Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-22 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 22, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER I I. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2015 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the some issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Edina Community Lutheran Church. 4113 West 54`h Street, Edina, MN' VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Lot Division. Liz and Tony Burger. 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina, MN VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance a IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours In advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission August 12, 201S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 22, 2015 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Edina Community Lutheran Church is proposing to build a sanctuary and kitchen addition, with a new parking lot on the east side of the existing church located at 4113 West 54th Street. (See the property location on pages Al -A2.) To accommodate this request, the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would have the same seating capacity as the existing sanctuary. The purpose of the request is to provide larger fellowship and supportive areas to the church. (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages A3 -A33 and in the attached 11 x 17 submittal.) The site is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District, where a church is a conditionally permitted use. The applicant submitted a request for the conditional use permit in 2013. (See original plans on pages A34 -A40.) The applicant did not move forward with the request after concerns were raised in regard to the architecture of the proposed addition, and impact to the steep slopes and mature trees as a result of a new parking lot south of the building and construction of stormwater ponding. The applicant has now revised the plans in an attempt to address the concerns raised in 2013. They hired a new architect to design the addition to better fit with the neighborhood. The proposed addition uses a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, and has more variety in building material compared to the lap siding originally proposed. The new plan proposes using an underground storage tank for stormwater, rather than the surface pond proposed in 2013. The new plan would preserve the slope and mature tree area. The applicants also went through the sketch plan process with the proposed plans and have incorporated the feedback received into the proposed plans. To accommodate the request, the following is requested: ➢ Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 210 seat sanctuary, a 576 square foot kitchen and a new parking field. ➢ A Front Yard Setback variance from 50 feet to 23 for the kitchen to match the existing front yard setback of the church. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Residential. Easterly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Residential Southerly: Minnehaha Creek. Westerly: Minnehaha Creek. Existing Site Features The subject property is 4.15 acres in size, contains the existing church up close to 54th Street and a parsonage. The site is heavily wooded and slopes down toward Minnehaha Creek. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Site Circulation & Traffic LD — Low Density Residential R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District There are currently two curb cuts to the site; one is to the church parking lot, which is located on the south and west side of the building, and one to the church parsonage. The existing parking lot access point would remain. The parsonage driveway would be removed, but replaced with a new access point to the west to serve as a new parking lot. (See page A2 and A20.) With the proposal of having two parking lots in closer proximity to church entrances, there is a greater likelihood of members parking in the lots and not on adjacent streets. The existing parking lot is difficult to navigate. A traffic and parking study was done by WSB in 2012 and then updated in 2015. (See pages A61 -A72.) The study concludes that there may be a 2 modest increase in traffic, assuming a 130 to 150 person increase; the existing roads however would support the increase. Parking The number of parking spaces required is based on the seating capacity of the largest place of assembly which is the sanctuary. The Code requirement is one stall per three seats. The capacity of the existing and proposed sanctuary is 210 people; therefore, the required number of stalls is 70. A parking variance was granted in 1992 to allow 37 spaces when the church last expanded. The proposed parking lot contains 38 spaces. The variance remains in place with the proposal because the sanctuary proposed has a maximum capacity of 210 people. (See page A41 -A49 and A53 -A60.) In general, parking has not been a problem for the church. The WSB parking study concludes that the existing parking generally works, and there is not a problem with parking in the neighborhood on adjacent streets. Sec. 36-1274. Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the city and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final .development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the city to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the city's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. There is an existing sidewalk on the property. Any damage to the sidewalk during construction would have to be repaired by the applicant. Bike Racks The applicant has shown five (5) bicycle parking spots on the site plan, located adjacent to the sidewalk connection to the front entrance. (See page Al 8.) The City Code requirement for bicycle spots in this instance is three (3) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 60 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs over the entire site. The site currently contains over 200 over story trees. There would be 22 trees removed in the area where the proposed new parking lots would be building would be located. These trees are mostly Elms. (See pages A23-24, which shows the trees and species to be removed.) The applicant proposes 44 new over story trees, including Honey Locust, Maple and Canadian Hemlock coniferous. (See page Al and A33.) A full complement of understory landscaping is also proposed around the building. The Canadian Hemlock will be used for year around screening of the parking lots and trash enclosures from the homes to the south. The existing mature deciduous trees also serve as a buffer to the church. A significant area of landscaping is proposed to provide screening from the closest resident to the east. Plantings in this area include year around screening with a row of 8 -foot Techny Arborvitae along the lot line; a row of ornamental trees (Serviceberry); and a row of shrubs. (See page Al 8.) The parking lot is also broken up with landscape islands with shrubs and Maples. 4 Trash Enclosures The trash enclosure is located on the west side of the building in the west parking lot. (See page A26a.) The enclosure is to be a six-foot tall wood cedar fence that would be stained a color to match the church. The trash area would be screened by the enclosure, the coniferous plantings and the existing trees. (See page Al 8.) 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 pages A76 -A77. As mentioned earlier, the proposed grading and drainage plan is a big improvement over the previously submitted plans, which proposed to remove trees in the slope area toward the creek to provide stormwater ponding. The applicant has revised the plans to create an underground storage tank under the parking lot, and preserve the trees and slope area. Additionally the east parking ramp would be made of permeable pavers. (See page A20.) Any approvals should be conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo dated July 14, 2015. The grading and drainage plans are also subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of cementitous siding, and stone to match the existing building. Stone from the parsonage would be reused on the kitchen addition. (See renderings on pages A10 -A17.) The addition has be redesigned to better match the existing church and fit into the neighborhood. (See originally proposed addition on page A39 -A40.) A materials board will be presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Historical Review The Planning Commission requested that the city's historical preservation consultant, Robert Vogel conduct a review of the existing parsonage that is to be removed. Mr. Vogel has provided that review and is attached to this report on pages A73 -A75. The review concludes that the church rectory is neither historically nor architecturally significant. Therefore, it does not meet the Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria. No further cultural resource management work is recommended. The home was built in 1948, about the same time as the church. The home has not be used a residence in several years and has fallen into a very poor state of repair. As mentioned, the exterior stone on the home would be used on the church addition. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 36-305, a conditional use permit shall meet the following: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located, as imposed by this chapter; and 6. Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff believes that the above criteria are met. A church has been located on this site since the 1940's; and a 210 seat church has been located there since 1992. The site has not had an adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities or services. The existing roads do, and can support the site. The improvements to the site would not impact development or improvement to property in the area. With the exception of the front street setback variance for the kitchen addition to match the existing setback of the church, the proposal meets all zoning ordinance requirements. A variance for the number of parking stalls has already been granted for the site, and has not been an issue in the past. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the use is conditionally permitted in the R-1 zoning district, in which this property is located. The City may impose, conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, operation or duration of the use, as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and adjacent properties, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Code, and to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan. Compliance Table * Existing Condition - Variance Granted in 1992 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Front Street Setback 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. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the original placement of the church and subsequent additions. (See page Al 8.) The church is located closer to 54th street to lessen the VA City Standard ;'(R-1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front - 54'n Street 50 feet 23 feet* Side - East 50 feet 104 feet Side - West . 50 feet 100+ feet Rear - Creek 50 feet 100+ feet Building Height 3 Stories or 40 feet whichever is One story 36 less feet tall Building Coverage 25% 15%+/ - Parking Stalls (Site) 70 required stalls for the 38 spaces* sanctuary maximum seating proposed (37 capacity of 210 seats existing) * Existing Condition - Variance Granted in 1992 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Front Street Setback 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. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the original placement of the church and subsequent additions. (See page Al 8.) The church is located closer to 54th street to lessen the VA impacts to the slope and mature trees located toward Minnehaha Creek. The located of the kitchen therefore, to match the existing front street setback of the church is reasonable. The kitchen addition would be constructed using the stone from the parsonage to match the stone on the existing church. 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 church which also has a 23 -foot setback from 54th Street. This circumstance is not common to every similarly zoned property. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The kitchen addition is relatively small compared to the size of the church. It matches the existing setback of the church. A church has been located on this property for over 50 years. • Are the plans proposed reasonable to minimize impacts for the conditionally permitted Use? Yes, the applicant has minimized impacts on the neighborhood with the revisions that have been made to the plans. Specifically the applicant has: Y Minimized impacts to the slopes and trees by solving the stormwater ponding issue by using an underground system. ➢ Located the sanctuary addition off the back of the existing church, so not to have so much of the mass of the church on 54th Street. Y Increased the buffer to the home to the east, and provided extensive landscaping to screen the church and the parking lot. ➢ Provided additional year-round screening south of the improvements to minimize impacts to the south across Minnehaha Creek. Proposed downward lighting, and submitted a plan that demonstrates all minimum lighting requirements are met. y Proposed to use brick from the existing parsonage to match the existing brick on the church. Proposed a pitched roof to be in character with the single-family homes in the area, rather than the flat roof previously proposed. The City may impose, conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, operation or duration of the use, as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and adjacent properties, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Code, and to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan. Therefore, these items will be made conditions of approval to minimize impacts in the area. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Front Yard Setback Variance from 50 feet to 23 feet for a new church sanctuary and kitchen at 4113 54th Street West for Edina Community Lutheran Church. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal meets the conditional use permit criteria in Section 36-305 of the City Code as follows: a. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; b. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; c. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; d. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; e. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located, as imposed by this chapter; and Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; the use is conditionally permitted, and the kitchen addition has the same front street setback of the existing church at 23 feet. b. The practical difficulty and unique circumstance is the location of the existing church, which does not meet the required front street setback. c. The kitchen addition would be constructed out of the same stone that was used on the church. The stone from the parsonage would be used on the kitchen. d. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The kitchen addition is relatively small compared to the size of the church. It matches the existing setback of the church. A church has been located on this property for over 50 years. Final 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 25, 2015. • Grading plan date stamped June 25, 2015. • Landscaping plan date stamped June 25, 2015. • Building elevations date stamped June 25, 2015 Lighting plan date stamped June 25, 2015 • Utility Plan date stamped June 25, 2015 Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 3. All trash enclosures shall be screened to meet City Code. 4. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated July 14, 2015. Deadline for a city decision: No deadline 10 SI5T'ST - REET PEST $ {{ I.I�r IT - 52hi05TRFFTWEST s 571,bVF �0STREETSr }mow_.. --Nr 53lib STREET WESt '' c }?` -. z�, �r Y t. t w ,4—_ — _: _ 3 Ucc t ..�.� _ ... carYarrn`ccruYcv ! •X `m ta 55TH STREET►:EST w M i -- 55TH STREET E5T n' - g x pp y .._ ...