Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-11 Planning Commission PacketsNovusAGENDA Agenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:00 PM I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2015 V. Public Hearings Page 1 of 1 A. Public Hearing: Variance. Heather and Travis Wells. 4004 Lynn Avenue B. Public Hearing: Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 3101 66th Street West and 661 Xerxes, Bull Moose Construction VI. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elseryhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. Reports/Recommendations VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX. Chair And Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. http://edina.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=240 11/12/2015 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 28, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Carr called the meeting to order at 7.00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were: Lee, Strauss, Thorsen, Ma, Kivimaki, Nemerov, Forrest, Carr, Absent from roll: Platteter, Hobbs and Olsen III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the October 28, 201 5,meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion.. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the October. 14, 2015, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee'seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Variance. Pat Hennessy. 5827 Bernard Place, Edina MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker presented :her staff report recommending variance approval subject to the following findings: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the homes to the north. b) The encroachment into the setback continues a setback pattern and will not affect neighboring properties or the street scape. C) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home and existing floor plan. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following condition. I. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped September 28, 2015. Page 1 of 3 Appearing for the Applicant Pat and Jennifer Hennessy Applicant Presentation Mr. Hennessy addressed the Commission noting the house was constructed in 1939 with a very small kitchen which is in need of enlargement. Hennessy asked the Commission for their support. Discussion A brief discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that the variance is justified and is a minimal approach to gain more living space. Public Hearing Acting Chair Car opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak to the issue. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the,public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed.`' Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Acting Chair Carr asked if anyone was in the audience that would like to speak; being none; Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public comment period. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to. close public comment carried. VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Acting Chair Carr acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Thorsen informed Commissioners the Grandview Transportation Committee will hold a public meeting on Monday, November 2, 2015 at City Hall in the Mayors Conference Room. Thorsen said all are welcome to attend. Page 2 of 3 Acting Chair Carr apprised the Commission on the work of the Greater Southdale Area Work Group and their continued weekly meetings. Carr said at this time the group is discussing each of the four quadrants identified as the Greater Southdale Area. X. STAFF COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Thorsen moved adjournment at 7:30 p.m. Commission Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. ctfully'submitted Page 3 of 3 0 E) v� rn PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 12, 2015 B-15-23 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 1 foot front yard setback variance as requested for property located at 4004 Lynn Ave., for owner Heather and Travis Wells/ Sicora Design Build. Project Description A 1 foot front yard setback variance is requested to add a 2nd floor cantilevered "bump -out" beyond a second floor addition to the subject home located on the west side of Lynn Ave. The project includes an addition to the back of the home and a new front porch, removing the existing % story and replacing it with a full 2nd floor addition. To provide relief from one continuous flat front wall, the design includes a 1 foot cantilever to a portion of a new second floor bedroom and bathroom area. A porch less than 80 square feet into the front yard setback, (complies), is also part of the proposed plan. The new porch will extend much . farther into the front yard than the proposed 2nd floor cantilever. The owners are requesting a variance to allow a small extension to the second floor that would be approximately 1 foot deep, (See property location, aerial photos, photos of the subject and neighboring homes), and would extend beyond the existing front building wall . The project is a remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming house. The north wall of the home is located 4.7 feet from the north side lot line with a minimum side yard setback required of 5 feet. The addition to the back and above, along the north side can be accomplished given the alternate setback standard that allows matching an existing nonconforming setback with an equal amount of encroachment or less. All of the improvements will match and enhance the existing home and may be accomplished with the exception of the 1 foot cantilever extension of the 2n floor beyond the front building wall. The required setback from Lynn Ave. is established by the average front yard setback of the homes on either side of the subject home. The average front yard setback between the adjacent neighbors is 39.75 feet. The cantilevered addition will be located 38.9 feet to the front lot line. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the west side of Lynn Ave. The lot is 6,658 square feet in area. The owner is proposing a second floor cantilever improvement to be setback from the front, (east), lot line approximately 1 foot. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. EasterlyMesterly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided, residential. Southerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is a 6,658 square foot lot with a story and one half home that has a detached garage built in 1942. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Building Design The finish on the home will be Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 City Standard Proposed Front - 39.75 feet *38.9 feet Side- 5 4.7 feet Rear- 25 feet feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 story, 30 feet to the ridge, 26.7 feet Lot coverage 25% 28.27% * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from Lynn Ave. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvement will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of an existing nonconforming house. The variance is being requested to break up the front building mass of the 2nd floor addition and add interest to the fagade. 4. The cantilever extension is a minor intrusion into the front yard area arid will be farther from the street than the open porch below that is an exception to the front yard setback. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 9) 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 and very minor. 3 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 circumstances are that the existing home is at the minimum front yard setback and to add interest and depth to the front fagade requires a variance for a 1 foot cantilever for just a portion of the 2nd floor. The variance is only for a 1 foot by 17 foot cantilever. All other portions of the plan conform to the ordinance requirements. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed -addition will not change the streetscape along Lynn Ave. The character of the neighborhood consists of a variety of housing styles. The small cantilever will break up the massing of the front facade and will add character to the structure and compliment the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the homes to the north and south, (they're all lined up). b) The encroachment into the setback continues a setback pattern and will not affect neighboring properties or the street scape. c) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home and the desire to break up the massing of the second floor addition. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped October 12, 2015. Deadline for a City decision: December 11., 2015 0 SICORA Design/Build WWW.SICORA.COM I 952-929-0098 FULL-SERVICE HOME REMODELING Sippra Inc: qp �4ie� Edin�;111� 554 Date: 10.27.15 The proposed variance will: A��I(cw�� Wfnl I VC Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance that the use is reasonable. YES. a. In order to save the footprint of the existing house including the 2nd floor structure, care was taken to design an addition that blended well with the neighborhood. The 12" projection towards the street for the 2nd level is needed in order to provide the necessary space for this growing family. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. YES. a. The front of this property is at the required setback for the rest of this block. In order to have a style of architecture that is pleasing to the eye, we feel the necessity to provide a 12" bump for just the 2nd level as it projects towards the street. This projection will provide some necessary relief that will enhance the curb appeal of this home. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. YES. a. To avoid a tear down, this plan proposes making the most of the existing conditions. This 12" projection allows for the curb appeal of this home to be enhanced. 4. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. YES. a. Adding the front yard projection of 12" will fit very nicely with this neighborhood. We are proud to bring this styling and detailing to this already charming Edina neighborhood. If there is additional information that is needed for this submittal, please contact Ron Sonnek at Sicora. 612.423.4558. Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. r Minnesota Statues and'Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional.sheets.of. paper as necessary. > The Proposed Variance will: r: YES NO j�Relieve practical difficulties in complying . with the zoning ordinance and that°the use is reasonable - 2 Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this properly -but not a applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district F ��Be in harmony with.. the- general purposes - and'intent of the zoning ordinance FUf Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood, - f w lu'Are P Page 1 of 1 file //Prl_fcl r.i Pdina mn Tn.q/citvwicle,�/PDcTma.ges/Phetos/0702824130050001.ing 11/5/2015 )04 LYNN AVE lovember 5, 2015 '83a Oa 72 988 954fc893ea I e67228 dca 57 Override 1 man Edina City Limits — Streets ® Lakes . Green: Band_2 Addresses Parks ■ Blue: Band -3 F -I Parcels Red: Band -1 Fj Counties Hennepin County a OGI S 2013 1:1,345 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 https:Hgis.hennepin.usIProperty/printldefault.aspx?C=473413.30152667017,4975267.2360... 11/5/2015 '-,,LOT 3; BLOCK E.XISTllqG APUS.E. ........... . #4,002 J. T .L'q.T PORKER% 0O."E' W'. 0 PI{DPDSFA APTION is. -IN ]a CERTIFICATE OF, SURVEY FOR SICORA I N C.. OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3, MINIKAHDA VISTA 3RD ADDITION HENNEPH COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOT CORNM FALLS 89950'00" w cQNcpErE FEN POST BASE * C% WOOD PJRWGY FENC FLOOR EXISTING HOUSE1.4, 0� 002 1:33.Z( MORNINGSIDE 60 �D- IC6) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES L Cit 3[31P�Ck 3, I'viin"kah:da Vista Third Addition, Morningside, Minnesota. '0 0 denotes iron marker -found '6 �0 v denotes exis tin g. ot elevation, edn datum --'917 denotes sea level datumn �exls lag contour ine; meon. ���,0 Bearings shown are. bused upon an OSSLIMed dotUrn. This survey intends to show the boundaries ofthe above described p.roperty, the location of on. e -sting- :house ig.e., drive.Way, stoop:, walk, +ence spot el&VLbbons, and: topography, Qntt thie'onoposed location . o' propozed additionsv.-and a proposed ;* 'of;tW. deck ther.e.onIt does not purport to shbW any other improvements or encroachments. 10 9-1'5; PROPOSED ADDITION ADDED. 1 L h . er . eb . y . certify that' this p ..kn;. specification, or report SCALT GROIST BERG AND was prepared by.me, or under my direct ,supervision, V'.=201 - and that I oma duly' Licensed Land surveyor .under the ASSOCIATE , . INC. A'T_ -laws of the State duly -Minriesia�W... S CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND 1.2-715-14 SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS. dos NOL. 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN; 55356 1�-420 952-47.5-41.4.1 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License rnber 12755 1:5-420 _ n48g j of a z /�— 70 Orny o rn r -u r -e+- r< �rnrn03 D/;UJ>Fn Fein COQ= ff 2R u bi zz iz CJS C11 IF o D z O FTI�N <_ m rn 0 rn mrA�� n yy �{nb ca <{ z mm s °- C=I z � z ZO 0 Ta ® o a M 4 �a 3 8m�� a sa 3 1 �- 50" E i�m.0 z 6._ . rn S. 00°00`00" E LYNN AVENUE SOUTHo- J 33' 7 4" O rn 7 - r r it < E—�- rn - r� E rn 11 O 70 rn r (n �rnzrn a z /�— 70 Orny o rn r -u r -e+- r< �rnrn03 D/;UJ>Fn Orn>T 2R r r-07� zz iz CJS C11 < Fn D z FTI�N <_ rn 0 rn n O 70 C=I z � z ZO 0 w m ® M o M 4 50" E i�m.0 z 6._ . rn S. 00°00`00" E LYNN AVENUE SOUTHo- J 33' 7 4" O rn 7 - r r it < E—�- rn - r� E rn 11 O 70 rn Q o a renovation and addition to the home of y = ^ 's € Heather & Travis Wells g " s SIG ®R _ m a a e a 4004 Lynn Avenue South N 3 $ " Edina, MN 8 a Design/Build r (n �rnzrn z /�— 70 Orny G7 �crnz r -u r -e+- X �rnrn03 D/;UJ>Fn Orn>T r-07� zz iz CJS C11 < Fn FTI�N <_ rn 0 Q o a renovation and addition to the home of y = ^ 's € Heather & Travis Wells g " s SIG ®R _ m a a e a 4004 Lynn Avenue South N 3 $ " Edina, MN 8 a Design/Build R CCCCpCp A W N= 0 [0 pCC W V Q1 W p C A W Cc;K;�K;K N-= p N K V O W Ko�� - A& r. EO? ��uu N �N iL C 2N O pp pO A ; AAAA2 NOO C �Oo� �� N G �AmS �u pN ,aWy� j j T r A a in za ..9' .9 S SOmamit -��(mlP� aOmm2u1 �i�N 5NND$z'i pTaWdai)i =Ommi� =Nam i�WFm a C� �.WaDj F WW.r'�m4�. Ann- m3 . .=tNNDTi mmu�Ol Arn .WDI WN➢ IF nRDD9 mF ➢F{p z L 7 m� '"n c+ o0 o A G FWCNXFXFNSA: X zN x x%F io X%FzI cc ig<�<R :� FX ::cc<a XX NroNFFxzz� ;_ 0rn NN � Or3ii FF -tif W fi�A.P� V x fu= I A A41 x UTA F W FFFxx Lt AAA 6---- o O�Ui --9j �Fy Op �r� i1�"W00 5 �d d W t`n dlbm�cA W\mm< A A � i^ W R �=A��m.d� bp\W W mi^tn 6(4� W' Y��=�6�d•" � S S 2 2= 2 2 3 x S 2 3 3 3 ANWS 3 >O zW yz n FO�c O Mr 2 Q Nrn � NN N AAAA N N D�AAAA 000~ S y p n W (p N a a o R a renovation and addition to the home of y Heather & Travis Wells 6 S I C O R A 4004 Lynn Avenue South N G Design/Build �' Edina, MN a o A 0 ENTRY PORCt Q---------� a renovation and addition to the home of sg Heather & Travis Wells HIE* M F� S I C ®I$ A 3 U 3 a 4004 Lynn Avenue South �z Design/Build - PA.. nAnl a DATE: November 4, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 4004 Lynn Ave - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The plans propose to construct multiple additions on the east and west sides the home. The current drainage pattern to the street will not be altered and the large addition in the rear will drain to the street. Any changes in landscaping or grading during or the 12 months after the project will require a grading permit. Any modifications to the driveway will require that water continues to drain to the street and not to neighboring private properties. Grading and Drainage The grading changes proposed are minimal, they will tie in the new structure with existing grades. Any changes in landscaping or grading during or the 12 months after the project will require a grading permit. Erosion and Sediment Control No comment Street and Curb Cut Any modifications to the driveway will require that water continues to drain to the street and not to neighboring private properties. Water and Sanitary Utilities No comment ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov o 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Jackie Hoogenakker From: djasperl@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 5:46 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Request for Variance at 4004 Lynn Ave Edina, MN I am opposed to the front yard setback variance requested and to be discussed at Nov 12th Hearing. We have already lost way to much of our green space and given far to many variances changing the character of our neighborhood. Since this is in the front yard find it even more problematic. Thank you Denice K Jasper 4013 Monterey AVe Edina, MN 55416 Sent from my iPad Jackie Hoogenakker From: Marie Kruegel <mariekruegel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:39 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File B-15-23 Dear J Hoogen Akker, I'm sending this email in response to the proposed setback variance for the home at 4004 Lynn Avenue. My husband, Rob, and I would prefer there be no variance as we'd rather not begin setting precedence for building larger than the current code. Thank you for taking this into consideration. With best regards, Marie and Rob Kruegel 4011 Monterey Ave owel t�1 s�2 � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 12, 2015 V.