Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-09 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 9, 2011 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the October 12, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may modify times as deemed necessary. Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. 9 B-11-11 Wayne Rice 5100 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN Sign Variance B-11-12 Refined 4621 Edina Boulevard, Edina, MN 15.6' rear yard setback variance 2011.010.11a Subdivision with Lot Depth Variances for each lot Vine Hill Investors/JMS Homes 14 Woodland Road, Edina, MN 2011.011.11a Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development & Preliminary Development Plan DJR Architecture on behalf of FE 70, LLC 6996 France Avenue, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS • Zoning Ordinance Amendment— Revisions to Approved Site Plans • Zoning Ordinance Amendment— Utility & Mechanical Equipment VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 9, 2009 2011.010.11a Director of Planning INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Vine Hill Investors and JMS Homes are proposing to subdivide the property at 14 Woodhill Road into two lots. (See property location on pages Al—A4c.) The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A5—Al 1.) To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; and 2. Lot depth variances from 130 feet to 126 feet for each lot. The subject property is located at the corner of Wooddale Avenue, and Woodland Road. (See page A4a—A4c.) Both lots would gain access off Woodland Road. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 10,002 square feet, median lot depth is 130 feet, and the median lot width is 80 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages Al0--A11.) The new lots would meet the median width and area, but would short of the median lot depth. The proposed lots would be 10,071, and 14,534 square feet in size, 80 and 120 feet wide and both lots would be 126 feet deep. (See pages A8 --A9.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low- density residential. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a single-family home and attached garage. (See pages A4, A4a, and A7.) The existing home would be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling unit residential R-1, Single -dwelling unit district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A16.) if the project is approved, grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Sewer and water are available to the site. Speck hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Greek Watershed District permit would also be required. Primary issue • Are the findings for a variance met? No. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are not met with this proposal. Per state law and 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: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? No. 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 E Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 10,002 s.f. 80 feet 130 feet Lot 1 14,534 s.f. 120 feet 126 feet* Lot 2 10,071 s.f. 80 feet 126 feet* * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A16.) if the project is approved, grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Sewer and water are available to the site. Speck hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Greek Watershed District permit would also be required. Primary issue • Are the findings for a variance met? No. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are not met with this proposal. Per state law and 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: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? No. 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 E code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes that the property already has reasonable use with a single family home that complies with all minimum lot size requirements. The existing lot is consistent with lot areas within the Colonial Grove Subdivision In which this lot is located. (See page Al2.) While the proposed lots are very close to meeting the median lot width, lot area and lot depth of properties within 500 feet, the resulting lots, especially Lot 2, would not be similar in size, or come close to median sizes for lots located on Woodland Road. The neighborhood is divided by very distinctive plats. (See page Al2.) Again, this property is located in the Colonial Grove Plat, which contains much larger lots than the G.A. Johnson's South Wood Plat to the south, or the Concord and Paul Wood plats to the west. The intent of the subdivision ordinance is to have similar surrounding lots sizes. The City Code required median lot depth of 130 feet is established by lots along Woodland Road, which contain several at 130 feet deep. (See page Al 5.) The median lot width and area are established by homes located on Philbrook Lane and 58th Street West. (See pages Al and Al 4.) The median area for lots on just this block on Woodland Road would be 17,000 square feet in area, 146 feet in width, and 136 feet in depth. The proposed new lots do not meet any of those medians. The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for the variances; therefore the practical difficulties are self-created. b) Are there are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? No. The condition of this oversized lot is not unique on Woodland Road. The property across the street at 4 Woodland Road is identical. Should the City grant approval of the variances, it would set a precedent on this block for similar subdivisions to 4, 5, and 15 Woodland Road, and potentially 6 and 8 Woodland Road. (See page A2.) c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The proposed subdivision would alter the essential character of the Woodland Road or Colonial Grove neighborhood. This property is located at the entrance to this neighborhood that includes larger lots with large single- family homes. To create two smaller lots at the entrance to the Colonial Grove Subdivision, which would set a precedent for similar subdivision requests, would alter the essential character of this area. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 14 Woodland Road and the lot depth variances from 130 feet to 126 feet for each lot. Denial is based on the following findings: The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances for a subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot depth requirements. 3. The proposal does not meet the intent of the subdivision ordinance, which is to have similar lots sizes within the immediate area. This lot is located in the Colonial Grove Subdivision which consists of lots with larger lot areas, widths and depths. 4. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The property exists as a conforming single-family residential lot with a single-family home. Reasonable use of the property exists today. The lot is consistent with lot sizes in the Colonial Grove Subdivision. b. if the City denies the variance request, and the subdivision, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of the property. C. The practical difficulty is self-created by the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property. d. The proposed lots do not meet the median lot depth for lots in this neighborhood as established by Edina City Code. e. The proposed lots do not meet the median lot area, width or depth for lots on this block of Woodland Road. e. The existing lot is similar in size to several oversized lots to the north and east. 4 Deadline for a City Decision: January, 2011 City of Edina rt II )11441141 ! 42Oi 3f ZE4M r so" 340 -Nn ata3112Sltx Nrt Sil Nrr1 "����11.4414 211++1:Lod Nta r 4s/ It0o N4xibl 11107 u4t aso9 aSO)isa /3119 lHatrNJd ilrt-SxaO 3Jri-fAM'F,N Ax» 41", Sita-a4N 34e 34" SIlS N» 311114 y,1P6 N3J,sIJ Sl )J IISAtA Nti aui MJr � 4r `!!4f ss)x .SSI iA]r 'lUx $1JA`n lMwllt NumLar WEYlf 3Jo4as N0t1Mr l41NFsrS)3i» �Y �1MN 4, 151/4411 !AN !,r» SA7r 1 3177 I. -SAN N)Y "it NOJ SSOS aa`t ' , 4 /0 4511 /5011 ASAS ISol Sul no sNl "W not 00 SWI 31aD sNt SS00 $301 �M ,-~�la 4W4 4aN 343 spa 330! 51104 3301 NO4 ISOs 344 t'�+3314 SSW DWi .., � somal u LO%* Nopost 3?aa 4401#107 no no sm sm two aNs ase $m � Sol Iakto 341 so') 03 off U, to A! + 1 1 1 Jori Ms got 5317 "to NN Istr SSI) 3312 San S3t2' slit y� 1"` a3tY'S11a "It UFO 1611/ esti 331t Sala S$13 X11 Q ►4141 l•�^'+"'^I int! 11374 arra 4JS N}t �-NIO 3325 $320 331/11323 Sul 3310 5621 3310 �J- 11 to M» A3» 031 saga 3324 3326 3u4 y52s 471 E] Pillow. 3540 31111 6511 1 6u4 3 Sul 337a'� pri aA Nle 4444 44.114 u3b 41144 T/ 43)1 3379 NN S3Ja MAP Sul NN' Sats NJ's Sul 5510 Nlt 3317 o-sll s/)J 3332 ',AM1)i 3]71 ss2x 4372 33iJ 4324 ]h 471 a3N S/7t NJt' aur Isis astir' as9a Sul NM it. N0/ late r4 _ r� " 'woe11311 NJ31A?s lsll, � WOra2»a )S aN II I 6 I a495 aadd 158 SQA to got`(sye� 3661`° u» 10 sets IA°s sw Nwo M13 "of ASI Aiae6 asJe x4571 "'aNes Nt! N7tl lsft 1144 »N 43/3 NN rl ! ao L Nlt NIr NIIN�20f1 NAI Nll sats �• si / 3f31 a . 'is Sdia 1f t gall 001 294370 s). utr gam+ q2+ ptb 4317 sM 1t NN to Palo 1 16 2a 6� sAtb "11>pN ))SA13 fSla 441044/0J 4ASO 4aN 314Ufl 416 5451 a it 71 N 9NO Nle Solit N �Sa1J 4000 1i sw NM 3O» 71113 4 3 12 11 t2 Nal 3iN sm 3104 0 4411 a1)4Wa stat I 4SOi �,y Isir 41N S144of '1 s»s sta 4 AJ +a 2"0 3644 !l» ja VON i 1640 a- 44610 1 4 si I 314113x01 r' li IS te..t4 a len 15J !N! 133,111 114 sill alof 3713}!)13 IIIc ldltlal3 ..J l 47744 AieO � �`S 44" fl � 1224 r Oita A"'4 ��OliS N btN x111 $114 ,1117 N 3721. !YN nal 4770 �3r31 M461)...... 4104 ,701 Ma HJI M u 7 4400 371 1174 Jr J0S�470A $/as a. Sus 4xsl ", 7072 � urs � A4ot � Aar j l�rn 1 1 1101 NW 41 Soma sm Si90 3341 7Wi9 Opt fWD SMt 940 OWI 3444 11401 Spy. SAN 3408 "M3aN sn4l 3w am aWa sm sm 340! "am aW! "" 400 Nor so" am, sm so 1603 s4@a fpf 6pa asp sm t4N Lely � "Ma 0011 "is:413 sols eau Nf3 Nl/ Nls 0111 410 Nf/ N1s Nit +) '3 Nt] Nit 3111 am sail 7110 sirea#"Nr4 !r salt SNA NH 420 421 420 N2/ SND 41, yep sett N 5626 6fp N1f salt N)/ NN N» Nit N» N» NH N» 431 N» NM W.M. 436 Ntt NN N» NN an NJl S01a >, 6111 Nye. NN Nia - as» Salt saJJ Nu N]] Nat N» 3ut 3411 all eau N)Y Nl/ NJI N7a Nn SON N)! N» 3u/ Solt SO4 "Or "IV S"t sm saw sm 437 3028 431 301' NN 3077 aNl sm NN SaN SNa sNf DIII ANa saN sN! S/a/ N4S tN4 Not ISN Na/ sm Not $Ml 5061am Sol4111111 E!"]""" SaN aH1 NOt f9W SWI NS0 . I 3303 6/M 443 394 3333 SPIN 300.1 3901 3W5 sm sm NOl NNNdAONNJ 111 am awl 3000 yap NN 3609 sm 3313413 NI) me"If 0Of) 412 Nl1 Nil sm no 3t0S mI 34 5017 Nr7 S9As NIf 24-1 `3900 NI'.pts W/l Nil 11914 NIt N/0 417 6010 .....4SIs 0111 30Jo ust SM 420 3471 NJ4 431 S" N)1 3930 Sl12 So WN p36 413 a": N» NJ's 1821 N» NN "".Is sa at » 3023 N» N» N]x S9x 437 Ia»S31t 3317 NJt 1o» Nra set N» SO a Ulf 40)4 Nal NIr !a4 3437 » N]r N» Nli a9» NtO 911x1 lax M. a ,4 PID: 1902824130017 ci 14 Woodland Rd 0 Edina, MN 55424 v� .� ' r�17�1117NI^ • 4 �, City of Edina 3lIA 35H iii u» Issio I 75-sn ua I Is3» unI Lflp*nd 13N-4lf4 41M #17i 3A7t C aalf 33it S#AA S4At a5» left "awe slave a NMN ls77 '. 6514 ip5 } SSl7 Slfb 3#77 3514 as)! ON ? W& M /ami NMN V Cft `mft is Atsrfr .,y-' Creaki EfAs seaX71 3aao Hot 34M 44Ui eN4 0tea lMgMi IF# Aff a11i 4407 L141 i L#14si 1041 seas #4ts 1409 S4W $645 ,644 Pataa &S4e 3484 >Mi /aACL0001C.... 4dN. `M' Soli t Paliih 4N1 4. off Oats 1412 MR 6007—t aatl M0 SON Sail 1412 #a)i Nif 5616 ( 7fsMgst Sall a 24 30 1647 t/ 5416 4323 NAo 4317 0317 0, x447 ) t3 � situ to Met ON ISM 1317 j$ 4133 0 it )) $I s4M 3x34 M 41UOi4/.UVOgU 4 s !1 20 )) 7147 g est NN slat Nss 401 7f la 6243 imt ✓ 24 SNI 111h5044118T1in t44 aro) SMO film t0 is i0 Is HSI �,� 1449 it site 4102 sift 4411 N#I NM Nli Nlt 1401 NOf #MO 14)0 4tH 4210 Oii4 I)t) IMa t704 4M4 SIM Al1r ar t; 37:+ 6tt/ 5 I 14ia.isl0eiilX ....$IM 4/14 44)4 4110 Nli 4417 tme 4444 44M 1))i !1H 4.7)0 elle 4114 4fOd 1701 INr fitly 4173.. somwW 1404 "or 6441 3M1 4401.... AM4 7M7 a" SMI sm 4M3 SSM Mai Saw NO b4M J! Se63 3Ma "a 55.. AOM 3Ns idw SM3 ape "Of € SMP sso5 of" SO" Mil Av 5811 flit SaIA � s4N Nft } N A6it seri bill 3814 of 1414 Nr7 3sil Mia i ml 7fI u.a «nasus 4-04i.l is#RSa 1x31 HM p 344)1 ' .. ,. PID:1902624130017 r " * 14 Woodland Ram r Edina, MN 55424 4 �, A3 Aq Affoatil ivooAll Subdivision & Variance Narrative o1 i 7 *1- 14 114 Woodland Road, Edina Colonial Grove 2"d Addition From a 30,000' prospective, JMS Custom Homes intends to purchase from Vine Hill Investors the property at 14 Woodland Road (corner of Wooddale and Woodland, just northeast of 54th and Wooddale). JMS will build two (2) all new custom designed homes, similar to the home constructed at 5924 Oaklawn. The pair of luxury homes comparable to this project, were constructed upon a smaller home site, the quality and detail found within each of the Pamela Park homes will be repeated here. One of the Pamela Park homes was featured in the Minnesota Homes 2010 Luxury Home Tour Magazine. Reprints (12) of this events feature article are attached for distribution to City leadership. The homes for these two sites will be "family retreat" by design. JMS is proud of our ability to create new nests for our clients in the heart of Edina's eastside. The custom homes will appeal to Edianian's active lifestyle. Each home will have four (4) well designed bedrooms, outstanding kitchen and entertaining spaces, plus flex space. Please review our award winning plan featured in the article reprint enclosed. Expect similar high quality and real architectural integrity. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance because: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size and "radial" geometry of the property which had not been platted similar in shape or size; to the other lots in the 500' neighborhood. Noteworthy is the fact that the depth, which is the topic of variance, is identical to the immediate abutting home site which shares the east property line. 2. The requested 3' variance is reasonable in the context of these sites both being equal to 98% the immediate neighborhoods lot depth. More importantly, the existing lot is both larger in square footage and wider than other properties in the immediate 500' neighborhood. The proposed subdivision would result in two new properties -- stimulating by example, redevelopment. 3. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because (lots achieve 98% of goal) the proposed lots are substantially similar in all respects to the area as intended by the ordinance and the variance is only 3' and exactly matches the property to the east on Woodland Road. The proposed variance will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a mere inconvenience. The original parcel (of which the subject is the remainder) was platted 1956. The current size of the subject parcel is due to a decision made in prior decades to keep the corner lot, a curved parcel, on a corner of a busy street; the subject parcel is equal in size with the sum of many of the lots of the adjacent 500' subdivisions, allowing unjoining and new subdivision. The logic would follow that when the subject is re- Fia platted, there would be two lots of similar size, exceeding in width and substantially similar depth to the adjacent parcels. Since many decades have passed since the original platting, the City of Edina zoning requirements were changed to the current citywide requirements, the subject parcel's historical configuration no longer complies with the current modern day market demands of the east Edina for new construction buyer. The desires of our clients for smaller, thoughtful in scale, homes is paramount especially on a busy corner. Thus this transition. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The home on the subject parcel was constructed in the 1950's and today like many aging houses is in need of renovation. The request is in an effort to replace this currently rented property (previously foreclosed) with new custom built owner occupied, JMS home. JMS is excited to further, spearheading by example, reinvestment in our community. Any house built on such a large lot would potentially be oversized in the neighborhood. Platting the parcel will result in new construction, more thoughtful in both size and scope for the surrounding residences. Preserve substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. The proposed platting results in two lots of similar size. These are complimentarily to abutting parcels. This approval does facilitate fresh investment in the neighborhood, The new construction will be thoughtfully scaled for the neighborhood and will be "relatively affordable" as compared to the unattractive existing oversized parcel, an improvement over the existing lot configuration. The zoning district is single family and is benefited from the single family nature of our proposed construction. Not to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. This two (2) lot configuration facilitates thoughtfully scaled new homes that are valued somewhat greater than older east Edina homes and greater than the homes in the 500' neighborhood. From a value creation view point each of the homes in this plat will exceed the neighborhood average value by 200%; and in fact at $950,000 (target asking price) will be in the top value of all existing values (based upon market values (see attached spreadsheet). Noteworthy the medium value is $385,600. The proposed re -platting comports with the surrounding lots. As a pair of lots we will facilitate a right sized parcel and thoughtfully valued home sites. The existing will no longer be a lot that is sized at twice the size of many of the surrounding properties, The new construction will result in homes of complementary scale with the community. These new homes will conform to similar new construction in Edina's "revitalized" east side community. The applicant does not desire to facilitate a "monster" to which would likely be interactive to the community. PLANNING DEPAMENT 4$64-Ut-tiii M*J ;E well t I I tII fit PICKS Nw Is".1 -.11 loot ws •-'0 6u"v Qvt Ow'd popip-om ♦PC 1 19 10 SX 0 5* C"AUMM NOLLIGUV H" RAOSO IVIN01001 fiass NN *-103 'a ulo:)Dyq /J/% - - ----- a WS loan$ 41PL I"M OMttSi :M 'SmaadOWd 111H 3NIA 10, ubiliSM011143NOO Do ONILSIX2 I ;E well 1 19 10 SX 0 5* 5p 10, 2 —VA - d d 10 N vuaz wowwr 's a -t :UNVO 1 11 well 5p 10, 2 —VA - d d 10 N vuaz wowwr 's a -t :UNVO 1 11 % f hi fA611 Ail ei bF hi 6t6f-69 -tqj txO.4 COU -60-E91 ;PuDM4 01(iss NN t4*i wn lop 4RO5 *,Q OuwY tv? rust NN wpa P"v gmvlpwm rt If UPOON NO"1400V HU MONO IVINOI03 ACKS NW "P4 'IMIS 41K 3-M 0615 .31 .1 Isauvadoad 111H 3NIA N%nd 3iml GNW I ufar i� 0 ljovNlvva IMOVIND Amun % f hi fA611 Ail bF hi 4bi 4- d5bt•d9F•C9t C*ad AOdt•d9o-C4t. =awe 01059 low '58,111 Wil Vat ail.$ -,a olfwv or oFKS wW 'aumt POO W01066A1 hl � 412 A I w� C 1 +F fl it ;t1{ '1 O watanana•w,reaarNawa mrwa* w., w^� ` ar/w/r tl///) u0spoo; NOILIQOV H" 3AOUO IVINOI03 6to99 ww'aWP3 g tlgas 13au1S slot "am osis ]il's3ltUiaOUa'111HMIA t Ott t �1 f it, S { I " trna AavNzwnaaa 50 0 9: � 412 A I w� +� _� I 1 00 s NoJ� D n C� inO W V.K� =19 :IpfgW 1 �1ryti I �gg ' S } 3"cv.1 LOOS (LYId) O'Lzt STM a . ( ) 0 ca I w� +� Ct I 1 00 co NoJ� D n C� inO W V.K� =19 :IpfgW 'iurw 4y S VG 'a 'a �wsu,p(`Ip+i®5 �1ryti I T954ti 1 Y 1 1 � _i_� I� e — C4 0 4 1 a . ( ) 0 ca o y NoJ� n C� inO a . ( ) 0 ca els NoJ� inO W V.K� =19 :IpfgW 'iurw 4y S VG 'a 'a �wsu,p(`Ip+i®5 �1ryti I els u � r ,r IA/IMI Alt •#% : ;:AVS— � per. � '� �I i } " W0000ACE AYL " " ! rg \} ii 8r to it It alio_ or ' n u a 500 PT. NEIGHBORHOOD EXHIBIT /�gl'�SCn for: 2.` �� VINE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC. / McCain `COLONIAL GROVE 7TH ADDITION atilvmorolner�l..o2aeamuw. wMvsrw+o akes, MN N pi 14 Woodland Road 124$ Apollo 763.489.7M Fax; t763-409-7959 t4 ;i1 Edina, MN, 55424 nh va^'a aaaa7aA 7??? aa as fit i a� 6§rul },} 500 FT. NEIGHBORHOOD EXHIBIT (� Carlson y „ 2 $ _ � $ for: �sd�# VINE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC. McCain x $ t1 COLONIAL GROVE 7TH ADDITION N T 9 a�=ri 14 Woodland Road 248 Apollo Or, Sofm 100, Lino lakes, MN 550t4 Edina, MN, $5424 Phone: 763-489,7900 Fax: 763-489-7959 a GGtpFwFFiFFFFSGFfEfFF�f1¢rFG�G�66sF !!!!flRdAdddFFdARA$RAA••lAAAAiAi%fff„fAA•AA xtsl c t} 1111 #3t��41d� �B i0 bpg +g�1r Qpx11 ggpp � r aa]] t�e�flttrttt�trttxlRirttrrtt�xr�r�ttrtr>`>;� ��{rfa�r� gxgeasyyyayn=aexexxldyyxry=ax�xyerytns@xdgY� .ayaa�aa:naaa'aa+aaaaaayaaaajyA�asayayA,:l,. a ! !daaY�i86yuea2SYp613dxaffisxi7YY4�fbB$;R�ltiF� aaayy pX.:aa�?laza?7?ay�aaax=aaaF=saiayyaY aap ?a�a7aSa a a!