Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-09 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 9, 2014 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER I1. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission June 25, 2014 continued to July 23, 2014 Agenda. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During 'Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue In the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan. Mount Properties; 6500 France — Continue to July 23, 2014. B. Variance. Whiteman. 3932/34 West 49th Street, Edina, MN C. Site Plan Review with Variances. Mesaba Capital Partners; 7151 York Avenue D. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Variances, Frauenshuh; 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard — Continue to July 23, 2014. VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Appointment of the Planning Team for Wooddale/Valley View B. Conflict of Interest/Bylaws VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Attendance &Council Update IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927- 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission July 23, 2014 MEMO Date: July 9, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: 3932-34 49" Street West - Variance On June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the variance request to build a new duplex at 3932-34 49" Street West, for the applicant to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. (See attached minutes.) The applicant has submitted the following in response: ➢ Grading, drainage and stormwater management plan done by a licensed professional engineer. The new Plan was submitted at the time the staff reports were sent out. Therefore, no City Engineer review is part of this packet. The week of the meeting, the City Engineer will review the proposed plans, and provide a memo for the Planning Commission to consider. ➢ Colored renderings of the proposed structure ➢ Driveway strips with brick pavers. (See color site plan) ➢ Previous structure is highlighted for comparison. ➢ Added side wall articulation to break up the mass. ➢ Worked with the neighbors to the east; and agreed to provide landscaping for them along the northeast lot line. ➢ Replanting of trees. The city engineer reviewed the initial plans done by the surveyor and provided comments in the attached memo. Again, this memo will be updated for the July 9th meeting. Staff recommended approval of the project on June I I th. The original staff report is included in the attachments. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 LEGEND © . .. . CAS METER 0 . . . . IRON MONUMENT FOUND O . . . . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET } 9ry?0. . EXIS NG ELEVATION (9220).. . PROPOSED ELEVATION ®CS. ... CURB STOP O .... MANHOLE ® .... CATCH BASIN �f . ... POWERPOLE ... .DECIDUOUS TREE .... CONIFEROUS TREE ... . PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES TREE PRESERVATION FENCE DENOTES SILT FENCE LEGAL 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. Surveyor PTS Land Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Foriboult, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 Fax: 507-334-9472 www.ptsland.com ELEVATIONS: EXISTING: MAIN FLOOR = 892.25 GARAGE FLOOR = 883.70 PROPOSED: MAIN FLOOR = 892.40 TOP OF BLOCK = 892.01 BASEMENT FLOOR = 882.63 SET BACK REQUIREMENTS• 31.51' FRONT BUILDING TO ROW (AVE.) 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP LINE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP LINE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substantial snow fall The surveyor makes no guarantee that all visible improvements are shown. AREAS: LOT = 10,108 SO. FT. BUILDING = 2,655.61 SQ. FT. INCLUDES 2 DECKS 084.15 SQUARE FEET EACH. BUILDING — DECKS=2,487.31 SO. FT. % HARDCOVER = 24.6% JV ICY LOT 2, BLOCS 1, �1VOC�I SIY�11'l �11>I�ITIO/V 3932-393 49TfI T IY�'LST, Z1�IN�1,N 32.00 I ` EXISTING TWIN HOME o* m I 1 890.20+/ I—] o U) o L>>LJ 1 C) Fn 1 Ld LLJ Cn N ROM EROSION CONTROL NOTES• 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR 1. SILT FENCE AND BIO—LOGS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS. SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION & EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, 2• BIO—LOGS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLAN, AT ROCK IF ANY. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND DOWN FLOW SIDE OF ROCK 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FLOW LINE OF CURB AND GUTTER. 32.0+31.01)/2 = 31.51 FEET WINLET PROTECTION SHALLL BE PLACED AT ANY STORM DRAINS LOCATED 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK= I ( WITHIN 100 FEET OF DOWNSTREAM OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CLEANED AND MAINTAINED REGULARLY. Desi PHEo 3932 -393449TH STREET WEST aUWH PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. l� HECKED COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ENOCH SWARD AC oe EDINA. AN 1 S 1 LEGEND CI ... . GAS METER *. . . . IRON MONUMENT FOUND O .. . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET ExInNC ELEVATION (922.0)... PROPOSED ELEVATION ®CS... . CURB STOP O.... MANHOLE ® ... . CATCH BASIN pJ .... POWERPOLE ��1V� ... . DECIDUDUs TREE yam.. . . CONIFEROUS TREE CA.... RUSH PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES TREE PRESERVATION FENCE _v_v—w— DENOTES SILT FENCE I_ AC IF pF__i_ C�IPTION; Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, according to plat thereof, on Elie and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. Surveyor PTS Land Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Foriboult, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 Fax: 507-334-9472 www.ptsiond.com ELEVATIONS: EXISTING: MAIN FLOOR - 892.2 PROPOSED: MAIN FLOOR - 692.00 TOP OF BLOCK - 891.60 BASEMENT FLOOR - 882.23 SET BACK REQUIREMENTS: 31.51' FRONT BUILDING TO ROW (AVE.) 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP UNE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP UNE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substantial snow fall. The surveyor makes no guarantee that all visible improvements are shown. AREAS: LOT = 10,108 SO. FT. BUILDING - 2,655.61 SQ. FT. INCLUDES 2 DECKS 684.15 SQUARE FEET EACH. BUILDING - DECKS -2,487.31 SO. FT. Z HARDCOVER = 24.6% C�1PTl�IC�'A' OF ,S'Ilh'l�.g'Y LOT ,2, BLOCI.f >, ZVaCh' LSIY�4RIJ �lI�lITlON 3932-3934 '01gThT SS "RZ TY�'S �I�IN�1, /LAN 32.00 I ` --------------- EXISTING TWIN HOME e rya RETAININ D TW=890.92 0 MAXIMUM ,l1EIGHT 4 FFT OR MATCH EX. II II 0 c o 123.100sa' 0y �0� wooD FENCEm e9°N00'19 53"W � �a° o ^1. 0 O N X 0 0 o NI BW=886.92-�— I, O rro NX ^I 10_SETBACK h1' 14.DR o)3.OR 8c N �0 R I m 1.57. I nI ° 0�V 9Y'B£ v I ^I BIO. OG -a y 1.5% Nx 10' SETBACK — X 9.2%� (888.20) 0�0 S00+19'S5w3+ W00 FENCE -- C EXISTING �,° 3101123,43 TWIN HOME e NOTE: I 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION k EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, IF ANY. 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK -(32.0+31.01)/2 - 31.51 FEET SI �I 887.20+/- 1 ._ EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SILT FENCE AND BIO -LOGS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS. 2. BIO -LOGS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLAN, AT ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND DOWN FLOW SIDE OF ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IN FLOW UNE OF CURB AND GUTTER. 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED AT STORM DRAINS LOCATED WEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CLEANED AND MAINTAINED REGULARLY. I s-ze-u TSP aTV CalYEN14 a rs Iuee.seo u,s e.as osues,ye uw PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. 3932 -393449TH STREET WEST se` 2 s-zu-i+ Tsr AVEaAcc sEreAas r,. s..,e o. n..ew.. ADDITION COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ENOCH SWARD ADD EDINA MN L titi 90'Z£ � °--- T-- g19. 9 X00°_0j._-� Uz o� N M p W 0 N (A O00 o C f_ X N I 3�ryy I �' w •CONCRETE 0^A0 m O Z I r -a y 1.5% Nx 10' SETBACK — X 9.2%� (888.20) 0�0 S00+19'S5w3+ W00 FENCE -- C EXISTING �,° 3101123,43 TWIN HOME e NOTE: I 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION k EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, IF ANY. 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK -(32.0+31.01)/2 - 31.51 FEET SI �I 887.20+/- 1 ._ EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SILT FENCE AND BIO -LOGS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS. 2. BIO -LOGS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLAN, AT ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND DOWN FLOW SIDE OF ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IN FLOW UNE OF CURB AND GUTTER. 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED AT STORM DRAINS LOCATED WEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CLEANED AND MAINTAINED REGULARLY. I s-ze-u TSP aTV CalYEN14 a rs Iuee.seo u,s e.as osues,ye uw PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. 3932 -393449TH STREET WEST se` 2 s-zu-i+ Tsr AVEaAcc sEreAas r,. s..,e o. n..ew.. ADDITION COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ENOCH SWARD ADD EDINA MN L k,;+ m lll1`11111fill) I fill flll;`,1/l�,�lf�llll!?fill?? /lllllll llllllllll l LEGEND © .... GAS METER .... IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 . ... IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET g4\P... EXISTING ELEVATION (8220)... PROPOSED ELEVATION ®CS.... CURB STOP O .... MANHOLE 0 .... CATCH BASIN Rf .... POWERPOLE .� .. .. DECIDUOUS TREE * ... CONIFEROUS TREE .... BUSH . . . PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES TREE PRESERVATION FENCE —m—w—v— DENOTES SILT FENCE LEGAL 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. PTS Lad Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Foribault, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 Fax: 507-334-9472 www.ptsland.com PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: TOP OF BLOCK = XX BASEMENT FLOOR XX DETACHED GARAGE = XX SET BACK REOUIREMENTS: 30' FRONT BUILDING TO ROW 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP LINE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP LINE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substantial snow fall. The surveyor makes no guarantee that all visible Improvements are shown. C�RTIFIC�TF OF�.rZSrINC CDN1>ITION,S'' LOT 2, BLOCfr >, �NOCfI LS'Iy�1W �1I�1�ITJ V 3e932-3e935�1 _,5ZgZF AST ZZ7 77 #Zr 7 'T, Z.�I1V�1, II1V � `♦ i 1 EXISTING' _ NIM WOMB` ` a W0001 FENCE > ♦♦♦♦�°,�1�QQe1,9 eJr,� a EXISTING �� e TWIN HOME e 123.43 _ I I I I b� I I I "— II II II I I I I I I _ `II h 0 ° M.D,R,D:E..�,D� �o,�..,a .a ,D« eooa a oa��oeaEUWe ,s. PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. o zD r,Nes...e o.�wxesora 3932-3934 49TH STREET WEST D DMWN +�. LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ENOCH SWARD ADDITION a 5CA® CHECKED COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES TvI EDINA. MN 1 O W ,n N) + Do z 0 F _ Cy DO (n w X Z tO C7 W � LL EXISTING �� e TWIN HOME e 123.43 _ I I I I b� I I I "— II II II I I I I I I _ `II h 0 ° M.D,R,D:E..�,D� �o,�..,a .a ,D« eooa a oa��oeaEUWe ,s. PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. o zD r,Nes...e o.�wxesora 3932-3934 49TH STREET WEST D DMWN +�. LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ENOCH SWARD ADDITION a 5CA® CHECKED COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES TvI EDINA. MN 1 LEGEND H;f .... GAS METER ... . IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 ... . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET + W."'... EXISTING ELEVATION (922.0)... PROPOSED ELEVATION ®OS.... CURB STOP 0 .... MANHOLE . ... CATCH BASIN �( .... POWERPOLE .... DECIDUOUS TREE .... CONIFEROUS TREE .... BUSH .... PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL DENOTES TREE PRESERVATION FENCE DENOTES SILT FENCE LEGAL 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. �urPTTSLL nd Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Faribault, MN 55021 Phone: 507-291-1137 Fax: 507-334-9472 www.ptsland.com ELEVATIONS: EXISTING: MAIN FLOOR = 892.25 GARAGE FLOOR = 883.70 PROPOSED: MAIN FLOOR = 892.40 TOP OF BLOCK = 892.01 BASEMENT FLOOR = 882.63 SET BACK REQUIREMENTS: 31.51' FRONT BUILDING TO ROW (AVE.) 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP LINE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP LINE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substantial snow fall. The surveyor makes n0 guarantee that all visible improvements are shown. AREAS: LOT = 10,108 SQ. FT. BUILDING = 2,655.61 SQ. FT. INCLUDES 2 DECKS ®84.15 SQUARE FEET EACH. BUILDING - DECKS=2,487.31 SQ. FT. % HARDCOVER = 24.6% Gf lJING "DZj?0SlON C01VTf�Ol PI,�1V L07' 2, BLOCII� 1, ZNOCfI�II�lITI0 3932-393 �97ll LS'TBZZ7' #Z ST, �'II�I1V�4, d1N I EXISTIING( _ TWIN WOMB`. Off`` `� T1��890.6 II RETAINING WALL AS AEBMD i OR MATCH EO'Y19 II �`a o I l2.3 %Q MAXIMUM\HEIGHT 8� FE* �' l WOODI FENCE 9°�m ' ,^ einn•ee�a4Nu� I! X z o I I x I _ I I I � a I. I v, U 1 I O I M I N 3.0% i u a Ld Li: O a 0 -17 L voi, t c m " GO z n m I I y, m I I c7 O Z �` n. aLLI �I I I 887.20+_/_ I ---" i A 0 0 o2 H N O 1 TORS PROPERTY - Illi lw� 2I is Z n .�% NX �7 10' ETBAC f- X S00.19 55 E —IJ rtNUt ADD CURB TO KEEP WATER XISTM FROM NEIGHBORS PROPERTY TWIN HOME 3.0% NOTE: 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION & EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, IF ANY. 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK=(32.0+31.01)/2 = 31.51 FEET. 4. UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE NOT SHOWN AT THIS TIME, SURVEYOR WILL OBTAIN ASBUILT INFORMATION FROM CITY AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY. ._...._. _...- _. -.... _ AVERAGE SE 1 HEHFBY TMM'D TIAT I•µA WLY �CF119EU PRaFF5L0�,�a�. W BT ME OF UHOFA MY SNEEf 2a -u TSP cm coMMEnrs mRTM s`'ENLWFEIt uxom mE uxs 3932-3934 49TH STREET WEST 2 .`"i-29-74 TSP AVERAGE SETBACKS G 20 OF E rAiE � MINxEmrA DRAWN PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. 1 -30-14 TSP CI COMMENTS ® GSL-- ^ s LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION of �r SCALE FEET ��'� CHECKED COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES I- „,„, :HAw a�oLo��H -' ,K,<. �.., :oe EDINA, MN 1 i UZ I ✓ / � I III I I I I I 887.20+_/_ I ---" i A 0 0 o2 1\ I 31.01 22 KEEP'REN44 � O TORS PROPERTY - m I I NOTE: 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION & EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, IF ANY. 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK=(32.0+31.01)/2 = 31.51 FEET. 4. UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE NOT SHOWN AT THIS TIME, SURVEYOR WILL OBTAIN ASBUILT INFORMATION FROM CITY AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY. ._...._. _...- _. -.... _ AVERAGE SE 1 HEHFBY TMM'D TIAT I•µA WLY �CF119EU PRaFF5L0�,�a�. W BT ME OF UHOFA MY SNEEf 2a -u TSP cm coMMEnrs mRTM s`'ENLWFEIt uxom mE uxs 3932-3934 49TH STREET WEST 2 .`"i-29-74 TSP AVERAGE SETBACKS G 20 OF E rAiE � MINxEmrA DRAWN PTS LAND SERVICES, INC. 1 -30-14 TSP CI COMMENTS ® GSL-- ^ s LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION of �r SCALE FEET ��'� CHECKED COMPLETE LAND SURVEYING SERVICES I- „,„, :HAw a�oLo��H -' ,K,<. �.., :oe EDINA, MN 1 proposed to the maximum size of the lot in question. Given the changes they've made to their proposal, we're much 'friendlier' to the project. They seem very willing to work with the City, and have certainly made time to talk the project through with us. We see no reason to stomp our feet at the present time. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:17 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: Planning Commission and re -build project Hi Jackie, Do I send this on to all Planning Commission members and or Cary and also maybe Cindy Larson? Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952-826-0389 Ibiunno@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Stromberg imailto:is8778 gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:50 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: RE: Planning Commission and re -build project TO: Planning Commission members FM: Jim Stromberg/Linda Caddy 3930 West 49th St. RE: Tear -down and rebuild at 3932/3934 West 49th St. The purpose of this email is to pass on to you additional information that we have received from the developer (Paul Whiteman) concerning the project. Linda and I met with Paul and his business partner this afternoon (6/24). They have tweaked the project, and wanted to meet with us to review the changes that they plan on bringing to you as they seek variances. We realize that the developers are trying to maximize the earnings that they can receive from this project, and they explained again to us that they believe that the 'twin -home' concept is their best option for doing that. We can certainly empathize with that. These are what we believe to be improvements to their proposal: 1. The two driveways would remain separate drives on both sides of the building, but they propose pavers (permeable surface) down the middle of each of them. They also propose to make the back patio a `paver' patio, instead of their earlier idea of a stamped concrete version (solid surface). This helps both the runoff and the appearance issues. 2. They have also changed the side of the building, providing a sort of 'bump-out'that will take the long flat expanse of wall and provide some'break' in the wall surface. 3. Tree loss. While the large tree in front will have to go, they propose replacing it with a large 3-6" diameter tree. The tree loss in the back yard is also substantial, but the developers are willing to work with us to also replace plantings for shade and privacy - even willing to plant a few trees on our property, since the retaining wall and drive surface will take up most of that rear area where trees now exist, While not perfect (what is?), we believe the developers are trying to build the property to the best that they can deliver given the circumstances of the lot size. It remains a large building, but even a single-family building would probably be Erosion Control Supplemental Information r - Final Stabilization will be provided with (seed, sod, etc):.+;� and 6 inches of topsoil will be added/replaced prior to final stabilization. Concrete Washout: Location of concrete washout Off site _ Indicated on site plans _ Other (description): _ No concrete washout: Vegetation: Protective fencing will be installed as necessary so as to exclude all fill and equipment from the drip line or critical root zone, whichever is greater, of all vegetation to be retained. .'Yes _ Not Applicable _Other (description): Inspections: An erosion control inspection plan is required for all projects disturbing'/4 acre or greater. The inspection requirements are as follows: 1) The individual identified as being responsible for implementing the erosion control plan must routinely inspect the construction site once every seven days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. 2) All inspections and maintenance conducted during construction must be recorded in writing and these records must be retained with the erosion control plan and made available at the District's request within 24 hours. Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include: i. Date and time of inspections; ii. Name ofperson conducting inspections; iii. Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions; iv. Corrective actions taken (including dates, times and party completing maintenance activities); and v. Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Provide the following information for the priunary individual responsible for implementing the erosion control plan: Name Organization Phone' ' ' t2 , Alternate Phone/s sr: ! %' Email I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the MCWD Erosion Control Rule and that the proposed activity will be conducted in compliance with this rule. J r : L� 'Js? -/'Z Signapplcanor Authorized Agent Date ,� prrr�t �ortnx. WATER RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Use this form to notify/apply to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) of a proposed project or work which may fall within their jurisdiction. Fill out this form completely and submit with your site plan, maps, etc. to the MCWD at: 15320 Minnetonka Blvd_ Minnetonka, MN 55345. Keep a copy for your records. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. 