Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 02-24 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAgenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:00 PM I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes 2016-02-10 Planning Commission Meeting V. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing: Subdivision of 7600 Metro Boulevard, Edina Public Schools B. Public Hearing: Preliminary Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 6444, 6500, 6525, 6550 and 3250 66th Street, DLC Residential 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 some issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere 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 A. Grandview 2 Tax Increment Financing District - Eden & Arcadia Avenue 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. I. Call To Order Draft MinutesO Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Chair Platteter called the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 11. Roll Call Answering the roll all were Chair Platteter, Commissioners Strauss, Thorsen, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest and Student Commissioners Kivimaki and Ma. Staff present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director and Jackie Hoogenakker Commission Support Staff. Absent Members: Commissioners Hobbs and Lee III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by Thorsen to approve the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting agenda. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion by Thorsen to approve the January 13th and 27th Planning Commission meeting minutes with changes noted to the January 27, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit. Edina Public Schools, 6754 Valley View Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported Edina Public Schools is proposing to build a 142,000 square foot addition to the existing high school. In May of 2015 voters passed a successful referendum part of which was to build an addition located on the northwest side of the high school to house 9th grade students. With graphics Teague pointed out the proposed additions, changes to the existing campus. Concluding, Teague stated staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval based on the following findings: Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Dierks highlighted aspects of the project for further discussion: • Campus circulation interior and exterior. Highlighting vehicle and bus routes, parking, stacking, etc. • Work with the City on road systems (Valley View Road) to improve safety, stacking, etc. • Increase location of bike racks • Review access points • Continued work with the Kline Mile Creek Watershed District on all storm water management plans, pointing out their locations. • Lighting. Use of LED lighting throughout the site. • Exterior building materials are to complement the existing buildings with matching brick colors (light and dark), glass (clear and ceramic fritted); metal panel complements the existing copper panels, etc. • Review of ALTA survey circulation. • Increase in landscaping Concluding, Dierks said the District continues to work with the City, neighborhoods, and Watershed District. Discussion/Comments Commissioners expressed support for the project and the addition itself, noting the proposed addition meets all zoning requirements for building height, setback, density, etc. Commissioners expressed the following: • Acknowledgement that the traffic analysis by SRF indicates less than ideal conditions at access points entering/exiting school property. It was acknowledged that those "conditions" occur during the peak times of school start and end. Commissioners stressed the importance of the School District and City working together to mitigate traffic; now and in the future. • With regard to the condition 3.1) of the Engineering Memo- aligning the west most entrance and cross walks with Chapel Drive, add to that condition "unless another alternative to address the issues is agreed upon by the city engineer and school district". It was acknowledged that a patrol officer will continue to be posted at intersections. It was further noted that the sign on Antrim Road prohibiting the turn onto Chapel Drive during peak hours is enforced. • Pay attention to drainage for both the neighbors to the east and west of the site. If feasible consider adding vegetation along the westerly property line. Additional landscaping could mitigate possible drainage issues. • A firm suggestion that the School District should take advantage of their student body and work with them to ensure safe pedestrian and bike way finding. Implement measures as walkers and bike traffic increases. • The District should look at all exterior lighting to ensure that lighting was directed away from residential properties. Implement state of the art lighting measures with the suggestion that lighting be down lit, "cut-off'. Public Hearing MM Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 8. The school district should work to improve bike and pedestrian way finding and gather input from students and pertinent clubs. Add more bike racks. 9. Add landscaping where feasible along the west property line. 10. Down lit, "cut-off' lighting is to be installed in the parking areas, to meet city code regulations. Motion seconded by Commissioner Strauss. Ayes; Strauss, Olsen, Nemerov, Carr, Forrest, Platteter. Nay; Thorsen Commissioner Thorsen stated he supports the project; it's a good one; however, entered a Nay vote because in his opinion some of the additional conditions were ambiguous and not within our scope. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Correspondence And Petitions Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials. VIII.Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Carr reported that the work group for the Greater Southdale Area continues to meet on phase 2 IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported that a work session with the Greater Southdale Area Task Force is being planned for March 23, 2016. Teague said he would get back with Commissioners with further details. Planner Teague reminded Commissioners to RSVP for the Boards and Commission Dinner event on February 29th. X. Adjournment Motion by Strauss to adjourn the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting at 8:50. Seconded by Olsen. Motion carried. IctfuIlly submitted 6#�o, 4,91N�,1'�,, o� e Cn • rN�bxronl+'{69 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 24, 2016 V.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Independent School District No. 273, the Edina School District is requesting a subdivision of 7600 Metro Boulevard. (See property location on pages Al -A2.) The purpose of the request is to divide off 9.29 acres from the existing 20.60 acre parcel that is the currently occupied by Film Tec. The School District would like to use the 9.29 acre site as the future home of a new bus garage. Site Plan Review would be required when the School District is ready to proceed with a proposal. (See applicant narrative and proposed subdivision on pages A3 -A6.) Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Office/light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial uses including office. Easterly: Commercial retail Center; Commercial shopping center. Southerly: Southdale Center; zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and guided Neighborhood Commercial. Westerly: Office/light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial uses including office. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a 195,506 square foot warehouse/office building. The site is relatively flat with very little landscaping. (See page A2.) No changes are proposed for the site at this time. The School District will be submitting a Site Plan to develop the remaining 9.29 acres in the near future. Planning Guide Plan designation: Industrial Zoning: PID, Planned Industrial District Lot Dimensions Park Dedication No park dedication is required. This property was originally platted as 10 lots in 1964. (See the original Plat on page A7.) Therefore, park dedication has already been paid. Easements The city engineer has reviewed the proposed subdivision and found it to be acceptable. A 10 -foot drainage and utility easement has been added to the new lot line. The east -west drainage and utility easement that originally followed a lot line in the 1964 Plat should be vacated. There are no utilities within that easement, and it runs through the existing building. This shall be made a condition of approval. Any future sidewalks would be required to have easements over them as part of the future site plan review for the bus garage. The fire marshal has reviewed the plans and recommended a fire lane easement for access be added. The applicant has agreed to the easement as demonstrated on pages A8 -A9. This easement would be 35 feet wide, and run just west of the proposed new lot line. This easement woujd be filed at Hennepin County at the same time as the subdivision. Parcel B The existing building would be located on Parcel B. The building would meet all zoning ordinance requirements, including setback and height. Based on the square footage of the existing building, which is primarily warehouse, 196 parking stalls are required. The site plan shows 204, which complies with the ordinance. Parking would again be reviewed as part of the site plan review for Parcel A. 2 Area Lot Width REQUIRED 2 acres Parcel A 9.29 acres Parcel B 11.31 acres Park Dedication No park dedication is required. This property was originally platted as 10 lots in 1964. (See the original Plat on page A7.) Therefore, park dedication has already been paid. Easements The city engineer has reviewed the proposed subdivision and found it to be acceptable. A 10 -foot drainage and utility easement has been added to the new lot line. The east -west drainage and utility easement that originally followed a lot line in the 1964 Plat should be vacated. There are no utilities within that easement, and it runs through the existing building. This shall be made a condition of approval. Any future sidewalks would be required to have easements over them as part of the future site plan review for the bus garage. The fire marshal has reviewed the plans and recommended a fire lane easement for access be added. The applicant has agreed to the easement as demonstrated on pages A8 -A9. This easement would be 35 feet wide, and run just west of the proposed new lot line. This easement woujd be filed at Hennepin County at the same time as the subdivision. Parcel B The existing building would be located on Parcel B. The building would meet all zoning ordinance requirements, including setback and height. Based on the square footage of the existing building, which is primarily warehouse, 196 parking stalls are required. The site plan shows 204, which complies with the ordinance. Parking would again be reviewed as part of the site plan review for Parcel A. 2 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed two -lot subdivision of 7600 Metro Boulevard. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The resulting uses on Parcel B meet all zoning ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the vacant parcel will require Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission and City Council. ; 2. Dedication of a 35 -foot fire lane easement along the new lot line. The fire lane easement shall be filed at Hennepin County by staff at the same time as the subdivision. 3. The east -west drainage and utility easement through the existing building must be vacated prior to building on Parcel A. Deadline for a City Decision: April 5, 2016 9 Hennepin County Property Map 74th Strc� E1 .: _ t - , Ili,,,. PARCEL ID: 0911621330001 OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 7600 Metro Blvd, Edina MN 55439 PROPERTY TYPE: Industrial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: PARCEL AREA: 20.59 acres, 896,811 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: A( E:ftr+a 1f;�a�grt,d1 ���u1��3��t� t' Date: 2/18/2016 Comments: SUBJECT PROPERTY This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 2/18/2016 - • PARCEL ID: 0911621330001 OWNER NAME:, PARCELADDRESS: 7600 Metro Blvd, Edina MN 55439 PROPERTY TYPE: Industrial- Preferred HOMESTEAD: PARCEL AREA: 20.59 acres, 896,811 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract MARKET VALUE.- TAX ALUE:TAX TOTAL: SALE PRICE: SALE DATA SALE CODE: Comments: SUBJECT PROPERTY This data(i)is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable fo r a ny damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 Date: To: From: Re: N*Lding- V fools DEFINING EXCELLENCE January 26, 2016 Cary Teague, City Planner, City of Edina PPCA GO t-lg-R R �-V( V C-- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 5701 Normandale Road Edina, MN 55424 (952)848-3900 mmedina.W.mn.us Margo Bauck, Director of Business Services, Edina Public Schools Subdivision Application Independent School District No. 273, the Edina School District, is submitting an Application for Subdivision of a parcel of land located at 7600 Metro Blvd., Edina, MN. The Edina School District is purchasing 9.29 acres of vacant land of the overall parcel for the purpose of construction of a new district transportation services facility. The overall parcel is 20.60 acres and currently contains an office/warehouse building with parking located on the east side of the parcel, which is operated by the tenant Film Tec ("Film Tec Building"). The Edina School District is the applicant for the subdivision and the owners of the property, Jasue LLC and Aleff LLC, support the application. The overall parcel is described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, Edina Interchange Center. The property being purchased by the Edina School District is the vacant portion of the overall parcel, described as Lot 3, 4, 10, 11, and a portion of Lots 5 and 12, of Block 7, Edina Interchange Center. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide the overall parcel and move the property lines of Lot 4 and 11 to the east onto a portion of Lot 5 and Lot 12, with the new property lines setback 25.5 feet from the west side of the Film Tec Building. The acquisition by the Edina School District includes property where a fire lane is currently located, which will require an easement agreement between the School District and the owners Jasue LLC and Aleff LLC, to provide access to Film Tec to the fire lane and to the HVAC/mechanical equipment located on the west side of the Film Tec Building. The construction of a new transportation services facility is an investment in district infrastructure that was included in the facilities bond referendum approved by voters in May, 2015. Just over $8 million was earmarked for the construction of a new transportation facility, with plans to also offset a portion of construction costs with proceeds from the sale of the current facility. a, A3 Utility Notes ALTA/A CSM Land Title Survey For application for Lot Line Adjustment per City of Edina Ordinances Part of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Block 7, Edina Interchange Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. .1 m taw. Flood Note Significant Observations ©i�n�nrrv�n z,urnarc, r.av •,u'•"u`r+w mWM.+r�rv�r.r..... Zoning s "' (&" * ww 0 0 N N .7 V) N L� DWO m CXz O._ �L O coa aao oQ C NO C m D ; i V I Hv ' fsc m :a r 3 ' a i LO o �-.®IBnJ,®e gg - gZQ CID � III � II �--- •» � E --------------------11-- cx------------- I— — EN.W _ _ _ IR qYo: rC>'-,InD; I ��FmY�45 O, rR 5` 1 IX A R �I @ ��62 O ' 4v C Nal [n v I pl A • r�� 6 g NpDmyrn0rn n D 1 ^ tu 1 I l \J QD �I tl3q '• u 8 ''+ - i - u v ums —� CI w 1 0 g� ?rn mlO i I - m8g nN� -- bi,. m \ - - - - - - - -n - - 1 \�14R I F W2)3) 1139L93 o FSI JB{.py -- T--- _ -.- b _ _ _ �•_ ME7R0 BL liD (6O� DEDICATED PUBLIC ROW) %II Gro' [i Number. 1— 24 Gus tcfson Geom a tics, //c Best and Flanagan LLP1. na "Professionalism, Integrity, Accuracy 60 South Sixth Street Suite 2700 www.ggeomatics.com Minneapolis, MN 5540 715-377-5653 1 quotes®ggeomatics.com Record Txgal Dc%crip ion Parcel A: Lots 3, 4, 5, b, 7. 10, 11. 12, 13, and 14, Block 7, Edina Interchange C goatee, HennepinCounty,Minnesota. P arccl R: Non-exclusive easement for railroad track spur line purposes; as contained in Quitclaim tweed dated December 9, 1966, recorded December 27, 1966, as Do-ctnnert No. 3634909. Proposed L.e@al Descriptlans Proposed Parcel A: Lots 3, 4, 10, 11 and that part of Lots 5 and 12. Block 7, Edina Interchange Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly of a lite described as follows: Commencing aat the northwest corner of,amid Lot 3- thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 32 rninutes 23 seconds Haut, aTon,4 the north line of said 1: ots 3. 4, and 5, a distance of '65.11 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 27 Tninutes 37 seconds East. parallel with the WesteTly lines of said Lots 3 and 10, a distance of I V).09 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 iniuutes 23 seconds West a distance of 5.35 feet; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 12.77 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 5.35 feet: thence South (YJ degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 745.13 feet to the south line of said Lot 12 and there terminating. Proposed Remnant Parcel 13: Lots 6, 7, 13, 14 :and that part of Lots 5 and 12, Block 7, Fdina Trtcrc:hangc Ccntcr, Hennepin County, %linnesota. lying easterly of Linc described as follows: Commencing at iht: norihwcst corner orsaid Lai 3; thence; on an assumed bearing c!* North 89 dcgrecs 32 minvics 23 seconds East, along the north line orsaid Lots 3, 4, and 5, a di,,taanec ol'465.I I !i_ct to the point mal' be -inning of the line to be described; 01, -nec South 00 deg%= 27 minutes 37 seconds East, pantllel with the cc•Lstt:rly lines of ti:aid Lots 3 and 10, a distanec: of 109.09 fcct,, thence South 99 degrees 32 minutes 23sccond% Fest a distance of 5.35 feet; thence South Q0 dcgrc N- 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 12.77 fret; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds Fast a distance of 5.35 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minute,,; 37 sn onds Fust a di!=nce of 748.13 feet to the south line of said Lot 12 and there tenni nating. Thin lq--ul description dcscrihc e the saame property insured in Firit American Title insurance Company Commitment No. XC:'S-750086-TvIPLS %0h a date of August 20, 2015 at 7:30 A.M.. N. 0 Wo ^ Drainage and utility caascm=ts as cuntained in Release and Grant of Euscmcnts elated Aqust 27, 1964, recorded December 7, 1904, as Document No. 3515434. (At FEC"1'S. SHOW N HNR1-.'ON). 1 E} Terms and conditions of License AL7cerne.7tt bclwc n GercraI Motors Corporation and Northern States Power Company, dated .Tune 8, 1966, recorded July 8, 1966, as Document No. 3612930. (AFFECTS, SITOWN ITEREON. TTM INTL-NTT APPEARS TO TIA\T. BEEN THE ZEST 10' OF 4— D o 4i � 25 WrST 767H STREET 11 I W C N � 4 I (n rn ( i 3 N I IN I I nn � CI N N M m bc vp� L I� �a NOT TO SCALE I ( < IW OLpp I= I I 1� I T 12 I I I I I In M$ N M ED/NA INDUSTRIAL BLVD A fire lane access easement over and across that part of Lots 5 and 12, Block 7, Edina Interchange Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 3 in said Block 7; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds East, along the north line of Lots 3, 4, and 5 in said Block 7, a distance of 465.11 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East, parallel with the westerly lines of said Lots 3 and 10, a distance of 109.09 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 5.35 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 12.77 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 5.35 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 748.13 feet to the south line of said Lot 12; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 35.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 870.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 35.00 feet to the point of beginning. w9sN�",r� o e �ay • tNR�RtoT�`�E9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 24, 2016 V. B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description DLC Residential, LLC is proposing to redevelop the 5.6 acre office building sites at 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West. (See property location on pages A1— A5.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings and redevelop the site with the following two phase development: Phase 1 (3250 66th Street West): ➢ A 6-7 story, 227 -unit apartment building, with two levels of underground parking, a club room, fitness area, and a green roof with an amenity terrace, including a pool. Phase 2 (6650 Xerxes Avenue): ➢ A 5-6 story, 145 -unit apartment building. Five and four floors of housing above the parking and amenities area. The primary entrance to the site would be off Xerxes Avenue. There is a secondary access available off of York. Both of these access points exist today. There is a shared access arrangement with the adjacent property owner at 3316 66th Street west. That shared access would also remain. See narrative and plans on pages A6—A45, and larger scale plans in the attached development book. This application was submitted after the effective date of the City's new affordable housing policy of requiring 10% of the units to be affordable in a rezoning request does apply. The applicant is proposing only 3% of the project (7 units in Phase 1 and 4 units in Phase 2.) To accommodate the request, the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: ➢ Re -guiding of the site from RM, Regional Medical to CAC, Community Activity Center. As discussed during the sketch plan review of this project; the proposal to re - guide the property to CAC includes the three parcels to the east at 6444, 6500 and 6525 Xerxes Avenue. Those three property owners have agreed to the re - guiding of their property. This is the only Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested; the proposed height (7 stories) and density (66 units per acre) would meet the standards of the CAC. In addition, the following land use applications are requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1 &2, Planned Office 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: 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 and adoption of the Zoning Ordinance for the PUD. 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 A122 -A124; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A125—A130.) 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. (See pages A13 -A14 of the applicant narrative that highlights the changes made since sketch plan.) Those changes include: ➢ Inclusion of the easterly adjacent parcels in the Application for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. 2 ➢ While the south setbacks have been maintained as previously shown, the upper levels of Phase I and all of Phase II are moved southwards to free up land on the north end of the site for possible extension of 65th Street. ➢ The Phase I, underground parking footprint has been shortened so it no longer extends under the requested future ROW. ➢ The floor elevations of the buildings have been lowered about six feet. Both levels of the parking garage are deeper into the ground. As a result, the terraces built over the parking have a much better relationship to elevations of the adjacent land and relate much more closely to the internal pedestrian street. ➢ The residential amenities that were previously located on the upper level of the garage are moved up to the first floor where they now have a direct relationship to the street level lobby, the guest parking and to 66th Street. The dwelling units previously located on first floor of the south end of the Phase I building, are relocated to the fifth floor, thereby adding strength and prominence to the south fagade of Phase I on 66th Street. ➢ The character of the internal street has been enhanced. The southward extension of York Avenue is enhanced with upgraded paving materials, pedestrian scaled lighting and stoops, stairs and benches so it will function as an attractive north -south pedestrian link between the residential neighborhood to the north and the Southdale District on the south. ➢ This revised plans show landscaping of the "free -right" turn lane at the 66th & York intersection. ➢ The south elevation of the Phase I building has been modified to further emphasize its position as a gateway to this District. The five -story wing has been moved forward to increase its visibility along 66th Street. The one story base has been increased in height to a story -and -a half with added sun -screens and pedestrian features. And the height of the six - story portion has been increased and exaggerated by the addition of a tall, illuminated parapet that will anchor the northward view of the York Avenue street corridor. This parapet will also conceal the roof -mounted cell phone towers that will be installed on its roof. Dwelling unit count in Phase I has been reduced from 230 apartments to 227 but the number of bedrooms has increased from 320 to 338. ➢ The gross area of Phase I has increased from 243,800 square feet to 255,008 square feet. 3 ➢ Phase I residential parking has increased from 379 cars to 391; 353 parking spaces are enclosed and secure for residents; and 38 spaces are on the surface and can be used by visitors and guests. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: A multi -story York of Edina condos; zoned PRD -4, Planned Residential District and guided High Density Residential. Easterly: City of Richfield; Commercial shopping center. Southerly: Southdale Center; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Westerly: Office buildings; zoned POD, Planned Office District and guided Regional Medical. Existing Site Features The subject property is 5.6 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains two office buildings with surrounding surface parking. The access to the site from 66th street is share with the adjacent property owner to the west. There is also a shared access and parking agreement with this property, and an access agreement to York Avenue to the north. (See pages A2—A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: RM — Regional Medical. (See page A5.) Zoning: POD — 1 & 2, Planned Office District. (See page A5a.) Site Circulation Access to the site would be available in the same three locations of today; from Xerxes, 66th Street and York. (See page A82.) Shared easements would remain in place with the property owner to the west, for access, circulation and parking. Circulation includes access out to York Avenue. Pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A sidewalk is proposed along 66th and along Xerxes. This sidewalk should be constructed to extend to the property boundary on Xerxes. (See page A32.) Another sidewalk is proposed north -south through the project; this sidewalk should also be extended to York Avenue. (See page A32.) These shall be made a condition of any approval. (See engineering memo dated February 12, 2016 on pages A114 -A115.) These sidewalks will provide the pedestrian access to Southdale for not only residents within this project, but residents to the north. Phase 2 would include 0 a second north south sidewalk on the east side of the drive -aisle. (See page A27.) As a result of the recent discussions with Hennepin County regarding elimination of right turn lanes at this intersection; it is likely that the County would be open to eliminating the "free right". 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 had demonstrated what that space could be in their proposed plans showing the green space landscaping and wide sidewalk to the street. (See page A32.) 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 would not impact the proposed development itself in terms of building location. Traffic & Parking Study Kimley Horn conducted a parking and traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A46—A108.) 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 A77 of the study.) Concern has been raised by residents to the north of this project. (See attached petition.) The traffic study has concluded that 32% of the outbound trips from the site would be to the north. (See page A82.) Extension of 65th Street Within the draft of the Greater Southdale Area Planning Study, 65th Street is contemplated to be extended to connect at Xerxes Avenue. (See page A131. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a 30 -foot easement for the future roadway. This segment would not be built until all necessary right-of-way has been obtained. The property owner would still be able to utilize this area for parking and green space. Bike Parking for Residents Bike parking would be provided for each unit within the building. A total of 4,026 square feet of bike storage would be provided in the two levels of underground parking (See page A26.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 41 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is 5 proposing 112 over story trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Oak, Hackberry, Maple Linden, Birch and Spruce. (See pages A22—A23, and the development plan book.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Staff would work with Hennepin County regarding boulevard trees. Trash Enclosures The trash area is located in the first level of the parking garage inside the building. (See page A26.) Trash would be collected within the building. 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 Al 14 -Al 19. Highlighted items include: a requirement for 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 February 12, 2016. Building/Building Material The building would be constructed of high quality brick and stone, pre -finished metal panels and glass. (See renderings on pages A29—A30 and A37 -A41.) A materials board will be presented at the Planning Commission Meeting. Mechanical Equipment Minimal mechanical equipment has been shown on the plans. 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 A45.) Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be POD, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of monument signs 0 and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Temporary Cell Pole Currently there are cellular antennas on top of the office building that is to be demolished. Therefore, the applicant will be required to temporarily locate a 75 -foot cell pole north of the proposed new building. (See page A31.) This pole would be removed and the antennas re -located on top of the proposed new apartment building, once the new building is constructed. Comprehensive Guide Plan To accommodate the request, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested so the future land use on all corners of 66th and Xerxes/York are consistent. ➢ From RM, Regional Medical to CAC, Community Activity Center. The CAC, Community Activity Center allows up to 105 units per acre. The proposed density of 66 units per acre meets the Comprehensive Plan, but is on the higher end of existing high density residential in Edina. The site's location on an arterial roadway provides a good location for higher density. 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 of these elements. There is adequate utility capacity available; the new transit station is located across the street at Southdale; the Kimley Horn traffic study concludes there would be minimal impact to the roads, and the existing roads could support the development; underground parking is provided, there are minimal surface parking lots at ultimate buildout, the open space area is provided along the front streets and in front of the building in phase 1; affordable housing is proposed, but does not meet the housing policy - 3% of the housing units (11 total) 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 7 land in Edina, the requirement for affordable housing, and the added cost of redeveloping a site with existing buildings: 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 (Senior) 7500 York 416 36 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven (Senior) 3400 Parklawn 100 42 The Waters Colonial Drive 139 22 69th & York Apartments 3121 69th Street 114 30 Lennar (The Onyx) 6725 York 240 52 71 France (Byerly's) 71 France 234 23 Beacon (66 West) 66 France 39 43 Gateway Pointe 3101 66th St. 210 105 Millennium at Southdale (under consideration) 6550 Xerxes & 3250 66rh St. 375 66 Land Use. The map on the following page shows how the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to accommodate the change in designation. In making this change, all four corners of 66th and XerxesNork would be designated as CAC, Community Activity Center. This area is seen as a gateway into Edina and the Southdale Area; this change in designation makes the land uses allowed on all four corners consistent. The changes are the pink added to the map. Legend LDR-Low Density Residential OR- Ofke Residential ® RM- Regional M ecfcal LDAR- Low DensityAttached Residential FM 0- Once OSP - Open Space and Parks MCR -Medium Density Residential MXC - Moved Use Center PSP- PMCISemi-Public _ _ _ FDR- High Densty Resklertial" CAC- Commonly Actiyly Center _ _ !, LAH- Drruted Access Hgrrway /�- - NC- neighborhood Commercial - I. Industnal 2 3-5 V W 64th 8e HDR 4 9 w,...,, 2 12 kf, _ _66th 6t _. W 6611. It 4 _r ! 2 1 3-5 OR ('3C ' 4 W 69th St -: 2 �� 10 W70th St 3 tt— _ .ice. 08 2 3 2 Height Limits 4 4 ' 2 2 Stories: 24' ` ALlK „w. 3 Stories: 36' 4 Stories: 48' 4 5 Stories: 60' o _ 8 Stories: 96' 2 2 9 Stories: 108' 2 4 HDR 10 Stories: 120' Parklawn Ave 4 12 Stories: 144' 2 Standard Height HDR 9 2 Podium Height 4 i\II)R W 76th St 4 OR 912 F 9 '.2 W77th 6t . -- --- OR - '. innesote Dr �:_ OR 12 rri r n t c) n Future Land Use Plan with _ Building Heights e Cit of Edina y Southeast Quadrant 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.6B Data Source: URS e o 05 M,,es 9 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; 10 h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and L 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. If the site is guided "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. Having more housing in this commercial area increases the mix of uses within the district, as retail is still the predominant land use in the CAC. The site would be pedestrian friendly with pedestrian paths planned through and around the site. A boulevard style sidewalk would be provided along Xerxes and 66th Street, and on both sides of the north -south drive - aisle that will separate the two buildings from each phase. Phase 1 will include a sidewalk on the west side of the private drive to allow pedestrians from the north to walk through the site to connect to Southdale and the Metro Transit facility. The applicant is proposing to provide 11 units for affordable housing (3% of the development.) This application was submitted after the City's Housing Policy took effect. The Policy was being considered during their sketch plan review, so the developer was aware of the likelihood of 10% affordable housing being required. Gateway Pointe will be providing 5% of their units for affordable housing, and the Policy was not in effect when that project was reviewed and approved. Staff recommends that 10% of the units, 22 in Phase 1 and 14 in Phase 2 be designated for affordable housing consistent with Edina's Affordable Housing Policy. (See Policy on pages Al20-Al21.) This will assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goal of 212 units by 2020. To date the City has approved 169 units for affordable housing and 20 have been built; and another 49 are anticipated in the next 1-2 years. The building serves as a "gateway" into Edina. The curved shape of the first level of the building is unique and fits the curved shape of the lot. The primary parking area would be underneath the building. 11 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 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 use, multiple -family residential housing is a use allowed in the Community Activity Center, as described in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Assuming approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the site would be guided as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages the mixing of retail and multi -family residential uses. The proposed plan brings more housing to the area, which currently is a minority use in the CAC. 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; This project is for a single land use, however, multi -family residential is a minority use in the district. It is a permitted use in the CAC, therefore it is consistent with the objectives of the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As indicated in table earlier within this report, the proposed density is within the range allowed in this district. The site will benefit by the 12 amenities within walking distance including Southdale, Metro Transit and Fairview Hospital. 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. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying POD 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 the last pages of this staff report.) 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 design of the building is of a high quality. Proposed materials include high quality brick, stone, and metal panel. (See page A40.) The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space within the development. The site is mostly building and paved surface today. 13 COMPLIANCE TABLE * Variance or would require change to PUD ** Council may approve 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— 2008 Comprehensive Plan 14 City Standard POD Proposed Building Setbacks Front — 66 75 feet 20 feet * Side — East 75 feet 11 feet* Side — West 75 feet 20 feet* Front — North 75 feet 90 feet* Building Height 12 stories & 6-7 stories 144 feet 74-82 feet Maximum Floor Area Floor to Area Ratio may exceed 1.0 on a 1.9** Ratio FAR) case by 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. Density 105 units per acre for CAC, 66 Community Activity Center Parking Stalls 227 enclosed residential— Phase 1 350 enclosed + 29 surface 294 total office — Phase 1 250 surface* 145 enclosed — Phase 2 249 enclosed + 11 surface Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance or would require change to PUD ** Council may approve 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— 2008 Comprehensive Plan 14 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Land Use reasonable to allow the proposed development? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. To the north are high density residential developments consistent with the proposal. Multi -family housing is an allowed use in the Regional Medical District. This site is seen as the gateway into Edina and the Southdale Area. The proposed land use change would allow all four corners of 66th and York/Xerxes to be consistent. 2. The proposed development is within the height and density guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Kimley Horn concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. • 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 10-13, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provides a land use with the CAC area that is in the minority; thereby creating more mixture of uses within the area. b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Boulevard style sidewalks would be provided around on all roadways and a new -north south sidewalk connection 15 would be made to provide a new connection to Southdale and Metro Transit for the residents to the north on York Avenue. c. Podium Height would be used on 66th Street. d. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative, (See page A11.) including: Green roofs, 15% increase in energy efficiency; participation in the Xcel Energy EDA program, and green construction practices. 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. Provides affordable housing. 2. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, re - guiding this site would provide consistent land use designation for all four corners of 66th and York/Xerxes, which is viewed as a gateway into Edina and the Southdale Area. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. Kimley-Horn 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 A46—A108.) 4. The public realm provided for the development would be within and around the sidewalk areas. The proposed plans invite people through the project from the north to provide a pedestrian access to Southdale and the Metro Transit station. Boulevard style sidewalks are provided to comfortably move residents around the building and through the project to create a comfortable pedestrian experience. A large green space, adjacent to the boulevard style sidewalk is proposed to fill in the right -turn lane, another signature of this gateway area. 5. 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. 16 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. Provision of affordable housing. 6. The proposal addresses many of the working principles of the Greater Southdale Area Working Group. (See pages Al 09 -Al 13.) 7. The site is a gateway into Edina, and the building has taken the curved shape of the site that it sits on. