The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About 2014-10-08 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 8, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Ill. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission August 27, 2014 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 some 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. Variance. Tony Giannakakis. 7200 Tralee Drive, Edina, MN. B. Conditional Use Permit. Chad and Jenny Helmer. 5808 Creek Valley Rd., Edina, MN C. Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan, Beacon Interfaith Housing. 3330 West 66th Street., Edina, MN D. Preliminary Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan, Frauenshuh; 7700 France Avenue. E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 36 VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Lot Division — 3932 &34 West 49th Street, Edina, MN B. Grading & Drainage Ordinance C. Work Plan - 2015 VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance & Council Update IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance In the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission October 22, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker October 8, 2014 B-14-17 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a front street setback variance from 81.6 feet to 63.84 feet for the construction of a new home located at 7100 Tralee Drive for Tony Giannakakis /TC Home Builders/John and Karen Williams — home owners. Project Description: The subject property is a vacant lot located on the southwest corner of Lee Valley Road and Tralee Drive. The site is 47,849 Square Feet in size and is located in the Prospect Knolls neighborhood. The proposed new home would place the home farther from neighboring properties, but closer to Tralee Drive. Adjacent affected neighbors would prefer the home location as proposed, (See attached plans and letters of support). Locating the home closer to the street keeps the structure farther from neighboring properties and allows for a better drainage pattern for the site. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is mostly street frontage, coming to a point at the intersection of Lee Valley Road and Tralee Drive. The middle of the lot is elevated from both street frontages. The proposal is for a two story home with an attached three car garage. There are two existing single-family homes on the south and western lots, one facing Lee Valley that is set way back from the side street and one home facing Tralee Drive. The home fronting Tralee Drive is located 81.6 feet from the front property line and establishes the subject property's front yard setback. The property owner is requesting to tear down the existing home and build a new home on the property in a location that does not meet the Tralee Drive front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the abutting home on a corner lot. The setback of the abutting home is 81.6 feet. As a corner lot, the property owner may choose the front yard. Grading and Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and a memo is included in the packet. The down stream public storm water system capacity is limited so a more detailed review will be preformed at the time of building permit application. Permit application shall provide existing and proposed conditions for volume and flow for Engineering review and approval. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded on all sides by existing single-family homes located in the Prospect Knolls neighborhood. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 47,849 square feet. It is an elevated, vacant lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to tear down the existing home and construct a new home on the property, but 17.76 feet from the required 81.6 foot setback from Tralee Drive. The home is 5,234 square feet in size. Compliance Table 2 City Standard Proposed Front 81.6 feet *63.84 feet Side Street - 15/20 feet 31.98 feet Side- 10+ height, (living) 48.77 feet Rear- 25 feet 64.59 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 36.5 feet from existing grade Lot Area 9,000 safe or avg. of nbad Lot Width 75 feet or avg. of nbad 47,849 sq. ft. +161 feet 2 Lot coverage 25% 10.8% F var►ance Kequired Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Below are factors to weigh in considering this request: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front street setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the south). 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The proposed home, is located farther from the neighbor's than if conforming to the front yard setback standard. 4. The proposed home location is less impacting on adjacent neighbors regarding both proximity and drainage. 5. The proposed home can be constructed to conform on the lot. The variance is requested to move the home further away from the side and rear lot lines to provide more spacing between the homes. The neighbors prefer the location as proposed. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Given the fact that the home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming location, staff does not believe the variance is justified. There are no conditions unique to the property that poses a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 3 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes that the proposed location of the home is reasonable. The applicant could locate the home on the lot to meet all setback requirements; however, it would move the home much closer to the adjacent lots, and create less area for drainage. The practical difficulty in this instance is the large front street setback of the abutting home to the south, which makes the building area of the subject property closer to adjacent properties. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The unique circumstances include the abutting home with a large front street setback setting up the front yard requirement. The lots are large in the neighborhood with homes placed on property given specific lot characteristics including sight lines, topography etc. This neighborhood is not a standard lot and block neighborhood that would typically have all homes with matching front yard setbacks. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed home will complement the existing neighborhood homes and will be appropriate for the site. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested Variance based on the following findings: The proposed location of the house is reasonable. It would be located further away from the side and rear lot lines. 2. The applicant could locate the home on the lot to meet all setback requirements; however, it would move the home much closer to the 4 adjacent lots, and create less area for drainage and.allow structure area closer to neighbors. 3. The practical difficulty in this instance is the configuration of the lot combined with the large front street setback which makes the building area closer to adjacent properties. 6. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed new home will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped September 24, 2014 • Building Plans date stamped September 24, 2014 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated October 1, 2014 3. Submission of evidence of Watershed approval. Deadline for a City Decision: November 23, 2014 M DATE: October I, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 7100 Tralee Drive - Special Review for Variance The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the following ordinance sections: • Chapter 10, Article 4 — Demolition Permit Stormwater and Erosion Control (10-106 to 10-1 13) • Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12— Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the provided documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Land Use/Planning Concerns 1. No comment. General I. A separate permit may be required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org 2. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the buildingep rmit application packet Survey missing the following: a. #10.4. Lowest point of entry (i.e. doorsill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. 3. Tiered retaining wall system on the south side of the property will require engineering. Street and Curb Cut 4. Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut. Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf 5. Old curb cut must be removed and replaced with appropriate curb and gutter. Sanitary and Water Utilities 6. Show utility connections. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov 6 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Storm Water Utility 7.. Thei subject site front yard drains to subwatershed SWP_50, the drainage flows to Lee Valley Road and collected in the public storm water system. Downstream public storm water system capacity is limited. 8. The subject site rear and side yards drain to subwatershed SWP 56, the drainage flows to Tralee Drive And collected in the public storm water system. Downstream public storm water system capacity is limited. 9. Applicant may .review local drainage features at the following links.: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ .and http //edinamn:gov/index php?section=engineering water, resource I O. Required .storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water, 11. Mitigation of increased volume and peak rate to MP 50 and SWP_56 due to limited public storm water system capacity. a. `'Provide existing and proposed condition calculations for volume and flow. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 12. No comment: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www. EdinaMN.gov, 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 A VARIANCE APPLICATION 0.-1 11 CASE NUMBER DATE-, FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department' www.cityofedina.corn 4801 West Fiftieth Street' Edina, MN 55424 (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ...................................................... ---- ------------ FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME -.7/;,f j (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: HONE:.__ ei_?, 0' (AKX) EMAIL - PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:John aod i 1-t JICtMS (Signature required on back page) .7t) - I r 1,0 g -d 11"KitAW-11-IONE: -41)15 1 _Icj� ADDRESS: A4 kh _ILL_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): ..You 'nus! pr-mic. ; 'u'l :e.j.d c�z_�,pllwl 11 Sr,a�p JS j;IE13F� "..,P ;! Njot� CD(.r1ty T1 Ia int I, rept (hi rnnc� I L, I I.".' a r.j.16V.,)g plrjj?e7l I I F,e; :rg a I 'I -I sc, r1mr, .1oe5 qrl mzl I:: h Maar F,-,c,irds Thi ;nny :je 6y;:ow ;-,,oject PROPERTY ADDRESS: j PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D.4 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST 1�10<1�_ d4_ _1_ " 6_4 111e4d (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME- j PHONE: 0 - -5 J EMAIL: 0 7L,9 r on, SURVEYOR: NAME:.9ONE: ,-0jVe-? PH EMAIL: I/L/h l4w 15ivlley d,,. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood YES NO APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my came. and i am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application. I certify that all fees, charges, t.rtIlihf bills. taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and. to the best of my Kr•owledge. the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct ApplicIfit's Signature OWNER'S STATEMENT I arI the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application (if a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder attach a resolution authorizing lolls a licaoon on benalf of the board of directors or partnership f Owner's Signature Date L3/� Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. "Your Premier Custom Homebuilder" Edina,MN Planning Department City of Edina 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear planning commission: I have met with the neighbors that would be directly affected with our proposal and I have included their support for what we are proposing. Were actually trying to make a better situation than the current set back rules for this particular property. The neighbor to the South Mr. and Mrs Faulkner would be detrimentally impacted given the current setback. The neighbor to the West Ms. Lillestrand would also be detrimentally impacted because the home we would be proposing would have to sit closer to their lots and higher on the lot. By moving the home 19.6 feet to the East over the would be said set back we could drop the home an additional 6.7 feet and make it fit into the neighborhood more approriatly. The neighbor to the East Mr. and Mrs Lohmann would really be the only neighbor impacted because it would shift the home torwards their property. They have also written a letter of support and have agreed with what we're proposing. I think after looking at all the pictures and support for this, hopefully the planning commission can support the neighbors, future homeowners and me in our attempt to make a tough situation better. Thank you for your consideration, Tony Giannakakis TC Homebuilders Inc. September 13, 2014 Planning Department City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina MN.55424 Dear Sir/Madame, This letter shall serve to advise you that we fully support the effort by T. C. Homebuilders to build the proposed new home to be located at 7100 Tralee Dr. Edina MN in such a manner as to ignore the City established 81.6 ft. setback from Tralee Dr. and reestablish the setback at 63.84 ft. We are the property owners at 7101 Tralee Dr. and immediately face the area in question. Moving the home approximately 20 ft. easterly and closer to Tralee Dr. will not cause us any concern and will better position the home on the subject lot. Sincerely, J hnn ohma cif / l Sheila Anne Lohmann 952.941.2359 TO: Edina Planning Commission FM: Dorothy Liliestrand Owner @7104 Down Road DATE: September 16, 2014 RE: 7100 TRALEE DRIVE EDINA, MN 55439 After meeting with Cate Faulkner of 7104 Tralee Drive and hearing about the new plans for 7100 Tralee Drive I am very encouraged about the proposed site plans. However, I understand that the City of Edina has suggested that the setback of the new home be the same as the property at 7104 Tralee Drive with an 81.60 foot setback from the street (Tralee Drive). I think that this seems unrealistic for the lot at 7100 Tralee Drive. The revised plan that the builder suggests with the set back being at 63.84 seems much more appropriate for the development of that lot. It appears that this suggested plan will allow the new home to be placed more evenly between my home at 7104 Down Road and the Faulkner's home at 7104 Tralee Drive. I hope that you allow TC Homebuilders and the new owners John and Karen Williams to develop the property according to their revised plan. I think that all of the larger lots in our neighborhood are each a little bit different with individual topography challenges. It seems to me that they should be developed based on what is best for those topography challenges and not based on the measurement of each home's distance to the street. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ane' Dorothy Lill strand Date TO: Edina Planning Commission FM: Matt and Cate Faulkner Owners @7104 Tralee Drive DATE: September 16, 2014 RE: 7100 TRALEE DRIVE EDINA, MN 55439 We are pleased to learn about the development of the property next door at 7100 Tralee Drive. It has been a long time since there has been a home on that property. Unfortunately the previous owners did a very poor job of keeping the property in good shape and the current owners have a big challenge ahead. Let's work together to make this challenge as easy as possible! After meeting with the builder Tony Giannakakis of TC Homebuilders last week we are very impressed with the proposed site plans. Currently our home at 7104 Tralee Drive has an 81.60 ft. setback from the street. It appears that the City of Edina has suggested that the new home have the same setback as our property. This seems very unrealistic for the lot at 7100 Tralee Drive. The revised plan that Tony suggests with the set back of 63.84 feet seems much more appropriate for the development of that lot. It also provides better separation for our two homes. Please allow TC Homebuilders and the new owners John and Karen Williams to develop the property according to their suggested plan. Each lot in our neighborhood is a little different and has their own topography challenges. In our opinion, each lot should be developed based on what is best for those topography challenges and not based on the measurement of each home's distance to the street. Thank you for your consideration and interest in this matter. Matt Faulkner (&U -t VW., Cate Faulkner Date q 1�1 iq Date' To: Edina Planning Commission From: Alan and Betsy Weiner Owners of 7105 Tralee Drive, Edina, MN 55439 Date: September 30, 2014 RE: 7100 Tralee Drive, Edina, MN 55439 It has come to our attention that the setback at 7100 Tralee Drive has changed from 81.60 to 63.84. This change has been suggested by the builder in order to create a better placement for the home that is about to be built. This new setback at 63.84 would allow the home to be placed more evenly among its closest neighbors. We hope that you will allow TC Homebuilders, and the new owners, to develop the property with this new placement. All of the lots in this neighborhood seem a little different, and the topography of this lot poses its own challenges. There should not be a "one size fits all" mentality with regards to dealing with what the builder has to work with and in regards to how the home should be situated most effectively on the site. We appreciate the builder, and the new owners, for developing the lot with the idea that they will work with these challenges, and with the neighbors, and not just measurement from lot to street. This will be a best case scenario for everyone. Thank you for your c ns' eration. Alan Weiner Date September 30, 2014 Betsy Weiner Ab Date September 30, 2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map _r Interactive Maps Welcome Results Links -= Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing maps) i Survey documents Abo t th d Find a PID or an address on the map Page 1 of 1 PID: 0811621220026 1 7100 Tralee Dr _ Edina, MN 55439 `;�-= Count � --�"- Owner/Taxpayer John Williams/Karen Owner: + Williams JOHN WALTERi WILLIAMS } KAREN FONG Taxpayer: WILLIAM 7100 TRALEE DR_ EDINA MN 55439 Tax District h School Dist: 273 r _ Sewer Dist: f I �' .� Watershed Dist: 1�, - 0 Parcel i 1.08 acres rn Parcel Area: _n.. _. 47,253 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens td' Prospect Hills 2nd--- Addition: Addn ua i P J Lot: 001 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: r Legend Measure 0�� _ 200 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default. aspx?pid=0811621220026 10/3/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map _r - Welcome Page 1 of 1 Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Results Links- Tax information View oblique ima9ery (Bing mans) Survey documents About the data PID:0811621220026 7100 Tralee Dr Edina, MN 55439 Owner/Taxpayer John Williams/Karen Owner: Williams JOHN WALTER 'WILLIAMS KAREN FONG Taxpayer: WILLIAMS 7100 TRALEE DR EDINA MN 55439 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 1 Parcel 1.08 acres Parcel Area: 47,253 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Prospect Hills 2nd Addition: Addn Lot: 001 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: T -- Legend Measure http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=0811621220026 10/3/2014 ------------- _ter s � s T i ice•. _. :::i- -w �'.; -I 21" Mop } C. } C. AL tay,,.,f jr ' x• � � , r1ltYYrfNC 6dIRY i'f#vG. :E:VG%ti E S't ,.Co. faaox,esy,�.Eax st+mi��,uissix! TS.ar.�fmrz+.;�sE.rats»s+�asis+'. 7ED.i�'ZE�tsEft c!.a'Err.'ahad �yA �n sr>wa4a �, .4Ala itPL15€.}[i1'1SLLS'�'USAtf[SThO'IP,'!&meflNLlxaIH:111vYieN' -ai'u'+4Ja+.'�afinrtf76wrdyY?riwttMrFeirhy�t lka. YS'rwpa Ara' rmWri:e'�urt�,.ccMhdrlti�LreAm;wecicwfdetr4.lkPrt�syK, Ita:Y<httitWJ+p1 deef�m.N>pn+i+4s+?haccueAaiAm�n!?eKhpfceawtldfen.r.�Y..bmeks+mi�Ctr . rm.2ml'a+#uY.�ImafMvr4!&!rssieixrbllG mse7+rc bL3Yiuh oe 45sme+pY.7radr 5,.rn .bnwR i sh�k>jt5rlriWnd'r��7�*meenweulwu .3. A•evw5a+s�Mxoftnmmm+•H�lne�xk'srd'O+.pcapeay.. , ad�n�•�.l•qw!»nere+x.�w.�uc.:,u..re��l..,re.�a�n xa.��dyv�.mas,ne. 'iNrEkK ro: wwa7ymarlirs6wuspin6Anna Ak*d+rY. ur.cvismFesk...xa:t gksAr�ede'•frdxe kae xeEM mj •SiuYeerrzi%yd�u.4➢Yaw f #+amt46ph. #$'A�'9ALb 8Y1MXfLS'k1b)R%S.'17b1+J' • �. Yge�NSplulssC i�'�`fw!&iw�lAlYlx+l lllJ.d4adnrArrotgakwl fMef+�nJljAKd6pEw,.AnsYie�Rnke7asswnel`MY pr.pnrfiTcwer' ..+edSrnSy�r.etinpm45ro+Hbm¢lxea&;usM ndrn.'WuTUda+r:ea Lattftaaua<r...yFr�Wi6d.myutr6rSr uotMiiaetmft . FM 0/0 e�'f Z artYstcc scu,E lam, SDE ADDRESS: 7100 TRALEE DR. EDINA, IAN 55439 nen Monwune Fmma ° �.Bw�digtK ceP XecabN P. . 152b. BAPpf 1I TOP OF P'OUOAYW = (B2�Id OAP.atE FIp0.! � 61929'.4 .01E Iot b ewrnW -t. = 41,819 sF 9APFIMOMS S191FOLC >J SF PaNCP Lest4,B00 SF MPwmee -,.I SF Potlo = eB ss58 8F Nlernnn = IBT 8 Tetal s 3,a� SG SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET P80PERIY MFA - 41,889 sF PROPERtt D6CWPIION: Let 1, Blxk 1 19051EQ MLLs 2N0 AOCBIION, Ne req -Y. Mumeeob. BnWCHVARW �� ban sNe of W Wnry Ra. c[ Twlw or. pew0on � 898.91. NOIE No 9eorcN Wvv Matle Fm bN fevemwle NOTe Ifheclldd enJ [mm P d� �fiml.ntl M u,. uBlRy aw npue�we moc! bw�INn bN n tlotlq o�ry en�avwNllae�d by nollNd fw v"eervn Not Nn N^^• % "P' eoe Pa r4 M� bM SumyornuMc�tM1a Ma of Ne SNY of Nnewla teeter W. BR�M1/VNO BIIRVEYY.C. NC. WootlroR A ®onn, R.L.S NN REG 15230 09-17 5014 - - AOerEM ROOF EIFMMIN W. 13ROVN LAND S-V-ING, INC. Bo.To cw9r Avelme sR, sw[. Sze Buv�(9�'w �m6 BFer. (855) 851-szBe SB.WIIIg: ate; 5014 156-14 same 1 In=n = zo Feet 1 of 1 Legend —sM-- —wn<— sm,Rny se.. water �OM� ® VMvgr01M Goa c e ® p CNcn BcaN smlbry Monble Pneer Pda m �sw ® El.aae eee 1B=2Y NembcX BPVmBNVa Cub 1000.0 a ReNNing We0 Qie0n9 pacfien a900.01C Tap al Curb Rewtlan e9B3mw -Boo- T. er wnn ENveGon E+b[bq GMlvur nen Monwune Fmma ° �.Bw�digtK ceP XecabN P. . 152b. BAPpf 1I TOP OF P'OUOAYW = (B2�Id OAP.atE FIp0.! � 61929'.4 .01E Iot b ewrnW -t. = 41,819 sF 9APFIMOMS S191FOLC >J SF PaNCP Lest4,B00 SF MPwmee -,.I SF Potlo = eB ss58 8F Nlernnn = IBT 8 Tetal s 3,a� SG SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET P80PERIY MFA - 41,889 sF PROPERtt D6CWPIION: Let 1, Blxk 1 19051EQ MLLs 2N0 AOCBIION, Ne req -Y. Mumeeob. BnWCHVARW �� ban sNe of W Wnry Ra. c[ Twlw or. pew0on � 898.91. NOIE No 9eorcN Wvv Matle Fm bN fevemwle NOTe Ifheclldd enJ [mm P d� �fiml.ntl M u,. uBlRy aw npue�we moc! bw�INn bN n tlotlq o�ry en�avwNllae�d by nollNd fw v"eervn Not Nn N^^• % "P' eoe Pa r4 M� bM SumyornuMc�tM1a Ma of Ne SNY of Nnewla teeter W. BR�M1/VNO BIIRVEYY.C. NC. WootlroR A ®onn, R.L.S NN REG 15230 09-17 5014 - - AOerEM ROOF EIFMMIN W. 13ROVN LAND S-V-ING, INC. Bo.To cw9r Avelme sR, sw[. Sze Buv�(9�'w �m6 BFer. (855) 851-szBe SB.WIIIg: ate; 5014 156-14 same 1 In=n = zo Feet 1 of 1 ......... * A................... . I b 'AA I ILL saw x�i esi Sof ' him: �10011 al 0 UPI 111 PERM 14 M1 9 1 t �!' M N A aim ill N1 o Hit I., QH It I IaF R.k� ti€{ I I s s ��' �• • '� � g g Es F'�i } i. •}} ,yfi 7 3 � � Y � - C` PON! Is F.{ imp, up usl 31 i1i Kji!ji'Rjqj'pj M, M Elm ft Run P1 0 Pan 1A, gi CA tv l 1A, gi CA tv li L a:' _�C f --�C RIP ■ r t �I 0i '- y ■ r - iisn3"el�� II � �• v - IIII allLS, -• � � X11 Ifll��=9•�\,U`II� . � II � i h � its �I� -• o L:'•°;•°'��\ {{��I' r ,la � II _1� i•�i�l �_r � � _ 7 �� IsI ILII 'Ir !Eli .Pll■ ' bels,.- =ai „ �� 'I■ ''I{� U I f I ■- �6au79 M , _ 6I0 i�31(Si 11 Iloot - - - A °• all I {6�� L.r I.ru �'.ti�� ■moi _ ■ � ' ■tel l , . ON —� 11 1 � �p°=€ $I IIb WILLIAMS RESIDENCE ®1ai10fPaPNNnW60555N �� D.F.P. I II uNnui�waizeousSOF*xevLPN �U�, Jl�f� PLANNING 8 DESIGN 5 P vIOLPiiON OF iHC U.S. vt.. 'ics iso eoN EDINA, MINNESOTA caaraicxr Pa PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker, October 8, 2014 2014.014 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new home to have a new first floor more than one foot above (1.5 feet total) the existing first floor elevation at the property located at 5808 Creek Valley Road for Chad and Jennifer Helmer. Project Description: Ted Carlson has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application on behalf of Chad and Jennifer Helmer to increase the first floor elevation 1.5 feet higher than the current first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 5808 Creek Valley Road. The Conditional Use Permit is for .5 feet or 6 inches of additional first floor height above the allowed one foot increase. The new home is a two story home with an attached three car garage, (see attached surveys, and building plans). INFORMATION & BACKGROUND The current home has a basement elevation of 853.2 above sea level and a first floor elevation at 861.8 feet above sea level. The proposal is to tear down the house and re -build, for a total of a 1.5 foot increase in first floor elevation (.5 feet above allowed in code). The new basement elevation will be at 853.7 feet above sea level and the new first floor will be at 863.3 feet above sea level. The Basement floor must be raised to comply with required flood protection elevations. The reason for the CUP request is to address a discrepancy between the City of Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed's flood protection elevations. The City of Edina uses the FEMA designated elevation of 850.6 above sea level and the Nine Mile Creek Water Shed District uses their own modeling that puts the protection elevation at 852.7 feet above sea level. There is a 2.1 foot discrepancy between FEMA and Nine Mile Creek Water Shed's protection elevations. The builder has proposed a basement elevation of 853.7 which is between the FEMA designated elevation and Nine Mile Creek's protection elevation. The basement would be raised 6 inches to be 3.1 feet higher than the FEMA flood elevation and 1 foot above the Nine Mile Creek Watershed's flood elevation. Nine Mile requires 2 feet of freeboard, so the basement is one foot lower than Nine Mile Water shed District rules. The builder has indicated that the project has received a variance from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to allow the basement elevation lower than required based on the Water Shed's flood plain modeling. Eligibility Requirements for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit City Code allows for the issuance of a conditional use permit to increase the first floor elevation of a new home over one foot above the existing home under one of the following circumstances: 1) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, as established by FEMA; 2) To elevate the lowest level.of the dwelling to protect from groundwater intrusion; 3) To elevate the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code, city code, or statutory requirements; Furthermore, a conditional use permit may only be issued if the proposed project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. The proposed home is eligible for a conditional use permit under the above requirements because the new home is being raised to elevate out of the floodplain and to avoid groundwater intrusion. The applicant is trying to improve the drainage and elevate the basement out of the FEMA flood protection elevation. The proposed home is a two story home with one story homes on either side of the proposed home. The proposed height of the structure is 35.1 feet. The maximum building height allowed on this site is 37.4 feet given lot width. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single family homes Easterly: Single family homes Southerly: Single family homes Westerly: Single family homes, pond. Existing Site Features 2 The lot is located in the middle of a single-family neighborhood on Creek Valley Road. The site backs up to wetland. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Grading & Drainage Low -Density Residential R-1, Single -Dwelling District The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments in the attached memo. The Engineer is satisfied with the submission and has stated in the memo that plans as submitted provide more than adequate solutions for the needs of the site. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 36-305, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; The proposal for a tear down and rebuild of a new single-family home will not have an impact on governmental facilities or services. A single-family home is a permitted use on the site. 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; The proposal to tear down and rebuild a single-family home would not have an impact on traffic or the capacity of the streets serving the property. The use, a single-family home, remains the same on the property. 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; There would be no impact, as the use of the property remains the same as exists today. 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; The proposed new home would replace an existing home on the site and would not impede future development of other properties in the vicinity. 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and The new home would meet all applicable zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the first floor. 6. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A single-family home is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance Table *Needs a Conditional Use Permit PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the first floor elevation. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. rd City Standard Proposed Front — Creek Valley Average of 37.6 feet - average adjacent 10 feet Side -East 10 feet 90 feet Rear— North 25 feet 25.85 feet Side — 10 feet 1St Floor Elevation 1 foot *1.5 feet Building Coverage 25% 14.9% Building Height 37.4 feet 35.1 feet *Needs a Conditional Use Permit PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the first floor elevation. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. rd 3. The applicant is seeking to accomplish ceiling heights of approximately 8 feet in the basement, which is reasonable for new construction. 4. The proposed home will comply with the FEMA flood protection elevations for lowest floor and according to the builder, satisfy the Nine Mile Creek Watershed lowest floor elevation requirements. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. 2. The proposal will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property. 3. The proposal does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The proposal will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity. 5. The proposal conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section. 6. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Engineering staff finds that the proposed grading plans would not negatively impact the adjacent homes. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: Survey date stamped September 23, 2014. Building plans and elevations date stamped September 23, 2014. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated October 1, 2014. 3. Submission of Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Approval prior to building permit issuance. Deadline for a City decision: November 23, 2014. DATE: October 1, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 5808 Creek Valley Road - Special Review of CUP Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the following ordinance sections: • Chapter 10, Article 4 — Demolition Permit Stormwater and Erosion Control (10-106 to 10-1 13) • Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12 — Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the provided documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Land Use/Planning Concerns 1. Engineering supports the proposed plan to raise the current first floor elevation from 861.8' to 863.3' to meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District flood zone requirements. General 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org. 3. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the buildingep rmit application packet a. #10.4. Lowest point of entry (i.e. doorsill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. b. #10.6. Top of wall and bottom of wall elevations at regular intervals for all retaining walls. Street and Curb Cut 4. If application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http•//edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf Sanitary and Water Utilities 5. Show utility connections. Storm Water Utility 6. The subject site front yard drains to subwatershed NMC -23. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. 7. The subject site rear yard drains to subwatershed NMC -3. This drainage path is through a rear yard and then into part of Nine Mile Creek. 7450 Meto Boukvard 6 E&mWmnmft55473 wwwXAinaMN.gov • 952-8764Wi • Fax 952-826-0392 8. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ and http://edinamn.gov/index phD?section=engineering water resource 9. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water 10. No increase in peak rate or volume to private property. a. Plans as submitted provide a more than adequate solution for the needs of this site. 11. No increase in peak rate or volume to NMC 23. a. Plans as submitted provide a more than adequate solution for the needs of this site. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 12. Describe stockpile locations and erosion precautions. G11RGD�AWFMEIRT 7450 Metro Bid - Edi .ria a M 952-826-OM t 55439 nPfa':Q7F .-95j2-826-UC7cI1 -, 952- WOODDALE B U I L D E R S Wooddale Builders is representing Chad & Jennifer Helmer, the current homeowners at 5808 Creek Valley Road, Edina, MN. Wooddale Builders is applying for a CUP at 5808 Creek Valley Road, Edina, Mn. for the construction of a new house. The existing lowest floor elevation is 853.2 and we propose to raise it to 853.7. The reason for the CUP request is a result of the discrepancy between the City of Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed district's definition of the 100 year flood elevation. According to Laura Adler, CFM, Water Resource Coordinator of the City of Edina, she uses the FEMA flood insurance rate map and flood insurance study 100 year flood is 850.6. But according to Bob Obermeyer at Barr Engineering the 100 year flood is 852.7 M.S.L. In order to meet Barr Engineering 100 year flood line of 852.7 M.S.L. we would need to raise the first floor 2.5 feet which doesn't meet Edina city code and does not fit in with the neighborhood. So we are "stuck" between Nine Mile Creek wanting us to raise the basement floor 1.5' and the City of Edina only allowing us to raise the first floor 1 foot. We would like to meet somewhere in the middle and propose to raise the lowest floor elevation 6" to 853.7 which is 3.2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation from FEMA flood insurance rate map and 1 foot above Barr Engineering 100 year flood line of 852.7 M.S.L. This raises the first floor elevation to 863.3 which is 1.5 feet higher than existing first floor elevation. Hennepin County Property Interactive Map _r - Interactive Maps Welcome Results Links Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID: 0511621310010 5808 Creek Valley Rd Edina, MN 55439 Owner/Taxpayer L A Hagedorn/C A Owner: Zajicek Tr CHARLES A ZAJICEK Taxpayer: 5808 CREEK VALLEY RD EDINA MN 55439 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 1 Parcel Parcel Area. 0.48 acres20,799 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Addition: Creek Valley Addn Lot: 011 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: --------- --- Legend Measure Find a PID or an address on the map A Page I of I 0 % V 66TH STRE T %NT;T I T R,4C Pf ER f 17CC f —LL ANE Ir-- i t -'J 0 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=05116213 10010 10/3/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page 1 of 1 — Interactive Mas Find a PID or an address on the map \A/alrnma Results Links Tax information View obliaue imagery (Bina mans) Survey documents About the data PID: 0511621310010 5808 Creek Valley Rd Edina, MN 55439 Owner/Taxpayer L A Hagedorn /C A Owner: Zajicek Tr CHARLES A ZAJICEK Taxpayer: 5808 CREEK VALLEY RD EDINA MN 55439 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 1 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.48 acres 20,799 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Addition: Creek Valley Addn Lot: 011 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: enand Measure http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=0511621310010 10/3/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Interactive-��- MapsInteractive— - Ma P Find a PID or an address on the map WAIMMA Results Links j Tax information View obliaue imaaery (Bina mans) Survey documents About the data PID: 0511621310010 5808 Creek Valley Rd Edina, MN 55439 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: L A Hagedorn /C A Zajicek Tr CHARLES A ZAJICEK Taxpayer: 5808 CREEK VALLEY RD EDINA MN 55439 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 1 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.48 acres 20,799 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Addition: Creek Valley Addn Lot: 011 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: 911x9 Legend Measure Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=0511621310010 10/3/2014 i SITE ADDRESS: 5808 CREEK VALLEY RD, EDINA, MN 55439 Legend v • — fence —..�.. Svitary Senw —WIRD Walr . =GAS= Untlmund Gas o uP bde a cPa Meta o a snvl orr valve p Hytlwnl Gnaete Curb Tlmba RelaMing Noll Keyabme Retoinl•q Wap x900.0 Fabling Oewlian x900.Om Top of C ,b Elewliw+ x900.01W Tap of Wap: Elewlbn JJ00� FxhOn9 Centour 850.5—� 100.Tear Hagd'Centwr • Om a Iran Monument found O Oenelee Set, 1/2' x 14' InaaBaE R./LSF 15]]0 p 7 � let Aree =20,]92 4 ' YRERWOUS SLRYAQ Na.x (MtlWuq PMNm gels• Oeck) � 2,801 Sf UPPer Le1Pl Oea (ExcWMg Palion Abew Hwne) � 100 SF Cround Lew Oe k Lev 150 Si Apwmce � Il6 SF Telel � 3.04] SF 14>S EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET I PROPERTY OESWI"W: LPI 11, M,& 2. CREEK VALLEY A00111ON. Hemep Coun1Y. Nim,aaetw OENWYANK: T.N.H. of pS]W Geek Volley Rd EewUan .8]198. NOME Ne Seea11 Wm Metle fm My Eovemmld NOTE: 1Ne umiNed by Ib" by er tll Vtlitiee Nein me ban pima IM1e ul0ily canpanin entl arc opproxenale. Ulglty mmpgnlea AMtl be nolHkd /a exact laeel,en beide ddn9 enY excewllen. I berebY ee., -1IHY survey, Plan. a reps1 nes pePared by me ands my dbeel wpervielan eM .et I em a duly n91— Emd S.-* under - 1— P/ 1Ne Stale ei Mlnnnela. ' "�W. 9R9WN LN30 SUR`VMNYIN/NC, N6 ft— A. limen, R.L.S. MN REG 15230 Dbb, 03-19-2.4 1ok W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. . 8000 Ceder Avenue 54., Sall. z26 f%arn MN 55425 • Ruc (9502)2) 554-4653 fec fe3gl 95a—ane I Surveyor's Certificate SURVEY FOR : Wooddale DESCRIBED AS :Lot 11, Block 2, CREEK VALLEY ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of record. LAKE LOCKLEAR Water Elev. on 5/5/14 Elev = 845.4 % Delineated Wetlan 60' Wetland B RG 2 Section 0 10' 851 851 RG 1 Section 0 10' 859 85 NOT TO SCALE 'cast j•i 1 �\ (! .•� �` Gad ' i ��SY i i i i � � j ,- �j0• �O 01- ,gF I � 853.3 I Heavy. Outy Silt Fence Qj \ i 2' Map lod .11, o a tlo 853.3 .00 �1'h 7�� e \ 0• � DD .0 os°a 2jO � c ��•��° otoge 9• oQ 0 2 ar.1 e7.$'.SQde G s '� �• _ �9 ,ga 01�Go / $�pr-tPs• \`,!� �o 0 861 �� / / s O Exist. Home TOB=862.0 LOT SQ. FOOTAGE =' 20, 764'' EXISTING BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE = 2,239 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE =10.87. PROPOSED BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE 10 INCLUDES ALL OF HOUSE = 3,104 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE =14.9% yt� Servicg ' S Exist. Home TOB=858.0 •O- Site Access Vfa 356.6 Existing Dri-wo �k Const. , PROPOSED ELEVA110NS BENCHMARK, Top of Foundation = 861.7 Finish Flr.=863.3 Highest Peak= 894.0 Garage Floor = 861.3 Basement Floor = 853.7 Aprox. Sewer Service = Verify Proposed Elev. P = O MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Existing Elev. = f' Drainage Directions = Front — 37.6 House Side —10 Denotes Offset Stake = • SCALE: 1 Inch =�O feet Rear — 60 Garage Side —10 From 850 Contour I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TfIUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION JOB NO: HEDLUND OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE bESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED 14R-113 BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. BOOK: PACE: PLANNING ENGINEERING SURYEYING 2005 Pin Oak Drive Q Eagan, MN 55122 DATE —k_/_,Z2/_14 CAD FILE. Phone: (651) 405-6600 J Y D. LINDGREN, D SURVEYOR Misc-14 Fax : (651) 405-6606 MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 14376 e;ge TRADfT-10NAL SERIES CHAD & JENNIFER HELMER WOODDALE BUILDERS, INC. 6109BLUECIRCLE DR,MIN 952 345-0543 N 55393 PH. b ffc �fl 5808 CREEK VALLES.'ROAD EDINA, MN ♦ ♦ � IIF N K WOODDALE B U I L D E R S Color Selections for 5808 Creek Valley, Edina 1. Color: Classic Gray by Benjamin Moore (BM-OC23) Flat Garage Doors Overhangs Soffits Window Trim Front Columns Gable Trim Detail Deck Posts Deck Rims 2. Color: Old Monterey -Note Color formula on sample by Mpls CSC #19 612-377-9970 Hardi- Shakes — Front Hardi Lap 3 Rear Sides 3. Window Color is White 4. Exterior Stone is Dutch Quality Ashen Weather Ledge 5. Roof Shingles are 30 Year Tanko Heritage, Color: Rustic Black '44 7AMI(B IJ ■ '44 7AMI(B IJ _92mm0 SK_w CrVmAaTrVw_as; . m®TNI4013N© \ �� 9m'2�k2oo/ ,3W'M,affKNU2aVM sgmm-fv&oAav-j1 k ^� 2�| §Ik §§§ §§ §§ r|! !2 B| ! t _92mm0 SK_w CrVmAaTrVw_as; . m®TNI4013N© \ �� 9m'2�k2oo/ ,3W'M,affKNU2aVM sgmm-fv&oAav-j1 k ^� 2�| §Ik §§§ §§ §§ r|! !2 B| t |■■ §§ §k §\§$ I 12 u -4 0 T - o0 0 7u D m 66 OB 6 71 IN I NAL SERIES CMD & JENNIFER 1ELMER WOODDALE BURDERS, INC. 6109 BLUE CLEM DEL WNNEMNKA. MN 55343 5808 CREEK VA= ROAD H. 952_34S_0543 EDINA, MN I s 12 u -4 0 T - o0 0 7u D m 66 OB 6 71 NAL SERIES CMD & JENNIFER 1ELMER WOODDALE BURDERS, INC. 6109 BLUE CLEM DEL WNNEMNKA. MN 55343 5808 CREEK VA= ROAD H. 952_34S_0543 EDINA, MN I s _ _ _ _ — _ — � I I SECOND FLOOR FLAN SCALE 1/4" " V-0" 614 COVE LIGHTS 5/4x8 PG, BOARD MIRROR /4x4 PG. BOARD BULLNOSE 616 COVE BELOW 3/4x4 P.G. BOARD MASTER BATH MIRROR FRAME SCALE 1/2" • V-0" . MASTER BEDROOM SOFFIT SCALE V2' • 1'-0• MARL FLOOR 1155 80. FT. SECOND FLOOR 7019 80. FT. IST 1 2ND TOTAL 9894 80. FT. LOWER FLOOR 1594 SO. FT. TOTAL FNISNED $478 80. FT. SCREEN PORCH 293 SO. FT. GARAGE 816 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR, WALL& PLATE WEIGHT, W-1 Va. IUND023 AND DOOR& TOP OF RO• 6`11 3/8• PLYGEM WINDOWS 1 PATIO DOORS RO.•3/4• LARGER THAN FRAME 812E DRAWN BY: GATE: REVISIONS CJ zPQ Wµ� Hpr AQA��sp�� O�Z E o$� SHEET NO. 4 OFF 5 N m 0 i mi / al £R �r n In m D sITT a� °m —+ �' 5 q i'R r� 'TRADITIONAL SERIFS CHAD & JENNIFER HELMER Sao$ CREEK VAL,T.t:_v ROAD EDINA MN WOODDAU BUII.DERS, INC. 6109 BLUE ORCLE DR. MINNELO5-0543 55343 PH. 952-345-0•A3 Ilk,;. r, p f; r 1` Y 1 s' 40 r f , i "ir l 1 i t , -rr,r f. _ t 1N 'i•; �'j�T �r ►T t -A ti t � _ 1 X e► � rt Y v }Z tiW� L { � yI r(F q (• II+ , .,I ' e . 