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Bull Moose Construction is proposing to tear down the old Best Buy retail building at 3101 66th Street West and the single family home at 6612 Xerxes and build a six -story, 210 unit apartment with an attached 1,760 square foot restaurant/coffee shop with outdoor seating/dining on York Avenue. (See property location on pages Al A3.) There would be two levels of parking, one covered level at grade; the second level is underground. Surface level spaces would be available for users of the restaurant. Public space would be provided with the boulevard style sidewalk with landscaping along York Avenue 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue; an open green space "pocket -park" on Xerxes Avenue; a sidewalk that would connect the pocket park area through the development to the restaurant; and new boulevard sidewalk on Southdale Circle. Private amenities included in the project for the residents include a fitness center on the main level facing the 66th and York intersection to provide activity along the street. A pool and plaza deck with vegetation is provided on the second level on the south side of the building. This application was submitted prior to the effective date of the City's new affordable housing policy; however, the applicant is promising to provide 5% (10) of the units for affordable housing. See narrative and plans on pages A6—A34, and larger scale plans in the attached development book.) To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: ➢ Height increase from 70 feet to 75 feet. ➢ Housing Density increase from 75 units per acre to 105 units per acre. ➢ Re -guiding the single-family home from LDR, Low Density Residential to CAC, Community Activity Center. In addition, the following land use applications are requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R- 1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. This review is the first of a two-step process of review. Should the preliminary rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment be approved, the following are required for the second step: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning. The applicant would make any changes/revisions necessary from the preliminary plans, and submit a final development plan and rezoning application. That final review is then a review for consistency with the approved preliminary plans before the City Council. 2. Staff submittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See the sketch plans on pages A4 A5; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A38—A42.) The sketch plans were generally well received; the applicant has developed the proposed plans by attempting to address issues that were raised by the Planning Commission and City Council at Sketch Plan. Changes to the plans include: ➢ Provision of 5% of the units as affordable housing; that would be a total of 10 units toward the City's goal of providing an additional 212 units by 2020. ➢ The pocket park has been made slightly bigger. ➢ A pedestrian connection has been made through the development on the south side to connect the park to York Avenue. ➢ The size of the restaurant has been reduced. A large scale restaurant would have required more parking and at a high cost. By reducing the size of the restaurant, the provision of affordable housing became more achievable. The applicant was also concerned about how a restaurant with late hours would mix with the residential homes above. The coffee shop would be a more compatible use. 2 ➢ The driveway entrance on Xerxes has been moved to the north to address the concern of the City of Richfield regarding its proximity to the existing residential property to the south. ➢ More stone on the building was added to the east side (Richfield side) of the building facing 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue. ➢ A one-story podium was added on Xerxes Avenue. ➢ A detailed response to the Greater Southdale Area Working Group Principles has been provided. (See pages A6i-A61.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: A retail shopping center; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Regional Medical. Easterly: City of Richfield. Goodyear Auto service center and single-family homes that are zoned Single -Family Residential, but the Richfield Comprehensive Plan guides them for medium density, 7-12 units per acre. (See pages A43—A44.) Southerly: Taco Bell and a small commercial center; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Westerly: Southdale; zoned PCD -3 Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Existing Site Features The subject property is 2.1 acres in sze, is relatively flat and contains a retail building with surrounding surface parking. The single family home is on the southeast side. (See pages A2 A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: CAC — Community Activity Center and LDR, Low Density Residential. (See pages A3a-A3b.) Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District & R-1, Sing le-DIvelling Unit District. (See page A3c.) Site Circulation Access to the site would be from Southdale Circle for residents and users of the coffee shop/restaurant. Residents also have an access off Xerxes. Extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A sidewalk would be provided around the entire perimeter of the site. This site contains street perimeter on 3+ sides. Boulevard style sidewalks would be provided on all street sides, York, Southdale Circle, 66th Street and Xerxes. A sidewalk would be connected through the park and south of the building to connect to Southdale Circle and York. This allows pedestrian flow through the development, which is a concept discussed by the Greater Southdale Area Working Group. The provision of the pocket park and the outdoor area associated with the coffee shop, provide public areas for people to come to and stay for a while is another concept discussed by the Working Group. Given the development activity that is contemplated for the 66th and York intersection, staff is exploring options with Hennepin County for pedestrian movement through the intersection and to the north. Discussions have included the possibility in eliminating the "free right turns" at the intersection, and or creating a two-lane round -a -about. The County is open to exploring these possibilities and has stated that these options are not "fatally flawed" at this point. In consideration of the giving up the "free -right" turn option, the County would not want to vacate the right-of-way; rather, we would like to use the space for more comfortable pedestrian crossings and public/green space. The applicant would be required to participate in cost sharing for improvements made for pedestrian circulation if these options are further developed. This shall be incorporated into the development agreement. Staff will continue -to explore and study these options with the County. It should not impact the proposed development itself in terms of building location. Traffic ,& Parking Study WSB and Associates conducted a parking and traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A49—A69.) The Study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there would be adequate parking provided. No roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate the proposed site development. (See page A69 of the study.) Bike Parking/Racks Bike parking would be provided for each unit within the building. A dedicated bike enclosure/repair area is proposed in the southeast corner of the parking level 1. Exterior bike racks will be provided for visitors and coffee shop users. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 34 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 85 over story trees, including existing and proposed. The trees 4 would include a mixture of Maple, Pine, Elm, Birch, Crabapple and Serviceberry. (See pages A8—A8a, and the development plan book.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Staff would work with Hennepin County in regard to boulevard trees. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading for the retail space would take place in the parking area east of the retail. Trash would be collected within the building and the garbage truck would pick up on the south side. 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 A35 -A36. Highlighted items include: a requirementfor a developer's agreement and dedicated easements over public sidewalks and utilities. Any approvals should be conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo dated November 3, 2015. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of high quality stone, pre -finished metal, cementitious siding and panel and glass. (See rendering on pages A18—A25.) A materials board would be presented at the Planning -Commission Meeting. Mechanical Equipment 'No mechanical equipment has been shown on the plans. Rooftop equipment is planned for the middle of the building and would be only 3 feet tall; therefore not visible from property lines. Any rooftop and/or ground level equipment would have to be screened if visible from adjacent property lines. Final Plans must include location of mechanical equipment and the means of screening. No ground level mechanical equipment shall be located within the front yard (street side) of the development. Lighting A lighting plan has been submitted and conforms to all city code requirements. (See page A30.) Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be PCD -3, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development 5 Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of monument signs and way finding signage. Specific'signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Height At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council were generally acceptable of six stories on this site. Suggestions were made to provide podium height and use brick on this side of the building facing Richfield. The applicant has done that to minimize impact. The pocket park which could be utilized by Richfield residents also provides some buffer/increase setback to the residential area to the south. The sidewalk would allow better pedestrian access to the commercial area on York and the transit station at Southdale. This access would be utilized more when Richfield redevelops to medium density per their Comprehensive Plan. (See Richfield Comprehensive Plan for this area on pages A43 -A44.) The applicant has included a one-story podium on Xerxes; the setback on Xerxes for the first story is 25 feet back from the road. The 2-6 story set back is proposed at 33 feet. (See setbacks on page A27.) Podium height is also being proposed on the 66th Street and York Avenue side. Given podium height is proposed on both sides of the building staff would support increase of height from 4 to 6 stories in for height in this situation. The City recently amended the Comprehensive Plan to allow up to 6 stories and 70 feet in this area when podium height is utilized. (See comprehensive Plan language on pages 11 of this report.) The applicant is proposing to increase the height requirement to 75 feet. Setback from Single Family Homes Within the underlying PCD -3 zoning district, the Edina City Code requires that buildings six stories tall be required to be setback twice the height of the building from the property line of single family homes. Therefore, a 150 -foot setback would be required from the six -story portion of the building. The six - story portion of the building would be setback 127 feet from homes in Richfield and 81 feet from homes in Edina. (See page A28.) The Richfield Comprehensive Plan guides those homes for medium density development at 7-12 units per acre, so the long term plan for that area is to be more densely developed, and not single-family homes. (See Richfield Comprehensive Plan on pages A43—A44.) Shadow Study The applicant completed a shadow study to determine impacts the height of the building might have on the surrounding area. (To be presented at the 2 Planning Commission meeting.) As demonstrated on pages A47 -A48, the shadow study done for the Lennar project to the south concluded that the biggest impact would only be for a few hours roughly from 3-5pm in the winter months when shadows would be cast over the commercial development in Richfield. Comprehensive Guide Plan/Density To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: Height increase from 70 feet to 75 feet. Housing Density from 75 units per acre to 105 units per acre. The single-family home from LDR, Low Density Residential to CAC, Community Activity Center. Housing Density. The proposed density of 105 units per acre would be on the high end of the end of the density range for the City's high density residential development as indicated in the table below. The site is however, located in the CAC, Community Activity Center, which has an established density range of up to 75 units per acre. The site's location on two arterial roadways provides a good location for higher density. The City is exploring the possibility of increasing density in the Greater Southdale area with the work being done by the Greater Southdale Area Working Group. The Comprehensive Plan suggests allowing higher density and floor area ratio subject to proximity to utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, provision of public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height. The proposed plans contain most all of these elements. There is adequate utility capacity available; the new transit station is located across the street at Southdale; the WSB traffic study concludes there would be minimal impact to the roads; underground parking is provided, there are no surface parking lots, a park/open space area is provided; 5% of the housing units would be designated for affordable housing; sustainable design principles are applied, and there are vast improvements in pedestrian circulation to move pedestrians around and through the site. Below are existing high density developments in the City. Note that the trend in multi -family development is higher density. This is due to the high cost of land in Edina; the requirement for affordable housing, and the added cost of redeveloping a site with existing buildings: 7 Development Address Units Units Per Acre Yorktown Continental (Senior Housing) 7151 York 364 63 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 6500 France (Senior Housing) 6500 France 188 80 York Plaza Condos 7200-20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240-60 York 260 29 Walker Elder Suites (Senior) 7400 York 72 40 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 69th & York Apartments 3121 69th Street 114 30 Lennar 6725 York 240 52 71 France (Byerly's) 71 France 234 23 Beacon 66 France 39 43 As provided during recent redevelopment review, the following is a list of suburban examples of high density regulation and development in cities adjacent to Edina. The proposed density for the project is similar. St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park allows densities within a PUD to be up to 75 units per acre in high density and mixed-use districts. Additionally, for PUD's in an office district, if there is a housing component as part of a mixed-use PUD, the City may remove the upper limit on residential density on a case-by-case basis. This happened recently within The West End Redevelopment project. "The Flats at the West End" has a density of 111 units per acre. It is 119 units on a 1.07 acre site. Minnetonka. Minnetonka does not have a density cap within their Comprehensive Plan. They define high density residential as anything over 12 units per acre. Developments are then considered on a case by case basis. Factors that go in to the consideration include: environmental impacts/conditions such as wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes and trees; type of housing; provision of affordable housing; traffic impact; site plan; and surrounding area. Minnetonka does not have an example project similar to the one proposed here. Minnetonka is E:3 primarily made up of large lots, with mature trees wetlands and open space. However, their Comprehensive Plan does allow consideration of dense development. Bloomington. The City of Bloomington allows up to 50 units per acre in general; however, in areas that are designated as "High Intensity Mixed Use with Residential" (HX -R District) an FAR minimum 1.5 with a max of 2.0) is required. The density may be increased if the following is provided: Below grade parking; provision of a plaza or park; affordable housing; sustainable design principles; provision of public art. With the exception of the park/plaza; the applicant is proposing all of the other items. Bloomington has had three recent projects that have exceeded a 2.0 FAR: The Reflections condominiums along 34th Ave (95 units per acre); Summer House senior apartments at 98th and Lyndale (59 units per acre); and Genesee apartments at Penn and American Boulevard. (73 units per acre) Given these examples of high density residential development in our surrounding cities, the proposed density would seem reasonable for this site, considering its location in a commercial area, with convenient access to Metro Transit bus service. Below is the existing language within the Comprehensive Plan for the CAC, Community Activity Center. Please note the development guidelines, which the proposed development has accommodated. The text highlighted in red would be added to the existing text to accommodate the proposed change. Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories Description, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines CAC The most intense district Form -based design 12-75105 residential Community Activity in terms of uses, height standards for building dwelling units/acre Center and coverage. placement, massing and Floor to Area Ratio -Per Example: Greater Primary uses: Retail, street -level treatment. current Zoning Code: Southdale area (not office, lodging, Buildings should be placed maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* including large multi- entertainment and in appropriate proximity to Floor to Area Ratio may family residential residential uses, streets to create pedestrian exceed 1.0 on a case by case neighborhoods such combined or in separate scale. Buildings "step basis, subject to proximity to as Centennial Lakes) buildings. down" at boundaries with utilities capacity, level of Secondary uses: lower -density districts and transit service available, and Institutional, recreational upper stories "step back" impact on adjacent roads. uses. from street. Other desired items to allow Mixed use should be More stringent design greater density or density on encouraged, and may be standards for buildings > 5 the high end of the required on larger sites. stories. residential housing range Emphasize pedestrian above, would include: Below circulation; re -introduce grade parking, provision of finer -grained circulation park or open space, patterns where feasible. affordable housing, sustainable design principles, C Using the above amended text as a basis for review of the subject project, a case could be made to support the proposed high density through the PUD -Zoning process. As noted above in the "Description, Land Uses," the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Height. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site, especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has included a one-story podium on Xerxes. The pocket park also provides some setback. Land Use. Within the City of Edina, the existing single family homes on this site are surrounded by commercial area that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See pages Ma -Mc.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The property in Richfield is guided commercial and medium density residential. The proposed land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC. The City amended the Comprehensive Plan in similar circumstances for the Lennar project on the old Wicke's furniture site to the south. Staff therefore, would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the single-family home be amended to be guided as CAC, Community Activity Center similar to the surrounding property. The map on the following page shows how the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to accommodate the height change and land use designation change. The changes are highlighted in red. 10 provision of public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height. Using the above amended text as a basis for review of the subject project, a case could be made to support the proposed high density through the PUD -Zoning process. As noted above in the "Description, Land Uses," the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Height. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site, especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has included a one-story podium on Xerxes. The pocket park also provides some setback. Land Use. Within the City of Edina, the existing single family homes on this site are surrounded by commercial area that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See pages Ma -Mc.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The property in Richfield is guided commercial and medium density residential. The proposed land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC. The City amended the Comprehensive Plan in similar circumstances for the Lennar project on the old Wicke's furniture site to the south. Staff therefore, would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the single-family home be amended to be guided as CAC, Community Activity Center similar to the surrounding property. The map on the following page shows how the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to accommodate the height change and land use designation change. The changes are highlighted in red. 10 L.11ond LOR - Low DWSW ReaWntial OR- Office Residential RM- Realonal Madcal LD . AR.U.NnailyAN.hedReeldentlail 0, ONC, -OSP- Open Space and P alce MDR. MadannO.W F?aa!ftnfl.1 MXC - Weed Usti Center PSP - PubfitMarn-PuWtc MR- 1119h Densly Reeldendial CAC - C-niry ACUM Center LAH - Urnited A.a. HqWy NC- Wghborhoad C-lat I- InWztrial 2 4 2 E Height Limits 9 6 2 Stones: 2+ ts 3 Stories: 36 0 4 Stories: 46 508 4 12 12H 3-5 sir OR 10 3 C7 8 10 4 2 3 2 LL 4 2 2 R 4 E 5 Stories: 6V in 8 Stories: 9T 2 2 9 Stories: 108' �t 10 Stories: 1201 4 U), 12 Stories: 144' 2 4 2 Standard Height Podium Height 4 IDR 5 8 S 0 2 Stories: Stories: Stories: n 0 or Stories: e e r, P - s s s a, e, t� 0 F1 2 4 OR 2 W 77'. 11, 'tiAt .... 0. e.,j 12 OR rn n to ri Future Land Use Plan with City of Edina Building Heights Southeast Quadrant 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.6B Data Source: URS 0 0.5 miles *Height may be increased to'six stories & 7-0 75 feet if Podium height is utilized on York and Xerxes subject to review and approval of the City Council. 11 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section 36-253 of the Edina City Code provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; 12 h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which is described as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Primary uses include retail and residential. Mixed uses are -encouraged. The proposal would be a mixture of uses within the building with residential and a small area of retail. The site would be very pedestrian friendly with extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A boulevard style sidewalk would be provided along all street fronts (4 sides) and an east -west sidewalk is provided through the development to move pedestrians through the site the Southdale area without having to walk up to 66th. Residents in Richfield and ground level units on Xerxes would primarily benefit from this sidewalk. There would be individual sidewalk connections from ground level units to the perimeter sidewalk. A transitional area is created by the pocket park that provides a separation from the single-family homes, and future medium density area to the east. As recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Sketch Plan review, podium height would be utilized on Xerxes Avenue to lessen impact to the single- family homes in Richfield. The applicant would provide 10 units for affordable housing (5% of the development.) This will assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goal of 212 units by 2020. To date the City has approved 159 units for affordable housing and 20 have been built; and another 39 are anticipated in the next 1-2 years. The building serves as a "gateway" into Edina. The curved shape of the building is unique and fits the curved shape of the lot. There are no surface parking lots proposed for the site. All parking is under the building. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Chapter 13 36 shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The proposed uses, retail and multiple -family residential housing are uses allowed in the Community Activity Center, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, and within the underlying PCD -3 Zoning District. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages the mixing of retail and multi -family residential uses. The proposed plans are therefore, consistent with the land uses in Comprehensive Plan. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As indicated in table earlier within this report, and the fact that the site is located in a commercial area on York Avenue, near Southdale, Metro Transit and an arterial roadway, the proposed density is appropriate for this site. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. 14 The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. (See the preliminary PUD Ordinance on pages A45 -A46.) Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout encourages pedestrian movement; would utilize podium height on both Xerxes and York, bringing one story up to the street on Xerxes, and stepping back the mass of the building on York. The project would provide mixed use on one site. The design of the building is of a high quality. Proposed materials include high quality stone, metal and siding. (See page A25.) The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space within the development. The site is mostly building and paved surface today. As demonstrated on the attached, there will be an increase in green space. 15 Compliance Table * Variance would be required under PCD -3 Zoning 16 City Standard (PCD -3) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — York Avenue 75 feet 15 feet* Front — 66th Street (Story 1) 35-75 feet 15 feet* (Story 2-6) 28 feet* Front — Xerxes (Story 1 ) 35-75 feet 15-25 feet (per the plan)* (Story 2-6) 26-33 feet (per the plan)* Rear — Southdale Circle Rear —South Side 75 feet 15 feet* Rear — South to Residential 75 feet 12 feet* (Story 1 ) 75 feet 50 feet* (Story 2-6) 75 feet 60 feet* Setback to Single Family 150 feet 81 feet* Homes Building Height Four stories and Six Stories & 48 feet 75 feet Six Stories & 70 feet if podium height is used Maximum Floor Area Ratio Floor to Area Ratio may exceed 1.0 on a case by 2.38% (FAR) case basis, subject to proximity to utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density or density on the high end of the residential housing range above, would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, provision of public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height. Parking Stalls 10 — retail 10+ for the retail (shared) 210 enclosed (residential) 245 regular stalls 16 tandem stalls 220 total 271 total Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance would be required under PCD -3 Zoning 16 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding Land Use, Height and Density reasonable to allow the proposed development? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments are reasonable for the site for the following reasons: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. Within the City of Edina, the single family homes are surrounded by land that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See page A3-A3a.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The proposed land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC. The City of Richfield has commercial area to the east (Goodyear Tire and Auto) and guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Given the podium height proposed on Xerxes, 66th and York, the proposed height is reasonable. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site, especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has both included a podium on Xerxes, and has provided the pocket park to provide some separation. The proposed setback is 25 feet for the one story portion of the building; and the 2-6 story portion of the building has a proposed setback of 33 feet. Podium height is also being proposed on the 661h and York Avenue side. (See pages A20, A21 and A27.) 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use, which is predominantly residential, seems appropriate for the area. 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. 17 • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: As highlighted above on pages 12-15, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail. b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Boulevard style sidewalks would be provided around on all roadways (4 streets) and a new east west sidewalk connection from Xerxes to the Southdale area would be provided from the pocket park for residents along Xerxes, including Richfield. c. Podium Height would be used on York, 66th Street and Xerxes. d. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative, (See page Md.) including: LED lighting; increased insulation and thermal envelope above code; energy -Star rated appliances; recycled storm water for irrigation, low/no VOC paints and primers and adhesives. e. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 2. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. (See traffic study on pages A49—A69.) 4. The public realm provided for the development would invite people in to stay at the site in the public park provided on Xerxes and the coffee shop and outdoor seating area on York. Boulevard style sidewalks are provided to comfortably move residents around the building and through the project to create a comfortable pedestrian experience. A pedestrian connection is also provided through the site from the park along the south lot line. 5. The applicant would provide 10 units for affordable housing (5% of the development.) This will assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goal of 212 units by 2020. To date the City has approved 159 units for affordable 18 housing and 20 have been built; and another 39 are anticipated in the next 1-2 years. 6. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. i. Provision of affordable housing. 7. The proposal addresses many of the working principles of the Greater Southdale Area Working Group. (See pages A6i-A61.) 8. The site is a gateway into Edina, and the building has taken the curved shape of the site that it sits on. 19 Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommend that the City Council approve the requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: ➢ Height increase from 70 feet to 75 feet. ➢ Increase the housing density from 75 units per acre to 105 units per acre in the CAC, Community Activity Center. ➢ The single-family home from LDR, Low Density Residential to CAC, Community Activity Center. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The City of Richfield has guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes, 66th and York as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The six -story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to minimize impact on adjacent property. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use at 2.38, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area. 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PCD - 3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the old Best Buy retail building at 310166 th Street West and the single family home at 6612 Xerxes and build a six - story 210 unit apartment with an attached restaurant/coffee shop with outdoor seating/dining on York Avenue. 20 Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents in the City of Richfield to Southdale. 3. The site is a gateway into Edina, and the building has taken the curved shape of the site that it sits on. Podium Height would be used on York Avenue, 66th Street and Xerxes. 4. The public realm provided for the development that would invite people in to stay at the site in the public park provided on Xerxes and the coffee shop and outdoor seating area on York. Boulevard style sidewalks are provided to comfortably move residents around the building and through the project to create a comfortable pedestrian experience. A pedestrian connection is also provided through the site from the park along the south lot line. 5. The applicant would provide 10 units for affordable housing. (Five -percent of the development.) 6. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings would be a high quality stone, metal, cementitious siding and panel, and glass building. Stone is proposed at the street level. 7. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 8. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 9. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. 10. The proposal addresses many of the working principles of the Greater Southdale Area Working Group as mentioned in the above findings. 21 11. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. ■ Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ■ A Pedestrian -Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long-term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated October 12 & 30, 2015. Final plans must show all mechanical equipment and, the means to screen it. No ground level mechanical equipment shall be located in front of the building on a public street. ` ►.Y� 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. 5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated November 5, 2015. 6. As part of a Developers Agreement, the property owner would be required to participate in appropriate cost sharing improvements to the 66th and York intersection which may include elimination of the right turn lane, providing green space and improving pedestrian crossings. 7. Five percent (5%) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific detail would be determined at the time of final approval. 8. Sustainable design principles must be used per the applicant narrative. Attempts must be made meet an energy savings goal of 15% over the current state energy code guidelines. A plan of how standards are intended to be met must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 10. Trash removal and deliveries shall take place off the Southdale Circle entrance. Deadline for a city decision: February 1, 2016 23 InterNITntrrl active Property Maps Map 1j, J M tl -9 7* -...... j Avi U z-;lf`1 Lr STREET -AT Vill! H -E RIT.1,011' nFAVE a 7L_!5 0: a!:Z -nD z - z 2- i -Z RoslandP.&k t Gil Fr. T IAS z� 1 IV EST i,fFLO P 7� . �4V '� Z; 'Eal — G9rHErT I W14 IEEE= STIMST, z 7 Me 'i . -- - - -,, - . = 4:%3 j 4.si iiir�i sr Wh:oZ 6 rt H4#170N FAAF� 1,jijf2 s7 0,E)STWFIX- 7140 STPiii ;T 71 74ib inr- Ei 1,1. rtSri 71 Parcel Map Scale: 1 1600 ft. N ID: 29-028-24-31-0009 A -T -B: Torrens Print Date: 8/3/2015 Owner Market Name: Total: Parcel 3200 Southdale Cir Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 1 Total: Property Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- t Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead i implied, including fitness of any particular stead: i Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness ofthe information shown. Parcel 0.63 acres Sale Area: 27,414 sq ft i Code: COPYRIGHT@ HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 -iryk A 1h -Green! 41 Interactive Property Daps Map ILL�� � • ... " ..� ,.' ; �� � ,�_�� ik r - a x r - �3 _ " ct 4_1 ~ - --- - --- / I i E e ` rt3 0y r 1 ! - ti lra. iapV � rpt Cosy 0y Future Land Use Plan with } City of Edina Building Heights 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update southeast Quadrant Figure 4.6B Data Source: URS e o 0.5 M,1w CA -C _� P4� 0� *Height may be increased to six stories if podium height is utilized on York and Xerxes subject to review and approval of the City Council. X36 11 WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DET GRANDVIEW DETAIL CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL znNinl6 nit ti CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL znNinl6 YORK Edina, MN JUL.30.201 S NORTHWEST VIEW architects 4M �, \ �>• � �.,,y y. Ili ` ' � � dq 4��'n� R Ifi IIIIIIIIIIIII IA51➢Ib �AIII �E4 i� , . , Y � DECX i _�l L I .I r.�r..