� + �--- ..m 9 T� t. STOH AVGNUi ¢- -_ 'g �-_ 711--11 , 1� 3 54H STREEI WEST f ET i7 1 • _ j S p FIST' �_ ' _ i ., 57TH Rl1'ET WEST PHIE9RCiolAt4E SST STREET 1*IEST Parcel 19-028-24-11-0010 A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" = 800 ft. N ID: Print Date: 502015 Owner Name: Edina Com Luth Ch Parcel 4113 54Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and Is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or Implied, including fitness of any particular - -- purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 4.15 acres Area: 180,764 sq ft Cock COPYRIGHT® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A ThinkGreetil At Aa App ltc"f /V4j,r,4 � /(/( ARCH!-IECTURE URBAN DESIGN - PLANNING INTERIORS June 24, 2015 EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & RENOVATION (CUP Explanation of Request) Edina Community Lutheran Church (ECLC) located at 4113 W. 54"' St in Edina, MN, hopes to expand their existing church facility in order to better serve their congregation and the surrounding neighborhood and larger community. The proposed project consists of an addition and remodeling of the existing Edina Community Lutheran Church. The Church has been operating at this site for 67 years as a productive member of the Edina and Twin Cities community and this project will allow them to continue to worship on this site into the future. The existing sanctuary is approved to seat up to 210 people although on a typical Sunday the sanctuary holds only 175 chairs. Both the sanctuary and fellowship hall are undersized and crowded before, during and after services. The new sanctuary, while also capable of seating 210, provides more space to circulate, process and accommodate choirs and musicians. Classroom and meeting space is expanded. The kitchen serving the fellowship hall is undersized to provide for the needs of funerals, weddings, or community celebrations. Staff members' offices, which currently are on both levels, will be consolidated. In addition to building a new sanctuary and remodeling existing space, the congregation is proposing. 1) Making the building safer, more accessible and more energy efficient by adding its first fire sprinkler system, improving energy efficiency with new windows, doors, light fixtures, improved HVAC and additional insulation. The entire project is being planned to closely follow sustainable guidelines. 2) Improving accessibility and livability of streets by upgrading its elevators and adding accessible door openers, moving the bike parking to the street side of the building and providing an easement to the City to build a sidewalk on the north side of 54th from the west church driveway to the creek. With location on a street marked with bike lanes that is recognized as a key connector between bike routes, combined with a nearby Metro Transit bus stop and parking on both sides of the street, access to the church is broad. 3) Providing stormwater management where there is very little today, resulting in improved water quality in Minnehaha Creek. The Church property includes a parsonage which no longer serves the needs of the congregation and is slated to be demolished. The resulting large open space adjacent to the east side of the church provides space to add more off-street parking but also to locate an integrated underground storm water management system below the parking lot. While this approach is significantly more expensive than the church's initial proposal two years ago, it eliminates the ;nee large infiltration ponds in the church's woods, which would have resulted in Vcant tree removal, pkv' 4) Improving aesthetics by screening the parking lot and trash co ids, moving1/C condensers to the roof, repairing or replacing exterior fencing, Wing, etc011ting, 'L 5) Zoning code requirements of the property will be followed, with the eon of the front yard setback which will match the current setback of the existing a►��"* parking. � OF G BENTZ/THOMPSON/RIETOW, INC. - 801 Nicollet Mall, Suite 801 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Phone) 612.332.1234 (Fax) 612.332.1813 - www.btr-orchitects.com A3 Off-street parking is limited by useable buildable area on the heavily wooded site. There is no need to apply for a parking variance, according to Mr. Teague and the city attorney because: 1) the number of approved seats in the sanctuary is not changing; 2) no parking complaints have been received in the 23 years since the City granted the 1992 parking variance and proof -of -parking agreement; and 3) the average Sunday attendance figures have not changed significantly since the Traffic Study performed in 2012 (see 2015 update). A previous addition and remodeling proposal in 2013 was met with resistance from neighbors and City staff for two primary reasons: 1) the perception of the sanctuary design was that it was too modern and too close to the east neighbors; and 2) the parking lot expansion needed to accommodate the design would have required the removal of too many trees in the Church's wooded area. The new addition is designed to fit the neighborhood feel and to take advantage of the view of the woods. It extends to the south rather than toward the eastern neighbors. Because the design creates a second, separate parking lot, cars do not need to be routed across the back of the building, resulting in the removal of far fewer trees. The congregation's consulting arborist has been advising them since 2012 and is working with them on the Tree Preservation Plan submitted here. The congregation's Woods & Creek Task Force is looking at ways to preserve the woods long-term through approaches such as land trust or conservation easement. At this time, ECLC asks that the City of Edina approve this request as the congregation is not changing the intended use of the site or building, but improving the use that has existed since 1948. The Church is asking to remodel and add space to provide improvements within their facility that assure compliance with current building and accessibility codes, are up to date, and visually integrated with the original building and the surrounding residential neighborhood. BENTZ/THOMPSON/RIETOW, INC. - 801 Nicollet Mall, Suite 801 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Phone) 612.332.1234 (Fax) 612.332.1813 - www.btr-architects.com Depiction of Easement Areas Granted to the City of Edina by Edina Community Lutheran Church Effective June 2, 2015 1. Permanent Utility Easement 2. Temporary Construction Easement; expires November 1, 2016. NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORHWAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORHTEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER / \ SOUIHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UK OF 84TH SIREET WEST /Wjr-_ 54TH STREET SOM 2t 14' EAST moo LM S PARALI.M WITH THE NOR1H` \ UK OF NGRIHWEST QUARTER OF NO HEAST` QU QUARTER OF THE ` \ NORTHEAST QUARTER SOUTH w 14' EAST DOSTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT Fti� Fti � r�G o EASEMENT L J EASEMEN TEMPORARY G161 tic i �Q W W UK � a � •C N s, V Q 1u RzW col <S F1 F Alo A �A ji Ul \ m C �$���."t 4 � ee y_d} t '� � ,'tit + � �� �t�,i •r `t�h`'f t �9i bsr "4iw .t � ' Nw Vi /t� t� F t Al 11` kms 4 i g , fj st tr i J e t k�yryc x't 54TH ST, LOOKING WEST: BEFORE 00N`c" 6 vs S6 54TH ST, LOOKING WEST: AFTER % U -r I I I IJ 1, wunuw SMO 1. uLruni RAW 0�� 54TH ST, LOOKING EAST: AFTER A ( I a wuJi 5'S Y— j �t� •`, 1, ` $m .,idut d x- 1s3sa O,1 3DN3j 4miow--.• _ i�6'� ' - — - - -i .'�` d --'vim-=t-�—^--•� : .�'�J � ` - ci 1 .,n� a =�.�-'_ - �' ?% 1 � :��, •- .moi ,,`r `Tg� �o Y--.�__..-- rW '� • , -M1I � �� -�• _ ;�_, � eo 1' � �;,.''�t9��S �tl f�'r' oft �' f e�� 'a 9,1 A if Fa ot III ; �` ''•\ • � ,a'- + � - �io -_��- SI �{ Ii'• •• ,+'f 1'L• f,� l, ` -• � ` 01,00 ry if 3 � 1 \ _ w � � t -i .Sgt B �' i � „ ^O' ` u�'' ; � f����IN��� •J xdl ggg, IlIre ,�j I \ 1 I) , r O f •, �, , + } q t+,, ry �S �p � I•u I i �t V+./ 4�7p @ 1 �.,I # �v ;, .' � o� � ' `sem✓--' � I i ,�•a � y`,: �} t: I �- _ ty •?�;;r /, �a�,¢ � 4• b-�� a iiiiii ��' �� I jo' 1 �•P- $ rt=101 "� '.a / f � y °__-S-J � _� } oi�i � l O`I I r�'•-�lyi ;!! , - �yfr,•/�;•, :• •.({ b:S! 'r.'• i 'S�'a`�,,,�e;� t„� r !li 5 ' 1 , , SI,i,: ,'.I) y'ti✓ ` ��., � � .. s f" 9+' n= 1 �, I r � ' JJ �% �QW Ido }yc �f; �� '; :/•': f: f{.' �� ,�h R t�f. - �''l I ,d';r i �� JJ '� j,$,�sS..�k,-ttrr' .•!.'!,�®� �; RJ���r-� {eLL.°.1' �o� � j'd � i I"i,. 1! ?sf t fpt ! 4t� �f•<u._ i. 4 ! s0; tJr; I 1 : � •tlq; ' I i f I � aI 4..✓� ; f:X. � ;� -S"� 4"r � 1' ;I I tl w w UJ r------- 31ry1.%1a3-fJJ4 -40 15341 0 3'AO1 iHi'0vN]— o i *VUQ ASM • rMCM rll • I'ML8m t t Hm mu'o a waols ui a Hao3s dor ,zt n SI ON ,Lt n Y69'0 a Few doa .Lt n SL°'r o I1aGLLs dotl .Ll n M A" '"LM t so M MR atLYt a /lots daa ,zt n w fru Rgt a zwo eF#w= „ dwl .LI n It,t)M'ZLM ma runt VON i ll 9LZLB )WI S H--LLB- Itw 2t'3:13 Z'LLS Y'Il YSMro a Yil uw et d°u t n .10 UMa3r1 mis}---------_.'y- ` as•- o � ��,� �,.� �L.J :`r � p y tSKi�C'LLM AN !1 � "',alb •t Y f-iSIM ra MIA yy ° l ....__ alMro a maws `.ti rs'' �._�' fir. r� :�Irw Imo, ��r•>, 4 �� p"7. w Brunt MM' S`UM /Ile _ S ill/Q SrZLM AW 3MQLS-t Vol$ 1 Y`UM Vitt. �)NlJlln@ ONUSIX3 L , r• sccLB--3'tv 3ttn ims-, LiMMY-'YS3 `" -- daww ItlX1Y/1d 4 AIM r� i *VUQ ASM • rMCM rll • I'ML8m t t Hm mu'o a waols ui a Hao3s dor ,zt n SI ON ,Lt n Y69'0 a Few doa .Lt n SL°'r o I1aGLLs dotl .Ll n M A" '"LM t so M MR atLYt a /lots daa ,zt n w fru Rgt a zwo eF#w= „ dwl .LI n It,t)M'ZLM ma runt VON i ll 9LZLB )WI S H--LLB- Itw 2t'3:13 Z'LLS Y'Il YSMro a Yil uw et d°u t n .10 UMa3r1 mis}---------_.'y- ` as•- o � ��,� �,.� �L.J :`r � p y tSKi�C'LLM AN !1 � "',alb •t Y f-iSIM ra MIA yy ° l ....__ alMro a maws `.ti rs'' �._�' fir. r� :�Irw Imo, ��r•>, 4 �� p"7. w Brunt MM' S`UM /Ile _ S ill/Q SrZLM AW 3MQLS-t Vol$ 1 Y`UM Vitt. �)NlJlln@ ONUSIX3 L , r• sccLB--3'tv 3ttn ims-, LiMMY-'YS3 `" -- daww ItlX1Y/1d 4 AIM g YMM'o a dols dwl ,Zt 37 Mz l,•°y; r-.•<� �• 1 � L4 1 �t- ______—_—__J t 1 i _Sn.�S a33 .s3 ss stags yy�s,�,LfL-f yy�gy,�.-,moi y�-�i��.�l��r d Ma1YJ 313a7tq� !Q31tl�173 T71d lON) �, •,��{p� }�y pg��t 1yt �m Ail �y� S•:WN1Ya]3r llt]37Y75 SY Mo ulr '....' I 3 3 sy�,l J— -B ',.117 JL 8 D 9 i atlm 313tl:AAi3 � � Aa) .2 P ;�";s 'A ;4 "q L,J LL Li -00 Lj/ '14 11 013 z 61 Aa) EAS BUIL lot. IV MMINARY i DELINEA1r0N BY NRONMENTAL SERNCE rED ON 8/15/2013 ------ k26 -' a Edina Community Lutheran Church Tree Removal Site Pian = Property line = Existing Tagged Trees to Remain = Tagged Trees Being Removed for Construction r;«s 4,6- R -ow -I TS BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY — _ FOR: EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH JOOS'2J'S''ss— -T \� \ � wrw w.....'•'N89'35YS'Ef.. — aa0.40 - •••�•• � r .. '' w o ' vn �t_�*1��-"�.�'-�_,.a.•rS�i-/=mow- _ . .. _ • .. : �7 r' tf 1- �ssrsz't^•�. •ust,,,.+�, lo•.+"+'�� �,cs`�r \ � ..7;� �4c.7.T•se'i' a1'nc�.. �---.-_ �� da\ A„- �. -i' ,�! � . w�10x i .Y. \ A `\1\�'\l:ir`-��Ti'•' T�f. J\-,`G'��r�C �. .,s! ��\1 ? as'.^ - ' ^...,.. ......,-....,. - - '� '..l111 ��� t � ry\ �\\ lYo _ � ,,�,`�\ f, \y�y "� Vii• ��n s W r-•— LCOeNO: u SMI au+c+sut u c F-�G bi \. \ '� •- •moi ikCd BOUNDARY&TOPOGRAPHIC I EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH SURVEY ! I.esn�cexelvnoN:. NOT S:. :*i •ate .. u.urrru^w.u,^„r� �M� r�M ww.,�.r.� Q�N�N N j ccc'c of Eo�NP CERTIFIOATION:. - �au.�,� nru 4.•�w^r Ml4Nw. w, Vw�w wwx•a rrw+w,a OPERTY ADDRESS: Orryler SYraeINE Sunetm 4113 WEST 64TH STREET lli+ m^^oeFesa wnnaee(°ssso eNONE (eW 4e -AN 1)t%: (W4tetrJSeJ EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 Egan. riew ONewek lnc r. ;eF,'tsunmero,;^°, n�,e 4i - A. ` � '�1 <: r• h '� /`d'� ,\Cry \. ' �t'y- -_✓ r4 Cy .d 1. BOUNDARY&TOPOGRAPHIC I EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH SURVEY ! I.esn�cexelvnoN:. NOT S:. :*i •ate .. u.urrru^w.u,^„r� �M� r�M ww.,�.r.� Q�N�N N j ccc'c of Eo�NP CERTIFIOATION:. - �au.�,� nru 4.•�w^r Ml4Nw. w, Vw�w wwx•a rrw+w,a OPERTY ADDRESS: Orryler SYraeINE Sunetm 4113 WEST 64TH STREET lli+ m^^oeFesa wnnaee(°ssso eNONE (eW 4e -AN 1)t%: (W4tetrJSeJ EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 Egan. riew ONewek lnc r. ;eF,'tsunmero,;^°, n�,e — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — EDINACOMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH �A,f E S T 5 4 k, VII 6 T ADDITION & REMODELING X T. amour — -- -- --- ------- -------- ------ ------ RiCvxpuf 3.0 f RC EDINA, MINNESOTA — npgg — — — — — — — — — — PIERCE PINI & CJ, ti a i ASSOCIATES T. 9298 CE2E 312 AVENUE NE TSUI NE, MN 55434 m, TEL rx FAX 763.537.1311 —537.1354 -1.1STING BUILDING BUILDINC, Is sT —.4 To To --G 1�- ... T. U., REmlgt — CONDITIONALUSE M. crow PERMIT SUBMITTAL S-.., 6/24/2015 11 chl", 71, —11cr . X�lll 7 ----------- 9AF 1% m— T. i'N 9, 4) DEMOLITION PLAN ri"\DEMOLITION PLAN ® p0200 WMP4EN M k10CEDMLM e0AR4 VEIITATEN0 PobT6 HLRITE -TEDHIU HI11. CEDAR NO RIZ A]SOGE FENCE BOARDS GNGANGAEM PLYWOOD WLRWG P b4 CEDAR AK 1(CEOM POSTS. SETPLLND � b4 TREATEDHNIRPFR NA CEDAR 6NEO POSi6,TYP. EDM L4lLLW,RBIbE LOLUR SLOPE LdlL FOOnNG j'cLFMBTDNEIND RES) 1 T s I 6EERWI IP ""PORT "ALONG ETAL NOTE CMAACM, 6 W LL LLV MAIN TREES WA PLUMS PGSMN THRD W HM MWARRANIYPER=.WAPTUEMLK OWYLPCNAPPRWALW LA D]CAPEMGRECI 6EE BPELIRGAn0ND6 M NOIEALL FASTEIEASSFNLLECOATEp /� PRWDEdIN6TALLRDOENIP0.01EC1NW.`HUDWRECIOiN YESN EAEPJdI GRADESCRFWSANGbMALLFXfENDA T �CWNDER.TDN.OR GREATER K]6' NOT. MAU IN PUCE PER GPEC]Il NN OL T INTO RECENNO BOARD. NfiTALLSLPbON51RONGTEMGLESPER REWA REEWIINRDOTFBERF NLEATTOPUFTH4LTOD.rr NAWUCRIKIRM RECON4NOATDNb EIDVE SOLNLEVELWNNERFRO4 TOPDFETRD T8 UESPOL8IST / AOR IARCEPWNORERROOFP EEEO. SETIAOT BALLWRX WAIN DRERRODTt'ABdVEAOJACEM GRME W NDTCOVEfl TOP oc aooTeAuwrtxsdL POST E PDs � �LOCFOARBOAPD. Pf :M. I -PACE OA WULMNCLTNUCi WH 1REEIPLE WP EYWE NAilAP,1WNE, RWEAND WRTEFNOUTOPHAS OFR.COT BALL uR 1r1ELMRBDAAD. BIAD(XGNEANIH SAUCER BEYOND®EDFRWTeALL d � ttP . / o- WTG PMIEFN ]Pp/DF)A WICH RNG � �•Z':. EOGELONWOVARES .__._... �.� ._ PLYWOOD BACKBD 'F- Y L-.~ - � -- PUCERWTBALLON UNOLRnNBED ORCOl1RL1ED SOIL -I5 '.� S�` SLMIFY 90N3OL1PEEPR WRH 9MDE BYINNDro BWD T �' 0 � �ryy(� i T WRHPREPAEDSOLL UW9IBOPAU�� 3Y' QI - -VIS. '�'--PUMNGSdI, PEFERm6PECINGTDNS. LOLTA MMOFM E M UNIT W EIGHTACCORDINGTD AM O GN m PLANMG PR(m6' J UAP SdLARdkD ROOT DALLBAGE FSbALY WIRI FODTPRESSLNESD DEEERTWNRCOTBALL THAT ROMBALLd)FS NOT 6HIT UIDERBT" ODRAMILE IF IEFGflN PER PER W UTION 1E6TRplLlb. FENLE ELEVATDN TEm STOLW DRAM, 1 WOOD SCREENING FENCE WI GATES 2 TREE PLANTING DETAIL L200 scALE tAr•ra• _ L200 -11- NOTE NOR AFTER mFX1ERD0. PUNTNG 6PECDDATION REFERTDEMERDRNANTINGEECNICANDN PREP GGILFOR :LST TUYEROF WILK DO NOT PULEN PPEP AEadLfOR R6TALL1'UYEPOFEMEDED WIDVIDLMl MR410RS CONTACTYa6MUB STE4 TRE ENfIREaW TNEENRREBED UYER d: FORT SNAEDDED HARONOOD NUG, DO NOT SOPOANDNUG MPLY PPEFWAGENT1tlBIBICE PLALEw LONRLTWIIH NAM - _ _ GSEE 6PECNLATDN6T EDGECONIDIT MN BB.rREFER EDGECONDIfDNW.IES 1T EP EINE0.AEFERm PUNAA ePELFICAIDN OEDGER REFERm%ANAND9PELPBARDN /. `� \ "- NNSNT GAAOEAD EDGE i LOGGENRDOTDOFCONFADEPGROMNRAMb _Tk FOR �ON� NTLE IES •SEEPUN LOOSEN ROOTDLDANER GPOYINRANI3 - RCAYATEPUMBEDEK4•DEEPEP IWNPDOT BALLMGT. .1BYBbdL _ _ _ _ WD167m DESM0a0TTONOFPLANTING8EDW1iH EAE - 9GRIFY"goSUOBOTi040F PUNDNGEDWTM EAE -1 iii E1ALEDGER WISdE, IINOETURBFDSUBGRAE ��'--UNOISTUPBED SIIBGRiOE P �� 9 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL - 4 PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL 5 LANDSCAPE EDGER p�' � L200 scALExr-ra L200 suLEv+•,ry L200 scuEl-vr.ru GENERAL NOTES 1. CdlfML10R6HU1RbPECf1HE61fEAN9BECME FAIAINR WIMF7<GTNG COLDfIIDE REUJADm1E WTLREANOSCDPEOF WORK LONIRALTG6HALLVEREYPUMIAYMANOeRNGm MEATTENDONOFTXE UND6WPEMCNROTdSCRERUNFIEb WRCX WY WIPRON6ElEESDNG NTEMOFnELA1Wt. dRNIMGmR S A1LA5S1RE CONRMNLE WITH APRIUSE CCOE6 AD REDUATDNS ODVFIINNG TIE NORM ANG W1ER W S SLPRIFA 1. LONMAC1gl51NLLPPAIFCTEASING RDI,DS. CUPSUGVRERS,IPNIE, TPEE4, UWNSANDNI£EIENENIfiDWaDCONSIROCTDN DFEMTDHS. WWGEm saNE sKAu E REPApEDAT NDMOnm wa msr ro TIE OWER 6. LONTAALT .HAL,YENFYAWN1EtTNALOLATDNOFUNDENGRDAI ABOVE GRADE UTLMM MO P WAN TILE NGfF85ARY PPOTECf DN FOR SA W EFORELOXbIPIILIDN EGp$ DIPBNUN 10 CLEARANGEI C LONTRACTd16KALLWONINOETHEPI4ESDFGO-IJLLDNANDPLANMG NUAUATIONPBMGTHENCONTPAC M"KLBGONHIE. i. UNOERGRWNO UI6111E6bINLLER6dLL®SOTINTTENEE60p NOTLM MROUGII RLOT6YSiFYS OF ESEINGIREESm RPIIAW. e. EWLRNGCONNIDLRB.IRBLS.LSETATDN.tlRNDURFRANDOTNBt ELERETTFS MEBASEDMNINFORWTIDNNPPLEOm TIEIAN PEAR04WBY Df 1ER9, COMR/GmR SHN1 YEPEY ONGEMNCE3 PIBDA m LONSIPUClION AVD PDTEY UNGSUPEMCNIECT DF SANE 0. WIRDNW.AN)N301GLAlONE1ROFPROPO6Po WVNS.1PIl60RRWWIAK ME 6VNJECiro RNA AD.AKTA13•T REOLDED m CDISORM TD 19CLLEE0 IOPWRAPHCCONNIDNSATDTp NNL4E11EEENDIYJ.ANDGPISNIG, CMANGFJi SNFANO GRANLGTENPROLEDBYTIE!