1N 'i•; �r X e► � rt Y v }Z tiW� 1N 'i•; NLV 'dhiiQ3 •EMS aYMN03N QdON AnIVAAHH4IJ 8085 vTDUO01 4211. 7x�Ir aexD cru•s��a�ng�m 1! bin givas TWNO7Ida4 a° r W J J lz W W C� U 'd N Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan SURVEY FOR :Wooddale DESCRIBED AS :Lot 11, Block 2, CREEK VALLEY ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of record. LAKE LOCKLEAR Water Elev. on 5/5/14 Elev = 845.4 f% Delineated Wetland / 'F if 60' Wetland Bu RG 2 Section 0 10' as1 851 RG 1 Section 0 10' 859 65 NOT TO �CALE -66 -bN" Heavy Duty d` Silt no. Qj i .1�- IPI . \ Exist. Home TOB=862.0 a Sea to9e ryOQCN �° •� 861 �/ � Y / s r5 LOT SQ. FOOTAGE ="-20,764'''' TNH 2, i EXISTING BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE = 239 s6o.z�� EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE =10.8% PROPOSED BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE Se„s INCLUDES ALL OF HOUSE = 3,104 S PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE =14.9% SeNcbe ice\ ServicQ \ OS Exist. Home TOB=858.0 �p2; p,5 4� Site Access Vo 658.6 Existing Drivewa Rock Const.. Ent. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Top of Foundation = 861.7 Finish Flr.=863.3 Highest Peak= 894.0 BENCHMARK, Garage Floor = 861.3 Basement Floor = 853.7 Aprox. Sewer Service = Verify Proposed Elev. = <=::) MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Existing Elev. _ Drainage Directions = Front -37.6 House Side -10 Denotes Offset Stake = • SCALE 1 inch = 30 feet Rear — 60 Garage Side —10 From 850 Contour I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER JOB NO: DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 14R-113 HEDL UND EN ENGINEER UNDER';THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PAGE. PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING 1 of 2 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 DATE --9—/_-17 /_L4 CAD FILE Phone: (651) 405-6600 RANDALL C. HEDLUND Fax : (651) 405-6506 1 MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 19576 Misc-14 Surveyor's Certificate SURVEY FOR DESCRIBED AS EXISTING HOUSE DRAINAGE MAP PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Top of Foundation = Garage Floor = Basement Floor = Aprox. Sewer Service = Proposed Elev. _ Existing Elev. _ Drainage Directions = Denotes Offset Stake = HEDLUND PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Phone: (651) 405-6600 Fax : (651) 405-6606 SCALE: 1 Inch = 30 feet I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. DATE —/—/— BENCHMARK, MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Front — House Side — Rear — Garage Side — JOB NO: JEFFREY D. LINDGREN, LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 14376 BOOK: Surveyor's Certificate SURVEY FOR :wooddole DESCRIBED AS :Lot 11, Block 2, CREEK VALLEY ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of record. PROPOSED HOUSE DRAINAGE MAP \�/ 2sz .360 ' \ •" Exiet Home TOB=862.0 i LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 20,764 EXISTING BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE = 2,239 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE =10.89' PROPOSED BUILDING SQ. FOOTAGE = 2,826 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE =13.69 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Top of Foundation = Garage Floor = Basement Floor Aprox. Sewer Service = Proposed Elev. = Existing Elev. _ Drainage Directions = Denotes Offset Stake = • HEDLUND PLANNING h'NGrAw=NG SOR =NG 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Phone: (651) 405-6600 Fax : (651) 405-6606 %I ♦ d� . vo z w SCALE: 1 Inch = 30 feet »7 AC. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTA71O OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. DATE Exist. Home TOB=858.0 BENCHMARK, MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Front — House Side — Rear — Garage Side — N JOB NO: 14R-113 JEFFREY D. LINDGREN, LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 14376 FILE Misc-14 Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan SURVEY FOR :wooddale DESCRIBED AS : Lot 11, Block 2, CREEK VALLEY ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of record. SITE MAINTENANCE 1. Maintenace for site cleanliness and mainting erosion control will be by Dave Pautz of Pautz Const. Phone (952) 447-1299 2. Concrete washout will not be permitted on site unless an approved disposal container is supplied 3. No temporary pumping of standing water allowed. Standing water must infiltrate or evapourate SEDIMENT '& EROSION CONTROL NOTES I. All exposed soil areas, including temporary stockpiles, must be stabilizes as soon as possible but in no case later than 14 days after construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently' ceased. Stabilize with temporary seed and straw mulch applied at 2 tons per acres. 2. Silt fence shall be installed and at the locations shown on the plan and around any stockpiles. Silt fence shall be inspected and maintained weekly (and within 24 hrs of a 0.5 inch rainfall) until final seeding and mulching (orsodding)oflot. 3. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained at the location shown on the plan. 4. Contractor or Perm itee shall provide and maintain inlet protection on all storm drain inlets that will receive sediment laden flow as a result of construction. Inlet protection and maintenance shall remain in place until all sources with potential for discharge into the inlet have been stabilized. Inlet protection may be removed from a particular inlet if a specific safety concern (such as flooding) has been identified. The permitee must receive written correspondence from the City of Edina verifying the need for removal. Perinitee shall conduct .a visual inspection to determine which inlets need protection. 5. If down gradient sediment practices are overloaded, additional up gradient erosion control practices will be installed to reduce loading. 6. Dust control is the responsibility of the permit holder. The permit holder must eliminate dust problems upon receiving notice from the Building Official that there is a dust problem. 7. NINE MILE CREEK W ATERS14ED DISTRICT. A separate permit may be required, Call (952) 835-2078 8. Street cleaning shall occur daily or as needed. STORMWATER This Stormwater Management Plan (in narrative form) must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. 1. Permit holder shall inspect and maintain sediment and erosion control devices (i.e.: silt fence and inlet protection) weekly (or within 24 ltrs of a 0.5 inch or more rainfall). Sediment must be removed when it is 1/3 the height of the sediment and erosion control device. 2. Final grading on the lot shall minimize concentrated flow. Final drainage patterns shown are slat ilar to the existing conditions of the lot. 3. M aintain ten feet of existing vegetation in front of the down slope silt fence for storm water dissipation and cleaning 4. No increase in peak flow or volume to private properties to the south will occur with this new construction Wawn monoaWment geotext8e fie' wldfh) - averfap fotric 6' 2' x 2" wood or stoat fence pact B• m(nimum IongtA at - 4' maximum aP.0.g Geotexale fabric - overlap fcbdo O 6" and fasten at 2' Intervale 3 lay (.brie In the trench Fabdc anchorage trench z s BactA'dl trench with ' tamped ..turd soil "'off Okeotl.of support poet anchorage 13d8t Attach fabflo to in-situ and -SILT support p.eta with lath and staples EENCE -- - - - ......_............._...._ _............ ........ _. __................_....- - aa, amx .uws.ae mw ,y, - amau+ean�-,^„ er,,roa arca nems � w 1 rotas-..+" a.w.aa ass fnap.s nxwm amp u*w.vree.a I ssw.a °'uma sac em�,.a CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION WIMCO ROAD DRAIN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER JOB NO: HE�LUl1/D EN DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I T A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 14R-113 ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PAGES: PL"NING ENGIAWERING SURVEYING 2 of 2 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 DATE 2 1 4off— CAD FILE. (651) 405-6600 RANDALL C. HEDLUND Misc-14 Fax : (651) 405-6606 MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 19576 Hydrology Summary and Storm Water Management Plan for 5808 Creek Valley Road Edina, Minnesota Prepared for Wooddale Builders Hedlund Engineering, Inc. 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 August 28, 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Development 2.0 Permit Requirements 3.0 NMCWD Permit Summary Appendices Hydrocad for 2yr, 10yr, and 1 00y events and the 2.5 in. storm Existing house drainage map Proposed house drainage map 1.0 Proposed Development Wooddale Builders is proposing to build a new single-family home at 5808 Creek Valley Road in Edina. The legal description is Lot 11, Block 2, Creek Valley Addition. The area of the lot is 20,762 ft.' and is fully sodded. A single-family home that is currently on the lot will be demolished. The current single family home has 2,850 ft.2 of house footprint impervious surface and 1,450 ft.' of driveway and sidewalk impervious for a total of 4300 ft.'. The proposed home will have a house foot print impervious area of 2,720 ft.Z and drives and walks of 1,280 ft.2 for a total of 4000 ft.Z. Deck areas that are open to the ground below are not included in the impervious calculations. The new home cannot exceed the first floor elevation of the existing house by more than one foot without obtaining a conditional use permit from the City. The new home is proposed to have a low floor (basement) elevation 6 inches above the existing house and the first floor will be 1.5 feet above the existing house. 2.0 Permit Requirements Besides obtaining a building permit from the City of Edina the project will also require a permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD). The following rules that will apply from NMCWD are: Rule 3 - Wetlands Management Rule 4 - Storm Water Management Rule 5.- Erosion and Sediment Control Rule 10 -Variances and Exceptions 3.0 NMCWD Permit Summary 1.) Rule 3 — Wetlands Management Lake Locklear shoreline lies just past the rear lot line of the property. This lake is considered a high-value wetland according to the NMCWD and thus requires an average buffer from the shoreline of 60 feet. This buffer is depicted on the site plan and no construction activity will be proposed in the buffer area. The buffer area is currently sodded and will need to be cultivated with native vegetation. The following is criteria that needs to be followed from section 3.4 of Rule 3 from the NMCWD: 3.4 Wetland Buffers Any activity for which a permit is required under any District rule(s) must provide buffer on all wetlands disturbed by the activity and on all wetlands downgradient from the activity, in accordance with the following criteria: 3.4.1 Subject to section 3.4.2, buffers must extend: a Average 60 feet from the edge of high-value wetlands, minimum 30 feet; b Average 40 feet from the edge of medium value wetlands, minimum 20 feet; c Average 20 feet from the edge of low value wetlands, minimum 10 feet. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer exceeding 200 percent of the applied buffer width. 3.4.2 Where a buffer encompasses all or part of the slope averaging 12 percent or greater over a distance of 50 feet or more upgradient of the wetland, calculated using a reasonably precise topographic surface model, the buffer shall extend to the extent specified under section 3.4.1 or to the top of the slope, whichever is greater. An existing contour alteration or artificial structure on a slope constitutes a break in slope only if it will indefinitely dissipate upgradient velocity and trap upgradient pollutant loadings. 3.4.3 The buffer is only required on property that is the subject of District permit, and is required where the wetland is either on or at adjacent to the subject property. 3.4.4 A buffer shall be indicated by permanent, free-standing markers at the buffer's upland edge, with a design and text approved by the District in writing. A marker shall be placed along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet. if a District permit is sought for a subdivision, the monumentation requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or breakaway markers of durable material. 3.4.5 Wetland buffer areas created in compliance with this rule must be planted with native vegetation and maintained to retain natural resources and ecological value. Existing wetland buffer areas preserved in compliance with this rule must be managed in a naturalized condition to encourage growth of native vegetation and eliminate invasive species. Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety, temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved by the District in advance in writing or when implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be placed with any buffer. No fill, debris or other material shall be excavated from or placed within a buffer. Boardwalks and trails designed for nonmotorized use in stormwater management facilities may be located within a buffer area upon approval of the District. 3.4.6 A buffer shall be documented by a declaration or other document approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before the permit will be issued. A buffer on public land or right-of-way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the District in lieu of a recorded document; the agreement shall state that if the land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to comply with this subsection. 2.) Rule 4 — Stormwater Management The subject property is within 500 feet of a public water or wetland so the following criteria from Rule 4 must be demonstrated: 4.3 Criteria 4.3.1 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate, using a model acceptable to the District, that the implementation of its stormwater management plan will: a Provide for the retention on site of one inch of runoff from all impervious surface of the parcel; Where below -ground infiltration facilities, practices or systems are proposed, pretreatment of runoff must be provided. b Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events for all points where stormwater discharge leaves a parcel; and c Provide for all of runoff from the parcel from the 2.5 inch storm event to be treated, through on-site or off-site detention, to at least 60 percent annual removal efficiency or phosphorus, and at least 90 percent annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids. The on-site retention of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and phosphorus removal requirements. 4.3.2 Low Floor Elevation No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than two feet above the 100 year event flood elevation. a All structures riparian to inundation areas or constructed or natural stormwater management facilities must be located and elevations must be set according to appendix 4a, "Suggested Low Floor Guidance." b Landlocked Basins. Any new or reconstructed structure wholly or partially within a landlocked basin must be constructed such that its lowest floor elevation is: 1 1 ft above the surface overflow of the basin, or 2 2 ft above the elevation resulting from two concurrent 100 year single rainfall events in a 24-hour period or a 100 year, 10 day snowmelt, whichever is higher. 3 The starting elevation of the basin prior to the runoff event shall be established by one of the following: A Existing ordinary high water elevation established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; B Annual water balance calculation approved by the District; C Local observation well records, as approved by the district; or D Mottled soil. From 4.3.1 a above it is required that one inch of runoff from runoff from impervious surfaces be retained on-site. This will be accomplished with the use of rain gardens, one in the front yard and one in the backyard. The impervious area flowing toward the street is 2,628 ft.' so 219 cubic ft. of runoff must be retained. The rain garden in the front yard is designed to be 225 cubic ft. It should be noted that this is designed to contain runoff from the driveway even though it is not possible to direct water that sheet flows down the driveway without getting into storm sewer measures that would be very impractical. The impervious area draining to the backyard is 1362 ft.2 so 114 cubic ft_ of retention is required. The construction details and landscape plantings for the rain garden still need to be worked out as well as existing soil borings that the builder is planning on submitting with the permit application to the NMCWD. From 4.3.1b above the proposed runoff rates cannot exceed the existing runoff rates. Hydrocad was used to analyze the flow rates to the front and rear of the lot which are where the discharge points are. The following table summarizes the hydrocad: STORM EVENT 2yr 10yr 100yr Pre -Developed to 0.24 0.49 1.10 Front Post Developed to 0.03 eft 0.52 1.13 Front Pre -Developed to 0.28 cfs 0.83 2.40 Rear Post Developed to 0.06 eft 0.73 2.24 Rear The flow rates are technically exceeded for the 10yr and 100yr flows to the front but the amount is negligible. Flow rates to the rear are less than the existing. From 4.3.1c above the requirements for phosphorus and sediment removal are stated. As mentioned previously it is not possible or practical to capture all of the impervious area runoff, namely the driveway, and directed to the rain garden. The volume generated from the 2.5 inch event flowing to the front is 220 cu. Ft. when excluding the driveway. The rain garden volume is 225 ft.3 so basically the entire 2.5 inch storm is captured. Likewise when excluding the wetland buffer area behind the rain garden in the rear the 2.5 in storm generates 260 ft.3 and the rain garden is sized to capture that total event. Theoretically total treatment for phosphorus and sediment would be achieved. It is recommended at the start of construction that the rain gardens be rough graded to be temporary sediment basins and at time of final landscaping be over excavated and filled with filtering media. It is recommended that a minimum of 18 inches of a mix of 50% construction sand and 50% type 2 compost be placed in the rain garden beds. 3.) Rule 5 — Erosion and Sediment Control A storm water and erosion control plan is attached with this report. 4.) Rule 10 - Variances and Exceptions The proposed home may require a variance from NMCWD. This is because the proposed low floor elevation is less than 2 ft. above the 100 year flood elevation of Nine Mile Creek per a Flood Study from the Districts engineer. According to the Districts engineering study the 100 year flood elevation of the Creek in the vicinity of the project is 852.7. The 100 year elevation according to the FEMA map recognized by the City is 850.6 and the proposed basement floor elevation is 853.7. 1S Pre Pre Dev.-Flows to Street 1S Post Post Dev.-Flws to Street RG 1 Rain Garden -Front Bobcat Reach on Link 2S Pre Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond 2S Post Post Dev.-Flws to Pond Rain Garden -Back 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 2 yrAt/as 14 Rainfa/1=2.86" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.011 af, Depth= 1.15" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B " 318 98 Brick Paver Walkwav, HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev: Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth= 0.41" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31 % Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Depth= 0.48" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 2yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01713 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC __ Page 3 Areas CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B 216 98 Concrete Surface, NSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 225 225 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 460 685 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ftisec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.117 ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.15" for 2 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.27 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.011 of Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Atten= 88°lo, Lag=16.8 min Primary = 0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.006 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 859.00'@ 12.22 hrs Surf.Area= 450 sf Storage= 226 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 239.5 min calculated for 0.006 of (55% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time-- 112.2 min ( 954.8 - 842.6) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99' 10.0' long x 10,0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max --0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=859.00' (Free Discharge) t--1 =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.03 cfs @ 0.27 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.41" for 2 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.22 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.012 of Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Atten= 74%, Lag= 8.3 min Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.010 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.01' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 240 sf Storage= 122 cf Piug-Flow detention time= 162.5 min calculated for 0.010 of (78% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time --55.7 min (966.2- 910.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Stora e Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum,Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0. 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 2yrAtlas 14 Rainfall --2.86" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01713 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=851.01' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.05 cfs @ 0.32 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type /124 -hr 10yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=4,28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n 01713 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 1S Post: Post Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Depth= 2.28" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B * 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 2.11" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type It 24 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B * 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev: Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31 % Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ff/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev,-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.83 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 1OyrAt/as 14 Rainfa//=4.28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01713 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Area (sf) CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B 216 98 Concrete Surface, HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag1CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: _Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.117 ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for 10 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 of Outflow = 0.52 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 0.7 min Primary = 0.52 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.017 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Eiev= 859;07'@ 11.95 hrs Surf.Area= 451 sf Storage= 254 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 132.7 min calculated for 0.017 of (77% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 42.4 min (865.1 - 822.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.51 cfs @ 11.95 hrs HW=859.07' (Free Discharge) L-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.51 cfs @ 0.68 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.13" for 10 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.73 cfs @ 11.97 hrs; Volume= 0.034 of Outflow = 0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Atten= 01/o, Lag= 0.3 min Primary = 0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.031 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.08'@ 11.98 hrs Surf.Area= 242 sf Storage= 140 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 56.6 min calculated for 0.031 of (92% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 15.2 min ( 885.6 - 870.4) Volume Invert Avaii.Storage Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) .(sq -ft) (cubic -feet) • (cubic -feet) .850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 9OyrAtlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 H droCADO10 00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 7 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max --0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs HW=851.08' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.73 cfs @ 0.77 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 100yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD010.00 s/n 01713 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 8 Summary for Subcatchment 1S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 5.14" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sf) CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B * 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 1.10 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.047 at, Depth= 4.91" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B * 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.101 af, Depth= 3.37" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sf) CN Description 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31 % Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 2.40 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af, Depth= 3.59" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type it 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall= 7.48" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01713 @2013 H ddroCAD Software Solutions CLC Page 9 Area (sf) CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B 216 98 Concrete Surface HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfg.) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag1CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.117ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.14" for 100 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 1.15 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.050 of Outflow = 1.13 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten=1 %, Lag= 0.5 min Primary = 1.13 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.045 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 859.12'@ 11.94 hrs Surf.Area= 452 sf Storage= 278 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 76.2 min calculated for 0.045 of (90% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 24.8 min ( 824.3 - 799.6 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) . (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 _ Primary 858.99' 10.0' tong x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.13 cfs @ 11.94 hrs HW=859.12' (Free Discharge) L-1=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.13 cfs @ 0.89 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.37" for 100 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 2,24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.101 of Outflow = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.098 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0,01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.19'@ 11.97 hrs Surf.Area= 244 sf Storage=166 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 21.6 min calculated for 0.098 of (97% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 6.1 min ( 842.9 - 836.8 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation SUrf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 100yrA#as 14 Rainfall=Z48" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 H droCAD®10 00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 10 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' tong x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=2.23 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=851.19' (Free Discharge) t-1 =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.23 cfs @ 1.11 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type// 24 -hr NURP Rainfall --2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 9/3/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01713 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1S Post: Post Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 0.12 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.65' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50' Area (sfl CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B ' 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 4,050 75 Weighted Average 2,472 61.04% Pervious Area 1,578 38.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft(ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af, Depth= 0.79' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (sfl CN Descriotion 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 318 98 Brick Paver Walkwav, HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.33" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (sfl CN Descriotion 9,000 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 10,362 66 Weighted Average 9,000 86.86% Pervious Area 1,362 13.14% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev: Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 0.33" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span=1.00-36.00.hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type If 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 9/3/2014 HydroCAD®10,00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Area (sf) CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B 216 98 Concrete Surface, HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) , (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 LaglCN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.093 ac, 38.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for NURP event Inflow = 0.12 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.005 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten=100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 858.99' @ 24.18 hrs Surf.Area= 445 sf Storage= 220 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center -of -Mass def. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99' 10.0' long x 10,0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=858.00' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.238 ac, 13.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth .= 0.33" for NURP event Inflow = 0.11 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 of Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 76.5 min Primary = 0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.004 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 850.99'@ 13.26 hrs Surf.Area= 239 sf Storage=119 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 284.9 min calculated for 0.004 of (58% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 131.8 min (1,048.6 - 916.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 9/312014 HydroCADO10 00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs HW=850.99' (Free Discharge) t-1=i3road-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.01 cis @ 0.15 fps) WOODDALE B U I L D E R S Wooddale Builders is representing Chad & Jennifer Helmer, the current homeowners at 5808 Creek Valley Road, Edina, MN. Wooddale Builders is applying for a CUP at 5808 Creek Valley Road, Edina, Mn. for the construction of a new house. The existing lowest floor elevation is 853.2 and we propose to raise it to 853.7. The reason for the CUP request is a result of the discrepancy between the City of Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed district's definition of the 100 year flood elevation. According to Laura Adler, CFM, Water Resource Coordinator of the City of Edina, she uses the FEMA flood insurance rate map and flood insurance study 100 year flood is 850.6. But according to Bob Obermeyer at Barr Engineering the 100 year flood is 852.7 M.S.L. In order to meet Barr Engineering 100 year flood line of 852.7 M.S.L. we would need to raise the first floor 2.5 feet which doesn't meet Edina city code and does not fit in with the neighborhood. So we are "stuck" between Nine Mile Creek wanting us to raise the basement floor 1.5' and the City of Edina only allowing us to raise the first floor 1 foot. We would like to meet somewhere in the middle and propose to raise the lowest floor elevation 6" to 853.7 which is 3.2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation from FEMA flood insurance rate map and 1 foot above Barr Engineering 100 year flood line of 852.7 M.S.L. This raises the first floor elevation to 863.3 which is 1.5 feet higher than existing first floor elevation. =�.:�zi,%ate' 4� __ WOODDALE B U I L D E R S Color Selections for 5808 Creek Valley, Edina 1. Color: Classic Gray by Benjamin Moore (BM-OC23) Flat Garage Doors Overhangs Soffits Window Trim Front Columns Gable Trim Detail Deck Posts Deck Rims 2. Color: Old Monterey -Note Color formula on sample by Mpls CSC #19 612-377-9970 Hardi- Shakes — Front Hardi Lap 3 Rear Sides 3. Window Color is White 4. Exterior Stone is Dutch Quality Ashen Weather Ledge 5. Roof Shingles are 30 Year Tanko Heritage, Color: Rustic Black t4µ. f; Cc # y i4 � Ohl �\ I �4 � ��;a '� �� v$tel �,� „ ,, �,, � r � � � �" � �� , ,w k� , � d �� d�. ,� �, i � `U , �� {F a `� �r: ' �,, � � '��'� wr � �� t � f � i 1` � "`i� i �57! a �. �� • ! .. 1111�JJJJ F� t � f i r 4xI s F yy �. C cl � •1 F=a• �• �3( F I -. ('r q� o � J i. F� t r 4xI s F yy �. C o i. Hydrology Summary and Storm Water Management Plan for 5808 Creek Valley Road Edina, Minnesota Prepared for Wooddale Builders In Hedlund Engineering, Inc. 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 August 28, 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Development 2.0 Permit Requirements 3.0 NMCWD Permit Summary Appendices Hydrocad for 2yr, 10yr, and 100yr events and the 2.5 in. storm Existing house drainage map Proposed house drainage map 1.0 Proposed Development Wooddale Builders is proposing to build a new single-family home at 5808 Creek Valley Road in Edina. The legal description is Lot 11, Block 2, Creek Valley Addition. The area of the lot is 20,762 ft.2 and is fully sodded. A single-family home that is currently on the lot will be demolished. The current single family home has 2,850 ft.2 of house footprint impervious surface and 1,450 ft.2 of driveway and sidewalk impervious for a total of 4300 ft.2. The proposed home will have a house foot print impervious area of 2,720 ft.2 and drives and walks of 1,280 ft.2 for a total of 4000 ft.2. Deck areas that are open to the ground below are not included in the impervious calculations. The new home cannot exceed the first floor elevation of the existing house by more than one foot without obtaining a conditional use permit from the City. The new home is proposed to have a low floor (basement) elevation 6 inches above the existing house and the first floor will be 1.5 feet above the existing house. 2.0 Permit Requirements Besides obtaining a building permit from the City of Edina the project will also require a permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD). The following rules that will apply from NMCWD are: Rule 3 - Wetlands Management Rule 4 - Storm Water Management Rule S.- Erosion and Sediment Control Rule 10 - Variances and Exceptions 3.0 NMCWD Permit Summary 1.) Rule 3 — Wetlands Management Lake Locklear shoreline lies just past the rear lot line of the property. This lake is considered a high-value wetland according to the NMCWD and thus requires an average buffer from the shoreline of 60 feet. This buffer is depicted on the site plan and no construction activity will be proposed in the buffer area. The buffer area is currently sodded and will need to be cultivated with native vegetation. The following is criteria that needs to be followed from section 3.4 of Rule 3 from the NMCWD: 3.4 Wetland Buffers Any activity for which a permit is required under any District rule(s) must provide buffer on all wetlands disturbed by the activity and on all wetlands downgradient from the activity, in accordance with the following criteria: 3.4.1 Subject to section 3.4.2, buffers must extend: a Average 60 feet from the edge of high-value wetlands, minimum 30 feet; b Average 40 feet from the edge of medium value wetlands, minimum 20 feet; c Average 20 feet from the edge of low value wetlands, minimum 10 feet. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer exceeding 200 percent of the applied buffer width. 3.4.2 Where a buffer encompasses all or part of the slope averaging 12 percent or greater over a distance of 50 feet or more upgradient of the wetland, calculated using a reasonably precise topographic surface model, the buffer shall extend to the extent specified under section 3.4.1 or to the top of the slope, whichever is greater. An existing contour alteration or artificial structure on a slope constitutes a break in slope only if it will indefinitely dissipate upgradient velocity and trap upgradient pollutant loadings. 3.4.3 The buffer is only required on property that is the subject of District permit, and is required where the wetland is either on or at adjacent to the subject property. 3.4.4 A buffer shall be indicated by permanent, free-standing markers at the buffer's upland edge, with a design and text approved by the District in writing. A marker shall be placed along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet. If a District permit is sought for a subdivision, the monumentation requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or breakaway markers of durable material. 3.4.6 Wetland buffer areas created in compliance with this rule must be planted with native vegetation and maintained to retain natural resources and ecological value. Existing wetland buffer areas preserved in compliance with this rule must be managed in a naturalized condition to encourage growth of native vegetation and eliminate invasive species. Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety, temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved by the District in advance in writing or when implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be placed with any buffer. No fill, debris or other material shall be excavated from or placed within a buffer. Boardwalks and trails designed for nonmotorized use in stormwater management facilities may be located within a buffer area upon approval of the District. 3.4.6 A buffer shall be documented by a declaration or other document approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before the permit will be issued. A buffer on public land or right-of-way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the District in lieu of a recorded document; the agreement shall state that if the land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to comply with this subsection. 2.) Rule 4 — Stormwater Management The subject property is within 500 feet of a public water or wetland so the following criteria from Rule 4 must be demonstrated: 4.3 Criteria 4.3.1 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate, using a model acceptable to the District, that the implementation of its stormwater management plan will: a Provide for the retention on site of one inch of runoff from all impervious surface of the parcel; Where below -ground infiltration facilities, practices or systems are proposed, pretreatment of runoff must be provided. b Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events for all points where stormwater discharge leaves a parcel; and C Provide for all of runoff from the parcel from the 2.5 inch storm event to be treated, through on-site or off-site detention, to at'least 60 percent annual removal efficiency or phosphorus, and at least 90 percent annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids. The on-site retention of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and phosphorus removal requirements. 4.3.2 Low Floor Elevation No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than two feet above the 100 year event flood elevation. a All structures riparian to inundation areas or constructed or natural stormwater management facilities must be located and elevations must be set according to appendix 4a, "Suggested Low Floor Guidance." b Landlocked Basins. Any new or reconstructed structure wholly or partially within a landlocked basin must be constructed such that its lowest floor elevation is: 1 1 ft above the surface overflow of the basin, or 2 2 ft above the elevation resulting from two concurrent 100 year single rainfall events in a 24-hour period or a 100 year, 10 day snowmelt, whichever is higher. 3 The starting elevation of the basin prior to the runoff event shall be established by one of the following: A Existing ordinary high water elevation established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; B Annual water balance calculation approved by the District; C Local observation well records, as approved by the district; or D Mottled soil. From 4.3.1 a above it is required that one inch of runoff from runoff from impervious surfaces be retained on-site. This will be accomplished with the use of rain gardens, one in the front yard and one in the backyard. The impervious area flowing toward the street is 2,628 ft.' so 219 cubic ft. of runoff must be retained. The rain garden in the front yard is designed to be 225 cubic ft. It should be noted that this is designed to contain runoff from the driveway even though it is not possible to direct water that sheet flows down the driveway without getting into storm sewer measures that would be very impractical. The impervious area draining to the backyard is 1362 ft.2 so 114 cubic ft. of retention is required. The construction details and landscape plantings for the rain garden still need to be worked out as well as existing soil borings that the builder is planning on submitting with the permit application to the NMCWD. From 4.3.1b above the proposed runoff rates cannot exceed the existing runoff rates. Hydrocad was used to analyze the flow rates to the front and rear of the lot which are where the discharge points are. The following table summarizes the hydrocad: STORM EVENT 2yr 10yr 100yr Pre -Developed to 0.24 0.49 1.10 Front Post Developed to 0.03 cfs 0.62 1.13 Front Pre -Developed to 0.28 cfs 0.83 2.40 Rear Post Developed to 0.06 cfs 0.73 2.24 Rear The flow rates are technically exceeded for the 10yr and 1 00y flows to the front but the amount is negligible. Flow rates to the rear are less than the existing. From 4.3.1c above the requirements for phosphorus and sediment removal are stated_ As mentioned previously it is not possible or practical to capture all of the impervious area runoff, namely the driveway, and directed to the rain garden. The volume generated from the 2.5 inch event flowing to the front is 220 cu. Ft. when excluding the driveway. The rain garden volume is 225 ft.' so basically the entire 2.5 inch storm is captured. Likewise when excluding the wetland buffer area behind the rain garden in the rear the 2.5 in storm generates 260 ft.3 and the rain garden is sized to capture that total event. Theoretically total treatment for phosphorus and sediment would be achieved. It is recommended at the start of construction that the rain gardens be rough graded to be temporary sediment basins and at time of final landscaping be over excavated and filled with filtering media. It is recommended that a minimum of 18 inches of a mix of 50% construction sand and 50% type 2 compost be placed in the rain garden beds. 3.) Rule 6 — Erosion and Sediment Control A storm water and erosion control plan is attached with this report. 