�a =GGFFFFFFaFFPFGSFFGie2ai�&6&�b:'=zcacGSGc=F sgeseseesgeeeepsasasss�����6���1�F������{� � 99ib11 11#��g�l���I t iiFG4 � _= gt yg 8 e�tPxy !e e1�x x c =e -a mw �a€: Y Y�I39[Bt7Y6Y1GEite 11 i5=YE 6i4Y Bi ���� 10,s xxxxxaaaxxaaAaayaaa 4nys867 #lBy� aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ,aayaaa�x ?y aa.a a e4 Y ma". 5515�� 6515 6520 $525 SS2m 6525 5524 5325 3521 SS23 8511 3529 5518 8579 8518 35?0 5425 5524 5528 b927 3332 ISJB 13124528 i5 4S 8 6533 5532 a. 5633 5331 6697 5531 5333 6533 boll SS24 0521 9597 8338 5597 5528 5537 5596 5337 SSJ6 3531 5518 SewsTW 1$3903351329 O f 43114MI MW 5601 8600 5801 5600 56of 5800 5801 SOW 05l9 $664 s5os 3815 8609 ;k04 3605 5604 SOW 6848 5608 KaU 5608 3611 5605 3 IS 4$1 0318 4524 4514 15/8-5618 3813 66125616 6610 5818 5617 3812 36/5 5m 3620 36fr 3669 MAW 3T 33 8 8 29 30 5612 ?r 8816 sero 861s` rnrw�t, 71 5845 2® 5660 58f8 4853 1 23 20 26 0 S 12 21 22 6685 13 19 20 5861 vv rvw��wvv +vv� vwv r2f��#42t"i404420"f"41'116 5 ,...�...._i_L #� ST1Y GOMGORD TSR 8 B / 3712 206 4611 24 160 0001 6 r 1 4716 5721 1 #81+ 464; 18 i8 yTtS 9 5T 3801 6800 5801 3840 3001 6800 5801 9601 5800 BBOT saa0 3003 s801 5806 s801 5808 5801 5805 Sow SBOS 8804 ms sdPi 3808 5800 580E sAOB 6848 5809 5848 3808 3809 5800 5813 3812 5813 9813 5613 6813 3812 8812 3813 —5012- -5811— 3916 1 8817 38}5 w 8617 SON 3817 5818 581) SBIB ' SBIr 5818 1 5811 3820 5821-5820—`1 5821 5821 8820 �� 1 x 5871 $910 ' 9823 58Y3 3844 3824 AB23 3825 3821 t _ sBYB s 3826 5828 88T9 5826 A 5829 Bs2B A� 5828 �� SB28 5033 5832 ro� 5839 5832 k 3833 3832 5833 5833 SB31 5933 5832 3837 5538 583T 6836 8897 5836 3817 9836 "313838 58 7 3836 3841 6640 6841 5040 8041 5804 3841 3840 5800 6840 30463814 SbIS SBii 5803 5811 6805 6814 5813 38144i 5844 69TH3TW 6 H91'W 6901 8940 5901 3000 3901 5900 5901 5900 5941 5900 3901 s901 so's 3060 3905 9904 5045 $904 lssgwof�, 5SWM4 $905 590E 5008 5909 s90B 5909 6908 908 Y�245909 491 691,1 3912 3913 5912 5013 5812 6013812 M uc�rwa.la•hNeWJ tcrM yttCl ,ism 3829 WOWG-F'11!1 f9 5819 I SKIS I soi 4511 8501 3660 $601 5664 � 5623 35119 5604 5ao6 3609 8408 KE7l1.QO(1 PL 3bd8 � 4616 Said $613 Satz 3612 5616 5420 5628 8620 3612 9017 TME R Sr $613 e 8 74 ?s 0501 4 } 27 011 4513 € 0 ,.,'.,... 3645 7 i+i I 25 5880 10 i A I aP 23 4512 5656 5655 8 k�' ..4 11 lid-, 21 26P 21 NOQpL4M IM 4 3 •' ` ate' 12 130 22 5x65 4505 45at 13 6 �f 20 5641 sros 5704 sOi s 16 1' 5700 $106 14 74 4 $713 3112 < 4428 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4004 4400 4328 4324 4320 8916 v 51t>' 3716 tar4eMIaQr>rcuv 3121 $120 4420 4424 H2O 4414 4412 4408 4404 4400 4328 4324 4320 43t6 3725 3434 6arw sr w M,,�yes rrrrx Y/uca�s carp.=,ta;c��oc-asrasans 3801 $801 5w A i3 4511 4507 MOO 5606 4516 8876 5620 TOWN sr 4517 4517 4501 5840 4501 4512 s858 �lnxnar.l�.efi/w�klq Coiv�a,7iRC1 i.7C:tL°GiS B% 5601 5844 5605 8875 sm s644 580D1G3LLtlttcl% 5808 5608 A A 3613 38P1 3612 8818 $620 5628 56f2 5611 5499 8 D 74 29 0 2s 3645 7 10 `�T 4' 3658 d t'. 1t 'ii?- 24 ? i :,€, 26 21 s a4 -) 1D 20 s86f 14 73 k t ( ►8 1d 4428 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4404 4400 4328 4324 4320 4316 PHA R" 1.H 4428 1 44.74 1 4420 1 4416 1 4412 1 4408 1 4404 1 4400 1 4928 1 4224 1 4320 1 4218 66TH ST W 6801 5881 00. 2f4N 3801 8800 A(4 I OF r W1901KAMD 7W. 4501 4306 5705 5744 5708 5108 h� �t 5773 5712 4 $711 slid 5121 5120 5725 5754 �lnxnar.l�.efi/w�klq Coiv�a,7iRC1 i.7C:tL°GiS B% 5601 5844 5605 8875 sm s644 580D1G3LLtlttcl% 5808 5608 A A 3613 38P1 3612 8818 $620 5628 56f2 5611 5499 8 D 74 29 0 2s 3645 7 10 `�T 4' 3658 d t'. 1t 'ii?- 24 ? i :,€, 26 21 s a4 -) 1D 20 s86f 14 73 k t ( ►8 1d 4428 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4404 4400 4328 4324 4320 4316 PHA R" 1.H 4428 1 44.74 1 4420 1 4416 1 4412 1 4408 1 4404 1 4400 1 4928 1 4224 1 4320 1 4218 66TH ST W 6801 5881 00. 2f4N 3801 8800 A(4 I OF r 5608 6818 5419 5611 5612 5616 9620 Saxe 5620 5511 ravAm ST a 24 502.1 c- s 4501 0 25 5645 r jS 10 $810 8 37 5859 f1 $856 ' 21 1M COLAW® till12 *, S e 1' 8 45of` '" 19 f1 r� 5104 15 136 (714 ra eros `1 24 SrfY 4428 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4404 1100 4128 L.a<..af w,AAiNiG Cmx+J'e!G3 t6r,�t�9 aUS V 15 o�} MEMORANDUM -- Plan Review ^ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA DATE: November 3, 2811 TO: Cary Teague — City Planner FROM: Wayne Houle — Director of Public Works I City Engineer j,G ✓-- SUBJECT: Colonial Grove 7th Addition 14 Woodland Road Engineering has reviewed the plans for the above stated preliminary plat and have no comments at this time. Thanks Al O.tPV DMIN;WAM6EXTERNAL%GENERAL CORR OY STMEMW 5troatst14Woodland Road120/11103 tdvi w Of 14 Woodland Rd.dou Jackie Hoogenakker From: Paul Vander Vort <pvandervort@marbau.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20119:59 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: 'kbvandervort@comcast.net'; 'SMcWhite@CBBURNET.COM' Subject: Subdivision & Variance Request on Woodland Rd Dear Mr. Hoogenakker: I am emailing you about a proposed subdivision of, and a related variance request related to, 14 Woodland Road. I would like to voice my opposition to the aforementioned and request that the appropriate governing body at Edina City Hall deny this proposal. I understand the subject property is owned by a developer, which previously has attempted to get variances and/or undertake construction projects In Edina that have been opposed (successfully). My assumption is that the builder is looking to get out of an "underwater" investment by seeking city approval to divide the lot. In the current economic climate, many of us are underwater with our property values. But we aren't seeking help from the city to make permanent, lasting changes to our property to Improve and increase its value. Rather, we move forward, take care of what we have, realize these properties are our homes (which have an intrinsic and intangible value not easily defined by economic ups and downs), and hope for better days. The thought that a builder can get city approval to (1) alter the shape, character and size of his investment property, (2) adversely impact and negatively change the surrounding neighborhood's look and feel, and (3) recoup more (if not all) of his investment based on such variances, is unacceptable to those of us in the neighborhood who will remain there long after the unappealing zoning changes have been approved and long after the builder will have sold the property, pocketed the money and moved onto the next neighborhood. I ask that you forward this email and my disapproving sentiment with respect the proposal related to 14 Woodland Road to the relevant persons at Edina City Hall who will be evaluating this proposal in the coming weeks. Sincerely, Paul Vander Vort Paul Vander Vort Marks ( Baughan & Co. 612.284.4777 (w) 612.201.8017 (m) pvandervortOfflarbau.com Jackie Hoogenakker From: Mark Murray <mmurray@cottage8.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 20117:33 PM To: Jackie Noogenakker Cc: Karen Murray Subject: Woodland Road Variance Greetings: I've never seen the neighborhood so united and active (approaching 20 years here). It provides a great sense of community. This looks like a non -issue and I'm glad. Let me know if you're successful in getting the "granting a variance" request off the agenda. Woodlanders could use a day off after this Interruption. I'm also confident your long list of meaningful things to get done would enjoy the focus. Thank you for all your efforts in creating just a great place to live and raise our 2 children. Regards, Mark Murray No. 8 Woodland Road P5: I'm getting 4 "variance" e-mails a day on a "address string" of more than 20 names. I'm waved down by every neighbor on the street. There is clearly a strong passion and consensus that the variance should be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Gary Teague November 9, 2011 2011-011.11a Director of Planning INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description FE 70, LLC is proposing to tear down the existing gas station at 6996 France Avenue and re -build an 8,260 square foot office/retail building. The building would include a 3,000 square foot retail store (Vitamin Shop) and a 5,260 square foot financial office. (See the property location, the applicant's narrative, building rendering and plans on pages Al -Al 5.) To accommodate this proposed redevelopment, the following is requested: Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development. );� Preliminary Development Plan The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See attached minutes on pages A45 -A46.) Since that review, the applicant has increased the size of the building from 6,600 square feet to 8,260 square feet by adding a mezzanine in the building for the financial office. The footprint of the building and the parking arrangement has not changed. Concern was raised by staff in regard to the increase in the shortage of required parking spaces caused by the increase in building size. Therefore, a parking study was done to ensure that parking would not be a problem. The study concludes that the proposed vitamin shop and financial office could be supported by the 34 parking stalls proposed. However, future uses within the building should be limited to ensure there is adequate parking on the site. (See the traffic and parking study on pages A34 -A44; the detail on the parking can be found on page A41.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Southdale Galleria Offices; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Office/Residential. Easterly: France Avenue and the Galleria; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided CAC, Community Activity Center. Southerly: 70th Street and a BP Gas Station; zoned PCD -4, Planned Commercial District and guided Office/Residential. Westerly: Southdale Pet Hospital; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Office/Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 27,702 square feet in size, is relatively flat and contains a full service gas station. (See pages A3-A4b.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Office/Residential (See pages All 7 -Al 9.) The property is located within and area designated as a potential area of change. (See page Al 7.) During the Sketch Plan review of this project, the City Council determined that a Small Area Plan would not be necessary prior to redevelopment of this site. (See page A49.) Zoning: PCD -4, Planned Commercial District (See page A-16.) Parking Based on the proposal for 3,000 square feet of retail space and 5,260 square feet of office space, 47 parking stalls would be required. The site plan demonstrates 34 parking stalls available. However, the parking study demonstrates that these uses would generate the need for 29 parking stalls. (See page A41 of the parking study.) Therefore, 34 parking stalls would support 3,000 square feet of retail space and 5,260 square feet of office space. However if the retail uses become a bank, coffee shop, or bakery/bagel shop, the parking would not be adequate. (See page A41.) Therefore, those uses should not be allowed on this site. Additionally, if the office space were turned into retail, the mezzanine would have to be converted into storage. In doing so, that would turn the building back to a 6,600 square foot building. 2 Site Circulation Access to the site would be from France Avenue and 70th Street. Exit from the site would be onto 70th Street only. (See page Al 1.) There would be surface parking behind the building. Loading to the building would take place in the parking lot during off peak hours. A walking path would be located around the building and along France and 70th Street. (See page Al 1.) The city engineer and fire marshal have reviewed the proposed site circulation plans and found them to be acceptable. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 20 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 15 new trees and one tree would remain. The property owner to the north has expressed a willingness to remove the four pine trees on their property near the north lot line. (See attached email on page A50.) This could provide an area in which to plan additional trees along the north lot line. A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the building. (See page A14.) Final Landscaping would be more closely reviewed with the Final Site Plan. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A54. A developer's agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks within the right-of-way. 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 proposal is for a stone building with large windows. (See rendering on pages A8—A9.) The applicant will have a materials board for the Planning Commission to review at the Planning Commission meeting. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD Is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD Is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts In appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that Is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c, provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations In order to Improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies In building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or Improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics Including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and I. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The 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 4 Plan for "Office Residential — OR," which allows for limited retail. The applicant is proposing to use the site for office with limited retail. Through the PUD rezoning, the City has the ability to specifically limit the uses on the site to be consistent with limited retail uses per the Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure that the uses can be supported by the parking provided. The proposed vitamin store and financial office uses are more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, than the existing gasoline service station. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The building would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Landscaping and patios are also proposed in front, with store fronts opening toward France Avenue. Traffic generated from the site would be less than the existing gas station site. The proposed building would be a high quality stone and glass building. The site circulation would be improved with a right -in only access on France Avenue, the elimination of the curb cut nearest the intersection and narrowing the curb cut further to the west. The applicant will also remediate contaminated soils that exist on the site today from the service station. As demonstrated on page 9 of this report, the proposal meets several goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained In the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. Because of the Comprehensive Plan designation of "limited retail," and the potential for a parking shortage depending on future use; the proposal should be limited to uses that will not create parking problems. (See page A41 of the parking study.) According to the parking study, the proposed parking spaces would support the uses proposed at this time. However, should these uses change in the future; the site could be short parked, depending on the new use. (See page A41 of the parking study.) As an example, if the building were converted to entirely retail, there would not be enough parking spaces. Therefore, as a condition of any change in use to the building allowed in a new PUD ordinance, the uses must meet the City Code parking requirement. To do so, the mezzanine may have to be converted to storage area to meet required parking for certain retail uses. The applicant would be agreeable to such a condition which could be written into the Ordinance that rezones the site PUD. Should this project be approved and rezoned to PUD; the PUD Ordinance would also include a list of uses that would be allowed on this site. The Ordinance would be adopted into the Edina Zoning Ordinance for ease of future enforcement. Any request to include a new use for the site not outlined in the PUD Ordinance, would require Planning Commission and City Council review through an Ordinance amendment to the PUD. (See a draft of a potential PUD Ordinance for this site on pages A51 --A53.) 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 for "Office Residential — OR," which allows for limited retail. Because of that land use designation, uses allowed within the PCD -1 District would be appropriate, as the PCD -1 is the City's least intensive commercial zoning district. (See pages A20—A21 for a list of uses allowed within the PCD -1 District.) The applicant is agreeable to those uses, but would like to add the following uses allowed in the PCD -2 District: catering, clothing store over 2,500 s.f., department store, dry goods, electrical and appliance store, furniture store, office supplies, paint and wallpaper, and sporting goods. These would seem to be acceptable. Uses that should not be allowed, based on the parking study, would be a bank, coffee shop or a bakery/bagel shop. (See page 41 of the parking study.) As mentioned above, there is concern over the number of parking spaces provided on the site. According to the parking study, the parking that is proposed would support the initially proposed uses. However, should these uses change in the future; the site could be short parked, depending on the new use. Therefore, as a condition of a change in use, such as the office space turning to retail, the mezzanine would have to be converted to storage area, so the use would meet the parking requirements. Again, this provision could G be written into the Ordinance that rezones the site PUD, and would be adopted into the City's Zoning Ordinance. (See draft of the Ordinance on pages A51—A53.) ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; As mentioned above, the proposed uses would be office and limited retail, consistent with Comprehensive Plan. A single land use on the site would meet the limited retail use or office designation of the Comprehensive Plan. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and Parking requirements would limit the uses that would be allowed on the site. If approved by the City, the building would be limited in size; and the use of the building would be limited by the number of parking spaces on the site. The building would not be allowed to be entirely occupied with 8,260 square feet of retail. Should the office space turn into retail, the mezzanine would have to be turned into storage. 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 #9 above. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the PCD -1 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that several of the City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout would be improved by bringing the building up to the street, providing front door entries toward the street, and including sidewalks to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street. The design of the building is of a high quality stone with large windows. The building is consistent with the small scale 7 buildings on this block. The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space, a decrease in impervious coverage, and an infiltration area. The applicant will also be cleaning up contaminated soils on the site through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Traffic would be improved in the area with a right -in only access on France Avenue, the elimination of the curb cut nearest the intersection and narrowing the curb cut further to the west. Compliance Table PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Office Residential -- OR," which allows for limited retail. The applicant is proposing to use the site for office 8 City Standard (PCD -1) Proposed Bulldina Setbacks Front — France Avenue 35 feet 14 feet Side Street — South 35 feet 8 feet Side — North 25 feet 40 feet Rear — West 25 feet 70 feet Parkina Lot Setbacks Front — France Avenue 20 feet 10 feet Front -- 7dh Street 20 feet 5 feet Side — North & West 10 feet 5 feet Building Height Four Stories One Story + Mezzanine Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 100% 37% Lot size = 22,210 s.f. Gross s.f. = 8,260 s.f. Parking Stalls 47 34 stalls (Based on 3,000 s.f. retail & 5,200 s.f. office) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Office Residential -- OR," which allows for limited retail. The applicant is proposing to use the site for office 8 with limited retail. Through the PUD rezoning, the City has the ability to specifically limit the uses on the site to be consistent with limited retail uses per the Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure that the uses can be supported by the parking provided. 