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommend that the City Council approve the requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 6444, 6500, 6550 and 6525 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West as follows: Re -guiding these sites from RM, Regional Medical to CAC, Community Activity Center. Approval is subject to the following findings: 17 The proposed land uses, multi -family residential and commercial are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. Multi -family housing is an allowed use in the Regional Medical District. 2. This site is seen as the gateway into Edina and the Southdale Area. The proposed land use change would allow all four corners of 66th and York/Xerxes to be consistent. 3. The proposed development is within the height and density guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. 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. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from POD - 1&2, Planned Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and Preliminary Development Plan to redevelop 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West. The proposal is a two phase development as follows: Phase 1 (3250 66th Street West): ➢ A 6-7 story, 227 -unit apartment building, with two levels of underground parking, a club room and fitness area, and a green roof with an amenity terrace. Phase 2 (6650 Xerxes Avenue): ➢ A 5-6 story, 145 -unit apartment building. Five and four floors of housing above the parking and amenities area. 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 multi -family residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. 18 2. The proposed land uses, multi -family residential and commercial are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. 3. The proposed development is within the height and density guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. 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. 5. The traffic and parking study done by Kimley Horn concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. 6. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents to the north through the development to connect to the Southdale area. 7. 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 66th Street. 8. The public realm provided for in the development would be within and around the sidewalk areas. The proposed plans invite people through the project from the north to provide a pedestrian access to Southdale and the Metro Transit station. Boulevard style sidewalks are provided to comfortably move residents around the building and through the project to create a comfortable pedestrian experience. A large green space, adjacent to the boulevard style sidewalk is proposed to fill in the right -turn lane, another signature of this gateway area. 9. The development would include affordable housing. 10. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative, including: Green roofs, 15% increase in energy efficiency; participation in the Xcel Energy EDA program; and green construction practices. 11. 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. 19 12. The proposal addresses many of the working principles of the Greater Southdale Area Working Group as mentioned in the above findings. 13. 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. Provision of affordable housing. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated January 22 and February 5, 2016. 2. 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. 3. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 20 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. This sidewalk proposed along Xerxes must be extended to the east property boundary. The north -south sidewalk on the west side of the private drive must also be extended to York Avenue. 6. 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. 7. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated February12, 2016. 8. As part of a Developer's 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. 9. Ten percent (10%) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific detail would be determined at the time of final approval. 10. Sustainable design principles must be used per the applicant narrative. The building shall be designed to be 15% more energy efficient than 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. 11. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 12. The temporary cell pole must be removed as soon as possible. No final occupancy permit will be granted for the apartment building until the pole is removed. 13. A 30 -foot roadway easement shall be dedicated at the time of Final Rezoning for a future extension of 65th Street. Deadline for a city decision: May 20, 2016 21 ORDINANCE NO. 2016 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PUD -10, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -10 DISTRICT AT 6550 XERXES AND 3250 66" STREET WEST 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. 36-503 Planned Unit Development District -10 (PUD -10) — Millennium at Southdale (a) Legal description: See Attached. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re -development plans received by the City on , 2016 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2016-_, on file in the Office of the Planning Division. (c) Principal Uses: All principal uses allowed in the POD, Planned Office Commercial District Retail uses allowed in the PCD -1 District Multi -Family Residential (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the POD, Planned Office District- (POD) (e) Conditional Uses: None (f) Development Standards. Development standards per the POD Zoning District, except the following: Building Setbacks Front — 66th/York Avenue 20 feet Side — East 11 feet Side — West 20 feet Rear — North 90 feet Maximum FAR 2% (g) Signs shall be allowed per the POD standards in Sec. 36-1714. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon Met Council review and decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 12016. City Clerk Parcel -Pamela Park 1: � 29.028-24-24-0005 � (..11 Tr• l,vfsl `j o Print Date: 8/19/2015 Owner 3250 West 66Th Street LIC Market $ Name: Total: Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular F purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and Vii . J . .. '.: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 20 15 J _ _ 4 f•11'! ,<, 141 f 1 .: F ., IitfC Nla" :?"L1" Irl. r -.11.:.r Ltl'.• —ZF J 1- ('� sr.[•::iF 11 l v; I S I x If _ :a-i•.tFT :•.E_r IPark ' z — illl `II!f Cf t'i I.51 _ Z. .Gi :::I 511'11;• �'�!.'1 �;>11}51 Ftll Yi f'�I' S Q. t'.?•r i L tl 7 LSI' 11r11 u'1•,I '� it li= 31 F[Il 17i1'J .... _ Parcel Map Scale 1' = 1600 ft. N 29.028-24-24-0005 A -T -B ID: Print Date: 8/19/2015 Owner 3250 West 66Th Street LIC Market $ Name: Total: Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 2.46 acres Sale Area: 107,352 sq ft i Code: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 20 15 -Green! ,� i _�,"i`A ' t - .a51 .. j� Icy. h, ��fr �4l����� 11' 1� s I I 11'�'�. II ,1 I---i T I j 2 3� U1 It 7 _ t lS0L1 HD;til[ 1_E11TEV. r f,3200; ti i t" f;r_11 tie = 1r 1►, a� r� t 111Yy�• t lrti 1 !- t If t1 1 Y � t I ``Fti �_ r' •=-ll!M-2 r 1'��1 R� ,121. � .j! l+T'dClla a,i ti f -A .� t, I �� (_ _ +Wl I�t�_ Valp Y,jt'. �I r t _� r—. ' - r.F'+�.r`�. � � '�°I t .._--! 1Gri j �rT 5 e — ! _ r1l 1 Par1Del 29.028-24-24-0005 A -T -B: Abstract 1 Owner Market Name: 3250 West 66Th Street Llc Total: Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: stead: Non Homestead Date: Parcel 2.46 acres Sale Area: 107,352 sq ft Code: Map Scale: 1" = 400 ft. N Print Date: 8/19/2015 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A ;hirli Green! 4 a �' 1 IF C=3 rUU - n 4 Aq�-F�' k' al A 'I' I .�[I. II �il '•_. 'rjl l'•iJiLlJ� t l�! !. i�;, `� 1,�`i�, -_.- - �� ' Ol pill r�. _ill E, 4i r' Parcel 29-028-24-24-0005 A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. /NN - ID: Print Date: 8/19/2015-f-�-}- Owner 3250 West 66Th Street Llc Market w Name: Total: Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax S GS `i0 Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: be co14st�Yc Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale (0., P 1 A Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 2.46 acres Sale Area: 107,352 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A %Ink(;reenl A Ilj Y tj�#5- G6F qT. 4 a �' 1 IF C=3 rUU - n 4 Aq�-F�' k' al A 'I' I .�[I. II �il '•_. 'rjl l'•iJiLlJ� t l�! !. i�;, `� 1,�`i�, -_.- - �� ' Ol pill r�. _ill E, 4i r' Parcel 29-028-24-24-0005 A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. /NN - ID: Print Date: 8/19/2015-f-�-}- Owner 3250 West 66Th Street Llc Market w Name: Total: Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax S GS `i0 Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: be co14st�Yc Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale (0., P 1 A Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 2.46 acres Sale Area: 107,352 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A %Ink(;reenl k ~ »: ��..::�a�_x� ..for living, learning, raising families & doing business 2008 Comprehensive Plan Figure 4.4 City of Edina Conceptual Land Use Framework: rl .Y,, Comprehensive Plan Update potential Areas of Change Date of Aerial Photography. August 2006 F—L—Fl-11 E) 0 0.5 I Mes Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design, 4-33 Legend LDR- Law Densdi Re% denbal OR. ONce R.AdMW ® RIA -Rigl—I MCQaa1 LOAR-LOHDensitl Adwhed Reeidenthl --: 0-0fli OSP- Open 6paceantl Psb MCR. 1,1e9um0—Iff ReJdaneal uXC -Mhed lb Confer j PSP-PubluSenl-PuNk HDR-Hlyh D-nsl7 Retie Jlal CFC-Con—rity ACLviy Conler LAH-binil9dArceeslrStuny - RC- tklphb,ft,d Ca'renenlal 1-InN5rial / 8 _ 2 35 . i 4 II�DR _ 2 t Gem 61 J 12 IRN L 4 2 12 35 S14 OR CAC � ] 4 i► 14691h 51 10 12 F w rellr s� 3 1�. 8 8 i1 Height Limits 4 2 3 2 4 LL 2 Stories: 24' 2 2 3 Stories: 36 4Storie5:48' 4 5 Stories: 60' 8 Stories: 96' � r� 9 Stories: 108' 10 Stories: 12U Poihl,nnAve 3 4 HDR 4 12 Stories: 144' 2 Standard Height KDR 2 Podium Height V7 7611, SO 4 AIDR .1 r 1212 4 OR z I 9 `J 2 t W 771h 51 -- OR— _ Iun�9.91a Or OR.._ 12 ----- -- Ell I:?���rr1iri(1iJri � Future Land Use Plan with (od"I City of Edina Building Heightshts 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update southeast Quadrant ---- Figure 4.66 Data Source: URS ®0 0.5 Beres S14 W 54TH ST -- -- ........:.: Q LL' - FULLER ST VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DE1 pofl_�o-a 70TH & FRANCE DETAIL Residential Redevelopment at MILLENNIUM at SOUTH DALE Formerly 6611 & YORK Edina, MN 55435 January 21, 2016 Project Narrative Developer: DLC Residential, LLC 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, FL 33180 Local Office: 5245 Wayzata Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Rich Kauffman, 612.325.9767 Prepared by: Elness Swenson Graham Architects (ESG) Dennis Sutliff, AIA, AICP 612.373.4624 Kimley-Horn Luke Payne, PE 507.216.6210 A. DEVELOPER Since 2004, DLC Residential has been developing and constructing income properties in the strongest emerging markets across the United States with over 4,000 completed units. DLC consistently focuses on integrity, creative design and architecture, collaboratively working with local municipalities and careful market research, resulting in highly desirable, luxury residential communities. B. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Regional Medical to Community Activity Center for five parcels; Parcel 1 at 6550 York Avenue South, Parcel 2 at 3250 West 66th Street, Parcel 3 with no assigned address, Parcel 8 at 6444 Xerxes Avenue South and Parcel 9 at 6500 Xerxes Avenue South. • Rezoning from POD -3 to PUD for Parcel 1, 2 and 3. • Preliminary Development Plan Approval for Phase I only on Parcels 2 and 3. The development applications for Millennium at Southdale Residential Redevelopment Plan will follow the following proposed approval schedule: • Introductory Meeting with City Staff August 4, 2015 Completed • Sketch Plan Review; Planning Commission August 26, 2015 completed • Sketch Plan Review; City Council September 1, 2015 Completed • Kick -Off Meeting with City Staff November 19, 2015 Completed • Additional staff meeting December 8, 2015 Completed • Neighborhood Meeting January 5, 2016 Completed • Additional staff meeting January 11, 2016 Completed • Formal Applications submitted January 21, 2016 • Planning Commission Public Hearing February 24, 2016 • City Council Public Hearing March 15, 2016 • Met Council review (Guide Plan Amendment) TBD Included in this submittal are the following: • Cover Letter from DLC Residential, LLC. • Project Narrative. • Response to Working Principles. • Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application. • Rezoning Permit Application. • Preliminary Development Plan Application. • Large scale (30" x 42") drawing sets. • Small scale (11" x 17") drawing sets. • Digital CD of all documents. • Checks for application fees totaling $2,450.00. C. PROJECT LOCATION The project site lies in the north-west quadrant of the intersection of York Avenue and West 66' Street. As such, it is a "Gateway Site" to the France Avenue, Southdale Area. It is designed to respond to the Working Principles that have been put forward as goals for all future developments for that area. 66' & York Page 2 January 21, 2016 uT_� D. PROPERTY The project site is currently platted as three parcels totaling 264,250 square feet or 5.65 acres. Parcels 8, (15,111 square feet, 0.35 acres) and Parcel 9 (17,094 square feet, 0.39 acres) are to be re - guided only. E. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Millennium at Southdale, the proposed residential redevelopment at 66'h & York will be accomplished in two Phases. Phase I will occur on Parcel 2 and 3 and will consist of a 227 unit, rental apartment building with two levels of underground parking. The existing Titus Building will remain in place on Parcel 1 until Phase 11 is begun. Phase II will include the demolition of the Titus Building and the construction of a second rental apartment building containing 145 units with two levels of underground parking. Phase II will complete the composition of two buildings on the combined sites. In doing so, it will transform the current auto -centric office development characterized by surface parking lots into one, fully integrated site with well-defined open spaces, pedestrian features and on site amenities. The majority of the apartment units will be one, one -plus and two bedrooms. There will be a small number of Studio/Alcove apartments and a small number of three bedroom apartments. DLC Residential is proposing to include 7 units (3%) at 60% AMI for Phase I and 4 units (3%) at 60% AMI for Phase II. The reduced rents will cost the developer approximately $1.4 million. Two levels of underground parking will be reserved for the residents. Surface parking will serve their guests. The preliminary metrics for this development, broken out by phase, are contained in the table at the end of this narrative and on Sheet A0.0a. City staff has requested a 30 foot wide easement at the north side of the property to accommodate the possibility of a future continuation of 65th Street. DLC Residential's agreement to consider granting this right-of-way easement has been and will continue to be conditioned on the agreement that the City will not disturb any access or parking in that dedication area until, such time as the "Titus" property is redeveloped. That agreement will need to be properjyr ocumented in the Developer Agreement. F. VISION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE DLC Residential is proposing to produce exactly the kind of vital, transformative and precedent - setting, redevelopment at the corner of 66'h and York that is envisioned by City's Working Principles for the France Avenue, Southdale Area District. Their vision for Millennium at Southdale is to begin the transformation of this site by bringing 24/7 life and vitality to what is currently an 8 to 5, auto - centric, single use, office environment. Millennium at Southdale will contribute to the City's goal of improving the pedestrian environment and public realm within the district in a manner which can be emulated by other redevelopments in the future. It will provide new options for the emerging residential markets and 21ST century lifestyles that are needed by Edina to remain an attractive home for the community's next generation. It will create a one -of -a -kind, luxury residential community that is in short supply today. This redevelopment will address the objectives of the France Avenue, Southdale Area District and benefit the residents and visitors of Edina, adjacent property owners and tenants in the following ways: • Land Use. Edina's policy -makers have delivered a strong message. They believe this redevelopment project should be a "precedent setter" in the Southdale District. It should be representative of the means by which this entire district can be redeveloped as a new, 66' & York Page 3 A� January 21, 2016 walkable neighborhood of higher density uses, high quality architecture and attractive pedestrian spaces. • Icon Architecture. Positioned at the intersection that serves as the northeast entry to the Southdale District, Millennium at Southdale is clearly a "foreground" site. This redevelopment will be viewed from street level by tens of thousands of cars passing each day and night. It is also prominently situated of the north end of the York Avenue street corridor. In response, the south fagade of this new development - both high and low - is designed as a visual anchor to this prominent corner. The design places the public spaces behind transparent walls and a lighted landscape to enliven the pedestrian/vehicle level and it creates a dramatic, lighted beacon or lantern that will act as the visual terminus to this urban vista, seen from a long distance away. • Artful Building Design. Beyond the very prominent south and east exposures, the design of the improvements on this site demands a presence and creativity that is commensurate with its prominent position in the District. While the buildings must function efficiently, they will fulfill their role as foreground buildings with creatively sculpted profiles and massing and with high quality materials. The primary street frontages are animated by spaces containing human activity. The massing above the ground plane is sculpted with steps and a variety of exterior materials that relate closely to the enhanced public sidewalks and crosswalks. Linear elements of the building facades are punctuated with projecting masses that alternate back and forth across the landscaped interior courtyards and streetscape. • Inviting Public Realm. A creative approach to shaping the spaces between buildings is a key element of successful residential communities. This is especially true in Millennium at Southdale which cannot currently be characterized as "pedestrian -friendly." When complete, Millennium at Southdale will host a variety of outdoor rooms and spaces. The very busy and energetic York Avenue street front capped by activity spaces at each end will be defined by 3- dimensional pedestrian improvements along its length. This will create a pedestrian friendliness that does not exist today and will define the site's outer edge. It will also help to calm the interior of the site. Once inside, residents and guests will experience no fewer than five distinct outdoor spaces — including the paver -rich, parking court and pedestrian street. These outdoor spaces are sculpted by the building masses, each with its own unique scale and character. The interior street with its parallel parking, benches and pedestrian -scaled light fixtures will create calm and inviting central spine with a true residential character. • Live -able Precincts. Millennium at Southdale will provide a concrete example of how the France Avenue, Southdale Area District can be redeveloped into a more walkable, pedestrian friendly and interconnected neighborhood with greater levels of the live -work amenities which our emerging, 211t century lifestyles are demanding. It will be transformative to this portion of the District. The current auto -oriented land use dominated by surface parking will become a greened oasis with the automobiles relegated to underground status. Only the bare minimum of guest parking will remain on the surface. G. MARKET POSITION DLC Residential is proposing 375 apartment units in two phases. 227 apartments are to be included in Phase I. This new community will be positioned at the upper end of the rental market, complete with high-end interior finishes, 10 foot ceilings and extensive indoor and outdoor amenities. The majority of the apartments will be one and two bedroom homes but approximately 15 to 20% will have additional alcove, den or other "bonus" rooms. Approximately 10% of the units will be smaller, studio or alcove style apartments. And approximately 5% will be larger, three bedroom units. Residents of Millennium at Southdale will enjoy amenities and conveniences commensurate with upper end rentals. As is true in other communities developed by DLC Residential, residents will have 66' & York Page 4 January 21, 2016 large windows, generous balconies and open well-appointed kitchens. Those in some upper level units will enjoy larger, walk -out terraces, some wrapping the corners of their apartments. Residential amenities will include heated and secure parking, outdoor courtyards with pools and spas, terraces furnished with grills, lounge areas, and a fire pit. Indoor club rooms, a fitness center and yoga facilities will be available for socializing with other residents, for parties with family and friends or for quiet, individual use. On-site professional management will be provided to all residents and their guests. H. LAN DSCAPING/STREETSCAPING The landscape and streetscape improvements for this site will establish a visually compelling outdoor environment, rich in pedestrian amenities and rendered with high quality materials. Particular attention is paid the interior street that extends north -south through the site and to the 66th Street frontage. These two elements are designed to directly respond to the Working Principles by promoting connectivity with the adjacent neighborhoods. They will provide an attractive and welcoming environment, safe for both pedestrians and bicyclers. These public streets and street frontages will employ traditional planting materials, varied pedestrian and auto paving materials, pedestrian scaled lighting and site furniture appropriate to the new residential use. In addition to these public spaces, the private courtyards provide outdoor activity areas for residents. The Sunset Terrace holds a swimming pool, spa, fire pit and bar-b-ques for active socializing. The Sunrise Terrace is a passive space with more greenery and benches and a dog walk. I. PARKING In total, this redevelopment proposes to provide 575 reserved, enclosed and secure parking stalls in its two underground garages; xxx of which will be included in Phase I. This equates to one parking space for each bedroom within the development plus 52 extra stalls which may be reserved for residents who wish to have addition parking available. Thirty eight surface parking spaces in the landscaped auto court and parallel spaces on the internal street will serve the residents' guests and visitors to the leasing office. All but the parallel stalls along the east side of the internal street will be included in Phase I. Phase I will also include a temporary surface parking lot of 72 cars to accommodate tenants in the Titus office building until such time as it is no longer needed. J. SITE CIRCULATION and TRAFFIC Access to the site occurs at three existing locations, a right in -right out movement at mid -block at the York/66th confluence, at the existing York Avenue driveway on the north, and by way of a cross - access agreement through the parking lot on the property to the west. That same agreement results in the need for a driveway over Parcels 2 and 3 allowing access to/from the adjacent site to the west. The new, internal street which runs north -south between Phase I and II is conceived to be private to this community and pedestrian -friendly in its design. While it will provide a through -route for emergency vehicles and an alternate route for residents, it is designed to discourage cut -through traffic to the residential neighborhood to the north. It will be narrow, incorporating traffic calming measures and be finished with materials suited for the residential use and accommodating to pedestrian circulation for residents and neighbors to the north. 66' & York Page 5 January 21, 2016 Ato As part of its goal of promoting enhanced connectivity to the neighborhood to encourage reductions in auto traffic, this development will be extremely bicycle friendly. In addition to enhancing the pedestrian sidewalk on its street frontage to accommodate both bikes and walkers, DLC will provide two large bicycle storage rooms for residents, conveniently located near the two elevator banks in the underground garage. Further, staff has requested that DLC share responsibility with the City for closing the free -right turn lane from York Avenue to 66th Street. While the exact geometry of this change to the intersection is not yet known, DLC enthusiastically embraces this goal. This action will allow for greater enhancement of the pedestrian environment along York Avenue and 66th Street and for improved pedestrian safety at the 66th Street crosswalk. And as stated in Section E, staff has requested a 30 foot wide easement at the north side of the property to accommodate a future extension of 65' Street. K. STORMWATER This redevelopment lies in and will be permitted by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It will be reviewed and permitted by the Nine -Mile Creek District. As such, stormwater management facilities are designed to comply with their requirements for rate control and water quality. This site will incorporate a cellular, underground storm water vault system in the auto -court at the south, the low end of the site. The inlet, and a visual clue to this sustainable and common sense storm water solution will be expressed in the landscaped area of the auto court. L. SUSTAINABILITY Recognizing the sustainability is critical to our future economic vitality and quality of life, our development team is committed to promoting stewardship for our environment and resources at all stages of the work. From broad urban design goals of creating livable communities through creative use of density, reduced dependency on automobiles and promoting walkability, to the use of green building practices and highly efficient building systems and equipment with reduced life -cycle costs and longer life spans that enhance occupant health and wellbeing. At Millennium at Southdale, this commitment will translate to; • A compact site design offering numerous green spaces, high quality pedestrian and bicycle amenities plus improved walkability and connection to transit. • Greening of some rooftop areas over the garage and some roofs. This will assist in collecting storm water as well as provide attractive gathering spaces with shade plants to combat the urban heat island effect. • On-site storm water collection, management and treatment system that will be evident at the "infiltration garden" in the public forecourt to the buildings. • Utilization of green design principles and material specifications including locally sourced, high- performance structural, window and exterior envelope systems with recycled content. • Compliance with the new, 2015 Minnesota Commercial Energy Code (references the 2012 IECC) which represents approximately a 15% increase in energy efficiency over the previous code. • Participation in the Xcel Energy EDA (Energy Design Assistance) program to assist in selecting materials and systems with low energy consumption characteristics yet high life -cycle value. • Green construction phase practices including construction waste management and recycling. & York Page 6 January 21, 2016 ki l N SITE DATA PHASE I PHASE II TOTAL Site Area Parcels 2 and 3 Parcel 1 3.07 ac. 2.58 ac. 5.65 ac. 133,676 sf 112,574 sf 246,250 sf New Residential Development Building Area 255,008 gsf 166,260 421,268 sf Residential FAR 1.91 1.48 1.71 Number of Units 227 148 375 Number of Bedrooms 338 210 548 Residential Density (Units/acre) 73.9 57.4 66.4 Building Height 6/5 floors over parking 5/4 floors over parking Steps at 3, 4 and 5 Steps at 3 and 4 72 feet 61 feet Surface Parking, Residential 38 cars 11 cars 49 cars Secure Parking 353 cars 249 cars 602 cars Total Residential Parking 391 cars 260 cars 651 cars Parking Ratio 1/bedroom +53 1/bedroom +50 1/bedroom + 103 Existing Office Building Building Area 62,079 sf na. na. Surface Parking -Parcel 1 150 cars na. na. Surface Parking -Parcel 3 72 cars Secure Parking 28 cars (est.) Total parking 250 cars Parking Ratio 4.03 cars/1,000 sf na. na. Parking on Parcel 3 dedicated to 3316 66th St. 20 of 72 cars 20 cars 20 cars & York Page 7 M?-, January 21, 2016 elness swenson graham architects inc. February 3, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director FROM: Dennis Sutliff ESG Architects, Inc RE: Millennium at Southdale (Formerly 66th & York) List of Changes Since August 2105 when 66th & YORK was submitted to the City of Edina for review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Architectural plans have been developed to a significantly higher level of detail. In addition to Architectural exhibits, Civil Engineering Plans and Landscape Plans are now included. But the overall site organization, the building height, massing, setbacks and density remain largely the unchanged. The number of dwelling units and the parking counts have changed only slightly. With a few exceptions, most of the changes to these items can be characterized as refinements. The most significant changes that have been made since the August Sketch Plan submittal are the result of specific requests or comments by City policy makers and staff. In summary, those requests were; • Preserve the option to extend 65th Street across the northerly 30 feet of the site. • Enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environments, making them safer, better connected to other destinations in the District and more attractive to residents and neighbors. • Create an iconic redevelopment whose building and site features are commensurate with its position as a "foreground" site within the district. With these goals in mind, the significant changes that have been included in the new submittal plans dated 1/20/2106 are; 1. Parcels 8 and 9 are now include in the Application for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. 2. While the south setbacks have been maintained as previously shown, the upper levels of Phase I and all of Phase II are moved southwards to free up land on the north end of the site for possible extension of 65th Street. The Phase I, underground parking footprint has been shortened so it no longer extends under the requested future ROW. 3. The floor elevations of the buildings have been lowered about 6 feet. In Phase I, this means that both levels of the parking garage are deeper into the ground. As a result, the terraces 500 washington avenue south - suite 1080 . minneapolis, nin 55415 - p: 611, I).M8 • f: 612.339.5382 • >,vww.esgarchitects.corn an equal oppartunity employer 4 ( 3 Millennium at Southdale List of Changes November 3, 2016 Page 2 of 2 built over the parking have a much better relationship to elevations of the adjacent land and relate much more closely to the internal pedestrian street. 4. As a result of item 2 above, the residential amenities that were previously located on the upper level of the garage are moved up to the first floor where they now have a direct relationship to the street level lobby, the guest parking and to 66th Street. The dwelling units previously located on first floor of the south end of the Phase I building are relocated to the fifth floor, thereby adding strength and prominence to the south fagade of Phase I on 66th Street. 5. The character of internal street; the southward extension of York Avenue, is enhanced with upgraded paving materials, pedestrian scaled lighting and stoops, stairs and benches so it will function as an attractive north -south pedestrian link between the residential neighborhood to the north and the Southdale District on the south. While it must accommodate emergency vehicles, its design is intended to discourage through traffic. 6. This redevelopment addresses the City's and the County's wishes to close the free -right turn lane at the 66th & York intersection. While the geometry of this roadway change has not been finalized, this proposal calls for added enhancements to pedestrian environment at that corner and along the entire south-east street frontage. 7. The south elevation of the Phase I building has been modified to further emphasize its position as a gateway to this District. The five -story wing has been moved forward to increase its visibility along 66th Street. The one story base has been increased in height to a story -and -a half with added sun -screens and pedestrian features. And the height of the six - story portion has been increased and exaggerated by the addition of a tall, illuminated parapet that will anchor the northward view of the York Avenue street corridor. This parapet will also conceal the roof -mounted cell phone towers that will be installed on its roof. 8. Phase I metrics have been refined as follows; • Dwelling unit count in Phase I has been reduced from 230 apartments to 227 but the number of bedrooms has increased from 320 to 338. • The gross area of Phase I has increased from 243,800 square feet to 255,008 square feet. • Phase I residential parking has increased from 379 cars to 391. 353 parking spaces are enclosed and secure for residents. 38 spaces are on the surface and can be used by visitors and guests. Cc; Rick Kauffman Russ Krivor Pedro Fullana Luke Payne Ryan Phipps Wes Beehler k� PROJECT LOCATION Site Location PROJECT TEAM osu -k. MN 1111 ACJWtiL fist � G —h Sul.%'l croMLene.� N Iw .« .. ass �wwv s,�u<,u,MEnw MWRGWN J—N s sz Mn s�M PRR M� :: <13„Tu ME EIK,n..L re.o. ps} 611aaE .&O. Ml Millenniumat Southd ale Millennium at SouthdaleLC,,.,,. _. 3250 West 66th Street Edina, MN 55435 SYMBOLSLEGEND o UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES PARKING SCHEDULE -PHASE 1 rrn c.u,n Tb'v V. SURFACE PA—EI PHA6E, 10 e'-AOA_61MFACE_PNISEI Lpe•6TANOAPO_sMFACE PINSEt M s-coMPAcr e•-suNOARo e'd'a 1e E: -COMPACT � PACT eb v te' 6TANOMO EVELP2 L=Q. .p.1 b1 USE BY LEVEL LKE 6v lEMEL GSF %OF AREA eeP s s PMNING fiF 6�ORAP� 120F,513 1B F 6F 3b SF PARpNG 91AaA SF sruucE z,es sF LEVELPt A.ee56F All 11 Y3e 6F COMMON1cIRCU oN P53 sF RESIOENTNL UUT T6]SF ,FUEL, bene sF eaA�P COMMON/CIRCUUIM)N 1 6F REDENMLUNrt LE b sF wA+Mox/clRcuurpN erz�sF xS OEuiuL uxrt Sib 6F ..—SF coMrnoulc RaunoN . a, IOENTMLUNrt m 6F LEVELa b31e SF CoMMON/CIRCIIUTgN 2AT6F 11 REs oENTML uxrt sTe sF ,EVELs 41,eaa sF AMExI ab IF c unou oPasF REooEeNTML UNT , SF Ax�G�antl mlal SF F SHEETINDEX UNITTOTALS um TYP tum 36R OEx z� AbwP Gv41oW w COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL ^'y 1/20/2016 T1.1 'D g pwg�� ca° s szz Ho. A R m cFiF�my H MUD H ap,M- woyT �'w" w w � w MI mfg " �_ _ "lf, ;n w c�so�> $ san gw $�g� F'Da �m BE £EG a� P`FwwPm o g �pwmH #_EP m m wm amg mg B8� oByfr' "og __ Sni ib Hffl mho°tee os "� 6F $Fg�N€a aw =fc waw 4 ->m ° 5g 3g Sig Mp m y=$o mg o"�I �s § ° em= °11 iFH em $ SHE Hi Fmmwmoc 8- a ap �' fagg" gg ST°wT$ $m Rim p� �f mg; M. s° lz gmmg: �mo'8bo �. mm>°w p 1 n�aa9 g �mw=s Faamm"<= ;m== ��°m�==bPQa$ gas w'�go' '- HOE z n §��$ z_ Aga $ M mo $ msgm€ E"oe;m£ m w g �$ga g4 g F ,-•_z u° sm6mml6 £�z, 4 s meso ¢ ;°=gig s L$2-p4m z �S wpw' M m z IV ° N s N£= Z ag o zn = E wpw' M m z N£= Z 1 0 ®000®0®®qF� - _ .------- - - z m m a S € w $ a a v� wpw' M m z N£= Z s8ag CIO,1 off' e E T�'G OP F § ' 3 R - N£= Z ALERT TO SUBCONTRACTOR: ADW S DLDBEAANIM11"IEDGI °NSDUNN 1 b OFWETGE -E 1 -OC WATER 2. SUBCOTiEs�up I CIN I,MROroAp RE I M'D IEARTAMORN, UTI NG;�, EMILESTWEDATEIN PAGUE G ECT Doc6MENTs OOPNER STATE CALL ONE L FREE 1-1155 EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES O. THE STORNMATEN POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN IS COMPRISE OF DRAWINGS. THE STANDARD DSTAIL9. THE SN— PLUS THE GENE AUSUBSEOUENT REPORTS AND RELATED —FITA 3. CONTRACTORS RALLIMPLEMENTBESTMANAGEMENT PMCMESMRMUIREDBY�E INE —PPPIM OA COST LBEST GIOI1E 3 UrE CB W. 53 NEWMEO BY THECA GENERAL PER. a.GENERAL CONTRACTOR DENOTE PU ON N TNI CONCRETE RLOG 1.11—WATER (CONCRETE TRUCNS, EHICLF CLEANING. EOMPMENT EO ORIISPPOSID EACIXMgNGiO �HE OENERN READILY AE TO ND LAND NCLEANaOP FUFtgi CHEMICAL ap:�:I DUST INAL, BE CONTROLLED ACCORDING TO THE T. 1JIMS1, TIASH, GARBAGE. LTIN ON OTHER SUCH TrWATER DISCHARGE IBM DRAINAGE WATIRI 11 TIE ENTRA GES ST ED I, e. THE O NTRACTORS AL STNUCT URAINAGE BASINS ,0. RACTORSHAL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CGN aGLME SDBEB L Ot WITHIN TWO a�O... ANEAS- EE AAVE) OFaa¢EoRAOING All IBA -SEED, SOD, OR OCBS E. REEK TO-ANDSCAPE PUN5 FON MATE 1RA, CONiACCMEASURE SNA I E ISSOTALLD WATNSNEo DISTIRICT—WHS, 112 EROSION LEGEND mm® SO CONESFORUCTION TRAFFIC SIGN • vOi NLBT PROrecrION ® nO M&N OMUST PROTECTION -O FS.TNE.UD BEDIMENT CONTR0. — ®s TEMPORANISLT FENCE EROMON O CONTR. Ei CONSTRUCTION FENCE SITE LEGEND — ROPOS D PHASE I UNITS OF DsrURRANL:E P ERMTING MA30R CONTOUR 7 FFXLI ,,,PEA pay TOUR O E>:ISTNG STORM SEWN WNHOLE /.r. Ex SRHGGUIS RLET 0 (DUSTI. GRATE INLET AREA SUMMARY EITF AREA(PHASE 1) 133..5 IF ,PNiv_.sesr of ENvwus a>.MB EF PROPOSED E""o 8305E HArots P 35. iIO I1HANtF1I1.re9 �pI of DISTURBANCE IV az:: "AxCE: FUNCTMINAL CONo TION U-1 OBALONGER REQUIRED F`GR DF OR F11111..— E PNSVRES SHAILLB EC ED BY AIR9E THE LT.NN VO AEPUGDe EPNMITIWME HICHEVE�i S MORE STRINGENT. AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING. T INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHAL- BE _r DNDERMGORRRDETEHIGHAT --11 `A 3 c CH N[DRREGEIAILYT05BB �P THATAGOODINTANED. AREAS """BE FERIT-1--ED, AND RES¢EDEDAS NEEDED. SILT FEN NEBAMEO TO THEIR ORIGINAL a. SEDIMENT IT REACHES ONE -THINE IRS HTSTa*NEBILT PENCEHN . a. IS WHICH NRB SINN BE Ul C19G CR FLOW MUD PUBLIC RTSOF�WAYEW . TRIS MAY RIRE WOMHP DNESSING OF THE CONSTRUCTION E%rtS AS cwallONS DEMANp. MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE DLC BY11 B Hom elrcss [wenwn gralNm arzhleN Soo WMI19UP1 avenue —h minneapDlls minnesD4 55915 p 512 339.5 s DB wwwle 339.S3B2 . sgar[M1.COm PHASE 1 PLAN SET 160755DO2 831 •.u�a RAP MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE ED51ON CONTROL PLAN PHA5E1 C2.2 W,,.tiwxx...� ygNEx6.yE,tmr----------------- ��-- ----------------------- ;meg- . OxNE,xNN J i ALERT TO SUBCONTRACTOR• [4� Or MWNq}MA o.sssxcun FOAN. ica iaayxNc WAp IN.1 yhAint[q, e.oNOE AWWArz x4 ovp—I'm ANI ss cNWrD 1-I NANADExENI M cON w YUSrvN[ ar sq�s. wazWvtzrto (uarxxoax, r�Nu oocu4NII �mAi =N., er WcFs,ONE OA,F m a1-1r iMUSTCONi OOPHE L STEATATNE E CALL ONE SRE PLAN NOTES 1. uq WIAND MRIAI x 1111 ,i3Ol1 cm/cWNtt raa4.rw aE A 9 ,A., ruo4 Ar wrrvI,xsr.,4eA_ W[. p`w N z mxmAcraa sNAu aFrFYE vOMNs `�s,iaucc vZtE 'r[ =Nc. a. NO— uro AaEA is sns ACwEs 9-41, YMiEx`tiTPONME`s. gMg4Ws AND C.ACT W,L N, urM?r sNm�NCE Eq:AnONs 1 ALL EM OLLI.Ex 1W 011 uHnaA NEA i Wr siiNoror1N1sss s4 6 I„E4omEy:=IE I oroRA. IA' 5 ALL NW1N S AND NADx ANE I TNI 'Al V W.a NNxss ASI-I,.10%oN WLO`cArt— rNiEL.I.NAr,NALL I.cIEEsr Z srAu sF AIE O' i1,4% luraEa E s _, W 1ACI..$)swN`s mi�C IINALI a�vDais it�c wOANCE PM NEN;=. o .xD a, s xDa WE -CAI- AND SNA`ALLL a APrxM Nr Aug Au — snALL --LEGEND PaOP6att LmE ::roo: E I";rrL01s:isNNFexJDa) bao:`—E I'csoxFaJSWI WAr IyN/W! xJs,) WA! (Nx/ODi xJs,) 1.1' IN i.Ww�, - u (�xuHJJOB) YNMI FEC I.L. —E sv (Sy AN—) a' cuss s Aaasurt e,g cgnss ryx/Dor sts.) to' cuss 5 Accysurt aAs[ cauasE (ux/soi JiJN -"T r .5 a we4wAOE ro A wxwuu Cv iW. ai 0.N.vAcr my J' v w.WAOE m A wxwua tt tcpy u 11 — srAwAaO vaocmv win xgsluaF coxrtxi Minix Jx ar srAxOAaO Nattroa xtm wzsnaE WxT& Minix xir 11—II —I ITA—. ucSMaE cqul 1 INSEoTvnuBux . ME coxt[xr. — A C \V\ � — — �u uA wu* vAVENExr I I 5rwp � Alr vAxui.Fxr �,') \`�V \PN JAJzaAss/oor xsJt) _ ♦ cu s ,E (ux/OOr zztt) ILW aE coxrpr wMm J. W INSET OC•as,uaE coxmtr. JAJz (xssx/wr xsJt) (yx/OOr zxtt) INSETOD"orsnxe mvrtx,. MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE KimleyoHorn I.SI.OyOm.�.N�nxp.yD..�uapNye xnlN 0. 11 1. 1 3 i. 5 is01c I . . �e piSch.com PHASE I PLAN SET 16g7ssoo2 6U�xiw.. MP MILLENNIUM AT SOUEHDALE SITE PEAN PHAGE I C3.1 ,D Mo y omoyo Yn� ��' amm�map H —\ Via__'-•��_�`_�_�n ='_-'�'1-_, A9 f� i1 111'' �I '�- � ----' 1 f A A 4 j e U al ______ t A A° flA • r- n A, 99 4 S � •�� fig;"s ; � �, — — 'd \ -- , � ` 1 I 1� El El �� �� � ��§ ��04 � mf iii. ' .\ _►' -' :�€ € ouf ------- -m--- m m 9 _ s v ---------------- �Q ' 3 £�o FE a= z Oz LsTQG SOPCIA il? i i M= 3 ® ppF.• G am �, i. 3,m•, mM 3 1 rn zN o A ------------ 1, ------ - -- - - - 02 m®®moam Ml M■� mmmmo=mm o MCO■®M■m C mEE■m®mo WE =Moomom aU3rI-L O. r GOPXER STATE CALL ONE EE 1d00.a5]-11N IDnaE��N9 MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE CLC :. ..i Khley»iHom elnesz Swenson gnM1am artNiMs 500 wasM1in9ton avenue swM minrtapPOs mMMs9ta 55415 .01 .319.550! IWW12.339.93LE .esgarc M1.cOm LEGEND in.,.w o-. �wrm ..n.nunn.wnwn vavrnssv.wxxvu .