noted. EXISTING HARDCOVER House 1,350 Sq. Ft. Existing Deck 100 Sq. Ft. Conc. Drive 255 Sq. Ft. Bituminous Driveway 1,050 Sq. Ft. Garage 543 Sq. Ft. Walk 125 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 79 Sq. Ft. Porch 130 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,632 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 6,618 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 54.9% EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE House 1,350 Sq. Ft. Garage 543 Sq. Ft. Porch 130 Sq. Ft. Deck 100 Sq. Ft. Deck credit -100 Sq. Ft. TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 2,023 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 6,618 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 30.6% DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 17917 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: ve.vw.advsur.com DRAWNG ORIENTATION & SCALE SCALE - 1" = 20' 0 20 40 • • - - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT NS PLAN, SURVEY OR REPORT HAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I All A DAILY REGISIERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER 1101STEEETA. Thomas Al. Blown # 42379 LICENSE NO. APRIL 14.2022 DATE DATE SURVEYED: APRIL 14,2022 DATE DRAFTED: APRIL 14, 2022 SHEET TITLE EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER 220362 TB SHEET SIZE 17 X 22 SHEET NO. S1 SHEETIOF1 CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS WILL WETTERL1N 5916 KELLOGG AVENUE EDINA, MN Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.=894.5 889 1. 889.611; X 889,98. X;89:9 X 891.3 30 --132.49-- N 89 56'02" E EXISTING DWELLING ENTRANCE-- ELEV.893.7 I HEREBY CERTIF.' THAT THIS RAN, SURVEY CR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY MOT SUPERVISION Ate TINT I Alt A ONLY REGISTERED MO SURVEYOR INIDBI THE W OF ST OF NESOTA Thomas M. Blown # 42379 LICENSE NO. MAY 19, 2022 DATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 13, FAIRFAX, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 5. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 6. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. 7. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 8. While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes iron survey marker, found, unless otherwise noted. CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXISTING DWELLING ENTRANCE---.- ELEV.-898.1 34.9 891.5 X 8 8i193.7 [A; S 89'55'18" W BITUMINOUS DRIVE --132.16- - 4.8 894.8 8 893:.. 893.5 0 90.9 891.0 x 891.1 891.6 2 ' NT.,89,4 ; X 91 8 :0 k1.3 89 : 2 893. W.W. DECK,, 890. 893 ' 1.5 / .2 RET. WALL 891.3 893.9 89 A W.W. 2 893.8 O'S( 893 6.5 893.7 893.7 CO' 0 6 93 .!; ), 891.9 891.0 892.1 BITUMINOUS I DRIVE 890 890.10 8 890.3 :90.3 959 891.4 :92.1 892.3 X 8922 8922 X 892.4 Ln 892.4 892.4 /R:. 892.3 02.0 891,2 p 35.3 8902(i Xs • > 889.6 L 30 PROJECT BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT EIEV=889.9 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE HARDCOVER 1,365 100 218 1,017 528 125 9 70 130 House (Inc. Chimney) Garage Porch Deck Deck credit TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE AREA OF LOT PERCENTAGE OF COVERAGE TO 1,365 Sq. Ft. 528 Sq. Ft. 80 Sq. Ft. 100 Sq. Ft. -100 Sq. Ft. 1,973 Sq. Ft. 6,618 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED House (Inc. Chimney) Deck Conc. Drive Bituminous Driveway Garage Walk Ret. Wall North Ret. Wall Porch LEGEND Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. Sq. LOT 29.8% CITY BENCHMARK 11292 TOP NUT HYDRANT AT CORNER OF KELLOGG AVE. AND 60111 ST.- TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV,877.81 TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 3,562 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 6,618 Sq. Ft. CATCH BASIN ©y GAS METER -- = FIRE HYDRANT 0 POSER POLE MANHOLE TELEPHONE PED. El ELEC. TRANSFORMER 81) WELL 0 GATE VALVE ==. UGHT POLE '*" 0 TREE -X-X- - FENCE UNE PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 53.8% SANITARY SEWER UNE WATER UNE GAS UNE STORM DRAIN UNE OVERHEAD UTTUTY UNE - CONCRETE SURFACE PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 55.1% EXISTING HARDCOVER House (Inc. Chimney) 1,365 Sq. Ft. Deck 100 Sq. Ft. Conc. Drive 255 Sq. Ft. Bituminous Driveway 1,050 Sq. Ft. Garage 543 Sq. Ft. Walk 125 Sq. Ft. Ret. Wall 9 Sq. Ft. North Ret. Wall 70 Sq. Ft. Porch 130 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,647 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 6,618 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF COVERAGE TO LOT EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE House (Inc. Chimney) 1,365 Sq. Ft. Garage 543 Sq. Ft. Porch 80 Sq. Ft. Deck 100 Sq. Ft. Deck credit -100 Sq. Ft. TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 1,988 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 6,618 Sq. Ft. 30.0% DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 5916 KELLOGG A VENUE EDINA, MN 17917 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: ,,wnv.advsur.om SHEET SIZE 17 X 22 SHEET NO. S1 SHEET10F1 DRANANGOMEMMON.SSCALE SCALE - 1" = 20' 0 20 40 CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESS WILL WETTERLIN Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. DATE SURVEYED: APRIL 14, 2022 DATE DRAFTED: MAY 19, 2022 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEY DILMMNGNUMBER 2205 75 JR 891.5 X 892 5.8 893.9 894.0 89" 09'b< 893 x .i1C 8 8 9 9 3 3 .7 3 RET 38. , ,893. 893.0 893 93 93.5 8930 893.8 893 W. 893.9 894.0 .8 893. b< 893w 893.7 X 893.7 I HEREBY CERTIFY TEAT MS PUN. SPECIACADON OR REPORT WAS PREPARED 132 DE OR UNCER NY DRECT SINERNSION AND THAT I AU A CULT UCENSED PROSE SEXN 'REDO UNDER 1HE LAWS Cf DiE STATE GF 6. Rinke / 52716 LIC ERSE NO JUNE 7, 2022 DATE EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP ENTRANCE- ELEV.=.898.1 EXISTING DWELLING ELEV.=898.1 EXISTING DWELLING 34.9 34.9 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.=.894.5 S 89'55'18" W BITUMINOUS DRIVE --132.16-- 894.8 894.8 891.5 X 892 • 91,9 X 8911 -V-891" GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.=89 4.5 S 89'55'18" W BITUMINOUS DRIVE --132.16-- 894.8 894.8 894.0 889 894.0 2.6 892. „„ tr 89 89 - 22 R E E 72 . 11 w NAG LI881.3 891410.7 898090.5 OG 890.9 45.0 / 3.9 2 Cl. C..CCa' 1391.0 892.1 X C.6' ' 890.4 EXISTING I 8111,4INOUS DR i_LI. 892.4 892.4 qi, 891.9 X X N990- -.- .""- M X 890.3 IL 892.3 ,( / 892.0 / , 890 '...- 1„...13 v 890.3 ,A,90.9 „ 891.4 8912 A. ,' sso.ise9 '7 ___ /10 890. , 889.6689.8)0; M:1390),'<!.”...' 1 X 891.3 A 892.1 8.2 :89:4 N 89 56'02" E EXISTING 8836 889.9 X 892.2 ) - -132.49-- I 35.3 A 9 DWELLING ENTRANCE- ELEV.=893.7 EXISTING DECK-, pSTING WELLING 5.0 6.5 / 77-. C 7 8 ' 89 3113 892.5/ /tn s aiDzJECLBENCthaliii TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV.=889.9 • O I OI N5 ,O 8 „• O r 2 PROPOSED ‘`. SED SWALE-c. GARAGE FFE=890.7 g. 0 8 9,8 X 889, X 889.9 --132.49-- B92.2 X 892.4 889.3.--- I889.69.n~u X 8913 8.90. e4VP4.09A. 9Sto / 2 „ . / C27 , 7 , 1:i t 5 89171.' 448 8903 891.0 892.1 EXISTING' BITUMINOUS DR X 890.3 8 . 890.3 „A390.990.9 891.4 892.1 „892.3 EXISTING DECK-, X 891.3 b N 89 56'02" E EXISTING DWELLING WELLING ENTRANCE-•-•.... ELEV.893.7 892.4 892.4 4, j 892.3 892.0 4( 3 P 893. / 9 36.5 / 89 8 2 93.9 - lEXISTING RET. WALL991.3 X X 892.2 35,3 91.9 _ - - 892.5/ /4j) I ° UI • _ - - ' . 890.5y 90. 87 890 ) 89 891.2 ) 890.19.9 8902< 9 30 889.6 PROJECT BENCialgiK TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV.=889.9 • L 30 CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS 1. RATE CONTROL - NO NET INCREASE IN RUNOFF RATE FROM EXISTING TO PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR THE ATLAS 14, 10-YEAR STORM EVENT. REFER TO STORMWATER RUNOFF RATE SUMMARY TABLE. STORMWATER RUNOFF RATE SUMMARY STORM EVENT EXISTING DISCHARGE (CFS) PROPOSED DISCHARGE (CFS) 10-YEAR 0.41 0.40 *NOTES: 1. RESULTS ARE DERIVED FROM HYDROCAD MODELING SOFTWARE UTILIZING ATLAS 14 STORM DATA. 2. TYPE B SOILS PER WEB SOILS SURVEY. LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR EX/SANG SPOT ELEVAMON DRAINAGE ARROW - FLOW SILT FENCE/RIO ROLL SF EXISIING DRAINAGE AREA ID El PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA ID P1 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 17917 Highway 7 Atnnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952)474-7964 Web: VAVW.advsurxorn DRAW NG ORIENTATION & SCALE SCALE - 1" = 20' 0 20 40 IN III • MI CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESS WILL WETTERLIN 5916 KELLOGG AVENUE EDJNA, MN DATE SURVEYED: APRIL 14, 2022 SURVEYED BY: THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. 442379 ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO. DATE DRAFTED: JUNE 7, 2022 SHEET TITLE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAVVING NUMBER 220575 JR SHEET SIZE 1 7 x. 22 SHEET NO. S2 SHEET2 OF 2 Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. Hennepin Flight date: January 4, 2019 ANNING, DEPARTMENT https://obligue.sanborn.com/Hennepin/?I1=44.895238,-93.337977&zoom 9 Existing View From Street CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 12022 PLANNING DEPARTMEN CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 I `Z-02Z PLANNING DEPARTMENT i):441/01101.1gibilaggali t Existing View From Street Proposed View From Street CITY OF EDIN JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ArcitecturalShingles to Match House OHD Trim 4" Primed LP Smartside 17'x8' Front Side - 24%0" 9'0" Left Side - 22'•0" Eave• Size 6" OH 16'10" 13'2" Front Rake• Size 12" OH 1 Siding Type.MFG,Exposure,Color 7 "LP Smartside Painted by others **Same siding as House Soffit and Fascia Aluminum Match House Window Trim' $" I Corner 4" Double Primed LP Corners Purchaser: Will Wetterlin Roof Style: x 221 -0" Detached Gable Storage Trusses 7112 Pitch Job Address: 5916 Kellogg Ave Edine Ceiling/Walls: 9'-2" Ceiling Height (2x6 Walls Framed 16" 0,C. w17116" OSB) City/St/Zip: Edina, MN 55424 Overhangs: Front: 12" Left: 6" Back: 6" Right: 6" .44th, Established in 1915 MN LIC 1934 SUSSEL GARAGES 6" Back Rake OH 4 Back Side - 24%0" Right Side - 22'•0" Please Note: These Images are not part of the contract and are for illustrative purposes only. The colors, textures, and manufactured products displayed are digital representations only and cannot be relied upon to accurately portray the items to be installed. Please make all product selections by viewing manufacturer samples and brochures. Any required painting to be completed by purchaser. CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 I 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMEN Uncontrolled Runoff South To Neighboring Property Routing Diagram for Existing Conditions - 5916 Kellogg Ave Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 6/7/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat 1Reach j Link Existing Conditions - 5916 Kellogg Ave Edina Atlas 14 24 -hr SO 10 -yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 6/7/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment El: Uncontrolled Runoff South To Neighboring Property Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 2.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 1,718 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,260 98 Impervious Area 3,978 82 Weighted Average 1,718 43.19% Pervious Area 2,260 56.81% Impervious Area Tc (min) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity Capacity (ft/sec) (cfs) Description 4.5 50 0.0400 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 15 0.0400 3.00 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.6 65 Total CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT P1 Uncontrolled Runoff South To Neighboring Property CITY OF EDINA JUL 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tub cat Link Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions - 5916 Kellogg Ave Edim Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 6/7/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Reach Proposed Conditions - 5916 Kellogg Ave Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Printed 6/7/2022 Page 2 Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.041 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P1) 0.050 98 Impervious Area (P1) 0.091 81 TOTAL AREA CITY OF EDINt; JUL. 0 1 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Proposed Conditions - 5916 Kellogg Ave Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 6/7/2022 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n 09367 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment P1: Uncontrolled Runoff South To Neighboring Property Runoff 0.40 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Depth= 2.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 1,803 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,175 98 Impervious Area 3,978 81 Weighted Average 1,803 45.32% Pervious Area 2,175 54.68% Impervious Area Tc (min) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity Capacity (ft/sec) (cfs) Description 4.5 50 0.0400 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 15 0.0400 3.00 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.6 65 Total CITY OF EDINA JUL 01 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5916 Kellogg Ave. Impervious surface variance request EdinaMN.gov 2 EdinaMN.gov 3 EdinaMN.gov 4 EdinaMN.gov 5 EdinaMN.gov 6 EdinaMN.gov 7 EdinaMN.gov 8 EdinaMN.gov 9 EdinaMN.gov 10 EdinaMN.gov 11 Date: July 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ite P lan R eview with multiple Varianc e for 4404 Valley View R oad Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the Site P lan with Variances. I N TR O D U C TI O N: C ity Homes is requesting a site plan review with multiple variances to develop the vacant site at 4404 Valley View R oad. T his site was part of the E dina F lats project, and was to have a two-story, four (4) unit condominium built on it. M ultiple variances were approved as part of that project. T he applicant is proposing to revise the original plans and develop the site with two (2) two-unit row houses. T his request would require a revised site plan and the following variances S tructure setback variance from 35 feet to 20 feet on Oaklawn. S tructure setback variance from 25 to 10 feet on Valley View Road. S tructure setback variances from 25 to 7 and 5 feet from the side lot lines. B uilding materials variance to allow hardi-board siding rather than brick on the street facing elevations and not have 75% transparency at ground level. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Engineering Memo - Transportation, Sus tainability and Engineering Proposed Plans and s ustainability questionnaire Revised Lands cape Plan Buildable Area Site Location and Zoning Applicant Narrative Better Together Edina Comment Report Key Pages from the Valley View/Wooddale Small Area Plan Approved Edina Flats Plans Approved Edina Flats Resolution Applicant Pres entation Staff Pres entation July 27, 2022 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Site Plan Review with multiple Variance for 4404 Valley View Road. Information / Background: City Homes is requesting a site plan review with multiple variances to develop the vacant site at 4404 Valley View Road. This site was part of the Edina Flats project, and was to have a two-story, four (4) unit condominium built on it. (See attached approved Edina Flats plans.) Multiple variances were approved as part of that project. The applicant is proposing to revise the original plans and develop the site with two (2) two-unit row houses. (See attached proposed plans and narrative.) This request would require a revised site plan and the following variances Structure setback variance from 35 feet to 20 feet on Oaklawn. Structure setback variance from 25 to 10 feet on Valley View Road. Structure setback variances from 25 to 7 and 5 feet from the side lot lines. Building materials variance to allow hardi-board siding rather than brick on the street facing elevations and not have 75% transparency at ground level. The applicant went through the sketch plan process with the Planning Commission and City Council, and has revised the plans to address some of the feedback. (See attached applicant summary of changes based on the sketch plan feedback.) Those changes include facing front doors toward Oaklawn to be more consistent with the homes to the north, and consistent with the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan that showed a multi-story apartment on this site facing Oaklawn; revised access to include one access off Valley View Road; and increased landscaping along the north lot line. The changes made based on the sketch plan review now provides additional and wider access drives from Valley View and Oaklawn, with garages facing the street. Garages and driveways facing the street were not contemplated in the small area plan. (See attached page 49 from the small area plan.) STAFF REPORT Page 2 Another recommendation from the small area plan is the provision of “gateway public art.” Therefore, the applicant would be required to work with the City of Edina to provide within the right-of-way if the proposed project is approved. (See pages 48 and 49 of the small area plan.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Easterly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Residential. Southerly: Apartments; zoned PRD-4, and guided for High Density Residential Westerly: New Horizon Day Care; zoned PCD-1, Planned Commercial District; and guided NN, Neighborhood Node. Existing Site Features The subject property is .27 acres in size and was part of the Edina Flats redevelopment project and was approved for the development of a 4-unit condominium. Multiple variances were approved as part of that project. The building however was never constructed. The site is vacant today. Previously located on the site was the Burly hair salon, and before that was gas station. According to the MPCA, this site had a petroleum leak discovered and reported in 2008. The owner at the time worked with the MPCA to clean the site and provide the necessary documentation. The MPCA considers the site cleared for development and they do not require any other documentation. MPCA stated the City of Edina can approve permits for construction on this site. Planning Guide Plan designation: NN, Neighborhood Node Zoning: PCD-1, Planned Commercial District Site Access The access to the site would be off Oaklawn and Valley View Road. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 11 over-story trees would be required. The applicant is proposing 43 over-story trees around and through the site. That would include a row of 20 Arborvitae along the north lot line to provide screening to the residential home to the north. (See attached landscape plan.) Building Materials The building materials would be a variety hardi-board siding. (See proposed plans.) These are the same materials shown at the sketch plan review. The City Code for Planned Commercial STAFF REPORT Page 3 Development requires a brick or stone base. The proposed building materials were generally found to be acceptable at the sketch plan review.) The applicant will have a materials board for the Planning Commission to review at the Planning Commission meeting. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (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 along Oaklawn. Utilization of the existing sidewalk on Valley View Road is proposed. Staff would recommend that a boulevard style sidewalk be installed on Valley View Road. That could be made a condition of an approval of the project. Planting of boulevard trees to help buffer the garage entrances, driveways and building. Tree planting in these areas would be subject to review and approval of the city forester, prior to issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-1) Variances Granted for Edina Flats Condos Proposed Front – Oaklawn Avenue Front – Valley View Road Side – North lot line Rear – West lot line 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 16 feet 10 & 5 feet 5 feet NA 20 feet* 10 feet* 7 feet* 5 feet* Building Height 2-stories and 30 feet 2-stories and 30 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1.0 Density 30 units per acre 30 units per acre in the overall Edina Flats Development 30 units per acre overall (15 units per acre when using just the subject property) *Requires Variance Variance – Building Setbacks & Building Materials Per the compliance table above, variances are requested for the building setbacks. The PCD zoning district, however, encourages buildings to be brought up to the street to create a pedestrian friendly environment, which is what the proposed project is attempting to accomplish. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. As demonstrated in the table above, the proposed setback variances are consistent with the variances that were approved for the condominium project that was approved, but not built on the site. The buildable area on STAFF REPORT Page 5 this site is limited due its location on a corner lot with very large rights-of-way on both Oaklawn and Valley View. (See attached buildable area map.) Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance suggests that the City Council will consider exceptions to the setback requirements if the use creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. The applicant is proposing sidewalks along Valley View and Oaklawn. These sidewalks would provide an active pedestrian and streetscape environment, (assuming boulevard style sidewalk on both street fronts with boulevard trees) which would provide opportunity for residents to the north and east to move through the development to connect to the commercial development to the west. The practical difficulty in developing four units on the site consistent with the approved density for the project is due the small shape and size of the lot located on a corner lot. The right-of-way from the curb is 13 feet on Valley View Road and 14 feet on Oaklawn, therefore, the structure would be 23 feet back from the curb on Valley View Road and 34 feet on Oaklawn. The building materials are intended to better blend in with the adjacent single-family homes. If brick were used, it would give the impression more of a commercial use. Brick and stone are required in commercial zoning districts, but not in single-family residential zoning districts. When excluding this property from the Edina Flats development, the allowed number of units on this site would be eight (8) under the allowed density in the Comprehensive Plan. Given the small size of the lot and required setbacks, four (4) units is reasonable. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? Yes. The site is unique in the PCD-1 zoning district, given the lot depths and triangular shape at the corner. These conditions were not created by the applicant. The City encourages buildings to be brought up to the street, rather than having large parking lots in front of the building from the adjacent streets. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The site was approved for a 4-unit condominium with setback variances. The proposal consistent with the approved plans for this site with 4 townhomes with setbacks consistent with the setbacks approved for the site. PRIMARY ISSUE Are the Variances justified? Yes, staff believes the variances are justified for the following reasons: STAFF REPORT Page 6 1. The proposed variances are reasonable for this site, as they are consistent with the variances that were approved for the condominium project that was approved, but not built. 2. The buildable area on this site is limited due its location on a corner lot with very large rights-of-way on both Oaklawn and Valley View. (See attached buildable area map.) 3. Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance suggests that the City Council will consider exceptions to the setback requirements if the use creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. The applicant is proposing sidewalks along Valley View and Oaklawn. These sidewalks would provide an active pedestrian and streetscape environment, (assuming boulevard style sidewalk on both street fronts with boulevard trees) which would provide opportunity for residents to the north and east to move through the development to connect to the commercial development to the west. 4. The practical difficulty in developing four units on the site consistent with the approved density for the project is due the small shape and size of the lot located on a corner lot. (See buildable area on the attached map.) The right-of-way from the curb is 13 feet on Valley View Road and 14 feet on Oaklawn, therefore, the structure would be 23 feet back from the curb on Valley View Road and 34 feet on Oaklawn. 5. The building materials proposed are intended to better blend in to the adjacent single-family homes. If brick were used, it would give the impression more of a commercial use. Brick and stone are required in commercial zoning districts, but not in single-family residential zoning districts. 6. When excluding this property from the Edina Flats development, the allowed number of units on this site would be eight (8) under the allowed density in the Comprehensive Plan. Given the small size of the lot and required setbacks, four (4) units is reasonable. Recommendation A case could be made for approval or denial of this project. Below provides options for the planning commission and city council to consider: Approval Recommend that the City Council approve the Revised Site Plan request with Variances at 4404 Valley View Road. The Variances are as follows: Structure setback variance from 35 feet to 20 feet on Oaklawn. Structure setback variance from 25 to 10 feet on Valley View Road. Structure setback variances from 25 to 7 and 5 feet from the side lot lines. Building materials variance to allow hardi-board siding rather than brick on the street facing elevations and not have 75% transparency at ground level. STAFF REPORT Page 7 Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed variances are reasonable for this site, as they are consistent with the variances that were approved for the condominium project that was approved, but not built. 2. The buildable area on this site is limited due its location on a corner lot with very large rights- of-way on both Oaklawn and Valley View. (See attached buildable area map.) 3. Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance suggests that the City Council will consider exceptions to the setback requirements if the use creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. The applicant is proposing sidewalks along Valley View and Oaklawn. These sidewalks would provide an active pedestrian and streetscape environment, (assuming boulevard style sidewalk on both street fronts with boulevard trees) which would provide opportunity for residents to the north and east to move through the development to connect to the commercial development to the west. 4. The practical difficulty in developing four units on the site consistent with the approved density for the project is due the small shape and size of the lot located on a corner lot. (See buildable area on the attached map.) The right-of-way from the curb is 13 feet on Valley View Road and 14 feet on Oaklawn, therefore, the structure would be 23 feet back from the curb on Valley View Road and 34 feet on Oaklawn. 5. The building materials proposed are intended to better blend in to the adjacent single-family homes. If brick were used, it would give the impression more of a commercial use. Brick and stone are required in commercial zoning districts, but not in single-family residential zoning districts. 6. Proposed density is reasonable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. Plans must be consistent with the approved plans dated June 27, 2022. 2. 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. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies after the project is built. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer’s memo dated July 5, 2022 and revised on July 18, 2022, which includes considerations on sustainability. 