2. The building is relatively small and in scale with building within this area on the west side of France. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development, and concluded that the traffic generated from the project would be less than the current use on the site. (See traffic study on pages A34—A44.) 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. • Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front fagade. • Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. • Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. Improving the auto -oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. 9 c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services from within the development without making additional vehicle trips.*Parking ratios for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate and the shared parking opportunities this type of development offers. d. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site. As highlighted above on pages 3-7, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: 1. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 2. Limit the uses allowed on the site to ensure that there would be adequate parking. The uses allowed would be specifically listed in a PUD Ordinance that would be reviewed and approved as part of the Final Development Plan stage of the project. 3. Provide for a more creative site design, consistent with goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD $ Preliminary Development Pian Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PCD - 4, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to construct an 8,260 square foot retail/office building at 6996 France Avenue for FE70, LLC. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The site layout would be an improvement over a site layout required by standard zoning; the building is brought up to the street, provides front door entries toward the street, includes sidewalks to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street. 3. The design of the building is of a high quality stone with large windows. The building is consistent with the small scale buildings on this block. 4. The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space, a decrease in impervious coverage, and an infiltration area. 5. The contaminated soils on the site would be cleaned up. 6. Traffic would be improved in the area with a right -in only access on France Avenue, the elimination of the curb cut nearest the intersection and narrowing the curb cut further to the west. 7. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. ■ Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. ■ Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front fagade. ■ Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. • Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. Improving the auto -oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services from within the development without making additional vehicle trips. Parking ratios for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate and the shared parking opportunities this type of development offers. d. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated September 13, 2011, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission. 2. The Final landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated November 3, 2011. 4. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Deadline for a city decision: January 13, 2012 12 City of Edina ftrILdt }I��414r lrA1 4Ya4 + a alas aias4�� alas trnar alar d7o4 H alta Ont arta. � xv 46.q ! IrOrtlghMe htlpar Ilrurr 44umeat vera rhNtlraa Meeh 6717 arra/ srn Cr, Liar► 4704 �' low "Co MOr rat 4ro0 44o9 ► t0 rr` C»ler Lake Norma LJ., UMr all AM ;arta ° d40a �kfr9 f400 "is Pana PrrdrH "It doN s9101 rT7f i41. t a4Ps� 4ar9 a47r 4416 f►T].v14 !Rr»hAt twit 1B 4017.44r4 asor Y 14 N Is /44rx a.9a4 xi dots 4914 loils4]4 /a4r7.4`oath 44xs7' J' 9. 60,7E R� d?ts Ibitr ds70A6A)x X19 �,Asrt �tr4as 4400 4at9a07x sera 620E aria 7aao 64649an k6rar t 1'9.8 ASIr 64PJotOE d49l 4940 ♦ arm UtJ 6233 ,py a}4t E01t1 afrlNN %aiJ7h 1. r t t i t t 1 kora �6str�ara xna- » not sroo � 446363N 1�,�r��tr E64r3 s37P t 4i?A p)f117W 8301 � P o0t4 6499 pOJ sm 47.34t71441141os 6451 4350 tta4 654M1 4445 our AM "w 44ra4w" lx744to 411l't" due JOIaoisrf 3AW 0r0 Rao 4x4 4)Ya 4r W„ '� 7ra0` YOdO'k'ra0t ir@ai l 1401/r' r jr j]rj� f_ 1 I a ON itn 7aa4 10rs 70W 'ods ,toosI , 471Etiro 170147x0{70�80�TaIDarr7004r7tl0#!!!!ll 7a�. �4)Ptr_.a 1 1 71 01x7011T�TA1] rliix� �tf 7 7aMsi W 7004 Rol t50f But AN 10,4011741a�7017 4W0 WN 1101 trou icor a t I 1000list aM04Sa' w 1000 14 1Mt .l lost"') '1100:11 i Wali Ilist i0o 1101 4001 N noxa 11 $11r9�1ux� nn� rad Irra]rna� 4000 Otto list jl'�6 Rutrnr6i RUR�Iu) `ren»i r4 7t.tt14M 1ur� Ertl i.Jirl Tri.` fyUP9.T6ym... 9t07 7113 1114' 1fa; ll4 trll� nayly /1191tIr41 71»7rMi 1111774'0} 117474» 7170 8441 Olt" Mt lilt j4 jNada x4 IrttJtl7� - f14i Fon ION rftsrnN fpr flrlxtl ra7lfra. 1r»rrra 44»74n a a t4gf'/tpp 1M[ rM01.00 '7Mt1rt84 Y9oN)M8 INN MI 1rMSi tr 0 a 444 rm3�lJgr Mlt1M4� M4 7Mo/M4 lMS laps 7 TMa to rasa J7W too. rt4Y1 7mr rt6r alar 7204 a nMr rrtr»ort rtit 7114 I 1, '1" rxfr rtafl rx» 1170 1tra� t t 1trl� r7A0 list I 1 unlJM JM1 Rtts illi lora sew.l i7M Ns U5 R!t ........._:... ,. .4 ..,.__.._...�... PID: 3003824440001 ' w, 6996 France Ave S tflt< p rV Edina, MN 55435 �y City of Edina Om tem "A MYnlbet Lelelt f3i5f toolMA 66eet Netne LeMM fy,/ CPo, UtRlp (ewl teal 4nrNe 4945 0 La1,R liitoee W. too "so TxV � tables �4 t➢N f9o4 454) �. � Pvt. "to 37 P, Q Pit". till aitt doll nrrlarw 0041 a}ft F 4071 Awl #,N tots � MI, 1401 4940 ISD) reoi WO in st .. 4074 toll till tlm mil AM "30 ITdO 69# 6874 `... J910 4414 E } It IOM0rw low JIM law 7001 - iior a ol tow Idol to7005 r t1/a1 � r tact R taa5 reit 4009 TORI 1301 0541 � tats loaf toll rel) TOIL tor! laid tall 7014 M 4040 taro 15IVL1MDR ,tat 7700 �. dp4t Tool 1704 trod trot 3434 .aw lila a/.rl r i rw 1177 u.....,4.«�.an zw�w+.c,wiutra4xrm �� PID: 3002824440001j, IS ,U) 6996 France Ave 5 d Edina, MN 55435 k��� Into A3 4� A'PWkN r N4#91trifult 333 Washinolon Avenue North, 5uile 210, Union Plaza, Minneapotis, MN 55401 T 612 676 2700 F 612,676 2796 www dimoc.corn Cary Teague, Planning Director Planning Department Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 PL" N iD A'RT [_N1 Project: Retail & Office Development Of EDINA Location: 6996 France Avenue South Subject: Preliminary Development Pian & PUD Narrative This presentation for Preliminary Development Pian & PUD review illustrates the redevelopment of the Sinclair Gas Station at 6996 France Avenue South - the NW comer of France and 70th Street to a 6,600 square foot retail development with associated site improvements. Current Use & Reasons for Redevelopment: The current use for the site is a gasoline filling station with vehicle repair, constructed in approximately 1960. The building is showing signs of its age. As with most filling stations, there are contaminants in the soil as established in a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, in addition, the three curb cuts at this location — two on 70th street and one on France Avenue congest traffic flow in the area. Proposed Development: The project proposes a single -story retail and office building with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The building will be 8,260 square feet in size and be sited toward France Avenue and 70th Street with parking in the rear and side of the building. The developer has two tenants to fill the building. City & Neighborhood Betterment: The proposed retail development will benefit the City of Edina and the project's neighbors in the following ways: • Create a pedestrian -friendly development with the building oriented to the street and sidewalk with parking to the side and rear of the building, supporting these initiatives from the Comprehensive Plan. • Improve traffic in the area with a right -in only access on France Avenue, the elimination of the curb cut nearest the intersection and narrowing the curb cut further to the west. A traffic study has been ordered to evaluate any impacts on the neighborhood, but our Impression Is that this will be negligible. • Remediate contaminated soils on site. • Create a greener and more environmentally friendly development improving storm water rates and quality through storm water retention and rain gardens or vegetated swales. • Replaces unsightly auto repair and filling station in a prominent location of the business district and main thoroughfares of the Southdale Area. • Provides small scale neighborhood serving retail and office uses. • Add new businesses to the Edina tax base. Rezoning and the Comprehensive Pian: The project proposes to change the zoning of the site from PCD -4 to a PUD based on the PCD -2. The change from PCD -4 to PCD -2 is a less dense district than the zoning of the adjoining properties to the north and west which are zoned PCD -3. The current comprehensive pian indicates OR use in this area with limited retail and the Greater Southdale Area Final land Use and Transportation Study Report identifies the area as a Mixed Use area. Though limited, the west side of France Avenue does have some notable 6996 France Avenue South — PUD Narrative 9/12/2011 retail uses in the near area including: Room & Board to the south and the Edina Diamond Center to the North. The proposed use is consistent with neighboring uses and reinforces the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by siting the building to address the street, engage pedestrians, cyclists and transit users. Impact on Surrounding Properties: The new building will improve neighboring property values and improve the streetscape of the neighborhood. No negative impacts are anticipated. Land Use Impacts: The proposed project will yield an FAR of .37 well within the FAR set forth in the PCD -1, which is 1.0. At the same time the use is dense enough Traffic Congestion or Traffic Hazards: The removal of the curb cuts and relocation of them away from the corner should improve traffic movement at the site for the neighborhood. Conformance with Zoning Code: ' The PUD is proposing the following variances from the PCD -1 standard to be incorporated: Building Setbacks: • Front Setback — Change from 35 feet to 14 feet • Side Street South — Change from 25 feet to 9 feet Parking Lot Setbacks: • Front— France Avenue —Change from 20 feet to 10 feet • Front — 70'" Street — Change from 20 feet to 5 feet • Side - North & West — Change from 10 feet to 5 feet Provides a Proper Relationship between the Proposed Improvements, Existing Structures, Open Space and Natural Features: The building siting reflects the relationships of building and parking to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and improves the city's streetscape. The building size and scale are in proportion to adjacent properties for the size and scale of the site. The existing site was entirely paved. The proposed development incorporates landscaping and setbacks which are much friendlier to the natural environment by incorporating the infiltration of rain water, landscaping of the setbacks and decreasing the amount of impervious coverage of the site. Uses: In addition to the foregoing required considerations, the development is requesting the following uses be allowable in the PUD standards for the site. PGD -1 Uses will be allowed in addition to the additional uses from PCD -2 listed below: 1. Catering 2. Clothes stores exceeding 2,500 s.f. 3. Department Stores,t 4. Drygoods stores° 5. Electrical and Househould Appliance Stores F�1� 6. Furniture Stores 0A 7. ©ffice Supplies Stores 8.. Paint and Wallpaper Stores' 9. Personal Apparel Stores(P 10. Sporting and Camping Goods Stores C)NAN i. 2 6996 France Avenue South — PUD Narrative Cordially, Sheldon Berg, AIA, LEED AP Associate 9112/2011 P:Wir-orch120111111-0027 - General Realty - Edina, MN1Word\DesignV-oning & Planning\Rezoning ApplicationlSummary Letter.doc A / m _--G Com► -`-a I -- .. ........... ........... 6996 France Avenue SouthDJR - �, -. N f. �y K' SNOILIQNO3 ONLLS11i3 1 (a ( 5 t a � fi r. Y10d9NHtw "YNdOi iYi i Y €LLd �g 0d 9nN7hY 70N1'9! 9559 e jr� .I j e %g (1111!It1� s 9roJ.3lJ LA a MOS 3�NVHd'8 Hloc �[�fl a i! (5 G t t •I�1YI •Y•YYiil Y YM IM 00'05, 7AL 09 ON: Hinos 3nN3Av 3ovnu R u y hit 0 on038�8po�®o•.O �l -Ma - M ''at 123 wuo a8 a u uo \5w`9t \ C 4x +PM aP> Yat • tib 00'05, 7AL 09 ON: Hinos 3nN3Av 3ovnu R u y hit 0 on038�8po�®o•.O �l -Ma - M ''at 123 wuo a8 a u uo \5w`9t \ C 4x +PM aP> x 1 h A NVIa 3119 an �, g tltaSlNVIw rroia� tal 7 ( V #t a HIODS 7nxanv 33Hree aaen ii! a : 1 8 f@ liviaw 33NVVA T HiO4l r -- I I I I V I. 4 I I I t I I I I I I ( .1 - 40t -a3 .x ,a..— -lC A/ g g 0! NVId IOH1N00 NOISO!!3 T ONIOV80 2c, zicl y it iunos )N7)AV )jN 0469 Ii € lIV1.3H SONVHA V KLOt •aF/2 � IIQ;j $t �PF4 a: ii\il iY3 Y4 l6 3\I O \`f Jy9Y �f ryl x s Nord unu.nj LL X�ej d I[R' �`a �. I! j gal d ' t r1b533p41h 1103b9 winos inN3AY 3Ntiti 4® r IplliRlr aM 11V13tl BONtlfld r .0501 - lice" 21 a5 M_si�6G02 tfiffM4 uDIM&T \11C71Y -M.-Ma Ma k NV1d3dVOSOPM 4 'C go � a� NlfIDS ]flN7AY53�NYtl,1 ! 6Y HI S� .11V13H 30NVHd 9 HIOL i i1 l� t 6l R � t �gg 4 � • � 4r IT � � 7 � i� 1 fill, aspt�� aIit i► 1t t 9N at 8ig� 1�1111I M tis Ni`�2Jftl�a H?JV f a M�' I-_=.� I yonog enuend aauea9669 400 Boom no s ; so?, F V 5?AYaJ" IW! jam• F^4A". 67 c W $M1Y �O Lw C � R s�axa.mm 8 it - s a � � ~ � m �� � ; � 3AYiQlBCYi'77i @ 1 C •+ F m Figure 4A City of Edina Conceptual, Land Use Framework: 2008 Comprehensive Pian Update potential Areas of Change Date ofAeNal photography: August 2008� �-U-1 Muer Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design A l l 4-33 Ae 0 Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories NC Small- to moderate -scale Building footprints Neighborhood commercial, serving primarily generally less than Floor to Area Commercial the adjacent neighborhood(s). 20,000 sq. ft. (or less Ratio -Per Current examples: Generally a `node' rather than a for individual current • Morningside corridor.' Primary uses are storefronts). Parking Zoning Code: commercial core retail and services, offices, is less prominent than maximum of • Valley View and studios, institutional uses. pedestrian features. 1.0* Wooddale Residential uses permitted. Encourage structured 2 - 3 • 70`h a Cahill Existing andtential g P pace units/acre neighborhood commercial linkages where districts are identified for feasible; emphasize further study. enhancement of the pedestrian environment. OR Transitional areas along major Upgrade existing Office -Residential thoroughfares or between streetscape and Floor to Area No current examples higher -intensity districts and building appearance, Ratio -per In City. Potential residential districts. Many improve pedestrian current examples include existing highway -oriented and transit Zoning Code: � Pentagon Park area commercial areas are environment. maximum of and other 1-494 anticipated to transition to this Encourage structured 0.5 to 1.0* corridor locations more mixed-use character. parking and open 2 - 3 Primary uses are offices, space linkages where units/acre attached or multifamily housing. feasible; emphasize Secondary uses: the enhancement of and service uses the pedestrian "big box" retail), limited environment. Industrial (fully enclosed), Institutional uses, parks and open space. Vertical mixed use should be encouraged, and may be re uired on larger sites. O This designation allows for Provide Office professional and business offices, buffer/transition to Floor to Area Current examples generally where retail services adjacent residential Ratio - Per include the office do not occur within the h uses. Use hi quality g q y Zoning Code: buildings on the west development unless they are permanent building Maximum of side of TH 1(>0 accessory uses that serve the materials and on-site 0,5 between 70"' and needs of office building tenants. landscaping. 77th Streets. Vehicle access requirements for Encourage structured office uses are high; however, parking. traffic generation from office buildings is limited to morning and evening peak hours during weekdays. Office uses should be located generally along arterial and collector streets. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design A l 4-28 Future Land Use Plan with City of Edina Building Heights 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Southeast Quadrant Fifl«e 4.89 Data Source: URS AM 0 0$M*a City of Edina - City Code CITY CODE Section 850.16 - Planned Commercial District (PCD). Subd. t Subdistricts. The Planned Commercial District shall be divided Into the following subdistricts: Planned Commercial (PCD -1) District - 1 Planned Commercial (PCD -2) District -2 Planned Commercial (PCD -3) District -3 Planned Commercial (PCD -4) District - 4 Subd. 2 Principal Uses in PCD -1. Antique shops. Art galleries. Art studios. Bakeries, provided the room or rooms containing the preparation and baking process shall not have a gross floor area in excess of 2,500 square feet. Barber shops. Beauty parlors. Bicycle stores, including rental, repair and sales. Book and stationery stores. Camera and photographic supply stores. Candy and ice cream stores. Clothes pressing and tailoring shops. Clothing stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Clubs, lodge halls and meeting rooms, offices and other facilities for non-profit organizations not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Coln and philatelic stores. Day care. Drug stores. Dry cleaning establishments and laundries. Employment agencies. Financial Institutions, but excluding drive-through facilities and pawn shops. Florist shops. Food, grocery, meat, fish, bakery and delicatessen stores. Garden supply, tool and seed stores. Gift shops. Handball courts, racquetball courts and exercise and reducing salons. Aac Page 1 of 11 http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCode/LS-01 _CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code Hardware stores. Hobby shops for the sale of goods to be assembled and used off the premises. Household furnishings, fixtures and accessory stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Interior decorating establishments. Jewelry stores. Launderettes. Leather goods stores. Liquor stores, municipally owned, off -sale. Locksmith shops. Medical and dental clinics. Musk and video sales and rental stores. Musical Instruments stores and repair shops. Newsstands. Offices, including both business and professional. Optical stores. Paint and wallpaper stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Personal apparel stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Picture framing and picture stores. Repair stores and "fix -it" shops which provide services for the repair of home, garden, yard and personal use appliances. Restaurants, but excluding "drive ins" and drive through facilities, other than as allowed in Section 850.07, Subd. 14.F. Schools. Second-hand stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, but excluding pawn shops. Shoe sales or repair stores. Sporting and camping goods stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Tailor shops. Tobacco shops. Toy shops. Travel bureaus and transportation ticket offices. Variety, gift, notion and soft goods stores. Vending machines which are coin or card operated, but excluding amusement devices. Subd. 3 Principal Uses In PCD -2. Any principal use permitted In PCD -1. ✓lt Page 2 of 1 I hlttp://www,ci.edina.inn,us/C`.ityCode/L5-01—CityCodeSectO850.16.htm 8/$/2011 City of Edina - City Code Amusement and recreation establishments such as amusement arcades, commercial bowling alleys and pool hails. Animal hospitals and kennels, but excluding establishments with outside runs. Automotive accessory stores, but excluding repair and service garages. Blueprinting, printing and Photostatting establishments. Business machine sales and service shops. Catering establishments, Clothing stores. Clubs, lodge halls and meeting rooms, offices and other facilities for non-profit organizations. Commercial kennels as defined by Subsection 300.01 of the City Code. Currency exchanges as defined in M.S. 53A. Department stores not exceeding 40,000 square feet of gross floor area. Dry goods stores. Electrical and household appliance stores, including radio and television sales and service. Exterminating offices. Fabric stores. Frozen food stores including the rental of lockers in conjunction therewith. Furniture stores including upholstering when conducted as an incidental part of the principal use. Fraternal, philanthropic and charitable institution offices and assembly halls. Furrier shops including the storage and conditioning of furs when conducted as an incidental part of the principal use. Nome repair, maintenance and remodeling stores and shops. Hotels, motels and motor Inns. Household furnishings, fixtures and accessories stores. Laboratories, medical and dental. Office supplies stores. Orthopedic and medical appliance stores, but excluding the manufacturing or assembly of appliances or goods. Paint and wallpaper stores. Personal apparel stores. Pet shops. Photography studios. Post offices. Public utility service stores. Page 3 of 11 http-Hwww.ei.edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01—CityCodeSectO850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code Page 4 of 1 l Rental agencies for the rental only of clothing, appliances, automobiles, cartage trailers, and household fixtures, furnishings and accessories, excluding pawn shops. Schools for teaching music, dance or business vocations. Sporting and camping goods stores. Taxidermist shops. Telegraph offices. Theaters, but excluding outdoor or "drive -In" facilities. Ticket agencies. Trading stamps redemption stores. Undertaking and funeral home establishments. Subd 4. Principal Uses in PCD -3. Any principal use permitted In PCD -2, except offices requiring the Issuance of a conditional use permit. Department stores or shopping centers exceeding 40,000 square feet of gross floor area. Transit stations. Publicly owned uses. Sexually oriented businesses. Subd 5. Principal Uses In PCD -4. Automobile service centers. Car washes. Gas stations. Subd. 6. Conditional Uses. A. PCD -1 and PCD -2. Multi -residential uses. B. PCD -3. Automobile agencies selling new, unused vehicles. Boat or marine stores or agencies selling or displaying new, unused boats. Multi -residential uses. Offices except offices allowed as a permitted accessory use. All non-residential uses that Increase the FAR to more than 0.5. Subd. 7. Accessory Uses In PCD -1. Off-street parking facilities. Buildings for the storage of merchandise to be retailed by the related principal use. Not more than two amusement devices. Drive through facilities, except those accessory to financial Institutions. A restaurant may have a drive-through facility subject to the requirements In Section 850.07, Subd. 14.F. M. http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeSectO85O. l 6.