Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-10 Planning Commission Meeting PAcketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 10, 2012 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission September 27, 2012. 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 A. Subdivision with Lot Width and Lot area Variances for Jerrod Lindquist, 5945 Concord Avenue. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Development Plan for Mount Properties, 4005 West 65th Street and 6500 France Avenue. VII. REPORTS A. None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • Council Minutes VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. 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. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission October 24.2012 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda Item Cary Teague October 10, 2012 VI.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Jerrod Lindquist is proposing to subdivide his property at 5945 Concord Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages Al—A3b.) If the request is approved, the existing home would be torn down and new homes built on each lot. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A7—A15.) Also attached to the back of the report are signatures from adjacent property owners that support the project. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 77 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 3. Lot area variances from 10,028 square feet to 6,794 and 6,800 square feet. Lot 2 would gain access off Concord Avenue, and Lot 1 would have the option of access of Concord or 60th Street. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 10,028 square feet, median lot width is 77 feet, and the median lot depth is 135 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A4—A6 and Al 5.) 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 is a corner lot and contains a single-family home and attached garage on the east side of the lot. Access is gained off of 60th Street. (See pages A3, A3a, and A11.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A17.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway would have to be directed to Concord Avenue, and/or 60ffi Street. Sewer and water are available to the site. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A16. Please note that the medians were smaller than the subject proposal.) The following is the history in the past five years: Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s. f. & 73 feet wide.) 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED - Median 10,028 s.f. 77 feet 135 feet Lot 1 6,794 s. f. " 50 feet* 135 feet Lot 2 6,800 s. f. * 50 feet* 135 feet * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A17.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway would have to be directed to Concord Avenue, and/or 60ffi Street. Sewer and water are available to the site. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A16. Please note that the medians were smaller than the subject proposal.) The following is the history in the past five years: Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s. f. & 73 feet wide.) 2 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview Avenue was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots by Bravura Construction; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,699 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,769 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied their request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,701 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 6. In 2012, 6120 Brookview was again proposed for subdivision. That request was denied. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) Again, within the above mentioned neighborhoods, the median lot size was smaller than the subject subdivision area. The median lot sizes in these other areas were typically less than 7,000 square feet and lot width was 50 feet. The median in this neighborhood is 10,028 square feet and 77 feet wide. 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 3 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. It is the same size as the adjacent lot to the east. (See page A2.) Additionally, while the proposed lots would be similar in size to the lots to the north, they would however, be much smaller than the lots to the west, south and east. (See pages A4 A6.) These lots all far exceed the proposed lot width of 50 feet and lot area of 6,794 and 6,800 square feet. Because these lots are larger, the median lot area and width in this neighborhood is larger than the areas that had previous requests for subdivisions. (See previous pages.) 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. Applicant does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner prohibited by the zoning ordinance. The Subject Property is only 3,566 square feet larger than the required minimum lot size. The proposed lots which are approximately 32% below the minimum lot size requirement are not reasonable. b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The condition of this oversized lot is not unique to this neighborhood. There are three lots to the east that are the same size as the subject property. While the lots to the west and south are smaller than the subject lot, they are much larger than the proposed new lots. (See pages A4—A6.) Again, this is a self-created hardship or practical difficulty caused by the applicant's request to subdivide. The circumstances are self-created due to the request to subdivide the property. C) Will the variance alter the essential character of the. neighborhood? Yes. To subdivide this corner lot into 50 -foot wide lots, it could alter the essential character of the intersection of 60th and Concord. Each lot on the corner is currently larger than the proposed 50 foot wide and 6,800 square foot lot. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 5945 Concord Avenue and the lot width variances from 77 feet to 50 feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 10,028 square feet to 6,794 and 6,800 square feet. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The Subject Property is a conforming single-family residential lot with a new single-family house and has a taxable market value of $266,900. Reasonable use of the property exists today. 2. The proposed variances are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance which is to require nonconforming lots in common ownership to be developed as a single parcel. 3. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance standards. Applicant does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner prohibited by the zoning ordinance. The Subject Property is only 3,566 square feet larger than the required minimum lot size. The proposed lots which are approximately 32% below the minimum lot size requirement are not reasonable. 4. The practical difficulty alleged by the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property is self-created. 5. The need for the variance is created only by Applicant's desire to maximize the return on its investment. Such economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 6. There are no circumstances unique to the Subject Property that justify granting multiple variance to enable the Applicant to create nonconforming lots. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots to the east. Deadline for a City Decision: January 2, 2013 2 City of Edina 5801 9906 mot 3600 mot s600 b961 swd N ted Fea°°. 5604 5505 fill SS05 5801 Sws 5801 owig aW .: 58GW 5669 35e8 Seat— siar sa09 State.",* Haus. tke.bw SNN 5812 —361) 5811 5913 567E 5613 labels 3117 sffa 3a17 sets Sail alta SyN 5811 House HUalbaf LaMle 5911 5820 5815 56251 5871 6420 3a713823 Street Hama labels 5815 5811 SaN X19 3814 5613 3873 3826 'a S81S 5825 3829 35N 5829 5828 a 5 J LLeits jy' 3931— 5632 °j 3877 58,32 562,3 Sa32 383,3 5577 Ctasks sa9T s8N 58)7 5856 58)7 58% 5977 S8N lake Hames 58W 5811 3940 5811 5851 36&1 '..'..i lakes 5879 3400 5841 3845 Sill 5843 Sd71 1849 5544 ,. EJ Parks 5*7WSIw D Parcols 3301 5906. s001 3940 6801 so00 —5"t -5906- 5#M sr w-5905— 5960 3904 5908 SAPS 5304 .19!09 3303 5903 5901 5308 3901 x909 3904 5908 48034WS.QM7 46'tl [41132 5943 3917 3913 6916 %!5417 691,3 591 3913 5911 4864 4601 ISe0 5917 5958 3921 5226 5917 5021 93N 3916 k 3970> 5917 5921 39/6 5920 SL£akPl_ 21 S9F5 5914 S8N 5925 S9N Ic 5925 5916 —6928- 3926 3')79 5919 � 3929 40134 4123 4721.4717 4717 4709 4705 467718094605 180117,37 9932 3933 59N 9,311 � i( 5SI) SIM 5377 5911 393r 39% 4cM'sP k 3817 5976 5977 SgJ6 18104613 451 1&08 q0J 1000 4174 l7T0 171$ 4711 7)0$ IT01 3310 3311 ; 5913 Si. ........... 591! 5945 5511 3915 5970 3944 5913 5910 3911 SPINSTw 4601 mot 6000 swo 6000 6001 6040 6001 ww 4a1f 46r7461a t70H 4703 1701 � 6601 6003 61XN 6003 4001 6005 1/361 6063 6861 6003 6007 � 6009 6QOf 61308 64V9 6608 6009 6069 4812 feed 4606 4009 §M4 4011 4012 88/) 605) 607,3 601) 6082 46611A00..601,3 N 6017 68th wi6 6017 6017 6676 6017 6016 4a29462s 4706 uo+ fill 6AN 60116011 66w 6020 6017 6020 IdB} Y 1700 QVI 1773 � 1615 461441% 6019 6014 6023 6011 60F3 4J6r 412, 471) T1] 6109 Atos 44105 afoa uor at1J 6}11 t 6109 6701 1717 4414 46794875 6'00 4412_ taol 10 dF7f 6018 6079 24 4316 43A8 Ja 6,317 6106 17 1104 I4IM 6105 610! 6161 4100 4500 6110 6721 6116 6117 1111 oleo 6108 6105 6101 aJi1 11� 6861 6103 6113 6/14 6121 6116 ypdy! [x 6909 bled 3128 6,79 6116 6115 6t10 �d 612! lTOS.4rOi 6111 6117 6fi) 6169 24 ISIS a: PID: dei' 1902824310101 Q� 5945 Concord Aver '+a l Edina, MN 55424 1y Ciy1 111ga It AT 2 of Edina 4700 Na 6020 Sim A W 5901 }100 5903 5904 }901 I 3503 M3 }916 3903 5901 5421 5929 24 64 2adW. P" 59)2 $941 5443 3909 5903 "10 590 3912 6917 3916 5911 3920 ----------------- SWIM 50 5923 3921 5928 3929 < 4717 4113 1709 4205 3823 5922 sou 5927 59M _- 4116 4112 4MB 4704 5945 S9M }344 j hers6r W tall 6000 4109 1703 4701 6003 6001 6005 6003 m 6009 X08 f0046009A601) 6012600 6016 6016 6051 4700 Na 6020 Sim A W 5901 }100 5903 5904 3109 3906 M3 }916 5917 5770 5421 5929 24 64 2adW. P" 59)2 $941 5443 6001 6000 600.5 PID: 1902824310101 6001 6009 5945 Concord Ave ,S2 601) V r A 6017 toll m ll �nd i�..:,1 MOMW*" Fnbo Surra "" House Number Ubels Nouse U-", Labels Mm.1 Mame Labels J City LLd4 Creeks Lake Hames Lakes OParka QPusels PID: 1902824310101 Fe 5945 Concord Ave ,S2 Edina, MN 55424 V r +`Ar m ll �nd i�..:,1 MOMW*" Fnbo Surra "" House Number Ubels Nouse U-", Labels Mm.1 Mame Labels J City LLd4 Creeks Lake Hames Lakes OParka QPusels w 74, �'C T w � x • e t` + 4� WO AN y — .•� + - 113f!--tee•X 4310 m 4117 1/73 41034163 of Edina aeTHA1Y »01 iAM V 1 SAH it � l963 + V sk Oil t WI ' CM � !LA 4 -M (S »:a Mdigh Lo �(-C -- 1010e(U S'F 3301 Ola 1 011 4103 1 47M s3ua 6063 esu sera d j�� aV 4117 6600 {,0 3, ITDS 4107 1�rl� 1 d i fJhrl. 64163 OM ' $3o ,1,533 S 6616 6611 6003 am ,,,, s- o, us- 66M GM ��ISM 66 2 � � 1 V G G 126012 6013 • 60r1 nra 4111a 6616 1,703 006 tTOI xs. ur..- 41,41x4141 6011 6010 6 6�O — 4' a' PID:1902824310101 �q 1,.,°moi ' 5945 Concord Ave 'a 1. Edina, MN 55424 Mdigh Lo �(-C -- 1010e(U S'F 3301 SAM 5305 SfN °� s3ua 6063 5316 d j�� aV 3326 G E�1 »:9 13G 1 d i fJhrl. diyll r� 0 N�o4 S 6001 e666 6663 6m. 6063 6603 6613 6612 6611 6616 6611 ro toSi = yt 704 sX Lot i) (t("�04 S1r. (L. � J') !t� Legend C-.1 Hi9highNad Feakr. SurrounOW Houma Number Labels Haus Number labels Sheet Name tablet MY umxe Corks LA* Name. ilake. Parks 0 Percale of Edina PID:1902824310101 • 5945 Concord Ave '+. Edina, MN 55424 ,eA 3901 3407 39001 3104 �j�2 ssa9 S 3903 (�fL`j�2 S9N (0 ,�j�y 3116 3317 s909 J{�a s9A! X/3{{929 too 39!) 3912i� �9tf •7 dC' 4810 Q �"�S9iT 3916 Lakes O �� 3921 39YD JU Pi Ws ['83913 JJ 3941 � ["h 39M 3Y S92A < 3926 ry'H I= J +rtt Orn 4109 4105 io 1i n 3932 /Ia wiV 39b I'A'L 1778 41!2 fro Q tial 4701 l { j; 3413 {�4 J cou! 3940 9 S i67N 11W rev 414199 v ,}t 6003 V 6pWfj 1? 6001 ami 60041./ 4 0008 • .i 6909 � -y C"GO1] 6002yn bon aOl:Y.j'� iS S+i6Y bon +"t 6917 va9 cors O� W16 a .r,6 % `� 47f2 • f 1602! 4141 4101 64 _ PID:1902824310101 • 5945 Concord Ave '+. Edina, MN 55424 ,eA 3901 390A J� 3905 3104 �j�2 ssa9 39m6 i973 3116 3317 �b '434 3941 V X/3{{929 too 24 A4.fatax's Part ry J�2) 9 �9tf •7 dC' S-6- 64197 6090 E1W3 WphO�fiML 60Pe 6009 Labels tUUt 691] Street Name Labels . t / 6602 6011 Creeks Q 6016 6621 Lakes Mf rjn Lot wAfk = -77 eek t 45Cf CS cr toil) M Le f ; WphO�fiML Surteu7lrAnp Nous 9kmlber Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels . t / qty umils ± Creeks Q Lake Names Lakes O Parks D Pi Ws of Edina 597NS7W I3r, 1 5- 1 "to 3901 5906 390S SM 5309 SM ECIraOcw 391E 5917 13 �' 3921 3419 24 as JN+nY trn 5922 s941 594S 3978 M.. 1 39TQ 4117 171) 1709 4705 + 4116 4112 4106 4701 _ 5545 3940 617H StSW �a) ��"` l] tir soul 6000 4117 6600 4109 Oros 4701 l + kil- ON e665 600, ai e669 6�6 am 3 a°° 136 e�9 >. 601 14X 6017 M2601^:� T 6012�7 6016 4170 4116 4147 6016 4701 4147 6011 , 5'r 60p i PID:1902824310101 5945 Concord Ave Edina, MN 55424 3901 5906 390S SM 5309 SM 3912 391E 5917 3920 3921 3419 24 as JN+nY trn 5922 s941 594S Mejjgvj Lo+ Dcr{k = 13 F,<+ 6001 6000 egos 6001 6609 boor 6015 aoa 6017 6016 0021 f ro pose 3 5- cc 1 6" 1 13� �lre - (ta i Legend t[ 9aSNiSMed FsWw SurrounAny time Number Labels Hmne Number Labels Sheet Name Label. CRY U.H. Creaks DLake Names Lakes Parks 0 Paruls A W4c�luT uAA�,Fn � E JERROD C. LINDQUIST 5945 Concord Avenue, Edina, MN 55424 952.925.7921 •952.221.0762 (cell) • ierrodl .gmail.com Applicant Narrative My name is Jerrod Lindquist and I am the property owner at 5945 Concord Avenue in Edina. I have lived within our wonderful city for the past 20 years and at this current address for 16 years. I am seeking approval of subdivision/variance of my property at 5945 Concord Avenue in Edina into the original two platted lots, 5941 and 5945 Concord Avenue. My lots are currently recorded as lots 13 and 14 of the Fairfax Addition. I understand that this requires a subdivision and variance as the resulting lots would be less 75 feet wide at 50 feet wide, even as they were originally designed and remain shown this way. I have submitted the required applications and fees and am submitting this information to illustrate why they have been submitted and also why these applications should be approved. In support of this endeavor, I have done much research and due diligence through which I have discovered the following: 1. Neighborhood Support. There is overwhelming support within the neighborhood for granting approval of the subdivision and variance applications. I conducted an exhaustive survey of the neighborhood, focusing on and using the 500 foot circle the City uses and requires for notification purposes. The 500 foot circle encompasses 82 homes, including my home. I personally visited with the homeowners (and residents of non -homeowner occupied homes) of 80 out of the 82 homes and had the following results: 71 In Favor 0 Against 9 Neutral/Passive 2 No Answer Available/Possible (Please see Appendix for a full description of the survey, my methodology and the results) The overwhelming opinion of my neighbors is in support of the subdivision/variance, little apathy and precisely no opposition. The discussions with each neighbor also covered the following topics which are more fully detailed below. Also, t will bring letters of total support from the two adjacent neighbors — whom, of course, are most affected by this subdivision/variance. 2. Lot Size. The subdivision will result in two 50 foot lots which will match every other west -facing lot of the 5900 block of Concord Avenue. The resultant lots also match the vast majority of lots to the north and east, all of which were originally subdivided into 50 foot width lots (although not all homes were built that way, but a large majority were). These lots were all part of the Fairfax Addition. The lots to the south and west of my lots were part of later additions (South Concord and Valley View Terrace 2"a, to be specific) which added slightly larger lots to Edina. The South Concord and Valley View Terrace 2"a additions actually begin just across the street from my lots, to the west and south, respectively and thus my lots are the most southeastern of the Fairfax Addition. I am proposing that these lots be considered with respect primarily to the rest of the Fairfax Addition and the resultant lot size is the same as the large majority in the addition and only slightly smaller than those in the adjacent additions. In conclusion, two 50 foot lots will be a) in keeping with and b) within the character of the neighborhood as well as the original plat and, once again, has the full support of the neighborhood. 3. Resultant House(s). The houses built/remodeled/redeveloped on the lots would better fit the neighborhood vs. one large house. There have been several houses built on 50 foot lots in the neighborhood over the last several years and building two houses on these lots, given approval, would result in a better fit for the neighborhood. One large house built, as my current house sits, in the middle of the two lots, would not fit the neighborhood as well. Two houses is much preferred over one based on the survey with the 80 homeowners/residents with which I had conversations. I know that the neighbors have noted at least one much larger house built on a larger lot in the neighborhood and while there isn't much opposition to the redevelopment that has taken place, the neighbors would much prefer the two house approach the this subdivision/variance gives. 4. Community Investment. As a smaller but no less valid point, the two house opportunity would result in a larger overall contribution to home values to the neighborhood, boosting per house value (not to mention a higher tax base for the city). This was also the consensus opinion of the neighbors. Plus, granting approval of this subdivision keeps investment dollars flowing into our great city. Conclusion Given the evidence and the history, reality of today and future resultant benefits, I humbly believe and submit that the logical conclusion is to grant acceptance of the subdivision and variance applications. I can also certainly arrange these points into the categories listed specifically in the variance application but have noted that the City Council hearings don't necessarily follow that format. I remain available at the above phone number (my cell number is best) and address if there are any questions or concerns that I can address. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jerrod C. Lindquist Al Appendix Neighborhood Survey Results I endeavored to talk with each and every homeowner/resident within the 500 foot notification circle. Over the period of several weeks, I was able to have a conversation with at least one homeowner/resident of 80 of the 82 homes within this circle. Prior to giving the results, I will describe the topics covered within these conversations. 1. Background. I explained my history how I came to the subdivision process, which is as follows: a. I was planning to improve my house through interior upgrades/renovations and perhaps an addition. b. Current valuation is set at $289.2k as an assessed value. c. Current transactions for similarly -sized houses purchased just for lots (specifically for redevelopment) have been greater than this amount, in some cases significantly greater. In any case, the land is worth much more than the house, which is a unique situation, to be sure. d. Conversations with several local officials and builders led me to the conclusion that it would take upgrades/additions of a very high value to realize the return of the investment, should I ever want to sell the house, especially given the large amount of redevelopment taking place in the neighborhood and city. There is just no return of investment not to mention no return on investment — return on investment, while not uncommon for residential housing, is real nonetheless and must be considered carefully in today's and the foreseeable future's economic climate. e. I, along with several other experts, concluded that my house was basically obsolete and my land would be best redeveloped. As I don't need a large house, I concluded that the property should be sold and I would look for a smaller house in the neighborhood. The conclusion and consensus was also that the neighborhood and city would be best served if the lots were subdivided back to the original 50 foot lots for this redevelopment. 2. Neighborhood Opinion Needed. I had noted the success and failure of other subdivision endeavors in the city (though first-hand experience and research). I determined that although the city staff and many officials had supported each subdivision (especially those almost identical to my proposal), it was vocal neighborhood opposition that scuttled the few that weren't ultimately approved by the Edina City Council. So I set out to determine how my neighbors felt about my conclusions and plans before I spent the money (not a small amount!) and time in seeking approval of the subdivision/variance. 3. Survey Designed. I made special forms for each of the properties within the 500 foot circle, provided by the staff at the City of Edina Planning Department and set off knocking on doors. 4. Survey Executed. I thoroughly described my thought and research processes as thoroughly as I could (or was allowed) to each homeowner. This included as much of the information included under items I and 2 in this appendix and I was sure to emphasize that they could a say NO!, they didn't support my plan and they wouldn't offend me. If they were to be against it, however, I would want to know why so that I could collect the reasons and possibly correct any misconceptions that they had (but reinforcing that they could still be against it, of course), given my extensive work and research into the topic. Results The results of the survey are as follows: 71 In Favor 0 Against 9 Neutral/Passive 2 No Answer Available/Possible Notes: 1. The Neutral/Passive category contains: a. Mostly homeowners that sincerely had no opinion one way or the other b. A few rental homes whose owners weren't available, although logic would dictate that they would be in favor of the subdivision and resultant neighborhood investment. c. One home within which resides one Edina City Council member. 2. The No Answer Available/Possible category contains: a. One home whose resident was just home from the hospital and I didn't want to disturb her b. One home that doesn't seem to be occupied at this time, at least not with any regularity as I could never see evidence of anyone home beyond the grass being mowed one time. 3. While there were none in the Against category, there were three or four that were initially against the subdivision. After short discussions, all of these homeowners voluntarily moved their positions to In Favor or Neutral, all the while their potential vote in the Against category was not discouraged. Conclusion The neighbors are overwhelmingly in favor of granting acceptance of the subdivision and variance requests. �a'fftiV`��f, JERROD C. LINDQUIIST 5945 Concord Avenue, Edina, MN 55424 952.925.7921 •952.221.0762 (cell) • ierrodl angrnail.com Applicant Narrative My name is Jerrod Lindquist and I am the property owner at 5945 Concord Avenue in Edina. I have lived within our wonderful city for the past 20 years and at this current address for 16 years. I am seeking approval of subdivision/variance of my property at 5945 Concord Avenue in Edina into the original two platted lots, 5941 and 5945 Concord Avenue. My lots are currently recorded as lots 13 and 14 of the Fairfax Addition. I understand that this requires a subdivision and variance as the resulting lots would be less 75 feet wide at 50 feet wide, even as they were originally designed and remain shown this way. I have submitted the required applications and fees and am submitting this information to illustrate why they have been submitted and also why these applications should be approved. In support of this endeavor, I have done much research and due diligence through which I have discovered the following: 1. Neighborhood Support. There is overwhelming support within the neighborhood for granting approval of the subdivision and variance applications. I conducted an exhaustive survey of the neighborhood, focusing on and using the 500 foot circle the City uses and requires for notification purposes. The 500 foot circle encompasses 82 homes, including my home. l personally visited with the homeowners (and residents of non -homeowner occupied homes) of 80 out of the 82 homes and had the following results: 67 In Favor (47 Signed, 20 Unsigned/Unavailable to Sign (to date)) 2 Against 13 Neutral/Undecided/No Answer Available or Possible (Please see Appendix A for a full description of the survey, my methodology and results) The overwhelming opinion of my neighbors is in support of the subdivision/variance, little apathy and very little opposition. The discussions with each neighbor also covered the following topics which are more fully detailed below and in the letter sent to neighbors (see Appendix B). Also, I will bring the support from the two adjacent neighbors — whom, of course, are most affected by this subdivision and variance. 