� ..ua w.rcx sawnxc sievnSi.ar � ve � awveenvA PHASE 1 PLAN SET P���ian o.n 16075502 Bye RAP MILLENNIUM AT SDUTXDALE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PHASE I C4.2 �.. xORN AVE S' , \ � r C Off, e OP J � r C Off, e OP J � r C Off, C Off, OP AV ALERT TO SUBCONTRACTOR: CE CE C SgNAIEN SN_ BE SlAl FNngv ON -IIIIININI % MMI CR CE SETRSEArRER. vxoxo[ eEW DFWAI[xN GONUNA, AN, IS ,ND 'WATER 4ANACELCN1 ID cDNr9D YaISIDRE pE sDLs OBIONDRACIDD ARSS. TO NA [D IEA ­ I. Da0uL1EMR B fNAL GB— TONE BN lxE IDIE DATEIN RR RAC1111UI1CII-1 GOPHER STATE CALL ONE TOLL BEFORE N6IALCTiCN BEGIW6 LANDSCAPE NOTES I ALL APED AREAS ARE 10 RECgI A ONi4lO LANOSCdPE REQUIREMENTS NNED AS �m 4ATENAL ONCE FINAL CAAOINO AN CBNITRUCTON RAs BEER co4P,ErEp IN TxE 144NiARE AREA I. WNERE SrONN W Ix[ MNs AN DETNLS I.SINO BEDS ARE ,I i pWLERELN CDNERED Wm A DDUBE-SRRESCRI I All NI oA�NA1 s BE FAIL— ISCRw; AND IKE 01 roRENDID E 4Cx IRON1A LOCAL SOuxCE xARKSIED IN A III A susr I L A LIN1011 I I I A'. 'C �� �y ----------------------------------------- 1 I I i I III I I I I ALERT TO SUBCONTRACTOR: CE CE C SgNAIEN SN_ BE SlAl FNngv ON -IIIIININI % MMI CR CE SETRSEArRER. vxoxo[ eEW DFWAI[xN GONUNA, AN, IS ,ND 'WATER 4ANACELCN1 ID cDNr9D YaISIDRE pE sDLs OBIONDRACIDD ARSS. TO NA [D IEA ­ I. Da0uL1EMR B fNAL GB— TONE BN lxE IDIE DATEIN RR RAC1111UI1CII-1 GOPHER STATE CALL ONE TOLL BEFORE N6IALCTiCN BEGIW6 LANDSCAPE NOTES I ALL APED AREAS ARE 10 RECgI A ONi4lO LANOSCdPE REQUIREMENTS NNED AS L yrL LINE 110FOAngis ONLI AN s 11:E 1.[ YNRYLN ANI" NEOUREMNrS mR MIT MATERIAL. �m 4ATENAL ONCE FINAL CAAOINO AN CBNITRUCTON RAs BEER co4P,ErEp IN TxE 144NiARE AREA I. WNERE SrONN W Ix[ MNs AN DETNLS I.SINO BEDS ARE FZWM_ pWLERELN CDNERED Wm A DDUBE-SRRESCRI I All NI oA�NA1 s BE FAIL— ISCRw; AND IKE 01 roRENDID E 4Cx IRON1A LOCAL SOuxCE xARKSIED IN A III A susr I L A LIN1011 I I I A'. 'C �� �y mi ®o ®v ®v ♦. 'a All o4YKrz [AAxcnlrz ie[i0x RO B u RI , A FTER sr'uAlINSTALL STEELOEiR (BLA[x) RNERE MNnN BEDS YEFI T LILTS. SCC_ED AIA 'NIT' EvcaoIFI aN sµE 1AITI [nW AEMENN .1.N TRE R. xRI 8S REREIN ANus ADN [ss AIBE�E 'E 0ISBBN CNN.,. sRALLSE RLsp ON�p E cOR m 9gNnCANT SRRDB 4A59NDS EOUND ON 1.1 AND euxnNO Ro YABNUrEUN D NEDEBB NNIIS m BE RpmvFD R ALlxr PLANT O Din NIBEYAIRIAL UrLol �ugBN1 m[ B. ANN 'LAI,0ARENAL All. Is ISEASED, gSmESSE0, DEAD, ON 'TRn IFn,EOLANDICAIE ARCNRCT PRIOR TO REMOVAL enWvnv+xEYONEo 5 rM L cu p µ�OiYIxE4ArERIAL11 oscnEiiNocsNINBBou"yn TA cNIunON AND L yrL LINE 110FOAngis ONLI AN s 11:E 1.[ YNRYLN ANI" NEOUREMNrS mR MIT MATERIAL. 4ATENAL ONCE FINAL CAAOINO AN CBNITRUCTON RAs BEER co4P,ErEp IN TxE 144NiARE AREA I. WNERE SrONN W Ix[ MNs AN DETNLS I.SINO BEDS ARE pWLERELN CDNERED Wm A DDUBE-SRRESCRI I All NI oA�NA1 s BE FAIL— ISCRw; AND IKE 01 roRENDID E 4Cx IRON1A LOCAL SOuxCE xARKSIED IN A III A susr I L A LIN1011 I I I A'. 'C �� �y ALL PLANT WATT AL IBBED WBTExE A NrmR DROWN OR BALLED AND LAT14AR .LALROUANnn[s srvgM ARE APwpn4ArE. wuAPPED N A s A INTRA TOR Al- BE K He LiMM cWxEIE S'2ACE CI SEDI S 1EITuisI_'WENT, JEDI". r MN AND fuL rEAO AND B "TAILAINBao IN ALL DIsrDRBN AREAS DNLEss NDIm ♦. 'a All o4YKrz [AAxcnlrz ie[i0x RO B u RI , A FTER sr'uAlINSTALL STEELOEiR (BLA[x) RNERE MNnN BEDS YEFI T LILTS. SCC_ED AIA 'NIT' EvcaoIFI aN sµE 1AITI [nW AEMENN .1.N TRE R. xRI 8S REREIN ANus ADN [ss AIBE�E 'E 0ISBBN CNN.,. sRALLSE RLsp ON�p E cOR m 9gNnCANT SRRDB 4A59NDS EOUND ON 1.1 AND euxnNO Ro YABNUrEUN D NEDEBB NNIIS m BE RpmvFD R ALlxr PLANT O Din NIBEYAIRIAL UrLol �ugBN1 m[ B. ANN 'LAI,0ARENAL All. Is ISEASED, gSmESSE0, DEAD, ON 'TRn IFn,EOLANDICAIE ARCNRCT PRIOR TO REMOVAL enWvnv+xEYONEo 5 rM L cu p µ�OiYIxE4ArERIAL11 oscnEiiNocsNINBBou"yn TA cNIunON AND vDE IE uI,IIIBIECRICAnWSNnn, Aram vzE 4EEnxc ALL xr'AS rnx, IRECEOENCE OWER NOTES MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE 'IN 11111 DLC KimleyoHorn WMeu MVIADn pB1um.D3Ng0 I. NaBMn9mn ­ ADDS, MmADADIE 11, Im 51415 0612.339.5501 iW WM 2'339.5312 . spBrc H.cOm PHASE 1 PLAN SET 160)55002 ell�Txwrq RAP MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 | ; � I )q§ §|77/ � , §d§ \| %§2 & m,, \\j ¢\\ |o\ f •,� §)U/ )%§ § l § §{ , §\ )2m§- .- ; ;@ C.5! _ §§ jr ) \ ) S \§ \ \� \ \ � � ) � ® > .. -m )q\(Kae t! ` ^ `$ ^ �§\§i) . cma� - A 2 2 §§ g /; @ §i .. z |] s CIO 41 104, | ; � I � � , Millennium at S..thdale DLC PLAN AMENDMENT bvi usueniw rysia� wa rew„ ur� s saosws w • srey asi un ...... ....... . . . . . . . . . . POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1 /20/2016 nn . .. . .......... 111TH PL11 P.A.. AO.Oa Millennium at Southd ale DLC Id COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP& REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 1 a 4� | | | | | go | ' | . '. . | ' �---------------------------------___-------__--___--__—_—_____—_--- _J Millennium at �o"*^a. 61 Millennium at Southdale DLC r]E:A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 A 0. 3 a Millennium at Southdale DLC , I 1 11 eSG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 ... . ......... A. Ell— III EL I IIAN - IlAlf I I OEM P • °A.Vw 1. AV r.. •M 'OKI LS go 0000 lo u S d• ` yx xx r �A, P F 0000 3: 0000 u .. r � P � 1 111sit. a � s 4 e t QARCHITECTURAL SFTEPLAN -PHASE1 mill:hnnium at Sou DLC , I ld COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP& REZONING SUBMITTAL 0/2016 Ill—S, ... ......... 2—IL ;,RIIIT,EITURAL SITE PLAN - "E Al .Oa L L III 1111111�11�xlo I I I �15f e • • i�• t • � • • • I • • • i • • • � • •I i,l�•�t�• i ■ • • I ■ • • i • •�•,�•�•�■ L I Big • a • �Q — -- ------- J, L Millennlu m at Sou.thdal. DLC ... ......... . ... .... . . F --1 •T • II -3 t• t B—t• t 8 a L III 1111111�11�xlo PJ ,e I:Lotttsl Millennlu m at Sou.thdal. DLC ... ......... . ... .... . . F --1 •T • II -3 t• t B—t• t 8 a L PJ ,e I:Lotttsl ot 2 L- L Millennlu m at Sou.thdal. DLC ... ......... . ... .... . . F --1 •T • II -3 t• t B—t• t 8 a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 /20/2016 IEIAl P� Ij- a PJ ,e COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 /20/2016 IEIAl P� Ij- a 40 CON -p Cl> n z 40 CON -p Cl> Millennium at So uthd ale DLC 61 COM PREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT P DP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/201 6 Millennium at Sou [hdale DLC w COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP& REZONING SUBMITTAL 1 2 0/2016 .4a , -. _...ors..... ... - .. s Oft a r 0 -. _...ors..... ... - .. s (4 !r, � ELEVATION (@ !?T ELEVATION LJ M SHE fT9- !1;!TFUEVATIDN Millennium at Sou [Ad ale DLC eSG XOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP I REZONING SUBMITTAL I/.0/2O16 "A Mtn -7— 1 =mom lorm 1A - BRICK - NORMAN 1B - BRICK - NORMAN 2A LANNON STONE (BUFF) (BLACK) u. 5A - METAL PANEL 5B - METAL PANEL (BLACK MATTE) (CHAMPAGNE METALLIC) 6A - HIGH PRESSURE LAMINATE PANEL 6B - HIGH PRESSURE LAMINATE PANEL 6C - POLYCARBONATE PANEL (LIGHT WOOD GRAIN) (CUSTOM BLUE) (MAGENTA) 9A - PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 9B - PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 9B - PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING (GALVALUME) (CHARCOAL GRAY) (CHARCOAL GRAY) 11 -FIBERGLASS WINDOW/DOOR (DARK BRONZE) Millennium at Southdale esG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PDP& REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 . .......... E1111111 IATE11111 A3.3a — - —t -- t — -PARKING--F---F---.F — - nnMUTH SECTION Millennium at Southdale L.1.1.1111.11111.1��111111 DLC - ) � I % COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 1/20/2016 RUILDINI 1-11NI A4.1 a YORKAVES _ 1 I / — — 91 L L — \ A6�. I ♦Z I NORTH Alp R WEST66THSTREET- r � I c ,,. —iSU EY NOTES SUB/ECT PROPERTY ammmm'TABLEA'NOTES ....<a�m..i,...�.�. �..,.�.w"w�.<�e....�..a�„M.. „..... ,�.,..... ..�.P .w—,.�o ...b. •,.....� m,H„e.o<.,.�wk„�..o.<,..�,.,,.y.�ih rtiv ,.o..<,.,,.., ....... ...... m..M. .H.. eSambatek Ne^N.s�YN� swAee.ev�sr�a Y..e, Client DLC RESIDENTIAL LLC Project CASSIN'S OUTLOTS Location EDINA, MN Certification Summary Revision History Ho.de Hr w mina Tw.o�, Sheet Title ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY Sheet No. Revision 1/1 Project No. DJR20414 ~ -----' ------ "="""^m" ~~~^ "^=^`"'"^^`'° z = t2 };n aG Oyu �sy� Joe r i ......... 1 pull! �r �W I f 1 pull! �r �W I r ¢Z Y — $$913 f 1 pull! �W I r ¢Z Y — m phpn R� I l I I I : I I I I 1- I I , I I 1 pull! �W r ¢Z $$913 NE cNj�p �s WguS cS e phpn R� I l I I I : I I I I 1- I I , I I 1 pull! cy �� s $$913 NE cNj�p �s WguS cS e S � � N 8�6 :5r HA gig 9W phpn R� I l I I I : I I I I 1- I I , I I 1 N951ll! pull! cy �� s $$913 NE cNj�p �s WguS cS N 8�6 :5r HA gig 9W N951ll! pull! cy �� zeg63 Wm0 $$913 NE cNj�p �s WguS cS YORK AVE S IRV 1,zqx�A l I I I I I ^.HIR s WHO � I I > T EO m� o B IgA --- — — — — — — — —J --L-------------- y-------------------- —1 - _ 1T1-TTITI-TTITTITITI-T1-1T1T1_ R--- -- --- --- ���� I I w~ I I 1 I 11 1 1 � r1 t_,r- d1" _1__U_1 1 � 1 1 /f 1 , I I I I ❑o❑ r--------------- --- ------ � _ 0 , -- a";f8 WEST 66TH STREET 8 ^s€ v� ^ A }�� XXE s •I" .1 � i � t Ewm�a � £tom91 r 00 011, Z `ia' Wg€�,� o lG O ,,►T ggg 3 ® � c : v S e ^ F � z� g S � �— TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS DLC RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 66TH & YORK EDINA, MINNESOTA Prepared for: City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 DECEMBER 2015 1 V1 Ki m I %n;;xyjr))) H o r n A�� TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS DLC RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 66TH AND YORK EDINA, MINNESOTA PLAN APPROVAL DLC Residential Dated: Edina Community Development Department Edina Public Works Department M Dated: Dated: DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 41 TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS DLC RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 66TH AND YORK EDINA, MINNESOTA REPORT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. William Reynolds, P.E., AICP, PTP Date License No. 52627 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis ( v1 01 1.0 Background...................................................................... City of Edina Transportation Goals ............................................ Traffic and Parking Analysis Objectives ..................................... 2.0 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit ....................................... Pedestrian.................................................................................. Bicycle........................................................................................ Transit........................................................................................ 3.0 Parking............................................................................. 4.0 Traffic Operations............................................................. Existing Traffic Conditions.......................................................... Background Growth and Future Traffic Conditions .................... Trip Generation and Distribution ................................................ Delay and Queuing Analysis Results ......................................... Recommendations..................................................................... 5.0 Appendix.......................................................................... Appendix A: Supplemental Exhibits ........................................... Appendix B: Level of Service Results and Queue Projections.. Appendix C: SimTraffic Reports ................................................. Appendix D: Parking Demand Memo ......................................... DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 U .............................1 ................................ 1 ................................ 2 ............................. 5 ................................ 5 ................................ 5 ................................ 5 8 ............................. ............................. 9 ................................ 9 .............................. 12 .............................. 17 .............................. 25 .............................. 26 ........................... 27 .............................A-1 ............................. B-1 ............................ C-1 ............................ D-1 Table B-1: 2018 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ... B-2 Table B-2: 2018 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing B-3 Table B-3: Phase 1 (2018) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ........................... B-4 Table B-4: Phase 1 (2018) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing ...................... B-5 Table B-5: 2024 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ... B-6 Table B-6: 2024 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing B-7 Table B-7: Phase II (2024) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay .......................... B-8 Table B-8: Phase II (2024) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing ..................... B-9 Table 4-1: Morning Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase 1 .......................................17 Table 4-2: Evening Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase I .......................................18 Table 4-3: Morning Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase 11 ......................................19 Table 4-4: Evening Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase 11 ......................................19 Table B-1: 2018 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ... B-2 Table B-2: 2018 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing B-3 Table B-3: Phase 1 (2018) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ........................... B-4 Table B-4: Phase 1 (2018) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing ...................... B-5 Table B-5: 2024 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay ... B-6 Table B-6: 2024 No Build Conditions SimTraffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing B-7 Table B-7: Phase II (2024) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Delay .......................... B-8 Table B-8: Phase II (2024) Build Conditions — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuing ..................... B-9 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 An Figure1-1: Project Location..........................................................................................................3 Figure1-2: Site Plan.....................................................................................................................4 Figure 2-1: Transit Routes Near the Site......................................................................................7 Figure 4-1: Existing (2015) Lane Geometry ................................................................................11 Figure 4-2: Future Year (2018) AM No Build Turning Movement Volumes................................13 Figure 4-3: Future Year (2018) PM No Build Turning Movement Volumes................................14 Figure 4-4: Future Year (2024) AM No Build Turning Movement Volumes................................15 Figure 4-5: Future Year (2024) PM No Build Turning Movement Volumes................................16 Figure 4-6: Future Year (2018) AM Phase I Turning Movement Volumes..................................21 Figure 4-7: Future Year (2018) PM Phase I Turning Movement Volumes..................................22 Figure 4-8: Future Year (2024) AM Phase II Turning Movement Volume..................................23 Figure 4-9: Future Year (2024) PM Phase II Turning Movement Volume..................................24 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 An Figure A-1: Existing (2015) AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................................. A-2 Figure A-2: Existing (2015) PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................................. A-3 Figure A-3: Residential Trip Distribution................................................................................... A-4 Figure A-4: Residential Trip Driveway Assignment................................................................... A-5 Figure A-5: Future Year (2018) Residential Trip Assignment — AM Peak Hour ........................ A-6 Figure A-6: Future Year (2018) Residential Trip Assignment — PM Peak Hour ........................ A-7 Figure A-7: Future Year (2024) Residential Trip Assignment — AM Peak Hour ........................ A-8 Figure A-8: Future Year (2024) Residential Trip Assignment — PM Peak Hour ........................ A-9 Figure A-9: Future Year (2024) Office Trips Removed — AM Peak Hour ................................ A-10 Figure A-10: Future Year (2024) Office Trips Removed — PM Peak Hour .............................. A-11 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 AS 1.0 BACKGROUND DLC Residential is proposing a residential redevelopment project for the site in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of York Avenue and West 66th Street. The site is currently occupied by two buildings and surface parking The Redevelopment Plan calls for implementation in phases. During Phase I, the 62,100 sq. ft. medical/office building located on the northeast section of the site (6550 York Avenue) will remain open; the other building on site (3250 West 66th Street) is currently only partially occupied and will be removed, replaced with 230 residential units and a combination of surface and secure parking supplied at a ratio of 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit. During Phase ll, the 62,100 sq. ft. medical/office building will be removed and replaced with an additional 145 residential units and surface and secure parking, also at a ratio of 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit. During both phases, the existing right -in right -out driveway configuration will be preserved, providing access to both 66th Street as well as York Avenue. The connection to the local streets north of the site will also be preserved, allowing drivers to arrive and depart the site via 64th Street. The project location is shown in Figure 1-1, and the proposed site plan for the fully redeveloped site is shown in Figure 1-2. During the redevelopment of the site, the adjacent parcel (3316 West 66th Street) will remain open, and access to York Avenue from the site will be preserved. A shared parking agreement is currently in place between this building and the two buildings on the redevelopment site. In order to assess the potential impacts of a reduction in surface parking on the adjacent site, current parking demands at 3316 West 66th Street are discussed in the Parking Demand Memo, provided in the Appendix. CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION GOALS The following policies for transportation are included in Chapter 7 of the Edina Comprehensive Plan, Update 2008, adopted by the Edina City Council on December 2, 2008: Goal 1: Maintain and enhance mobility for residents and businesses through creation and maintenance of a balanced system of transportation alternatives. Goal 2: Implement a fully multi -modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth. Goal 3: Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina's environment and neighborhood quality of life. Goal 4: Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single -occupant vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicular trips and the use of alternative travel options. Goal 5: Ensure that all Edina's residents, workers, and visitors, including those with transportation disadvantages, have viable travel options. Goal 6: Promote a travel demand management program through a coordinated program of regulations, marketing, and provision of alternative travel options. Goal 7: Provide multiple travel options for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, and rideshare users, as well as for drivers of private automobiles. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 AS -2 Goal 8: Support attractive and high performance transit service and connections. Goal 9: Manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride -sharing (car pools and van pools), bicycle parking, and increased transit use. Goal 10: Provide for efficient movement of goods within Edina, while minimizing the impacts of freight traffic on other trips and reducing negative impacts on land uses on freight corridors. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES This traffic and parking analysis details the proposed project, including the site's design, location, and access plan. It discusses existing and future parking demands, as well parking supply during each project phase. Future traffic conditions are discussed, and potential impacts of the residential redevelopment project are identified. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 /E 0 DLC Residential - EdinaHERITAGEm ` > A § \ 6 � ± � © o 40 ; ` mH;w \ \ o i Site ona e,ew y > , ee;w Phase JKW m , Phase ' � ( - k Z me,w , ƒ s _mm 4P . \ mH=w J \ 110lee « § $__CUB 00 0 � ¥ K m� ¥ Orn �0 175 ®o Project i Location A wa 66th St. w.&York Ave. i Figure &tProject Location DL mmenla Redevelopment m6ehedYrk) December »e Traffic and Parking Analysis |C AS -T- COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE PHASE 2 POOL & TERRACE GREEN ROOF PHASE 2 BUILDING AMENITIES GREEN ROOF TERRACES PHASE 1 POOL & TERRACE DECK PHASE 1 BUILDING AMENITIES GREEN ROOF TERRACES I Sketch Plan Revfew 13 LC R I_ S I D F N T I A L RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT LEVEL? 2015 August 12th 6bTH&YORK E rxlina, hw Figure 1-2: Site Plan DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 A �5- 12.0 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT PEDESTRIAN The site is located adjacent to Southdale Square as well as the Southdale Shopping Center. Sheridan Park is the nearest park, and Sheridan Hill Elementary School is within 1/2 mile of the site. There is a sidewalk along the length of the site, including the north side of W. 66th Street and the east side of York Avenue/Xerxes Avenue, with the exception of the short (75') right turn lane into the site from York Avenue. The intersection of W. 66th Street and York Avenue has marked crosswalks across all four legs, and pedestrian crossing pushbuttons in each quadrant. The intersection of W. 66th Street and the Southdale Shopping Center exit has a crosswalk on the east leg with pedestrian pushbuttons in the northeast and southeast quadrants. There is also a marked crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection of Xerxes Avenue and W. 64th Street. BICYCLE No marked bicycle facilities are available on W. 66th Street, York Avenue, or Xerxes Avenue. TRANSIT Four METRO Transit bus routes stop adjacent to the site. Three additional routes stop one block away from the site at the Southdale Shopping Center. Details for each route are provided below. On W. 66th Street in the westbound direction, the rightmost lane is marked for "Bus Stopping and Right Turns Only," providing a transit advantage during times of congestion. ADJACENT ROUTES Route 6 • Type: Local Bus • Nearest Stop: 66th Street & York Avenue • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, Xerxes Ave, Uptown Transit Station, Downtown Minneapolis, University of Minnesota • Weekday Frequency: 4 to 15 minutes • Weekend Frequency: 15 minutes Route 515 • Type: Local Bus • Nearest Stop: 66th Street & Barrie Road • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, VA Medical Center Station, Mall of America Station Weekday Frequency: 15 to 30 minutes • Weekend Frequency: 15 to 30 minutes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York ( December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Route 578 • Type: Express Bus • Nearest Stop: 66th Street & York Avenue • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, 46th Street Station (1-35W), Downtown Minneapolis • Weekday Frequency: 30 minutes (peak hour only) • Weekend Frequency: - Route 579 • Type: Express Bus • Nearest Stop: 65th Street & Xerxes Avenue • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, 46th Street Station (1-35W), University of Minnesota • Weekday Frequency: 4 Northbound AM trips, 3 Southbound PM trips • Weekend Frequency: - NEARBY ROUTES Route 537 • Type: Local Bus • Nearest Stop: Southdale Transit Center • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, Normandale Community College • Weekday Frequency: 60 minutes • Weekend Frequency: - Route 538 • Type: Local Bus • Nearest Stop: Southdale Transit Center • Major Destinations: Southdale Center, Best Buy Headquarters, Southtown Shopping Center, Mall of America Station • Weekday Frequency: 30 minutes • Weekend Frequency: 30 to 60 minutes Route 684 • Type: Express Bus • Nearest Stop: Southdale Transit Center • Major Destinations: Chaska, Chanhassen, Southwest Station, Southdale Center, Downtown Minneapolis, University of Minnesota • Weekday Frequency: 10 Westbound AM trips, 6 Eastbound PM trips • Weekend Frequency: - DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 e � A DLC Residential Edina t �`��s y HERITAGE DR f O m y b`ti > $ 7 0 JE a `OfRP�GE O bti �0 J �P �P 64TH ST W rI a Z O Q X w X 165TH ST W 65TH ST W I i I i w m i i i 1 i 66TH ST W Q i 'I SOUTHDALE CIR G a 67TH ST W ZOO *< w a Y oGry�q1 lee ,. SO'UTHDALE CUB FOODS RD N�. o vs s5o Transit Routes Kimley>»Horn � Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 2-1: Transit Routes Near the Site DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 4s� Given the proposed phasing of development on site, a parking analysis was conducted in order to assess current demands, forecast future demands during Phase I, and confirm that the proposed parking supply will accommodate these demands. Based on field observations and a review of parking demand estimates from ITE and ULI, the proposed parking supply ratios are forecasted to adequately serve the parking demands for the office building on site as well as the office building on the adjacent site. Residential parking demand estimates were not included, but the proposed parking supply of 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit exceeds the minimum requirements for multifamily buildings in a Planned Commercial District under Edina's Code of Ordinances. A Parking Demand Memo, provided in the Appendix, documents the assumptions and recommendations in more detail, and the proposed parking stall counts and corresponding ratios are provided below. Phase I • 3250 Building - Removed • 6550 Building o Surface: 222 stalls o Secure: 28 stalls o Total: 250 stalls o Ratio: 4.03 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA • Phase I Residential o Surface: 29 stalls o Secure: 350 stalls o Total: 379 stalls o Ratio: 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit • Adjacent Site (3316 Building) o Surface: 140 stalls 0 4.24 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Phase 11 • 6550 Building - Removed • Phase I Residential — No Change from Phase / • Phase II Residential o Surface: 9 stalls o Secure: 225 stalls o Total: 334 stalls o Ratio: 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit • Adjacent Site (3316 Building) — No Change from Phase 1 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 660 and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 � Tq 4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS An analysis of the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed residential redevelopment project was completed. The assumptions, methodology, results, and recommended improvements are detailed in this section. The following intersections were analyzed for traffic impacts: • West 66th Street and Southdale Shopping Center Exit • West 6611 Street and 3316 West 66th Street West Access • West 66th Street and 3316 West 66th Street East Access • West 66th Street and York Avenue South • York Avenue South and 6550 York Avenue South Access • Xerxes Avenue South and West 64th Street The traffic conditions at these intersections were analyzed under four scenarios during the morning and evening peak hours using Synchro 9 and SimTraffic 9: • Future Year (2018) No Build Conditions • Future Year (2018) Build Conditions — Phase I • Future Year (2024) No Build Conditions • Future Year (2024) Build Conditions — Phase II EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS West 66th Street/County Round 53 is a four/five-lane east -west A -minor reliever arterial adjacent to the development site. Within the study area, the posted speed limit is 35 mph, and a median is present on both sides of York Avenue South. The 2014 annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume on West 66th Street east of York Avenue South was 14,700 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT's AADT map. On - street parking is prohibited, and within the five -lane segment between York Avenue South and France Avenue South/County Road 17, the rightmost lane in the westbound direction is marked for buses and right turning vehicles only. Both the access points on West 66th Street included within the analysis are right -in right -out, and a median prevents left turns into or out of each access point. York Avenue South/Xerxes Avenue South/County Road 31 is a two-way north -south major collector street. Within the study area, the posted speed limit is 35 mph south of West 66th Street and 30 mph north of West 66th Street. A median is present on both sides of West 66`h Street. The 2014 AADT on Xerxes Avenue south of Highway 62 was 17,300 vehicles per day, and the 2014 AADT on York Avenue south of West 66th Street was 22,000 vehicles per day, according to MnDOT's AADT map. Parking is allowed on both sides of Xerxes Avenue north of West 65th Street, but parking is prohibited south of West 65th Street within the study area. The access point on York Avenue included within the analysis is right -in right -out, and a median prevents left turns into or out of the access point. The existing lane geometry and intersection control for each of the study intersections is provided in Figure 4-1. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES To analyze traffic operations at the six study intersections, turning movement counts were collected on Thursday, September 17, 2015 during both the morning and evening peak hours. The network peak hour of these six intersections was determined to occur from 7:45-8:45AM and from 4:45-5:45PM. The DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Ao average Peak Hour Factor (PHF) during these hours was calculated at 0.93 in the morning and 0.96 in the evening. Due to the number of access points and intersections within the study area not included within the analysis, traffic volumes were not balanced between intersections. Because all six intersections were counted simultaneously, the volume imbalance can be attributed to these access points. The 2015 Existing Turning Movement Counts for the morning and evening peak hours, rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles by movement, are provided in the Appendix in Figures A-1 and A-2. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 AO DLC Residential - Edina ➢ HERITAGE DR O yb'y 410 w J(; S > Q O 0 �ybry,O��P�GO���+b� J GAP 3 64TIjST W r z 0 U a 65TH ST W r— , 65TH ST W H O W ' °�✓-PSS Bus 66TH ST W RRr SOUTHDALE CIR QO ITT JAG tO 67TH ST W O Q °rya o 1111O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD - .rr 9 Kimley>Morn 00 175 350 Exisiting Lane Geometry mmmnm:::= Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-1: Existing (2015) Lane Geometry DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 /f6 BACKGROUND GROWTH AND FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to analyze traffic operations in future years, the 2015 peak hour turning movement volumes were grown using an annual exponential background growth rate of 0.5 percent. Because traffic volumes in the area decreased between 2011 and 2014, this rate was determined based on discussions with the City of Edina. The Phase I analysis year was assumed to be one year following opening of Phase 1 (2017), resulting in an analysis year of 2018. The 2018 background traffic for this future No Build scenario, rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles by movement, is provided in Figures 4-2 through 4-3. The Phase II analysis year was assumed to be one year following opening of Phase 11 (2023), resulting in an analysis year of 2024. The 2024 background traffic volumes for this future No Build scenario, rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles by movement, are provided in Figures 4-4 through 4-5. No geometric modifications or other changes were assumed between existing conditions (2015) and the future No Build analysis years. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 M DLC Residential - Edina `) A bry P 03 U U PJ z Y1ybry�0FRP� 4041 k0' �S J �P �G Q 3 rz O O U 66TH ST W HERITAGE DR Q Y 0 0 130 iL "10 �r15 64TH ST W 40- fl 4 n w Q X K W X 65TH ST W I � I h Q Q 155 / x-770 -1 070 .1040 i� «41040 g535 �W 350- 1„r 240'' 240+ 05 35" a 165-+ 35� ad N SOUTHDALE CIR O r SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 65TH ST W N a w 671H ST W x X Kimle »Horn 0 175 350 AM 2018 No Build y mmmmm== Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-2: Future Year (2018) AM No Build Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 W DLC Residential - Edina r HERITAGE DR t >` ¢ 0 bry r r JE S � ¢ SUE P +bry O 0 bry�OFRP ���� -,0 �0 �S J P �0 64TH ST W Q �I o� nb 3 5* m 'z 25'A 0 w x w x 65THSTW I ' 65TH STV, h o i U -041. ' R85 x.-485 r2280 --780 `fi 1845 66TH ST W h 1020- +d t 995+ 995- 05 220--, �O o� 700- "'W ^ 75ti H SOUTHDALE CIR ¢ O `> w 67TH ST W x SOJ,�OP�� j ,rOGr�o O 9�Fr,P 9 SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 97. 0 175 350 PM 2018 No Build Kimley>»Horn Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-3: Future Year (2018) PM No Build Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 M DLC Residential - Edina A HERITAGE DR � ti PAb J� S � ¢ AGE P Alp 4� O b�iO�RP ASO J P X30 r15 < ST W 3 4 5-► 'z 15�. q O U > ¢ X K W X 65TH ST W I 65TH ST w it > a ' y m royp 2�,°A/ 0 o •G°� X60 X X45 95 / X740 40 j 105 -1070 61.1079 / c5 66TH ST W y W- 19 245-► 245+ 09 35-4 175+ 'O 35. SOUTHDALE CTR �O SLS < 67TH ST W N S� >Q JOGt�O O 9 �Ft,P SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 'f? �9 L Kimley>>)HUI"tl 0 175 350 AM 2024 No Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-4: Future Year (2024) AM No Build Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 A6y DLC Residential - Edina rA HERITAGE DR O 1 bI` �P v w J� S � SN' P ,bti 4RP Oy b'��O0 � NO J <' -5 i15 r 64Tt1 ST W 3 5- y Z 26-4 o O O U j Q w x W X 65TH ST W 65TH ST W w W y w m rr'\ys� R90 -500 / ��O 0 � (+-B�. 66TH ST W 870 0. f805 h 1050- 1" 1025- 1025+ 02) 225-1p 720- 1 80, oho o} ry� SOUTHDALE CIR O x 67TH ST W OP�g J1� x 5� rorty p� o r '9 SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD '9} Klmley>»Horn 00 175 350 PM 2024 No Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-5: Future Year (2024) PM No Build Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York ( December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Av I TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION -_►_•a ell Trip Generation estimates were developed based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation, 9th Edition. As these values represent estimates, all values were rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles. Phase I During Phase I, the 3250 Building (3250 W. 6611 Street) and adjacent parking will be replaced with a 230 - unit, 6 -floor apartment building with secure parking. The existing 6550 Building (6550 York Avenue South) and associated surface parking will remain open, along with the existing access locations on both York Avenue South and W. 66th Street. The apartment building is most similar to ITE's Land Use 223 ("Mid -Rise Apartment"), and this land use code was therefore used for developing trip generation estimates: "Mid -rise apartments are apartments (rental dwelling units) in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels (floors)." For both the morning and evening peak demand estimates, the rates associated with the peak hours of adjacent street traffic were used. Due to the relatively small sample size (seven studies), the average rate rather than the fitted curve equations were used for both time periods. Although some vehicles were observed parked near the 3250 building at the time of the counts, the building was largely vacant, and no trips were removed from the network for the future year analyses to account for the removal of this building. Additionally, because the 6550 Building was assumed to remain open during Phase I, the existing entries and exits from site driveways were preserved for the future analysis years. Although some degree of internal capture could be expected by co -locating a residential building on the same site as an office building, this would result in a reduction of less than 4 percent of trips according to ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, and no internal capture was assumed within the trip generation analysis. The total net new trips added to the network for the Phase I analysis year for both the morning and evening peak periods is provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Table 4-1: Morning Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase t DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York ( December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Al AM Code Land Use Description p Units No. Rate AM Trips AM Trips AM AM Total Trips Trips AM Enter Exit Enter Exit Trips M M 223 1 Mid -Rise Apartment DUs 230 1 0.30 1 31% 69% 20 50 70 20 1 50 70 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York ( December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Al Table 4-2: Evening Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase I Phase II During Phase II, the 6550 Building (6550 York Avenue South) and adjacent parking will be replaced with a 145 -unit 5 -floor apartment building with additional secure parking. Upon completion of Phase ll, the site will have a total of 375 apartment units, 38 surface stalls, and 576 secure parking stalls. As with Phase I, the average trip generation rates were used, applied to the completed residential development. The removal of the 6550 Building will lead to a significant reduction in the number of trips observed traveling to and from the site under existing conditions. At the time of the turning movement counts, the 62,100 sq. ft. office was approximately 71 percent occupied. Therefore, 44,100 sq. ft. was used to estimate the number of trips to remove from the network for the Phase II analysis. Due to the variety of uses observed within the building, ITE's Land Use 710 ("General Office Building") was used for developing trip generation estimates: "A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers and tenant services, such as a bank or savings and loan institution, a restaurant or cafeteria and service retail facilities. " The average rate rather than the fitted curve equations produced estimates most similar to observed driveway entries and exits, and this rate was therefore used for both time periods to estimate the number of trips to remove. The total net new trips added to the network for the Phase II analysis year for both the morning and evening peak periods, including the removed office trips, is provided in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 4vt PM Code Land Use Description Units No. RatePM Trips PM Trips PM PM Total Trips Trips PM Enter Exit Enter Exit Trips /o /o 223 Mid -Rise Apartment DUs 230 0.39 58% 42% 50 40 90 50 1 40 1 90 Phase II During Phase II, the 6550 Building (6550 York Avenue South) and adjacent parking will be replaced with a 145 -unit 5 -floor apartment building with additional secure parking. Upon completion of Phase ll, the site will have a total of 375 apartment units, 38 surface stalls, and 576 secure parking stalls. As with Phase I, the average trip generation rates were used, applied to the completed residential development. The removal of the 6550 Building will lead to a significant reduction in the number of trips observed traveling to and from the site under existing conditions. At the time of the turning movement counts, the 62,100 sq. ft. office was approximately 71 percent occupied. Therefore, 44,100 sq. ft. was used to estimate the number of trips to remove from the network for the Phase II analysis. Due to the variety of uses observed within the building, ITE's Land Use 710 ("General Office Building") was used for developing trip generation estimates: "A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers and tenant services, such as a bank or savings and loan institution, a restaurant or cafeteria and service retail facilities. " The average rate rather than the fitted curve equations produced estimates most similar to observed driveway entries and exits, and this rate was therefore used for both time periods to estimate the number of trips to remove. The total net new trips added to the network for the Phase II analysis year for both the morning and evening peak periods, including the removed office trips, is provided in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 4vt Table 4-3: Morning Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase 11 Table 4-4: Evening Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase Il AM Code Land Use Description Units No. Rate AM AM AM Trips AM TotalTrips PM Total Trips Trips AM Trips PM Enter Exit Enter Exit Trips Exit Trips /o /o 223 Mid -Rise Apartment DUs 375 0.30 31% 69% 35 80 115 710 General Office Building (1) 1ksf 44.1 1.56 88% 12% -60 -10 -70 -25 70 45 Table 4-4: Evening Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates for Phase Il Due to the removal of the office trips, trips entering the site during the morning peak hour represents a reduction from existing conditions, and trips exiting the site during the evening peak hour is only expected to increase by five vehicles. The greatest change in trips assigned to the network compared to existing conditions is associated with the residential trips exiting the site in the morning, and the residential trips returning to the site during the evening. [TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Residential Trips The trip distribution for the site -generated residential is shown in the Appendix in Figure A-3. This distribution is based on the current traffic patterns in the area as well as the driveway configuration and likely routing to and from the freeways in the area (Highway 62, 1-35W, Highway 100, and 1-494), as described below: • To/From the North (Xerxes Avenue) o Inbound: 65% o Outbound: 40% ■ Approximately 5 U-turns were observed at 66th Street and York Avenue on the southbound approach under existing conditions. For assignment purposes, it is assumed that approximately 20% of northbound trips (8% of total) will make a U- turn at 66th Street and 80% (32% of total) will take York Avenue to 64th Street and make left turn onto Xerxes Avenue to depart to the north. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 GO PM Code Land Use Description Units No. p Rate PM Trips PM PM Trips PM Total Trips Trips PM Enoter Exit Enter Exit Trips /o /o 223 Mid -Rise Apartment DUs 375 0.39 58% 42% 85 60 145 710 General Office Building (1) 1ksf 44.1 1.49 17% 83% -10 -55 -65 75 5 80 Due to the removal of the office trips, trips entering the site during the morning peak hour represents a reduction from existing conditions, and trips exiting the site during the evening peak hour is only expected to increase by five vehicles. The greatest change in trips assigned to the network compared to existing conditions is associated with the residential trips exiting the site in the morning, and the residential trips returning to the site during the evening. [TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Residential Trips The trip distribution for the site -generated residential is shown in the Appendix in Figure A-3. This distribution is based on the current traffic patterns in the area as well as the driveway configuration and likely routing to and from the freeways in the area (Highway 62, 1-35W, Highway 100, and 1-494), as described below: • To/From the North (Xerxes Avenue) o Inbound: 65% o Outbound: 40% ■ Approximately 5 U-turns were observed at 66th Street and York Avenue on the southbound approach under existing conditions. For assignment purposes, it is assumed that approximately 20% of northbound trips (8% of total) will make a U- turn at 66th Street and 80% (32% of total) will take York Avenue to 64th Street and make left turn onto Xerxes Avenue to depart to the north. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 GO • To/From the West (West 66th Street) o Inbound: 5% Trips from the west and southwest are most likely to arrive via Highway 62 and Xerxes Avenue as opposed to 66th Street from the west given the site driveway configuration and proximity to Highway 62. A negligible number of U-turns were observed on the eastbound approach to York Ave (1 or 2 during the peak hour), so 5% is assumed to capture the drivers that may choose to make this movement to access the site. o Outbound: 25% Due to the right -in right -out driveway configuration, some drivers will choose to proceed west and access Highway 62 from France Avenue, even if headed north or east. To/From the East (West 66th Street) o Inbound: 20% o Outbound: 25% ■ Due to the right -in right -out driveway configuration, some drivers will choose to turn left onto 66th Street to access 1-35W, even if headed north. • To/From the South (York Avenue) o Inbound: 10% o Outbound: 10% The corresponding site driveway assignment is shown in Figure A-4. Although approximately 35 percent of inbound trips are assumed to use the right in from 66th Street, all southbound, eastbound, and westbound outbound trips were assigned to the York Avenue driveway due to the site configuration and proximity of the secure parking access relative to this driveway. Maps showing the site -generated residential trips for the morning and evening peak hours for both Phase 1 (2018) and Phase II (2024) are provided in Figures A-5 through A-8. Office Trips Phase II includes the removal of the 6550 Building (6550 York Avenue South), and office trips therefore need to be removed from the network to analyze the full build scenario. The removed office trips are shown in Figures A-9 and A-10, generated using a proportional reduction of the office trips identified in Tables 4-3 and 4-3 based on existing traffic patterns. FUTURE BUILD TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Taking into account the trip assignment described above as well as the reduction of office trips for Phase II, the estimated Full Build morning and evening peak hour turning movements for both Phase I and Phase II are shown in Figures 4-6 through 4-9. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 A7 ( DLC Residential - Edina m O w �U I � JAS 11H b`L'O4RP�O0� 0 4016 �S J �P �G 6 3 Z O U 66TH ST W HERITAGE DR 1310 y ;15 64TH ST W fi 5- PI�� 5+ Q X d' W X 65TH ST W r-- — — -- 1 w � I > ' y a r Gr � `-55 -775 -50 / / �yK 235 X1080 i .1050 i� fjQ�SQ G , 1 350► 240+ 240+ 0n 165+ O 35, SOUTHDALE CIR O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 65TH ST W w 67TH ST W ix x Kimley'»Horn 0 175 350 AM 2018 Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-6: Future Year (2018) AM Phase I Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 pa DLC Residential - Edina Y. HERITAGE DR ry 3 G w JES P P�G� yyti O �01611, OSO J P R80 GF gn o i Sri 5 P� r15 y 64id ST W 45- 'z 25y O O a w x w x 65TH ST i �' , 65TH S1 w e 3 m 185 f855 -495 0280 *790 ) F790� + 0 66TH ST W ti 1025► 1000- 1000+ 5!� 220r p 700► 75ti SOUTHDALE CIR O J\G�� > S 67TH ST w x j x SOJ11 Q sOi ty O Y 9 �Ft,P '7 SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 9� Kimley>»Horn 0 175 350 PM 2018 Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-7: Future Year (2018) PM Phase l Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Al 3 DLC Residential - Edinaz HERITAGE DR � ti > 3 ¢ O b2 �P+b O� Z v w �O PJB u AGE Abd O b��04RP ��ya 0 O J 1 64 ST W < .n�,o n 3 5- z z 15ti O O U j X O' W X 65TH ST W i — �— , 65TH SIV, S 1-0 .795 40 120 -1085 "15 5 tis Nw 360+ 245-► 245- 0n 351 O 175- 1 35ti SOUTHDALE CIR 67TH ST W J1� x 50 > 110 a ryo O 9 �Ft,P 9 SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 9�. Klm�ey�>>Horn 0 175 350 AM 2024 Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-8: Future Year (2024) AM Phase N Turning Movement Volume DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66Th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 h7� DLC Residential - Edina 9� b1 J Q O Z U y�P Y�ybry�O�RP�OO',��+y(L m ,110 `S J �P �G Q 3 z O O U 65TH ST W a w 0 66TH ST W X870 1055+ HERITAGE DR o X65 c�N 64TZI ST W 5� qg 25-4 Q "90 �. / t GO h 1030+ 1030► 52) 225-0 0► 10 SOti SOUTHDALE CIR O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD x w x 65TH ST W a w 671H ST W it x Kimley>»Horn 0 175 350 PM 2024 Build Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure 4-9: Future Year (2024) PM Phase 11 Turning Movement Volume DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 on A DELAY AND QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS Models of each scenario were developed using Synchro, and then delay and queuing were evaluated for each scenario using the average output value from five simulations in SimTraffic. The Future Year (2018 and 2024) No Build scenarios were analyzed first to provide an understanding of delay and queuing including background traffic growth, before the addition of trips generated by residential development. The Future Year (2018) Phase I Build scenario was analyzed to determine the potential impact of Phase I site traffic on the adjacent study intersections, including all existing office trips from the site. The Future Year (2024) Phase 11 Build scenario was analyzed to determine the potential impact of Phase II site traffic on the adjacent study intersections, including additional residential trips but accounting for the reduction of office trips. 2018 NO BUILD RESULTS All intersections operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better under the 2018 No Build Conditions scenario, as shown in the Appendix in Table B-1. Two movements exceed the LOS D threshold during the PM peak hour at 66th Street and York Avenue. Both the northbound and southbound left turns at 66th Street and York Avenue have delays in excess of 55 seconds. However, these delays are very close to the D/E threshold, and delays in this range can be expected given the 130 -second cycle length. Additionally, while the eastbound through movement at 64th Street and Xerxes Avenue slightly exceeds the 35 -second threshold during the PM peak hour, this is a very low volume movement (5 vehicles) and subject to significant random variability as a result. No significant queuing issues are expected during either peak hour, as shown in Table B-2. On the northbound approach to 66th Street and York Avenue, left turn queues are projected to reach the limit of the storage lanes, and in some cases queues in the through lanes can be expected to block entrance into the turn lanes. No significant upstream blockage is expected, however. Queues on the southbound approach can also be expected to block entrance to the turn lane during some cycles, but this will not lead to significant delays. 2018 PHASE I BUILD RESULTS With the construction of 230 residential units on site during Phase I, all intersections are expected to continue to operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better as shown in the appendix in Table B-3. Average intersection delay at 66th Street and York Avenue is expected to remain approximately equivalent to the No Build condition. At 66th Street and York Avenue, the eastbound U-turn movement at 6611 Street and York Avenue is estimated to serve 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour, and while this low volume movement is subject significant random variability, some vehicles making this movement to access the site may encounter delays of 60 seconds or more. No other movements at this intersection are expected to have a significant increase in average delay compared to the No Build condition. Additionally, while the westbound left and through movements at 64th Street and Xerxes Avenue are estimated exceed the D/E threshold under the PM peak hour Build scenario, these movements are also very low volume, serving 15 and 5 vehicle, respectively. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis ( v1 AW No significant changes in queue spillback or lane blockage are expect under the Phase I Build scenario compared to the No Build condition, as shown in Table B-4. 2024 NO BUILD RESULTS All intersections operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better under the 2024 No Build Conditions scenario, as shown in the Appendix in Table B-5. Average intersection delay at 66th Street and York Avenue is expected to increase by one second overall compared to the 2018 No Build Condition as a result of background traffic growth. As in the 2018 No Build scenario, both the northbound and southbound left turns at 66th Street and York Avenue have delays very close to the D/E threshold of 55 seconds during the PM peak hour, but a significant increase in delay for these movements is not expected. No other movements are expected to exceed the D/E threshold, and some of the observed delay reductions at 64th Street and York Avenue between 2018 and 2024 are simply attributable to random variability of the very low volume movements No significant changes in queue spillback or lane blockage are expect under the 2024 No Build scenario compared to the 2018 No Build condition, as shown in Table B-6. 2024 PHASE II BUILD RESULTS With the construction of 145 additional residential units on site during Phase II and the removal of the 6550 office building, all intersections are expected to continue to operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better as shown in the appendix in Table B-7. Average intersection delay at 66th Street and York Avenue is expected to remain approximately equivalent to the 2024 No Build condition. As in the 2024 No Build scenario, both the northbound and southbound left turns at 6611 Street and York Avenue, as well as the U-turn movements, have delays very close to the D/E threshold of 55 seconds during the PM peak hour, but a significant increase in delay for these movements is not expected. No significant changes in queue spillback or lane blockage are expect under the Phase II Build scenario compared to the No Build condition, as shown in Table B-8. RECOMMENDATIONS It is anticipated that the existing area lane geometry will be adequate to support future traffic growth and the addition of site traffic at the area study intersections. No geometry or operations improvements are recommended at this time to support the residential redevelopment project. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York ( December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 477 A. Supplemental Exhibits B. Level of Service Results and Queue Projections C. SimTraffic Results D. Parking Demand Memo DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 h7s APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS DLC Residential - Edina g , r,'. P ,. C,✓ y HERITAGE DR O J yti a O Op lata w ,ZJO J� S � P 0 AGE ayti O 1OF�P b:0 �8 �S J ZG�P �oN N R30 X10 g15 64TH ST W 40-9 All 3 'z 15a O O w x w X 65TH ST W r— 65TH ST W ww h m Q� syi D ( 4 1165 -1055 -760 X230 235 -1025 6 ( / op 66TH ST W h 345-► 1025+ 235-► 0n Q 350 165- 65-35ti 35-* SOUTHDALE CIR 9O y�G tO 67TH ST W x 10 > rotary Q p9 o r SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD Kimley»>Horn 00 175 350 AM 2015 Existing Turns Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-1: Existing (2015) AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 H71 DLC Residential Edina O b`ti z u SPA JAS G �yb�`OSRP�O���ybry 0 �0� �S J �P �G Q Z O O U 65TH ST W 66TbST W 1-0 x830 1005 Y 0 HERITAGE DR R60 �N 5 � t r15 64LH ST W �r 5- o��6 25-4 w a w x W X � ' f ♦5 V-85 / -480 R5 S,1275 1770 7701 �Q C;0 h �w 980- 980+ 05 r 215 67905, d. SOUTHDAIE CIR W O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 66T,i ST, IN w Q W 67TH ST W' x X Kimley>»Horn 00 175 350 PM 2015 Existing Turns Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-2: Existing (2015) PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 W DLC Residential - Edina 65% 40% www■wwwww w w ■ w 32%• :8% ■ ■ w w • w • w • w • a — 1 ■ 25% ti r`Ir /#` f20% ti w■�w�■�■wwwwwwwwww•. ••� 5% 25% t10% 10% i Kimley>»Horn 0 175 350 Residential Trip Distribution ® Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-3: Residential Trip Distribution DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 DLC Residential - Edina a Kimley o Horn 0 0 43.75 87.50 mmmwmEz:= Feet Figure A-4: Residential Trip Driveway Assignment 66TH ST W Residential Trip Driveway Assignment 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 DLC Residential - Edinaz HERITAGE DR b AbI` �P z U �P S > P � aGE ybR p RP O laL � ASO J G �p -0 64Td ST W 0- zz O O > a X K W X 65TH ST W I I 65TH SI v, mI o I iG"y W t10 -10 -10 56 ril 66TH $T W ti amP, 0' �I', 0+ 0+ ft a 0-0 .'o N SOUTHDALE CIR O 67TH ST W � X SOJ'l'2OP�� SOGlti p9 0 r �Ft,P SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 9 9f. Kimley»>Horn 0 175 350 AM 2018 Residential Trips Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-5: Future Year (2018) Residential Trip Assignment — AAA Peak Hour Note: Due to the rounding convention and limited number of trips, approximately 50 percent of outbound trips depart to the north in this scenario after balancing and rounding. DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 At3 DLC Residential - Edina HERITAGE DR O vbti O z U w P Y NGE ,bti RQ,P O 0 �y0�0 0 JyO� �S J �P -0 o P < 61 y klSTW 3 0+ 'z 0� O O U j Q w x w x 657H ST W r— 65TH S7 s: � � I j0 Q ( �� n~A� iG5/ o ' RO 0 �O q Q R20 Co l� �Q ll�� t�� • 5+ a � 5. 5-. 55 r � Oa 0- • �O N SOUTHDALE CIR O 4 > 67TH ST W SO > JOi a ty O > 9 �Ft,P SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD Jul �9 L Kimley>»Horn 00 175 350 PM 2018 Residential Trips Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-6: Future Year (2018) Residential Trip Assignment - Pn4 Peak Hour DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Mll DLC Residential - Edina y O 1 b1 O +bti �O JAS ZO�RP�U� P ��+bry y$11 00 J �P �G a 3 r Z O O U 65TH ST W w 3 0 66TH ST W Kimley>»Horn 0O�Feet HERITAGE DR 0 64ST W 2T�1 0- 0-4 I � f ' G �0 / 10 20 %� x-20 / , � h 0i 0* Oi O ♦ O Qa SOUTHDALE CIR O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD Figure A-7: Future Year (2024) Residential Trip Assignment - AM Peak Hour DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 05~ x w x 65TH ST W W 67TH ST W x AM 2024 Residential Trips 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. DLC Residential - Edina HERITAGE DR ry b c O Z bry Z U W G w J0S a O r 0 ��bryiO�RP�GO���+bry 00� S J P Q > 6aiLi ST W 3 0+ z o- 0 O U j a w x w x 65TH ST W �"" i' -- , 65TH SI `r w ` w m �h sr XV .115 5, -115 5i( ..15 , / � (;0 66TH ST W h 5* 5+ 5� 55 00 0. ♦ 0 IN SOUTHDALE CIR O 67TH ST W SO > sOG a rso O 9eFt,P 9 SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 9` Kimley>»Horn 0 175 350 PM 2024 Residential Trips Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-8: Future Year (2024) Residential Trip Assignment — PM Peak Hour DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 DLC Residential - Edina 9 p y`L 4 IPJ Q S + J �\V� JAS YlybljO�RP�GO11��+bry 0 J �P �G �P F 3 'z O O U 65TH ST W w Q w 0 w0 66TH ST W O. a� Kimley>>> Horn 0 �Feet HERITAGE DR x w X h 'o o X15 5 d ( a-5 c0 h o} . 0 o~ a SOUTHDALE CIR Figure A-9: Future Year (2024) Office Trips Removed — AM Peak Hour DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis ( v1 0 7 O SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD 65TH STV, w 67TH ST W x w AM 2024 Office Trips 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. DLC Residential - Edina �P Q 03 Z U �P �ybrylU4RP�C0���+bry 0 �P ?G Q 3 Z O O U 65TH ST W 66TH ST W HERITAGE DR O ' G •.p VLO C;0 h 0+ 0r Or , O 0+ a 0+. o'�aa SOUTHDALE CIR N O r SOUTHDALE CUB FOODS RD x w x 65+�+. ST s, a x 67TH ST W X I Kimley »> Horn 0 175 350 PM 2024 Office Trips Feet 66th St. W. & York Ave. S. Figure A-10: Future Year (2024) Office Trips Removed — PM Peak Hour DLC Residential Redevelopment at 661h and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Alg APPENDIX B: LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS AND QUEUE PROJECTIONS Table B-1: 2018 No Build Conditions Sim Traffic Summa - AM and PM Peak Hour Dela 2018 SimTraffic Summary - AM No Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & Operations by Movement Through Right EB Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LCIS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS 0.9 A EB Southdale A WB Southdale 1.2 A 4.7 East Signal g NB 25.4 C - 4.3 A 1.4 A Driveway A SB A Driveway _ Sg _ _ _ _ _ EB EB 0.3 A 1.5 A W 66th St & WB WB 0.6 A A 3316 West TWSC NB NB Driveway SB - - - - - - 3.0 A EB EB 3.0 A 0.6 A - W 66th St & W 66th St & WB 2.4 A 1.5 2.7 A 1.9 A TWSC NB 3316 East TWSC NB - Driveway - Driveway SB - - - - - - 3.8 A 53.4 C 38.5 EB - A 40.0 D 25.5 C 1.7 A 50.0 D W 66th St & C WB 35.5 D 34.4 C 20.9 C 3.5 A 35.4 York Ave Signal NB 32.9 C 34.0 C 24.3 C 2.5 A 23.6 C 3.0 A SB - 37.5 D 27.9 C 1.3 A 3.8 A EB York Ave & - 2.9 A York Ave& WB TWSC NB _ _ _ _ 6550 Driveway TWSC NB SB - 2.4 A - A SB 24.5 C 35.3 0.4 A 0.4 A Xerxes Ave & WB EB 28.8 D 15.5 C 13.7 B 4.7 A W 64th St TWSC Xerxes Ave& WB - 1.7 11.7 B 15.2 C 4.6 A SB W 64th St TWSC NB 9.1 A 5.9 A, 0.4 A 0.4 A SB - - 2.8 A, 0.4 A 0.3 A 2018 SimTraffic Summa - PM No Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LCIS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB 5.6 A Southdale WB 4.7 A East Signal g NB 24.6 C: - 9.2 A 6.6 A Driveway Sg _ _ _ EB 1.5 A W 66th St & WB 0.5 A 3316 West Driveway TWSC NB 5B - 2.6 A EB 3.0 A - W 66th St & WB 2.4 A 1.5 A 3316 East TWSC NB - Driveway SB - 3.3 A EB 53.4 C 38.5 D 1.8 A W 66th St & WB 50.0 D 33.7 C 3.6 A York Ave Signal NB 56.0 35.4 D 3.2 A 35.2 D SB 46.1 D 56.9 35.6 D 3.0 A EB - 3.8 A York Ave & WB 6550 Driveway TWSC NB 3.1 A SB - 0.5 A 0.4 A EB_ 24.5 C 35.3 8.7 A Xerxes Ave & WB 28.8 D 31.7 D 13.3 B W 64th St TWSC NB 5.9 A 1.7 A 1.5 A SB 12.2 B 0.4 A 0.1 A DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 ACID Tahla R-2. 201 R Nn Ruild Cnndifion.� .Sim Traffic Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuino 2018 SimTraffic Summa - AM No Build Queuin Intersection Control Queue Length by Movement Approach Left Through Right Storage 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB 350 35 WB - - 250 65 NB 250 65 200 35 SB - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 0 WB - 250 0 250 0 NB SB - - - 100 25 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB - 650 10 - - WB 225 15 225 10 NB SB - 100 25 W 66th St & York Ave Signal EB 400 50 875 90 300 0 WB 300 150 700 230 300 0 NB 250 115 375 120 200 0 SB 250 30 700 80 100 70 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 30 WB - - - - NB 200 0 - - SB - - 450 0 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 55 400 55 400 55 WB 300 55 300 55 300 55 NB 251) 40 600 0 600 0 SB 201) 1 20 800 0 800 0 2018 SimTraffic Summa - PM No Build Queuin Intersection Control Approach Left Storage Queue Length by Movement Through Right 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB - 350 155 - WB - - 250 175 NB 250 110 - - 200 90 SB - - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB - 400 5 - WB - 250 5 250 0 NB SB - - - 100 35 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB - 650 100 - - WB - 225 10 225 10 NB SB - - - 100 20 W 66th St &York Ave Signal EB 403 145 875 260 300 0 WB 30D 205 700 210 300 0 NB 250 170 375 290 200 0 SB 250 70 700 150 100 80 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 35 WB NB - 200 5 - - SB - - 450 5 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 65 400 65 400 65 WB 300 75 300 75 300 75 NB 250 40 600 10 600 5 SB 200 40 800 5 800 5 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Table B-3: Phase 1 (2018) Build Conditions - AM and PM Peak hour Delay 2018 SimTraffic Summa - AM Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB 0.9 A Southdale WB 1.4 A East Signal NB 27.3 C - 3.9 A 1.5 A Driveway SB _ _ _ EB 0.3 A W 66th St & WB 0.6 A 3316 West TWSC NB - Driveway SB - 2.8 A EB 0.6 A - W 66th St & WB 2.9 A 2.0 A 3316 East TWSC NB - - Driveway SB - - 3.7 A EB - 38.5 C 24.2 C 1.7 A W 66th St & WB 30.8 C 35.0 C 20.5 C 3.2 A C York Ave Signal NB 32.7 C 33.8 C 25.0 C 2.6 A 23.3 SB 42.8 D 38.2 C 27.9 C 1.2 A EB - - 3.4 A York Ave & WB - - 6550 TWSC NB - - - - 2.4 A - - Driveway SB 0.4 A 0.5 A EB 16.0 C 22.2 C 7.6 A Xerxes Ave & WB 13.9 B 16.6 C 4.6 A W 64th St TWSC NB 7.3 A 6.7 A 0.5 A 0.2 A SB - - 3.2 A, 0.4 A 0.4 A 2018 SimTraffic Summa - PM No Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB 5.8 A Southdale WB 4.9 A East Signal g NB 23.5 C: - 7.7 A 6.5 A Driveway SB _ - EB 1.5 A W 66th St & WB 0.6 A 3316 West TWSC N13 Driveway SB - - - - - - 3.4 A EB 2.5 A - W 66th St & WB 2.5 A 1.8 A 3316 East TWSC NB Driveway SB - - - - - - 4.5 j A EB 65.4 53.6 D 38.4 D 1.8 A W 66th St & WB - 50.4 D 34.8 C 3.5 A York Ave Signal NB - 53.7 D 37.4 D 3.3 A 35.8 D SB 50.3 D 57.9 36.0 D 2.9 A EB - - - 4.0 A York Ave & WB - _ 6550 TWSC NB - - - 3.2 A - - Driveway SB 0.5 A 0.4 A EB 34.9 D 39.7 15.2 C Xerxes Ave & WB 40.7 M 41.9 16.1 C W 64th St TWSC NB 6.4 A 1.7 A 1.9A SB 10.0 A 0.4 A 0.2 A DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Table B-4 Phase l (2018) Build Conditions— AM and PM Peak hour Queuing 2018 SimTraffic Summa - AM Build Queuin Intersection Control Queue Length by Movement Approach Left Through Right Storage 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB - 350 40 WB - - 250 90 - - NB 250 60 - - 200 30 SB - - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB - 400 0 - - WB - 250 0 250 0 NB SB - - 100 25 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB 650 10 - - WB 225 20 225 15 NB SB - - - 100 25 W 66th St &York Ave Signal EB 400 45 875 85 300 0 WB 300 150 700 215 300 0NB 251) 125 375 120 200 0 SB 250 45 700 80 100 75 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 30 1N13 200 10 SB - - 450 0 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 60 400 60 400 60 WB 300 55 300 55 300 55 NB 250 40 600 0 600 0 SB 200 20 800 5 800 5 2018 SimTraffic Summa - PM Build Queuin Intersection Control Approach Left Storage Queue Length by Movement Through Right 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB - 350 165 WB - - 250 165 - - NB 250 100 - - 200 75 SB - - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 0 - - WB 250 0 250 0 NB - - - - SB - - - 100 40 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB 650 80 - WB 225 15 225 5 SB - - 100 20 W 66th St & York Ave Signal EB 400 145 875 255 300 0 WB 300 200 700 220 300 0 NB 250 205 375 320 200 0 SB 250 100 700 145 100 80 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 35 WB - - - - NB 200 15 - - SB - - 450 0 75 25 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 90 400 90 400 90 WB 300 90 300 90 300 90 NB 250 45 600 10 600 10 SB 200 35 800 5 800 5 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 W Table B-5: 2024 No Build Conditions Sim Traffic Summary - AM and PM Peak Hour Delay 12024 SimTraffic Summary - AM No Build Traffic i Intersection Control U -Turn _ Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & 1.2 A 6.1 A Southdale WB Southdale WB 1.7 A 5.7 A East Signal g NB Signal NB 33.6 C - 3.7 A 1.9 A Driveway Sg - _ _ _ EB EB 1.7 A 0.4 A W 66th St & WB W 66th St & 0.6 WB 0.6 A NB 3316 West TWSC NB Driveway - - 4.1 Driveway SB EB - 3.2 2.7 A W 66th St & EB WB 2.4 0.7 A - 3316 East W 66th St & NB WB 2.9 A 2.1 A SB- 3316 East TWSC NB - - - - - - - - 54.4 D Driveway D SB - W 66th St & - WB rD 6.0 A 33.3 C 3.4 AYork EB - Ave 40.7 C 24.9 C 1.8 A 3.3 A36.2 W 66th St & D WB 27.2 C 32.5 C 20.7 C 3.3 A York Ave Signal NB 27.7 C 33.1 C 22.8 C 2.6 A 23.2 C W B SB - 41.2 C 29.8 C 1.0 A NB - - - - 3.4 EB - - - Driveway 3.1 AWB 0.5 York Ave & 0.2 A _ _ _ _ _ _ D 8.7 6550 TWSC NB Xerxes Ave & WB 31.3 2.4 A - 13.2 B Driveway W 64th St SB NB 7.5 A 1.7 0.4 A 0.4 A SB EB ES 0.4 16.8 C 18.9 C 6.0 A Xerxes Ave & WB 16.6 C 16.5 C 5.6 A W 64th St TWSC NB 12.5 B 7.3 A 0.5 A 0.5 A SB - 3.5 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 2024 SimTraffic Summa - PM No Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB 6.1 A Southdale WB 5.7 A East Signal NB 24.3 C - 9.0 A 7.2 A Driveway 56 - - - EB 1.7 A W 66th St & WB 0.6 A 3316 West TWSC NB Driveway SB - 4.1 A EB 3.2 A - W 66th St & WB 2.4 A 1.7 A 3316 East TWSC NB - Driveway SB- - - 4.3 A EB 54.4 D 39.2 D 1.8 A W 66th St & WB rD 51.9 D 33.3 C 3.4 AYork Ave Signal NB 54.6 D 39.1 D 3.3 A36.2 D SB 52.9 56.9 38.1 D 3.4 A EB - - 4.4 A York Ave & W B _ _ 6550 TWSC NB - - - - 3.4 A - - Driveway SB 0.5 A 0.2 A EB 27.6 D 33.4 D 8.7 A Xerxes Ave & WB 31.3 D 29.2 D 13.2 B W 64th St TWSC NB 7.5 A 1.7 A 1.7 A SB 13.0 ES 0.4 A 0.3 A DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 December 2015 Tahle R-6 2024 Nn Rnild Cnnditinn.s SimTraffir. Summary — AM and PM Peak Hour Queuina 2024 SimTraffic Summa - AM No Build Queuing Intersection Control Queue Length by Movement Approach Left Through Right Storage 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB 350 50 WB - - 250 95 - - NB 250 70 - - 200 40 SB - - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 0 - - WB 250 0 250 0 NB - - - - - SB - - - 100 20 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB 650 10 - - WB 225 15 225 5 NB - - - - SB - - 100 25 W 66th St & York Ave Signal EB 400 50 875 1 85 300 0 WB 300 155 700 230 300 0 NB 250 115 375 115 200 0 SB 250 35 700 70 100 75 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 30 WB NB 200 0 - - SB - - 450 0 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 55 400 55 400 55 WB 300 60 300 60 300 60 NB 250 40 600 10 600 0 SB 200 25 800 0 800 0 2024 SimTraffic Summa - PM No Build Queuin Intersection Control Queue Length by Movement Approach Left Through Right Storage 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB 350 165 WB - - 250 195 NB 25-0 110 - - 200 85 SB - - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 5 - - WB 250 0 250 0 NB - - - - - SB - - - 100 40 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB - 650 115 - WB - 225 15 225 10 NB - - - - - SB - - - - 100 20 W 66th St &York Ave Signal EB 400 140 875 260 300 0 WB 300 210 700 225 300 0NB 250 190 375 340 200 0 SB 250 80 700 160 100 85 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 30 WB NB - 200 10 - - SB - 450 10 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 60 400 60 400 60 WB 300 80 300 80 300 80 NB 250 45 600 5 600 0 SB 200 40 800 0 800 0 DLC Resideitial Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Table B-7: Phase 11 2024 Build Conditions - AM and PM Peak Hour Dela 2024 SimTraffic Summary - AM Build Traffic Intersection Control U -Turn Left Operations by Movement Through Right Overall Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & Operations by Movement EB Overall Intersection U -Turn Left Through Right Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) 1.1 A EB Southdale 6.3 WB 1.5 A WB East Signal g NB 27.6 C: - NB 4.7 A 17 A Driveway 8.5 SB 7.4 A _ - _ - - EB EB 0.3 A 1.7 A W 66th St & WB W 66th St & WB 0.6 A 0.5 A 3316 West Driveway TWSC NB TWSC NB - SB 513 - 3.7 A EB 2.7 0.6 A - W66thSt& W 66th St & WB WB 2.5 A 2.9 A 2.2 A 3316 East Driveway TWSC 3316 East Driveway TWSC NB SB - - SB - - A - 4.9 A EB 52.9 D 51.9 C EB - 1.8 38.8 D 26.0 C 1.7 A 50.6 W 66th St & 34.6 WB 28.0 C 35.1 D 21.3 C 3.4 A 56.5 York Ave Signal NB 33.2 C 35.0 C', 23.3 C 2.5 A 23.6 C D 4.1 SB 29.4 C 35.7 D 28.1 C 1.3 A - 4.3 A EB - York Ave & - WB 3.4 A York Ave & W B 6550 Driveway TWSC NB 3.4 A - 6550 Driveway TWSC NB SB - 2.4 A - 0.5 A SB EB 33.2 D 0.4 A 0.4 A Xerxes Ave & EB 31.4 14.8 B 14.0 B 7.2 A W 64th St Xerxes Ave & NB WB 7.9PEI 12.1 B 15.9 C 4.8 A W 64th St TWSC NB 4.5 A 4.0 P. 0.5 A 0.2 A SB 3.0 .8 0.4 A 0.3 A 2024 SimTraffic Summa - PM Build Traffic Intersection Control Operations by Movement Overall Intersection U -Turn Left Through Right Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh) LOS W 66th St & EB 6.3 A Southdale WB 5.7 A East Signal NB 24.7 C' - 8.5 A 7.4 A Driveway SB - - - EB 1.7 A W 66th St & WB 0.5 A 3316 West Driveway TWSC NB 513 - 3.5 A EB 2.7 A - W66thSt& WB 2.5 A 1.9 A 3316 East Driveway TWSC NB SB - - - 3.8 A EB 52.9 D 51.9 C 38.2 D 1.8 A W 66th St & WB- 50.6 D 34.6 C 3.8 A York Ave Signal NB - 56.5 40.2 D 3.3 A 36.8 D SB 56.2 57.9 38.7 D 4.1 A EB - - - 4.3 A York Ave & WB 6550 Driveway TWSC NB 3.4 A - SB - 0.5 A 0.5 A EB 33.2 D 33.4 D 11.2 B Xerxes Ave & WB 31.4 D 26.7 D 16.0 C W 64th St TWSC NB 7.9PEI 1.8 A 1.7 A SB 14.4 0.4 A 0.3 A DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 aD/e b -d: Ynase 11 ZUZ4 dtl//Cl uonottlons — AIV/ ano MVI YeaK tiour wueUln 2024 SimTraffic Summa -AM Build Queuin Intersection Control Approach Left Storage Queue Length by Movement Through Right 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB 350 45 WB - - 250 105 NB 250 65 - - 200 35 SB- - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 0 - - WB 250 0 250 0 NB - - - - SB - - 100 25 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB 650 10 - - WB 225 25 225 15 NB - - - - SB - - - - 100 25 W 66th St &York Ave Signal EB 400 45 875 90 300 0 WB 300 155 700 235 300 0 NB 250 120 375 110 200 0 SB 250 50 700 95 100 75 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - - 100 35 WB NB 200 5 SB - - 450 0 75 0 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 65 400 65 400 65 WB 300 55 300 55 300 55 NB 250 35 600 0 600 0 SB 200 20 1 800 0 800 0 2024 SimTraffic Summa - PM Build Queuin Intersection Control Approach Left Queue Length by Movement Through Right Storage 95th % Storage 95th % Storage 95th % W 66th St & Southdale East Driveway Signal EB 350 170 WB - - 250 190 - - NB 250 115 - - 200 85 SB- - - - - - W 66th St & 3316 West Driveway TWSC EB 400 0 - - WB 250 0 250 0 NB - - - - SB - - 100 35 W 66th St & 3316 East Driveway TWSC EB 650 90 - - WB 225 20 225 15 NB - - SB - - - 100 20 W 66th St & York Ave Signal EB 40D 145 875 255 300 0 WB 300 200 700 230 300 0 NB 253 220 375 340 200 0 SB 25D 90 700 160 100 80 York Ave & 6550 Driveway TWSC EB - - - 100 1 30 WB NB 200 15 SB - - 450 0 75 10 Xerxes Ave & W 64th St TWSC EB 400 75 400 75 400 75 WB 300 85 300 85 300 85 NB 250 55 600 15 600 0 SB 200 40 800 0 800 0 DLC Residential Redevelopment at 66th and York I December 2015 Traffic and Parking Analysis I v1 Kimley )>> Horn MEMORANDUM To: Cary Teague From: William Reynolds, P.E., AICP, PTP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: September 22, 2015 Subject: West 661h Street and York Avenue Residential Redevelopment — Parking Demand Memo The following memo documents an analysis of current parking demand, estimated future demand, and planned parking supply for the proposed residential redevelopment at the intersection of West 66th Street and York Avenue in Edina, MN. Introduction DLC Residential is proposing a residential redevelopment project for the site in the north-west quadrant of the intersection of York Avenue and West 661h Street. The site is currently occupied by two buildings and surface parking. The Redevelopment Plan assumes that the 62,100 sq. ft. medical/office building located on the north- east section of the site (6550 York Avenue) will remain open during Phase I. The other building on site (3250 West 66th Street) is currently only partially occupied and will be removed. During the redevelopment of the site, the adjacent parcel (3316 West 66th Street) will remain open, and access to York Avenue from the site will be preserved. A shared parking agreement is currently in place between all three buildings, and in order to assess potential impacts of a reduction in surface parking on the adjacent site, current parking demands at 3316 West 66th Street are also included in the parking study. Parking for the proposed residential buildings on site will include a mixture of secure, underground parking and some surface parking, supplied at a ratio of approximately 1,6 stalls per dwelling unit following both Phase 1(230 units) and Phase 11 (145 additional units). Estimated residen':ial parking demands are not discussed as part of this parking study. Data Collection On Thursday, September 3rd, 2015, a parking occupancy study was conducted every thirty minutes from 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and again from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. in order to measure parking demand and estimate the peak hour of demand. The site was divided into four areas based on observations of the typical destinations of users of each lot. These areas are shown in Figure 1. Note that the stall count shown in Area C includes the estimated 28 secure stalls under the building, although these were not observed on site. q Kim ey>Morn Page Figure 1: Parking Areas Results of the study are provided in Figure 2. The 28 secure stalls in Area C were not counted, and were therefore assumed to be fully occupied throughout the study. As shown, the peak hour was observed to be between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. Area A was typically around 70 to 75 percent full throughout the day. The building in Area B is only partially occupied; therefore, the parking demands were very low (less than 25 percent occupied). Area C had much higher utilization near the building, with a typical range around 50 to 60 percent occupied (including the assumed secure parking demand). The small lot just to the east of Area B was typically around 40 to 50 percent occupied. The area north of Area D was only used by 3 vehicles all day (less than 5 percent occupied), and these users were assumed to be headed to the 6550 Building. Finally, the shared lot (Area D) was sparsely used, but the 10 to 15 vehicles parked in this area were observed to be from users of all three buildings. 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. E?aul, MN 55114 Al Kim ey>>> Horn Page 3 Parking Demand 600 Existing Parking Supply on Site 550 500 450 400 w 350 a) U L m > 300 0 W cu 0- 250 Figure 2: Parking Demand by Time of Day Arc60 15 " 11 12 200 12 150 100 50 0 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM rmArea A (3316 Building) =Area B (3250 Building) ■Area C (6550 Building) Area D (Shared Lot) Figure 2: Parking Demand by Time of Day Arc60 Kim ey>Morn Page 3316 West 66th Street Site Although the building located at 3316 West 6611 Street and the surrounding parking will remain following the proposed residential redevelopment project on the parcels to east, the building currently has access to a shared parking lot on site. Because much of this shared parking area will be removed during the redevelopment of the site, parking demand associated with the 3316 Building was included in the study to estimate the potential for spillover demand. The building is currently occupied by a bank with a drive-in and medical offices (dermatology). The 33,000 sq. ft. building was assumed to be fully occupied and primarily devoted to medical office space, and 5,500 sq. ft. was taken as the assumed square footage of the bank. In order to estimate parking demand for the building, three sources were consulted: • Parking Generation, 4th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI) • Edina Code of Ordinances The uses of the building match most closely with ITE's Land Use Codes 720 (Medical/Dental Office) and 912 (Drive -In Bank). ULI references these same Land Use Codes. The estimated peak parking demand for the 3316 Building using these sources is presented in Table 1. While ULI exclusively uses the 85th percentile of all observations to derive the rate presented, ITE provides both the average rate observed as well as the 85th percentile rate; for context both rates are presented in the table. The Edina Code of Ordinances specifies a minimum parking supply for these uses of one vehicle for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA), and also specifies one additional stall for every doctor at medical office buildings. The names of 14 doctors are listed inside the building. In addition to estimated demand and the effective parking ratio, the field observations from September 3rd, 2015, are also presented, along with the parking supply (Area A only) and corresponding ratio. ULI indicates that for banks and office uses, September is a representative month for demand observations, and therefore no seasonal adjustment factors are recommended. AM Kimley>»Horn Table 1: Parking Demand Estimates, Observations, and Supply for the 3316 Building Page 5 Based on field observations, parking demand for the 3316 Building closely matches the predicted peak parking demands from ITE's average rate for both uses. While some variability can be expected, the excess 20 percent capacity on site is likely sufficient to meet the needs of the users of the building, even with the removal of the shared parking region to the east. k(o '� Building Reference/ Rate/ Observation Parking Effective Uses Methodology Stalls Ratio Peak Parking Demand Estimates ITE Parking Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 3.2 Generation, Fourth Medical/Dental 110 3.33 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. Edition 27,500 sq. ft. (Average Rate) 4 Bank Medical/ ITE Parking 4.27 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. Dental Office Generation, Fourth Medical/Dental 149 4.50 5.67 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. Space Edition (85th Percentile) Bank (14 Doctors) ULI Shared Parking, 4.5 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. Second Edition Medical/Dental 149 4.52 4.6 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. (85th Percentile) Bank Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 5,500 sq. ft. 5 Medical/Dental 1 Veh./Doctor Drive -In Edina Code of 179 5.42 Bank Ordinances Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 5 Bank Field Observations 106 @ 3,316 Building Observations 110 3.33 @ Shared Lot 4 assumed Supply Proposed Supply 140 @ 3316 Building 140 4.24 Based on field observations, parking demand for the 3316 Building closely matches the predicted peak parking demands from ITE's average rate for both uses. While some variability can be expected, the excess 20 percent capacity on site is likely sufficient to meet the needs of the users of the building, even with the removal of the shared parking region to the east. k(o '� Kimley>Morn 6611 and York Redevelopment Site Page 6 During Phase I of the residential redevelopment project, the largely vacant 3250 Building will be removed along with the shared parking lot (Area D) in order to accommodate a 230 -unit apartment building and underground parking. During this first phase, the 6550 Building will remain open, and the surrounding lots will need to serve all parking demands for the building. The proposed Phase I site layout is shown in Figure 3. The 62,100 sq. ft. building has a variety of tenants, including financial services, real estate services, medical and detail offices, an addiction center, and a testing center. Given the number of different uses, Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) is most applicable. ITE defines this use as follows: A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers and tenant services, such as a bank or savings and loan institution, a restaurant or cafeteria and service retail facilities. The estimated peak parking demand for the 6550 Building, assuming a general office building use with full occupancy, is presented in Table 2. Both the average and 85th percentile rates from ITE are presented, along with the 85th percentile rate from ULI. The Edina Code of Ordinances specifies a minimum parking supply for a professional office building of this size as one stall for every 210.5 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA) based on the formula presented below the table. In addition to estimated demand and the effective parking ratio, the field observations from September 3rd, 2015, are also presented. Because field observations were conducted when the building was approximately 71 percent occupied (18,000 sq. ft. of available leasable space), a forecasted peak parking demand rate is also presented, based on an adjustment to the field observations. ULI indicates that for general office uses, September is a representative month for demand observations, and therefore no seasonal adjustment factors were applied to the forecast. The final section of the table shows the projected parking supply following Phase I. AR3 Kimley>»Horn .t f �mal s�wr,a.