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code Produce stands pursuant to a permit issued by the Manager Subd. 8. Accessory Uses in PCD -2. All accessory uses allowed in PCD -1. Drive-through facilities. Amusement devices. Offices accessory to a principal use. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses In PCD -3. All accessory uses permitted in RCD -1 and PCD -2. Automobile or boat and marine stores or agencies selling used automobiles or boats, if (1) such a use Is accessory to and on the same lot as a related principal use selling new automobiles or boats, and (Il) the total floor area and lot area devoted to the accessory use does not exceed that of the principal use. Repair garages for servicing motor vehicles, If such a use Is on the same lot as an automobile agency. Offices accessory to an allowed principal use. Subd. 10. Accessory Uses In PCD -4. Accessory car washes. Retail sales of convenience goods. Gasoline sales accessory to a car wash. Subd. 11. Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (subject to the requirements of Subd. 12 of this Subsection) PCD -1 1.0 of the tract PCD -2 1.5 of the tract PCD -3 1) North of West 70th Street: 1.0 of the tract provided that non-residential uses may not exceed 0.75. ll) South of West 70th Street: 0.5 of the tract. PCD -4 0.3 of the tract B. Setbacks (Subject to the requirements of paragraphs A. and B. of Subd. It of this Subsection). Page 5 of I i http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCodc/G5-01 _CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 Interior Front Side Side Rear Street Street Yard Yard PCD -1 35'* 25'* 25'* 25'* PCD -2 35'* 25'* 25'* 25'* PCD -3 North of 70th 35'** 35'** 35'** 35'** Street South of 70th So'** 50'** 50'** 50'** Street PCD -4 35' 25' 25' 25' All other uses 45' 25' 45' 25' 9 Page 5 of I i http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCodc/G5-01 _CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code *or the building height, if greater. **Subject to the requirements of Subd. 11 of this section. C. Maximum Building Height. PCD -1 -- See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. PCD -2 -- See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. PCD -3 -- See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. PCD -4 -- See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. Subd. 12. Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described In Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply: A. Established Average Front Street Setback for PCD -1 and PCD -2. When more than 25 percent of the frontage on one side of the street between Intersections is occupied by buildings having front street setbacks of greater or lesser distances than hereafter required, then the average setback of the existing buildings shall be maintained by all new or relocated buildings on the same side of that street and between the intersections. If a building Is to be built or relocated where there Is an established average setback, and there are existing buildings on only one side of the building or relocated building, the front street setback of the new or relocated building need be no greater than that of the nearest adjoining principal building. If a building Is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings on both sides of the new or relocated building, the front street setback need be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line between the most forward portion of the adjacent principal building on each side. B. Interior Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks. Interior side yard and rear yard setbacks Including parking setbacks and loading facility setbacks apply only when the side or rear lot line is a Planned Commercial District boundary. C. Setbacks for PCD -3. The minimum building setback required by Paragraph B of Subd. 11 of this subsection shall be increased as follows: 1. In the area bounded by France Avenue on the west, York Avenue on the east and W. 70th Street on the south, the minimum building setback shall be Increased by 1/3 foot for each foot that the building exceeds 50 feet in building height. For purposes hereof, only those portions of buildings which exceeds 50 feet In building height need provide the additional setbacks required by this paragraph. 2. In all other areas, the minimum building setback shall be equal to the building height for buildings taller than 50 feet. Notwithstanding the requirement of this subsection, the City encourages 1) ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and 11) pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels. The City Council will consider exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes. Page 6 of 11 http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCode/LS-01 CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/$/2011 City of Edina - City Code Page 7 of 1 I D. Travel Demand Management. Final development plans for any office use in the PCD -3 subdistrict which requires the Issuance of a conditional use permit shall Include a travel demand management (TDM) plan prepared by an independent TDM professional. The plan must document TDM measures and performance measures to be Implemented. Approval of the TDM plan by the City shall be a condition of the issuance of the conditional use permit. E. On Site Sanitary Sewage Retention System. This paragraph applies to properties served by Metropolitan Sewer Interceptor No. 1 -RF -491. Final development plans for any new buildings or uses in the PCD -3 subdistrict that require the issuance of a conditional use permit shall include plans for storage tanks and other facilities designed to retain on-site sanitary sewer discharges during peak flow conditions that would otherwise enter the City's sanitary sewer system. Such plans must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer acceptable to the City. The plans must provide for facilities designed to prevent discharges to the sanitary sewer system during peak flow conditions, in amounts and volumes that exceed discharges that existed prior to construction of the buildings and uses proposed by the final development plans. Approval of the sanitary sewer retention system shall be a condition of the conditional use permit. In lieu of constructing a storage tank, a cash fee equal to the cost of constructing the storage tank may be paid to the city. The fee shall be placed in a dedicated fund to pay for the cost of reducing Inflow and infiltration Into the sanitary sewer system. A credit against the fee shall be given for any expenditures made to reduced Inflow and infiltration on-site. Section 850.16, subd. 12, paragraph F of the Edina City Code is repealed effective the day that the capacity of Metropolitan Sewer Interceptor No. 1 -RF -491 Is Improved to increase Its capacity by at least +/- 69%. F. Proximity to R-1 District. The following minimum distance shall exist between buildings in the Planned Commercial District and the nearest lot line of an R-1 District lot used for residential purposes: Building Distance to R-1 District Height 5 - 6 stories the the building height of the building In the Planned Commercial District. 7 - 8 stories Four times the building height of the building in the Planned Commercial District. 9 or more Six times the building height of the building stories In the Planned Commercial District. G. Storage. All materials, supplies, merchandise and other similar materials not on display for direct sale, rental or lease to the ultimate consumer shall be stored within a completely enclosed building or within the confines of a completely opaque wail or fence capable of completely screening all the materials from adjoining properties. The wall or fence under no circumstances shall be less than five feet In height. N. Displays. Merchandise which is offered for sale may be displayed outside of buildings in the PCD -1, PCD -2 and PCD -3 subdistricts, provided the area occupied by the display shall not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the building or portion thereof housing the principal use. No displays shall be permitted within that half of the required front street or side street J �; http://www.ci,edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01 CityCodeSectO85O.l6.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code Page 8 of 11 setback nearest the street, nor within any required side yard or rear yard setback. Agencies selling automobiles or boats, as permitted by this Section, may display automobiles or boats outside of a building If the area used for the displays shall comply with all the standards for a parking lot including construction, setbacks, landscaping and screening as contained In this Section. I. Minimum Building Size. The minimum size for any building housing one or more principal uses In the PCD -1, PCD -2 or PCD -3 subdistricts shall be 1,000 square feet of gross floor area within the first story. J. Outdoor Sales, Tent Sales and Trailer Sales Prohibited. Except for the dispensing of motor fuels and the use of drive-through facilities permitted by this Section, all sales of products and merchandise, and dispensing of services, shall be conducted from within the confines of a permanent building totally enclosed by four walls and a roof. The sale of products and merchandise, and the dispensing of services, from a motor vehicle, trailer, tent or other temporary structure or shelter, or outside of a permanent building as above described, is prohibited. K. Building Design and Construction. In addition to the other restrictions of this Section and of Section 410 of this Code, the use, construction, alteration or enlargement of any building or structure within the Planned Commercial District shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be one or a combination of the following: a. face brick; b. natural stone; c. specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been Integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; d. factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction If the panel materials are any of those noted above; or http://www.ei.ed na.mn.us/CityCode//L5-01_CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code e. glass or prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized Iron), 2. All subsequent additions, exterior alterations and accessory buildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of the same materials as the original building and shall be designed in a manner conforming to the original architectural design and general appearance. L. Performance Standards. All business operations shall conform to the performance standards established by this Section for the Planned industrial District provided that the performance standards shall be applied, and must be compiled with, at the boundaries of the lot on which the business operations take place. M. Maximum Business Establishment Size in PCD -1 Subdlstricts. No use in the PCD -1 subdistrict shall exceed 12,000 square feet of gross floor area or the lesser gross floor area as is Imposed on the use by Subd. 2 of this Subsection 850.16. N. Drive -In Uses. Except for the dispensing of motor fuels, drive-in uses Shall not be permitted. Nothing herein contained, however, prohibits accessory drive-through facilities where permitted by this Subsection 850.16. 0. Automobile Service Centers and Gas Station Standards. 1. Minimum lot area: a. for an automobile service center, 20,000 square feet, plus 5,000 square feet for each service bay In excess of three. b. for a gas station, 15,000 square feet. A Page 9 of 11 http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeSectO850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina . City Cade 2. Maximum lot area: 60,000 square feet. 3. Hydraulic hoists, pits, lubrication, washing, repairing and diagnostic equipment shall be used and stored within a building. 4. Interior curbs of not less than six Inches In height shall be constructed to separate driving surfaces from sidewalks, landscaped areas and streets. 5. No automobile service station on a lot adjoining a lot In a residential district shall be operated between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. 6. All driving surfaces shall be constructed and maintained In the same manner as prescribed for parking lots by this Section.. 7. No merchandise shall be displayed for sale outside a building except in that area within four feet of the building or within pump Islands used for dispensing motor fuels, 8. No motor vehicles except those owned by the operators and employees of the principal use, and vehicles awaiting service, shall be parked on the lot occupied by the principal use. Vehicles being serviced may be parked for a maximum of 48 hours. 9. Body work and painting Is prohibited. 10. No buildings, driveway surfaces, parking areas or other Improvements shall be located within 110 feet of any portion of a lot in a residential district which Is used for residential purposes If separated from the lot by a street, or within So feet if not so separated by a street, Page 10 of i i http://www.ci.edina.inn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 City of Edina - City Code Page 11 of 11 11. Pump Islands shall maintain a front and side street setback of at least 20 feet and an interior side yard and rear yard setback of at least 25 feet. 12. Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection 850.08, driveways and drive aisles need only provide a setback of not more than five feet from all lot lines, subject to the requirements of subparagraph 10. of paragraph L of this Subd. 11, P. Car Wash Standards. 1. A car wash shall be subject to the same standards as specified herein for automobile service centers. 2. All waste water disposal facilities, Including sludge, grit removal and disposal equipment, must be approved by the Engineer prior to installation. 3. Not more than one point of ingress and one point of egress shall be allowed from any one public street to the car wash. Q. Standards for Sexually -Oriented Businesses. 1. No sexually -oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet from any other sexually -oriented business or licenses day-care facility. Measurements shall be made In a straight line, without regard to Intervening structures or objections, from the nearest point of the actual premises of the sexually -oriented business or licenses day-care facility. 2. No sexually -oriented business shall be located closer than 500 Peet from any property in the R-1, R-2, PRD, PSR or MDD District, or any residentially zoned property in the city adjoining the City. Measurements shall be made in a straight line, without regard to Intervening structures objects, from the nearest point of the actual business premises of the sexuaily- oriented business to the nearest boundary of the R-1, R-2, PRD, PSR, or MDD District.. R. Standards for residential dwelling units. 1. No part of any dwelling unit shall be located In a basement or on the first story of a building in the PCD - i or the PCD -2 subdistricts. 2. in the PCD -1 and the PCD -2 subdistricts, the floor area of that portion of a building used for multi - residential purposes shall not be Included for the purpose of calculating the maximum floor area ratio allowed by Paragraph A of Subd. 11 of this Subsection. 3. in the PCD -3 subdistrict, the floor area of buildings or portions thereof used for multi -residential purposes shall be Included for the purpose of calculating the maximum floor area ratio allowed by Paragraph A of Subd. 11 of this Subsection. 4. In the PCD -3 subdistrict, the maximum floor area ratio allowed by Paragraph A of Sund. 11 of this Subsection may be Increased by .25 by Including the floor areas of dwelling units classified as affordable housing units pursuant to an agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina. AJp http://www.ei.edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeSect0850.16.htm 8/8/2011 0� ofoot 4 'l, �- -t H ( 04, eRbftkqTy To t1}E So u T 14 A /LB infrastructure a !engineering a Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 .f.,Mux•GNrc. t:Ma Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 783 641-4800 Fax: 753 541-1700 Memorandum DATE: October 2S, 2011 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Public Works Director City of ,Edina FRom. Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE. 6996 France Avenue Trac and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-23 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic impacts the proposed redevelopment of the 6996 France Avenue site has on the adjacent roadway system, and determine the anticipated parking demand for the proposed redevelopment. The site is located in Edina in the northwest quadrant of France Avenue and 70th Street. The existing site contains a full service Sinclair gas station. Access to the existing site is currently provided at three (3) driveway locations; a right-in/right-out on France Avenue, a right-in/right-out and full movement on 70th Street. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site redevelopment includes reconstruction of the site with a new retail/office building. Access to the site will be provided at two driveways; a right -in only on France Avenue and a full movement access on 701h Street. The current plan provides 34 parking spaces for the site. Two redevelopment alternatives were considered for the traffic and parking analysis. Alternative I provides for a mix of 3,000 sf of retail and 5,260 sf of office, where Alternative 2 provides for 6,600 sf of only retail use. The proposed preferred alternative (Alternative 1) site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the existing and anticipated development were evaluated at each site driveway as well as the primary impacted intersection at France Avenue and 70th Street. The parking demand was determined based on the proposed uses and City Code. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. 