�c � ` ■ 'J jT l ?r I Residential Redevelopment The Gateway Pointe West 66th &YORK Edina, MN Sketch Plan Review August 31, 2015 Revised: November 4, 2015 Project Narrative Developer: Bull Moose Construction Inc. 4999 France Avenue Ste. 240 Minneapolis, MN 55410 Kurt Krumenauer 612-229-0131 Prepared by: Collage Architects LLC 705 Raymond Ave, St. Paul, MN Pete Keely, AIA, 651472-0051 3101 West 66u' Street, 3200 Southdale Circle, 6612 Xerxes Ave. * Property The property is located on the Southeast corner of York and 66th, and is bounded by Xerxes and the City of Richfield to the East. The site was formerly a one-story commercial site housing a Best Buy Store. The site holds a tremendous opportunity to create a `Gateway' into the City and the Southdale Area. The site consists of three parcels totaling 87,478 sq.ft. (2 acres). Two of the sites were used for the commercial property, the third is a single family lot. The three properties are located at 3200 Southdale Circle, 310166th Street West and 6612 Xerxes Avenue South. All have structures which are being proposed to be removed. • Project Summary: The proposed mixed-use building Is comprised of 210 housing units with a high level of amenity spaces, and 258 parking stalls in two levels of structured parking. There is a commercial tenant space of 1760 sf that is planned to be a cafe' or coffee shop. The density on the 2 acres is approximately 105 units per acre. The housing will offer great amenities and a unique blend of units to meet the needs of an under -served and growing demographic. The project will be promoting alternative transportation choices with covered bike repair/storage rooms and a focused look at the pedestrian realm along the major intersection of York and W 66th. The site design will focus on walkability, public green spaces as well as a visual and physical connection to the building amenities. Residential walk up units will buffer the first floor parking along W 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue. • Market Vision: This location is a highly visible location with great access to goods, services, and transportation choices. We believe this will appeal to a wide -range of residents and can offer an upscale life style choice. The project Intent is to provide an upscale apartment unit to meet the need of an underserved apartment market. Units will range in size to provide a variety of living choices and price points. Unit sizes will range from 650 square feet to 1600 square feet and higher with penthouse style units. The interior will have a high degree of amenities of common spaces including fitness, areas, community rooms and lounges for socializing and activities. The courtyards will be enhanced with outdoor amenity spaces, pools, terraces, gardens, grilling locations, and landscaped zones. The overall look of the building and the design is intended to appeal to this market. The unit price will be market rate with higher rents reflecting amenity adjacencies and overall size of the unit. Land Use Principles / Building design: The building design takes advantage of the long radius along York Avenue and will reinforce this curve throughout the design process. The mass of the building is located at this location to provide a unique 'Gateway' look to the intersection. This portion of the building will be developed with stone and glass to provide a fresh and unique look. The major amenities of the building are positioned at the apex of the curve of the intersection to act as marquee of activity for the project. The first level health and fitness center and a commercial caf6 will anchor the corner. Adjacent to the community room on the second level is the pool deck and walking plaza. This south facing deck allows for the majority of the building mass to be concentrated along W 661 street. This opens up south facing courtyards to provide light, air and great amenity spaces for the residents, and to provide a transition to the smaller scale residential buildings toward the south. The mass in this location also limits the impact of shadows which predominately cover the street, and other commercial buildings. The west half of the building will have a separate look from the east half, giving more distinction between the buildings on this block. The west half of the building will be set on a podium height level to reduce the impact of the scale, and provide a transition to the neighborhood. The street edge of the development will be an enhanced pedestrian zone, and contain a linear park space along York. The linear park terminates in an outdoor terrace for the restaurant. This will provide an amenity to pedestrians, a great opportunity for a gateway expression of quality landscaping, and will raise the residential units above the street to provide greater livability. The units along W 661 and York will be developed as walk-up style units, providing vitality to the street. A small public pocket park is being proposed to the south to reinforce the easing of this transition and provide an accessible connection around the whole site. The project is anchored on the southwest corner is anchored by the amenity spaces. Parking is screened from the street by the building on three sides. Along the interior lot line the parking is screened with a wall. • Building Location, Massing and Height: The building is six stories: (70'-8") in height to sixth floor roof bearing. The pool plaza is 14' above the first floor parking and is one story along the south edge of the property. The western portion of the building has a one story podium. The eastern portion of the building is set above the street S' with a stone landscape wall, pedestrian lighting and landscaping. The building massing at 6 stories is less than the 12 stories allowed across the street. The proposed massing for this intersection is intended to make a sensible transition to the developments to the south as well as being substantial enough to respond to the Gateway nature of the site and align with the city's long term vision for the area. The overall size of the building is 208,306 sf of residential space a residential FAR of 2.38. Ah parking----^-- Subgrade -- -------- 60,609 34,002 First — �--v 37,197 SF Second 34,4815F Third Fourth 34,481 SF 34,481 SF Fifth Sixth Total sq.ft. 133,861 SF 194,692 33,805 SF 208,306 SF Total Parking sq,ft. Ah • Economic Impact This project will have a significant positive economic impact to the local area. Construction and operations spending along with resident spending will have a positive influence to the economic vitality of the area. Please see attached for addendum for economic benefits. • Public Realm — Landscape, Streetscape, and ©pen Space: The building is built to create a defined street edge along York, 66th and Xerxes. The design gives definition to the pedestrian circulation, but also has several areas of articulation to provide interest and additional landscape areas. The overall effect will provide for a varied look. The building is setback from York 8-30', from W 661h 15-25', and from Xerxes 15-25'. The first floor has all active spaces with a restaurant, fitness room, and units. All of these uses are raised above the level of the street. The front -yard areas are enhanced with stone retaining walls, landscaping, pedestrian lighting and front stoops. There is an open green space to the south that will contain passive recreation space and treated as a public pocket park for the neighborhood. • Transportation Alternatives: The Southdale Transit Center is across York and less than a % mile walk. There Is also bus transit on the Northeast corner of the site serving the 515 bus. There are five bus lines served within approximately'/. mile from the site. • Pedestrian Circulation: The public realm is highly amenitized to encourage pedestrian movement. internal circulation is directed toward the intersection of York and W 661h with additional spacing to encourage safe pedestrian movement. • Bicycle: There will be bicycle parking for each unit. Additionally the building will be developed with bicycle amenities to promote bike ridership. A dedicated bike enclosure/repair is being provided on the southeast corner of parking level I. There will also be secure and dedicated interior bike storage. Exterior bike racks will also be . provided for visitors, and restaurant patrons. • Traffic Access The building is accessed from two points. The main access and Front -door' is located off Southdale Circle. This entrance will be the front entry for the residential complex, and will access the amenity spaces, the offices and the residential units. Trash and delivery access will also occur at this location off Southdale Circle through the underground garage. The second access is located on Xerxes. This access point has been located further north than the original proposal and is nearly at the location of the currently existing curb -cut. This access point is directly across from a commercial property. The development team will be hiring a traffic Ak engineer to help us solidify the best locations for access. We will continue to work with the engineers and the city to identify the most appropriate and safe locations. It Parking: The project consists of two levels of structured parking, both of these levels are screened from so that the parking is not visible from the street. The first level comprises visitor access and residential parking. The upper level of parking is essentially on grade and will have skylights, and openings for natural light providing a suitable experience for this type of development. The second parking level is private for the residential units. There are a total of 268 parking stalls. • Storm Water Management: Storm -water will be collected on site and used on-site to the extent possible. The linear park along 6611 and York will be designed to accept the on-site run-off in a demonstration area for best management principles for storm water. Courtyard amenity spaces will also be designed to collect and re -use rain water as possible. • Sustainability: The project by it's nature of a redevelopment on an existing site surrounded by infrastructure and transit is sustainable by location and type. The project will provide the following green features: All of the common lighting wilt be LED, provide a high efficiency lighting solution; increased insulation and thermal envelop above code; energy -Star rated appliances; recycled storm water for irrigation, low/ no VOC paints and primers and adhesives. • Actions. The development team is requesting the following: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning all three propertiesto Planned Unit Development (PUD) • Site Plan Approval • Re -platting the three parcels into one parcel Changes from the Sketch Plan, and original submission: • The restaurant has been reduced in size to 1760 square feet. This space will be a cafe' — coffee shop. The parking required to make the restaurant viable would have necessitated a second level of underground parking. The cost of this parking would need to have been paid by the restaurant. This extra cost would have been a competitive disadvantage, and would have significantly harmed the chances for a successful restaurant. Which in turn could have stressed the entire project. We wanted to make sure the anchor corner was filled with activity not empty storefront. The cafd' will provide public access, vitality and amenity at the corner. AA • The trash and delivery has been moved to an internal access point. Without the restaurant the trash needs were reduced and easier to move into the parking structure. This will provide a better first floor experience At Southdale Circle. • The first floor of the southwest corner has been cut back to provide an outdoor terrace area for residents. This terrace is in conjunction with an indoor community room / cafe' for residents and will provide activity along this corner. • The linear park along York and 66" has been extended. This pedestrian walkway will provide a safer and better public pedestrian experience along 66cn and York. This sidewalk is public the full length and setback further from the road for a better pedestrian experience. • Affordable Units have been added to the project and will represent 5% of the total. • A plinth level has been added to the east, and north east side. Changes from the original planning commission submittal. • The access on Xerxes has been relocated toward the north. This location is closer to the current access point. The new location is across from a commercial property and not a residential property. The development team is engaging a traffic engineer to assist with locations of access, and will work with the city to identify safe locations. • Located on the northern portion of the street the property is mostly located next to commercially zoned properties. Podium Height was added to the east side where it abuts the residential property. • The building on the western 'gateway' portion will consist of stone glass and metal, and will be a warmer color. • Additional drawings show the possible configuration of sidewalks and landscape areas along the sidewalk. • A podium height has been added along the north and east. • The proposed height and density are necessary to provide amenities as noted below. • PUD: The proposed project is requesting a PUD. Through the PUD process we are asking for additional height and density and offering additional items as outlined in the PUD ordinance below: A. Provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; • The proposed use is for higher density residential mixed-use. The residential use appears to be consistent with the intent and vision for the properties in Edina. The adjacent properties in Richfield are also zoned for mid -density residential, so the proposed project appears to be consistent with the vision of both cities. • The project incorporates pedestrian friendly design which appears to be consistent with the overall vision of this area. • The buildings are placed to create a consistent 'street wail' to define the sidewalk and enhance the pedestrian realm. • The project offers a mixed-use building with the commercial cafe at the first floor. ode B. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; • The proposed use bring economic vitality to this underutilized site. The project brings construction jobs, along with additional employment for running the apartment, while providing new homes for residents. • The gateway vision, the linear park, and the Xerxes green space provide increased comfort, aesthetics, and promotes pedestrian use leading to better welfare of the city and residents. C. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm -water management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses. • The height variance allows for more of the space to remain open for use by the residents with new open space, and amenity. It also allows for the ability to leave the parcel to the south open as a park. The project was designed to locate the height and mass to the north side to allow the active spaces to be located in south facing courtyards providing a better transition to the southern neighbors, and a more useable environment for the residents. • The project is designed to make a statement as the gateway into the city. Part'of this gateway is embracing pedestrian use. The northwest curve is designed as a linear park to enhance pedestrian use with quality materials and design. • This linear park is intended to use recaptured on-site water as a demonstration of storm - water management. • The linear park will also provide enhance lighting as a means to create the gateway effect, and provide pedestrian safety. • A podium height level has been added along Xerxes. D. Ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; The proposed project creates a gateway statement and high quality of design for this gateway location. The design is enhanced by promoting a strong pedestrian experience and statement along York, and the use of high-quality materials, openness, glass, and active uses at this gateway location. The uses are consistent and compatible with the area, and surrounding land uses being a mix of commercial and residential. E. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; Af • The proposal provides for a greatly enhanced sidewalk, and pedestrian zone along York and 66th. This improves the public street right of way for pedestrians. • The project has a sidewalk link south of the building connecting Xerxes and Southdale Circle through the pocket Park on the south east. F. Preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; • Anew green space is provided in the proposal with the purchase of residential lot to tate south. This green space will be open for public use, and provides additional trees, and open space for Xerxes. • The site currently does not have any natural distinguishing features. G. Allow for mixing of land uses within a development; • The project is mixed-use with a commercial retial space and outdoor patio at first floor. • The project is a mix of user types, and incomes within the residential apartments H. Encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and • The project is an apartment with a variety of unit types including walk-up style units and rents. • 5% of the units are affordable. 1. Ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. • The majority of the height and density is pushed to the northern portion of the site to ease the transition to the southern properties. The restaurant is planned adjacent to the other commercial properties to the south. This project has acquired the residential property on the southeast side to provide a transition to the residential neighborhood to the south and east, and is working on acquiring the last remaining property on that side of the street. Currently the properties to the north, northwest, and west are guided for up to 12 stories. The properties to the east are zoned for mid density residential. This project at 6 stories is a good transition between the higher zoning allotment to the north and west, and the smaller to the east. • The proposed project would meet the following city goals and policies: • Provide economic vitality and a positive economic impact. The project will have a strong influence on the vitality in the neighborhood through construction, operation and resident spending. • Encourage infill / redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood and corridor context. The proposal is a redevelopment site utilizing existing utilities, and infrastructure, and defines this transit corridor with the building location, massing, and streetscape development. M, , • Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city and the larger region. Residential units support and enhance the existing businesses and commercial services and support economic vitality. • Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. The project develops a strong linkage of sidewalks, and enhances those sidewalks to improve the pedestrian experience. Bicycle facilities will be provided in the development. Transit service is nearby with the bus transit station across the street, and bus stop on site. These transit options together with this location so close to goods and services can help minimize the dependence on the car. • Building walls are placed to form a consistent street wall, and oriented to encourage and support pedestrian movement toward transit. On existing auto oriented sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate Buildings to define corners and screen parking lots. The building is placed to define the corners, especially this gateway curve, and through its placement screens the parking. • Create walkable streets that foster an active public life: streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity generating uses. Pedestrian amenities have been enhanced with walls, benches, lighting and landscaping. These sidewalks, and their public nature have been reinforced with common residential uses such as the fitness and community rooms. A restaurant adds to the street vitality. Walk-up style units also give the street and the sidewalk life and vitality. The entire project has connected uses on the ground floor to help encourage use, and vitality of the public realm. • Within corridors served by transit, orient buildings toward sidewalks and paths that lead to destinations and transit stops. The Building entries face the street, and apartment units have walk-up entries that face the street. Residential amenities and common areas are strongly linked to the sidewalk, and pedestrian movement is encouraged to go toward the sidewalk system and transit. • The proposed project is requesting additional density and height to be able to provide the type of development fitting of this gateway site. The cost of development on this site is high. In order to provide a project that is appropriate for this gateway site the project needs the additional density to make it viable. Some of the factors leading to additional costs. • Affordable units • Pedestrian Oriented Design • Walk -Up style units • Additional green space that is incorporated into a public use park. • Greatly defined gateway statement that enhances the public realm/ • Incorporating a mix of uses with the cafe'. • The oddly shaped curve of the site. 0 height is appropriate in this location • The site is on the norther edge of the block minimizing shadow impacts on neighbors. • The properties to the north are guided for up to 12 stories, the newly proposed project to the south is six stories, and the properties in Richfield are zoned for mid -density residential. This site is appropriate at six stories between these sites. • The height is needed for adequate unit size and ground floor amenities with open space. • Density is appropriate in the location • Goods and services are conveniently located as recognized in the current Community Activity Center Designation. + The site is near mass transit with one bus stop on the north east corner, and the transit station less than % mile walk. • The proposed project includes amenities and open spaces for the residents. • The uses and vision in the nearby locations all have higher densities, and the zoning in Richfield identifies mid-level density indicating an overall vision of increased density. + Density is needed to provide enough economic vitality to build a high-quality building and site amenities. • Suitability: The project provides a great re -use of this site to a higher and better use. This use will provide great homes for new Edina residents, and provide vitality and economic impact to this gateway location in the 5outhdale redevelopment area. Please see attached for addendum for economic benefits. Working Principles for the District: Allow latitude to gain tangible and intangible outcomes aligned with the district principles. • The proposal provides a mix of residents through a mix of housing types including affordable housing. • The project is mixed-use. • The site is a redevelopment site that is not nearly the best and highest use for this location. The proposed development turns an empty one-story commercial building in a highly used commercial corridor into a vital project that provides economic impact, and residents to the city. These residents will support the goods and services with the outcome of greater and more diverse economic impact. • The inclusion of the residents along with the additional housing development in this area will begin to make a neighborhood that can provide opportunities for -more businesses, and more commercial development along with supporting the existing. This increased residential use and the creation of a neighborhood will have a cumulative effect to create an economic base, and asset to the city and a great place to live. Mt I • The proposal is providing an enhanced pedestrian realm in the linear and pocket park, and better walking connections to support the residential development in the district, and promote a walkable neighborhood. Advance quality through thoughtful and artful design of buildings and publicly accessible spaces, highlighted human activity, and enhanced economic vibrancy. • The proposed project will be two levels of concrete construction with wood frame construction. The exterior materials include a large proportion of stone at the main intersection, and a masonry base. Cement board and metal panel is also used throughout the project with a large percentage of glass. This is a foreground building intended to make a statement at the gateway intersection. This idea is enhance with the use of materials, the enhanced public realm in the linear park, and the overall aesthetic. • The first floor has a commercial use that is accessible to the public. This cafe' use has an outdoor terrace as a main component to add to the pedestrian experience and provide an amenity to the commercial users and the community that patronizes the cafe'. • Housing will always be a strong and necessary component of the community. This proposal will also provide a dignified pedestrian experience, and ease of access around the building that will be welcomed for years to come. • Human activity is highlighted in many ways in the building. On the eastern half the residential units include walk-up style housing connecting people to the pedestrian realm. The western half highlights the amenity spaces and is visible from the public streets. This includes a cafe/ commons area, an outdoor terrace, and a community room. Also visible will be the two-story space that connects to the upper level amenities. We expect this area to have a high degree of vitality and be busy throughout the day. • The development promotes economic vitality through the creation of construction jobs, on-site apartment management jobs, and provides residents to support the retail and commercial users that are within close walking distance to the their homes. • The building is adaptable to change over time. The design and construction is such that if additional commercial or retail is desired at the ground floor in the future it could be accommodated in the fitness, cafe' commons and terrace area. This could also work with the parking as provided. So over time the ground floor could adapt to a commercial entity. Look beyond baseline utilitarian functions of a single site to create mutually supportive and forward- looking Infrastructure sustaining the district. • The building is located on a site with connections to the existing infrastructure including sewer, water, electric, gas, transit, and pedestrian networks. The project relies on these systems to create a viable project. The storm water will be designed is a way that will provide for on-site irrigation to the extent possible. The project will require access to the existing infrastructure and will have a slight impact. In terms of transit and pedestrian access the projects impact will help the existing resources by providing more riders, and providing better pedestrian connections. The development will tie into the existing utilities and have a slight impact on those systems. The users in the project will support the existing businesses nearby. The development will support the existing transit infrastructure with increased ridership. A �j Foster a logical, safe, Inviting and expansive public realm facilitating movement of people within and to the district. • The proposal provides a park on the southwest corner, and a sidewalk to connect from Xerxes to York allowing greater pedestrian connectivity, and a better experience with the park. * The proposal adds a second sidewalk along the York and 66`x' curve that creates a more inviting, and safe sidewalk than the currently exists. The existing narrow walk just behind the curb is awkward and dangerous, especially in winter conditions. The new walk pushed back from the curb with landscaping allows greater safety and separation from the car, and a better pedestrian experience. • The linear park has activity along the edge, and the pocket park is capable of having activity, both of which provide an amenity -to the public realm, as well as providing interest and safety with more eyes on the street. • The residential nature of the building, and the walk-up units provide better human connection to the public realm and enhance overall safety by providing more eyes on the street. Encourage parcel -appropriate intensities promoting harmonious and interactive relationships without "leftover" spaces on sites. • The mass and the scale of the building are pushed toward the northern part of the site. The northern portion of the site abuts a commercial district, and is guided for up to twelve stories. The building at six stories with the mass toward the north provides a transition from the commercial into the residential neighborhood. • On the south eastern corner a park is included to transition the building into the single family neighborhood. • The eastern portion of the building has been designed with a podium to reduce the impact of the height by creating a smaller impact on the ground floor. • The proposal makes full use of the site. Where the building is not located the site is developed Into the linear park, or the pocket park to the south. Where the residential units are not located at the second floor the site is developed into an amenity space for the residents in two courtyards. These courtyards transition the activity and scape toward the residential neighbors to the south. All of the site has been designed with activity and connections to create deliberate zones of use for residents, amenities, recreation, or transition so there are no left -over spaces. Advance human and environmental health as the public and private realms evolves. • The proposal provides for healthy living for the residents with a high degree of amenity space including the fitness room, and the pool and terrace area. • The proposed project enhances the pedestrian realm promoting safety and connectivity for ease of pedestrian use which in turn promotes walking as a healthy alternative for the public in the area and the residents. • The massing of the project screens the activity, noise and pollution of the street from the residential neighborhood to the south, and the activity zones of the courtyard and the pocket park. Promote well-balanced aggregations of "come to" and "stay at" places focused on human activity and linked to an engaging public realm. • The proposal supports adjacent businesses and commercial areas by providing residents in close proximity that will support the businesses. • The proposed use as housing is 'stay -at' place. Residents are an anchor to the community, this will be their home. Ar • These residents will use a variety of 'come -to' places nearby such as the commercial uses at Southdale Mall, and the commercial district all around the project. • Residential use generates activity throughout the day. There is generally more movement to and from a development like this before and after work. We expect that many of the residents will use transit, and the transit hub across the street to commute. This will have a flow of people along the sidewalks at commuting times. We would expect many of the residents to drive cars. [wring the work week these cars will come and go all day with higher concentration during morning and evening commutes. A traffic study is being prepared to determine this in greater detail. Most traffic studies show that residential use is well -dispersed even during the concentrated times as individual residents have a wide -variety of lifestyle patterns. This is even more true on the weekends where people come and go regularly. The amenity spaces will have their greatest use during the weekend times, and during traditional non -work hours. Ensure every component contributes to the sustained economic vitality of the district and the community. • The proposed project provides economic impact through the development and construction jobs it creates, as well as the jobs for the sales staff and team that runs the development. • The residents will support the business in the district, and support the economic vitality. Residents generally support business close to their home, thus providing residents in this location with a multitude of goods and services will greatly enhance the economic vitality for existing business, and potential new business. • The proposed project designs for the main entry to be at the location closest to the intersection and pedestrian access to the nearby businesses. The main elevator bank is located with direct access through the lobby, and in very close proximity to the pedestrian intersection. This not only promotes pedestrian use, but also promotes support of the nearby businesses. In addition, the proposal creates amenity space along the first and second floor as a draw to residents toward the public -realm and toward the street toward the adjacent businesses. This provides for more activity and interest along the way, and hopeful encourages resident's use of the public -realm to access local business in the district. • This residential proposal creates density, vitality and residents along a significant commercial corridor while replacing an underutilized one story commercial building. The density and use greatly increase the economic impact. The density is also needed to make this project viable and to provide for the amenities to create a great pedestrian realm and signature building that creates the gateway and helps define the district as a great place to stay -at or come to. This redevelopment will have great economic impact over the whole district with the redevelopment of this currently underutilized site on such a prominent intersection. Acs r —OZa - 9LOZ TZ aa5--P`-Ztwsl\..ogipuo� E d 8 3 O A3 gs ?$1 HOW! t� Gf F�o�aGR�3F�a� 3�e5�3 �g a3 _ - _ _ -- - _ _ _ _ _ Ig _ _ _ _ .HnN-:Flop evHmos - ^ I- —r c 9Q f I M. OZ, I,•00N- - &� 01'6L M°OZ 91.00 4p o ________ s ° .fig 9• Q -- ice` yBB%fi!n �s2 8e5 -•a 3 3 L i P h— r —OZa - 9LOZ TZ aa5--P`-Ztwsl\..ogipuo� E d 8 3 O A3 gs ?$1 HOW! t� Gf F�o�aGR�3F�a� 3�e5�3 �g a3 _ - _ _ -- - _ _ _ _ _ ---6/I MS !0 3MI 1513 _ _ _ _ _ .HnN-:Flop evHmos - ^ I- —r c 9Q f I M. OZ, I,•00N- - &� 01'6L M°OZ 91.00 4p �' ________ -- ice` v \ 1\'`G,I -•a 3 P s-• • I I _ — I I — T — — — — —— — � — –� — .6 � [i t �,�iB'e'r" LOON � II _ �,'•€,€ � I 370N/D37VOH1/!OS '� Rv hy,"h,@ Ory � -- �\ 1 _____ /' ,— � w\ — �"• `✓/mss - .r` I �-b IA33 ' LLI LLI W Wa UUo Y 5 °". 1c Agg .gy1 zjj > £ e a =SSI PH-. HIN PMURIVANJ 95�xERL Ewa":�y�va�aE E=�`y��u"a€°LSE $S egxrn �F'�. v�SE33ya���``�by`re tiAa-�R- zz-_-"E__a�aC3dd��§_aa E�SYv_R: _ r 8 10 Ml 11 f 5 F S• �9@g� .5 °est -E8"' 8 ,�a5�?. a°eg;YF; �_53LEB�.:�B&>sg"fin aF �.^r ` i itt g _:: =a__ ,___ � c)=' Ets-srF F[FE?[.iF53�tx_€€=SF€E�€{EI➢ ?q?FSFTFF!?i3€1FF�-FgS?PI€iFt�€I;i€FFF?Ye€t E M. i =tii .E.' S' _ :f ?1':�.E{L d ii it[^lu ml E_: .FFj -. E i; t3 [ .•. . Zi. $! :a�°t _. f_S p i - 3' F INI S a °jt`{i t n•_`'�l�!3� a=g o iI4.3 t} if ESe?�tI 3€I Ii�t=[�gg[[ ¢ tltd %stiq F s „='ae;€Tg,s; .i. ¢3-si F's E€=_. t }E74,. :._< `lf41,_3:t 3_IE :sl__ ___ __ .._�___: ,.li. ..= ?A.I'__ _3_s_____ s £2EiS Tyy `Y ni c_' - 3 EI •i$i #E4 ?} •� y$E a•':t -i 3%23� R' t:{ iia [s f D y F E�a� S ii E� i) f - MOD _ 45 %' I i . } "S " € 1°�.':l3 !8 t :F �Ps ..•3r [E:'° :i 3 * °t 3.- ff a z iii _ 3gn3 6:dvi t „� 3 s ei�IF _€ 3 i21- {- �€:.� C FE i �#f d�';FiC� � �-4{•f13'?(.'qa ,.�s?e�i'q +iE:tt a_�iF .. _ x#. 52 IE_`3-ii NIL aFd=i�di l_ete _ x E __ 4.; 5 _ R" e ` i itt g _:: =a__ ,___ � c)=' Ets-srF F[FE?[.iF53�tx_€€=SF€E�€{EI➢ ?q?FSFTFF!?i3€1FF�-FgS?PI€iFt�€I;i€FFF?Ye€t E M. i =tii .E.' S' _ :f ?1':�.E{L d ii it[^lu ml E_: .FFj -. E i; t3 [ .•. . Zi. $! :a�°t _. f_S p i - 3' F INI S a °jt`{i t n•_`'�l�!3� jI� iI4.3 t} if ESe?�tI 3€I Ii�t=[�gg[[ ¢ tltd %stiq F s „='ae;€Tg,s; .i. ¢3-si F's E€=_. t }E74,. :._< `lf41,_3:t 3_IE :sl__ ___ __ .._�___: ,.li. ..= ?A.I'__ _3_s_____ s £2EiS Tyy `Y ni c_' - 3 EI •i$i #E4 ?} •� y$E a•':t -i 3%23� R' t:{ iia [s f D y F E�a� S ii E� i) f - MOD _ 45 %' I i . } "S " € 1°�.':l3 !8 t :F �Ps ..•3r [E:'° :i 3 * °t 3.- ff a z iii _ �i 3t ad t „� 3 s ei�IF _€ 3 i21- {- �€:.� C FE i �#f d�';FiC� � �-4{•f13'?(.'qa ,.�s?e�i'q +iE:tt a_�iF .. _ x#. - .. IE_`3-ii NIL aFd=i�di l_ete _ x E __ 4.; _ R" 50 �v A Oct 10 M � � a !j A Oct 10 At, YL MEM"t Ir MINE: G' s and saxaax Ail co U a� U �i (S Q 0 �r moi ' ' r � ! xx 4 1 "!■E�■ us�■■■■■■■■■■■■� 1■■■m 1 F W W H N I H EO w H N W F •s SAW saxaax WEST 66TH STREET SOUTHOALE CIRCLE Gv�odoage E a r C h i t e C t s THE GATEWAY POINTE Edina, MN OCT.30.201 5 0 sA FOURTH FLOOR P'I" LAN = 350 o4 .c �J 6� WEST SETH STREET SOUTHOALE CIRCLE CPZ;oPlage 1 architects THE GATEWAY POINTE Edina, MN OCT.30.201 5 *0 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 1" p 35' WEST SSTH STREET SOUTHDALE CIRCLE i' 7r THE GATEWAY POINTE Edina, MN OCT. 30.20'1 5 4100111 V ®� SIXTH FLOOR PLAN I" = 3 o4 �a ey arc hii.ects r,�(�' IP Ri 1 ■ � 9 trf: )� 1 � ■ - _ 1 MEM s 1 •r � r {# �1 „ �� a ^> I t RI, f: r 4 1 ire Qom■ � � �l Rte art. lot. -jr ' 7't7 --'t7— +r - .-4L , •' u rr � r 1 AMIN ILLIlk bL THE GATEWAY wlo Ii I� Ir li r ■ i■■Irwl�rw IR lar ; 1:111 -up. -pull; orb fit u li] Id IEI Iw IOI IR 1® ii7 ii1 It► 1! u ' r,. � as .. ■rl as w NU kd 1. iii iwlow ;ii u 1! 7. 1■ ... �. ,w a fil Iw� Iw Iw iw SBI , Iw Iw Fi 1! I■ r i. I` ■ ■ 1■i 1■� ■i ■� 1■,�1n1•` {iilliil liil lii�{toil liil; 1:111 -up. -pull; low IN `• •■ lo.l Y 1! ... �. •r . � ISI)'.. JIM orb fit I! .f.: �. •a •• OJI r,. � as .. ■rl as w NU kd it S iu.. u 1! 7. 1■ ... �. ,w a viii I■ r i. I` ■ ■ to Igo r ■ low IN `• •■ lo.l Y 1! ... �. •r . � ISI)'.. JIM orb fit r,. � as .. ■rl as w NU kd it S iu.. u 1! LE! Lm! 4 {` to Intwo is lei I■.� i■• I■ , 3111 k local u■, -.e � rte• n !