2 Lot Size. The subdivision will result in two 50 foot lots which will match every other west -facing lot of the 5900 block of Concord Avenue. The resultant lots also match the vast majority of lots to the north and east, all of which were originally subdivided into 50 foot width lots (although not all homes were built that way, but a large majority were). These lots were all part of the Fairfax Addition. The lots to the south and west of my lots were part of later additions (South Concord and Valley View Terrace 2"d, to be specific) Alai which added slightly larger lots to Edina. The South Concord and Valley View Terrace 2"d additions actually begin just across the street from my lots, to the west and south, respectively and thus my lots are the most southeastern of the Fairfax Addition. I am proposing that these lots be considered with respect primarily to the rest of the Fairfax Addition and the resultant lot size is the same as the large majority in the addition and only slightly smaller than those in the adjacent additions. In conclusion, two 50 foot lots will be a) in keeping with and b) within the character of the neighborhood as well as the original plat and, once again, has the fi►II support of the neighborhood. 3 Resultant House(s). The houses built/remodeled/redeveloped on the lots would better fit the neighborhood vs. one large house. There have been several houses built on 50 foot lots in the neighborhood over the last several years and building two houses on these lots, given approval, would result in a better fit for the neighborhood. One large house built, as my current house sits, in the middle of the two lots, would not fit the neighborhood as well. Two houses is much preferred over one based on the survey with the 80 homeowners/residents with which I had conversations. I know that the neighbors have noted at least one much larger house built on a larger lot in the neighborhood and while there isn't much opposition to the redevelopment that has taken place, the neighbors would much prefer the two house approach the this subdivision/variance gives. 4 Community Investment. As a smaller but no less valid point, the two house opportunity would result in a larger overall contribution to home values to the neighborhood, boosting per house value (not to mention a higher tax base for the city). This was also the consensus opinion of the neighbors. Plus, granting approval of this subdivision keeps investment dollars flowing into our great city. Conclusion Given that my property will be sold and slated for redevelopment as soon as this decision is made, it comes down to the simple question of one McMansion or two reasonably sized homes that better fit with the neighborhood. Given the evidence and the history, reality of today and future resultant benefits, I humbly believe and submit that the logical conclusion is to grant acceptance of the subdivision and variance applications to allow two homes to be built. I can also certainly arrange these points into the categories listed specifically in the variance application but have noted that the City Council hearings don't necessarily follow that format. I remain available at the above phone number (my cell number is best) and address if there are any questions or concerns that I can address. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -0 Jerrod C. Lindquist Appendix A Neighborhood Survey Results I endeavored to talk with each and every homeowner/resident within the 500 foot notification circle. Over the period of several weeks, I was able to have a conversation with at least one homeowner/resident of 80 of the 82 homes within this circle. Prior to giving the results, I will describe the topics covered within these conversations. Background. 1 explained my history how I came to the subdivision process, which is as follows: a. I was planning to improve my house through interior upgrades/renovations and perhaps an addition. b. Current valuation is set at $289.2k as an assessed value. c. Current transactions for similarly -sized houses purchased just for lots (specifically for redevelopment) have been greater than this amount, in some cases significantly greater. In any case, the land is worth much more than the house, which is a unique situation, to be sure. d. Conversations with several local officials and builders led me to the conclusion that it would take upgrades/additions of a very high value to realize the return of the investment, should I ever want to sell the house, especially given the large amount of redevelopment taking place in the neighborhood and city. There is just no return of investment not to mention no return on investment — return on investment, while not uncommon for residential housing, is real nonetheless and must be considered carefully in today's and the foreseeable future's economic climate. e. I, along with several other experts, concluded that my house was basically obsolete and my land would be best redeveloped. As I don't need a large house, I concluded that the property should be sold and I would look for a smaller house in the neighborhood. The conclusion and consensus was also that the neighborhood and city would be best served if the lots were subdivided back to the original 50 foot lots for this redevelopment. 2. Neighborhood Opinion Needed. I had noted the success and failure of other subdivision endeavors in the city (though first-hand experience and research). I determined that although the city staff and many officials had supported each subdivision (especially those almost identical to my proposal), it was vocal neighborhood opposition that scuttled the few that weren't ultimately approved by the Edina City Council. So I set out to determine how my neighbors felt about my conclusions and plans before I spent the money (not a small amount!) and time in seeking approval of the subdivision/variance. 3. Survey Designed. I made special forms for each of the properties within the 500 foot circle, provided by the staff at the City of Edina Planning Department and set off knocking on doors. 4. Survey Executed. I thoroughly described my thought and research processes as thoroughly as I could (or was allowed) to each homeowner. This included as much of the information included under items 1 and 2 in this appendix and I was sure to emphasize that they could say NO!, they didn't support my plan and they wouldn't offend me. If they were to be A 10 c against it, however, I would want to know why so that 1 could collect the reasons and possibly correct any misconceptions that they had (but reinforcing that they could still be against it, of course), given my extensive work and research into the topic. Results The results of the survey are as follows: 67 In Favor (47 Signed, 20 Unsigned/Unavailable to sign) 2 Against 13 Neutral/Undecided/No Answer Available or Possible Notes: 1. The Neutral/Undecided/No Answer category contains: a. Mostly homeowners that sincerely had no opinion one way or the other b. A few rental homes whose owners weren't available, although logic would dictate that they would be in favor of the subdivision and resultant neighborhood investment. c. One home within which resides one Edina City Council member. d. One home whose resident was just home from the hospital and I didn't want to disturb her e. One home that doesn't seem to be occupied at this time, at least not with any regularity as I could never see evidence of anyone home beyond the grass being mowed one time. 2. While there were two in the Against category, there were three or four others that were initially against the subdivision. After short discussions, all of these homeowners voluntarily moved their positions to In Favor or Neutral, all the while their potential vote in the Against category was not discouraged. Conclusion The neighbors are overwhelmingly in favor of granting acceptance of the subdivision and variance requests. A10 Appendix B Neighbor Letter Note: This letter has been updated for latest homeowner survey results and formatted for ease of reading but content is equivalent to original letter. Original letter is available for review and submitted to City Staff for inclusion at their discretion. A Iac JERROD C. LINDQUIST 5945 Concord Avenue, Edina, MN 55424 952.925.7921 • 952.221.0762 (cell) • jerrodl@gmail.com Dear Neighbor, As you know, i have applied for subdivision of my two lots at 5945 Concord Avenue and the other enclosed letter is the form letter notification we discussed that goes to homeowners within a 500 foot radius of my property — a total of 82 homes! I received the ok from the planning department to enclose this letter because, as we also discussed, the letter isn't very descriptive about the process and I also wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the situation as it stands today. Over the past several weeks, I've been letting you know in person about my plans and asking for your opinions and questions about the subdivision of my two lots. To refresh your memory, my house is built in the middle of two 50' lots to make one 100' lot. Even though this was the original design, the city requires that a subdivision take place in order to build two separate houses on these lots. The support for my plan has been very positive with 80 out of 82 homes visited and 70 being positive about the plan, 2 against and 8 neutral (neutrals include rentals, a city official and others who honestly have no opinion or no desire to take a position). That is some nice neighborhood support! I thank you for this as this is important to me as my neighbors, neighborhood and Edina mean very much to me (and has been an expensive undertaking, to say the least!). So that's the good news and now for the not so good news. The city planning department has just informed me that they intend to not support this subdivision, if only because the resultant lot sizes fall below the median for the 500 foot radius. I will describe this is more detail in the coining items. Needless to say, this is troubling to hear this late in the process and seems to ignore the facts that: t. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly in favor of it, as the survey results mentioned above show. I am also happy to have the total support of my adjoining neighbors, which is important to me. it also makes common sense (which I will also describe) but I wanted to know there was neighbor support before starting, which there certainly was. 2. It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. All of the other west -facing lots on Concord Avenue are 50' lots so this subdivision makes them all the same. My two lots are the most southwestern of the Fairfax Addition to Edina while the lots immediately to the west and south were of additions of different design (non -rectangular in many cases, slightly larger design — look at the Hennepin County Assessor map for reference or call me and i'll gladly show you my map). This is why my standard two 50' lots are below median. However, a very large majority of Fairfax Addition lots are 50' wide but the 500' circle captures too many of the lots to the west and south for my subdivision to be above median. 3. Last, but most importantly, it allows two smaller houses to be built vs. one large house, again in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We have seen the houses that have been built on 50' lots and while some believe they are too large for the lot area, it is far better than having one large McMansion built on a larger lot. We have also seen this done close by and a vast majority of us are in favor of two smaller houses, based on my talks. 4. Similar subdivisions have been granted in the past with successful, responsible redevelopment results that are popular with the neighborhood, as this one would also be. All this being said, the city planning recommendation is just that, a recommendation and there is hope in that there is at least one precedent set for subdivisions gaining the approval of the Planning AIA Commission and City Council that were not initially recommended. So, I am humbly asking for your help. But not just to help me but to help our neighborhood and your neighbors. Please note that there is no question that my lots will be redeveloped — it is plain economics at this point as the land is simply worth more than my house. It is not economically feasible to improve the existing house and so it must be moved or removed. It is not my first choice for the property but I (and we) cannot ignore this reality. If the lots are redeveloped as one lot, one large house will be built on them and that is not the best result. So, we must work to have the lots split into their original design. You can help accomplish this by: 1. Appearing and testifying with me at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The ultimate deciding meeting is the City Council meeting but the Planning Commission meeting is also important to the process. This is the most impactful thing you can do and City Council and Planning Commission members have told me that this is an important factor. Testifying is not as scary as it looks! Plus, being involved in the process is certainly good. 2. Write a letter or email of support. You can write an email to me at JERRODL@GMAIL.COM or send a letter to my address above. I will make sure that your voice is heard at the meetings. The Planning Commission meeting is set for 7pm on October 10`►' and the City Council meeting is set for November 5"', also at 7pm. Please let me know in advance if you can come and find me at the meeting to let me know you're there. Thanks so much in advance for those who can come to show and talk about their support — it means so much! Please know that I believe the approval of the subdivision and responsible redevelopment of these two lots is in the best interest of everyone in the neighborhood. This is what we'll get with approval of the subdivision: 1. Two new families in the neighborhood, most likely with kids that will go to Concord and/or Southview! A good situation for these families, to be sure, but also for everyone else. 2. The overall valuation of two houses will almost surely be more than that of one house— resulting in a higher average home values which then results in: a. More investment in the neighborhood — market momentum is a powerful thing especially with the uncertainty of the current economy, not to mention housing! b. Higher home values c. Potentially less expensive financing (lower rates with lower loan -to -value ratios) d. Easier financing (for additions, improvements or even refinancing) e. A higher tax base for the city that will keep taxes lower for all Edina residents. In conclusion, I thank you for your attention to this letter and your support -- I hope to stay in the neighborhood, if I can. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone, 952.221.0762, to discuss your plans to support this effort, any questions you may have or if you need more information. You may call me at any time as this is the most important thing in my professional life for the next six weeks. Sincerely, w Jerrod C. Lindquist JERROD C. LINDQUIST 5945 Concord Avenue, Edina, MN 55424 952.925.7921 •952.221.0762 (cell) • jerrodl@gmail.com Dear Neighbor, As you know, I have applied for subdivision of my two lots at 5945 Concord Avenue and the other enclosed letter is the form letter notification we discussed that goes to homeowners within a 500 foot radius of my property — a total of 82 homes! I received the ok from the planning department to enclose this letter because, as we also discussed, the letter isn't very descriptive about the process and I also wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the situation as it stands today. Over the past several weeks, I've been letting you know in person about my plans and asking for your opinions and questions about the subdivision of my two lots. To refresh your memory, my house is built in the middle of two 50' lots to make one 100' lot. Even though this was the original design, the city requires that a subdivision take place in order to build two separate houses on these lots. The support for my plan has been very positive with 80 out of 82 homes visited and 67 being positive about the plan, 2 against and 13 neutral/undecided/no answer (neutrals include rentals, a city official, others who have no opinion or no desire to take a position and those undecided). That is some nice neighborhood support! I thank you for this as this is important to me as my neighbors, neighborhood and Edina mean very much to me (and has been an expensive undertaking, to say the least!). So that's the good news and now for the not so good news. The city planning department has just informed me that they intend to not support this subdivision, if only because the resultant lot sizes fall below the median for the 500 foot radius. I will describe this is more detail in the coming items. Needless to say, this is troubling to hear this late in the process and seems to ignore the facts that: 1. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly in favor of it, as the survey results mentioned above show. I am also happy to have the total support of my adjoining neighbors, which is important to me. It also makes common sense (which I will also describe) but I wanted to know there was neighbor support before starting, which there certainly was. 2. It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. All of the other west -facing lots on Concord Avenue are 50' lots so this subdivision makes them all the same. My two lots are the most southwestern of the Fairfax Addition to Edina while the lots immediately to the west and south were of additions of different design (non -rectangular in many cases, slightly larger design — look at the online Hennepin County map for reference or call me and I'll gladly show you my map). This is why my standard two 50' lots are below median. However, a very large majority of Fairfax Addition lots are 50' wide but the 500' circle captures too many of the lots to the west and south for my subdivision to be above median. 3. Last, but most importantly, it allows two smaller houses to be built vs. one large house, again in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We have seen the houses that have been built on 50' lots and while some believe they are too large for the lot area, it is far better than having one large McMansion built on a larger lot. We have also seen this done close by and a vast majority of us are in favor of two smaller houses, based on my talks. 4. Similar subdivisions have been granted in the past with successful, responsible redevelopment results that are popular with the neighborhood, as this one would also be. All this being said, the city planning recommendation is just that, a recommendation and there is hope in that there is at least one precedent set for subdivisions gaining the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council that were not initially recommended. So, I am humbly asking for your help. But not just to help me but to help our neighborhood and your neighbors. Please note that there is no question that my lots will be redeveloped — it is plain economics at this point as the land is simply worth more than my house. It is not economically feasible to improve the existing house and so it must be moved or removed. It is not my first choice for the property but I (and we) cannot ignore this reality. If the lots are redeveloped as one lot, one large house will be built on thein and that is not the best result. So, we must work to have the lots split into their original design. You can help accomplish this by: I . Appearing and testing with me at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The ultimate deciding meeting is the City Council meeting but the Planning Commission meeting is also important to the process. This is the most impactful thing you can do and City Council and Planning Commission members have told me that this is an important factor. Testifying is not as scary as it looks! Plus, being involved in the process is certainly good. 2. Write a letter or email of support. You can write an email to me at JERRODL a GMAIL.COM or send a letter to my address above. I will make sure that your voice is heard at the meetings. The Planning Commission meeting is set for 7pm on Wednesday, October 10`x' and the City Council meeting is set for Monday, November 5"', also at 7p►n. Please let me know in advance if you can come and find me at the meeting to let me know you're there. Thanks so much in advance for those who can come to show and talk about their support — it means so much! Please know that I believe the approval of the subdivision and responsible redevelopment of these two lots is in the best interest of everyone in the neighborhood. This is what we'll get with approval of the subdivision: 1. Two new families in the neighborhood, most likely with kids that will go to Concord and/or Southview! A good situation for these families, to be sure, but also for everyone else. 2. The overall valuation of two houses will almost surely be more than that of one house— resulting in a higher average home values which then results in: A101 a. More investment in the neighborhood — market momentum is a powerful thing especially with the uncertainty of the current economy, not to mention housing! b. Higher home values c. Potentially less expensive financing (lower rates with lower loan -to -value ratios) d. Easier financing (for additions, improvements or even refinancing) e. A higher tax base for the city that will keep taxes lower for all Edina residents. In conclusion, I thank you for your attention to this letter and your support -- I hope to stay in the neighborhood, if I can. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone, 952.221.0762, to discuss your plans to support this effort, any questions you may have or if you need more information. You may call me at any time as this is the most important thing in my professional life for the next six weeks. Sincerely, Jerrod C. Lindquist / ry • VVit 1 _— .— -------------f--__-----------, I !'ZtSSRY'^^:'3 1 :Zr55 MY hy7 ( I �T.Yl�*n7 GY66 1 '�^Y P�"�4JtK4 I I .v.'6Rarky I al,afttay/ I I I I I I I 1 1 I -i - I 8 I i MA• s.ke yaa CA. & M& 534 4 r� N a+s+ . . No.3937 .� -• -' . _ 'l ' O 2 i i i 1 j 70 1 sw Duna: "3(;AOemn Y:I96Amap142.