•1W6GAPE ARCHTECT PPdI PRIONTm NPLLR9TNMDN 10 CWPAMRSNALLREVLWTESMFORDEFILMOINMECONDf KMWH I NHa1rnELYAFFECTNANEEUAKWWNISMWWLORWMMMY UNDF9 W BIE STe LONDf MONS SNNLL BE ND W M m lE AT TBNIIDN OF DE UW Sf,APEA%atfEBf PllDltm COYNTRKEEINiOFNpLK 11. LpNIRIALIOR ERFEGD&EFORONDOINGNARRFINNCEOF EIVNN6WIID WTERWSUIURTBEDGSUBSTANINLNIPIEII m ERE OFALTSDF NANMdSY OLL DANAE WKH MAY OGLTIR PRDAm SAI6TAIIMLMNPIETDN 6WdL1E,E AE6PNWflNIMOF,ELANASCAPE EONTPACf01t R E%19TNG 1REEb GSDN6IGM SMUG NLR6BKS FWNOONSIIE 9L41E PRIUMBEGA6A\ED IRKESS AbfFDlO ERDDVEDpLARELOGTWTHM MUGW 7MATT d1 NDWREGARDPDEUIGTNGPT WTEWLNNLLE BROUGHf101EAi1ENIDNOFDE WDSGPEMCHTECTPPDRm HEMONL 11 FDSDNGTREE9m R[WN, LPdIdNECTONOFUNDSWEMdORCTSIALLM FER1p1iEDAND PRLNYAm RE1dVE OFAO YIWD.OLLVItDANONIBBNG ePANGEi N. CONIRACTdIbNALLPREPARENDS1BABfAWRfRENRFDUE6TFGIE 91184TAMN l LDAPIEIDu NSPELIDN Oi IAA09GPE ANA 511E NPROYEYBOS PPNDR ro 6UBEf iNG FNLL PAY PFDNESI DF musmuclpN IAEULUiDN ANG PPoOR m fiIASNNf NL GDNPLEIIDK ti SYNBDIb GPWNDRAWRA YNEPAECFENCEOVERSCIEDLLFSP DEFAEPANdESNDINNRIES EDfiT SPEC61G1DN6ANDOEfALS WE PRELEDENDEDYEtNb1E5. PLANTING NOTES 1. SPVfEPROPo6Fp PUNTNGLOGIIpA PERPIANFG REVENMDAPPgpML01 UNG6CAPEAIGSIECTMDPm INSGN. ; PINR WTFA4151NLLCONPLY NiMTECURREMEdIDNOFINEMERTAN aNNDARDPoR NURSEP.YSiOOLANSTND.I. UAE94 NGIED OTHERWISE, DECL]IIdD 6EUBaaHALL NNEATLFA9TBGNESATl1E6PECNTEp1EJGNL ORIAIENNLIEE9SMLLINIE NOYCROTpESANGSNALLBKiINOAANOBNG NG IDMENTHMI'FFFTABOYEINERDOTKLLL SIRELTANDedREVAMIREE9914LL SEWN NNNGNNGNGIDWERTHIN(AB0.£ PAVEDSWFACE ]. W PLANTWTETMLWL Mt GRkDWANACDN6TRIDTDNK169HN CWIPLMWTHEMEDNTEARFA l N PANTVIATERAS PERNANDNGDEABS i 6Ue91TMDNR®NEfiISPoRPWITWIEKTIONPEONTEBMW. N10MRIEDm TUBSTFI MMGDIECTFGCDNSEEMTDNPVLAW00PYALL AREVJNID115AFIFA NDDAGNUST EAPPRWED 9Y WD6GPEAP�i11ECTANO ARE 6UBdLT m coRlucTADNSf 100DK PIANT9. T. FFARDE NAMW}ERNLVPG INSD.IlAlI0N WI1Hd1®aD1E NFALOINER AWNOhDFFRTADEINDODINWNNRSPWU1 SGLPERDENANNFACNAERS INEIPUCIDE G AMY E TREATED FOR sU W TilANDFAaNSALLADDNWNAN APPIDATDN OF GAAHAAR 1 W 5 OF It 02 PER iS UL MUTR@ AAD 6 OL PER THEE IHMADINIIDNILAPPIYw1DNOFD6101E GOLLOWWG SPRNGNDIE 1REEEAULEA. 1. DRTALL I( AANNLFPWDNG S% LSKbRECENTNTOFW 3WJ C WDNU1SdANNMLt• -R4AOF OLLSANKCDNSSTOF MX ORA OT WdFFDm LON1ANALNANIMOF ]DY SANG,APNDF T.1 WX, ORASOMFRNNE SPBPED NTIE PROJECT WNINt, e. TREBMPPADWTENNLSNALEMOWALLED PIASMSINE TRSAPPLEDPRDLI TRLH. ,CFIRaTENANLII WRAPbNWIMBIAIEO ECUNDIISixEEs PWlTE0NTNIE FALLPPDPm DECEMBE9IANDPENOYEWPAPPNGAf1Ei WY1. 10. dITiHDNSIEEIEDGERroEUSEDm CONTABI dl11U09, PN630L1EAND ANNWLfiWIEPE PLANTWG BW 1EE148W UNLESS OTIERWDENGTFD. 11. NPIYPREEIEAGLMIERNCaE(PRE EN..PMVEDFDAADINALINIEA, PEREIRALANG-N BEGS FOLLOW® W SIBEDDED XNIDAmDNULIL REF& TO SPEiDATOW FORADDRDN4. NFORINTBM REONDDIG= ac HERNOM 1; N Ltr DEEP NMEDDED KkILIP OD NUICH RINGSATCOWIEROW d DECIDWUb LREE9 WRXfD NAGNONELTLdRACTWRHTEEIRNK 1]. WOUr DEEP SIREDOFD KMDANOODMLPLNRNGSATSRUEPIAN IGAAFM wIMNG NAGNOREC`COT VfHSHRR STELA N. MiACH 0 DREA"A LYSIPIEDDEDL RELCAI'DEEPSFNFDDEDBWAS1OF NLALINPL-PLANT WITINGALDb,RFNOVEALNAO9VkCT LHMAF PEAENEAa- PLANT SENG bID1AD NOT E N DEEGT CONAtt W If N MACH. IK SPRDAPUNTWTEANLINGTAWVANNFRWTEAPRtiro ANEli tT. F MNBDDU9PIANfNGDAGSE MFRDMAIGMZITDSEPTRW38. N. FALLOFGdKOSNANTBDNACCEINBLEFPDNAWV9T1aWNN0VElERfS. 1B. AORJ Sm PLANRNGDNES NUSTEAPPID4E0 NWRIIUIGBYIE UIOSCAPEAEEARCg1ECE IRRIGATION NOTES 1. CONONCMRaF UREE0N51REFORPROAWIGANIRRIGATDNU1 PUN ANIIM CONSfRUG1DK rtsNAILETHECONRNCION's RESPDNSGRRYro ENSURE LINT SDOOEDSEFEDAND PLANIEDMU6ME IRIe Wl ED PPDPFALY, KAIIDeDnDSEAREASgIELRYADUMANGABUTTNG BELOLWif0UEA1DH a, CDNOLILIpISW.LLVERFYIESETWGINRDODN SYSTFNIAYDIIfANDCIXJRRN WWLETEONIISOFOR TDNPRORTD WPLYNGSMPDRNWRDS 1 TDNIRALIgI SINLLtdID.CiIAFDBGPe A1CFDEGt FOR 11EPECIDNAND APNDWKOFALLARFIS R&FMNGOPP MORTON PRDR mA15PLAnGOF AW NIacK 4 CONIRAC1p18HLLLPRdJDETEONNERYAHMPN0A1bN6ClEDUtE APPRDPRNtE roTE PPD1ECIfirtECOERDN6ANDro PWNIED WIERNL GROWTH EDINENFNTfi. S. CONTRAM SHALL ENSURE TINTWIL COWRIMSAND COWACMNME AOEQLAWTU ALLIM MR PROM OFNPNGEAFDUNDTHE CONMWTIDN Wt. UNGFSAACONOIIDN6aFWLE 9bUdRTFEAT1ENlDNDFE LANDSCAPE GRTLT EGINBNDOF ARK RLLETNE LPNGCOLOLSFEORNYmEN6NPOPRN NG ED NA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING EDINA. MINNESOTA DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITSUBMITTAL 6/24/2015 LANDSCAPE DETAILS & NOTES L200 k n ---------- x 1g Its_ \'e ----- ----- Y�' V ZI 1-4 -10 �j I L -6, STOEMWLTER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN — EXISTING CONDITIONS EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING STORMWATER EDINAMINN5SOTA PLAN - MaSTING PIERCE PINI & C302 ASSOCIATES 9228 CENTRAL AVENUE NE SU 312 i Z;,F NE. MN 55434 TEL 763.537.1311 FAX 763.537.1354 E BUILDING CONDITIONALUSE < ---- ---- -------- PERMIT SUBMITTAL 612412015 5, "anma —015 ---------- STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - MaSTING CONDITIONS C302 _."' ,. `., asuuv[m o xSl�n m4 P 'yt`z1.'•. �— ra.` •e,>1 ryypyµCC xemil tlE �x b [ i.{.4�I�� � M X[WCI�SCI[ eCWLS o , t. °, •,..�.: >, •r+ � - 0 1 � Lnpagx mM�1 u X11 �� x 0 11D. W. \ -------- 4 - ._ OW FkELA',OH.�:Y `C" r �•' �✓ .�� , a� 1.4ID DEL/NE4Irr,�v �Y Iu�l � C'• -r V e1'�"r '`C ? ` •,'w\t�}.':• C>.'1M(w.ICN iM dalaCC `J �',. •'�\'°" •. _ N-, Q _�. lCD QV G%/'DIJ fW (e•j� �c lE,\ '��(C��'1 \� cl �. Er r ✓tic•_ _ fe � � ' red ti 0 r„• .M r �L`•'i rO .rte c Bey EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING EDINA, MINNESOTA PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES 9296 CENTRAL AVENUE NE SUITE 312 BLAINE. NN 55434 TEL763.537.1311 FAX 763.537.1354 CONDITIONAL USE 612412015 Aroxw s oc�c RIU1dq.S:PImCP x oen4ns u-o.s s�P STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN -PROPOSED ® STORMWAT R POLLUTION PREVENTION P N- PROPOSEDCONDITIONS 9 I C303 ZZ >> O W w W 20 pno Z Z a p W vNl W Q1 IYO sTy IkI} _ 'r. �O �. O � � B �, i�{�IE � � -_ I� •� <<'J lr,+ e � yii i 0: { � p�/ ter �✓�. •`• In T°1 ";;P",,sl I � •a -x" a rt;l' I ; I _, ���, fie, � i >;•.�}��; II z 3 r 1 L. I x,-•11. , ,.3 � _ � �.� -- r.� . , ����..:, Add 010 7 — — — — — — — — — — — F?:IrT .1 BU 1. 16. . 'T.-3 ell ----ryTx ------- EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING EDINA, MINNESOTA PIERCE PIN[ & ASSOCIATES 2228 CENTRAL AVENUE NE . SUITE 312 ELME, MN 55434 TEL 763.537.1311 FAX 763.537.1354 CONDITIONAL -USE N N UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PLAN C500 W E ST 54th s r R E ET w*u�oosma"w°4M 1. ------ --- wr, mri zc 6FOS�.ti 6f `"`""""s' bA6d35Cb kwcAERlS�F.w __ I wnEn. wxn w�awc u°xc Saar •. r-_ __ SBw°u ueE Cv. Sr20RM3 aNL STORMS - - ���"e' : ~i'',• � _� �_°✓ ,-.°.. Fo 1 °� °.. � ` 7s: a°°� w ARB r _. 0. E''ILTIC Ei.1>71IIG PlIL6li 1� VAVFMFM. :� CI II[[IlNtll' �: N � s¢ w �, • ..J t 1 e e0µ0 OMCRTE r eB0e0SCe � G' ig Y' ,� GAB 0 0011ER �r )'i ; %13 --------------- �'' ^r • •� .. �w � oil ewro3BB c°xcme ' � � ir¢tcrrt 8.usn wm .r fi rwsr'r�w C n..�j° iananr F?,� -' - F �r ;' w •t o ua. sTE .Ba. Q, 4:, i 's�ccyoc*Mc o%rmi FFE.877.7 I I �i".N°i �- JtiJ': 1,w CLQ :r - ` v;�• - Y' � 1 I I PFfIIRNnaFY - �v�l 1•..J w/. � - . c•uao afLure non er � r->, �,.-. ::off• � .,'. F�J -. i=o Tip �e�ro e��pq*c i '4 .. I ! fnw,cwl.ILn! C `xfi'IV:f (�..✓ � .�� v ' ` ^�, p S¢ O[i'ul5 1 -- ' r >~ ,n oy _ter -i r! -c. w - •.. � p - ----------------- •_L ....�� ,,. ~--�.-_—A ^- w- -r ve -T, (r�i ter .-t y `l.'Urt Nii �J " ti... :°�`- e^ nr I , J' -r -__-_-'__•___-_tet•-•.-_ ) a r Tv ®PAVING PAVING PLAN G za fIITT7CTRr�� '... EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING EDINA. MINNESOTA PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES 9298 CENTPLL AVENUE NE SUITE 312 8LAJNE. MN 55434 TEL 763.537.1311 FAX 763.537.1354 RCONDTTIIONALUSE t. -M3 I1r Rh6rtdgS:FYmcQ PAVING PLAN C600 I I - - - I - J I I - - — — -- - I mz=� 2=111111112� Eg� mmlww�ml�il ENRON MINH 0 mmlomQmml"lm EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & REMODELING EOINA, MINNESOTA lWGIKIMIMM:. INQNk", a, E MM CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT SLJFkMrTTAI Wlql4U10 Site Photomefric Plan E-10 V EXISTING BUI-1— Km Rin" —c— c - _f EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION & -REMODELING EDINA. MINNESOTA DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 6t2412015 0'._ _xXj LANDSCAPE PLAN& SCHEDULE U-09 •.n'e+cn0 w9nnvd aoNl �nrH ejM11Mp+V edeo5Pua1 l: L 6uyten�n5.6uuea1ry6v3 f �'. ]NyH.u .....• .. vwz&—'— ' Vil dnoao jejnt3o%jt as VVe tam nn Iva.-i'w48 kmWMZUf curzn •� 45jn4'J U8 -#n1 -WWD3 Ot4p3 a! U aUdN ........ ... ......... . ............ ........ MA ......... .. 'Psi dftoAD Jvjm33w3j42jV nnl'HarlO unnud AMU MMM 2 0 z v jV ode-ptml zo P 110 F-1 — -A - Neill if @Hill oil .4 A .4 W rm mum-SWIMA" Aff- ;---------------- Neill if @Hill oil .4 A .4 W rm mum-SWIMA" Aff- I c 0 11 1 -RB % 6 -SO X L ............... .............. R° TABS s tN•RRNAt. ........... SEE't PLA X. pJX FOB FE J. TREE INSTALLATION DECIDUOUSOR CONIFEROUS IRIS BALLED ANDDURLAPPED /24 -AR 1 PERWAYAC-BEDS-1 BY OWNER SBE S wUmsla Solt =11 SHRUB INSTALLATION DECIDUOUS Olt CONIFEROUS SHRUB BALLED AND BURIAPPED OR CONTAINER GROVFX GENERAL NOTES: - -- 4 SHOULD A PLANT BE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, ALL won ARCHITECT ANO THE OWNER. ANY OWING VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN A MARINER THAT IS AMICABLE WITH LOCAL CITY AND 3 -RB STATE REQUIREMENTS. SEE eWNEERS MOMS AND UTILITY PLANS FOR ELACr LOrAMNS Of SNAPS, SWALES, BASINS, AND PIPE LOCATIONS. SEE 4 -SO, ARCHrnlCTURAL SITE MAN FOR PENCE, WALLS, LIGHTING, EM ALL TRESS SHALL RgCSM SAUCERS AND MULCH WITH SHREDDED HARD- WOOD INDIVIDUALLY AS MR PLANTING DETAIL, ALL SHRUB 1t�'17 F, 1 -RB % 6 -SO X L ............... .............. R° TABS s tN•RRNAt. ........... SEE't PLA X. pJX FOB FE J. TREE INSTALLATION DECIDUOUSOR CONIFEROUS IRIS BALLED ANDDURLAPPED /24 -AR 1 PERWAYAC-BEDS-1 BY OWNER SBE S wUmsla Solt =11 SHRUB INSTALLATION DECIDUOUS Olt CONIFEROUS SHRUB BALLED AND BURIAPPED OR CONTAINER GROVFX GENERAL NOTES: - -- REFER TO EROSION CONTROL PLAN MR SEEDING INFORMATION SHOULD A PLANT BE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, ALL SUBSTITUTIONS ARE SUK)lCr TO THE APPROVAL Of THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANO THE OWNER. ANY OWING VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN A MARINER THAT IS AMICABLE WITH LOCAL CITY AND 3 -RB STATE REQUIREMENTS. SEE eWNEERS MOMS AND UTILITY PLANS FOR ELACr LOrAMNS Of SNAPS, SWALES, BASINS, AND PIPE LOCATIONS. SEE 4 -SO, ARCHrnlCTURAL SITE MAN FOR PENCE, WALLS, LIGHTING, EM ALL TRESS SHALL RgCSM SAUCERS AND MULCH WITH SHREDDED HARD- WOOD INDIVIDUALLY AS MR PLANTING DETAIL, ALL SHRUB mGROUPS SHALL RECEIVE A CON. DEOLINE AMI LW ON THE J i ROOT -BALL PLANTS DOT TOM GROUPI FINAL SHAPE OF THE WRINES By THE = CAPE ALL=.=.WWA EDGOI C -ASA CONTVNOU6 APPROVED EQUAL ROCK O=YER rLA"OSCAMIJEW69 TOWAME 01 Anlo. BOB 04 rb WOO. ROC SMALL BE I.S-2- Cottom-A ROCK al MON FOR COURTYARD j;" E=lK A t'ro AL PRIOR TION = SOD SEL PLANTINGF SmRW am, SEEDED m!"em sm PRELIMINARY Olt NOT Koo SURFACEDEXCEPr AS BE BOOM. WTOPSOIL FOR CONSTRUCTION ALL ROD AREA sHou HAVE AN atRacArioN SYSTEM PER CITY aEQUIREMBNTS, IRRIGATION SHALL N DESIGN WILD. W SAND B7 TREES TO K REMOVED AND 67 REPLACEMENT TRW ARE PROPOSED. QUARTMIS ARE BASED ON TRESS SHOWN ON THE ED SURVEY PROVID. I X 6.7. - -E , BMT-FkL ..�....�._.`.•...._....... �� —'" [tfl«rtfs•n•na.u•<[<ruczlR awy.w.i .—.....a....-..,...o,,..........�....� .................--.-......,�,. W' w»-wRe�ra•.r as... • ...... .Igen-3 .f I1•f.KS nW'.p.Enuu1X • aaw l Puelan.a� f! �' 26t.:g(raPu tlno+ YZK9 NN'•!fo'w.ssWsgwntt ..........w.....—w......®.w.,�.w..... ¢I�'¢.alY ia+ '9tl 9 le+n[.s[14 •+V yam43 uempnl lyiunwu[OJ sup -3 1ea1I t =A �. p• 7( � S. 6 4 S 3' of I 551 Q m 0 0 I 0 0 Z t-- A31 C� Q m 0 0 I 0 0 Z t-- A31 AI BI CI tl I --------�--------�----------------- NnN w��snu►,no.rrArt.t+r. wcmoAoor neno�nronearw r—tacnxoetoarowar+p `AV9N6i� N"ATWNIATMWNr-WVB - AJMNYMMOOWC J M•ProAtlPn1 tw inaian 1 RdIOOummum" A/ PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION .e. tr-ra• ®mAwroam•xNdA�Ow+N TA, MW.. ROOF t � BoetARaroKroiww rwn,°tir".R� taaN.awwnw I IkTA.WwnYgll, ltl. IIN/001,�e7CiiMP AOORgN F]iiNCIt1ANY // Gs r�r�prc m_ PRO�aPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION K, t�.t SC-iY"�F- ,-T P f r to ax Vnar� a�r s� I unas®xiuoww L d � 72' P 9 1 R 8 0 o. y J Btu � d ararEro 4! iAllpYtFC,E w n - f IIYIAAWIt J - � ^ { o $$lij s . _ � t �I,nIMImIiTJl- Al1W.YM,1�rrK i 02y d MNKRM�IIG ft0�R6�AMR iw � d Y . [ �I I r i Wt i NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. 0 2013 „. TO Edina Community Lutheran Church x asays.2ots Exterior Street Level Perspective ®Architectrtal Group Ltd. Is Gr"aAnd Trac.. MMIlewW..MN S5403-1134 E•Na0nMbek.dat.co.. Website....Mdet.cool Tclepbsae 012.377.2757 . 7acslwbe 012.377.1331 OS IW06TARCHRECTUIM OR”. VM :::40- w '0J6M6"ji Ij L a %,f / � \ [ � � ( ( [ . ] 7 .|§ � ■ V � I . ■ _ � V § & A�O 4/6/92 8'0 heretofore caused notice of hearing to be.dnly published and mailed to owiners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed Improvements: PERHANENT STREET SURFACING,. CURB & GU'dM, STORK SHWER AND SIDEVALR MMOVERENT N0. BA -293 (S.A.P. 120-159-03) - Valley Vier Road from vest 69th Street/Franeee Avenue to Crosstown Highway° PEBHMENT • STREET SURFACING,- CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEBAIS > ` ffi'ROVERENT NO. BA -299 (S.A.P. 130-144-06) - vest 66th Street France Avenne to 3outhdale Lane 3TOBH SHtiER • IMOVEMM 1Y0. STS -219 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL 339ROVEl W NO. TS -21 - Valley View st 66th Street STREET LIGHTING DWROVE11INT N0. L-36 (S.A.P. 120 -150 - and at the hearing held at the time and place specified d notice, the Coundil'has duly considered the views of all persons ted, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does herebydetermin roceed with the construction of said improvement including all pre gs which may be necessary in'eminent domain for the acquisition of necess ements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improveme t said improvements are hereby designated and shall be referred to subsequent proceedings as: PERMANENT STREET .SURFACING, CURB A AND SIDEiiAI.K IMPROVE)OW N0. NA -293 PERMANENT STREET.SURFACING, CURB AND SIDEVAIX naMOVSIENT NO. BA --299 STORK SNO. S 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IKPROVENEST -21 STREET LIGHTING i!D'80 L-36 The area proposed to be assess r a portion of the cost -of the proposed imBrovements includes: Unpla areal (Cornelia Park Pool), Lot 1, Blk. 2, Southdale Office Park Sec .; !Nests & Bounds Description Southdals Office Center Unplatted, Comment t NE corner' of SE 1/4 thence South to NE Corner of South Office Park 1st thence Westerly along Northerly line of said Addn. to its intersection a centerline of Valley Vier Road, thence Northerly along said centerl North line of SE 1/4. Thence Easterly to Beginning Except Roads; Int 10, Blk. 3, Southdale First Adda.; Lots 1 thru 13, Blk. 4,;Southdale F ddn.; Lot 2, Blk. 1 South Office Park First Addn.; Tract A. RLS No. 1365; K partment Ownership #79 - Point of France Condominiums. A11 units conta th Apartment Ownership #79 (Unit 102 thru 1210 and"Penthouse 1 thra'Penth 2). Motion we ondad by,Member Kelly. Rolle 'Ayes Paulus, Smith, Richards Nays, ice _ Resolution adopted. (�,:�✓� CONDITIONAL USE PERM GRANTED FOR BUILDING M PANSION AND RMIODELING - EDINA CONY LUTHiO;AN CHURCH Planner Larsen reminded Council that at the March 16, 1992, meeting the request for a conditional use permit for building expansion and remodeling at Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, was continued for additional information on two issues: 1) sidewalk along the front of tlxe church property: and 2) parking bays -along the south side of W. 54th Street adjacent to the church. Following that meeting, architects for the church have submitted two site plan for both sidewalk and parking bays. Exhibit "A" illustrates a seven foot wide sidewalk just inside the existing curb `line. The sidewalk would extend from the parking lot curb cut on the west to the parsonage driveway on the east, with no parking bay. Exhibit "B" illustrates both a sidewalk and a parking bay. The parking bay would stop before the parsonage and would provide space for six cars. Staff would recommend the Exhibit "A" sidewalk only alternative. The bay should 1 4/6/92 �. 81 be included in the Proof of Parking Agreement and considered in the future if conditions warrant.