1. Name of each property owner: Alex Gese LJG investments LLC Mailing Address: 3617 Kipling Ave City: St. Louis Park State: MN Zip: 55416 Email Address: alex9liginvestments.com Phone: 347-645-7391 Fax: 2. Property Owner Representative Information (not required) (licensed contractor, architect, engineer, etc...} Business Name: PDW investments LLC Representative Name: Paul Whiteman Business Address: 8722 Egan Dr. Ci'' State: Savage MN Zip: 55378 Email Address: vv iteman p@gmail.com Phone: 6.12-501-5224 Fax:- 3 ax: 3. Project Address: 3932-3934 W 49th St. City: Edina State: MN Zip: 55424 Qtr Section(s): Section(s): Township(s): Range(s): Lot: 2 Block: 1 Subdivision: Enoch Sward Addition PID: 1802824140042 4. Size of project parcel (square feet or acres): 10108 Area of disturbance (square feet): 7600 Volume of excavation/fill (cubic yards):45 Area of existing impervious surface: 7000 Area of proposed impervious surface: 7600 Length of shoreline affected (feet): 0 Waterbody (& bay if applicable): N/A 5. Type of permit being applied for (Check all that apply): E EROSION CONTROL ❑ WATERBODY CROSSINGS/STRUCTURES ❑ FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION ❑ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ❑ WETLAND PROTECTION ❑ APPROPRIATIONS ❑ DREDGING ❑ ILLICIT DISCHARGE ❑ SHORELINE/STREAMBANK STABILIZATION 6. Project purpose (Check all that apply): ❑ SINGLE FAMILY HOME 0 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (apartments) ❑ ROAD CONSTRUCTION ❑ COMMERCIAL or INSTITUTIONAL ❑ UTILITIES ❑ SUBDIVISIONS (include number of lots) ❑ DREDGING ❑ LANDSCAPING (pools, berms, etc.) ❑ SHORELINE/STREAMBANK STABILIZATION ❑ OTHER (DESCRIBE): 7. NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit Number (if applicable): 8. Waterbody receiving runoff from site: 9. Project Timeline: Start Date: 7-1-2014 Completion Date: 11-1-2014 Permits have been applied for: City 0 County MN Pollution Control Agency El DNR 0 COE Permits have been received: City — County MN Pollution Control Agency DNR COE By signing below, I hereby request a permit to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with MCWD Rules and that the proposed activity will be conducted incompliance with these Rules. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all information is true, complete and accurate. I understand that proceeding with work before all required authorizations are obtained may be subject to federal, state and/or local administM&z,4 44nd/or criminal penalties. Signatu,,, or ha�A rop� er Date Reviied 71�. I., Pkize I of I k. Provide inlet protection for all storm sewer inlets downstream of the site within one block or as directed by the City. I. Provide sediment control precautions, including downstream perimeter sediment barrier. 12. Meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 6. The subject site front yard drains to 49t1 Street and is part of subwatershed MHN 71. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. The downstream system also includes a landlocked (runoff volume sensitive) basin prone to flooding. 7. The subject site rear and side yards drains to subwatershed MHN -1 I. This drainage path is through private property to the north to a separate landlocked wetland prone to flooding. 8. 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 9. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 10, article 4 - Demolition Permits And Building Permits For Single And Two Family Dwelling Units (Sec. 10- 110), states: For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden stormwater runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 10. A storm water management plan signed by a Professional Engineer is required: a. Mitigation of additional volume to MHS 71. b. No increase in peak rate or volume to private properties on rear lot. c. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards, if applicable. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 11. A grading and erosion control plan signed by a Professional Engineer is required. d. Provide erosion and sediment control precautions described under Edina City Code Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345). e. Identify on the plan the individual responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. f. Describe stockpile locations. g. Describe site access and precautions against undue soil compaction. h. Include provisions for temporary erosion control. i. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used in the case of temporary pumped discharge. j. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used for concrete washout, and hazardous waste storage and handling. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 DATE: June 25, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner —City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 3932 -3449th Street West — Special Review of Variance 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 attached documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Planning Concerns 1. While the building impervious coverage is calculated at only 24.6%, providing rear loading garage with driveways on both property lines causes site to be excessively impervious. Stormwater system limitations and downstream landlocked basins would be better served by a single rear access driveway, or a front loaded garage. General 2. A separate permit maybe required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: www minnehahacreek.org/ 3. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the building permit application packet. Street and Curb Cut 4. If application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http //edinamn gov/edinafiiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutAaplication.odf Sanitary and Water Utilities 5. Show utility connections. Storm Water Utility ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 t N, co GEOSE-G S -ND �R���a E���a o � ARCHITECTURE 205611, A— 8E S01 iAb--, ns iesz 224 N Phill Ps Ave 206 x r 1 r7 ( iz �, }. f r (f r h ! ! Ph— 6G9 SOa 99s9 f i^r �, '� P t! 1 }} f n j y.r I{ r 1 L u ourro �a�°Purs rRowocoPPER i ,r .rrrr ti - r j d S i -' 4 " ' oov4+ wwa robwr<nCom coPPm Gurrws I }L-k� f }qtr .a- ._ f I c— R ri .PP :1 Ei }m�1 +L,1.fti a Phi l bf +u frl x' t7 v4 fr uy�[yDtl r211171 l 15 J -p rr F Ctrl t r LN f f' - I f f w r1r i Y, ),'of.if I arrJ rLf rr'4r ('4 °y'ji 'tlAfif r -11 i r r. rit}rjr 4 �Gt 7 '�711fn �� r r f G M =ter SENT coNr. sovRrvENr f { ! -� 1 } CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 6r}!, j f _ 1 I r f f I _ 3 Ifri 1 r t 1r If a "1 L ❑'-S _fLJ } r' IJ ,rf h S i a I i e sFf f 1 r.! -r i f Ir �ri IV10 a 1 s r f fY 4 I ti t � E: q_ y L } f oa3nDu (fiy1 {ur r ik,REVISION SCHEDULE: w t (H 't i , i !{ {-t }:z r li sa i 4J�- I G: ❑ 1 � ,: i f i! I -_' I 1 1 1 �: . oesrnimoN oarE 41 k'till, l+ i41IEIt{ Ia .r } i'. m eoRvsor,s 1 f 1 -. % - 1 r d .r r r' f - w co R�fmNe ae as L �r1 cowl spoors ' c{ i f P 1 7 t r �f .{��s rr 1 4 t b �. I L �-. TTFOU Paan s RouNocoRRER PROJECT. i i r a f _ 9932-3934 WEST 49TH STREET 3TREET �, ••.r::;�I ,1 t } ,� E � i,, EOINA, MINNESOTA COPPER GUrtFAG SHEET TITLE oPPmRaN awn oo +�wrs COPPER -N ROOF PLAN IN 44) A3-1 ROOF PLAN s UPPER LEVEL CO O� ARCHITECTURE 205 6th Ave. SE 801 Ahe�tleen,SD 57401 Phone: 605-]254852 224 N. Phillipe Ave. 208 Sioux 111,SD57104 Phone: S05-354-9999 vN -lpa rcI,L m CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: REVISION SCHEDULE: ET'll DATE 9 9C£NFIL ARTICI&FTION &3514 PROJECT: 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA SHFE�y UPPER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-2 mo ome9 A Pmoo oo -'a z°hi m = n o ?7 o o y F^ d a H MM O rS c10 Mw O M �' u UPPER LEVEL FLOOR co op ARCHITECTURE 205 61h Aw. SE 301 Aberdeen, ED 57401 Phone: 605-]254852 224 N. Phillipe Ave. 208 Si— Fells, SD 57104 Phone: 605-334-9999 _—p—h.— CO-OP ,wi.c rop—h.—CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: Oa 2314 REVISION SCHEDULE: PROJECT' 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -2 D ti �IO u c v 5a� a H Q g� 3 � w N J eta w N LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CO Op ARCHITECTURE 205 8th Aw. SE 301 Abell — SO 57401 Phone: 605-725-4852 224 N Phillip, Ave 208 S—Faft, SO 57194 Phone 605-3349999 - -c'-CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE' REVISION SCHEDULE a sP— WumcvuN —.14 PROJECT: 3932.3934 TWINHOME WEB] 49TH STREET EOINA, MINNESOTA —1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -0 Mill I O� - e� i N LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CO Op ARCHITECTURE 205 8th Aw. SE 301 Abell — SO 57401 Phone: 605-725-4852 224 N Phillip, Ave 208 S—Faft, SO 57194 Phone 605-3349999 - -c'-CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE' REVISION SCHEDULE a sP— WumcvuN —.14 PROJECT: 3932.3934 TWINHOME WEB] 49TH STREET EOINA, MINNESOTA —1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -0 co op ARCHITECTURE 205 6th Ave. SE 301 Aberdeen. SD 57401 Phone: 605-]254852 224 N. Phillipe Ave. 208 Sioux Falh, $D 5]104 Phone: 605-334-9999 x+wi.cooparch—. CO-OP PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: -14 REVISION SCHEDULE: PROJECT: 3932-3934—NHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA SH TTIT SITE DESIGN EXAMPLES AO -1 � ] � { OAA � I°` ;¥•; !! !210; \(��( ( " � m » q c , ) §:i �!! m ! � , � O m y g g o m a J � ymo Syo y m � �; F 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA ARCHITECT 205 Sh Ave. SE 301 Abel O 6 SD 5]401 Ph...:5 7452 224 N. Phillips Ave. 200 S-1 F-. SO 57104 PhoSO p -crop.h.c.O ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURAL AO -0 SITE PLAN AO -1 SITE DESIGN EXAMPLES At -0 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A241 LOWER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-1 MAIN LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UPPER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - A3.1 ROOF PLAN A4-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5-1 BUILDING SECTION AS -2 BUILDING SECTION BID DOCUMENTS 04-23-14 i ;;, �"r y �,� J' .� �� rye { to �'� �.'# i �*t +k f Y 4 .9 Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development Final Development Application ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AND FIRST FLOOR PLAN JEAST ELEVATION A. f. L 1 2 L In I I r . .......... . II i ILL —7 -E N' NRY ,NORTH ELEVATION = \JEST, ELEVATION OWN, 11 SOUTH ELEVATION PR6=TREED M.T'COLCRI Al .P ......... 11--Elll� Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development Final Development M—L Application 2647.0n.00 AP Lm —A a� DUI3114 M11-7 EXTEMOREL' —NS AIV3 �d6 X111 �A F �ei � I� �.i� it ■F�� ��7�A .I I tip �,� �� I�ef* _ ' [� ;w .—i• •rt,yi .moi ' �� �, '. � -----_ -_ ��� � � Ira �• ,t :.eye P ear:■■':�Ilnr" . . S k �d 71 4E— Continental Gardens j m. _ s View from across York Avenue Final Development Application VIEW FROM ACROSS YORK AVENUE A'ij5 all LA lIL r r III II► n r. Zen _ T l Continental Gardens View at Porte Cochere and Shared Courtyard; ; UJ Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development Final Development Application VIEW AT PORTE COCHERE AND SHARED COURT"" Al v7 ---- - 1111 1111 111111 �� u ' ■■ Wilt0 INS lid ; e ll J �i 11�I1�� I1I1�:Nlii.111��1�i�alli�:�half�:�h;lll�•ilii: 111111115111N:1f III.II VIII 111:11111:Iilll EVA -low Flow 1�lillallllallllailllal�lailllailllaifll ��:l�llalll a I ■ ■ s ■ ■ r� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ llllll��all�laMF lh�all�!:Ii1��:�Fl�I���:III��IIP':01►��h: ii'�t'>i>r:11111:I11:� :llill.11lll:lllll� �r ■ • ■ I��lllIlIIIIIIA;VIII;INllsll�allllall�allll:�I�IIII[. 11�1�1:111��11�:�1��:1��:111��.11�!:IIIA lll�: �i�:111►! !4 Vil Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development Project Number `�` Author m� Checker, o.. On8114 3D IMAGE 9% Y OV !' H I }` Vil Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development Project Number `�` Author m� Checker, o.. On8114 3D IMAGE 9% Ltoo LANDSCAPE PLAN —7 SCALE: -2rr-0- LtooDECIDUO�US.TREE PLANTING DETAIL �2 NO SCALE MIMI= Ltoo CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE Ltoo SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE PLANTING SCHEDULE: TREE REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS: Required: re 12 :11-2- 11", ss =e muwm Pl lls— Existing Tree Credit' Total New Trees Required = 26 Total New Trees Proposed = 26 )IkR _TEM P— —1— Continental Gardens Mesoba Capital Development i PROJECT NAME: CONTINENTAL GARDENS 1 PROJECT NAME: YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL OWNER: MESABA CAPITAL - OWNER: YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL, LP ARCHITECT: RSP ARCHITECTS 1 ARCHITECT: CERMAK RHOADES ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEER: PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEER: PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT: ARTEKA COMPANIES 1 LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT: ARTEKA COMPANIES 1'ORIj'TOVIIV I OWNER: YORK70WN ONCE COURT P.I.D. NO. 32-02824-21-0003 1 Ii I I I d - li _ PROP SEE li PROPERTY LINE LIMITS LINE OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 32-020-24-24-0001 OR <TO61 NI r / ....d PIERCE PINI $ A550CIATES Continental Gardens Mesaha Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AIA n.n.ec, OJK u.,. OG/IL14 I PeOJECT KEY PLAN PROJECT KEY PLAN d w $I 4;,! O p Lu V OWNER: DAVID R. ANDEON & DENISESL. SELDSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-12-.ja oa L -- L_— I WEST 71'.z STREET I OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD P.I.P. NO. 32-028-24-13-0087 s I I PQ �r11PP�= I r / ....d PIERCE PINI $ A550CIATES Continental Gardens Mesaha Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AIA n.n.ec, OJK u.,. OG/IL14 I PeOJECT KEY PLAN PROJECT KEY PLAN I p re g H H tli 211Ea aPa R8 1gF a4 1 1� R 1> 10 115,01 09 $ if js� pug-ij •qP1 J�ilqi qq I : 98 k'j I - Z 5) 34 R1Fa`d TP '1 "0' gra If 1 RIPE j"IN W15. 1p'i UP :i - z> INn Is - 113 'MI gf oA rid J�gg� 111c'm Rl ---!I -mu X, nA -I%- q-IR11 10 w ul 1p sroell lj Ra, .1111 mg €yop" glujos Hal RUH NP, 4 3454 SA 0 1 %Tj jg ji-g 9� -%� 11 Eli. -as i q I " ax u -i NOR HE R 141 ji g N'61 q ogRill ill ;Q du 333 jOCp 1'2 ZIP io-ji! of 5; Fl 011 . 55 ga q !p , "-" i I h i lei 4 , I I . . I p r 5 !Iul qup 11"I augalp ;1111, 111111h. pp! pinj guill 11pup 1"j!" i 11 N111 0114 6011mm § �jg' �: '� g I h 4 '&'1 ' I '11�� h4111211 HT -Nal ; ii -31A -ilia-11-0 "M Pay, 41 1PI-JUR Oaffl 10 21 WIP XR IH!- 1jiRijill gill PIC Gig i j!l;jl!- -9� f, 1111 11��jj jigNpUl M'11 11iol 01 gas€8aaeea aa_ a§ cMg 6g IRON H-14 hilal;1! liq M, 1 5.11 101 'P a€rg ;911t 5 0 z h Ilio®I��� �0,i��19�I }�l�on.,s ra s�i�� U CD CD ®i1SI�UT AND P< 40 i 1 FAA PIERCEPINI4 ASSOCIATES vGardens Mesaba Capital Development �erF INA .�.Pr X 0 i OWNER: YORKTOWN OFFICE COURT SEE YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL Wr = ; .. .. P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24.21-0003 RENOVATION PLANS Z � FOR PROJECT INFORMATION W o --589. 58'2BW SD1.BB'--• � m Isee , I Pxu cS�P[rt • / e+seix ♦ Z TM — �lPxorosro IL N N % 8 °""'• ^°"'` i >. � qNOWNER:DAVIO W R. ANDERSON DENISE S, ELDSTROM , <� QX� P.I.D. NO. 32028-24 12-0028 to I WEST 7112 STREET ry­1.i (queue xxwxros wan W PxoPD3eD Z • . Sex xK�xenD�,, I m evert rx `\ OWNER. CITY OF RICHFIELD P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24.73.0087 Mr xo n I onus. rvPru cwx xxo ousrtx, see uz, mica K Pertucw, sec �P .xz ME m Pwwsm as coxcxns — OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO.32-028-24-24-0001 ®i1SI�UT AND P< 40 i 1 FAA PIERCEPINI4 ASSOCIATES vGardens Mesaba Capital Development �erF INA .�.Pr I i � i I � I I 1{' a I j� L I 1 I rY j ii f � I j i1 0 S��IIIIGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN TO V'/i SEE YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL OWNER. YORKTOWN OFFICE COURTJ RENOVATION PLANS OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 324)2&24-24-0001 ORK z VN I i --jar: ryL ti Li ",il--,:-1 I�� •LN u; OWNER: DAVID R. ANDERSON & DENISE S. ELDSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-020-2442-00 8 L WEST 71% STREET (—LICRIGHTO—Y) i INER: CITY OF RICHFIELD D; NO. 32-020-24-130007 y`Ilr'Jr,- i Z,,E1.1EV11 L ---- r / PIERCE PINI & A55OCIATES Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION GRAII SAI NAGE PLAN as .� .... )/0R6'T0'0,11',j 7E.E"YIIRKTOWN CONTINENTAL OWNER: YORKTOWN OFFICE COURT RENOVATION PLA P.I.O. NO. 32-028-24-21-0003 PROJECT INFORMATION (5UTILITY EL9 AN . _ _ _ OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.M. NO. 3242844-24-0001 > ORKI "VIN FAA PIERCEPIN19, ASSOCIATE5 Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UTILITY PLAN X O H IF) IT E'S L41t L LLN OWNER: DLT ON& DENISE S EL028-OSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-24-124),I�- wz WEST 71'2 STREET c, I (PUBUCR-0—Y) OWNER. CITY OF RICHFIELD P.LP. NO. 32-020-2443-0087 I PPI: ,:;i V, c. VV -77� -77- FAA PIERCEPIN19, ASSOCIATE5 Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UTILITY PLAN VICINITY MAP I I I OWNER: YORKTOWN COURT - I 4 _ _ 4 _ : P. LD. N0.32-028-2421-0003 Lu A003 I r — — LEGEND I I I I I T^ Iee a N8p•SB'28•E wfm--- I Ij I D n°In mn N wm nl S re II i I _ 8 _8m I e I `IIL`, 1 Bannroa.re eases on ua Hennedn CoumY cop,cmmwwm pwn eaa,nnl.7 ---------------- A= ---. .—'—'-- 2. Ane 1:r:: 1. ` T r 1 1e�4 I r Pmx z°mwssz syR tape Aax). I' B i IN A K L za I Ob ] subled lxopaM le ldentlfiW abel:p in Zone%, luee of MlMmlFlooG:p'en Fbadl mra pkeM I. ULOING ( OWNER: DAVID R.ANOEI�5ON& npsxwszE, aneaNeane sedmroarz,zplM R' �' ' D I 1 SETBi CK 1 m $ $ BUILDING SETBACK LINE 1 F W DEMISES. ELDSTROM 4 ProPeM la 2anetl P60.i 1P aMIM Senlor0.xleanw 4)xiN Me lopwAlp aaWtllmgWrele� i 1 I srae Y. MI. i I! I 34 P.I.D. N0.32 -02&24,2-00E8 Yem (slrexx)°m Fen ' II fifes YeM6mertpD-2oFxt ' S Eecemenle sM1vxnxmMeintl nGM RepuWCNanoxllllelnaumwCameny Flk No.Ppwl-, Unad APY22,ID14. I II I 1 ❑ I I �o ---- p. uuwn.M1wmxnd.nlxdm xeglwenmcpm+ane Nr GOPM1neme a.OeM,perTleal Na.,m],q]Au.'.. .I i I UDUT'LOCATIONBSWOUID BE OBTNNED PWfNT TOANY EXCAVAl10N.. I � � .oa I-- L—_ ]. mere nr.,,,anmam eMwe wMre.wa.. emal�arewppxw�... 20100 i ! ! I SURVEY REMS PER 8p ULE B: III 1 p .a F I WEST 79 p/z STREET EMB,. ].ne me,e nn w q dmd 10' UTIUTY EASEMENY I ! 0 /PUBUCWGMOFWAYJ I PER DOC. NO. 1033]25 la ! I OFMY 6wnoaM open apeu exemenl(¢)werpM olwblen gxYax Ymttlmwd b/Ooanrom Mop) 3 I' ITEM NO.6 SCHEDULE B deed Xelwn i j L — — — — — — — — —. units ulemdm(a9werrorter¢uNenPremaxx¢IMxnmuerwad.adoarmmm:n;rdyn 2 I j j ! ! I T PARCEL2 I — ITEMS OmMbaMCe �Nwtlom nsemeMU)overauMenpemBaln MolMcwlcenel IW ( I' Ammxmmdd a.n Mn x�mBn nPd�mnn a.l ._ mdMDw m..Np.ww epi PARCEL 1 • ! I 10' EASEMENT PER DOC. Henkel xaemant alNgwteedded M1neon. ITEMS NeaMNonc, wvamna epd mMltlomx wn tlnM In Dowmen No.,pp9TPVMdIo .fi.*NRb . I I NO. 1D3}]28, ITEM N0.5,1 p:ovMm,ere nndepeae Neloen I� G 1 i 1� " ° o 11-..Sw6642E w SCHEDULE B , I� I I I ILLII d e ° r I i I LEGALDES[NPTION: I I`® � ! I BNtnING FOOmRINr =, I OW ER: CITY OFRICHFIELO A i A0.FA2p,9828d FT. NIINel imrtof Lat2 Block S, •YoltlaWn• ecmMinp to,he mewempYf mmwl, Hemepl Cmnny,M4vadd.- I' I 1 \ P.1. .NO.32-02&24,3 OOB7 OeNp pephmr tlleM as denwd CeNfiwle al tle Ne&19p pwn ep do npxrb Bimyg l' .D. N0. 32-02&2421- I I I �zaw napdn11w 0B feeleen eklq ue north In kom th nonhweet wmarof Lazmapol as.]zknxnn�mp apkyl, II I I I I I I x:mue spmmxtwmernwzelmunrerem,nam. _ :. ! • ! I I I i I g N11M1e1 pan of Ln2Blod9,•rnlMtWn•, acwWyto Na remNtldntlwmol, Hamedn Courtly, MlnlgNn. 4� I I I I ® 11 �, - I BepinnlRiM e�te`pdnt 1pSeBe leelaxat sloop Ma noM Yne hom Na n3oNrxdenmmmazolLd2b�ptlM155>yy1: Y — I I 1 I I I I t dee I ••• ele:p lM1e couN pne ham Ne aeulM1wwicmner WlA2eMVrenleminY:p. - - .•' 1 i I e , ,... •.." LE.—TION, � I IM1ere b HUD. YaNeoxn Houn I p I : i / I n Moerh :q Droup.Inu, Oak Grwe Ce:me:del Motlppe. LLC,Otl RepoleNyyplTYla 'rl I I ` O I mow PenYeM Guamnry CemmaNn TIW Inc, tlreC / io 5, .\1\\. / /I' I-- �/ � ` Q� 11�jII I Mlnne¢ola xA�pw18, 2012 eMrNatXa:p WetlmeP lwnemede In ecawdanx MM Xpkglp8 �q bMJ1eMO�i , / \\ /'I / / 1 RepmIHW 82A5]M,eMNerxuiremenb toren ALTNACBM tab Ttla 6urvq rodapld NPA,1 ^'• , i StnMeM OnWIRpWnmenM forALTNACSM IaMIitle BUNWS. Y (" To iMbrolol,q MRPRRRI! bpereM lnronmtlon.wwdnakovm Nerem:TMraen IBAM !° BUILD INC SETBACK UNE / I I crm pvpaip•Xnx, utlalnroeM lnnelenuel pouawen em th x:w;WNepndax emryxollny r BEYBACK B pp{_ BUILDING SETBACK LINE 1 slum hmue gfiacd M1ex d,aMvuMPaodfix wndmnla eNwm on Na FepeNFbpolmemxmRpnt -" commumn Pnxn No.2]OsicwzsE --------- -------------------- -------- _ _. _._._. ._._. �(D I 8 L --- /I I '" ,n]Y... 8 ...lte.eu... CAL H. HED,4 SD URVEYOR / N89.56— MINNIIIITA LICEN6E NO. 5812. DALE: `\ OWNER:WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO.32-028-24240001 i DESCRIPON BY GATE J •••, � •• •,'� I \ ALZ1151M�nne.om SSLtS ACSM LAND TITLE.SURVEY FOR: YORKTOWN HOUSING r -,,INC. ®Gorman Surveying, Inc. 1 saw xnweT a NTALBOALE IN FEEF" LprAaNa �1dM1Ea0i�h,o ,nB u,..ee..