( . :d... MN.lS'd2� sD° , ------------------- r------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ; ---------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------Ir----------- N 89.57`18• W 135.97 GOTH srREer W. N � /uTiMlafA ,4ya Carvra 3� zo a . "I stw.C. P. -I________.___�r — ___________�_____o-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ( I = I I mr CaOLL AA' SSAZA I I I eae � I I , I c Owub xw M....nr SY. r io a " I QI U t O c � I F I I I I I I MA• s.ke yaa CA. & M& 534 4 r� N a+s+ . . No.3937 .� -• -' . _ 'l ' O 2 i i i 1 j 70 1 sw Duna: "3(;AOemn Y:I96Amap142.( . :d... MN.lS'd2� sD° , ------------------- r------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ; ---------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------Ir----------- N 89.57`18• W 135.97 GOTH srREer W. N � /uTiMlafA ,4ya Carvra 3� zo a . "I stw.C. P. -I________.___�r — ___________�_____o-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I FOO. C.—d Aa I RI.r.-to4rw+m* t O!e•. MN 55t7u I C=Avk.,.-A.C. CaOLL AA' SSAZA I c Owub xw M....nr SY. a " O 1 GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS 1. TM 2005 mWen Of 0q Mnmeda D"krb Ot of ' TMMPG AOon'Sandmid, Sped4oa0om PoJoonamAum. 4M ft Coy Of EdhW$ SDecYwOfens. 2. The kta4 Wlim of ft N*umm Mamd of UNlonn TIaft MW eark*L 2. TM mm emn a ft Coy En9ln ATwdadw d I I 1 S M MAysJAe Sxa mroaoq ean td Sp JOmaom. T I . 5937C—"Aa. F tsaC OW%l. "r2' -r^ ' No 593Y CONSTRUCTION NOTES .it I T y•e.rF 1 \ .' J i ExCA ATWK(QIALeRe ATE ONE CALL PRIOR TO ANY 389'$57p'WE h 1. -'^��-g- •'f'f' • - s.w ,.a " t3"" --�•. , ^-------------- 2 INSTALL SET FENCE PMR TO WNSTMMrIQN. 3. PROTECT ANY EASTING STREET CATCH 9ASNS YCH MET PROTECION Dev=s. 9 j naD --i _-_�_ `T0Y� .1.�/!••yL' ^'\ N ^^� , ��-� '}J w , 4. AFTER EWSTNG QRNE'JJAY REMNAL O'61'NL '}-. d� �/ ROCyC CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FORSfTE ACCESS - •- - - •)I 1 x!.e ••�- `,`,L _ _ ^ ry 10 , sb r •tat` GALL 9tT7R[ TOU OIG ICA -__ -- 0. d Gopher State One Call TM OTY MER 001-40d-OOp2 - eI I•$:eay frme TOLL YnEE: 9-200-i02-1106 2T 1 I Vt3_» pr S59'S7'1 .195.95 ` rwJ No.55-40 N 4e0, n1 v '* ,ww.�, 'g� P '\ \i ; Id `}' �✓ GRADING PLAN LOT KEY ...,mv0 I aAtt.• KC '� A !• 53J0AMw_S4.14 »-e4W� I p rbm •` ^ ?5 I l��,y__ %I .'iv tt4w. hei ------------ D-.J.i Vi ted Mm- - ------------- .. ^ 1 1 ,.moi-�- ----•----_..--- 1T �. to?Cn Gw'a^ ar-a•a n __-_-_--_--_ •e_ -I I 'n_ Be+re+ke+u0_. ' 1 N 89 6T.18' W 135.97 11 ' I tO - aaxoc .�»�.._�.�.._»�,.J � .. r , [7r:edg ne ' A'fr-OGYT.O i R•7'.itln'S IT `, eaa.a ri J ^1 aaxn � r4•rwcs.'rmmt «I I 60Th ,5TREET W. o ----- > - T b - i j { U1 JAN 45424 GOOD AMeroR A.e. AZ Cd- Cd- AM 55424 C -vi 50.T PENCE wrr rn awvr .+. rt NIkT PROTi;C'RpN � w1=i nia Kane [u• ac xta SM. r)w Si01O/ ARUQRJRE RM ENTRANCE TG CONSTRUCTION SRE spla.� S.arWCaweba4 � 'Jwt''040.f 1vWiiWA cnnae soaa w 0Lwxr N10.1e wo L [GCNfa ' e•0i°000'O'�'0�''' ...•••"2•.•.. aYrorc rasy Cow mr a �•�...» DnnA,n n4rewa�u.«. ru 4r-eoa © q 6i�wsrrat.an.m45r. raw #LOK b-5 4.4 0.9 J6 z7iM -i—m O.YO J -N0 -J OR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PZkIGG N" 'C' W.7 vnvpw�-?maq il."Gr --Vat P --ft VW7 '-7 A14V w N Z filL 4 k ] F J 1 O�C 6666�x�6Q�PyH 6�R��8iE.x L1�GCGGG���G s1�"J��^:1�856�SSR��3T,j��H1�'`^o-.FL����X�Bfi,8�8p �9,6��§�888���R.1 #a?sa�&"??aa5§&99a53a9a?I��p5��p�a89SFS"y 3?r4g��999an5P�&i3�s, §iARRAA AARRx RMM�^8R 8xS 89MM�yA R R ARA Is gx8 EeR 83 Cs€oe MS.�,<-R Rex Rcaaaif vanc R <-�_;:�-� @E�EWC988@98699698 Es89�3sEEE@E55�8 3H48EB$9$ee§agOga -5::5:�5:.5:.Y5�555>`aY�5Y5Y��5Y<feSYYt<:55Y�YYS�5Y�5��Ys�Y�5555YY5"5SY>`�5><3E� � 9��� 33p L,3333�� a 5iii 9<y2 z 3ej�. x.,yF_ e n 51 Y3::59":--96os83=a'..`..2$�si�:..s&:3.;.3u:`s�i;$-e.i MUMNq 8g>3x y 11M M11 191 ��������������a� ^+^a^<^^•9 ..SnB_a?: R AR3xq EA 11111111 AS90Vi3SxCSi.H IF3 Ax w8 S83.00SSS88S RMIXM x M xRRRQ tlO m co n W11 to in ur) 3AV SNHOP LLO 0c} LO Ir} In N cn cu to CR 41) O C3 n Q C4 20 n In mm r .- rnC4:c� In Imn vii n uU-a In Imn uni CR 41) J i uuLW III ;� ° -�• , _ �t _ I } L:J-k coYadwAMcNS Csr-.gtiC7�ocsc¢1om Frokoce li126 [CITY tlF C11N1►N MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 p, Fax 952-826-0392 • www.Cityofrdina.com O e �t41 O Date: October 4, 2012 Iry ;j av To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle — Director of Engineering Re: Linquist Addition Dated August 30, 2012 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plat and offer the following comments: Sheet 2 of 4• • Curb cut permits will be required for both driveways. Lot I will be required to access their lot from 60th Street West. Sheet 4 of 4• • The majority of the drainage, including all of the roof drainage, is required to drain to either Concord Avenue or 60`' Street West due to potential flooding issues in the rear yards of the properties to the north. • A full width (curb to curb / saw -cut to saw -cut) repair of Concord Avenue will be required when installing the new sanitary sewer and water service connection. Engineering will required a more in-depth review of the project if it is advanced. Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd Edina, MN 55439 417 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague October 10, 2012 VI.B Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Mount Properties is proposing to tear down the existing office buildings at 4005 West 65th Street and 6500 France Avenue to build a new five -story, 62 -foot tall, 102,478 square foot medical office/retail building with an attached 4-5 level parking ramp. (See site location, applicant narrative and plans on pages A1— A73.) The Planning Commission previously considered redevelopment of this site for a two phase, 4-6 story building. That proposal was to be denied by the City Council. (See attached City Council minutes on pages Al 11—A112.) The Council did not support the height of a six -story building. The applicant withdrew the request, prior to the City Council taking final action. The revised plan now proposes a one phase five -story building with the mechanical equipment to be located inside the building and on the ground along the south lot line. The overall height would not exceed the height of the mechanical equipment on the roof of the previously proposed four-story building. The site plan and building are generally similar to the previous plan; access to the site would remain from 65th Street, with a secondary right out on France. Some of the differences in the proposed plans from the previous plans include: ➢ Five -story building with no roof top mechanical equipment, 62 feet tall. (Previous building was six stories and measured 88 feet to the top of the mechanical equipment.) The result of no rooftop equipment is to locate the mechanical equipment (chiller) setback six feet from the south lot line. (See pages A47 and A33.) ➢ Attached parking ramp. (Previous ramp was detached.) ➢ Five -level parking ramp. (Previous ramp was four -levels.) ➢ Proposed building has a rounded grand building entry appearance at 65th & France. (Previous building had a traditional sharp building corner at 65th and France.) Green roof on top of the building. (Previous plan had a green roof only on the two building podiums.) The first floor of the new building would contain 7,000 square feet of medical/retail space that may include a coffee shop. The next remaining 95,478 square feet would contain medical office use. In order to obtain the above-mentioned approvals, the applicant must go through a two-step process. The first step in the process is to obtain the following approvals: 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a building height of five stories and 62 feet on this site. The Comprehensive Plan requires a maximum height of four stories or 48 feet; (This requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council for approval.) 2. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and 3. Preliminary Development Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan are approved by the City Council, the following is required for the second step: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to PUD. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fairview Hospital parking ramp; zoned APD, Automobile Parking District Easterly: Fairview Hospital; zoned and guided Regional Medical District. Southerly: Point of France condos; Zoned PRD -4, Planned Residential District & High Density Residential Westerly: Cornelia Place Apartments; zoned PRD -4, High Density Residential; and guided High Density Residential 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 2.34 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains two office buildings. (See pages Al A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Regional Medical. (Seepages A5—A14.) Zoning: POD -1, Planned Office District. (See page A4.) Comprehensive Guide Plan This property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. (See page A7.) The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan rests with the City Council." The Council did not require a small area plan as part of the recent request for development of the six -story building on this site. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Regional Medical — RM." (See pages A5—A6.) Therefore, the proposed use would be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation. The Comprehensive Plan requires a maximum height of four stories and 48 feet tall, with a podium height of two stories. (See page A14.) As mentioned, the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a five -story 62 -foot tall building on the site. Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site from Planned Office District -1, (POD -1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Office District allows for medical office buildings up to a floor area ratio of .5 (50%). Under current zoning a 51,482 square foot office building would be permitted. The proposed 102,478 square foot building would have a floor area ratio of 1.0. The site is currently guided for Regional Medical use; therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Medical Zoning District allows a floor area ratio of 1.0 (100%). Within a PUD District, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered K3 presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent of the PUD. The table on the following page demonstrates a comparison of the base zoning compared to the proposed. 4 Compliance Table *Would require Variances if no PUD As a comparison the following variances were required for Twin City Orthopedic: 1. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 18 feet. (A 49 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 20 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 57 feet to 10 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 7. A side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) 8. Minimum tract area variance from 10 acres to 2 acres. (An 8 acre variance.) 9. A parking stall variance from 393 stalls to 373 stalls. (A 20 -stall variance.) (The FAR for Twin City Orthopedic was .85 or 85%) (The FAR for the Fairview Hospital Campus is 1.16116%) 5 City Standard Proposed (PCD -1) Building Setbacks Front — France Avenue 62 feet 25 & 35 feet* Front — 65th Street 62 feet 25 & 35 feet* Side — West 62 feet 100+ feet Rear — South 62 feet 30 feet* Parking Structure Setbacks Front — France Avenue 52 feet 80+ feet Front — North 52 feet 25 feet* Side — West 58 feet 15 feet* Rear — South 58 feet 20 feet* Chiller Setback 20 feet 6 feet* Building Height Four Stories or 48 Five Stories & 62 feet* feet whichever is less Parking Ramp Height 48 feet 4-5 levels & 40-52* north side 4-5 levels & 46-58 feet* south side Building Coverage 30% 59%* Maximum Floor Area Ratio 50% 100%* (FAR) Parking Stalls 548 — Based on 423* proof of parking to 95,478 s.f. medical 548 (27 doctors) and 7,000 s.f. general retail Parking Stall Size 8.5'x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet *Would require Variances if no PUD As a comparison the following variances were required for Twin City Orthopedic: 1. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 18 feet. (A 49 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 20 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 57 feet to 10 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 7. A side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) 8. Minimum tract area variance from 10 acres to 2 acres. (An 8 acre variance.) 9. A parking stall variance from 393 stalls to 373 stalls. (A 20 -stall variance.) (The FAR for Twin City Orthopedic was .85 or 85%) (The FAR for the Fairview Hospital Campus is 1.16116%) 5 Rezoning to 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 l: L ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The applicant is proposing a development that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan guides this site as Regional Medical; therefore, the proposed medical office with complementary retail uses would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. Parking would be located in back in the ramp. Landscaping and patios are also proposed in front, with store fronts opening toward France Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to utilize sustainable design principals. Green building practices are suggested, and green roofs are proposed. (See pages A24 A26, of the applicant's narrative that explains how this project meets the above purpose and intent of the PUD Ordinance.) 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. This site would be envisioned to allow uses permitted within the Regional Medical District, as this site is guided Regional Medical in the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance amendment on pages A102— A110 lists the uses that would be allowed on this site. WSB and Associates did a parking analysis that determined that the proposed parking would support the uses proposed. (See pages A74—Al 01.) b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: 1. 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 "Regional Medical," which allows medical offices as a permitted use. The current site is 7 zoned POD -1, and guided for Regional Medical. Within the Regional Medical District, 10% of an office building may contain retail uses allowed in the PCD -1 and PCD -2 Zoning District, as long as the primary function of the uses is to serve the office users. The proposed uses would be consistent with that standard. (See pages Al 07—Al 10 for a list of uses allowed within the PCD -1 and PCD -2 Districts.) 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 medical office and limited retail, consistent with 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 The proposed building density would have an FAR of 1.0 or 100%. The Floor Area Ratio contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance is 1.0 or 100%. As a comparison, the TCO building has an FAR of 8.5 or 85%, and the Fairview Hospital campus has an FAR of 1.16 or 116%. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The proposed project does not closely relate to the conventional zoning district. Ten (10) variances would be required and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate the proposal. However, the request is similar to the request made by Twin City Orthopedic, and FAR now complies with the contemplated land use designation of Regional Medical in the Comprehensive Plan. Site Access The primary access to the site would remain off of 65th Street West. There would be a right -out only onto France. (See page A33.) Parking & Traffic Per Section 850.08 Subd. 1, the following are the parking requirements: One space per 200 square feet for medical office and 1 space per doctor. The retail requirement is 8 spaces for the first 1,000 square feet and six spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet. The medical office would be 95,478 square feet, and would have 27 doctors (1 doctor for each 3,500 square feet of medical office.); the retail space would be 7,000 square feet. Based on the above, 548 parking stalls are required. The applicant is proposing 548 spaces with proof -of - parking. A parking study was done by WSB which concludes that the proposed parking would support the uses. (See pages A73a—A73c.) Should parking ever become a problem, the City of Edina could require the proof -of -parking staills to be built. A traffic study was also done by WSB, which concludes that the existing roadways support the proposed uses. (See traffic study on pages A73a—A101.) However, as was conditioned in the approvals for Twin City Orthopedic, should signal improvements be deemed necessary at 65th Street and France Avenue, the property owner would be required to participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements. This would be a requirement in the Developer's Agreement. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 34 overstory trees and a full complement of understory trees and shrubs are required. The applicant is proposing to plant 58 overstory trees around the perimeter of the site & 250+ understory trees and shrubs. (See landscape plan on page A65.) Final landscape plans shall be reviewed more closely during the review of the Final Development Plan. Grading & Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the plans and found them generally acceptable and offered comments. (See page A113.) A more detailed review would be done as part of the Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning. Noise Study During the Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission requested information regarding noise. A noise study was done by Kvernstoen, Ronnholm and Associates, which concludes that the noise generated by the rooftop mechanical equipment will not add to the noise levels currently on the site. (See pages A27— A29.) With the proposed location of the chiller now being on the ground, this study should be updated as part of the final development plan review, if the Z Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Rezoning and Plans are approved by the City Council. Signage Signage would be allowed per the requirements of the Regional Medical District within the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the PUD. (See draft on pages A102—A104.) PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow greater height reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposed height increase is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: 1. The proposed height is consistent with adjacent buildings to the south and east. To the south, the Point of France building is 13 stories and 123 feet tall. To the east, Fairview Southdale Hospital is eight stories and 124 feet tall, and Southdale Medical Center is six stories and 92 feet tall. Therefore, the proposed five -story, 62 -foot tall building would be in character with the adjacent buildings. 2. The building includes a podium height of two stories along the street, which would give pedestrians on the sidewalks in front a feeling that the building is not as tall. (See page A46.) Comprehensive Plan Contemplates allowing a maximum of four stories with a podium height of two stories at the street. (See graphic on page A14.) 3. The proposed plan would meet the density requirement of a 1.0 floor area ratio in the RMD, Regional Medical District. • Is the proposed rezoning to PUD appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal to rezone the site to PUD is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Regional Medical," which allows medical uses, and limited retail. Through the PUD rezoning, the City has the ability to specifically limit the uses on the site to be consistent with limited 10 retail uses per the PCD -1 Zoning District to ensure that the uses can be supported by the parking provided. 2. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The building would be pulled up close to the street with a podium height of two -stories, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. Parking would be located in back. Landscaping and patios are also proposed in front, with store fronts opening toward France Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to utilize sustainable design principals, including a green roof. (See pages A24—A26, of the applicant's narrative that explains how this project meets the above purpose and intent of the PUD Ordinance.) 3. A floor area ratio of 1.0 or 100% would be consistent with the buildings and floor area ratios on the west side of France on 65Th Street. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development, and concluded that the traffic generated from the project would not impact the adjacent driveways or intersections. No additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the site redevelopment. (See traffic study on pages A73a—A101.) 5. 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. 6. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented 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. I1 b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a 5 -story, 62 -foot tall building on the site. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed height is consistent with adjacent buildings to the south and east. To the south, the Point of France building is 13 stories and 123 feet tall. To the east, Fairview Southdale Hospital is eight stories and 124 feet tall, and Southdale Medical Center is six stories and 92 feet tall. 2. The building includes a podium height of two stories along the street, which would give pedestrians on the sidewalk in front, a feeling that the building is not as tall. 3. The proposed plan would meet the density requirement of a 1.0 floor area ratio. Preliminary Rezoning to Planned Unit Development & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from POD - 1, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned unit development, and the Preliminary Development Plan. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The site layout would be an improvement over a site layout required by standard zoning; the building is brought up to the street, provides podium 12 height, and 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 brick, glass and concrete. A five story building would be generally consistent with the four story buildings on West 65" Street. 4. Traffic would be improved in the area by eliminating the right -in and out access on France Avenue. 5. Based on the traffic study done by WSB, the existing roadways can support the proposed development. 6. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto -oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. ■ Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. ■ Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front fagade. • Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. Limit driveway access from primary streets while encouraging access from secondary streets. Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. 13 Preliminary approval is subject to the following conditions: The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plans dated September 10, 2012. 2. A noise study must be done to demonstrate that the proposed mechanical equipment meets all noise regulations. 3. Sustainable design. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the Planning Commission staff report. 4. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. 5. The mechanical equipment/chiller must be relocated to meet the required 20 -foot side yard setback or screened so not to be visible from all lot lines. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated October 4, 2012. (Page A113.) 7. As part of a Developers Agreement the property owner would be required to participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements at 65 h Street and France Avenue. 