6996 Prance Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Existing Traffic Characteristics 'Me existing lane configuration and traffic control include: France Avenue at 70`h Street —Traffic Control Signal SB France Ave approaching 701h St— one through / right, two through, one left NB France Ave approaching 70`h St -- one right, three through, one left EB 70"St approaching France Ave — one through / right, one through, one lett WB 70:h St approaching France Ave -- one through / right, one through, one left Site driveways — Stop Sign Control France Avenue RI / RQ access — one lane in, one lane out 701h Street RI / Rb access — one lane in, one lane out 70'h Street full movement access — one lane in, one lane out AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at each site driveway on September 13, 2011. Although 70h Street was under construction west of Valley View Road at the time of the count, the total traffic entering and exiting the existing site should not have been greatly affected. Pervious counts conducted at France Avenue and 70`h Street were used in the analysis to determine the background traffic levels on the roadways. Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed redevelopment is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the site traffic are based on extensive surveys of the trip - generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 8`h Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM. peak hour trip generation for the existing Gas Station use on the site and two proposed redevelopment alternatives. As indicated previously, traffic counts were conducted at each site driveway during the AM and PM peak hours. This was compared to a typical gas / service station trip generation from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. As shown below in Table 1 the potential trips that could be generated from the site is significantly higher than the actual counts. In order to took at the worst case condition, the ITE site generated traffic was used for the existing no -build analysis. Two redevelopment alternatives were considered. Alternative I provides for a mix of retail and office on the site, where alternative 2 provides for only retail uses. Alternative I has a higher AM peak hour generation while Alternative 2 has a higher PM peak hour generation. However, in both cases the total traffic volume anticipated for the redevelopment will be less than what is currently generated by the site and significantly less than what a typical gas/service station could generate. Aid 6996 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Table 1 - Estimated Site Trip Generation Land Use Size Unit ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total I In I Out Total I In Out Total In out Existing Site Counted 9/15/2011 Gas Station 7 Fueling Stations NA I NA I NA 24 13 11 46 25 21 Existing Site (ITE Gas Station) Gas StationStations 7 Fueling 1180 1 590 590 85 44 42 98 49 49 Redevelopment Alternative 1 Retail 3 1000 sf 129 64 64 4 3 1 11 5 6 Office 5.26 1000 sf 58 29 29 9 7 2 8 1 7 Total Alternative 1 187 93 1 93 1 13 10 3 19 6 13 Redevelopment Alternative 2 Retail 6.6 1000 sf 283 142 142 7 5 2 25 12 13 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, :stn Edition Trip Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: 30% north on France Avenue 40% south on France Avenue 20% west on 70'h Street 10% east on 704 Street Traffic Operations Existing and forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersection of France Avenue at 70`h Street and each site driveway. This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. M 6996 Prance Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 2. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table Z - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: HCM Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A :5 t0 <_ 10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F > 80 > 50 Source: HCM 6996 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 5 of 9 LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existing Leve! of Service Summary Table 3, below, summarizes the existing LOS at each driveway and the intersection of France Avenue and 70`h Street based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operation at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the France Avenue and 70`h Street intersection the northbound left turn in the AM peak and the southbound left turn in the PM peak are currently operating at a LOS E. At the full movement driveway access to 70th Street the southbound left turn is operating at a LOS E. All other movements are operating at LOS D or better. 6996 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Table 3 - Existing Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay see/veh LOS Delay see/veh France Ave at 70`h Street C (E) 23 C (E) 28 France Ave RI/RO Driveway A (A) l A (A) 2 70`h Street RI/RO Driveway A (A) I A (A) 2 761h Street Full Movement Drivewa A (A) 2 A (E) 3 C = Overall LOS (E) = Worst movement LOS Forecast Traffic Operations Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the France Avenue at 70`h Street intersection and each site driveway for both redevelopment alternatives. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 4 and Table 5. All of the intersections are expected to operate at the same level of service atter the redevelopment as before the redevelopment. Table 4 — Alternative 1 Redevelopment Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (see/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh France Ave at 70`h Street C (E) 23 C (E) 27 France Ave Right In Driveway A (A) I A (A) 2 70 Street Full Movement Driveway A (A) 1 A (E) 3 C = Overall LOS (E) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table S — Alternative 2 Redevelopment Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh LOS Delay (see/veh France Ave at 70`h Street C (E) 23 C (E) 27 France Ave Right In Driveway A (A) I A (A) 2 70 Street Full Movement Driveway A (A) I A (E) 2 C = Overall LOS (E) = Worst movement LOS A3 `\ Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. 6996 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 7 of Parking Demand The parking demand for the site was analyzed based on each redevelopment alternative and potential uses on the site. For the office use either a general office or medical office was evaluated. For the retail use a variety of uses were evaluated from general shops to bagel or coffee shops. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand is based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4h Edition. Table 6 shows a summary of each of the potential uses and what the anticipated parking demand would be for each for a weekday and weekend. Table 6 - Site Alternative Use Parking Demand /41) ITE Parking Generation Manual Use wee ay Weekend Rate Spaces Rate spaces Size Office_ ................. S,26U of ..................... ......................... ........................... General 3,45/ksf ................... 19 _ I.80/ksf ............., 10 ......_...... Medical 4.27/ksf 23 4.27/ksf 23 Retail 3,000 si - General Shopping 3.16/ksf10 ............. ............ 3.40/ksf 11 -,Auto Parts 2.47/ksf 8 ........................... 2.74/ksf 9 .. iic�uor Store.--_.. .................. 2.98/ksf9 2,55/ksf 8.___. Drug Store______.. 2.92/lcsf 9 2.941ksf 9 Video Store ................................................... 2.76/ksf ......................... 9 3.04/ksf 10 ............. - Bank ................ ......................................................................... 5.67/ksf 18 .............. 4.66/ksf 14 Cnpy/Print Store- 3.00/ksf 9 3.00/ksf --------- 9 ............. Shop._ .......................... ............ 17.33/ksf . 52 ................................._.._._ 17.33/ksf 52 Ba el Sho 8.00/ksf 24 9.78/ksf 30 .Retail., ................ ..._6,600 sf . _ .......................... ............. General Sho m ....................... Auto Parts -....--------------------------------------- 2.47/ksf ------------- 17 ----------- 2.74/ksf -------------- 19 - >aiguor Store - ........ ... 2.98/ksf20 ............. ........ 2.55/ksf .............. ------------- 17 Drug Store __.___ - .. .. .... .. 2.92/ksf ......................... 20294/ksf .............. 20 VideoStore ....................................... ......... 2.76/ksf ............ 19 .....................I...I 3.04/ksf ............. 21 Bank ..... .................... ..................... 5.67/ksf 38 4.66/ksf ............. 31 Copy/Print Store_ 3.00/ksf -•-- 20 ---------- 3.00/ksf-- ---- ------- 20 ------- - Coffee Shop 17 ----- ksf 115 17.33/ksf 115 Ba el Sha 8.00/ksf 53 9.78/ksf 65 /41) 6996 Prance Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 8 of 9 The current City Code would require a total of 47 parking spaces for Alternative 1 and 42 parking spaces for Alternative 2. Currently the proposed site is estimating 34 parking spaces available. The developer has indicated that based on the proposed site plan (Alternative 1) and the anticipated uses a parking demand of 33 spaces would be required. Reviewing the ITE Parking Generation summary in Table 6, parking demand for Alternative I would range from 27 to 75 spaces needed depending on the use. For Alternative 1 the parking demand would range from 17 to 115 parking spaces needed depending on the use. Table 7 provides a summary of the parking demand for the proposed redevelopment plan. The shaded area under each alternative indicates the uses or combination of uses that would not meet the available parking based on ITE estimates. in general any type of high turnover drive up use such as a bank, bagel shop or coffee shop will require more parking than available. Table 7 — Parking Demand Summary Parking Available City Code Developers Estimate Alternative I General Office / General Shopping General Office / Auto Parts General Office / Liquor Store General Office / Drug Store General Office / Video Store C rterttl Guise l Bank General Office / Copy Print Store G6twal Ofn6c / Cof1ce shop General Office / Bagel Shop Alternative 2 General Shopping Auto Parts Liquor Store Drug Store Video Store Batik Copy Print Store Coffee Shop Bagel. Shop 34 (Alternative 1) 47/42 (Alternative I / Alternative 2) 33 (Alternative 1) 29/21 Medical Office i General Shopping 33/34 27/19 Medical Office / Auto Parts 31/32 28/18 Medical Office / Liquor Store 32/31 28/19 Medical Office / Drug Store 32/32 28/20 Medical Office / Video Store 32/33 37124 Medical Of ace / BW* 41/37 28/19 Medical Office / Copy Print Store 32/32 71/62 Metrical Ofaed / coffee, Shop 75/75 43/40 Medical Office / Bagel Shop 47/53 21/23 17/19 20/17 20/20 19/21 38131 20/20 1151115 ; 53/65 xx/xx = Weekday/Weekend 6996 trance Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina September 30, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSH has concluded the following: ■ The proposed site redevelopment is anticipated to generate less traffic than the current gas 1 service station use and significantly less than what a typical gas! service station could generate. • Traffic operations at the intersections of France Avenue and 70`h Street will remain the same with or without the proposed redevelopment. • Traffic operations at each of the proposed site driveway will operate at overall LOS A. The existing movement from the 70h Street full movement access will experience minor delays during the PM peak hour. This will not affect the operation of traffic on 701h Street. • Although the available parking does not meet the City's Code, based on ITE parking generation estimates the 34 parking spaces would be adequate for Alternative I or Alternative 2 with non drive -up high turnover uses. Based on these conclusions no additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the proposed site redevelopment. A11C m S e.;y 6996 France Avenue Traffic Study `- City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map Ali w a %1. 14 ren - W_ 70TH & PRANCE RETAIL q Ur e n 1 !� R � � 6 1446 TtUUC6 AYCNUC OUT" j} x LytN 2 1 Zt edNA, NtNN[SOTA a LLL 0 6 S5 i�lj SITE PLAN 1 q� Chair Grabiel No one spoke to the the public hearing.. A u y, 17 f �LI( 01A V�. J Commissioner Carpenter ed to close public hearing. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. II vot aye to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter said in ' opi the request is reasonable and if parking was addressed as a condition approval h ould support the subdivision. Motion Commissionrnaq's':�Sand rpenter moved to recommend prel nary plat approval based oZsIed subject to staff conditions includi the additional condition tparking cross easements be filedand recorde ith Hennepin County af plat approval. Commissioner Potts seconded t motion. All voted acarried. VII. REPORTMECOMMENDATIONS Sketch Plan Review 6996 France Avenue South, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the property located at 6996 France Avenue. The site is currently zoned Planned Commercial District -4 (PCD) and is an existing Sinclair Gas Station. The applicant would like to rezone the site from PCD -4 to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Teague noted that the present zoning only allows automobile service centers, car washes and gas stations. Teague explained that the subject property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Office Residential — OR" which allows for limited retail use. Continuing, Teague said because of that land designation uses allowed within the PCD -1 zoning district would seem more appropriate here. Planner Teague explained that the proposal requires a rezoning whether it is to PUD, PCD -1 or to PCD -3. Therefore, the decision to require a Small Area Plan shall be made by the City Council. With graphics Teague presented a compliance table of City standards for the PCD -1 zoning district. Page 4 of 8 tt q Planner Teague concluded that the proposal would be an improvement over the existing building and use on the site. Staff would have a concern however in conventional rezoning (PCD -1 or 3) of the site without a specific use proposed. You may recall the building that was approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit at 69th and York; In that case, initially two small retail buildings were proposed up close to the street, similar to the proposed building. However, after a year of the site siting vacant, a CVS went into the site, in a single building that looked nothing like the originally proposed buildings. However, through the use of the PUD zoning, the City could provide some protections in ensuring that the building proposed is actually constructed. The PUD Ordinance was not available when the 69t & York Site was approved for development. Aapearin+:a for the Appiicant Dean Dovolis Discussion Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Teague his reason (if rezoned) for recommending a PCD -1 zoning classification vs. a PCD -3 zoning classification. Teague responded his preference would be PUD; however, if only rezoned a PCD -1 zoning classification would be best. Limited retail would tie in with the newly configured West 701h Street and would also maintain limited retail west of France Avenue. Chair Grabiel clarified that this issue is for site plan review; no action from the Commission is required; just comments and ideas. Planner Teague agreed adding that the applicant can go before the City Council with the sketch plan review on September Applicant Presentation Mr. Dovolis addressed the Commission and illustrated the vision of a possible redevelopment of the existing Sinclair Gas Station. Dovolis said this vision compliments the pedestrian friendly reconstruction of West 70" Street. Continuing, Dovolis said the project would be a single -story 6,600 square foot retail building with parking to the rear. Dovolis said the building would be oriented toward France Avenue and West 70th Street with the parking tucked behind. Dovolis said the goal was to create an evolution; noting this is a strong corner that needs to be redeveloped correctly. Concluding, Dovolis said that leasing for this project would not be an issue; interest has already been expressed if the project moves forward. Commissioner Carpenter asked what the buildings were to the south of the subject site. It was reported that the buildings to the south were an office building and bank respectively. Chair Grabiel asked Mr. Dovolis if he has any thoughts on a PUD designation for the project. Mr. Dovolis responded that in his opinion the PUD classification was logical, Page 5 of 8 adding working with the City to the guide the project would be beneficial. Dovolis reiterated that this is a strong corner and any redevelopment needs to be done right. Commissioner Potts asked Mr. Dovolis if he thinks the proposed parking on one side only of the building could be a detrimental to retail. Mr. Dovolis responded that the market is starting to become more open to the 2 -door building. Mr. Dovolis said the proposed building would have both rear and front entrances/exit. A discussion ensued on parking and circulation with the following comments. • Controlled intersection -acknowledge there would be periods when stacking would occur *Right in only access on France Avenue and elimination of the curb cut nearest the intersection. •Acknowledge that potential for vehicles to navigate the proposed round -about and circle the block. Commissioner Forrest said that she has a concern with amending the Comprehensive Plan; however, was comfortable with handling this redevelopment through the PUD process if the project moves forward. Forrest pointed out that currently what's proposed is a "no -no; it doesn't meet the Comprehensive Guide Plan for west of France Avenue. The discussion continued focusing on the proposed change in retail use from a full scale service station to limited retail and the impact that change in use would have on traffic. It was acknowledged that even without seeing any traffic counts a limited retail use would generate less traffic than a full scale gas station. Chair Grabiel said he was familiar with the service station; adding that although the Sinclair site wasn't a Holiday or SA it still generates business. Commissioner Forrest commented on the building design and asked Mr. Dovolis if he believes the proposed building could be easily adapted to an office building if the need to do so arose. Mr. Dovolis responded in the affirmative. He said the building foot print would service both. Commissioner Staunton said he would like to echo Commissioner Forrest's concern on the Comprehensive Plan and retail west of France Avenue. Staunton also acknowledged the reference in the staff report indicating that this redevelopment could trigger a small area plan, adding he is a little uncomfortable with that. Continuing, Staunton said the Commission should proceed cautiously with any redevelopment west of France. Chair Grabiel noted that retail is the primary use along France Avenue, adding if one looks at the plain language of the Comprehensive Plan this redevelopment works. Planner Teague informed the Commission that this project would not be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan - limited retail use is a permitted use on this site. Page 6ttof 8 'tw� Mr. Dovolis added that he believes limited retail is the appropriate use for this site. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion reviewing this project as a PUD would be useful. Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Dovolis if the rendering of the building presented to the Commission would be what was built. Mr. Dovolis responded in the affirmative, adding what was indicated on the drawings would be what's constructed. Continuing, Dovolis reiterated the importance of this corner, adding the design presented is specific to this corner, Concluding, Chair Grabiel and the Commission thanked Mr. Dovolis and the development team for bringing this concept before them. The general consensus was support for the project and that the upgrading of this corner was a good thing. Approaching this redevelopment through the PUD process was also reasonable. Om Chair Grabiel ack eledged receipt of the Council Connection. IX. Commissioner Platteter aske fanner Teague for an up to on the chiller at York Gardens. Planner Teague repo d that the City CouO approved the new chiller location and also directed York G ens to immedioKly install noise reduction materials. Commissioner Staunton asked PlAional sports dome gets the "nod" would the Planning Commission review responded that both the Commission and Council would hUse Permit. Staunton commented that keeping abreast is of benefit during the Grandview Small Area Plan process. Commissioner Staunton upd d the Commission on th ongoing Grandview Small Area Plan process, adding at work continues on develo ' g a work plan and retaining consultants. Staunton s ' a different approach was taken i retaining consultants. Consultants were dire d to provide the Executive Committe ith a 6 -page or less narrative. Staunton id from the responses the Committee ho s to cobble together a good team. Staun n reported that the Committee meets again t arrow evening (8/18) to hamme ut the details. Page 7 of 8 �1� Sept. 6, 2011 Edina City Council Regular Meeting Minutesl Page S of 7 2. PalloLedicatlon fee of $7,100 is due prior to ty's release of the signed Final Plat mylars for recordin h Hennepin County. 