4. Construction of a boulevard style sidewalk on Valley View Road and planting of boulevard trees to help buffer the garage entrances, driveways and building. Tree planting in these areas would be subject to review and approval of the city forester, prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF REPORT Page 8 5. Public sidewalks must be a minimum of 5 feet in width with a 5-foot boulevard. 6. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City of Edina may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 7. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. 9. The applicant shall work with the City of Edina to provide a public art piece at the corner of Valley View and Oaklawn within the right-of-way. Denial Recommend that the City Council denies the Revised Site Plan request with Variances at 4404 Valley View Road. The Variances are as follows: Structure setback variance from 35 feet to 20 feet on Oaklawn. Structure setback variance from 25 to 10 feet on Valley View Road. Structure setback variances from 25 to 7 and 5 feet from the side lot lines. Building materials variance to allow hardi-board siding rather than brick on the street facing elevations and not have 75% transparency at ground level. Denial is subject to the following findings: 1. This site has been approved for a reasonably sized 4-unit condominium as part of the Edina Flats project. 2. There variance criteria have not been met with the proposed design of the site. 3. The plans are not consistent with the building frontages suggested in the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan. 4. The development proposal is not consistent with the overall Edina Flats plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions listed above. Deadline for a city decision: September 20, 2022 DATE: 7/5/2022 Revised 7/18/22 TO: 4404 Valley View Rd, Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer RE: 4404 Valley View Rd – 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 drawings and HydroCAD report dated 6/13/2022 Review Comment Required For General 1. Deliver as-build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 2. Maintenance of sidewalk along Oaklawn Avenue to be the responsibility of the property owner. Maintenance of sidewalk along Valley View Road to be the responsibility of the City. General Comment Survey 3. An existing and proposed site condition survey is required. Grading/Building Permit 3.1 Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Grading/Building Permit Living Streets 4. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Grading/Building Permit 5. Saw cut concrete sidewalk joints on public sidewalks. Grading/Building Permit 6. Public sidewalks to be minimum 5’ in width with a 5’ boulevard. Grading/Building Permit 7. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections and driveways should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 in City Code. Grading/Building Permit 8. Staff recommends the developer consider boulevard trees along Valley View Rd and/or Oaklawn Ave. General Comment Traffic and Street 9. Review fire access requirements with fire department. Grading/Building Permit 10. Driveway entrance permits required for entrance reconstruction. Follow standard plate 405. Ensure at least 3’ minimum separation between driveway and fire hydrant. Building Permit 11. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates 540 and 545. Valley View Rd is scheduled for mill and overlay in 2024. Certificate of Occupancy 12. Coordinate with City electrician on City lighting near property line. Certificate of Occupancy Sanitary and Water Utilities 13. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Grading/Building Permit 14. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 15. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 16. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit with Public Works. Prior to Starting Utility Work 16.1 Public Works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 17. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 18. 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 19. Provide at least 3’ separation between services. Services must be straight from property line to respective main. Prior to Starting Utility Work 20. Onsite well sealed in 1999. No issues. Storm Water Utility 21. Provide geotechnical report with soil borings. Grading/Building Permit 22. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report meeting watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Grading/Building Permit 23. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 24. A SWPPP consistent with the State General Construction Site Stormwater Permit is required. Grading/Building Permit 25. Provide top of window well elevations to ensure at least a few inches of freeboard between the adjacent grade and top of window well. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 26. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Grading/Building Permit 27. Retaining walls over 4-ft in height require design by a structural engineer. Grading/Building Permit Sustainability 28. The Metropolitan Council's Extreme Heat map shows that during an extreme heat event (when air temperatures are 90 or above), this area of Edina can be up to 9 degrees F hotter than surrounding areas. 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. Staff recommends considering rooftop structural supports to accommodate rooftop plantings should the owner wish to add them. General Comment 29. The University of Minnesota's Solar Suitability map rates this area as "good" for solar roof installations with a grade of 83 out of 100, and estimated payback of 8 years. Staff recommends considering this assessment when assessing the roof for green roof or solar options. General Comment 30. Staff commends the developer for using HERS inspection processes to ensure an energy efficient building. Staff recommends pairing HERS with Xcel Energy’s EDA program to maximize energy efficiency. General Comment 31. See Sustainable Design Questionnaire for additional considerations and commitments. General Comment Other Agency Coordination 32. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 33. Watershed district permit is required. Grading/Building Permit 34. According to direct conversations with the MPCA, this site had a petroleum leak discovered and reported in 2008. The owner at the time worked with the MPCA to clean the site and provide the necessary documentation. The MPCA considers the site cleared for development and they do not require any other documentation. They stated the City can approve permits for construction on this site. General Comment s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 2 4404 Valley View Road Edina, Minnesota by City Homes + Simply Homes This new development would propose the construction of two (2) rowhomes to be built at 4404 Valley View Road. The existing property is vacant. We believe there is a strong market for smaller residential properties designed around an aging-in-place concept for the growing elderly population. These rowhomes provide a viable option and would be a complimentary residential community to the neighboring Edina Flats Development. The specifics of the new homes include the following: •Approximately 2,800+ and 3,300 SF of living space (each unit) •2 car attached garage •3 Bedroom, 3 Bath, work-from-home office, sunrooms, and optional roof decks. •2 story construction (with basement) •Each home is planned with an elevator •Architectural style would be urban cottage •Exterior materials to include: Engineered reverse board and batten siding, vertical siding in combination with painted lap siding and shingle roofs, metal guardrails. s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 3 4404 Valley View Road Edina, Minnesota by City Homes + Simply Homes Intended Use and Proposal Request Edina has an unmet need for older residents looking to downsize in home price and in home size as they enter a new stage of life after their kids have left their family home. They are looking to sell their big family homes in Edina and stay in Edina, however there is not enough of this type of product in Edina for the demand. The proposed row homes at 4404 Valleyview will be a perfect offering for this demographic. They are between 2800 and 3300 square feet on 3 floors with an elevator for ease of use. The units will be built with zero grade entry from the garage into the house and several different age in place safety and security and ease of use features throughout each of the homes. These homes will offer Edina residents the chance to live in the area they are familiar with and around family and friends. City Homes has built several products around Edina to help reach this market including but not limited to the 15- unit condo complex called Edina Flats and three homes on Blake circle. The number of calls into City Homes for this type of home emphasizes a large, unmet need within the city. We’re hopeful and confident these homes will begin to address this demand and offer a great opportunity for this demographic. s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 6145 Oaklawn Ave. Rental 6141 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6137 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6136 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 4412 Valley View Rd. Commercial (New Horizon) 4404 Valley View Rd. (Proposed Site) s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 5 10 20 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 29’ –4”28’ –0”36’ –4”12’ –0” 48 –4”2’–8”51 –0”12’ –0”34’ –8”8’ –0” 9’ –4”46’ –8”4’–0”0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” (9’ –4 ½” ceiling)(8’ –6” ceiling)(ceiling) varies)30’ –0”0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” (9’ –4 ½” ceiling)(8’ –6” ceiling)(ceiling varies)30’ –0”0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” (9’ –4 ½” ceiling)(8’ –6” ceiling)(ceiling)30’ –0”0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”ceiling height varies (9’ –4 ½” ceiling)30’ –0” 10’ –2 ¼”(8’ –6” ceiling) 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”ceiling height varies (9’ –4 ½” ceiling)30’ –0”10’ –2 ¼”(8’ –6” ceiling) 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 16’ –0” 78’ –5”30’ –4”40’ –0”18’ –0” 2 –6 1/2”2’ –8” 36’ –6 ½”21–0”2–0”15–0”2–0” 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 30’ –0” 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼”0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 30’ –0” 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c30’ –0” 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Existing House s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c E1 Uncontrolled Runoff To West E2 Uncontrolled Runoff To Street Routing Diagram for Existing Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 6/13/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Existing Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Printed 6/13/2022Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCArea Listing (all nodes)Area(acres)CN Description(subcatchment-numbers)0.062 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E1, E2)0.198 98 Impervious Area (E1, E2) 0.259 89 TOTAL AREA Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28"Existing Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Printed 6/13/2022Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCSummary for Subcatchment E1: Uncontrolled Runoff To WestRunoff = 0.01 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 1.26"Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrsAtlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 213 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B * 30 98 Impervious Area 243 66 Weighted Average 213 87.65% Pervious Area 30 12.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: Uncontrolled Runoff To Street Runoff = 1.44 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.067 af, Depth= 3.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 2,477 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B * 8,581 98 Impervious Area 11,058 90 Weighted Average 2,477 22.40% Pervious Area 8,581 77.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, P1 Uncontrolled Runoff To Street Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 6/24/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Proposed Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Printed 6/24/2022Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCArea Listing (all nodes)Area(acres)CN Description(subcatchment-numbers)0.088 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P1)0.172 98 Impervious Area (P1) 0.260 85 TOTAL AREA Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28"Proposed Conditions - 4404 Valley View Road Edina Printed 6/24/2022Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLCSummary for Subcatchment P1: Uncontrolled Runoff To StreetRunoff = 1.17 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 2.71"Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrsAtlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 3,834 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B * 7,473 98 Impervious Area 11,307 85 Weighted Average 3,834 33.91% Pervious Area 7,473 66.09% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 50 0.0200 0.14 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.8 100 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 6.8 150 Total City of Edina – New Construction Sustainability Questionnaire Page 1 City of Edina Sustainable Construction Questionnaire lThe City of Edina has set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the community. To help achieve these goals, developers seeking City approval must complete this form as part of their their zoning application. Upon receipt of this form, please email Sustainability Coordinator, Grace Hancock, GHancock@edinamn.gov, to set up a time to walk through the form and discuss sustainable building strategies. Please email the completed form to Cary Teague, CTeague@edinamn.gov, and copy Grace Hancock. Topics Answers Yes or No Brief Description Sustainable Design & Energy Consumption Will you utilize Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance and/or Centerpoint Energy’s Builder and Developer programs for this development? Yes That is our goal Will the buildings meet SB2030 energy goals? No Will the building be LEED certified? No The cost for formal certification is prohibited but we plan to incorporate as many sustainability features balanced against cost model Will all appliances and equipment be Energy Star or EPA WaterSense certified? Yes Will different strategies to conserve energy (beyond those required by code) be included? If so, please describe Yes While not a strategy, City Homes is a Certified Green Path Builder and relies on HERS expection for energy design and construction strategies. We will also provide additional energy saving strategies (LED lighting, motion sensors) if To Build owners have these requests. Will there be renewable energy such as solar or wind be generated on site? No However we have and can pre- wire for solar panels if so desired by our To Build client Will the project include a geothermal system? No Will the completed project subscribe to a community solar program or other renewable energy program? No Will there be purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs)? No Comments: Managing Storm Water What percent of the property is pervious surface before the redevelopment? What is the percent post development? Unknown Current property has been covered with construction materials neighboring project City of Edina – New Construction Sustainability Questionnaire Page 2 City of Edina Sustainable Construction Questionnaire What new surfaces will be pervious? (i.e. Sidewalks, driveways, overflow parking) TBD The proposal is to increase density on the site, providing two rowhouses (4 units total). We have minimized sidewalks for those only needed for entry into the homes. We will work with the city regarding storm water management and hard cover area and proposing of pervious material as required and in response to our current stormwater management plan. Will a green roof be included on the new structure to assist in storm water retention? Potentially Both buildings (4 total units) have a flat roof area that can be occupable and it could be an option to be a green roof if the To-Build-Owners so choose to. Will rain gardens or similar features be included on site to filter and retain the storm water? Potentially Not at this time based on our current stormwater management plan. Comments: It should be noted, these homes will be Build to Suit and many decisions will be within the new owners requirements. Landscaping Features to Manage Air Quality and Heat Island Effect Will existing healthy trees be protected and saved? No See Civil/Survey Drawings What percent of the property is covered by tree canopy before redevelopment? What is the percent post development? Minimal We are proposing significant tree replacement, see Landscape Plan Large existing trees will be removed based on current site and home designs. However we are proposing significant new tree replacement, see Landscape Plan. We will work with the city to align landscaping and air quality and heat island effect. 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)? Yes We will work with the City to determine the appropriate size/caliper of trees required specific to trees removed. Will shade trees be provided along roadways, drives and surface parking areas beyond those required by code? Yes Will native plantings be used in the landscaping? Yes Will landscaping include pollinator-friendly varieties? Yes City of Edina – New Construction Sustainability Questionnaire Page 3 City of Edina Sustainable Construction Questionnaire Will future owners and managers be trained in methods to avoid harmful chemicals being used on landscaping? No This will be up to the individual home owners. Comments: It should be noted, these homes will be Build to Suit and many decisions will be within the new owners requirements. Managing Construction Waste Will demolition of existing structures meet LEED Green Building Demolition and/or B3 State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines? No There are no existing structures on the property. Will existing building elements be salvaged for reuse? Example, timber, steel, asphalt, cabinets, etc. NA Are scrap and excess construction materials being separated and recycled? No Are workers provided with separate recycling dumpsters and training in proper use? No Comments: Managing Operational Waste Will a recycling service be provided to those in the multifamily complex? To any businesses on site? Yes Will an organic recycling service be provided to those in the multifamily complex? To all businesses on site? No Will future users of the building be provided with education and training regarding proper recycling practices? No Comments: It should be noted, these homes will be Build to Suit and many decisions will be within the new owners requirements. Managing Water Consumption Is the project including features to reduce water consumption beyond features required by code? No Is there a grey water system included to reuse water on site? Will future users of the building be provided with education and training regarding conservation of water? No Will outdoor landscaping watering system include a water sensor to automatically reduce watering in wet conditions? Yes Comments: It should be noted, these homes will be Build to Suit and many decisions will be within the new owners requirements. Sustainable Transportation Features City of Edina – New Construction Sustainability Questionnaire Page 4 City of Edina Sustainable Construction Questionnaire Is the site accessible by public transit within ½ mile? Yes Are site features included to make the use of public transit convenient and simple? Examples include sheltered waiting areas, paved sidewalks and clear site lines. Yes If there is no public transit within ½ mile, is the project providing features to help bridge the distance to allow flexibility to use public transit? NA Is bike Parking available near the main entrance for guests? Space in parking structure (e.g. bike corral, bike lockers) for residents’ bikes? NA Is bike parking and a shower facility provided for employees? NA Do you have EV Charging Stations for owners, guests or customers to use? Yes We can provide electric car charging station/connections if To Build owner requests this Will there be parking spaces provided for car- sharing vehicles to reduce the overall number of cars? NA Updated January 2021 West Unit 1 West Unit 2 East Unit 2 East Unit 1 Roof Deck Roof Deck Roof Deck Roof Deck Concrete DrivewayConcrete Driveway Concrete Driveway Existing Home (4) S M Spirea (3) Pyr Arborvitae s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Oaklawn Avenue0 5 10 20 (6) A F Dogwood Perennial Bed Typical at Front Entrances (1) American Linden (Basswood) (1) American Linden (Basswood) (1) P Elm (1) H W Maple (2) Colorado Blue Spruce (3) Colorado Blue Spruce (1) P F Crab (8) Pyr Arborvitae (3) S M Spirea (2) P F Crab Modular Block Retaining Wall @ West and North Property Line Typical Building Base Planting: Bark or stone bed w/mixed low height plantings Notes to Drawing: 1.All areas shall be sodded unless noted otherwise 2.Provide root barrier at paving, building edges and utilities when trees within 5’ 3.All lawn and landscape areas shall be irrigated with fully functional irrigation system (1) P Elm (10) S M Spirea (12) Pyr Arborvitae (7) P G Aspen s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Maintenance Edge Shovel Cut Modular Block Wall Deciduous Tree Planting Shrub and Groundcover Planting EdinaMN.gov 1 Buildable Area 4404 Valley View Road Row House Proposal Summary of the Process: • City Homes presented a Sketch Plan to the City Council at the March 22, 2022 Council meeting and received favorable responses, the Council recognized the city needs more housing options. Also, the council and planning recognized this as a gateway, node within the Valley View Wooddale neighborhood and providing nice image through landscaping should be a goal. • Cary Teague confirmed this was part of the Edina Flats development and this site received a conditional use permit for multifamily housing and this sketch plan falls within many of the setbacks and parameters from the original multifamily building originally proposed on this site. • Previous feedback from the council and city planning from a similar proposal at 4630 France suggested individual meetings with neighbors, planning commission and council members to provide more project detail and understanding, to gain more support • City Homes over the course of a few weeks met with various council and planning commissioners about the proposal (represented by the original sketch plan). Specific feedback included: o Concerns over the long façade along Oaklawn with all the front doors to the units facing Valley View (no front doors facing Oaklawn which was seen as undesirable). o Parking and access to the east units was also questioned, one driveway access point was good but seemed to present a challenge for coming and going and negotiating cars within a tight area • City Homes received the final Existing Survey drawing at roughly the same time. This drawing had slight differences from the information and data gathered from the county website (which was the information and base drawing of the sketch plan): o Overall dimensions and angles of the property lines were slightly different, requiring adjustments in the layouts of both buildings (width and lengths). o Based on the new information from the site survey, the single driveway access for the east building no longer worked regarding access to the garages, turnouts etc. • Based on this information and feedback from the neighbors and council members, City Homes and the architect explored an adjustment to the site plan layout (as now proposed). This layout addresses challenging issues from the original sketch plan in a more neighborhood consistent manner including: o Adjusting the long façade along Oaklawn and creating front doors to those units o Turning a gable toward Oaklawn that is also consistent with homes along Oaklawn o Separate driveway access to each unit provides a more user-friendly access for homeowners compared to the single driveway leading to tight individual driveways o The image along Oaklawn is now very consistent with the neighborhood (50% of the homes along the west side of Oaklawn for 3 blocks are 2-story homes with double garage doors and front doors facing Oaklawn • City Homes and the architect conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 5, 2022, to present the current proposal to the neighbors of this property. A half a dozen people attended the meeting and gave City Homes good feedback on areas of concern and components they liked. Most comments had to do with access and the busy intersection of Valley View and Oaklawn as well as screening for the neighbor directly north. They also wanted to see all the elevations of the project and the type of plantings being proposed (this group suggested Basswood Trees along Oaklawn and screening Arborvitae on the north side of the site which is now within the proposal). • City Homes is providing significant plantings to address the importance of this gateway site along both Valley View and Oaklawn • City Homes is incorporating as many of the neighbor’s suggestions as reasonably possible including plant types and screening In summary City Homes feels confident this well be a successful project, fit in nicely with the neighborhood and present a nice gateway to the Valley View/Wooddale neighborhood Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 21 July 2022 Public Hearing Comments-4404 Valley View Rd. Better Together Edina Project: 4404 Valley View Road Site Plan VISITORS 25 CONTRIBUTORS 11 RESPONSES 11 2 Registered 0 Unverified 9 Anonymous 2 Registered 0 Unverified 9 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 18, 2022 06:43:04 am Last Seen:Jul 18, 2022 06:43:04 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Julie Risser Q2.Address 6112 Ashcroft Avenue Q3.Comment When City Homes + Simply Homes presented its sketch plan to Edina City Council it received clear feedback: its proposal was too large for the site, and asking for significant setback variances on all four sides was too much. Unfortunately, the plan moving forward remains the same size. In addition, environmental factors pertaining to the site have not been raised by city staff or the developer. The proposed Row House plan does not meet the standards/vision presented in the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan in terms of suggested exterior materials, placement on the lot, and marginalization of pedestrian and bike transit. Recent actions of how the city, the owner, and the developer have ignored policy and safety issues surrounding this parcel are alarming. They include promoting a plan that far exceeded set residential density by claiming a non- contiguous parcel could be included in the calculations, and allowing the owner to generate revenue by using the site as a construction staging area. There is little reason for residents to expect the city, the owner, or the developer to follow basic safety regulations on the local, county, state levels. Please consider the following: • Environmental concerns: Before the site was Burley’s, it was a Sinclair Station. Staff and the developer have failed to mention this. Residents can visit MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood website and search 4404 Valley View Road. The interactive map shows a purple dot representing a “Investigation and Cleanup” for the “Former Gas Station” - https://mpca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9d45793c75644e05bac197525f633f87 There should be