8. Adoption and compliance with a PUD Ordinance for the site. 9. As part of any final approval, the applicant must enter into a Proof -of - Parking Agreement to add more parking if needed. Deadline for a city decision: January 1, 2012 14 City of Edina t,p dt87 6e496t� 1717 602' Kt6t046,i7 6/W 6/00 di 6116 �B1g1 Jrb7—Bf6S 8'01-8105 6}17.A iris V 6101 Jf 1 61716.1ydit!_O1Jf-N 6f IJ—(11fJ-t---f 6lH. r 6iT7-6t): 6110 S1f16fi6-Heuse itlJ Ol6 4100 f Sfte61n61N ws;sl 6t 6116.1115 Jt�_6f216tI1Ot10-6ttt6fbt-6flt 6111(1170-6'75-26118 G,N61Jdiy 6/b-p1J3- -. 61786!25612(-{ L6111-6125- LDgand Highlighted Fteb" Humaer Ukels Stttet HanesLbis 7N 6Nid1Q 6/N—`61Nsint t^ `OtJ161tt-61JJ611Y6t25�-612Jd12# 7d 7, JJti� �yJ6f 47e0 6J0/s7�70 6112 6761 6100 61016 N t U6s fps s +!77''25 fr6r f .. 1 SMTV6137 iMW .. .$fl �� fISOI--IJ1197tit-L6tddt 670566'156271 616567x1 61'0361'01 24 tp2 t$l 6711 6905—� 61x8 67896706 67036J0661846M QJ09 Jtly_1 6210. tNJ 6212 I • IU171 . t "1 NJf ]JM tay_ _I UYl Ufl—Uf1 i215'ut6 UlJ Utz BS1�U'16N7U17 2J N 6tTt� 6ip spa Part 2J ./ Lity Unift ❑Cooks !� t mes / Lite � Uk1s 12,00 �Ut6 J f f2(l 17M Utl— Ut9 67p J 6116 62 P a s ^6J]a �U�251fZ77 t2$ t d7?S-BJ78 163J1a3ID 871IJJOtp 6JN 61M 1t JIM f6pam W1 NUNi7�7 t--dt7i-- 6771U2f�,�f Jsr256221 6I256t2s 6JJ3�61Jf 3117' 1173 lJ75 6716! 6�t Y7JS ttJt_dJJ761+"��p61 �i$0 6pJJUJJ.U2JU7J 3}Of 61Ps 670137 7471 R19X16 69Cf6.i0a {,m'6J01 Aws, 6300 ❑ P.—Is 6wf '725 t ff S F58]d BA0)- JIN '1306101 UN"67Bd {Uf71UW U056701 61891 U t y ?ram- .f 1 f---f7Jt2J171f215r (q1J-'Uis UlJ1Uft F670d 6)tlyd'?DD F`I8 1705'13x1 6J1)OjtJ't2f7 1'711 Utz U"J'U16 JU76 Uft tU7J f...�yr 620' 0 63P/ J7N �i725tf207 iJIM K 6125'617! 63tSfU11 6716(1110 0 (O E.2U ? 17711'1708$ JIdT29j672J76)H 6"M2f�rf% 16175 ��ff/f 5111 6181 t —2s }yE JJ00 U20 sJ7) 6177 y18 0 tauwerJ7 11at�}5Eit0!` s$J N— �JMlt1101MLikFA66Lx A@M4Ir1i 0 2f 7J Jolt { „ J0K6fOt sass /0 ; i 6JS3 d 4315 Jt f[xf 5•W6575 N awes! sawatri 6u5 ssn 6ST1 6458 1117 6 7, ssts atxx 775a 6545 It Jj„3IM 9386 u17 l _ Qfl IM!(1eat �I ,�/t AFI 7' 8961 �— p/g'($� 3 411134 1AyJ $ p!1 8ir1 �'� � ti :I I Sxtr< 2910 y ��_�6a��JI a6At � 17101'1'1 �..�....._.. Lail Salla "M if 1108 �T u25 •ice--•� 6nJ 'J f7- (P' td !eri.vw i to pr o Pss low, .t6sr K ' l a7U t6N fft : a Nll am Aad 0[3YM�/)I pp.Ota6 6MJt OJ311fin 0101 UOJ tlx1 CBd3ti dd88aJaJJ' / �1 `6dKi N bola Ja01 1x66 em N AI(14�7 bl@s--sY86i 6- OU_J�w !'J; 6f l7Vti\� am e171� ®JJw.,tlt2 ,nm�dlp �� � sJ25 m7r_ 6ses am . JQJ s1a v.rm.-m--a.-.usszsaav �91s �d190J PID: 3002824140008 6 6500 France AveS Y. O -' ''. Edina, MN 55435 FM m Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories RM Hospitals, medical and dental Form -based design Regional Medical offices and clinics, and standards for building Floor to Area laboratories for performing placement, massing Ratio - Per medical or dental research, and street -level current diagnostic testing, analytical or treatment. Zoning Code: clinical work, having a direct Pedestrian circulation maximum of relationship to the providing of and open space 1.0 health services. General office amenities should be uses are permitted. provided for larger sites. OSP Applies to major parks and Performance and N/A Open Space and protected open space that is buffering standards Parks publicly owned. May not include for intensive outdoor all small parks, since some are recreation, parking. included in residential land use districts. PSP Applies to schools, large Performance and To be Public/Semi-Public institutional uses (churches, buffering standards determined - cemeteries) and semi-public uses for intensive outdoor may require such as country clubs. Some recreation, parking. review of small uses of these types may be large-scale integrated into other land use development districts. or institutional expansion LAH Expressways and access ramps NA NA Limited Access for two regional arterial Highway highways (TH 62 and TH 100) occupy land within the City to serve local and regional travel needs. *Floor -to -area ratio, or FAR, refers to the ratio of a building's floor area to the size of its lot. Thus, an FAR of 1.0 could mean a two-story building covering 50% of the lot; a 3 -story building on one-third of the lot, etc. Potential Areas of Change Among its many purposes, the Comprehensive Plan functions as a long range tool that attempts to anticipate where change and growth will occur in the City. Identifying those potential areas of change is an initial stage in the process of guiding new construction and redevelopment when it is proposed by private property owners. It is not an attempt to stimulate change, but to acknowledge that it may occur and be proactive in shaping it. Locations identified in this section appear to be areas where change may occur during the life of this Plan. Many of these areas were identified in a group exercise at Public Meeting #2 as Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-30 City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Date ofAsdal Photography: August 2006 Rgure 4.4 Conceptual Land Use Framework: Potential Areas of Change 0� 0 5 Mrks Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 A 17 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-33 l between offices and residential buildings. Edinborough is linked with the Centennial Lakes project by a network of pedestrian greenways. The following guidelines are directed toward creating successful mixed use environments. (Also see the; citywide standards for movement patterns, public spaces and built form earlier in this section.) 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. 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. ■ Encourage enhanced transit stops, including shelters, shade and seating where feasible. ■ Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc). 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. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4. Land Use and Community Design cC 4-47 3. Improve Connectivity in Large-scale Superblock Development. Internal and external connectivity. As part of redevelopment or expansion of large-scale sites, reintroduce an internal local street and pathway network that connects through the site and to suitable entry points at the perimeter. The goal is to encourage pedestrians to reach the site and drivers upon arriving to continue all further movement by foot. As a result, the capacity of internal roads can be reduced and more area devoted to amenities, providing still more incentives to walk. Bicycle facilities should allow residents in surrounding neighborhoods to bike safely to the site. Transit stops should be provided in visible and central locations. "Edge" or transitional uses. Moderately sized liner buildings should be encouraged to soften the edge of large-scale superblock development. Medium -density housing types such as townhouses combined with structured parking may also be an appropriate transitional use. 4. Provide appropriate transitions between land uses. Rather than discouraging movement between adjacent land uses with berms and fences, focus on creating elegant and attractive transitions between adjacent uses. Transitional areas include well -landscaped pedestrian walkways, seating areas, arcades, and other spaces that encourage public use, rather than separation. 5. Buildings Frame the Street. Building placement and ,heights can serve to define the streetscape and visually reduce the apparent width of the street. Generally speaking, wider streets can accommodate taller buildings subject to the height limitations described elsewhere in this Chapter. 6. Facade Articulation. Primary facades should be designed with a well-defined base, middle and top, providing visual interest at ground level. Building entries and access points should be clearly visible from the primary street. Long building facades should be divided into smaller increments using contrasting materials, textures, detailing, setbacks or similar techniques. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design AA 4-48 7. Transparency and Natural Surveillance. Building forms and facades should provide an awareness of the activity within the buildings through frequent doors and windows oriented toward public streets and open space. 8. Variety of Building Forms. Encourage an integrated mix of building types, heights and footprints within blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups. 9. Building Height Transitions. Taller buildings (generally four stories or higher) should step down to provide a height transition to surrounding residential buildings, including buildings across a street or pathway, and to avoid excessive shadowing of sidewalks, parks and public spaces. 10. Building Heights. The question of building height is particularly significant in a largely developed community, where any new building has the potential to block views or cast shadows on established neighborhoods and land uses. The design guidelines above, as well as the recommended building heights in Figures 4.6A, 4.6B, and 4.6C, provide general guidance for buildings that exceed the typical residential height of 2.5 stories: Edina already has many tali buildings, but not all of them provide the kind of transition outlined in Principle 9 above. Building height should be considered within the larger urban design context as illustrated in the photos below. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design /f 4-49 Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design ` 4-50 Because of the limited number of locations where tall buildings can be sited, and the need for sensitivity to surrounding uses, the following Height Maps have been established for those parts of the city with potential for higher density development. The maps were developed to specify the following height measurements: Podium Height: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design A r a 4-51 Standard Height: This height measurement extends to the top of the building (building height is measured as specified in the Zoning Ordinance). `Todita» height" bsrildirtg examples Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community DesignAi 4-52 L�emd LDR-Low C;+• YRce'�WA CR-Dmip ReYCen'wl WM Rss-Rib^af Metli ii MAR. Lon Deaslf Altxfled ReSiJi*fn: O-01fee ® CSP. Coo Spec."Pas MCA M fW:nD fYr qde" MKC.Mk dkx.0 ' t PHP-PAUSemPuW,, �; FDR Yt hIXr, lY ReSd acn j CAC Ca t{A L NCP4Y [71UH-Li ?ri A-55H,s W p _ !O-t��flodua3 Cara.mM -1•MdvdrlM } , a 3.5 u x 12 65t' r r 12 a OR 4 . r.: 2 . 3 8 8 HeidhtLimits 4 4 2a. 2 2 Stories: 2 4' u 3 Stories: 36x>�r- v 4 Stones: 48'-"""' ¢ E 5 Stories: 60 a ' ` 4 25 a Stories: g6' 2 2 w O Stones 12OF4ID2 12 Stones: 144' 4 J2 Standard Height IID ,; 9 £ HIK Pbdium Heigh m 4 f 4 OR 2 ! rnrnwt: Mr 12 OR U vT 5 y 7 g } Future land Use Plan with Ci of Edina Building Heights Southeast Quadrant �- 2008 Comprehensive Pian Update Figure 4.68 Data Source: URS 0.5 ANbs p r Aae q if p -ire s LV1M1' i iC. 'b �): P 04 i aae.. 4 : AL Iaa: n n «u ' m Page 1 of 1 nw EO EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA 6500 France Avenue South PROJECT SUMMARY September 10, 2012 AMIcOT #A A A Pert V Our development team is looking forward to working with the City of Edina to obtain the necessary approvals for the Edina Medical Plaza. Everyone will strive to make this building an outstanding addition to this regional medical area. Development Team These professionals are local business owners that live and work in the community. Architect: Edward Farr Architects, Ed Farr Long established firm that is strong on design concepts. Past projects include Normandafie Lakes Office Park and Two Twelve Medical Center Civil Engineering: Alliant Engineering, Mark Rausch Multi -disciplinary consulting firm focusing on transportation and land development services representing the public and private sectors. Developer: Mount Development Co., Stephen Michals Five medical buildings have been completed in the past 6 years for Ridgeview Medical Center. Owner: Aurora Investments, LLC, Luigi Bernardi Current medical building ownership; All "class A" buildings 7373 France Avenue, Edina 212 Medical Center, Chaska Multiple Buildings in Wisconsin Please contact Stephen Michals with any questions on this new building - 952-941-1383. No Site Area = 102,965 sq ft / 2.34 acres Property Guided per Comp. Guide Plan: RM Regional Medical, no change proposed Property Zoned: POD -1, proposed to P.U.D. Proposed Redevelopment: New Medical Office Building and Parking Ramp 5 stories, 102,478 gross sq ft / 96,500 rentable sq ft* with 4 level parking ramp. Proof of Parking, if needed — add 1 additional level (5 total) on parking ramp. *Not including partial basement mechanical equipment room. Proposed Occupancy: Medical Offices - 95,478 gross sq ft to 102,478 gross sq ft (93% - 100%) Medical Retail - 7,000 -gross sq ft to 0 gross sq ft (7% - 0%) Total - 102,478 gross sq ft (100%) Proposed Parking: Levels 1 - 4 = 423 stalls 4.13/1000 gsf Proof of Pkgr 1 add'I level = 125 stalls 5.35/1000 gsf Total possible parking = 548 stalls Building Setbacks: Med Office Blda Parking Ramp North 25'-0"/35'-0"** varies: 25'-0" min / 50'-0" max. South 30'-0" 20'-0" East 26-0735'-0"** 225'-0" West 226'-0" 15'-0" ** 35'-0" setback is above podium level Overview: Our revised submittal reduces the height of the medical building down from 89 ft (six stories bldg plus rooftop HVAC equipment) down to 62 ft (five story building with no rooftop HVAC). Note that our new five story / 62 ft bldg height is comparable in height to the previous submittal's Phase I / four story building height (including HVAC equipment); since the City Council recommended that we shouldn't build taller than that Phase 1 / four story proposal. Another difference in this submittal is that the project will no longer be 'phased'; we intend to construct the entire five story building. The building area remains similar, with our F.A.R. slightly below the 1.0 maximum identified for this Regional Medical District. To reduce the number of stories from six to five, we increased the size of each floor plan westward, towards the parking ramp, leaving room underneath for our service drive on grade. Also per the City Council's suggestion, we have eliminated the basement level of our parking ramp, and raised that level up above grade. The parking ramp will be constructed at four levels / 423 stalls to meet our anticipated parking demand. However, the ramp is expandable by one more level (+ 125 cars) for a total of five levels 1548 cars for proof -of -parking compliance. Planning Concept: As per our earlier application, joining the two parcels (6500 France & 4005 W 65th St) offer many advantages to the site layout. We are still adopting an urban, pedestrian -friendly, streetscape along France Ave by bringing the building forward to the street; as well as incorporating a 'podium' design effect by setting the building back above 2"� floor to maintain a comfortably -scaled pedestrian experience. The streetscape includes over - story trees along the right-of-way, a 10 ft wide sidewalk and decorative planters that contain colorful plantings (annuals, perennials and low evergreen shrubs). Vehicular ingress is available at two driveways along 65th St W.; and vehicular egress is available at three, pints from the site, dispersing the traffic more effectively. The main public vehicular entrance off of W 65th St leads to a visitor entry drop-off circle at the front door, as well as a dedicated delivery Pi area / loading zone for the building. Building Design: The building design will be an attractive facade using multiple colors of face brick, warm -toned architectural precast concrete wall panels with a variety of surface finishes, reflective bronze -tone Low -e glass in champagne painted aluminum frames and a small amount of EIFS decorative cornice trim. The main entrance located off of W 65th St serves as a visitor drop-off area for patients, and features a distinctive olazed crown with backlighting at night. The NE building corner at France Ave and W 65 St is still an important point of identity for the building, and has been redesigned with the upgraded corner design treatment as suggested in earlier city reviews. The corner plaza area will offer outdoor seating, and also coordinates with the City's initiative to upgrade the pedestrian experience at these corners. The plaza will have decorative surfacing treatment, planting areas and bollards behind the curb. Visual Screening for the Adjacent Properties: We will supplement the already mature landscape buffer between Point of France and our site with new coniferous trees and over -story trees along our south yard. The ash trees along this borderline with Point of France are approx. 35' — 50' tall, providing excellent screening for most months of the year. On the west, we will be improving the visual screening buffer for the apartment occupants by adding more evergreen trees. The existing outdoor trash dumpsters will be placed inside a dedicated trash & recycling room, screened from public view. Parking: The ramp has been re -designed to better complement the office fagade with a compatible multi -colored architectural precast concrete fagade. We are proposing to build four levels 1423 cars initially, which we feel will serve the building based on our experience. Later, if demand requires, we could build one more ramp level (Level 5 / 125 more cars), for a total possible parking count of 548. However, we are promoting many forms of alternative transportation in order to reduce conventional car parking demand; refer to our list at the end of this narrative. This will be a Pay -Park facility, similar to the Fairview Southdale Hospital ramp. Up to 20% of the parking may be compact car size; but we have not yet shown striping for these smaller stalls on our plan. New to our application is the alignment of the parking ramp levels to the medical building floors, in order to offer convenient pedestrian / wheelchair access from most levels of the ramp directly into the building. Required Parking - wl Retail option: Retail, 1st Floor - 7,000 GSF: 8/1000 + (6/1000 X 6000 GSF) = 44 Stalls Medical Office - 95.478 GSF: 1/200 + 1/3500 (Doctors) = 504 Stalls Total Required Parking = 548 Stalls Required Parking - no Retail: Medical Office - 102.478 GSF: 1/200 + 1/3500 (Doctors) = 542 Stalls Total Required Parking = 542 Stalls Provided Parking: Levels 1 - 4 Ramp 423 - Level 5 Ramp (proof of pkg) 125 Total Possible 548 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain: The existing properties located at 4005 65th St. W. and 6500 France Ave So. are currently encumbered by two public utilities:- an existing 12" ductile iron water main and 12" ductile iron sanitary sewer in the south quarter of the property. The existing water main and sanitary sewer referenced serve other properties and thus the continuity of those mains is required. A second 8" sanitary sewer line is located within the boundary of both properties but that line is in use only by the two existing buildings and thus does not need to remain if the proposed project is constructed. The existing 12" sanitary sewer along the southern property line of the 6500 France Ave property will remain as is. The proposed development does not require any modification to that line. The proposed plan is to construct a new sanitary service Wye in the existing line to provide an 8" service to the new building. The existing 8" sanitary service line to the 4005 building will be `cut off at the west side of the proposed parking ramp and will then be connected to the parking ramp for servicing the floor drains in the lowest level of the ramp. The existing 12" water main loop cutting through the site will be relocated and re-routed to the north side of the properties. A new 12" main will be installed northerly along France Ave., then westerly just to the north of the proposed building and ramp to the western edge of the property, then southerly back to the existing water main completed the new loop. It is currently proposed to directional bore install the water main on the east end of the site to avoid removal of the existing trees in that location. The east to west water main will be installed via direct bury as its proposed location can be installed without removal of the existing trees along W 65th St. An 8" water service is proposed from a tee off the re-routed 12" water main just north of the proposed building entrance. The proposed building service will enter the building in the corner west of the main building entrance. A new hydrant is proposed in the central entrance area of the new building off the proposed 8" service line. Stormwater Management: The proposed stormwater management storage facilities proposed for the Edina Medial Plaza project meets the requirements of Nine Mile Creek Watershed and the City of Edina. The three primary requirements that have been met are: 1. Volume retention onsite equivalent to 1" of runoff over the entire proposed site impervious surface. (Accomplished via underground storage and infiltration via perforated piping and rock bedding). 2. Water quality volume from entire site equivalent to runoff from the 2" type II storm event and 25 year sediment storage. (Retention volume counts towards WQ volume and remainder accomplished via additional underground storage and filtration via perforated piping and rock bedding). 3. Discharge rate control shall be provided so the proposed conditions do not exceed existing conditions for the 2, 10, and 100 yr storm events. The proposed site plan reduces by 8.5% the amount of impervious surface and thus proposed discharge rates are decreased automatically. The proposed plan is to maintain the same point of stormwater discharge from the properties as is currently present. A private storm sewer collection system will be routed from north to south through the central portion of the site collecting the majority of site runoff. The storm sewer will drain through a pretreatment device to the proposed underground storage system at the southern end of the site which will ultimately overflow to the existing flared end that will then continue to drain southerly to the Point of France pond. ' Landscape Design Strategies: The landscape design provides a mix of over-story, coniferous and ornamental trees, shrubs and perennials to create a vibrant display of cofor end foliage. We will attempt to preserve the four existing Honeylocust trees along France Avenue and eight of the boulevard Ash trees along W 65th St. Raised curbed planters are to be provided along France Avenue that will be planted with colorful, annual flowers. The perimeter of the Medical Office Building will be planted with a mixture of plant types to soften and compliment the building architecture. The parking ramp will be screened by existing and proposed conifers on the west and south sides. A trail and a gazebo will overlook the Point of France Pond to the south of the parking garage. The diversity of plantings will provide color variety and year round interest. In addition, the project is proposing to provide a green roof system on top, covering approximately 1/3 of our roof. This sustainable initiative will help reduce the heat island effect, reduce stormwater runoff quantity, as well as providing a nicer view down on our roof from the residents of Point of France building. Site Lighting: Decorative wall mounted lighting along France Av and W 65H' St frontages, and around the main entry area. Metal halide pole lights on top of the parking ramp with low - height, sharp cutoff features to eliminate light spill off our property; these are on timers. Site Signage: Building name / address at corner of France & W 651h St., and address above front entry. Possible tenant names on fagade based on City code. Directional signs at both entries along W 65t'St. Hours of Use: Normal Business Hours anticipated. Possible retail tenants at street level with extended and/or weekend hours. Zoning: Planned Office District 1 (POD -1), proposing to PUD, due to variances requested for building setbacks, building height and Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). Green Building Practices: Throughout all phases of the project - Design, Construction and Operation, we will use best practices of environmental awareness. All clinics and vendors will be educated on Reduce -Recycle -Reuse operations. We have a Green Building Practices Narrative with our submission. New to our proposal is the inclusion of a green roof area on top of our building, which can be enjoyed by residents on the north side of Point of France. Community Benefits from the New Protect 1. Our application is for a new five level medical office building. The 6500 France building and 4005 W. 65th Street buildings will be removed. Both law firms will relocate in the community and retain the current iobs. 2. This site provides outstanding visibility for medical clinics offering service to our community and support to the regional medical presence of the SW suburbs. This is consistent with the City Guide Plan of medical buildings along France Avenue which is an address easily recognized for patients. 