4.) Rule 10 - Variances and Exceptions The proposed home may require a variance from NMCWD. This is because the proposed low floor elevation is less than 2 ft. above the 100 year flood elevation of Nine Mile Creek per a Flood Study from the Districts engineer. According to the Districts engineering study the 100 year flood elevation of the Creek in the vicinity of the project is 852.7. The 100 year elevation according to the FEMA map recognized by the City is 850.6 and the proposed basement floor elevation is 853.7. S Pre Pre Dev.-Flows to Street 1S Post Post Dev.-F1 ws to Street Rain Garden -Front Subca# Reach on Link 2S Pre Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond 2S Post Post Dev.-F ws to Pond Rain Garden -Back 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type //24 -hr 2yrAtlas 14 Rainfa//=2.86" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01713 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.011 af, Depth= 1.15" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth= 0.41" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31 % Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Depth= 0.48" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Typed 24 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type /124 -hr 2 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 Hydr„Cenn 10 on s/n 01713 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC G __ ___ Page 3 Area (sf) CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B 216 98 Concrete Surface, HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.117 ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.15" for 2 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.27 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.011 at Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 16.8 min Primary = 0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.006 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 859.00'@ 12.22 hrs Surf.Area= 450 sf Storage= 226 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 239.5 min calculated for 0.006 of (55% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time=112.2 min ( 954.8 - 842.6 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=859.00' (Free Discharge) t-1 =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.03 cfs @ 0.27 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.41" for 2 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.22 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.012 of Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.01Oaf, Atten= 74%, Lag= 8.3 min Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.010 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.01' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 240 sf Storage=122 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 152.5 min calculated for 0.010 of (78% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 55.7 min (966.2-910.5) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 2yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=286" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n 01713 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 4 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1,20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=851.01' (Free Discharge) t--1=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.05 cfs @ 0.32 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type /124 -hr 10yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAN 10.00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Depth= 2.28" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 2.11" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev: Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfali=4.28" Area (sf1 CN Descriotion 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31% Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag1CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.83 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.038 at, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 10 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 10yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/2812014 HydroCAD@ 10 00 sln 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Areas CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B * 216 98 Concrete Surface, HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 860.00 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 685 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min feet(ft/ft) ft/sec cfs 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front inflow Area = 0.117 ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for 10 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 of Outflow = 0.52 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 0.7 min Primary = 0.52 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.017 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 859;07'@ 11.95 hrs Surf.Area= 451 sf Storage= 254 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 132.7 min calculated for 0.017 of (77% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 42.4 min (865.1 -822.8) Volume Invert Avail.Stora e Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 of Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.51 cfs @ 11.95 hrs HW=859.07' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.51 cfs @ 0.68 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.13" for 10 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 0.73 cfs @ 11.97 hrs; Volume= 0.034 of Outflow = 0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Primary = 0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.031 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.08'@ 11.98 hrs Surf.Area= 242 sf Storage= 140 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 56.6 min calculated for 0.031 of (92% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 15.2 min ( 885.6 - 870.4) Volume Invert Avaii.Stora e Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850A0 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type # 24 -hr 10 yrAtias 14 Rainfa//=4.28" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 7 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary Outflow Max=0.73 cfs @ 11.98 hrs HW=851.08' (Free Discharge) t 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.73 cis @ 0.77 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 100yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01713 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 5.14" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1124 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sfl CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B * 1,050 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway HSG B 5,100 80 Weighted Average 2,472 48.47% Pervious Area 2,628 51.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev: Flows to Street Runoff = 1.10 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth= 4.91" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sf) CN Description 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B * 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev,-Flaws to Pond Runoff = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.101 af, Depth= 3.37" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Area (sf) CN Description 14,306 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 15,668 64 Weighted Average 14,306 91.31 % Pervious Area 1,362 8.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 170 0.0530 0.54 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 2,40 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af, Depth= 3.59" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24 -hr 100 yr Atlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr 100yfAPas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01713 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Area (sf) CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B * 216 98 Concrete Surface HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.117 ac, 51.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.14° for 100 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 1.15 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.050 of Outflow = 1.13 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten=1%, Lag= 0.5 min Primary = 1.13 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.045 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 859.12'@ 11.94 hrs Surf.Area= 452 sf Storage= 278 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 76.2 min calculated for 0.045 of (90% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 24.8 min ( 824.3 - 799.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1. Primary 858.99' 10.0' tong x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 PrimaryOutFlow Max=1.13 cfs@ 11.94 hrs HW=859.12' (Free Discharge) L1=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.13 cfs @ 0.89 fps) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Sack Inflow Area = 0.360 ac, 8.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.37" for 100 yr Atlas 14 event Inflow = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.101 of Outflow = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 2.24 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.098 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 851.19'@ 11.97 hrs Surf.Area= 244 sf Storage=166 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 21.6 min calculated for 0.098 of (97% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 6.1 min ( 842.9 - 836.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 8/28/2014 HydroCAN 10.00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 10 Type 1124 -hr 100yrAtlas 14 Rainfall=7.48" Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=2.23 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=851.19' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.23 cfs @ 1.11 fps) 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 913!2014 HydroCAD010.00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.12 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.65' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (sfl CN Description 2,472 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,358 98 Roofs, HSG B * 220 98 Brick Paver Walkway, HSG B 4,050 75 Weighted Average 2,472 61.04% Pervious Area 1,578 38.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 1S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Street Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af, Depth= 0.79" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 2,710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,123 98 Roofs, HSG B * 903 98 Paved Drivway, HSG B * 318 98 Brick Paver Walkway. HSG B 5,054 78 Weighted Average 2,710 53.62% Pervious Area 2,344 46.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Ex to Street Summary for Subcatchment 2S Post: Post Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.33" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 1 .00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description 9,000 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,362 98 Roofs, HSG B 10,362 66 Weighted Average 9,000 86.86% Pervious Area 1,362 13.14% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Subcatchment 2S Pre: Pre Dev.-Flows to Pond Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 0.33" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span=1.00-36.00.hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type// 24 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 9/3/2014 H}droCADO 10.00 sin 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Areas CN Description 13,775 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,724 98 Roofs, HSG B * 216 98 Concrete Surface, HSG B 15,715 66 Weighted Average 13,775 87.66% Pervious Area 1,940 12.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min(feet).,ft/ft(ft/sec)--cfs 5.0 170 0.0530 0.57 Lag/CN Method, Ex to Pond Summary for Pond RG 1: Rain Garden -Front Inflow Area = 0.093 ac, 38.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for NURP event Inflow = 0.12 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.005 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten=100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1,00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 858.99' @ 24.18 hrs Surf.Area= 445 sf Storage= 220 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Stora e Storage Description #1 858.00' 685 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic feet) (cubic -feet) 858.00 0 0 0 859.00 450 225 225 860.00 470 460 685 Device Routing_ Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 858.99 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=858.00' (Free Discharge) t-1 =Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond RG 2: Rain Garden -Back Inflow Area = 0.238 ac, 13.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth .= 0.33" for NURP event Inflow = 0.11 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 of Outflow - 0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 76.5 min Primary = 0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.004 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-36.00 hrs, d1= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 850.99'@ 13.26 hrs Surf.Area= 239 sf Storage=119 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 284.9 min calculated for 0.004 of (58% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time=131.8 min (1,048.6 - 916.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Stora e Storage Description #1 850.00' 370 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 850.00 0 0 0 851.00 240 120 120 852.00 260 250 370 5808 Creek Valley Rd HydroCAD Type 1124 -hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Hedlund Engineering Printed 9/3/2014 HydroCAD®10 00 s/n 01713 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 850.99' 10.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.26 hrs HW=850.99' (Free Discharge) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.15 fps) 7H'�:, c. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague October 7, 2014 VI.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description The Planning Commission is asked to consider Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan for a redevelopment request of the existing TCF Bank building, located at 3330 66th Street by Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon). (See property location on pages Al A8.) The proposed plans are the same as the plans that were approved in the first phase of this review, including the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant proposes to remodel and expand the building into 39 units of small studio apartments for young adults (age 18-22) who have experienced homelessness. The size of the units would range from 322- 451 square feet. Each unit would contain a full kitchen and bathroom. The building would contain offices for on-site service providers and property management. There would also be a community area for residents; a fitness area; a computer lab and a laundry room. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A9—A47.) The site is 39,204 square feet in size. The existing bank is 18,179 square feet. The proposed addition would be 10,458 square feet. The building would remain two stories. The remodel of the building would retain the existing brick, and the addition would be brick with metal panels. (See building renderings on pages A43—A46.) There would be 19 surface parking stalls. Proof of parking would total 37 total surface stalls. No enclosed parking is proposed. The applicants have indicated in their narrative that 18% of their residents have cars. Beacon anticipates that no more than 12 stalls would be required for residents. The maximum need for staff parking is 6 stalls. Therefore, they believe they would have adequate parking. Residents are expected to utilize the Metro Transit bus service available across the street at Southdale. All of the 39 units would be considered affordable housing, and would apply towards the City and Met Council's goal for affordable housing. As part of the first phase of the review process, the applicant received the following approvals: 1. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to allow affordable housing with supportive services in addition to Senior Housing in the Regional Medical District. 2. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District -1, to PUD, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Development Plan. The following is now requested: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to a PUD. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD District. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Office buildings; zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided RM, Regional Medical District. Easterly: Multi -story office buildings; zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided RM, Regional Medical District. Southerly: Firestone Tire & Southdale; Zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided CAC, Community Activity Center. Westerly: Multi -story office buildings; zoned POD -1, Planned Office District and guided RM, Regional Medical District. Existing Site Features The subject property is 39,339 square feet in size, is relatively flat and contains a two-story TCF Bank. (See pages A2—A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: RM, Regional Medical. (See page A5.) Zoning: POD -1, Planned Office District -1. (See page A6.) 2 Density Proposed Density of the project would be 43 units per acre; which would be within the density range currently allowed for senior housing and affordable housing with supportive services in the RM, Regional Medical District. The following table demonstrates existing density ranges for high density residential development in Edina. There are a variety of housing types here, from market rate housing to senior affordable housing development. High Density Development in Edina Development Address Units Units Per Acre * Yorktown Continental 7151 York 264 45 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 York Plaza Condos 7200-20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240-60 York 260 29 Edina Place Apartments 7300-50 York 139 15 * Walker Elder Suites 7400 York 72 40 * 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 * South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 * The Waters Colonial Drive 139 22 69th & York Apartments 312169th Street 114 30 * 6500 France — Senior Housing 6500 France 188 80 Lennar 6725 York 240 52 * Senior Housing PUD Rezoning The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to allow affordable housing on the site. (See attached draft PUD Ordinance.) 3 Within a PUD District, 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 of the PUD. The following is compliance table that demonstrates how the proposed building would comply with the Regional Medical District standards and show residential densities in Edina. The use is currently not allowed in the existing POD -1 or RMD Zoning District. Compliance Table ** Variance Required under POD -1 Standards Per Chapter 36 of the City Code the following are the regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The 4 City Standard Proposed (POD -1 Planned Office District) Front — 66th Street 35 feet 43 feet (existing) Front — Barrie Road 35 feet 25 feet (existing) 40 feet (new) Side — North 20 feet 50+ feet Side — east 20 feet 25 feet Building Height 12 stories or 2 stories 144 feet, whichever is less Building Coverage 30% 30% Floor Area Ratio .50% Office 77%** (1.0 RMD District) Density — Comp. Plan 12-80 units per acre 39 units 43 units per acre Minimum Lot Size 10 acres (RMD Standard) .9 acres No minimum in the POD District Parking Stalls 1 enclosed space per unit 19 spaces exposed** + guest parking (proof -of -parking for 37) 39 units ** Variance Required under POD -1 Standards Per Chapter 36 of the City Code the following are the regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The 4 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 ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The project would meet some of the goals for a PUD as outline above. Those include: 5 • Providing a development that is 100% affordable to assist in the City affordable housing goals with the Met Council. • Improve the efficiency of street by allowing a land use that would generate less traffic than the bank use; and it would eliminate the bank drive- through facility. Would utilize sustainable design as described in the applicant narrative on page Al 1. Most notable elements include: compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; impervious surface would be reduced by 6.9%; enhanced landscaping; making use of special construction material; installing a rain garden for stormwater management; and pedestrian oriented design. The Comprehensive Plan allows senior housing as an allowed land use within the regional medical district. The proposed affordable housing with supportive services project is a form of housing that is desirable through a PUD, and would fit with this site, given its close proximity to the Metro Transit Facility across 66th Street and Southdale Shopping Center. This area would provide employment opportunities in close proximity for residents. The site is located on an edge of the Regional Medical District and on an arterial roadway. 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. With the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow affordable housing in addition to senior housing, this project is consistent with the Regional Medical District. The Zoning Ordinance amendment, which follows this staff report, lists the uses that would be allowed on this site. Spack Consulting did a parking analysis that determined that the proposed parking would support the uses proposed, and the traffic generated would actually be less than the previously approved medical office. (Seepages A59 -A81.) The proposed residential development would generate 20 am peak hour trips and 24 pm peak hour trips. The existing bank generates 45 am peak hour trips and 89 pm peak hour trips. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The proposal would not include a mixture of land uses. It would include affordable housing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. Within the overall RMD, Regional Medical District, this project would introduce the potential for another use in the district, and would help the City meet its affordable housing goals established with the Metropolitan Council of 212 new affordable housing units by the year 2020. 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 for housing that is all affordable. Providing affordable housing and sustainable development are goals within the Comprehensive Plan that this project would accomplish. Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives include: • Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina residents. • Promote lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life. • Variety of Buildings Forms. Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups. • Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. 7 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 be 43 units per acre and have an FAR of .77. The Floor Area Ratio contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan for Regional Medical is 1.0; however, the current POD -1 Zoning District allows an FAR of .50. The density range allowed for senior housing in the district is up to 80 units per acre. Density in the Comprehensive Plan limits senior housing to 12-80 dwelling units per acre. Density for senior housing shall be based on proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. The site has adequate utilities capacity; would generate less traffic than an office use; would provide affordable housing; would be a sustainable development; and would take advantage of Metro Transit Availability. Staff believes the density is appropriate for this site. 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 closely relate to the already established standards in the POD -1 District, as the existing building is being utilized. Flexibility is requested in regard to parking spaces. For the reasons stated above, staff believes the purpose and intend of the PUD Ordinance is met. Site Access The primary access to the site would remain off of Barrie Road. One drive entrance would be eliminated. (See page A35.) Parking Per Chapter 36, Article XII, Division 4, the requirement for multi -family residential parking in a commercial area, is one enclosed space per unit plus additional guest parking as required. Therefore, at minimum a requirement of 39 stalls plus guest parking should be provided. The applicant is proposing 19 surface stalls, with a proof -of parking plan to 37 stalls. Staff has some concern in regard to potential future lack of parking. While the proposed use may be able to get by with the proposed surface parking only, any future conversion of these units for market rate housing would surely be short of parking. A stipulation in a potential PUD Ordinance would be to only allow this type of housing on the site; therefore, any conversion of the units would require a PUD Amendment. Additional parking would be required as part of any PUD Amendment. A parking study was done by Spack Consulting, which concludes that the proposed parking would support the use. (See page A67.) The total demand for parking is anticipated to be 12 spaces. Traffic A traffic study was also done by Spack, which concludes that the existing roadways support the proposed uses. The proposed use would generate less traffic than the existing bank on the site. The existing use generates 45 trips in the am peak hour and 889 trips in the pm peak hour. The proposed use would generate 20 trips in the am peak hour and 24 trips in the pm peak hour. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 21 overstory trees and a full complement of understory trees and shrubs are required. The applicant is proposing to plant 24 overstory trees around the perimeter of the site & understory trees and shrubs. (See landscape plan on pages A35 -A37.) Grading & Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the plans and found them acceptable and offered comments. (See pages A57 -A58.) Signage Signage for the residential use would be allowed per the requirements of the multiple family residential districts as follows: Type Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Building identification One per building 12 square 6 feet 6 Bike Racks The applicant is proposing 26 bicycle parking spots and indoor bicycle storage. Outdoor racks would be located in front of the building near the main entrance off the parking lot. (See page A35.) PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue 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 Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan is consistent with the approved Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plans. 2. The project would meet many of the goals of for a PUD as outline above. Those include: • Providing a development that is 100% affordable to assist in the city affordable housing goals with the Met Council. • Improve the efficiency of street by allowing a land use that would generate less traffic than the bank use; and it would eliminate the bank drive-through facility. Would utilize sustainable design as described in the applicant narrative on page A13. Most notable elements include: compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make 10 feet Area identification One per 24 square 6 feet development feet Building identification (convalescent, nursing One per building 24 square 6 feet or rest homes only) feet Bike Racks The applicant is proposing 26 bicycle parking spots and indoor bicycle storage. Outdoor racks would be located in front of the building near the main entrance off the parking lot. (See page A35.) PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue 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 Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan is consistent with the approved Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plans. 2. The project would meet many of the goals of for a PUD as outline above. Those include: • Providing a development that is 100% affordable to assist in the city affordable housing goals with the Met Council. • Improve the efficiency of street by allowing a land use that would generate less traffic than the bank use; and it would eliminate the bank drive-through facility. Would utilize sustainable design as described in the applicant narrative on page A13. Most notable elements include: compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make 10 use of Metro Transit; impervious surface would be reduced by 6.9%; enhanced landscaping; making use of special construction material; installing a rain garden for stormwater management; and pedestrian oriented design. 3. The Comprehensive Plan allows senior housing and affordable housing with supportive services as allowed land uses within the regional medical district. The proposed affordable housing proposal is desirable through a PUD, and it would fit in well with this site, given its close proximity to the Metro Transit Facility across 66th Street and Southdale Shopping Center. This area could provide employment opportunity in close proximity for residents. The site is located on an edge of the Regional Medical District and on an arterial roadway. 4. The existing roadways and parking lot would support the project. Spack Consulting 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. In fact the proposed uses would actually generate less traffic than the previously approved medical building. No additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the site redevelopment. 5. The PUD ensures 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 PUD ensures that this is the only use allowed within the building. Any change in use would require an amendment to the PUD Ordinance. Staff Recommendation Final Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to Planned Unit Development District & Final Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning and approve the Preliminary Development Plan. Approval is based on the following findings: Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment would assist the City in meeting its established affordable housing goal with the Met Council of providing 212 new affordable housing units by the year 2020. This project would include 39 new affordable housing units toward that goal. 11 2. The proposed density of 43 units per acre is reasonable, and within the density range suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of between 12-80 units per acre. 3. The proposed affordable housing project would generate less traffic than the existing bank facility. 4. The project would utilize sustainability principles. Most notable elements include: compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; impervious surface would be reduced by 6.9%; enhanced landscaping; making use of special construction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; and pedestrian oriented design. 5. Project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina residents. b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life. c) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups. d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. Preliminary approval is subject to the following conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped September 12, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped September 12, 2014. • Utility plan date stamped September 12, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped September 12, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped September 12, 2014 12 • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36-1436 through 36- 1462 of the City Code. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of -credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 5. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 6. 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. Attempts must be made meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. A plan of how standards are intended to be met must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated July 15, 2014. 8. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD -7, Planned Unit Development for this site. 9. Final Rezoning is subject to review and approval of the Metropolitan Council on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 13 PUD Ordinance Recommend the City Council adopt the Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD -7 Zoning District. Deadline for a city decision: October 21, 2014 14 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PUD -7, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -7 DISTRICT AT 3330 66" STREET The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is her amended to rezone the below described property to PUD, Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following: Sec. 36-494 Planned Unit Development District -7 (PUD -7) — 66TH West Apartments (a) Legal description: The South 300 feet of Lot 2, as measured along the West line of said lot from the Southwest corner thereof in Block 3, Southdale Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Certificate of Title No: 361393. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re -development plans received by the City on June_, 2014 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2014 on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: Affordable housing with supportive services to assist residents with maintaining stability in housing and employment, as proposed and described by Beacon Interfaith Housing collaborative in their project description on file in the Office of the Planning Department. Any change in use of the site will require an amendment to this PUD -7 Ordinance. All uses allowed in the POD -1 District, as listed in Section 36-575. (d) Accessory Uses: Off-street parking facilities. (e) Conditional Uses: None (f) Development Standards. Development standards per the POD -1 Zoning District, except the following: Building Setbacks Building Setbacks Front — 66th 43 feet Street 25 feet Front — Barrie Road 50 feet 25 feet Side — North Rear — South Building Height 2 stories Maximum Floor .77% Area Ratio (FAR) Building 30% Coverage Parking Stalls 19 surface Proof -of -parking for 37 (g) Signs for POD -1 use shall be allowed per the POD -1 standards in Sec. 36-1714. Signs affordable housing with supportive services shall be allowed per Section 36-1712. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon Met Council review and decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2 First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of October 21, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk 3 ParcelMap Scale: 1" =1600 ft. N 29-028-24-24-0030 A_T_g; ID: Print Date: 4/17/2014 Owner Market Name: Twin City Fed Sav Total: Parcel 3330 66Th St W Tax i:... Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: r Commercial -Preferred ' 'f' u' J' LL 3f11STR 1• [ �,• � 1 �'; �• I 1 x.' K W r , t- :L .. _' Q kms. a I .Y :da., r, stead: Date: PamelaPark t r LL W 111.IF'EET F z completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.9 acres Sale 7 Area: 39,339 sq ft Code: ;, TillirTk Greets: iz ¢ r (ETa I,1 1 i FT � � ''ea•- ,i u :' I f--� - 3' __ _ .. G.�- --�. ,,'I, t'2h19=1 n'fCl s ...[. •I 1.j lIEI II t.! U,.ItI t x { 1 2. { J i•: 1 �11H ESI: . _..� 6 I 2. .. 11711 Ihl' L.ytC t q__ ' ] �T-f•.I.LT.c ..:-ILF f7 2 t 1 3 J =•' f TH AFF Eff-,vF{{ Rosland Park L• _.I i (illi .I F.i PI .V(ST � J t 71H ai iTCET\`i [ST !�' I6.KF w CI FE LF.FG? f:t7AU 1 .y•.,� _u _y CBIH-.tr EEr.,LST _ 1��. .. 1 '- .7 +U W '� o:�rt•+ 1 EE7 t, f',s c!'3 1r '�. ��.� ! t: - TFE15 � � f N u a �.I• tttlHy t!(taLIF:r.VAU I �1 - t d RE F.T %v EST : J i iu f I 1�1 r'tE j Z ' _ ' ...... .7 ..__. - 7LVr 11 fTT t9'JT'bl t (STFEET Sf t i O H:�SCLlfoN U1.4.0 ' `•7FEET tar:T e r rt arf ttti `Yr <• �_.. �. .. .._.-_ , I rILS ILEC71 EST . ] L ParcelMap Scale: 1" =1600 ft. N 29-028-24-24-0030 A_T_g; ID: Print Date: 4/17/2014 Owner Market Name: Twin City Fed Sav Total: Parcel 3330 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial -Preferred Sale Price: This, map is a compilation of data from various Type' sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or Home -Sale Non -Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.9 acres Sale COPYRIGHT O HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 39,339 sq ft Code: ;, TillirTk Greets: ,� ••�-r` r,4S5 ` �� f :c• :f51r�. zj T. { 'tin �'S i cn Cn�raa. I 0 »3 M IiahJ lIf �. r^ 0f4 Q7 I� 17 �� t % T ►RJ,4 I �Y >y LU 4,$irp� - €_"_,24, i s1 �.-333:Cc ; r. � ~ ` � i.•_ r ! .� I GG711 STREET :,EST - T. _. 3425 PEI ead !` r X18 ' -E ` SOUTH)1;.LE CEpJTCFS Parcel _ Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N 29-028-24-24-0030 A -T -B: ID: Print Date: 4/17/2014 Owner Market Naive: Twin City Fed Sav Total: Parcel 3330 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: PropertySale Commercial -Preferred Price: This map is a compilation of data from various Type: sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Nome- Sale representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular Non -Homestead stead: Date' purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. C Parcel 0.9 acres Sale COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 39,339 sq ft Code: ---_— ------ — -_- A ;iiliirk Green'. - 1 . 1 ,� ••�-r` r,4S5 ` �� f :c• :f51r�. zj T. { 'tin �'S i cn Cn�raa. I 0 »3 M IiahJ lIf �. r^ 0f4 Q7 I� 17 �� t % T ►RJ,4 I �Y >y LU 4,$irp� - €_"_,24, i s1 �.-333:Cc ; r. � ~ ` � i.•_ r ! .� I GG711 STREET :,EST - T. _. 3425 PEI ead !` r X18 ' -E ` SOUTH)1;.LE CEpJTCFS Parcel _ Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N 29-028-24-24-0030 A -T -B: ID: Print Date: 4/17/2014 Owner Market Naive: Twin City Fed Sav Total: Parcel 3330 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: PropertySale Commercial -Preferred Price: This map is a compilation of data from various Type: sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Nome- Sale representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular Non -Homestead stead: Date' purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. C Parcel 0.9 acres Sale COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 39,339 sq ft Code: ---_— ------ — -_- A ;iiliirk Green'. I. j ,:JU 4_4 m-31 -P � IV- _Ui fir Legend IDP.- Low Density Residential OR -Ma Residential RM - Regioml Medial LDAP.- Low Density Attached Residential �_� O - Derr. OSP- Open space and Parks NOR- Medlun Density Residential MXC-HMed the Centel F_i PSP - Puhlk,/ arr&Puhllc _ ..1 HDR- High DeneAy Res'ded'al L= CAC - Co ndyActNAy Cenlar IAH- UrnitedAc.. Hgh,-y ? NC- Neighborhood CanmErcial I-Industftl 2 35u 1116 Uh 6[ 2 GSIh sl / 3-5 4 a� 2 12 i 3-5 OR 4 2 — i' 10 4 f QI 8 8s.1 2 Height Limits 4 2 2 4 2 Stories: 24' _ - . 3 Stories: 36 4 Stories: 48' 5 Stories: 69 - 4 0 8 Stories: 96 2 2 9 Stories: 108' 10 Stories: 129 ParWononrAvr u 4 Ii1DR. — 4 12 Stories: 144` 2 FiDR: 2 Standard Height 3 Podium Height 4 14IDlt - -- - W 76th si _ 12 4 OR i h St ( 2 9 2 1� saLa or f� I OR 12 — Future Land Use Plan with qi` ita Cluj of Etiwilding Heights Southeast Quadrant 2008 Comprehensive Flan Update Figure 4.66 Data Source. URS 0 0.5 Miles A,�_ 44TH & FRANCE DETAIL SEE DETAIL �,ail UPPER Ma LEFT 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL Legend egend ................. R-1 Single Dwelling Unit Dlat. I C -h .—a dwelling Iklt Dist. PRD -1 Planned Residencedane, Dist. City Beildli.qa PRD -2 PRO -3 Pri.t.Sdheei PRD -4 P-bN.&hol PRD -S nM Pla ... d C=,,,d.1 aat. PCD -2 nD-3 PCD -4 lJ PDD -1 Planned Office .. POD -2 RMD R.ginnalMed.lDial. OP'. pf.—dind...1u, RJO Planned Unit Dial. APD AO..b.la Pdd, Did. =3 PSR -4 Planned Senior ati,,n Dist N O1,400-4 Mud Daale,,mant DjL w + MDD.5 MDD-S s Planning '9'Noveglbef,2- VALLEY VIEW& WOODDALE DETAIL - - ---- - ----- im i SOUTHDALE DET m 5,4 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL LU LU U z LLLL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL W54 w .FULL Legend HOD -2 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, whichever is less. HOD -3 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 3 stories or 36 feet, whichever is less. HOD -4 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 4 stories or,48 feet, whichever is less. HOD -8 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 8 stories or 96 feet, whichever is less. HOD -9 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 9 stories or,108 feet, whichever is less. HOD- O Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 10 stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. r Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, -: • HOD -1 2 but shall not exceed 12 stories or 144 feet, whichever is less. Church City Buildings N Private School W+E S Plamm�§-=Dept � December• 2013 Public School VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL ( ( j _ Uj f T` FAIL' I RCD i�j i• 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL LU LU U z LLLL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL W54 w .FULL Legend HOD -2 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, whichever is less. HOD -3 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 3 stories or 36 feet, whichever is less. HOD -4 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 4 stories or,48 feet, whichever is less. HOD -8 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 8 stories or 96 feet, whichever is less. HOD -9 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 9 stories or,108 feet, whichever is less. HOD- O Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 10 stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. r Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, -: • HOD -1 2 but shall not exceed 12 stories or 144 feet, whichever is less. Church City Buildings N Private School W+E S Plamm�§-=Dept � December• 2013 Public School A-7 VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL ( �, ......