� I: I- I? W-minial F CD z F � r z W Q J W z a z ra o g g z o U m F Z Z Z 2 zZc SOS v' z F-- LL LL LL W W z � cn LL Ll G } Z UJ W W W � � � :3 � � � J Z g v 1>0 a m m u u m ¢ u m m Q > eG I N 0 V 0 t0 h M M O r N M q "�• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r o 0�0 - ' CD _o co A a i ��1 THE GATEWAY N to *LB 1P•\ I�J • POINTE Edina, MN 0CT.30.2015 i Material Index rt> 01 LANDSCAPE STONE 02 CAST STONE �.. 03 PREFIN. METAL #1 d 04 PREFIN. METAL #2 05 PREFIN. METAL #3 06 CEMENTITIOUS SIDING 07 CEMENTITIOUS PANEL l 08 SLIDING GLASS DOORS '•+ },�` •"' 09 ALUMINIUM DECK/RAILING 10 GLASS RAILING 11 PREFIN. METAL CANOPY �► ... 1 12 PREFIN. METAL TRELLIS 13 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ;y 14 VINYL WINDOW N to *LB 1P•\ I�J • wz Z� OW IL F� J m 0 J _Q W Q �j r--�lsTI1�I� CR E P/4C C VICINITY MAP . � NQT TO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ws MudeBnmz, AluAcra bmt i1•Bbekt�Wnoomdy, Minnnae NOTES OF SW I, p;mxytle•mMhn•man kwMw m••dmal;kuame;hnlowaln AsnnwwW la mi•d q cu.mm Nmn Boyden nva ue •. Nmhvvonl hr Oq n.00Mh xvorel nu• wuMm ca�ry.4mmmax re. MaxEmk sumNwma Nx t, a•Na ewae.r te. m ry n eepnm meM m utlww;Mn kom 0=nkn sMb an• oA eywm Iw wap • mwwmn e;.whM. wva pepe••u pMre w a y mmx••MMMhnlhmntlkhm•yMteve�i. N;%enuuuksewW IomMmaM era•pn mn a mn he•anA .ya.m h m..a w m. ww.pn cmay cm,xreA en�•m ruyea cmmrein m an couxys�a cooNkutnbydamboMmmbn•, w,Om,tmkynn twwwin4. Cnramle wwn�M•tlJo�1�•a• s.tn••nsanu •hma amtlmd Aw•Mnesm Iworzoz.w.. .mml MeM t;cMdBare sentlxmk Ne.let,N by mtlakyanxbmWtlon tm muNwxmnenlEEAA vna emF binx kmNA m Meabn a eAt.Ee le•1 NGNOEn it - 616127585050 yum BBnNAsaclxv�do ALLIANT 27585098 w ""aMR REVICW x — 1 I - .•. .. www.alllan[dnccom �k�mq Ix.m.n,m .. BEST BUY AEyEAa�06 ar 0na .s I I I 0 I5 30 s0 OATE ustrO m(zyis 010158T}i STREET WEST � 1 7�7 Bre;o 1•�Ev — — — — — — — — — — — — 1V s LE W FEET EOINA, MINNESOTA J06 N0. zlsanz bON wA LEGEND o ®yw �.•..w•n � oa w.m� ®max an.n. mrn 0 uny 0.-- it - 616127585050 yum BBnNAsaclxv�do ALLIANT 27585098 w ""aMR REVICW x — 1 I - .•. .. www.alllan[dnccom �k�mq Ix.m.n,m .. BEST BUY AEyEAa�06 ar 0na .s I I I 0 I5 30 s0 OATE ustrO m(zyis 010158T}i STREET WEST � 1 7�7 Bre;o 1•�Ev — — — — — — — — — — — — 1V s LE W FEET EOINA, MINNESOTA J06 N0. zlsanz bON wA 0 0 A3 ja Z.4 ub -.1 o-------------- 3nN3AV S3XH3X Hinos 0 A3 t ja t W I WEST 66TH STREET �I E 3 O jd it , �I i ll III t -r_ ! I � JAI I �� } ? y L(l µ(. �D I --------------- LLJ �- O >, - / K� a + ri'r III i -411 I x;� , l I O:p i I ) ISOUTHDALE. CIRCLE v, I :Ir NOTES: r 1. REMOVALOFALLAGGREGATESURFACING I�^�Ixwr y, REGARDLESS OF THICKNESS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL J _KEY NOTES' v' A ® REMOVEAND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BUILDING AND OVERHANGS. 0REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN. 2. EXACT LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRUBBING WILL BE O BO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT. © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BOLLARDS. STAKED IN THE FIELD N� ` © REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OM REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING FENCE. S. ALLREMOVALITEM8 SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF LEGEND: ``` �O\ ` ,1V DO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER NO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE EXISTING WATER SHUT OFF, THE PROJECT SITE (INCIDENTAL) CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL EOO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. O REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTGAS ING ELECT OFF. 4. TEM PORSREMOVA SHALL BECIOEN INSTALLED PRIORTO -_—_ ANY TREE REMOVAL (INCIDENTAL) III I I' UTILITY PIPE REMOVAL Q REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. ©REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING ELECTRIC METER. O REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING SIGN. D REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING DECK. S. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE _. SAW CUT LINE HO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE. R REMOVEANDOISPOSEOFIXISTRIGAIRCONDNIONINGUNR. FROM STORM SEWER O IO, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM MANHOLE / CATCH BASIN. SO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL S. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE ® REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT J. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE. REMOVALS WHETHER SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOT. O r JCU E:.TE_ EDI i NESOTA SHEET N -1 i `���` E&6swk- GATEWAY POINTE OF XXXwoe„ ,`T-VOLLPEipm° IM°C uRaXSR.RN REMOVALS TOTAL +selxJOB# 03215-00 s"" �_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - 3RN3nd S3)Cd3X HinoS - N m w -Irk so r per'° �. \\ J / ui co oA A3o LU H Z a w X1 Ir it u ,1 I d, NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG KITH THE m REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTIL THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH ME MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP. INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REOUIREMENTS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BLIPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTFlED. AFTER FILING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP. INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS. AND ALL RENSTONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORD REIENI'M REGUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE. EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AREA SUMMARY IN ACRES «� 1!1D EIBSTING QUANTITIES PNASE (' PHASE Ih PAVEMENT AREA 0.34 ACt CURBAGUTIER » ITEM UNIT OUANnTY 1. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTgUCTON ENTRANCES. 1. TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. CONT EWER �* -� 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE MEA. Z. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNOEPOPAINS, STORM sEwpiS, CURBS AND BUILDING AREA T.35 ACt CONT �/[ r� SILT FENCE LINEAR IFFY 1,905 3_ CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE. GUTTER. GREEN PERWOUS AREA 0.66 AC;, ET _fes_\Q�� BE 4. TPUCT THE SEOIMENTATON AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS SILT DIKE LINEAR FEET 0 5, HALT ALL ACT4TRES MO CONTACT THE CINL ENGINEERING 3. INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND O AROUND STRUCTURES. TOTAL DISTURBED 2.35 ACS GILT 4. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ARWND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. BIO -ROLL LINEAR FEET 0 CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF CTS GENERAL 5. PREPARE . FOR PANNG. PRE - CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 1.54 Atf pROIECTroN OEWCEI ®P-1 INLET PROTECTION ENTRANCE UNIT 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT STORM WATER 7. PAVE SITE. PRE -CONSTRUCTION COIR MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND J. INSTALL INLET DING AID I OENLES. POST -CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS ER AC2 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP -1 UNIT T DISTURBING CONTRACTORS B60PE PROCEEDING W1T1 CONSTRUCTION. B. COMPLETE GRADING ANO INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PL GES �N RRET PROTECTION pEVICE3�� ®IP -Z ) 8. CLEAR AND CRAB THE SITE. 9. gEMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DENCES •REFER TO SHEET CX.XX FOR GENERAL INLET PROTECTION DENLE(IP-2) UNIT S T. BEGIN GRADING THE SITE. (ONLY IF SITE IS STABILIZED), IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT. NOTES, MAINTENANCE TEMPORARY HIm B. START CONSTRUrnON OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS CONSTRUCTION 4 NESOTA SHEET cKJ N 1 TalxodP.erAWW.L" C F ��/� O °" "fN1 GATEWAY POINTE oP RSP.--:w xa WS EROSION &SEDIMENTAI�ROL TOTAL TIX.1 VOLL PE fi D1R"14eps-Fnm NI.1]0R N wlc taM9]x01s Lc.No. a311x - R+.Fm ,JOB# SHEETS I W lug -Lu ®B R �1 ,uj ui � II. � l Ir it u ,1 I d, NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG KITH THE m REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTIL THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH ME MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP. INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REOUIREMENTS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BLIPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTFlED. AFTER FILING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP. INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS. AND ALL RENSTONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORD REIENI'M REGUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE. EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AREA SUMMARY IN ACRES «� 1!1D EIBSTING QUANTITIES PNASE (' PHASE Ih PAVEMENT AREA 0.34 ACt CURBAGUTIER » ITEM UNIT OUANnTY 1. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTgUCTON ENTRANCES. 1. TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. CONT EWER �* -� 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE MEA. Z. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNOEPOPAINS, STORM sEwpiS, CURBS AND BUILDING AREA T.35 ACt CONT �/[ r� SILT FENCE LINEAR IFFY 1,905 3_ CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE. GUTTER. GREEN PERWOUS AREA 0.66 AC;, ET _fes_\Q�� BE 4. TPUCT THE SEOIMENTATON AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS SILT DIKE LINEAR FEET 0 5, HALT ALL ACT4TRES MO CONTACT THE CINL ENGINEERING 3. INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND O AROUND STRUCTURES. TOTAL DISTURBED 2.35 ACS GILT 4. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ARWND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. BIO -ROLL LINEAR FEET 0 CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF CTS GENERAL 5. PREPARE . FOR PANNG. PRE - CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 1.54 Atf pROIECTroN OEWCEI ®P-1 INLET PROTECTION ENTRANCE UNIT 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT STORM WATER 7. PAVE SITE. PRE -CONSTRUCTION COIR MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND J. INSTALL INLET DING AID I OENLES. POST -CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS ER AC2 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP -1 UNIT T DISTURBING CONTRACTORS B60PE PROCEEDING W1T1 CONSTRUCTION. B. COMPLETE GRADING ANO INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PL GES �N RRET PROTECTION pEVICE3�� ®IP -Z ) 8. CLEAR AND CRAB THE SITE. 9. gEMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DENCES •REFER TO SHEET CX.XX FOR GENERAL INLET PROTECTION DENLE(IP-2) UNIT S T. BEGIN GRADING THE SITE. (ONLY IF SITE IS STABILIZED), IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT. NOTES, MAINTENANCE TEMPORARY HIm B. START CONSTRUrnON OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS CONSTRUCTION 4 NESOTA SHEET cKJ N 1 TalxodP.erAWW.L" C F ��/� O °" "fN1 GATEWAY POINTE oP RSP.--:w xa WS EROSION &SEDIMENTAI�ROL TOTAL TIX.1 VOLL PE fi D1R"14eps-Fnm NI.1]0R N wlc taM9]x01s Lc.No. a311x - R+.Fm ,JOB# SHEETS i. IL .. WEST 66TH STREET i �r h W 'j I LEGEND Q ) I I w PROPOSED ISTNC / TO E% - W SAR T�RMNS(GA .) N, 4 L �I �� fr` FFE=880.0 LET! a; A ------_— ------- N EASEMENT 591BIE INV I RRMNnIE EIkYAlION) AS UNE -a- �t.: I / W TELEPHONE -H- w 6A x UY - i 71, (n alxv � JI 1 LT nrI I ! i 111 I It 11 1 j Tl ._P,• - �. I i .�`L' 11 I I"1 1 I I Lam.' 1� i L � -.:_ / SOLITHDALE CIRCLE _ wt R::I /, - 1� I �!� I , �, -yr ��� 4�T' L� •4 T.~ ��, i` Y�� - { Y i, -- F ST ER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE • TYPE CASTING•• e� " 1 ®p �'^ �'w' � "°• ° 101 IV •INDICATES INC EO NO., OR AP LAB O EQUAL q r 6���/// ••PRONOE 2] INC IN MANHOLE SLAB COVER. $ nvx OTE: THE TR ANO nVElfl SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THE MINIMUM RED FORACH ESTORM STRUCTURE. • .°' N. N. 0 NA, MINNES SHEET C!u �a'"eo. nT esR•x � 1` ` 3aI3aAm�NNNNNw C3.1 ,g� \�`� Li..wra wle °.E°" x"'� M"'�p���\`1, T.NA WSB GATEWAY POINTE or Rq,E°er TaMVIREfiFl M51Iu0o.EuAtlIS<1.Nm UT N TOTAL N tt 10At512515 43412 w 215-00 SHEETS DATE: November 3, 2015 TO: 3200 Southdale Circle Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague — Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner P.E. - Director of Engineering Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 3200 Southdale Circle — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, and storm water. Plans reviewed were; Survey dated 9/23/15, Civil drawings undated and printed 10/6/15, and Architectural drawings dated 10/12/15 Details I. A developer's agreement will be required. a. Developer will be required to document existing road conditions on Southdale Circle and Xerxes Avenue with a pre and post construction condition survey completed. Degradation of Road conditions will be to be maintained or improved following the post construction condition survey through reconstruction or mill and overlay. b. Plat public easement or transfer fee ownership of dedicated public right of way. Survey 1. Apply for vacation of existing easements. Provide confirmation that private easements have been vacated. 2. Describe easements or transfer dedicated outlets for public sidewalk and any public utilities. Traffic and Street 2. Maintain sidewalk access on York and W 66`h during construction. 3. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. 4. Crosswalk on York right turn lane will need to be brought up to current requirements. 5. Clearly denote private paths or sidewalk. Maintenance for non-public sidewalks to be responsibility of property owner. 6. Construction staging traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. 7. Coordinate with Metro Transit on specifications for a concrete pad for the continued use of the bus stop at the north-east corner of the project site. 8. Roadway light fixtures shall be consistent with York Ave structures. 9. Apply for curb cut permit for entrances. 18" bituminous patch required. Sanitary and Water Utilities_ 10. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations (is the existing hydrant off York staying?) 11. Clearly indicate private vs public utilities. 12. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer's engineer. 13. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer's engineer. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 W- 14. Provide geotechnical report with soil borings. Storm Water Utility 15. Estimate system flood risk at Xerxes and 66`h and provide detailed grading and driveway elevations to ensure that garage is not at risk. 16. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report. 17. Provide more detailed information for infiltration system on southeast side of project. 18. Existing removed storm sewer connections will need to be completely removed to catch basin and bulk headed. 19. Evidence of watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed is required for building permit. Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 20. A SWPPP consistent with the state general construction site permit is required. Other Agency Coordination 21. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. Hennepin County, MDH, MPCA and MCES permits are required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov - 952-826-0371- Fax 952-826-0392 A3� Cary Teague From: David Fisher Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:32 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Best Buy/ Gateway Pointe Ca rry, A quick review: - Need to make sure they keep the ceiling height in the parking ramp for commuter van parking and accessibility. - Provide adequate accessible parking. - 800 MHZ radio transmission require by police and fire. - Recommend 30%, 60%, 90 % meetings with design team and the Building Division. - I would recommend type one construction throughout the whole building. This is not required. - Provide a complete building code analyses with building plan for construction. David Fisher, Chief Building Official $ e r p 952-826-04501 Fax 952-826-0389 DFisher(a)EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov J ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Tell us how we're doing! Take our customer satisfaction survey. Chair Platteter thane development team for their input adding he looks forward to formal submittal; however, this development places a lot on this spot. �'I) B. Sketch Plan Review. Best Buy Site. 3101 West 66th Street, Edina, MN. "\N\�" Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 2 acre parcel at 3101 66th Street West and 6612 Xerxes Avenue. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing vacant Best Buy building and single-family home, and redevelop it with a six -story 210 unit apartment with a 3,800 square foot restaurant. The building would have one level of underground parking. Details of the project include: ➢ 21-0 units — 104 units per acre ➢ FAR 2.2 ➢ Parking ratio of I/ I for the residential units — 210 for residents and 63 for the restaurant ➢ 3,800 square foot restaurant and outdoor dining ➢ Health and fitness center ➢ Community. cafe ➢ Pool ➢ Small park Teague noted that the entrance to the site would be off Southdale Circle and Xerxes Avenue. The single-family home site would be primarily utilized by a small park. To accommodate the request, two amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet tall to 6 stories and 70+ feet tall; and Housing Density — from 75 units per acre to 104. Teague said a rezoning of all the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development is also requested. Continuing, Teague pointed out this property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan rests with the City Council." The City Council is therefore requested to determine if a Small Area Plan is necessary. A study is currently underway in this area as part of the Planning Commission's work plan. Teague further noted that the France Avenue Southdale Area Development Principles have been shared with the applicant. They have been asked to address each of the Page 16 A principles with any formal application. Teague presented graphics of the project and introduced the development team. Pete Keely, College Architects and Kurt Krumenauer, Midwest Apartment Brokers Applicant Presentation Mr. Krumenauer, informed the Commission their intent is to develop this site as a "Gateway" corner through density, quality of design and aligning with the 66th Street Urban Corridor Revitalization. Mr. Keely said as mentioned by Mr. Krumenauer the intent is to create a gateway and to express something larger and bold. The proposed plan takes advantage of the curve at York Avenue and West 66th Street by establishing a linear park. The plan holds the building edge at street level and provides a series of walk-ups and stairways. Continuing, Keely reported that the site consists of three properties and the existing buildings would be removed, .adding the proposed building is C shaped and can be viewed as two building areas. The proposal is for a mixed use project with a 210 -unit (4 -6 -stories) apartment building with a 3,800 square foot restaurant and 1,200 square feet of office space with parking access directed off of Southdale Circle. The site includes 273 parking stalls. Continuing, Keely added the exterior materials are proposed as stone; larger pieces of Glass. As previously mentioned a linear park in proposed along with terraces and walk- up units. Continuing, with graphics Keely highlighted for the Commission aspects of the proposed redevelopment. In conclusion, Krumenauer said their intent is to develop something special, adding they have been working on this project for two years and believe what's presented is a good project and would appreciate feedback from the Commission. Discussion Chair Platteter pointed out this proposal "asks" for a lot and questioned what the City "gets" with this project. Mr. Keely responded that the,density provides the building with the financial means to do an upscale project that will include the linear park and the addition of another park/open space on the south end. Exterior building materials are enhanced. Another point is that with this project the development team is trying to keep the rents reasonable while creating a life style choice providing walkability, exercise and community area near fabulous amenities. Commissioner Forrest commented that she finds the design attractive and interesting; however there's a lot going on especially on the south side (Taco Bell). Forrest said it appears that the south park/open space area while a great idea looks quickly added. Concluding Forrest said she's also not sure on height. Mr. Keely said it would be very important for the team to know where the Commission Page 17 A3A stands on building height. Commissioner Carr said she too finds the design interesting and agrees this site is a "gateway" into the Southdale area. She further added that she thinks it was a good idea to drop the building height along Xerxes Avenue. Carr asked if they have settled on the type of stone indicated for exterior materials. Mr. Keely said that hasn't been decided yet; however he believes it may be Kasota stone, or something similar but not as white. Continuing, Keely said the curved facade is about making a statement. Chair Platteter said he agrees this is a gateway, adding he is intrigued with the curved facade; however, wants the team to remember the project is also a gate to the residential properties on Xerxes Avenue. Continuing, Platteter said that he is worried about access and parking on Xerxes Avenue. He also suggested that shadow studies be done before formal application. Mr. Keely asked Chair Platteter where he envisions apartment vehicle access. Platteter responded that in his opinion they should look at West 66th Street. Mr. Krumenauer interjected that he spoke with representatives from the City of Richfield and they too indicated they would like the access moved to West 66th Street. Platteter said to him that access point is a key piece, adding the City needs to look out for everyone. Commissioner Nemerov said he is hesitant on the walk-up apartments. He said if walk- up units aren't located in a residential pedestrian setting in his opinion they can look odd. Continuing, Nemerov said he also has a concern that the subject site could become an island if redevelopment doesn't occur to the south and asked the team if they considered more retail, adding it is important in this area to consider how "people get here and there". Mr. Keely said he agrees that walk-ups can appear odd or out of place; however, he believes if they get this corner "right" over time the area will evolve. Chair Platteter said a good point mentioned is pedestrian flow. Platteter said this site needs more work on walkability. Mr. Keely said he believes the linear park along West 66t' Street would encourage walkability and pedestrian movement. Keely explained the linear park would be a razed up walkway above the traffic zone that can move people through it, either to access their apartment or during a neighborhood walk. Commissioner Carr asked if they have decided if the linear park would have steps or would it be constructed on an incline. She said how it is constructed would make a difference. Mr. Keely said they are still refining aspects of the park, adding they want that edge softened. Carr said she doesn't want to see a huge wall along that portion of the site, adding she wants it to look attractive from the street. Commissioner Lee said she also finds the proposal intriguing and different. She added she likes the "light quality" of the proposal as it approaches Xerxes Avenue. Lee agreed that the team should look at a West 66th Street access vs. Xerxes Avenue. She said in her opinion the access indicated on the plans is too close to the residential properties on Xerxes Avenue. Continuing, Lee said the scale of the project can be broken up - through exterior building materials. She said attention should be paid to the east and Page 18 W south elevations before formal application and suggested adding water feature somewhere on the site. She said she envisions kids splashing in a fountain on a warm day; and the outdoor area not just grass and a few trees. Commissioner Hobbs suggested that they work hard to create a more interactive site, pointing out this corner is very prominent, adding he likes the fact that the proposed building is different and innovative. Concluding, Hobbs suggested developing a site that brings the public in; is welcoming. Commissioner Forrest said in thinking about the "island" aspect of the site she suggested that they take advantage of all opportunities to bring people in; reducing "our" car culture. She suggested that they look at everything and anything they can to get people in, get people walking. Forrest said the location is also very good in promoting health, noting in the future there will be a new mass transit facility in close proximity to this site. Forrest agreed with other comments that they should revisit the parking access. Concluding, Forrest thanked the team for bringing in "something different", adding the look of this building in contrast to the boxed apartments on the Southdale site creates a unique street scape. Chair Platteter thanked the team for their presentations; adding it's an interesting project. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Platteter acknowledgback of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COM §SIGN COMMENTS It was reported that the Edina Historic:%ociety will be featuring a tour of mid-century modern homes. The date is September I ;2015. Chair Platteter noted the Commission will con%, ue working on the 2016 work plan. Taylor Halva, student member informed the Comm _s'on this was her last Planning Commission meeting. Halva reported that she enjoye her role as Commissioner and learned a lot about city government. Halva would be lea for school in Boston this Fall. Chair Platteter and Commissioners thanked Halva for r service, adding she brought a lot to the Commission. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the City Council approved Stage 2 of th Greater Southdale Area Work Group Study. Teague said they expanded the w&r group from 12 Page 19 0 Minutes/Edina City Council/September I, 2015 Corporation, D/BXcel Energy, its Successors and Assigns, for within the City of E Member Stewart seconded the motion. Ayes: Brindle, Staunton, wart, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VII.C. PROPOSED POLICY F CONSERVATION APPROVED Manager Neal explained that the Conse ion to account for new utility franchise fees. T Conservation and Sustainability Fund. Manage fund, and a new City staff position that would and Sustainability Fund goals. Electric Service (CAS) FUND — and Susta' ility Fund was a special revenue fund created )15 utWTranchise fees would be dedicated revenue of the scussed eligible expenses, ineligible expenses for the rk across all departments to accomplish Conservation Member Staunton made a mot4l, seconded b ember Brindle, approving the proposed Conservation and Sustainabil!'WFund Policy. Ayes: Brindle, Staunton, Stew Swenson, Hovland Motion carried VILD. PARTNERS JOWNERGY PROGRAM PLANNING TEAM — A&POINTED Manager Neal exp,Jpffed that the Council was requested to appoint thre -large citizen members to the Partners in EnegfPrograrn Planning Team. The Cou discussed the student volunteer and whether to add a fourth me r. The Council each listed r recommended appointees and tallied the results. Member Brind made a motion, r ed by Member Swenson, appointing Carolyn Jackson, Roy Jenson, Ma all Silberstein, zy Eastaugh (student) to the Partners in Energy Program Planning TeaBrindle, Staunton, Stewart, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried VILE. SKETCH PLAN BEST BUY SITE, 3101 66TH STREET WEST — DIRECTION PROVIDED TO PROPONENT Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague explained that the Council was asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the two -acre parcel at 3101 66th Street West and 6612 Xerxes Avenue. The proponent was proposing to tear down the vacant Best Buy building and single family home, and redevelop with a six -story 210 unit apartment with a 3,800 square foot restaurant. To accommodate the request, two Comprehensive Plan amendments were needed including building height from 4 -stories to 6 -stories and housing density from 75 units per acre to 104. Proponent Presentation Kurt Krumenauer, Midwest Apartment Broker, introduced Pete Keely, Collage Architects. Mr. Keely discussed design ideas, presented drawings, and talked about where the project was at currently. He shared that they were in the process of hiring a traffic management consultant to help address some of those concerns and the plan was to have larger units in order to answer the demands of the market. Mr. Keely answered questions of the Council relating to where the Promenade ended and walkability. The Council pointed out the Greater Southdale Area Nine Guiding Principles and encouraged the developers to address each principle. The Council indicated support of the building design and the setback, but preferred a sidewalk all the way around the building. The Council expressed concern with the properties located near the site and noted the traffic study would be important. VILF. GREA UTHDALE AR WORK GROUP ADDITIONS — APPOINTED Mr. Teague shared t a oup had been interviewing candidates and introduced Michael Schroeder, Greater S- r dy Work Group Member. ►ge3 A+ D, Land Use and Community Facilities rd 4-18 Richfield Comprehensive Plan Medium Density Residential (MDR) The Medium Density Residential land use category was derivedfrom the Single-family Residential—High Density category (R-SFH) that was included in :the City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The medium density residential category replaces the R-SFH category. Naming this category medium density better clarifies the intent of the residential uses within this category. Medium density residential accommodates attached housing, predominantly townhomes or condominiums ranging from 7 to 12 units per acre. Medium density residential also includes manufactured housing. Medium - High Density Residential (MHD) Medium - High Density Residential includes multi- unit and multi -building developments. The intent is to allow for higher density housing, such. as townhome developments. The allowed densitywouldrangefrom 12 to 24 units per acre and no greater than 4 stories tall. R ec a 995-091- 35W' = r !� C �' �' >; ' G c,tll.`a 3cr :r �J - EEI IN SGS-`�L'G___��S CC � �• ./ y -C IN :�i nii au ini n.Zm RI ►� __ r - - - MC_ __ _ -- 7C .r _�_ 494 yG = oa RE -_ E? ti 5��� 5y Fi Cc .�.. ec 151 ORDINANCE NO. 2016 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PUD -9, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -9 DISTRICT AT 3101 WEST 66TH STREET AND 6612 XERXES AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to rezone the below described property to PUD, Planned Unit Development in accordance with the following: Sec. 36-493 Planned Unit Development District -9 (PUD -9) — Gateway Pointe (a) Legal description: Lot 1, Block 1, Southdale Addition; and RLS Number 629 Tract B; and Lot 1, Block 1, York Terrace, Hennepin County, Mn. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re -development plans received by the City on October 30, 2015 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2015-_, on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: All principal uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial — 3 District (PCD -3) Multi -Family Residential (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District -3 (PCD -3) (e) Conditional Uses: All conditional uses allowed in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District -3 (PCD -3) except multifamily residential. (f) Development Standards. Development standards per the PCD -3 Zoning District, except the following: AtT Building Setbacks Building Setbacks Front —York Avenue 15 feet Front — 66th Street (Story 1) 15 feet (Story 2-6) 28 feet Front — Xerxes (Story 1) 15-25 feet (per the plan) (Story 2-6) 26-33 feet (per the plan) Rear — Southdale Circle 15 feet Rear — South Side 12 feet Rear —South to Residential (Story 1 ) 50 feet (Story 2-6) 60 feet Building Height Six Stories & 70 feet Maximum Floor 2% Area Ratio (FAR) (g) Signs shall be allowed per the PCD -3 standards in Sec. 36-1714, with the exception that no signage shall be allowed on the Xerxes Avenue side of the building that directly faces residential uses. Signage may be allowed above the garage opening on Xerxes. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon Met Council review and decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: 4it DECEMBER MORNING BAM (DEC 21 SUNRISE: 7:51 AM) ❑ P ! o e � n D 13 13 d ima O lh o o ° 0 O n ' d D n 6725 YORK AVE. cl& [2 3111 u :° O lr ° n .o 13 43 1d a r,>° oy: DECEMBER MORNING 9AM � � P b \ O D ° ° n C a 8 o p D a ° ❑ D o g DECEMBER AFTERNOON 11AM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 12PM Q CJ P o o 0 o p D a ° o u �S 1R' 0. 4 ❑ O ❑o g Q o d DECEMBER EVENING 2PM 0 u a 88 &. q. . o u �S g 0 g DECEMBER EVENING 3PM DECEMBER MORNING 10AM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1PM DECEMBER EVENING 4PM (DEC 21 SUNSET: 4.41 PM) ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHADOW STUDY 03/25/2014 213 ..m.. EIG exx3 rocs nvx. HnoA30.7f�EM. Ids.' 1111—J 1'_" 1 n 1" I I MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON JUNE NOON DECEMBER NOON -01 -3/2 -512 -01 - Ha o o w s ru ov 03/25/2014 ti ^� ciI. L c A LiLQ G t o I 6 �1 � O MARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM / I S ,,- D O d g uuQj 9 S'o � I. o� L. �. �, �6n❑ o o a e o ❑ JUNE EVENING 3PM 140 0 o s• � I. o� L. DECEMBER EVENING SPM .�oA 0.6 The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site Redevelopment) Traffic and Parking Study For: City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55024 November 4, 2015 Prepared By: A WSB �t & Assoclates, Inc. WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55416 W CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Charles T. Rickart, P.E. Date: November 4, 2015 Reg. No. 26082 THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 1I ��b PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION...................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLEOF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... 3 LISTof FIGURES / TABLES.................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................................... 7 TRAFFICPROJECTIONS......................................................................................................................10 TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................16 PARKINGDEMAND ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................20 CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................21 LIST of FIGURES/ TABLES Figure1- Location Map........................................................................................................:...............5 Figure2 - Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................................6 Figure3 - Existing Traffic....................................................................................................................9 Figure 4 -Projected 2017 No -Build Traffic...............................................................................12 Figure 5 - Projected 2030 No -Build Traffic...............................................................................13 Figure 6 - Projected 2017 Build Traffic......................................................................................14 Figure 7 - Projected 2030 Build Traffic......................................................................................15 Figure 8 - Level of Service Ranges................................................................................................17 Table 1- Development Site Traffic Generation........................................................................11 Table 2 - Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary......................................................18 Table 3 - Projected No -Build Level of Service Summary......................................................19 Table 4 - Projected Build Level of Service Summary.............................................................19 Table 5 - Parking Required per City Code.................................................................................20 Table 6 - Parking Demand per ITE............................................................................................... 20 THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 �� PAGE 3 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and parking impacts for the proposed redevelopment of the Best Buy site and adjacent single family lot at 3101 66th Street and 6612 Xerxes Avenue. The site is located south of 66th Street between York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site redevelopment includes 210 multifamily residential units and a 1,760 sf coffee shop. 271 total parking spaces will be provided on the lower level and first floor. Access to the site will be from Southdale Circle and Xerxes Avenue which are the same driveway locations as what is provided today for the Best Buy site. The access on Xerxes Avenue will only be to the lower level for the residential portion of the development. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed development were evaluated for the existing and future 2017 and 2030 conditions at the following key intersections: 1. 66th Street at Xerxes Avenue 2. 66th Street at York Avenue 3. York Avenue at Southdale Circle North 4. York Avenue at Southdale Circle South 5. York Avenue at 69th Street 6. Xerxes Avenue at 69th Street The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 d S PAGE 4 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 1 The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) R �y City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) CITY OF EDINA �t WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 t 11/04/2015 PAGE 5 cm LD a L •e SAV 133XtfSX C IL THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT N0. 1686-68 PAGE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS The existing lane configurations and traffic control for the roadways impacted by the proposed development include: York Avenue (CSAH 31) is. a Hennepin County north/south a 4 -lane divided Minor Arterial roadway. Primary access on York Avenue in the area of the proposed site is from local streets and driveways into Southdale Center. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on York Avenue is 22,000 vehicles per day (vpd) south of 661h Street and 17,300vpd north of 66th Street. 66th Street (CSAH 53) is a Hennepin County east/west 4 -lane divided Minor Arterial roadway. Street access and access to adjacent developments are provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on 66th Street is 35 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on 66th Street is 17,100vpd east of Xerxes Avenue and 14,700vpd west of York Avenue. 69th Street is an east/west City 4 -lane divided collector roadway west of Xerxes Avenue in the City of Edina. East of Xerxes Avenue in the City of Richfield, 69th Street is a local two lane residential street. Direct access is provided to adjacent development and residential properties from the roadway. The speed limit posted on 69th Street is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on 69th Street is 3,000vpd east of Xerxes Avenue, 4,050vpd between York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue and 11,000vpd west of York Avenue. Xerxes Avenue is a local north/south two lane roadway which is the border between the City of Edina and City of Richfield. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on Xerxes Avenue is 750vpd. The lane configurations and traffic control at each of the study area intersection are as follows: 66th Street at Xerxes Avenue - Side Street Stop control (3/4 intersection) SB development driveway - one right turn only NB Xerxes Avenue - one right turn only EB 66th Street - one through/right, one through WB 661h Street - two through, one left 66th Street at York Avenue - Traffic Signal control SB York Avenue - one free right, two through, one left NB York Avenue - one free right, two through, two left EB 66th Street - one free right, two through, two left WB 66th Street - one free right, two through, two left York Avenue at Southdale Circle North - Side Street Stop control (right-in/right-out) SB York Avenue - two through NB York Avenue - one continuous right, two through WB Southdale Circle North - one right turn only THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 As�— PAGE 7 York Avenue at Southdale Circle South - Side Street Stop control (3/4 intersection) SB York Avenue - two through, one left NB York Avenue - one continuous right, two through WB Southdale Circle South - one right turn only York Avenue at 69th Street - Traffic Signal control SB York Avenue - one free right, two through, one left NB York Avenue - one through/right, one through, one left EB 69th Street - one through/right, one through, one left WB 69th Street - one through/right, one through, one left 69th Street at Xerxes Avenue - All -way Stop control SB Xerxes Avenue - one right/through/left NB Xerxes Avenue - one right/through/left EB 69th Street - one right, one through/left WB 69th Street - one right/through/left Weekday peak hour and Saturday peak hour turning movement counts and, daily approach counts were conducted during the weeks of October 12 to 17 and October 26 to 30, 2015. The AM peak hour counts were found to be 20% to 25% lower than the PM peak or Saturday peak counts. Therefore, only the PM and Saturday peak hours were analyzed with this study. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. Figure 3 shows the existing intersections and driveways along each corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study with the 2015 PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA r WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 ("'i PAGE 8 THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A51 PAGE 9 'qtr - r 165 r 1 10 i2? i or , 3a ;50 220 t sop, 1 a 1 414011M ,090 1w) -+ 20 ,r.. n, 41251, 1D f` >' o° r, ,1 a � 4 5 •50 � 4-� 14) J � � j r- un rw- r 45 `S''' 20 t 151 w 20 1 r IN f' (%' IN�.. i P.'" Extsft 2015 XX PM Peak Q JXXI SAT Peak g Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 e The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) City of Edina, Minnesota Existing Traffic 3 THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A51 PAGE 9 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In order to analyze the lane configuration and traffic control needs projected traffic volumes were determined for the area. Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2017 which is the year after the proposed site is anticipated to be fully developed and; for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The following sections outline the traffic generation, as well as the traffic distribution and projected traffic volumes. A. Background (Non -Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. In order to account for some background growth in traffic the Hennepin County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic from the 2015 counts to the 2017 and 2030 analysis years. In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These projects included: Southdale One Apartments - 80% occupied 6725 York Avenue - Under construction Traffic Studies were completed for these developments which documented the anticipated traffic levels. The future traffic volumes were included in the 2017 and 2030 background traffic projections. B. Development Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed development is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour trip generation for the proposed development. In addition, it was assumed that all the traffic from the site would be new and that no adjustments were made for dual purpose or pass-by/diverted trips. This also will provide for a worst case traffic condition. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA � �� WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 PAGE 10 Table 1 - Estimated Develo ment Site Trip Generation Use Size PM Peak Hour Saturda y Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Apartments 210 units 131 85 46 108 54 54 Coffee Shop 1,760 sf 74 37 37 144 72 72 Total Site 205 122 83 252 126 126 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition C. Traffic Distribution Site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including: • Previous traffic and transportation studies in the area. • Anticipated origins and destinations for specific land use (i.e. location of commercial uses in relationship to residential). • Existing travel patterns. • City's current Transportation Plan model. The generated trips for the proposed development were assumed to arrive or exit the site using access to York Avenue via Southdale Circle and on Xerxes Avenue. Based on these parameters the following general traffic distribution was used to distribute the projected traffic volumes from the anticipated uses: • 30% to/from the north • 40% to/from the south • 15% to/from the west • 15% to/from the east D. Projected Traffic Volumes The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non -development traffic growth to the existing 2015 traffic counts to determine the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated site development traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. Figures 4 - 7 shows the projected 2017 and 2030 No -Build and Build PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 ��� PAGE 11 eJ, Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4 }" The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) City of Edina, Minnesota 2017 No Build Traffic THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA AGO WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 PAGE 12 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 & e The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 No Build Traffic THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA d WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 / 1 t PAGE 13 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 6 (e The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) City of Edina, Minnesota 2017 Build Traffic THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 PAGE 14 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 7 e The Gateway Pointe (Best Buy Site) City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 'Build Traffic THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A3 PAGE 15 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the key impacted intersections on 66th Street, York Avenue, 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue. This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each analysis year. Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Figure 8. 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. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 PAGE 16 Figure 8 -Level of Service Ranges for Signalized and Un -signalized Intersections SOURCE: Level of Service threshold, from the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, 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 convertinga two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few .on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and%intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A 45- PAGE 17 80 r d 55 � d d ° r 50 o ; a LOS E o 35 of 35 LOS C U 25 20 0 c LOS C LOS B Z 15 LOS B 10 10 0 LOS LOS Z Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection SOURCE: Level of Service threshold, from the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, 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 convertinga two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few .on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and%intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A 45- PAGE 17 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 the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and 2015 traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS C or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. Table 2 — Existina (2014) Level of.4ervirP Intersection PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour LOS Delay sec veh LOS Delay sec veh 66th St at Xerxes Ave A (C) 8 A (B) 6 661h St at York Ave C (E) 34 C (E) 29 York Ave at Southdale Circle No A (A) 4 A (A) 3 York Ave at Southdale Circle So A (A) 6 A (A) 5 York Ave at 69th St C (E) 29 C (E) 27 69th St at Xerxes Ave B (C) 12 A (B) 10 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecasted Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2017 which is the year after the proposed site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2017 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the major intersections at 66th Street and York Avenue and York Avenue and 69th Street. I nn UAIMAY FUINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 PAGE 18 Table 3 - Forecasted No Build - Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 4 - Forecasted Build, shows that, assuming the proposed development, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2017 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2017 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the no -build condition. Table 4 - Forecasted Build - Level of Service 2017 2030 PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hr Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec veh sec veh sec veh sec veh 66th St at Xerxes Ave A (C) 8 A (B) 6 B (D) 12 B (C) 11 66th St at York Ave D (E) 36 C (E) 29 D (E) 46 C (E) 30 York Ave at A (A) 5 A (A) 3 A (B) 9 A (B) 8 Southdale Circle No York Ave at A (A) 6 A (A) 6 A (C) 10 A (C) 10 Southdale Circle So York Ave at 691h St C (E) 29 C (E) 28 D (E) 34 C (E) 28 691h St at Xerxes Ave B (C) 12 B (C) 11 C (D) 20 C (D) 18 C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 4 - Forecasted Build, shows that, assuming the proposed development, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2017 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2017 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the no -build condition. Table 4 - Forecasted Build - Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 �, PAGE 19 2017 2030 PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hr Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec veh sec veh sec veh sec veh 66th St at Xerxes Ave A (C) 10 A (C) 8 B (D) 14 B (C) 12 66th St at York Ave D (E) 36 C (E) 29 D (E) 46 C (E) 31 York Ave at A (A) 7 A (A) 5 B (C) 12 A (B) 10 Southdale Circle No York Ave at A (A) 8 A (A) 7 B (C) 14 B (C) 12 Southdale Circle So York Ave at 69th St C (E) 31 C (E) 29 D (E) 37 C (E) 29 691h St at Xerxes Ave B (C) 14 B (C) 13 C (D) 24 C (D) 20 C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 �, PAGE 19 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of 219 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 271 spaces. Table 5 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 5 — Parking Re uired Per Citv Code Use Size Rate Parking Parking Size Rate Parking Required Provided Multi -Family Reg uired Multi -Family Residential 210 units 1/unit 210 251 Coffee Shop 1,760 sf 1/200sf 9 20 Total Parking 270 219 271 Source: City of Edina The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Table 6 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking assuming the proposed full development of the site. Table 6 — Site Parking Demand Per ITE Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 (0`� PAGE 20 Weekday Use Size Rate Parking Reg uired Multi -Family Residential 210 units 1.20/unit 252 Coffee Shop 1,760 sf 10.40/1000sf 18 Total Parking 270 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 (0`� PAGE 20 CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed Best Buy site redevelopment project includes the addition of 210 apartment units and 1,700 sf of coffee shop space. The site is anticipated to generate 205 trips in the weekday PM peak hour and 252 trips in the Saturday peak hour. • Existing (2015) traffic operations, assuming the Southdale Residential is now 80% completed, all the key intersections are operating at overall LOS C or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.. • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2017 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. • Intersection traffic operations for the Build conditions in 2017 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. All movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2017 and 2030. The overall LOS and delays do not show any significant changes from the no - build condition. • The proposed available parking would meet the City's Code and are below those identified by ITE. No parking space variances would be required. Based on these'conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Construct the access and pedestrian accommodations as shown in the site plan (Figure 2). No additional roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate the proposed site development. THE GATEWAY POINTE (BEST BUY SITE) 11/04/2015 CITY OF EDINA WSB PROJECT NO. 1686-68 A6� PAGE 21 Ms. Dona E[Utime*n 6450 York Ave. S Apt. 309 Edina, MN 55435 ezow Cary Teague From: John Stark <jstark@cityofrichfield.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:23 PM . To: Scott H. Neal; Cary Teague Cc: Steve Devich; Melissa Poehlman; Karen Barton Subject: Former Best Buy Retail Development Scott and Cary, We had previously shared our comments and concerns with the developer on August 12. Here are Richfield City Staff's comments on the proposed development for the former Best Buy store on York/Xerxes and 66th Street: • The density on this site is much higher than we feel comfortable with along Richfield's border. It appears that the site is approximately 2 acres. With 210 units, that's 105du/acre. Our comments on the Comp Plan revision related to the Lennar Project said that we oppose densities over 24du/acre along the shared border. I think the final Lennar plans were between 75-80. • 273 parking stalls, including 11 tandem stalls (which we tend to discount), doesn't seem like enough (we rarely go below 1.5 stalls/DU which would equate to 315 on this site). The most likely (and perhaps only) spillover area is on Xerxes Ave. • We are concerned about an increase of traffic on Xerxes Ave. from the development (especially going south into the neighborhood). • We are concerned about 6 stories abutting the single-family neighborhood (their comp plan allows for only 4 stories on this site). Residents and the Mayor have vehemently opposed buildings over four stories along shared border. • We would be supportive of 20% of the units being affordable to households earning 50-80% of the AMI. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. -John John Stark I Director of Community Development City of Richfield. Tel: (612) 861-9775 istark(&citvofrichfield.orq ...A great place to thrive