3. The building is sized to have a critical mass of providers to allow cross referrals among the clinics. This is a key factor for the success of each clinic. 4. Edward Farr Architects is known for creating special building design features. This building is more than a traditional medical building. The focal point will be the glass and brick detail of the main entry corner. Numerous surface changes occur on each side of the building to create interest and shadow elements. City code specifies brick and glass. 5. We are striving to create a pedestrian environment along France Avenue with extensive flower gardens. TangleTown Gardens is the designer of these features, and their passion for unique colorful plants is shown in the enclosed photos. Colored concrete walks and accent lighting will make this area a pleasant visual experience. 6. Green Building Practices will be implemented for the three phases: building design, construction phase and long term operation of the clinics. The General Contractor has compiled a summary of the Green Practices we will pursue for each phase of the project. 7. The adjacent 4005 W. 65th land parcel will be included for a consistent regional medical master plan. This took substantial effort and negotiation with the building owner. 8. A portion of the building roof will have a vegetated green roof, with native wild flowers and sedum, to enhance the view down onto the roof from the neighboring Point of France building, as well as reducing our heat island effect and improving our stormwater runoff quantity. 9. There will be ongoing seminars with the clinics to evaluate methods and new technology for their clinics — Reduce consumption, Re -use materials, and Recycle waste. The benefit to the building will be reduced operating expenses and good stewardship of our business resources. 10. Alternative transportation is a key element of any project. A tangible goal will be to reduce the number of cars coming to the building which will reduce the parking stalls required to service the clinics. We have provided several successful alternate transportation systems: Designated premium parking spaces for "smart cars" Scooter, motorcycle, bike parking will be an enclosed space that is secure, well lit, and air tempered. We want these employees or patients to know they are recognized for their efforts. Employees may participate in the ZAP chip monitor system which will provide a monthly printout of number of rider days. There will be a calculation of carbon footprint poundage saved to each participant. Hour Car business has been evaluated for rental cars parked in the ramp. The established bus system will support the need around the hospital and shopping center for the hourly car rental. The MTC #6 bus line services multiple stops within 1 block of the building. Additional routes around Southdale are 515, 538, 539, 578, 579, 684. See the attached graphic 11. The estimated real estate taxes will be over two times the current revenue. The two existing buildings pay $144,000 and the fully assessed medical building will likely pay in excess of $380,000. 12. There will be over 100 new medical staff positions in the building. In addition, there will be 40-60 construction jobs over 12 months. 13. Storm water management will be improved through rate control and water quality, including our green roof. The current site has direct, unrestricted runoff. There is almost 8% less hard surface area in the new plan than the current buildings, which mean more green space for the community. 14. The current buildings have substantial deferred maintenance. The building exterior, landscaping and parking lot are ready for redevelopment. 15. The new development is using existing utilities and roads in the community. Urban planning considers this good stewardship to reuse existing sites with current infrastructure. 16. The new building exterior has been enhanced over code to create a significant Gateway image on this comer. - A focal point is the W 65th Street pedestrian corner - Detailed brick design on all four sides - Accent lighting along public street frontages - Special landscaping from Tangletown Gardens 17. Every business has a carbon footprint. We will provide information to each clinic to establish a "Carbon Impact Analysis." For the first two years we plan to have seminars for clinic managers discussing ways to reduce their impact and manage more efficiently. FayitGreen Company has set the model to challenge companies to purchase local products to reduce paper correspondence and conserve operational materials. 18. Ramp Enhancements All columns are clad in architectural precast panels - Architectural features add interest and shadow lines - Three colors and finishes to the precast panels create a variety of textures 19. The entrance traffic circle will have an area for a significant piece of art on the center area. We are planning a special commissioning for this feature. Final comment for the approval of the project The building size at 102,478 sq ft over five stories is very important to create a successful project. Market rents set the overall budget. We are projecting rents to be 20% higher than other buildings in area to absorb the land cost. Redevelopment is difficult when you are purchasing two older buildings. The value for the Developer on the acquisition of the two older buildings is the land. The viability of the development is based on the approval of the 102,478 sq ft project. Thank you for your review and consideration of this project. We are ready to move forward on this outstanding new medical building which will be an enhancement to your Regional Medical Area. } I i KVERN TOEN, RONN HOLM &ASSOCIATES, INC, CONSULTANTS IN ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS 27 March 2012 � oo , Steve Michals Mount Development Co. 10400 Viking Dr. Suite 160 Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 NOISE MONITORING REPORT: 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH Kvernstoen, Ronnholm & Associates, Inc. was retained by Mount Development Co. to measure noise levels at the property lines at the 6500 France location, and to verify the sound levels produced by the Rooftop Units (RTU's) on the proposed new building. To that end I traveled to the site on 3/16/2012 to perform statistical noise measurements at the locations shown on Fig. 1. Procedure Each measurement period was 30 minutes. The microphone was set on a tripod at the locations.shown on Fig 1. The meter used was a Larson -Davis precision noise level meter (SN #150) equipped with logging functions and a wind screen for the microphone. The meter was field -calibrated directly before and after the measurements. The temperature was 79 degree F, with very light breezes from the South. Barometric pressure was 29.3 inches Hg. Results Measurement results are shown in Table 1 on the next page. I have included several statistical measurements in order to show the variability of the traffic noise, although the only important number is the L50 metric. The L,a numbers 2444 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405 TEL 612.374.3800 - FAX 612.374.3133 • eMAIL info@kracoustics.com M 6500 France Avenue Noise Monitoring 27 March 2012 Page 2 refer to the percentage of time that the noise level was exceeded for that percentage of time. For example, the L50 of at the corner of 65th and France was 68.8 dBA, means that for 50% of the time the noise level was above 68.8 dBA. Results are as shown below: Only the noise level at location #2 is within the MPCA rules as expressed in Minnesota Rule 7030. The rules are as follows: Daytime (7:00 AM —10:00 PM): 60 dBA Nighttime (10:00 PM — 7:00 AM): 50 dBA also verified the projected sound levels at the south property line of 6500 France due to the two RTU's that will be located on the roof. This sound level is calculated directly in a horizontal line from the BTU's,or approximately 3 — 4 stories in the air. Sound levels on the ground would be somewhat lower because of shielding by the roof and parapet of the 6500 France building. My calculations of noise levels from the two RTU's corroborate those made earlier by the project mechanical engineer of 43 dBA at the closest property line to the South. The 43 dBA sound level at the property line is well within the daytime and nighttime MPCA rules. Given that the measured L50 is 55.6 dBA at that location, and that the spectrum from the RTU's will be similar to that of the traffic noise, the RTU's will not add at all to the noise levels currently on the site. Steven Kvernstoen L95 1-99 Loc'n 1. Li 76.0 L5 74.1 I—Io 72.9 1-5o 67.0 •o 58.4 57.2 55.2 dBA 2. 61.5 59.5 58.5 55.6 53.1 52.7 52.2 3. 76.0 74.2 73.0 68.8 62.7 61.5 59.5 Only the noise level at location #2 is within the MPCA rules as expressed in Minnesota Rule 7030. The rules are as follows: Daytime (7:00 AM —10:00 PM): 60 dBA Nighttime (10:00 PM — 7:00 AM): 50 dBA also verified the projected sound levels at the south property line of 6500 France due to the two RTU's that will be located on the roof. This sound level is calculated directly in a horizontal line from the BTU's,or approximately 3 — 4 stories in the air. Sound levels on the ground would be somewhat lower because of shielding by the roof and parapet of the 6500 France building. My calculations of noise levels from the two RTU's corroborate those made earlier by the project mechanical engineer of 43 dBA at the closest property line to the South. The 43 dBA sound level at the property line is well within the daytime and nighttime MPCA rules. Given that the measured L50 is 55.6 dBA at that location, and that the spectrum from the RTU's will be similar to that of the traffic noise, the RTU's will not add at all to the noise levels currently on the site. Steven Kvernstoen DECIBEL LEVEL GRAPHIC °° lu � �I 65TH STREET WEST ' r I ACTUAL READING AT FRANCE FROM iRA:flt � tW ' 6$_9119 Q W CC 105—TON E UNIT AIR HANDLER IZ ACTUAL READING AT FRANCE F 'f — - T66Ed9A GENERATED 0 h R M ACTUAL READING AT _ _ _ ",.� _ _ -- -- PROPERTY UNE FROM COOLING TOWER 1 '� 511t PROJECTED READING At PROPERTY UNE FROM NEW NYAC UNIT AldBA COOLING O O U to TOWER ,....,. r� PROJECTED READING Z AT POINT OF FRANCE LJ �"` ( BUILDING FROM NEW HVAC UNIT Ud6A arrr—� z DATA COLLECTION LOCATION NOTES: y i. JUST WEST OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE PROPERTY UNE POINT OF FRANCE Q BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE AND POINT OF FRANCE (Lw OF 6566 FRANCE AVE S O ADM 66 d6A. 60 dBA IS THE MPCA RULE FOR MAXIMUM DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS) / 2. ON THE PROPERTY UNE BETWEEN 6500 FRANCE AND POINT OF FRANCE DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE COOLING TOWER. (Lso OF ABOUT 56 dBA. THIS IS WITHIN THE MPCA DAYTIME GUIDELINES, BUT STILL CONSIDERABLY LOUDER THAN THE CALCULATED NOISE LEVEL OF 43 dBA FROM THE RTU) 3. JUST WEST OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF 65TH AND FRANCE (Lw OF ABOUT 66 d3A) 4. THE DECIBEL LEVEL NUMBERS ARE NOT CUMULATIVE. 0 25 50 100 � j SCALE IN FEET • SY w M, aaK locx Wi.- STaWs POINT OF FRANCE ALLMT mcwcrar+a-c:c DECIBEL EXHIBIT rarwicavc rarx smrr x. EDINA. MINNESOTA I Table of Contents Regional Map Existing Conditions Photos Colored Site Plw Rendering ofMain Entry Rendering ofPariang Ramp Entry Rendering of fien Northeast Caner Rendering ofMew filorn Scuthciist Caner Rmdcnng ofVicw firom Southwest Comer Rendering aMiew from Northwest Caner Randering ofNat1twestAxial RaideringrifNatteastAxial Rendering ofMiun FjyuyAcrtW A5.1 North Elewtion A5.2 South EL-vixtion A53 E= and Mkst Elevations Pedestrian Sidewalk / Podium Setback Building Height Comparison Minting Concepts Building Height Comparison - Camelia Place Ap-h-rits Building Hcqft Comparism . Fairview Soubd* Hospital Bwldmgl4cq* Co -M— - Point of Height Comparison - Sotith"c Medical Cart= Building HCqft Comparison - Soutfirlik Offio: Centre Muldirig Height Corripw"on -Twin City Ortho xd= Blin Routes Zap and Bike File How Car and Smart Expressions 6500 Rance Avenue Preliminary Development Plan, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Re -Zoning Permit Submittal September 10, 2012 EDWARD FARR AURORA EDIMA MEDICAL PL -A -7-A FEE ARCHITECTS INC 0- =--- m Nv 6Yw • . is l fi 3 1 3 •1 y • '"Ali VVVI// O t Lands 3/JN3�1 V 3ONV8-4 r t ■ IU III I 14 =z4" _ r VO O it cm LLJ 3` p � A� 4 5', ZA g :p r �' 1 • y p Y�c ENR 5 eft ({ d , t k " P y wc�`a�r r r`' �i '3 t TI k PSI s x 4 5', 5' 43t <U C4 O a 5 � 1 L � i r -now p } �Ra d i j t I View from Southwest Comer September 10, 2012 I EDWARD FARRMAURORA E ARCHITECTS INC DINA MEDICAL, PLAZA 1-1-1 0 e ,i 0 §. AWL ft'iO 1 , a �w - o ; f AP 1' I-tri, E7NpfU•A, fi 1 A.p. x..IOJOl N� MATERMLS LEGEPDO I FACE BIND n • PRLO x PACE SINCE n • WE 7 PACE IN= Y7 ACCW A ES0 COMM 0 PNECP.OT PCI coma 0 SNNOR Nwuerns CLASS N OAVAONE ALFA FRAMM F ANCNT. PC COC • LIMESTONE E OTwxf PC CONC M • to AGO TO WTO EMCIL M 0 OnNCT PC COC K • ACID RO TO WTO KAM M 10 START PC COC p • ACD 0TO TO WTO OPoCR h n ti come a TO W1O PRECAST COPOM v PNE@HiNED Larval n COCMATW WALL LCNT u Tkmauxcvn CROWN Wr STAMLFOt STEEL MPPW SI SULOFD AMM INAOM A LDNT P01l0. METAL NALDE R PNPMA® NLTAL PANELS a ORNAMENTAL COANORAL AURORA mnumT llMunNmTm. EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA RE -ZONING SUBMITTAL v9DE a—.- (DIIIA. MMIESOTA L..Ml far pr. flfY GNWL,,,, ITIy� y(•�(f,12L2� _-� NORTH ELEVATIONS 11.064 A5.1 ELEVAtIM/ -WITH TREES - sAu vswna' 1fq d rM er�rp rrtdn NMde`r�^�rr� ErtAbr^rrA, fbti E w r a. tLBL: Prsevn wn MATRWIAL3 tl6EfDf> I PACE WEEK h - P[LD 2 FACE NKK P2 • MEF 2 FACS SWICK h - ACCENT EFS CSWSCE S IgECAST = CNNCE S AGM ALTUPMMEB APS CLASS M T AACNl PC Cw - LIMESTONE t STRICT PC CONC n • Exp ACC TO MATCH SIC[ PI S STIAW PC CSNC •2 • ACID STC, TO MATO, N= " O STRICT PC DEC h - ACID ETM TO MATCH BACK 02 N MECA�ST iCAMATCH MSCE 12 PMSPN M LOW" D MCGWATIVE WALL UCWT L TWAH6lMCSNT —4 Wd STAWAEN STEEL W"NT IS SWAWA AD MN MAMM 1S LIGHT Mll. METAL HALIDE 9 PMPN6IED METAL PAMLS N ~MFWTAL GUAIbM0. AURORA i MMa+Mmwn4 F.LC uxmr nnTecr+rtdnrn EDINA WDICAL PLAZA RE -ZONING SUSAMTTAI NOG FMNCE AWEMJE BOUT" EDMAr MOMENTA s �I�i r'e_mHlttu_„ �m>o SOUTH ELEVATIONS 22°.22 I - 11.064 A5.2 till!ce 'i if if if yt:_^93 C fi ; a2CLmc�=4 a N 6 J I4 -1 +% Edina Medical Plaza Cornelia Place Apartments C_ 6500 France Avenue South 4105 W. 65th Street 5 Storics - 62' 4 Stories - 79' (41evel bwlding including gable roof) Building measurements to the highest point September 10, 2012 (' EDWARD FARREDINA MEDICAL PLAZA � AURORA � �) ARCHITECTS INC Echna Meclical Plaza Fairview Southdale Hospital 6500 France Avenue South 6401 - 6405 France Avenue South 5 Sto6es - 62" 4 & 8 Stories - 124' Building measurements to the highest point September 10, 2012 EDWARD FARR AURORA ARCHITECTS INC EDINA. MEDICAL PLAZA � 1- 4iI.� Edi—aMedical Plaza 6500 France Avenue South 5 Stories - 62' Building measurements to the highest point Southdale Office Centre 6600 & 6800 France Avenue South 6 & 7 Stories - 99' September 10, 2012 EDWARDFARR AURORA EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA � �-�-� ARCHITECTS INC r1) v Calendar CALENDAR December 2015 Page 1 of 2 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday I Thursday Friday Saturday 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 SB and PWB1 Dryland Session Inver Grove Eaaan Blue at 4:30pm-5:30pm 7:35pm-8:20pm CST Heights at Squirt B CST Crossfit Squirt B 8:00pm CST Hayes 7:00pm CST Eagan East Hayes Arena 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sauirt B at SS and SA Dryland Session Squirt B at Sauirt B at 7:35pm-8:20pm CST 9:45am-10:45am South St Paul 5:00pm-6:00pm Woodbury Lakeville CST CST Crossfit White North Red 7:10pm CST ECA - West Woog Wakota ECA- W 6:30pm CST 2:30pm CST Arena 2 Harding Arena Lakeville Ames 2 Tag(s): Squirt B Event Category: Meeting, Game 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SB and SC Wht SB and SA Dryland Rosemount SB and SC Wht 9:00am-10:00am 8:30am-9:30am 4:30pm-5:30pm Session Blue at Sauirt CST CST 6:10pm-6:55pm a CST ECA -E Hayes CST 7:15pm CST ECA -W Crossfit AVSA 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Scrimmage SB and SA SS and SA aaajn 5:45pm-6:45pm CST 8:00am-9:15am Shakopee Hayes CST 8:00am-9:00am Hayes CST STA 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 ,$B PWB1 and SB SB and SA 4:45pm-5:45pm 4:45pm-5:45pm 5:00pm-6:00pm CST CST CST AVSA Drake ECA- W Area Rinks http://www.eastviewhockey.net/page/show/526528-calendar 12/7/2015 Calendar Need to find your rink? Click here: AREA RINKS Page 2 of 2 http://www.eastviewhockey.net/page/show/526528-calendar 12/7/2015 Calendar CALENDAR January 2016 Page 1 of 2 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 Squirt B at Eagan Blue 5:45pm CST Eagan West 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SB and IOUB Woodbury SB and SA Wayzata Wayzata 8:00am-9:00am Black at Sauirt 6:00pm-7:00pm CST Freeze Freeze CST B AVSA Tournament Tournament STA 8:00pm CST All Day Event All Day Event St Thomas Plymouth Ice Plymouth Ice Academy Center Center 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Wayzata SB and 10UB Woodbury Freeze 7:30pm-8:30pm CST White at Tournament STA Sguirt B All Day Event 4:15pm CST Plymouth Ice Eagan West Center 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SB and solo SB and IOUA Sauirtacular Sauirtacular 8:00am-9:00am 5:45pm-6:45pm CST Tournament Tournament CST Hayes All Day Event All Day Event AVSA Schwan's Super Schwan's Super Rink Rink 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sauirtacular Squirt B at SB and SA Sauirt B at Tournament Farminaton 7:30pm-8:45pm CST Woodbury All Day Event Black CG- W Black Schwan's Super 6:30pm CST 5:40pm CST Rink Farmington Civic Bielenberg SC East Arena 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 SB solo http://www.eastviewhockey.net/page/show/526528-calendar 12/7/2015 Calendar 2:15pm-3:30pm CST Hayes Area Rinks Need to find your rink? Click here: AREA RINKS http://www.eastviewhockey.net/page/show/526528-calendar Page 2 of 2 12/7/2015 Calendar CALENDAR February 2016 Page 1 of 1 Sunday 31 Monday �I 1 Tuesday 2 Wednesday 3 I Thursday 4 Friday ` 5 Saturday 6 South St Paul at Squirt B 4:00pm CST Eagan West 7 14 8 15 9 16 10 17 11 18 12 19 [i3 20 Farao Sauirt Fargo Squirt International Tournament All Day Event International Tournament All Day Event 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Fargo Squirt International Tournament All Day Event Squirt B at Rosemount Blue 5:15pm CST Rosemount Community Center Squirt B at Inver Grove Heights 5:00pm CST Veterans Memorial West Farmington Black at Squirt B 3:20pm CST St. Thomas Academy 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 Lakeville North Red at SouirtB 6:00pm CST Hayes Area Rinks Need to find your rink? Click here: AREA RINKS http://www.eastviewhockey.net/page/show/526528-calendar 12/7/2015 LTI A�� Gal m General Information,._.....____..__... Why ZAP? A. Easy to Use An Dunce of Prevention Save the Planet Car Parking is Expenshre v ,� YRMM�IIks K=WJ 4C> I& DIKE RACKSIV WWtN•�OYO.GO{M ` r•vva.aal•t.7a-9 Maury organ --tion in the private, publicand nonprofit secu rs want to promote commuting by bike as an environmentally friendly and healthful transpodairon alternative. To gel bike commuting toning they arced a practical way to taffy and manage bike trip data. Deno has the solution -- Dero ZAP. Dem ZAP is a salar•powcred automated RFD (Raft raerprency identification) system with integrated hardware and solnvare. \,la a web -based interface to the Dom ZAP system software, participants are enrolled and registered with a unique RFID tag, The tamper -prod tags arc attached to the spokes of each participant's bike's front wheel. ZAP units mounted on steel poles around your campus identify registered bikes from up to 30 feet away. i WY,'W��Pd.Gt'Va I°�Ot7.3a7ia72� ;� I'riYi.A rw nvW.J Maw, cl The B(ke File is our most space elfident u -lock compatible product. Sturdy, slung hangers allow nine bikes to be securely stored in an eight -foot section while alloying for easy kWing and unloading of bil Ceiling mount, wall mount and floor mount options are available. e lYtWrle ra.GrYN t. r>°r*."7 4,7zw +}�J rriY hJ.Y «,"A j r'4— Car ownership is so yesterday. With HOURCAR you can reserve a car when you need it, drive it where you want to, let someone else worry about car payments, parking. Insurance, gas, and maintenance, and be an environmental superstar. At the same time) ITOURCAR Is the smart way to drive. HOURCAR offers t" Cs satin Jin Minneapolis and Saint Patti. rind out where your nenrest HOURCAR lies. and ign_np.UJ-4tato drive today, I t4UliC�kLC t i.. rn, ,. , , __.: r., ew. �a �i Le T�Ir,_� r�1i.L_„LriLC•Ir” Sct,rl G::rv:<_1;.2i t_t1JMntrrars�-;r.!m W.n•_n�t:nt•�•rn�sti:`uu�cexn`a� Nevarroer 2, 2011 On Malay, Htnie abar 14. HM=AR IS P„ia2£!@I s£fCM!2!I i�•r �..nn.,. .�. «roe,».n,,,na..a•N ao now ft” &MO e1 thef r!£.CM r aaW M to ae hM daemenlel 1"� K y the ae EWWL Cart' Spanaalad M ti&4h_F,mr K:t nr;:»rawa^amu :i. No spatial avant'ldiWa a pa•aaaaliq roapaon ale o pwM dWens n aaw se ftn wkh dbadwChft Pakw and fresh ErWW Eaaala.e D"Clar Mkted Nook. N0 --12L, It�FJ1Ll J34' L ILa_� ZUt S-1tRCP_uf1 io" .._. _.....____..,..,__...._� ^:t-°., Ytn:91nt14 I,11•+1y Odober4,2011 6�6 smart Expressions smart fortwo electric drive >> the next generation of smart �. . .- « ■ ! 16 e R!� . , ■ � . _._ m�2 J`■|��\\/�>!, § [! °z§■ md� a ■x J22»z- e \ [\! 5a�2% \)] }� \ .yl -a zq w.l\aw.,w.aa uw,s;.,\. a'F'aViL10.1\Ii6L\:. >u.o woq �� � �� ��� �� o hill � r�;•� LU iF 13i$ t s t� iefa `:i3i$4ti a jL Dt1N Igo � � .. --� F • rl --r��— i � - If 1 1 O O£j ; n 10 d7[ mv- 1 2 ail '; .o I �4� b o 1 r� 1 /�� r— h - I , ! - It ('�1 , Y r` "'�"•Vr�r� �,'».e. - rUl1 CC„ S.XG11 ,�`��n0. CrM S.Fkti - �WrottC CItlStMO mC T. ,_ ' '.. ip.5t1.00 `.. .' ,�.. ,'1.�+.»—•` ��ea LI .l 0.'m f.,• 1 �`- � o-bs �e 2 _ t I ------------ ., 7 WG .« j .pq AI MY A ANT .., n. NI IMS IVSLI SIN� 41 • „^ I pCVtlK CiNC 1T''� A0XSCCUTA91PlF VµIS. ['4 E F #SVOYC , ,.n Illltlt Aq%� � 14t:RV A S }d «,. i I� :"�` .. y. -w:. b ---n _..,..a.x=a—.,--n •_.w—_^ ' ''S$7 r _ 1 �� �^ K1VMf1 fV4Y1 DINA MEDICAL N PLAZA r �� I Y. u ^ E s _ R1-111114. —ZONING 4 \. a' ' .... 4x9.5t•3Y[ A° w...... < " '` ) eI+AY. Ma 5.. I 4c�cChf'tl 6500 TTMINCE AVENUE SWTM a ..,w � .. ,v. •� EDINh MINNESOTA .vAurx ,pNr iP YG •6 „ � � 1,'.',�' � � e � ' PMO'CCT C>a51Nc IIICG 5 "" •' REMOVAL NOTES: GENERAL NOTES: LEGEND: ,» DU _ ._�—.— �«.... _.�..� »,......... fa».....^..er...»».......»•,...».gym..^. :;::o��� .:«.�....,.,,.» ,.»,.�,�""S°s"1„....^;" ,r.». .w>�..,...:.»:.k -- EXISTING CONDITIONS w �ANDEMOPAN ,�,� _..mm.m. Rm,�.