> j w Uj ¢ > J J O u:.:-:• •::•:•: W62NOI Tu �: A-7 M �it '•'a•E / ss63 ��,� `.s ��\\ i'�41= �g . In r,J `. �y4 °F, - t;i rx YRAIFE YLLx9 � ue 104E S r. o T! sE' ' s W � 4 N A sS M.yY1 � ODEST.luta D �4E x�M� ea P .x!'y xrsi. P' 'o: w 3 c. u CmuB Sm eEa. PN bi`. ry e ? E 1 6 Y E9SI[F xis viD �] < inA a z t St. cpT nG Ei g 0.si g �'J Nrn W �' �Y D x� • In. 6Y PARt�tl. su � - Oa NEu S 6Ds s` : E ` ` f. �so�rLiis°:as`4` r °' 4• `O.urET'� W _ NORTH I _ ST. S i �� a..- 9� s � sr. � �✓ EwA4mnaDa u. zr. 'd � 61 .z a �"� - T : �, ' i i6 sr n5 s5 ' PBE GLie. S'..ell Dnuar 0 0 1800 FT 3600 Fr e� a e %' M.Y1R:..6rvxk uEl°pow x u Sr. T �' ` � $W `uwmrslre e R u i � ISR' R / / 8 Y : sr. S � LuAe a : �y,A`zs � I I sl. z mono rw _ : 3 ex°Lry50" si. Soi' e V ra zi s 3 ka i. 5� S < _ • - i.ae. ..Ern "" u • li g ✓ a y 9 u"i x!' °Z",6 as S ^B EWDRL _ C nW z IS. ENMOI e0 R q. r SURIa IDE 5 r < d m ST. S. `.L11Ef�T. Lr4JA Av `4�@DIv156Sb1: 52� 1= a -•F`uQ O 8 N0. q < �m Rt W[ z _ c E gptsg e o w- i4. S Atc R^ S IQ6 R 4EbFLSSO I. 1 IT •? ^ .g" $ E `e V $� ' wA]ERWN Ii[eLAN AVE � ? ro 6� �6` 4 W a L a +` ern , " g 6: E.f.Er < d yy x WRQ -iS ge aaLxa &^^,� aOP xDLLrx000 i RD..e Ill 0 • .A $ u�. a `u" a `< • n .r w. r xrtnuatn•" 3� ..__L8Q �� P � : gcx sr. W 8'e x r E1 xik6L0 ` mLr °r °$ sa 9` ` J •�3 SOaIVr-- : g CNA ry PVLE o RD. lcLR Hxvandv snM1r t L /aq $ s z %' LpO ` ¢' 2tAWx[A AVE. Sr. W, ].uuLa[lA. rt00 g ` € ` r r, ii a`� I IIORT/h00p Ox aDE r1. b. 5z ntl Sr Srr[� [ IS.f."e" ST Re. Ee V\ 4,169 °RRttI rAR 5 = DnDI a DDE, , , Y i a ETM D. R,q°,a V�? eAVR • IL-1 x ' iELfwAm6 w °aY R w J 2 ILLS w000 18 i §PDN rA0 J 30. EOWuO� Sr. W = D.PIw'ew0 le. Y $ Y Cree4 TFA. R4 LrE. yL _ `,R � J� [tee DaR� 4 LaAx _ o A�pN Esq F rY� �. 4 gRwluolro H°rvry }1 iar rfn. a � Y S p46pL � Lpa00 U' 81DrtuNil g a o- ¢ $ D M E. 4' QJ''I�OS°R 4 aunL.n :OR. Cj� � � I �. L W ]I sr. zr \ ROB n sr o v,�xp0�tt5°DADpOAv + SY rEBB IEWe, `J Rp z 3a �' ST. Lxe°Os u. •p' i W • ASP[x v W♦ w ` Aub°' ' Z BW1 L0.E u v.59rn SiT ° L 59 n 9r 5 n 5 z 59 m f D?. oto 5 u 3NARepp 6 5 rM1 S 1n $ P z r4R (m °S ` 1E., ` `L " opDR.wvvsrx6 h ax' o - 5 g o = e e bYAm L <R BIRCH CKsr AK.SI. ` Qp Y• v crl4 .Rrr PL. S1 �3 �„t .r O- In =r IWIB L'y ` w 61 ai lR ° 5 y x haNON rLEAsO cL` xe woY SR' A` F N t! a �� rEx r' T. 4, P�p�asr Tas°gd ^ 4 c 8 tE^ .. E] ` A < W •"• 6E f t � D aJ LaF < � 4vyv^ krP LLOFRf � S E P p � E '• F T � ] � sr - Lp4e D Y `'E4�'.• ] C : S L � E i ? g 'e - M OR. � 2 N•�IR it ' A ay � FLSA°j° x1Liz 4 N^� `s � 6 x[si TR, `xo uuN J,dLr LmsW u. Y j subAx ; ArL u sASCU]Y 6 - xncuo o . m SiFA. %. BopuriOrt [ P6 W ,6 exv E Re ' N R unuLLt011 °R e y, ��Y i �_ ' Rla :Tn�n% t� u 4L1 T n w'KR ve' I rwilrWNLn �°L'[xe^ � na oR14 "+ r_.a a9 Da. a 9m a 3 DR. r+ y � .49s eE•� xr zl. s sx"s}ELD °`�. rR^Rr�� BO.i 3 ° '^ca gxtR a E'�u�r0 •E OR EN �n lARtf 9FrIpOVLR Wv[Ll [Wry' € J1 a ]2 Rnr AVE SS. ROBERIS FL Ta i � u_ x xR L a NNmv� iR ` svAs I °TRr AVS 3 - r uy Y gsr N[ST rsT. nna I ls. .121T lr LA. l-vuuILLlis u ISE. ^R4 ij le. [xuflCN PL. ' 1 f e 6l KRorrcAO°PAss L"0.O6yu rsunlq DR. � xn BE z L N. Y wZa xlB�s r x : S°a Lpk ve 1L �PARw.AxN u ] it m d � E r9 2 3 6 a3 roux nnn ] ifif ii6. eIRET ILL RD. �1 - Geek•g C C p . 8 sEl e Ntne I6 t,AiLn : ?o (J °� IRR u iB c • g OR. YTCNRE § ` 19 S n EE I $ D• � CT H{ _ I o 4RCEn e� W "°`+R•3r" � � < �� g°� d! A 1.5L`a o eR sr v[[EA AIiERItIx I x I _ T $ W o mn r w r s i r W `M Or n . J � �4S rNSLc! u• Pi �a im wul rxm Ny wc`R mm ST. Bina is Q t g e2na wE�—�] E W : i '� O _•11 P1 ....T 1 +, ......._...T 1:=...... _ ....._� .. .i'... ..moi..>._ s ...... .. .. .. ...._. _ E. s=\. ,.�/.:_s ._.. , _ w LEGEND: Principal Arterial "A" Minor Arterial "A" Minor Arterial ® "B" Minor Arterial Collector b� (Reliever) (Augmenter) O \b �e�r Cit of Edina Roadway Functional Classification Q, �Y Y 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update aLL \°rte - Figure 7.5 w tp O M �it 333066 th Street, Edina Explanation of Request and Description of Project Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon) is seeking final zoning approval to PUD and final development approval at 3330 66"' Street. Beacon builds high quality, affordable housing for families and individuals. We believe housing is the foundation for people to create the stability and security we all seek. We believe that well-designed, professionally managed buildings create a win-win for communities and tenants. We believe everyone deserves to have choices in housing. We believe in home. Our development projects are usually undertaken with partners and collaborators in the faith communities. When a congregation has identified a desire to create affordable housing and the capacity to embark on a development project, our staff, with their specialized expertise, collaborate with congregational leaders to make the vision a reality. This model, over our 15 year history, has resulted in the creation of nearly 500 homes. In partnership with Edina Community Lutheran Church, Beacon has entered into a purchase agreement with the owners at 3330 66 Street West and intends to convert the existing building into a residential apartment building, "66 West Apartments," that will provide 39 units of permanent housing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. We plan to seek funding from Minnesota Housing, Hennepin County and several private funding sources to make the units affordable to homeless young adults between the ages of 18 and 22. 66 West Apartment's units meet the Met Council definition of affordable rental housing according to the Livable Communities Act. Construction of these units will apply towards the City's Met Council goal of creating 212 additional affordable housing units in Edina between 2011 and 2020. See the separate attachment detailing the project funding structure. 66 West is supportive, affordable housing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. The goal is to support the tenants as they learn to live independently and develop their skills to be financially independent — thereby ending the cycle of homelessness. The building will be staffed by specialists serving homeless young adults. Our supportive service approach is also designed to create a sense of belonging and place for residents and to foster healthy relationships between youth and caring adults with professional training and skills. The outcome is that that community creates an engaging, safe "home" environment with ample opportunities for youth to access on-site or in the broader community. Site and Development Description The project site is bounded by West 66`x' Street to the South, Barrie Road to the west, and office buildings to the east and north. The site is currently zoned POD and contains a two-story building with a basement. The first floor is being used as a bank with a drive through facility. The remaining floors are not being used. The building will contain housing units, as well as office and resident amenities. The building will feature 39 studio units, ranging in size from a net (paint to paint) 322 square feet to 451 square feet. Each apartment will contain a full kitchen and bathroom. The building will contain offices for on-site service providers and property management. There will be a community area for residents, as well as a fitness area, computer lab and laundry room. The site is .9 acres. The project incorporates the entire existing 18,145 square foot building and also includes a 10,458 square foot addition. The remodeled building, with the addition, will have an 11,283 square foot building footprint and a total floor area of 28,603 square feet. The building will remain two stories, plus the existing basement. The design retains the brick on the existing building. Expected 0 exterior materials on the addition will be brick and metal panels. The updated exterior will complement the surrounding buildings. The site features two outdoor courtyards and a basketball court as resident amenities. The project retains most of the mature trees on the site. Additional garden areas and ornamental trees, including a rain garden, further enhance the existing landscaping. Plantings and a tree for shade will improve the existing bus stop area, currently just a bench. Additional pedestrian walkways to the public sidewalk are planned. Sustainability. Currently, the building use is limited to one of the three floors due to parking requirements. This project maximizes the potential of the .9 acres by repurposing the entire existing building and adding an addition. The development reduces the impervious paving of the site by 6.9%. Beacon delivers buildings that are enviromnentally sustainable in design and operation. 66 West will incorporate many sustainable building elements, outlined in the attachment. Parking, traffic and transit. The primary entrance is accessed off Barrie Road. The parking lot, as designed, has 19 parking stalls. Landscaping along Barrie Road could be removed and the parking lot expanded to accommodate an additional 12 spots, should a future user require additional parking. In addition, there is a paved, unstriped area, currently designed as a basketball court, in which 6 additional spots could be added with minimal site disruption. Thus, the site could contain a total of 37 parking stalls for a future use. Beacon has provided funding so that the City of Edina could conduct a parking study to verify the parking needs and determine the impact on traffic. Beacon believes 19 parking spots would be sufficient to serve the residents, guests and staff. The independent parking study found that in other Beacon buildings that serve a similar population, the rate of parked cars to apartments range between 18% and 30%. In the most similar building serving young adults, the rate of parked cars, at its peak, was 18%. Thus, conservatively, Beacon would expect no more than 12 parking stalls will be required for residents. In addition, the building has offices for a maximum of 6 staff. There will be no facility vehicles requiring a parking stall. In addition, the project site is located across the street from the Southdale transit hub served by nine bus routes. Also, two high frequency bus routes stop immediately adjacent to the property — route 6 to Downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota and route 515 to Richfield and Bloomington. Thus, it is expected all residents can utilize public transportation, reducing the dependency on cars. We would also expect that future uses would also take advantage of the proximity to public transportation. Finally, the project includes 26 bicycle parking spots and indoor bicycle storage. 66 West Sustainable Elements In order to create homes that are durable, healthy and efficient, Minnesota Housing require all funded projects to comply with. the Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Communities (criteria. This guide outlines mandatory and optional sustainable building criteria to include in the project. Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon) has committed to implement certain criteria and incorporated the elements or strategies into the building design. The document providing the written commitment is attached. In addition, at the financial closing, Beacon will reaffirm the commitment and certify the building criteria that were included in the construction documents. Finally, upon construction completion, Beacon, the architect, and the general contractor will certify that the elements and strategies were incorporated into the final building. Energy modeling and. performance test results are also required to verify energy standard criteria. Below are significant strategies or elements that will be included in 66 West through the Green Communities program. See the attached certification for a complete list. • 66 West is a compact development, with 43.33 units per acre. • 66 West is within walking distance of many services and facilities. • The project site is adjacent to public transit stop that totaling nearly 160 stops per day. • 66 West is an adaptive reuse of an existing building. • At least 50% of the planting will be native species. • The building will have a HERS (home energy rating system) index of at least 85, which is at least 15% more energy efficient than a HERS reference home and consistent with Energy Star compliant homes. • 66 West will install only Energy Star rated appliances and light fixtures. • All of the project's interior paints, primers,and adhesives will meet low VOC standards. • 66. West will install Energy Staircontinuous running bathroom fans exhausted directly to the outdoors. ,Ili addition, 66 West will feature the following Green Building strategies. + 66 West will reduce the impervious paving of the existing site by 6.9%. • The building will feature hard surface flooring in the units. • The project'site will include a rain garden. )oI Project Name 66wast4ertments Organbation Name Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative Project Address 333066th Street W .._. Organisation Contact Sarah Larson ProjatstatusApplication Date^— 5/13/2014 METHODS WORKSHEET[ This worksheet identifies how the project team Intends to Incorporate all the Mandatory and adequate number of optional Criteria Into the development, eel must be filled out and submitted before the construction startdatr. for additional Information on how to submit go to www.gree we unitksonbm.wgAo ls/ceniflcation/ Select an answer provided in the drop-down menu under Column D ("How Criterion will be implemented") for each criterion. FVWn special cbmmstances or request a watver using Column E ("if neoauary, describe deviations from Intended approach'). This may Include Information on an approach proposed by the project team that does not appear as an option in a drop-down menu. Indicate where the Criterion references can be found Within the project documents in Column F and G {'Criteria Documentation"). This Is required for Crkferion 1.1b Indicate the project team member who Is responsible for documenting and ensuring the completion of the Criterion under Column 'If (Champion). Indicate the number of optional points being pursued by completing Column H ("intended Points). in Complete this document by signing the Green Development Agreement at the bottom of this worksheet. Without the. mandatory signatures, this document remains incomplete and the project will not recieve Step Certificotion. K necessary, provide addBional Criteria Documentation Criteria Item HowGkedon will beimplernwhod information or explanation efahemative Location ofMessure in Spec page number/ plan Champlon Intended Points approach to meeting this rReasere Project Documents type foriocatfngmeasum Greas 06'vMo;)litlegf Plan. Thebto)edleamhastoadoitedonearmaiirhfegrallve desipl meeOnels)' . ,N/A 'ArQlilect �M. Integrative Dealgrt Meadng() andladmitltJaGreen beinloprim"Manor"ientdoturnettarkn . •' '� TbeprolftAtaarp'A.creiihi sign old ion (rucllm dacurireMstloh (i e.. Life `Grntt DawlopmedpHn pWi; ,: .,. Uterfa_DacLmetnhilan ofappdroeprirllafste.afondteatpPtlie �o&RCm6atmudhei��sfie]karhHlmmuttn Pr�ectl6nsart� �p k • -, edRaHpx -. universal oesige (Nov 1.2a 0 C"buin". ordy) 1.26 &Universal Maerot0e Rehab only;probstoI I I I I ( 0 I 0 Knecessary, provide additional Criteria Documantathin Crkeria Item Howtrlterlm wilt be implemented Information or explanation of alternative Cham [oration of Meawre In Spec pagenumber/pian pion Ntended Points approach to meeting this meamra Project Documents type for locating measure SRe SasimSelection (M. sktebpr ikelydevelpiW_and wiK noebk on primesaft on public . ].1 GMaN!!o°n").'., ParWald car uitlrl lofiitiyan due300 year Ooo?Plairy'arOn askpepote N/A Piojeatpltrpgar tN, 7 k , ConnecBOMt4 odslbrg 'DaaloPpientand .. s ... : k�restructjltt/New '"TitgproledkWnled Oaoskewilryxarcass ia.ttxMfng roads; waja se, ' `f` r `1p0`�t .and d, 1r, ct' ofProf{r (rasfNctumwithin at c ipiio prat(ng#that j25%orrho fl/A' - ti,F FfoJEe�ttianaj;2r. M. . ; Palmita burraaMg�be�lltdng �eye)vpmeo�conneded to lhepedesbliri. gddttlnd maf[Mg the aeptletink reuSutremenls grpojliaf2on _ t er�en�'lgaool s -' flpmpact DeveloprMnl (Nets!_. 2 7' ARM - �� 33 ralls/atrit NIA t %ojat Ma v JA. 2A Campactoevdopment 4393 units/-ir - 6 Proxknkyto serN«s(New 2,iS ::, Subwbar&ki-sheTowa kcigom hejectis BSyngewagtdWattceofatlnst . . ff/A YreJect ' .. .. .,: thr2 Orel -mile walk dktGtsrebfatlearttia -. "` r.., ., ... Mamgat . M.._• 2.6 ^heaeMdKaen eland Att?#lu TheprrujecfUclasstged aseri4h6an/Srnall r5tyata'suburben/M(d prdTevm ft/A - Irojett_IA:pagar M :. 2.7 Preservation of and Access to Open Sace Access /o Public Route6hasover SOlramitridespre weekdayand Route SIS has nearly" 2.6 Transportation transit rides Per weekdayeoth have nearly m many rides m the weekend. A S slop that serves both mutes@ directly In front of the budldmg. Walkable Neighboshoodc 29 Connections to Suoomding Provide summa N of the project's pathwayconnetions to 0 Neighborhood publicspaces, open spaceser adiacentnl development Smart She Location: Passive 2.10 Solar Heatirrj/coding Provide abrief narrative that describe passive solar heating/cooling tattles 0 ZIl BrovmOeldorAdapt3" Reuse The project is located on an adaptive reuse site 2 Site Mi 4.2 AdvancedWaler-ConserAns Appliances and Rtums 43 W.I., FL-.. I I I I I I a Cl If.—,.,y, provide additional Criteria Documentation 61 I'M 11M of Spec page number/ plan Ir necessary, provide addMw.1 inf. zo,expl.n.tionofshem.fm Champion Criteria It— How Criterion WN b.impteme.ted Information or explanation of alternative Location of Meauaro In Spec page numb.r / plan Champion Intended Points approach to meeting this measure Project Documents for localing measurt 5.4 EWMI(srAitvouartcat. bndard allefirn"'I", T" ''` Water Wgservtpgflaltr!es V at SsInporka, nds -#et*dsarW whianbucobsot % 01 *MV z� 4.1 .' W. 4.2 AdvancedWaler-ConserAns Appliances and Rtums 43 W.I., FL-.. I I I I I I a Cl Sa Additional Iteductlans; In Vaing of Heat nx swtl';6o $73 q If.—,.,y, provide additional Criteria Documentation 61 I'M 11M of Spec page number/ plan Criteria It.. How Criterion W11 be Implemented inf. zo,expl.n.tionofshem.fm Champion Intended Points approach to meeting this measure project Documents type for locallmi measwe Building Parr 5.4 EWMI(srAitvouartcat. bndard allefirn"'I", % 01 *MV W. Z ark 71,777, nx� Sa Additional Iteductlans; In Vaing of Heat nx swtl';6o $73 q , -. , , . I . atufflisesizedinucordance vAththeAM 61 f andSP t"p �� Orq�d 5.4 EWMI(srAitvouartcat. A13 t d nUE2 Me QnUanar4 inz fMad t .' �nInW2' A- SrS�R s �,,r idll s E 4rlbded las lE a tlr flMllWes£bP�ta or,�ep`�ar','ar,tlry aqutvak�th yadwroarrta b�'�nf ,. x $ -, " �jBD 6asSrw $ _{ y 1p to �'� s�lij wehti •„ d a '• 'y ..'p r''' ^` (erio, Po{W�•tEl�l`1a 'A,A �A•i44d ihlW�e�>iaS LEDa(whharMNfnum� tsAmgrs P dor } >iSstand s r" }l TBD iS'^gr EI En yi, �,r Jti"rs��'X T v� SSc ? ef�Fat�of}S_ p1�e4Td�Pad wt onaH puldPbt: �p r Y'l• M.ri t .0 - o". � b MsiaBed iiiB rlwe6ing units IrtlBdrtalmsuo-tn.$NtasM�e l Pro F11.00r TBD Elif.�rtirwl Emir. ! AA.: iY ped.i SpedRralRohs 5.6b Eleprkiry MeteriModuete Rehab md7J Thepr*ctisnew comtmctlon"substandal rehab - 0 Providebrief narrativedescribing the types of renewable energy system 5.7. Renewable Energy installed.and the estimated percentage of energy R will provide for the overall 0 enorgydemand of the project 5,76 Photovoltaic /solar Hot 0 Water Ready 5.8 Advanced Metering 0 raframmaure 0 Intended Points If necessary, provide additional Criteria Dowmmtaton Location of Messure in spec pagenamber/plan Criteria Item How Criterion will beimpfemented Information or evplanstion ofaltemartive champion Intended Points approach to mating this measure Prcletl Documents type for locating measure �� Lotp/No VOC Paritk,nnd ABlnReibrpaints and prxbmeysPAllm�et the tdPb egd6reen. seat standards for - ProJec4 Pkns#rad iBD '' VOC66asedonlhaNstProwidedtntha�tllala '. Specifitat/wu ,:ArclrJleetF ,1N I�OCAdhedws and M>complywit�1216goi lheSauthGllb Cya6ty w Haiecobaps and �= 6.2 r,. x Snlmte ManageneitlEFddtL ABagd gdanfg ssRl corrtpfyrrlN Rqulapon4 SperytSi>}°°s f TBD ArtNtttd, M- Btr�e51oF1��ieBayAieiNr4wiyyMany.4hesittjl{Dici(B/JtOMDi 77777� n . '.`COlrfjfnAl011 WaYf t-3 The jsetfedpewbteAtde, dreviFoO;to rollotr, cunstrtgtleh dgste -. -L x marujtiMnl plan llratredu es watt by a�least 2SX6y brintingdehds tea Project, and - ;, TBD " `-: ,'.;. Cxn�rBCPrlWclef All �. Austria" it llas� .speehAtaiforu Construction Waste Provide a brief narrative that lists the materials In the Construction Waste 6A fdanagerpenC Optional Management Plan, the %recycled, salvaged, at cr—ted and the strategies to 0 do so 6.5 RecycRng.St—ge for The project MR provide a dedicated, permanent, and accessible area for the 5 Mulflfamily Project collection and storage of materials for recycling 6.6 Recycled ContentMaterlal Provide a brief narratve that wmmarises the building materials made of 0 re dad content material 6.7 Regional Material Selection 0 6,8 Certified, Salvaged and 0 Engineered Wood Products 6.9. Reducing Heat-Island Effect: Z On 0 6.9h Hedudng Heat-island Effect- 0 Paving 5 Intended Points If necessarv, provide additional CrRah Documenhtlon tOcation rein ec number/plan Criteria It.. Flow Criterion will be lrpplemanted Information or expianatmofalternative Champion Intended Points apprwch to meeting this measure Project Documents Deirms t or to type for loafing mcawre tompeshItWoedPiodircta T1 '. ih�t Fmlt revel /No ' - AAcomposRe Wood piaditA will beterughntwibh CaAfomk 93120 - ProjeitPktsalid TBD ;. , ',Ardrllad M 'a S ciRnitons.. . - Anyatpey pad,pd edhasfye wflistol MAWeBed M erdsywaysrfai ndry' L • robins,badndnms,hlkhenrfkiWtenllies dllAlyroomtiol`inyroom'sef 'indrOnmMlally Pfehrabk", popnd<onnened fkorxtiry'arpetprodu-w1IrMat Giem Inhaler Greco • he;letlPWhend TBD A� M�. Zrz Iabe1At�M1'srrrtiRcatbn.Aryi AardsudateNoortnt ltroduil4tttB ba eltha. Spicllii+trona, ', .. .� teremktY�pnll�nishedhardwaedMois,eYMeptiwllistcydihthd - - = ri �; FloorScompiatrerrtidkd+; ' Environmentally Preferable 7.3 0 Flooring: Alternative Sources .• . Edeihsl Faits.. Bathroom 7Aa {NewtvptGuif%nend lAre prekU wlp hmlaq FNERGYSTAR 6ekd cohtrormus balhroomhrri Nat - :` Pro)att Pknsaed T6D.:. ..R�eddt�wl - : StrLsi eahatnttpdoldeers,penta".centlttteutlyat20tbn _. Spec0liftats 7Ab Exhaust Fans: Begone- Monerae Rehab mW 0 ' �..ttdtatntFaIW.1P lHaw t CbnrbdcfTog ond.abttantd The prejectwillInstall power-ventedfansorrangehoodsthateahausttothe ProJadPlarisdad f1i«Itanfaf • wWe"atan lMHt6Atent rat- o12QDdN perASHRAE 622-2010 .SpecWpRArns_ 7.S6Exhaust Fans: latchen t 0 Machete Rehabnow VentUatkaa (New -79e SLLn4mBQl tRiUet44sd e, stem.at w,a-w7f tewaa PfSieo If ntte ir, p rovide additjorai Criteria Documentation ProjectPI P 6D" � ji; '. . - adrt.V,ls_n`Twal ifnAsStNaRillayfv6en7.u2l-a7dba1n0sy sTroheu mI Spec page number/ plan Seed1'fonnsd Intended Prints v ,kngio r Enee 7.61; =11tion(Moderate Rehab type foriocatins measure gugdMnlgNnanu Tf�project}copeWltl tndudeapmdslon tequhlnt the can corer 0 .< y 77 AU doiheedryerswiU yxhaust directly to rid ou)doorsusjne dgiddype dpct S 'Al and lli0 •.'' "� _ ='r `"- r 1Td Y 1i iii Vx.r «ic»$. qi% «t it aimhusJldn e9uipme. lr!entfdand hard- •J, � �*n U "4 � !V P; t \ § xrya 9 { 6 7 t Cem uet�n Eouiprnan� e yn�'6epoweraFntedorrPir r x a O'�de`C anyAU�+2jps.., ad a�f.}t�e ach skePln6uN pNvleria . ?pr 70tf, g llreawneri0royidea2opyaftfarm anuillotbereanitemmtto"". ;t " r.' ,, h:'ti ` " Maid Prweniori°'Wate tt,.r I to`fhdaters fiblhislaUadWDh nlch aaMdfafisspf ed lathe R r� k PTajdcfPiadlind w Y :, 5`d`'x` 1r. 'jam ,,,.., •., } g.e project Data Collection and Mmiltodrursystona `'iL r 0 796 N(a�d PreiiM�lo krghte`g �lOeX' ( ans>"nitalfirebn�(i"in5 andl3utrdry fadmsrYnl sjiejnitediifihal •cw T�Ot�tX'- 5.{;idlf, ntlons t... " ws 5 +Sti.•a r+ x u •# r,. r bayieoia4leindclmhahlesv s Nhav�do�Pa�trft�dhxklngma�e�iksuehaswrtfnt 5 Prb" ` �''-y�" ,: � �� ''� Mold pfeViadontTiibadd: �9e�� Sho�l�nirosuras � < All�alhr�p board"fi t neht�oard rue uhriknt .: � �� S ons � D + vim. +a�: 1 e�+� k �ss�� <. Va 0anleip -kllwea t+xpeol 71Q YPgih a4riadgtliefkotolt, ptojeatWl(tslAporburry oedtmokiaoade7le i ., .. , .A.:..5 ,�'d $^ K` .4 '�i ".� iubstantial ormodarata relwh and land R RojectFlansand s# • t #fit 9 { r x' 2.t `r'. 'moi' 'X' e ia0aivssRIPt",(NOonNci/•i�eproJeefri 7ef1 andwill teeifosradon (aaturasrfoebmdary.' in new� deefw addedstal) Sper�tatJotSs ,:. .&.r .,:Jk<hi'tr "' M� .,: r•> Raji°(i °CtIX%. InsUQpatslvF-tadah .: uhde'tneaUr hatgjneaf 4pi}r, r t;: - Water OtatnY;ta (1M - CansfNlbndrteheb - lheprojecCls moderate dtsuhsGn0l rehab thalhnoR repladnsassemhlks"'' AddlUon}vlghemmplNat fUA ;. M'. 7.12 projetis'rfrp(odnsassembljel calletllnUlI colt ion roll5deb4fe biterjwa only).. ... = y w 7.53 GarageliultUq/s. TheppjettAgeFnethavoanatarhedgitap`,b N/A.�,�,. „ rt, ,r...*. 7.14 led Pest The project scope Will include rewdjemeRfs to seat 6g w5p, llooq andloinl ProieetPtinsand Took to magamani - = vM z. pe(rNragon?i.poda�tpreol ser wil•ihp ro•Vdedat oil,dpe Ings+ p Spedfiiallopa • leadSafeNlwk Fr'aetices •` M5 ` Mbi&lm olnndM6rlemte TAaprojetlwilibuU'laher1378 7.16 Smoke-Frce Building IThe Walect will enforce a mo- smoking poli 5 Green Development lhe'Lwnervrgl PreiUdeb njipualllo the WPporW^wnatdnwtaryr+�y 4o If ntte ir, p rovide additjorai Criteria Documentation project agree to be accountable to measures and strategies as outlined In application documents. 9 Intended Points To proceed with Enterprise Green Communities Ceritification, signatures must be provided by at the project manager, architect, and general contractor. If these 3 signatures are notpresent, your building will not proceed through Step 1 of Criteria item How Criterion will be implemented information or Planation of alternative tocadon of Measure in Spec page number/ plan champion Intended Prints +ul •s• y `= P IgcfLUnagat. v approach to meeting this measure Project Documents type foriocatins measure gugdMnlgNnanu Tf�project}copeWltl tndudeapmdslon tequhlnt the can corer . ]{reprolNtftopewlOMdudesiprovtsior�"reudMng tlteiuntraeor td provide S 41 antnljal/»WI ' amamial,tQ'theojvner*a vdl�addrets dy opehUbn and msltensnm bffhe Plojed Pfi��nd � •J, � �*n Project Plans and Specifics4iMs TRP apoihce�Av system;,water-system; hghtln6 PaMn0 and landsypfnF 'M D`padUcadons� [hoed fortulurc rcialence�:The properlyman�ger wjll provide Infafriiatlon on ,. llreawneri0royidea2opyaftfarm anuillotbereanitemmtto"". neitbytfaii3ltfadUdes to'jiromoieahesi4hyflfestyf@ m Green Development lhe'Lwnervrgl PreiUdeb njipualllo the WPporW^wnatdnwtaryr+�y 4o Agreement: project agree to be accountable to measures and strategies as outlined In application documents. INSTRUCTIONS. This signature portion is most easily satisfied by either. a) printing the intended Methods tab and having the various team members fill out and sign their portion or bj using digitial signatures. Both forms of submission wIN be accepted. To proceed with Enterprise Green Communities Ceritification, signatures must be provided by at the project manager, architect, and general contractor. If these 3 signatures are notpresent, your building will not proceed through Step 1 of �. &s Reddent's Manuel proyidS to til resldenls at risove•kt'(rte rpanaalvtlt addressgreen deanipg aadachedules, pess[ma(ralkr�llon bf watetshul orf;, proper use. N/A, +ul •s• y `= P IgcfLUnagat. v pmr}uds oFsysiemf jtd upendenie(aJt appfiatime dspecial plumbing 0alures. . ]{reprolNtftopewlOMdudesiprovtsior�"reudMng tlteiuntraeor td provide fitudentanilPropeey e3 anPiiaiiciato the propeiwrowagerdstthe building ffalvrec opefaUoh and,ma narlte iludingihetreylfeaturcs.ThsodenhKonWlllbevideo Project Plans and Specifics4iMs TRP t JectMattuiK,. 'M Msnsger4dentallatr [hoed fortulurc rcialence�:The properlyman�ger wjll provide Infafriiatlon on neitbytfaii3ltfadUdes to'jiromoieahesi4hyflfestyf@ g.e project Data Collection and Mmiltodrursystona 0 0 Green Development The following signatures provides a written commitment demonstrating that all parties involved in the execution and delivery of this Agreement: project agree to be accountable to measures and strategies as outlined In application documents. INSTRUCTIONS. This signature portion is most easily satisfied by either. a) printing the intended Methods tab and having the various team members fill out and sign their portion or bj using digitial signatures. Both forms of submission wIN be accepted. To proceed with Enterprise Green Communities Ceritification, signatures must be provided by at the project manager, architect, and general contractor. If these 3 signatures are notpresent, your building will not proceed through Step 1 of certification. MANDATORY SIGNATURES 6/s/zota M7 a � I �• � I I c a Ig NMI 0 X 0 0° '�- m URBANWORKS L n w c r i r e c r u R e. co M R 41 k .. New 2 Story Building �r I Existing 2 Story H!. ti Building '.i " S_s II t ■ B D - M West 66th Street 66 West Apartments ,l Site Photos Edina, MN 06,13.2014 h C 1 --AALM" URBAN WORKS A H C. I T E C T U R E... 66 West Apartments /p site Photos Edina, MN 06.13.2014 1 2 UA B sm Ae^ Awl A It i i d S ;•tw 10, fit- .. 4y� ja . 40, _ KY� r , r a�� ^4 , ,;1'x'3' }�`;�; r •`S, v % �"i .F 66 West Apartments Site Photos Edina, MN 06.13.2014 7 /A "�-__ URBANWORKS A H c H i r e c r u a — Adjacent Buildings Along West 66th Street 66 West Apartments Site Photos Edina, MN 06.13.2014 8 --A&JO" URBANWORKS A F C H I i E C i U F E.. Nearby Medical Office Buildings Nearby Multifamily Housing 66 West Apartments Edina, MN 06.13.2014 PNI Site Photos 9 €€ O �h F Z zxFmF � F9 n CD E s_ "-p—1 a s mm£ rj OHMR as 01 n — { Z C) qh D g § —i 4. fr8 8a g co Qcn {� r a s � €; r Z �$ m z z 3 „mom. CD �Sfi € 33 a a $ 0 to a._ D CD rn aa07 - 0Li S h m r-p €c� Q a < c mz ° m Z �e 7J D pu D Cl) 0r $A a ( (DD 3 I 7 maK m & g€ € nx N 9 9 Fa ® O Z v m w � m A4 -7 � m� m � i 8 c e b S m KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. ALTA SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURYSYORS `��`°"" BEACON INTERFAITH HOUSING_ g<r�N29. T2W. R24W COLLABRATIVE SITE STATEMENT OF APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS�� ® wauc r Rmwr Iris mRRr e� ' ®•u�iwuu Rsrw¢ s s.a rtir. r sEre..a ♦ o ® _ Ca n'o. ua.m� ml u'�u�'aarw.'.a o wxwi. �i4iNxmi w mxaiN.n W;r atmxxr as ...Wr er xu we Em vomnn..eR vmR Sa14iAa�&m me a imi � miM. � mm.w n ue e(a sa.}ia�.ml ws(e} 4 4 rl(.} FLOOD ZONE 'CI'Q. mamu,osn ....vx GIXW1T. RkWlx yn xffi ee ® w v a W ty Z lawn CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY �rS1Gi A -JA 66 West Apartments axmaem s. weal. caw URBtlN ....... ...--.. vuue�us,i�x s�mi'�1b PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATE5 PREININARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION SITE DEMOLITION PLAN C200 ® nGRADING, DRAINAGEANDEROSION CONTROL PLAN zo 66 West Apartments 33 .,E a West, Ewa �C I U—A PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES PRELJNINARY NOT FOR GONSTRUCIION GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PRELIMINARY C300 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION €11111 !r Af1111�1 66 West Apartments SDSO Mem St.w-EdRB 12 14 Y d q IS I o`v)- WEST 66TH STREET o— "..FdeN ................. _ __. ® �1UTILITY PLAN 20 ao ZO' NO' 60' UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY C400 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AP EIISTURG ID' G W UNUN AND MENL NEW b' OIP — SERVCE AND POS] MOCANR VALVE. SEE DE]Ax a/CW0. C"� IXI. G 2' COPPER WA)ER SERWCE PEN ORRWYLL WIRUNG PENS, WELD VERSY IXACT —NAND SGE. EARRING 2' SERWCE 10 BE USED EOR DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY. SEE MD—K- -1 "I'D N' SANGARY 1=1 AND NSINL NEW 6' PVC SANWAR) —ELy1 }885 W. IXRiwG 8' PVC DN •BTA.]], NEW e' PVC wv . e)2A8 5.INS]ALL 55 If b' PVC SDR -26 $ANBARY BflYER Al I.20x fi. NEW 6' PIU NfURY WV .8)352. CIbRCWAiE ENACT WGRDDR ANG INVERT — MECHANCN ]. WS]Au A]RUUN GMIN w WNDOw WELL RUN . 878.5. Wv 8]].00. SEE GEiWI 8/CE00 B. wSTAu 29 IP R• we STOP SEWER AT 1.abx UEilIYNE.'." ". 'y 9. wSLALL A)RIW —1. IN WWDOR WELL RW . 8]0.5. INV . 8)6.)1, SEE DMIL 9/C600 Av 10. INSLALL 12 L, B' WC —' SEWER AT I— 11. MLBU52x' DUETI0'LOPLNI DMW BlW WRH SOLID IA. mN . 5.1. RN 8)6.59. SUN, ,59.SEE SHEET C603. 12. GR)ALL N9 LP e' PVC STDFN SEWER ATI N•WSiB)5.10. DMA EIER�NnOW BA GRALK NUN SOLID UO. RU9 - 803.3. NN - 976.10 RU LNWEA,nRux spU �� xassRtm �USt SUUPSEE 14. INSTALL SO If 8' PVC SroRN SERER At 1.00% BORE OR —K PIKE UNDER BRICK SIDEWNx. EX TING GID— TO REMAIN OPEN DURING Cg51Ru0RDN. PIERCE PINI & 15. GORE ORRA NEW NO— wAERT INTO IXRRNG urcN SURN. INN - 575.80. ASSOCIATES 4 PNEl1MINAi1Y NOT FOR r � d� CONSTFlOCTION Y^ 12 14 Y d q IS I o`v)- WEST 66TH STREET o— "..FdeN ................. _ __. ® �1UTILITY PLAN 20 ao ZO' NO' 60' UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY C400 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L! A i ppEEa s; 44 °si e � �i C) m< FP fi y m ODDD s z DREW AVENUE EOU1 _0 O �m [� O 8 r S �m O m 5 z r fn Q � � O m D C) r = C Q T COMMERCIAL , m c 25 DflY 0 c EARME ro Qp3nC3 �nE� i m> Kms II =c N01 i S M � �a 5 CHILD CARE smgr O=Oc 9K D bFZ r aO �m 5 rj r A -1-1 D 3 m H m 0 ;,2 I ��0 M [— z� m� x s < D � 2 m n c g a WEST 66TH STREET WEST 66TH STREETP ti, t e ssn _ a N 3 ' . r` 1 m AOS po 0 m �g n a m a r R 4 Tic x r a r f 7 A 'W NO�TF�R i l' i { A 'v � �6 a m<"$' '�L �� 'q+� �5", ..-: ,o.:,.� # '�. a. "• Vie'" Y ■ "Ti �,. * - l Y .� k ��n i ,yi ,. '�' �.4 j �# Y � 1 m 66 West Apartments Sc3i30861tf 51. West, Edro HED— M_ 11 ITOW85.0 EEL -86.5 W 6.3 EL -82.5 BOW 7B.5 EL -80.75 URMANWORKI. ME SECTION AT WEST WINDOW WELL SECTION AT SOUTH PATIO TO CITY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE SECTIONS IT aa PLANTING NOTES AND SCHEDULE Iwo ..... ...... PLANTING/SITE N rel {Ulk WIT 71f Illi' 40— LANDSCAPE PLAN L300 @;PLANTING DETAILS ! �\ IU ..e zCDr ` ( §) [ ? z L 13A31 J c ---------- III aaass ams N; -51SI• A. g5t1_19'. • IS: ------------- -------- -------- e;uawlmdv lsaAA 99 :SDiON WHINTO 0 66 West GENERAL NOTES: Apartments r � ]990 &111 SL Waat. Edina a yr.M p0.ePdai¢mC FfYlrEOEW.Yl6 S aar Vd YIt uPW11P _ a c A M.ErdOr&®rau eAEro a.•GEoacW uNKcabNrvEGrrt UN�ANWL`A{t'- iI -------- U. LEVEL PLAN Al 02 LEVEL 2 PIAN m m Cf) z m E Ci 0 ■0 z ON. m x cr) . /\ z G) ca , � � � /� �� . m up m OA C3 ) \ m Z 0 .� , \ ..#�:< :0 Z Z 0 ;r p i Z I 'a wo p z II II p I F II ILS 11` 1 If 11 �` it �A I1 # o ym m mw rc 2$ Ri H g a s3 c O In m m 66 West Apartments avo9eM SL wenR- 3` LA o MVW� M191e16 BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A351 BUILDING PERSPECTNE FROM NORTH --- -- I 11 N= > rn AF7 ozm All Mal Ai II > rn AF7 ozm > rn AF7 4 \J Rezoning, Comprehensive rehensive Plan Amendment. Beacon Interfaith Housing. 3330 p West 66t" V \ Street Planner Presentation Planner Rothstein informed the Commission to consider a redevelopment request of the existing TCF Bank building, located at 3330 66th Street by Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon). The applicant proposes to remodel and expand the building into 39 units of small studio apartments for young,adults who have experienced homelessness. The size of the units would +rare from 322-451 square feet. Each unit would contain a full kitchen and.room. The building would contain offices for on-site service providers a clip operty management. There would also be a community area for reside.nss area; a computer lab and a laundry room. Continuing, Rothstein told the Commissio111, The existing bank is 18,179 square feet. square feet. The building would remain two would retain the existing brick, anA, the addi There would be 19 surface parkingtali's F surface stalls. No enclosed parking rop their narrative that 18% of�their reside A. s h more than 12 stallsXAhb required o parking is 6 stalls. Therefore, :y belie Residents are expect '`d to utilize he Metrc the street at Southda e All oft eurrfsw.,u d bei towards tie City andx 1bt....C( Rothstein'-..er explained as RM, Regi JDA Medical. T basis, however;. does not all Amendment isrequired. Rc a two-step review approvals: I goal is 39,204 sg7e feet in size. sed' addition v�v ,�,,� be 10,458 TAgemodel of tl, uilding rick with me �al�ti < anels. of pargig would total 37 total The ap tants have indicated in Beac0 nticipates that no n Y ma oum need for staff oul a adequate parking. isit bus se ice available across 11$ -housing, and would apply rdable housing. they omprehensive Plan defines the site and area RM aws for senior housing on a case by case ether housing. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan `ein added this development proposal is subject to first step in the process is to obtain the following 1. A Comprehensive. Guide Plan Amendment to allow affordable housing in addition to Senior Housing in the Regional Medical District. . 2. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1 Planned Office District -1, to PUD, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Development Plan. (3/5 Vote of the City Council required.) If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan are approved. by the City Council, the following is then required for the second step: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to a PUD. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD District. Rothstein further noted that the property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a ComprehensivdP an Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to' anning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan,!s0„with the City Council.” The CitReviewy Council did not require a Small AreaB�Wmdwring fh Sketch Plan llt Planner Rothstein stated staff believes the proposed ComprehensiePlan Amendment is reasonable for the site for the following rea! nq s: , �` ,� 1. Affordable housing is identifteda�as a need in1hne, omprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment would ass I e City in Meeting its established affordable housing goal with the Met Council of`rp ov ding 212ew affordable housing units by the year 2020. This project woul�z'mclude,39 ew affor dable housing units toward that goal. That wo uld�mak,�e up 100%0 of the tota`i�units in\:the project. 2. The proposed,en'sity of�,43units perYac,rei °reasonable, and within the density - range suggestefd n.�the Co , hensi�k�PI`an of betW6en 12-80 units per acre. 3. The RM District allo1Ns send i housing currently. The proposed affordable housing projec y uld� nclude , n -its hat are small size generally similar to senior hosng; and`fhresiden�tswithirihpropQsed project typically do not drive, similar Wo'Wior housing he pro�osed affordable housing project would generate less tra i�than the exisjiog bank.f cility. 4. The protect would util ze sus taability principles. Most notable elements include: ,,A - compiian with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Comm unitI6§\,Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committingo 5% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro `�,:� SON. ° , . Transit; impervious�ce would be reduced by.6.9 /oenhanced landscaping; making use of speceonstruction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; and pedestrian oriented design. 5. Project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina residents. b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life. 4L�l c) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups. d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. Rothstein explained the housing proposed by Beacon would not have a direct connection to the RM, Regional Medical District. The structure would be located several blocks from the hospital. There would not be a direct tie in to any medical use in the area. The Regional Medical Zoning District contemplates abcre minimum lot size. It is intended for larger medical type uses along with se I"a. . ousing which benefits from being in close proximity to medical uses. Planner Rothstein concluded that staff recn4Cnends that the Ci Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amend . ,ent to allow affordabl T ousing in the RMD District subject to the following findings: 1. Affordable housing is identifiie s. a need in teomprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment would s s„ the City in M. ting its established affordable housing goal with the Met Couil ofh r v:ding 21`ew affordable housing units by the year 2020. This.project wou d nclud�' 4 ew affa: < ble housing units (100% ,. moo. of the projects ,xow.ard that goad. 2. The proposed,,gad � isity off 43 units pe cr is reaso able, and within the density range sugges the CoXnOrehensi .e Qlan of be een 12-80 units per acre. 3. The RM District 'I -, s se fo housing ~ u ;rently. The proposed affordable housing proiec,; ou . include un f`s t�`: r small, U size generally similar to senior hour n:g 'an . resints within ropgs.. d project typically do not drive, similar for hous ng.. , 4. T' p oject would ut laze sus ta nability principles. Most notable elements include: comp^ce with Minees.�ota O l y and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green Commu es Criteria; til, zing theexisting building rather than a tear down; committin 0 a 15% a edgy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; imptous surfae would be reduced by 6.9%; enhanced landscaping; making use of specia:'co struction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; an'd ped Irian oriented design. 5. The project would met the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina residents. b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life. A-�'O C) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups. d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. Rothstein further recommended the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning and approve the Preliminary Development Plan, based on the following findings: I. Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment would assist the City in meeting its establid affordable housing goal with the Met Council of providing 212 new affordable h0lI .g units by the year 2020. This project would include 39 new affordable housin K,, `t and that goal. 2. The proposed density of 43 units per acre is reaswonall'e, an within the density range suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of be .;peen 12-80 unii s.�pe acre. The proposed affordable housing project would generale s traffic than the existing bank facility. 2. The project would utilize sustainability pr.ples. Most notable eI' nts include: compliance with Minnesota Overlay and G` e, to the 2.01;.1 Enterpris 4�Green Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing bu ildg rasher than ate di committing to a 15% energy savings; locati t,�&building torn k use of Metro Transi impervious surface would be reduced by be[ h„Arced landscap,ng; making use of special construction material; installing a "in ga de'gjor. storm waer management; and Idilio" ti pedestrian oriented design. "� 4,7vq�,,- M 3.Project would metfq�owing nal �GomprehensivJ?lan goals and objectives: a) Promos on. of a visionof community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, �, incomes and abilitids and offers a4: ide range of housing options for Edina � C ti;y:,4 .�':� `'44,,*t•,'�.,, kr4,, is 4 esidents�k4`ti4*�tsw . x h �'�``GM"4h. 4�"y'k Vic:.• '�^•'F'\� 44 4`S �� Promo, ion of l fe y le housrng4to,suppdrt arange of housing options that meet people s� WereiM- circumstance and at all stages of life. `� " M' c) Encourage an� t egraednix of building type, heights and footprints within -� blocks, rathe' hran sing' IdMu. ldings or building groups. d) Incorporate pri biples of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of de`s".4ign, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing Preliminary approval is alsosabect to the following conditions: I. The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plans dated June 20, 2014. 