�- D L C R E S I D E N i 1 A L 66THaYORK VElovEd'mMENTAT PMSE 66TH&YORK [a��x+ nvseI Figure 3: Phase 1 Site Layout Page 7 ON GRADE PARKING PHASE 1 - EXISTING PARKING AND OFFICE BUILDING ON EAST PARCLE TO REMAIN PHASE 1 LOBBYIENTRANCE LEASING OFFICE FITNESS Kimley>>> Horn Table 2: Parking Demand Estimates, Observations, and Supply for the 6550 Building Page 8 Building Reference/ Rate/ Observation Demand Estimate/ Effective Use Methodology Observation Ratio Demand Estimates ITE Parking Generation, Fourth 2.84 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 176 2.84 Edition Office (Average Rate ITE Parking Generation, Fourth 3.45 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 214 3.45 Edition Office (85th Percentile) ULI Shared Parking, Veh./1,000 sq. ft. Second Edition 3.60 Office 224 3.60 (85th Percentile)' 62,100 sq. ft. Edina Code of 4 75 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 295 4.75 Ordinances2 Office Office Space Field Observations 87 @ 6550 Building @ Shared Lot Observations 7 (assumed) 138 2.22 @ Secure Lot 28 estimated Forecast Forecast' 3.13 Veh./1,000 sq. ft. 194 3.13 Office Supply 150 @ 6550 Building Supply 250 4.03 72 @ Shared Lot 28 @ Secure Lot Based on field observations, forecasted parking demand for the 6550 Building under a full occupancy scenario is less than the predicted peak parking demands using the ULI and ITE 85th percentile rates for general office 1 Rate interpolated between rate for 25,000 sq. ft. building (3.8) and rate for 100,000 sq. ft. building (3.4) 2 Rate derived assuming 62,100 GFA and the following formula: 1,000/[(0.00025*GFA)+195] 3 Rate derived based on the assumption that field observations were conducted when building was 71 % occupied 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 klo- Kimley>Morn Page 9 buildings. While some variability can be expected, particularly with changes in tenants, the proposed supply of 250 parking stalls will provide sufficient parking following the completion of Phase I. This supply ratio exceeds even the conservative estimates provided using the 85th percentile rate from both ULI and ITE. Recommendations Based on field observations and a review parking demand estimates from ITE and ULI, the proposed parking supply ratios will adequately serve both office buildings following completion of Phase I. Proposed Parking Supply Ratios: • 3316 Building: 4.24 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA • 6550 Building: 4.03 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 A16 � e RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT MILLENNIUM at SOUTHDALE Formerly 66th & York RESPONSE TO WORKING PRINCIPLES January 21, 2016 France Avenue Southdale Area Working Principles and Supporting Questions Element Working Principle and Supporting Questions Give -to -Get; Plan & Process 1 Pa 3 5 Allow latitude to gain tangible and intangible outcomes aligned with the district principles. How does the proposal contribute to the realization of the principles for the district? Millennium at Southdale will be a high-quality residential community that will present new options for 211t century, life-style housing within the Southdale District. It will transform an auto -oriented office environment on this site into an upscale residential community, rich in amenities and set within a green and more sustainable pedestrian oriented landscape. How can the proposal move beyond the principles for the district? Millennium at Southdale can contribute to the improved visual quality, and enhanced interconnectedness of the District. What tangible and intangible outcomes might be offered by the proposal but cannot be achieved by the project on its own? As a highly visible, gateway site to the Southdale District, Millennium at Southdale will help to "set the tone" for the entire district. First impressions linger, and Millennium at Southdale will be that first impression to all those entering the District from York Avenue. It will portray an image of quality and provide a precedent; pointing the way to how other projects can similarly contribute to higher level of sustainability, enhanced visual quality and interconnectedness within the District. What alternatives were explored to arrive at a proposal that is best aligned with the principles and the opportunities of the district? Many were explored; some more successful than others. In response to critique by staff, the proposal evolved in a way that placed more "human activity" on the prominent street fronts. The building massing Edina Cultural Preferences; Identity District Function 1 2 3 4 1 2 �y 4 and setbacks were modified to create more "drama" and visual interest on the primary elevations. And the upper levels of the Phase I tower became a "lantern" which will be seen from great distances. Advance quality through thoughtful and artful design of buildings and publicly accessible spaces, highlighted human activity, and enhanced economic vibrancy. DLC is open to the idea of incorporating a public art installation in the auto courtyard nearest York Avenue. Discuss the materials and construction techniques intended for the building and the site with attention directed to ensuring an enduring quality is achieved, especially considering whether the proposal is a background or foreground element of the district. This proposal is an integrated composition of two building which clearly represent Foreground Buildings in the district. As such, the design is exemplary of that position, and the amenities, the architectural character and the materials are of the highest quality possible within its market segment. What qualities of the proposal will be most valued by the community in 50 years? Its proximity to off-site amenities and the richness of its on-site amenities. Describe the ways in which the proposal highlights human activity in the building and on the site, especially when viewed from adjacent or nearby public ways? This composition of buildings will have two very distinct sides. Its "public" side located on the street frontage will showcase its interior amenities by placing the lobby, lounge, fitness spaces and other activity areas on its south facade. The private side of this community will be more sedate and somewhat secluded. It will be reserved for its residents and their guests and will be characterized by a variety of semi-public and private, outdoor activity areas. In what ways does the proposal enhance the economic vibrancy of the district? It will introduce new housing options that will contribute to the 24 hour vitality of the District. A vibrant residential community will replace the poorly occupied and outdated office product. Look beyond baseline utilitarian functions of a single site to create mutually supportive and forward-looking infrastructure sustaining the district. Describe the ways in which the proposal is self-supporting related to on- and off-site infrastructure and resources. What impacts does the proposal pose on existing on- and off-site infrastructure? The recent traffic study indicates that peak hour traffic will be reduced. Storm water will be managed and improved in quality. Describe the infrastructure features of the proposal that are truly extraordinary by relating the performance of those features to current MO standards, requirements, or best practices. The project will showcase sustainable design principles to the greatest extent affordable. The garage roof walls will be landscaped and greened, usable terraces. The inlet to the underground storm water management system will be expressed in the landscaped area of the auto court. Building systems, mechanical and electrical systems will be as energy efficient as is practical within the project proforma. 5 How the proposal relies on infrastructure of the district for baseline performance? Millennium at Southdale will utilize the existing street system, driveway access points and cross -easement agreements currently in place with its neighbors to the west. Comprehensive Foster a logical, safe, inviting and expansive public realm facilitating Connections; Movement movement of people within and to the district. 1 What features and amenities does the proposal lend to the public realm of the district? It will greatly enhance the street frontage on York Avenue. 2 What features and amenities does the proposal introduce to extend the sense of an expansive and engaging public realm to its site? As part of the enhanced street frontage, the project will incorporate high quality pedestrian materials, 3-dimensional elements with lighting, distinctive landscaping and unique signage. 3 Demonstrate the ways in which the proposal supports pedestrians and bicyclists movement and identify those nearby district features that are important destinations. Along with the enhanced on-site pedestrian improvements along York, we are also providing an interior street that provides a welcoming connection to 66th street for the neighbors to the north as well as the proposed building residents. The proposed building parking ramp will also include amenities to support bicyclists (secure bike storage, guest bike racks, repair shop, etc). 4 What features does the proposal employ to ensure a safe and inviting pedestrian experience on the site? The interior of the site will incorporate a variety of outdoor rooms interconnected by well-defined pedestrian ways and a "calmed" interior street which will encourage pedestrian movements between this and the neighborhood to the north. Site Design; Transitions Encourage parcel -appropriate intensities promoting harmonious and interactive relationships without "leftover" spaces on sites. 1 How does the proposal relate in terms of scale to it neighbors? The neighborhood already sports a variety of building types and a <` variety of height. This proposal will add to that variety by including mixed building heights and step -backs to the massing. It does NOT attempt to maximize density by pushing the limits of allowable height. 2 How does the proposal make full use of the available site, especially those portions of the site not occupied by parking and buildings? Areas NOT utilized for buildings will be developed as open spaces and kill amenities for the residents AND promote pedestrian movements between this and the neighborhood to the north. 3 How does the proposal interact with its neighbors? It promotes pedestrians circulation between this and adjacent neighborhoods. It shares cross easements with its neighbors, thereby facilitating convenient access and egress for all. The stepped massing of the proposed buildings fit well within the scale of the area and reinforce step -backs from internal property lines. 4 Describe the zones of activity created by the proposal and compare those areas to zones of activity on adjacent and nearby sites. Unlike most of the existing developments which place a single building Health in the middle of their sites, this proposal uses the building masses to sculpt and define five distinct outdoor activity areas. Advance human and environmental health as the public and private realms evolves. 1 How does this proposal enhance key elements of environmental health? The single biggest improvement in environmental health as a result of Innovation this redevelopment will likely be improved ground water quality and managed runoff. An intangible benefit to public health is the addition of the residential uses in close proximity to employment, to retail and restaurants and to transit. The resulting interconnected neighborhood will reduce auto trips and encourage walkability. Embrace purposeful innovation aimed at identified and anticipated problems. 1 Identify the problems posed by the proposal or the district requiring innovative solutions and describe the ways in which the proposal responds. Ownership and Phasing of the redevelopment of this site pose the greatest complications. Maintaining access and parking for the existing Titus building which must remain in operation during the construction of the first phase is challenging and is a major driver in the configuration of the Phase I site layout. 2 Describe the metrics to be used to compare the innovations posed by the proposal. This proposal fits within the proscribed residential density of the District. But rather than placing a single high-rise building in the middle of the site, this proposal creatively arranges mid -rise buildings which are complimentary to their neighbors. The resulting variety of outdoors spaces will create well-defined outdoor activity spaces and amenities for its residents and greater visual interest to the District. 3 For those solutions posed by the proposal as innovative, describe how they might become "best practices" for the district. 5 Higher levels of pedestrian connectivity in the streetscape, the creation of usable outdoor spaces within the site boundaries and the variety of building height and mass are all positive practices which can be applied broadly across the District. Describe other projects where innovations similar to those included in the proposal have been employed. DLC Residential is currently developing several projects which employ similar principles of neighborhood planning. Millennium and CPW in St. Louis Park are residential communities that are highly integrated into their larger neighborhoods. Land Use; Live -able Promote well-balanced aggregations of "come to" and "stay at" Precincts places focused on human activity and linked to an engaging public realm. 1 How does the proposal complement the mix of uses in the district? This redevelopment will add additional housing options to a District that historically has had few. It will add to the 24 hour vitality, mixed use and interconnectedness of the district. Ensure every component contributes to the sustained economic vitality of the district and the community. Economic Vitality Describe the proposal in terms of its economic contributions to the 1 district. This proposed apartment redevelopment will help the growth of Healthcare and other job sectors in the area that require a diverse supply of housing alternatives to accommodate a wide range of employee living needs. Additionally, it will encourage working professionals to live in Edina rather than commute to other communities. As full time residents, they will contribute more to the local economy. 2 How does the proposal enhance development on adjacent or nearby sites? The innovative design, quality materials and pedestrian -friendly site improvements will set the standard for future development and will encourage further walkability. Our goal is that our residents will take advantage of the proximity to the Southdale Shopping Center, the Galleria and other neighboring businesses. 3 What features of the site or district limit the potential of the proposal from being fully realized? Land price increases have made it increasingly difficult to make rental developments profitable. 4 Why this proposal is best situated on its proposed site from the perspective of economic vitality? The District has a need for high quality rental units due to the increase of Healthcare employment with better than average wages. The residents of our community will be able to walk to work as well as enliven the area at night with more business to the local restaurants and shops. 5 How does the proposal make the district and the community a better place? The multifamily development will bring young working professionals with disposable income who will support the local economy and eventually establish households in Edina. DATE: February 12, 2016 TO: 3250 West 66" Street Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague — Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner P.E. - Director of Engineering Charlie Gerk — Engineering Technician RE: 3250 West 66th Street — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility connections, grading, and storm water. Plans reviewed were; Civil drawings undated, title sheet with 1/20/2016 submittal date, and Architectural drawings dated 01/20/16 Details 1. A developer's agreement will be required. a. Developer will be required to document existing road conditions on York Ave South (North of 65th) by a pre and post construction condition survey. If degradation occurs during construction as documented by the post construction condition survey, developer is required to improve road by reconstruction or mill and overlay. b. Plat public easement or transfer fee ownership of dedicated public right of way. Survey I. A proposed site survey is required. a. Note location and provide description of street easement for possible 65`h Street extension. 2. Apply for vacation of existing easements if needed. Provide confirmation that private easements have been vacated. Describe easements or transfer dedicated outlets for public sidewalk and any public utilities. Traffic and Street 4. Continue construction of sidewalk to fill missing segment near the existing monument sign on Ph. 2. 5. Maintain sidewalk access during construction. 6. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. 7. Clearly denote private paths or sidewalk. Maintenance for non-public sidewalks to be responsibility of property owner. 8. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. 9. Roadway light fixtures along York Ave or 66`h Street shall be consistent with York Ave and 66`h Street structures. 10. Apply for curb cut permit for entrances. 18" bituminous patch required. 11. Show location of garbage collection and service on civil plan set. 12. Building access roads will need to accommodate ladder fire truck (turning template included). a. 15 -ft minimum corner radius most likely required for ladder fire truck turning. Noted 6 -ft radius shown on plans. b. West access road most likely will need Fire Lane signage and adjustment of radius. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 An c. Address comments from Fire Marshal on attached turning templates. "it appears on the west side they require the apparatus to 'jockey" or back up to make turns. Also this PDF does not show tree canopy obstructions." 13. Accessible parking stall calculations and locations need to be noted. Sanitary and Water Utilities 14. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. 15. Consider moving hydrant located at the NE corner of decorative circle to island area. 16. Clearly indicate private vs public utilities. 17. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer's engineer. 18. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer's engineer. 19. Provide geotechnical report with soil borings. 20. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit. Wet tap to occur at night. City staff to be present to inspect, cost to be paid by developer. a. Install gate valve just north of water main connection at 66`h Street. Storm Water Utility 21. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report. 22. Verify local overflow elevation to parking garage is above the emergency over flow (EOF) elevation and provide spot elevations. 23. Provide more detailed civil drawings for both phase I and phase 2 with rim and inverts identified on the plan view drawings. 24. Provide more detailed information for infiltration system on southeast side of project. 25. Existing removed storm sewer connections will need to be completely removed to catch basin and bulk headed. 26. Evidence of watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed is required for building permit. 27. StormTech representative required to monitor, inspect and verify construction of the underground retention systems. Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 28. A SWPPP consistent with the state general construction site permit is required. Other Agency Coordination 29. 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 • 952-882f6-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 M157� Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page 1 of 2 *16 Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/2013 --- - Parameters: -_---------- Inside Cramp Angle: 45.000 - Axle Track: 81.92 in. Wheel Offset: 5.25 in. Additional Bumper Depth Tread Width: 16.60 in. Axle Track Chassis Overhang: 65.99 in. Wheel offset Additional Bumper Depth: i Cramp Angle 19.00 in. Chassis overhang Tread Width Front Overhang 84.99 in. Wheelbase: 258.00 in. Calculated Turninb Radii: Inside Turn: 20 ft. 4 in. �d�� Curb to Curb: 36 ft. 8 in. Wheelbase 1 ;' c� 10ty Wall to Wall: 41 ft. 1 in. fO C �Gi• Comments: Truck 12205 s i Inside Turning Radius Components PRIDE # Description Front Tires 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 425/65822.50 20 ply XZY 3 tread Chassis 0070220 Dash -2000, Chassis, PAP/SkyArm/Midmount Front Bumper 0123625 Bumper, 19" extended, ImpNel Aerial Device 0006900 xxxAerial, 100' Pierce Platform Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page 1 of 2 *16 4C 0 Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/2013 Definitions: Inside Cramp Angle Maximum turning angle of the front inside tire. Axle Track King -pin to king -pin distance of the front axle. Wheel Offset Offset from the center -line of the wheel to the king -pin. Tread Width Width of the tire tread. Chassis Overhang Distance from the center -line of the front axle to the front edge of the cab. This does not include the bumper depth. Additional Bumper Depth Depth that the bumper assembly adds to the front overhang. Wheelbase Distance between the center lines of the vehicle's front and rear axles. Inside Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle around which the vehicle can turn Curb to Curb Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the vehicle's tires can turn. This measurement assumes a curb height of 9 inches. Wall to Wall Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the entire vehicle can turn. This measurement takes into account any front overhang due to the chassis, bumper extensions and/or aerial devices. Page 2 of 2 411 `J NORTH / I o aol 'c 5 u Y � � � � >ri •� r m .. a •� r C p ' r •'y,x art 51, �L AS NOTED DATEDESIGN ENGINEER: SHEET NUMBER E DESICNEO BY Kim ey»> Horn oz.05.zo16 EDINA, MN XXX DRAWN 8V XXX © 2014 KIMLEY_HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE P.E. LICENSE NUMBER 1 of 2 CHECKED 8Y XXX 2550 UNIVERSITY ASE W. STE 238N ST. PAUL MN 55114 PROJECT NO. PHONE (651) 645-419] FAY (651) 645-5116 116199xxx PHASE I: FIRE TRUCK MOVEMENTS VAYW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM e � J o aol 'c 5 u Y � � � � >ri •� r m .. a •� r C p ' r •'y,x art 51, �L AS NOTED DATEDESIGN ENGINEER: SHEET NUMBER E DESICNEO BY Kim ey»> Horn oz.05.zo16 EDINA, MN XXX DRAWN 8V XXX © 2014 KIMLEY_HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MILLENNIUM AT SOUTHDALE P.E. LICENSE NUMBER 1 of 2 CHECKED 8Y XXX 2550 UNIVERSITY ASE W. STE 238N ST. PAUL MN 55114 PROJECT NO. PHONE (651) 645-419] FAY (651) 645-5116 116199xxx PHASE I: FIRE TRUCK MOVEMENTS VAYW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM e Background CITY OF EDINA Policy on Affordable Housing The City recognizes the need to provide affordable housing in order to maintain a diverse population and to provide housing for those who live or work in the City. Since the remaining land appropriate for new residential development is limited, it is essential that a reasonable proportion of such land be developed into affordable housing units. As such, the City of Edina adopts the following Affordable Housing Policy: The Policy 1. This policy applies to all new multi -family developments of 20 or more units that require a re -zoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. New rental developments will provide a minimum of 10% of all rentable area at 50% affordable rental rates or 20% of all rentable area at 60% affordable rental rates as defined below. 3. New for sale developments will provide a minimum of 10% of all livable area at affordable sales prices as defined below. 4. New rental housing will remain affordable for a minimum of 15 years, and this requirement will be memorialized by a land use restrictive covenant. 5. Recognizing that affordable housing is created through a partnership between the City and developers, the city will consider the following incentives for developments that provide affordable housing: A. Density bonuses B. Parking reductions C. Tax increment financing D. Deferred low interest loans from the Edina Housing Foundation 6. It is the strong preference of the City that each new qualifying development provide its proportionate share of affordable housing, however, the City recognizes that it may not be economically feasible or practical in all circumstances to do so. As such, the City reserves the right to waive this policy (only if circumstances so dictate, as determined by the City). In lieu of providing affordable housing in each new qualifying development, the City may consider the following: A. Dedication of existing units in Edina equal to 110% of what would have been provided in a proposed new development. These units would need to be of an equivalent quality, within the determination of the City. B. New construction of units of an equivalent quality within the City at a different site, at the discretion of the City. C. Participation in the construction of affordable dwelling units of an equivalent quality by another developer on a different site within the City. D. An alternative proposed by a developer that directly or indirectly provides or enables provision of an equivalent amount of affordable housing within the City. Page 11 Definitions Rental Housing Either 10% of all rentable area is both rent restricted and occupied by persons whose income is 50% or less of area median gross income, Or 20% of all rentable area is both rent restricted and occupied by persons whose income is 60% or less of area median gross income. Both incomes (adjusted for family size) and rental rates (adjusted for bedroom count and including utilities) are updated annually by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and published at Www.mnhousing.gov. 2015 income and rental limits are as follows: Ownership Housing 10% or more of all livable area is affordable to and initially sold to persons whose income is at or below the levels set in the MHFA's "Startup Program" (first time homebuyer). This program has a sales price limit of $310,000. The Edina Housing Foundation has set this limit at $350,000 in consideration of the high prices in Edina. The Foundation would recommend the following sales prices be used as the acquisition limit in this definition: 1 bedroom $250,000 2 bedrooms $300,000 3+ bedrooms $350,000 The 2015 income limits as published on the MHFA website are as follows: 1-2 person household $86,600 3+ person household $99,500 Income limits and maximum sales prices are updated annually. See www.mnhousing.gov. Effective: November 1, 2015 A1a1 Page 12 Gross Incomes 60% 50% Gross Rents 60% 50% 1 Person $36,420 $30,350 Studio $910 $758 2 Persons $41,580 $34,650 1 Bedroom $975 $812 3 Persons $46,800 $39,000 2 Bedroom $1,170 $975 4 Persons $51,960 $43,300 3 Bedroom $1,351 $1,125 5 Persons $56,160 $46,800 4 Bedroom $1,507 $1,256 6 Persons $60,300 $50,250 Ownership Housing 10% or more of all livable area is affordable to and initially sold to persons whose income is at or below the levels set in the MHFA's "Startup Program" (first time homebuyer). This program has a sales price limit of $310,000. The Edina Housing Foundation has set this limit at $350,000 in consideration of the high prices in Edina. The Foundation would recommend the following sales prices be used as the acquisition limit in this definition: 1 bedroom $250,000 2 bedrooms $300,000 3+ bedrooms $350,000 The 2015 income limits as published on the MHFA website are as follows: 1-2 person household $86,600 3+ person household $99,500 Income limits and maximum sales prices are updated annually. See www.mnhousing.gov. Effective: November 1, 2015 A1a1 Page 12 _ ', ,,.,,c'„ err► 3.� w y,�; �._--.-- �.� .. ��I II + ti •I ;���a�' €IIS � ! °II _ 9�uien�7p up0=' �� t 11 'i eau i 1+11611°' e+e del a by 'ar�'Idl ° � lin�rrpre4 '� It 1�1 ° aril 1.. -ems r e rill �a a :1'+e� noi`� I ° , • y �?, wt ca, eA . —r.c II rta�i r \°%a•a a rsA . I.- - 7-r Iii �•u c9 ti it7 t ,: �,._ ��������—j/l -.Ara aI �wf • .;�j �0��5 I, . "�� .�T"fi:,,.x, , '�y;7YJ6iwide .. fGd 3`®'.^'� aN {.€• hLl 4, l� /6%�tm-aciLiP6Ai7aa /A NOWji 0 ® ys �I � �� i .•�r�'� c'-.'.r a jrr f" ,p � ..- ��.!+ I��II�Dq� IIG i jos ..41 Lit_,.� , "MNTA III i Zz "'ys t ON GRADE PARKING PHASE 1 - EXISTING PARKING AND OFFICE BUILDING ON EAST PARCLE TO REMAIN PHASE 1 LOBBYIENTRANCE LEASING OFFICE FITNESS O� ph RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT LEVEL 1 Sketch Plan Review s I& % R E S , D E [\i T ( f'• L 66TH & YORK Edina, MN PHASE 1 2015 August 12th property line preventing the garage from being expanded directly that way. Commissioners Thorsen and Strauss accepted that amendUent. Commissioner Nemerov noted that he supports the riance as ented; however, has concerns with the level of design detail. ` Chair Platteter called for the vote; all vote aye; m ton carried. • VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review. Titus/Eberhardt. 66th St at York Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 5.6 acre parcel at 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings and redevelop the site with the following two phase development: Phase 1 (3250 66`h Street West): A 6-7 story, 230 -unit apartment building. Six.floors of housing above the parking and amenities area, and Phase 2 (6650 Xerxes Avenue): A 5-6 story, 145 -unit apartment building. Five and four floors of housing above the parking and amenities area. Teague explained that the primary entrance to the site would be off Xerxes Avenue. There is a secondary access available off of York. Both of these access points exist today. There is a shared access arrangement with the adjacent property owner at 3316 66`x' Street west. That shared access would also remain. Teague To accommodate the request, the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: Re -guiding of the site from RM, Regional Medical to CAC, Community Activity Center. The proposed height (7 stories) and density (66 units per acre) would meet the standards of the CAC. A rezoning of all the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development is requested. Teague reported that this property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a` Potential Area of Change within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. he ComprehensivePlan 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, adding the France Avenue Southdale Area Development Principles have been shared with the applicant. They have been asked to address each of the principles with any formal application. 5 1 P a g e Teague further asked the Commission to note that the applicant is not proposing any affordable housing as part of this project. Given housing policy under consideration by the City Council; this project should be required to provide affordable housing consistent with the policy or 20% of the units designated for affordable housing. Teague concluded that the development team is present to explain their proposal. Appearing for the Applicant Rich Kauffman, DLC Residential and Dennis Sutliff, Elness, Swensen Graham Architects Discussion Commissioner Olsen asked if the majority of the parking would be underground. Teague responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lee asked if the RMD District shrinks would the district continue to be viable. Planner Teague responded that is a good question. Teague explained that the Regional Medical District evolved because of the hospital and the need for medical uses to be in close proximity. Teague reported that even if the area changes to CAC; medical is still a permitted use in that district. Commissioner Nemerov asked for clarification on the building setback variances. Planner Teague responded that it has been the policy of the Commission and Council to bring (whenever possible) buildings up to the street to enhance the pedestrian experience. Teague did acknowledge because this project will be done in two phases that details can change. Nemerov questioned what would happen if the details changed from approval to build out. Teague said the applicants have indicated they would be redeveloping through the PUD process, adding if there are changes the PUD would need to be amended. Nemerov mentioned he is a little concerned that this proposal is in phases. Applicant Presentation Mr. Kaufman addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of DLC, Inc. and explained the proposed residential redevelopment would occur in two phases. He said if the project proceeds they would be requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning to PUD, and site plan approval. Kaufman said the majority of the apartment units would be one, one -plus and two bedroom units. Kaufman concluded there will be a small number of studio and three bedroom apartments. Mr. Sutliff told the Commission ESG has a long history within this neighborhood. He asked the Commission to note they embraced the France Avenue Southdale Area Working Principles and Supporting Questions. Sutliff said this site is also a gateway site and the intent is to create something dynamitic. Phase I would occur on parcels 2 and 3 and will consist of a 230 unit rental apartment with two levels of underground parking. 61 rage ;'AI;?. � He reported that the existing Titus building will remain on parcel 1. When phase 2 commences the Titus building would be removed. With graphics Sutliff shared schematics of the project. Discussion Commissioner Olsen asked about the affordable housing element. Mr. Sutliff said there is a strong desire to implement affordable housing; however, they need to look for a way to implement it. Sutliff said there will be tradeoffs; reiterating they are willing to discuss it. Commissioner Carr said she likes the design elements of the proposed building and was impressed with the landscaping and the attention paid to pedestrian movements. Commissioner Strauss said he agrees, he likes the building, adding the approach is inviting. Commissioner Forrest commented with regard to sustainability at this time the City is looking for more than industry standards. Forrest said the City wants developers to go above and beyond that and to also indicate measurable standards. Commissioner Platteter said he has some concerns with the two phase concept and timing. He added he would hate to see the properties on the east become orphan properties. Continuing, Platteter said he can support the CAC designation for this area, adding it makes sense to have all four corners CAC. Platteter stated in his opinion affordable housing is needed period. With regard to the exterior of the building he wasn't "blown away"; suggesting that the curve in the road is followed more closely. In conclusion Platteter said the goal should be to view this parcel as part of a whole; not an individual island. He asked them to ensure that special attention is made to connectivity, transit options, and signals to traffic improvements to achieve the next level for pedestrian movement. Commissioner Nemerov said these four corners are important and suggested that the City and developers work together to develop a connected area. He suggested the possibility of walking bridges spanning the road. Mr. Sutliff said that their intent is to be a good neighbor adding they have every intention to grow the walkability. Sutliff said they are willing to work with city staff on this issue. Chair Platteter stated in this area public and private partnerships will be key to piecing these areas together. Commissioner Forrest commented that the buildings appear welcome and attractive from all sides; however, suggested that the applicant makes sure when the building is constructed that that element remains and isn't just drawings. Mr. Sutliff responded that the step back approach from the street offers the appearance of smaller building mass , 71 Page adding they have every intention of creating a building attractive from all sides. Commissioner Forrest said she also was a bit concerned with the two phase element of the proposal and asked the applicant if there is a time frame. Mr. Kaufman responded that Phase I is ready to start in 2016 with Phase II within five to six years. Commissioner Lee asked what makes this site say" Edina". Mr. Sutliff said this land use element helps create a more mixed use area vs. just retail. The introduction of housing with excellent access to transit and other amenities help the buildings residents to move away from the automobile. Lee said in her opinion more work needs to be done in engaging the street, she pointed out the limited street frontage make it difficult to introduce retail. She suggest that the applicant's revisit their vision. She further added the City also needs to decide what the City wants to see on these four corners. Does the City want smaller shop fronts along the street with stepped back housing; or something different. She asked the applicant to show how people are encouraged to walk, not ride and how is the "true" gateway of this area established. Concluding, Lee also stated she is looking for affordable housing in this development. Commissioner Olsen agreed that much is proposed to be redeveloped at this intersection/corner, adding she too would like to see how they will connect together. She suggested that when they return with a formal applicant they show the connectivity between these corners. Olsen suggested that the applicant look at the bigger picture 'and how this fits into the greater Southdale area. Concluding, Olsen asked if there was any opportunity for other uses on the site. Mr. Sutliff responded that adding retail would complicate parking. He noted there is only a small amount of surface parking available. He said they want to create special outdoor spaces; however, there are restraints. Commissioner Forrest asked the applicant to ensure that people feel invited to walk through the area; she said she understands the difficulty in adding retail, suggesting that amenities like dry cleaners, bike repair, uses that would be used by occupants of the building may work. Commissioner Nemerov asked the applicant who their residents are. Mr. Kaufman responded he believes they will be the 30-stomethings that rent by choice. Nemerov asked the applicant if they were confident they can fill these units. Mr. Kaufman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Carr asked the applicant to take the time to work on the streetscape and to work with the City on street calming measures on this corner and intersection. Chair Platteter thanked the applicant for their presentation noting the importance of connectivity and enhancing neighborhood walkability. B. 2016 Work Plan hig__ _ 8II1aQe Minutes/Edina City Council/September 16, 2015 Finance Director Roggeman introduced Jessica Cook, Ehlers & Associates, to explain the proposed scheduleior fees and charges. Ms. Cook pre�nted key findings, capital improvement needs, water rates, sanitarysewer rates, proposed Sewer Access Chrge and Water Access charge fees, storm sewer rates, utility hill comparisons, and a summary of recom ndations. The Council noted that utilities were a core service and thanked staff and Ehlers & Associates for their work. Mr. Roggeman stated that in Section 2. Water Service: I. Per 1,000 gallons for areas of City, $2.69 should read $2.70 and $4.21 should read"*4.22. Member Staunton ,made a motion to grant First and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2015-19, Amending Section 2-724 Schedule A Setting Fees, as modified above. Member Stewart seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Brindle, Staunton, Stewart, Hovland Motion carried. VII.C. ORDINANCE NO. 20IS-20 AMENDING CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES — POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 6, 20 f5 Manager Neal explained that Edina's liquor ordinance had been modified on several occasions and the current code requirements were confusing to businesses and difficult for staff to interpret, apply, and enforce. Staff was proposing substantial change and requesting a First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015-20. Economic Development Manager Neuendorf explained that the core principles had not changed and the preference was still for restaurants over bars or nightclubs. The application process, background check process, enforcement, and violation provisions were all working well. The proposed changes had three goals: streamline the language for the sake of clarity and enforceability; allow new establishments that were responsive to the preferences of Edina patrons; and, allow established and new businiesses to prosper in the Edina marketplace. The Council asked questions relating to taprooms/brewpubs, a prohibition on bars, table configurations, patios, license fees, special club licenses, and municipal liquors. The Council discussed requiring food service for all establishments that serve alcohol, reining the percentage of floor space that a bar area was allowed to operate in a restaurant, and maintaiMing the restrictions orf where gaming establishments (e.g., Dave & Buster's) were allowed. The Council not'ed the absence of ember Swenson and agreed to postpone the First Reading. Member Brindle made a motion, econded by Member Staunton, postponing consideration of Ordinance No. 20151$0, Amen ing Chapter 4 of the Edina City Code Concerning Alcoholic Beverages, to October 201 . Fes: Brindle, Staunton, Stewart, Hovland Motion carried. VH.D. SKETCH PLAN, WEST 66TH STREET AND YORK AVENUE —REVIEWED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague explained that the Council was asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 5.6 acre parcel at 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West. The proponent was proposing to tear down the existing buildings and redevelop the site with a two-phase development. The proponent was requesting a rezoning of the site from Regional Medical to Planned Unit Development. The proposed height and density would meet the standards of the Planned Unit Development. Proponent Presentation Page 3 Na, Minutes/Edina City Council/September I6 2015 Rich Kauffman, DLC Residential, talked about DLC Residential and introduced Dennis Sutliff, ESG Architects. Mr. Sutliff present a site map and drawings of the proposed two-phase development and discussed traffic, amenities, and green spaces. Mr. Kauffman shared that DLC Residential felt it could do, at most, 3% affordable housing at a cost of $1.4 million. The Council asked questions relating to the possibility of onsite retail, location of front stoops, the development of Phase 2, cyclist accommodations, and guest parking. The Council supported the green spaces and expressed an interest in seeing a stormwater management plan. The Council encouraged unique architecture that would be valued by the community for years to come, aligning the proposal with Southdale principles, and working with neighbors. The Council also expressed appreciation for the transparency concerning affordable housing and agreed that the main intersection was a problem that needed to be addressed by Edina and Hennepin County. VII.E. AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY— POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 6, 2015 Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Stewart, postponing the Affordable Housing Policy to\the October 6, 2015 City Council meeting. Ayes: Brindle, Stau on, Stewart, Hovland Motion carried. VII.F. RESOLUTION O. 2015-88 ADOPTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS GRANTS AND DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained th in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and a0roved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Stewart introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2015-88 accepting various grants and donations.\Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Brindle, Staunton, Stewart, Hovland Motion carried. VII.G. ACCEPT SOLAR GARDEN PROPOSAL — PROPOSAL REJECTED Manager Neal explained that the request for proposal had received one response after the deadline. Staff and legal counsel recommended rejecting the proposal and reoffering the request for proposal. The item would come back before the Council on`•October 20, 2015. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Stewart, rejecting,the Solar Garden proposal and reoffering the request for proposal. Ayes: Brindle, Staunton, Stewart, Hovland Motion carried. Vlll. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII.A. CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipvof various correspondence. VIII.B. MINUTES: 1. PAR BOARD, AUGUST 11, 2015 2. HE ITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD, AUGUST 11, 2015 Informational; HIE' required. IX AVIAT N NOISE UPDATE — Received X. MA�OR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — Received Xi. MANAGER'S COMMENTS — Received Page 4 4130 DRAFT FOR REVIEW/COMMENT I FEBRUARY 11, 2016 Critical Infrastructure Improvements To set the plan in motion, a number of critical infrastructure improvements need to be addressed, including management of stormwater, select street improvements, and better pedestrian connections via new intersections on France, 66th and York (highlighted in yellow). Architecture Field Office A PETITION to Mr. Cary Teague, Edina Community Development Director and The Edina Planning Commissioners from Edina Residents in the 6300 and 6400 Block of York Avenue South 55435 CONTACT: Peter F. Parshall 6400 York Ave. S. #402 Edina, MN 55435 952-928-9824 pete@parshallfamily.org PETITION Background. DLC Residential proposes to construct two apartment buildings at the northwest corner of Xerxes Avenue and 66th Street. Building A, replacing the 3250 medical building, will contain 230 units. Building B—to be constructed some four or five years in the future— will replace the Titus Building and contain 145 units. The design plan proposes extending York Avenue into the complex from the north. In accordance with the stated goals of the Edina Planning Commission which include "protecting residential areas, the residents of York Avenue north of these properties hereby petition to alter the traffic plan for this project to prevent significant disruption of our neighborhood. The Problem. The two -block segment of York Avenue between Heritage Drive (essentially 63�d Street) and the proposed development is already densely populated. The 6300 and 6400 blocks of York contain four apartment complexes and three condominiums that contain 317 units (450+ residents). Most traffic from these buildings exits via 64th Street onto Xerxes, an exit that is frequently congested but has the advantage of a central median. Traffic is heavy enough that a pedestrian crossing signal was recently installed. Residents of the two new apartment complexes will enter and exit on the diagonal slant where Xerxes transitions to become York just before the intersection with 66th Street. Entrance is not a problem, but a car exiting the properties can only go south on York or west on 66th. However, the main traffic artery—the Crosstown Highway—lies four blocks north, and one convenient route to the Crosstown under the new plan would lie via York Avenue at the rear of the property to the 64th Street exit. Unfortunately, this would create further congestion at an already overcrowded intersection. The Solution. 1. A cul-de-sac should be created at the south end of York Avenue, at the south edge of the 6450 and 6455 York Avenue property lines. (This would prevent cars "cutting through" the new properties to those on the west, a common occurrence currently.) 2. If necessary, the city might create a one block street at the north end of the develop- ment—essentially 65th Street—to allow a safer exit onto Xerxes northbound. The developers are required to leave sufficient clearance to create such a street. The sightlines are optimal there and a median is already in place to ease left turns. To maintain the cohesion of our neighborhood, reduce traffic congestion, and ensure the safety of the 64th Street exit onto Xerxes, residents of the 6300 and 6400 block respectfully petition the Edina Planning Commissioners to implement this solutio] _\���% ;a T H E 101 66th St. �o Q �o Ln Ln Ln I" to r �a\,, W 66th St. Ln Ln 11 DDa� W 66th St. 66th St. WI ol U), wAr i 6400 York Avenue South Print Name G n ure Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 3. /YI / �61A �._ 114�; �— Print Name Signature Unit # Date t�� Print Name (l F� Sienature Unit # Date SoL.dC-:.f,6 JJ 5. Print Name Signature man/I U� Y�qY 1064 6. Print Name Signature 7. s moo , 3 '► d Print Name Signature s Signature Signature 10. Unit # Date X05- �-05 1 Unit # Date [G)- d\,o&--!6 Unit # Date Unit # Date �� �i(& i 1p Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South It,— -c- ("� �_ (;;�z A /L/ 26 9 __4 /7/ Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. E .11%1 e - SW 2vlsc A - Print Name Signature Unit # Date 3. ON, Print Name 4. �i Print Name Signature Unit # Date Signature LCL�A_:--s 2-� \LQ Unit # Date lo 5. L.y`D, — Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6. �������3111,( Print Name Signature Unit # Date 051 fir �. Print Name /_5 d k) '9 -_3 Signature Unit # Date s. � i )A � �L — _/Z' Print Name Signature Unit # Date �.6d 05-1�6' -,&Y(",)(A� � � �44�vl - . Print Name Signature Unit # Date 4JG� w ice- �9G1.ma-e-�►L�- 10. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South 11. l 1 KC---- A � � Print Name Signature Unit # Date 12. Print Name Sign77w a Unit # Date c �4 13. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 14. I IJ Print Name Signature Unit # Date 15. Signature Print Name 16. Signature Unit # Print Name 17. Unit # Date Print Name 18. Date Signature Print Name 19. Signature Unit # Print Name 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date 4tv%�)N - nk- UP � 6400 York Avenue South "A Q.�c Q�� — Print Name Signature Unit # Print Name Signature 3. S4' 4. Print Name Signature f La" Ib Date 9%/ J27 tea/ � Unit # Date 30? 1/17/j;° Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date �iil �'i � ����1 o?5. J Print Name Si ture Unit # Date 6. Print Name c A �, � w 0-1 '1 �- Z �-- - -- 3o, l I � Unit # Date 7. Print Name Sign t re Unit # Date % 8�1n- Print Name Signature Unit # Date 9./ Print Name Signature 10. &,z�L" I ---/ wn�- Print Name Signature 30� - s Unit # Date Unit # Date 11. Cry' i �� (Q i Print Name 6400 York Avenue South &jjl,� wt,,� SOW Signature Unit # Date 12. ::5-6 rte✓ 1p © Q 3 f r 0 Flo, Print Name 'gnature Unit # Date Print Name Signatury Unit # Date 14. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 15. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 16. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 17. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 18. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 19. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South 1. JaRNIT4 SeJ111,eO Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. 0-A20 L rttz @u-rrce Print Name Signature Unit # Date i 410M� Print Name Signature Unit # Date �A r 4. %AlrtV�A 1 V k—t 0144A � \' l� y Print Name 5. 10 rS (,( ` Signs re Unit # Date 1)4A- * 7- 1- 2�7 Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6.Gkk-C'L-M �A 4 4� Print Name Signature Unit # Date 7. JANiVJDL�W�, !Lkw- qD� lll� I Print Name Signature Unit # Date 8. Print Name Signature 9.t�c�N Print Name ignature 10. Unit # Date Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 0 6400 Y k Avenue Sou 11. � Print Name Signature Unit # Date 12. �� Vi a I i►C �l �� , Print Name Signature Unit # Date 13. L� �' tl/ --- Print Name Signature Unit # Date i 14. d ►'t�.l 1� %'9 J��h' . , I , -1 "1 �� — o� �' Print Name Signature %' Unit # Date 15. L s )C 6 gokf 1 - 7I "biz Print Name Signature Unit # Date 16. w Print Name Signature Unit # Date 17. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 18. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 19. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South Print Name Signature i. Print Name Signature Unit # Date a Unit # Date 3.KL Print Name Signature Unit # Date 50 4.6��.ra ; �►� {�►v r�21' l- Print Name Print Name Unit # Date 1- )-7-4- Unit -7"% Unit # Date Print Na eSignature Unit # Date 7. 'c Print Name Signature Unit # Date 8. Z4919 -- Print Name Signature Unit # Date 9. w Vl Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 11. � Print Name 6400 York Avenw-South � �/ j L, ( - -� �--) 0 /4 � ��, - Unit # Date :, n Print Name Sig ture Unit # DG -ate C,r (- (c, I 13. M , K-1 M Print Name Signature Unit # Date 14. VAI i� Obl1l �.� �lJ� Print Name IJ SigLiure Unit # Date 15. Print Name 16. Print Name 17. Print Name 18. Print Name 19. Print Name 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. Gj h til Print Name Si ature Unit # Date 3. K& -k ( V'*- 4"� Print Name Signature Unit # Date 4. 1 G a, O Print Name Signature / Unit # Wtqe Print Name Q'n ck- Signat e . - S k� � �' L-- L- so (j � y �L �') R 4 Q�� �k Print Name Signature 6° b 7 Unit # Date Unit # Date 7. C% Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 9. Print Name Signature Unit # `..Date 10. lS� I,R V 0 4 //lI -ztey& Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6400 York Avenue South 11. V�oL Print Name Signature Unit # Date t 12. U Al Print Name gnature Unit # Date 13. �U W�i,R &17 1 ?I lk- Print Name Signat re Unit # Date 14.� -di Print Name Signature Unit # Date 15. - c3 '1 I n kV6 Print Name Sig ature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date J JAI Print Name Signature Unit # Date �k? Print Name Sig ature Unit # Date 19. Print Name 20. Print Name Signature Signature Unit # Date Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South 1., C2/ ---e �,Z60 Ca, �Ia rack l- 5 o . _/ -- _ / L, Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 211D Print Name Signature Unit # Date blRdll /I Print Name Signature Unit # Date S. A Md, " 1") -- CAI/� 6. Print Name Print Name Signat 2 l Unit # Date 7. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 8. brR a T l� Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 10. Print Name Signature Unit # Date Unit # Date 2 l Unit # Date 7. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 8. brR a T l� Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 10. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South n"6�� 4�9 _ /� Print Name Signature Unit # Date 12. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 13. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 14. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 15. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 16. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 17. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 18. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 19. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. - y Z 'S Print Name Signature Unit # Date 3.5111`36 .2,/ Print Name Signature Unit # Date 4. 01-11411 Printi Name Signature Unit # Date 5. LA 'V-bjpt11i46 41 Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6. O'ef L Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name ,J Signature (/ Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date 4 4 Print Name Signature Unit # Date 10. 0 Z v �w -k -T � -- - 16: `I Print Name Signature Unit # Date 1. M , C - Print Name 2. Print Name 6450 York Avenue South i Zs�1 pit , 3. Date Unit # Print Name 4. Print Name 5. Print Name 6. Print Name 7. Print Name 8. Print Name 9. Print Name 10. Print Name Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature n F43 l�nit��at� M Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Date Unit # Unit # Date Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South I. C/o f / 2. Print Name Print Name c 4 -e e K NEW, MAIM" Print Name Print Name Signature Unit # Date Print Name 6. Print Name 7. I'-16rMI A Print Name Signature I p 1 Ngffm� /4 1m, M F7=— V ature �l Signature s. Si ASt4"A hl P 161 VYYA Sim 'l 161z' 14 Signature S,. �Z, A) �; A� (\� P - Unit # Date PI 171 Unit # Date Unit # Date '2 o-�) -�-/ i �b74/ i. Unit # Date 14 Unit # Date ;2: z 0-,/6-A6 Unit # Date Unit # Date %gnature 46Signature Unit # Date J" 5-/0 A 15-x Signature Unit # Date Print Name 6. Print Name 7. I'-16rMI A Print Name Signature I p 1 Ngffm� /4 1m, M F7=— V ature �l Signature s. Si ASt4"A hl P 161 VYYA Sim 'l 161z' 14 Signature S,. �Z, A) �; A� (\� P - Unit # Date PI 171 Unit # Date Unit # Date '2 o-�) -�-/ i �b74/ i. Unit # Date 14 Unit # Date ;2: z 0-,/6-A6 Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South 11. Print Name Signat a Unit # Date 12. VA Print Name Signature Unit # Date 13. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 14. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 15. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 16. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 17. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 18. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 19. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 20. Print Name Signature Unit # Date 6450 York Avenue South Print Name Signature Unit # Date 2. 02�? S f �rti a l5 / Print Name Signature Unit # Date 3. 00,53 Z Print Name Signature Unit # Date 4. Print 4ame Signature Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date ,7 6. / \ D Z% h�c,� 12.w�-,�, Print Name Signature(/Unit # Date Print Name Signature 8. Print Name Signature 9. p V- G' i� Print Name Signature Print Name �0 v " V t 4d-� Signature Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date n 6450 York Avenue South Print Name Signature Unit # Date 12. Pri Signature Unit # Date 13. /' ,� � 144 : 7 Print Name Signature 6�ss_ ��''����'�• S, Unit # Date 14. Print Name Signature 15. Print Name 16. Print Name 17. Print Name 18. Print Name 19. Print Name 20. Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Unit # Date Print Name Signature Unit # Date ---- t Jackie Hoogenakker From: Joyce Flesche <mjflesche@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:09 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Edina City council planning rezoning and predevelopment plan. As I look at the map you have sent showing the development plan I noticed that you failed to note that the York street name changes at 66th going north: it becomes Xerxes. The plan shows that the traffic flow from the proposed buildings going north on York avenue instead of creating a street at 65th where northbound traffic could go. Instead, all of this new traffic will go down York and may turn at 64th to access Xerxes or continue down to 63rd where they will add to the traffic congestion of multiple nursing homes. I live in the condo at 6400 York and overlook the hill going up to Xerxes. I have seen poor maintenance by the city and have also seen multiple accidents. When it snows, I can see that the Richfield side of 64th and Xerxes is plowed curb to curb hours before Edina makes a pass that lasts all morning- it goes up the middle and leaves a mess on the outer lane. 64th street is rarely salted so I watch cars slipping and slicing down it after ice storms. In the summer, there is no effort to cut the tree branches of the trees around the pond at the corner, so that when you are making a right d turn you can actually see the oncoming traffic.The only consistent attention 64th street gets from the city is that there is often a police car (speed trap) to catch speeding drivers as they come off the freeway. We have a lot of walkers in the residences along York Avenue. There are no sidewalks and the walkers are forced to use the street. On some days the traffic is prohibitive but usually the drivers are courteous and not a danger to the walkers. However, the proposed increase is definitely going to adversely effect those of us who live here. Please create a 65th street access to Xerxes from the proposed buildings, Laura Caplan 6400 York Avenue S, Apt 209 Edina, MN 55435 952-920-1385 Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 January 8, 2016 Dear Mr. Teague: I am writing to you to share my thoughts about the proposed multi -family residential development by DLC Residential at 65th and York. I live one block away at 6400 York Avenue South, aka The Yorker condominiums. I attended the Public Open House about the project on January 5, 2016. After listening to the developers' presentation and discussion with the public attendees I have several serious concerns about the project that I think you should be aware of. My biggest concern is about traffic on York Avenue both during and after construction and I know that many others in my building share this concern. I asked the developers what route they thought vehicles involved in their construction would take to the site and they answered that it would most likely be from the north of the site on York Avenue. That means that all the construction vehicles would be constantly coming down York Avenue right in front of my building for years. This is a very quiet residential area and the use of York Avenue for construction trucks, etc, would be a major nuisance and could also be hazardous to pedestrians walking on the street, as we don't have sidewalks. As it is expected that this project may take seven years or more to complete, this truck problem is a huge concern. There is no reason why we should have to suffer construction traffic on our block when other options are easily available. Thus I believe that construction vehicles and equipment should only be allowed to enter the site from either 66th Street or the Xerxes/York junction south of 65th Street. My second concern is about increased traffic on York Avenue after the new apartments become occupied. I examined the proposal that your office reviewed in August 2015 in which the developers state that: "The primary entrance to the project would be off Xerxes Avenue. There is a secondary access available off of York." Yet at the public meeting the developers said that both construction vehicles and subsequent residential vehicles would most likely use the York Avenue access north of the site as the primary entrance. This discrepancy needs to be addressed. Access to the project should be largely from Xerxes or 66th Street, not York Avenue north of the site. A number of people from my building also expressed concern at the public meeting about the new residents driving on York Avenue north of the site. The developers suggested that there would be no change in the traffic patterns on York after their project is completed, but we all found that hard to believe. The developers told us that they based this assumption on the thought that many cars now approach the current medical buildings on the site by coming down York Avenue on our block, but this is unlikely. Most cars approach the medical buildings via Xerxes or 66th St. In fact, York Avenue north of the site is not visible from Xerxes or 66th Street so most drivers don't even know it is there. Entrances to the medical buildings are highly visible from Xerxes and 66th Street. Further, if you check either google maps or Mapquest for directions to the medical buildings they will both tell you to enter off of 66th Street or from the Xerxes/York junction south of 65th Street. York Avenue north of the site, where I live, is a very quiet residential street with little traffic. We want to keep it that way. If the York Avenue access north of the site is used as the primary residential access as the developers suggested at the public meeting, then traffic and noise will be increased considerably in perpetuity and this will degrade our quality of life. Beyond the above, we have concerns about traffic at the intersection of 64th Street and Xerxes. Currently there is a lot of traffic on Xerxes coming from both north and south. At times it is treacherous to make a left turn on to Xerxes from 64th Street on the west side of Xerxes. Sometimes several cars trying to make various turns stack up in the island in between the north and south routes of Xerxes at 64th Street. As it is now there should be a stoplight put in at this intersection. And without it, if more traffic is added to this intersection from the DLC development it will only become more treacherous for all using it. As you noted on your website, in the last two years more than 1,200 new apartment units have either opened or are currently under construction in the Southdale area. All of these are in commercial districts, but the DLC project is right next to a residential area. The impact of this project on our residential neighborhood should be a major consideration in the planning of this project and it appears that the developers have not given this enough thought. On your website you state that it is your mission to: "guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improves the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses." The DLC project has the potential to significantly deteriorate the quality of life for the residents on York Avenue north of the site in a number of ways both during construction and after. I sincerely hope you will give serious consideration to the concerns expressed in this letter and find ways to address them so that our high quality of life will remain so. Sincerely, Laura Caplan 1. Call To Order Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Chair Platteter called the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 11. Roll Call Answering the roll all were Chair Platteter, Commissioners Strauss, Thorsen, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest and Student Commissioners Kivimaki and Ma. Staff present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director and Jackie Hoogenakker Commission Support Staff. Absent Members: Commissioners Hobbs and Lee III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by Thorsen to approve the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting agenda. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion by Thorsen to approve the January 13th and 27th Planning Commission meeting minutes with changes noted to the January 27, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit. Edina Public Schools, 6754 Valley View Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported Edina Public Schools is proposing to build a 142,000 square foot addition to the existing high school. In May of 2015 voters passed a successful referendum part of which was to build an addition located on the northwest side of the high school to house 9`h grade students. With graphics Teague pointed out the proposed additions, changes to the existing campus. Concluding, Teague stated staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval based on the following findings: Draft Minutest Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. I. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions Per Section 36-305 of the City Code. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The addition addresses building space needs at the school. 4. The parking and traffic study done by SRF has demonstrated that the existing roadways and parking lot would support the addition. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Grading plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Landscaping plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building elevations date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the watershed district's requirements. 3. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated January 20, 2016. 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 5. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 6. A building permit must be obtained within two years of City Council approval. Appearing `for the Applicant Vaughn Dierks and Sal Bagley representing the school district. Applicant Presentation Mr. Dierks reported that the School District and the City worked closely on the plan before the Commission this evening. Dierks said the District agrees with all conditions; however, would like condition 3.1) in the Engineers Memo eliminated or modified. Dierks explained that the District has worked very hard with surrounding neighbors and in discussions with residents on Chapel Drive it was felt that realigning the driveway along the west property line to line up with Chapel Lane was problematic. Dierks explained that presently Chapel Lane is used as a "cut through" from Antrim Road into the campus and if the westerly drive aisle is moved to line up with Chapel a "straight shot" into the campus may be a more attractive choice. Continuing, Dierks also noted that moving the westerly drive aisle would also result in the loss of parking spaces. Dierks said the District would like to continue to work with the City on 3.1) until a mutual solution can be found. pg. 2 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Dierks highlighted aspects of the project for further discussion: • Campus circulation interior and exterior. Highlighting vehicle and bus routes, parking, stacking, etc. • Work with the City on road systems (Valley View Road) to improve safety, stacking, etc. • Increase location of bike racks • Review access points • Continued work with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District on all storm water management plans, pointing out their locations. • Lighting. Use of LED lighting throughout the site. • Exterior building materials are to complement the existing buildings with matching brick colors (light and dark), glass (clear and ceramic fritted); metal panel complements the existing copper panels, etc. • Review of ALTA survey circulation. • Increase in landscaping Concluding, Dierks said the District continues to work with the City, neighborhoods, and Watershed District. Discussion/Comments Commissioners expressed support for the project and the addition itself, noting the proposed addition meets all zoning requirements for building height, setback, density, etc. Commissioners expressed the following: • Acknowledgement that the traffic analysis by SRF indicates less than ideal conditions at access points entering/exiting school property. It was acknowledged that those "conditions" occur during the peak times of school start and end. Commissioners stressed the importance of the School District and City working together to mitigate traffic; now and in the future. • With regard to the condition 3.1) of the Engineering Memo- aligning the west most entrance and cross walks with Chapel Drive, add to that condition "unless another alternative to address the issues is agreed upon by the city engineer and school district". It was acknowledged that a patrol officer will continue to be posted at intersections. It was further noted that the sign on Antrim Road prohibiting the turn onto Chapel Drive during peak hours is enforced. • Pay attention to drainage for both the neighbors to the east and west of the site. If feasible consider adding vegetation along the westerly property line. Additional landscaping could mitigate possible drainage issues. • A firm suggestion that the School District should take advantage of their student body and work with them to ensure safe pedestrian and bike way finding. Implement measures as walkers and bike traffic increases. • The District should look at all exterior lighting to ensure that lighting was directed away from residential properties. Implement state of the art lighting measures with the suggestion that lighting be down lit, "cut-off'. Public Hearing Draft MinutesN Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Chair Platteter moved to open the public hearing. The following residents addressed the Commission. Lydia Reiner, 4813 Lakeview Drive, Edina, MN. Student, expressed interest in working with the District on pedestrian and bike way finding. Mark Kuck, 6609 Nordic Drive, Edina, MN, expressed concern on possible drainage and lighting issues. Chair Platteter asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye. MOTION Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff findings and subject to the following staff conditions: I . Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Grading plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Landscaping plan date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building elevations date stamped December 23, 2015. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the watershed district's requirements. 3. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated January 20, 2016. 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. S. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 6. A building permit must be obtained within two years of City Council approval. Approval is also subject to the following additional conditions: 7. Revise the city engineer condition 3.1) as follows: 1) aligning the west most entrance to make a four way intersection and cross walks with Chapel Lane, unless another alternative to address the issue is agreed upon by the city engineer and school district. F : .i Draft Minutes0 Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 8. The school district should work to improve bike and pedestrian way finding and gather input from students and pertinent clubs. Add more bike racks. 9. Add landscaping where feasible along the west property line. 10. Down lit, "cut-off" lighting is to be installed in the parking areas, to meet city code regulations. Motion seconded by Commissioner Strauss. Ayes; Strauss, Olsen, Nemerov, Carr, Forrest, Platteter. Nay; Thorsen Commissioner Thorsen stated he supports the project; it's a good one; however, entered a Nay vote because in his opinion some of the additional conditions were ambiguous and not within our scope. VI. Community Comment None. VI1. Correspondence And Petitions Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials. VIII.Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Carr reported that the work group for the Greater Southdale Area continues to meet on phase 2 IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported that a work session with the Greater Southdale Area Task Force is being planned for March 23, 2016. Teague said he would get back with Commissioners with further details. Planner Teague reminded Commissioners to RSVP for the Boards and Commission Dinner event on February 29th. X. Adjournment Motion by Strauss to adjourn the February 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting at 8:50. Seconded by Olsen. Motion carried. ctfully submitted M. • ,`�URYOitP1F9 - lass Date: February 24, 2016 To: Members of the Edina Planning Commission From: gill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Subject: Grandview 2 Tax Increment Financing District, Eden and Arcadia Avenues Information / Background: The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has recommended that the City of Edina consider a new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District to advance community goals in a portion of the Grandview commercial area. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing to consider this proposal on March 2, 2016. Input from the Plan Commission is being solicited in advance of the Public Hearing. The proposed creation of a new Tax Increment Financing District is done in accordance with Section 469 of the Minnesota Statutes and is based on the following activities and findings: • Parcels are located within the boundaries of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, • Future land use of the area is identified as "mixed use center" in 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan (pages 4-25 to 4-29), • Guided development densities in the updated Comprehensive Plan are 30 units per acre and 1.5 floor -to -area ratio, • Identified as "potential area of change" in Comprehensive Plan (pages 4-30 to 4-33), and • 2012 Grandview Redevelopment Framework (page 51) recommends the creation of a TIF District to help achieve the goals defined The proposed "Grandview 2" TIF District is a follow up to the original Grandview TIF District that was de- certified in 2010. While the original District was successful in sparking improvements on the west side of the railroad tracks (condominiums, office building, senior center, library and streetscape improvements), a new District is necessary to address the high costs of anticipated redevelopment in the area. New projects will be hindered by existing buildings (some considered sub -standard), contaminated soils and outdated public infrastructure. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 STAFF REPORT Page 2 The proposed Grandview 2 TIF District includes parcels that are reasonably anticipated to be redeveloped in the near future. A map is included on pages 24-25 of the TIF Plan. Only a portion of the commercial area is proposed to be included in the TIF District at this time. It is possible that the District may need to be expanded or additional Districts be created in the future if additional parcels encounter barriers that hinder redevelopment and reinvestment in the community. The projected development densities anticipated in the overall TIF Plan abide by the limits identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The projected new development (on which the property tax capacities are calculated) consists of 321 housing units plus 68,000 square feet of commercial space plus 74,000 square feet of community building plus related parking. This is based on the content of the 2012 Development Framework modified by the conceptual programming for the former Public Works site prepared in September 2015. It is recognized that the Planning Commission and City Council will likely need to review specific proposals that come forward for any particular site. At this time, no specific projects are being proposed nor is any specific project proposed to be funded or constructed using incremental taxes. It is anticipated that eligible projects will be considered in the next 1-3 years after the City concludes the study of the transportation network and the respective property owners submit redevelopment proposals for the parcels at 5146 Eden Ave (former Public Works site) and 5220 Eden Ave (bus garage site). On February I, 2016, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, other taxing agencies, such as Hennepin County and Edina School District #273, have been notified of the potential creation of this redevelopment district. To date, no comments have been received regarding this proposal. The Draft TIF Plan for the proposed Grandview 2 District is attached for your review and consideration. In accordance with Minnesota Statute governing the use of TIF, the Plan Commission is requested to confirm that the proposed TIF Plan is in compliance with Edina's Comprehensive Plan. Representatives from the City of Edina/Edina HRA and representatives from Ehlers & Associates, the City's public financing and redevelopment advisors will be available to answer any questions you may have. Maximum Identified in Redevelopment Comprehensive Plan Identified in TIF Plan (Table 4.3) (Appendix A) Guided Land Use Mixed Use Center Mixed Uses Residential Density 30 units per acre 30 units per acre (321 units/ 10.73 acres) Floor -to -Area Ratio 1.5 FAR 0.30 FAR (142,000 SF / 467,399 SF) It is recognized that the Planning Commission and City Council will likely need to review specific proposals that come forward for any particular site. At this time, no specific projects are being proposed nor is any specific project proposed to be funded or constructed using incremental taxes. It is anticipated that eligible projects will be considered in the next 1-3 years after the City concludes the study of the transportation network and the respective property owners submit redevelopment proposals for the parcels at 5146 Eden Ave (former Public Works site) and 5220 Eden Ave (bus garage site). On February I, 2016, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, other taxing agencies, such as Hennepin County and Edina School District #273, have been notified of the potential creation of this redevelopment district. To date, no comments have been received regarding this proposal. The Draft TIF Plan for the proposed Grandview 2 District is attached for your review and consideration. In accordance with Minnesota Statute governing the use of TIF, the Plan Commission is requested to confirm that the proposed TIF Plan is in compliance with Edina's Comprehensive Plan. Representatives from the City of Edina/Edina HRA and representatives from Ehlers & Associates, the City's public financing and redevelopment advisors will be available to answer any questions you may have. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRANDVIEW 2 REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") and the City of Edina (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: February 24, 2016 Chair ATTEST: Secretary As of February 17, 2016 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: March 2, 2016 Adopted: FREERS Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area ........................... 1-1 Foreword 1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District .............. 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword ............................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ........................................ 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ................................. 2-2 Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-4 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ....................................... . ... 2-6 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election .............. .......... .......... . 2-7 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies ....................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-9 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-11 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-11 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District ................................ 2-12 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-12 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-15 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-15 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-15 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-15 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-15 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................. 2-16 Subsection 2-28. Summary .............................................. 2-16 Appendix A Project Description...................................................... A-1 Appendix B Map of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District ........... B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications ..................................... G-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation ofthe goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the Grandview Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, most recently modified on February 18, 2014, is recommended. It is available from the HRA Executive Director at the City of Edina. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area _ Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2-1. Foreword The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Edina (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.'), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of fifteen parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. As a part of the City's vision for the Grandview Area featuring 74,000 square feet of civic use, the District is being created to facilitate the multi -phased construction of approximately 68,000 square feet of mixed-use development and 321 units of housing in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA has not entered into an agreement or designated a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in phases starting by 2018. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired -The HRA or City currently owns six parcels of property within the District. The remaining property or portions thereof located within the District may be acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer or similar business entity. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2-1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; or to carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type oftaxincrementfanancingdistrict consisting ofaproject, or portions of a project, within which the authorityfinds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tankfacilities, orproperty whose immediatelyprevious use was for tankfacilities, as defined in Section 1150, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: (i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used, or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. lob. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.2 substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement ofparagraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (fi. (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (� For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District is a redevelopment district consisting of fifteen parcels. • An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 • An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent ofthe buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment ofthe District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The HRA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. I and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2020) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rates for the District appear in the tables on the following page. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2020. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.4 Tax Increment District Parcels in Watershed No. 1 (Nine Mile Creek Watershed) Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $371,572 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTO) $46,817 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $103,651 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $221,104 Original Local Tax Rate 1.18106 Estimated Pay 2016 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $261,137 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% Tax capacity includes a 2% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one is estimated to be $89,940. Tax Increment District Parcels in Watershed No. 3 (Minnehaha Creek Watershed) Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,207,886 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $10,379 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $15,703 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,181,804 Original Local Tax Rate 1.18593 Estimated Pay 2016 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,401,537 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% Tax capacity includes a 2% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one is estimated to be $187,219. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and/or a possible bond issue. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $32,479,295 Interest $3,247,929 TOTAL $35,727,224 The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $21,170,290. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of approximately 68,000 square feet of mixed-use development and 322 units of housing in the City. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $1,500,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $1,500,000 Utilities $1,200,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $13,800,000 Administrative Costs (u to o 10%) $3,170,290 PROJECT COST TOTAL $21,170,290 Interest $14,556.934 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $35,727,224 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.6 Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial -industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authorityfrom the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The HRA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2-7 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined inMS., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2_8 was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that -tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS IN WATERSHED NO. 1 (Nine Mile Creek Watershed) Percent Estimated Estimated Captured Potential 2015/Pay 2016 Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Total Net Upon Completion to Entity Total Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,467,566,893 221,104 0.0151% City of Edina 112,555,594 221,104 0.1964% Edina ISD No. 273 93,768,481 221,104 0.2358% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 221,104 Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2 9 Estimated Percent Potential Pay 2016 of Total CTC Taxes Extension Rates Hennepin County 0.453140 38.37% 221,104 100,191 City of Edina 0.271220 22.96% 221,104 59,968 Edina ISD No. 273 0.348980 29.55% 221,104 77,161 Other 0.107720 9.12% 221.104 23.817 Total 1.181060 100.00% 261,137 Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2 9 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS IN WATERSHED NO.3 (Minnehaha Creek Watershed) Estimated Estimated Captured 2015/Pay 2016 Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Total Net Upon Completion to Entity Total Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,467,566,893 1,181,804 0.0805% City of Edina 112,555,594 1,181,804 1.0500% Edina ISD No. 273 93,768,481 1,181,804 1.2603% IMPACT ON TAX RATES The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $32,479,295; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The probable impact ofthe District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. However, with an increase in residents and traffic, an increase in medical related calls is anticipated. The existing buildings, which will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns that include several unprotected old buildings with issues such as access, hydrant locations, and converted structures. It is expected that the contemplated public improvements will improve access for emergency response vehicles. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.10 Estimated Percent Potential Pay 2016 of Total CTC Taxes Extension Rates Hennepin County 0.453140 38.21% 1,181,804 535,523 City of Edina 0.271220 22.87% 1,181,804 320,529 Edina ISD No. 273 0.348980 29.43% 1,181,804 412,426 Other 0.112590 9.49% 1,181,804 133,059 Total 1.185930 100.00% 1,401,537 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $32,479,295; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The probable impact ofthe District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. However, with an increase in residents and traffic, an increase in medical related calls is anticipated. The existing buildings, which will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns that include several unprotected old buildings with issues such as access, hydrant locations, and converted structures. It is expected that the contemplated public improvements will improve access for emergency response vehicles. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.10 The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be moderate. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements external to the area, but new infrastructure is proposed to enhance traffic movement throughout the District. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are minimal additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District is expected to contribute sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. The City may issue GO TIF Bonds at some point during the District, but it is not anticipated at this time. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $9,564,599; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $12,418,262; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. [A copy of the proposed TIF Plan is being furnished to the county and school district for comment on the anticipated fiscal impacts. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received at this time.] Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA and City's findings: • Grandview District Development Framework - April 5, 2012 • Sanitary Sewer Analysis - Barr Engineering February 21, 2014 • Water Distribution System Analysis - Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. February 21, 2014 • Transportation Summary - WSB & Associates March 6, 2014 • Redevelopment TIF District Qualifications Report - LHB • Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Resolution 2013-04 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 I . Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate ofthe cost ofthe District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(1J, the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2.12 District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax incrementfinancingdistrictpursuanttoM.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2-13 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on thatparcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax incrementfinancingplan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity ofthe tax incrementfinancing district. The county auditor must enforce theprovisions ofthis subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately March 2020 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to MS., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent ofthe acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the HRA Executive Director. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value ofthe site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration ofthe District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance is placed upon HRA and City staff awareness ofthe feasibility ofdeveloping the project site(s) within the District and will be confirmed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashfiow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment I. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation ofredevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M. S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the HRA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. Summary The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Grandview 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-17 Appendix A Project Description The Grandview 2 Tax Increment District is a significant redevelopment effort of the City of Edina. The total development costs is estimated to be in excess of $200 million. The project is focused on revitalizing the site of the City's vacant and substandard former public works facility along with public and outdated private use sites adjacent to the property. The City envisions a 74,000 square foot civic use for a portion of the public site with the redevelopment goal to create a vibrant neighborhood center with regional connections to catalyze high quality, integrated public and private development. The redevelopment is expected to occur in stages over the next two to six years. The City adopted the Grandview Development Framework in 2012 to help guide the potential area of change. Central to the redevelopment effort is the creation of central commons area consisting ofcivic, residential, office and other uses. The City has sought partnership with Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group to collaboratively plan the re -use of the site, but has not formally entered into any redevelopment agreements with any developers. The City expects to solicit private partners to maximize economic vitality of the site to complement the public improvements. Complimenting the civic use, the framework recommends mixed use development consisting of approximately 50,000 square fee of office, 18,000 square feet of retail, and 321 units of residential housing throughout the District. Potential public improvements include pavement, sidewalk, utility, and street improvements along Eden and Arcadia Avenues adjacent to the site; intersection improvements to EdenNernon, Eden/Arcadia, and Eden/Sherwood; district -wide shared parking structure; new street and pedestrian transportation connections; and district storm water solutions. The public costs associated with the project is anticipated to be financed by a combination of city funds and/or bonds for public infrastructure, and pay-as-you-go notes issued to private developers to reimburse qualifying costs to facilitate the redevelopment. More detailed information about the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area can be found in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan on file at the Edina City Hall. Appendix A-1 Appendix B Map of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District B-1 Appendix Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and Grandview 2 TIF District Project Area Grandview 2 TIF District N W+E Engineering Dept. January, 2016 .......�..-,--GtAS YOUNG LANA .. a dM Mw + >, ? ' 2811721310014 ie �'� i``!1'" 4 1 �-- t�T �..• `r*, f` �ri.i 't1721310015 2172131015 _ `v 1 �., 1+yy�i`i �'er / .. �� Ja►� 281 go1721310021 n 4i t. 'I�. •{�' i i II 'l x}'l r w/_Ari — '�' • za11 i 21 afar �Ek< Lj Y t ° �; 2x11721310022— r i� Q i W 281172131001 U 7 14' w - - �— --' > < ? 4 w LZ T €t OWL m w 05, 2811 72134CO25 28117213400dn 14 f y 2811-2134000— '�� ' 28117Z13400�4 4 .2811 x21340004 f•r„x. X{*J 1P Oft - 2811721340015 2811721' 40017 wb ' i a 7 zs1721340002 , a� �O.c A V", }; E L77; mom , '411t � City of Edina Grandview 2 Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District N e Grandview 2 TIF District W+S Engineering Dept January, 2016 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 28-117-21-31-0014 5146 Eden Ave City of Edina 28-117-21-31-0015 5146 Eden Ave City of Edina 28-117-21-31-0016 5146 Eden Ave City of Edina 28-117-21-34-0002 5145 Eden Ave Church of Our Lady Grace 28-117-21-31-0018 NA SOO Line Railroad Corp (Canadian Pacific Railway) 28-117-21-34-0014 NA SOO Line Railroad Corp (Canadian Pacific Railway) 28-117-21-34-0005 5150 Brookside Ave ISD #273 28-117-21-34-0004 5220 Eden Ave ISD #273 28-117-21-34-0017 NA Jerry's Enterprises, Inc 28-117-21-34-0025 5201 Vernon Ave Jerry's Enterprises, Inc 28-117-21-34-0024 5203 Vernon Ave Drs. JT Beecher & JA Rohde 28-117-21-34-0016 5205 Vernon Ave Realty Income Props 3 LLC 28-117-21-31-0021 5116 Brookside Ave City of Edina 28-117-21-31-0022 5120 Brookside Ave City of Edina 28-117-21-31-0051 NA City of Edina Appendix C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D-1 2/17/2016 EHLERS kh.Fr V,'., Yfi.. Itt •f *IhA �t'1 Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN 50,000 sq. ft. Commercial Office and 10,000 sq. ft. Retail nNS Amn Rd Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 DistrictType: Redevelopment BASE Tax Rates •- •(Original District Name/Number: SD 273 / WD 1 County District #: Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00% First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2018 Tax Year Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.) Current Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining After First $150,000 1.50% Inflation Rate - Every Year: 2.00% Original Over $150,000 2.00% Interest Rate: 4.00% Conversion Area/ Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/1) 2.00% Present Value Date: 1 -Aug -16 for District Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental) 1.25% First Period Ending 1 -Feb -17 Conversion Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental) 2811721310018 Tax Year District was Certified: Pay 2016 0 First $100,000 0.75% Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2020 - Over $100,000 0.25% Years of Tax Increment 26 0 Non -Homestead Residential (Non -H Res. 1 Unit) 100% Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2045 Exempt First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA] Inside(B) 297,521 Over $500,000 1.25% Incremental or Total Fiscal Disparities Incremental Pay 2016 Homestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.) Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 31.9168% Pay 2016 Prelim First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Metro -Wide Tax Rate 150.2620% Pay 2016 Prelim Over $500,000 1.25% Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 118.106% Pay 2016 Prelim Agricultural Non -Homestead 1.00% Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 118.106% Pay 2016 Prelim 116,000 Pay 2016 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 49.0000% Pay 2016 Prelim 2,320 2811721340025 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 0.20622% Pay 2016 Prelim 100% 356,000 u ic. 1. Review of County website on 1.7.2016 shows $0 value assigned to exempt parcels. Projections assume land base value estimate at $7 per square foot for parcels ending in -0004 and -0005. Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\Minnsota\EDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF DistricWGrandview-2016\Grandview TIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1 .7.2016) BASE VALUE •- •(Original Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class After Land Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After Conversion Area/ Map # PID Owner Address Market Value Value Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Phase 2811721310018 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2016 Exempt - Exempt 2811721340014 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2016 Exempt - Exempt - 2811721340005 297,521 0 297,521 100% 297,521 Pay 2016 Exempt C/I 5,950 2811721340004 233,821 0 233,821 100% 233,821 Pay 2016 Exempt C/I 4,676 2811721340017 116,000 0 116,000 100% 116,000 Pay 2016 C/I 2,320 C/I 2,320 2811721340025 356,000 0 356,000 100% 356,000 Pay 2016 C/I 7,120 C/I 7,120 2811721340024 362,400 502,500 864,900 100% 864,900 Pay 2016 C/I Pref. 16,548 C/I Pref. 16,548 2811721340016 530,900 16,700 547,600 100% 547,600 Pay 2016 C/I Pref. 10,202 C/I Pref. 10,202 2811721310021 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2016 Exempt - Exempt - 2811721310022 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2016 Exempt - Exempt 2811721310051 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2016 Exempt Exempt - °<<' 2,415,842 36,190 46,817 u ic. 1. Review of County website on 1.7.2016 shows $0 value assigned to exempt parcels. Projections assume land base value estimate at $7 per square foot for parcels ending in -0004 and -0005. Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\Minnsota\EDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF DistricWGrandview-2016\Grandview TIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1 .7.2016) 1/29/2016 EKERS tAx1aR„p etrNnr naa.r+,i Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN 50,000 sq, ft. Commercial Office and 10,000 sq. ft. Retail Base Value Assumptions - Page 2 Note: 1. Market values are based upon current estimates provided by the City assessor's office. Estimated Taxable Total Taxable Property Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First Year Isca oca Market Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Completed Completed Completed 2020 Completed 2021 Full Taxes Payable Area/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./Units Value Class Tax Capacity 2018 2019 50% 100% 100% 2022 Eden Office 200 200 42,000 8,400,000 C/I C/I 168,000 24,000 25% 25% 50% 100% 100% 2022 Eden Retail 200 200 6,000 1,200,000 C/I 9,440 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 2020 Vernon Comm. Land 15 15 200 31,465 4,500 472,000 900,000 C/1 Pref. 17,250 100% 100% 100% 100% 2020 Vernon Office 200 800,000 C/IPref. 15,250 100% 100% 100% 100% 2020 Vernon Retail 200 200 4,000 Note: 1. Market values are based upon current estimates provided by the City assessor's office. Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM Total Property Taxes 439,214 less State-wide Taxes (114,631) less Fiscal Disp. Adj. (112,195) less Market Value Taxes (24.276) less Base Value Taxes(37,646) Annual Gross TIF Prepared by Ehlers & Assaciates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\MinnsotMEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\GrandviewTIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1 .7.2016) TAX CALCULATIONS ota Isca oca oca Isca tate-wI a ar et Tax Disparities Tax Property Disparities Property Value Total Taxes Per New Use Ca acity Ta!_Capacity Capaci Taxes Taxes Taxes 82,320 Taxes 17,322 Taxes 315,303 Sq. Ft./Unit 7.51 Office 168,000 53,620 7,660 114,360 16,340 135,089 19,298 80,571 11,510 11,760 2,475 45,043 7.51 Retail Comm. Land 24,000 9,440 3,013 6,427 7,591 4,527 4,626 973 1,856 17,717 32,452 0.56 7.21 Office 17,250 5,506 11,744 13,871 8,273 7,314 8,453 7,473 1,650 28,699 7.17 Retail 15,250 4,667 10,383 12,263 Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM Total Property Taxes 439,214 less State-wide Taxes (114,631) less Fiscal Disp. Adj. (112,195) less Market Value Taxes (24.276) less Base Value Taxes(37,646) Annual Gross TIF Prepared by Ehlers & Assaciates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\MinnsotMEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\GrandviewTIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1 .7.2016) 1/29/2016 Tax Increment Cashflow- Page 3 EHLERS Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN 50,000 sq. ft. Commercial Office and 10,000 sq. ft. Retail Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi -Annual State Admin. Semi -Annual Semi -Annual PERIOD % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Taz Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax Payment DTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36% 10% Increment Value Yrs Year Date Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only WMinnsotMEDINA\Housinp Economic RedevelopmenflTIFMF Districts\GranWiew-2016\Grandview TIF Run -Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1.7.2016) - - 08/01/17 - - 02/01/18 - - 08/01/18 - - - 02/01/19 - - 08/01/19 100% 89,940 (46,817) (13,764) 29,360 118.106% 34,675 17,338 - (62) (1,726) 15,548 13,270 0.5 2020 02/01/20 08/01/20 100% 138,779 (46,617) (28,751) 63,211 118.106% 74,656 17,338 37,328 (62) (134) (1,728) (3,719) 15,548 33,474 26,280 53,740 1 1.5 2020 2021 02/01/21 100% 235,634 (46,817) (60,265) 128,553 118.106% 151,829 37,328 75,914 (134) (273) (3,719) (7,564) 33,474 68,077 80,663 134,341 2 2.5 2021 2022 08/01/21 02/01/22 100% 240,347 (46,817) (61,769) 131,762 118.106% 155,618 75,914 77,809 (273) (280) (7,564) (7,753) 68,077 69,775 186,967 239,846 3 3.5 2022 2023 08/01/22 02/01/23 100% 245,154 (46,817) (63,303) 135,034 118.106% 159,484 77,809 79,742 (280) (287) (7,753) (7,945) 69,776 71,509 291,693 343,784 4 2023 08/01/23 02/01/24 100% 250,057 (46,817) (64,868) 138,372 118.106% 163,426 79,742 81,713 (287) (294) (7,945) (8,142) 71,509 73,277 394,853 446,158 4.5 5 2024 2024 08/01/24 02/01/25 100% 255,058 (46,817) (66,464) 141,777 118.106% 167,448 81,713 83,724 (294) (301) (8,142) (8,342) 73,277 75,080 496,458 546,985 5.5 6 6.5 2025 2025 2026 08/01/25 02/01/26 1 00% 260,159 (46,817) (68,092) 145,250 118.106% 171,549 83,724 85,775 (301) (309) (8,342) (8,547) 75,080 76,919 596,521 646,275 7 7.5 2026 2027 08/01/26 02/01/27 100% 265,363 (46,817) (69,753) 148,793 118.106% 175,733 85,775 87,867 (309) (316) (8,547) (8,755) 76,919 78,795 695,054 744,043 8 8.5 2027 2028 08/01/27 02/01/26 100% 270,670 (46,817 (71,447 ) 152,406 118.106% 180,001 87,867 90,000 (316) (324) (8,755) (8,966) 78,795 80,709 792,071 840,301 9 9.5 2028 2029 08/01/28 02/01/29 08/01/29 100% 276,083 (46,817) (73,174) 156,092 118.106% 184,354 90,000 92,177 (324) (332) (8,968) (9,185) 80,709 82,661 887,585 935,063 10 2029 02/01/30 100% 281,605 (46,817) (74,937) 159,851 118.106% 188,794 92,177 94,397 (332) (9,185) 82,661 961,611 10.5 11 2030 2030 08/01/30 02/01/31 (340) (9,406) 84,651 1,028,344 11.5 2031 08/01/31 94,397 (340) (9,406) 84,651 1,074,161 12 2031 02/01/32 100% 287,237 (46,817) (76,734) 163,686 118.106% 193,323 96,661 (348) (9,631) 86,682 1,120,158 12.5 2032 08/01/32 96,661 (348) (9,631) 86,682 1,165,252 13 2032 02/01/33 100% 292,982 (46,817) (78,568) 167,597 118.106% 197,942 98,971 (356) (9,861) 88,753 1,210,519 13.5 2033 06/01/33 100% 298,841 (46,817) (80,438) 171,586 118.106% 202,654 98,971 101,327 (356) (365) (9,861) (10,096) 88,753 90,866 1,254,898 1,299,443 14 2033 02/01/34 100% 304,818 (46,817) (82,346) 175,656 118.106% 207,460 101,327 103,730 (365) (373) (10,096) (10,336) 90,866 93,021 1,343,114 1,386,944 14.5 15 15.5 2034 2034 2035 08/01/34 02/01/35 100% 310,915 (46,817) (84,292) 179,806 118.106% 212,362 103,730 (373) (10,336) 93,021 1,429,915 16 2035 08/01/35 02/01/36 106,181 (382) (10,580) 95,219 1,473,038 16.5 2036 08/01/36 100% 317,133 (46,817) (86,276) 164,040 118.106% 217,362 106,181 108,681 (382) (10,580) 95,219 1,515,317 17 2036 02/01/37 (391) (10,629) 97,461 1,557,742 17.5 2037 08/01/37 100% 323,476 46,817 ( ) (88,301) 188,358 118.106% 222,462 108,681 111,231 (391) (400) (10,829) (11,083) 97,461 99,748 1,599,335 1,641,069 18 18.5 2037 02/01/38 100% 329,945 (46,817) (90,365) 192,763 118.106% 227,664 111,231 113,832 (400) (11,083) 99,748 1,681,985 19 2038 2038 08/01/38 02/01/39 (410) (11,342) 102,080 1,723,037 19.5 2039 08/01/39 100% 336,544 (46,817) (92,472) 197,255 118.106% 232,971 113,832 116,485 (410) (419) (11,342) (11,607) 102,080 104,459 1,763,284 1,603,662 20 20.5 2039 2040 02/01/40 100% 343,275 (46,817) (94,620) 201,838 118.106% 238,383 116,485 119,191 (419) (11,607) 104,459 1,843,248 21 2040 08/01/40 02/01/41 (429) (11,876) 106,886 1,882,959 21.5 2041 08/01/41 100% 350,140 (46,817) (96,811) 206,512 118.106% 243,903 119,191 (429) (11,876) 106,886 1,921,891 22 2041 02/01/42 121,952 (439) (12,151) 109,361 1,960,944 22.5 2042 08/01/42 100% 357,143 (46,817) (99,046) 211,280 118.106% 249,534 121,952 (439) (12,151) 109,361 1,999,232 23 2042 02/01/43 124,767 (449) (12,432) 111,886 2,037,635 23.5 2043 08/01/43 100% 364,286 (46,817) (101,326) 216,143 118.106% 255,278 124,767 127,639 (449) (460) (12,432) (12,718) 111,886 114,462 2,075,285 2,113,047 24 24.5 2043 02/01/44 100% 371,572 (46,817) (103,651) 221,103 118.106% 261,136 127,639 130,568 (460) (470) (12,718) (13,010) 114,462 117,088 2,150,068 2,187,196 25 25.5 2044 2044 08/01/44 02/01/45 Total 130,568 470 13,010) 117,086 2,223,596 26 2045 2045 08/01/45 02/01/46 4,970,003 .(17,892) (495,211) 4,456,899 Present Value From 0 810112 01 6 Present Value Rate 4.00% 2,479 589 (8,927) (247,066) 2,223,596 Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only WMinnsotMEDINA\Housinp Economic RedevelopmenflTIFMF Districts\GranWiew-2016\Grandview TIF Run -Redevelopment District Prelim WD 1 (1.7.2016) 2/16/2016 EHLERS Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN Grandview High Housing Density Concept: 8,000 sq. ft. retail and 309 units Residential. 12 units townhomes. Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 Note: 1. Review of County website on 1.7.2016 shows $0 value assigned to exempt parcels. Projections assume land base value estimate at $7 per square foot. Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N1MinnsotMEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\Grandview TIF Run_ Redevelopment District Prelim WD 3 (1.7.2016) BASE VALUE •- •N (Original Tax Capacity) ASSUMPTIONS DistrictType: Redevelopment Building Tax Rates Percentage District Name/Number: SD 273 / WD 3 Tax Year Property Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00 County District #: First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2016 Market Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (CA Pref.) Of Value Used Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining Original Tax First $150,000 1.50% 2.00%Inflation Rate - Every Year: 2.00°k 4.00% Value Over $150,000 Commercial Industrial Class Rate (CA) 2.00 Interest Rate: Present Value Date: 1 -Aug -16 Class Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental) 1.25% First Period Ending 1 -Feb -17 0 Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental) 0.75% Tax Year District was Certified: Pay 2016 Exempt First $100,000 Over $100,000 0.25% Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2020 26 0 Non -Homestead Residential (Non -H Res. 1 Unit) 100% Years of Tax Increment 2045 Exempt First $500,000 1.00% Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA[ Inside(B) 0 Over $500,000 1.25% Incremental or Total Fiscal Disparities Incremental Exempt Exempt Homestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.) 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 31.9168% Pay 2016 Prelim. First $500,000 Over $500,000 1.25% Fiscal Disparities Metro -Wide Tax Rate 1150.2620% 118.593% Pay 2016 Prelim. Pay 2016 Prelim. Agricultural Non -Homestead 1.00% Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 118.593% Pay 2016 Prelim. 260,216 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 49.0000% Pay 2016 Prelim. 0 10,379 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 0.20622% Pay 2016 Prelim. Note: 1. Review of County website on 1.7.2016 shows $0 value assigned to exempt parcels. Projections assume land base value estimate at $7 per square foot. Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N1MinnsotMEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\Grandview TIF Run_ Redevelopment District Prelim WD 3 (1.7.2016) BASE VALUE •- •N (Original Tax Capacity) Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class After Land Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After Conversion Area/ Owner Address Market Value Value Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Phase Map #PID 2811721310014 63,000 0 63,000 100% 63,000 Pay 2016 Exempt CA 1,260 2811721310015 63,000 0 63,000 100% 63,000 Pay 2016 Exempt Exempt Rental 5,556 2811721310016 888,972 0 888,972 50% 444,486 Pay 2016 Exempt Exempt _ Exempt 2811721310016 868,972 0 0 888,972 356,272 50% 100% 444,486 356,272 Pay 2016 Pay 2016 Exempt Hmstd. Res. 3,563 2811721340002 356,272 260,216 1,371,244 0 10,379 Note: 1. Review of County website on 1.7.2016 shows $0 value assigned to exempt parcels. Projections assume land base value estimate at $7 per square foot. Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N1MinnsotMEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\Grandview TIF Run_ Redevelopment District Prelim WD 3 (1.7.2016) 2/18/2016 EHLER W11" V F'A! xfttR3�4 Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN Grandview High Housing Density Concept: 8,000 sq. ft. retail and 309 units Residential. 12 units townhomes. Base Value Assumptions - Page 2 N01e: 1. Market values are based upon current estimates provided by the City assessor's office. PROJECT•' CALCULATIONSI TAX • Area/Phase New Use Residential Retail Townhouses Estimated Taxable Market Value Market Value Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit 185,599 185,599 200 200 165,000 142,610 Total Sq. Ft./Units 309 8,000 12 Total Taxable Market Value 57,350,000 1,600,000 1,711,320 Property Tax Class Rental C/I Hmstd. Res. Project Tax Capacity 716,875 32,000 17,113 Percentage Completed 2018 25% 25% 0% Percentage Completed 2019 50% 50% 50% Percentage Completed 2020 100% 100% 100% Percentage Completed 2021 100% 1D0% 100% First Year Full Taxes Payable 2022 2022 2022 TOTAL Tax Capacity Property Taxes 60,661,320 Property Taxes r65,988 Total Taxes Taxes Per Sq. Ft./Unit Residential Retail Townhouses 716,875 32,000 17,113 0 10,213 0 Subtotal Residential 850,164 25,837 20,295 321 59,061,320 118,267 3,300 3,529 733,988 3,134.08 7.52 1,985.35 rOTAr- 765,988 10,213 755,776- Subtotal Commercial/Intl. 15,347 8,000 1,600,000 __rU6TM 32,000 N01e: 1. Market values are based upon current estimates provided by the City assessor's office. 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. WHAT IS • • FROM Total rope y Taxes 1,052,419 less State-wide Taxes (15,680) less Fiscal Disp. Adj. (15,347) less Market Value Taxes (125,096) less Base Value Taxes 11,632 Annual Gross TIF Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\MinasotalEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\Grandview TIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim wD 3 (1 .7.2016) CALCULATIONSI TAX NumiklotaIsca oca oca Isca tate-wI a ar et New Use Tax Capacity Disparities Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Property Taxes Disparities Taxes Property Taxes Value Taxes Total Taxes Taxes Per Sq. Ft./Unit Residential Retail Townhouses 716,875 32,000 17,113 0 10,213 0 716,875 21,787 17,113 850,164 25,837 20,295 0 15,347 0 0 15,680 0 118,267 3,300 3,529 968,431 60,164 23,824 3,134.08 7.52 1,985.35 rOTAr- 765,988 10,213 755,776- 896,296 15,347 15,680 125,096 __rU6TM 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. WHAT IS • • FROM Total rope y Taxes 1,052,419 less State-wide Taxes (15,680) less Fiscal Disp. Adj. (15,347) less Market Value Taxes (125,096) less Base Value Taxes 11,632 Annual Gross TIF Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\MinasotalEDINA\Housing Economic Redevelopment\TIRTIF Districts\Grandview- 2016\Grandview TIF Run_Redevelopment District Prelim wD 3 (1 .7.2016) 2/18/2016 Tax Increment Cashflow- Page 3 EHLERS Grandview Redevelopment City of Edina, MN Grandview High Housing Density Concept: 8,000 sq. ft. retail and 309 units Residential. 12 units townhomes. Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi -Annual State Admin. Semi -Annual Semi -Annual PERIOD % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present I ENDING Tax Payment OTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 036% 10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date 0 7 08101/17 02/01/18 08/01/18 02/01/19 08/01/19 02/01120 100% 187,219 (10,379) (2,151) 174,689 118.593% 207,169 103,584 103,584 (373) (373) (10,321) (10,321) 92,890 92,890 79,281 157,007 0.5 1 2020 2020 08/01/20 02/01/21 100% 382,994 (10,379) (4,604) 368,011 118.593% 436,435 218,218 (786) (21,743) 195,689 195,689 317,540 474,926 1.5 2 2021 2021 08/01/21 02/01122 100% 765,988 (10,379) (9,811) 745,798 118.593% 884,464 218,218 442,232 (786) (1,592) (21,743) (44,064) (44,064) 396,576 396,576 787,623 1,094,190 2.5 3 2022 2022 08/01/22 02/01/23 100% 781,308 (10,379) (10,015) 760,914 118.593% 902,390 442,232 451,195 (1,592) (1,624) (44,957) 404,614 1,400,836 1,701,470 3.5 4 2023 2023 08/01/23 02/01124 100% 796,934 (10,379) (10,224) 776,331 118.593% 920,675 451,195 460,337 (1,624) (1,557) (44,957) (45,868) (45,866) 404,614 412,812 412,812 2,002,181 2,296,996 4.5 5 2024 2024 08/01/24 02/01/25 100% 812,873 (10,379) (10,436) 792,058 118.593% 939,325 460,337 469,662 (1,657) (1,691) (46,797) (46,797) 421,175 421,175 2,591,886 2,880,993 5.5 6 2025 2025 08/01/25 02/01/26 100% 829,130 (10,379) (10,553) 808,098 118.593% 958,348 469,662 479,174 (1,691) (1,725) (47,745) (47,745) 429,704 429,704 3,170,171 3,453,680 6.5 7 2026 2026 08101/26 02/01/27 100% 645,713 (10,379) (10,874) 824,460 118.593% 977,752 479,174 488,876 (1,725) (1,760) (48,712) 438,404 438,404 3,737,257 4,015,273 7.5 8 2027 2027 08/01/27 02101/28 100% 862,627 (10,379) (11,100) 841,149 118.593% 997,543 488,876 498,772 (1,760) (1,796) (48,712) (49,698) (49,698) 447,278 447,278 4,293,356 4,565,986 8.5 9 2028 2028 08/01/28 02/01129 879,880 (10,379) (11,330) 858,171 118.593% 1,017,731 498,772 508,865 (1,796) (1,832) (50,703) 456,330 4,838,680 9.5 2029 08/01/29 02/01/30 100% 508,865 (1,832) (50,703) 456,330 5,106,026 10 2029 100% 897,477 (10,379) (11,564) 875,534 118.593% 1,038,322 519,161 (1,869) (51,729) 465,563 5,373,434 5,635,598 10.5 11 2030 2030 08/01/30 02101/31 915,427 (10,379) (11,804) 893,244 118.593% 1,059,325 519,161 529,663 (1,869) (1,907) (51,729) (52,776) 465,563 474,980 5,897,820 11.5 2031 08/01/31 100% 529,663 (1,907) (52,776) 474,980 6,154,902 12 2031 02/01/32 933,735 (10,379) (12,048) 911,309 118.593% 1,080,748 540,374 (1,945) (53,843) 484,586 6,412,039 12.5 2032 08101/32 100% 540,374 (1,945) (53,843) 484,586 6,664,135 13 2032 02/01/33 952,410 (10,379) (12,297) 929,734 118.593% 1,102,600 551,300 (1,985) (54,932) 494,364 6,916,284 13.5 2033 08101/33 100% 551,300 (1,965) (54,932) 494,384 7,163,490 14 2033 02/01/34 100% 971,458 (10,379) (12,551) 948,529 118.593% 1,124,868 562,444 (2,025) (56,042) 504,378 7,410,747 14.5 2034 08101/34 02/01/35 562,444 (2,025) (56,042) 504,378 7,653,157 15 2034 990,887 (10,379) (12,810) 967,699 118.593% 1,147,623 573,811 (2,066) (57,175) 514,571 7,895,616 15.5 2035 08/01/35 100% 573,811 (2,066) (57,175) 514,571 8,133,321 16 2035 02/01/36 100% 1,010,705 (10,379) (13,074) 987,252 118.593% 1,170,812 585,406 (2,107) (58,330) 524,969 8,371,074 8,604,166 16.5 17 2036 2036 08/01/36 02/01137 100% 1,030,919 (10,379) (13,344) 1,007,197 118.593% 1,194,465 585,406 597,232 (2,107) (2,150) (58,330) (59,508) 524,969 535,574 8,837,303 17.5 2037 2037 08101/37 02/01/38 597,232 (2,150) (59,508) 535,574 9,065,870 18 100% 1,051,538 (10,379) (13,619) 1,027,540 118.593% 1,218,591 609,295 (2,193) (60,710) 546,392 9,294,480 18.5 19 2038 2038 08/01/38 02/01/39 609,295 (2,193) (60,710) 546,392 9,518,609 100% 1,072,568 (10,379) (13,899) 1,046,291 118.593% 1,243,199 621,600 (2,238) (61,936) 557,426 9,742,779 19.5 20 2039 2039 08/01/39 02/01/40 621,600 (2,238) (61,936) 557,426 9,962,555 100% 1,094,020 (10,379) (14,185) 1,069,456 118.593% 1,268,300 634,150 (2,283) (63,187) 568,680 10,182,371 20.5 2040 2040 08/01/40 02/01141 634,150 (2,283) (63,187) 568,680 10,397,877 21 100% 1,115,900 (10,379) (14,477) 1,091,045 118.593% 1,293,902 646,951 (2,329) (64,462) 580,160 10,613,423 21.5 2041 2041 08/01/41 02101/42 646,951 (2,329) (64,462) 580,160 10,624,742 22 100% 1,138,218 (10,379) (14,774) 1,113,065 118.593% 1,320,017 660,009 (2,376) (65,763) 591,869 11,036,099 22.5 23 2042 2042 08/01/42 02/01143 660,009 (2,376) (65,763) 591,869 11,243,312 100% 1,160,983 (10,379) (15,078) 1,135,526 118.593% 1,346,654 673,327 (2,424) (67,090) 603,813 11,450,561 23.5 2D43 08101/43 673,327 (2,424) (67,090) 603,813 11,653,747 24 2043 02/01/44 100% 1,184,202 (10,379) (15,388) 1,158,436 118.593% 1,373,824 686,912 (2,473) (68,444) 615,995 11,856,968 24.5 25 2044 2044 08/01/44 02101145 686,912 (2,473) (68,444) 615,995 12,056,203 1,207,886 (10,379) (15,703) 1,181,804 118.593% 1,401,537 700,768 (2,523) (69,825) 628,421 12,255,473 25.5 2045 08/01/45 100% 700,768 (2,523) (69,825) 628,421 12,450,835 26 2045 02/01/46 27,626,640 (99,456) (2,752,718) 24,774,466 Total Present Value From 08101/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00% 13 864 245 (49,983) (1,383,426) 12,450,835 Prepared by Ehlers 8 Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:WinmotatEDINA\Housing Economic RedevelopmentMMIF Districts\Grandiiew-2016\Grandview TIF Run_Redeyslopment District Prelim VJD 3 (1.7.2016) Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Communiiy/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix E -t Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District Appendix F-1 Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Edina, Minnesota February 5, 2016 Prepared For the City of Edina Prepared by: LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 JJ I B Project No. 130153.