��. `.� � ✓ �r S • �..,..,.� tlm..m� ,..>w^...w, rl , n m.w..m M ..» », a "� 71.054 a »K.«...,..+;,r e � 4f0 T r,rt Ylw, M. cwc 9_' UQLIARD_RETA,IL [nt moi” R61] CI:RR 4ND •CUTTER M I2� I'tN �'C•T� - • J l�I :ax,ww nu TYPICAL CMP ROpC BEDDING DETAIL cu.0 ' • • � Iw>I w c uu 4TERM R -A ht w ^in[at + fCNCRETE �yAtK CFCTIQN ti�r',trt Narw�wN _ b,t 4n vM' MI�ICRFTC 0RN[WAY G[CT�ON TR[C PLANTING DETAIL ldAWJ0UAWr MAL H0W_0_p 11ILSPOW") LQLLd1IlGL2�4�iDON AAANAOEilAR 6@ABUiE� ®1081DN COIJ1190L RNRIw p � urv.ncu,.mc ALLIANT F\r:INYRN.'ll, INC. 11I -ARK Avlt- Wttl 1 4VITN vn 1MN8W,I-W MN -111 19 I.NK'. -11 - MAX 1- 1+'i 1 I41llNT III t'MI IKNI EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA RE -ZONING SUBMITTAL 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA DETAILS 11.064 C2.0 M~" • .w..r„w....,«,r. "r�� ;�"�� ��"'°o q,r1. t `�""' e,,. W. 4ti....P, m„N.n, ^�^ a•N ..,. u.uN.u,xu an... .. M- '"Y".+r"...'.`r ,,...Ar,...ur,. INLET PROTECTION - CATCH INLET PROTECTION FOR BASIN INSERT AFTER CURB CATCH BASIN BEFORE CURB ROK ONSTRU TION FNTRAN STANDARD 4! T R'NO QQIgg7g, UTITIQN ON5T3UOTION »K.«...,..+;,r e � 4f0 T r,rt Ylw, M. cwc 9_' UQLIARD_RETA,IL [nt moi” R61] CI:RR 4ND •CUTTER M I2� I'tN �'C•T� - • J l�I :ax,ww nu TYPICAL CMP ROpC BEDDING DETAIL cu.0 ' • • � Iw>I w c uu 4TERM R -A ht w ^in[at + fCNCRETE �yAtK CFCTIQN ti�r',trt Narw�wN _ b,t 4n vM' MI�ICRFTC 0RN[WAY G[CT�ON TR[C PLANTING DETAIL ldAWJ0UAWr MAL H0W_0_p 11ILSPOW") LQLLd1IlGL2�4�iDON AAANAOEilAR 6@ABUiE� ®1081DN COIJ1190L RNRIw p � urv.ncu,.mc ALLIANT F\r:INYRN.'ll, INC. 11I -ARK Avlt- Wttl 1 4VITN vn 1MN8W,I-W MN -111 19 I.NK'. -11 - MAX 1- 1+'i 1 I41llNT III t'MI IKNI EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA RE -ZONING SUBMITTAL 6500 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA DETAILS 11.064 C2.0 M AAAA-M&I all 4d, I 951IN i 99! it s, LU 9L Lu 0 R , iWT A if dd it >aegf�l i e (s y 930, E�A Al Fr xi It M AAAA-M&I all 4d, I 951IN i 99! it s, LU 9L Lu M AAAA-M&I all 4d, I 951IN i 99! it s, fill, 9L Lu 0 R , iWT A if dd it M AAAA-M&I 4d, I 951IN i 9L Lu 1 �Fins" e�noe iron sr�. or,&M ■119woi COME ■1,cr®i Ileta�ss�l our®�i f -i 1 l� - i C `mow ln E wy� FHH�ii Q �3f tt63� n i �C i ZI- ?Z i9Y..�II� i :Si �eIW2N=Y mu n�hr N nN� ivaln ss.i-. 1 �33�� fie s wiff if tit 5 f � a N } 2a M. Y L8 S 3ya F� c y LL , k --Do y - tM Ya ais o•s .Au,ouiv+••a Baa a3�\wu waW[roiiluaa�x anm� bwa �Fins" e�noe iron sr�. or,&M ■119woi COME ■1,cr®i Ileta�ss�l our®�i f -i 1 l� - i C `mow ln wy� �33�� fie s wiff if tit 5 f � a N } 2a M. Y L8 S 3ya F� c y LL , k --Do y - tM Ya ais o•s .Au,ouiv+••a Baa a3�\wu waW[roiiluaa�x anm� bwa f -i 1 - �33�� fie s wiff if tit 5 f � a N } 2a M. Y L8 S 3ya F� c y LL , k --Do y - tM Ya ais o•s .Au,ouiv+••a Baa a3�\wu waW[roiiluaa�x anm� bwa U l' leki g (/ FQ x 1 `.1F( �. V 21 + t t '(1 fill!; I it .1' :• ° s �§Y5� E� � a � � IIy� i 6 4 nfags III ga �. �• s� e,: � F� f T ?� Z` �, � Yui Y e qq ¢¢ i jj€rr€ q ngrnqil. qyq pp 3 k 1 Ct E:e 3u GT .�lTb kit 51 al `} Vej xn a giY ` # 9 � 8 IS! }� ■� , 9 €$ yy Ys ypgs c [s[ y t5 a f� t .e. t �y •p5\s�»s-Amloul"MA.1.avau two.o ... U --o. yy � yy £YYY �3i �nIW 2E . i I i 4 O_KUN U l' leki g (/ FQ x 1 `.1F( �. V 21 + t t '(1 fill!; I it .1' :• ° s �§Y5� E� � a � � IIy� i 6 4 nfags III ga �. �• s� e,: � F� f T ?� Z` �, � Yui Y e qq ¢¢ i jj€rr€ q ngrnqil. qyq pp 3 k 1 Ct E:e 3u GT .�lTb kit 51 al `} Vej xn a giY ` # 9 � 8 IS! }� ■� , 9 €$ yy Ys ypgs c [s[ y t5 a f� t .e. t �y •p5\s�»s-Amloul"MA.1.avau two.o ... U --o. yy � yy U l' leki g (/ FQ x 1 `.1F( �. V 21 + t t '(1 fill!; I it .1' :• ° s �§Y5� E� � a � � IIy� i 6 4 nfags III ga �. �• s� e,: � F� f T ?� Z` �, � Yui Y e qq ¢¢ i jj€rr€ q ngrnqil. qyq pp 3 k 1 Ct E:e 3u GT .�lTb kit 51 al `} Vej xn a giY ` # 9 � 8 IS! }� ■� , 9 €$ yy Ys ypgs c [s[ y t5 a f� t .e. t �y •p5\s�»s-Amloul"MA.1.avau two.o m --------------- _____________ _ --------- ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i I I ' 1 I ' 1 ' 1 ' I I ' 1 ' 1 1 I I i I 1 ' I ' I I 1 ' 1 I PAPKIlG DECK ABOVE (NC LOWEP LEVEL) I ' ---------------------------------- 1 ' I i 1 ' I ' I I I ' 1 ' I 1 I ' i I I I I �l 1,AURORA In.r.rmmm., LLC EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA RE -ZONING yS�U;;B;M_.I_TT�AL HW'HANG AVENUE SOM EWA. MUWSOTA Nrr uaettza_. armraslz.._ LOWER LEVEL PLAN 11.064 A2.0 Hinos 3nAGA V 3ONVS-4 m $ \ \ ( \ \ j. \ }§OL .me! Q I | m � A GI w` \ \ ! of 2 Z) \ & > ho S) � m Icq 42 � m ; m t137 __»_ .,.,._.._.....r.....�__._.._______...�._..........�_.�___.._..._. SOVTN FI.EVATgN - WR11 S %4 /� SOLRN ELEVATMlI�WIii1WT TREES r LtlRara,A, Farr Gale m R.O, xe.1b4u7 6romvM .+• MATERIALS.. LEGENOU I FACE NICK RI • MD t FACE WCC K • EASE O PACE SWCK " • ACCENT 4 EDS CORNICE E PRECAST PH;) COMM S IH MAC L LUM FRAMEES E T ARCH% PC CONC • LOWSTO E E SWUM PC CONC P1 • EPP ACG TO MATCH BRICK n E STWJCT PC CM M - ACID ETCH TO MATCH SINCK P2 IQ SWROT PC CONC RS - ACE ETCH TO MATCH SMG! Pa O PC cow P4 To w P ECAS7 COMCE TCN 12 PR6F14sm LOUVER U DECDRATPHE WALL UCIR N TRANW.USC4R CROWN WI STARLESS STEEL SUPPORT H SJWM ADDRESS NMSSERS IS LEM POLES, METAL MLEE 17 PRFAMEm METAL PANELS 19 ORNAMENTAL CUAM MIL AURORA ;` m.�ar.PmlR.la.r, n+ T twcl+I umeo,Hr 5.. EDINA MEDICAL PLAZA REZONING SUBMITTAL O FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH NOMA, MSNMMTA SOUTH ELEVATIONS noes A5.2 =... _ 2 FACK MM -2 MAN r FU 4 Fps comm ,.x �i:whx... ..^.,}' °fy�r`n. .,- b.. i-•_.. �r.ti+txj^ }ll r�ww. ..>.� -ku; r®�... .�_. �. � ! ® s: •Mrw�MM•MOMwY1�5WIduRr � MIJEJ L rI L w M A Sgt.. EDINA MEDICAL - •'�4, w.. ,.N..q..; .'":" ..„-^b^^^^.� .'.""—dss-^..^..r. ®.. "§ 77 t i ui E PLAZA .w��f� © 1 _, _..,...vim,.. .,... ,,..� _.w ..... ...... ,....,�..._�.._s ._.....�,.e .�_....... A AND WEST �!EAST 11.084 A5.3 I�/�� Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning a Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South �/ j/ Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 & Issori✓rer. /m Tel: 763 5414800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum DATE; October S, 2012 To: Mr. Carp Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Public Works Director City of Erlina FROM. Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE. Revised Edina Medical Plaza — 6500 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-29 Background Traffic and Parking Studies were completed in April and June 2012 documenting the anticipated traffic impacts the proposed redevelopment of the 6500 France Avenue site redevelopment would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site and proposed redevelopment has again been revised. This memorandum provides an updated review of the traffic and parking impacts, based on the revised site plan and development proposal. The proposed site redevelopment has been revised to include reconstruction of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65"' Avenue site with a five story 102,000 sf leasable medical office building with an attached 3 story parking structure. The previous ultimate full build -out proposal included the same building area in a six story structure and a 5 level parking ramp. All access to the development site will be the same as the previous proposal and will be provided from two full movement access locations on 65'h Street and one right -out access location to France Avenue. Traffic Impact Anal}psis The traffic impacts of the existing and anticipated redevelopment were evaluated at the site access locations as well as the primary impacted intersections and driveway along 65`1i Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The analysis completed with the previous study would apply to the current proposal. The results from that study documented in the June 201h, 2012 traffic analysis memo are outlined below. The proposed site redevelopment includes primarily medical office and supporting uses. The ultimate frill build of the site is anticipated to generate 3227 trips in a day, 352 trips in the AM peak hoar and 305 trips in the PM peak hour. A 73q Revised Edina Medical Plaza "traffic Study City of Edina October 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3 ■ Traffic operations at the intersections and driveway on 65`" Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road will remain the same with or without the proposed ultimate site development. ■ Traffic operations at the proposed site driveways will operate at overall LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours with the worst movement operating at a LOS C. ■ The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact to the adjacent driveways or intersections will occur as a result of the proposed ultimate site development. Parking Demand Analysis The parking demand for the proposed redevelopment was analyzed based on the anticipated uses on the site. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generalion Manual, 4"' Edition. Table 1 below shows a summary of each potential uses, the estimated parking generation rate and what the anticipated peak parking demand would be for a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case condition for the parking on the site assuming the proposed uses. The current City Code would require a total of 548 parking spaces for the proposed ultimate development. Currently the proposed site development plan includes 423 spaces in a three (3) level parking ramp. Additional "proof of parking" of 125 spaces is proposed by adding one level to the parking ramp. Reviewing the ITE Parking Generation summary in Table 1, the proposed development plan will be providing approximately 40 parking spaces fewer than that recommended for the proposed uses. It should be noted that the generation rate for the Coffee Shop and Medical Retail does not include "dual purpose" trips, which would result in a reduction Of tip to 80% of total trips to these uses based on ITE data or approximately 44 spaces, bringing the total parking spaces required at approximately 419 spaces. Table I — Site Parking Demand Use Size Rate Spaces Full Build ._------------ ------ -------------------------- ---------_.__.____-- --------.__--___.------_- Medical Office 95,478 sf 4.27 spaces/ksf 408 Retail _ _ _ 5,800 sf. 5.40 spaces/ksf - -- 32 ---------------------------- _Medical Coffee Shop_1,200 sf 19.31 s aces/ksf 23 Total Full Build 463 419 (xxx) = Total with dual purpose trips In addition parking the parking demand was also analyzed for a mix of medical office, medical retail and general retail or 100% medical office on the site assuming the ultimate build out of the development. Table 2 shows a summary of the potential alternative uses and what the anticipated parking demand would be for each on a typical weekday. The total A7313 Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic Study City of Edina October 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Table 2-Altern ative Use Farkiirg Demand Use Size Rate Spaces Alternative 1 Medical Office 95,478 sf 4_27 spaces/ksf 408 Medical Retail 7,000 sf 5.40 s aces/ksf 38 Total Alternative 1 446 416 Alternative 2 - - - -----._... - _ - --- -- -- _ - - - -- - -- - ----- ------------------------------- Medical Office 95,478 sf 4.27 spaces/ksf 408 General Retail 7,000 sf 3.16 s aceslksf 23 Total Alternative 2 431 413 Alternative 3 -------------------------- ------------ - ._...._... - Medical Office -------- ----------- - -- - - -- 95 478 sf - - ' - - - 4.27 spaces/ksf 408 - ._..__... .._.. Bank 7,000 sf 5.67 s aces/ksf 40 Total Alternative 3 448 (418 Alternative 4 - ---- -- - - -- -- --- -- ---------- ----------------------------- - -- -- --- _ - - Medical Office 102,478 sf 4.27 s aces/ksf 437 Total Alternative 4 437 (xxx) = Total with dual purpose trips The results of the parking analysis, assuming that parking for the dual purpose trips would not be needed concludes that the parking proposed with the redevelopment site plan (423 spaces) would be adequate for any mix of medical office and medical / general retail uses on the site. However, if the site was 100% medical office the site would require an additional 14 spaces. A 73 A � Infrastructure • Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction WS 701 701 Xenia Avenue South #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 AA.c iatex.im, Tel: 763541-4600 Fax: 763-541-1700 Memorandum DATE: Jnne 20, 2012 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Public Works Director City of Edina FRom Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE. Revised Edina Medical Plaza — 6500 France Avenue Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-29 Background Traffic and Parking Studies were completed in April 2012 documenting the anticipated traffic impacts the proposed redevelopment of the 6500 France Avenue site would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site and proposed redevelopment has now been expanded to include the 4005 651h Avenue site located to the west of 6500 France Avenue. This memorandum provides an updated review of the traffic impacts, based on the revised site plan and development proposal. Access to the existing sites is currently provided at two (2) fiill movement driveway locations from 651h Street to each property (four driveways). The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site redevelopment includes reconstruction of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 651h Avenue site to provide a six story 102,406 sf (96,500 sf leasable) medical office building with an attached 5 story parking structure. The primary uses in the building will include 90% medical office and 10% medical related retail. It is proposed that the development will be constructed in phases. The first phase will include 4 stories of the medical office building and 3 stories of the parking structure. The traffic analysis included in this study evaluated the ultimate build of the site as a worst case condition. The parking demand includes an analysis of both phase 1 and the ultimate development scenario. All access to the new development site will be provided from two frill movement access locations on 65t1i Street and one right -out access location to France Avenue. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the existing and anticipated development were evaluated at the site access locations as well as the primary impacted intersections and driveway along 651h Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. pt Revised Edina Medical I'laza Traffic Stud} City of Edina June 20,2012 Page 2 of 9 Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: 65"' Street is an east -west city street with numerous access driveways. The existing roadway configuration includes a single lane in each direction with a continuous center left turn lane (three lane section). All the driveway access points are controlled with stop signs, stopping the exiting movements from the developments. The two primary intersections along the 65'' Street corridor are at France Avenue and Valley View Road. Both France Avenue and Valley View Road are classified as "A" Minor Arterials providing regional access to the area. Both intersections are controlled with Traffic Control Signals. The lane configurations at each are as follows. 65'h Street at France Avenue SB France Ave approaching 65`h St — one through/right, two through, one left NB France Ave approaching 65'h St—one through/right, two through, one left EB 65"' St approaching France Ave — one through/right, one left WB 65`h St approaching France Ave — one right, one through/left 65"' Street/TH 62 off ramp at Valley View Road SB Valley View Rd approaching 65'h St — one through, one left NB Valley View Rd approaching 65`h St — one through/right, two through EB TH 62 off ramp approaching Valley View Rd — one free right, one through/left WB 65'h St approaching Valley View Rd — one right/left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted along 65'h Street at each access driveway, the intersection of France Avenue at 65"' Street and the intersection of Valley View Road at 65"' Street/TH 62 off ramp the week of February 20"', 2012. Figure 3 shows the intersections and driveways along the corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study and, Figure 4 shows the existing 2012 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the existing lane configuration. The traffic count data is included in the Appendix. Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed ultimate redevelopment is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic are based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Alanual, 8"' Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM. peak hoar trip generation for the proposed site. It was also assumed that the makeup of the development will be services that complement the primary proposed medical office use, such as the coffee shop, barber shop and medical supply uses. For this reason, the development traffic generation was adjusted for internal dual purpose trips. It was also assumed that all the traffic from the site would be new traffic to the roadway system and no pass-by/diverted trip factors were considered. Al�- Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic Study Citv of Edina June 20, 2012 Page 3 of 9 Table I - Estimated Site Trip Generation Use Size (KSF) ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Coffee Shop 1.20 492 246 246 141 72 69 49 24 24 Barber Shop 1.00 22 11 11 l 1 0 1 0 1 Audiology 3.50 126 63 63 8 6 1 2 12 1 3 9 Medical Goods 4.00 360 180 180 13 8 5 34 17 17 Medical Office 86.80 3136 1568 1568 1 200 158 42 300 81 219 Dual Purpose -trip Reduction Total New Tris 1 910 3227 455 1613 1 455 1613 11 1 352 1 7 1 237 4 1 114 1 91 305 197 29 62 208 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition Background Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed development will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other growth and development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts on in the area traffic has stayed constant or dropped in the past few years. In order to account for some background growth in traffic a .05% per year factor was applied to the through traffic on 65`x' Street, France Avenue and Valley View Road. Trip Distribirtioir Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: 25% north on France Avenue 20% south on France Avenue 10% from the Hospital across France Avenue 10% north on Valley View Road 5% south on Valley View Road 30% from west on TH 62 44 Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic Study City of Edina June 20, 2012 Pave 4 of 9 Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2014, which is the year after the proposed site would be filly developed. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic to the existing 2012 traffic counts then adding the anticipated site traffic to the system based on the traffic distribution outlined above. Figrtre 5 shows the projected 2014 AM and PM peak hour traffic volume. Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections of 65`h Street at France Avenue, 65°i Street at Valley View Road, the existing driveways on 65th Street, the proposed development site driveways on 65`h Street and the right -out only site access to France Avenue. This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a stunmary of traffic operations. Atralysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Higl1117cn, Ccrpacitj, Alcinuctl 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. W Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic Study city or Edina June 20, 2012 page 5 of 9 Table 2 - L:tersectiorr Level of Serisice Ranges Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terns 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. 471 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A 5f0 <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 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 terns 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. 471 Revised Edina Medical Plaza'rraffic Study City of Edina June 20, 2012 Page 6 of 9 Existing Level of Service Stimmary Table 3, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the two primary intersections on 65`t' Street as well as the existing site driveways and adjacent development driveway based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operation at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS D or better. A table showing the IAS and delays by approach is included in the Appenrliti. T. -Ah, 3 . Fril'thm, level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecast Trak Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the area for 2014 which represents the year after the proposed redevelopment is planned for completion. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 4. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service after the redevelopment as prior to the redevelopment. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. T„R►., d _ FW1 R«ild f2ll14) Redevelonnrent Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) LOS (see/veh) 6511i Street at France Ave C (D) 24 B (D) 17 651h Street at Valley View Rd B (D) 13 B (D) 11 65" Street at 6500 Site A (A) 1 A (B) 1 Driveway 65 Street at 4005 Site A (A) 1 A (A) 2 Driveway 65" Street at Adjacent A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Development Driveways C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecast Trak Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the area for 2014 which represents the year after the proposed redevelopment is planned for completion. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 4. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service after the redevelopment as prior to the redevelopment. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. T„R►., d _ FW1 R«ild f2ll14) Redevelonnrent Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (see/veh) 65`” Street at France Ave C (D) 25 C (D) 20 65"' Street at Valley View Rd B (D) 15 B (D) 16 65` Street at West Site A (B) 2 A (B) 4 Driveway 65` Street at East Site A(C) 3 A (C) 4 Driveway France Ave at Right -out Site A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Driveway 65'h Street at Adjacent A (B) 2 A (B) 2 Development Driveways C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic Study Cit' of Edina June 20, 2012 Page 7 of 9 In addition the study area analysis, the anticipated site traffic was added to the City's Southeast Area Transportation Model to determine if any regional impacts would occur with the proposed redevelopment. The projected traffic was distributed to the regional roadway system and no additional traffic operation issues were identified as a result of this proposed development. Vehicle Qiieiiing Anallsis A queuing analysis for both the existing and future 2014 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at the driveways and intersections on 65`x' Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing and future 2014 conditions, the average queues in the corridor do not exceed any of the available turn lanes storage. In some cases however, the maximum queues were exceeded. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In most cases the queues exceed the storage in the continuous left turn lane, therefore only blocking the adjacent driveway and not impacting through traffic. Based on the analysis none of the anticipated average queues or maximum queues on 65`x' Street will back up or block either the France Ave or the Site Access intersections. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement and approach are included in the Appendix. Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on proposed uses on the site for phase 1 and the ultimate development of the site. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Alanual, 4'i' Edition. Table S below shows a summary of each potential uses, the estimated parking generation rate and what the anticipated peak parking demand would be for a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case condition for the parking on the site assuming the proposed uses. The current City Code would require a total of 382 parking spaces for phase I and 563 parking spaces for the proposed ultimate development. Currently the proposed site includes 306 spaces in a three (3) level parking ramp with the phase I initial development. Additional "proof of parking" of 234 spaces is proposed by adding two (2) levels to the parking ramp with the full build out of the site. The ultimate total parking available would be 540 parking spaces. Reviewing the ITE Parking Generation summary in Table S, sufficient spaces would be available for the anticipated site parking demand for phase I and fill build out of the site with the additional two parking levels. A16 Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffic: Study City of Edina June 20, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Table S - Site Parking Demand Use Size Rate Spaces Phase 1 Medical Office 86,850 sf 4.27 spaces/ksf Medical Office 58,950 sf 4.27 s aces/ksf 252 Medical Retail 6,550 sf 5.40 s aces/ksf 36 Total Phase 1 _ _ - Medical Office - -------- ..._ - - --- 288 Full Build --- ------------ Bank 9,650 sf 5.67 s paces/ksf 55 Medica( Office 86,850 sf 4.27_9 aces/ksf 371 MedicalRetail 9,650 sf 5.40 s aces/ksf 53 Total Full 1. Build Total Alternative 3 424 In addition parking the parking demand was also analyzed for a mix of medical office and general retail or 100% medical office on the site assuming the ultimate build out of the development. Table 6 shows a summary of the potential alternative uses and what the anticipated parking demand would be for each on a typical weekday. Table 6 -A Iternalive Use Parking Demand Use Size Rate Spaces Alternative 1 Medical Office 86,850 sf 4.27 spaces/ksf 371 General Retail 9,650 sf 3.16 s aces/ksf 31 Total Alternative 1 402 Alternative 2 ...... ----- ------ - -- - -- - -- -- _ --- .._..-.__............ _ _ - Medical Office - -------- ..._ - - --- 86,850 sf 4.27 sp_aces/ksf - ---- - - _ - - --- - - - - 371 - - --- ------------ Bank 9,650 sf 5.67 s paces/ksf 55 Total Alternative 2 426 Alternative 3 -_.._._--_------__...------------------........_--------- ------------------ -------------------------------..._--- Medical Office 96,500 sf 4.27 s aces/ksf 413 Total Alternative 3 413 The results of the parking analysis conclude that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for any mix of medical office and general retail uses on the site, for both phase I development and the ultimate planned 540 parking spaces and proposed building size. Revised Edina Medical Plaza Traffie Study City ol'Edina June 20, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed site redevelopment is proposed to constructed in two phases and include primarily medical office and supporting uses. The ultimate fill build of the site is anticipated to generate 3227 trips in a day, 352 trips in the AM peak hour and 305 trips in the PM peak hour. ■ Traffic operations at the intersections and driveway on 65`r' Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road will remain the same with or without the proposed ultimate site development. ■ Traffic operations at the proposed site driveways will operate at overall LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours with the worst movement operating at a LOS C. ■ The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact to the adjacent driveways or intersections will occur as a result of the proposed ultimate site development. ■ Although the available parking does not meet the City's Code, based on ITE parking generation estimates the phase I development parking of 306 spaces and ultimate development parking of 540 spaces will be adequate for the anticipated site parking demand. Based on these conclusions no additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the proposed site redevelopment. 4 t d� < N Q 760 ft 1403 ft 75th Ua AI Traffic Impact Study Figure t e Revised Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) Minnesota Pro'ect Location Map •�.�..� City of Edina, Mmn 1 rsrua�scwye � 7 -40411 40*6. .ares.. Site Plan t 6500 France Avenue EDWARD FARR ARCHITECTS INC FMO pW' '�i �1Dtr;IOPE / icab �� ' awa EDINA MEDICAL, PLAZA <y Traffic Impact Study e } Revised Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota Ali Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan t 4 JUTraffic Impact Study Figure 3 Revised Edina Medical Office Plaza (6500 France Avenue) Intersection Location Map City of Edina, Minnesota kE o - OS(253) o IF 0( 0) j 1. 9 ( 20) 42) 39 11 ( 72) 272 J► ( 232)189 ti - E 60( 11) o - AL 82(220) ( 8) S3 -0 Y (117)308 i• 0 0 21 11 � s c 0 0 93 ( 210) .k 0( 0) (11 0 J 0( 0) \ 0 0 *L 132 (216) ,A, or 11 51 LEGEND o e e.2 o e (151) 361 �► s s s (2091332 '� - - AM (PM) Peak - XXX (XXX) Hour Turning 1 0) o q 1 Movements Traffic Impact Study >: Revised Edina Medical Office Plaza (6500 France Avenue) City of Edina, Minnesota o ( aJ 0 0 260 (161) Ir 5 ( 0) f0)0 Y �(324)262 6 a a. al01 0) 0 0 `� •' 25S (1(6) Ir 5 ( 2) .� 63 ( 95) j ti 61( 50) 1n0n -n 1 1 tt I. 0 0 — 0( 0) e o o 265 (166) 0 ( 0) 1010 Y (M) 202 '� S (010 Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour. Turning Movements 140(352 s 0( o) 1 19 (32) (42) 39 t t r (154) 319 A. R (232)499 1 1 F7s ,. 60( 11) off. 147(339) ( 6) 53 .� (263)377 (011 139 ( 11) 157(216) A or 65 (24) ( 3) 76 .0 (273)299 ( 57) 34 0( o) 0 o 4-351(251) 0( 0) (0)0 (412)345 -► S (0)0 s — 16 216(372) 99 (110) 61( so) (175)104 .0 ti t t t. (105)181 �► u (110) 50 � -- 2012 ANI All Irtbrse alien Appr Total Delay by SeeNeh) Level of Servko by Movement LOS by (Se�Neh ) LOS by Intarmedon (S—Neh) Awra e S Maximum T -M. Oueuein bat LoeaOon App, Le11-Tum Through Right -Tum L T R L T R Delay LOS _ Delay LOS Ale M- Slorape Ale Max A- Max g. Sloro Dueue 0-.. Q--Q--Oueue Dueua n 1: 66th Street S VaDay View Rd NO 0 10 2 A B A 9 A 13 B No 18 63 WB 31 0 4 C A h 7 A WB 24 94 58 42 7 0 D A A 13 aSB /5 102 150 71 172 EB 32 31 4 C C A 15 B Ea 168 414 $ $ 2: 6bth Street68ank WIU NB 0 0 O A A A 0_ A 2 A NB WB 0 0 O I A A A I 0 I A 6B 6 0 0 A A A 6 A WB SB 2 30 EB 0 3 0 A A A J A EB 12 3: 66th Slmet S Cros"wn Medical R.mp NB 0 0 3 A A 3 A 1 A NB 2 28 -A WS 3 1 0 A A A i A WB 10 25 3 S8 6 0 3 A A A 5 A EB 2 1 0 A A A 1 A 38 22 54 EB 6 2' 25 1 20 $ FjEB 4: 66th Street S. Condo Ganga NO 9 0 5 A A A 7 A 1 A NB 14 32 WB 0 1 0 A A A 1 A S8 8 0 0 A A A e A 0 1 0 A A A 1 A WB SB 2 28 _ 6: 66th StreetR FairWew Ramp NB 0 0 e A A A 8 A 1 A Na 1 17 WB 0 1 O A A A 0 A WB 6 SB S 0 J A A A 6 A BB22 54 EB J 1 0 A A A 1 A EB /1 43 25 ' 'S 6: 66th Street 84005 -Ea st DW NB 0 0 3 A A A 3 A 1 A NO 3 29 WB J 1 0 A A A 1 A Be 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB O 0 0 A A A O A _ 25 6 ":66thStraetS6600-WastOWWB3 NB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 0 A U22 0 0 A A A 0 A 25 88 00 0 A A A 0 EB 0 00 A A A O A1 16 $ Bdtlt Streot86600-EastDW00O NO 0 0 O A A A 0 A 1 AB: 6 WB 0 1 O A A A 1. A rNB A A A 0 AEB 0 1 O A A A 1 A 9 95 .E N e: 66th Street a Franca Ave NB 43 23 12 D C B 24 C 24 C N8 67 145 160 98 186 WB 45 41 2 D D A 17 B S8 47 i6 15 D 0 B 2J C _ WB 85 182 BB 139 210 16D 83 213 EB 38 37 25 D D C 3& D EB 53 111 75 1211 192 - All w • rote rtaa0en Total Delay byLOS Movement (SecNeh) Level of Sa Mee by Mevament by Approach (SecNch) LOS by Intersea0on (S-1V.h) Avera e & Maximum Traffic Queueingsal LAppr E ti LocaOan Appr Leh -Tum Through Right -Tum L T R L T R Delay LOS Daley LOSVW1340 Storage Are Max Aae Max StorageQueue Queue Queue Queue F 1:66th Shect &Valley View Rd38 N8 0 14 4 A B A 13 B 15 B 24 738 WB 35 0 7 0 A A 10 0 42 10 0 D 8 F 16 8 137 127 150 81 183 EB 37 30 5 C C A 16 D 188 174 2: 66th Siraet & Bank OW NB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A I A WB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 88 6 0 0 A A A S A E8 0 2 0 A A A 2 A W8 4 _ SB 1 18 EB 1 30 TI 'S "'SSS 3: 66th Sheet &Crosstown Medical Ramp N8 O 0 a A A A O A 1 A NB 10 _ Will 2 1 0 A A A 1 A WB 10 25 6 0 3 A A A 5 A 3 1 0 A A A 1 A 86 22 IB Eta 0 28 25 1 10 4: 668, S1reN& Conde Garage 8 0 7 0 1 0 6 A 0 A 0 A A A A A A A 7 1 7 A A A 1 A N8 12 32 WB SB 2 _ 17 0 1 0 A A A I A $ S 6: 66th 54setiFaW. Ramp NB WB SB 11 4 it 0 2 0 5 B 1 A 4 B A A A A A A e 2 9 A A A 2 A NO 16 41 15 44 _ WB 13 47 100 2 22 SB 24 59 EB 3 1. 0 A A A 1 A EB 13 59 25 3 AWA NO WB 0- 0 0 0 0 A 0 A A A A A 0 0 A A 0 A NO W8 SB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A Be EB p IWA NB 0 0 0 A A A O A 0 A NB WB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A SB 0 0 0 A A A O A ES 0 0 0 A A A 0 A WB SB EB _! e: 66th Straat & 6600 -East OW NB WB 16 9 0 1 15 C 0 A A A C A 16 2 C A 3 A Na- 22 54 15 52 iN8 2/ 79 50 SB 0 0 O A A A 0 A EB O 3 1 A A A 3 A SB EB 14 lie 1 30 75 8: 66d, Street &France A- Ne 44 24 C 8 25 C 25 C NO 8o 135 160 97 195 _ O A 17 B SB 8 B 25 C so T2. WB 99 189 8B 135 210 160 105 282 EB D C T34 C EB 63 1G0 75 137 1- w 2012 PNt A70 Intersection Appr Tab, Dally by Movement (SeeNeh) Lby ots•ruf by Mewnl°M LOS by Approaah (SeaNeh) LOS by Interx•ation (SeeNeh) Awre • a Maximum Traffic Ou•uei loot Loeaden App, Left Through Rlght•Tum 8 L T R L T R Dally LOS Delay LOS Aye Max Storage Awe Q-- Oueue Max Ate Max Storage Oue- am- a-- E NB 0 9 4 A A A 9 A Na 49 137 WB 36 O 12 D A 0 146 WB 88 197 tl 6611% Street & Valley Via. Rd 11 B 88 42 6 0 O A A 12 IfSB 44 114 150 66 173 g1: m ES 36 35 2 O D A 13 B EB 66 153 $ NB 0 0 0_ A A A 0 A NO WS 0 1 0 A A A 1 A W8 2 29 _ M 6511, Street i Bank OW 1 A SB 3 18 '! I's &B EB O 6 O 2 5 A 0 A A A A A 5 2 A A EB 1 17 60 2 38 NO 5 0 O A A A 5 A NO 1 23 W8 0 O O A A A 0 A WB 5 25 19 'o 3: 66th Street& Crosstown Medical Ramp 1 A 88 6 0 4 A A A 5 A EB 2 0 0 A A A 0 A SB 37 65 EB 1 2G 25 E NB 6 0 3 A A A 4 A 8 31 4: 66th Street&GCondo arage 0 A WB 2 0 O A A A 0 A 12 25 88 O 0 0 A A A 0 AEB rNl 0 0 0 A A A O A $ NB 6 0 5 A A 6 A N8 8 28 WR 3 0 0 A - A _A A O A Will 4 _ 23 25 2 27 6: 6611, 81•11& Fairview Ramp 2 A 88 8 O 5 A A A 7 A 88 48 102 EB 1 0 0 A A A 0 A ES $ NB 9 O 3 A A A 6 A N8 8 37 a i 6: 66th Street &4006 • East DW WB2 O O A A A O A O A WB 1 IB 25 1 17 SB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 8B 'o EB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB 1 7 $ Ne 9 O0 A A A 9 A NB 1 12 IAlB 88 O 0 0 0 0 A 0 A A A A A 0 0 _ A A WB 7: 6611 Btreat & 6600 -West OW 0 A 88 E8 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB NB 12 0 0 B A A 12 B NB 1 24 WB Or28 0 A A A 1 A WB 'c 8: 66th street &6600 -east OW 1 A SB 0 0 A A A 0 A SB ES 0 0 A A A 1 A EB 2 34 E NO 46 12 D B 0 18 B NO 33 02 160 138 264 W8 39 4 D D A 13 8 WB 80 206 21 18B 4 e: 66th Street & Fran— Aw 17 0 SB 51 11 D B B 16 B SB 60 136 1fi0 67 143 ,Q EB 70 lit 75 98 186 N EB 33 /5 C C 8 25 C A70 1)n!e rpt _ RV*V>ISFD m Intersection Appr Total Delay byLOS Movement i8a<Nah) Level of Serv)ee by MowmoN by Appreaeh (BeoNeh) LOS by InMrmeeen (See/Veh) Avera a a Meaimum Trane Ousudn tet Location App, lett-Tum Through Ri0hbTum L T I R L T R Delay LOS 0e)sy LOS Ate Max Stoa0e Ate Max Ate Max Slo age Queue Queue Queue Queue Oueue Queue ,E ti 7 ,g N 1: 66th Sheet 6 Valley View Rd NB 0 16 8 A B A I6 B 16 8 NB 75 178 WB 34 0 17 C A 8 19 6 88 43 9 0 D A A 16 0 EB 27 27 2 C C A 13 B WB 131 208 8B 63 1{9 iS0 88 224 EB 97 205 a 2: 66th Sfreet S Bank 13W N8 WB 0 0 0 2 0 A 0 A A A A A 0 2 A A 2 A NO W8 13 117 SB 0 0 21 A A C 21 C SB 6 43 EB 0 2 0 A A A 2 A ES 8 60 12 '$ 9 3: 66th Street 3 Crosstown Medleal Ramp NB 12 0 0 B A A 12 B 2 A N8 1 23 ,_ ._• WB 0 1 1 A A A 1 A WB 3 75 _ SB 11 0 6 13 A A 9 A SB 40 e6 EB 5 0 0 A A A 0 A EB 3 2m 25 'E Al 4:451h Stnet&Cendo Garape NB 6 0 5 A A A 5 A / A N8 10 33 W 2 0 0 A A A 0 A WB 1 /6 25 3 SB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB O 1 0 A A A 1 A SB EB E 5: 66th St—t A Fairview Ramp NB f0 0 5 8 A A 8 A 4 A NB 28 63 20 _ 43 W8 - 4 1 0 A A A 1 A WB 7 32 100 88 12 0 7 6 A A 10 A EB 3 1 0 A A A 1 A 88 54 122 EB 1 17 25 2 $ 9 •Q XNIA NO 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 0 A NB WB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A SB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A WB SB EB O 0 0 A A A 0 A EB p - XwA NB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 0 A NB _ WB 0 0_ 0_ A A A 0 A we SB 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 88 EB O 0 0 A A A 0 A EB •=' 8: 66th Stae186600-East OW NO 18 0 18 C A C 18 C 4 A N8 32 85 23 70 11 1 0 B A A 2 A VUB 11 49 50 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 8B Ell 0 2 1 A A A 2 R E8 14 134 10 75 treet It France Ave 45 20 12 D C 8 21 C 20 C NB49153 160 139 266 35 39 3 'D O A 13 0 WB 216 16 167 50 IS 11 D B 'B 16SB 58 133 [�1601t75:T41T 34 27 15 G C e 27 C EB 83 100 100 m Valley View Rd & W 65th St (ramp) 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Edina, MN sunny, 30's Valley View F From North Start Time I Rt h1 Thru Left Pe 0 31 WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN File Name : valley view rd & w 65th st-eb ramp Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 2/22/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Uns_hifted Ih St Valley View Rd TH 62 off ramp East —I.— From South From West 0 61 8 34 0 0 421 78 153 - 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 13 61 74 — — 121 143- 6 0 270 407 07:00 AM 0 38 13 0 51 7 0 1 0 8 4 53 0 0 57 50 72 10 0 132 248 07.15 AM 0 73 11 0 84 14 0 0 0 14 10 80 0 0 90 89 66 10 0 165 353 07:30 AM 0 80 19 0 99 27 0 1 0 28 13 91 0 0 104 105 56 11 0 172 403 07_ _:45 AM _ 0 81 20 _ 0 101 16 _ _ 0 2 0 18 4 87 ___ _ 0 0 _ 91 123 80 4 0 207 417 Total 0 272 63 0 335 64 0 4 0 68 31 311 0 0 342 367 274 35 0 676 1421 08:00 AM 0 55 10 0 65 18 0 2 020 3 93 0 0 96 141 83 10 0 234 415 08:15 AM 0 77 15 0 92 24 0 3 0 27 8 86 0 0 94 120 63 14 0 197 410 08:30 AM 0 61 17 0 78 28 0 1 0 291 10 68 0 0 78 101 56 10 0 167 352 08:45 AM 0 39 14 0 63 14 0 1 0 _ 15 7 60 0 0 67 131_ 60 14 0 _ 195 330 Total 0 232 56 0 288 84 0 7 0 91 28 307 0 0 33593 4 252 48 0 793 1507 09:00 AMI 0 60 8 0 68128 0 1 0 291 9 80 0 0 89 1110 37 12 0 1591 345 09:15 AM 0 48 10 0 58 21 0 3 0 24 3 55 0 0 58 103 46 16 0 165 305 Totali 0 108 18 0 128 49 0 4 0 53 T 12 135 0 0 147 213 83 28 -6---3-24—F--65-0 03:30 PM 1 0 72 11 0 831 70 0 6 0 76 1 145 0 0 146 90 34 12 0 136 441 03:45 PM __P__69 4 0 73 59 0 2 0 61 1- 158 0 0 159 I 81 25 16 0 122 I 415 04:00 PM 0 55 14 069 68 0 8 0 78 5 159 0 0 164 81 24 16 0 121 430 04:15 PM 0 52 13 0 65 38 0 3 0 41 4 158 0 0 162 72 19 15 0 106374 04:30 PM 0 74 11 0 65 75 0 1 0 76 2 194 0 0 196 62 14 12 0 88k445 04:45 PM 0 75 11 0 86 48 0 9 0 163 00 185 71 10 11 0 92400 Total 0 256 49 0 305 229 0 21 0 250 13 674 0 0 687 286 67 54 0 407649 05:00 PM 0 82 100 92 65 0 5 0 70 7 224 0 0 231 52 14 7 0 73 466 05:15 PM 0 90 12 0 102 41 0 3 0 44 1 204 0 0 205 47 10 12 0 69 420 05:30 PM 0 77 13 0 90 39 0 3 0 42 2 146 0 0 148 43 8 9 0 60 340 05:45 PM 0 90 11 0 101 30 0 1 0 _ 31 _ 4 160 0 0 164 78 11 7 0 96 392 Total 0 339 46 0 385 175 0 12 0 187 14 734 0 0 748 220 43 35 0-2981-1618 06:00 PM 0 56 6 0 62 31 0 2 0 33 2 137 0 0 139 68 11 13 0 92 326 06:15 PM 0 55 7 0 62 22 0 1 0 23 2 116 0 0 118 74 8 17 0 99 302 Grand Total 0 1497 276 0 1773 791 0 60 0 851 117 2778 0 0 2895 2013 940 264 0 3217 8736 Apprch Ix 0 84.4 15.6 0 92.9 0 7.1 0 4 96 0 0 62.6 29.2 8.2 0 Total % 1 0 17.1 3.2 0 20.3 9.1 0 0.7 0 9.7 1.3 31.8 0 0 33.1 23 10.8 3 0 36.8 Ala Valley View Rd & W 65th St (ramp) 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Edina, MN sunny, 30's WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN File Name : valley view rd & w 65th st-eb ramp Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 2/22/2012 Page No : 2 Valle------ View Rd From North W 65th St From East Valley View Rd From South TH 62 off ramp From West 27 Time Right Thru Left Peds nPPTm:i Right Thru Left Peds APP. TOO Hight Thru Left Peds APP.Tw Right Thru Left Peds nPP.Taw InLTotal Start Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0 80 19 0 99 27 0 1 0 28 13 91 0 0 104 105 56 11 0 172 403 07:45 AM 0 81 20 0 101 16 0 2 0 18 4 87 0 0 91 123 80 4 0 207 417 08:00 AM 0 55 10 0 65 18 0 2 0 20 3 83 0 0 96 141 83 10 0 234 415 08:15 AM 0 77 15 0 92 24 0 3 0 27 8 86 0 0 94 120 63 14 0 197 410 Total Volume 0 293 64 _ 0 357 85 0 6 0 93 28 357 0 0 385 489 282 39- 0 810 1645 % App. Total 0 82.1 17.9__. 0 m 91.4 0 8.6 0 7.3 92.7 ._- 0 0 60.4 34.8 4.8 0 PHF .000 .904 .800 .000 .884 .787 - .000 .667 .000 .830 .538 .960 .000 .000 — .925 .867 .849 .696 .000 .865 .986 valley Iew Out In Total 81 357�f�8 L 0 283 64I _ Oj Thru ;ig t Left, Peds Peak Hour Data �9 m t j wN 0 JC. n E o m2 North 0° o L Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 0 ° a UnsWfted ---- -- f a, W O a m a, ~ O 4, T r' Left _Thru Right Peds 0 357 28 0 790 365 1175 Out In Total ally Rd WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN Valley View Rd & W 65th St (ramp) File Name : valley view rd & w 65th st-eb ramp 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Site Code : 00000004 Edina, MN Start Date : 2/22/2012 sunny, 30's Page No :3 f I From NorthFrom East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds wv.na Right Thru LeftPeds gpp.mui Right Thru Left) PedsI nPy.mu Right Thru Left Peds1 roa. iaa int T,*1 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 74 11 0 85 75 0 1 0 76 2 194 0 0 196 62 14 12 0 88 445 04:45 PM 0 75 11 0 86 48 0 9 0 57 2 163 0 0 165 71 10 11 0 92 400 05:00 PM 0 82 10 0 92 65 0 5 0 70 7 224 0 0 231 52 14 7 0 73 466 05:15 PM 0 90 12 0 102 41 0 3 0 44 1 204 0 0 205 47 10 12 0 69 420 Total volume 0 321 44 0 365 229 0 18 0 247 12 785 0 0 797 232 48 42 0 322 1731 %Ap . Total 0 87.9 12.1 0 92.7 0 7.3 0 1.5 98.5 0 072 14.9 13 0 PHF .000 .892 .917 .000 .895 .763 .000__.500 .000 .813 .429 .876 .000 .000 .863 .817 .857 .875 .000 .875 .929 Atiq Valley View Rd Out In Total 1056 365 [ 1421) [ 01 3211 441 0 Rlght Thru Left Peds � 1 IY. Peak Hour Data p� J ? w S �0 E N. v North 4—; — ��- eak Hour Beg ns at :30 Imo] 2 0 3 o ?—� Unshifled m v Lo u 4l I f� Left Thru Right Peds 01 7851 0 571 C6 F1368 Out In Total Valley View Rd Atiq France Ave & 65th St 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Edina, MN 30's WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN I'—.— Prinlnri_ I 1—hin—I I i File Name : france ave & 65th st Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/22/2012 Page No : 1 07:00 AM 19 93 48 0 160 29 3 1 0 33 12 77 14 0 103 6 35 14 0 55 351 07:15 AM 27 132 68 0 227 33 8 3 0 44 23 76 20 0 119 3 43 20 0 66 456 07:30 AM 1 18 134 56 0 208 45 12 20 59 18 93 34 0 145 9 42 13 0 64 476 _ 07:_4__5 AM _ 19 172 64 0 255 36 13_ 5 0 54 29 115 34 0 178 4 54 15 0 73 560 Total 1 83 531 236 0 8501 143 36 11 0 1901 82 361 102 0 545 22 174 62 0 256 1843 08:00 AM 19 143 51 0 213 38 15 5 0 58 20 116 25 0 161 9 52 11 0 72 504 08:15 AM 26 173 54 0 253 52 13 15 0 80 26 124 27 1 176 6 50 22 0 78 589 08:30 AM 24 161 58 0 243 54 12 15 0 81 30 123 13 0 166 13 51 21 0 85 575 08:45 AM _ 21 156 54 ___ _ _ 0 231 49 9 19 0 _____ 77 35 139 16 0 190 _ 9 35 13 1 58 556 Total 90 633 217 ------6-940 193 49 54 0 296 111 502 81 1 695 37 188 67 1 293 2224 09:00 AM i 23 195 55 0 273 j 61 18 12 0 91 32 141 16 0 189 ( 9 24 17 0 501 603 09:15 AMI 26 157 60 0 243 I 60 10 13 1 84 33 137 14 0 184 f 8 36 21 0 65 576 Total 49 352 115 0 6161 121 28 25 1 175 65 278 30 0 3731 17 60 38 T 0 1151 1179 03:30 PM Frame Ave -- __.._._ - — 65th St -_ .--_ Franca Ave — -- — 65th St --- V I-iti--rt—Time 06:30 AM From North From East _From South ___ _ _ From West Ri ht Thru Left Peds _ aoa row _Ri hl Thru Left Peds App. ra.l Int. Total g g ,,Tai Right Thru Left Peds ,Taal Right Thru Left Peds 35 63 61 0 159 10 4 1 0 15 8 41 17 0 66 2 17 4 0 23 263 06:45 AM 40 72 84 0 196 15 _ 4 4 0 23 15 72 19 0 106 2 32 5 0 39 364 Total 75 135 145 0 355 25 8 5 _ _ _ 0 38 23 113 _ 36 0 172 4 49 9 0 62 627 07:00 AM 19 93 48 0 160 29 3 1 0 33 12 77 14 0 103 6 35 14 0 55 351 07:15 AM 27 132 68 0 227 33 8 3 0 44 23 76 20 0 119 3 43 20 0 66 456 07:30 AM 1 18 134 56 0 208 45 12 20 59 18 93 34 0 145 9 42 13 0 64 476 _ 07:_4__5 AM _ 19 172 64 0 255 36 13_ 5 0 54 29 115 34 0 178 4 54 15 0 73 560 Total 1 83 531 236 0 8501 143 36 11 0 1901 82 361 102 0 545 22 174 62 0 256 1843 08:00 AM 19 143 51 0 213 38 15 5 0 58 20 116 25 0 161 9 52 11 0 72 504 08:15 AM 26 173 54 0 253 52 13 15 0 80 26 124 27 1 176 6 50 22 0 78 589 08:30 AM 24 161 58 0 243 54 12 15 0 81 30 123 13 0 166 13 51 21 0 85 575 08:45 AM _ 21 156 54 ___ _ _ 0 231 49 9 19 0 _____ 77 35 139 16 0 190 _ 9 35 13 1 58 556 Total 90 633 217 ------6-940 193 49 54 0 296 111 502 81 1 695 37 188 67 1 293 2224 09:00 AM i 23 195 55 0 273 j 61 18 12 0 91 32 141 16 0 189 ( 9 24 17 0 501 603 09:15 AMI 26 157 60 0 243 I 60 10 13 1 84 33 137 14 0 184 f 8 36 21 0 65 576 Total 49 352 115 0 6161 121 28 25 1 175 65 278 30 0 3731 17 60 38 T 0 1151 1179 03:30 PM 14 171 44 0229 190 98 30 15 0 143 15 241 19 0 275 24 45 39 0 108 755 _03:45 PM 11 190 29 0 230 100 29 19 _ 149 27 268 15 0 _ 6 20 25 25 0 70 759 Total 25 361 73 0 459 198 59 34 _1__ 1 292 42 509 34 0 _310 5851 44 70 64 _ 0 178 1514 04:00 PM 14 163 34 0 2111 100 26 20 0 146 10 258 13 0 2811 26 29 44 0 99 737 04:15 PM 6 180 24 0 2101 83 17 19 2 121 22 270 8 0 3001 20 27 31 0 78 709 04:30 PM 6 178 19 0 2031 110 36 14 0 160 14 251 12 0 2771 26 26 43 0 95 735 04:45 PM 10 196 27 0 2331 92 16 9 0 117 18 309 12 0 3391 23 17 26 0 66 755 05:00 PM 6 165 18 0 1891 102 25 15 2 144 16 334 10 05:15 PM 5 197 12 0 214 68 18 12 0 98 19 344 10 05:30 PM 6 194 12 0 212 56 22 8 0 86 9 274 17 05:45 PM 1 5 212 15 0 232 47 3 11 0 61 1 5 248 11 06:00 PM 6 168 15 1 190 33 3 1 0 37 6 275 8 06:15 PM 7 193 17 0 217 51 7 3 0 67 10 289 5 Grand Total 393 3858 979 1 5231 1422 353 241 6 2022 452 4615 389 Appreh % 7.5 73.8 18.7 0 70.3 17.5 11.9 0.3 8.3 84.6 7.1 Total % 2.8 27 6.9 0 36.6 10 2.5 1.7 0 14.2 3.2 32.3 2.7 0 360 38 23 33 0 94 787 0 373 21 18 29 0 68 753 0 300 13 13 19 0 45 643 0 264 6 15 _ 21 0 44 601 0 1297 80 69 102 0 251 2784 0 289 15 12 230 50 566 0 304 10 3 15 0 28 610 1 5457 324 724 524 1 1573 14283 0 20.6 46 33.3 0.1 0 382 2.3 5.1 3.7 0 11 WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN France Ave & 65th St 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Edina, MN 30's File Name : france ave & 65th st Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/22/2012 Page No : 2 France Ave 65th St France Ave 65th St From North From East From South _ From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds AP?-UWRight Thru Lett Peds ayp.rad Right Thru Left Peds npp.romr Right Thru Left Peda AM 7d.1 L Peak flour Analysis From 05:30 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:15 AM Iru Total.. 08:15 AM 26 173 54 0 253 52 13 15 0 80 26 124 27 1 178 6 50 22 0 78 589 08:30 AM 24 161 68 0 243 54 12 15 0 81 30 123 13 0 166 13 61 21 0 86 575 08:45 AM 21 156 54 0 231 49 9 19 0 77 35 139 16 0 190 9 35 13 1 58 556 09:00 AM - — -- 23 196 55 0 273 91 18 12 0 91 32 141 16 9 24 17 0 50 603 TotelVoiuma 94 - 685 221 0 1000 --- 216 52 -- 61 0 329 123 527 72 ___Q__189 1 723 37 160 73 1 271 2323 ._% App. Total 9.4 68.5 22.1 0 65.7 15.8 18.5 0 17 72.9 10 0.1 13.7 59 26.9 0.4 PHF _ .904 .878 .953 .000 .916 .885 .722 _ .803 .000 .904 .879 .934 .667 _ - .250 .951 .712 .784 .830 .250 .797 .96S OL France Ave Out In Total 94 6851 221 221 Right Thru Left Peds 4 1 �► Peak Hour Data F J IJ� 2 1, th gLcJq Peak Hour Begins at 08:15 AMUnshffted id T1. �i n m bf as «o w 41 I i+ Lek Thru Right Peds 721 5271 123 1 783 F7231 09N Out In Total France OL WSB & Associates 701 Xenia Ave S Minneapolis, MN France Ave & 65th St 6:30-9:30 am and 3:30-6:30 pm Edina, MN 30's File Name : france ave & 65th st Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/22/2012 Page No :3 France Ave 65th St France Ave 65th St From North From East From South From West [ 1741 F 839 F 2680 Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Peds g App, Ri ht Thru Lek Peds Right Thru Left Peds g App.W.1 RI App,r.a, Right Thru Lek Peds A�.rae W. Total 0.,..L Ll..... A....1...... C...