2. 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. 3. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. A51 4. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated July 15, 2014. 5. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 8. ' Final Rezoning is subject to review and approval of the Metropolitan Council on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Appearing for the Applicant Lee Blons, Beacon Interfaith Housing Col Applicant Presentation Ms. Blons addressed the Commission giving a brie`{k� �Yistory is their first in Edina and Beacon is col aborating w th Pini Church. Continuing, Blons reporte the 39 studio a suburban homelessoun adults. Bloarx Y g She pointed.out itis located directly ort .bus medical. Blons introduced—Carol Lansin � _ F; Works. Ms. Lansing repo term. Mr.Nel�sa?lil"i .c the Prj.Rf Parking agrei Road. C�0ft- nuing, Nelsoi to create a";, re welcoming vegetation )VIA would be of the building wl:y.' ve a co believe ;and is sing isn't a Bacon Inter fait; . Blons said this mmunity Luthe x ent unit project would serve cation of 66 West is terrific. calking distance of retail and kan_d_ Bart Nelson of Urban e term it's a recognized acs gavel", "a desMMIption of the units, parking stall count and Nielson also rep ,orted access to the site would be off Barrie that peNOW e request of the Commission the fence was removed Naid a rain garden would be incorporated and the fst 50/native plantings. Concluding, Nelson said the exterior mporary look. Continuing, Ms. Blons e' `lai : cls. e concept for the project adding their intent is to build relationships between ten- ; s nd the neighborhood. The units are independent living with an on-site property manager. She further explained that multiple support services are provided, nutrition,. independent living skills, etc., adding their intent is for all residents to have support. Blons reported there will be three full time staff to include overnight staffing. Blons thanked the Commission for their support. Discussion Commissioner Forrest asked if the residents of the building are considered permanent. Ms. Blons responded in the affirmative, adding the "stay" rate is usually six months to three years. Forrest asked how the project is funded. Blons responded that this type of project works backward. Approval is first; funding next. Continuing, Blons said a project like 66 West has diversified funding including private contributions. Forrest questioned age requirements. Blons responded the majority of the tenants are between 18 -21 years. Forrest further asked where the tenants come from. Blons explained that the majority of the tenants come through referrals. Forrest asked the turnover rate. Blons responded that 7-10 residents move in/out throughout the year. Forrest questioned if the tenant mix will be male, female or both. Blons responded that hadn't been decided yet; however their other buildings service both young men and women. Continuing, Forrest explained she is. struggling with amend ing-t he�`Comprehensive Plan to include "affordable" housing in the RM guided area. Ms. .Lasang told Commissioner Forrest r.< that the Commission has the discretion on policy ; s' t��`" �� t�� Commissioner Platteter asked if the tenants areKrequired to sign ..lease. Ms. Blons responded in the affirmative, adding the residents are expected to comply with al1equirements in the lease. She said if a tenant doesn't comply wifflUe requirements their leaswould be terminated, adding staff would guide them to otr housing iappropriate mmissioner NO Platteter questioned security/safety��-M.�s. Blons expla"ned.kthe�entrances are sec[�ed entrances with security cameras. Platteter askM. E about the daytin is present and access is secured visito.rs;can.be*"buzzed Commissioner Platteter said in viewing t " Mandsca ng landscaping added to the!>es�. Nelsonpondedl added their goal is tae as manytiexisting�reesas pos A discussion ensued wkh omr ,K was acknow,�l,�e��iat what„�i It s a res'den. e i support se coache"6� mis ` : s ome Comrri�ssoners could be considered com'patib.le Chair Staunton opened the The following spoke to Blons said during the day staff he Wbululd like to see additional ould be,willing to look at that. He discuss gig the makeup of the proposed housing. It � is different-, from a "regular" apartment building. `include ev.;el-ything from nutrition to transition I that services provided at the proposed residence Comp Plan RM guided area. earing. Sheila Rzepecki, 6617 Normandale Road, addressed the Commission. Ms. Sims, 6433 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission. Mrs. Prince, 7200 York Ave #602, addressed the Commission Rev. Erik Strand, Edina Community Lutheran Church, 5732 Abbott Ave, addressed the Commission. Marilyn Peters, 6429 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission. Bill Davis, 6616 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Commission. Ms. Wood, 6525 Drew Avenue, addressed the Commission. 4S'3 Thomas Stone, Nicollet Square, #404, addressed the Commission. MJ Bauer, 7609 Gleason Road, Addressed the Commission. Pacy Erck, 6315 Colony Way, addressed the Commission. Mikkel Beckman, Hennepin County, 318 East 38`h Street, addressed the Commission Tom Nelson, Kenwood/Lowry Hill neighborhood, addressed the Commission. Robert Hobbins, 4708 Upper Terrace, addressed the Commission Carol Truesdell, 9 Woodland Road, addressed the Commission. Pastor Mary Albing, Lutheran Church of Christ the Redeemer, addressed the Commission. Lynn Truesdell, 9 Woodland Road, addressed the Commission. Jenette Augustson, 5000 Arden Avenue, addressed the Commission. Floyd Grabiel, 4817 Wilford Way, addressed the Commiss'a. Betsy Cruz, 8109 Dupont Ave., addressed the Commissio Jon Good, 6816 Brittany Road, addressed the Commis-sf- Lisa Netzer, 6024 Timber Trail, addressed the Co�rssion. Linda Schmitz, 6483 Barrie Road, addressed the -CommIssion. Nate Schmeltzer, 132 West 62nd Street, address the Commission. Maura Schnonbach, 6221 Balder Lane, addres he Commission. Marcia Kermeen, 232 Morgan Avenue, addresset,Coms�on. Jennifer Rolfes, 7675 Woodview Cow . , addressed tCo""��s"sion. Lisa Thompson, 5500 Benton Aven; .. addressed the C��s.�n,_ fission. Rose Minor, 6519 Barrie Road, Step b. Denise, Prior Lake addressed the Coen. Sandy Perzinski, 6519 Bar Road, Step 2007 West 6 15i Streeter 4. e- the C ON Elizabeth Briden, 651, Barrie Ro d' add David Coolaird, 71001 •etro Bo ul -, ard, Bob Long, Larkin Hoffm ddress t1- 5 100 - 5100 Dane.. ti >iGe, addree�eot Father ludo phi: 682 St. Pa Ick's AdamfEstem, St. Stepti s Churc, ;add Rhonda �' sczn. 5109 BearKenuecd Janet Sulliva> 6832 Gleason`, oad, ad Mark Swiggum, . dressed the o m Mark Chamberlin Q04 Bristol - Geoff Workinger.5��24„Kellogg�A;` en ntessori, .4 "Imm"I"', addres ,tthe Commission. e Commission the Commission. ed the Commission. the Commission. j t @ Commission. d the Commission. the Commission. addressed the Commission.- ue, addressed the Commission. Chair Staunton asked if ah%�e else would like to speak, being none Staunton thanked everyone for their input and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Kilberg commented that he is struggling with the request to PUD as submitted. Kilberg stated he's not convinced this isn't residential creep into a office/commercial neighborhood. Continuing, Kilberg said in his opinion the businesses have valid concerns about the proposed rezoning to PUD to allow housing. Concluding, Commissioner Kilberg reiterated this could be considered reverse creep; commercial to residential, not residential to commercial. Commissioner Carr asked for clarification on the zoning/rezoning. Planner Rothstein explained that currently the property is zoned POD -I, Planned Office District and is guided in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as Regional Medical and earmarked as an area for potential change. The request before the Commission this evening is a Comp Plan Amendment and rezoning to PUD to allow housing other than senior. &I A brief discussion ensued on the recently approved rezodiilg or 6500 France allowing senior housing. It was pointed out that aspects of that�pr:j6q'K'are strictly tied to medical (assisted living; aftercare; hospice) and that coincides with the Regional Medical guide. The Commission acknowledged the current request 'isd fficult because while the City encourages "affordable housing" there isn't a specific zoninuide for that and torVes he "affordable" use to medial may be difficult. k. 10:0\,�,ever Chair Staunton acknowledged this iISKthriving med�calarea, the pro-, sed housing gg t P g does include support services and icaned" environme� Staunton said in his opinion this use "feels different" from marke rate:,Busing. It's an -environment that helps its residents on different levels. Commissro er PI eter agreed;;adding this is just the other end of the spectrum. The eldedLneed suppo, ervices and so dot es�e young adults. Commissioner Forrest said the request is creating I eresU ng<tepsion. She pointed out on one hand the City has a mandate to pro, afford`abiehousmg opportunities; however, the means to provide it are limited' Forrest a soipointed out the site isn't zoned RMD it's only guided RM4n,i e;C,�omp PIa �Z66N'M \a d,guided�e two different things. Continuing, Forrest said themust be4way to craftlanguageha woul�d'allow this use in the Regional °ti , Medicalssi�nilar to a senior housing�use in RM guided areas. Concluding, Forrest also pointed out if the Cit staysstrict) to h0 W� area is guided there are a number of uses in the area 49 %� y. guided"Reg%,Il Medical thatdon t mee the definition. IN Commissioner C�rrsaid she cah t support the proposal as presented. She stated it's not consistent with the Regional Mede cal District Comp Plan guide classification, adding the ` 0 neighbors in her opinio ,�1 av,aised valid points, adding this could be considered spot zoning. Chair Staunton said the Commission could eliminate the word affordable and say housing located in an area guided as Regional Medical must include support services. Commissioner Forrest said she agrees, adding her concern is with the word "affordable adding it's a language thing. Chair Staunton agreed "affordable" housing doesn't solve it; there needs to be a mention of housing linked with care/support services that maintains the values of the Comp Plan and its goal of affordable housing. k�ti Commissioner Carr said whatever the Commission decides, if the Comprehensive Plan is Amended, it's a significant change. She said a change like this may warrant more public input, adding it's clearly not medical related. Chair Staunton pointed out if the sticking point is amending the Comprehensive Plan the Commission should note without an amendment to the Comp Plan the project as proposed 'can't move forward. Motions Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend among the Comprehensive Guide Plan based on staff findings and subject to sea Rconditions. Commenting further, Platteter stated he doesn't like the use of theAN dable" suggesting that it be changed to "housing with support services". Motion,failed for�dk,,�pf second. Commissioner Carr moved to recommen menial of the reiftr st for an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to all�o .affordable housing a Regional Medical District. Commissioner Forrest Se lift d ��notion. A%y s• Forrest; Lee, Carr. Nays; Platteter, StauntorggJHlotion to de,,�ny c tied 3-2 vote A discussion ensued with some Com . the project their issue is with the wor m amendment. Commissio r,_s said they a amendment to the Co i'pr n xe Plan; Commissioner Forres s ed At general in terms. Forre - aid it' Knutson resPer a Co • mis Counci #�eonsideratio Commissioner Forrest A. v( Plan/Regi'a Medical bIn allow this type of project ik1 motion. Ayes;or�rest, Lee onW7s expressii a opinion that while they support ffo m ` " as wril�in the proposed guide plan trugglt ind a W ropriate way to approve an ever, .a _: loss in arifying their intent. iutson. if a motion could be made that was more to hae exact language "on the spot". Attorney v�sory, adding they can recommend anything to the commend amending the Comprehensive Guide g guidelines/goals/requirements that would ional Medical. Commissioner Lee seconded the er. Staunton. Nay; Carr. Motion carried 4-I. Commissioner Platteter no �ed to recommend preliminary rezoning from POD -I, Planned Office District. -o PUD, Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Ayes; Platteter, Forrest, Lee, Staunton. Nay; Carr. Motion carried 4-1. DATE: July 15, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner —City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 3330 66th Street West — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. I. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction standards 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org Survey 3. No comments. Soils 4. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 5. No comments Traffic and Street 6. A traffic study has been reviewed and shows no undue burden on the transportation network. 7. Show replacement of brick sidewalk with salvaged or like for utility service crossing location. 8. Show replacement of concrete sidewalk with like for utility service crossing location. 9. Commercial entrance should follow standard plate 400 and 410. Sanitary and Water Utilities 10. Verify location, and remove moribund water service on southwest property corner to main if it exists. Storm Water Utility 11. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District standards. Capacity is available in public stormwater system from NC—I I I subwatershed, downstream of project. 12. Provide copies of maintenance agreement for private stormwater systems. 13. A revised SAC unit determination will be required at building permit application. 14. Provide drainage outlet from raingarden. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 15. No comments. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wivv:EdinaMN.gov, • 952-826-0371 a Fax 952-826-0392 �� 1 Other Agency Coordination 16. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. MDN, MPCA and MCES permits may be required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55434 www.EdinaMN.gov + 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 M< o' Ebb I NIA C' F - , �� t �� /I ! {� _ (�� `off �i�� 1.-I`•l ( 1. � � � -io � Eg �-Y166rh St N5fiir Sir =1f_b6if Ni56thA — If 6Pth ,,+r -,Ftl - 1 � 7 , r ted,_! 0W si=;vrj7dinsr- , r I ,qtr � V 7SI 5 Y! GIti ST -- W 7GIF;S 111 h='�- �-. - --�'� iT �� ❑; �1��^ � O ''Al . ■ � 111 -1 �' tp rig d r w� kq o-�ier t M ❑ d71- w d a a 4..i�--�" l: irP'eY t ; I � Ij I "Al 1!-- \ -:��. 7 �.. ti .� ' `3�. Y, j `F`��(j / •,*-iY, 92,.dSi. f''h 1�Y782nd 5f: T r Executive Summary Background., Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon) is proposing to develop a 39 unit apartment building at the site of an existing TCF Bank located northeast of the 66th Street/Barrie Road intersection in Edina, MN. The purpose of this study is to determine if transportation improvements are needed to accommodate the proposed building and to ensure there will be adequate parking available on site after the apartment building is fully occupied. Results: The traffic impacts of the proposed apartment building on the study intersections were analyzed in the 2015 build -out conditions. The principal findings are: i. The forecast traffic from the proposed development will have little impact on the operations of the study intersections. ii. All study intersections will operate acceptably through the 2015 build -out scenarios. iii. The proposed 19 unit parking lot is forecast to be adequate for the 66 West Apartment building. Recommendations: Other than the proposed changes of closing the east leg of the existing site southern driveway and converting the northern driveway to a full access intersection, no modifications are needed to be made by the developer to the study intersections. Traffic Impact Study A J i1 66 West Apartments TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction...............................................................................1 2. Proposed Development............................................................1 3. Analysis of Existing Traffic Conditions ................................... 2 4. Projected Traffic........................................................................ 3 5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis for 2034 Scenarios .......... 5 6. Parking Analysis....................................................................... 5 7. Conclusions and Recommendations ...:................................... 6 6. Appendix....................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 o Existing Peak Hour Level of Service(LOS)' .....................................3 Table 2 ® 2015 Build Level of Service (L®5)' ...................................................5 Table 3 — Existing Parking Let Counts..............................................................6 Traffic Impact Study ii 66 West Apartments -AG 1. Introduction a. Purpose of Study Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon) is proposing to develop a 39 unit apartment building at the site of an existing TCF Bank located northeast of the 66th Street/Barrie Road intersection in Edina, MN. The purpose of this study is to determine if transportation improvements are needed to accommodate the proposed building and to ensure there will be adequate parking available on site after the apartment building is fully occupied. b. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are: i. Document how the study intersections currently operate. ii. Forecast the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. iii. Determine how the study intersections will operate in the year 2015 with development traffic. iv. Determine if there will be adequate parking on site when the apartment is fully occupied. v. Recommend improvements, if needed. The study intersections are: i. 66th Street/Barrie Road ii. Barrie Road/Existing Southern Site Access iii. Barrie Road/Existing Northern Site Access 2. Proposed Development a. Site Location . The site is located north of the Southdale Shopping Center on the northeast corner of the 66th Street/Barrie Road intersection in Edina, MN (see Figure 1 in the Appendix). b. Land Use Intensity and Development Timing The proposed site will have 39 apartment units. The site is currently being used as a TCF Bank with a drive through. The existing bank building will be remodeled and an addition will be constructed to make up the apartment building. Site access will be via the Barrie Road/Existing Northern Site Access intersection. The Existing Southern Site Access east leg will be removed as part of the development. The site is proposed to have a 19 stall parking lot. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2 in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Study 1 66 West Apartments For the purposes of this study, the development is anticipated to be built and fully occupied by the year 2015. 3. Analysis of Existing Traffic Conditions a. Transportation Network Characteristics 66th Street West is also Hennepin County State Aid Highway 53. It is a divided road with five lanes (three westbound and two eastbound) and a 35 mph speed limit near the site. According to MnDOT it has an average of 16,000 vehicles per day using it near the site. Barrie Road is a local Edina road. It is a two lane, undivided road with a 30 mph speed limit near the site. All of the study intersections are two-way stop controlled with stop signs on the minor approaches. The 66th Street/Barrie Road intersection is a 3/ intersection restricting vehicles from making left turns or through movements from Barrie Road. Existing traffic control and travel lanes are shown in Figure 3 in the Appendix for each study intersection. b. Traffic Volumes Intersection video was collected at each of the study intersections under normal weekday conditions in June 2014 when there was clear weather. Using these videos, turning movement counts were collected from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the three existing study intersections. The peak hours for each intersection were found to be: • 66th Street/Barrie Road: 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 to 5:15 p.m. ® Barrie Road/Existing Southern Site Access: 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. ® Barrie Road/Existing Northern Site Access: 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The turning movement count data from the counts are contained in fifteen minute intervals in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Study 2 66 West Apartments c. Level of Service Cosa �- An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the existing intersections per the Highway Capacity ' Manual, 2090. Intersections are assigned a "Level of Service" letter grade for the peak hour of traffic based ' on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS Los c ' `'` A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions) •, while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy ... traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D at intersections is typically considered acceptable in the Twin Cities region. Individual movements are also LOS o=accepta`bte'' assigned LOS grades. One or more individual t r movements typically operate at LOS F when the LOS D. ' overall intersection is operating acceptably at The pictures on the left represent some of the LOS grades (from a signal controlled intersection in San Jose, CA). These LOS grades represent the overall tOSF=Unaccept�bte -� intersection operation, not individual movements. The LOS results for the existing study hours are _shown in Table 1. These are based on the existing M7-1- Socity of traffic control and lane configurations as shown in San Jose, CA Figure 3 in the Appendix. The existing turning movement volumes from the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations. The LOS calculations were done in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual 2090 using VISTROTM software. The complete LOS calculations, which include grades for individual movements, are included in the Appendix. The study intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS A or better with all movements operating at LOS C or better. Table 1 — Existing Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)' 66th St/Barrie Rd A c A b Barrie Rd/Existing Southern Site Access A (b) A b) Barrie Rd/Existing Northern Site Access A (a) A b 'The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement. 4. Projected Traffic a. Site Trak Forecasting Traffic Impact Study A trip generation analysis was performed for the development site based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th 3 66 West Apartments Edition. Based on Land Use Code 220, the 39 unit apartment building will generate: 0 130 vehicles entering and 130 vehicles exiting the subdivision per day • 4 vehicles entering and 16 vehicles exiting the subdivision in the a.m. peak hour 0 16 vehicles entering and 8 vehicles exiting the subdivision in the p.m. peak hour A trip distribution pattern was developed for. the generated traffic to and from the site. This pattern is based on existing traffic counts as well as taking into account site access and access to the regional transportation system. The trip distribution pattern is: • 35% to the west on 66th Street • 25% from the west on 66th Street • 65% to the north on Barrie Road • 35% from the north on Barrie Road • 40% from the east on 66th Street The traffic generated by the site development was assigned to the area roadways per this distribution pattern. Since the 66 West Apartments will be taking over the site of the existing TCF Bank, the existing traffic to and from the bank was deleted from the network for the future Build scenarios. b. Non -site Traffic Forecasting Since the site is expected to be built and fully occupied in 2015, a background growth rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes to represent future traffic. The MnDOT State Aid office has a 20 year growth rate projection for Hennepin County of 10%. This means that 20 years from now, MnDOT projects traffic in the area will be 10% higher than current volumes. This leads to an annual growth rate of 0.5%. This growth rate of 0.5% was applied to existing traffic on the network. c. Total Traffic Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2015 Build Scenarios by adding the traffic generated by the proposed development to the existing traffic with the 0.5% growth rate applied and subtracting out the existing TCF Bank traffic. The resultant 2015 Build peak hour forecasts are shown in the Appendix under the capacity analysis section for each scenario. Traffic Impact Study 4 66 West Apartments A�� 5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis for 2034 Scenarios a. Level of Service Analysis The LOS results for the 2015 Scenario study hours are shown in Table 2. These are based on the existing traffic control and lane configurations at the study intersections with the deletion of the east leg of the Barrie Road/Existing Southern Site Access (named Barrie Road/Southern Driveway in Table 2) and the conversion of the northern site access to a full access intersection (named Barrie Road/66 West Site Access in Table 2). The lane configurations used can be seen in the capacity analysis section of the Appendix for the Build scenarios. The forecast turning movement volumes for the 2015 peak hour scenarios as shown in the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations. The LOS calculations were done in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual using VISTROTM software. The complete LOS calculations, which include queue lengths and grades for individual movements, are included in the Appendix. Table 2 — 2015 Build Level of Service (LOS)' 66th St/Barrie Rd A c A b Barrie Rd/Southern Driveway A b A b Barrie Rd/66 West Site Access A (a) A a) The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement. Comparing the results from Table 2 to Table 1, the LOS results are forecast to not get any worse with the conversion of the existing bank site to the 66 West Apartments. The northern driveway intersection actually improves with the conversion to the 66 West Apartments because the existing bank is generating more traffic than the apartment is forecast to. No additional improvements or modifications are needed to accommodate traffic from the 66 West Apartments. 6. Parking Analysis a. Existing Parking Counts The 66 West Apartment building is proposing a 19 stall parking lot for its 39 unit building. Typically this would be considered not enough parking for a building of its size, but the 66 West Apartments is housing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. Because of this, the parking demand is likely to be lower than most apartment buildings since vehicle ownership rates are expected to be lower at 66 West than a typical suburban apartment building. Traffic Impact Study1 5 66 West Apartments W� In order to determine how much parking can be expected at the 66 West Apartments, parking lot counts were conducted at three similar sites in Minneapolis that are also managed by Beacon. The three sites were: • Nicollet Square: 3700 Nicollet Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN • Lydia Apartments: 1920 LaSalle Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN • Cedar View: 3146 Cedar Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN The number of vehicles in each of these parking lots was counted after 10:00 p.m. every day for a week in June of 2014. The highest number of parked vehicles at each lot can be seen in Table 3. Full parking counts can be seen in Figure 4 in the Appendix. Table 3 ® Existing Parking Lot Counts b. Projected 66 West Apartments Parking Looking at Table 3, it can be seen that the maximum parking space to apartment unit demand is 0.3. For the 39 units at the 66 West Apartments, that leads to 12 parking spaces needed. Since the proposed parking lot includes 19 parking spaces, there will be adequate parking on site. 7. Conclusions and Recommendations The traffic and parking impacts of the proposed apartment building on the study intersections were analyzed in the 2015 build -out conditions.. The principal findings are: i. The forecast traffic from the proposed development will have little impact on the operations of the study intersections. ii. All study intersections will operate acceptably through the 2015 build -out scenarios. iii. The proposed 19 unit parking lot is forecast to be adequate for the 66 West Apartment building. Other than the proposed changes of closing the east leg of the existing site southern driveway and converting the northern driveway to a full access intersection, no modifications are needed to be made by the developer to the study intersections. Traffic Impact Study 6 66 West Apartments 8. Appendix A. Figures 14 B. Traffic Counts C. Capacity Analysis Backup • AM Existing • PM Existing • AM 2015 Build • PM 2015 Build Traffic Impact Study �) 7 66 West Apartments � 7�v, P C4 L r T ➢ 4 , t -,�s�'��r-y,,,•�^r�,.:-�y t �-C�`so,.� � b'� �''�- 5 _ .��I y+fjt, �--5`..�© „( ��,c �` � w6a tn�s f� �.� �4�':_t f- rjl��.('k. � ijyl'`-�7 '`�+• i s- �t ,-. �l}� =5� `.-� a��= 1 ] �+t j "" � ' _.' �. � � .1 as W�6slhS� fl ['.af rly + 1 6 h 51 W 561h St 0 5V 66th St�R w�Gfilhi f SCIIC .,9Y+ 4a-- g`�q`W 67thYSt -m1W 7 ISI H z i m r � ;+•Y!•62nd Sri62nd St•-. r to nL � 7�v, P C4 L r T ➢ 4 , t -,�s�'��r-y,,,•�^r�,.:-�y t �-C�`so,.� � b'� �''�- 5 _ .��I y+fjt, �--5`..�© „( ��,c �` � w6a tn�s f� �.� �4�':_t f- rjl��.('k. � ijyl'`-�7 '`�+• i s- �t ,-. �l}� =5� `.-� a��= 1 ] �+t j "" � ' _.' �. � � .1 as W�6slhS� fl ['.af rly + 1 6 h 51 W 561h St 0 5V 66th St�R w�Gfilhi f SCIIC .,9Y+ 4a-- g`�q`W 67thYSt -m1W 7 ISI H z i m r � Upt THF ac k T2ArF1C STUDY COMPANY N7. Traffic Impact Study Appendix A - Figures Figure 2 Concept Plan *,1 lip `7 A2 �10 sr.'s LOCATION 66 West Apartments p t r" -44 11-1 9 }/,, Ivh�4}s ...tri ! r _ ,,�\ S .. �*tT�-iS�YY_��t.�.r�-1� �'':p:Y[L} y+ ;•*..•V3..x': �'i . __ ,... .l/(... _� __ r'" � 1�'�. Appendix A - Figures SDack Figure 4 - er, Existing Parking Data 'THE TRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY Occupied Vehicles (counted after 10pm) Date Lydia Apartments Beacon Counts Nicollet Square Cedar View Spack Consulting Counts Lydia Nicollet Cedar View Apartments Square Monday 6/9/2014 7 7 3 7 5 3 Tuesday 6/10/2014 6 7 3 -- -- -- Wednesday 6/11/2014 5 6 1 3 -- -- -- Thursday 6/12/2014 6 7 3 5* 9* 3* Friday 6/13/2014 5 7 3 -- -- -- Saturday 6/14/2014 5 10 2 -- -- -- Sunday 6/15/2014 5 2 3 -- -- -- Maximum 7 10 3 *At 11 am Number of Units 40 42 10 Max Parking Demand 0.18 0.24 0.30 Traffic Impact Study A4 66 West Apartments ®.._ff g rNfil 1411 Ie Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Fite Name : 1 - Barrie Rd & 66th St, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 1 Barrie Rd & 66th St Start Date : 6/10/2014 Edina, MN Page No : 1 Groups printed- Cars +- Trucks Barrie Rd 66th St I Barrie Rd 66th St 06:30 AM 1 0 U U 2 1 3 1 0 0 96 13 1 110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 36 0 0 401 153 Total I 0 0 U 9 1 10 1 0 0 228 35 1 264 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 92 0 0 101 375 07:00 AM 0 2 0 5 2 9 0 0 138 11 1 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60 0 0 70 229 07:15 AM 0 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 239 19 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 82 0 0 94 361 07:30 AM 0 0 0 9 4 13 1 0 288 28 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 88 0 0 95 425 07:45 AM 0 0 0 15 6 21 0 0 293 35 0 328 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 15 82 0 0 98 448 Total 0 2 0 34 16 52 1 0 958 93 1 1053 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 44 312 0 0 357 1463 08:00 AM 0 2 0 9 1 12 0 0 262 23 0 305 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 12 89 0 1 102 419 08:15 AM Q 1 0 9 0 10 0 0 246 27 2 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 100 0 0 109 394 08:30 AM 0 0 0 18 2 20 0 0 234 26 1 261 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 6 110 0 0 118 399 08:45 AM 0 1 0 17 3 21 0 0 220 26 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 98 0 1 110 377 Total 1 0 4 0 53 6 63 0 0 982 102 3 1087 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 38 397 0 2 439 1589 I I2 21 {I I 191 320 09:105 AMAm 0 0 0 26 2 28 0 0 148 16 0 164 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 102 1 294 Total 1 0 0 0 45 4 49 1 0 0 312 32 0 344 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 197 0 - 0 2211 614 03 03:45 PMI 0 0 0 25 3 28 I 0 0 211 22 0 233 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 16 211 0 0 229 I 443 0 19 248 0 0 267 528 Total 0 0 0 51 7 58 0 0 377 39 1 417 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 35 459 0 0 496 1 971 04:00 PM 0 1 0 28 2 31 0 0 172 18 3 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 238 0 0 250 474 04:15 PM 0 0 0 22 3 25 0 0 193 26 0 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 236 0 3 255 499 04:30 PM 0 0 0 24 4 28 0 0 111 11 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 242 0 1 257 467 04:45 PM 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 231 27 0 258 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 226 0 0 235 514 Total 0 1 0 94 9 1041 0 0 767 82 3 852 1 0 0 0 0 1. 1 2 49 942 0 4 997 1 1954 05:00 PMI 0 1 0 28 1 30 0 0 225 19 1 245 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 244 0 1 255 531 05:15 PM 0 1 0 22 3 26 0 0 188 33 1 222 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 226 0 0 241 489 05:30 PM 0 0 0 17 1 18 0 0 196 15 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 230 0 1 238 467 05:45 PM 0 0 0 18 4 22 0 0 204 25 1 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 228 0 0 236 490 Total 0 ,2 0 85 9 96 0 0 813 92 3 908 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 40 928 0 2 972 1977 06:00 PM 0 1 0 10 5 16 0 0 175 13 1 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 205 0 0 210 416 06:15 PM 0 1 0 8 3 12 0 0 166 13 0 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 185 0 0 193 384 Grand Total 0 11 0 389 60 460 1 0 4779 501 13 5294 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 251 3717 0 8 3986 9743 Apprch % 0 2.4 0 84.6 13 0 0 90.3 9.5 0.2 0 0 0 0 100 0.3 6.3 93.3 0 0.2 Total % 0 0.1 0 4 0.6 4.7 0 0 49.1 5.1 0.1 54.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 2.6 38.2 0 0.1 40.9 Cars + 0 11 0 383 46 440 1 0 4651 492 13 5157 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 247 3710 0 6 3973 9570 • Cars + 0 100 0 98.5 76.7 95.7 100 0 97.3 98.2 100 97.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 98.4 99.8 0 75 99.7 98.2 Trucks 0 0 0 6 14 20 0 0 128 9 0 137 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 4 7 0 2 13 173 • Trucks 0 0 0 1.5 23.3 4.3 0 0 2.7 1.8 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 1.6 0.2 0 25 0.3 1.8 Traffic Impact Study B1 66 West Apartments 4s► Barrie Rd & 66th St Edina, MN Traffic Impact Study Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1 - Barrie Rd & 66th St, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 1 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No : 2 a♦Barrie Rd out In Total ♦c ° "° 739 440 1179 O 13 20 33 O O 7524 O O o°,gyp 383 0 11 0 46 r ° 6 0 0 0 14 p 389 11 0 60 OO , Right Thru Leift UTrn UrnPeds I L� -- z 4-2 N c m m 6/10/2014 0630 AM C air n l o �i Le O UTrn Left Thru icht Peds opo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3°o Oo ° c 0 air 0 0 O� 0 3 3 Out In Total f l �- B2 66 West Apartments Oul � Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts MON 1111 PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1 - Barrie Rd & 66th St, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 1 Barrie Rd & 66th St Start Date : 6/10/2014 Edina, MN Page No :3 66th St Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 12:30 PM- Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 07:30 AM 0 0 0 9 4 13 1 0 288 28 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 88 0 0 96 425 07:45 AM 0 0 0 15 6 21 0 0 293 35 0 328 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 15 82 0 0 96 448 08:00 AM 0 2 0 9 1 12 0 0 282 23 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 89 0 1 102 419 OB,15AM 0 1 0 9 0 10 0 0 246 27 2 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 100 0 0 109 394 Total Volume 0 3 0 42 1t 56 1 0 1109 113 2 1225 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 43 359 0 1 404 1 1686 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 0 0 0 22 3 25 0 0 193 26 0 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 236 0 3 255 499 04:30 PM 0 0 0 24 4 28 0 0 171 11 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 242 0 1 257 467 04A5 PM 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 231 27 0 258 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 226 0 0 235 514 05:00 PM 0 1 0 28 1 30 0 0 225 19 1 245 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 244 0 1 255 531 Total Volume 0 1 0 94 8 103 0 0 820 83 1 904 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 47 948 0 5 1002 2011 Traffic Impact Study Ass B3 66 West Apartments qTtAfflrVi Barrie Rd & Southern Site Access Edina, MN Barrie Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 2 - Barrie Rd & Southern Driveways, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 2 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars + -Trucks =.wav Barrie Rd Driveway o_ 06:30 AM 06 45 AM Total 0 0 0 .. 0 1 1 ...._ ... 2 7 9 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 B 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 8 14 10 18 282 1 1 0 0 0 1 27 44 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 36 56 07:00 AM 0715 AM 07:30 AM D7:45 AM Total 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 9 13 34 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 8 6 9 14 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 8 14 41 11 19 25 33 68 1 2 2 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 21 31 35 50 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 5 30 37 47 68 182 OB:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total D 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 9 9 17 10 53 1 0 2 3 6 0 2 1 0 3 12 13 22 21 68 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 9 13 46 22 22 23 21 Be 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 0 0 1 35 37 32 37 147 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 9 1 49 52 59 61 221 09:15 AMI 0 5 22 1 0 28 I 0 3 0 1 2 6 I 0 4 19 4 0 27 I 0 4 0 1 0 S I 66 Total n 6 37 2 0 451 0 5 0 1 3 9 0 11 33 11 0 55 0 5 0 3 0 8 117 30 P 0345 PMI Total 0 0 4 9 19 34 1 2 0 0 24 I 45 0 0 3 5 0 0 2 2 2 2 7 I 9 0 0 8 10 27 51 fi 13 1 2 42 I 76 0 0 1 5 0_ 0 3 12 0 0 14 I 1 3 7� 70 77 147 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 5 17 21 13 14 15 63 0 2 0 0 2 0 D 0 0 0 24 20 18 20 82 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 2 11 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 3 4 14 1 0 2 0 3 9 6 8 6 29 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 17 17 29 16 26 88 8 9 4 5 26 0 0 1 0 1 29 42 25 36 132 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 2 13 0 2 0 0 2 6 4 8 3 21 0 0 2 1 3 11 7 15 6 39 1 73 75 66 68 282 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 2 13 22 17 14 15 68 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 21 15 17 83 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 1 10 0 3 5 2 10 5 12 7 5 29 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 4 1 19 22 30 15 28 95 4 6 3 5 18 1 1 0 1 3 29 49 22 35 135 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 1 10 1 1 2 2 6 14 7 4 3 28 76 89 48 60 275 06:00 PM 06:15 PM Grand Total Apprch % Total % Cars + Cars + Trucks o/ T-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 2 0 54 13.9 4 54 100 0 n 7 9 314 80.9 23.2 314 100 0 n 0 0 15 3.9 1.1 14 93.3 1 6.7 0 0 5 1.3 0.4 4 80 1 20 9 9 388 28.7 386 99.5 2 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 33.7 2.3 31 100 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 0.1 1 100 0 0 0 1 30 32.6 2.2 30 100 0 0 4 3 30 32.6 2.2 27 90 3 10 5 4 92 6.8 89 96.7 3 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 159 20.9 11.8 158 99.4 1 0.6 15 18 504 66.4 37.3 504 100 0 0 2 3 89 11.7 6.6 89 100 0 0 0 0 7 0.9 0.5 6 85.7 1 14.3 18 21 759 56.2 757 99.7 2 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 36.6 3 39 95.1 2 4.9 0 0 3 2.7 0.2 3 100 0 . 0 3 0 55 49.1 4.1 54 98.2 1 1.8 0 2 13 11.6 1 13 100 0 0 3 2 112 8.3 109 97.3 3 2.7 35 36 1351 1341 99.3 10 0.7 Traffic Impact Study B4 00 vvesc opal unenrs V6 i!lFil(!liv� Barrie Rd & Southern Site Access Edina, MN Traffic Impact Study Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 2 - Barrie Rd & Southern Driveways, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 2 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No : 2 x Barrie Rd o Out In Total 573 3286 959 1O 0 2 4 �c 0 575 3 96 O� � O O O° 0 14 314 54 0 4 o r 4 1 0 0 0 1 0"1 314 54 0 5 o Right Th. Lelft UU Peds IL-3. O J North d-2 T o 6/10/2014 06:30 AM � �-9 6I10I2014 06:15 PM v x ; � C m w m O � v `a o ~1 f o UTrn Left Thru Riaht Peds 0 04 � 0158 504 89 6 O o o i o 0 1 01 0 1591 5041 89 7 �O 0 Tarsi o 400 759 1159 J O Out In Total cq B5 66 West Apartments T'raffic ®ata Inc Appendix B -Traffic Counts it►fff(fAf�! PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 2 - Barrie Rd & Southern Driveways, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 2 Barrie Rd & Southern Site Access Start Date : 6/10/2014 Edina, MN Page No : 3 Driveway Driveway Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:30 AM 08:30 AM 0 2 17 2 1 22 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 9 23 0 0 32 0 2 0 1 0 3 59 08:45 AM 0 0 18 3 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 21 3 0 37 0 3 0 0 0 3 61 09:00 AM 0 1 15 1 0 1 17 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 7 14 7 0 28 0 1 0 2 0 3 51 09:15 AM 0 5 22 1 0 28 0 3 0 1 2 6 0 4 19 4 0 27 0 4 0 1 0 5 66 Total Volume 0 8 72 7 1 88 0 5 0 2 4 11 0 33 77 14 0 124 0 10 0 4 0 14 237 A .Total 0 9.1 81.8 8 1.1 0 45.5 0 18.2 36.4 0 26.6 62.1 11.3 0 0 71.4 0 28.6 0 PHF .000 .400 .818 .583 .250 .786 .000 .417 .000 .500 .500 .458 .000 .635 .837 .500 .000 .838 .000 .625 .000 .500 .000 .700 .898 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM " 04:30 PM 0 4 14 0 0 18 0 2 1 3 2 8 0 4 16 4 1 25 0 5 0 8 2 15 66 04:45 PM 0 5 15 0 0 20 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 5 26 5 0 36 0 2 0 3 1 6 68 05:00 PM 0 7 22 1 0 30 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 2 22 4 1 29 0 7 1 5 1 14 78 05:15 PM 0 4 17 0 0 21 0 4 0 5 3 12 0 12 30 6 1 49 0 4 0 2 1 7 89 Total Volume 0 20 68 1 0 89 0 10 1 15 5 31 0 23 94 19 3 139 0 18 1 18 5 42 301 Traffic Impact Study Of B6 66 West Apartments Barrie Rd & Northern Site Access Edina, MN Barrie Rd Total 0 0 10 0 0 07:00 AM 0 0 6 0 0 07:15 AM 0 0 5 0 0 07:30 AM 0 0 8 0 0 11110 AM 0 0 12 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 10 0 0 08:30 AM 0 0 21 0 0 09:00 AM I 0 0 15 0 0 09:15 AM 0 0 24 0 0 Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 3 - Barrie Rd & Northern Driveway, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 3 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No : 1 Driveway 101 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 31 0 4 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 15I 0 2 0 1 0 24 0 4 0 4 0 39 0 6 0 5 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 19 0 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 6 0 0 89 0 0 3 0 0 22 0 0 2 0 0 23 0 0 1' 0 0 26 0 0 4 0 0 24 0 0 10 0 0 95 0 0 3I 0 0 15 0 0 8 0 0 24 0 0 11 0 0 39 0 0 1u u u u u u 0 12 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 110 0 0 0 0 0 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2fi 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 22 0 0 00 4 0 0 37 23 0 0 0 0 0 -0 35 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 167 15I 0 0 0 0 0 OI 33 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 I I I I 03'45 PMI 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 O 59 Total 1 0 0 41 0 0 41 0 4 0 6 0 10 0 0 58 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0. 