* Reasons presented in support were: 1) The existing street meets the local and state width standard for a low volume collector street with parking on both sides. The state standard is 38 feet and the existing street is 40 feet wide. 2) The parking bay would not provide additional parking spaces. There is presently parking on both sides of 54th Street. 3) Due to existing grades, additional steps would be required if the parking bay is constructed. 4) The Proof of Parking Agreement will allow the City to address future parking and safety problems. Ben Crabtree, 5428 Woodcrest Drive, neighbor and church member, submitted that one parking space would be lost if the bay is constructed. With sidewalk up to the curb, snow left by plowing could be more easily moved onto the church property. He concurred with the staff recommendation for Exhibit "A" sidewalk only. No further comment or objection was heard. RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EDINA COMMUNITr LUTHERAN CHURCH WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 825 (The Zoning Ordinance) have been met; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Ordinance No. 825 have been satisfied; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council bereby•grant$ a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church at 4113 Vast 54th Street for building expansion and remodeling. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards• Resolution adopted. $EGOM READING GRANTED: ORDIRANCE NO, 812-A3 ADOPTED (Rggzd60 TEM—Ism RADIO ANTBNBAS AND TOWERS) Planner Larsen recalled the ouncil granted first reading for Ordinance No. 812-A3 on March 16, 19 ='The only changes to the final draft are to the height of the resident o antennas in Subsection 815.06. Staff would recommend second reading an tion. Ray Voss, 5716 Benton Avenue, representing t tour radio group, and Dick Casey, 6120 Ashcroft Avenue, said they con"',",with the ordinance amendment as presented. Member Kelly offered Ordinance No. 8 for Second Reading and moved adoption as follows:` 0 CS NO. 812-A3 AN ORD ING ORDINANCE NO. 812 TO REGULATE CONS TRU AND SCE OF TELECORMNICATION, TELEVISION IO ANTENNAS, EXTERIOR DISH ANTENNAS AND SUPPORTING TOWERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Or a No. 812 is amended to read as follows: 815.01 Definit Words and phrases used in this Section which are defined In Section 850 s Code shall be construed in this Section according to their definitions ed in Section 850. The following words and terms shall have ' the folioanings in this Section: Ri,Ante Equipment used for transmitting or receiving telecommunication, television or radio signals, which is located on the exterior of, or outside of, any building or structure. For purposes of this Section, "antenna" does not include "dish antenna". Dish Antenna. A parabolic shaped antenna (including all supporting 4+a 3/16/92 t. 59 bathroom/restroom located within a non residential building or within the common areas of a multiple residential building.) °�I Section 460 - Signs (Scheduled far Apr ing.) to �r On section 470 - Dangerous and Subst ldings (Inco State Law whereby Council may order repair or r f dangerous or lndard buildings . ) Section 475 - Parking Raduled for Apr caring.) Section 480 - Exterior, gle Dwelling Unr Double Dwelling Unit Buildings ,<z, No public comment or on�was heard on 0 4. CHAPTER 5 - CI AND The followingrr`-hA.'ir ns in the exist a have been deleted: Sectio Raid Proca Sections n asterissignifiicant changes noted: Sect 505 - Civil Def No public comment or'objection` as heard on Chapter S. Mayor Richards then declared the public hearing closed. ( ]�/ UOUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PMtMJT CO=N= -T0 APRIL 6 1992 FOR BIIILDING v al ZXpANSIoNfi M E TNG - EDINA COMKUKM LWTMM COUR 4113 WEST 54TH S ET Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered place on file. PXesentation by Planner Planner Larsen recalled that in August, 1988, the Edin& Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, requested and received a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new sanctuary addition and to generally remodel the church. The new sanctuary would have seated 210 persons compared to 197 in the existing ' sanctuary. Following approval of the permit, the church decided not to proceed with the addition and renovation. The church has now reapplied for a Conditional Use Permit for a revised and reduced in size plan for expansion and renovation of the church. Phase I would be construction of a'22 x 24 foot.addition to the north side of the church for relocation of church offices. The fellowship hall (located in the lower level) would be moved to the main floor and the present fellowship hall would be converted to classrooms; Phase II would be construction of a 16 x 48 foot addition to the sanctuary on the east side to provide improved circulation within the building with no increase in seating capacity. The church presently maintains a setback of approximately 27 feet from West 54th Street. The proposed addition would extend four feet in front of the existing wall and would provide a setback of approximately 23 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot minimum setback; thus a 27 foot setback variance is requested. All other existing and proposed setbacks comply with ordinance requirements. The existing parking is located west and south of the church with a capacity ranging from 25 :to 35 vehicles. The lot is improved with a blacktop surface but is riot striped. The plan anticipates organizing and striping the lot to -provide 37 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space for each three seats in the largest place of assembly. The 197 seat sanctuary would require 66 spaces. The plan requests a 37 space parking variance. The church has submitted an alternate parking plan which would increase the total parking count to 44 spaces. This ' plan would require substantial fill and retainage along the creek bauk.'- The church site is 4.73 acres in size, with a majority of the site either flood plain or wetland; the useable area is relatively small. In 1988 the church prepared plans to construct parking in the floodplain area. The plan received approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, This plan was not viewed 3/16/92' 66 favorably by the City or neighbors along the creek. The approved Conditional Use Permit instead included'a proof of parking agreement obligating the church to pursue other parking solutions if a problem arose in the future. The plan addressed modified service schedules and possible parking bays along 54th Street. Staff believes this approach remains valid. On -street parking has not presented a problem for the neighborhood and continued on -street parking seems to be preferable to disturbance of'natural areas adjacent to the creek. Staff would•recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit including the requested parking space -variance and building setback variance, subject to a proof of parking agreement for these reasons: 1) The project has been reduced in site from the 1988 plans, 2) Given the characteristics of the site, the plan is the best solution with minimal impact on the. neighborhood and the environmental features on the site, 3) The project will be an improvement. to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission heard the request at its meeting of February 26,'1992, and unanimously recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to a proof of parking agreement with the following elements if warranted: 1) Parking bays along West 54th Street, 2) Off-site parking implemented on City property, 3)_Additional parking constructed behind the parsonage, 4) Rearrangement of existing parking stalls. The Commission specifically recommended that the alternative parking plan for parking within the floodplain not be considered. It was noted that written correspondence in support of the project had been received from Pastor Erik Strand, Edina Community Church;. Steven B. Edwin , of Sovik Mathre Sathrum Quanbeck Architects, 205 So. Water Street, Northfield, MN; and Burton W. Grimes, 5400 Halifax Lane, Correspondence in opposition was received from Merideth/John Hale, 5504 Halifax Lane; Martin/Marion Donnelly, 5332 Halifax Avenue So.; Kathleen Wetherall, 5328 Halifax Avenue So.; Anne/John Crist, 5324 Halifax Avenue So.' Amy/Tom Donnelly; 5333 Halifax Avenue So,; and Teresa ' Forliti, 5336 Halifax Avenue So. Presentation for Proponent Erik Strand, pastor of Edina Community Church, submitted that the congregation felt that the plan proposed in 1988 was too ambitious and not in keeping with its desire to maintain a modest size church. He elaborated on the current proposal emphasizing that it would allow for better internal flow of the building and better utilization of space. Further, a sidewalk along the front of 'the church property is being consi,dered•if the City and neighborhood concur. Public Comment Burt Grimes, 5400 Halifax Lane, said he favored the sidewalk on church property only. Ray Voss, 5716 Benton Avenue, said he was a councilmember at Edina Community Lutheran Church and referred to a letter from neighboring property owners regarding problems with church activities. He stated that none of the issues mentioned have come to the attention of the church, that they would not intend to impinge upon'the neighborhood in any way, and would follow-up on the concerns that have been raised. Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place, asked if the building was used for day care and -also asked about the parking bays. Pastor Stand said space is rented to a nursery school which uses the facilities from 9:p0 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.:on weekdays. The church council will be evaluating whether this rental should continue. Planner Larsen said parking bays would essentially be a widening of the street -in front of the church property to allow parallel parking. Tom McCusker, 5413 Wooderest Avenue, said he felt the proposal. accommodates the wetlands area and asked about the proposed parking on City property. Planner Larsen explained that,'if a parking problem is perceived in the future, one of the solutions may be to improve the City property -adjacent to the creek for church parking. 1 1 3/16/92 CouWil Comment/Action In response to Mayor Richards, Planner Larsen said there is no code requirement nor a commission recommendation that sidewalks or parking bays be included in the proposal, but could be made a condition of the permit. Answering Member Rice about what triggers a proof of parking agreement, Planner Larsen said there are agreements in force with some churches now. However, with the exception of Christ Presbyterian Church, none have been implemented. A proof of parking agreement would give the City the right to determine and institute any action necessary to bring non -conforming parking requirements into compliance. Engineer Hoffman explained that if a sidewalk were installed the church would be responsible for its maintenance: He added that safety would be the main reason for parking bays and/or a sidewalk in the area. Member Smith made a motion to grant a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 Vest 54th Street, for building expansion and remodeling, subject to a Proof of Parking Agreement. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Council discussion ensued regarding implementation of parking bays and sidewalk into the proposal at this time. Member Paulus amended the motion to continue the public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit for Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 Vest 54th Street, for building expansion and remodeling, to April 6, 1992, to allow the church to present plans for parking bays and sidewalk as a condition for issuance of the permit. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. TELMISION ANTEMUS AND SUPPORTING TO in Subsequent to the public hearing on the draft City Code, and dr. cation 815 specifically, the Council considered an amendment to existi 'ance No. 812 to incorporate language from draft Section 815 as amended. Member Smith offered Ordinance No. language contained in draft Section draft City Code. Motion was second Rolleall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith Hays: Richards First Reading granted. continue the hear_ an amendment tor Construction of T , Antennas and Dish seconded by Mem ice. Ayes: Paul �'iee, Smith, Richards jgi Motion ca ` • 01,e., First Reading incorp the tided in the public on the r Rice. �i z . presented, approved and ordered placed on file. [ember Smith made a motion to ance No. 144 (Moratorium on to April 6, 1992. Motion was Affidavits of Notice were Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman advised that the developer of the Lincoln Apartments on Lincoln Drive has petitioned the City to either vacate certain public interests or grant ALw F, 61 3/16/92 permission for encroachment on public easements on the Lincoln Apartments project. Staff would recommend the following actions by the Council: A. Vacate the southerly two feet of a 35 foot utility easement above the elevation of 889.7, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. B. Grant execution of an agreement to permit a ventilation shaft on the utility easement. C. Vacate.all public'interest on east 20 feet of Outlot A, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition, except to reserve.drainage and utility easement rights over the east 22 feet. The first recommendation involves vacating air rights on the southerly two feet of a:35 foot utility easement running parallel to the north wall of the Lincoln Apartments north building. The north building footprint was constructed just south of the easement but after field confirmation'it was determined that the bay windows protruded over the easement area. The developer has requested that air rights be granted over this two foot area to resolve issues with the title company resulting.from the encroachment. The second recommendation results from the encroachment of a ventilation shaft on the utility easement for sanitary sewer. In this case, staff would recommend not granting a vacation of the easement to allow the ventilation shaft but would recommend granting the exeeution.of an agreement to use the utility easement. The terms of the agreement would hold the City harmless for any damage done by the City during itsMuse;of the utility easement for repair or construction work on the utility system. The third recommendation involves vacating any public interest except for utility and drainage rights over the.east.22 feet of Outlot A, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. This area ispart of the parking lot for the south building of the Lincoln Apartments. During_a title examination it was unclear what the City's intent was in 1990 when'it earlier vacated all public interests but retained utility interests over the east 20 feet. Council Comment/Action ; Mayor Richards raised the issue of who would pay for the relocation and legal costs it in the future the City must relocate the public utility within the easement. Attorney Gilligan explained that language could be added to the draft agreement to include the City's right to relocate the utility and that all costs incurred would be paid by the developer. Norm Bjornnes, Lincoln Drive Partners, affirmed that the partnership would indemnify and hold the City, harmless from any loss under the terms of.the Agreement and would be liable for any and all costs. No public comment or objection to the proposed Council action was heard. Member Paulus introduced the following resolutions and moved adoption: RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES IN THE -CITY OF EDINA, UMMIN COUNTr, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a resolution of the, City Council, adopted the 18th day of February, 1992, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of easement for drainage and utility purposes; and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 16th day of March, 1992, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said easement vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning N LO LO aci Q 9/19/88 259 View Road contain between two and five units. Lot sizes range between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. The R-2 lot immediately to the south of the subject property ,has an area of 11,500 square feet. Planner Larsen explained that despite the or deficiencies from the ordinance requirements, staff believes there are ral reasons to support the proposal. Lot Size - The area of the double in