an environmental review of this site before construction begins. Such action should involve the MPCA. The project should not moving forward without clear understanding of costs involved in removing and addressing any below ground equipment or chemicals remaining from Sinclair Station. • Economic concerns: During the sketch plan hearing, it became clear that the proposed project is operating on an extremely tight budget – tight finances were used to justify cheaper exterior materials than required. In many ways the property owner has painted himself into this situation. Not mentioned during the hearing was the high cost the landowner paid for the parcel in June of 2018, $885,000.00. According to Hennepin County, the current value of the site is $601,000.00. The owner also had to pay for removing the old Burley’s Hair Salon Building. Residents should not have to suffer a cheap looking building because the property owner overpaid for the land. The proposed siding fails to meet clearly expressed standards Edina has extablished. Furthermore, City Homes was allowed to use cheaper exterior materials on Edina Flats. It used massive sheets of a textured white composite – something that looks like a textured wallpaper. The confidence with which City Homes is requesting to again lower expenses by lowering the quality of exterior materials reflect its experience – the developer knows Edina really doesn’t care about the quality of buildings that go up in the Wooddale Valley View area. • Oversized: The plan is too large for the site. It requires the city of Edina to grant significant setback variances on all sides, compromising pedestrian and bike safety. The project means the building setback from Oaklawn will be disrupted, interfering in people being able to see traffic on Valley View road. Another driveway will be added along Oaklawn near where three roads converge – Valley View, Oaklawn, and 62nd Street. The small area plan specifically notes the import of reducing driveways – they are crash points. This is a busy area – it is one that people take to get to Pamela Park. During the summer kids and adults often bike on the sidewalks along Valley View Road as the bike pathways in this area are incredibly meager. View 44 was even designed so that short-term delivery trucks would park on the bike path when dropping packages off at the building office. • Stormwater On the “City of Edina Sustainable Construction Questionnaire,” City Homes failed to answer the questions: “What percent of the property is pervious surface before the redevelopment?” “What is the percent post development?” City Holes responded: Unknown, explaining “Current property has been covered with construction materials neighboring project” Using the presence of construction material as an excuse for not answering the question again reveals how little the developer thinks the city actually cares. As noted above, construction material should never have been allowed on the site. Edina staff allowed the property owner to generate revenue by using the site as a construction staging area for months – this is not a permitted use. The Edina Flats project significantly reduced the amount of pervious surface, as did the View 44 project. There does not appear to be much concern about water flow in this part of Edina. This is particularly troubling as Edina’s own interactive map for flood water indicates this is an issue for the neighborhood. • Adjacent Properties The proposed project will also have a negative impact on the neighbor to the north. It will completely block the owner’s southern view from inside of the house and outside of the house. Edina has already significantly compromised this property through the New Horizon Academy Project – it approved a development plan that literally blocks the owner from accessing her driveway through the way the New Horizons parking lot is striped. This has not been resolved. • The Gateway Vision The project ignores the idea that this area should be a “gateway” to the neighborhood. It does not angle the row houses to create a welcoming feeling. It does not respect the flow needed to create this kind of design. The project is too big for the site, it is also too cheap for the site. It is 7 pounds of sugar in a 5 pound bag. And as noted above, there is a history of city staff allowing proposals and actions to occur on the site that fly in the face of established code. There is little reason to believe this unacceptable project could move forward in a responsible manner. Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 18, 2022 11:45:37 am Last Seen:Jul 18, 2022 11:45:37 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Karen Sandler Steinert Q2.Address 4128 W 62nd Street Q3.Comment This is a significant reduction to the setback requirements in a very public and high-traffic area. I was disappointed with the initial reduction to the setback requirements without any offsetting requirement to add more green space elsewhere. I am not in favor of a further reduction of this magnitude without some offsetting benefit to the community. Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 18, 2022 17:01:27 pm Last Seen:Jul 18, 2022 17:01:27 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Brian Tibaldo Q2.Address 6228 Peacedale Ave Q3.Comment I am against this plan. These properties are too big for this site to begin with, and will cause difficulties with the traffic visibility. To propose such large setbacks is ridiculous, and makes my concern even worse. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 18, 2022 21:05:46 pm Last Seen:Jul 18, 2022 21:05:46 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lynn Thomson Q2.Address 6120 Kellogg ave Q3.Comment I feel that the area is already overdeveloped with rental apartments which have recently been constructed. Traffic in that area is crazy and the single family homeowners are totally against this plan. We were originally informed that Citihomes would be moving their office at that site with a possibility of retail below Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 18, 2022 21:28:11 pm Last Seen:Jul 18, 2022 21:28:11 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name James westin Q2.Address 4501 Garrison Lane Q3.Comment I am not a fan of the plan, and especially not a fan of the plan requiring 4 different variances on all sides with the lot lines just to make it work for the developer so that they can make money on their investment. The setbacks are there for a reason, so a building won't stick out and not blend in well into a neighborhood and changing the setbacks on all sides defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 19, 2022 08:26:59 am Last Seen:Jul 19, 2022 08:26:59 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Steve Bloomquist Q2.Address 4605 Golf Terrace Q3.Comment I am opposed to granting these setback variances. This site work within required boundaries and not have setbacks less than 25 feet. Please stand up for the integrity of our development guidelines. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 19, 2022 12:50:22 pm Last Seen:Jul 19, 2022 12:50:22 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Wayne Dvorak Q2.Address 5840 Kellogg Ave. Q3.Comment This is Wayne Dvorak. I’m at 4404 Valley View Road. I am against off of this stuff. I live and was and raised here for 55 years. I’m sick of everything jamming into this area with a lot of traffic. Do we need more there? No. Make it a park or something. I’m kind of sick of all this stuff here, but we approve everything anyways. I guess I’m against all the variances and stuff though. - Voicemail transcribed by City staff Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 20, 2022 11:23:10 am Last Seen:Jul 20, 2022 11:23:10 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Colleen Daman Q2.Address 5936 Kellogg Ave. Q3.Comment Why do we have setbacks if we are constantly ignore them and allow variances? If the builder can't make the plans work within the parameters of the site, then they shouldn't build on that lot. Think about the people that use those sidewalks, the neighbors who live next door, and those in the neighborhood who drive down Oaklawn. We already have a street parking issue on Oaklawn due to the curve and parking issues on Kellogg. Adding more cars, more breaks in a sidewalk, where kids on bikes and scooters ride seems like a dangerous gain so a builder can make money and the City earns more tax dollars. Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 21, 2022 09:27:31 am Last Seen:Jul 21, 2022 09:27:31 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Janey Westin Q2.Address 6136 Brookview Ave Q3.Comment In reviewing the latest proposed plans for the 4 townhouse units for 4404 Valley View Rd, first of all, the narrative needs to be changed. The price point for these units is clearly not for "downsizing" Edina residences. I was told they would sell for $1.2 to 1.3 million. Don't call this project by a name that isn't true. I am concerned for the disruption to traffic flow and pedestrian/cycling safety during the construction process. Is the City going to allow, once again, full lane closures of Valley View Rd multiple times, as was done for the View 44 apartments? The street was used as a staging area for construction purposes, so many times, that I lost count. The lot for the 4404 townhouses is also too small for the size of proposed buildings to be put on it. Where will dirt be placed during excavation and construction? Where will materials be placed during construction? Where are construction vehicles to go? Any construction activities and materials placement on the street right- of-way property, where the major utility boxes are located is NOT okay. This would endanger the Utilities for a large chunk of Edina. Sight lines for traffic at the busy intersection of Valley View/62nd St/Oaklawn Ave must not be diminished; during or after construction. That intersection is already dangerous and confusing as it now exists, w/o construction going on. For lesser visual impact and blocking of sunlight for the neighbors directly to the north, and to the east, why can't the pitch of the roof for the townhouses be less steep? There is no practical purpose for the steeper pitch. The ridge line could be 2 feet lower by doing so. Respondent No:10 Login:Susan Lee Email:LEE_SUSAN@YMAIL.COM Responded At:Jul 21, 2022 09:34:16 am Last Seen:Jul 21, 2022 15:51:00 pm IP Address:68.46.101.195 Q1.First and Last Name Susan Lee Q2.Address 6708 Point Drive Q3.Comment The developer should follow the Wooddale-Valley View Small Area Plan guidelines for this specific parcel. The large square footage being proposed for the small size of the site is driving the need for unacceptable 5-7 foot sideyard setbacks. This parcel can realistically fit no more than 3 units of 3,000 sf or 4 units of 2,000 sf or less which is what is suggested in the small area plan. Many downsizing elderly households would be very interested in smaller footprints and smaller square footage homes which in addition, would make them more economical to purchase on fixed incomes. Please challenge this developer to do better! Our city needs a RANGE of housing types for a RANGE of income levels. Respondent No:11 Login:Constance Email:crcarrino@q.com Responded At:Jul 21, 2022 09:42:16 am Last Seen:Jul 21, 2022 16:32:26 pm IP Address:65.128.169.174 Q1.First and Last Name Connie Carrino Q2.Address 4509 Garrison Lane Q3.Comment In 2014 I served on the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan (WVVSAP) work group. It was a good process and even better work product. The result: a guidebook that future planning commissioners, city staff and councilmembers could use to make difficult development decisions by relying on already vetted community input. During the WVVSAP kick-off meeting and then quoted in city-produced project blog (s e e : file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/WVV-SAP%20Blog%20- Imagine%20the%20Possibilities%20(1).pdf), Community Development Director, Cary Teague, said at the time, “There’s no way that we (city planning staff) can foresee every development issue before it’s presented. Having a small area plan on file allows us to rely on community consensus before development is proposed. When we are contacted by a developer, we will have guidelines and goals in place—we know what the neighborhood wants.” Well I can tell you that the proposed project for 4404 Valley View (the former Burley’s site) is not what the neighborhood wants, does not reflect the community input and guidelines in the WVVSAP and any contrary argument—whether from the developer or commissioners—is simply taking the report out of context. The WVVSAP provides a balance between various stakeholders wants and needs and recognizes that some flexibility could be tolerated. The excessive variances requested for this current proposal are intolerable and obscenely push the envelope. When I volunteered to serve on the WVVSAP, I did so because I wanted to help preserve a special feature of our Edina community: neighborhood nodes. I support thoughtful, balanced and smart redevelopment. There is nothing thoughtful, balanced or smart in the 4404 Valley View proposal including (to point out just a few glaring examples): • Adds more driveways to the already awkward access and convergence of Oaklawn/62nd and Valley View. • Replaces a one-story rambler-style retail building with four large residential units towering over an existing single family residence that has already been inconvenienced (to say the least) by the ungainly day care center. During the WVVSAP public and workgroup meetings, we spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on this particular parcel to help avoid the negative impact on single-family homes and the potential impact on that cumbersome three-prong street access. • Exploits already approved variances for the former Edina Flats condos—a lovely project that complemented the WVVSAP guidelines with its graceful transition and welcoming gateway. In the Edina Flats proposal, those variances were reasonable and tolerable because they improved the project. In this proposal, the variance requests sought are merely to make the units bigger and more expensive. • Lacks any opportunity to meet a key community goal of creating a gateway into the node. Garage doors are not gateways. And sticking decorative lawn art in dirt is not what the WVVSAP intended. As the PLANNING commission you have a PLANNING tool in the WVV small area PLAN. Please honor its intent and have the courage to say no to these variance requests. In doing so, you are not voting against the project per se, just the excessive variances. And to be clear, I’m not opposed to variances requests and approvals—if that planning tool is used to make a project better not bigger for the sake of profit. I’ve used that criteria when previously supporting several residential and commercial projects. I recognize that it is difficult to say no, especially when a vacant lot could instead produce an increase in tax revenue, but protecting and enhancing the Wooddale-Valley View neighborhood node is worth waiting for the right project—the right plan. 2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 1 Site Plan N.T.S ROOF BELOW EXITCORRIDOR @ 1 CORNELIA PLAN @ 2350 S.F. + BALCONY CORNELIA II PLAN @ 2240 S.F. + BALCONY DWREF LINEN DW OPTIONAL OPTIONAL CLERESTORY WINDO WS BENCH/HOOKSLINENREFMECH MECH CLOSET LAUNDRY BATH OWNERS SUITE 14'-4" x 14'-4" SUITE #2 12'-0" x 16'-3" BATH 9'-10" x 10'-11" CLOSET 9'-9" x 11'-10" LIVING AREA 19'-0" x 24'-0" BATH 6'-0" x 11'-10" DINING AREA 11'-0" x 16'-3" KITCHEN 11'-0" x 24'-0" BALCONY 9'-0" x 17'-0" OWNERS SUITE 14'-6" x 16'-0" BATH 18'-0" x 7'-6" SUITE #2 13'-0" x 15'-0" LIVING AREA 17'-7" x 16'-4" KITCHEN 17'-11" x 16'-2" DEN/BR 11'-0" x 13'-9" BALCONY 11'-0" x 17'-0" DEN/BR 10'-11" x 9'-2" EXIT CORRIDOR 6'-2" x 3'-9" ENTRY 7'-4" x 8'-4" ELEVATOR LOBBY STAIRSSTAIRS ENTRY WINE BAR ENTRY WINE BAR 6'-0" x 12'-6" POWDER 5'-6" x 5'-0" CLOSET FOYER 7'-8" x 7'-6" POWDER DINING AREA 17'-7" x 14'-4" CL CL 6'-0" x 7'-3" 6'-2" x 6'-3" PANTRY 6'-2" x 7'-1" FOYER 5'-2" x 14'-0" LAUNDRY LIN. UP DN FPOPTIONAL FP OPTIONAL PANTRY 5'-0" x 4'-0" SCALE 0'-0"4'-0"8'-0"12'-0"16'-0"2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 2 BUILDINGS #3, #4, #5; These buildings are two story buildings with one unit on grade and two units at the second level. The second level can be marketed as a combined unit making the building two units. BUILDING #2; This building is 3 stories with underground parking. The plan shown is the first floor. The second and third floors are similar. With two units per floor there are six units total. Buiding #1 is similar in plan but is only two stories in height. 3/32" = 1'-0"1 1st Floor, Building #2 2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 3 3/32" = 1'-0"1 Below Grade Parking, Building #2 (Building 1 similar) OPTIONAL BUILT-IN DW MUDROOM UP STORAGE STORAGE MASTER SUITE GREAT ROOM PATIOCLOSETPATIO G-6 G-5 MECH BEDROOM 2 DEN WINE DINING ROOM MASTER BATH FIRE PROTECTIONSYSTEMS12'-1" x 18'-1" 12'-6" x 13'-4" 13'-0" x 12'-6" 13'-10" x 11'-2" 8'-6" x 18'-6"15'-1" x 18'-6" 10'-0" x 8'-5" DWN GARAGE CL LOBBY CL BENCH W/ HOOKS WREF/FEZKITCHEN LANDRY 10'-0" X 5'-6" MASTER CLOSET 8'-6" x 8'-8" 5'-0" x 6'-11" FOYER 11'-6" x 8'-9" BATH 5'-6" x 9'-6" 11'-6" x 21'-6" UP LOBBY LINN. PANTRY D FOYER LIN GARAGE F.P. ELEV. STAIRS PWR 5'-0" x 6'-6" SCALE 0'-0"4'-0"8'-0"12'-0"16'-0"2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 4 BUILDINGS #3, #4, #5; These buildings are two story buildings with one unit on grade and two units at the second level. The second level can be marketed as a combined unit making the building two units. BUILDING #2; This building is 3 stories with underground parking. The plan shown is the first floor. The second and third floors are similar. With two units per floor there are six units total. Buiding #1 is similar in plan but is only two stories in height. 1/8" = 1'-0"1 1st Floor, Typical for Building #3, #4, #5 4'-0" DW DW ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW BEDROOM MECH OWNERS SUITE OWNERS SUITE BATH CLOSET BATH 11'-0" x 6'-9" 15'-4" x 13'-6" 6'-1" x 9'-11" 11'-5" x 11'-11" BEDROOM 13'-10" x 10'-9"DECK6'-4" x 17'-1"9'-10" x 6'-0" 12'-1" x 16'-11"DECK6'-4" x 17'-1"LINEN CL LANDRYGREAT ROOM DINING ROOM 8'-0" x 18'-1" 20'-6" x 18'-1"KITCHEN 8'-0" x 18'-1" CL GREAT ROOM DINING ROOM 8'-0" x 17'-2" 14'-4" x 17'-2"KITCHEN 11'-0" x 19'-8" W./D LANDRY 4'-0" X 3'-6" MECH 5'-7" X 4'-0"UP OPEN TO BELOW REF/FEZREF/FEZW/D DN BATHCLOSET 6'-11" x 11'-10"10'-3" x 11'-10" CL BENCH W/ HOOKS BENCH W/ HOOKS F.P. F.P. ELEV. STAIRS SCALE 0'-0"4'-0"8'-0"12'-0"16'-0"2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 5 1/8" = 1'-0"1 2nd Floor, Typical for Building #3, #4, #5 2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 6 Buildings #3, #4, #5 Elevation Building #1 Elevation 2280 Watertown Road, Long Lake, MN 55356-9419 952.476.4434 ·Fax 952.476.5863 ·nw@weberarchitects.com © Copyright 2018 Weber Architects & Planners 9 MARCH 2018 EDINA FLATS VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDINA, MN 7 Buildings #2, #3, #4, #5 Edina Flats Aerial View s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 6145 Oaklawn Ave. Rental 6141 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6137 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6136 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 4412 Valley View Rd. Commercial (New Horizon) s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 4404 Valley View Rd. Site 6145 Oaklawn Ave. Rental 6141 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6137 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6136 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 4412 Valley View Rd. Commercial (New Horizon) s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Footprint of Previous Approved Plan 4404 Valley View Rd. Site 6145 Oaklawn Ave. Rental 6141 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6137 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6136 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 4412 Valley View Rd. Commercial (New Horizon) s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Footprint of Proposed Plans 4404 Valley View Rd. Site 6145 Oaklawn Ave. Rental 6141 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6137 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 6136 Oaklawn Ave. Single Family 4412 Valley View Rd. Commercial (New Horizon) s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Buildable Area Based on Current Setbacks = 2800 SF 4404 Valley View Rd. Site s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Neighborhood Meeting Points and City Homes Responses •Scale of the proposed project •Density of the proposed project •Materiality of the proposed buildings •Landscaping and Trees s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Current Zoning •Existing Property is Zoned PCD-1 (Planned Commercial District) •Adjacent surrounding properties primarily zoned R1 •Parcel configuration is oddly shaped presenting planning challenges •Commercial use will drive higher automobile traffic •Transition from commercial to residential is a challenge (scale, massing, etc.) •Current setbacks results in a 2800 SF footprint without any variances •2800 SF footprint is a challenge for commercial use •2800 SF footprint suggests a 1-2 unit residential project, not consistent w/ PCD •Density could be 8 units per Comprehensive Plan •Current parcel with required setbacks is unworkable (planning and economics) •Previous proposal (4 units similar to Edina Flats) obtained setback variances s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Proposed Project and Previous Proposal Comparison •Current proposal requires equal or less setback variances than previously approved plan •A 4-unit condominium with underground parking was cost prohibitive •Previous concept was one monolithic structure (scale and massing) •Previous concept had a continuous Oaklawn elevation of 90 feet •Previous concept had a continuous elevation on north property line = 100 feet •Scale and massing of previous concept more visually intrusive to the north •Proposed concept provides scale, massing and materiality more consistent with neighborhood single family homes •Proposed concept has significantly reduced Oaklawn elevation of 78 feet •Proposed concept provides market responsive housing of twin rowhouses with yards vs previous concept of a condominium 4 plex s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Proposed Project Highlights and Key Attributes •Current proposal meets many of the zoning ordinances and NN Neighborhood Node goals including: Living Streets/Multi-Modal, Landscaping, Sidewalks and willingness to work with the City on public art/gateway element at the corner of Valley View and Oaklawn •Time spent with the neighbors to their questions and concerns •Units are designed for Aging in Place including zero threshold accessibility •Massing provides visual relief along Oaklawn (and Valley View) •Proposal provides a variety of unit sizes (2800 SF –3100 SF) •Each unit is planned for elevator access •Landscape will reinforce neighborhood gateway, provides 4 x the trees required •Building materials are consistent with neighborhood and new housing stock West Unit 1 West Unit 2 East Unit 2 East Unit 1 Roof Deck Roof Deck Roof Deck Roof Deck Concrete DrivewayConcrete Driveway Concrete Driveway Existing Home (4) S M Spirea (3) Pyr Arborvitae s i m p l y h o m e s i n c Oaklawn Avenue0 5 10 20 (6) A F Dogwood Perennial Bed Typical at Front Entrances (1) American Linden (Basswood) (1) American Linden (Basswood) (1) P Elm (1) H W Maple (2) Colorado Blue Spruce (3) Colorado Blue Spruce (1) P F Crab (8) Pyr Arborvitae (3) S M Spirea (2) P F Crab Modular Block Retaining Wall @ West and North Property Line Typical Building Base Planting: Bark or stone bed w/mixed low height plantings Notes to Drawing: 1.All areas shall be sodded unless noted otherwise 2.Provide root barrier at paving, building edges and utilities when trees within 5’ 3.All lawn and landscape areas shall be irrigated with fully functional irrigation system (1) P Elm (10) S M Spirea (12) Pyr Arborvitae (7) P G Aspen s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 30’ –4” s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c 10’ –11 ¼”8’–4 ½”10’ –2 ¼” 0 2 4 8 s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c s i m p l y h o m e s i n c The CITY of EDINA Site Plan Review with Variances – 4404 Valley View Road The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 2 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 3 Site The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 4 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 5 2018 Approved Overall Development Plan Site CUP Approved for 4 units on the subject site The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 6 Sketch Plan The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 7 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 8 The CITY of EDINAThis Request Requires: EdinaMN.gov 9 Structure setback variance from 35 feet to 20 feet on Oaklawn. Structure setback variance from 25 to 10 feet on Valley View Road. Structure setback variances from 25 to 7 and 5 feet from the side lot lines. Building materials variance to allow hardi-board siding rather than brick on the street facing elevations and not have 75% transparency at ground level. The CITY of EDINAReview of the Site Plan EdinaMN.gov 10 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 11 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 12 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 13 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 14 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 15 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 16 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 17 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 18 City Standard (PCD-1) Variances Granted for Edina Flats Condos Proposed Front – Oaklawn Avenue Front – Valley View Road Side – North lot line Rear – West lot line 35 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 16 feet 10 & 5 feet 5 feet NA 20 feet* 10 feet* 7 feet* 5 feet* Building Height 2-stories and 30 feet 2-stories and 30 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1.0 Density 30 units per acre 30 units per acre in the overall Edina Flats Development 30 units per acre overall (15 units per acre when using just the subject property) The CITY of EDINAPrimary Issue Are the Proposed Variances Justified? The proposed variances are reasonable for this site, as they are consistent with the variances that were approved for the condominium project that was approved, but not built. The buildable area on this site is limited due its location on a corner lot with very large rights-of-way on both Oaklawn and Valley View. (See attached buildable area map.) Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance suggests that the City Council will consider exceptions to the setback requirements if the use creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. The applicant is proposing sidewalks along Valley View and Oaklawn. These sidewalks would provide an active pedestrian and streetscape environment, (assuming boulevard style sidewalk on both street fronts with boulevard trees) which would provide opportunity for residents to the north and east to move through the development to connect to the commercial development to the west. EdinaMN.gov 19 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 20 Buildable Area The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 21 The CITY of EDINAPrimary Issue Are the Proposed Variances Justified? The practical difficulty in developing four units on the site consistent with the approved density for the project is due the small shape and size of the lot located on a corner lot. (See buildable area on the attached map.) The right-of-way from the curb is 13 feet on Valley View Road and 14 feet on Oaklawn, therefore, the structure would be 23 feet back from the curb on Valley View Road and 34 feet on Oaklawn. The building materials proposed are intended to better blend into the adjacent single-family homes. If brick were used, it would give the impression more of a commercial use. Brick and stone are required in commercial zoning districts, but not in single-family residential zoning districts. When excluding this property from the Edina Flats development, the allowed number of units on this site would be eight (8) under the allowed density in the Comprehensive Plan. Given the small size of the lot and required setbacks, four (4) units is reasonable. EdinaMN.gov 22 The CITY of EDINAStaff Recommendation (Options) EdinaMN.gov 23 The CITY of EDINABetter Together EdinaMN.gov 24 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 25 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 26 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 27 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 28 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 29 Date: July 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.C . To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:P reliminary R ezoning & P reliminary Development P lan for S olhem C ompanies at 4600 and 4620 77th S treet Wes t. Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approved the proposed rezoning. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he P lanning Commission is asked to consider a proposal to redevelop 4600 77th S treet West, which is part of the P entagon P ark office development. Solhem D evelopment is proposing to tear down one of the existing office buildings at 4600 and 4620 77th Street and construct a 7-story, 276-unit apartment with a small main level café (1,500 square feet). Twenty-eight (28) units would be included in the project to meet the City’s affordable housing policy. T he plan features a new entrance to F red Richards P ark from 77th S treet. T he proposal would be an expansion of the residential development project under construction to the West, which is a 408-unit H ousing Development zoned P U D-23. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Draft Ordinance Engineering Memo - Transportation, Sus tainability and Engineering Site Location, Zoning, height & Comp. Plan Applicant Narrative Proposed Plans Entrance Plan to Fred Richards Park Better Together Edina Comment Report Traffic and Parking Study AFO Review (Mic Johns on) from s ketch plan Applicant Pres entation Staff Pres entation The Planning Commission is asked to consider a proposal to redevelop 4600 and 4620 77th Street West, which is part of the Pentagon Park office development. Solhem Development is proposing to tear down one of the existing office buildings and construct a 7-story, 276-unit apartment with a small main level café (1,500 square feet). Twenty-eight (28) units (at 50% AMI) would be included in the project to meet the City’s affordable housing policy. The plan features a new entrance to Fred Richards Park from 77th Street. The proposal would be an expansion of the residential development project under construction to the West, which is a 408-unit Housing Development zoned PUD-23. The request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-23. The applicant has gone through the sketch plan process and has revised the plans to respond to comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Below is a list of some of the changes: Added a café into the project at the entrance corner. Created a north-south woonerf through the project to provide a better pedestrian experience. Increased site landscape area along northern park boundary with added outdoor covered activity area and park-facing patio space o Increased northern setback along park boundary (reduced "northern wing" lengths) o Added amenity space along northern building face parallel to park boundary o Eliminated parking under NE corner to provide active uses at corner of woonerf and park with added NE building entrance Shape of main building changed from an "upside-down T" to an "H", with smaller northern wings July 27, 2022 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Preliminary Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan for Solhem Companies at 4600 and 4620 77th Street West. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Average grade planes are slightly lower (parking levels partially hidden by landscape beds and raised grade where allowed by watershed) Woonerf revised for 1 way traffic flow with added landscaping/adjacent outdoor amenity spaces o Adjusted grade plane throughout woonerf for ADA access o Added corner patio spaces at intersection of woonerf & 77th with reduced grade Building 1st floor SF: reduced from 80,000sf to 74,106sf Building Total SF : reduced from 380,000sf to 370,202sf Parking: reduced from 360 to 349 stalls. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fred Richards Park and Regional Trail; zoned R-1, Single-dwelling Unit District, and guided Open Space and Parks. Easterly: Office building; zoned MDD-6, Mixed Development District, and guided OR, Office Residential (20-75 units per acre). Southerly: Office building; zoned MDD-6, Mixed Development District, and guided OR, Office Residential (20-75 units per acre). Westerly: The Fred multi-family apartments; zoned PUD-23, and guided OR, Office Residential (20-75 units per acre). Existing Site Features The subject property is 5.42 acres in size and contains two office buildings. Planning Guide Plan designation: OR, Office Residential (20-75 units per acre). Zoning: MDD-6, Mixed Development District Parking Based on the proposal for a total of 276 residential units in a Mixed Development District, 483 parking stalls are required with 276 enclosed under the City’s existing off-street parking regulations. The café would require 8 stalls. Under the Planning Commission recommended off- street parking ordinance amendment, 276 residential spaces are required, and 6 stalls for the cafe. Maximum requirement under the new code would be 414 residential stalls and 6 café stalls, 420 total. The proposal is to provide 349 enclosed stalls, plus 16 spaces along the woonerf. The proposal would be code compliant under the city’s existing and proposed ordinances. Site Circulation/Traffic Vehicular access to the site would be off 77th Street and access to the underground parking on the east side of the building. There would be pedestrian trails on all sides of the building. Two additional connection points to the Regional Trail and Fred Richard Park are proposed. This STAFF REPORT Page 3 would include a new vehicular connection to the parking on the east side of the office building that would remain on the site. The applicant has enhanced these areas compared to the sketch plan proposal, including the woonerf proposed in between the two buildings. Wenck/Stantec Consulting conducted a parking and traffic study. (See attached study.) The study concludes that the existing roadway system would support the project. The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development would have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No roadway improvements are needed. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site 48 overstory trees would be required. The applicant is proposing over 100 overstory trees in the boulevard and around the perimeter of the site and along the woonerf. (See attached landscape plan.) 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 their review memo. (See attached.) 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. Building/Building Material The building materials would be a combination of primarily brick, vertical metal panel and glass. (See attached renderings.) Mechanical Equipment No mechanical equipment has been shown on the plans. 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 signage proposed would be allowed within the PUD. Signage for the Park and way finding signage should be installed on 77th Street to direct pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the regional trail and Fred Richards Park. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Sustainability The proposal must meet the City’s sustainability policy. The City’s sustainability coordinator has reviewed the plans and provided comments and recommendations in the engineering memo. (See attached engineering memo.) These shall be made conditions of approval. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (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 sidewalks along the new vehicular connection to the park, along the north-south woonerf, and a boulevard style sidewalk on 77th. See the attached memo STAFF REPORT Page 5 from the engineering department regarding the city’s Living Streets Policy. These recommendations would be in the conditions of approval. 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 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. STAFF REPORT Page 6 The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Office Residential,” which allows for residential, and limited retail uses. The project would provide 28 units of affordable housing, meet the City’s sustainability policy, and provide significant upgrades to pedestrian, vehicular and bike connections to Fred Richards Park and the Regional Trail. Primary parking would be located under and within the building, which is pulled up closer to the street, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Sidewalks are provided all around the building including a significant connection to the regional bike trail. Since this project would be the second phase of the apartment project to the west an extension of the PUD-23 District is appropriate. The proposed buildings would be a high-quality brick, with metal siding. 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 use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the existing zoning on the site. This site was originally contemplated for housing when the MDD was created. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Office Residential, as mentioned, the original Mixed-Use Development contemplated for this site was high density residential. 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 has a café located in it as recommended at sketch plan. The site will also include the existing office building that will remain on the site. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and STAFF REPORT Page 7 As mentioned, the uses allowed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The densities allowed would be specifically stated in the PUD Ordinance. The density proposed, 51 units per acre, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which would allow 75 units per acre. 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 following table shows how the proposed new building would comply with the MDD-6 Zoning Ordinance Standards and the zoning standard in the new PUD-23 District. Please note proposal would meet the PUD standards. Compliance Table City Standard (MDD-6) PUD-23 Standard Proposed Comp. Plan/Design Guide Building Setbacks Front – 77th Street Rear – Fred Richards Park Side – West Side – East 35 feet (measured to the curb) 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 40-50 feet (measured to curb) 20 feet 50 feet 45 feet Code compliant 50 feet (measured to curb) 38 feet NA 75+ feet 30 feet (measured to the curb) Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 5-7 stories and 52-86 feet 5-7 stories & 85 feet (variance required but consistent with PUD-23 District) Density 51 units per acre 20-75 units per acre Building Coverage Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 30% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 483 spaces required + 8 for the cafe 1.3 spaces per unit 347 total required 349 spaces 1.3 per unit + 16 surface spaces along the woonerf STAFF REPORT Page 8 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposal reasonable to justify PUD rezoning expansion for this site? Yes. Staff does support the revised rezoning of the site, for the following reasons: 1. The project would be considered Phase 2 of the apartment project to the west that is currently under construction, continuing the PUD-23 Zoning District would therefore be appropriate. The proposed structure would meet the setback, height and parking standards of the PUD-23 District. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Office Residential,” which allows for residential, and limited retail uses. The project would provide 28 units of affordable housing, meet the City’s sustainability policy, and provide significant upgrades to pedestrian, vehicular and bike connections to Fred Richards Park and the Regional Trail. Primary parking would be located under and within the building, which is pulled up closer to the street, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Sidewalks are provided all around the building including a significant connection to the regional bike trail. Since this project would be the second phase of the apartment project to the west an extension of the PUD-23 District is appropriate. The proposed buildings would be a high-quality brick, with metal siding. 3. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Stantec Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 4. The proposed height of seven stories is reasonable for this site. The nearest single-family home to this site is 780 feet to the north. Section 36-618 (6) of the City Code requires that buildings that are 7 stories tall, be setback 4 times the height of the building from the 7-story portion of the building to the nearest single-family lot line. The building would be 77 feet tall, therefore, a 308-foot setback is required. Staff Recommendation Recommend the City Council approve the request for Preliminary Rezoning to expand the PUD-23 Zoning District to include 4600 and 4620 77th Street West. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses, and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Zoning on the site. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Office Residential,” which allows for residential, and limited STAFF REPORT Page 9 retail uses. The project would provide 28 units of affordable housing, meet the City’s sustainability policy, and provide significant upgrades to pedestrian, vehicular and bike connections to Fred Richards Park and the Regional Trail. Primary parking would be located under and within the building, which is pulled up closer to the street, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Sidewalks are provided all around the building including a significant connection to the regional bike trail. Since this project would be the second phase of the apartment project to the west an extension of the PUD-23 District is appropriate. The proposed buildings would be a high-quality brick, with metal siding. 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 and ensures the buy-in funds to provide affordable housing elsewhere in the City of Edina. 4. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Stantec Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 5. The proposed height of seven stories is reasonable for this site. The nearest single-family home to this site is 780 feet to the north. Section 36-618 (6) of the City Code requires that buildings that are 7 stories tall, be setback 4 times the height of the building from the 7-story portion of the building to the nearest single-family lot line. The building would be 77 feet tall, therefore, a 308-foot setback is required. 6. The proposed uses would be an upgrade to the current development on the site. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated June 27, 2022. 2. 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. 3. Provision of code compliant bike racks for each use near the building entrances. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 5. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 6. 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. STAFF REPORT Page 10 7. A Developer’s Agreement/Site Improvement Plan Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 8. Dedication of public access easements must be established over the north-south woonerf and new vehicular connection to Fred Richards Park and the east-west sidewalk along 77th Street. Maintenance of the north-south connections shall be the property owner’s responsibility. The City will maintain the sidewalk along 77th Street. The Maintenance of sidewalks internal to the site to be responsibility of property owner. 9. Compliance with all the conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated July 11, 2022, including meeting the City’s sustainability policy, subject to review and approval of the City’s sustainability manager. 10. Compliance with the Wenck Consulting Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. 11. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment expanding the PUD-23, Planned Unit Development for this site. 12. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. Deadline for a City decision: September 20, 2022 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PUD-23, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-23, TO EXPAND THE DISTRICT ADDING 4600 77th STREET WEST The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to add the following: Sec. 36-512. Planned Unit Development District-23 (PUD-23) – Pentagon Park Apartments (a) Legal description: Tract A and Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1218 Hennepin County Minnesota. (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 April 22 and September 9, 2021, except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2021-76 on file in the Office of the Planning Department; and Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re-development plans, dated ____________, 2022 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2022-__ on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: Office & Medical Office Multifamily Residential Retail Uses allowed in the PCD-1 District (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-1 Zoning District. (e) Conditional Uses: None 2 (f) Development Standards. Standard Building Setbacks Front – 77th Street Rear – Fred Richards Park Side – West Side – East 40--50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 45 feet Building Height 5-7 stories & 52-86 feet Density 75 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.5% Parking 550 spaces 1 space per 1.3 units for residential and all other uses subject to Section 36-1311 (Parking Regulations) (g) Signs shall be regulated per the PCD-1 Zoning District for the retail uses, and PRD, for the residential uses. Signs shown on the final development plans shall be allowed. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 3 Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Coun cil at its Regular Meeting of _________, 2022, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of ____________, 2022. ________________________________ City Clerk DATE: 7/11/2022 TO: FRED Phase II, Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer RE: 4620 77th St W – Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, flood risk, and storm water. Plans reviewed included c ivil and landscape plans dated 6/27/2022. Review Comment Required For General 1. Deliver as -build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 2. Maintenance of sidewalks within the property is the responsibility of property owner. Sidewalks in ROW along 77th Street are the City’s responsibility. City snowplowing operations are 5 -ft wide on these sidewalks General Comment 3. Coordinate the work along the shared property line of the Fred Phase I and II. Show proposed Fred Phase I work on the Fred Phase II plans for at least 15’ west of property line to ensure no conflicts. 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 4.2 Provide 15-ft road and walkway easement along 77 th Street for public sidewalk maintenance purposes and space to allow future installation of on street bike lanes. Align with easement requested along 4660 77th St W. Certificate of Occupancy 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 5’ in width with a 5’ boulevard. Applicant showing 6-ft wide sidewalk with a 10-ft wide boulevard. General Comment 8. Replace Xcel owned street lighting along 77 th Street with lighting to support the public sidewalk along 77th Street and resident drop -off area. Lighting shall be property owner’s infrastructure and maintenance responsibility. General Comment Traffic and Street 9. Review fire access requirements with Fire Department. Fire truck turning template attached. Grading/Building Permit 10. Provide traffic study and implement City -approved recommendations. Grading/Building Permit 11. 77th Street scheduled for mill & overlay in 2023. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates at the time of any required road patching. Certificate of Occupancy 12. Driveway Entrance permit required for entrance construction/ relocation/ removal. Comp ly with standard plate 415. Indicate the radii; must be 15’. Note maximum width for 2-way entrance is 30’. Close up existing entrances, standard plate 500. Building Permit 13. All proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to the intersections and driveway accesses should maintain a clear view as defined in Section 26 -190 of City Code. Grading/Building Permit 14. Review signage plan for proposed woonerf pedestrian plaza with Engineering D epartment. Grading/Building Permit Sanitary and Water Utilities 15. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Grading/Building Permit 16. Extend 10” trunk watermain along north property line and provide public easement. Extend 8” loop from east hydrant to the north trunk watermain. City will take ownership of north trunk line and will pay oversize for public line and 8” extension. Grading/Building Permit 17. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 18. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 19. Sanitary service shall be planned for flood risk on trunk line. Use either an overhead sanitary service line with minimum service fixture opening 2’ above flood level, or backflow prevention. Grading/Building Permit 20. Apply for a sewer and water connection permits through City of Edina and Bloomington, respectively. Bloomington Utilities should be stated on the plans for water permits, 952-563-8777. Prior to Starting Utility Work 20.1 Meter required for building service line and combined lines. No meter required for fire only service line. Grading/Building Permit 20.2 Public Works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 21. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 22. 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 23. Single connection from main for fire and domestic, split after main connection. Grading/Building Permit 24. Sealed well onsite, no issues. Storm Water Utility 25. Provide final, signed geotechnical report with soil borings. Grading/Building Permit 26. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report meeting watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Grading/Building Permit 27. Show grading and drainage east of proposed retaining wall and west of existing 4600 77th St W building. Grading/Building Permit 28. Site drains to SP_5, NMS_104, and NMS_95. The 1%-annual- chance flood elevation is 823.2’. The lowest opening elevation is required at 2’ above the local flood elevation. The lowest floor elevation is required at 824.0’, 2’ above the creek tailwater elevation of approximately 822’. 825.20’ is proposed for FFE. Confirm proposed LFE. Grading/Building Permit 29. Demonstrate no increase in risk if fill is proposed below the local flood elevation of 823.1’. Grading/Building Permit 30. Hydraulic design must consider restricted tailwater condition in 10% and 1% annual exceedance events, City hydraulic model is available for developer review. Grading/Building Permit 31. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 32. A SWPPP consistent with the State General Construction Site Stormwater Permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 33. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Grading/Building Permit 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. Any short-term road or lanes closures shall be approved by the City Engineer. 34. Retaining walls over 4 -ft in height require design by a structural engineer. Provide top and bottom wall elevations for proposed wall on east side. Grading/Building Permit Other Agency Coordination 35. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 36. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit is required. Grading/Building Permit 37. Engage Metro Transit about installing a bus shelter and/or other enhanced amenities at transit stop #20196 adjacent to 4600 W 77th St, which is served by Local Routes 6 and 540. General Comment Sustainability 38. This project is required to comply with the City of Edina’s Sustainable Buildings Policy. Please contact Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager, to schedule a policy review and agree on a compliance pathway. General Comment 39. Staff recommends providing a minimum of one bike parking stall for every 10 residential units (28). These parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to the building. Rack style and spacing should follow the r ecommendations of the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). General Comment 40. Staff recommends implementing additional Travel Demand Management strategies: • Provide surface bike parking (14 stalls min.). • Provide a bike repair station on-site, located adjacent to the bike shop or the bicycle park access. • Provide directional signage/information for adjacent pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and ride-sharing services. • Subsidize Metro Transit passes for tenants and employees. General Comment EdinaMN.gov 1 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 2 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 3 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 4 Site Cary Teague Community Development Director, City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Director Teague: Please find enclosed the Project Narrative for our proposed residential development for 4620 West 77th Street Edina, and a description of the requested planned unit development. Project Narrative: 4600-4620 West 77th Street Edina, Minnesota We are proposing a 276-unit mixed use multifamily building. The building consists of seven stories and approximately 370,202 square feet. We are expecting to break ground in early 2023 and complete construction in early 2025. The existing site: The proposed project is located at 4600 West 77th Street. The existing 5.42 acre site holds two office buildings, 4600 and 4620. The 4600 building will remain, with the proposed project replacing the 4620 building. The site is zoned MDD-6, located in the greater Southdale district, and guided to a density of 75 units per acre in the comprehensive plan. The proposed project will replace the existing three-story 4620 office building, and its surface parking lot. The new development will be on the western 3.7 acres of the site. The redevelopment, including landscaped courtyards above parking, will increase the landscaped area of the site, and greatly improve current stormwater conditions. The proposed building massing and zoning: The proposed building is a 7 story, 276-unit, mixed use commercial and residential building, with two stories of parking primarily tucked into mounded terrain on the site. Due to the high water-table, the parking is above the street level. However, with mounding and adjusting the sloping terrain onsite, combined with added wetland water features, the parking levels will blend with the surrounding site, and be substantially hidden by landscaping. The building will match the setbacks and height of the Pentagon Park North Phase 1 apartment project (“The Fred”) on the adjacent 4660 site, which is currently under construction. The proposed project is requesting rezoning to the adjacent zoning distinct put in place with the Phase I PUD. The total gross proposed building square footage excluding the garage is 241,658sf. Including the garage, the total square footage is 370,202sf. There will be approximately 349 parking stalls in the project. The car parking ratio for the building is 1.26. The building height is approximately 85 feet to the main roof. The main building along 77th Street will have 2 and a half story podium of concrete, with 5 stories of wood frame construction above. The first floor along 77th Street will be 19ft tall, allowing for mezzanine lofts in common areas, and potential commercial spaces. This taller first floor along 77th street will create a welcoming streetscape presence similar to the adjacent 4660 project and will conceal two stories of parking behind it. The separate U-shaped rear portion of the building will be a lower height, with the project massing tapering down and opening up to the Fred Richards Park to the north. This northern U-shaped portion of the project will be 4 stories of wood frame construction above 2 stories of partially buried parking. The north portion of the project will be joined to the south portion of the project with glass connecting walkways with open passage underneath at the upper courtyard level. The rooftop holds mechanical systems, an elevator lobby area for the rooftop patio, and common areas for the building’s residents. How the building works in the neighborhood context: The proposed project complements and enlivens the work Solhem is doing on the neighboring parcel. The proposed project also actively engages the existing, fully-leased office portion of Pentagon Park. Edina has a long-term goal of creating a primary access route into Fred Richards Park that leads directly from 77th Street into the park. Given the success that Hillcrest has had in renovating and leasing the office buildings of Pentagon Park, there is a very small and finite window for realizing the city’s long-term goal. If we don’t take advantage of this window of opportunity now, it may be another generation before the city has an opportunity to have a direct access route to Fred Richards Park. City staff has recognized this opportunity and has therefore been supportive of this redesign for the 4600 site. There are further benefits to the neighborhood. By bringing to life new residential development within this corridor, our “Phase II” project creates the critical mass for other nearby parcels to become redeveloped. Residential, office, retail, restaurant and other uses all become more viable with this new energy. We have seen this phenomenon in other areas where we have been “first in” – in Uptown, at the East Bank of the U of M, in the North Loop, and most recently on Main Street in Northeast Minneapolis. Our projects create synergy that draws in other new developments. The building mass and materials will be of similar quality to Phase I, but of contrasting design. We are confident that the building can have its own unique character and help encourage a diversity of high design standards for the neighborhood. Oversized balconies, engaging outdoor spaces, terraced courtyards, and a woonerf area will add dynamism to the 77th Street corridor, while creating a tranquil transition to the park lands. Proposed affordable housing, goals and benefits of the project, and pedestrian connections: The proposed new building meets 77th Street with a strong façade, echoing the neighboring Phase I. It then steps back along the sides, allowing for residential street-like passages into Fred Richards Park. On the west side of the site a planned bike pathway will now flow between the two residential buildings of Phase I and Phase II. On the east side of the new Phase II, a woonerf will accommodate pedestrian and vehicular access into the parking areas that serve both Phase II and the existing (remaining) office building. On the far east side of the property, a new vehicular route will be opened up into the Fred Richards Park, allowing for greater ease of access to the existing (former) city-owned Clubhouse and its parking area. Solhem is working with the City of Edina to include new affordable housing units in the project, with rental rates and unit counts at 50% AMI, per city guidelines. The best mix of unit counts for meeting these goals are still being discussed with city staff. It is anticipated that inclusion of these units within the project will be in lieu of a buy-in into the Edina affordable housing trust fund. Similar to Phase I, it is expected that many of the new units in Phase II will be affordable in a range of 70- 120% of AMI. This is considered unsubsidized naturally occurring affordable housing and will be affordable to families with moderate incomes. Our project will allow for more affordable options for all residents of Edina in a highly sought after part of the metro. The new project will add more to the existing green space on the site. This will have a significant benefit for the surrounding floodplain. New native vegetation, plantings, and trailways will allow for a more resilient urban environment that benefits both humans and nature while accommodating much greater human density and natural diversity. Organics recycling and regular recycling will be available to all residents. Bike parking and EV charging stalls are part of the existing design, with an electrical design that allows for more EV stalls in the future based on demand. Our team will work with Xcel’s Energy Design Assistance Program in order to foster the most cost-effective and energy minimizing design for long term building operations. A separate branch of our company, Renew22, invests in solar energy to offset new additions to the energy grid from our development work. Regarding comments from Mic Johnson: We are proposing an exciting new project that activates an otherwise vacant building and surface parking lot. And we are offering a once in a generation opportunity to add an access road to Fred Richards Park. Regarding land use, the parking area that belongs to the 4600 office building is not part of our project and, based on discussions with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the City of Edina, we are intending to disturb this area as little as possible so as not to multiply project costs for the new park access road. The city owns an existing wetland that abuts the property on the park side of the property. Our assumption is that this area will be designed and activated by the City of Edina when funds become available. In the meanwhile, the woonerf and park road access will help achieve the first steps toward evolution of this area into a cultural asset. Regarding the woonerf, the proposal balances what can be achieved on our project’s site at 4620, with what must be left in place at the existing office building at 4600. We need to preserve vehicular and handicapped access to the office building that has mounded entry points that conflict with the civil engineering requirements for us to build Phase II. We have added mixed use programming along the woonerf, with a new public cafe planned for the entry corner. We also have building amenities that front the woonerf where possible. We designed this space following suggestions of the mayor and council to create a one-way circular path on the site to minimize vehicular traffic in this zone, and which allows for exiting along the new parkway access road. This will allow us to fulfill the original goal of creating a 5mph dynamic pedestrian plaza as a welcoming pedestrian gateway to the park. At the northern park side end of the woonerf, we have programmed a second active common space with a covered activity plaza, to add to the public realm’s energy, and bring community activities into the park. As with Phase I, our proposed Phase II brings the park into our project and connects it with 77th Street, while extending the new community’s life into the park. Per Mic’s suggestion, we have included active liner uses for much of the facade facing the woonerf, with the balance including a tree-lined walkway and loading areas, and a pass-through walkway that allows for circulation through our new Phase II building. We have made parallel the parking stalls for this area on the Phase I, per Mic’s suggestion, and worked with the owner of the 4600 office building within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed constraints to angle the 4600 office building’s parking, rather than leaving it perpendicular. Regarding the park entrance, we have discussed extensively with the Watershed and city staff how to best accomplish this project without disturbing the existing grades and triggering a new Watershed permit for the entire project, which would include significant loss of parking, new water storage requirements, and a multiplying cost for the TIF request for the new roadway. While we agree with Mic’s vision, it is not possible to accomplish daylighting of stormwater, creation of a parklike landscape in this access road, and possibly anything except a straight asphalt track into the park without multiples of the current budget and a significant lengthening of the development timeline. The mixed use pedestrian plaza woonerf will create a welcoming and inviting pedestrian pathway from 77th Street into the park, greeting a dynamic and pedestrian-centered public realm space. We share a common goal with the neighborhood and city in that we intend to create a project that is thoughtfully laid out, urban and dynamic, environmentally and economically sustainable, and respectful of both current and future uses. The building and the access pathways this project delivers will use high quality, long-lasting materials and add to the commercial and residential vibrancy of the Greater Southdale neighborhood. We look forward to a thoughtful discussion about this site and the potential benefits of its development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Curt Gunsbury Jason Lord 500.00450.00500.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 N OPARKING UPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREANOPARKINGPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET. .. .. .. .. .. .PENTAGON PARK PHASE IIEDINA, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLEC0.0 TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNISSUED FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP5000 GLENWOOD AVEGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422CONTACT: ROBBIE LATTA612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:C2.0 OVERALL - SITE PLANKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRTBDL1.1 RESIDENTIAL - LANDSCAPE PLANARCHITECT:MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP755 N PRIOR AVE N#301AST. PAUL, MN 55114CONTACT: CRAIG HARTMANCRAIG@MDGARCHITECTS.COM651-253-2981SOLHEM COMPANIES724 N FIRST STSUITE 500MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONTACT: CURT GUNSBURYCURT@SOLHEM.COM612-216-2825C2.1 RESIDENTIAL - SITE PLANRESIDENTIAL - GRADING PLANC3.1RESIDENTIAL - UTILITY PLANC4.1"THE FRED"CSG PROJECT 21105PHASE II RESIDENTIALPUBLIC STREETEXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAINCIVIL SITE GROUP5000 GLENWOOD AVEGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422CONTACT: RORY SYNSTELIEN612-615-0060 S00°08'30"W 473.91 UPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPUBLIC ROADWAYPROJECT PLANSAND DETAIL TBDPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC2.0OVERALL - SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE AREA TABLE:SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSCITY OF EDINA SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"N1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOPERVIOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - CONCRETEPAVER PERVIOUS SYSTEM. INCLUDE ALL BASEMATERIAL AND APPURTENANCES AS SPECIFIED PERMANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS.MAKE: BELGARD, OR EQUIVILANTMODEL: AQUASTONE, OR EQUIVILANTCOLOR: T.B.D. - PROVIDE SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWINGS & PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.SPECIALTY PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - PROVIDE BIDFOR THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, INCLUDE VARIATIONSOF BASE MATERIAL AND OTHER NECESSARYCOMPONENTS.1. STAMPED & COLORED CONCRETE2. CONCRETE PAVERSMAKERS, COLORS, MODELS, & PATTERN TO BEINCLUDED IN SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL"(651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NOCOST TO THE OWNER.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNINGCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES,EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINALLOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OFCONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOOWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING ARIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGAND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFFOOTING MATERIALS.6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS AREAPPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BYTHE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETEFOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BYTHE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENTMATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS,BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THERIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCEWITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TOTHE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BEWHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIORTO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENTSECTIONS.18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THEDRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) ASSPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICALREPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETEDEPTHS, WITHIN ROW SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHINPRIVATE PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAILOPERATIONAL NOTES:SNOW REMOVALALL SNOW SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE OUTSIDEPARKING LOT. WHEN FULL, REMOVAL CO.SHALL REMOVE EXCESS OF-SITETRASH REMOVAL:TRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN EXTERIOR TRASHAREA AND REMOVED BY COMMERCIAL CO.WEEKLY.DELIVERIES:DELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR AT THE FRONTDOOR VIA STANDARD COMMERCIAL DELIVERYVEHICLES (UPS, FED-EX, USPS). APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008P.I.D: 3102824310058Owner: City of Edina450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous Surface Bituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsStairs Concrete East Line Tract B15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105CONCRETE C.I.P.STEPS, COORD. W/ARCHITECTURENOPARKINGCONCRETE C.I.P.STEPS, COORD. W/ARCHITECTURELANDSCAPE PLANTING,SEE LANDSCAPE PLANCONCRETE WALK,TYP.6.0'MATCH EXISTINGASPHALTPAVEMENT, SEEGRADING PLANGRAVEL PAVEMENTFIRE ACCESS PATH10.0'8,446 SF PROPOSEDWETLAND BUFFER8,110 SF REQ'DLANDSCAPED AREA,SEE LANDSCAPEPLANRAISED CONCRETEPATIO/PORCHBITUMINOUS PED/BIKE PATHCONCRETE SLOPEDWALKWAYRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKCONCRETE WALKWAYRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKW/METAL SAFETYRAILINGRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKW/ METAL SAFETYRAILINGRIBBON CURB, TYPRIBBONCURB, TYPSTOP SIGN,MUTCD R1-1,W/ STOPLINEPAINTEDDIRECTIONALARROWS,TYPCONCRETE DRIVE APRONCONCRETE WALKWAYBITUMINOUS PED/BIKE PATHCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE WALKWAYMONUMENT SIGN, SEEARCH PLANSFACING NORTHONE WAY DO NOT ENTER SIGN,MUTCD R5-1FACING SOUTHEND ONE WAY SIGN, MUTCD R6-7BEGIN ONE WAY,MUTCD R6-6STOP SIGN,MUTCD R1-1CONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSC.I.P. RETAININGWALLMONUMENT SIGN, SEEARCH PLANSPUBLIC ROADWAYPROJECT PLANSAND DETAIL TBDPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC2.1RESIDENTIAL -SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOPERVIOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - CONCRETEPAVER PERVIOUS SYSTEM. INCLUDE ALL BASEMATERIAL AND APPURTENANCES AS SPECIFIED PERMANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS.MAKE: BELGARD, OR EQUIVILANTMODEL: AQUASTONE, OR EQUIVILANTCOLOR: T.B.D. - PROVIDE SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWINGS & PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.SPECIALTY PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - PROVIDE BIDFOR THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, INCLUDE VARIATIONSOF BASE MATERIAL AND OTHER NECESSARYCOMPONENTS.1. STAMPED & COLORED CONCRETE2. CONCRETE PAVERSMAKERS, COLORS, MODELS, & PATTERN TO BEINCLUDED IN SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) ASSPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICALREPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETEDEPTHS, WITHIN ROW SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHINPRIVATE PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAIL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC3.1RESIDENTIAL -GRADING PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallREX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOSPOT GRADE ELEVATION MATCH EXISTINGGRADE BREAK - HIGH POINTS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPROPOSED UNDERGROUND WET POND120" AND 60" CMPSTONE BASE INVERT, 120"=813.65STONE BASE INVERT, 60"=818.65TOTAL FOOTPRINT=19'X192' (INCLUDES 12" SIDE AND END STONE)PERMANENT (DEAD) STORAGE=15,327 CFFLOOD (LIVE) STORAGE=9,928 CFWRAP SYSTEM WITH 40-MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER WITH SEALED SEAMS24" FESIE=820.00RAINWATER REUSE CISTERN60" PRINSCO DUAL WALL PIPEFOOTPRINT=45'X16.27'STONE BASE IE=816.40PROPOSED 8"COMBINED DOMESTICAND FIRE SUPPRESSIONWATER SERVICEPROPOSED 6" HYDRANTLEAD78 LF 10" PVC SDR 26SANITARY SERVICE @2.00%PENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC4.1RESIDENTIAL -UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .UTILITY LEGEND:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAP APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 4 PER DOC.APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340007P.I.D: 3102824340008P.I.D: 3102824310058Owner: City of Edina7640 Parklawn Ave450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete Delineated Wetland 15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKING8,446 SF PROPOSEDWETLAND BUFFER8,110 SF REQ'D78 LF 10" PVC SDR 26SANITARY SERVICE @2.00%REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONL1.1RESIDENTIAL -LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. . PENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-006001" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRLEGENDPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEEPLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULEAND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESEDGINGDECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE), 18"-30" DIA.LANDSCAPE NOTES:1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONECALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTERINSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH.3.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER ORTO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2"FROM TREE TRUNK.4.IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEWLANDSCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMENSTANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATIONOF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.6.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THESCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.7.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BEWARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.8.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 6" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SODAS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.9.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES,LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINALLOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO INSTALLATION.10.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.11.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'SACTIVITIES.12.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.13.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLYPROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDEHEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATIONPER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OFPAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.14.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICINGFROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 8 5 12 3 467 N 45' - 10"CAFE COMMON AREA ENTER EXIT GARAGE APPROXIMATE END OF FIRE ACCESS ROAD ON PHASE I LOCATION OF PASS THROUGH ABOVE STEPS UP TO PLAZA ABOVE EXISTING PARKING LOT ONE WAYWEST 77TH STREET TRANSFORMER 16' - 0"ENTRANCE35' - 0"20' - 0" COVERED ACTIVITY AREA COMMON AREA TWO WAYEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 24' - 0"EXISTING PARKING LOTEXISTING PARKING LOTINDOOR POOL 8.3%14.4%24' - 0"ONE WAYTWO WAY35' - 0"REINFORCED TURF PAVERS TO PROVIDE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS EXISTING BUILDING (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) ENTRANCE BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK DOG PARK PATIOPATIOWOONERF PEDESTRIAN PLAZANEW PUBLIC STREET VEHICULAR CONNECTIONN PEDESTRIAN PARK ACCESS PAVERSSURMOUNTABLE CURB AT FIRE ROAD BICYCLE PARK ACCESS BIKE SHOP BOCCE COURT STEPS UP TO PLAZA ABOVE VEHICULAR PARK ACCESS CAFE BELOW (OPEN) GARAGE COMMON AREA COMMON AREA BELOW (OPEN) COMMON AREA 572.96 8.3%14.4% DNEGRESS COURTEGRESS COURT ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOM TYPE LEGEND 1 BED 1 BED + DEN 2 BED CIRCULATION STUDIO UNIT STORAGE VERTICAL CIRCULATION N ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF DECK 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0" GARAGE ENTRYALUMINUM STOREFRONT STANDING SEAM METAL AWNING ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS GLASS & ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA STAIR TO 3RD FLOOR THOROUGHFAREMATERIAL #1MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #4 CONCRETE COLUMNS ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA 81' - 0"1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR ALUMINUM & GLASS GUARDRAIL CONCRETE COLUMN MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #2 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #4MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #3 STANDING SEAM METAL AWNING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT & BIKE STORAGE ENTRY MATERIAL #1ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA ALUMINUM STOREFRONT BUILDING SIGNAGEALUMINUM STOREFRONT & MAIN BUILDING ENTRY MATERIAL #2 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0" MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #1 ALUMINUM & GLASS GUARDRAILSTAIR TO 3RD FLOOR THOROUGHFARE VINYL WINDOWS ALUMINUM BALCONY STAIR ACCESS VINYL SLIDING DOOR TRANSFORMER EXTERIOR FINISH KEY MATERIAL #1: BASIS OF DESIGN: PATTERN: COLOR: TINTED PRECAST WALL PANEL 512-2 HAND HEWN HEMLOCK BROWN MATERIAL #2: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: BRICK MASONRY UTILITY/ 1/3 RUNNING BOND CHARCOAL MATERIAL #3: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: METAL PANEL FLUSH REVEAL WARM GRAY ORIENTATION:VERTICAL MATERIAL #4: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: LAP SIDING 6" EXPOSURE LIGHT GRAY; SMOOTH ORIENTATION:HORIZONTAL 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 3RD FLOOR EXTERIOR CONNECTION 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP CONCRETE COLUMNS MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 3RD FLOOR EXTERIOR CONNECTION MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #4 ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA MONUMENT SIGNAGE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING BY LICENSED SIGN CONTRACTOR - SEE SITE PLAN FOR POTENTIAL LOCATIONS - SIZE AND QUANTITY TBD PER ZONING CODE MONUMENT SIGNAGE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING BY LICENSED SIGN CONTRACTOR - SEE SITE PLAN FOR POTENTIAL LOCATIONS - SIZE AND QUANTITY TBD PER ZONING CODE TINTED PRECAST WALL PANELUTILITY BRICK VENEER VERTICAL METAL PANEL LAP SIDING VINYL SLIDING DOOR VINYL WINDOW FIXED AWNING ALUMINUM BALCONY GLASS PANELS ALUMINUM BALCONY PICKET RAILING File #227705225 July 20, 2022 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Traffic and Parking Study for Pentagon Park Phase II in Edina, MN July 2022 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 PARKING ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 6-1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 7-1 8.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 8-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN ................................................................................ 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-3 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ................................................ 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS .......................................... 5-4 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________________ DATE: July 20, 2022 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 July 2022 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 4620 77th Street W. in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the north side of 77th Street east of Computer Drive. The proposed project location is currently occupied by an office building and parking lot. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • 77th Street W./Parklawn Avenue • 77th Street W./Computer Avenue • 77th Street W./TH 100 NB ramp • Edina Industrial Blvd/TH 100 SB ramp • 77th Street W./development access • 77th Street W./new public street The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 276 dwelling units. The project is expected to include 365 parking stalls. As shown in the site plan, one private access point is provided on 77th Street W. immediately east of the building. This access will operate as one-way northbound only. The project also includes a new public street located between the existing office buildings located at 4600 and 4570 77th Street W. This public street would provide access for the two existing office buildings as well as Fred Richards Park located north of the site. The project is expected to be completed in 2025. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to add 20 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 30 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 668 net trips daily. Net trips account for new trips generated by the development and trips eliminated by removal of the existing office space. • The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the proposed project. • Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on 77th Street. Future plans for this area also include a conventional bike lane on 77th Street. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. • The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle July 2022 1-2 maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents. • The proposed 365 parking spaces are 3 spaces more than the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. Edina City code requires 1.75 parking spaces per unit, with 1.0 spaces per unit enclosed. This equates to 483 total spaces, with 276 enclosed spaces. • Per City requirements, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for this project. The goal of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicular trips during peak hours and carbon emissions from vehicles. TDM strategies for this site include: o Providing maps that show the area bus routes and schedules. o Providing maps of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. o Providing long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. o Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. July 2022 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 4620 77th Street W. in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the north side of 77th Street east of Computer Drive. The proposed project location is currently occupied by an office building and parking lot. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • 77th Street W./Parklawn Avenue • 77th Street W./Computer Avenue • 77th Street W./TH 100 NB ramp • Edina Industrial Blvd/TH 100 SB ramp • 77th Street W./development access • 77th Street W./new public street Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 276 dwelling units. The project is expected to include 365 parking stalls. As shown in the site plan, one private access point is provided on 77th Street W. immediately east of the building. This access will operate as one-way northbound only. The project also includes a new public street located between the existing office buil dings located at 4600 and 4570 77th Street W. This public street would provide access for the two existing office buildings as well as Fred Richards Park located north of the site. The project is expected to be completed in 2025. The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. July 2022 2-2 July 2022 2-3 July 2022 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site is currently occupied by an office building and associated parking lot. The site is bounded by 77th Street on the south, office uses on the east, an apartment building currently under construction to the west, and Fred Richards park on the north. Near the site location, 77th Street is a five-lane roadway with a center left turn lane. Computer Avenue and Parklawn Avenue are two-lane roadways. To the west of the site, 77th Street intersects with TH 100 at a full grade separated interchange. The speed limit on all local streets in the study area is 30 miles per hour. Existing conditions at the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. 77th Street W./Parklawn Avenue This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides two left turn lanes and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and two right turn lanes. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The south leg provides access a commercial use on the south side of 77th Street. 77th Street W./Computer Avenue This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, one left turn/through lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The north leg provides access to an office use on the north side of 77 th Street. 77th Street W./TH 100 NB ramp This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides on left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides two left turn lanes and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one channelized right turn lane. Edina Industrial Blvd/TH 100 SB ramp This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides on left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, two through lane s, and one channelized right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. July 2022 3-2 Traffic Volume Data Existing turn movement data previously collected for other studies in the area was obtained from City staff for the following intersections: • 77th Street W./Parklawn Avenue • 77th Street W./Computer Avenue • 77th Street W./TH 100 NB ramp • Edina Industrial Blvd/TH 100 SB ramp July 2022 3-3 July 2022 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2025. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2025 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2025 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on both recent growth experienced near the site and projected growth due to additional development in the area. • 2025 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2025 No-Build volumes to determine 2025 Build volumes. Trip Generation for Proposed Project Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed development were calculated based on data presented in the eleventh edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Trip Generation for Proposed Project and Existing Uses Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Proposed use Apartments 276 DU 23 79 102 66 42 108 1253 Existing use to be removed Office 54,000 SF 72 10 82 13 65 78 585 Total net trips -49 +69 +20 +53 -23 +30 +668 DU=dwelling unit, SF=square feet As shown, the project adds 20 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 30 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 668 net trips daily. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population con centrations. July 2022 4-2 The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 25 percent to/from the north on TH 100 • 25 percent to/from the south on TH 100 • 25 percent to/from the west on Edina Industrial Boulevard • 2 percent to/from the south on Computer Avenue • 11 percent to/from the north on Parklawn Avenue • 12 percent to/from the east on 77th Street Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. July 2022 4-3 July 2022 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. July 2022 5-2 The LOS results for the study intersections are shown in Figure 5 and are discussed below. 77th Street W./Parklawn Avenue (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. 77th Street W./Computer Avenue (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. 77th Street W./TH 100 NB ramp (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. Edina Industrial Blvd/TH 100 SB ramp (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2022, 2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. 77th Street W./development access (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. 77th Street W./new public street (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2025 No-Build and 2025 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. July 2022 5-3 During the p.m. peak hour under 2025 No-Build and 2025 Build conditions, all movements at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Overall Traffic Impact The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the proposed project. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Under existing conditions, sidewalk is provided on the south side of 77th Street, the west side of Parklawn Avenue, and the west side of Computer Avenue. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is located immediately north of the project site. All intersections in the study have crosswalks across all or a portion of the approaches. Bicycles are allowed on all the surrounding streets. Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on 77th Street. Future plans for this area also include a conventional bike lane on 77th Street. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents. Transit Facilities The subject site presently is served by the Metro Transit bus routes 6 and 540. Bus stops exist on 77th Street at the development access. Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM) Per City requirements, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for this project. The goal of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicular trips during peak hours and carbon emissions from vehicles. TDM strategies for this site include: • Providing maps that show the area bus routes and schedules. • Providing maps of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. • Providing long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. • Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. The goal of the TDM plan is a 10-20 percent reduction in single occupant vehicle trips. The TDM plan strategies should be implemented at the time the project is complete and fully operational. The overall cost of the strategies is estimated at $2,000. July 2022 5-4 July 2022 6-1 6.0 Parking Analysis As described earlier, the project is expected to include 365 parking stalls. The proposed amount of parking was compared to industry standards to determine adequacy. Parking data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was used to determine the expected parking demand for the proposed land uses. Data provided in the ITE publication Parking Generation, 5th Edition, indicates the various proposed uses peak at different times during the day. The ITE data was adjusted to account for the expected modal split for the site. Based on the ITE data, the peak weekday parking demand for the overall site 362 spaces. The 365 proposed spaces are 3 spaces more than the expected peak parking demand. Edina City code requires 1.75 parking spaces per unit, with 1.0 spaces per unit enclosed. This equates to 483 total spaces, with 276 enclosed spaces. July 2022 7-1 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to add 20 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 30 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 668 net trips daily. Net trips account for new trips generated by the development and trips eliminated by removal of the existing office space. • The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the proposed project. • Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on 77th Street. Future plans for this area also include a conventional bike lane on 77th Street. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. • The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents . • The proposed 365 parking spaces are 3 spaces more than the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. Edina City code requires 1.75 parking spaces per unit, with 1.0 spaces per unit enclosed. This equates to 483 total spaces, with 276 enclosed spaces. • Per City requirements, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for this project. The goal of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicular trips during peak hours and carbon emissions from vehicles. TDM strategies for this site include: o Providing maps that show the area bus routes and schedules. o Providing maps of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. o Providing long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. o Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. July 2022 8-1 8.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 am.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 97 558 18 63 482 57 30 28 219 653 75 339 Future Volume (veh/h) 97 558 18 63 482 57 30 28 219 653 75 339 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 587 19 66 507 0 32 29 231 687 79 357 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 489 1496 48 439 1473 412 703 596 955 703 596 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.43 0.39 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3513 114 1781 3647 0 953 1870 1585 2172 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 297 309 66 507 0 32 29 231 687 79 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1850 1781 1777 0 953 1870 1585 1086 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 10.4 10.4 1.8 8.8 0.0 2.0 0.9 9.6 26.4 2.5 16.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 10.4 10.4 1.8 8.8 0.0 4.5 0.9 9.6 27.3 2.5 16.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 489 757 788 439 1473 412 703 596 955 703 596 V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.34 0.08 0.04 0.39 0.72 0.11 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 511 757 788 462 1473 488 852 722 1128 852 722 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 17.8 17.9 13.7 18.0 0.0 19.8 17.8 20.5 26.5 18.3 22.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 4.6 0.7 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.5 6.7 1.1 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.5 19.3 19.4 13.8 18.1 0.0 19.8 17.8 20.7 27.8 18.3 23.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B B C C B C Approach Vol, veh/h 708 573 292 1123 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.5 17.6 20.3 25.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 42.3 37.8 10.9 41.3 37.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 27.0 39.0 6.0 26.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 12.4 29.3 4.8 10.8 11.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 2.5 0.0 2.1 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 am.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 174 1179 188 5 247 83 42 30 10 121 43 321 Future Volume (veh/h) 174 1179 188 5 247 83 42 30 10 121 43 321 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 1241 198 5 260 87 44 32 11 127 45 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 883 2072 329 467 2397 1069 405 152 52 405 214 Arrive On Green 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.67 0.67 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3072 487 1781 3554 1585 2640 1331 457 2645 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 714 725 5 260 87 44 0 43 127 45 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1585 1320 0 1788 1323 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 1.7 1.4 0.0 2.0 4.1 2.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 1.7 3.3 0.0 2.0 6.1 2.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 883 1198 1202 467 2397 1069 405 0 205 405 214 V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.60 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.21 0.31 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 883 1198 1202 467 2397 1069 689 0 397 690 416 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.1 5.0 37.7 0.0 36.4 38.9 36.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.1 1.8 1.8 2.9 5.2 5.1 37.7 0.0 36.6 39.1 36.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A D A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1622 352 87 172 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.0 5.1 37.2 38.4 Approach LOS A A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 64.7 14.3 11.0 64.7 14.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 48.5 18.0 5.0 48.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 2.0 8.1 4.7 4.3 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.6 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 am.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 973 110 63 482 57 30 28 219 1 0 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 973 110 63 482 57 30 28 219 1 0 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 1024 116 66 507 60 30 31 231 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 545 1366 588 386 1231 145 503 612 519 268 0 239 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.38 0.37 0.12 0.38 0.37 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3202 378 1781 1870 1585 1117 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 1024 116 66 281 286 30 31 231 1 0 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 1117 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 18.1 3.6 1.4 8.4 8.5 0.9 0.8 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 18.1 3.6 1.4 8.4 8.5 0.9 0.8 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 545 1366 588 386 683 693 503 612 519 268 0 239 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.75 0.20 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.05 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 667 1659 718 422 744 755 703 860 729 291 0 272 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.6 19.4 15.6 11.8 16.4 16.5 18.9 16.8 19.3 26.3 0.0 26.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 7.2 1.3 0.5 3.3 3.4 0.4 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 21.3 15.8 11.8 17.0 17.1 19.0 16.8 19.9 26.3 0.0 26.3 LnGrp LOS A C B B B B B B B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1198 633 292 2 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.2 16.5 19.5 26.3 Approach LOS C B B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 32.0 27.8 13.0 32.0 12.8 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 20.1 10.4 3.2 10.5 2.9 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 1.1 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 am.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 350 478 1 0 141 30 0 0 0 22 1 281 Future Volume (veh/h) 350 478 1 0 141 30 0 0 0 22 1 281 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 368 503 1 0 148 32 0 0 0 23 0 297 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 964 1127 2 4 780 165 0 349 0 500 0 592 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.60 0.59 0.00 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1866 4 1781 2920 616 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 368 0 504 0 89 91 0 0 0 23 0 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1870 1781 1777 1759 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 964 0 1130 4 475 470 0 349 0 500 0 592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1566 0 2042 331 1487 1472 0 1000 0 1119 0 1694 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.5 0.0 4.6 0.0 12.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 12.4 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 16.4 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 872 180 0 320 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.3 12.5 0.0 16.2 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 31.0 12.0 15.5 15.5 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 * 47 22.0 17.5 34.5 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.3 5.6 5.7 3.8 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.1 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 573 19 65 533 95 31 29 226 672 77 349 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 573 19 65 533 95 31 29 226 672 77 349 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105 603 20 68 561 0 33 31 238 707 81 367 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 458 1461 48 425 1437 416 719 609 966 719 609 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.42 0.38 0.07 0.40 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3510 116 1781 3647 0 942 1870 1585 2154 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 305 318 68 561 0 33 31 238 707 81 367 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1849 1781 1777 0 942 1870 1585 1077 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 10.9 10.9 1.9 10.0 0.0 2.1 0.9 9.8 27.5 2.5 16.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 10.9 10.9 1.9 10.0 0.0 4.6 0.9 9.8 28.5 2.5 16.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 458 740 770 425 1437 416 719 609 966 719 609 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.39 0.08 0.04 0.39 0.73 0.11 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 477 740 770 426 1437 462 810 687 1071 810 687 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.0 18.5 18.6 14.3 19.0 0.0 19.3 17.3 20.1 26.2 17.8 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 4.7 4.9 0.8 4.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.5 7.0 1.1 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.1 20.2 20.2 14.3 19.1 0.0 19.3 17.3 20.2 28.1 17.8 22.8 LnGrp LOS B C C B B B B C C B C Approach Vol, veh/h 728 629 302 1155 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 18.6 19.8 25.7 Approach LOS B B B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 41.5 38.6 11.0 40.4 38.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 30.0 37.0 6.0 28.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 12.9 30.5 5.0 12.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 1212 194 5 326 121 43 31 10 124 44 331 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 1212 194 5 326 121 43 31 10 124 44 331 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 1276 204 5 343 127 45 33 11 131 46 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 802 2066 328 456 2390 1066 409 156 52 409 218 Arrive On Green 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.67 0.67 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3072 488 1781 3554 1585 2638 1342 447 2643 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 188 734 746 5 343 127 45 0 44 131 46 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1585 1319 0 1790 1321 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 2.6 1.4 0.0 2.0 4.3 2.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 2.6 3.4 0.0 2.0 6.3 2.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 802 1195 1199 456 2390 1066 409 0 208 409 218 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.61 0.62 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.21 0.32 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 822 1195 1199 456 2390 1066 687 0 398 688 416 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.3 5.2 37.6 0.0 36.2 38.9 36.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.2 1.9 2.0 3.0 5.4 5.3 37.6 0.0 36.4 39.0 36.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A D A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1668 475 89 177 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 5.3 37.0 38.3 Approach LOS A A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 64.5 14.5 11.0 64.5 14.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 48.5 18.0 6.0 47.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 2.0 8.3 4.8 5.1 5.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 962 113 65 579 59 31 29 224 1 0 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 962 113 65 579 59 31 29 224 1 0 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 1013 119 68 609 62 32 32 236 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 501 1356 583 385 1242 126 510 619 524 266 0 239 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.38 0.37 0.12 0.38 0.37 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3257 331 1781 1870 1585 1111 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 1013 119 68 332 339 32 32 236 1 0 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1811 1781 1870 1585 1111 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 18.0 3.7 1.4 10.4 10.4 0.9 0.9 8.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 18.0 3.7 1.4 10.4 10.4 0.9 0.9 8.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 1356 583 385 678 691 510 619 524 266 0 239 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.75 0.20 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.06 0.05 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 623 1655 716 422 742 756 701 858 727 289 0 271 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.1 19.5 15.8 11.9 17.2 17.3 18.8 16.6 19.2 26.4 0.0 26.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 7.2 1.3 0.5 4.1 4.2 0.4 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.1 21.4 16.0 12.0 18.0 18.1 18.8 16.7 19.8 26.4 0.0 26.4 LnGrp LOS B C B B B B B B B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1192 739 300 2 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 17.5 19.4 26.4 Approach LOS C B B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 31.9 28.2 13.0 31.9 13.2 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 20.0 10.5 3.3 12.4 2.9 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 1.1 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 377 509 1 0 145 31 0 0 0 23 1 288 Future Volume (veh/h) 377 509 1 0 145 31 0 0 0 23 1 288 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 397 536 1 0 153 33 0 0 0 24 0 304 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 964 1127 2 4 781 164 0 349 0 500 0 592 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.60 0.59 0.00 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1866 3 1781 2921 615 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 397 0 537 0 92 94 0 0 0 24 0 304 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1870 1781 1777 1760 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 964 0 1130 4 475 470 0 349 0 500 0 592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1405 0 1868 497 1569 1554 0 869 0 995 0 1473 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 12.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 12.4 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 16.4 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 934 186 0 328 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 12.6 0.0 16.3 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 31.0 12.0 15.5 15.5 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 * 43 19.0 15.5 36.5 19.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.9 5.7 6.0 3.8 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 1.3 1.7 1.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 561 19 65 551 112 31 29 226 660 77 349 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 561 19 65 551 112 31 29 226 660 77 349 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105 591 20 68 580 0 33 31 238 695 81 367 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 456 1518 51 427 1461 410 708 600 952 708 600 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.43 0.40 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3507 119 1781 3647 0 942 1870 1585 2154 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 299 312 68 580 0 33 31 238 695 81 367 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1849 1781 1777 0 942 1870 1585 1077 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 10.3 10.4 1.9 10.3 0.0 2.1 0.9 9.9 27.1 2.5 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 10.3 10.4 1.9 10.3 0.0 4.7 0.9 9.9 28.0 2.5 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 456 769 800 427 1461 410 708 600 952 708 600 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.40 0.08 0.04 0.40 0.73 0.11 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 476 769 800 427 1461 451 790 669 1047 790 669 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 17.4 17.5 14.3 18.7 0.0 19.7 17.7 20.5 26.6 18.2 22.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.5 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 4.6 0.8 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.6 6.9 1.1 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 18.9 18.9 14.4 18.8 0.0 19.7 17.7 20.6 28.5 18.2 23.4 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B B C C B C Approach Vol, veh/h 716 648 302 1143 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 18.3 20.2 26.1 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 43.0 38.0 11.0 41.0 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 32.0 36.0 6.0 29.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 12.4 30.0 4.9 12.3 11.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 1188 194 5 361 138 43 31 10 112 44 331 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 1188 194 5 361 138 43 31 10 112 44 331 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 1251 204 5 380 145 45 33 11 118 46 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 774 2073 336 464 2406 1073 396 150 50 396 209 Arrive On Green 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.68 0.68 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3062 496 1781 3554 1585 2638 1342 447 2643 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 188 722 733 5 380 145 45 0 44 118 46 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1781 1781 1777 1585 1319 0 1790 1321 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 2.9 1.4 0.0 2.0 3.8 2.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 2.9 3.4 0.0 2.0 5.9 2.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 774 1203 1206 464 2406 1073 396 0 200 396 209 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.60 0.61 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.22 0.30 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 794 1203 1206 464 2406 1073 716 0 418 717 436 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 5.3 5.2 38.0 0.0 36.6 39.1 36.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.1 1.8 1.9 2.8 5.3 5.2 38.0 0.0 36.8 39.2 36.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A D A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1643 530 89 164 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.0 5.2 37.4 38.5 Approach LOS A A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 64.9 14.1 11.0 64.9 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 47.5 19.0 6.0 46.5 19.