— 47•M ORA {n (11R•4. DAA _ Dnn., 4 nr 4 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 6 178 19 0 203 110 36 14 0 160 14 251 12 0 277 26 26 43 0 96 735 04:45 PM 10 196 27 0 233 92 16 9 0 117 18 309 12 0 339 23 17 26 0 66 755 05:00 PM 6 165 18 0 189 102 25 16 2 144 16 334 10 0 360 38 23 33 0 94 787 05:15 PM 5 197 12 0 214 68 18 12 0 98 19 344 10 0 373 21 18 29 0 68 753 Total Volume 27 736 76 0 839 372 95 50 2 519 67 1238 44 0 1349 108 84 131 0 323 3030 "Agip_ Total 3.2 87.7 9_1 0 71.7_ 18.3 9.6 0.4 _— _5_ 91.8._-. 3.3 0 --___-- 33.4 26 40.6 0 _ A q l tante Ave Out In Total [ 1741 F 839 F 2680 E�AE 7361 761 0 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data �+ 1�]O North N VIP 4— u Peak Hour Begins el 04:30 PM S o i UnshiftedFol r [� o m w fir O w N ,Left ht Ri Peds —Thru 44 � 4238 67 0 894 -1349 2243 Out In Total France Ave A q l Report Id - Customl-ist-94 Site Name - 65,th ST -EAST OF VALLEY VIEW RD Description - Edina, MN Direction - North East South West AB=WESTBOUND BA=EASTBOUND Wednesday, February 22, 2012 "rime. Total �'< Total �-} Total ,Total AB 12:00 AM 7 5 2{ 1:00 AM 7 4 3 2:00 AM 2 1 1 3:00 AM 3 2 1 4:00 AM 14 3 11 5:00 AM 64 19 45 6:00 AM 282 53 229 7:00 AM 436 111 325 8:00 AM 471 152 319 9:00 AM 378 137 241 10:00 AM 344 107 237 11:00 AM 324 127 197 12:00 PM 293 134 159 1:00 PM 382 178 206 2:00 PM 425 176 249 3:00 PM 486 273 213 4:00 PM 437 241 196 5:00 PM 333 174 159 6:00 PM 179 79 100 7:00 PM 116 56 60 8:00 PM 83 34 49 9:00 PM 56 29 27 10:00 PM 47 15 32 11:00 PM 42 41 1 ;00;00„ , .5291I'%19` 3462; Thursday, February 23, 2012 00 00 5026 ;199TH 3029; A�i I `Total ,Total AB 12:00 AM 6 3 3 1:00 AM 3 1 2 2:00 AM 5 2 3 3:00 AM 5 2 3 4:00 AM 17 7 10 5:00 AM 58 18 40 6:00 AM 281 55 226 7:00 AM 480 121 359 8:00 AM 445 119 326 9:00 AM 327 126 201 10:00 AM 344 109 235 11:00 AM 300 121 179 12:00 PM 287 119 168 1:00 PM 373 150 223 2:00 PM 415 181 234 3:00 PM 454 245 209 4:00 PM 388 221 167 5:00 PM 366 175 191 6:00 PM 191 77 114 7:00 PM 85 48 37 8:00 PM 61 22 39 9:00 PM 45 22 23 10:00 PM 45 15 30 11:00 PM 45 38 7 00 00 5026 ;199TH 3029; A�i VehicleCount-92 Page 2 Wednesday, February 22, 2012 -Total=5211, 15 minute drops OODD 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000_1100_1200_1300 1400 1SOO 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 4 0 0 7. 2 11 39 92 117 101 82 69 63 88 95 102 132 114 61 25 26 23 10 6 1 1 3 1 0 3 11 58 109 134 96 90 97 70 107 100 128 83 86 48 27 17 15 7 7 2 2 3 0 0 3 1.2 93 113 126 83 99 73 74 89 110 146 125 74 32 32 15 8 17 21 3 0 1 1 1 6 30 92 122 94 98 73 85 86 98 120 110 97 59 38 32 25 10 13 a 0 AM Peak 0745.0845 (499), AM PHF=0.93 PM Peak 1615.1615 (516), PM PHF=0.88 * Thursday, February 23, 2012 - Tota(=5026, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200_03_00 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 �B5 _0900 6 3 5-'- 5 17 58 281 480 449 327 344 300 287 373 415 454 388 366 191 61 45 45 45 1 0 3 2 1. 9 29 95 117 93 89 77 76 106 85 92 107 117 59 25 20 19 7 11 - 2 2 1 1 3 12 59 127 112 77 85 68 65 89 107 123 95 93 60 17 11 11 10 8 - 3 1 0 1 8 13 88 122 114 83 85 73 72 80 108 132 100 89 39 25 15 7 17 18 - 0 0 1 1 5 24 105 136 102 74 85 82 74 98 115 107 86 67 33 18 15 8 11 8 - AM Peak 0715 - 0815 (502), AM PHF=0.92 Report id - CustornList-93 Site Name - 65th St - West of France Ave Description - Edina MN Direction - North East South West AB= WESTBOUND BA=EASTBOUND Wednesday, February 22, 2012 Thursday, February 23, 2012 Tiine Total �'= TothVV Total Time Notal ;i Toial :Total , 4 {{' 1, £� AB � BA t; AQ` r BA 12:00 AM 12 3 9 12:00 AM 17 3 14 1:00 AM 8 4 4 1:00 AM 3 0 3 2:00 AM 1 0 1 2:00 AM 4 1 3 3:00 AM 5 3 2 3:00 AM 4 3 1 4:00 AM 17 12 5 4:00 AM 24 15 9 5:00 AM 76 57 19 5:00 AM 80 61 19 6:00 AM 304 205 99 6:00 AM 308 214 94 7:00 AM 441 211 230 7:00 AM 464 222 242 8:00 AM 470 208 262 8:00 AM 451 197 254 9:00 AM 403 183 220 9:00 AM 376 163 213 10:00 AM 393 155 238 10:00 AM 380 147 233 11:00 AM 365 145 220 11:00 AM 347 131 216 12:00 PM 368 180 188 12:00 PM 376 161 215 1:00 PM 409 194 215 1:00 PM 425 179 246 2:00 PM 437 188 249 2:00 PM 448 201 247 3:00 PM 507 221 286 3:00 PM 479 185 294 4:00 PM 456 167 289 4:00 PM 394 146 248 5:00 PM 354 141 213 5:00 PM 375 137 238 6:00 PM 196 79 117 6:00 PM 221 96 125 7:00 PM 107 32 75 7:00 PM 108 39 69 8:00 PM 98 41 57 8:00 PM 79 25 54 9:00 PM 69 24 45 9:00 PM 62 25 37 10:00 PM 44 17 27 10:00 PM 56 22 34 11:00 PM 37 7 30 11:00 PM 43 5 38 100'00 ; " ( 55771 1477, 3100] 00-00"237$ * Wednesday, February 22, 2012 -Total=5577, 15 minute 300 1400 1500 VehicleCount-91 Page 2 4 1 0 2 4 10 48 89 111 101 103 81 77 9G 91 102 134 124 54 29 29 26 11 5 4 3 3 1 1 1 17 11 105 140 104 101 97 94 113 102 130 103 91 55 26 23 22. 5 10 5 3 3 0 0 6 14 90 121 113 82 104 88 107 100 118 138 115 77 47 30 18 81.0 17 5 2 1 0 2 6 35 95 126 106 116 85 99 90 1.00 126 137 104 62 40 22 20 13 10 5 3 AM Peak 0734 - 0830 (4981, AM PHF-0.89 PM Peak 1515 -1515 (539), PM PHF =0.98 * Thursday, February 23, 2012 - Total=5524, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0.600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 17 3 4 4 24 80 308 464 451 376 380 347 376 425 448 479 394 375 221 108 79 62 56 43 4 0 2 2 4 9 38 89 114 103 93 95 99 107 07 100 114 108 68 29 30 27 9 1G - 5 2 1 0 5 15 65 113 130 97 07 83 92 104 17.0 1.20 100 111 59 22 13 15 13 6 - 5 1 0 1 11 24 98 123 97 69 101 77 89 90 121 125 96 86 51 33 19 12 21 14 - 3 0 1 1 4 32 107 139 110 07 99 92 96 124 120 134 84 70 43 24 17 8 13 7 - AM Peak 0730.0830 (506), AM PHF=0.81 a Draft ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - Draft AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 6500 FRANCE AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development (PUD) District: 860.23 Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD) Subd, 2 Planned Unit Development District -2 (PUD -2) - E;Ifna Medical Building A. Legal Descri<ptlo All of Lot 4 and the Easterly 56.44 feet of Lot 3, Block,2, Southdale Office Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota And, Lot 3, Block 2, ;except the Easterly 56.44 feet thereof, Southdale.Office Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota: B. Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference� are the 6500, France Edina Medical Building plans received by the City orr , 2012, except as amended by City, Council Resolution No. 2012 —,,on, file in the Office of the Planning Department under file number 2012-003,12a. C. Principal Uses. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXX Added text — 70attf Ail principal uses allowed in the Regional Medical District (RMD) Zoning District, except drive-through uses. 41 Dd D. Accessary Uses: (off-street parking facilities Produce stands pursuant to permit issued by the. City Manager. Signs allowed per the Regional Medical District E. Conditional Uses. None F. development Standards. development standards per the RNID Zoning District, except the following: Building Setbacks Front -- France Avenue 25 feet Front - et' Street 25 feet Side —West 100 feet Rear- South 30 feet Parkina Ramp Setbacks Front - France Avenue 80 feet Front— 65#x` Street 25 feet SideWest 15 feet Rear South 20 feet Building Height six stories and :$0.5 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio 100% Chiller/Mechanical Equipment Setbacks if the footprint is larger than 36 square fee t'in area or 6 fQet in height, utility and/or mechanical,equiptnent shall be required to meet the above Front Setback requirements, The Side and Rear setback requirements shall be 6 feet. Mechanical Equipment must also meet'the following conditions: 1, All mechanical e, ui ment accesso ` to an ildin shall'be screened from all lot lines and streets in accordance with Secti�gn 850.16. Subd; 2..0 Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Section 3. 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 Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.18 b. the permit shall be applied for only by the owner of the principal building, the intention being that each lessee within the mini -storage building shall not be eligible individually for a temporary retail sales permit. 3. Only non-perishable and non-volatile products may be stored. 850.1.8 Regional Medical District (RMD) Subd. I Principal Uses. A. Hospitals. B. Medical and dental offices and clinics. C. Laboratories for performing medical or dental research, diagnostic testing, analytical or clinical work, having a direct relationship to the providing of health services, including, but not limited to, medical research, radiology, hematology, serology, immunology, allergy, biochemistry, basal metabolism, microbiology, parasitology, pathology, histology, cytology, toxicology and pharmacology. Laboratories engaged in the production or manufacture of goods or products for commercial sale or distribution shall not be considered laboratories within the meaning and intent of this paragraph. Subd. 2Accessoty Uses. A. Living quarters and recreational and educational facilities for nurses, interns, staff members, hospital employees and volunteers, if the uses are located within or are contiguous to -the principal building. B. Off-street parking facilities for ambulances, service trucks and automobiles owned by tenants, employees, patients and visitors. C. Within principal buildings having a gross floor area of 40,000 square feet or more, ten percent of the floor area may be occupied by retail uses allowed in the PCD -1 and PCD -2 subdistricts, if the primary function of the uses is to serve the needs of occupants of, and visitors to, the principal use. D. Helistops for use by helicopters involved in emergency rescue operations. Subd. 311equirenrents for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. FAR: 1.0. B. Setbacks. Interior Front Side Side Rear Street Street Yard Yard 35'* 35'* 20'* 20'* or the building height if greater. C. Building Height. See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. D. Minimum Tract Area. No tract of land shall be transferred to the Regional Medical District unless the tract measures at least ten acres in area or is contiguous to other land in the Regional Medical District. 850-94 Supplement 2012-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.18 b. the permit shall be applied for only by the owner of the principal building, the intention being that each lessee within the mini -storage building shall not be eligible individually for a temporary retail sales permit. 3. Only non-perishable and non-volatile products may be stored. 850.18 Regional Medical District (RMD) Subd. 1 Principal Uses. A. Hospitals. B. Medical and dental offices and clinics. C. Laboratories for performing,medical or dental research, diagnostic testing, analytical or clinical work, having a direct relationship to the providing of health services, including, but not limited to, medical research, radiology, hematology, serology, immunology, allergy, biochemistry, basal metabolism, microbiology, parasitology, pathology, histology, cytology, toxicology and pharmacology. Laboratories engaged in the production or manufacture of goods or products for commercial sale or distribution shall not be considered laboratories within the meaning and intent of this paragraph. Subd. 2Accessory Uses. A. Living quarters and recreational and educational facilities for nurses, interns, staff members, hospital employees and volunteers, if the uses are located within or are contiguous to the principal building. B. Off-street parking facilities for ambulances, service trucks and automobiles owned by tenants, employees, patients and visitors. C. Within principal buildings having a gross floor area of 40,000 square feet or more, ten percent of the floor area may be occupied by retail uses allowed in the PCD -I and PCD -2 subdistricts, if the primary function of the uses is to serve the needs of occupants of, and visitors to, the principal use. D. Helistops for use by helicopters involved in emergency rescue operations. Subd. 3Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. FAR: 1.0. B. Setbacks. Interior Front Side Side Rear Street Street Yard Yard 35'* 35'* 20'* 20'* or the building height if greater. C. Building Height. See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. D. Minimum Tract Area. No tract of land shall be transferred to the Regional Medical District unless the tract measures at least ten acres in area or is contiguous to other land in the Regional Medical District. 850-94 � jb Supplement 2012-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.16 2. All subsequent additions, exterior alterations and accessory buildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming to the original architectural design and general appearance. 850.16 Planned Commercial District (PCD). Subd. 1 Subdistriets. The Planned Commercial District shall be divided into the following subdistricts: Planned Commercial District - 1 (PCD -1) Planned Commercial District - 2 (PCD -2) Planned Commercial District - 3 (PCD -3) Planned Commercial District - 4 (PCD -4) Subd. 2Principal 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. Coin and philatelic stores. Day care. Drug stores. Dry cleaning establishments and laundries. Employment agencies. kib7 850-79 Supplement 2012-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.16 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. 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. Music 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 set -vices 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. 14.17 Schools. Second-hand stores not exceeding 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, but excluding pawn shops. Am 850-80 Supplement 2012-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.16 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. 3Principal Uses in PCD -2. Any principal use permitted in PCD -1. Amusement and recreation establishments such as amusement arcades, commercial bowling alleys and pool halls. 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. 850-81 A ( b `t Supplement 2012-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.16 Furrier shops including the storage and conditioning of furs when conducted as an incidental part of the principal use. Home 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. 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 fimeral 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. 10 850-82 Supplement 2012-01 Minutes/Edina City Council/July 17, 2012 Member ade a motion, seconded by Member o appr e a new On -Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor Licenses Chang's China Bis dba P.F. Chang's China Bistro, 2700 Southdale Center, for the period beginnin and ending March 31, 2013. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Spr wenson, Holl Motion carried. VI.B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT, PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM POD -1 TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 4005 WEST 65TH STREET AND 6500 FRANCE AVENUE FOR MOUNT PROPERTIES —DENIED Assistant Planner Presentation Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of Mount Properties to tear down the existing office buildings at 4005 West 65th Street and 6500 France Avenue to build a new six -story, 81 -foot tall, 102,406 square foot medical office/retail building with a podium height of two stories and detached five -level parking ramp. It was noted the project was proposed to be developed in two phases with the first phase construction of a four-story, 69,456 square foot medical office with a three-level detached parking ramp and the second phase construction of two levels to each structure. The site was located in a "Potential Area of Change" within the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Aaker described the approval process and indicated the Council was being asked to determine if a Small Area Plan was needed prior to rezoning. She concluded presentation of the application and enumerated the considerations before the Council. Ms. Aaker advised the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that a Small Area Plan was not needed in this case since the proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval subject to conditions as detailed In the staff report. Proponent Presentation Luigi Bernardi, Aurora Investments, stated they were excited about this project and hoped it would be approved by the Council. Stephen Michals, Mount Development Company, commented on the review process and stated agreement with the staff report and recommendation. He noted this was a gateway location to the Southdale area, valuable land, and deserved a high profile building. Mr. Michals stated the adjacent land was purchased to provide better circulation, created relatively small floor plates on the sixth level building, and noted the five adjacent buildings were equal or greater in height as certified by Alliant Technologies. Edward Farr, Farr Architects, presented features of the site and landscaping plans as well as exterior building and parking structure elements. He advised that depending on the tenant mix, the fifth level of the parking structure might not be constructed. Mr. Farr indicated that phase one would be 54 feet in height to the cornice line. The phase two build out would have six stories and be about 1.5 floors above the tree line. Mr. Farr displayed and described the exterior building materials board. With regard to the height of Cornelia Place, Mr. Michals explained the view depicted in packet materials dated July 6 were taken from the curb line on Valley. The Council discussed the proposed project and asked questions of the proponents. Support was stated for the building design, drop off area, generous sidewalk width, corner pavilion area, proposed lighting, and upscale landscaping. Suggestions were made to assure the parking lot discouraged cut -through traffic, provide a public access off France Avenue leading to the internal corridor system, enhanced stormwater retention strategies since it was an impaired water body, and the option of a green roof. It was agreed that if approved, Metro Transit should be informed of the need for a stop at this location. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Public Testimony Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/July 17, 2012 Marilyn Kemme, 6566 France Avenue S., #1206, Point of France Association Board President, addressed the Council. John Windhorst, 6566 France Avenue S, #204, Point of France Association Board Member and Legal Chair, addressed the Council. Stacy Gallup, speaking on behalf of the 6500 France building owners, addressed the Council. Peter Pustorino, 4005 West 56`h Street building owner, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle; Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Members Sprague, Swenson, and Bennett concurred that they would support a maximum building height of four stories, or 62 feet. However, they were unwilling to consider a Comp Plan amendment to allow for the proposed building height of six stories, or 81 feet in this caseSupport was also expressed to allow all parking levels to be constructed above grade to lower redevelopment costs. Member Brindle and Mayor Hovland advocated for the project as unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. That recommendation found a Small Area Plan was not needed and supported a Comprehensive Plan height amendment. It was noted adjacent buildings were taller than four stories, the proposed use was consistent with PUD to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design, and density was needed to accommodate high land costs. Mr. Michals explained that additional tenants would be required to trigger Phase 2 and due to the high land cost, the project was not feasible unless approved for six stories. Mr. Michals stated the project needed 102,000 feet floor to area ratio at 1.0 or else the high land costs could not be absorbed into the project. He noted the proponent had been forthright on that perspective from the beginning. Motion by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Swenson, directing staff to prepare a resolution, with the City Attorney's assistance, with findings for denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment requested by Mount Properties. Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson Nays: Brindle, Hovland Motion carried. Motion by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Swenson, directing staff to prepare a resolution, with the City Attorney's assistance, with findings for denial of the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan requested by Mount Properties. Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson Nays: Brindle, Hovland Motion carried. VI.C. A ENT OF UNDERSTANDING WITH DRIVE FOR THE HIVE, L ROVED Director of Park-'s"PIteantation Director of Parks and Recr OKeprios presented the s Nest Agreement creating a public-private partnership for an estimated $ i ' n proje a Drive would donate $750,000 cash plus 25% of additional costs above $3 million. The C contribute $2,250,000 plus 75% of additional costs above $3 million. The project would b ,450 sq. t. 'tion to the north side of West Arena, lower level locker rooms, with a trains cility and retail on the u level. He displayed concept drawings and reviewed the terms o agreement, noting it would be condi i on the following: the City receiving Page 5 �ll � CITY OF EDINA MEM( Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 j15A �T Fax 952-826-0392 - www.CityofFdina.com Or, e '4. Date: October 4, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle — Director of Engineering Re: Edina Medical Plaza Dated September 10, 2012 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: O A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, MCES. O A developer's agreement will be required for realigning of the public watermain and also the installation of the sidewalk on both West 65" Street and France Avenue. O Provide plan that shows pedestrian lighting for the public sidewalks. Use City standard pedestrian lighting for this area of the City. Sheet C3.0: • Retaining wall is encroaching on new drainage and easement; provide elevation and details of retaining wall. • Old utility easements must be vacated and new easements executed for new utility and public sidewalk alignments. • Mechanical equipment along southerly property line does not meet 50' setback and limits maintenance access to underground sediment capture device and to existing sanitary sewer manhole. • Provide intersection detail of West 65`h Street and France Avenue. Indicate improvements to the pedestrian crosswalk across France Avenue and how it will affect the traffic signals / median. Incorporate same design features as the France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project that staff is currently designing. Sheet C5.0: • Provide detail and hydrologic design for downstream outlet pipe along western portion of south property line and how connection is made. Proposal for overland connection is not feasible. Confirm public easement or private agreement to access downstream 15" pipe. Assess condition of pipe and propose upgrade if required. • Provide a fire hydrant mid -property along West 65th Street and also one along France Avenue — locations to be determined by City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 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 review. G:\PW\ADMIN\COMMIEXTERNAL\GENERAL CORR BY STREETS\F Streets\6500 France AvenueU0121004 WH -Edina Review 6500 France.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 Aar