unit lot is below the requirement, however, it is compatible with the o -2 properties in the vicinity. The R -I lot exceeds the ordinance minimum as sed and is larger than several other R-1 lots on Brookview, Character s - The streetscape along Brookview Avenue will remain unchanged, The R props long Brookview are not impacted by the proposal. The new double dwell in;r ley View Road will appropriately fill in a noticeable gap. T f w unit will` "" eloped within all required setbacks and orients logically t Valley View Community Piannin¢ - The proposed plat and rezoning I consistent wi principles and land use designations set forth in t Comprehensive Planner Larsen advised that the proposal was cons "ad by the Community Ds' ant and Planning Commission on September 7, 19 recommended prelim rezoning and plat approval, subject to fi zoning, final plat, subdivi edication, curb cut location approval a state utility connections. ` " ted that the proponents, Ronald and t Erhardt were present to answer ques Ronald Erhardt gave a brief hist of the subject property which was theti his maternal grandparents. H ted that in the summer of 1987 they made � ,,Lee as to the possibility of structing a double bungalow on the rear of the'}" With the decease of the `" other earlier this year, they are now pursuing jset with plans to 1 n this property when they retire. Member Turner as the Planning Co n discussed the substantial variances`that are i d, Mr. Erhard, d the variances were discussed and the Commission's qu were answe Member Turner thou asked Mr. Ehrhardt to support their.reque '_ varianc Mr. Erhardt explained that most of the lots along Valley View s foots '- se are smaller than the variance on the square footage on the fronting on Valley View. In discussions with City staff and the s as determined that the proposal was the best use of that lot. Member id the use makes sense but that she had trouble finding justification for the as and that she was concerned about the impact on the single family no d. Member Smith suggested that if the lot line were drawn perpendicul o B aw Avenue instead of diagonally that the variance needed for the sin amily ould not be as great and it would maintain a rectangular lot on okvLaw or Richards commented that he did not feel there is justificatio r tha reque ariances so that there could be three dwelling units wh Inow just one a Mr. Erhardt said that one of the questions raised at Planning Commissi sting was how many units would the square footage of ubject property hand the answer was a.• minimum of three. The issue n was should the exist use be removed in, order to construct three The reponse was where t is ari existing single family house that fits Br Lew why not build a double o back portion of the lot which would frEnpljo t ley View. There was further d ion on re -orienting the plot line to eliminate the setback nos for the single family lot w a double could be sited on the new onting Valley View Road. Member aids made a motion to continua the hes approval of the rezoning to R ouble Dwelling Unit District and prelimin t for Erliardt Addition to the Ing of October 17, 1988 to give the proponent a to revise the prelim t and provide information on the sizes and dime' of other lots in the ." Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Ke -Smith, Richards, Turner, Courtney � r� Motion ca ed. ( 1� *ROYAL I HIGHLAND ADDITION ,( Motion made by Member Helly and seconded by Member Turner to contain „ e f -y hear or preliminary plat approval for Edina HIghlauds 2nd Addition to l,qe Octo 3, 1988, as requested by the proponent. of , on carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED FOR EDINA COWWITY LUTHERAN CHURCH. Motion was made by Member Helly and seconded by Member Turner for adoption of the following resolution, subject to an executed Proof of Parking Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit: g_ESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 825 (The Zoning Ordinance) have been met; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Ordinance No. 825 have been satisfied; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina Ctiy Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4119 West 54th Street, for construction of a new sanctuary and conversion of the existing sanctuary to a fellowship hall. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. A�7 225 RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PIAT FOR OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN 2ND ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "OAK PONDS OF 1NTERLACHEN 2ND ADDITION, platted by Michael Halley Homes, Inc. and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 15, 1988 be and -is hereby granted preliminary plat'approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney, Nays: Smith R olution adopted. PRELIM Y PLAT APPROVED FOR HED ADDITION. Affidavits o notice were presented, approved a ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen pre anted the request for preliminary p t approval for the Had Addition, locate at 6625 West Trail, Lot 1, Block 10, Indi Hills. The subject property is a d eloped single family lot with an area of%7 X207 square feet. The proponentas submitted a preliminary plat which, cre a one new buildable lot. existing house would remain as it is today. The new 19t would contain 34,277 sure feet, and the lot for the existing house would cont in 44,930 square feet! The new house is proposed to front on Iroquois Trail. Bkth lots comply or ��xceed all Zoning Ordinance requirements 'for single Tamil lots. A grapYyic of the proposed plat was shown indicating the 'existing house d drivewayJ��4_,-d proposed house to be constructed on N the new lot. In support of thei pplicat on, the proponents have submitted an Lo analysis and survey of 40 lots in wern portion of Indians to determine lot Lo size. The existing lot (Lot 1, Block Indian Hills) is the largest in the area and following the subdivision the res g lots would remain among the largest lots in this area of Indian Hills, anne \�Larsen explained that, normally, staff m would want to see the property spli more evh ly than is proposed. However, in Q this case a more even division of a proper would require removing the existing house. The present proposal max izesthe size f Lot 2 while saving the existing house. The entire property is@avily wooded and he existing house is barely visible from the street. A di sion which would re+#re removing the existing house may disturb the site more than the present props\al.Hedvised that at its meeting of July 27, 1988,th Community Development an Commission reviewed the proposal and r commended preliminary apprct to: 1) final plat approval, 2) subdivi on dedication, and 3) utiliion charges. He tated that Virgil Hed, oponent, was present to answns. Member Smith asked questions about retaining wall adjacent to Iall. Planner Larsen said that it we an existing private retaining wall on the property. Member Smithcommente that the lots in the proposed plat are consistent in size with the neighborhoo with the exception of the large lots to the east. No other comment being heard Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject 1) final plat approval, 2) subdivision dedication, and 3) utility connectio changes: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HED ADDITION BE IT RESOL by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat retitled "HED.ADDITION", platted by Virgil and Sharon Had, husband and vi£e, presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August JS, 1988 be anis hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PEP14IT FOR EDINA CO1.WITY LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION CONTINUED. Affidavits of notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen presented the request of Edina Community Lutheran Church, 4113 West 54th Street, for a conditional use permit. Edina Community Lutheran Church, generally located south of West 54th Street and west of Halifax Avenue, has applied for a conditional use permit to build a new sanctuary and convert the existing sanctuary into a fellowship hall. The new sanctuary will seat 210 people which is an increase of'23 seats over the present sanctuary. The project includes remodeling the interior of the existing building. The exterior of the new sanctuary will be finished with cedar shakes and stone trim to match the stone on the existing church. The existing building will be re -sided with cedar shakes to match the new addition. Discussion at the Community Development and Planning Commission meeting centered upon where additional parking would be located on the church site. The church property measures 4.73 acres in size. However, much of the area is within the flood plain of Minnehaha Creek. No building or other obstructions may be placed in the flood plain. Consequently, the only buildable area is the northeasterly portion of the site. All of the proposed construction is above the flood plain elevation. Under certain circumstances, parking could be developed within the flood plain area. However, from staff's point of view it is not a desirable alternative. In looking at other alternatives, it was determined to develop as much parking as'possible on the upper area of the church -ground and if parking overflowed the capacity of that lot it could locate on West 54th Street where there is adequate street width for parking on both sides and very few homes. ®R 8/15/88 226 The church's proposal calls for rebuilding the existing parking area to the south and wast of the church*to accommodate 41 cars. The existing parking'area is unstriped and accommodates 25-35 cars. With seating for 210 persons; the Zoning Ordinance requires 70 parking spaces. In order to provide the required parking the church would need to locate the.additional parking within the flood plain area. The church has elected to request a parking variance of 29.spaces to avoid disturbing the natural:conditions existing adjacent to the creek. According to church officials the intent of the addition and renovation project is to better accommodate existing needs and not to prepare for any significant increase in congregation size. The seating capacity increase is very modest and•the existing building would benefit 'from the proposed renovation. The building design and the soft, natural materials seem appropriate for the site. The Planning Commission members discussed at length whether to recommend the parking variance and the conditional use permit.or to require a proof of parking agreement. The question arose if there is a proof of parking agreement in place and additional parking is required in the future,, where would those 29 spaces be located. The answer would be in the flood plain which both the church *and staff have been trying to avoid. At its meeting of July:27, 1988, the Planning Commission recommeuded'approval of . the conditional use permit, with a 29 space parking variance as recommended by staff, and that the City and church enter into a proof of parking agreement. Planner Larsen stated that the Planning Commission, staff,. the church, and neighbors all supported the proposed parking variance to avoid disturbing the flood plain areas ou ttie church property. He explained that staff did not recommend the proof of 'parking agreement for these reasons: 1) The increase in seating capacity is small, only 23 seats. 2), The flood plain area is'the only place to develop more parking. This area is approximately 16 feet lower than the existing parking lot make it undesirable parking. 3) Cars can park ou both sides of West 54th Street without disrupting traffic flow. 4) Present church activities have not caused problems for the neighborhood. Planner Larsen said that representatives of -the -church were present, as well as John Cunningham, project architect. Member Turner asked if all alternatives for parking have been considered. Planner' Larson said there may be room for additional parking in the future if the existing parsonage were removed. Staff also.looked at the possibility of a parking bay adjacent to West 54th Street. However, the level of traffic and the existing width of the street did not seem to warrant;that alternative. Staff also looked at public. park land on the south side of West 54th Street and west, of Minnehaha Creek as off-site parking; however, that is -rather remote to the church. Member Smith asked'how a proof of parking agreement would be handled. Planner Larsen said the standard procedure with regard to a proof of. parking. agreement is that the City would hope it would not need to be enforced. The problem with an agreement is 'if additional parking is proved to be needed the City would'requir. that parking be provided somehow on the site. Here the only.. place would be down on;the flood plain. Planner Larsen added that the City and church could enter into a general agreement; similar to that with Colonial Church, whereby the church would work with the City to solve parking problems should they occur in the future. Ann Bishop, 5324 Halifax Avenue, ,asked about the impact of traffic in the neighborhood if both sanctuaries are used to capacity. Planner Larsen explained that the Zoning Ordinance says you calculate the demand on traffic and parking based on the largest use assembly which in this case would be so modest that there would be no uoticeable-increase in traffic. If in the future, both structures were used concurrently, it could have.some impact. When the City reviews requests for conditional use permits from schools and churches, staff relies on those institutions telling staff how they operate. Mark'Brethein, 5429 Woodcrest Drive, said he was supportive of the church's plan and in favor of the parking variance. He said he was concerned about any option to build parking in'the flood plain as that would be across the creek from his property. Member Smith commented•that he would like to see some kind'of agreement with the church regarding future parking needs. Member Turner said she would not support putting parking in the•flood plain. She added that the Council has been tough with churches in recent years regarding their parking requirements; that we should not make an. exception here and that there should be some type of agreement. Member Richards made a.motion that approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Edina Community Lutheran Church be continued to September 19, 1988 and that staff be, directed to bring back an agreement regarding future parking needs for approval before the Conditional !Use Permit is granted. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 1988 APPROVED. Because of the number of persons present regarding Agenda Item VIIIA (Approval of Traffic Safety Committee Minutes), Mayor Courtney declared this the next item to be heard. Engineer Hoffman reviewed the discussion held at the Traffic Safety Committee meeting of August 9, 1988 regarding the traffic issues on Halifax Avenue, West 51st through West 54tb.Streets and the temporary traffic barricade that had been installed at Halifax -and West 51st Street. :He recalled that at the July meeting the Committee had recommended that the Council.conduct a public hearing on this matter to get input from the residents of Halifax Avenue and the affected surrounding neighborhoods. 'At its meeting of August 9, 1988, the members Mr. Ackerberg told the Commissioners he too would like better pedestrian access to the patio; however, liquor license restrictions prevents it and it is difficult to control seating order. Chair Platteter said he supports the project; adding in his opinion it's a great pnovet. Platteter said the Commission viewed this in a "small scale'; however, as redevelopment occurs in the area the Commission may need to think about how these small redevelopments fit into the rest of the area and bigger picture. Platteter noted it appears throughout EcJi;� and the greater Southdale area infills are occurring. 14 Commissioner Carr stated she supports the project; however, was a little hesitant with the exterior materials. Commissioner Forrest also indicated her support for,=ie project. She said in hernopinion the SE corner may need enhancement to keep the pub)lc engaged. A discussion ensued on the importance of crodting an active streetsca `and developing an inviting pedestrian experience. There was,some discussion on the Io ion of the door; however, Commissioners acknowledged he challenge with door ' acement when the majority of visitors come by car. All in all, C - 6ssioners agreed it w�` a nice project. Public Hearing Chair Platteter asked if any je would like to spe#to the issue; being none, Commissioner Thorsen moved to close, a public hearing. Cpt4imissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carr' d. Commissiopgr Carr moved recommend final rezoning and final development plan approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions; with the additional comment that the applicant do everything to help encourage engagement with the street. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 9-0. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan. Edina Community Lutheran Church - 4113 54`h St West. ✓� Planner Comments Planner Teague reported the Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to build a new sanctuary, kitchen addition and new parking lot on the east side of the existing church. Teague explained the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would provide the same seating capacity as the existing 10 M'0 5`O sanctuary. Teague gave a brief history on the previous proposal, adding the revised plans address concerns previously raised. Teague asked for Commission comments. Appearing for the Applicant Thomas Whitlock and Randy Mo Discussion Commissioner Nemerov asked how close the proposed addition is to the creek. Planner Teague responded that it appears to be over 100 -feet from the creek. Applicant Presentation Randy Mo told the Commission that the site is striking and with graphics explained the layout of the proposed addition(s) and site drainage. Thomas Whitlock presented the landscaping plan and asked the Commission to note that the proposed addition ends at the edge of the existing parking lot. He noted permeable pavers would be implemented throughout where appropriate. Whitlock explained that the neighbor to the east will be heavily buffered through the planting of evergreens, adding this form of landscaping buffer also screens neighbors from headlight wash from vehicles coming or leaving the parking lots. Concluding, Whitlock said the development team continues to work with the neighbors on landscaping and tree retention. Discussion Commissioner Hobbs noted that drainage and water shed are important issues facing this redevelopment and asked the applicants if they believe the proposal can adequately handle the run-off. Mr. Whitlock said they are working with the Watershed District and believe the plan will address all drainage issues. He explained that the demolition of the parsonage allows for the location of an integrated underground storm water management system below the parking lot. Whitlock said this storm water management system is superior because it eliminated the need for retaining ponds which would result in additional tree loss. Commissioner Carr noted that the parsonage earmarked to be demolished was built in 1949, adding the Heritage Preservation Board may be interested in the demolition. Carr suggested that the applicant take photos of the parsonage to document it: There was a brief discussion on if the Heritage Preservation Board should weigh in on the demolition of the parsonage. Chair Platteter asked the applicants the square footage of the build -out. Mr. Mo responded that total build -out square footage is 26,000 square feet. Chair Platteter commented that this addition creates an opportunity to work with the Watershed District that could provide a better storm water management situation especially since the structure is in close proximity to the creek. Continuing, Platteter said special attention needs to be paid to screening the addition from the properties to the west. Platteter said he likes the handling of the trash enclosures He further recommended that the development team look at the project from all angles and consider the build -out in all seasons, leafs, no leafs, minimal leafs etc. to ensure adequate screening from adjoining neighbors. Concluding Platteter said if done correctly the new addition should blend well. Commissioner Forrest commented that the addition of bike parking stations should be added to the plan. She further noted she agrees with Chair Platteter in supporting the location of the trash enclosure. Continuing, Forrest stated she has a couple issues; one is lighting, two, parking. She asked the applicant to make sure they are sensitive to light wash into the residential neighborhood, pointing out parking lot lighting needs to be done correctly. Forrest also noted that she is concerned with parking on West 5e Street. She pointed out West 54`h Street is a bike route and the parking of vehicles along a bike route could raise some issues. Commissioner Nemerov commented that it is difficult finding balance and encouraged the applicants to continue to work with the neighbors in addressing all their concerns. Mr. Whitlock agreed, adding they will continue to work on tree placement, landscaping, access and parking. Commissioner Thorsen commented that parking is an issue and will continue to be an issue; however, circulation and viable access can help mitigate the issue. Chair Platteter thanked Mr. Whitlock and Mo for their presentations. 12 A''.) AGREEMENT d THIS AGREEMENT, Made, and entered into this day of 1992, by and between EDI(N'A COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, , INCOIRPOI7ATED, a Minnesota noxi -profit corporation (the "Church") and Cary Op EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"); WITNESSETH, THAT: WHEREAS, The trhurch Is the Owner of certain real yropert�yy ("Property") located in .the City of Adfna, County of Hemnepin, State of Minnesota, r legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; and WHRItEAS, The Church proposes to construct an addition to the building curreatly.existing on the Property ("Building"), which addition is to include parking and landscaping to be used In connection therewith as shown on the plan prepared by Sbvik Mathre Sathrum Quanbeck Edwins dated February 20, 1992 ("Plan") (the addition and said parking and landscaping being hereinafter called the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the Plan provides 37 parking spaces on site but wirould need 70 parking spaces) ,following completion of the improvements, to comply with the' City's zoning ordinances; and WHRIEAS, additional on site parking spaces could only be provided by locating them on the,flood plain of Minnehaha Creek; and WHEREAS, the Church has sought approval from the City for construction of the Improvements and requested a parking, variance necessary to allow construction of the Improvements as shown on the plan; and WHEREAS, the City did, on April 6,1992, in Case No, C-92-1, approve the construction of the Improvements and grant the requested variance because strict enforcement of the City ordinances would, in this case, cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Property, and the approval of construction and grant of such variance has been determined by the City to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the applicable ordinances, but the approval of construction and grant of the variance was conditioned upon the execution, delivery, and recording of this Agreement, and upon the conditions hereinafter set out in this Agreement, which the City deems, necessary to impose to ensure compliance with the applicable City ordinances and to protect adjacent properties; and 4 VIlFI11TtEAS, The Church is agreeable to the approval of construction and the granting of the variance being subject to the conditions hereinafter set out, and is willing, and represents that it has the power and authority, to enter into this Agreement. NOW, 77-IRREFORE, in consideration of the approval given by the City and the granting of the above requested variance, by the City, and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The City hereby confirms that it did, as above stated, approve construction of the Improvements, and did grant variance from its applicable ordinances concerning parking requirements and building sptbacli requirements, .:�..... ; ._ . subject, however, to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, 2. If the City Manager and the City Planner shall hereafter determine, in thein sole and absolute discretion, that additional parking spaces are required on the Property, the Church will, at its sole cost and expense, submit to the City a plan for providing the additional parking spaces as the City Planner and City Manager shall then require, up to the maximum number of parking spaces ,required by the then applicable City Ordinances, The City Planner and City Manager need not require that all of the additional parking spaces be provided at arty one time, but may require additional parking spaces be provided from time to time as they deem them necessary, again in their sole and absolute discretion, until the maximum number of parking spaces as required by the then applicable City Ordinances have been provided. The plan for additional parking spaces may provide for additional parking spaces on the Property, on the City property used for parking and located West of Minnehaha Creek and South of West 54th Street, on West 54th Street following reconstruction and widening of the street to provide for parking bays, or on other off-street locations or combinations thereof. 'The plan shall also include methods for implementing the use of any such additional parking areas by Church patrons. Any such plan shall avoid use of the floodplain area for additional parking spaces. The plan must be approved by the City, and if approved by the City (which approval may be withheld for any reason or cause), such additional parking spaces may then be utilized by the Church pursuant to said new parking plan, as approved, and subject to the then applicable ordinances of the City, except as such ordinances may be waived by variances, if any, then granted. As above stated, the City Manager and City Planner shall be the sole judges of whether or not additional parking is required, from time to time, and if so, how much is to be constructed at any given time. The City Manager and the City Planner shall give written notice to the Church of their determination that additional parking spaces are then required, ..2_ �S� FE setting forth in said notice the number of spaces then required to be provided, up tothe maximum required by the then applicable City Ordinances. The Church must submit its proposed plan for additional parking spaces within thirty (30) days after such notice is given. 3. If any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder hereof and the application of such term, provision, and condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and this Agreement, and all the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof, shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law. 4. In the event that the Church fails or refuses to fully comply with all of its obligations under this Agreement, or violates any of the provisions hereof,., and such failure, refusal or violation continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof is given to the Church, then, in that event, in addition to an other remedies then available to the City at law or in equity, the City shall have t right to; 4~' (a) Prohibit any parking on West 54th Street (which City may toR' whether or not agreed to herein by the Church). (b) Obtain enforcement of this Agreement by court order for (5 mandatory injunction or other appropriate •relief; and CJ (c) Withhold, deny, or revoke,any building permits, certificates of occupancy, utility connection permits and any other permits and approvals, now or hereafter issued or granted or to be issued or granted by the City for the construction or occupancy of all or any part of the Property, or Improvements, until such failure or refusal ends and the Church fully complies with its obligations hereunder. All of the foregoing reiniedies shall be usable and enforceable by the City separately or concurrently as the City shall determine, and the use of one remedy shall not waive or preclude the use of any one or more of the other . - remedies. Also, the failure to exercise, or delay In exercising, any remedy hereunder In the event of a failure or refusal by the Church, shall not preclude City from thereafter exercising any of its remedies for the same or a subsequent failure or refusal. The Church agrees to pay to City any and all costs and expenses incurred by City in enforcing this Agreement by the use of the remedies above set out or by other remedies or means available to the City at law or in equity, including attorneys" fees whether suit be brought or not, and with interest on all such costs and expenses at the highest rate permitted by law, or, if no maximum tate is _3- applicable, then at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum front the dates 'incurred by the City until paid. The Church also agrees to pay all costs of collection of any monies due to the City from the Church pursuant hereto, and of such costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement, with interest thereon, again including attorneys' fees and whether suit be brought or not, with interest at the highest rate permitted by law, or if no maximum rate is applicable, them at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the dates'such costs of collection were incurred until paid. 5. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when personally.dplivered to. any officetrof the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the Unites States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified trail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To City: 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Attn: City Manager To the*Church: 4113 West 54th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Such addresses may be changed by any party upon notice to the other party given as herein provided. S. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, and shall run with the title to the Property and be binding upon all present and future owners of the Property. If, for any reason, the provisions hereof should be determined by the legal counsel for the City, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, not to be binding upon and fully enforceable against -any owner of the Property, then the variance granted by the City in Case No. C-92-1 shall wholly cease and terminate and the Property shall be used and usable only in full compliance with all then applicable ordinances of the City. if there be at any future time more than one owner of the Property, all of such then -owners, while they are such owners, shall be jointly and severally liable for all obligations under this Agreement. -4- \ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly executed the day and year first above written. EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, INCORPORATED _ jQITY OF EDINA _ 13y - —4— —4 Its Mayor And Its Ma ager STATE OF MINNESOTA) . )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) TIYe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this dthay of tilAd -, 1992, by E . Sa wle-Ovaq . the „Agst,"44-• of EDINA COMMUNITY LUTHERAN CI-iURCH, INCO PdRATED, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. STEVEN J. FRANK >� NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA Z HENNEPIN COUNTY oar Public My Commissbn EYPIres pec 1, 1992 z N x tQ AS� STATIC OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisay, of 19 92, by &dA ' SSS AMsandthe Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. JM tit. AMA __. . Notary Public M►4�I�MM�nriM11�r1�diA lA4�IA� � This instrument drafted by: Dorsey & Whitney (7ES) 7200 First Bank Place Bast Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -6- All of the Northwest Quarter (NWS) of the Northeast Quarter (NEJ) of the Northeast Quarter (NN}) in Section Nineteen (19), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), except that part thereof platted as Minnehaha Woods 4 A WSBInfrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning a Construction & Amdalu , Inc. Memorandum DATE: July 14, 2015 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina FROM: Charles Riekart, P.E., PTOE RE: RErlisED Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 - 32 Background 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 641.4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 In 2013 a Traffic and Parking Study was completed for a proposed expansion of the Edina Community Lutheran Church (SCLC). The proposed expansion at that time included additional seating capacity for the main sanctuary, additional classroom space and removal of the existing residential building on the east side of the site. A new proposal has been submitted to build a sanctuary and kitchen addition and a new parking lot on the east side of the existing church. To accommodate the request, the parsonage home would be removed and replaced with the new parking lot. The new sanctuary addition would have the same seating capacity as the existing sanctuary. The purpose of this study is to determine potential traffic and parking impacts the proposed expansion would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located on the south side of West 54th Street between Minnehaha Blvd and Halifax Avenue. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The new plan includes the reconfiguration of the existing parking east of the building maintaining access to 54th Street, and; construction of a new parking lot with full movement access to 54th Street west of the building. The proposed The traffic and parking impacts of the proposed expansion were evaluated at the following locations. • 54th Street west of Minnehaha Blvd to east of Halifax Ave • Halifax Avenue north of 54`i' Street • Intersection of 50 Street and Minnehaha Blvd • Intersection of 50 Street and the site entrances • Intersection of 54"' Street and Halifax Avenue • ECLC Site Parking Lot The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed ECLC expansion. W ECLC Revised Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: 54th Street is an east/west city local street with no turn lanes. An all -way stop is provided at Minnehaha Blvd and a side street stop is provided at Halifax Avenue. Access to adjacent developments and residential property including the Edina Community Lutheran Church site is provided directly from this street. The City recently completed the Bike Blvd project that modified the existing street configuration by restriping the street with parking lanes, advisory bike lanes and shared vehicle lanes. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street except: west of Minnehaha Blvd where no parking is allowed; on the south side of the street from the Church driveway east for approximately 30 feet where no parking is allowed for site sight lines, and; on the south side of the street for the drop off area in front of the Church where parking is restricted to 15 minutes. The speed limit posted on 54th Street is 30 mph. Halifax Avenue is a north/south city 2 -lane (on lane in each direction) local street with no turn lanes. Access to adjacent residential property is provided directly from this street. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street except directly at the intersection of 54th Street where no parking is allowed approximately 30 feet back from the intersection on both sides of the street. The speed limit posted on Halifax Avenue is 30 mph. Turning movement counts and parking utilization data was collected on Sunday June 10`h, 2012 from 7:30am to 1:00pm. In addition hourly directional counts were collected on 54th Street, Halifax Avenue and Minnehaha Blvd beginning on Friday June 8th through Monday June 11th. Figure 3 shows the existing conditions in the area including: lane configurations and traffic control; average daily and average weekend daily traffic counts; weekday and Sunday peak hour traffic counts, and; the Sunday "Church" peak hour traffic turning movement counts. Site Trip Generation In order to determine the impacts the proposed expansion will on the adjacent roadway system the number of trips from the site needs to be determined. For the Church this is based on attendance. Reviewing the Churches attendance records the average attendance (not including Christmas or Easter) for a Sunday is approximately 130 persons at the 11:00 am service. The 8:30 am service has a lower average Sunday attendance, therefore the 11:00 am service was used for the analysis. The attendance at the June 10th 2012 service was 125 persons. It can therefore be concluded that the traffic and parking counts for that day would represent an average event for the Church. ECLC Revised Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Based on the traffic and parking counts the 125 person attendance was represented by approximately 73 vehicles. Although the expansion is not anticipated to generate additional attendance on an average Sunday, a growth in attendance was assumed for this analysis. Assuming a modest growth in attendance to an average of 150 persons the corresponding traffic growth would be approximately 15 vehicles. Background Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of the site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other growth and development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed constant or dropped in the past few years. In order to account for some background growth in traffic a.05% per year factor was applied to the'through traffic on 54th Street. Trip Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on existing travel patterns, the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: 65% east on 54'11 Street 35% west on 54th Street Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2016, which is the year after the proposed expansion would be completed. The traffic forecasts were developed by adding the projected annual background traffic to the existing traffic counts then adding the anticipated additional site traffic to the system based on the traffic distribution outlined above. Figure 4 shows the projected 2016 Sunday peak hour traffic volume. Traffic Operations Existing and forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for each of the study area intersections. This section of the study describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived fi•om established methodologies documented in the High►vay Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. W ECLC Revised Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 7 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 1. 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 I - 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. A � 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. A � ECLC Revised Traffic and Pat -king Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existing Level of Service Summary Table 2, below, summarizes the existing LOS at each of the study area intersections based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersections currently operate at an overall LOS A during Sunday peak hour with all movements operating at LOS B or better. Table 2 - Existing Level of Service Intersection Sunday Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh 54th Street at Minnehaha Ave A (B) 4 54th Street at Church Entrance A (A) 2 54th Street at Halifax Ave A (B) 5 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS A4�- SCLC Revised Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Forecast Tr ffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2014 which represents the year after the proposed expansion is planned for completion. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 3. All of the intersections are expected to continue to operate at similar levels of service with the proposed increase in attendance as before the expansion. Table 4 — Expansion (2014) Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Parking Demand The parking demand for the site was analyzed based on the existing and anticipated attendance for the Church. Based on the parking inventory and count conducted on June 10th, 2012 there are 37 parking spaces available in the existing Church parking lot (including 3 handicapped spaces) and approximately 35 spaces on 54th Street fi•om Minnehaha Blvd to Halifax Ave south. This represents a total of 72 spaces available on site or adjacent to the Church. There are also an additional 25+ spaces on Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street that could be used during peak attendance days. The peak parking demand on June 10th, 2012 was 73 vehicles between 10:30 and 11:30 am. All of these vehicles were parked in either the existing Church parking lot or on 54th Street. No vehicles were parked on Halifax Avenue. Figure 5 shows the number of parking spaces available and used based on the parking count conducted. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis section, if attendance would grow to an average of 150 persons, this would represent and additional 15 vehicles, raising the parking demand to 88 vehicles. The proposed revised site plan includes 14 spaces west of the building and 24 spaces east of the building for a total of 38 spaces. This represents an increase of only one (1) space in the available parking. It is estimated that on an average attendance day there would not be any change in the parking demand or operations in the parking lot or on 50h Street. However, with any increase in attendance vehicles would be parking on Halifax Avenue. Assuming an increase of 15 vehicles requiring parking, an additional 100 to 200 feet of parking on both sides of Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street would be needed. A( Sunday Peak Hour Intersection Delay LOS (sec/veh) 54th Street at Minnehaha Ave A (B) 6 54th Street at Church West Entrance A (A) 3 54th Street at Church East Entrance A (A) 4 54th Street at Halifax Ave A (B) 7 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Parking Demand The parking demand for the site was analyzed based on the existing and anticipated attendance for the Church. Based on the parking inventory and count conducted on June 10th, 2012 there are 37 parking spaces available in the existing Church parking lot (including 3 handicapped spaces) and approximately 35 spaces on 54th Street fi•om Minnehaha Blvd to Halifax Ave south. This represents a total of 72 spaces available on site or adjacent to the Church. There are also an additional 25+ spaces on Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street that could be used during peak attendance days. The peak parking demand on June 10th, 2012 was 73 vehicles between 10:30 and 11:30 am. All of these vehicles were parked in either the existing Church parking lot or on 54th Street. No vehicles were parked on Halifax Avenue. Figure 5 shows the number of parking spaces available and used based on the parking count conducted. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis section, if attendance would grow to an average of 150 persons, this would represent and additional 15 vehicles, raising the parking demand to 88 vehicles. The proposed revised site plan includes 14 spaces west of the building and 24 spaces east of the building for a total of 38 spaces. This represents an increase of only one (1) space in the available parking. It is estimated that on an average attendance day there would not be any change in the parking demand or operations in the parking lot or on 50h Street. However, with any increase in attendance vehicles would be parking on Halifax Avenue. Assuming an increase of 15 vehicles requiring parking, an additional 100 to 200 feet of parking on both sides of Halifax Avenue north of 54th Street would be needed. A( ECLC Revised Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina July 14, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Based on the current and proposed seating capacity of 210 people, the current City Code and previous parking agreement requires 70 parking spaces be provided on site for the Church. The Church received a variance for the parking requirement in 1992 for 37 spaces using proof of parking as a justification. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: ■ The proposed Church Expansion will include construction of a new sanctuary and kitchen, removal of the existing residential building, revisions to the existing parking lot on the west side of the building and construction of a new parking lot on the east side of the building. ■ Although the expansion is not expected to generate new attendance, assuming a modest growth from 130 persons to 150 persons, the site would generate an additional 15 vehicles / hour on an average Sunday (11:00 am service). ■ Traffic operations at the study area intersections and driveways on 54`h Street will remain the same with or without the proposed Church expansion. ■ Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded that, although the available parking does not meet the City's Code, based on the expansion of the Church parking lot and the availability of on street parking, adequate parking spaces are available for the anticipated parking demand using on -street parking on 54` Street and Halifax Avenue. Based on these conclusions no additional improvements other than those shown on the site plan would be required to accommodate the proposed Church expansion, A-1 J 49th .. � a °' '!RY `--'..—,� (RDS Q �L oUW. 17. UIIL�� N ST. a/111►► 3I) 50 th ST.(— FSTo �� WOODDALE LA'gRUCE W Qa J51 vaQ Pv� F a�W a EDEN o WOOD OqC£ PL. a a > a 0 700 ft 1e00 ft GL EN g �' W. Ld ST. c ti W. 52nd ST. ¢ G1 W Q O U 3 W. 53 rd a SS x m x Cr x W 4r M f )R ST. 4 W �� J Project Location I Lake i7 w a = LJ[ �� Creek 9- IkICHMOND > 3 W. 54th ST. Harvey GOLF a TER. a vRD A; � l w. i FULLER a DR.JX ST. mAVE. � Y D 'a � 55th a ST.JE KENT us OAK z DR. � � o WUST. 55 th ST. oc o f Li a ho STAVE. o 0 0 w o F x a v �O 55th 51 A EVI V► LEXING TON Y DE`s �n O C c� C ONNE TER. WI ND tv P� ♦� z `(• W. 56th IST. 6W. w w w W.56 th D o ST tody 24. >�' aPL.TH VI EW TOWER S 57t a� ST. LA. WOOD LAND R0. o J W CONCORD 'l N NC" TR. PHILBROOK LA. a a a a a >> it c� © 58th ST. a a L J No N �OND 59 th � ST ,��'�� ES nWH59 nthHFST.a W. 59th ST. Z p z �j W J N r o y W y 3 © a PWnr-Onth�FST. SCHOOL RD. a J a W. 60 th a o ST. at. �. a W o m CLOV ' �� J J _ ~ w RIS. ALLEY -� a o a o Y o 6 gt ST. O ~_, x ¢ 7 v as W. 61 st ST. WD W a XC GhV! Aa Vj fW > r3, CH OWEN �. ni CU RV Q a ❑ R� STW. 62 nd ST. 62nd � 2nd ST. � ' d W X I� a z Cq GARRI ON w �'� > w HERITAGE LA. > v a a a m D. ST. 35. r �3 O W Li W > u Cr ° y >a iz J F m W. 64 th ST. ST. Li 64 th ST. a ueaAsore A 64th 5T. fi > Ld Li 0 W a a a a,, W u 3 0 k n-z a 0 65 th T.X ssth J ST. W ' O O Z d O Q W U < 3 'E` h ST. a F-ST, W.66th .. e . � s o SOU TH�DP ALE _ N a n A h€ o a� a Q CIR. 68 th m ROYCq s� BALFOANZ o '. �� ST. Q R, �E PA TONR d > w C CT. UPPER l /�f1 o-�� . i�\ 1� a II a F— ��%"�-�,. Revised Traffic and Parking Y - Stud Jul 14, 2015 Figure 1 Y Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion • City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map x6t I _'s � F'1 WS7 Site ----------- _Gl� G; C OWCOWAHW ADOMON & emi"VO4MA PIERCE PIN[ & ASSOCIATES COMCMUR PMT SUOMMAL LIS= PmmKm C600 44-9A. Revised Traffic and Parking Study - July 14, 2015 Figure 2 19 V, Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion City of Edina, Minnesota Proposed Site Plan C OWCOWAHW ADOMON & emi"VO4MA PIERCE PIN[ & ASSOCIATES COMCMUR PMT SUOMMAL LIS= PmmKm C600 44-9A. Revised Traffic and Parking Study - July 14, 2015 Figure 2 19 V, Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion City of Edina, Minnesota Proposed Site Plan Data-'PrAtad� 7/15/2015 WSB Phnom, K+\01686-320\Cod%ExhWts11686-J2 6q-03 - Exist&p ConcOBwrs.dyn 650 1200 15501 (!sol N s _ Z PEAK HOUR VOLUME COMPARISON LA„ (aS1 SUNDAY (11:00 AM TO 12:00 PMI 189 Z TO 1:00 PMI 221 SUNDAY PEAK (12:00 PM �y WEEKDAY PEAK t 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM) 416 0 50 ft 100 ft < m z `L4 m .1 ,1 T Y200 � 2650 2650 -._ - - ------------------------- _•_-_•_•_fir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(2555) _ - 54th STREET-•_---- --------- (26501 121001 F Ln M 101 Al` Ln 7A 4— 1 o6 9 /P kA 4-- 85 9 >I 69 --► 21 .� 69 6 n m 66 —► Edina Community LEGEND Lutheran Church XX SUNDAY 11:00 AM TO 12:00 AM PG LANE CONFIGURATION (BIKE BLVD) K . $HAREb _B CKE%-- _ TRAFFIC CONTROL - STOP SIGN A K N XXXX AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (XXXX) AVERAGE WEEKEND TRAFFIC y Revised Traffic and Parking Study - July 14, 2015 Figure 3 •�C Q 1� Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion •\. Jay City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Conditions Date Frinted., 7/13/2015 WSS FAenome K+\OMB6-3201Cod\£xMDite\1688.32 rq-04 - Proposed Troff7e Volumea.dgn N A o so ft too f+ Zr m Z 7 - X m O c m 10 133 12$k— AJ kA 9 ♦� 128 4 �. 9 f-- 107 --------------------- ------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------- ------- ------------- 54th STREET - - - --,_,-._.