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 2.0 7.9 4.8 5.5 5.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 926 113 66 631 59 31 29 223 1 0 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 926 113 66 631 59 31 29 223 1 0 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 975 119 69 664 62 32 32 235 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 479 1330 571 393 1230 115 515 625 530 270 0 242 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.37 0.36 0.12 0.37 0.36 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3286 306 1781 1870 1585 1112 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 975 119 69 359 367 32 32 235 1 0 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1815 1781 1870 1585 1112 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 17.1 3.7 1.5 11.4 11.5 0.9 0.8 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 17.1 3.7 1.5 11.4 11.5 0.9 0.8 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 479 1330 571 393 665 680 515 625 530 270 0 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.73 0.21 0.18 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 603 1676 726 430 752 768 710 869 737 293 0 275 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 19.4 15.9 11.7 17.7 17.8 18.4 16.2 18.8 25.9 0.0 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 6.8 1.3 0.5 4.5 4.6 0.4 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 21.1 16.2 11.8 18.7 18.8 18.4 16.3 19.3 25.9 0.0 25.9 LnGrp LOS B C B B B B B B B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1154 795 299 2 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.0 18.1 18.9 25.9 Approach LOS B B B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 31.0 28.1 13.0 31.0 13.1 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 19.1 10.4 3.3 13.5 2.9 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 1.1 0.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 385 517 1 0 139 31 0 0 0 23 1 282 Future Volume (veh/h) 385 517 1 0 139 31 0 0 0 23 1 282 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 405 544 1 0 146 33 0 0 0 24 0 298 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 966 1130 2 4 775 171 0 346 0 497 0 586 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.61 0.59 0.00 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1866 3 1781 2895 638 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 405 0 545 0 88 91 0 0 0 24 0 298 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1870 1781 1777 1756 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 966 0 1132 4 476 470 0 346 0 497 0 586 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1489 0 1873 498 1531 1513 0 871 0 998 0 1477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 12.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 12.3 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 16.4 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 950 179 0 322 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 12.5 0.0 16.3 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 31.0 11.9 15.5 15.5 11.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 * 43 19.0 16.5 35.5 19.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 9.0 5.6 6.1 3.7 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 1.3 1.8 0.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC 07/20/2022 20: W. 77th St & public street U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 46 1241 641 16 20 65 Future Vol, veh/h 46 1241 641 16 20 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 48 1306 675 17 21 68 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 692 0 - 0 1433 346 Stage 1 - - - - 684 - Stage 2 - - - - 749 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 899 - - - 125 650 Stage 1 - - - - 462 - Stage 2 - - - - 428 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 899 - - - 118 650 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 118 - Stage 1 - - - - 438 - Stage 2 - - - - 428 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 20.9 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 899 - - - 315 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - - 0.284 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - - 20.9 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 1.1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 363 787 27 77 272 421 18 83 339 270 41 142 Future Volume (veh/h) 363 787 27 77 272 421 18 83 339 270 41 142 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 382 828 28 81 286 0 19 87 357 284 43 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 783 1886 64 446 1595 372 491 416 575 491 416 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.54 0.50 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3507 119 1781 3647 0 1191 1870 1585 1835 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 382 419 437 81 286 0 19 87 357 284 43 149 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1849 1781 1777 0 1191 1870 1585 917 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 12.9 12.9 2.1 4.3 0.0 1.1 3.2 19.3 12.8 1.6 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 12.9 12.9 2.1 4.3 0.0 2.7 3.2 19.3 16.0 1.6 6.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 783 955 994 446 1595 372 491 416 575 491 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.86 0.49 0.09 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1040 955 994 446 1595 403 540 458 624 540 458 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 12.6 12.7 11.7 14.9 0.0 26.1 25.7 31.6 31.9 25.1 27.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 5.2 5.4 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.3 1.4 8.7 2.8 0.7 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.0 14.1 14.1 11.8 14.9 0.0 26.1 25.7 44.6 32.1 25.1 27.2 LnGrp LOS A B B B B C C D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1238 367 463 476 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 14.2 40.3 30.0 Approach LOS B B D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 52.4 27.6 18.0 44.4 27.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 24.0 25.0 22.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 14.9 18.0 11.4 6.3 21.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 307 908 139 10 463 331 219 164 11 48 38 95 Future Volume (veh/h) 307 908 139 10 463 331 219 164 11 48 38 95 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 323 956 146 11 487 348 231 173 12 51 40 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 637 1944 297 514 2073 925 535 276 19 314 299 Arrive On Green 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.58 0.58 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3091 472 1781 3554 1585 2652 1729 120 2325 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 323 549 553 11 487 348 231 0 185 51 40 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1785 1781 1777 1585 1326 0 1849 1163 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.0 10.5 7.4 0.0 8.4 1.9 1.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.0 10.5 9.0 0.0 8.4 10.3 1.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 637 1118 1123 514 2073 925 535 0 295 314 299 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.23 0.38 0.43 0.00 0.63 0.16 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 852 1118 1123 514 2073 925 760 0 452 511 457 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.4 9.0 10.0 36.3 0.0 35.4 40.1 32.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 2.1 3.4 2.4 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.7 1.3 1.3 5.4 9.1 10.1 36.5 0.0 36.2 40.2 32.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A B D A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1425 846 416 91 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 9.4 36.4 36.8 Approach LOS A A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 60.6 18.4 15.1 56.5 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 46.5 20.0 20.0 31.5 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.0 12.3 8.1 12.5 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.1 1.0 1.6 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 818 43 128 436 131 21 84 316 17 6 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 818 43 128 436 131 21 84 316 17 6 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 861 45 135 459 138 22 88 333 18 6 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 527 1243 531 439 944 282 478 622 527 224 62 264 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.35 0.33 0.14 0.35 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 2697 805 1781 1870 1585 774 371 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 861 45 135 301 296 22 88 333 24 0 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1725 1781 1870 1585 1145 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 13.7 1.3 2.8 8.8 9.0 0.6 2.2 11.7 0.1 0.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 13.7 1.3 2.8 8.8 9.0 0.6 2.2 11.7 0.8 0.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 527 1243 531 439 622 604 478 622 527 286 0 264 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.69 0.08 0.31 0.48 0.49 0.05 0.14 0.63 0.08 0.00 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 662 1801 779 493 820 796 748 948 803 311 0 300 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.4 18.4 15.1 11.3 16.8 17.1 17.1 15.5 18.6 23.3 0.0 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 5.3 0.4 1.0 3.4 3.4 0.2 0.9 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.4 19.5 15.2 11.4 17.7 18.0 17.1 15.6 19.9 23.4 0.0 24.2 LnGrp LOS A B B B B B B B B C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 914 732 443 81 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 16.7 18.9 24.0 Approach LOS B B B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 27.1 26.0 13.0 27.1 11.0 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 32.5 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 15.7 13.7 2.2 11.0 2.6 4.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.4 1.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 503 429 0 0 357 47 0 0 0 41 0 376 Future Volume (veh/h) 503 429 0 0 357 47 0 0 0 41 0 376 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 529 452 0 0 376 49 0 0 0 43 0 396 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 957 1090 0 4 795 103 0 412 0 550 0 699 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 0 1781 3164 409 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 529 452 0 0 210 215 0 0 0 43 0 396 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1870 0 1781 1777 1797 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 957 1090 0 4 446 451 0 412 0 550 0 699 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1699 1594 0 467 1126 1138 0 981 0 1091 0 1662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 15.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 15.5 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 16.6 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 981 425 0 439 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 15.6 0.0 16.4 Approach LOS B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 31.7 14.1 16.2 15.5 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 * 39 23.0 20.5 27.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.1 7.1 8.0 6.7 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 2.0 2.7 2.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 374 851 28 79 282 436 19 86 349 319 42 146 Future Volume (veh/h) 374 851 28 79 282 436 19 86 349 319 42 146 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 394 896 29 83 297 0 20 91 367 336 44 154 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 774 1873 61 417 1559 375 499 423 576 499 423 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.53 0.50 0.07 0.44 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3513 114 1781 3647 0 1185 1870 1585 1811 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 394 453 472 83 297 0 20 91 367 336 44 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1850 1781 1777 0 1185 1870 1585 906 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 14.4 14.4 2.2 4.6 0.0 1.2 3.4 19.9 15.8 1.6 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 14.4 14.4 2.2 4.6 0.0 2.7 3.4 19.9 19.2 1.6 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 774 947 986 417 1559 375 499 423 576 499 423 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.87 0.58 0.09 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1002 947 986 417 1559 388 520 440 595 520 440 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 13.2 13.2 12.3 15.5 0.0 25.8 25.4 31.5 32.8 24.8 26.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 15.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 5.8 6.1 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.5 9.2 3.4 0.7 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.3 14.9 14.9 12.4 15.5 0.0 25.8 25.5 46.8 33.7 24.8 27.0 LnGrp LOS A B B B B C C D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1319 380 478 534 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 14.8 41.9 31.0 Approach LOS B B D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 52.0 28.0 18.5 43.5 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 23.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 16.4 21.2 11.9 6.6 21.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 316 1016 143 10 481 344 226 169 11 90 39 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 316 1016 143 10 481 344 226 169 11 90 39 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 1069 151 11 506 362 238 178 12 95 41 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 618 1907 269 471 1978 882 586 310 21 357 335 Arrive On Green 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.56 0.56 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3127 441 1781 3554 1585 2650 1733 117 2315 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 607 613 11 506 362 238 0 190 95 41 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1791 1781 1777 1585 1325 0 1849 1157 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.6 11.8 7.5 0.0 8.5 3.5 1.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.6 11.8 9.1 0.0 8.5 12.0 1.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 618 1084 1092 471 1978 882 586 0 331 357 335 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.26 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.57 0.27 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 820 1084 1092 471 1978 882 759 0 452 508 457 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 10.3 11.5 34.8 0.0 33.9 39.3 31.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.1 2.4 3.9 2.4 0.0 3.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.4 1.7 1.7 6.3 10.3 11.6 35.0 0.0 34.4 39.4 31.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B C A C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1553 879 428 136 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.5 10.8 34.8 36.9 Approach LOS A B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 58.9 20.1 15.8 54.1 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 46.5 20.0 20.0 31.5 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.0 14.0 8.7 13.8 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.1 1.0 1.7 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 921 44 130 439 135 22 87 328 18 6 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 921 44 130 439 135 22 87 328 18 6 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 969 46 137 462 142 23 92 345 19 6 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 533 1331 571 413 1005 306 462 603 511 214 56 251 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.37 0.36 0.13 0.37 0.36 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 2682 818 1781 1870 1585 773 351 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 969 46 137 305 299 23 92 345 25 0 59 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1723 1781 1870 1585 1124 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 16.3 1.3 2.9 9.0 9.2 0.7 2.4 13.1 0.3 0.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 16.3 1.3 2.9 9.0 9.2 0.7 2.4 13.1 0.9 0.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 533 1331 571 413 666 645 462 603 511 270 0 251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.73 0.08 0.33 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.15 0.67 0.09 0.00 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 661 1742 754 451 781 758 709 904 766 293 0 286 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.2 18.6 14.6 11.8 16.4 16.6 18.3 16.7 20.3 24.9 0.0 25.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 6.4 0.5 1.0 3.5 3.5 0.3 1.0 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.2 20.1 14.7 11.9 17.1 17.4 18.4 16.9 21.9 25.0 0.0 26.0 LnGrp LOS A C B B B B B B C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1023 741 460 84 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.8 16.3 20.7 25.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 30.0 26.4 13.0 30.0 11.4 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 18.3 15.1 2.2 11.2 2.7 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.7 1.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 519 444 0 0 386 48 0 0 0 42 0 405 Future Volume (veh/h) 519 444 0 0 386 48 0 0 0 42 0 405 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 546 467 0 0 406 51 0 0 0 44 0 426 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 966 1082 0 4 781 97 0 429 0 562 0 727 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 0 1781 3179 397 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 546 467 0 0 226 231 0 0 0 44 0 426 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1870 0 1781 1777 1799 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 966 1082 0 4 436 442 0 429 0 562 0 727 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1661 1558 0 457 1100 1114 0 959 0 1067 0 1625 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 15.3 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 16.8 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 1013 457 0 470 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 16.6 0.0 16.6 Approach LOS B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 32.1 14.7 16.6 15.5 14.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 * 39 23.0 20.5 27.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.6 7.6 8.3 7.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 2.1 2.8 2.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 1: Normandale Blvd/SB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 374 864 28 79 276 431 19 86 349 333 42 146 Future Volume (veh/h) 374 864 28 79 276 431 19 86 349 333 42 146 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 394 909 29 83 291 0 20 91 367 351 44 154 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 773 1859 59 410 1540 380 507 430 584 507 430 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.53 0.50 0.07 0.43 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3515 112 1781 3647 0 1185 1870 1585 1811 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 394 460 478 83 291 0 20 91 367 351 44 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1850 1781 1777 0 1185 1870 1585 906 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 14.8 14.8 2.2 4.5 0.0 1.2 3.4 19.8 16.6 1.6 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 14.8 14.8 2.2 4.5 0.0 2.7 3.4 19.8 19.9 1.6 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 773 940 979 410 1540 380 507 430 584 507 430 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.85 0.60 0.09 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 999 940 979 410 1540 401 540 458 616 540 458 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.3 13.5 13.5 12.6 15.7 0.0 25.5 25.1 31.1 32.8 24.5 26.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.8 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 6.0 6.3 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.5 8.9 3.6 0.7 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 15.3 15.3 12.7 15.8 0.0 25.5 25.2 44.1 33.7 24.5 26.7 LnGrp LOS A B B B B C C D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1332 374 478 549 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.6 15.1 39.7 31.0 Approach LOS B B D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 51.6 28.4 18.6 43.0 28.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 16.8 21.9 12.1 6.5 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 2: Frontage Road/NB TH 100 Ramps & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 316 1043 143 10 470 339 226 169 11 104 39 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 316 1043 143 10 470 339 226 169 11 104 39 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 1098 151 11 495 357 238 178 12 109 41 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 619 1899 261 462 1963 875 599 319 21 369 344 Arrive On Green 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3139 431 1781 3554 1585 2650 1733 117 2315 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 621 628 11 495 357 238 0 190 109 41 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1793 1781 1777 1585 1325 0 1849 1157 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.5 11.7 7.4 0.0 8.4 4.0 1.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.5 11.7 9.1 0.0 8.4 12.5 1.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 619 1075 1084 462 1963 875 599 0 340 369 344 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.25 0.41 0.40 0.00 0.56 0.30 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 763 1075 1084 462 1963 875 700 0 411 458 416 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 10.5 11.6 34.4 0.0 33.5 39.1 30.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.1 2.4 3.8 2.4 0.0 3.8 1.1 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.5 1.8 1.8 6.4 10.5 11.8 34.6 0.0 34.0 39.2 30.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B C A C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1582 863 428 150 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.6 11.0 34.3 36.9 Approach LOS A B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 58.4 20.6 15.7 53.7 20.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 48.5 18.0 17.0 36.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.0 14.5 8.9 13.7 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.9 1.7 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 4: Computer Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 962 44 130 423 135 22 87 329 18 6 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 962 44 130 423 135 22 87 329 18 6 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 1013 46 137 445 142 23 92 346 19 6 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 543 1363 585 403 1019 322 456 596 505 210 55 247 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.38 0.37 0.13 0.38 0.37 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 2656 840 1781 1870 1585 772 351 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 1013 46 137 296 291 23 92 346 25 0 59 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1719 1781 1870 1585 1124 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 17.3 1.3 2.9 8.7 8.9 0.7 2.5 13.4 0.3 0.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 17.3 1.3 2.9 8.7 8.9 0.7 2.5 13.4 0.9 0.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 543 1363 585 403 681 659 456 596 505 265 0 247 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.74 0.08 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.15 0.69 0.09 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 669 1715 742 441 769 744 698 889 754 288 0 281 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.0 18.7 14.4 12.0 16.1 16.3 18.8 17.2 20.9 25.4 0.0 26.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 6.8 0.5 1.0 3.4 3.4 0.3 1.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.0 20.4 14.5 12.2 16.7 17.0 18.8 17.3 22.6 25.6 0.0 26.6 LnGrp LOS A C B B B B B B C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1067 724 461 84 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.1 16.0 21.4 26.3 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 31.0 26.4 13.0 31.0 11.4 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 32.5 13.0 29.5 15.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 19.3 15.4 2.2 10.9 2.7 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.7 1.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/20/2022 5: Parklawn Ave & W. 77th St U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 515 441 0 0 392 48 0 0 0 42 0 410 Future Volume (veh/h) 515 441 0 0 392 48 0 0 0 42 0 410 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 542 464 0 0 413 51 0 0 0 44 0 432 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 960 1077 0 4 780 96 0 434 0 567 0 736 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 0 1781 3186 391 0 1870 0 1781 0 3170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 542 464 0 0 229 235 0 0 0 44 0 432 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1870 0 1781 1777 1800 0 1870 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 960 1077 0 4 435 441 0 434 0 567 0 736 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1656 1514 0 455 1060 1074 0 996 0 1102 0 1688 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 5.6 0.0 0.0 15.4 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 16.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.2 6.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 16.8 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A B Approach Vol, veh/h 1006 464 0 476 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 16.7 0.0 16.5 Approach LOS B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 32.0 14.9 16.5 15.5 14.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 * 38 24.0 20.5 26.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.6 7.7 8.3 7.3 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 2.2 2.7 2.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC 07/20/2022 20: W. 77th St & public street U:\227705225\technical\synchro\2025 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1196 685 2 25 79 Future Vol, veh/h 4 1196 685 2 25 79 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 1259 721 2 26 83 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 723 0 - 0 1360 362 Stage 1 - - - - 722 - Stage 2 - - - - 638 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 875 - - - 140 635 Stage 1 - - - - 442 - Stage 2 - - - - 488 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 875 - - - 139 635 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 139 - Stage 1 - - - - 440 - Stage 2 - - - - 488 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 20.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 875 - - - 342 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.32 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - - 20.