0 109 04:00 PM 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 28 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 04:15 PM 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 04:30 PM 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 5 0 2 0 7 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 04:45 PM 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 D 0 0 0 52 Total 1 0 0 64 0 0 64 1 0 18 0 3 0 21 1 0 0 115 0 0 115 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 200 05:00 PM 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 6 0 3 0 9 0 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 05:15 PM 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 05:30 PM 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 05:45 PM 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 0 29 0 0 29 0 0 0 D 0 0 49 Total 1 0 0 72 0 0 72 1 0 11 0 7 0 18 0 0 116 0 0 116 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 206 06:00 PM 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 06:15 PM 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Grand Total 0 0 337 0 0 337 0 46 0 35 0 81 0 0 575 0 0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 993 Apprch % 0 0 100 0 0 0 56.8 0 43.2 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 00 0 Total % 0 0 33.9 0 0 33.9 0 4.6 0 3.5 0 8.2 0 0 57.9 0 0 57.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars+ 0 0 337 0 0 337 0 46 0 35 0 81 0 0 575 0 0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 993 Cars + 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Trucks 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Impact Study 137 66 west Apartments ME Q(f�ru' Barrie Rd & Northern Site Access Edina, MN Traffic Impact Study Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 3 - Barrie Rd & Northern Driveway, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 3 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No ': 2 Barrie Rd oD Out In Total 610337 947 Gf 0 0 0 610 O OJ 0 337 0 0 0 O Vie/ 0 0 0 0 0 ° 37 0 0 0 0 Right iN Left UTr Peds �? �o � North 611 0/2 01 4 06:30 AM _ —)6/10/201406:15 PM ='mm o'm moi _W --T-1 . rs., ca+ C K� Trucks -- a � -, ° UTrn Left Thru Riaht Peds ° O 0 0 575 0 0 a\ G/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° •�o` 0 0 575 0 0° O ° \c o ° 383 575 958 383 57 958 Out In Total B8 66 West Apartments Y1 rt�rr nau itt. Barrie Rd & Northern Site Access Edina, MN Barrie Rd Traffic Data Inc Appendix B - Traffic Counts PO Box 16296 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 3 - Barrie Rd & Northern Driveway, 6-10-14, 630-930am, 330-630pm Site Code : 3 Start Date : 6/10/2014 Page No : 3 Barrie Rd Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:30 AM 08:30 AM 0 0 21 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 08:45 AM 0 0 19 0 0- 19 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 09:00 AM 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 09:15 AM 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sfi Total Volume 0 0 79' 0 0 79 1 0 8 0 8 0 16 0 0 89 0 0 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 184 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 5 0 2 0 7 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 04:45 PM 0 0 16 0 0 1 16 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 05:00 PM 0 0 24 0 0 24 0 6 0 3 0 9 0 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 05:15 PM 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Total Volume 1 0 0 72 0 0 72 0 17 0 6 0 23 0 0 127 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 Traffic Impact Study B9 66 West Apartments Jackie Hoogenakker From: Aase May <aasem@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:22 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Beacon I did email a few weeks ago in support if there was supervision. It sounds as if that is in place, so I am OK with the project. Aase May 6421 Colony Way 2B Edina 55435 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Kathy Pierson <kathyapierson@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:27 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative I am a resident of Edina living within 1000 feet of the proposed remodel of the TCF building into apartments for homeless youth. I hope the people in Edina would never even consider complaining about our community supporting housing for homeless youth. We certainly should do our part to make this worthy project successful. This is a commercial area now, not a quiet little neighborhood so there should be no objection. Thank you. Kathleen Pierson Jackie Hoogenakker From: bktibaldo@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:47 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Rezoning Proposal for 3330 W 66th St Hello: I've received a letter indicating the property at 3330 W 66th S is being considered for rezoning. am a nearby neighbor, living at "The Colony of Edina". Although I support initiatives to help the homeless youth, I do not believe this is a suitable location for this property. We have many elderly neighbors who are concerned with excess traffic, the thought of increased crime, and other events such a property may bring. Again: I do NOT support this initiative. Thank you Brian Tibaldo bktibaldo(a)-aol.com 612-227-2669 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern: Georgia Kaiser <georgiakaiser@yahoo.com> Wednesday, October 01, 2014 12:56 PM Jackie Hoogenakker Beacon interfaith housing/W. 66th St I am totally in favor of the Beacon interfaith housing for W. 66th St. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for Edina to step up and show other cities that this is an important part of not only Edina, but all of the cities to do something positive for our youth. Thanks, Georgia Kaiser Jackie Hoogenakker From: Ruth <ruth@ruthlordan.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:23 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 2014.008 Beacon Initiative Thank you for reading this and considering my views. I attended the last meeting, and after much thought, I am writing again to say that while Beacons intentions are good, and there is a need for housing for these souls, I concur with a developer who spoke at the last meeting ( I spoke too) that the TCF bank location is the wrong place for this. I spoke with many people I know who work with youth and they say that these young adults need a quiet place;the developers have found one on the other side of Southdale that fits better, is more cost effective etc. Second, this is somewhat of a money grab for Beacon -$250,000 per unit when the cost of building nice 1200 square foot units is $125,000. Third, the designation of a medical corridor is a more effective use of this property. 4. There is already a major parking problem(major for Edina lol) and while most of the residents may not own vehicles, the folks who abused them and do drugs, ie their so called parents will be visiting and are not to be trusted, as well as many of their friends and visitors I do not need these unsavory types simply walking out the back end of the proposed development, going thru a medical building parking lot and into my culdesac..After a year or so vehicles will be the first thing these young adults acquire so parking is an issue. At the last meeting a ton of non Edina residents preached on about their good works. Im all for that, but please pick a location that is not slated for better use. Inviting these kids past abusers, most of whom who have drug issues into the area where there is a plethora of establishments that stock prescription drugs, especially when they are just visiting is asking for trouble thank you again, Ruth Lordan Jackie Hoogenakker From: bktibaldo@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:47 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Rezoning Proposal for 3330 W 66th St Hello: I've received a letter indicating the property at 3330 W 66th S is being considered for rezoning. I am a nearby neighbor, living at "The Colony of Edina". Although I support initiatives to help the homeless youth, I do not believe this is a suitable location for this property. We have many elderly neighbors who are concerned with excess traffic, the thought of increased crime, and other events such a property may bring. Again: I do NOT support this initiative. Thank you Brian Tibaldo bktibaldoO-aol.com 612-227-2669 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Cassel1_40@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:23 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Beacon Interfaith I am writing (once again and without any hope of being heard) to voice my strong objection to the proposed development of the project being proposed by Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative. Those of us who live in the 55435 zip code are accustom to being considered nothing more than the dumping ground for projects that "real" Edina does not want in their neighborhoods but make "real" Edina look welcoming & progressive. _Examples: 1.) Want Section 8 housing: Dump it in the 55435 area. "Real" Edina won't be affected. 2.) Want to increase the tax base: Build too many multi -family dwellings by Southdale thus creating unbearable traffic and congestion and put it in the 55435 area. "Real" Edina won't be affected. 3.) Want to look progressive: House homeless teens thus making the area less safe than before and put the that housing in the 55435 area. Once again, "real" Edina won't be affected. I hope when the planning commission meets more weight will be given the needs, safety, and wishes of your neighbors who will be affected by the project than will be given to the outsiders from Beacon Interfaith. This, however, has not happened in the past and I doubt it will happen at the meeting of October 8th. Thank you. M.K. Cassell Barrie Road 55435 I�l19 F -k of �I {Yco eOTL0/ CASE FILE: TO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: Public Hearing Notices EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 8 2014 7:00 PM Location: City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 501h Street EDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:00 PM --''t6Eati3�: City—lialt'Cou�tciCCham�ers--~`"�" -- A f 4801 West 50th Street Property Owners Within 1000 -Feet Beacon Interfaith housing Collaborative 3330 West 66th Street, Edina, MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 3, Southdale Acres REQUEST: Final Rezoning and Ordinance Amendment establishing a PUD Zoning District. PROPJECT DESCRIPTION: A rezoning and Ordinance Amendment from POD -1, Planned Office District- - .... 1, to PUD, Planned Unit Developmentto..remodel•and.sxpand.the.Existing .. building into 39 -units of small studio apartments for young adults who have experienced homelessness: HOW TO PARTICIPATE: 1. Submit a letter to the address below expressing your views, and or 2. Fax your views to the attention of the Planning Dept. @ 9521826-0389 3. E-mail your views to IhoogenakkerCfedinamn.00y 4. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposal. FURTHER INFORMATION: DATE OF NOTICE: City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 (962) 826-0369 September 26, 2014 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Georgia Kaiser <georgiakaiser@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 201412:56 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Beacon interfaith housing/W. 66th St To whom it may concern: I am totally in favor of the Beacon interfaith housing for W. 66th St. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for Edina to step up and show other cities that this is an important part of not only Edina, but all of the cities to do something positive for our youth. Thanks, Georgia Kaiser Jackie Hoogenakker From: Ruth <ruth@ruthlordan.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:23 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 2014.008 Beacon Initiative Thank you for reading this and considering my views. I attended the last meeting, and after much thought, I am writing again to say that while Beacons intentions are good, and there is a need for housing for these souls, I concur with a developer who spoke at the last meeting ( I spoke too) that the TCF bank location is the wrong place for this. I spoke with many people I know who work with youth and they say that these young adults need a quiet place;the developers have found one on the other side of Southdale that fits better, is more cost effective etc. Second, this is somewhat of a money grab for Beacon -$250,000 per unit when the cost of building nice 1200 square foot units is $125,000. Third, the designation of a medical corridor is a more effective use of this property. 4. There is already a major parking problem(major for Edina lol) and while most of the residents may not own vehicles, the folks who abused them. and do drugs, ie their so called parents will be visiting and are not to be trusted, as well as many of their friends and visitors I do not need these unsavory types simply walking out the back end of the proposed development, going thru a medical building parking lot and into my culdesac..After a year or so vehicles will be the first thing these young adults acquire so parking is an issue. At the last meeting a ton of non Edina residents preached on about their good works. Im all for that, but please pick a location that is not slated for better use. Inviting these kids past abusers, most of whom who have drug issues into the area where there is a plethora of establishments that stock prescription drugs, especially when they are just visiting is asking for trouble thank you again, Ruth Lordan PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague October 8, 2014 VI.D. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Frauenshuh Companies is proposing to develop the northeast corner of 7700 France with a free standing, 7,000 square foot seafood restaurant. (See property location on pages Al A5.) The site is 17 acres in size and contains a six -story 275,000 square foot office building and a 7,623 square foot single -story office building (bank) in the southeast corner of the site. The restaurant would be designed for seating up to 242 people, and would provide 63 dedicated parking spaces in addition to the shared parking with the office building. The proposed building would be made of brick, EIFS, cedar, glass and metal panels. An area for outdoor dining is proposed along France Avenue. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6 -A17.) The primary issue with this request is that a free-standing restaurant is not a permitted use in the POD -2 zoning district. A restaurant is a permitted accessory use within an office building. The applicant went through the sketch plan process with this request in 2012. Both the Planning Commission and City Council suggested that PUD rezoning was the best way to approach the use on the site. (See attached Planning Commission and City Council minutes on pages A22 - A26.) To accommodate the request, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from POD -2, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two-step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the second step would be Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Site Plan review which would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Nash Finch Office building; zoned POD -1, Planned Commercial District and guided Office Residential. Easterly: Centennial Lakes Office Park; zoned MDD-6 Mixed Development District and guided for Office Residential. Southerly: Frauenshuh Office tower located in the City of Bloomington. Westerly: Office Building; zoned PID, Planned Industrial District and guided Office Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 17 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a multi- story office building. The site has a very large parking field that is under- utilized. Excess parking stalls are rented to a nearby car dealership for storage of new vehicles. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation & Traffic OR — Office Residential POD -2, Planned Office District - 2 There are no new access points proposed. The existing right in and right out off of France Avenue would be primary entrance for those coming from the north. Access from the south and west would be from 77th Street. (See page Al2.) Wenck Associates Inc. conducted a traffic study and concluded that the existing roads could support the project. No improvements would be necessary. (See page A49 of the traffic study.) During the sketch plan review there was extensive discussion by both the Planning Commission and City Council, in regard to making the project pedestrian friendly, creating a boulevard style sidewalk and providing intense landscaping. (See page A26.) As shown in the attached plans, the applicant has. not provided pedestrian connections or a boulevard style sidewalk. The. applicant has indicated a willingness to build a boulevard style sidewalk, but would like it to tie into the existing sidewalk system. As part of the justification for a PUD, the City can require these connections and sidewalks at this time. The City has typically required new sidewalks to be constructed in redevelopment projects. The idea here would be to set the precedent and incentive for other development to tie into the new sidewalk. 0a The City's opportunity for construction of these sidewalks is as properties redevelop. Additionally, the following are the City Code standards for requiring sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities: Sec. 36-1274. Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the city and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the city to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the city's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking 3 spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. Parking Wenck Associates also conducted a parking study. (See the attached study on pages A46—A49.) The Study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing/proposed parking provided. (See page A49.) Based on the square footage of the existing buildings and the proposed restaurant seating capacity and 45 employees on a maximum shift, 1,245 spaces are required for the site. With the construction of the restaurant there would be 1,329 spaces on the site. The study concludes that during peak hours on the site, there is an excess of 459 parking spaces. That does not include the 391 spaces that are leased to the car dealer. If those cars were removed, there would be 850 unoccupied parking spaces during the busiest time of day. Bike Racks The applicant has not shown bicycle parking spots on the site plan. Outdoor racks should be located in close proximity to the front doors. The applicant should provide bike parking on the final site plan. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 98 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs over the entire site. The site currently contains 160 over story trees. There would be about 12-14 trees removed in the area where the proposed building would be located. The applicant proposes 8 new over story trees, including Lindens, Honey Locust and Birch. (See page Al2 and the attached developers plan set.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the building. There is area along the north property line, north of the proposed restaurant to replace or potentially save the existing trees. Trees along this lot line would provide screening of the loading area proposed at the side of the building. The landscape plan would be reviewed again at the time of Final Site Plan review. As a condition of any approval of the proposal, the applicant should submit a revised landscape plan with the final rezoning and site plan 4 applications demonstrating the specific trees to be removed, with consideration of the existing trees along the north lot line, and screening of the loading area. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading and trash pick-up for the restaurant would be at the rear of the building in the northwest corner. (See page Al 0.) Trash would be collected within the building and the garbage truck would pick up in the loading area. This loading area is not well screened to the property to the north and west. (See page Al2.) The area long the north lot line would be an area where additional landscaping could be added to help meet minimum code requirements and provide screening of the loading/delivery area. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A50. Any approvals should be conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo dated October 1, 2014. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of brick, EIFS, cedar, and metal panels. (See renderings on pages A8 A9.) A materials board would be presented at the Final Rezoning and Site Plan phase. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be POD -2. Commercial signage similar in size would be the regulations of the PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of pylon signs and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section 36-253 of the Edina City Code 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 ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. At the time of the sketch plan review, both the Planning Commission and City Council suggested that a PUD would be an appropriate zoning 0 classification to allow the proposed use, rather than amending the Ordinance, or rezoning the site for commercial use. (See minutes on pages A22 -A26.) The purpose of the PUD would be to create a development pattern consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Limited retail and service is a described land use allowed in the OR, Office Residential district in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed restaurant would provide a commercial or service use that would enhance this office zoning district, and provide another fine dining alternative for Edina residents. A free standing restaurant is not an allowed use in the existing zoning district. In terms of the site plan and proposed building, the applicant has not provided much of the criteria listed above. As mentioned earlier, the project could be more pedestrian oriented by creating a boulevard style sidewalk and connecting to France Avenue. The applicant should also consider sustainable design principles to further justify the PUD. 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. The proposed use, a restaurant would be an allowed use in the OR, Office Residential area, as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Through a PUD, the proposed use would be allowed. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential — OR," which encourages the mixing of land uses and limited retail and service uses. 7 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; Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses, and introduces a mixture of land uses including a free standing restaurant to serve the existing offices in the area. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and Given the size of the existing parcel, the site could be considered underdeveloped. Nearly half of the property is taken up by parking spaces that are not needed for the existing office building. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The following shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying POD -2 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. The applicant is not looking for relief from the POD -2 standards; rather, they are looking for a use that would not be otherwise allowed in the POD -2 District. 8 Compliance Table PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: 1. Subject to enhancements to the site plan, the proposal could meet the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide a mixture of use within the area/site by allowing a free standing restaurant to be located on the subject site. b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with a requirement to construct a boulevard style sidewalk along France Avenue and provide a pedestrian connection from the restaurant to the sidewalk. In addition, a pedestrian connection should also be required from the existing building to the restaurant. Detailed plans on how these sidewalks would be constructed should be submitted as part of the final development plan application. 2 City Standard (POD -2) Proposed Building Setbacks 10 - story buildinq Front — France 35 feet 35 feet Side - North 20 feet 30 feet Side — South 20 feet 200+ feet Rear — West 20 feet 200+ feet Building Height 4 Stories or 48 feet whichever One story 20 is less feet tall Building Coverage 30% 15% Maximum Floor Area .50 of the tract .44 of the tract Ratio (FAR) Tract size = 17 acres or Gross s.f. _ 740,520 s.f. 326,623 s.f. Parking Stalls (Site) 1,245 spaces office + 1,329 spaces restaurant Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: 1. Subject to enhancements to the site plan, the proposal could meet the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide a mixture of use within the area/site by allowing a free standing restaurant to be located on the subject site. b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with a requirement to construct a boulevard style sidewalk along France Avenue and provide a pedestrian connection from the restaurant to the sidewalk. In addition, a pedestrian connection should also be required from the existing building to the restaurant. Detailed plans on how these sidewalks would be constructed should be submitted as part of the final development plan application. 2 2. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the OR, Office Residential which encourages limited retail and services uses and a mix of land uses. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. (See traffic study on pages A27 A49.) 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. d. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from POD - 2, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to build a free standing 7,000 square foot, seafood restaurant at the northeast corner of 7700 France Avenue. 10 Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The project would introduce a use that would fit into the area, and provide a service for local employees and nearby residents. 2. With adequate pedestrian connections and facilities, the project would create a pedestrian friendly development which would encourage walking in the district. 3. The PUD would 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. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Movement Patterns. ■ Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. d. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. 11 Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated September 8, 2014. 2. The Final Site Plan must include a boulevard style sidewalk along France and sidewalk connections from the existing building to the restaurant and from the boulevard sidewalk to the building. 3. The Landscape Plan should be revised to show the specific trees that would be removed, and consider additional planting and/or saving trees along the north lot line to provide screening of the loading area. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated October 1, 2014. 7. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Deadline for a city decision: January 1, 2015 12 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PUD -8, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -8 DISTRICT AT 7700 FRANCE AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to rezone the below described property to PUD, Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following: Sec. 36-494 Planned Unit Development District -8 (PUD -8) — 7700 France (a) Legal description: Insert Legal (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re -development plans received by the City on , 2014 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2014-_, on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: All uses allowed in the POD -2 Zoning District A free-standing restaurant. (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the POD -2 Zoning District. (e) Conditional Uses: All conditional uses allowed in the POD -2 Zoning District. (f) Development Standards. Development standards per the POD -2 Zoning District. (g) Signs shall be regulated per the POD -2 Zoning District. Section 3. First Reading: This ordinance is effective immediately. Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 2014. 2 a` tli� ! - 3 Z -1. jj r triEET Jf E'3 r EEFaVY L P7 F •_ -.ii { 4 FJrai'k F F F I A r, F � f0 1.'2 Ei RE ET'Pi EE i � . ,'I :j IFIL It FF - 1._2 .-. T t' TAr{rT .1F51 j - f_2 - Ii E'LTia tV fi,.L6 � u �-� - �� 711`.' TF.EET 1• FST i� ` ;.. F -; �'4r >• "«I,f rs ,:e i.. F. ___I?y. - 72rip Sl CCi:t'Ff.� r' EST PF P1 F PIEAI It I 7IRL1 1FL,EI N 1 a _iONLALL DFly 16 C' I IL VPr ri.ISr -I- 3 1'1 I ' i ..IIlkF xc US A'4. i5NUk. ; s3 _ 4 f. FA Py,A 'ti �-'. e'tiI FE Z! zu 4 -+ F I S'I_= ?—_ q • �� F ... i.: u i` Z ! 7CTH STREET a 711 If IFEIT f.ST I e 1 p -- -h 1' t1 Wi uF:p.L j I . v a I pfiL k . CuF , FT _ S - v I Z L_- E.fH lRkkl : k. t•T �I�FAZZ, _ .. ;:•` i r •��i.. 1b:.hU l+r _,: _ .. �_ ` p^""' � I'• ¢! ! 1n f s F.s i :-: i i 1s TT ] r 7 •- :.I ` 4 �- t— it IF 2 i h1 SIT Si 'i" T, ,ii __ F i ;.`I 11 tjl1 IFI;��-- — � _c.0 LL � s rn�',Ir•.r Parcel 31-028-24-44-0013 A -T -B: Torrens ID: Home- Non -Homestead Sale Owner 7700 France Avenue Llc Market Name: Total: Parcel 7700 France Ave S Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial -Preferred Sale Type: Price: Home- Non -Homestead Sale stead: Date: Parcel 17.1 acres Sale Area: 744,758 sq ft Code: Map Scale: 1" = 1600 ft. Print Date: 9/22/2014 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A 'Tttirtk Green'. Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map e Parcel 31-028-24-44-0013 A -T -B: _ Map Scale: V = 800 ft. N ID: Print Date: 9/22/2014 Owner Market Name: 7700 France Avenue Llc Total: Parcel 7700 France Ave S Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Sale Type; Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or pats; implied, including fitness of any particular Stead: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 17.1 acres Sale COPYRIGHT D HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 744,758 sq ft Code: A Tih'irskGrp! A�, A3 AA i I V r �r DESIGN Statement of Intended Use 7690 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55435 September 5, 2014 Architecture & Planning 12400 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100 Burnsville, MN 55337 Office: (952) 252-4042 Fax: (952) 252-4043 This will be a full service seafood restaurant with a bar, private dining venue and an outdoor patio and bar created and operated by Parasole Restaurant Holdings. The restaurant is divided into two intersecting volumes. Parallel to France Avenue is a tall textured brown brick structure which houses the main dining and private dining rooms. At the top of this volume, around all four sides runs an aluminum clerestory window topped with a tapered overhang of the same material. Through this structure, perpendicular to France Avenue, passes a lower gray metal clad structure housing the indoor bar and oyster bar and the covered outdoor bar adjacent to France Avenue. A planted patio, covered by a cedar trellis, nestles up on both sides of the covered bar and runs nearly the length of the taller brick building. In a sea of chains, this is a Twin Cities original: A casual seafood grill and bar with a unique identity yet broad appeal, one with homegrown roots and a world-class menu. It's flexible and approachable enough to have everyday utility without sacrificing foodie credibility. And it has a pronounced urban feel — without the urban attitude. Why a seafood restaurant? Mainly, because there's a hole in the market for one. And because the public loves seafood. Yet aside from a few boutique outliers like Sea Change, all we have are chains — McCormick & Schmick, Red Lobster, Joe's Crab Shack — and few fusty holdouts like Kincaid's and Blue Point. And nowhere is the need more pronounced than in the Southwest suburbs, where the business and residential demographics point to strong demand. Moreover, we know seafood. With Oceanaire and Sea Change, Phil Roberts and Tim McKee have created the two most important seafood restaurants in the history of Minnesota. This will be Minnesota's next great seafood restaurant — and an unprecedented one, with two distinguishing features: a charcoal -fired grill and a wood -fired oven for roasted seafood — dishes like Cast Iron Roasted Sea Bass with Black Olive and Capers and Wood -Oven Steamed Australian Kingfish with Ginger & Soy. Wood Roasted Oysters alone will have their own section on the menu. There will be a raw bar, of course; fish & chip options for the timid; and new twists on classics like chowders, Po -Boys and Lobster Rolls. For the seafood averse: beef filets, chicken, pork — and, surely, a killer burger — will headline the "Shore" section of the menu. Open for lunch and dinner; the saloon -like bar's happy hour will be a magnet for working -folk; and an expansive patio will enable diners to enjoy warm weather dining. www. reprise design. corn As pristine as the seafood will be, the experience itself will be a breath of fresh air. Managers and staff will execute from a culture of service, not a manual of rules. Even the most timid eaters will find safe harbors here, while the most jaded foodies will find adventures in dishes like Bourbon Roasted Maine Lobster with Sweetcorn Spoonbread. The ambiance will be warm and inviting, yet bright and energized. The attitude will be confident but not pretentious and the offerings will be broadly accessible. Our goal is to be a citywide destination for foodies; the go -to choice for the locals, and the best seafood restaurant anyone could hope for. Headquartered in Edina, Minnesota, Parasole Restaurant Holdings operates BURGER JONES in Burnsville and on the north shore of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis; Salut Bar Americain in St. Paul on Grand Avenue and in Edina on France Avenue; Chino Latino'and Libertine in Uptown; Manny's Steakhouse, The Living Room & Prohibition at the W Minneapolis —The Foshay in downtown Minneapolis; Pittsburgh Blue Steakhouse in Edina and Maple Grove; Muffuletta Cafe in St. Paul's Como Park neighborhood; the Good Earth Restaurants in Edina and Roseville; and Mozza Mia Pizza Pie & Mozzarella Bar in Downtown Edina. Byjoining the Parasole Dining Club, guests have the opportunity to earn points for the dollars they spend and to redeem them for food and drink at any participating Parasole restaurant. Details at Parasole.com EAST ELEVAIION RICHARD MOSCHELLA RA zovESEvs,r�r:r a EwY= xc�vrwac 1mm T; zlzauaa maaox l wtwraa xewrora 1ao% 12- fI1bETSBtY 7690 FRANCE AVE. 11/LGUST3011 SSNF: A91plFD FI F\/ATIMq RICHARD MOSCHELLA RA mvrsrvsr nmaOORox trEwvrna xexvowc mot r.st F:2tA2b01fi0 -m.. MOSCHELLA + ROBERTS LLC moEOEYbARETF ntxnaR xnvrowc xewroia room F:2uvficam f:21b2.pMfi0 BROWN BRICK 9¢ �xV ANODIZED ALUMINUM ROOF COLORED METAL PANELS 7690 FRANCE AVE. xm�mx Y ti�Yx -,-t jr•�'�� '^'� "�' �-0��'�s� ice, BE t• ij .:... , u .._.: �... -. MATERIALS CEDAR - WALLS UNDER CANOPY CEDAR TRELLIS EIFS INLET PROTECTION (TVP) I.SIR SIR SIR SIR . SIR SIR . SILT FENCE(TYP) ................. ROCK SOCK (T'P) EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE t. c«+TRAcroa Mun NODFr TFIEury a BaoW1rN vARKAe NWas eEroRE ANr wNSTaLOTON ncnvrrc. 3.INSTUEEROEIONmNrRMIE SU Es ATL.OWOmis MNONEROSONCON n NMMMANVunD 3. REMOVE ALL. SOKSLL—RED ORFIOT MME DE -0 ONTO NBLIC AND PRNATE Awns. REMWAL SWLL BE 01 uleE AuwTn MDiUiRWGEWTiNE DUR�TKJry OFTIE CONSTRUtDOry u+D DO13 �sMArvH[Ri0 mEVENTGWST E..— i0 ADL—PROPERTIES. wmA EINGSEEDEDANDCOVERED—AN EROSKJNCONEROL OUNSETOR MULCHED IDN M—INMLLATIONS—RSAIAw wLAC PE AND BE mAwTW wINED IN GOOD BY N THE SmxiRERAc�rOORNmERMLTTEE u-1111 AAs BEEN RE.VEDETnTED,11"IONTINETn13nnLL 111-1D. wsPEa nvrw�TNE�m DDxnt'ro KTF€ INGMMNstauciaon°wRRn� OIAa lnl l.GADEWATEDOSONCONTRWN nDV.TENi AaE�sAR, r AIaRETEIAnsMNDAVS Si ABI¢FILLS—SPRF5PBYM ING.vEGETnTNENCOVER, xD1HE PNEs. esiouT"`"EDWON VAvio.u�umiaALLS MusWRrIINo �ssm nGTwofmraor+mwuwAGDGImER cOVE"K—MORE THAN 2' EI 'sIFfICRM iaPSOR snnLi BE STOCKPIED TOulow EOR THE RFPLACEMENTa A MINIMUM CFB OF TOPSOIL FOR DB—LIEOAREASTFNTARETOBE REV NAELED. IN LET PROTECTION AT ILL PUBLIC AND PRI—E CATOI BASIN I—, Om TIf RI—ElREDNEUIMRi LITS OR EYBUCE DAREAST+AT PRAAAARKF—FnMDGRATEARENOTrnfOR ECoINLET PROTENIRACTOFMPMTTIEE SMNlsOIEDUE511E GRADWG,UMm INSTAWTPNINDROAMAYCdVST ION -FAMDIwIRLL DRDAREASSH ALL 11 RIDED AID M-11"ll 11OFCRADwc DIRDED R- SOK IN 01RECfIDN PERHNDK:ULAR TO 11E STORMWATERE rCOn A,;n TER DRAIN n�sHow CRIGH EaoslNwGv mNTRa Pu�uN�l.OtxaAu�n�s COArvv€vnrv¢ DRAINONro TNF Fuel. RK:HTOFwnv oR NTOANr nx:OR MW XsrORM SEw€a EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM— A OSwR�w2aREig MnDlwEECLr1Hs ipH REroRnpEWINEDn TILE CpIODONS b RKi weI.N snE.W REVIEwTnE svPPP Sluu 9E AbaNOEDnnD UPDATED ns wn€xD€rosrrs Ruw Aeeaox,.:_, ONE HALF TnE EZIUDof Tn€B.wR., BE REmov€D xEpuIX[D SNn LeE DP.twrsEo lomNwa RwrtilsiME UISTIn•ICRCjDE FeurnRED twos OEE mwml TREATMENT wsiuLFD. M PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE fENPDUNNFMLY sTSA�en�m.REMOVAL IS RE WI ADN Au rtRs LBEDIMDi FILTERS, NAY BALES, E-) ONCE SITE 5 AILiELMPORARY SYNETNFfO mUCNRA.L,NOFL�BODEONDABLEEROSOH nsnDNSEDImENT CAAll INLQ ITAILL, NEN INABK¢ATON FORPVRFOSFE-IIAIs OF THISREAOV7 2°%FSTM HED COVER OVERDENUDEOAREA.ERrt NORTH I0 22004410 I SCALE IN PRET 7690 FRANCE AVE Edina, Mita 0 ASSOCIATES "mAwl�. uw�.: vili:tuss's`vM EROSION CONTROL PLAN 14005 0-2 �1 EAST ELEVATION &l SOUTH ELEVATION ��WEST ELEVATION N2�TH ELEVATION MOSCHELLA + ROBERTS LLC wvESLYsrN�r 111NROOR IkWYgiN NHYTORN 1000] i:41?%4MN 7690 FRANCE AVE. e srsiaiseN mu SCNe0.51N1i® OMWNBI`f610&f ime EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8..�..• ..awnx .nxn.x e.x .ino 0S0B1 > NVId 3dV050NV1 W U zi Ila�� p$gn �+51. i i t! 9 Y 3 8 3 a y�ayR3 - .. eF✓yam �,. ._.., .... ai nos3 NVI'VN103 gm3 .n nna .n�Pa, .w�iw, oiwa . 3nN3AV 30NV83 069L o R J J i N J00 W Iwo i p CC i is > I cC J J i N J00 W Iwo b i p CC i is J q3 W U zi Ila�� p$gn �+51. J t! 9 Y 3 8 3 a a m R b o W � b n 2 Jtl$. �3g��3 p}l$ IYyg�i t! 9 Y 3 8 3 a a m R ,.3JNO1 dQ .01 din .zI inos 3'nN]nd 3Idlj F. 04L99 34, E'69.0 S oldnne Vol I =' II o ;fiery m��—.11 a' e z e i L.L.I La^ d10 ,8 8:66 tin.-u—.11C a w ' l � )G�` 1.{Sl - I E a i m a j •i....;1. _ i I O m - .: - _ J 'LSl L'[Ol m r\fOt _ W I Z Ld a�w #I r owo � -or-vr •N. im r pN= W 1. I 3s3a°3/ss3aervl 0Ci (n -__-___ __ ' `w j� I _ _ - M I •�-�---- SIJ ui •.ry __ _______________ _ _ _-__-__ _ i ion =- - - T -----s ------rl<---- Q W o- <w { �„ - -rr:•� �'� I r bar I z car— Y =� . '•� „�' II I iF - Hw �o =w II Nip � � __ 110 : /•• - N� Z '6Z'011 3.9 a1 I I _t � _ Is ^ - i „ LW �^ Ski I♦o� 6� tie/ Q�d« I•.'.. If _ < - r / 1 •bR' y � � --- Com_ 1 see VJ _ _ --__- -_6_-- --- 2a __ 9 a W a §s J s4 32 rd� xV yu I 3 A13 0 NVId RIS 11VN3A0 • 7ry:'�� s - U p �ma •w NN 'YNI03 3nN3AV 30NVNd 069, ,.3JNO1 dQ .01 din .zI inos 3'nN]nd 3Idlj F. 04L99 34, E'69.0 S oldnne Vol I =' II o ;fiery m��—.11 a' e z e i L.L.I La^ d10 ,8 8:66 tin.-u—.11C a w ' l � )G�` 1.{Sl - I E a i m a j •i....;1. _ i I O m - .: - _ J 'LSl L'[Ol m r\fOt _ W I Z Ld a�w #I r owo � -or-vr •N. im r pN= W 1. I 3s3a°3/ss3aervl 0Ci (n -__-___ __ ' `w j� I _ _ - M I •�-�---- SIJ ui •.ry __ _______________ _ _ _-__-__ _ i ion =- - - T -----s ------rl<---- Q W o- <w { �„ - -rr:•� �'� I r bar I z car— Y =� . '•� „�' II I iF - Hw �o =w II Nip � � __ 110 : /•• - N� Z '6Z'011 3.9 a1 I I _t � _ Is ^ - i „ LW �^ Ski I♦o� 6� tie/ Q�d« I•.'.. If _ < - r / 1 •bR' y � � --- Com_ 1 see VJ _ _ --__- -_6_-- --- 2a __ 9 a W a §s J s4 32 rd� xV yu I 3 A13 0 T=1r H1f10S 3nN3AV 30NV8d i Li j z IN o ----- ui w w �! m S W ti \ w rn 484 IN o X z. 1,m .2)� a Pm �� ! z� u 1 J.S" 5� W wI Vi ason� n NVId 3115 _ � ��\ yy .. Ty riossxxn NN 'VN103 3f1N3AV 30NV?JJ 069L T=1r H1f10S 3nN3AV 30NV8d i Li j z IN o ----- ui w w �! m S W ti \ w rn 484 IN o X z. 1,m .2)� a Pm �� ! z� u 1 J.S" 5� W wI Vi PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Y.Y ,D• moi t Ym'kaNl"rlyy fight-°ICENTER. M ust 77th `S tt°fm E:acrW W YM1°rsDax m NOTES CORRESPONDING TO EASEMENTS: Na 13 az _dhg a w ,.area p1l mrwl..—I. c -'A uNn.wm (L2 Vmw T.9eUr "Im .w Om.fita of Me e.a.mrle wl (..0 F Document Nai3215♦1 Y OFk.AA atmLss xtn saES rta cpn xn tDFeeJ rs C.r .tye T. 10.8503 Legal eeariplNn Bans oa Deeatee N Cxica9. rtl. I-- Can IIWT Iorarlaa m M v No. 15D31A DDtee tambr t4 2000. rswpt0x tamiai M°L� Sep pant. Canmilmwt r"`rmxu m wr pro pp" xur MCRESEASWE55 ' DDDaaxnyD%r°tl1Ep of EASEMENTZ`\ .., rt STh.E.. 'AEST NE COR LOT 3 11- 1 EDINA OFi10E CENTER 00 �'.i u 000x:a; xpn„n•' µ0r - -•- -' GENERAL NOTES: ,Jaa ui1 wiDD'°fDilowaed ieea ram xmmpa az 32'q 'a u pmxlwr xn ezmlx slDrel ax mMx:r A"` i pbnapx prtse x m ttr 11 ED \� _ _- -�JII'ROf'ERTY LINE m ut"°s. stm mrt ooplr°°ii it rz p'"i[ cu .i (eiz) .xss-a"'om «vwpaerom6nixro�'rcw'vemx' �_ T rt8 bpG xa 1Jawz rs pw \ \ rYeaq• w Nme ....ow. aw - -- • wp. t.�..wp'ir taorw x. 3,tl°eOmeo � 000�SO'" ueeraoeel•W t. "xn t EAMN FrswsFa rm DDC xn \ yF. •'' .. ,rA . ,xD mwAL rtn taxa Aar 0slvcxt an.. 'LOT 1 ,.cress __AREA NOT IN EASEMENT s.ailm.o:"Mer e"""""" 1^' R•rF. •era.^�N a ALTA/Amr Q EAmmtT rra Dpn xn axea.a Aa:xDr« m mp.LY. LOT 3 ;,� \ PART OF LOT 3..im m. u.F,m sI.YaD D.w �\ 'Axa 3° aaw«�t. a °.�. nli: . a.ylr °. N.0 as .cna STREET EASEMENT -i°- - \ I u �,a�' •" t• M a« .i m >m.nx a aur a.e « u ..Yr.... vuc.-ezz e• o a a. STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL DETAILa""'"° ENCROACHMENTS: NOT TO SCALE ...,z.,. © �PO1pNwu« ae.aDi y In cm DAm:mr xm wl eyj- _ DDxp— T ter'•, I \� %d,. q4`�',•,^-4 y1 I � �; .ty.2; ss� ,.fNDan h.. _i t 1 �'L'e "^Po.,fg.:nit'zpz'uc y• t,`',�;-,"1 cm�`.ToT�v+E4p.�+„I+ LEGEND °'u5' & y air ter" i ij�M� © um xm t eP .' km 1 ®• -- — le cae . ne Ownb o h I I °I I �„ .itff;,., 11 uxoze xaa.° ��F'75;"Doe xa Mw }, a �R 1 1 1 '�.p( ; • I ° TRA;; I �ITR I w IIpnuuiA• E.T P. � � I I� �` ��C^� •R t' „' :9� _ D �/1 I�� ,�"7D !