�Op. .... XBN9Plemm FUtflQPw.� ro VICINITY MAP YORKTOWN OWNER. YORKTOWNOFFICE COURT P.I.U. NO. 32-028-24-21-0003 0 LINdOLN HILLIS OWNER: DAVID R. ANDEI SON & S DENISE S. ELDSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-12-008 .904— L WEST 71 STREET L 0 :_.B L YOR b&t(ffffl CITY OF RICHFIELD NO. 32-026-24-13-0087 Z- st f,7 OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-24-000I YORKTOWN MIPPE'S LAKEVIEW I -TERRA CF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR: YORKTOWN HOUSING GROUP INC Gw:an Inc. DR—BY; RTC. I—E: QIQl 112 LL. 7�, IE c 'S� R "p It VICINITY MAP YORKTOWN OWNER. YORKTOWNOFFICE COURT P.I.U. NO. 32-028-24-21-0003 0 LINdOLN HILLIS OWNER: DAVID R. ANDEI SON & S DENISE S. ELDSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-12-008 .904— L WEST 71 STREET L 0 :_.B L YOR b&t(ffffl CITY OF RICHFIELD NO. 32-026-24-13-0087 Z- st f,7 OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-24-000I YORKTOWN MIPPE'S LAKEVIEW I -TERRA CF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR: YORKTOWN HOUSING GROUP INC Gw:an Inc. DR—BY; RTC. I—E: QIQl 112 �l )cv pi- — - — - — - — --- . _._..._- fl ...... — - — - — - YORK A VENUEo- --uT-H. OWNER: VILLAGE OF EDINA P.LD. NO. 32-028-24-21-0008 0 -�o j DZmAy O mm F > OWNER: VILLAGE OF EDINA P.LD. NO. 32-028-24-21-0008 0 SOUTH Jill I - AE R N CONTINENTAL RENOVATION ARCHITECTS DZmAy O > OVmm �Fm >0 ,f :9. ,m:4 mrm z 0 > z > > vx s, .............. 5: 0 > 0 0 mz I ME,oz �"O�> Z. A znAooI I " o 2 Z� zz AFz, Koo=i,z >>n mem SOUTH Jill I - AE R N CONTINENTAL RENOVATION ARCHITECTS L -eV c- D.( g o= i� Ea 00 yz m z � m m O = N 0 m m m s a §d 11, Ply ��n Spmp"s 3?q RL o D E4E CE A OADES PRC RITE i5 (— PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN v E YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL RENOVATION ��T 1 YcomPa�L ] > f -+G CE A OADES PRC RITE i5 ` I f H—I $r V m YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL RENOVATION CE -AK RHOADES ARCH, TECTS El uoo_ DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL PLANTING SCHEDULE: 2 NO SCALE / Ir. ::ens L+'71TA�Sf7" a��0�! ©�Q:T ffi51� '�I�Ip m�fiZII6i!7,I� Ip m©�W, imm ®�Ot9 @.9139��lpl� 1�I�01PJ @7G7��pl� Ltos CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 3 NO SCALE Ltoo SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 4 NO SCALE t. meanueaw+wv4Alnna9e 0mrwniemAmAAwweemme 4mFerwnn alln rogAbm. z W4nolnw ronlmawrw wnurynA mwnmmmwrne4a.rogge. we+. ew,onlm nm lverlym• a. N v4 IiywmalmUikeunnrgomalre am mmlrmrwn M. Been mmv44abanmg4le.mn. < v nm M pem ayslinnar mewatnlarenre zelvn'nmlau wl�bnwb and vmmennw. Iv4nre vNp4n4 of eMdme yro4.mrou vbmv teevM1om Dalen 4mv,a ®aM1.tu�imJ yn b, summp�lnprrirnlenp duw mAh,Il4mmannm,Innnmy�a, 0omn,aM a1 loma el ln4a4mm. gvlen4 vrer ee mmeryamwn. e. PnANralGmaOaroAmAnM Ilam A4mligoremlbm nl mavnwowmr. 1 aMN�bwalmtnM�,aM Ne.awgmen, orAwuMmrerwNcn roty4e v4 IaeMA nne4w eq 4 mmol ael41aMry9roab9 mM bn®M nW oIIM pwvanw IveM. A pmleU Na�rere�qu�ieelakrgi e�ieR�elrlW �rruvbW�cea=bE unpural tmea ane enruea uelan A lnree Imnrobyeroi I.5' eb. Mer xk muknowa bmamPo waea Aerrbranell Po H4AOE m eA ,A. rme mMm4ae.ra..nau Ae evmml. TM 4lxls®pamgaaw eimA n.maPomm4lor mwmvae Aen m A auegm evMnl.n,wm„ rare Pomam mxNe manna ubxxrp m.4emn. I vwamm��q Abnllrga anq MmukMo wilnna'4yarolenmMME AarkwNnmingawvn Ix. eaA+rmwxrM Nmrmntw Ane aulb Aa cwmm�rzbl Aran potyaEAmwXn mnmlawtaa. I memm u.nn mybnlAo ema. amll mabw.mArtnnm ala. a•a.nmmalmllas mro-I-n ss. nlnamu.aueaa.re Ao�nwnlro.ew.c�asro �le.l. romulan. aou eae erq.Asn. wee 15. gmvlmne0 ere+e mlaroxnea vaimm+ootl Ae wmn vmglkelbne by eeMwom romrevbr. TREE REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS: Required: Requlme Ie14 parlme4r,rAo I a0 ea naw Imae1 „A• ®APor rme.,�a .AS., munma.o, n„zraa oaanee+tea•.zs•,n m,Srn. Porlm.. r«•.z5 an IA,..S•roPoerlwa+lq•.zo emanaam, P01-11-1---.11 ragrm..a.,alm,.. Existing Tree Credit: (sl r+ianre rreee to ro seaee Imeq ror reyuuea s.s • mywr Im+l Total New Trees Required = 38 Total New Trees Proposed = 39 I i Ltoo LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 SCALE. 1 m 1 ua PIERCE PINI � ASSOCIATES Z O F— C:) O z LU ccZ LU _ Z O U o z r O = a Y ANDSCAPE PLAN L100 VICINITY MAP � � � til � � .............. uj COURT I ►' I— 1 P.I.D. NO. 32 -W8 -24 -21 -CM I $ — — — — — r— LEGEND w we I Ii _ e� � naes n aVR N Tee Aor} m.n UIIDINC B IN A K pl I I 1W1�a as O y I OWNER: DAVID R. ANDE I ON B /jS z 9. BUElecl pwpeMYlnsticOSENnp In ZptnX Arr NL6NrtYFIwq:p mFlpoElrimwR6Mq•pr.INn, aegenbNz2ne n5Cn52E MPS" I I I SETBACK U & $ N BUILDING SETBACK UNE I I q ry 1 •. rGj I I DENISE S.ELDSTROM P (PI I nwMYiwwe PSRJ (P 'ones senlorRwbwwe -. wMw ° t IntaelpealaerknNVtr - I I I I I I I i t 3 I AID. NO. 32-028-2472-008 I SrVnlYw.uFaet RMeYw (smweP6�mFr i - I I I I II _ I r I 50 .,�0 � I= I I el.1 l ma°R. we NMbeM nn.IrNr:mr�Nra. Nn.6arI-166wAPEa>aa 6 nlNw aAmnrevMaNrre lowwuwgvn°y ptl I 1 I' I ❑ I I — anitN Gnplyrgp°pne GE, prTkly Na IZOIIyI.N1� �eUTY LCCAMON36�lDBE OBTNNEDPRKMTOANT E%CAVAMd1 I loo T co ; I q mew i � � WEST 71 %y STREET aD wEY DENa PERaL EgXEB IV UMUW EASEMENT• i I i l o "I-c—ofwAq ITEMsI�,T.m nfiwmww./reYre°. I PER DOC. NO. 1033)25 j j ITEM NO.6 SCHEDULE B I L — — flEM a: mNcaMo eww eeenmeMhl wer RnWw raT2e,Ya.amtllwnw. ��~r'�p'Nq•... �� j — — — — — — — � — NEM': utlttyenemmh)rar rnVlwgM PeMewrenmm mow reova.°dN olYnlmm,Ya°pq.e. ',Z j Ij i j i PARCEL2 I ITEMm q cnmrogmmr e.ewwbh) rer.IMwPYmrb1.°nacmolN .: nrgerleNeNFFgT•nne+e«,1r, r P.mS b oro.,.. Ne. Ener. w I PARCEL 1 i . I ,. ._ .. I 10' EASEMENT PER DOG 2B' ITEM N0.5,I E denrNrovl°m°°miNnYN�M6pep ITEM' ,m..n. wnmmrr roMlnedmoem,,,.nNa l6nrnwMMmunwbrtm.e P:wlam. en nnespmtllwma Q SCHEOULE --- -- --'—'I j LER O I I I ewlnlNc rooTPwNr - =, I.�w.n ARFAmaS2 as tT. — i ER: CITYOFRICHFIELDI N1-1 rnolLM 2B1w3, YVmr.•,.roPwpmm. r.roVw EYltlwna. Hwman . " j 1 I I I I .D. NO. 32-02&2427 I iI I I 1 .I..NO. 1laoo 32-028-20.13-0001 I F' wiPaN�Oiae.mlw„ee�e.Mfienw°q LNtlawb NMtle NarlSIO,Mp wrl,glgr6etl �Ybec tYFI1Wp''". Iopaw rMem kam me nemraelmmw Mlg2me wwtwmwmLa2udur.l.,,lwtlp. ~. �'p°w�' I ® I i I I Pnermmn..=w II I I I I � 1 1 I Ml uw W-0261wx3,Yokmnn•,eawapmin°nmaea+llwml ntaurM norm. :• BNp Re6YYM YM nNwMen,sa SYGNAwIa oIMW N°b1aM,Mp aewernibermbvn: � f{ II I I, I ` I Zea. e 11—`^s—� j 1 .�. .- .. fietlnNp r�p°Inlln.r lMeul emp tlw nwm Wmr Rw wNwtlmn�erWlrt2mepW.126RfayW"".. slap mew tr 6r:mae,NahxrimSw Nlg2eNmenbmtlrtlp. I �, _ I CFlG 1 ERIIMON: I 1 � � �. I .. j � I . . • ..- i �._ .. - - ... Ilwreln wN7bIND, Tapmm Hwdp Gmp.Ir..04Grore LvmaNN Maypa,LLFGB j I / / ` j O I ._„•.. ..,._ RePN°NyuNITYY Irunnm CaNwM•eM GuennN CamlwdNTEM. bc,tlwt iA / Rewq, HIID SJ°STM,WmeregMrem°:MmrwALTNACSM LeMMtle9mw.rrNwabtlwmllrmee~'�v _ , i —Reg— ­MS / I 1 \ ILOING' m _ _ I SUIMING SETBACK LINE` / / \ I I Te me heel olmyfm5wletlte, r591eM mlwromn emaraaarmlwmr.Tawemro.vo.a.lrr+merq 1 p°P°M 11nr°. tltle lose em tocol eemel panerle�.n meem;epiMpem°r�M°Im11ag1Lapp, / 1 ---BCU E�I m , BDt101NG SETBACK LINEr I I LannuNly P.ml No. ZlaS]Ca1 E' w w eMm wtlw FMe:e1Fl°°JYrnle Rm4p – -'– — — I / CALVINH. NEDLLIND, LAIIDBUR°ETIX° - MINNESOTA LICENSE NO, MI OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 32-0282424-0001 I O'aCRIT�ON B Edna wwrne Ave. 6., 55125 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY Y FOR: YORKTOWN HOUSING GROUP, INC. I MTEGOS16ml Gorman Surveying Inc, Owwn ar. a ° wu..aa,..Aw«Es enrr` g sasa+10`..rm'rAxosaw.:w o a JOS HUAEFR 61EEf LHECNED BY: DATE: 16012 I I - OWNER. YORKTOWN OFFICF COURT SEE YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL O P.11). NO. 32-028.24-21.8005 RENOVATION PLANS Wr FOR PROJECT INFORMATION 3 LU a Lp 0 OWNER DAVID R. ANDERSON R DENISE S. ELOSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32 02&24 12- 0 028 1 �. n. cm oa — WEST 7112 STREET • .mx ... ,. IPM-RONTO 411 ixmao/ -e. -o g y I � 3 6ffi x O u 1 Zr EMIR L ct 'A c. rxcx•.. I � _ __ � � O afi • _ Ll � - _ _ O 19� D I um o •tn. -=-989'68'42'2 542]Y--- . OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-24-0001 ®i1GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 5 OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD PI 0. NO, 32-028-24-13.0087 PIERCEPINI& ASSOCIATES VUM111C111Q1 Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C500 O O Wr 3 LU a Lp 0 OWNER DAVID R. ANDERSON R DENISE S. ELOSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32 02&24 12- 0 028 �n oa — WEST 7112 STREET • .mx _. ,. IPM-RONTO 411 OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD PI 0. NO, 32-028-24-13.0087 PIERCEPINI& ASSOCIATES VUM111C111Q1 Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C500 �1UTILITY PLAN so PIERCE PINI& ASSOCIATES Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION �` faD3I ALA DJK 0MV1A UTILITY PLAN C600 l O O I I y OWNFR:YORKTOWN OFFICE COURT P.I.D. N0.32-028-24-21-0003 SEE YORKTOWN CONTINENTAL r RENOVATION PLANS 2 0 FOR PROJECT INFORMATION --509.59'20W 9D1A9'--- u I r F'__ \ 4. N N r; yl W OWNER: DAVID R. ANDERSON 8 DENISE S. ELDSTROM P.I.D. NO. 32-028-24-12-0028 sovE sD amss - .. see oewis o � � ' inwosio1p - .. c usi v�siyxu .I �a uec uw nnw I aaM I w ° � a f: WEST 7112 STREET I (PUBDORIONI'OFWAY) 9. I OWNER: CITY OF RICHFIELD P.I.D. NO. cia s w' we °u'nre w xw I 32-028-24-13-0067 I e59Aa —sEE \ Ml t ass A&M s.El cwnm�cs xn cw. eo.0 u �w eaz arc c— I... V v varrcmws. oesss ns-Ee-rA•-sme'A, I rss°au I_ �w a� a„ a a.e wEs dr sD e.mwA w.sEa gr m. - �-sa9-ss�are sszar-.- i, .wA sswDNo e`u"uses s' iw asa.sD OWNER: WINDSOR VENTURE P.I.O. NO. 32-028-24-24-0001 �1UTILITY PLAN so PIERCE PINI& ASSOCIATES Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION �` faD3I ALA DJK 0MV1A UTILITY PLAN C600 l Site Plan RELOCATED PARKING ACCESS CURB CUT 50 UG STALLS _ DELIVERY I 'RES I PORT E pq cp MILSABA CAPITAL PARKING INFORMATION: EXPOSED: 223 STALLS ENCLOSED: 50 STALLS T OTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 273 STALLS 0 CITY OF EDINA, EXISTING DRIVEWAY 1 r0 NI�IY= ADAM'S HILL PARK CITY OF RICHFIELD EXISTING DRIVEWAY - PARKING INFORMATION: EXPOSED: 223 STALLS ENCLOSED: 50 STALLS T OTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 273 STALLS • Survey date stamped: April 9, 2013. • Building plans/ elevations date stamped: A it 9, 2013. Appearing for th**Aoplicant Jean ReKamp Larsen, chitect. Discussion Commissioner Potts asked Ms. L sen if they are plan ing on re -using the existing foundation. Ms. Larsen said she doesn't believe so; owever at this Yme that hasn't been formerly determined. Commissioner Forrest asked if the Ash 11e wo d be removed. Ms. Larsen said she believes that three will be OK. Commissioner Platteter asked if drainagVainagelWpacity as nsidered. Ms. Larsen responded in the affirmative adding that there is a French drain and between the structures. Public Hearing Chair. Staunton asked if anyone ould like to speak to this issues; being none Commissioner Forrest moved to close the public hear' g. Commissioner Scherer conded the motion. Public hearing closed. Discussion % Commissioner Scher commented that he loved seeing that the buil 'ng wall was "broken" up, adding she supports the reuest as submitted. Motion Commissioner Potts moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review —Continental Gardens Assisted Living, 7151 York Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan request to build a 76 unit assisted living building, attached to the existing Continental Gardens Senior Living apartments at 7151 York Avenue. The proposal is to create a "senior campus," and build the addition to the east side of the building. The units are Page 5 of 9 J 3 described by the applicant as "moderately priced." The building would be four stories tall and be connected by an elevated skyway to the existing twelve (12) story 264 unit apartment building. The existing site is 5.85 acres in size; therefore, the density is 45 units per acre. With the proposed addition of 76 units; the density would increase to 58 units per acre. The property is zoned Planned Senior Residential District -4, PSR -4 and guided High Density Residential. The applicant is requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the Appearing for the Applicant Terri Cermak with Cermak & Rhoades Architects. Discussion Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague if this request was similar to the request reviewed and approved at 7500 York Avenue. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. The 7500 Co-op partnered with Ebenezer to construct a similar facility. Commissioner Carr said at this time her comments concern landscaping, indicating if they proceed with an application they will need a landscaping plan and materials board to ensure' compatibility in exterior materials between the existing and new building. Carr said she wants the final outcome to look like it's designed as one, not piecemeal. Chair Staunton said it appears to him that the use is good; adding if the Commission agrees with the proposed use and increased density what the Commission needs to express is if the configuration of the new building is "right" and if the design is "right". Applicant Presentation Ms. Cermak addressed the Commission and explained the property owners are undertaking a large renovation project on the existing building that includes new windows, landscaping and walkability features. Ms. Cermak said the proposed new structure is designed to be a natural progression of the existing building. She explained a skyway is proposed to facilitate the movement of residents between buildings. Cermak said she believes the design of the new structure minimizes impact to surrounding properties because of the grade and buffer. She stated close attention would also be paid to the Richfield side of the property. Concluding, Cermak reported that interior space would be created to facilitate shared activities between buildings Page 6 of 9 A3�_ Discussion Chair Staunton asked Ms. Cermak if the intent was for people to relocate between buildings as a permanent move or would they rotate in and out. Ms. Cermak responded at this time they are still doing the market analysis; however, they believe when one moves out of the" independent" living senior building their move to the new assisted living facility is permanent. Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Teague how Richfield would "hear about this". Teague responded they will be informed when/if a formal application is made. Teague explained a public hearing notice is sent to property owners (including Richfield) within 1000 -feet of the subject site. Richfield would then pass this notice on to their residents. Commissioner Carr asked Ms. Cermak if other designs were considered. Ms. Cermak responded that they are in the process of design; however, need to take a lot into consideration (windows mechanical) when tying the proposed building to the existing building. Commissioner Potts said that overall he appreciates the property owner coming before the Commission with the sketch plan adding he also likes the "residential" feel of the proposed building. Continuing, Potts suggested that they look at implementing sustainability measures either through Leed certification or working with Xcel on their energy programs. Potts said when this comes befUre the %Ufr1FtIISSiUiS for fGt iii3i review LI would like to see what measures vvcrc taken to reduce energy consumption. Potts also noted this project is an increase in density. Commissioner Platteter commented when designing the new building the applicant needs to consider "what the City gets from this". He suggested looking for ways to create walkability, possibly implementing bike paths, landscaping, etc. to create a better pedestrian experience. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged the difficulty in working with an existing building and agreed with Commissioners Potts and Platteter that sustainability and walkability were important. Commissioner Schroeder said what's important to him is how the site is viewed and how to formulate a new pedestrian environment. He noted in the 1970's large buildings were setback from the street; however, over the past few years the Commission and Council have been working on creating more of a pedestrian centered corridor in the greater Southdale area. He noted there are new developments within the greater Southdale area that are now closer to the street, adding to the pedestrian experience. Schroeder also noted there is no sidewalk connection from this building to the street reiterating the goal of the City is to foster a greater pedestrian experience. Concluding, Schroder said he was curious how the new building would function if it was placed on the opposite side. Schroeder said placing the new building on the York side would lessen the scale of the very tall older building and may create a very good experience for residents of the buildings and the City. Page 7 of 9 AIL Ms. Cermak responded that was looked at; however, maintaining front yard setbacks would be a problem. Commissioner Schroeder explained there are ways to work with the City to allow construction of a building closer to the street and mitigate increased density. Schroder pointed out the CVS site; as a recent example of a redevelopment that also addresses the pedestrian experience. Chair Staunton also noted the available PUD zoning process which is one way to work with the City when a site has "issues" with the zoning ordinance. He added PUD is a tool that can be implemented to allow flexibility from City zoning requirements including density and setbacks. Staunton suggested taking a fresh look at this development by keeping sustainability in mind and trying to create a streetscape that services more than just automobiles. Commissioner Platteter commented that to him connectivity is important, adding he would like to see an area created where the pedestrian feels welcome. He pointed out finding a way to connect the subject buildings to the library and YMCA would not only be good for the pedestrian experience but it would be an important amenity to the residents of the building(s). Commissioner Schroeder suggested that the applicant look at this site as a clean slate that puts the pedestrian first with a design that challenges the City. Chair Staunton thanked Ms. Cermak for her time B. Zoning Ordinance Update —Residential Development VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. Page 8 of 9 1--& Minutes/Edina City Council/May 7, 2013 VI.C. P IMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, 3909 WEST 49 % STREET, FRANK HOLDINGS LLC/SPALON MO GE, RESOLUTION NO. 2013-43 -APPROVED Communit De to ment Director Presentation Mr. Teague prese ted the request of Spalon Montage to divide its property at 4936 Fr ce Avenue back into two lots for t e purpose of potentially selling the new lot in the future. N new building was proposed at this tim The existing property and buildings would remain the sa This property was originally platted as tw ots. The proponent combined them a few years ago, b was now requesting to divide them back per the riginal plat. Staff and the Planning Commission re mmended approval of the proposed preliminary plat. The Council asked questions ofr. Teague, City Attorney Knutson, and ity Engineer Houle relating to the encroachment agreement in plac for the side of the building. Thisyteliminary plat would not cause any changes to the encroachment agree ent; the agreement would sti be in effect. Mayor Hovland opened the public hea Public Testimony There was none. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded b M mber Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague/for Swenson, Ho d Motion carried. Member Swenson introducedoption Resolution No. 2013-43, approving a Preliminary Plat at 3909 West 49'/: Streeta following dings: 1. The lots were original plaosed. 2. There are no immediate rhanges in use o he property or existing buildings. Member Brindle seconded thAyes: Bennett, Brindle, Spra, Hovland Motion carried. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT Mary /1: shioner f St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7650 Penn venue South, addressed the Council. VIII. / ECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. ON NO. 2013-41 ADOPTED - ACCEPTING VARIOUS D NATIONS Memtt introduced and moved adoption of Resolution 2013-41, Accepting Various Donatber Sprague seconded the motion. RoIIc AyesBrindle, Sprague, Swenson, HovlandMot. VIII. B. SKETCH PLAN, 7151 YORK AVENUE _ Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the Sketch Plan for 7151 York Avenue. The proponent proposed to build a four- story 76 -unit assisted living complex attached to the Continental Gardens Senior Living apartments at 7151 York Avenue. The proposal was to create a senior campus: and build the addition to the east side of the building. The building would be four stories tall and would be connected by an elevated skyway to the existing twelve -story 264 apartment building. The existing site was 5.85 acres in size; therefore, the density was 45 units per acre. With the proposed addition of 76 units, the density would increase to 58 Page 7 A 7'1 Minutes/Edina Citv Council/Mav 7.2013 units per acre. The property was zoned Planned Senior Residential District — 4, PSR -4 and guided High Density Residential. The units are described by the proponent as "moderately priced." There was discussion on the cap for High Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, of 30 units per acre, noting that assisted living units would have less demand than other high density uses for transportation and parking while having the same demand for in -ground utilities. It was noted that EMT service was well positioned for this area, and police service for this type of development would be in low demand. Mr. Houle provided the Council with information on sewer and water capacity in relation to the Metropolitan Council. He advised that the Comprehensive Plan projected 20 to 30 years into the future, was approved by the Metropolitan Council, and included a high-density land use in the Greater Southdale Area, as well as housing in commercial areas of the City. Those numbers were taken into account by the Metropolitan Council in determining the size of the relief sewer that was built through Richfield. Proponent Presentation Terri Cermak, Cermak, Rhoades Architects, answered questions of the Council relating to affordability, anticipated number of staff, layout and amenities, and transit connections. Comments from the Council for future discussions on the plan were: the importance of the percentage of County Elderly Waiver Units that would be guaranteed, revising the plan from a second -story skyway to a first -floor connection, creating a circle on the south end of the site as opposed to widening the space between the buildings, including a sidewalk extension to the street, the importance of "pedestrian friendly," and completion of a market study with penetration rates. Staff was directed to provide the Council with additional information on the density cap relating to senior plans in PSR Districts, including why the cap was set and how this project related to the cap. IX. CORRESPOND\ENVIR TIONS IX.A. CORRESPOND Mayor Hovland acknoncil's receipt of various corres ndence. IX. B. MINUTES: 1. ENERENT COMMISSION M UTES, MARCH 12, 2013 2. VETECOMMITTEE MIN ES, MARCH 15, 2013 3. ART UTES, MARC 8, 2013 4. PLANNING COMMISSIO INUTES, RIL 10, 2013 Informational; no action required. X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — ceived There was discussion on Safe Routes to Sch I lating to Concord School. Students that live across the street on School Road were now being req red to t e the bus to school due to there not being a sidewalk in place to access the school. It was note that pedes ian focused improvements have been completed at other schools in the City. Two options hat had been p sented to the Council in the May 2012 Franchise Fee Feasibility Study were: A) assess ent split of 25/25/5 etween the City/School District/Residents for sidewalk construction from Conc rd School to Normanda Road; and, B) assessment split of 50/50 between the City/School Distri for sidewalk construction fr Ruth Drive to Concord School. It was noted that the residents woul not be assessed for the propose idewalk project in accordance with the current policy. Moved by ember Brindle, seconded by Member Sprague, approving that Option A (sidewalk construction fr Concord School to Normandale Road) of the May 2012 Franchise Fee Feasibility Study be upda d and presented to the Council for consideration. Page 8 434 con pt model to secure affordable housing with integrated services and adult guidance fogAorneless teens 8-19 year olds). She estimated that in the area of Edina, there were 250 to 300 y g people in need of s type of housing and the requested 39 units was based on available funding. The Council as d questions of Ms. Blons who assured the Council that they wer mmitted to being the best landlord in Nina and if necessary, 24-hour staffing would be provided. stated Lydia Apartments, built for chronically meless adults with mental health and chemical dep ent issues, provided 24-hour services and she wouNheck whether any of their other buildi/pred 24=hour service. Ms. Blons stated this would not be"avshelter or drop-in facility. She answtions of the Council related to Beacon's services and progra�iming to successfully move young athe community. Sarah Larson, Project Manager +nth Beacon, indicated th%l4al development cost was estimated to be over $10 million with an estimated ppr unit cost of $25.,00. It was noted that this estimated cost was similar to that of Nicollet Square (42 urr?ts) and most offer projects submitted to Minnesota Housing. Ms. Blons assured the Council that this would -?ll quality housing of which Edina would be proud. With regard to financing, she indicated they would address cgSi containment and were required to acquire a site prior to obtaining financing. Beacon believed there been a high level of support for this Edina location. Bart Nelson, Urban Works Architectur(l displayed¢ the location map, pointing out the abundance of parking, bus stops, and close proximity�to the transits, tion. He described elements of the plan and how this project would meet the City's�,ustainability objecs. Ms. Larson indicated the funding for this project required compliance wi,Ff the standards of Mi' sota Green Communities which included exceeding the State's energy stqjfdard by 15%. Following discussion of thW, 3330 — 66th Street sketch plan, the Cou I offered the following comments: creating an integrated sifeetscape and integrated fence design; than\,apography to create more daylight into the thrO lower -level studios; providing proof of parkddress parking shortage; providing for outdoor bicycle parking; providing indoor bicycle storagethe off season; designing articulated buildipsurfaces; exceeding State energy guidelines; consideordable housing rather than specialtytsusing so the City had a higher level of control; and, prost act ice relating to 24- hour servicefhe Council expressed support for having this use in Edinae us f this site that was in close p imity to transportation, and meeting the School District's acore v e of not leaving anyone hind. The Council indicated that a Small Area Plan was not this inst ce as it was a good* erim use and allowed the area to develop organically overtime. r Blons stated they had been in conversation with the neighborhood and received a good response. The unci) encouraged the proponent to continue working with the neighborhood to address their concerns. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED —7151 YORK AVENUE Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the sketch plan to build a four-story building with 100 units (70 units of senior housing with services and 30 memory care suites) of assisted living west of the Yorktown Continental Senior Living Apartments at 7151 York Avenue. The existing site was 5.85 acres in size with a density of 45 units per acre. With the proposed addition of 100 units, this density would increase to 64 units per acre. Mr. Teague reviewed the Council's past consideration for a 76 -unit senior housing project. He displayed the site plan, noting its orientation along York Avenue, surface and underground parking. It was noted that while the Comprehensive Plan described High Density Residential as 12-30 units per acre, density for senior housing might be increased. Mr. Teague presented site conditions that could be considered for higher density in this instance. It was noted the Planning Commission considered this sketch plan at its April 23, 2014, meeting. The Council asked questions of Mr. Teague relating to site plan revisions since the Planning Commission's consideration. Page 5 4W Minutes/Edina City Council/May 20, 2014 Mr. Neal noted that tonight's consideration related to a sketch plan review of the proposed new building and at a future meeting, the Council would be asked to consider conduit financing for a major improvement project within the existing building. With regard to affordability, early indications were that the number of affordable units might be decreased by seven to eight. That issue would be addressed once conduit financing was addressed. Mr. Neal explained the terms of conduit financing for a private/non- profit development and advised that the City would not carry the liability of the payment and it would not impact the City's bond rating. Mr. Teague indicated that along with the subdivision request, parking would be addressed and a park dedication fee required. The Council acknowledged that recently, higher -density projects were being submitted due to the price of the land and density needed to appeal to a developer and City. The Council suggested addressing density in the Southdale District on a broader view. Mr. Teague concurred and stated it was staff's intent to present a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission and City Council to address those very issues. Proponent Presentation Della Kolpin, Senior Partner with Mesaba Capital, clarified that Mesaba was purchasing the land from the current owner and developing the 100 -unit assisted living building. The conduit financing was related only to the existing apartment building structure. The land would be replatted to create two separate parcels. Mr. Neal stated of the 263 apartments, 179 apartments qualified for Section 8 housing. However, that property was not under consideration in this site plan review. Ms. Kolpin stated of the 100 units, at least 10%, or 10 units, would be affordable. She stated their goal was to create a campus for continued senior living and there would be joint programs and facilities to optimize and utilize spaces. Alanna Carter, RSP Architects, presented project goals to create a sense of community pride, create a warm and inviting environment, connecting indoor and outdoor spaces, connection to nature, sense of quality and dignity within the building, inclusion of a health center, providing a coffee bistro and library, and maximizing the site to the York Avenue side. The Council referenced the suggestion of the Planning Commission to narrow the setback to York Avenue to 20 feet in an effort to enhance the courtyard between the two buildings. The Council asked whether that additional area had instead been converted into a drive entrance. Ms. Carter explained the need for a safe entry and drop off area away from the drive and benefit of a porte-cochere for senior residents and senior visitors. Ms. Kolpin indicated it was felt the reduced parking would still meet the needs of the residents. Ms. Carter concurred and noted the reduction allowed the creation of additional green space to the south and north of the existing building. She stated they were in conversations with Metro Transit to request a new bus stop location, possibly incorporating the York Avenue bus stop within a building extension. Following discussion of the 7151 York Avenue sketch plan, the Council offered the following comments: creating an at -grade enclosed and heated (four -season) pedestrian connection between the two buildings; support of the welcoming covered porte-cochere; maintaining podium height; inclusion of benches to engage with the streetscape and bus stop; providing all -season landscape interest; locating building mechanicals to not create a visual impact to units within the existing building; providing accessible and useable green space in consideration of a setback variance; integrating building design and materials that related and were complementary with the 12 -story apartment building; and, assuring engagement with the York Avenue streetscape. VIII.C. MASTER REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PENTAGON REVIVAL, LLC —APPROVED Page 6 ft DATE: June 25, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 7151 York Avenue — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. Survey 1. New building encroaches into existing 30' utility easement along York Avenue. Easement will need to be vacated and rededicated with new dimensions. Some private utility relocation will be required. 2. ALTA mentions scenic and open space easement along rear 10' of property. Easement restrictions should be reviewed as some grading is proposed in this space. Soils 3. Submit record of soils borings and soils investigation. Traffic and Street 4. Landscape and sidewalk along York will require further review. Provide pedestrian improvements across York Avenue at Hazelton. 5. Utility connections propose open cut connection to sanitary and water main on the southbound lane of York Avenue. Provide staging and detour plans that describe and limit road closures. Sanitary and Water Utilities 6. Show all existing utilities for connection purposes and label all utilities "Private." 7. Utility connections propose wet tap and new sanitary manhole in south bound lane of York Avenue. 8. Trench drain at new underground parking is proposed to connect to sanitary sewer system. This system is sensitive to surface inflow. Provide positive drainage away from, and limit tributary drainage area to trench drain. Storm Water Utility 9. Provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations that meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District rules. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 10. Final plans will require storm water pollution prevention plan consistent with State construction site permit. Other Agency Coordination 11. Coordination with Hennepin County will be needed for new and modified access points to York and proposed road closures. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 12. A Ninemile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MDH, MPCA, and MCES. This is the first review of these plans. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this first review. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 - Fax 952-826-0392 (k� A %���� Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South IISuite #300 � Minneapolis, MN 55416 & A&Tadate3, Inc. Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum DATE: July 1, 2014 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE: 7151 York Avenue Redevelopment Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-57 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and parking impacts of the development of a proposed 4 story Senior Housing and Memory Care facility. The facility is proposed to be located in the front lot of the existing 7151 York Avenue, Yorktown Continental senior apartment building. The site is located on the west side of York Avenue between Parklawn Avenue and Hazelton Road. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site development includes 100 units with 30 units as Memory Care and 70 units as Assisted Senior Housing. Access to the site will be from the two existing driveways on York Avenue. Currently both driveways provide right-in/right-out access. With the development plan both driveways will remain as right-in/right-out. The northern driveway will be relocated to the north approximately 25 feet. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the existing and proposed development were evaluated at the following locations. • York Avenue and Hazelton Road • York Avenue and site driveways • York Avenue and roundabout/rotary access to apartments • York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. g µ3 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 2 of 12 Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: York Avenue (CSAH 31) is north/south a 4 -lane divided `B" Minor Arterial Hennepin County roadway. Primary access to York Avenue is by local streets and development driveways. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on York Avenue is 15,000 vehicles per day. The lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: York Avenue at Hazelton Road - Traffic Signal control SB York Ave approaching Hazelton Rd — one right, two through, one left NB York Ave approaching Hazelton Rd — one right/through, one through, one left EB Hazelton Rd approaching York Ave — one right, one through/left WB Driveway approaching York Ave — one right/through/left York Avenue at existing site entrances — Sidestreet Stop control SB York Ave approaching Site Entrances — two through (no access to site) NB York Ave approaching Site Entrances — one right/through, one through WB Development Driveways approaching York Ave — one right out only York Avenue at Roundabout/Rotary — Sidestreet Yield control SB York Ave approaching Roundabout/Rotary — two through, one left NB York Ave approaching Roundabout/Rotary — two through, one left York Avenue at Parklawn Avenue — Sidestreet Stop control SB York Ave approaching Parklawn Ave — one right, two through, one left NB York Ave approaching Parklawn Ave — one right/through, two through, one left EB Parklawn Ave approaching York Ave — one right, one through/left WB Driveway approaching York Ave — one right/through/left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and daily hourly approach counts were collected at the area intersections in 2012 and 2013. The counts were factored to the existing 2014 conditions using the Hennepin County State Aid traffic projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period. The projected 2014 traffic volumes were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. Figure 3 shows the existing intersections and driveways along each corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study with the projected 2014 weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Aar 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 3 of 12 Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. However, in order to account for some background growth in traffic the Hennepin County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic from to the future analysis years. In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These projects included: 6125 York Avenue - The City recently approved the proposed redevelopment of the Wickes Furniture site at 6725 York Avenue. The site is located on the west side of York Avenue between 66th Street and 69th Street across from Southdale Shopping Center. The proposed site redevelopment includes 242 multifamily residential units and 11,500 sf of retail uses. The site is planned for completion by 2015 and is included for the 2016 analysis. Byerly's Redevelopment - The City has been working with Lund Food Holdings for the reconstruction of the existing Byerly's grocery store site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road to include: a new 47,119 square foot Byerly's store; a six/seven-story 109 -unit apartment building; a six/seven-story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,711 square foot retail area, and; a six -story, 48 -unit apartment building with 11,162 square feet of retail space on the first level. This project is currently under construction and will be partially completed in 2014 and assumed to be fully completed for the 2016 analysis. Think Bank Development - The City recently approved the proposed redevelopment of the Szechuan Star site at 3655 Hazelton Road adjacent to the Byerly's site to include an 8,441 sf bank building with a four lane drive thru. The project is planned for construction in 2014 and assumed fully completed for the 2016 and 2030 analysis years. Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion consists of a 77,500 sf (gross area), two-story building located on the north side of the existing hospital building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) — The City recently approved the redevelopment of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65t Street. The proposed site included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65th Avenue site with a five story 96,500 sf medical office building. However, recently the City was presented a revised site plan changing the use on the site to a 209 unit senior housing and skilled care facility. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 4 of 12 Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This figure includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all leasable space will be occupied and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development — A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 69h Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2016 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the Saturday peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses. Tahlo 1 - Fctimated ,4dditianal RackQround Trin Generation Use Size PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out 6125 York Redevelopment 11,500 sf and 242 units 220 128 92 133 34 99 Byerly's Redevelopment 73,450 sf and 234 units 411 231 1 180 369 174 195 Think Bank Development 8.441 sf 206 103 103 102 58 44 Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 24 10 14 36 21 15 Senior Housing 209 units 40 18 22 27 18 9 Southdale Apartments 232 units 144 94 50 118 24 94 Shopping Center 143,880 sf 533 256 277 138 86 52 Restaurant 8000 sf 79 47 32 87 48 39 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Development Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed 7151 York Avenue project is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is also based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition. The table shows the weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed development. A4� 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 5 of 12 Table 2 - Estimated Development Site Trip Generation Use Size (units) ADT PM Peak AM Peak Total In Out . Total In Out Total In Out Assisted Living 30 80 40 40 7 3 4 5 2 3 Memory Care 70 168 84 84 13 6 7 11 7 4 Total New Tris 248 1 124 1 124 1 20 9 1 11 16 9 7 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Trip Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed, 30% to the north, 40% to the south, 15% to the east and 15% to the west. The generated trips for the proposed 7151 York Avenue development were assumed to arrive or exit using driveways on York Avenue, and were assigned based on the ratio of existing AADT volumes. Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2016 which is the year after the proposed site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non -development traffic growth to the existing traffic counts to determine the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated 7151 York Avenue development traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. Figures 4 — 7 shows the projected 2016 and 2030 No -Build and Build weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Operations This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Analysis Methodolo2y The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Aq-7 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 6 of 12 Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or,great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. 01 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A <10 < 10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. 01 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 7 of 12 Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existin- Level of Service Summary Table 4, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and 2014 traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are/would be operating at an overall LOS B or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS C or better. Table 4 — Existing (2014) Level of Service B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. of PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Intersection Lo7sLOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) York Ave at Hazelton Road B (B) 13 A (B) 6 York Ave at North Site A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Driveway York Ave at South Site A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Driveway York Ave at North Roundabout A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Intersections York Ave at South Roundabout Intersections A (A) 1 A (A) 1 York Ave at Parklawn Ave A (C) 6 A (C) 2 B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. of 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 8 of 12 Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2016 which is the year after the proposed 7151 York Avenue site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 5 - 7. Table 5 — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS B or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Overall delays will only increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions. However, with the increase in traffic, some movements in the York Avenue at Parklawn Avenue intersection will be operating in the PM peak hour at an LOS E in 2016 and an LOS F by 2030. By replacing the Stop Signed controlled intersection with Traffic Signal control, the movement levels of service with improve to LOS B by 2030. ,r_A1_ S — Nn Ruild - Vanyl nf.VorVZCP B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: W SB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build, shows that, assuming the addition of the 7151 traffic and Traffic Signal control at Parklawn Avenue, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS B or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All movement will be also be operating at LOS C or better in 2016 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the No- build condition. �S� 2016 2030 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) York Ave at Hazelton B (B) 14 A (B) 6 B (C) 15 A (B) 6 Road York Ave at North Site A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Driveway York Ave at South Site A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Driveway York Ave at North Roundabout A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Intersection York Ave at South Roundabout A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Intersection York Ave at Parklawn A (E) 6 A (C) 2 B (F) 14 A (C) 2 Ave (Stop Control) York Ave at Parklawn A (B) 6 A (A) 3 Ave (Signal Control) B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: W SB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build, shows that, assuming the addition of the 7151 traffic and Traffic Signal control at Parklawn Avenue, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS B or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All movement will be also be operating at LOS C or better in 2016 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the No- build condition. �S� 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 9 of 12 Table 6— Forecasted Build Access Alternative I -Level of Vi rvirn B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Queuinz Analysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queues with and without the proposed 7151 site development. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any of the available turn lane storage on York Avenue. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. Observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (1 vehicle) or less and would clear without blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic. 2016 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) York Ave at Hazelton Road B (B) 14 B (B) 12 B (C) 15 A (B) 6 York Ave at North Site Driveway A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 York Ave at South Site Driveway A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 York Ave at North Roundabout A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Intersection York Ave at South Roundabout A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Intersection York Ave at Parklawn Ave (Stop Control) A (E) 6 A (C) 2 B (F) 14 A (C) 2 York Ave at Parklawn Ave (Signal Control) A (B) 6 A (A) 3 B = Overall LOS, (C) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Queuinz Analysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queues with and without the proposed 7151 site development. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any of the available turn lane storage on York Avenue. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. Observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (1 vehicle) or less and would clear without blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic. 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the existing and anticipated use for the site and the PSR -4 zoning. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of 285 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 226 spaces. Table 8 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 8 — Parking Reauired Der Citv Code Use Size Rate Parking Required Parking Provided Existing Senior Housing 264 units .5 exposed and .25 enclosed / unit + 1/employee + 1/company vehicle 194 exposed 91 enclosed 162 exposed 64 enclosed Assisted Living 70 units Memory Care 30 units Total Parking 15 Total Parking 285 226 Source: City of Edina — PCD Zoning District The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Table 9 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. It shows that the site could be supported with 200 parking spaces. Even if the site was assumed to be 100% senior housing it would require 216 spaces. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking assuming the proposed full development of the site. Table 9 — Site Parking Demand ver ITE Use Size Rate Weekday Parking Re uired Senior Housing 264 units .59/unit 156 Assisted Living 70 units .41/unit 29 Memory Care 30 units .48/unit 15 Total Parking 200 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis the parking included with the proposed site plan would not meet City Code requirements, however, based on industry standards it is anticipated that adequate parking is being provided for the proposed development plan. A parking variance would therefore be required. ATI 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 11 of 12 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed 7151 York development project includes the addition of 100 senior housing and memory care units. The site is anticipated to generate 20 new trips in the weekday PM peak hour and 16 new trips in the weekday AM peak hour. • The Existing (2014) traffic operations analysis shows that all the intersections and driveways on York Avenue are operating at overall LOS B or better for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS B or better for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. • By the 2030 at the intersection of York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue with or without proposed 7151 site development, Traffic Signal control will be required to maintain movement LOS at acceptable levels. • Intersection traffic operations with the proposed 7151 development site in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS B or better for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, assuming Traffic Signal control at York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue. • The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact on intersections or access locations will occur as a result of the proposed full build conditions in 2016 or 2030. • Based on the parking analysis a parking variance would be required. The available parking included with the proposed 7151 development site does not meet the City's Code however, based on industry standards it is anticipated that adequate parking is being provided for the proposed development plan. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Construct the access and pedestrian accommodations as shown in the site plan (Figure 2). 2. Provide a parking variance for 59 parking spaces on the site. This could be accommodated using proof of parking. No additional roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate the proposed 7151York Avenue development plan. as3 7151 York Ave Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 1, 2014 Page 12 of 12 APPENDIX bT� w a a <q ❑ N r 2nd ST. W. J 62 nd ST. a CA. Z � z ST. m 35. N w w 35. F� o 3 a ST. 64 th I ST. L a w w L > > Q Q JQ a W. wz o 65 th ST. CD R`� ST. oLP N a y tMINNESOTA f- P 0 m ROYCAR N Of P� TSN UPPER P WI <>q 69th ^� �n 0 0 w U J = J a :2 aw RD• a W. 62 ui T)6 QONwuLi4, > a Q a 0m th ST. \ Lake ) z W,66\h� a oc N CH OWEN Q� RVE a A nd ST. Pm 0 700 ft 1400 ft J Q O � h U ST. w 1-3: ES;J m Cornelia ALE ao SOUTH � C Q CIR. F kG 68 t s OR. h � ST. a BALFANZ tiQ J7 Q TER• oz JUDS _ a N LAE WAY w c� z �� 0 W. 69th ST. a z w U o a Q> Q Q O� o0000o a a ?RY o 44 a- Q = O J o Y 70th o > �a w [ST, Q o W. I 64th o ANDOVER RD. < MAVELL E w y o a N a N co C3 ASP C BEL VIDERE LA, o w > DR. RD• x gSfq D �ARfM ORf C w o = o HAZELTON Y w Taj/ lq 'ASPASIA CjR• igRF Y o a o x M Lake Edina W. �W ��Hq� OUNN MRORf W. z 72 nod ST. Project r A D fL� o �s I{�� Location [} SwaRTH DR, 0';O� - tJ a o �F a w d J o> PO DR. w U) w OR. a p Q z w = JX GILFORD DR. o CD z Cf a wU oz J � Ci 4th HIBISCUS a a a PARKLAW cap w CT �o ST. AVE. o N c=%% AVE. L7 y a SEDU o �.P� o W. 75th RE LQ' PPLAZA r QLi Y w Q, DR.' > < a a W. 76th � ST. Jz F CD Q O 77th ST. d �' w a > o VIKING w DR. � a o_ Q U MINNESOTA U DR - ,NA Traffic and Parking Study Figure I 7151 York Avenue - Senior Living Development City of Edina, Minnesota 65-S-1 Project Location Map • � r 4 8(t6) �— 1 (13) h — r 1(4) r l a U s~ On 0 (o) ♦1 1 t r 62 (239) 55 (98) LEGEND IN 0 Intersection of Interest 500 (75) AM (PM) Counts i''I1f Turning Movement Direction IL 14(12)' _ MVI LII JI LC VI IVC t:::a N e Or 29 (24) r 1 k UC; o (o) o(0) 5 A 1 - 0(0) �2 19 (23) 'y pl , ® 0(0) South Site Drivewai Traffic Circ MOrth �W--0 --- -- z OR U U C; 0(0) (0 Traffic Circ l South �--�1 63 „ .. LEGEND IN 0 Intersection of Interest 500 (75) AM (PM) Counts i''I1f Turning Movement Direction 4 00 7 (zo) N e Or 29 (24) r 1 k UC; o (o) o(0) 5 A 1 t r 0(0) �2 19 (23) 'y , ® 0(0) LEGEND IN 0 Intersection of Interest 500 (75) AM (PM) Counts i''I1f Turning Movement Direction A �9^roVd ti Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 �J{ ) 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements •.k,:w City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Condition K 4 0 (0) C 29 (24) r i ti U C; O(G) o(o) 5 A ti t r 0(0) �2 33 (20) , ® 22 (16) � A �9^roVd ti Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 �J{ ) 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements •.k,:w City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Condition K %- C 0(0 0(0 r J< V U �► 0 (0) 0(9) : A I t r 54(61) �2 6 (17) , ® 0 (0) A �9^roVd ti Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 �J{ ) 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements •.k,:w City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Condition K 4 9lel C r j 1, b C;! 0 (0) o (0) 'n 47 (93) -P �2 0(0) y 24 (84) Z A �9^roVd ti Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 �J{ ) 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements •.k,:w City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Condition K 1(13) -r 1(4) C; qo 0(0) Z A 'k t F 63(242) 4(0) 56(100) N LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts fl'itf Turning Movement Direction 14(12) 111 161 1 1 V I- ff 7(20) OR r 0(0 '6 C; 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) t 30(25) 40 1 'A Lt C; 0(0) 4 'A U C; op L 0(0) 41 1k t 0(0) 41 t 0(0) 0(0) — South Site Drivewa) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 19(23) L 0(0) A 1 1 Traffic Circ rth 'k U 36 (414q) 0(0) Z t f 24(8) 0(0) 33(20) 0(0) 21 (18) 2.2 (16) tt C; 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) :b t Ir 0(0) 0(0) tt 1-- 0(0) Traffic Cir5g South 0(0) 0(0) 13 A t L 0 (0) 0(0) -0 0(0) OR LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts fl'itf Turning Movement Direction 0(0) 0(0) 7(20) r 0(0 '6 C; 0(0) 0(0) t 30(25) 55(62) 4 'A U C; op L 0(0) 0(0) 41 t 0(0) — 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 19(23) 'k U on 0(0) Z t f 0(0) 33(20) 2.2 (16) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts fl'itf Turning Movement Direction k 0 e Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4 7151 York Avenue —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 No Build Condition ks- i 0(0) 0(0) r 0(0 '6 C; 0(0) 0(0) t 55(62) 6(q L 0(0) k 0 e Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4 7151 York Avenue —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 No Build Condition ks- i 8(6) 1 (0) 6(5) C; 0(0) 0(0) t 48(95) 0 (0) 25(86) k 0 e Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4 7151 York Avenue —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 No Build Condition ks- i c'. tg(1g) o r 1 (4) 1 4 tt = 0 (0) 0(0) 5 A `► t r 63 (242) •0 i3 — 4 (0) 56 (100) y LEGEND OIntersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitf Turning Movement Direction 0 0 L 0 (0) «. , (20) r 0n o r 30 (25) U •� 1 U C; 0 (0) A '1 t P 0 (0) '� t P 0 (0) e - - - 33 (20) o Lo(0) 19 (23) 1 22 (16) 7 N , (0 0 (0) 'Y _ _ _ South Site Drivewa) Traffic Circrth 11 t -n - Traffic Cird South - - r 0 , 4+n LEGEND OIntersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitf Turning Movement Direction 0 0 L 0 (0) «. , (20) r 0n o r 30 (25) U •� 1 U C; 0 (0) A '1 t P 0 (0) '� t P 0 (0) e e e e o 33 (20) o Lo(0) 19 (23) 1 22 (16) 7 N LEGEND OIntersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitf Turning Movement Direction Ug"') 9 l�Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Build Condition hsq L 0 (0) r 0n 1 1 U C; 0 (0) J j a (o) 5 A ti t P 0(0) } e e o 33 (20) o `�" _ 22 (16) 7 N , Ug"') 9 l�Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Build Condition hsq ` 0(0) ~ 6(6) On J j 4 U C; On 0 (0) 'D A 1 t F 59 (66) •" o `�" _ 6 (17) y N , 0 (0) 'Y Ug"') 9 l�Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Build Condition hsq R 6 (6) r 1 (0) r 6(5) G 0 (0) 0(0) A N t P 49 (96) Fo - - — N 0 (0) -► N 25 (86) Ug"') 9 l�Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Build Condition hsq 4- 1(13) -r 1(4) '6 U C; 0(0) 0(0) A '% t 68(263) 40 R� 4(0) 61(108) N il i 7 LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitF Turning movement Direction 14(12) 0( a 0(0) k tt C; 0(0) 0(0) 'A t On (0) P L : (0) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitF Turning movement Direction 21(18) 0 a 30(28) 'A C; 0(0) o(o) A t 0(0) -0 0 P L �0) 0 0) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitF Turning movement Direction 0(0) 7(20) a 30(28) 'A C; 0(0) 0(0) 43 $1 'j t On 0 P L 23 LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts flvitF Turning movement Direction e -A. Traffic and Parking Study W 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development City of Edina, Minnesota 0 00(') (0) 0(0) '6 U C; 0(.) 0(0) 41 t 0(0) 0(0) P L33(20) 22 (16) e -A. Traffic and Parking Study W 7151 York Avenue — Senior Living Development City of Edina, Minnesota 0 9 Figure 6 Peak Hour Turning Movements 2030 No Build Condition :6 �14) 4 8) 'r 0(0) '6 U c; o(o) 0(0) 2D A t F 0(,) 0(0) P L 0(0) 9 Figure 6 Peak Hour Turning Movements 2030 No Build Condition -6 0(0) 4- 0(0) 'r 0(0) U Im 0(0) 0(0) A t 57 (U) 6(17) P L 0(0) 9 Figure 6 Peak Hour Turning Movements 2030 No Build Condition 8(6) In 6(5) 0 p 0 (0) :b 41 t 52(102) 0(0) 26 (92) 9 Figure 6 Peak Hour Turning Movements 2030 No Build Condition A FZ ir 1(4) 0(0) 0 �0) 47 $1 1% 68(263) -0 t2 4(0) 62(109) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts ,A'Itf Turning Movement Direction 0(0) 0(0) 1 '0 W 1 16 1 1 �F I %. %� &0 1 1 V 7(20) ;r 9 0(0 k U C; on 30(28) 41 % t 61(71) -P 'A U c; on 6(17) 0(0) OR t 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) South Site Drivewa) 0(0) 0 R D (1� q(1 L 0(0) Traffic Circja%�, rth PW 0 I � 4q) C; 0(0) .0 0(0) 24(g) t 0(0) q)— 0(0) 33(20) 2472 ..... .. U C; 0(0) 0(0) .......... .............. 