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.4 2200 Zane Ave N | Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com Cary: At your request, we reviewed the Sketch Plan submission for the proposed development at 4600- 4620 West 77th Street based on our experience working with the Greater Southdale Work Group to craft a physical vision for how their guiding principles may translate to the built environment. The resulting vision for development in the 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, minimizing the 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. The project proposed aligns in several areas with the Design Experience Guidelines, demonstrating positive attributes as it relates to block size, connections to and through the site to district assets, increased landscape coverage of the site, and general consideration for the neighborhood. The proposal lines above-grade parking with programmed uses and minimizes the visual impact of the car on the pedestrian experience along 77th Street, however does not conform to the guidelines on the new street (woonerf) on the east side of the development. We have addressed that in greater detail below. Our specific comments on the proposal are as follows: 1. Land Use. Keeping the existing office building is an important part of meeting the Southdale District’s goals as a mixed-use district. Integrating jobs into the overall plan helps to reduce parking needs so a greater focus can be placed on meeting quality of life opportunities. To demonstrate the long-term impact of the phase 2 plan, we would suggest the applicant show how the land between the north end of the office building and Fred Richards Park along the east side of the woonerf might develop in the future. For example, assuming that parking requirements may vary over time, and become lessoned by people walking to work or using mass transit, this key plot of land could be an important new program element important to residents and the activation of the woonerf, and could serve as a cultural asset for the district. To City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date February 8, 2022 The addition of this type of cultural destination was outlined in the Southdale district plan as an important goal for the district’s future evolution. 2. Site organization and building massing. a. Positive attributes of the proposal include the two distinct blocks, separated by a courtyard with a passage through it that connects Phase 1 through Phase 2 to the woonerf. As the precedent images indicate, the woonerf is intened to become an active street serving the neighborhood with services, retail, and entertainment. This supports a growing neighborhood along West 77th Street and serves as an important identifying marker for visitors to Fred Richards Park. b. The fenestration and massing of Phase 1 met the guidelines. The applicant states that “the building mass and materials will be of similar quality to Phase I, but of contrasting design.” We support this approach but also would suggest that the two buildings that comprise Phase 2 each have their own unique character that identify them as individual buidlings with the goal of creating variety and interest as an ensemble in the neighborhood. c. For the “mounded garden courtyards” referenced on the plan on page 5, it is important for these gardens have steps/pathways so that they are actively and visually accessible to the courtyards and all connections to the public realm, including the park. d. We would be interested in some specifics on how the northern building of Phase 2 would connect to Fred Richards as part of a continuous integrated landscape with the park. 3. Woonerf street. The applicant has shown a number of images of woonerf -style streets on pages 2 and 6 to demonstrate the design intentions for the east side of the Phase 2 buildings and the west façade of the existing office building. All of the images support the Design Experience Guidelines for the type of street that is imagined for the West Promenade, and seems very appropriate for this new north-south active pedestrian street connecting West 77th Street to Fred Richards Park. However, we have a few concerns that the make us believe that the current proposal will not deliver the kind of active pedestrian street being depicted in these images. a. The Design Experience Guidelines state that all above-grade parking (either freestanding structures or within a development) must be lined with active program. In this case, as described in the images, this would mean active retail and commercial space along the entire east side of the ground floor from West 77th to the park. The proposal suggests commercial spaces only at the corner of West 77th and a ‘potential’ commercial space on the northeast corner of the building at Fred Richards Park. This assumes, then, inactive faces and parking along approximately 75% of the building’s façade, which is in conflict with the guidelines. Recommendation: incorporate active liner buildings such as 1-story commercial or 2-story townhouses to the face of the building, or integrate these program spaces into the building. b. The new street is dimensioned at 75’-0” wide. Woonerfs are intended to be scaled to pedestrians first, with vehicles moving at 5mph. Additionally, parking is temporary and usually parallel, not 90-degree parking, as shown in the proposal along the west side of the existing office building. This is more typical of a parking lot, not an active pedestrian street. Recommendation: there are many woonerf-style streets that are closer to 50’-0” wide. Narrowing the woonerf in this proposal would allow for integrated liner buildings along the east face of the Phase 2 building, and elimination of 90-degree parking to create an atmosphere more aligned with that described in the applicant’s narrative and imagery. 4. New vehicle access to Fred Richards. Providing a new gateway park entry from West 77th is an important part of integrating Fred Richards Park with the neighborhood. Rather than a simple road with a monument sign, we suggest identifying the park entrance by literally extending the landscape of the park to West 77th. This would send a clear message that the assets of the district are being made visible and accessible to all residents and visitors. And, to make that idea stronger and more a part of how the district intends to become more resilient neighborhood, it would seem that the new access should reflect these goals. The district plan calls for daylighting stormwater, allowing infrastructure that is usually hidden in pipes and tanks, to be brought to the surface as part of how the district works both sustainably and aesthetically. In this case, because of an already high water table, creating a waterway along the side of the new entry, within a parklike landscape would be both natural and functional. It would create a place for stormwater runoff while demonstrating how the goals of the district can support existing functional issues, and creatively provide experiences that bind us to the natural world around us. In addition, instead of a sidewalk paralleling the street, we would also suggest that applicant create a path through a natural environment to further enhance the experience of individuals. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic 500.00450.00500.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 N OPARKING UPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREANOPARKINGPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET. .. .. .. .. .. .PENTAGON PARK PHASE IIEDINA, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLEC0.0 TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNISSUED FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP5000 GLENWOOD AVEGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422CONTACT: ROBBIE LATTA612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:C2.0 OVERALL - SITE PLANKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRTBDL1.1 RESIDENTIAL - LANDSCAPE PLANARCHITECT:MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP755 N PRIOR AVE N#301AST. PAUL, MN 55114CONTACT: CRAIG HARTMANCRAIG@MDGARCHITECTS.COM651-253-2981SOLHEM COMPANIES724 N FIRST STSUITE 500MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONTACT: CURT GUNSBURYCURT@SOLHEM.COM612-216-2825C2.1 RESIDENTIAL - SITE PLANRESIDENTIAL - GRADING PLANC3.1RESIDENTIAL - UTILITY PLANC4.1"THE FRED"CSG PROJECT 21105PHASE II RESIDENTIALPUBLIC STREETEXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAINCIVIL SITE GROUP5000 GLENWOOD AVEGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422CONTACT: RORY SYNSTELIEN612-615-0060 S00°08'30"W 473.91 UPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPUBLIC ROADWAYPROJECT PLANSAND DETAIL TBDPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC2.0OVERALL - SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE AREA TABLE:SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSCITY OF EDINA SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"N1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOPERVIOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - CONCRETEPAVER PERVIOUS SYSTEM. INCLUDE ALL BASEMATERIAL AND APPURTENANCES AS SPECIFIED PERMANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS.MAKE: BELGARD, OR EQUIVILANTMODEL: AQUASTONE, OR EQUIVILANTCOLOR: T.B.D. - PROVIDE SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWINGS & PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.SPECIALTY PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - PROVIDE BIDFOR THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, INCLUDE VARIATIONSOF BASE MATERIAL AND OTHER NECESSARYCOMPONENTS.1. STAMPED & COLORED CONCRETE2. CONCRETE PAVERSMAKERS, COLORS, MODELS, & PATTERN TO BEINCLUDED IN SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL"(651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NOCOST TO THE OWNER.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNINGCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES,EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINALLOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OFCONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOOWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING ARIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGAND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFFOOTING MATERIALS.6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS AREAPPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BYTHE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETEFOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BYTHE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENTMATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS,BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THERIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCEWITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TOTHE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BEWHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIORTO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENTSECTIONS.18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THEDRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) ASSPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICALREPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETEDEPTHS, WITHIN ROW SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHINPRIVATE PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAILOPERATIONAL NOTES:SNOW REMOVALALL SNOW SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE OUTSIDEPARKING LOT. WHEN FULL, REMOVAL CO.SHALL REMOVE EXCESS OF-SITETRASH REMOVAL:TRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN EXTERIOR TRASHAREA AND REMOVED BY COMMERCIAL CO.WEEKLY.DELIVERIES:DELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR AT THE FRONTDOOR VIA STANDARD COMMERCIAL DELIVERYVEHICLES (UPS, FED-EX, USPS). APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008P.I.D: 3102824310058Owner: City of Edina450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous Surface Bituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsStairs Concrete East Line Tract B15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105CONCRETE C.I.P.STEPS, COORD. W/ARCHITECTURENOPARKINGCONCRETE C.I.P.STEPS, COORD. W/ARCHITECTURELANDSCAPE PLANTING,SEE LANDSCAPE PLANCONCRETE WALK,TYP.6.0'MATCH EXISTINGASPHALTPAVEMENT, SEEGRADING PLANGRAVEL PAVEMENTFIRE ACCESS PATH10.0'8,446 SF PROPOSEDWETLAND BUFFER8,110 SF REQ'DLANDSCAPED AREA,SEE LANDSCAPEPLANRAISED CONCRETEPATIO/PORCHBITUMINOUS PED/BIKE PATHCONCRETE SLOPEDWALKWAYRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKCONCRETE WALKWAYRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKW/METAL SAFETYRAILINGRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL BLOCKW/ METAL SAFETYRAILINGRIBBON CURB, TYPRIBBONCURB, TYPSTOP SIGN,MUTCD R1-1,W/ STOPLINEPAINTEDDIRECTIONALARROWS,TYPCONCRETE DRIVE APRONCONCRETE WALKWAYBITUMINOUS PED/BIKE PATHCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE WALKWAYMONUMENT SIGN, SEEARCH PLANSFACING NORTHONE WAY DO NOT ENTER SIGN,MUTCD R5-1FACING SOUTHEND ONE WAY SIGN, MUTCD R6-7BEGIN ONE WAY,MUTCD R6-6STOP SIGN,MUTCD R1-1CONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSCONCRETE PAVER CROSSWALKSC.I.P. RETAININGWALLMONUMENT SIGN, SEEARCH PLANSPUBLIC ROADWAYPROJECT PLANSAND DETAIL TBDPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC2.1RESIDENTIAL -SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOPERVIOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - CONCRETEPAVER PERVIOUS SYSTEM. INCLUDE ALL BASEMATERIAL AND APPURTENANCES AS SPECIFIED PERMANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS.MAKE: BELGARD, OR EQUIVILANTMODEL: AQUASTONE, OR EQUIVILANTCOLOR: T.B.D. - PROVIDE SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWINGS & PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.SPECIALTY PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - PROVIDE BIDFOR THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, INCLUDE VARIATIONSOF BASE MATERIAL AND OTHER NECESSARYCOMPONENTS.1. STAMPED & COLORED CONCRETE2. CONCRETE PAVERSMAKERS, COLORS, MODELS, & PATTERN TO BEINCLUDED IN SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) ASSPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICALREPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETEDEPTHS, WITHIN ROW SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHINPRIVATE PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAIL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC3.1RESIDENTIAL -GRADING PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallREX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOSPOT GRADE ELEVATION MATCH EXISTINGGRADE BREAK - HIGH POINTS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340008450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKINGPROPOSED UNDERGROUND WET POND120" AND 60" CMPSTONE BASE INVERT, 120"=813.65STONE BASE INVERT, 60"=818.65TOTAL FOOTPRINT=19'X192' (INCLUDES 12" SIDE AND END STONE)PERMANENT (DEAD) STORAGE=15,327 CFFLOOD (LIVE) STORAGE=9,928 CFWRAP SYSTEM WITH 40-MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER WITH SEALED SEAMS24" FESIE=820.00RAINWATER REUSE CISTERN60" PRINSCO DUAL WALL PIPEFOOTPRINT=45'X16.27'STONE BASE IE=816.40PROPOSED 8"COMBINED DOMESTICAND FIRE SUPPRESSIONWATER SERVICEPROPOSED 6" HYDRANTLEAD78 LF 10" PVC SDR 26SANITARY SERVICE @2.00%PENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONC4.1RESIDENTIAL -UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .UTILITY LEGEND:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAP APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 4 PER DOC.APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND TANK NO. 3 PER DOC.NO. 2896409UNDERGROUND EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 904324UTILITYEASEMENT PERDOC. NO.3598236UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.359823611131414WalkwayWalkway4620 77th Street WExisting Building4600 77th Street WExisting BuildingP.I.D: 3102824340007P.I.D: 3102824340008P.I.D: 3102824310058Owner: City of Edina7640 Parklawn Ave450.00500.00S00°08'30"W 473.91 StairsStairsStairsStairsStairsBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceBituminous SurfaceConcreteStairsConcrete Delineated Wetland 15.0'ROAD AND WALKWAY EASEMENTUPUPCAFECOMMON AREAGARAGECOMMON AREAREFERENCE"THE FRED" CSGPROJECT 21105NOPARKING8,446 SF PROPOSEDWETLAND BUFFER8,110 SF REQ'D78 LF 10" PVC SDR 26SANITARY SERVICE @2.00%REVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONL1.1RESIDENTIAL -LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. . PENTAGON PARK PHASE II 4620 W 77TH ST, EDINA, MN 55435 724 N FIRST ST, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SOLHEM COMPANIES PROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:22239. .. .. .. .. .. .06/27/22 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:RL,JLRL. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c202259612ROBERT A. LATTALICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-006001" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRLEGENDPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEEPLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULEAND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESEDGINGDECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE), 18"-30" DIA.LANDSCAPE NOTES:1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONECALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTERINSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH.3.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER ORTO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2"FROM TREE TRUNK.4.IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEWLANDSCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMENSTANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATIONOF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.6.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THESCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.7.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BEWARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.8.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 6" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SODAS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.9.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES,LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINALLOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO INSTALLATION.10.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.11.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'SACTIVITIES.12.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.13.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLYPROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDEHEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATIONPER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OFPAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.14.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICINGFROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 8 5 12 3 467 N 45' - 10"CAFE COMMON AREA ENTER EXIT GARAGE APPROXIMATE END OF FIRE ACCESS ROAD ON PHASE I LOCATION OF PASS THROUGH ABOVE STEPS UP TO PLAZA ABOVE EXISTING PARKING LOT ONE WAYWEST 77TH STREET TRANSFORMER 16' - 0"ENTRANCE35' - 0"20' - 0" COVERED ACTIVITY AREA COMMON AREA TWO WAYEXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 24' - 0"EXISTING PARKING LOTEXISTING PARKING LOTINDOOR POOL 8.3%14.4%24' - 0"ONE WAYTWO WAY35' - 0"REINFORCED TURF PAVERS TO PROVIDE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS EXISTING BUILDING (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) ENTRANCE BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK DOG PARK PATIOPATIOWOONERF PEDESTRIAN PLAZANEW PUBLIC STREET VEHICULAR CONNECTIONN PEDESTRIAN PARK ACCESS PAVERSSURMOUNTABLE CURB AT FIRE ROAD BICYCLE PARK ACCESS BIKE SHOP BOCCE COURT STEPS UP TO PLAZA ABOVE VEHICULAR PARK ACCESS CAFE BELOW (OPEN) GARAGE COMMON AREA COMMON AREA BELOW (OPEN) COMMON AREA 572.96 8.3%14.4% DNEGRESS COURTEGRESS COURT ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOM TYPE LEGEND 1 BED 1 BED + DEN 2 BED CIRCULATION STUDIO UNIT STORAGE VERTICAL CIRCULATION N ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF DECK 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0" GARAGE ENTRYALUMINUM STOREFRONT STANDING SEAM METAL AWNING ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS GLASS & ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA STAIR TO 3RD FLOOR THOROUGHFAREMATERIAL #1MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #4 CONCRETE COLUMNS ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA 81' - 0"1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR ALUMINUM & GLASS GUARDRAIL CONCRETE COLUMN MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #2 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR MATERIAL #1 MATERIAL #4MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #3 STANDING SEAM METAL AWNING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT & BIKE STORAGE ENTRY MATERIAL #1ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA ALUMINUM STOREFRONT BUILDING SIGNAGEALUMINUM STOREFRONT & MAIN BUILDING ENTRY MATERIAL #2 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0" MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #2MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #1 ALUMINUM & GLASS GUARDRAILSTAIR TO 3RD FLOOR THOROUGHFARE VINYL WINDOWS ALUMINUM BALCONY STAIR ACCESS VINYL SLIDING DOOR TRANSFORMER EXTERIOR FINISH KEY MATERIAL #1: BASIS OF DESIGN: PATTERN: COLOR: TINTED PRECAST WALL PANEL 512-2 HAND HEWN HEMLOCK BROWN MATERIAL #2: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: BRICK MASONRY UTILITY/ 1/3 RUNNING BOND CHARCOAL MATERIAL #3: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: METAL PANEL FLUSH REVEAL WARM GRAY ORIENTATION:VERTICAL MATERIAL #4: BASIS OF DESIGN: STYLE: COLOR: LAP SIDING 6" EXPOSURE LIGHT GRAY; SMOOTH ORIENTATION:HORIZONTAL 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA MATERIAL #2 MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 3RD FLOOR EXTERIOR CONNECTION 1ST FLOOR100' -0" ROOF177' -0" 2ND FLOOR110' -8" 3RD FLOOR122' -0" 4TH FLOOR133' -0" 5TH FLOOR144' -0" 6TH FLOOR155' -0" 7TH FLOOR166' -0"ALUMINUM BALCONY VINYL WINDOWS VINYL SLIDING DOOR METAL PARAPET CAP CONCRETE COLUMNS MATERIAL #3MATERIAL #4 MATERIAL #2 3RD FLOOR EXTERIOR CONNECTION MATERIAL #3 MATERIAL #4 ANGLED TIMBER PERGOLA MONUMENT SIGNAGE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING BY LICENSED SIGN CONTRACTOR - SEE SITE PLAN FOR POTENTIAL LOCATIONS - SIZE AND QUANTITY TBD PER ZONING CODE MONUMENT SIGNAGE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING BY LICENSED SIGN CONTRACTOR - SEE SITE PLAN FOR POTENTIAL LOCATIONS - SIZE AND QUANTITY TBD PER ZONING CODE TINTED PRECAST WALL PANELUTILITY BRICK VENEER VERTICAL METAL PANEL LAP SIDING VINYL SLIDING DOOR VINYL WINDOW FIXED AWNING ALUMINUM BALCONY GLASS PANELS ALUMINUM BALCONY PICKET RAILING The CITY of EDINA Preliminary Rezoning – 4600 & 4620 77 th Street West. The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 2 S i t e The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 3 S i t e The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 4 Sketch Plan The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 5 Sketch Plan The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 6 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 7 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 8 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 9 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 10 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 11 The CITY of EDINARevisions from Sketch Plan Added a café into the project at the entrance corner. Created a north-south woonerf through the project to provide a better pedestrian experience. Increased site landscape area along northern park boundary with added outdoor covered activity area and park-facing patio space o Increased northern setback along park boundary (reduced "northern wing" lengths) o Added amenity space along northern building face parallel to park boundary o Eliminated parking under NE corner to provide active uses at corner of woonerf and park with added NE building entrance Shape of main building changed from an "upside-down T" to an "H", with smaller northern wings Average grade planes are slightly lower (parking levels partially hidden by landscape beds and raised grade where allowed by watershed) Woonerf revised for 1 way traffic flow with added landscaping/adjacent outdoor amenity spaces o Adjusted grade plane throughout woonerf for ADA access o Added corner patio spaces at intersection of woonerf & 77th with reduced grade Building 1st floor SF: reduced from 80,000sf to 74,106sf Building Total SF : reduced from 380,000sf to 370,202sf Parking: reduced from 360 to 349 stalls. EdinaMN.gov 12 The CITY of EDINAThis Request Requires: EdinaMN.gov 13 1.A Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-23. This would be an expansion of the PUD established for the adjacent property to the west at 4660 77th Street. The CITY of EDINAReview of the Site Plan EdinaMN.gov 14 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 15 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 16 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 17 City Standard (MDD-6) PUD-23 Standard Proposed Comp. Plan/Design Guide Building Setbacks Front – 77 th Street Rear – Fred Richards Park Side – West Side – East 35 feet (measured to the curb) 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 40-50 feet (measured to curb) 20 feet 50 feet 45 feet Code compliant 50 feet (measured to curb) 38 feet NA 75+ feet 30 feet (measured to the curb) Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 5-7 stories and 52-86 feet 5-7 stories & 85 feet (variance required but consistent with PUD-23 District) Density 51 units per acre 20-75 units per acre Building Coverage Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 30% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 483 spaces required + 8 for the cafe 1.3 spaces per unit 347 total required 349 spaces 1.3 per unit + 16 surface spaces along the woonerf The CITY of EDINAPrimary Issue Is the proposal reasonable to justify the PUD rezoning of the site? EdinaMN.gov 18 1. The project would be considered Phase 2 of the apartment project to the west that is currently under construction, continuing the PUD-23 Zoning District would therefore be appropriate. The proposed structure would meet the setback, height and parking standards of the PUD-23 District. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Office Residential,” which allows for residential, and limited retail uses. The project would provide 28 units of affordable housing, meet the City’s sustainability policy, and provide significant upgrades to pedestrian, vehicular and bike connections to Fred Richards Park and the Regional Trail. Primary parking would be located under and within the building, which is pulled up closer to the street, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Sidewalks are provided all around the building including a significant connection to the regional bike trail. Since this project would be the second phase of the apartment project to the west an extension of the PUD-23 District is appropriate. The proposed buildings would be a high-quality brick, with metal siding. The CITY of EDINAPrimary Issue Is the proposal reasonable to justify the PUD rezoning of the site? EdinaMN.gov 19 3. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Stantec Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 4. The proposed height of seven stories is reasonable for this site. The nearest single-family home to this site is 780 feet to the north. Section 36-618 (6) of the City Code requires that buildings that are 7 stories tall, be setback 4 times the height of the building from the 7-story portion of the building to the nearest single-family lot line. The building would be 77 feet tall, therefore, a 308-foot setback is required. The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 20 Code Requires a 308’ setback (4 times the height of the 77’ tall building) The CITY of EDINAStaff Recommendation EdinaMN.gov 21 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 22 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 23 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 24 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 25 Date: July 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:2023 P lanning C ommis s ion Work P lan Dis cus s ion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested I N TR O D U C TI O N: C ontinue discussion on the 2023 P lanning C ommission Work P lan. Below is the list that the P lanning C ommission discussed at the last work session: • T rees/L andscaping (commercial side of it) • AD U ’s (next steps) • Conditional U se P ermit conditions and how that can tie into sustainability issues. • Recycling from construction sites • P arking continuation • Researching "potential areas of change”