�- _ M O 8 mrDYDp s --L; �J euc ly r"m."cr"Lc°EAST s7s n 73 �`«' P. arrz d s. ' 5 I ' .0 T' .e f 1 8 craw ralu�e mos - ua m'.oDYJ) _lT -g�'g � ..- c': .9>• o,� -}-_ -'iTj-- . _ zi • c.tm w cet�ee�ewt-g unD nee c.-. icw (Dl.metr F ina«) m. 1 t m pO--�N"�•"zz6J l� - smv•e:. - - i I I^ %-sta "� M %ro mumnW° om. x.. : ixu. a es a � q Cm1ou. ��'' azapga' II \ " D �` 4, iJ R.'e":.J TRA' ' I q - mn.e:yt C• -'°'L 1 w• to - i E:. mu-lziYas pcp X�fl5�.2,C [ 61Fq Spot EJewtbn fYtfr my"�ezas - ': 7 I (� n. _ `. A - i;� � x sJi.J . F sp.z Li.wnm LJ ,1�_" ,�`VTt2s "'! exi °J \II J fl ,9" 90 40 O SO I60 210 n pimlc uar w - ' �L , 'yy °"'" F�"w..r`Y' - 1 1 Y'v.. ' :S } I A �•.A.-Ka M SCALE FEET eon Air VICINITY MAP \ SII .! DxD l e "•' e:a ,r'.r :_1__ . 4 ;•?N " - 11 e i 5•- 1 c- y ' °�w, ....en.z et ,�6s t. - V+; ' - - T 1412.9 _ A' e� y'•b �+ c pDz _,.'( 1T �, 1.Az- _ Fi w. el 4DD usF.� {. nn �M.A N-RA.NCE,, i RE, ®u°a°Yawe X SCALE: f INCH= SO FEET RENSMAIS I rmY -tiy mot txlee,xwy. W. ,. a Ott r«a�feP - by m r e Re9lure°e Lwa s.e.w. ��m°�"tnelo.. n. -1. .1 u�....m 3 'T Yin n E .°9a we(: 36 TOPOGRAPHICAL AND BOUNDARYSURVEY For: FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES BLOOMINGTON SITE: 7700 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY HARRY S JOHNSON CO.. TNG LAND SURVEYORS 9D87 Lyt 1. Awn.. BDtM Blenmin9l.q MN. 65137 T.N. 952.9845741 Fa1t9524845744 —0- - - r.y.lar..yrawm -- IOFI j pE� R Ld wa LU C) a o w a u- rn a 0 EAST ELEVATION fi C%L� a r�2,u RICHARD MOSCHELLA RA ]OYFBEY 91pEfT nTxr�wx MOSCHELLA F ROBERTS LLC 10—ST— i:1fi F:2f1 7690 FRANCE AVE. nAm,.H SOLLEA9wp ELEVATIONS DESIGN September 08, 2014 Proposed Restaurant 7690 France Avenue S. Edina, NW Architecture & Planning iVIV. Office'. (q I, Fax-, J tp W Looking Southwest I Z/ mm. reprisedesign. com AM 0 0% 0 19, Z O W J W L -91Q H C) O Q ~5 W z 7700 FRANCE AVE. EDINA, MN ENLARGED PLAN 11,1111 A, r �`• II i Ir ........ i IN :ZL521 - PARTIAL SITE PLAN NOT TO SCALE b _ t _. PATIO I i i ... i z Q T S T I w lw T U LL Sna=, 5PERIDRB REINEtt.S AItCffiTECTS, INC. VATE 4PR .: INi: KITCHEN OFF. W Ml WAIT _ t _. PATIO I i i ... i z Q T S T I w lw T U LL Sna=, 5PERIDRB REINEtt.S AItCffiTECTS, INC. paces to 6,442 spaces based on staff findings and subject to staff co ions. Fischer a recommended that approval is to include direct pedestrian ess to the Sout ale Mall via a 45 degree angle and to also include pede ian access to the transit cility. (Fischer also asked that special thought b ven to find a way to preserve t trees along that access route). Commis ' ner Potts seconded the motion. Ayes, cherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Potts, atteter, Carpenter, Staunton, Fischer and Gra ' 1. Motion carried 9-0. Commissioner Staunt K re mend Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff findings staff conditions to include direct pedestrian access to the Southdaleegree angle and to also include pedestrian access to the transit facioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; Scherer, Forrest, S, Platteter, Carpenter, Staunton, Fischer and Grabiel. Motion ca ed. Commissio Carpenter moved to recomm d re -plat approval. Commissioner Potts sec ded the motion. All voted aye; Sche r, Forrest, Schroeder, Potts, Platt r, Carpenter, Staunton, Fischer and Grabiel. Motion carried 9-0. VII. REPORTS A. Sketch Plan, Frauenshuh, 7700 France Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to develop the northeast corner of the 7700 France with a single -story, 7,500 square foot "fine -dining" restaurant building. The site is 17 acres in size and contains a six - story 319,000 square foot office building and a 7,623 square foot single story office building in the southeast corner of the site. The restaurantwould be designed for seating up to 250 people, and would provide 93 dedicated parking spaces in addition to the shared parking with the office buildings. Teague said the proposed building would be made of high quality stone, glass and metal. An area for outdoor dining would also be provided, however, is not guaranteed to be utilized. Teague asked the Commission to note that the primary issues with this request is that a free-standing restaurant is not a permitted use in the POD -2 zoning district; however, a restaurant is a permitted accessory use within an office building. Teague said if the Commission and Council are receptive to allowing a restaurant in this location the applicant would needs to decide on two options; 1) a PUD rezoning and 2) Ordinance amendment to allow restaurants as a permitted use in the POD -2 zoning district. Page 10 of 12 p, J Concluding Teague also stated if this proposal "moves forward" a traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. Appearing for the Applicant David Anderson, Frauenshuh. Comments /Questions', Commissioner Fischer said this seems reasonable considering the size of the tract and asked Planner Teague if he knows the reason a freestanding restaurant isn't allowed in a POD -2 zoning district. Teague responded he really doesn't know the history behind this decision. Commissioners said maybe the decision to exclude freestanding restaurants in this zoning district was to prevent fast-food restaurants from popping up. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson briefed the Commission on the history of the property. He said the site is 17 acres that consists of a principal multi -story office building totaling 319,000 square -feet. Anderson explained that the site includes underground parking spaces for building tenants and ample surface parking with. over 1,400 parking spaces for building tenants and guests. Continuing, Anderson said the property has a solid appeal in the market place and is in a sound financial position. Anderson said this request is a direct response to market interest. He noted the property is very large and the proposed building isn't very large. Anderson introduced Eric Reiner of Sperides Reiner Architect. Mr. Reiner informed the Commission that at this time they are not working with a particular restaurant company. They are only' off directives to develop a restaurant that engages France Avenue and complements the office building(s). Chair Grabiel noted if you look up and down France Avenue there are a number of restaurants. Grabiel asked if there was a decision on the type of restaurant. Mr. Reiner responded that their goal is an upscale high service restaurant. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the applicant viewed the site in broader terms. Mr. Anderson responded that if one views the site the proposed location of the restaurant is on a natural pad. Anderson explained that at this time the office market is slow; however, if a PUD is granted the option of amending the PUD would remain. Concluding, Anderson said at this time they believe a high-end restaurant addressing France Avenue is a great fit for the area and of benefit to the site itself. Commissioner Forrest said she agrees with a rezoning to PUD, adding it's a great idea trying to incorporate the restaurant to work with the public realm. Page 11 of 12 D tj J Commissioner Platteter agreed that a PUD rezoning is this situation was best. Platteter said in his opinion changing the Ordinance to allow this isn't the way to proceed. Changing the Ordinance could open the door to less desirable proposals. Commissioner Fischer said he likes this concept and in his opinion PUD is the correct way to proceed. Fischer added this fits the "theme" of doing innovative things with large parking lots. Commissioner Schroeder stated he agrees this is a good concept; however, the pedestrian physical connection is missing because the area lacks sidewalks. Chair Grabiel stated the consensus of the Commission appears to support a rezoning to PUD to facilitate construction of a freestanding restaurant. Grabiel encouraged the applicant to proceed to the City Council with their sketch plan. VII. CORRESWNDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Grabiel ackno edged back Xak,aterials. VIII. CHAIR AND COM SION CChair Grabiel said the joint w k seen the City Council and Commission was constructive. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported th Starbuc will be back before the Commission on October 10th with a revised plan. T ague told the ommission Starbucks is rotating their building similar to the suggestion ade by Commis 'over Staunton. Jordan Gilgenbach as d the Commission to n to a new interactive City website SpeakUpEdina.org. X. ADJOU Commissione Potts moved adjournment at 10: 0 PM. Commissioner Platteter seconded th r otion. All voted aye; motion to a I ourn carried. (/QG�GiP� i100I .iCQ�/° Respectfully submitted Page 12 of 12 j� Minutes/Edina City Council/October 16, 2012 improvents of sidewalks, trails, and non -motorized transportation projects. He indicated i. dopted tonight, th\ofO fees would be imposed the first quarter of 2013. Finance Din advised of an ordinance language change requested by Centerpoi o Subdivision 8, Surchargnce No. 2012-15 and by Xcel Energy to Subdivision 4, Surcharge, o rdinance 2012- 16. Mr. Neal explained the tility company had the ability to impose a nominal sur arge above the City's franchise fee to cover adm istrative costs to impose the fee. Attorney Knutson wised the utilities had to obtain Minnesota Public Ut 'ties Commission approval to impose such a sur arge and until that action was taken, the amount was n known. Should that occur, the City woul a notified. It was noted the franchise fees would be collecte onthly and disbursed quarterly. Michelle Swanson, Xcel Energy, stat their legal department advise hat the Department of Commerce asked that language be included in tIX standard fee ordinanAergy a assured the Council that nothing above the City's franchise fee would a collected by Xcel and explained the tradeoff for administrative costs to administer franc his fees was "in lieu offfermit fees." Mr. Neal reviewed the Council's rationale to iY ise fee because the City was not able through existing resources to adequately fund sidewalbicycle paths that would increase safety and walkability. In addition, the fee would resulcost across the City instead of assessing to particular property owners. Mr. Neal noted tbe fixed at $1.45/residential customer until a Council adopts another ordinance to change ed the additional classifications of customers and indicated over 95% of customers were resi The Council acknowledged a franchise fee s not depend ton usage, income, or property value. There were not sidewalks on every street in th ity so under the c rent system, some land owners paid special assessments for sidewalks that were ed by others who mig never share in the cost. A franchise fee would help make assessments mor ffordable and expand si walk/trail funding across the City to all, including tax exempt properties. ollowing discussion, the Coun determined to not consider a sunset provision since it would be str ured as a special enterprise fund . h a proposed budget that would be under the Council's review. ember Swenson made a motion grant Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2012-15, i ementing a gas energy franchise fee on C terpoint Energy Minnesota Gas ("Centerpoint Energy") r providing gas energy service within the of Edina, with revisions to Subdivision 8. Mem Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Br' le, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carrie VIII. D. OR!9ftANCENO.2012-16 — ADOPTED — FRANCHISE ORDINANCE— XCEL MemberCuing ennett made a motion to grant Second Reading adopting Ordin ce No. 2012-16, /yes: an electric service franchise fee on Northern States Power Comp a Minnesota ion, D/B/A Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns, for providing electric service it the City with revisions to Subdivision 4. Member Brindle seconded the motion. ennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.E. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED —RESTAURANT PROPOSAL AT 7700 FRANCE AVENUE Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the sketch plan to develop the northeast corner of 7700 France Avenue with a single -story 7,500 sq. ft. fine -dining restaurant. The 17 acre site was zoned POD and contained a six -story 319,000 sq. ft. office building and 7,623 sq. ft. single -story office/bank building in the southeast corner of Page 7 ,..� Jam` Minutes/Edina City Council/October 16, 2012 the site. He advised of the Planning Commission's deliberation at its September 12, 2012, meeting and consensus reached to support a rezoning to PUD to facilitate construction of a freestanding restaurant. Proponent Presentation David Anderson, Senior Vice President of Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate, 7101 West 78tH, Bloomington, thanked the Council for the opportunity to share this concept and PUD approach. He explained allowing flexibility for this development to work in harmony with the existing office building and tenants and to address this property's long-term development potential through future PUD amendments. In the meantime, the design concept would be pedestrian oriented and a presence on France Avenue. Mr. Anderson indicated the architectural theme would evolve depending on the user but definitely would be an upscale effort. He noted there was a sidewalk along France Avenue on the west side. The Council discussed the site plan and indicated its support to consider a PUD. It was acknowledged that people were drawn to live and work in this area and visit places such as this restaurant. The Council commented on the desirability of creating pedestrian connections, intense landscaping, insulating outside diners from France Avenue, addressing accessibility, and not tying into the existing bulkhead sidewalk but creating a boulevard sidewalk design with a garden/oasis setting. Mr. Anderson described types of upscale restaurants and indicated the building's architecture, service, and theme that would be attractive to the market and consistent with France Avenue. He thanked the Council for its comments to create quality opportunities and indicated it would be designed for a specific tenant. VIl1.F. RES TION NO. 2012-137 ADOPTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovlan xplained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donatio to the City must be adopted by Res tion and approved by four favorable votes of the Council cepting the donations. Member Bennett troduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2-137 accepting various donations Member rague seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brind\ANETITIONS nson, Hovland Motion carried. IX. CORRESPOND IX.A. CORRESPONDMayor Hovland acknoncil's receipt of ions correspondence. IX.B. MINUTES 1. EDINA TRANSPORTATIO O 2. HERITAGE PRESERVATION Ai 3. PARK BOARD — SEPTEM 4. BUILDING CONSTRU N BO S. ART CENTER BOAR —JUNE 28, Informational; no action require DISSION — AUGUST 16, 2012 iD — SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AND OCTOBER 1, 2012 2012 C— JULY 23, 2012 12, JULY 26, 2012, AND AUGUST 23, 2012 X. MAYOR AND C096L COMMENTS — Received Xl. MANAGER'S MMENTS — Received XII. ADJOU MENT There being further business on the Council Agenda, 10:20 p.m Ily submitted, Page 8 Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at �a c Wenck lFnninoorc � Criar�+�ct�- Wenck File #3022-03 September 19, 2014 Traffic Impact Study for 7690 France Avenue in Edina, MN Prepared for: CITY OF EDINA Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 4 j I Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...................................................................................2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS..................................................................................................4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5-1 6.0 PARKING ANALYSIS...................................................................................................5-1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................7-1 8.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................8-1 FIGURES FIGURE1 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................2-2 FIGURE2 SITE PLAN............................................................................................................2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................3-3 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES.................................4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES.................................4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS.....................................5-4 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS.....................................5-5 FIGURE8 PARKING SURVEY AREAS.....................................................................................6-3 i September 2014 J-eAWenck Ej 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new restaurant building located at 7690 France Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located in the northeast corner of the 7700 France Avenue property. The proposed project location is currently occupied by parking spaces and landscaping area. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • France Avenue at 76th Street • France Avenue at Minnesota Drive • Johnson Avenue at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue • France Avenue at Site Access • Minnesota Drive at Site Access • 77th Street at Site Access The proposed project will involve constructing a new restaurant building. The project will utilize existing parking spaces on the site. Access for the site is provided via the existing access points for the 7700 France Avenue building. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Prennsed Land llsec and Si7Pc Land Use Size Unit Quality restaurant 7,700 SF SF = square feet The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. AA 1-1 September 2014 Wenck The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate a net total of 6 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 58 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. • The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project: • The existing site provides a large number of surface parking stalls which are utilized for employees of the on-site office buildings. These uses operate from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. There is very little use of the parking areas after 6 p.m. • The peak demand for existing parking spaces occurred at 2 p.m. during the weekday survey. At 2 p.m., 910 of the on-site parking spaces were used, leaving 459 available. The parking demand greatly decreases after 6 p.m. The minimum Zoning Code parking requirement is 116 to 126 spaces and the peak parking demand using ITE data is 126 spaces. As shown in this report, there are adequate spaces available to accommodate these requirements. 1-2 September 2014 Wenck 4� 0 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed new restaurant building located at 7690 France Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located in the northeast corner of the 7700 France Avenue property. The proposed project location is currently occupied by parking spaces and landscaping area. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • France Avenue at 76th Street • France Avenue at Minnesota Drive • Johnson Avenue at Minnesota Drive • 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue • France Avenue at Site Access • Minnesota Drive at Site Access • 77th Street at Site Access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve constructing a new restaurant building. The project will utilize existing parking spaces on the site. Access for the site is provided via the existing access points for the 7700 France Avenue building. The proposed land uses and sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Prnnmprl I and I Icpc and'i7ce Land Use Size Unit Quality restaurant 7,700 5F SF = square feet The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. 2-1 September 2014 Wencl< A3I 2300' Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION 4, 3-A ,it 83134 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 832,84 All SBL— SBL— SBC-= r..._._......_....._L 1334.40 833-48 u 834.0 833,0P 31, ems, E0 Y33 0 % 32.70 832.2 -T 1JI(' w t 1> 833.55C3 2 MOTO z f93Kr80- UE 834.0 3.3. OU 33.5 6.3 3.50 wm ------ ROW .1055 r= 0 1144. LOWER SANfTARY 8 4,7 933.90 013 0 a O Q SEWER MANHOLE 833.20 §3 833,8 Rim L 8333 834.00 8.3150 834.30 833,80 834.70 935.0 834.20 835.0 APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 45' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AeAWenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT FIGURE 2 Engineers - Scientists 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN SITE PLAN N t 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site is currently used for parking and landscaping. The site is bounded by France Avenue on the east and parking lots on the north, south, and west. Near the site location, France Avenue is an eight lane divided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. 76th Street is a four lane divided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Minnesota Drive is a four lane undivided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Johnson Avenue, 77th Street, and Parklawn Avenue are four lane undivided roadways with turn lanes at major intersections. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. France Avenue/76th Street (traffic signal control This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn, three through lanes, and one through/right turn lane. France Avenue at Site Access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection provides right turn only access to/from the parking areas on the west side of France Avenue. France Avenue has a raised median at this location, which prohibits left turns in and out. The eastbound approach provides one lane for exiting right turns. The southbound approach provides three through lanes and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides four through lanes. France Avenue at Minnesota Drive (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn, three through lanes, and one right turn lane. Minnesota Drive at Site Access (minor street stop sign control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. 3-1 September 2014 Wenck 43 Johnson Avenue at Minnesota Drive (traffic signal control This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. 77th Street at Site Access (minor street stop sign control This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue (traffic signal control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides two left turn lanes and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through/right turn lane, and right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. 3-2 September 2014 �- Wenck APPRC 4 J TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Wenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7690 FRANCE AVENUE Engineers • Scientists IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2016. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2014 Existing. Turn movement volumes collected in August 2014 were used for existing conditions. The existing volume information includes trips generated by uses near the project site. • 2016 No -Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.0 percent per year to determine 2016 No -Build volumes. The 2.0 percent per year growth rate was based on both recent growth experienced near the site and expected future growth. • 2016 Build. Trips generated by the existing office building were removed and trips generated by the proposed uses were added to the 2016 No -Build volumes to determine 2016 Build volumes. Trip Generation The expected development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent gross total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 44. Table 4-1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Land Uses ITE Weekday Land Use Code Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total InOut Total Total Quality restaurant 931 7,700 SF 5 1 6 39 19 1 58 693 3r=squareTeei The a.m. peak hour trip generation assumes the restaurant is not open before 9 a.m. This is typical for this type of use. The trips shown during the a.m. peak hour are for deliveries and employees. As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed development will add a net total of 6 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 58 trips during the p.m. peak hour. 4-1 September 2014 A-37) Wenck The total trips can be categorized in the following two trip types: • New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. • Pass -By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for new trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 27 percent to/from the north on France Avenue • 36 percent to/from the south on France Avenue • 23 percent to/from the west on 77`h Street • 7 percent to/from the east on 76`h Street • 7 percent to/from the east on Minnesota Drive Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figures 4 and 5. 4-2 September 2014 Wenck 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX a 30!31/31 l _ F 148/154/154 O/0/O 402/418/418 --T l T r 77TH ' 407/423/423 010/0 T �i t 411 _� 147/153/153 4] � 4 ,F-1/20/20 444/46/46 0/0/0 0/010--� 01010 ul u��V3 Z� WU� R C� �R 1201125/126 � 2101218!218 58/60!80 16/17/17 MINNESOTA 20712151215 I 10/10/10 oa� J TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY -teAWenck FOR DEVELOPMENTAT Engineers - Scientists 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN TMST Lj 57/59/59 --+ 127/132/132 --� 50152/52 PROJECT LOCATION N r 41,4/5--+ 60/62/62 F- 280/291!291 ,r-131/1361136 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES �R12112112 125/130/130 �- 95/99/99 28/29/29 15111571157 -- 52/54/54 - p; _ FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES IN 2014 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/XX= -1 x-45/47/47 � 377/3921395 0/0/Q 623/648/648 -� � � 77TH ST. 605/629/636 A,eAWenck Engineers - Scientists IN t r 2-18119125 F— 2961308/308 � 8!818 6/6/6/ ---t 140/1461146 —> T 0/0/0 OR r r TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN o �r 3 166/173/173 t E-182/189/189 76TH 8T, lj q— 189/197/199 2751286/286 —a 4181435/436 208/214!214 PROJECT LOCATION M -T, 68171/87 r 7a r n o R as (fl�r --86/89/90 F 196/204/205 j- 373/388/388 130/135/135 426/443/443 R 396/4121412 �, r r A r 4� FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES �h 93/293 <-- 4/4/4 52/54/54 25126/26 --� r �a r r 2-18119125 F— 2961308/308 � 8!818 6/6/6/ ---t 140/1461146 —> T 0/0/0 OR r r TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN o �r 3 166/173/173 t E-182/189/189 76TH 8T, lj q— 189/197/199 2751286/286 —a 4181435/436 208/214!214 PROJECT LOCATION M -T, 68171/87 r 7a r n o R as (fl�r --86/89/90 F 196/204/205 j- 373/388/388 130/135/135 426/443/443 R 396/4121412 �, r r A r 4� FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. 5-1 September 2014 Wenck The LOS results for the study intersections are described below and shown in Figures 5 and 6. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. France Avenue/76th Street (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. France Avenue at Site Access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. France Avenue at Minnesota Drive (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS f or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS E or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS D. Traffic generated by the proposed project does not change the level of service of any movement during either peak hour. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Minnesota Drive at Site Access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 5-2 September 2014 Wenck 4ta Johnson Avenue at Minnesota Drive (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 77th Street at Site Access (minor street stop sign control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. During the p.m. peak hour under all scenarios, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Overall Traffic Impacts As described above and shown in Figures 5 and 6, the project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. 5-3 September 2014 Wenck 2014 N 2016 NO -BUILD 2016 BUILD XX/XX/XX aoa <-ciCc c/C/C CD/D �. C/c/C c� m A gigiq,4 CIC/C - c/c/c Fall,I,I U IW 4 14 E- D/D/D r�' D/D/D 76TH ST, ---� C/C/C :.....�� . T D/DID - A/A/A --y o� cU3 PROJECT D/D/D LOCATION A'/aA —> AWA as ACCESS - a A/A/A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY T.^eAWenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT Engineers • Scientists 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 6 WEEKDAYA.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS U IW F Cl�/C �- GC/C tr-AWA AWA A/A/A MINNESOTA DR. D/D/D v v d U a A'/aA —> AWA d d d a a D/D/D -a A/A/A - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY T.^eAWenck FOR DEVELOPMENT AT Engineers • Scientists 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 6 WEEKDAYA.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 2014 N 2016 NO -BUILD FF_ 2016 BUILD aht 78TH ST. wuni� W xxx — av+-D/D/D E- DiDro D/D/D c/c/c C/c/C V U U C/C/C �10� �k' PGG y/0 �. EMED A/A/A PROJECT LOCATION 4— ID/AD f-- ESE as ACCESS - A/A/A A/A/A a a c/c/c 88 v a F � D/D/D <�- ii A/ V, t3 e— ororo -�-� C/C/C . c/CIC A/Alk A MINNESOTA DR. aA/A D/D/D. �-�... C/C/c -� f > C/C/C c3 a -3 A/A/A ¢ ¢ ¢I a a a EIE/E �1 D/D/D —y Q a mZ ui SQ O n TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Wencl< FOR DEVELOPMENT AT Engineers - Scientists 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 6.0 Parking Analysis Background Information The existing site provides a large number of surface parking stalls which are utilized for employees of the on-site office buildings. These uses operate from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. There is very little use of the parking areas after 6 p.m. A total of 1,369 on-site parking spaces are located in four surface parking areas. The proposed project will result in the removal of 40 parking spaces for construction of the new building. After construction of the building, there will be will 1,329 parking spaces on-site. The existing parking area was divided into four areas for survey purposes, with each area shown in Figure 8. Area A contains 1,002 spaces, Area B 158 spaces, Area C 121 spaces, and Area D 88 spaces. The proposed project will include 63 reserved parking spaces in Area C. These spaces will be signed for restaurant parking only. Parking Operation Observations Parking operations were observed during the 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. time period on a typical weekday in August, 2014. During this time period parking usage varied depending on location. In addition, the entire western portion of Area A is occupied by new cars from local dealerships. The dealerships use this parking lot for new car storage, with cars moved in and out periodically. During the parking survey period, 391 spaces were occupied by new cars. Existing Parking Usage Existing parking usage was recorded during the 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. time period on a typical weekday in August, 2014. The results of the parking usage survey are shown in Tables 671. 6-1 September 2014 Wenck Ai (, Table 6-1 Existing On -:Site parking I Icaga As shown in Table 6-1, the parking usage peaked at 2 p.m. and steadily declined after 6 p.m. For the overall site, there was a maximum of 857 spaces available at 8 p.m. and a minimum of 459 spaces available at 2 p.m. Zoning Code Requirement The City zoning code minimum parking requirement is 1/3 of the maximum seating plus one space per employee during the major shift time. The proposed restaurant contains 242 seats and is expected to have 35-45 employees during the major shift time. This equates to a minimum parking requirement of 116 to 126 spaces. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Data Calculations In addition to the zoning code requirement, parking data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was also used to determine the expected parking demand. As shown in Table 6-1, the on-site parking usage peaked at 2 pm. Data provided in the ITE publication Parking Generation, 4th Edition, indicates the parking demand for a quality restaurant peaks at 7:00 p.m. on a non -Friday weekday and 8:00 on a Friday. The non -Friday weekday peak parking demand is 82 spaces, while the Friday peak parking demand is 126 spaces. Overall Parking Impact As shown in Table 6-1, the peak demand for existing parking spaces occurred at 2 p.m. during the weekday survey. At 2 p.m., 910 of the on-site parking spaces were used, leaving 459 available. The parking demand greatly decreases after 6 p.m. As described above, the minimum zoning code parking requirement is 116 to 126 spaces and the peak parking demand using ITE data is 126 spaces. As shown in the table, there are adequate spaces available to accommodate these requirements. The existing office uses peak earlier during the weekday that the expected restaurant peak. These uses are complementary to each other from a parking perspective. 6-2 September 2014 �+� Wenck Area A (1,002 total spaces) Area B (158 total spaces) Area C (121 total spaces) Area D (88 total spaces) Total Spaces Available Time of Day Spaces Spaces used- used- new cars employees Total spaces open Spaces used Spaces open Spaces used Spaces open Spaces used Spaces open 9:00 am 391 265 40 118 84 37 43 45 546 10:00 am 391 289 54 104 96 25 63 25f,459 476 11:00 am 391 282 Z310 62 96 100 21 59 29475 1:00 pm 391 301 54 104 93 28 56 3274 2:00 pm 391 297 63 95 104 17 55 33 3:00 pm 391 283 328 60 98 98 23 54 346:00 pm 391 102 509 25 133 25 96 187008 7:00 pm 391 85 526 24 134 23 98 15 7331 8:00 pm 391 1 72 539 20 138 17 104 12 76 857 As shown in Table 6-1, the parking usage peaked at 2 p.m. and steadily declined after 6 p.m. For the overall site, there was a maximum of 857 spaces available at 8 p.m. and a minimum of 459 spaces available at 2 p.m. Zoning Code Requirement The City zoning code minimum parking requirement is 1/3 of the maximum seating plus one space per employee during the major shift time. The proposed restaurant contains 242 seats and is expected to have 35-45 employees during the major shift time. This equates to a minimum parking requirement of 116 to 126 spaces. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Data Calculations In addition to the zoning code requirement, parking data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was also used to determine the expected parking demand. As shown in Table 6-1, the on-site parking usage peaked at 2 pm. Data provided in the ITE publication Parking Generation, 4th Edition, indicates the parking demand for a quality restaurant peaks at 7:00 p.m. on a non -Friday weekday and 8:00 on a Friday. The non -Friday weekday peak parking demand is 82 spaces, while the Friday peak parking demand is 126 spaces. Overall Parking Impact As shown in Table 6-1, the peak demand for existing parking spaces occurred at 2 p.m. during the weekday survey. At 2 p.m., 910 of the on-site parking spaces were used, leaving 459 available. The parking demand greatly decreases after 6 p.m. As described above, the minimum zoning code parking requirement is 116 to 126 spaces and the peak parking demand using ITE data is 126 spaces. As shown in the table, there are adequate spaces available to accommodate these requirements. The existing office uses peak earlier during the weekday that the expected restaurant peak. These uses are complementary to each other from a parking perspective. 6-2 September 2014 �+� Wenck N N Wb.! Ub t tiXAZ SCE DETAIL R. _ 0® �I`I TRACT V1 N�I e, 1 Oto In a 1 OWNER. INREIT PROP€RTES, LLLP j EAST 575.77 , *------- __ _------------- i YI I It 0 UN.. ERLYING TRACT U . I ty t II ! I �1 s I! — ------------------- ----- -----— -- —-------- -- ---- --- -- — -----� — — — I I 77TH STREET WEST _._.._._.___._..___....._..........._... aka. AUNNCSDTA DRIVE 1_.-._.—..�—_--_-.--.....�__. -�. �.._...._._._� ....__.._.___...____�.._._.._ �_.__._.___.-..._...__e____._...._.._. (PUBUC RICHT Or WAY) EAST 1216.60 WEST 1412.49 Wend< Engineers a Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7690 FRANCE AVENUE IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 8 PARKING SURVEY AREAS 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate a net total of 6 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 58 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Trips generated by the proposed development do not change the level of service of movements at any of the analyzed intersections. • The project trips have minimal impact on the overall traffic operations. No improvements are needed to the surrounding street system to accommodate the proposed project. • The existing site provides a large number of surface parking stalls which are utilized for employees of the on-site office buildings. These uses operate from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. There is very little use of the parking areas after 6 p.m. • The peak demand for existing parking spaces occurred at 2 p.m. during the weekday survey. At 2 p.m., 910 of the on-site parking spaces were used, leaving 459 available. The parking demand greatly decreases after 6 p.m. The minimum Zoning Code parking requirement is 116 to 126 spaces and the peak parking demand using; ITE data is 126 spaces. As shown in this report, there are adequate spaces available to accommodate these requirements. 7-4 September 2014 e/AWenck DATE: October 2, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 7690 France Avenue — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. 1. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction standards. 2. A separate permit is required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.or. 3. A 20 foot easement will be needed along France Avenue for access to public utilities and sidewalk. Survey 4. No comments. Sails 5. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 6. No comments. 1'a"affic and Street 7. Remove existing sidewalk length of restaurant parcel and provide an eight foot boulevard with a six foot sidewalk. a. Sidewalk should also provide access to restaurant. Sanitary and 'Water utilities 8. Installed fire hydrant on northeast corner of lot. 9. Note private or public ownership of existing and proposed utilities. .Storm VVater Utility 10. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District standards. Capacity is available in public stormwater system from SP_I I subwatershed, downstream of project. 11. Note ownership and provide copies of maintenance agreement for private stormwater systems. rtadiny, Erosion and Sediment Control 12. Sheet C3-2, Erosion Control Schedule, change City of Brooklyn Park to City of Edina. 13. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used in the case of temporary pumped discharge. tlrer.A,gency Coordination 14. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits may be required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-326-0392 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Pete Lehner <plehner@lindsaygroup.com> Sent: Monday,. September 29, 2014 3:10 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: CASE 2014.015 FRAUENSHUH 7700 FRANCE AVE EDINA From: Lindsay-Parklawn LLC To Whom It May Concern: We are in receipt of the Public Hearing Notice regarding 7700 France Ave, Edina submitted by Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group. We are in full support of the applicant's request to rezone to PUD to build a restaurant. Sincerely, Pete Lehner Property Manager Lindsay-Parklawn, LLC 7715-7725 Parklawn Ave. S. Edina, MN _4 0 DESIGN Statement of Intended Use 7690 France Avenue South Edina, MN SS43S September S, 2014 Architecture & Planning 12400 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100 Burnsville, MN 55337 Office: (952) 252-4042 Fax: (952)252-404:3 This will be a full service seafood restaurant with a bar, private dining venue and an outdoor patio and bar created and operated by Parasole Restaurant Holdings. The restaurant is divided into two intersecting volumes. Parallel to France Avenue is a tall textured brown brick structure which houses the main dining and private dining rooms. At the top of this volume, around all four sides runs an aluminum clerestory window topped with a tapered overhang of the same material. Through this structure, perpendicular to France Avenue, passes a lower gray metal clad structure housing the indoor bar and oyster bar and the covered outdoor bar adjacent to France Avenue. A planted patio, covered by a cedar trellis, nestles up on both sides of the covered bar and runs nearly the length of the taller brick building. In a sea of chains, this is a Twin Cities original: A casual seafood grill and bar with a unique identity yet broad appeal, one with homegrown roots and a world-class menu. It's flexible and approachable enough to have everyday utility without sacrificing foodie credibility. And it has a pronounced urban feel — without the urban attitude. Why a seafood restaurant? Mainly, because there's a hole in the market for one. And because the public loves seafood. Yet aside from a few boutique outliers like Sea Change, all we have are chains— McCormick & Schmick, Red Lobster, Joe's Crab Shack — and few fusty holdouts like Kincaid's and Blue Point. And nowhere is the need more pronounced than in the Southwest suburbs, where the business and residential demographics point to strong demand. Moreover, we know seafood. With Oceanaire and Sea Change, Phil Roberts and Tim McKee have created the two most important seafood restaurants in the history of Minnesota. This will be Minnesota's next great seafood restaurant — and an unprecedented one, with two distinguishing features: a charcoal -fired grill and a wood -fired oven for roasted seafood — dishes like Cast Iron Roasted Sea Bass with Black Olive and Capers and Wood -Oven Steamed Australian Kingfish with Ginger & Soy. Wood Roasted Oysters alone will have their own section on the menu. There will be a raw bar, of course; fish & chip options for the timid; and new twists on classics like chowders, Po -Boys and Lobster Rolls. For the seafood averse: beef filets, chicken, pork — and, surely, a killer burger — will headline the "Shore" section of the menu. Open for lunch and dinner; the saloon -like bar's happy hour will be a magnet for working -folk; and an expansive patio will enable diners to enjoy warm weather dining. www.reprisedesign.com As pristine as the seafood will be, the experience itself will be a breath of fresh air. Managers and staff will execute from a culture of service, not a manual of rules. Even the most timid eaters will find safe harbors here, while the most jaded foodies will find adventures in dishes like Bourbon Roasted Maine Lobster with Sweetcorn Spoonbread. The ambiance will be warm and inviting, yet bright and energized. The attitude will be confident but not pretentious and the offerings will be broadly accessible. Our goal is to be a citywide destination for foodies; the go -to choice for the locals, and the best seafood restaurant anyone could hope for. Headquartered in Edina, Minnesota, Parasole Restaurant Holdings operates BURGER JONES in Burnsville and on the north shore of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis; Salut Bar Americain in St. Paul on Grand Avenue and in Edina on France Avenue; Chino Latino and Libertine in Uptown; Manny's Steakhouse, The Living Room & Prohibition at the W Minneapolis —The Foshay in downtown Minneapolis; Pittsburgh Blue Steakhouse in Edina and Maple Grove; Muffuletta Cafe in St. Paul's Como Park neighborhood; the Good Earth Restaurants in Edina and Roseville; and Mozza Mia Pizza Pie & Mozzarella Bar in Downtown Edina. By joining the Parasole Dining Club, guests have the opportunity to earn points for the dollars they spend and to redeem them for food and drink at any participating Parasole restaurant. Details at Parasole.com �l EAST ELEVATION RICHARD MOSCHELLA RA s�avnmm imam rarrd� nwran� i000x r. atxwan _ _srmr mgr imnaan �xew ma rtwran� yam r axwwiai 7690 FRANCE AVE. FI F\/�TI(1AIC DESIGN September 08, 2014 Proposed Restaurant 7690 France Avenue S. Edina, MN 11 Sa� Architecture & Planning 12400 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100 Burnsville, MN 55337 Office: (952) 252-4042 Fax: (952) 252-4043 Looking Southwest www.reprisedesign.com owe tA co • r^coRPoa+TE� �aaa PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague October 8, 2014 VII.A. Director of Planning INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description LJG Investments is proposing to split their existing lot into two lots to create a lot line separation of a double -dwelling at 3932 and 3934 49th Street West. (See property location on pages Al A4.) The double dwelling on this property is currently under construction, and has been built with a fire rated wall separating the two units. This would provide protection for each unit, should there be a fire on the other side. (See plans and building under construction on pages A5—A10.) Within the block of 49th Street West, there are a mixture of duplexes and single- family homes, zoned both R-1, Single -Family Residential and R-2, Double - Dwelling Unit. (See pages A2 A4.