0(0) -42 t /SSoUth 0(0) -0 U 0(0) L :2 Traffic 41 t F Cird 0 (0) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts ,A'Itf Turning Movement Direction 0(0) 0(0) On 7(20) ;r 9 0(0 k U C; on 30(28) 41 % t 61(71) -P 'A U c; on 6(17) 0(0) f1 t 0(0) 0(0) 0(0� 0 R D (1� j� 0(0) 'A C; 0(0) 0(0) t 0(0) 33(20) 22 (16) LEGEND 0 Intersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts ,A'Itf Turning Movement Direction N A Traffic and Parking Study Figure 7 e t4 U) —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements 0 7151 York Avenue City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Build Condition 0(0) On ;r 9 0(0 k U C; on 0(0) Z 41 % t 61(71) -P 6(17) L 0 (0) N A Traffic and Parking Study Figure 7 e t4 U) —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements 0 7151 York Avenue City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Build Condition 8(6) 1 (0) ;r 9 Jr 6(5) C; 0(0) 0(0) 41 Is t 53(103) 0(0) 26 (92) N A Traffic and Parking Study Figure 7 e t4 U) —Senior Living Development Peak Hour Turning Movements 0 7151 York Avenue City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Build Condition Jackie Hoogenakker From: Connie Mahler <conniemmahler@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:26 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: WHAT IS EDINA DOING? Hello, I live on 72nd and York Avenue South and I can't help but wonder what the City of Edina is trying to do to those of us who have lived here for a very long time. The enormous buildings that are going up are ruining the beauty of this area and it goes without saying adding more and more cars, traffic to York Avenue. We already have enough traffic and these projects that are going up will make it even worse. Also - yet another structure where Borofka's Furniture was. That was a wonderful furniture store and they were forced out so that another apartment can go up. Shame on you. We needed the furniture store much more than yet another apartment building. Does Edina need to be that hungry for tax money? Connie Mahler, a concerned property owner Jackie Hoogenakker From: Nancy <n-cozad@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 30,2014 11:48 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 7151 York Ave I am concerned about the traffic on York Ave. What is the hurry. They are building 3 large apartment buildings in this area. Is it possible to wait to approve this until the other buildings are complete so we can learn how bad the traffic will be? Jackie Hoogenakker From: Connie Mahler <conniemmahler@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:26 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: WHAT IS EDINA DOING? Hello, I live on 72nd and York Avenue South and I can't help but wonder what the City of Edina is trying to do to those of us who have lived here for a very long time. The enormous buildings that are going up are ruining the beauty of this area and it goes without saying adding more and more cars, traffic to York Avenue. We already have enough traffic and these projects that are going up will make it even worse. Also - yet another structure where Borofka's Furniture was. That was a wonderful furniture store and they were forced out so that another apartment can go up. Shame on you. We needed the furniture store much more than yet another apartment building. Does Edina need to be that hungry for tax money? Connie Mahler, a concerned property owner Jackie Hoogenakker From: Jo Stephens <jrnstephens71@hotmaiI.corn> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:03 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 7151 York Ave, Edina I am not very excited about the possibility of another multi -person dwelling. I have only lived in Edina for 2 years, and have seen changes coming too fast. We moved here from a south Minneapolis neighborhood near the light rail, to get away from a area that was adding too many residents to handle the infrastructure of so many more cars, and people for the neighborhood to handle, because of business people and money moguls trying to cash in on the light rail. I think the city needs to think about where the money and budget for providing services for all these new residents, and workers in the area is going to come from. And it better not be from my taxes going up, but the businesses causing and real-estate speculators that are creating the needs. Joanne Stephens 7200 York Ave S #217 Edina 4 mstephens7l@hotmaii.com Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sara Arnaden <sara.amaden47@grnail.corn> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:47 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: York Continental Assisted Living Facility To Whom It May Concern: I object to the construction of yet another residential facility in the immediate neighborhood of my residence at 7200 York. In addition I propose a moratorium on further multi -family housing in our area until the impact of the Wickes project and the nearly 500 new units already under construction next to Byerly's and at the comer of Xerxes and 69th Street can be assessed. My primary concern is the addition of hundreds of new cars on the streets in our area, where it is already difficult to get out onto York Avenue at certain times of the day and certain days of the week. This is a serious safety issue. I am also concerned about my property values. If increased traffic congestion makes car travel in the greater Southdale area more miserable than it already is, I believe it will reduce the value of my property. Thank you for considering my views on the matter. Sara Amaden 7200 York South #304 Edina, MN 55435 952-797-2281 To: Planning Commission From: Karen M. Kurt Date: July 9, 2014 A, k- 0 e J888 Agenda Item M Subject: Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Appointments Action El Discussion 0 Information 0 Action Requested: Approve recommended appointments to the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Planning Team Information / Background: Fourteen residents and business representatives applied to serve on the Wooddale Valley View (WVV) Small Area Planning Team. The applications were reviewed by co-chairs Susan Lee and Arlene Forrest and staff liaisons Karen Kurt and Cary Teague. The following individuals are recommended to serve on the team: * Rob Burley (Burley Hair Salon) • Carrie Fordahl (Pappagallo) • Connie Carrino (Concord neighbor) • Brian Durst (Pamela Park neighbor) • Rebecca Melang (Pamela Park neighbor) • Rita Paris (Concord neighbor) • Jim Schedin (Pamela Park neighbor) Applicants who are not appointed will be encouraged to participate during the community engagement process. The WVV Planning Team will serve as a working group of the Planning Commission and regular updates will be provided by the co-chairs. The first team meeting is scheduled for July 16. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Date: July 9, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Conflict of Interest/Bylaws MEMO A, 0 As a follow up to our discussion regarding Planning Commissioner conflict of interest in our bylaws, the city attorney offers the following suggested amendment: SECTION 21. ETHICAL AND RESPECTFUL CONDUCT (A) Conflict of Interest Members may not use their position on the Planning Commission for personal benefit. The interests of the Planning Commission must be the first priority in all decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial interest in or who is employed by a business that has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Planning Commission action, decision or recommendation must promptly disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from discussion and voting on the matter and should sit in the audience when the matter comes before the Planning Commission. City of Edina * 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member ofthe 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 "I" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "ll" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "I" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type 1 " under'Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "V under'Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting' Type 1 " under the month on the meetings' line. Type "Il " under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type 1 " under the month on the meetings' line. Type "I" 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 LOWER LEVEL co op ARCHITECTURE 205 6th Ale. SE 301 Ab-,—, SO 67401 ,,,we: 60,�7254852 224 N. Philllp� A— 208 Siwx I'Mis S tI, P.— M.304,91,99 _P..h.— CO-OP PROJECT NO 1405 ISSUE REMS ON SCHEDULE: R-# _REV 0 V; I— RE 2 PROJECT, 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49THSTREET EDINA . MINNESOTA iiElEGTE. CEILING PLAN A2-0 El rA to u 2E u 0 A // co OP ARCHITECTURE 20 61hA-.SE301 Ab.M.... SID 57401 Phone: 605-725-4852 224 N. Phill(�,s Ave. 208 Sl ... lll� 057104 Phone: 605-334-9999 —co-opamh.— u C.P PROJECT NO: 1405 ISSUE: —14 R R�J.SIONSCH DULE: REV, D . . RM I—E 2 ­�—MING —14 PROJECT: 3932'3 UTWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA Al. EL 1.OR PIN m wLOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1-1- co op ARCHITECTURE 205 6th A-. SE 301 AbW—. SO 57401 Phme: 605-725,1852 224 N. Phnilps Me. 208 Siw, Falls, SO 57104 Ph.— 605-334-9999 --o,,amh—1 .P P. 1405 RZI.SION S:=IE: [ PROJECT-. E32�393:4TWINHOME S 'T T WEST 49TH MEET "'. T . . N EDINA. MIM:�S'OTA LOWM LEVEL F=R PUN Al -0 UJOJH Ee 112 65 3932-3934 TWINHOME WEST 49TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA ARCHITECT: 20 6MA—SE301 Ab.d..,SD574 I Phwa: 605-7254852 Fc --o-1 224 N. PhIllip. Ma. 208 Sl m Falls. SD 57104 P= 605-3"99 EC -1 —W-h— ARCHI'--ORE DRAWING -SHEET -INDEX: ARCHITECTURAL AD -0 SUE PLAN A 4 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Al -1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A1.2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A LOWER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A -1 MAIN LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A2-2 U ER LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A3-1 ROOF PLAN A4-1 EXITRIOR ELEVATI NS A I BUILDING SECTION Ar12 BUILDING SECTION BID DOCUMENTS 05-01 t LEGEND . . . . GAS mErER . . . . IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 . . . . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 97.N.P . . . E(ISTING ELEVATION (922.0) . . . PROPOSED ELEVAT10N Q CS . . . . CURB STOP 0 . . . . MANHOLE . . . . CATCH BASIN . . . . POWERPOLE . . . . DECIDUOUS TREE * . . . CONIFEROUS TREE 10 . . . . BUSH . . . PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL * — ---------- DENOTES TREE PRESERVATION FENCE —w—w—m— DENOTES SILT FENCE LEGAL 12ESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, according to plat thereof, on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. Surveyor PTS Land Services, Inc. 826 NW 30th Street Faribault , MN 55021 Phone : 507-291-1137 F..: 507-334-9472 www.ptsiand.com ELEVATIONS: EXISTING: MAIN FLOOR = 892.2 PROPOSED: MAIN FLOOR = 892.00 TOP OF BLOCK = 891.60 BASEMENT FLOOR = 562.23 SET BACK BEQUIREMEM 31.51' FRONT BUILDING TO ROW (AVE.) 35' REAR BUILDING TO PROP LINE 10' SIDE BUILDING TO PROP LINE PER CITY OF EDINA MUNICIPAL CODE NOTE : This survey was performed under cover of substantial snow fall The surveyor makes no guarantee that all visible improvements are shown. AREAS: LOT = 10,108 SQ. Fr. BUILDING = 2,655.61 SO. FT. INCLUDES 2 DECKS 084.15 SQUARE FEET EACH. BUILDING — DECKS=2,487.31 SQ. Fr. % HARDC0VFR . 9A99_' ,CZ7j?r1 .1e74TZ7 0 ZOT 2 _9Z0CX- Z1V0C25r S9,WR22 4�0,121 -IV S7 7 IV ,qRZZ q7 32.00 ------------------ EXISTING FWIN HOME Q' "A 'b' RQJF—. I 1. SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSION & EXTENT OF BLDG PAD SOILS CORRECTION, IF ANY, 2. PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE FIELD STAKED AFTER DEMO OF EXISTING HOUSE. 3. AVERAGE BUILDING SETBACK=(32.0+31.01)/2 . 31.51 FEET UJ LLJ ��: I LLJ LLJ ry I ­— C/) CID -t I EROSION CONTROI NOTES: 1. SILT FENCE AND BIO—LOGS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS. 2. BIO—LOGS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLAN, AT ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND DOWN FLOW SIDE OF ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IN FLOW LINE OF CURB AND GU7rER. 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED AT STORM DRAINS LOCATED WEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CLEANED AND MAINTAJNED REGULARLY. PTS LA-ATD SERVICES, INC. 393T2"M4 42TH COMPLETE LAND SURVEYTIVC SERVICES '. BLOCK 1, OF 1 a 1 iL-7 tit, Art"', won" Page 1 of I A, -3 file:Hed-ntl.ci.edina.nin.us/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/1 802824140042001 jpg 6/2/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map - r- Interactive ------ Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Kesuns Links Tax information View obliaue imaaery (Bina maps) Survey documents About the data PID:1802824140042 3932 49th St W Edina, MN 55424 Owner: Owner/Taxpayer Ljg Investments LIc Page I of I http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid= 1802824140042 6/2/2014 LJG INVESTMENTS LLC 1312 DOUGLAS AVE Taxpayer: #2 MINNEAPOLIS MN �55403 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: .3 Parcel 0.23 acres Parcel Area'. 10,087 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: Enoch Sward Addn Lot: �002 Block: �001 q Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: Legend Measure Page I of I http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid= 1802824140042 6/2/2014 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page I of 1 Interactive Maps Find a PID or an address on the map Kesuits Links Tax information View obliaue imaciery (Bina mans) Survey docu ents About the data PID:1802824140042 3932 49th St W Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Ljg Investments LIc LJG INVESTMENTS LLC Taxpayer: 1312 DOUGLAS AVE #2 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 Tax District School Dist: Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.23 acres 10,087 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: Enoch Sward Addn 002 Lot: Block: 001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: -------------- -------- Legend Measure - -- - --------- &-7 http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/ efault.aspx?pid=1802824140042 6/2/2014 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility 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 knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am 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 this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Signature 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. Thank you for considering our variance request. Best Regards, Alex Gese President, LJG Investments LLC aIex@)ljgJnvestrnen.ts.com (347) 645-7391 From: Paul Whiteman Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:11 AM To: KAaker@ed namn.gov, Alex Gese Hello Kris, If I am reading this variance application correctly it appears we need to have the entire app in by tomorrow to be sure to be considered at the June 11th meeting, is that correct? We can drop everything by tomorrow, but I was wondering if we can set up a time with you when we drop everything off to go over the variance process just to make sure we have everything in that is needed. Let me know if you have time that works tomorrow. Thanks Paul Whiteman PDW Investments 612 -SOIL -5224 Kris Aaker From: agese@hotmail.com on behalf of Alexander Gese <aIex@1jginvestments.com> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:20 AM To: Paul Whiteman; Kris Aaker Subject: Re: 3932-3934 49th S. Variance questions Attachments: Variance application for 3932.docx Hi Kris, Please find attached the variance request explanations, in a word document. Also attached below. Alex Gese UG Investments LLC Variance application for 3932-3934 W. 49' Street, Edina, MN 55424. Lot Width and Lot Area Variance request. We are seeking to rebuild twin homes on the subject lot, and need a lot width and lot area variance to do so. We believe that all of the following conditions strongly apply to our situation: The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance because, without the variance, rebuilding on the lot will be impossible. In short, if the variance is not granted no builder will ever be able to comply with the zoning ordinance at this location. The use is reasonable because we are simply proposing an improvement of the existing condition — i.e., to build two new attached homes on an R-2 site. This variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district because, in essence, it will put the lot on an equal playing field with other R-2 lots in the area that either meet the lot width and lot area requirement OR that have been granted a variance — the very same variance we are seeking — in order to redevelop similarly situated lots. Specifically, the adjacent property to the immediate east was recently granted the exact variances we are seeking, for the exact same type of project. Our project is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Simply put, the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance could not have been to deny future development of any lot that became non-compliant when the ordinance was written or was changed. At one time this lot was compliant with relevant lot area and lot width requirements, and the existing R-2 duplex was built on the site. Our proposed project complies with all other aspects of the building code — meeting all relevant setback, size, and design requirements for a lot of its size. Our proposed project does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is a tastefully designed twin - home that is code compliant in all aspects that our within our control. The subject street has many duplexes and a couple of new construction twin -homes, including the aforementioned adjacent property. Our proposed twin - home will not only fit into the neighborhood, it will improve the condition of the subject lot with a tastefully designed, updated building. 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: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying RI F -I 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 FFI RI F -I FX -1 F -I y o Le 0 VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.-gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME:- _(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: �M--2k 1-7r=,,- T>, 1�� -1 _/? PHONE: EMAIL: 75 PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:/ --7-6- L4e-jSignature required on back page) ADDRESS: 31f,,17 le"a lf� P H 0 N E: .3 q,7- 7 3,,vl �EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3?2Z6!R3!z -S;c C, - PRESENT ZONING: P. I. D.# Ze. ne.aZ:r EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: 7-A, 1 41, ��.? zd�, -/— e-1 e e -,::z, (Use revdirse side or additional page's if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: P H 0 N E: EMAIL: SURVEYOR: NAME:�r:,�22 PHONE: 1-07-291-12 7 EMAIL: 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed homes will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new twin homes will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property as a double dwelling lot. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions. 3) The imposed lot area does not allow redevelopment of the property without the benefit of a variance or a zone change. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: May 29, 2014. Building plans and elevations date stamped: May 1, 2014. Deadline for a City Decision: July 27, 2014. 4 3. The property is an existing nonconforming lot that has always been developed with a double dwelling unit. 4. The homes are a two stories with attached two car garages and should complement the character of the neighborhood. The homes are within the setback, coverage and height requirements. 0 Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that historically the existing double home has been on a lot that is narrower and is less than the required 15,000 square foot lot since it was built in 1953. The practical difficulty for the subject property is that the ordinance has changed regarding minimum lot size for a double unit lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing property predates the ordinance and was not self-created after the fact. 3 Existing Site Features The subject lot is 10, 108 square feet in area and is a double dwelling unit lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Double Dwelling Unit R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story double home with attached two car garages. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues * Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent Average of adjacent Side- 10+ height, (living) 17/1 6feet Rear- 35 feet 38 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 35 Ft 2 stories, 29 Ft Lot Area 15,000 Sq Ft *10,108Sq Ft Lot Width 90 *82 verage 25% 24.6% * Variance Required Primary Issues * Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 2 A, 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker June 11, 2012 B-14-12 Assistant Planner Single-family homes. Recommended Action: Approve an 8 foot lot width and a 4,892 square foot lot area variance as requested. Project Description An 8 foot lot width and a 4,892 square foot lot area variance to build a new twin home to replace an existing double dwelling unit at 3932/3924 49th St. owned by LIG Investments LLC. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is 82 feet in width and is a 10, 108 square foot lot developed with a double dwelling unit located north of 49th Street and is zoned R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District, (see attached pages: A.1 -A.6), site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner is hoping to demolish the existing double for the construction of a new double dwelling home, (see attached pages: A.7 -A.13, site surveys, and bulding plans). The ordinance requires a double dwelling unit lot consist of no less than 90 feet in width and a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The 82 foot wide lot consists of 10,108 square feet, so it is therefore 8 feet short in width and 4,892 square feet short of the minimum 15, 000 square foot area requirement. The existing double dwelling unit was built in 1953 and pre -dates the current lot area requirements. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Double -dwelling homes Southerly: Double -dwelling homes. Westerly: Single-family homes. fagades as an organizing element that helps tie the residential areas and common spaces together. The color palette also relates to the materials planned for the exterior renovation on the neighboring building. At the fourth floor, the building steps back to provide areas where Memory Care residents may be outdoors in a supervised and protected environment. Rooftop mechanical units are clustered at the north and south ends of the building adjacent to the elevator enclosure. These areas are shielded by low screen walls and are held back from the roof edges to further minimize the perceived building height and massing. Communal areas of the building have been developed with an emphasis on transparency and connectivity between indoor and outdoor activity areas. The "front porch" along York Avenue provides an elevated patio adjacent to the public functions inside and from which residents can observe the activity along the street. On the courtyard (east) side, the health and wellness functions have been located to take advantage of the adjacent outdoor landscape. The entire courtyard area is available to residents of both the new Senior Living Building and the existing apartment building. The exterior spaces have been designed to support a variety of functions including outdoor fitness classes, social gatherings for both large and small groups and residents' gardening areas. Additionally, sidewalks have been included around the entire two -parcel site and to the adjacent park to offer residents the opportunity to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. North of the courtyard, the delivery access is buffered by coniferous trees which not only provide year-round visual screening, but also provide shelter from prevailing northwesterly winter winds. At the main entry, the drive is roughly centered on the courtyard space where it can provide access to both buildings. The entry drop-off is sheltered by a central porte cochere providing protection from the elements and a preview into the courtyard beyond. Canopy structures are provided over heated sidewalks extending from the porte cochere to each building. The porte chochere and canopies will be treated similarly to other public areas of the project in both scale and materiality. 4 C6 CONNECTION TO PROMENADE SHEETIND X A�O ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AND SHIFT INDEX A 01 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A 102 FLOORPI. NS GARAGE LEVEL AND FLOORS 2,1 A103 EXTUROR ELEVATIONS A104 SITEENTR VIEW FROM YORK AVENUE A105 VIM FROM A005S YORK AVENUE A106 CLOSE UP VIEW ALONG YORK AVENUE A107 PORTE COCHERE AND SHARED COURTYARD A 08 ENTRY TO PARKING GARAGE AND DELIVERY AREA A109 BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM SOUTH 1100 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN C100 CIVIL PROJECT KEY PLAN C200 CIVIL NOTES AND LEGEND C4 0 SITE LAYOUT AND PAVING PLAN C500 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C600 UTILITY PLAN EXISTING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY LAND TITLE SURVEY Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development PARKING COUNTS ... EXISTING BUILDING: 2� UNITS EXISTING PARKINCI. 123 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING: 140 STALLS PROPOSED SENIOR LIVING, ,AlEl..DERGF..N. �CES 14 VISITOR SP ..T.T�LSIACES ADAM'S HILL PARK CITY OF RICHFIELD FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ........... M41Aaa. 6;-- 06/13/14 PROPOSED 4P ROPERTY LINE SITE PLAN Al 00 q ...... ........ ........ EZI STAFF PARKING 1:3 C3 .dIIIIII, 0 STALLS @ 9'-0' C3 t S PARKING FOR EXISTING BUILDING ACCESSIM.E— PIT .......... .......... .......... ADA ADA 0116POSED EXISTING 12 STORY 0000 BUILDING BUILDING ADA ADA PR�P— BUS STOP DA SOUTH PARKINCrFtft NIS BUIUDLUG- -,-EI-qrALLs@q,-o-& ACCESSIBL= MECH uuul� IMONUME SIGN N IR VISITOR PARKING NAL G 12STAU-S@S` & IS STALLS @ 2 ACCESSIBLE CONNECTION TO PROMENADE SHEETIND X A�O ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AND SHIFT INDEX A 01 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A 102 FLOORPI. NS GARAGE LEVEL AND FLOORS 2,1 A103 EXTUROR ELEVATIONS A104 SITEENTR VIEW FROM YORK AVENUE A105 VIM FROM A005S YORK AVENUE A106 CLOSE UP VIEW ALONG YORK AVENUE A107 PORTE COCHERE AND SHARED COURTYARD A 08 ENTRY TO PARKING GARAGE AND DELIVERY AREA A109 BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM SOUTH 1100 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN C100 CIVIL PROJECT KEY PLAN C200 CIVIL NOTES AND LEGEND C4 0 SITE LAYOUT AND PAVING PLAN C500 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C600 UTILITY PLAN EXISTING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY LAND TITLE SURVEY Continental Gardens Mesaba Capital Development PARKING COUNTS ... EXISTING BUILDING: 2� UNITS EXISTING PARKINCI. 123 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING: 140 STALLS PROPOSED SENIOR LIVING, ,AlEl..DERGF..N. �CES 14 VISITOR SP ..T.T�LSIACES ADAM'S HILL PARK CITY OF RICHFIELD FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ........... M41Aaa. 6;-- 06/13/14 SITE PLAN Al 00 dementia. The area is designed to bring comfort, peace and familiarity to the residents while providing exceptional care. Proposed Building Features: 0 Congregate dining w/ three meals a day. 0 Private dining 0 Coffee Shop 0 Lounge areas on every floor 0 Library & Computer Room 0 Craft Room 0 Fitness Facility Site Planning The new Senior Living Building has been oriented primarily north and south on the site to activate the York Avenue street scape. Mesaba Capital Development has applied for a variance allowing the building to be located 20' from the west property line along York Avenue. This location is desirable in that it minimizes the impact on the residential units in the adjacent existing building, with respect to exterior views and access to natural light. Placing the building farther west also maximizes the green space available for outdoor amenities that will be shared between buildings. This placement also increases southern and western sunlight into the courtyard, while shielding the outdoor areas from the prevailing northwesterly winds during winter months. The proposed placement is also in keeping with the essential character of the neighborhood along York Avenue. York Avenue Streetscape In placing our new Senior Living Building along the 'front lot' of the site, our goal is to create an urban style setting, fronting the first level of our four story stepped facade. Along York Avenue, the first floor stoops provide an articulated masonry base interspersed with on - grade seating areas adjacent to the sidewalk. As the existing grade slopes downwards toward the south, the landscape falls away to reveal more of the building's base. Our proposed streetscape will also include new tree plantings, site furnishings, lights, and sidewalks. Building Exterior Design The exterior design for the Senior Living Building has been developed with two key objectives; our building should be integrated with the York Avenue streetscape in terms of scale and articulation, while also relating well to the existing twelve -story apartment building which shares our site. In recognition of the difference in overall scale and site placement, we have focused on integrating the two buildings by using similar organizing elements within the exterior expression. The existing building exterior has a hierarchy in which large, framed areas have been subdivided horizontally into smaller panels. A similar vocabulary has been used in developing the new Senior Living Building. Taking cues from the existing building, the relatively large fa�ades have been broken into smaller, framed areas within which horizontal panels create visual texture and interest. The use of a masonry base relates both to the existing adjacent building and the warm brick tones seen in many of the residential Edina neighborhoods. Above the masonry base, residential areas are sheathed with cement fiber siding in a combination of light tan and warm gray. A rich brown ribbon runs through all the A -7 Sustainability Supports City objective to exceed State sustainability goals via: • Selection of building materials sourced locally and/or manufactured from rapidly renewable resources. • Careful placement on site to maximize both density and green space. • Site selected to support mass transit and transportation alternatives to private vehicle use. The Senior Living Building will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care options. Health Dimensions Group + Premier Management offer industry-leading expertise in consulting and management of senior living properties. This team understands the opportunities and challenges inherent with providing services to the aging. Their experienced leaders create customized approaches specific to the unique needs and circumstances of the market, residents and facility. Mesaba Capital engaged Health Dimensions Group to provide a summation of current senior living providers in the Edina area. The summary provided results documenting currently high occupancy levels in the area with one property currently in fill up, offering high price points, and experiencing good market acceptance. Overall Project Goals: Create a sense of Community Pride Provide a warm and inviting environment Connection to Nature - indoor and outdoor Sense of quality and dignity Maximize the potential of the site The proposed building is four stories in height with underground parking. The 100 -unit facility is being programmed and designed to accommodate a continuum of aging, including Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care Units. The total square footage of the project is proposed to be 121,300 NSF. The parking for the parcel is planned for 64 stalls enclosed below the Senior Living Building, 14 visitor and 10 employee surface parking. The facility will provide at least ten percent of the total units as affordable housing; individuals below the 50% median income level will have reduced monthly rents. Senior Living with Services (70 units) Private apartments with full kitchens and laundry. Support services for those who have more complex care requirements. Staff is on-site 24 -hours -a -day. • Independent Living is for seniors who wish to eliminate the burden of home ownership for an apartment and facility offering numerous conveniences and amenities. • Assisted Living is for seniors who wish to live as independently as possible, yet may require assistance with some of the activities of daily living. • The facility will create a dynamic environment that promotes activities throughout the day. Memory Care (30 units) The private memory care apartments at Continental Gardens will be secure and specially designed for those with mild to moderate memory loss from Alzheimer's and other forms of k� AppuauT yj�k(6T]�E nn C;3 MESABA CAPITAL P A R F N E R S City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: Continental Gardens Senior Housing Mesaba Capital Development proposes to develop a 100 -unit senior care facility in Edina, Minnesota. The proposed building will be on the property of The Yorktown Continental Apartments, a 12 -story building of 264 one bedroom apartments for independent seniors. The site, 7151 York Avenue, is within walking distance to the Galleria, Southdale Mall, Target, CVS, Walgreens, Cub Foods, Byerly's, YMCA, entertainment venues, and The Hennepin County Library Government Center. Bus lines are conveniently located in front of the site on York Avenue. The current parcel is 5.85 acres and zoned PSR -4, Planned Residence District. The parcel is planned to be subdivided and replatted during the entitlement process. Mesaba Capital Development along with Health Dimensions Group + Premier Management, Welsh Construction and RSP Architects believe this is a strong development opportunity and aligns with the visions and goals of the City of Edina. Why approve this project? Land Use & Densi Leverages land with higher residential density, lower vehicle ownership and usage. Delivers senior housing that is needed within the market. Deliver affordable housing that is needed within the market. York Avenue * Connects and engages, continuing the City's vision for a walkable community. Promotes health with walking and biking distance to shopping, entertainment and services. Transportation /Transi • Provides an integrated and efficient transportation system that affords mobility, convenience and safety for residents. • Mesaba Capital in discussion with Metro Transit to improve bus stop and connect to Senior Living Building. Affordable Housing Adds units to the current inventory, assisting the City of Edina in reaching their goal. A*�- A� Lu 46 N W.2�� I , 4 n -7-,- i A� &E City of Edina 68120""1211609 6WIl Legend 4 '6805 6817 6820 6Af7 6820 6W 68296817 020"17682168206817 Surrmauffni; Home Number S21 6829 6828 6825 6828 SVS 68286825 683692568ASS28"25 Labels —w25= 833 MY 6836 $033 68M 6833 6836ow "M6s3iW768366833 Home Number Label. IR4-,68456944684168446MI 68448641 484�684158436&46941 Street Me.. Lalpals ffgn4s�w W016900 690, 0" 6OL116904 69016900 69016"0 MI City Limits 3503- 906 6909 6909 6056913 6"S 6909 6905 6M 690 Creeks 1 121- Sf3 63V 6DJ36917 W16 fff3 Off 60103M7 6913 6 76921 91 El Lake Nam. :216923 69V 89 "0 W 69216925 0216925 6921 6925 29 296933 6929 OW.1 W29 OD29 6929 6922 d929 Lakes 3210_ g3l 6941 I'll 604 6033 032 Ow 0 "4 i Ow 6937 ONI 6037 El Park. 6945 6MI 6945 9456944 19456044 W4 690 6044 6945 zo'd�g 70017OW 7001 28272821 ?M7M 2611 2M17 2W9 7M 70097008 7M 7M F-� APD, t" ­*ib P.W.1 Ubt&l) 61 - MI TV% 2W$ 2513 7013 63 70., 10157014 2 02829 YOZ12W 2320 2516 —7001-3 -1 70227020 702 129W 2838 7020 1102 2610 26002518 111 7029300930012911 282328132W#2719 7Ojj3OV52915290$20&f 2401 704�292429142904.t82428122WO7045 2WO PCD-2jFb ... JG—mfttDbfiilQ 3650 2W5 301530112921 2U3 201328017'101 PC04 johan-al Did -i) 300S 30012515 28152907 PC 0.4 M—I c --N.9d.1 a*.Ift) J4AZaTCVVRD 20 3008 2920 2916 2224 2012 2WO 27M 2WO 2808 PM Ift—d Jk--Lfl DkWil 3301 3443— 7124 28772861264528092801 27132701 PUDjP&—W4%Di,�i 717t 7132 7133 7134 2876 2860 2044 2814 2800 714-1 71" 2700 POO -2 tPh...l 0115-0�Al) 24 7145 1200 72017200 r2Ol?200 72017200 7201 PR 0 Red�.W V�dL�) 72097208 72097208 7209 72W 72M PR 0 4 (f U-3 R L -&-l. b I a bb&IJ 72M 72 572N 72157214 72157214 7215 72D PRO -3 JPL-.d Resid-thO DhWdl 7220 72?217220 72217220 72217220 7221 7200 PRD -44%--1 DkW&.) 72" 7226 Y227 7226 72277226 72277226 7227 7233 '?232 72337232 72337232 7233 PRD -5 72437238 72391238 72397238 ?23 PIM -4 jft—d SzWwDL�rH) 90 7244 72457244 774ST244 724: 733S IRV 7300 73017300 7"1 M 7301 R-2tll-bb Elh-glag Uddl 10 14 -24 73041 73097308 73097308 ?J09 7315 73 4 73157314 73167314 73fS 732 7320 73217320 73217320 7321 Parcels 8. 7325 73277326 73277329 7327 3020 3014 Woo 2910,8229400 2818 73337332 7333 7M 73 3 8-51 7332 29242912 YM 7338 73397336 7339 'S 2812 30193013 2923,2901 7344 73457344 ?US Y344 734S 7344 20520 -F "2 7401404 TVT7400 44W4W -ZW*-?4W- 7401 - - 740$740* .7405 7409 400 74 74097408 74097406 7409 74M 709 NW 74097406 7413 5- 09 741574f4 741.47414 74157414 74157414 7415 74M 7419 741 7420 74217420 74217420 74217420 74217420 7421 PARKLAKWAVE 74217426 74277426 7427 Y426 74277426 74V Y4ZG 74337432 74337432 74337432 T4337432 74337412 74M 7438 74397438 74107438 74397438 7,397438 74457444 74457444 74457444 7445 7444' 14452600 —740 4 75017560 7SOI 7501 740 2601 PID:3202824210004 7151 York Ave S Edina, MN 55435 &E City of Edina Legend 'M Mat 6812 6809 6812 6809 6812 OWS 6813 6812 6808 4 24 '3... 63 6820 6817 6420 681il WO 6817 20 881168215820 6817 Highlighted feature =24 421 6029 W28 682S 6428 U25 68286828 SM 6825 6029 6828 fi825 surrounding House Number 33 M7 6636 6833 6339 6833 6836 OW "36 6833 G&V 6836 OW3 Labels 3300 FS416845684468,1168446941 68446041 6844 64,116945 6U4 6041 Hnuss Number Labels VPrHSrW egnq ST V*/ 0016900 690, $NO 690, 6904 6901 6900 60016GOO 6901 Street Name Label. 6D 905 690� 69W 690S M3 6M agog 9905 69LV 6905 City Limits 3503 3501 21 f3 6917 &M 69176916 6$f3 6017 8913 6917 6013 Cr..k. 021692 9216920 fiS17 6921 692-6929 692f6925 692 W28 6926 6920 1 Lake Harreti 3460 6975 69,9 on 69'� equ '29 M 6933 6929 " 6933 6932 3100 i $9396040 Lake. 937 W41 6941U40 15946 6937SWI 6937 6M 6" Park. — P946 6044 6945 LV44 6944 6943 6944 6945 70TH ST W 70017000 7001 NM 21127 282f 70017000 2611 2517 ED El Percale 7W976'0& TarogNiM ?MFM 2SM 2513 700� 70137014 701329 2SW"28280 70" 7"4, 1102IMN 2520 2516 0_ 7121701 9610 MO 25fS 70217020 7 n 2838 7001 35" 7010 7001 7111 7029300930012911 28232813 280' 2M 24 70373005 2915 2905 2901 2801 ?US242429142904282428f228007045 "00 260 7101 3650 6, 2823 M3 28017101 3393 1301530112921 3005 300f 2915 2915 2207 "0 300a 2920 2916 2824 2w 2800 Z714 2908 2808 3443 2655T 3301 M4 MIM12M28092801 27132TOI 7132 7171 715 7133 7111 287628 7439 0 2844 2814 2800 2700 7 44 24 7200 72017200 Y201 Y200 72017200 7201 ?209 7208 72097208 72007208 7209 72 0 7214 7215 72M 72 15 72J4 72157214 7215 720f 7220 72217220 72217220 72217220 7221 7200 7226 72277226 7227 7226 72277226 7227 7DI 7230 72337232 72337232 72337232 7233 7M, 7236 7239 ?238 7239 Y238 7239 7244 7243 7244 -,2457244 7245 7,293—:— 1016-1 11761��Y419 7335 7300 73017300 7301 Y300 730f Y.Ikl— P.1k 24�614_A -717 101, _ A� 7308 73097308 73097309 7M - 3B21 2� 7 .1707 7315 7314 7315 7314 73157314 730 yo n-61 .05 7321 7320 ?32 f 7320 73217320 732f 915 1 25 7326 732 77326 73277326 7327 414=24 24 7355 202030143000 2910r402818 7333Y332 7333 7332 73337332 f 29242912 2 82 73397338 73397338 7339 '00, 4 00 5_ 2812 73457344 7345 73" 73 IM 30193013 2923, 290 f 7344 7344 C t. Lek. f 7373 mpv'ol 5i �4�IL� VI.. 3400 7400 '0' 91 740 * 740, y," 740f 74po 400 7401-ZAOQ 77 OfiT40 743"Y404 7461 z 4 1097408 7409 Y408 741VY40 740OT400 Y*M 1408 7, 7413 74 7414 741674M is 30 4 4 741574 4 74157414 74157414 7419 f R7412 742174120 742,7420 7421t420 742'17420 742 74-V PARKLAKVAVE 74277426 74 77426 74277426 74277426 74277420 424 7430 7432 742337432 74237432 74 7432 74327432 1 7433 .1 k. -'k 29,,74 74397438 74307438 7419 7438 7-43M9 7438 74307438 7401 '1'4 74"157444 74457444 74457444 7445744, 744526LV 7401 75017500 7SO1201 7W' Aj' PID:3202824210004 7151 York Ave S Edina, MN 55435 ....... ... 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. Sustainable design principles must be used per the applicant narrative. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo dated June 25, 2014. 7. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Ten percent (10%) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. 9. Sustainable design principles must be used per the applicant narrative. Attempts must be made meet an energy savings goal of 10% over state energy code guidelines. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit the easement along York Avenue would have to be vacated, and utilities (if any) relocated. 11. Signage shall be allowed for both the existing and proposed buildings/lots per the PSR -4 standards outlined in Section 36, Article X111 in the City Code. Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create a new two lot subdivision at 7151 York Avenue for the proposed project. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The Final Plat must be considered within one-year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 4. The Park Dedication fee of $500,00 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Deadline for a city decision: October 1, 2014 15 a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. e. 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. 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 June 13, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped June 13, 2014. • Utility plan date stamped June 13, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped June 13, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped June 13, 2014 Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. 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. 14 The proposed project is located close to the Fairview Southdale Hospital; the building is separated from low density residential housing by the existing 12 -story building; there is adequate utility capacity to serve the site; transit service is available on York Avenue; and a traffic study was done, and determined that the project could be supported by the existing roads. The parking for the new building would be enclosed and underground. Open space is provided between the two buildings, with sidewalk connections. The applicant is proposing 10% of the units to be for affordable housing. 5. The variance criteria are met. a. The practical difficulty is the location of the existing building located in the middle of the site. The applicant has located the building up close to the street to create an active environment with pedestrian connections. b. The building could be shifted back to meet the setback requirement. However, in doing so the green space proposed between the two buildings would be lost. c. Minimum and maximum unit dwelling units was intended to promote affordable housing. The applicant is also proposing 10% of the units for affordable housing, in addition to the 263 existing affordable units on the site. d. The larger two bedroom units over 850 square feet are reasonable to promote a variety of housing options within the development. e. The unique circumstance is the existing location of the building on the site, which does not have any underground parking. It has been the city's general policy with previous similar requests, to not build parking stalls when they are not needed. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed new structure would be designed to be integrated and complement the existing 12 -story building. The new 4 -story building being brought up close to York Avenue would be consistent with recent development on France and York, with buildings being brought close to the street to engage it and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. 6. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: 13 a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. e. 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 Site Plan with Variances Recommend that the City Council approve the Site Plan with the proposed variances at 7151 York Avenue. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed new building would be separated and screened from the single-family homes to the east by the existing 12 -story building. 2. There are adequate utilities to support the site. 3. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. 4. The Comprehensive Plan allows density for senior housing to exceed 30 units per acre under the following circumstances: 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 for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. 12 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue Are the proposed Variances for density, unit size and front yard setback reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable for this site for the following reasons: The proposed new building would be separated and screened from the single-family homes to the east by the existing 12 -story building. 2. There are adequate utilities to support the site. 3. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. 4. Senior housing generates less traffic that a market rate all age apartment building would. 5. The Comprehensive Plan allows density for senior housing to exceed 30 units per acre under the following circumstances: 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 for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of l5ark or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. The proposed project is located close to the Fairview Southdale Hospital; the building is separated from low density residential housing by the existing 12 -story building; there is adequate utility capacity to serve the site; transit service is available on York Avenue; and a traffic study was done, and determined that the project could be supported by the existing roads. (See page A53.) The parking for the new building would be enclosed and underground. Open space is provided between the two buildings, with sidewalk connections. The applicant is proposing 10% of the units to be for affordable housing and sustainable design principles are proposed in the applicant narrative. (See pages A5 -A8.) 6. As demonstrated above, the variance criteria are met. 7. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: 11 Compliance Table Variance is required Subject to Council Approval 10 City Standard (PSR -4) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — York Avenue 46 feet 20 feet* Front — Xerxes 46 feet 100+ feet Side — North 46 feet 100 feet Side — South 46 feet 54 feet Setback to R-1 140 feet 250+(R-1 in Richfield) Building Height Four stories and Four stories and 46 feet 48 feet Building Coverage 35% 20% Density — 30+ units max — 364 units total Comprehensive Subject to Council 64 units per acre** Plan Approval Density — 1 unit per 1,400 s.f. of 364 units* Zoning Ordinance land area = 182 units Maximum Floor Area Per Dwelling - 1 bedroom 500-700 s.f. 392* -667 - 2 bedroom 750-850 s.f. Over 1,200* Community 15 s.f. per unit 2,100 s.f. dining facilities/services 1,500 required & 550 s.f. siting area required & Usable 36,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. outdoor Area patio/fire pit area (50,000 s.f. of open space in the rear yard Parking Stalls .5 exposed space 162 exposed* .25 enclosed spaces 64 enclosed* 1 space per vehicle Proof of parking to 223 1 space per employee exposed spaces. New 194 exposed & 91 building meets the enclosed required enclosed parking (existing building is nonconforming) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet Variance is required Subject to Council Approval 10 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The alternative to the variance would be to require the applicant to construct a more exterior parking and reduce green space. Based on the parking study done by WSB, this parking would not be needed. Preliminary Plat The applicant is also requesting a Preliminary Plat to create separate lots for the proposed and existing building. (See the plat on page A30.) The subdivision would meet all minimum lot standards and subdivision requirements. Shared parking and drive -aisle access agreements would need to be established across the lots. Park Dedication Per Minnesota State Statute 462.353, Subd. 4(a) and Chapter 32 of the City Code, the applicant is required to dedicate land for public use as parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, or public open space. Fees in lieu of land dedication may be paid at $5,000 per dwelling unit. The development would create 100 new dwelling units; therefore, a $500,000 parking dedication would be required. The fee would be paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars or subdivision approval for recording with Hennepin County. 01 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed new structure would be designed to be integrated and complement the existing 12 -story building. The new 4 -story building being brought up close to York Avenue would be consistent with recent development on France and York being brought close to the street to engage it and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Variance — Parking Stalls Per Section 36-98 of the City Code, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed parking stall variance is reasonable. A parking study was conducted by WSB Associates that concludes that the City Code required parking is not necessary for the site. The study concludes that the proposed senior housing could function adequately with the proposed parking. (See page A53.) Parking stalls could be added to the site if needed. As demonstrated in the sketch plan for development of the site, there is room on 223 exposed parking stalls. A condition of any approval should be that if parking becomes a problem, the additional stalls must be provided. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the existing location of the building on the site, which does not have any underground parking. It has been the city's general policy with previous similar requests, to not build parking stalls when they are not needed. H-1 the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances and density are reasonable. As mentioned above, the Comprehensive Plan allows density for senior housing to exceed 30 units per acre under the following circumstances: 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 for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. The proposed project meets most all of these items. The site is close to the Fairview Southdale Hospital; the building is separated from low density residential housing by the existing 12 -story building; there is adequate utility capacity to serve the site; transit service is available on York Avenue; and a traffic study was done, and determined that the project could be supported by the existing roads. (See page A53.) The parking for the new building would be enclosed and underground. Open space is provided between the two buildings, with sidewalk connections. The applicant is proposing 10% of the units to be for affordable housing and sustainable design principles are proposed in the applicant narrative. As has been standard with recent projects, a condition of approval shall be to attempt to meet an energy savings goal of 10% over state energy code guidelines. Minimum unit size for one bedroom dwelling units was intended to promote affordable housing. The applicant is proposing 10% of the units for affordable housing, and the existing 264 units on the site are all affordable housing. The majority of the one bedroom apartments are 500 square feet and larger; only a few would be slightly less than 500 square feet. The larger two bedroom units over 850 square feet are reasonable to promote a variety of housing options within the development. The Planning Commission has this issue on its work plan to eliminate minimum and maximum dwelling unit sizes. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The site currently contains a 12 -story senior housing building in the middle of the site. The circumstances existing on this site are generally unique to this property. 7 Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the location of the existing building located in the middle of the site. The applicant has located the building up close to the street to create an active environment with pedestrian connections. (See page A8a.) The building could be shifted back to meet the setback requirement. However, in doing so the green space proposed between the two buildings would be lost. The Comprehensive Plan encourages buildings to be brought up to engage the street. The following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be met: "Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment." 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the location of the existing 12 -story building located in the middle of the site. These circumstances are unique to the property. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed new structure would be designed to be integrated with and complementary to the existing 12 -story building. The new 4 -story building being brought up close to York Avenue would be consistent with recent development on France and York with buildings being brought close to the street to engage it and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Variance — Density & Unit Size Per Section 36-98 of the City Code, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with on Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 69th & York Apartments 3121 69t' Street 114 30 6500 France — Senior Housing 6500 France 188 80 Lennar/\Nickes Site 6725 York 240 52 The Comprehensive Plan allows density for senior housing to exceed 30 units per acre under the following circumstances: 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 for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. The proposed project is relatively close to the Fairview Hospital; the building is separated from low density residential housing by the existing 12 -story building; there is adequate utility capacity to serve the site; transit service is available on York Avenue; and a traffic study was done, and determined that the project could be supported by the existing roads. (See page A53.) The parking for the new building would be enclosed and underground. Open space is provided between the two buildings, with sidewalk connections. The applicant is proposing 10% of the units to be for affordable housing and sustainable design principles are proposed in the applicant narrative. Variance — Building Setback Per Section 36-98 of the City Code, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. 5 Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof of the building. This equipment must be screened on the roof from the adjacent property including the new building. (Seepages Al 0 and A6.) Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A42. Most notable is the existing 30 -foot utility easement along York Avenue. A portion of this easement would have to be vacated and the utilities (if there are any) relocated, if the building is to be constructed with a 20 -foot setback. Build ing/Bu ilding Material The building would be constructed of cement panels, prefinished metal, precast brick and lap siding. The Building would be designed to be integrated with the existing 12 -story brick building on the site. (See renderings on pages All 0- Al 7.) A materials board will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Density The PRD -4 zoning district allows a maximum density of 1 unit per 1,400 square feet. Given the 5.85 acre size of the site, the code would allow a maximum of 182 units. The density of 182 units would be 31 units per acre. The proposed density of 64 units per acre would be on the higher end of the density range for the City's high density residential development as indicated in the table below. Please note that the development would not be as dense as the 6500 France project. 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 EI Parking The following is required for parking per unit: .5 exposed spaces; .25 enclosed spaces; I space per company vehicle; 1 space per employee. Based on these requirements, the applicant is required to provide 194 exposed parking spaces and 91 enclosed spaces. The existing building does not contain enclosed parking, and is therefore nonconforming. The proposed new building would meet the requirements for underground parking. For the overall parking required, variances are requested. The proposed parking includes 162 exposed parking spaces and 64 enclosed. The site plan proposed at the sketch plan showed 223 exposed spaces. This plan could be used as proof -of -parking, should additional parking be needed. However, the applicant believes the number of spaces proposed would meet the needs of the residents. WSB conducted a parking study and concluded that the number of parking stalls proposed would support the residents. (See attached parking study.) Green space is added as a result of the reduction in parking stalls that was presented at sketch plan. Traffic Study WSB and Associates also conducted a traffic study. (See the attached study.) The study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there would be adequate parking provided. A traffic signal will be needed at Parklawn and York in the 2030 with or without this project. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 63 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 63 over story trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Maple, Oak Spruce, Crabapple, Pine and Birch. (See pages A8, Al 8 and A29.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading and trash area would take place adjacent to the underground garage entry, and would be screen from the neighboring property to the north. (See page A8a.) 3 between the two buildings as recommended, they did add sidewalk connection with a canopy over the top. (See pages Al 4 and Al 6.) To accommodate the request, the following land use applications are requested: Site Plan Review to construct the new 4 -story building; Front Yard Setback Variance from 46 feet to 20 feet; Density Variance to allow 364 total units on the site from 182 units allowed under current zoning (the existing building is nonconforming with 264 units); Parking Variance from 194 exposed and 91 enclosed spaces to 162 exposed and 64 enclosed; and Variances to allow one bedroom units under 500 square feet, and two bedroom units over 850 square feet., Preliminary Plat. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Yorktown Office; zoned POD -1, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Easterly: Adams Hill Park and single -Family Homes located in the City of Richfield. Southerly: Durham Apartments; zoned PRD -4 and guided high density residential. Westerly: Yorktown mall; zoned and guided for commercial use. Existing Site Features The subject property is 5.85 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a 12 - story 264 unit apartment building with surrounding surface parking. (See page A4.) Planning Guide Plan designation: HDR — High Density Residential. (See page A3.) Zoning: PSRA Planned Senior Residential (See page A3a.) Site Circulation Access to the site would be from York Avenue only. The existing right -in and right -outs on the site would remain the same. 2 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda# Cary Teague July 9, 2014 VI.C. Community Development Director IN FORIVIATION/BACKG ROUND Project Description Mesaba Capital is requesting review of a proposal to build a four-story 100 -unit senior assisted living building west of the existing Yorktown Continental Senior Living apartments at 7151 York Avenue. (See property location on pages Al -A4.) The housing would include 70 units of senior housing with services and 30 memory care units. Ten percent (10%) of the units would be for residents below 50% median income level. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A5 - A33.) Features of the building include congregate dining with three meals provided per day; private dining; a coffee shop; a lounge area on each floor; a library; a computer room; a craft room and a fitness facility. Parking is provided underneath the building. The existing surface lot for the 12 -story building has been relocated to the east side of the building and the number of surface stalls for that building increased from 123 surface stall to 140. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered sketch plan reviews of the subject property in 2013 and 2014. (See minutes from those meetings on pages A34 -A41.) The applicant has taken the feedback from the sketch plan review and revised the plans to include: Locating the building on the York side of the site; pulling the building up close to the street; adding green space; providing porches/decks in the front to engage the street; and increasing sidewalks and pedestrian connections. The new four-story building serves as podium height to the existing 12 -story building located in the middle of the lot. The green space increase is due to re ' ducing the number of surface parking stalls, which were felt to not be needed for the residents. The building has been designed to relate to the existing 12 - story building which is also being remodeled. Pedestrian connections have been added around the perimeter of the site and to connect the two buildings. While they applicant did not connect the two buildings to provide an interior connection