3. A shared par agreement must be rded between the two lots. Member Bennett seco ed the motion Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, ue, 'nson, Hovland Motion carried. V11. COMMUN MMENT Wayne Cariso Coventry Lane, aske a Council to reconsider his request to have four dogs at his residenc a Council accepted the submitt nd referred the request to staff for investigation. Vi'll. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIIIA. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED -- 6996 FRANCE AVENUE Cily Planner Presentation Mr. Teague presented the applicant's proposal to tear down the existing automobile service station at 6996 France Avenue and build a new 6,600 -square -foot retail building. He also presented the request of the applicant for a rezoning to PUD or PCD -1. Mr. Teague referenced the Planning Commission's comments, noting it was currently undertaking a Small Area Plan with the Grandview District and did not believe this proposal would rise to the level of requiring a Small Area Plan. It was noted that while the Planning Commission was concerned with the Comprehensive Plan and limited retail west of France Avenue, it was comfortable with a PUD rezoning on this site. Mr. Teague Indicated this proposal would require a rezoning; therefore, the Council was being asked to determine whether to require a Small Area Plan and to provide general comments on the site plan. Proponent Presentation Dean Dovolis, DJR Architects, presented the sketch plan for a small building containing office and retail tenants at the corner of the site with parking to the rear. Construction materials would Include a combination of stone, glass, and copper with signage on raised corners and create a transition to the 70th Street green corridor between the roundabouts. Mr. Dovolis explained how the project would address the street and pedestrian nature of the Southdale area, create a gateway to the 70`h Street reconstruction project, and positively impact future development In this area. The Council discussed the sketch plan and asked questions of Mr. Dovolis relating to parking and pedestrian pathways. Mr. Dovolis advised that the sketch plan, as proposed, identified 34 parking spaces, four spaces short of the ordinance requirement and explained why underground parking would not be feasible on this small -sized lot. It was noted that use of the right-of-way corridor could ease access off 70th Street by the day care location. Mr. Dovolis Indicated he would determine whether easement rights existed; however, using that option might impact several parking spaces. The Council discussed Its support for the presented sketch plan and building renditions that incorporated a front glass curtain wall. It was noted this type of building appeared appealing and would revitalize that corner with a use that was compatible with the Galleria. Mr. Dovolis indicated the project would incorporate storm sewer practices such as pervious pavers in addition to green building techniques. The consensus of the Council was to favor the use of a PUD, that the request does not reach the threshold to require a Small Area Plan and that the sketch plan was reasonable. V111.8. RESOLUTION NO. -87 ADOPTED — ADO PRELIMINARY 2022 TAX LEVY AND OPERATING BUDGET Mr. Wallin presented the draft reso ting the maximum proposed 2012 tax levies and indicated that if approved, the 1.8% Increase w e maximum property tax increase the City could levy. He stated the . I http://wcvw.ei.edina.mti.us/CityCouncil/CityCouncil_MectingMinutcs/20110906Rcg.htm 11/3/2011 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Mike DeMoss <lawreview@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 201111:47 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Mike DeMoss Subject: Re: 6996 France case # 2011.0011.11a Please be advised that we are the owners of the property at 6950 France Ave S (two story Office building adjacent and to the north of the above described project). Please notify the developer of the existence of the large (pine?) trees that are at the south end of our property. These trees, or their roots, may be partially on the developer's (gas station's) property. There is also a lower level exit door at the south end of our building (and air conditioners) that we need to make sure that the developer does not damage or impair. It may be best to have those trees removed by the developer rather than risk damaging them (root wise?) or having them fall onto our building during construction. Let me know what is the best approach to take. We are agreeable to their removal if that is the best and safest alternative. Please keep me informed of the development (which we approve of). Thank you, Michael C. DeMoss, Attorney for Southdale Galleria Offices, Inc. (owner) 6950 France Ave. S. #100 Edina, MN 55435 952-920-0300 office 952-920-3883 fax 952-913-7048 mobile A ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 6996 FRANCE AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.05 is amended to add the following: 860.05 Districts. For the purposes of this Section, the City shall be divided into the following zoning districts: Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) Double Dwelling Unit District (R-2) Planned Residence District (PRD and PSR) Mixed Development District (MDD) Planned Office District (POD) Planned Commercial District (PCD) Planned Industrial District (PID) Regional Medical District (RMD) Automobile Parking District (APD) Heritage Preservation Overlay District (HPD) Floodplain Overlay District (FD) I u lding 'HeightOverjoy DWOot 040p) Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Section 2. Subsection 850 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development (PUD) District: Planned Unit Development D ct--1 PUD -11) — FE T LLC: at 6996 FrancoAvenue Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX AO I Uses altoWed in the PCO -1 Zoning Pistrict. extopt bakeries, coffee #haps; lam and financial i:��titt�tians. Catering Clothing store over 2,500 s Depad", nt stare Drygoods Electrical and oppliame store Furniture fire Offiqe suppiles Feint and wallpaper SporbrV,, goods If the entire, building is ocP000 by retail tenses, then the m ' mme shall be turned Into storage space, And shill ned be used for retail. i .ftoossory Vaea Off-street parkinafaciRties PrOduce stands pursuant to par it issued by the Qin Manager. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text - XM Added text -)(XXX �, II ®� ,� E. Cohditfo l U644*4 None following-, A"EIg U tel Front - Framee Avenue 14 feet Side Street -- South 94W Side - North 40`feet Dear —West 70 feet eAr)dM-L!#§e_*AgM Fmk - Frond Avenue 10 fie Front - 7& Str t ;S feet side e - Nod West 5 feet Building H .. one story It aximurn Floaj Area Ratio 37% Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Existing text -- XXXX Stricken text —XYXX Added text — XXXX James B. Hovland, Mayor C A. 1,�Igl 4 MEMORANDUM - Plan Review ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA DATE: November 3, 2011 TO: Cary Teague — City Planner FROM; Wayne Houle — Director of Public Works / City EngineerL ' SUBJECT: 70"' & France Retail 6996 France Avenue Engineering has reviewed the preliminary plans for the above stated project and offer the following comments: @ A Ninemile Creek Watershed permit will be required. 19 All storm water from this site shall be treated on-site; no off-site pond expansions are available within the sub -drainage area. O A developer's agreement will need to include any work completed within the right-of-ways for sidewalks and at grade pedestrian Improvements along West 701h Street and along France Avenue. O Sidewalk easements will also be required at the intersection of France Avenue and West 700' Street for future at grade pedestrian upgrades, The extent of these pedestrian upgrades will be determined within the next few months. Sheet -- 02: 1, Provide a "Do Not Enter" sign on the landscape peninsula located on the northwest corner of the building, This will indicated to vehicles to not exit at France Avenue, since this area Is a one-way "In only" access point. A better solution would be to install the "Do Not Enter" sign, revise the entrance at France Avenue to only allow right -ins only, and rearrange the trash enclosure to allow garbage trucks to enter from France Avenue and exit onto West 7& Street. The current layout only allows garbage trucks to enter from West 701h Street and exit onto France Avenue, thereby traveling against the one-way traffic within the parking lot. 2. Show the updated Improvements along West 701" Street, such as the center median. 3, Shown the locations of the current traffic signals. 4. Show directional pedestrian ramps, versus a mid -radius pedestrian ramp. Sheet C4: 1. Indicate on the plans the word "private" next to any onsite storm sewer, water services, and sanitary sewer services. This is the first review of these plans. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans If this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this first review. Thanks 6 VI AOMIN1COMWEXTERNALAGENERAL CORA Ok STREETW $uae1sAM6 rr Aveme%20111103 rava%vo169W FranceAve dcxx MEMMUMUM CITY OF EDINA 6921 Southdale Road Edina, MN 55435 October 11, 2011 City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 500' Street Edina, MN 55424 To the Planning Department; Thank you for the opportunity to express my views rc: the rezoning of 6966 France Avenue. (With all due respect the notice could have been clearer, with the name of the business to demolished. Many of the neighbors had no idea it was our local full-service station.) First of all — I understand the owners of that property are willing to sell, and I understand they are not being forced out, which is always a concern. However — i personally have concerns about the plans for more retail and office space along France Avenue. There seems to be space available in other complexes — and do we need yet more retail? Southdale continues to struggle as do many other businesses in this challenging economy. And the comment about walking to the Galleria in the Star Tribune article — someone had to be kidding. With speeds of 40 — 50 miles an hour along that stretch of France Avenue — with half the drivers on their smart phones — the remaining half not paying attention — walkers would need the speed of a gazelle to make it across France Avenue to avoid being run over. Loyal customers throughout the area will be mourning the loss of this unique and special service business. Their friendly, knowledgeable employees will fill your tank, check your oil and tires, and clean your windshield. Over the years they've taken me to work -- and even delivered my car to my home when my husband was ill. And I can trust them with my Jeep. I can leave it in the morning -- walk home (without crossing Prance Avenue) and feel comfortable knowing they will fix only what needs to be fixed. Along the way they've provided advice and reassurance all focused on keeping my Jeep in the best possible condition. It will be a sad loss to our neighborhood and the community. Y) &, nN CUJ'_-�, Nora M. Davis cc; Customers of Southdale Sinclair Josh Sprague, City Council PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Joyce Repya November 9, 2011 B-11-11 Associate Planner Recommended Action; Approve the variance as requested. Project Description The building owner of 5100 Edina Industrial Boulevard is requesting a two foot sign height variance, and a five-foot setback variance for the replacement of an existing non- conforming freestanding sign. INFORMATIONBACKGROUND The subject property, zoned POD -1, Planned Office District is allowed one freestanding sign not to exceed 50 square feet in area and eight feet in height. The required setback for all freestanding signs in the city is 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street which is generally considered to be the outside facing of the curb. The existing sign, erected 30 — 40 years ago is currently non -conforming due to a right-of-way taking along Edina Industrial Boulevard in 2000. Currently, there is a proposal to replace an existing non -conforming freestanding sign with a new sign measuring 29.32 square feet in area; standing 10 feet in height and setback 15 feet from the curb; necessitating variances for an excess two feet in sign height and a five-foot setback variance necessitated by a right-of-way taking in 2000. Prior to the right-of-way taking, the existing sign which measures 40 square feet in area, met the setback and height requirements of the sign code. However, with the right-of- way taking, the non -conforming setback was created and the city engineer agreed to allow the building owner to raise the sign a height of 9.5 feet In response to complaints from drivers unable to see oncoming traffic when exiting the 5100 building's driveway. (See attached Memorandum from the city engineer on page A.1-5) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: POD -1, Planned Office District -1 Easterly: Highway 100 south bound off -ramp Southerly: PCD -4, Planned Commercial District 4 Westerly: POD —1, Planned Office District -1 Existing Site Features The 5100 Edina Industrial Boulevard building is zoned POD -1, Planned Office District, the structure on the site is a one story office building elevated on stilts with parking underneath. Access is achieved by a curb cut on Edina Industrial Boulevard. The building abuts the off -ramp for southbound Highway 100 to east. Planning Guide Pian designation: Industrial Zoning: POD -1, Planned Office District 1 Sign Design The 29.32 square foot sign proposed is well below the maximum 50 square foot sign that could be erected on the site. The smaller sign was designed to take into consideration the loss of setback, (yet placed on the private property) as well as the need to raise the height of the sign to enable visibility of oncoming traffic from the east. (See attached sign plan — Figures A. 6 & 7) Compliance Table Sign Ord. 460 requires Proposed Variance requested 8 -foot maximum sign height 10 -foot sign height 2 -foot sign height variance 20-fo6t minimum setback from back side of curb 15 -foot setback 6 -foot setback variance 50 -foot maximum sign area 29.32 square foot sign area None Primary Issues • Is the proposed sign reasonable for this site? ra Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for following reasons: 1. The -5 foot setback variance is caused by the 2000 right-of-way taking on the north side of Edina Industrial Boulevard. Due to the location of the building, there is no room to locate the sign at the required 20 foot setback. 2. Because the sign cannot maintain the required 20 -foot setback, the sign is designed to provide 5 feet of clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade, thus ensuring visibility for vehicles exiting the 5100 building's parking lot. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is justified for the following reasons: 1. The proposed sign is designed to address the loss of right-of-way along Edina Industrial Boulevard; and with a 15 -foot setback, is positioned as far from the curb as possible. 2, If the sign were to be designed with an 8 -foot height, only 3 feet of clearance would be provided from the bottom of the sign to grade causing a site hazard for vehicles exiting the 5100 parking lot. 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. The practical difficulty that has caused the need for the variance is the 2000 right-of-way taking on the north side of Edina Industrial Boulevard, The setback cannot be met as a result of the taking. Also, because of the site's location at an intersection, and the need for the sign to be located within the required setback, the height variance is necessary to ensure clear line -of -site visibility for vehicles underneath the sign. 2) There are circumstances that are extraordinary to the property, not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district? 3 The unique circumstances are due to the inability to locate the sign at the correct setback due to a 2000 right-of-way taking, and the site's location at an intersection. These are not applicable to similar properties 3) Will the variance be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the sign ordinance? Yes. Since the sign cannot meet the 20 font required setback, the increased height will provide for visibility beneath the sign. 4) Will the variance after the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed sign would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The sign will replace an existing 40+ year old non -conforming sign. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance. The practical difficulty is caused by the 2000 right-of-way taking on the north side of Edina Industrial Boulevard. Due to the location of the building, there is no room to locate the sign at the required 20 foot setback. 2. Because the sign cannot maintain the required 20 -foot setback, the sign is designed to provide 5 feet of clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade, thus ensuring visibility for vehicles exiting the 5100 building's parking lot. 3. Thee unique circumstances are the shortage of land in front of the building due to the right-of-way taking, and the site's location on an intersection, where site visibility is a concern. 4. The city engineer supports the variance request, confirming that the height and location of the proposed sign is appropriate due to the right-of-way taking on the north side of Edina Industrial Boulevard in 2000, and there would be adequate site visibility. Approval of the variance is subject to the plans presented. Deadline for a city decision: December 24, 2011 4 LOCATION MAP T400 71 btl0 8t00 7lTO 4 Di04 � 741 RSTW 1Ako £baa I �MOI Astsf T4s0 I 40" 4034 4920 3 4921 Off uTe is St00 Slat alai son Drat MJ[ ^`" 4010 4017 p11 14'00 Jl I90t tON 400! 4010 40 � 4pN !01 2001 Tats NO siA 40W pywDlfONaaR $ D1 T T� Tlo14"T4 7643 Dion 7a00 sros 8 nrrrarw ale+ a SW aros � noe WWA AR UPWatVa t4 4 Oen IaOr H stir sirs Sfsr nrf LY 8.11.11 PID:0911621340003 5160 Edina indust Blvd Edina, MN 55439 OM Nipfalpbkt-Peolum Now" Number Lebow stool Narm Lobele cry um>a f % CANU D Lowe Nomoa Lown L . JPuke 0 P.I. DATE: November 1, 2011 MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA TO: Cary Teague - City Planner FROM: Wayne D. Houle, PE VvQi4- Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: Variance Application for Sign located at 5100 Edina Industrial Boulevard The Engineering Department supports the variance application for the proposed sign located at 5100 Industrial Boulevard for the following reasons: 1. A property taking occurred in 2000 to accommodate an expansion of Edina Industrial Boulevard, see attached sketches. The northerly edge of Industrial Boulevard was moved northward towards 5100 Industrial Boulevard. This reduced the setback from the curb to the existing sign. 2. The existing sign and the proposed sign remain on private property. 3. When a site exiting vehicle pulls up to Edina Industrial Boulevard the drivers view to the east is obstructed with a lower sign. Vehicles that are exiting TH100 at this location may make a right-hand turn (after they've stopped) and proceed westbound on Edina Industrial Boulevard; this intersection is not signed for "no turns on red". Also, when the TH 100 exiting vehicles are turning on a green light the two vehicles, one exiting the site and one exiting TH 100, will not be able to see each other due to a lower sign. An elevated sign will allow both vehicles to see each other, thus reducing a conflict at this location. Therefore, an elevated sign, which does not create an obstruction for drivers, will make this a safe site to exit from and also protect other vehicles on the public roadways. G'.\pW\ADMIN\COMM\EXTERNAL\GENERAL CORM BY STREETS\E Straats\S100 Edina Irkdus1rW Blvd\70111101 WH -Ed no Yarianao Memo docx a m M et m Sep -28. 2011 3:27PM RICE REAL ESTATE CO 100 BLDG. 0"-x4 I 1. I a No. 6138 P. 3 �r WWA I ti Kcs-011lltas -WA rvoc-mwzls MOVION CV sit OL s • rri!