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses North: Wetland area; zoned and guided for single-family homes. South: Double -dwellings; zoned and guided for double -dwellings. East: Single-family dwellings; zoned and guided for single-family homes. West: Double -dwellings; zoned and guided for double -dwellings. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a duplex currently under construction. (See page A6-A6b. ) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Primary Issue Low-density attached residential R-2, Double -dwelling unit residential • Is the proposed lot division reasonable? Yes. Staff believes the request is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The units will be separated by a fire -wall; and be verified by the City's building official. (See building plans on pages A7 -A9.) 2. Each unit has separate utility hook-ups. 3. A similar lot division was approved by the City on this block, to the west at 4001 and 4003 49th Street West, and 3928 49th Street West. (See locations on page A4.) 4. There would be no change to the footprint or mass of the duplex approved by the Planning Commission and currently under construction. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the city council approve the lot division as requested. Deadline for a city decision: January 1, 2015 2 4929 '4933;4200: 24 Parcel 18-028-24-14-0042 ID: Owner Ljg Investments Llc Name: Parcel 3932 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential -Two Unit Type: Home- stead: Homestead Parcel 0.23 acres Area: 10,087 sq ft 24 4100 3930 3924 3921 3906 49481 A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: V = 200 ft. Print Date: 9/26/2014 Market Total: Tax Total: 4800 4833 4837 i 4841 4845 4853 STREET WEST 4901 _4905 " I 4909 4917 I— 4921^ 4999 Sale 4825 4824 _ 4800 I 483E 4801 t 4107 4101 i 4801. 4009i4005,4u01(24' 1 391 3909'3905 - 4804 484€ purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and 4824 Sale 4808 ' 4807 4808 4804 A TKnk Green! I 4811 i 4812 4813 I 4812 4815 4815 i 4817 4833 4819 4820 4821 4824 4929 '4933;4200: 24 Parcel 18-028-24-14-0042 ID: Owner Ljg Investments Llc Name: Parcel 3932 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential -Two Unit Type: Home- stead: Homestead Parcel 0.23 acres Area: 10,087 sq ft 24 4100 3930 3924 3921 3906 49481 A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: V = 200 ft. Print Date: 9/26/2014 Market Total: Tax Total: 4800 4833 4837 i 4841 4845 4853 STREET WEST 4901 _4905 " I 4909 4917 I— 4921^ 4999 Sale 4825 4824 4825 I 483E sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or 4828 4829 484€ purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and 4824 Sale ' COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Code: A TKnk Green! 4832 4833 39223918 48 50 3940 3938 3"332 s 4835 f 4836 1 14837 4854 ..: 4cT__-,TREET�I+.E_A__. H SEST 4901 a� _., 4009 4005 3943 ' 394 '3941 3937 3 927 X3923 3901 w 4905 j J ! I – 4909 1 � 1 — 4915 24 3948 i 3944 'i 3936 3930 {3918 4916 ! i 4917 --- ^, �. 24 i 493f2STREETI:`EST. _ 4921 24 4925 24 24 24 _ j4930 _ 24 24 3x25'4936_ 4929 '4933;4200: 24 Parcel 18-028-24-14-0042 ID: Owner Ljg Investments Llc Name: Parcel 3932 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential -Two Unit Type: Home- stead: Homestead Parcel 0.23 acres Area: 10,087 sq ft 24 4100 3930 3924 3921 3906 49481 A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: V = 200 ft. Print Date: 9/26/2014 Market Total: Tax Total: 4800 4833 4837 i 4841 4845 4853 STREET WEST 4901 _4905 " I 4909 4917 I— 4921^ 4999 Sale Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Code: A TKnk Green! k A -x 7-7 N cr. 480] j 4801 4107 4101 4Cl 4 c 4801 4009 ��5 001'24; 3 913 3909 3905 .._ - 4804 j ! 4308 4807 4808 I 4809 -- - _.._.. . ! 4811 4812 4813 4812 __ --- 4815 481E ^ 4817 i 4819 4520 i - 4824 4825 4524 I 482 4830 ON 48.. �, 4828 4829 4r e 4832 483- 4850 4835 3940 3-:9363932 922 4336 49 3918' 4854 49Ttt 5TR. EET WEST 0 4901 I ' 4009 4005 3949 3945 , 3941 3937 13927 '3923 3901 4905 cc`Y 4915 24 39483944; ! 3936 3930 3918 4916 _. 4917 � 74 _ - ----- •. __ --_ _ T 491/2 STREET t'IEST 4921 I 24 4325 24 24 244930 24 24 13925`4936... 929 24 4100 3930 4948 .4933;4200 3924 3922 3906 Parcel 18-028-24-14-0042 ID: Owner Ljg Investments Llc Name: Parcel 3932 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential -Two Unit Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.23 acres Area: 10,087 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. Print Date: 9/26/2014 Market Total: Tax Total: 4800 I I I 4833 4833 f 4841 4845 I ! -i 48 53 i IaTll STREET WEST .... _... . f - 4901+ 490 _5 I 4909 ..4917 t 4921 Sale Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date, implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale . - Code: COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A hrik Green! LEGEND ® . ... IRON MONUMENT FOUND o .... IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET EX1STINLEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, according to plat thereof, on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS; PARCEL 1: That Part of Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, lying West of the following described line; Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 89 degrees 23 minutes 43 seconds East, along the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 41.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 123.27 feet to the North line of said Lot 2, and there terminating. Containing 5,057 square feet, more or less. PARCEL 1: That Part of Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, lying East of the following described line; Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence North 89 degrees 23 minutes 43 seconds East, along the Southline of said Lot 2 a distance of 41.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 123.27 feet to the North line of said Lot 2, and there terminating. Containing 5,050 square feet, more or less. Surveyor PTS Land Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Foriboult, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 F..:507-334-9472 www.ptsland.com CFRFIC,5II�Y PRS�'Tl�T�OFII .P0 .,o ,5PLIT LOT�NOCh� S'lY�ll�l� �IJIJITI0IV 3932-3T93� �JTlI S"TB7 7 #YZ'.S I �1�IN�1, OLIN SGIE iEEf �EXSTING; TWINWOME 4 I h 123.10,° A ° I� 6 WOOD/ FENCE `\ °(�/00'19'S,d"�V t T I! I ----- – \55.7F— Ip � –/+00'9£ \ to I \ Je \ \ A I \T 7� °j ° z — \ VO X00' 1 OO 1 \ o 0 v�i� Z O 00 N �ONC ETE I 1 ENN w w z w .N 0' '03"E `•`Y 12P.2� o L 64 x _ 1 oz a / _ 50,^ j 1 M I — 1A 30 57 p0 x0 1 \ \ h – ---�� q cb �x i 01h \ x00ry i \\ 00f_n 00"x' 00 ONCRETE �.° a'r•.ls ��,�. �_� �� m DO a' – _ f �6 6 3.47 3.00 "lb_t£-_ 10 S00'19155"E WOOD FENCE ---- \ 1 EXISTIN �° � 123.4��,• TWIN HOME �s,o� oTM DE51�m PTS LAND SERVICES ING. 3932-3934 49TH STREET WEST sirr LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION of COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES ECmNFD 1 F11TMA MAI 3932-3934 TW I N H O M E WEST 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA ARCHTfECT. 2 ^ O 0566 S Aberdeen, n, I SE 301 (iv an, SDE 307 Phone: 605-725882 999 /�. 1 224 N. Philips Ave. 208 Sb�Fals, SD 87709 V b. F ll., SO 7104 ARCHITECTURAL AO -0 SITE PLAN A0-1 SITE DESIGN EXAMPLES A7-0 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2-0 LOWER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-1 MAIN LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-2 UPPER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A3-1 ROOF PLAN A4-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8-1 SU:LDING SECTION Ae-2 SUILDINGSECTION BID DOCUMENTS 04-23-14 �a 11 �„ T"- r i 4jti 44 w t tit L� MIN k♦ i rX' y 3_W Y Y+ •ii Ti s �'! � fir:' �"�=• � � `'`� t? ,,, w ♦ t A ,'' t 1 II ti'�`1�F•i YI. -d ,,r•-pµNJ � qpqp t .� � _ � i ✓✓�1C'�'�( �i ��t ��p�yxi� .a Vi H{ t :..� � ��* � it pit . � LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN M i co o� ARCHITECTURE 205 6th Ave. BE 301 Aberdeen, SD 57401 Phone: 605-725.4852 224 N. Phillip Ave. 208 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Phom;605-334-9999 xmvi.co-opemh.com CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: REVISION SCHEDULE: -mom pare PAFfT WN.LPFPNMO a ei-M1iCUlATON ed&• PROJECT: _ _ 3932-3934 TV4INHOME WEST 49TH STREET `EDINA, MINNESOTA �,. ' \`\•: C_ J'4'i rS`HEET TRLE_ _ LEVEL FLOOR PLAN f,.y,! Al -0 f_ 9 _ G --____ _____i -MVACJUPPLY o � � - _ V ' wTGNEN 4- fd• 41IY J'51M d -HVAC REiefW ILLLLRR4R555LL52'''"�� _ _b N Z TG9EFRGGM zr _ N ELEVATOR � Y -B• ' B`,I = eUIT-IN GESR zn nc m _ � z-, ns• _ ____ _ __ nM Ell- -4, ' RE g.= N ®MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A , M•"1'v co OP ARCHITECTURE 2056th Ave. SE 301 Aberdeen, SD 57401 Phone: 605.7254852 224 N. Phillipa Ave. 208 Slow Falk, SD 57104 Phone: 605-3349999 www.4xwpamM1wm V CO -01 PROJECT NO: 1405 '�•� '�JSSUE: �\v REVISION -SCHEDULE: j'�,• i Z% PAHIYwALLFruxlNa S 4 ��,; �` 'J� � SIOEVIALLARFkUTATON -4 l yJ PROJECT: 3932-3934TWINHOME WEST49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA WINDOW SCHEDULE R.O. TYPEWIDTH HEIGHT I BASIS -OF -DESIGN QTY SHEET TITLE: MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PIAN A T-7318" 3'-103/8" Wind -Douse Hung44arvin-Clad Ultimate: 44"X46" 2 B 3'-731V 4-6318" Wnd--D.ubk Hung.M.Mn-Clad UIIImak: 44"X54' 2 C T-7318" 5'-2316" Wndow-Double Hung-Marvin-CladUlli male: Z X 67 6 D 4'. 10 314" 4'. 6 38" Window4)oubk Hung -Mar AM Clad Ullhnat.Multiple_Unite. (2) 28" x 54" 2 E 4'-103/4" S-2318 Wndow-Doubt Hung-MaMltClad UlUmate-Multlpk_Unila:(2) 28"x62" 4 w w "' F 5'-83/4" 3'-1038" WndmwDouble_ HM9-Marvin-Clatl_UNmale-MuMp Unik:(2) 32"x 46" 6 G 5'-6314" 5'-238" Wntlow•Douae Hung-Marvin-0letl Ultimate-M..p. Unik: (2 32"x62" fi 1 H 7'-6314" 3'-103/8" Window -Double Hung-MaMnCktl Ultimale-Mulliple Unik: (2)44"x46" 2 1 T-9318" 6'-23/8" Wndow-Doubt Hung -Mawr -PiM,._Unll-Clad_Uhimale: 44'x 72" 2 1 3'-9318" 7'-2318" Wnclm-Double Hun-Mamm-Plolure Unit -Clad Ul1mele:44"x64" 2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN M' 11 co OP ARCHITECTURE 205 6th Ave. SE 301 Aberdeen, SO 57401 Phone: 605-725-0852 224 N. Phillips Ave. 208 Sioux Fags, SO 57104 Phone: 605-334-9999 wxw.co-operch.mm CO-OPPROJEOTNO: 7405 ISSUE: REVISION SCHEDULE oESCgeRION WTE e elOEYbV1Mi1La= ON 6351: PROJECT: \ 3932-3934TVVI HOME WEST 9TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA I`\' •'/ t, • r..Ilk J\l SHEETT11 / UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ✓ Al -2 ,YmN.liOcyxelcelen co op ARCHITECTURE 2056th Ave. BE 301 Aberdeen, SO 57401 Phone: 805726-0052 224 N. Phillipe Ave. 208 SIp Falls, SD 57104 Phone: 605334-9999 --o-o h. CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: caul. REVISION SCHEDULE S nESCftIPIroR WTE PROJECT: _ 3932-3834 TWINHOME WEST49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE: BUILDING SECTION A5-1 r Ol (`►j! ? S�' To: PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item #: VII.B From: Ross Bintner PE, - Environmental Engineer Action ❑ Discussion Date: October 8, 2014 information Subject: Residential Redevelopment Update Action Requested: No specific action requested. Information / Background: A near doubling of permit applications and residential redevelopment activity between 2009 and 2014, consistent staffing levels, and specific concerns for the impact of construction activities and associated drainage issues on nearby residents and property has led to an evolving community consensus that has raised the expectation of service for permitting redevelopment. Reacting to the above, the residential redevelopment permit review, inspection and enforcement process has undergone significant changes in the last two years. This report summarizes recent process changes and process improvements and compares actual and perceived service levels, and actual and desired outcomes. Following the creation and revision of City code pertaining to demolition of single and two-family dwellings, requirements for engineered plans and construction management plans, staff from the Planning and Building divisions, and Engineering Department undertook a variety of efforts to update permit review, inspection, and enforcement practices. This review starts by trying to define the service provided by the review and issuance of building permits for residential redevelopment, both demolition and new home construction, and major remodel and addition. Service Definition Core services provided by the City of Edina that are influenced in part by residential redevelopment and controlled though the residential building permit process include: public safety, sanitation and public health, and orderly land use and transportation. Viewed from the perspective of an individual permit application, or the residential redevelopment subset of all permit applications, it is not always evident how individual plan elements, permit requirements, or a department's review helps to deliver the core service. As an initial attempt to help make these connections more apparent, City staff drafted a building permit service delivery chart (see attached.) In this chart you will see core and ancillary services described as well as select permit review process, and enforcement tools used to deliver these services. While the core and ancillary services described in this model are the ultimate goal, the methods and process City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Vo REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 2 or a builder with a permit, the process may be all that matters. In addition to a high expectation of customer service, the permit review process is complex. The permit review process is delivered through three departments, is focused on no less than four core City services, and is delivered one permit at a time for unique project sites hundreds of times per year. Viewed from this perspective it's easy to see coordination and communication are fundamental to the success of any one redevelopment permit. With a framework for understanding the residential redevelopment permit process service delivery; this review now summarizes recent changes to the residential redevelopment permit process. Summary of Recent Changes This topic was last reviewed with the City Council on February 11, 2014. At that time drainage and erosion control, shoring, building heights and floor elevations, parking and general construction impacts were issues of primary concern. The summer construction season saw process or code changes to address each issue. • Shoring: New code section that allows building official to require shoring plan when foundation excavation is near a property line. • Parking: New code section that allows residential redevelopment coordinator to enforce parking. • Building Heights and Floor Elevations: Planning review during permit application and final, better coordination of elevations with building and engineering review. • Drainage: New engineering memo -format review, site inspection and enforcement. Erosion Control: New engineering memo -format review, site inspection and enforcement. The changes made this summer were implemented with some communication and technical hurdles but the results bring the permit review process, and resulting approved plans, much closer to the standard set out in ordinance. The next challenge will be to ensure, through active inspection and enforcement of these issues, that the level of implementation by builders results in outcomes that deliver on the core services. Stormwater policy has been a focus of the planning commission in recent years. A water resources specific policy chart is attached to help frame a conversation specific to water resources and the two relate core services. An August 27th workshop with the planning commission began this conversation. Process Improvements for Consideration Staff met to propose an initial list of perceived problems and associated process improvements for the next step in this multi -departmental effort to more effectively deliver core services to the public, while meeting a standard level of customer service to builders and neighboring homeowners. Attached you will find a chart that describes this effort. A revised checklist for residential applications, a digital plan review process and a new grading permit application and stormwater and erosion control guidance were rated high in a staff prioritization of next -steps. Council and Planning Commission input are sought on service level definitions, perceived problems and next -step process improvements. Much has changed in the last two years to better coordinate an interdepartmental permit review, inspection and enforcement process. Staff continues to react to perceived service problems and proactively improve our process to better the public good while meeting City of Edina customer service standards. Attachments: Service delivery chart Process improvement chart Water resources policy chart G:\PW\CENTRALSVCS\ENVIRONMENTDIV\SURFACE WATER\Residential Building Permit\141008 Residential Redevelopment Report PC.docx Attachment 1: Service Delivery Though Building Permit Review Lore Service Ancillary Services Example Public Safety Code/Process Additional Detail Fences, Cell Phone Towers, Garages, Dwellings, Handouts, Policy info, applications, contact, meetings, red line plans, Sound foundations and structures Apartments, High Rises, Retaining Walls Building code review soils checks, cold weather, wind loads, Fire safety Fire prevention, Fire Sprinklers, alarms Building code review Fire sprinkler and alarm review, Material Data info and product Zoning Code/Engineering Flood protection Set backs and elevations review FEMA Flood Maps, Local system models Boilers, Heating equipment, cooling equipment, Safe mechanicals stems plumbing Building code review Inspect and correct, Energy code and HVAC check Accessibility Access to public buildings ;Sanitation and Public Health Building code review Water proof roof, foundation drain tile, gutters, sumps, Watertight buildings flashing Building code review Inspect and correct Plumbing and fixtures Residential & commercial bathroom, kitchens Building code review Inspect and correct Functioning and durable utility connections Sanitary, domestic water, stormwater sump drain Engineering review Utility connection permit standards Drainage and stormwater Stormwater sump drain, stormwater catch basins Engineering review Stormwater management plans, grading permit Sediment and erosion control Silt fencing, ground stabilization Engineering review Erosion control plan, grading permit Redevelopment, major remodel, retaining walls >4', Engineering and Building Site grades, soil stability major landscaping, review Shoring plans, grading permit, building permit Orderly Standards for construction management City Code, State Building Code Planning review/Building Construction management plan Transportation Character and scale of neighborhood Setbacks, building height, sidewall length, etc. I Planning review Zoning code Functioning and durable sidewalk, trails, roadway and road connections Roads, Sidewalks, bike trails, curb, driveway aprons, Engineering review Driveway permit, pavement patching standards, utility permit Orderly flow oftraffic Signage and signals Planning/Police Parking enforcement Engineering and Building Accessibility Parking, driveway standards review Attachment 1: Service Delivery Though Building Permit Review Core Service Ancillary Services Example Perceived services vvithout clear link to core service Aesthetics Quality control Economic data ii data Ovate Improvements of normative behavior Survey data Permit reco House file House file Code/Process lAdditional Detail Provide data over the counter / Website Provide data over the counter Service not provided citations, Provided though enforcement of all code Records provided over the counter Records provided over the counter Residents expect: Peace of mind / neutral unbiased source of information Someone to listen Brand ambassador for City Mediation of private disputes, investigation or lawsuit support Service not provided Protection of private property rights (trespass) Advice on plans or choice of contractor Service not provided Clear communication of standards or proposed change of Builders expect: standards Guidance and assistance for negotiating new purchase decisions Quick permit issuance, prompt inspections Attachment 2: Problems and Process Improvements Problems identified in process and outcomes of permit review and enforcement Potential process improvements to address problems Application review time Increased 2.3 plans were lost In permit review Digital plan review project Survey requirements sometimes unclear or unnecessary New residential application checklist long welts at front counter If planning and building Issues need to be solved Annual meeting, better communication with builders and engineers, more practice with Multiple Iterations required with new englneering review memo format Final as•bullt and Issuance of CO can hold up sales, Temporary CO needed Coordination between architectural and civil Issues relating for elevations Is dlfflcult Standard plan sheet/ guidance No communication of grading permit standards New grading permit application er No clear checkllst(s) for nonstandard applications New residential application checklist Perceived unfair treatment for erosion control requirements compared to city projects Stormwater and erosion control guidance Temporary cover requirements are Inefficient and ordinance doesn't make sense Stormwater and erosion control guidance Remodel and addition have uneven enforcement to demolition redevelopment Stormwater and erosion control guidance, improved communication with watershed Watershed permit process can be uncoordinated and His projects near wetlands districts Owners Perceived gap between ordinance and enforcement Gap analysis house Better define service levels Stormwater and erosion control guidance Enforcement of noise or work hours Review policy of two different work hours. 1 New Homeowners Can Inherit Issue from builder relating to grading or landscaping New grading permit application, tracking method for stormwater management plans Prior promises for hardcover can limit landscaping Policy review, tracking method for stormwater management plans Access to rear yards Policy review Attachment 2: Problems and Process Improvements Problems identified in process and outcomes of permit review and enforcement Potential process improvements to address problems Tracking and sorting permit volume Is challenging Digital plan review project Intake process for new submittals In paper and PIMS Digital plan review project Phone and In person desk overloaded at times Digital plan review project Lack of space In the house files for permanent records Digital online records / Laserfische project Coordination between 3 departments of new processes lead to error Complex and varying standards for each site / nonstandard Is typical Legacy systems with filing based on PID number and not address Average 100 calls per day SAC/Surcharge reports, keystone reports, dodge report, all paper over the counter House file and survey available over the counter only must be In person for most. e-eermlts Is Limited time to Improve processes with workload / no one ultimately responsible Kaizen Event / Governance and incentive changes CO Is difficult to use as enforcement Policy review / consider single $5000 for demo that rolls to home, rather than two $2500 escrow Is not enough leverage and doesn't cover the costs of some Issues (driveways) $2500 with each permit Accounting system for escrow dollars needs work Historic grading permit enforcement was sporadic/majority still occurs unpermitted Enforcement of grading and landscaping is time consuming and low value Permit review record system cannot accommodate multiple Iterations of surveys or plans Digital plan review project, Digital online records / Laserfische project Pool permits and associated landscaping are not coordinated In permits Edina requirements are leading, means extra time to educate surveyors, builders, engineers Plans come In Incomplete, or iterations come In and are routed to wrong department Small amount of bullders/residents take an Inordinate amount of our time We have not communicated changes well Topography of neighboring properties needed to understand drainage Modified survey requirements and guidance No -parking signs stolen and misused oes not communicate with new enforcement software Attachment 3: Water resources policy exploration IN Ancillary Services the Safety Review Level Example Policy and Trends FEMA defined regional flood elevations are well studied but regulatory Regional FEMA flood regulations requires home minimum low elevations are slow to react to new scientific understanding. NOAA Atlas Flood protection floor elevations to be raised to protect structure. 14 risk model has redefined 1% probability,100 year event. Local Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CWRMP) flood elevations require low opening elevation to be Review of local drainage issues is newly added into the development Flood protection raised or grading changes. review process, and update of the grading permit process is needed. CWRMP model update and major amendment scheduled in 2016 will Stormwater system limitations require redevelopment in some enhance understanding and management of system. Detention and infiltration goals can sometimes be at odds with drainage, sanitation, Flood protection areas to mitigate flow using infiltration or detention of runoff. and sanitary infiltration goals. Public Health Demand good soils for well drained sites is a high priority for The high prevalence of irrigation systems and frequent small storm events during periods of wet weather cause nuisance drainage issues (soggy builders and homeowners but changes and improvements must soils, trouble mowing, rutting in laws) that lead to additional projects to Drainage be well planned to avoid causing downstream issues. landscape and grade soils and improve drainage. Zoning and land cover requirements can provide dual purpose, for Increase site imperviousness can cause increase runoff and the character of the neighborhood, and an upper limit on imperviousness and runoff. With a variety of exemptions to hard cover requirements in Drainage need for good drainage. ordinance the link to runoff limitation is severed. Clean water act requirements, and remediation plans for water bodies require pollutant load reductions for all water bodies. While treatment is Stormwater/Clean Increase site imperviousness can cause increase runoff and installed with city street projects and commercial redevelopment to retrofit old infrastructure, the overall trend is mixed in residential Water increase pollutant transport to natural water bodies. neighborhoods. Infiltration and inflow(1/1 of surface waters into the sanitary sewer Sanitary 1/1 is much reduced with new utilities and new home foundations. Sanitary Inflow and system causes expensive treatment and conveyance of otherwise Cross connections are illegal but hard to discover. Disconnection of inflow Infiltration clean water. sources can cause long suppressed groundwater issues to reemerge. Erosion of exposed soils and resulting sediment get into public New permit review process is significant increase in this service level. Sediment and erosion system and waters and can cause back ups and water quality More changes to construction erosion and sediment controls may be control degradation. required as part of statewide clean water act permits. MEMO Date: October 8, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration — Ordinance Clean up per the 2014 Work Plan — Front Street Setback, One -Foot Rule for a Tear Down/Rebuild, Lighting, and minimum square footage multi -family housing. The city attorney is recommending that the Zoning Ordinance regulations regarding front yard setback and the one -foot rule be revised. Staff is recommending additional ordinance amendments per the Planning Commission's 2014 Work Plan. That would include the lighting ordinance, and the elimination of the minimum and maximum unit size for multi- family housing as previously discussed. The Planning Commission has discussed eliminating the CUP requirement for the one foot rule, and requiring a variance instead; therefore, staff has added that to the Ordinance. The CUP requirement was added to the Ordinance, at a time when variances were not possible. Staff would recommend that the conditions required for a CUP would remain in effect, and they would now be required as part of the variance. In regard to the front setback and one -foot rule, the attached Ordinance Amendment in regard to has been written to meet the intent of the original language, which was as follows: Front Setback — Required front street setback was to average the front street setback of the homes on either side. The existing ordinance does not account for a side street setback or an abutting lot with a front street setback that faces a different street. One -Foot Rule for Tear Down/Rebuild — The intent of this ordinance is that the first level of the new home was to match or be no taller than one foot above the pedestrian entry of the existing split level. The ordinance did not define front entry. A garage could be considered a front entry. Additionally, it did not account for multiple entries for a new home. The Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, and recommend an Ordinance Amendment on these issues to the City Council. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 20.4-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS & FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION REGULATIONS FOR TEAR DOWN REBUILDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 36-439 of the Edina City Code. Special Requirements are amended as follows: Sec. 36-439. Special requirements (1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. Established front street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead-end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot that has a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot on the same street. If an abutting lot is a corner lot with a side street setback; that lot is not considered an abutting lot when establishing front street setback. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot that both have a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. If an abutting lot is a corner lot with a side street setback: that lot is not considered an abutting lot when establishing front street setback. 3. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. b. Side street setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. C. Interior side yard setback. The required interior side yard setback shall be increased by six inches for each foot the building height exceeds 15 feet. For purposes of this subsection, building height shall be the height of that Existing text — XXXX Stricken text— XXXX Added text —XXXX side of the building adjoining the side lot line and shall be measured from the average proposed elevation of the ground along and on the side of the building adjoining the side lot line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a Mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch -type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof, or to the top of a cornice of a hip roof. d. Rear yard setback, interior lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then, for setback purposes, the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. e. Rear yard setback, corner lots required to maintain two front street setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. f. Through lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. Section 2. Subsection 36-439 of the Edina City Code. Special Requirements are amended as follows: Sec. 36-439. Special requirements (7) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the first floor elevation of the dwelling unit being torn down is deemed to be the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrance to Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — X Added text —XXXX the garage and entrances that do not face a street. the new fiFS+ fl^„r OF ,. + level eleya+inn Fna of be m e than one feett+ entFy ti of �� fabove h F � - the home that was torn dewn. (8) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a Variance per Sec. 36-69. Division 3. Such additions to, or replacements of, single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three conditions listed in subsection (8)a of this section, and always meet condition four listed in subsection (8)b of this section. a. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the city's comprehensive water resource management plan; or the first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing and potential groundwater elevations shall be determined -in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by professional civil engineer licensed under Minn. Stats. ch. 326, or a hydrologist certified by the American Institute of Hydrology. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow thorough review and approval; or the first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet the state building code, this Code or other statutory requirements; and b. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. Section 3. Subsection 36-434, Conditional Uses is amended as follows: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX .. ROOM -9 - 1 1110 Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Logis Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/logismap/ 8/21/2014 Planning Commission 2015 Annual Work Plan 2015 New Initiative Target Budget Required Staff Support Council Approval Completion Required Date A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (See On-going No additional Yes, staff support is Council approval is required attached Zoning Ordinance Work Plan budget requested required for each Zoning Ordinance Tracker.)The Planning Commission would at this time amendment like to complete the following from the list in 2014: 1. Grading & Drainage — work with 2015 50 Hours + Engineering engineering to establish clear regulations Department 2. Parking regulations/Proof-of-parking 2015 30 Hours 3. Lighting Ordinance 2015 30 hours B. Policy Recommendations 1. Tree Ordinance/Landscaping On-going No additional Yes, staff support is Council approval is required 2. Density in Southdale area budget requested required 3. Living Streets — Bringing buildings up to at this time the street & connecting to the street. 4. Mid Term Comp. Plan Consideration 5. Sustainability enforcement/PUD/Ped. friendly/affordable housing 6. Monitoring Residential Redevelopment standards & ordinance C. Commission Liaison 1. Connectivity — Living Streets 2. France Avenue Corridor Planning 3. Grandview D. Small Area Plan - Conduct a Small Area 2015-16 $25,000-$75,000 Yes, staff support is Council approval is required Plan for the Cahill and 70th Commercial depending on the required area as defined in the Comprehensive scope of work to be done by a Plan. consultant. (TIF funds) E. Small Area Plan — Complete the Small 2015 $40,000 (TIF Yes, staff support is Council approval is required Area Plan for the Wooddale and Valley funds) required View Commercial area. Progress Report: The Planning Commission is responsible to review all Land Use applications submitted to the City of Edina. Land Use applications include: Variances; Site Plan Review; Sketch Plan Review; Conditional Use Permits; Subdivision; Lot Line Adjustments; Rezoning; and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. To accomplish this responsibility the Planning Commission meets twice per month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month. The Planning Commission typically reviews 3-4 of the above requests each agenda. Proposed Month for Joint Work Session: Staff Comments: We anticipate 2015 as another very busy year for development. We will try to accomplish as much as we can outside of our usual "ongoing responsibilities." Council Comments: NAME TERM J IF IM A M J J A S O ID I Work Session Work Session # of Mtgs. Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions Rescheduled Meeting* 111 Type "1" under the month for each attending member. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Madison Seeley Student 1 1 2 100% Forrest, Arlene 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 95% Olsen, Jo Ann 2/1/2017 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 12 1 80% Platteter, Michael 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 84% Potts, Ken 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 111 1 7 37% Lee, Susan 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 80% Scherer, Nancy Nyrop 2/1/20151 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 13 68% Schroeder, Michael 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 13 68% Staunton, Kevin 2/1/2015 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 16 84% Carr, Claudia Halva, Taylor 2/1/2016 Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 15 84% 79% Kilberg, Benjamin 9/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 63% Hobbs, Steve 1 1 1 1 3 100% A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 759 of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the planning commission. Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is . 'Me CI'. Y of F-JIJ INA Timecards Benefits & Wellness lmkim _ .+ a • Keep up to date, share ideas and make Edina a great place to work. Welcom Calendar Gallery Directory IQS Policies Safety Thursday, September 18, 2014 Sept. 16 City Council Meeting Summary Administration Department The Council began its evening with a work session. The first half of the work session was devoted to a discussion among Council Members about the Sept. 2 consulting team interviews for the Grandview District redevelopment. The Council reached a consensus to select a consulting team led by Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Development Group. The second half of the work session was a joint meeting with the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB). The Council and HPB reviewed the HPB's progress on its 2014 Work Plan and proposed 2015 Work Plan. Following the work session, the City Council met in regular session and made the following decisions: • Approved a new website links policy. • Awarded a contract to remodel Edina Liquor -- 50th & France. The store will close Sept. 22 for approximately a month. • Awarded a contract to Richard Mandell Golf Architecture to prepare a new Master Pian for Braemar Golf Course. • Approved cooperative sidewalk agreements with Hennepin County for new sidewalk projects on Vernon and York avenues. • Adopted amendments to the City's taxicab ordinance to allow new ride -sharing and car - sharing services to operate in Edina. • Approved the preliminary tax levy and budget for 2015 and set the date of Dec. 2 for a public hearing on the proposed 2015 City Budget. • Approved the submission of a grant application to Hennepin County seeking grant funds to study the feasibility of the "Edina Lid" project. • Approved an amendment to a communications tower site lease with Edina Public Schools. • Conducted a public hearing and then approved the vacation of public right-of-way at 7151 York Ave. to enable the Yorktown Continental Project to proceed. • Approved the selection of Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group and its team consisting of Opus, DJR Architecture, Reynolds Urban Design and Confluence to be the City development partner for the redevelopment of the former Public Works site at 5146 Eden Ave. FEATURED VIDEO » Approved a development agreement contract with City Homes for the Acres DuBois Development. The Council approved a number of important matters on last night's agenda. Perhaps the one that most directly impacts everyone who works for the City is the proposed 2015 City Budget. The staffs proposed budget includes a proposed property tax increase of 8.4 percent. Compared to previous years, that is a relatively large annual percentage increase. Half of that proposed increase is for new debt service payments associated with the sports dome/outdoor ice rink/Pamela Park improvement projects. About 30 percent is for increased equipment expenditures in 2015. About 20 percent is for normal increasing in operating costs from one year to the next. While the Council Members are, justifiably, a little nervous about the magnitude of the annual percentage rate increase for 2015, the proposal was approved on a 4-1 vote. Between now and the budget public hearing, we will continue to study and refine the budget proposal. Given the Council's goals and work plans, I do not expect to make major changes to the proposed budget. If something happens to change that expectation, I will share the proposed changes with employees at that time. Return to list. UPCOMING BIRTHDAYS HOT LINKS October 03 City Slick Andrew Buy It, sell It Engineering Department Field Updates November 11 Gallery Jesse Important Documents Communications & Technology Videos Services Department Work Plan January 27 Board & Commission Luther Toolbox Public Works Department O 2014 City Of Edina, Minnesota