--- ---------------------------- -_---------_-_-_--.---------1i 1189 ��► 94 ^�! 27 $5 --1 3 '� 4 85 —► Edina Community Lutheran Church LEGEND XX PROJECTED 2016 SUNDAY 11:00 AM TO 12:00 AM \'9 M . Revised Traffic and Parking Study - July 14, 2015 Figure 4 e }4 Edina Community Lutheran Church Expansion City of Edina, Minnesota Projected 2016 Traffic Volumes Pathfinder CRM, LLC A Cultural Resource Management & Heritage Preservation Consultants T 319 South Division Avenue Q PO Box 503 Spring Grove, Minnesota 55974-0503 507-498-3810 800-206-8704 (toll free) www.pathfindercrm.com 5 0 TO: Cary Teague, Community Development Director FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: July 14, 2015 RE: Cultural resources survey of the Rectory at Edina Community Lutheran Church This letter report provides a summary of the results of a cultural resources survey of the rectory of the Edina Community Lutheran Church, located at 4113 W. 54th Street. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the subject property and gather the information needed to evaluate its eligibility for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. Survey activities included background research and field inspection. Description The subject property is located on the south side of West 54th Street a short distance east of Minnehaha Creek. The rectory is on the east side of the church and the two buildings occupy the same 4.15 acre lot (Parcel ID 19-028-24-11-0010) . Historically, the building functioned as the residence of the church pastor and as rental housing. The rectory is a one -and -one-half story, four bedroom, frame house with a gable roof and an attached, front -facing garage. The architectural classification is Minimal Traditional but the design incorporates elements of Ranch and other modern movement styles. This type of house was built in great numbers throughout the Twin Cities in the years immediately preceding and following World War II. It was probably the most popular suburban house form used by Edina builders during the 1940s. Very few of these houses were architect designed. The decorative cut stone wall cladding on the street elevation matches that of the church next door. The house, which contains approximately 3000 square feet of living space, is currently vacant. A73 Historical data relating to the rectory is somewhat sparse. It was built in 1947-48 and remodeled in the 1970s, according to building permit records. Edina Community Lutheran Church was founded in 1948. The property appears as vacant land on the 1940 aerial survey of Hennepin County but the rectory and the church are clearly shown on the aerial photographs flown in 1951. Evaluation For a property to qualify for the registry of Edina Heritage Landmarks it must meet one of the heritage landmark criteria for eligibility by being associated with an important historic context and retaining historic integrity of those physical features necessary to convey its significance. Unlike the National Register of Historic Places, the Edina Heritage Landmark program does not disqualify religious properties; as a matter of policy, the city considers churches and related religious buildings as heritage preservation resources when they meet established criteria for historical or architectural significance. A specific property may meet more than one of the eligibility criteria and it may be significant within one or more historic contexts; a property is only required, however, to be documented as significant under a single eligibility criterion and historic context. For purposes of evaluating.its heritage resource value, the church rectory was evaluated individually, and not as a functional component of the church building, within the local historic context "Midcentury Modern Architecture and Landscapes," a thematic planning unit that represents an important aspect of Edina history. Recently developed as part of the city's ongoing preservation planning process, this context is applicable to all residential buildings constructed in Edina between ca. 1935 and 1975. (The Heritage Preservation Board is in the process of developing a city-wide historic context for religious properties that would provide a more detailed framework for evaluating their historical, architectural, artistic and cultural significance. This study unit would also include landmark registration requirements applicable to properties such as rectories and other church -owned residences.) To be eligible under the Heritage Landmark criteria on the basis of its associative value, the rectory would have to be historically significant for its association with a specific event marking an important moment in Edina history or a pattern of events that represent an important trend in community development. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, however, to qualify a building as eligible for designation— the specific association would have to be considered important as well. Although it shows the history and development of the church as a community institution and its history reflects the broad pattern of 2 A7' postwar suburban life, the rectory cannot be said to have acquired historical significance in its own right. The rectory would be considered significant for its architectural value if it embodied the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or if it represented the work of a master architect. Based on the results of background research and physical examination, the subject property is not architecturally distinguished when compared with other 1940s era residences in Edina. It was not designed by a notable architect or master builder. Viewed from the perspective of its design and construction values, the rectory is not considered historically significant. Recommendation Evaluated from the perspective of its historic context, the church rectory is neither historically nor architecturally significant. Therefore, it does not meet the Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria. No further cultural resource management work is recommended. cc: Joyce Repya, Senior Planner X75 DATE: July 15, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: Chad Millner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 4113 W 54u' Street / ECLC — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. I. City Standard Plates available here: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=construction standards 2. A separate permit is required from Minnehaha Watershed District: http://www.minnehahacreek.org/ Survey 3. None Soils 4. Submit soils, soil boring and geotechnical report. Details 5. No comments. Traffic and Street 6. Commercial entrance should follow standard plate 400 and 410. Please coordinate entrance location with Engineering Department and the currently active 54' Street reconstruction project. 7. A curb cut permit will be required at time of building permit. Sanitary and Water Utilities 8. Show existing utility connections. 9. A revised SAC unit determination will be required at building permit application. Storm Water Utility 10. Provide hydraulic and hydrology calculations that meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards. This majority of this site drains directly to Minnehaha Creek, that portion that drains to W 54' Street will not affect available capacity, as the street is currently under construction and a new stormwater system will be installed. 11. Provide copies of maintenance agreement for private stormwater systems. 12. Show existing pipe on utility plan (Sheet C500) Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 13. Provide erosion, sediment control plan that meets provisions of MPCA construction site general permit. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 47( 14. Building permit and engineered structure design will be required for retaining wall over 4' in height at time of building permit. Other Agency Coordination IS. Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit is required. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits may be required. G;\PWIADMINICOMM\EXTERNAUGENERAL CORR BY STREETSiSQ - 59 StreetsW 1 I3 54th Street - ECLC ChurcW,10715 4413 W 54th Street -Site Review.do" ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 9450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Denis Mitchell <djjm99@gmail,com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:35 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: case file 2015.007 Please note that we am TOTALLY in favor of the Edina Community Lutheran Church being granted a conditional use permit & variance Regards Denis & Faye Mitchell o e tA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 22, 2015 VII.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission provide review and comment on a proposed land exchange (lot line adjustment) between the City of Edina and Liz and Tony Burger, the property owners at 6629 West Shore Drive, Edina. (See property location on pages Al -A3.) Background The Burgers purchased the home at 6629 West Shore Drive in June of 2004. The Burgers state that at the time of purchase they were aware that there was a city park between their property and Lake Cornelia. They state, however, that they were not aware that the park property is a just four feet from the Northwest corner the house. When the Burgers purchased the house, they had three reconstruction goals for the home: 1. Remove the existing pool 2. Redo the existing basement and main level of the house 3. Expand upward via a second story and create a walkout towards the lake The first two phases of construction are complete and the owners wish to complete phase three. In 2008, the Burgers received a variance to build the addition. However, The economy took a down turn, and the never built the addition, therefore, the variance expired. The house is non -conforming and with the current property line, the owners have no way of moving forward without a variance or land exchange. Even with a variance, the construction would require encroachment into the park land. When the house was built in 1961 there was a large amount of dirt that was brought in to support the foundation containing the indoor swimming pool. This hill rests on both city park land and private property. Without removal of the hill, the owners cannot do a walk out from the basement, without encroaching into the park land. All of the other eight properties that border the park have a walkout toward the lake. The homeowners state that they are simply asking for the same right as the neighbors. The hill is unnatural and unnecessary since the pool has been removed. The homeowners also want to expand their deck. Eight out of the nine houses on the park have large decks that provide views of the lake. The Burgers are the only exception. Although the owners did not add the second story addition that received the variance, they did complete work on the main level of the house which reduced the number of bedrooms and added structures to support the future 2nd story. The house does not work for their family but have no way to expand it due to the location of the park lot line. The applicant is therefore requesting a land trade, so that they may build the addition without the need for variance or encroachment into the park. This would potentially allow the property owner to complete the project and not diminish or reduce the total acreage for the Edina public park land. The homeowners have worked with a surveyor who has provided a possible solution. In this proposal, the City and property owner would exchange the same square footage of property and allow the desired home renovation project. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Primary Issue Low-density residential R-1, Single-family residential Is the proposed lot line adjustment reasonable? Yes. The resulting lot line shift does not create an additional lot. The division is an even swap of land between the City and the applicant. As demonstrated in the attached pages A2 -A3, there is an existing play structure area that that currently encroaches on City property. With the lot line adjustment it would encroach even further. As a condition of approval, the structures should be removed and the area seeded with grass. The Council also requested that the Edina Park Board provide review and comment. The Park Board reviewed the request on July 14th and provided some of the following comments: ➢ Consider a smaller swap of land. 2 ➢ Consider simply selling a portion of the City property. Money's could then be invested into improvements in the land. ➢ Consider a variance. ➢ Removal of the play structure from City property. ➢ Consideration was given to requiring a public access to West Shore Drive, however, ultimately there was not support by the Board, the applicant or the closest neighbor. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Line Adjustment at 6629 West Shore Drive. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The existing and proposed structure would meet building setback requirements. 3. Current encroachments into City property would be removed. Approval is subject to the following condition: All existing structures must be removed from the city property and the area seeded prior to staff filing the resolution for lot line adjustment that legally creates the new lots. a -IN C)kl LAW o M LAIJO I RADE 1� AtEM 20 40 60A� (MW ;CALE IN FEET LANE _ '"� FIoasre(c• p9� _ DOSTING SPOT ELEVATION. Vol .^ — "� ` \ 0 99&0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DICTION SURFACE DRAINAGE /p 336• iso k W !; . ` 3H - CANTILEVERED OVERHANG r HL - OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE656 '' '3 „ E�% 2�• EMT. COW STAN =E - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION f fes: / y�°47'28 + =E = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION / 10 0 0 1 FE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION sSE SOL too LFE=865.7 Jed 11� seti S 3 1 GFE=866.0 =1 O I r N �` I �+ SMSTING HOUSE Fo Vie° .� XISTING Fi f 0 RETAA►A1 t 7 2 FFE-875.3 4OUSE Mems L6+ 1 1 ice' 16 •` to sm SBL RETAAM Atiz N 87002'23H W 98.00 rIlk LEGAL DESCRIPTION. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN 1ST ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. N` 0 STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTNG ADDRESS — 6629 WEST SHORE OF HOUSE - 3180 SF PID#30-028-24-31-0044 DECK - SF —ALHC —1500 SF / TOTAL - 3330 SF / 8.676 LOT AREA - 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC 6 X 25X - 9650 SF HC ALLOWED p XISTING -IOUSE y i �s . " ROPO. SF MATCH �--�FLOOR � 16 q' r (VER/f EX6TIAiG O� RET W WALL ' RBQjJi.� All 'Bb6 _ Ao° 7.i 1-3365 PR5P361 W 233-19 6 E%' EXIST. CONG STAIR 15.4 -99°47 28 ti To SCE as o ti LFE=865.7 . f r, 1x94 i ` 53. A'3'• V� 56 �E GFE=866.0 r EXISTING f �' HOUSE I°.0 Is.O X �. • � Z �.p \ O RETAhV#VG ' z FFE=875.3 1' r sTfPs � 1j$ 16 STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTING HOUSE = 3180 SF DECK = 300 SF —ALHC —150 SF TOTAL = 3330 SF / 8.6% PROPOSED iD SIDE SEL — At 87002123" W 98-00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN 1ST ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. ADDRESS — 6629 WEST SHORE DF PID#30-028-24-31-0044 LOT AREA = 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC X 25% = 9650 SF HC ALLOWED 20 40 60 ;CALE IN FEET goO = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. 398.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE DH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG HL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE =E = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION -E = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION FE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION XISTING -IOUSE y i �s . " ROPO. SF MATCH �--�FLOOR � 16 q' r (VER/f EX6TIAiG O� RET W WALL ' RBQjJi.� All 'Bb6 _ Ao° 7.i 1-3365 PR5P361 W 233-19 6 E%' EXIST. CONG STAIR 15.4 -99°47 28 ti To SCE as o ti LFE=865.7 . f r, 1x94 i ` 53. A'3'• V� 56 �E GFE=866.0 r EXISTING f �' HOUSE I°.0 Is.O X �. • � Z �.p \ O RETAhV#VG ' z FFE=875.3 1' r sTfPs � 1j$ 16 STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTING HOUSE = 3180 SF DECK = 300 SF —ALHC —150 SF TOTAL = 3330 SF / 8.6% PROPOSED iD SIDE SEL — At 87002123" W 98-00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DALSIN 1ST ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. ADDRESS — 6629 WEST SHORE DF PID#30-028-24-31-0044 LOT AREA = 38600 SF/ 0.89 AC X 25% = 9650 SF HC ALLOWED