•'r!vM-0 IM lax Jo amodintt ani im uodn Pufflu co tldlrrro;a koPa^a8 =AtiN m � t - t Ici xtl� 0 v to t--- LAJ 4 - N ch v N t C —Itswtvc-Vtst�ttt+Lv!tJ � �t _!a/t — t r t r ► vt v1 ��fj GA 79 7V &LSl)GNI V NIG3 f't XFI .V 3M S --WIMI"XAW AM s! K!! Ylft mr-ac" r $ 'JTl '9NIX3R716 �lY'i 3�t+R'!S yr OOp� l jo up tat v%" Paull Jr '"OsawA i to aim ma !o "m dpi up- Iota -s Pat Pa-pAad X" O — 1 i«n P+o t+a!9at+2�+ �+ -p- - w Aq p-oftA sar social 'I M -F MR 100 Liam 44WV4 ata x M Jo tawoo ,n7 - pi- 1a 4-9- it% i6'= 1aaw 4 iol P.as Ja -a m- oo ro iuod o at 1 in vw la »asoa - -0 to 12"aal o Jo Laos bu!FI L io7 P.- Jo VW WIN Oil& AMGftl •t^/U 7 -aa>s xi-wo PSP t atR di !Gr_pImako i7 39KWHDMN vtm S x2m 7 pup Ayun Aaw Immum oa telt AV* 4 Yf w foto 1J[Jtl5E73216f Am dmv~ t �- tZ n .� r r ,A --WIMI"XAW AM s! K!! Ylft mr-ac" r $ 'JTl '9NIX3R716 �lY'i 3�t+R'!S yr OOp� l jo up tat v%" Paull Jr '"OsawA i to aim ma !o "m dpi up- Iota -s Pat Pa-pAad X" O — 1 i«n P+o t+a!9at+2�+ �+ -p- - w Aq p-oftA sar social 'I M -F MR 100 Liam 44WV4 ata x M Jo tawoo ,n7 - pi- 1a 4-9- it% i6'= 1aaw 4 iol P.as Ja -a m- oo ro iuod o at 1 in vw la »asoa - -0 to 12"aal o Jo Laos bu!FI L io7 P.- Jo VW WIN Oil& AMGftl •t^/U 7 -aa>s xi-wo PSP t atR di !Gr_pImako i7 39KWHDMN vtm S x2m 7 pup Ayun Aaw Immum oa telt AV* 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 9, 2011 B-11-12 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 16.9 foot rear yard setback variance to replace an existing nonconforming garage In the same location on property located at 4621 Edina Blvd. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot located east of Edina Blvd. and north of Country Club Road, (see attached Fig. A.1-1.1-1, site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent properties). The property owners are hoping to replace and rebuild their existing 3 -car garage with living space above with a 2 - stall garage with increased living space on both the 181 and second floors. The rebuilt garage will be in the same location as the existing garage with a higher ridge line and dormers and increased 2"d floor living space above. The existing, (and proposed) garage is nonconforming regarding rear yard, (east), setback location. Setbacks of the garage will remain the same with the exception of a small addition to the southside of the home, which will maintain the required side street setback from Country Club Road. Spacing between properties and adjacent structures will remain the same. The driveway and curbcut onto Country Club Road will be in the same location as existing currently, (see attached Fig. B.1 -C.4, existing and proposed surveys and plans). The property is located within the historic Country Club District and is subject to a Heritage Preservation over -lay zoning district.The proposed project was reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Board and received a Certificate of Appropriatness on October 11, 2011, (see attached Certificate and Staff report). The Findings supporting approval of a Certificate of Appropriatness by the Heritage Preservation Board include: 1.) No important Historic Architectural features or fabric of the home will be destroyed. 2.) The proposed alterations are compatible with the historic character of the house. 3.) The plans provided with the subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. 4.) The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Hertitage Preservation Over -Lay Distiict within the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 12,291 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1937 and pre -dates the current setback requirements and is closer to the rear yard than currently allowed. The minimum rear yard setback for a garage is 25 feet. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached - R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to rebuild the garage to include a higher roof peak and dormer to enhance the living space above the garage Finish materials will match the existing materials on the home and have been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Board. Compliance Table City Standard Pro used 2 Front - 35.7 feet 39.9 feet Side- 10+ height, (living) 12 feet Rear - 25 feet *9.4 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to 21 feet to midpoint, 23.6 ride feet to the rid e Lot coverage 25% 23.9% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of east side yard setback. Setbacks will not change and conditions on the property will not change. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide additional living space without changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced second story above the garage. • is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The required rear yard setback will not change with spacing between the subject home and the homes to the north and east. Practical difficulties present on the property include the existing nonconforming rear yard setback and limited design opportunity given the corner lot requirements for setback. The design is also limited given that lot coverage is nearly at maximum even without the small additions proposed south of the home. The owner has little choice but to enhance 2nd floor living space so as not to add to the building footprint beyond allowable limits. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the garage, limiting design opportunities for adding onto the home. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setbacks will remain the same. The footprint of the home will remain virtually the same. Staff Recommendation Recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and the Heritage Preservation Over -Lay District. 4 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding properties and matches the nonconforming setback that has historically been provided by the existing garage. b. The imposed setback limits design opportunity to the second floor above the garage. 3) The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between properties and structures. Spacing on both sides of the home will not change. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home. 4) The plan has been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Board and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from them. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped. Building plans and elevations date stamped Deadline for a city decision: December 23, 2011 5 City of Edina Planning Department Explanation ---Application for Variance --4621 Edina Blvd. October 15, 2011 Ms. Asker- REFINED Remodeling, Inc. was recently hired by the new homeowners of the property at 4621 Edina Blvd to conduct a remodel project on their home. As you are aware the proposed remodel requires a variance from the required rear yard setback. Below are specific answers to the questions on the application per your request. The Proposal Variance will: "Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable": YES, the Heritage Preservation Board ("HPB") has made it clear they want to maintain the current massing/scale and streetscape of the home as it relates to the common property line on the northeast side of the home/garage. "Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district": YES, again to maintain the historic requirements of the HHB we need to be granted a variance here. Other properties in the zoning district do not have the extraordinary requirements put on them by the HPB. "Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning ordinance": YES, we believe the intent of the rear yard setback is to give relief from neighboring property owners. The new structure will have no practical difference from the existing structure as it relates to the neighbor to the rear. "Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood": YES, this will not alter the neighborhood. As determined by the HPB... to the contrary, without the variance the streetscape and the historic value of the neighborhood will be altered. Please contact me should you have any additional questions. Respectfully, Andy Porter REFINED Remodeling, Inc. WWW.REFINF-DLLC.COM A. O e City of Edina October 12, 2011 Dennis & Maureen Ryan 4621 Edina Boulevard Edina, MN 55424 Re: File # H-11- 7 Certificate of Appropriateness Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ryan: I am sending you the Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Heritage Preservation Board for renovations to your home that include changes to the street facing fagade along Country Club Road. Be advised that approval is subject to the conditions outlined in the certificate. The Board understands that a variance from the Zoning Ordinance is required to maintain the non -conforming 9 foot rear yard -setback, and they will support that request. Keep in mind that any changes to what was approved must be brought back to the Heritage Preservation Board for review. I thank you for your cooperation with the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Once the construction is complete, please have your contractor arrange a final inspection with me. I wish you the best of luck with your project, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, oyce epya Associate Planner 952-826-0462 jrepya@ci.edina.mn.us Enclosure cc: Andy Porter, Refined Remodeling, Inc. City Hall 9S2-927.8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826.0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.CityofEdina.com TTY 952-826-0379 EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the requirements of Subsection 850.20 of the City Code of the City of Edina, no owner or contractor shall demolish any building in whole or in part; move a building or structure to another location; excavate archeological features, grade or move earth in areas believed to contain significant buried heritage resources, or commence new construction on any property designated as an Edina Heritage Landmark without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Heritage Preservation Board reviews applications for City permits in relation to designated heritage landmarks. Criteria and guidelines used in reviewing applications for Certificate of Appropriateness are contained in Subsection 850.20, subd.10 of the City Code. Issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the plans approved. Any change in the scope of work will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness. File #: H-11-07 Historic Property: 4621 Edina Boulevard Property Owner: Dennis & Maureen Ryan Proposed Work: Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the street facing fagade of the home abutting Country Club Road Decision: Approved Conditions: Subject to: • The plans presented • Approval of a rear yard setback variance from the Planning Commission Date: Joyce Repya Associate Planner October 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM To: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner From: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant Date: October 4, 2011 Subject: COA — 4621 Edina Boulevard I have reviewed the plans and other informationprovidedin relation to the application for a COA in relation to remodeling the house located at 4621 Edina Boulevard in the Country Club District. The subject property contributes to the historic significance and integrity of the Country Club District but it is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. Although somewhat altered from its as -built (1937) appearance, it is a representative example of a Colonial Revival style dwelling that was built during the district's period of historical significance and reflects the architectural design standards imposed by the developer on new homes constructed between 1924 and 1944. The GOA is for reconstruction of the attached garage, which requires a variance from the city's zoning ordinance. Ordinarily, this kind of remodeling project would not require a COA but in this case the Planning Commission has requested HPB review and comment on the project. Reviewing the plans submitted, the new garage will be compatible in scale, proportions, building materials, and texture with the house and other homes in the neighborhood. No historically significant or architectural character defining features will be destroyed or disturbed as a result of the proposed remodeling. Therefore, a COA should be issued. Regarding the variance application, COAs do not address land use zoning requirements. However, the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan make it clear that a heritage preservation resources needs to comply with zoning regulations in such a manner that the essential character and architectural integrity of the historic property is preserved intact. HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda #. VI. A. Joyce Repya October 11, 2411 Associate Planner H-11-7 APPLICANT; Dennis & Maureen Ryan LOCATION: 4621 Edina Boulevard PROPOSAL: Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the street facing fagade (Country Club Road) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Edina Boulevard and Country Club Road. The home, constructed in 1937 Is an American Colonial Revival style with an attached 3 -stall garage with living space above, accessed from Country Club Road to the south. PRIMARY ISSUES: The proposed plans for the home include removing the existing 3 -stall attached garage with living space above and replacing it with a 2 -stall garage with increased living space on both the first and second floors. The garage will be accessed by the same driveway with no need for a new curb cut. The new construction will maintain virtually the same footprint as the existing structure; however the project will require a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the continuation a non -conforming 9 foot rear yard setback where a 25 foot setback is required. The new 2 stall garage and second story of the addition have been designed to improve the living spaces within the home. The 2 stall garage will be set back 3.6 feet from the living space to its west and will serve to break up the visual impact of the street facing fagade along Country Club Road. The height of the new garage addition is shown to be 3.8 feet taller than the existing garage, yet still 3.6 feet shorter than the highest peak of the house. Two second story gables which match the roof pitch and style of the home are proposed to enhance the livability of the space above the garage. The materials proposed for the addition will match those of the existing home to include: • Cedar shake shingle siding to match the home. • Two wood, single garage doors, and • Cedar shake shingles. H-11--7 4621 Edina Blvd. PRESERVATION C9_NSULTLANT ROBERT VOGEL'S COMMENTS: Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel observed that the subject property contributes to the historic significance and integrity of the Country Club District but it is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. Although somewhat altered from its as -built (1937) appearance, it is a representative example of a Colonial Revival style dwelling that was built during the district's period of historical significance and reflects the architectural design standards imposed by the developer on new homes constructed between 1924 and 1944. The COA is for reconstruction of the attached garage, which requires a variance from the city's zoning ordinance. Ordinarily, this kind of remodeling project would not require a COA but in this case the Planning Commission has requested HPB review and comment on the project. Reviewing the plans submitted, the new garage will be compatible in scale, proportions, building materials, and texture with the house and other homes in the neighborhood. No historically significant or architectural character defining features will be destroyed or disturbed as a result of the proposed remodeling. Therefore, a COA should be issued. Regarding the variance application, COAs do not address land use zoning requirements. However, the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan make it clear that a heritage preservation resources needs to comply with zoning regulations in such a manner that the essential character and architectural Integrity of the historic property is preserved intact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Staff recommends approval of the COA request. The recommendation is subject to the plans presented and approval of the variance request from the Planning Commission. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: • No important historic architectural features or fabric of the home will be destroyed. • The proposed alterations are compatible with the historic character of the house. • The plans provided with the subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. WIN City of Edina Planning Department Narrative --Application Certificate of Appropriateness ---4621 Edina Blvd. September 21, 2011 Dear Ms. Repya- REPINED Remodeling, Inc. was recently hired by the new homeowners of the property at 4621 Edina Blvd to conduct a remodel project on their home. The home was originally constructed in 1937 and has undergone numerous remodeling projects since then. Our client has asked us to redesign and rework the interior of the kitchen and mudroom area, as well as to modernize the garage and make useful the choppy/cramped living space above the garage. Because this home is in the Historic district and is on a comer lot, we request a Certificate of Appropriateness for the portion of the project that faces Country Club Road. The careful design of the reworked portion of the home intentionally closely matches the existing structure's roofline, massing, and scale. Our Client strongly believes in maintaining the existing historic streetscape along Country Club Road and is adamant about preserving it as much as possible while accomplishing the desired interior space and flow of the home. One of the challenges requiring resolution during design was how to accomplish maintaining the desired streetscape while abiding by current City zoning code. First, the existing hardcover of the home (prior to our proposed remodel) exceeds the allowable hardcover. Our plan creates a way to reduce the home's hardcover and will bring it in; line with the City's current zoning requirements for hardcover. Second, we discovered that the existing living space above the garage (prior to our proposed remodel) violates the City's current zoning requirements for rear yard setback. As stated, we desire to maintain the historic streetscape and will be asking for a variance (if needed) to accomplish reworking of this space. As the Board is aware, we at REFINED have completed many other projects in this historic neighborhood and have considerable experience with the Heritage Preservation Board and the Plan of Treatment. We are confident the Board and the neighbors will be pleased with the project during and upon completion. As always, thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Andy Porter REFINED Remodeling, Inc. WWW .RF,FINEDLLC.COM � Case Number: Date: - -I EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK Fee:. o Planning Department 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0462 FAX (962) 826.0389 Application for: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FEE: $600.00 $1,200.00 New House Property Address: �ffi Z1 i ai r'r.q OW, APPLICANT: Name•1lr+e Address:yL'l wlarkcA2e 81 U Phone: (0_I7.-q4I.g3o� PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Dl hn t 5 Ccy a MAOL(Xrti Q:Sjkvx Address: Phone:_ `b4 T' Z 17y Legal Description Of Property: V I1 . 96k6c�-- Ib edcw►,kV40A O�s�r,tk $Wwvl SPc�I Zoning:6w<01 12esJeAk.,�, 1 P.I.D.#: /T-0291' zY-Zy-6oZl Explanation Of Req (Use Reverse Side Or Additional Pages If Necessary) Is A Variance Required: (Ates FjNo Architect Name: � Q `S wV Phone:'Y`��" N3. 713., 11f 0-7 l�e� ., gyp • ,. �yor Name:Phone: '" tn,rd �. 16rty Owner's Sign ure (Date) Applicant's Signature (Date) Revised: $12010 LOCATION MAP Hr! 1!w 13f! 460/ r6o9 — Hai 4e00 Lapeod ll4hliphMd FeuWN p88T 1880 4404 1101 400 s4o7 4602 Hot 4004 4504 Nem if w%ber Lerfek BLeet N9ele uff.l. 401 600 4697 woe 4684 Oda 4Ma X civ I.kf m 4507 494 4009 HO2 4605 1601 H9a uw ON 446? 4460 ' crate ❑ tete i1e11Me IiBa aws Iaa WOO 1 4462 4606 uH aa6 aro 4606 Oro Off are lAkes ❑ Pk. 492 1461 IH6 440! 4608 a 4611 rah 4012 Hit ❑ �eraeht 4409 46fI f■ Hoa 4608 48or I 4610 411 Hf/ Ni4 Hfe uta 4648 �1 414 ,yf0 roti 410 Ht7 464! 4616 ,Tera wig 461f oto � S1 4610 an His1612 I8f! a17... 4611 4613 4614 Hff ..... do48" afa +0/1 "to off Hfe 422 4023 411 40" 461Y 4613 Hfa 421 IH8 1671 4W 402! N>D Hf6 Hf9 4019 - HN 46M Htl 4022 4820 46q salt 4621 u rats 11 4024 am 4646 4024 4020 lots 470 Has 4626 4024 Ht3 NH 4403 Met162! 4462 1466 1xlAlrrlYtxeeM 4H6 4672 4e:r 4469 NN 1239 4228 4221 43/6 4401 207' 46ta --- - TNI 4686 4H 1 6 6 I.f.edfM r«9 4saa _ f 4905 4 24 24 b U a Ho! Allsom ftrk , 14 w 44" 6t'M $r11N1!'NE YiRwWMnAdRGgn"I./CI u0e166e1M IStf a 291. Rear Yard Setback Variance PID: 1802824240021 4621 Edina Blvd Q p r >;, "• _Q �4� w Edina, MN 55474 ,1�► ..... +, 71�I1il fi n• LOG1SMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS Arc1MS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 11/3/2011 Page I of 1 file.//ed-ntl/citywide/PUSImages/Photos/1802824240020001 jpg 11/3/2011 Page 1 of 1 file://ed-ntl/citywide/P� DSImages/Photos/1802824240022001.JPG 11/3/2011 ondition's . REFINED LI.0 i Property located in Section t & Tv*m5hip 28, R -F 24. lknsmon coeray. �tiatea seta t'mpeny Address: °E 9621 Ed'ma BookSard 1 � � u 'l— awaso i 0 cwcp Al"M Basis for bpriag is osxrmned Botciaamrlc. Top Nut Hydrant on ltte South we or country Cka6 Road opp ft46?I FemaBock•ard McMinn- 89!.21 rest NGVD 19" 53 Sq ftt 86 sq ft_ (436 - 150) Lot 11, Block 10, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT BROWN SECTION Henncpin County, Minnesota INVOICE NO. ?955a F.B.NO. 104-34,35,36 SCALE; 1" = as • owWwOra"k- O o. e;aaaeMa.er.n '=0 OCa0.0 0. wft'wd®aratmn oe. w swl." M--" The Gregory Group dJL& LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. FxWidwdin 1%2 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDERTHS LAWS OF STATS OF [MMINESOTA 160; TIM AvcncNwfi f1e}1}�} M�opoYa Mmmeeea55a?s rp tae.,6a.}yy 3urvP4urz (tertifir-ate Tho only s amen smoonamwomPwaaadrecodat arm"an >»ctea I cw* that abs Paan. or raw ws aemw t+XmCrx unW aq dacd st4dyallOrt and out i ant; a dilly Licansed taM &yra,or undarwe am" of to 11lade d hili rwsotat Surveyed 0" 22nd day of July 2011. steed L} Y Mem. Rog. Na "m EXIST. R 16HT ELEVATION vG - fibs - Ii.& Cft1 R trtr Crab " "" a R RYAN RESIDENCE 4621 EDINA BLVD. -MMMMM_ EDINA, MN. surala Tfw• olsra� .a Calseawrie ORAYM! 8Y: W"Som COMM. N0. dp Q.F.P. ® 2011 Of? PLANNING 8 M516A6 't(� �r� rH c0g-2-1 ! GD 2t 1299 UNAUTHORIZED LW Of THE PLAN ��] l �l +� 9 -21 -If GD SHEET N0. PLANNING & DESIGN M A VIOLATION OF M U_5. DATE 4100 BA aACRE ST NE. SUITE 106 SLAINE. MN. 55444 COM16RT ACT 7-21-11 ro KfB: WWW,0fP0E9tlt C0Y E-MAIL IteF0o0FP0E9CN.CO/A Phw 763-76D-8004 fog: 763-780-8015 M r7 I'M mm PEAK - "o� EX 15T. 6ARAGE FRONT suuet LdM =101 •i faOlNTa..a. aliitlw tNC OR.OlATi0 D.F.P. 0 2011 OFP M -O MIIN6 d OEs06N PLANNING & DESIGN 15A aTO UF M THE PLAN �s a vlou►t�oN of THE v.5. 9100 aAli MORE ST ME. SLATE 108 BLAME. un. 55449 LOPYFt aW ALT NEE YpWM.OFPDESICN.COM E-MAU WoODFPDESlGM.COm Phar 763-780-9004 Fm: 763-180-BM5 6 REFINED RYAN RESIDENCE 4621 EDINA BLVD. EDINA, MN. DAMN S,: li'EVIS7Q�IS {4UMM. Ctw. co 9-2-11 GO 2112}9 9-21-f t w SHEET r DATE: 9-27-tL All 4 l . S t 1 .ly +t�+}art {+ � s1 •t �t rll t \ t• t+ 1• }+ 1+ � � I� - �f, - ,fit•+trst {'�}.. /` I! r I 1111 II,I���f�'� r" �■_:I.y1 MI �: Me AIN a text -•}-.t -Y' rMr+r w; A � ., :. rpt Mrrrw� • 1 i INNOW 000 llr Itl,ll 4141 r 1111111. .www MAIN ■ ■ ■• }•.■f ■ ■ ■■Y ■■ Ir ,�1 l 1■ x/ t 1 1 / i � 11111 It 1� i 4 1111, �. ZI 1 r1 tt�. ILII 111 It , t 1.I UJ L.:IA'li[............... I IJ u i II F • iil+l, ul� All MA EXIST. GARAGE 519E W'k - 1189 i 1101 ab ii[IO[}ITfA� aialaN INGOG►aiA4[O RYAN RESIDENCE 46211(�EDINA BLVD. EDINA, MN. D.F.P. Cip PLANNING & DESIGN 9100 BALTMtORE ST 1#. SLUM 108 Blah. MM. 55449 MIEB; WWW.DFPO£SICN.CCM E-MAIL- IWOGDFPOE90N.COM Phony. M -7w-8004 F= X63-780-0015 0 2011 OM PLANT M 6 OfSOM UNAUTHORIZE0 U5e OF THE PLAN 15 A VIOLATION OF THE U.S COPYRIGHT ACT DRAMN BY: ca REWSIO M COMM. N0. 21� 9-2-11 cv 9-2t-11 W DAM N0. 9-2711 7-21-11 C� o ti p�ena�nog eurp� ze/ L4 p Mill, p�ena�nog eurp� ze/ p p�ena�nog eurp� ze/ RYAN RESIDENCE 4621 EDINA BLVD, EDINA, MN. Jill oT+T+a�a aasW+V'+a eaia�e.wrv+.l.ms A.s$� � A � W d + � cc C� �W a t s. f aM e 4 51! 5 L - L K� ti tt Le o t if s RIGHT ELEVATION SCO4 F. 116{ - V-00 •{{iC{Mt+At 9{il6r +yCOtf Ot�T{e O.F.P. 0 2011 OFP PLAMMI6 & OE5IM dp PLANNING & DESIGN 15A VI O VIOLATION USE OF THE PLAN 15 A V10LATION OF 1WM U.S. ***��w...... 9180 13ALTiMORE. ST PCE. SUITE 1D6 BLAINE, MN, 55449 COP7RIOHT ACT EB. hone• 763--77880-8004. E_MAF z 7730-1015 OM i RYAN RESIDENCE 4621 EDINA BLVD. EDINA, MN. DRAW Br mvrsalrae - 1239• GO 9-2-11 GO X21-11 GO WEET N8. DAM 7-21-11 10-7- 11 Co REAR ELEVATION sem• lre• a 11-e RYAN RESIDENCE 4621 EDINA BLVD. EDINA, MN. aliDiaTlwi DiiOw ewGOi�DawTiD DRAWN E7: REV190NSc COMM. N0. -Ap D.FaP• ® 2011 OFP PLANNIWO d OE516N GD 9-2 GD 211239 PLANNING & DESIGN 5A VIOLATION uF HE THEE PLAN E+FINED 9-21-I1 co N0 k5 A VCOLATION E!F THE U.S. DATE: ,i 1 GD 9100 BALTIMORE ST NE. SLOTE 106ELAINE. MN. 55449 C4PTRIGHT ALT ?-21-11 10-7-/i GO WES, WWW.DFPDESIGN.COM E -MAL: 1NFGQQFPDEStGN.CO/M Phony. 763-780-8004 Gas 763-780-SD15 EX15T. GARAGE REAR 925.8 EX15T HOU5E PERK 918_+4 EXIST GARAGE PEAK 898.6 EX15T GARAGE FLOOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revision to Approved Site Plans DATE: November 9, 2011 The City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment to clearly define when changes may be made to approved site plans. Current Edina Ordinance is not clear. "Minor changes" are not defined. (See below.) The Council advised that the Ordinance could be patterned after the City of Bloomington's regulations. (See attached.) The Planning Commission discussed the Ordinance amendment, and tabled the item and suggested further examination and discussion. (See attached minutes.) As a result of the Planning Commission discussion, staff has revised the Ordinance to address the concerns. First, the 10,000 square foot maximum provision was dropped, and just left as a 5% maximum. Second, language was added would allow only one administrative approval of a plan modification, to address the concern in regard to multiple revision requests exceeding 5%. No change was made in regard to a decrease in building size. As was the case with the Waters senior housing project, a decrease in the building size was not seen as a negative impact on the project, rather it was seen as a positive when compared to what could have been built. if a revision to a site plan, such as a building relocation were to occur along with a building size reduction, then the plans would be brought back to the Planning Commission and Council for review, as a change to an approved site plan. ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN 011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 3.1 is amended to read: 1. Plan Modifications. Minor changes may be authorized by the Planner gg!k qqe,jjM. and CGunell in the same maRRSP 21; they Feviewed and PFOG86sed the eke e n s -=ATM e . � 3 • �: 1-k ".,a. i-ji *. Msr'ay`s.*w. ii+4a tvmtQ ft Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text—AM Added text — ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK i, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2011. City Clerk 2 Zoning Ordinance Amendment -- Revisions to Approved Site Plans Planner Aaker informed the Commission the City Council had directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment to clearly define when changes may be made to an approved site plan. Aaker explained that currently the Edina ordinance wasn't clear on this. Continuing, Aaker said that the draft ordinance would permit City staff the ability to approve minor changes. Changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed them. Commissioner Carpenter said with respect to administratively approved changes to a site plan up to a 5% increase or a total of 10,000 square feet (similar to Bloomington) the 5% should be clearly identified. Carpenter said he doesn't want an applicant to become serial and come in for an original 5%, and at another time come in for another 5%, and so on. Carpenter said in his opinion there should only be 'one bite off the apple". Chair Grabiel questioned if reduction in size needs review. Grabiel added that Carpenters comment on serial changes was a good one and agrees that administratively or otherwise one time should be it. Commissioner Platteter said in his opinion the changes make sense. The discussion ensued and Commissioners requested that Planner Teague revisit the proposed amendment and focus particularly on the impact of decreases, notification of changes (yes -no), and the 10,000 square foot allowance (seems too much). Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Real Estate Sign Ordinance Planner Aaker noted that recently the City received a complaint in regard to the size of real estate signs in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Aaker clarified that at this time the City of Edina sign ordinance allows a traditional "for -sale" sign of six square feet. However, over time it has become standard real estate practice to add signs to the original sign, including open house information, web site information and real estate agent names. Aaker said the City has researched "for -sale" signs and found the industry standard had changed and the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment was to respond to this change. Real estate signs are now commonly larger than the six square feet presently allowed per ordinance. Commissioner Potts said he agrees, adding that most real estate signs he sees have "ad -ons" and he can support the amendment as proposed. Page 9 of 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Revision to Approved Site Plans DATE: September 28, 2011 The City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment to clearly define when changes may be made to approved site plans. Current Edina Ordinance is not clear. "Minor changes" are not defined. (See below.) The Council advised that the Ordinance could be patterned after the City of Bloomington's regulations. (See attached.) Attached is the draft ordinance amendment that was considered by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2011. The Commission tabled the item for staff to conduct a survey of how other city's dealt with minor changes to a site plan. The table on the following page summarizes the surrey of cities. The proposed ordinance would allow staff to administratively approve changes to a site plan up to a 5% increase or a total of 10,000 square feet, the same as the City of Bloomington. The Planning Commission is asked to consider the proposed amendment, and if comfortable with the language, make a recommendation to the City Council. Existing City of Edina Ordinance: 1. Plan Modifications. Minor changes may be authorized by the Planner. Proposed changes to the approved site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. City Can staff allow revisions to What is the threshold? approved Site Plans? Apple Valley Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Bloomington Yes 5% increase of total s.f; no increase in density Coon Rapids Yes Community Development Director may revise* Cottage Grove Yes CD Director may approve minor chap es * Eagan Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Lakeville Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * Maple Grove Yes "Substantial" changes to the approved plan require Council review * Minnetonka Yes "Substantial' changes to the approved plan require Council approval* In practice a 10% expansion of the building New Brighton Yes In practice a 10% expansion of the building * Plymouth Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * St. Louis Park Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Eden Prairie Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Wayzata Yes Building Official can approve changes — changes are not defined* Edina No** All changes brought to CC Minneapolis Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * * Site Plan allowed change threshold is not defined by Ordinance ** Per City Council Policy As shown above, most cities allow staff to approve revisions to approved Site Plans; however, in most instances the threshold for determining what changes can be made on a staff level is not specifically defined by ordinance. In general the threshold is determined by what requires a site plan approval in the first place, which is a 10% expansion of a building. P) Topic: Utility & Mechanical Equipment Ordinance Date Introduced: September 28, 2011 Date of Discussion: November 9, 2011 Why on the list: It has come to the City's attention after the 100 square foot, 12 -foot tall air conditioning unit was installed at York Gardens within the required setback that based on the City's definition of structure, all utility cabinets and mechanical equipment are required to meet required setbacks. However, as the City has developed, utility and mechanical equipment have been installed all over town, and not been required to meet a structure setback. History: Utility cabinets and equipment have traditionally not been required to meet structure setbacks in Edina. However, as a result of the air conditioning unit installed at York Gardens, it would seem appropriate to require a structure setback for utility equipment at a certain size, and exempt smaller equipment. Decision Point: Should the City require setbacks for utility equipment? Options: 1. leave the requirement as it is today, and enforce setback regulations for all utility equipment. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to exempt small utility equipment, as has been the City's practice, and require setbacks for large equipment. For Discussion: Staff has done a survey of cities and discovered that most cities do not require setbacks for utility equipment, and do not address large mechanical equipment. city Setback Required for Utility and Mechanical Equipment EDINA Yes — Same as structure setback (however, this has not been traditionalliv enforced for small equipment) Columbia Heights Require a 1 -foot setback Blaine No setback required -- Must be within an easement area Bloomington No setback required Burnsville No setback required Coon Rapids No setback required Cottage Grove No setback required Robbinsdale No setback required — Permit required if in a r -o -w Eden Prairie No setback required —typically located on lot lines Hopkins No setback required Lakeville No setback required Maple Grove No setback required Minnetonka No setback required — A permit required if within the r -o -w Minneapolis Two -foot setback New Brighton No setback required St. Louis Park Require utilities to be underground or in the building (in practice this is not enforced) Wayzata No setback required Based on the above surrey and issues, staff is recommending the attached Ordinance. The Ordinance would accomplish the following: 1. It would exempt smaller utility and mechanical equipment, less than 80 square feet or 6 feet in height, from required setbacks. This has been the standard practice in Edina. 2. The ordinance would require setbacks to be met for equipment over 80 square feet or 6 feet tall. This has not been required until the air conditioning unit was installed at York Gardens. 3. The Ordinance would require setbacks for air-conditioning units in the R-1 and R-2 District similar to accessory uses. This regulation would make the standard practice in Edina of requiring a 5 -foot side yard setback for small air conditioning units adjacent to single-family homes and duplexes more clear in the ordinance. 4. Screening would still be required for ALL mechanical equipment per Section 850.10. Subd. 2.A.5 as follows: "All mechanical equipment accessory to any building, except single dwelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings, shall be screened from all lot lines and streets." Per Section 850.10. Subd.2.0 "required screening may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges and other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not be steeper than 3:1. All materials, including landscaping, shall have a minimum opacity of 90 percent year round." 5. Noise from mechanical equipment would continue to be subject to the City's Noise regulations, as they are today. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.07. Subd. 23. is amended to read: Subd. 23 Utility Buildings and Structures. A. Utility Buildings and Structures Owned by the City. Utility buildings and structures owned by the City and used for rendering service to all or any part of the City (but excluding warehouses, maintenance buildings and storage yards) shall be a permitted principal or accessory use in all districts. B. Other Utility Buildings and Structures. Utility buildings and structures owned by private utility companies or governmental units other than the City, and used for rendering service to all or any part of the City (but excluding warehouses, maintenance buildings and storage yards) shall be a conditional use in all districts and shall only be constructed pursuant to a conditional use permit granted in accordance with Subd. 4 of Subsection 850.04. tTr 0"T" -'i il seN=T-i . - Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2011. City Clerk 2 Commission Iatteter said he wasn't a fan of this amendment, adding that i my his opinion that real to signs are large enough. Commissioner Forrest st she agrees with Platteter,�toange. g just because industry standards change t doesn't mean the Sign Code needs Commissioner Carpenter said*atstaffs research confirm hat industry standards have changed due to a number things (web) and if t rdinance wasn't amended to recognize this change Edina woul ave a lot of no nforming real estate signs. Continuing, Carpenter said he is in fa r of the osed amendment, adding if amended the ordinance would match w t i curring in the industry. Carpenter said he wasn't in the real estate business and n't comment on what the reality business believes was the appropriate size for ns. Commissioner Forrest stated t the City shoul 't have to meet industry standards. Commissioner Potts poi d out if the ordinance was changed this could become an enforcement issue. P ner Aaker agreed; she stated t t the industry standard has changed and en fa ment would be difficult. Grabiel said he supports the amendment as Rock questioned what would happen if the Motion changes Commissioner Carpenter moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendment to Edina's Sign Ordinance No. 460. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. Ayes; Carpenter, Potts, Grabiel. Nay; Platteter, Forrest. Motion carried. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Utility and Mechanical Equipment Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Commission when York Gardens was constructed the mechanical equipment became an issue. Aaker said that Edina and the majority of cities do not require mechanical equipment to meet setbacks. At this time staff would like to know if the City should require setbacks for utility equipment. Should the requirement remain as it is today, and enforce setback regulations for all utility equipment or should the City amend the zoning ordinance to exempt small utility equipment and require setbacks for large equipment. Discussion Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Forrest questioned how the City would clarify small vs. large. Forrest also questioned if churches and schools would be exempt Planner Aaker agreed that a clarification in size may need to be determined. Commissioner Carpenter said another thing to consider would be how to measure the size of the utility equipment. Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion utility boxes/structures isn't attractive, adding other issues to consider would be screening and noise. Commissioner Platteter added clarification needs to be made on what requires screening and what doesn't. Would that be made by equipment size? A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that more study needs to be done on the proposed amendment. Size, setback, exempt/non-exempt, noise all need to be addressed including the issue of screening. Chair Grabiel asked Planner Aaker to have Planner Teague take another look at this. Grabiel commented that amending the ordinance in this instance wasn't as easy as it appeared at first glance. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE Chair Grabiel acknowled IX. CHAIR AND COMMIS: Commissioner Forrest said issues for Edina's seniors. receipt of Council Con committee As been formed to study transportation Chair Grabiel reminded eveAwwwe sted in the pocket neighborhood concept to visit the website hood.net X. STAFF COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Potts m PM. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. ' All voted aye; motion carried. ,,,�tx,(,�Gt,Pi �dhd�iYLA�C�CrP�Y' Respectfully submitted Page 11 of 11