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................ 2 Purposeof Evaluation................................................................................ 2 Scopeof Work........................................................................................... 3 Conclusion................................................................................................. 3 PART 2 — MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS....... 3 A. Coverage Test...................................................................................... 4 B. Condition of Buildings Test................................................................... 4 C. Distribution of Substandard Buildings ................................................... 5 PART 3 — PROCEDURES FOLLOWED......................................................................... 6 PART4 — FINDINGS...................................................................................................... 6 A. Coverage Test...................................................................................... 6 B. Condition of Building Test..................................................................... 7 1. Building Inspection....................................................................7 2. Replacement Cost..................................................................... 8 3. Code Deficiencies..................................................................... 8 4. System Condition Deficiencies.................................................. 9 C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ................................................. 9 PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS.................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs PART 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Edina to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District ("TIF District") proposed to be established by the City. The proposed TIF District is bounded by Arcadia Avenue, Eden Avenue, Link Road, Vernon Avenue and Gus Young Lane (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB's work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether five (5) buildings on fifteen (15) parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1— Proposed TIF District SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of fifteen (15) parcels with five (5) buildings. One (1) building was inspected on March 12, 2013, and was declared substandard by Edina HRA Resolution (2013.04) on March 19, 2013 prior to demolition of the building. Two (2) buildings were inspected on December 23, 2015. The two (2) remaining buildings were not inspected as we assumed they would not be found substandard based on our exterior evaluation. Building code and Condition Deficiency Reports for the buildings that were inspected are located in Appendix B. CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District because: • The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 89.1 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. 60 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement. The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 - MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: INTERIOR INSPECTION "The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." EXTERIOR INSPECTION AND OTHER MEANS "An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." DOCUMENTATION "Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1)." QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels: A. COVERAGE TEST ..."parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots..." The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures." B. CONDITION OF BUILDINGS TEST Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.974, Subdivision 10(a) states, "...and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;" 1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, `structurally substandard' shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b) defined as "structurally substandard", due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the ValserAuto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Kicbfield case filed November 13, 2001. 2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: "A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence." "Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence." LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: • The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. • Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, `Buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code." Furthermore, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, "References to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy Code..." • The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. • In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. • Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, defines a Redevelopment District and requires one or more of the following conditions, "reasonably distributed throughout the district." (1) "Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities..." Our interpretation of the distribution requirement is that the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the district as compared to the location of all buildings in the district. For example, if all of the buildings in a district are located on one half of the area of the district, with the other half occupied by parking lots (meeting the required 70 percent coverage for the district), we would evaluate the distribution of the substandard buildings compared with only the half of the district where the buildings are located. If all of the buildings in a district are located evenly throughout the entire area of the district, the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the entire area of the district. We believe this is consistent with the opinion expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the WlalserAuto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. PART 3 - PROCEDURES FOLLOWED LHB inspected one (1) of the five (5) buildings during the day of March 12, 2013 (Map No. 1). Two (2) of the five (5) buildings were inspected on December 23, 2015 (Map No. 10 and 11). Two (2) buildings were not inspected (Map No. 14 and 15). PART 4 - FINDINGS A. COVERAGE TEST 1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. FINDING: The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 89.1 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1). Diagram 2 — Coverage Diagram Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures B. CONDITION OF BUILDING TEST BUILDING INSPECTION The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk- thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building "appears" to have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non - code deficiencies in the building. 2. REPLACEMENT COST The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for 2016 and 2013. A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in Edina, Minnesota. Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor's overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other "soft" costs not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated in Appendix A. 3. CODE DEFICIENCIES The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works 2016 and 2013: Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were then able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. FINDING: Three (3) out of five (5) buildings (60 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis reports for the buildings in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report. 4. SYSTEM CONDITION DEFICIENCIES If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.974, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be "structurally substandard" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building's defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify "substantial renovation or clearance." Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted "substantial renovation or clearance" based on the criteria we outlined above. System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors. The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount of "service life" used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that component's deficiencies. After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total significance to justify "substantial renovation or clearance." FINDING: In our professional opinion, three (3) out of five (5) buildings (60 percent) in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1). C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3). FINDING: The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels that contain buildings. Diagram 3 — Substandard Buildings Shaded green area depicts parcels with buildings. Hatched area depicts parcels with substandard buildings. Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings. PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 29 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for TIF Districts. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota planning commission. Michael has also managed and designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997. Philip Waugh — Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Phil Fisher— Inspector For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings. M:\13Proj\130153\400 Design\406 Reports\ 130153.01 \Final Report\ 130153.0120160205 Edina Grandview Redevelopment TIF Report.docx APPENDICES APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF Analysis Edina Minnesota Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF Analysis LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 1 Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet TIF Map No. 1 P'" 2811721310016 5146 Eden Ave Improved or Improved Survey Method Used Interior/Exterior Site Area IS. F.) 126,996 Coverage Area of 109,849 Coverage 86.5% Coverage Quantity 126,996 Buildings 1 Building 15% of Replacement Deficienciesacant $3,439,600 $515,940 $1,098,118 No. of determined Criteria 1 1 2 2811721310015 5146 Eden Ave Improved Exterior 9,000 7,291 81.0% 9,000 0 3 2811721310014 5146 Eden Ave Improved Exterior 9,OOD 3,195 35.5% 9,000 0 4 2811721310018 Unassigned Railroad Improved Exterior 43,939 38,793 88.3% 43,939 0 5 2811721340014 Unassigned Railroad Improved Exterior 8,670 4,750 54.8% 8,670 0 6 2811721340002 5145 Eden Ave Vacant Exterior 50,896 0 0.0% 0 0 7 2811721310051 Unassigned Improved Exterior 28,304 22,765 80.4% 28,304 D 8 2811721310021 5116 Brookside Ave Improved Exterior 25,200 25,200 100.0% 25,200 0 9 2811721310022 5120 Brookside Ave Improved Exterior 8,400 8,400 100.0% 8,400 0 10 2811721340005 5150 Brookside Ave Improved Interior/Exterior 42,503 42,503 100.0% 42,503 1 $928,527 $139,279 $283,027 1 11 2811721340004 5220 Eden Ave Improved Interior/Exterior 33,403 33,403 100.0% 33,403 1 $1,312,718 $196,908 $454,054 1 1 12 2811721340025 5201 Vernon Ave Improved Exterior 23,731 23,731 100.0% 23,731 0 13 2811721340017 Unassigned Improved Exterior 7,734 7,256 93.8% 7,734 D 14 2811721340024 5203 Vernon Ave Improved Exterior 20,133 20,133 10D.0% 20,133 1 Note 1 Note 1 15 2811721340016 5205 Vernon Ave Improved Exterior 29,492 29,492 100.0% 29,492 1 Note 1 Note 1 TOTALS 1467,401 416,505 5 3 3 Note 1: This building was not inspected. Assumed not to be substandard. Total Coverage Percent: 89.1% Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: 60.0% M:\13Proj1130153\400 Design\406 Rep0rts\130153.01\Final Reportg130153.01 20160202 Edina Grandview Redevelopment TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xlsx]Property Info Percent of buildings determined substandard: 60.0% Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF Analysis LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 1 Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet F-11 :j7:4ki111KI � Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report March 13, 2013 Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 1 Former Public Works Facility Address & PID: 5146 Eden Avenue, PID 28-117-21-31-0016 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): March 12, 2013, 3:30pm Inspection Type: Interior/Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost. - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 3,439,600 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 1,098,118 Percentage of Replacement Cost: 31.9% Description of Condition Deficiencies Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Defects in Structural Elements 1. The roof does not meet current minimum slope requirements per code. 2. Interior floor slab and walls are damaged due to fire department training. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Restroom facilities do not meet current accessibility codes. b. Copper has been removed from the building, plumbing system is not functioning. c. Drinking fountain near entrance lobby does not meet code. d. Grease traps in the repair garage do not meet current codes. 2. Light and Ventilation a. The ventilation system is not adequate in the shop area. b. The cooling and heating system is not adequate in the office area. c. Light fixtures are old, not energy efficient and mostly not working. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. The mezzanine stairs do not meet current codes. b. Railings on all stairs do not meet current codes. c. An elevator is required for access to the upper floor. d. Guard rails at mezzanine spaces do not meet current codes. 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. All wall surfaces require new paint. b. All interior (wall, ceiling, floor) surfaces require updating. c. Windows are broken in several offices. 5. Exterior Construction a. Several exterior windows are broken, allowing air and water to infiltrate the building. b. The public entrance to the building does not have an airlock vestibule. c. All man doors are weathered and lightly damaged. d. Overhead doors have minor staining, dents and dings. e. The exterior wall has rust spots in various locations. f Concrete block on both sides of public entrance are damaged. g. Areas of damage and decay are visible on roof eaves. Overview of Condition Deficiencies The former public works building is a large structure used for storage and maintenance of vehicles and equipment along with office functions for public works, streets, utilities, park and recreation and other miscellaneous groups. It was built in 1963 and vacated in 2010 after the City constructed a new public works facility. Overall, the building is in poor condition as a result of age and non-use. A significant amount of work would be required for this building to be made functional for a public or non-public use. In total, the defects and deficiencies in this building are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. The roof does not meet current minimum slope requirements per code. 2. Restroom facilities do not meet current accessibility codes. 3. Drinking fountain near entrance lobby does not meet code. 4. Grease traps in the repair garage do not meet current codes. 5. The ventilation system is not adequate in the shop area. 6. The cooling and heating system is not adequate in the office area. 7. The mezzanine stairs do not meet current codes. 8. Railings on all stairs do not meet current codes. 9. An elevator is required for access to the upper floor. 10. Guard rails at mezzanine spaces do not meet current codes. 11. Windows are broken allowing air and water to infiltrate the building envelope. Energy Code In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard: - Building's light fixtures are not energy efficient per code — T-12 fixtures. - Building's walls and roof seem to lack adequate insulation to meet code. - Building's windows are not energy efficient per code. M:\13Proj\130153\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Public Works Building\Public Works Substandard Building Report 3-13-13.doc Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report February 4, 2016 Map No. & Building Name: Parcel 10 Bus Barn Address & PID: 5150 Brookside Avenue Edina, MN, PID: 2811721340005 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 23, 2015, 10:00 am Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $928,527 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $283,027 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 30.48% Defects in Structural Elements 1. Exterior concrete block is deteriorating. 2. Exterior block walls are cracked. Combination of Deficiencies Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Restrooms are not code compliant. b. There is no accessible route to the second floor. c. Thresholds are non compliant as they are greater than 1/2 inch. d. Door hardware is not code compliant for accessibility. e. Staff break room sink is not code compliant for accessibility. f. Stair railings are missing and not code compliant. g. Stair treads and risers are not code compliant. h. There is no code compliant accessible drinking fountain. 2. Light and Ventilation a. Emergency lighting was not observed. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. There is no fire suppression system available. b. Emergency egress is compromised by open pits. 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. Interior walls need repair and painting. 5. Exterior Construction a. Fascia is rotting and in need of replacement to prevent water intrusion. b. Gutters are damaged and in need of repair. c. Exterior block walls are rotting and allowing for water intrusion. d. Clerestory windows need to be replaced to prevent water intrusion. e. Exterior block walls are cracked which are indicative of differential settlement. f. Exterior walls need to be painted. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Repair/replace exterior CMU to prevent water intrusion per building code. 2. Install accessible restroom per accessibility code. 3. Create accessible route to second floor per accessibility code. 4. Correct thresholds to comply with accessibility code. 5. Install accessible door hardware per code. 6. Modify staff break room sink to meet accessibility code. 7. Replace interior stairs with code compliant treads and risers. 8. Install compliant hand rail on west side of interior stairs per code. 9. Install code compliant accessible drinking fountain. 10. Install fire suppression system per code. 11. Protect open service pits to allow for emergency egress per code. 12. Replace fascia to prevent water intrusion per code. 13. Replace clerestory windows to prevent water intrusion per code. 14. Paint/seal exterior block walls to prevent water intrusion per code. Overview of Deficiencies According to staff this building was built sometime in the 1940's. It experienced a fire about 4 year ago and upgrades to both mechanical, electrical, windows and roof were completed in about 2012. There is no accessible route to the second floor and staff must go outside to access either floor as there is no approved route inside. The service bays have open pits for work under vehicles. There is no protection from the open pits other than a four inch curb. The exterior block work is rotting and allowing for water intrusion. There are no accessible restrooms in the building. Fire suppression is also absent. M:\13Proj\130153\400 Design\406 Reports\ 130153.01 \Building Reports\ 130153.0120160204 Parcel 10 Edina Bus Barn Building Report.doc Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report February 4, 2016 Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 11 Bus Storage Address & PID: 5220 Eden Avenue, Edina, MN PID: 2811721340004 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 23, 2015, 10:45 am Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $1,312,718 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $454,054 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 34.58% Defects in Structural Elements 1. Concrete blocks are cracked which are indicative of differential settlement. 2. The interior roof support columns are rusting. Combination of Deficiencies Essential Utilities and Facilities a. The restroom is not accessible per code. b. Threshold heights are greater than allowed by code. c. The concrete block stairs to the electrical room are in disrepair and not code compliant. d. The drinking fountain is not accessible per code. e. Door hardware is not code compliant for accessibility. f. Water heater needs to be replaced because of age. 2. Light and Ventilation a. The exhaust system in the restroom is non-compliant. b. The HVAC system appears to be greater than 30 years old and is non-compliant. c. Electrical service is older. d. Interior HVAC system was disconnected and non-functional. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. There is no fire alarm notification system present. b. The VCT tile is damaged and is a trip hazard impeding emergency egress per code. c. In the event of a fire and power outage there are not enough secondary means of egress per code. d. There are no emergency lights in the building. 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. Interior walls need to be painted. b. Interior VCT flooring is in need of replacement. c. Interior flooring in garage should be sealed. d. During inspection several garage doors failed to operate. 5. Exterior Construction a. Exterior block work is in need of painting/sealing to prevent water intrusion. b. Exterior roof flashing is in need of repair to prevent water intrusion. c. Asphalt roof needs replacement to prevent water intrusion per code. d. Electrical service door was warped and did not function properly. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Install accessible restroom per code. 2. Modify thresholds to comply with accessibility code. 3. Paint interior structural columns to prevent rusting per code. 4. Repair concrete block stairs to electrical room and add railing per code. 5. Install accessible drinking fountain per code. 6. Install code compliant accessible door hardware. 7. Provide code required exhaust system in restroom. 8. Install code compliant HVAC system. 9. Install fire/emergency notification system per code. 10. Install fire suppression system per code. 11. Install emergency egress lighting per code. 12. Install secondary emergency exiting per code. 13. Replace damaged VCT for unimpeded egress per code. 14. Paint/seal exterior block to prevent water intrusion per code. 15. Replace roof and flashing to prevent water intrusion per code. Overview of Deficiencies Staff reports that this building was constructed in the 1940's and has seen little repairs or improvements for many years. The roof and the HVAC system appear to be greater than 25 years old. Water intrusion is evident in several areas and the surface of the roof is bubbled and cracked. The restroom is non-compliant for accessibility and there are no emergency lights or notification system in the building. Steel structural support columns are rusting at their bases. M:\13Proj\130153\400 Design\406 Reports\ 130153.01 \Building Reports\ 130153.0120160204 Parcel 11 Edina Bus Storage Building Report.doc APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report Map 1: Parcel 28-117-21-31-0016 - Public Works Facility Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Estimate Name: Edina Public Works Garage, Repair with Poured Concrete / Steel Building Type: Joists Location: MINNEAPOLIS, MN Story Count: 1 -. w_C Story Height (L.F.): 20��u 3� Floor Area (S.F.): 40888 j ; - -Labor Type: STD `.'.'_ __ _�_._._ -_.:�� •,.;x- Basement Included: No Data Release: Year 2013 Quarter costs are derived from abuild ngmodeIwith basic components. s Cost Per Square Foot: $81.82 ' Scope differences and market con ditionscan cause costs to vary significantly. Building Cost: $3,439,600.78 of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 'A Substructure -101UM, A1010 Standard Foundations 1.05 42,932 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 A1030 Slab on Grade 8.73 356,952 Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced A2010 Basement Excavation 0 0 Excavate and fill, 30,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on A2020 Basement Walls 0 0 Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" B1020 Roof Construction 6.08 248,599 Roof, steel joists, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on bearing walls, 40' bay, 25.5" 82010 Exterior Walls 8.65 353,681 Concrete wall, reinforced, 8' high, 8" thick, plain finish, 3000 PSI B2020 Exterior Windows 0.79 32,302 Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5'x 3' 82030 Exterior Doors 1.65 671465 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7' - Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'-0" x 12'- 63010 Roof Coverings 6.62 270,679 Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick 83020 Roof Openings 0 0 Skylight, plastic domes, insulated curbs, 10 SF to 20 SF, single glazing Interiors C1010 Partitions 1.87 76,461 Lightweight block 4" thick C1020 Interior Doors 0.43 17,582 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 3 Map 1 Cost 1,636 120,620 58,879 17,582 142,699 24,124 85,047 410,107 9,404 206,484 0 5,315 356,543 D5030 Communications and Security 2.0 81,776 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.1 4,089 Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map 1 %ofTotal Cost Per S.F. Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, C1030 Fittings 0.04 Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel C3010 Wall Finishes 2.95 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler C3020 Floor Finishes 1.44 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum Vinyl, composition tile, minimum C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.43 Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended ' Services �� D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 3.49 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on Cl, 19" x 17" Service sink w/trim, PE on Cl,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Shower, stall, baked enamel, molded stone receptor, 30" square Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.59 Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH D2040 Rain Water Drainage 2.08 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each additional D3050 Terminal & Package Units 10.03 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip 0.23 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, additional bays up to seven bays D4010 Sprinklers 5.05 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF D4020 Standpipes 0 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.13 Service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 8.72 Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF Miscellaneous power, 1 watt Central air conditioning power, 3 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 Cost 1,636 120,620 58,879 17,582 142,699 24,124 85,047 410,107 9,404 206,484 0 5,315 356,543 D5030 Communications and Security 2.0 81,776 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.1 4,089 Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map 1 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost E1030 Vehicular Equipment 0 0 Architectural equipment, auto equipment hoists, single post, 4 ton E1090 Other Equipment 0 0 F Special Construction SubTotal 100% $71.15 2,990,957 Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) 10.00% $7.12 299,096 Architectural Fees 5.00% $3.56 149,548 User Fees 0.00% $0.00 0 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 3 of 3 Map 1 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report Map 1: Parcel 28-117-21-31-0016 - Public Works Facil Accessibility Items Lump Replace toilets to provide handicap accessibility for each sex Build (4) new acccessible toilet rooms W/ compliant 3,750.00 number of accessories and fixtures each Remove existng toilet rooms $ 3 water closets $ 3 lays $ 2 Urinals $ 3 sets of grab bars $ 3 sets toilet room accessories $ Interior room reconstruction (doors, 750.00 partitions,finishes) $ Reinstall toilet Room Ventilation System $ Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not provided through out building. MN 1341.0405, Item E Add Elevator to upper level spaces Elevator Pit and footings 12" CMU Elevator Shaft walls Elevator Equipment (2 stop) Elevator Equipment Room (Assume 64 SF) Power 100 amp 3 phase Safety Switch Circuit Breaker Motor Starter Wire and Conduit Feeder (150 feet assumed) Fire Alarm Connections Emergency Phone Connection Fire Seperation Items Office area must be fire separated from Garage area Provide new fire rated doors at existing openings 6'- 0"x 7'-0" Provide new fire rated doors at existing openings 3'- 0"x 7'-0" 2,250.00 Lump Lump 3 $ 3,750.00 1,216 $ each 4 $ 2,500.00 $ 30.00 each 4 $ 2,500.00 each 2 $ 600.00 1 each 4 $ 750.00 $ 31.00 each 4 $ 60.00 $ SF 500 $ 1,000.00 each 4 $ $ 8,000.00 Lump 1 $ $ 13.00 SF 1,216 $ $ 44,575.00 Lump 1 $ $ 30.00 SF 64 $ 6,750.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 2,400.00 3,000.00 30,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 15,808.00 44,575.00 1,920.00 $ 520.00 Lump 1 $ 520.00 $ 795.00 Lump 1 $ 795.00 $ 450.00 Lump 1 $ 450.00 $ 31.00 LF 150 $ 4,650.00 $ 1,000.00 lump 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 12.00 LF 150 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,300.00 Each 2 $ 2,600.00 $ 850.00 Each 5 $ 4,250.00 Exterior Envelope Windows are 25 percent broken allowing water and air infiltration Remove and replace windows $ 12,000.00 Allow The existing roof slope does not meet the 1/4" per foot required in IBC 1507 1 $ 12,000.00 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 2 Map 1 Map 1: P . ww A. wA wA ^^A^ n..L1:. %A#--I,- Remove existing roof above structure $ 0.50 SF Install new roof with tapered insulation providing proper drainage $ 4.00 SF Exiting Stairs do not provide for proper handrail extension at top and bottom of stair. IBC 1003.3.3.3.11.5. Remove existing handrails $ 400.00 Each Install new handrail $ 25.00 LF Mezzanine Guard rails do not meet current code (space between bars) Remove existing guard rails $ 4.00 LF Install new guard rails $ 25.00 LF Provide new exit signage and emergency lighting $ 400.00 Each Fire Protection IBC Chapter 9 - Fire alarm system required in high -pile storage areas Update fire alarm system in storage areas $ 1.75 SF Plumbing Drinking fountain in entrance area is blocking path of egress Demolish existing drinking fountain and install code complying unit $ 2,500.00 EA Mechanical- Electrical HVAC system is insufficient for properly ventilating the garage space and for properly cooling and heating the Demolish existing HVAC system in office and garage areas $ 0.75 Allow Provide new HVAC (with electrical upgrades) for entire facility $ 10.00 SF Electrical Insufficient power for upgraded HVAC, lighting system largely gutted or dated Demo existing electrical system and remnants of ligl- $ 10,000.00 Allow Provide new service entrance and switch gear $ 1.75 SF Provide new branch circuits and lighting in portions c $ 7.50 SF 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 6 $ 240 $ 500 $ 500 $ 8 $ 10,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 1 $ 40,000 $ 25,000 $ 20,000.00 160,000.00 2,400.00 6,000.00 2,000.00 12,500.00 3,200.00 17,500.00 2,500.00 30,000.00 400,000.00 10,000.00 70,000.00 187,500.00 Total Code Improvements $ 1,098,118.00 $ 3,439,600.00 31.9% Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 2 Map 1 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Photos: Map No. 1, 5146 Eden Avenue, Public Works Building IMG_7659.JPG IMG_7662.JPG IMG 7663.JPG IMG_7665.JPG IMG_7668.JPG I M G_7666. J P G IMG_7669.JPG Page 1 of 7 IMG 7661.JPG I M G_7664. J P G IMG 7667.JPG IMG_7670.JPG iJl �4 IMG 7660.JPG IMG_7662.JPG IMG 7663.JPG IMG_7665.JPG IMG_7668.JPG I M G_7666. J P G IMG_7669.JPG Page 1 of 7 IMG 7661.JPG I M G_7664. J P G IMG 7667.JPG IMG_7670.JPG IMG_7671.JPG I M G_7674. J P G I MG_7677.JPG I M G_7672. J P G IMG_7675.JPG IMG_7678.JPG I M G_7673.J PG I M G_7676.J P G IMG_7679.JPG IMG_7680.JPG IMG_7681.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 7 LHB Project No. 130153.01 IMG_7682.JPG Photos Map No. 1 IMG_7683.JPG IMG_7686.JPG IMG_7689.JPG IMG _7692. J P G Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District tHB Project No. 130153.01 IMG_7687.JPG IMG_7690.JPG IMG_7693.JPG Page 3 of 7 IMG_7685.JPG IMG_7688.JPG IMG_7691.JPG IMG_7694.JPG Photos Map No. 1 IMG_7695.JPG I M G_7696. J P G IMG 7697.JPG IMG 7698.JPG IMG 7701.JPG IMG_7699.JPG IMG 7700.JPG IMG 7702.JPG IMG 7703.JPG IMG_7704.JPG IMG_7705.JP(3 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 4 of 7 LHB Project No. 130153.01 IMG 7706.JPG Photos Map No. 1 IMG 7707.JPG IMG 7708.JPG IMG 7710.JPG IMG_7713.JPG IMG_7711.JPG IMG 7709.JPG IMG 7712.JPG IMG_7714.JPG IMG_7715.JPG AMU //16.JPG IMG_7717.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 5 of 7 LHB Project No. 130153.01 IMG 7718.JPG Photos Map No. 1 IMG_7719.JPG IMG_7722.JPG IMG_7720.JPG IMG_7721.JPG IMG_7723.JPG I M G_7724. J P G IMG_7725.JPG IMG_7726.JPG IMG_7728.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District LHB Project No. 130153.01 IMG 7727.JPG IMG_7729.JPG Page 6 of 7 IMG_7730.JPG Photos Map No. 1 IMG_7731.JPG IMG_7732.JPG L. IMG 7734.JPG IMG 7735.JPG IMG_7733.JPG IMG_7736.JPG IMG 7737.JPG IMG_7738.JPG IMG 7739.JPG IMG_7740.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 7 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 1 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report Map No. 10: Parcel 2811721340005 - Bus Barn Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Estimate Name: 5150 Brookside Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55424 Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Building Type: Steel Trusses Location: MINNEAPOLIS, MN Story Count: 2 Story Height (L.F.): 20 Floor Area (S.F.): 6448 Labor Type: OPN Date: 12/30/2015 AA i jBasement Included: No i Data Release: Year 2016 '.Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. =Cost Per Square i Foot: $143.36 'Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. Building Cost: $928,527.41 A1010 Standard Foundations 3.34 21,556.60 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide 3.34 21,556.60 A1030 Slab on Grade 4.19 27,038.33 Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced 4.19 27,038.33 A2010 Basement Excavation 0.17 1,122.89 Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand gravel, or common earth, on site storage 0.17 1,122.89 A2020 Basement Walls 4.50 29,032.08 Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick 4.5 29,032.08 RIM �Mmmffi M1, 81020 Roof Construction 7.07 45,587.36 Wood roof, truss, 4/12 slope, 24" O.C., 44' to 60' span 7.07 45,587.36 B2010 Exterior Walls 25.64 165,336.37 Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI, reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted 25.64 165,336.37 B2020 Exterior Windows 4.01 25,826.94 Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5'x 3' 4.01 25,826.94 B2030 Exterior Doors 6.47 41,728.58 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening 0.61 3,943.21 Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'-0" x 12'-0" opening 5.86 37,785.37 B3010 Roof Coverings 6.31 40,693.26 Gable end roofing, asphalt, roof shingles, class A 5.21 33,594.08 Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite 1.1 7,099.18 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 3 Map No. 10 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor 0.87 5,621.91 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, additional floors 0.08 508.44 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.73 4,720.30 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A 0.47 3,054.80 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map No. 10 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost! B3020 Roof Openings Skylight, plastic domes, insulated curbs, 10 SF to 20 SF, single glazing 0.04 0.04 237.72 237.72 Interiors1 C C1010 Partitions 5.12 33,014.04 Lightweight block 4" thick 1.84 11,842.08 Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no finish 3.28 21,171.96 C1020 Interior Doors 0.41 2,646.42 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8" 0.41 2,646.42 C1030 Fittings 0.25 1,604.84 Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel 0.25 1,604.84 C3010 Wall Finishes 7.91 50,954.05 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler 6.43 41,460.53 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats 0.82 5,259.76 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler 0.66 4,233.76 C3020 Floor Finishes 6.20 39,997.58 Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 24 oz 4.7 30,305.60 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum 1.25 8,058.56 Vinyl, composition tile, minimum 0.25 1,633.42 C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.45 2,918.28 Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended support � ,�, �-® 0.45 2,918.28 1 . . ,D Services D1010 Elevators and Lifts 17.16 110,640.20 Hydraulic, commercial elevator, 5000 Ib, 2 floors, 100 FPM 17.16 110,640.20 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 2.66 17,151.68 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 1.01 6,512.48 Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 0.22 1,418.56 Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on Cl, 19" x 17" 0.57 3,675.36 Service sink w/trim, PE on Cl,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 0.56 3,610.88 Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH 0.3 1,934.40 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.64 4,117.67 Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH 0.64 4,117.67 D3050 Terminal & Package Units 9.28 59,829.32 Rooftop, single zone, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton 9.28 59,829.32 D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip 1.38 8,943.92 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay 0.94 6,079.60 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, additional bays up to seven bays 0.44 2,864.32 D4010 Sprinklers 4.37 28,182.02 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF 4.37 28,182.02 D4020 Standpipes 0.95 6,130.35 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor 0.87 5,621.91 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, additional floors 0.08 508.44 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.73 4,720.30 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A 0.47 3,054.80 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map No. 10 D5020 D5030 D5090 % of Total Cost Per`S.F. Gost Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 1 phase, 400 A Lighting and Branch Wiring Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF Miscellaneous power, 1 watt Central air conditioning power, 3 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF Communications and Security Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. Other Electrical Systems Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 k1n 0.21 1,359.54 0.05 305.96 8.66 55,822.14 2.23 14,388.84 0.31 1,989.08 0.64 4,096.80 5.48 35,347.42 3.63 23,391.89 2.14 13,786.44 1.25 8,029.89 0.24 1,575.56 0.09 611.3 0.09 611.3 SubTotal 100% $130.33 $844,115.83 Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) 10.00% $13.03 $84,411.58 Architectural Fees 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 User Fees 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total Building Cost Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 3 of 3 Map No. 10 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report Map No. 10 - 5150 Brookside Avenue - Parcel 2811721340005 Bus Barn Accessibility Items Restroom Install accessible restroom per code Elevator Install accessible route to second floor Thresholds Modify thresholds for accessibility code compliance Door Hardware Install accessible door hardware per code Staff break room Modify staff sink area for accessibility compliance Drinking fountain Install code compliant accessible drinking fountain Structural Elements Block walls $ 17,151.00 Ea 2 $ 30,434.00 $ 110,640.00 Ea 1 $ 110,640.00 $ 500.00 Ea 5 $ 2,500.00 $ 250.00 Ea 5 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,500.00 Ea 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,934.00 Ea 1 $ 1,934.00 Repair/replace rotting CM U's to prevent water intrusion per code $ 1.70 SF 6,448 $ 10,961.60 Exiting Stairs Replace interior stairs with code compliant ones Railing Install code compliant railings on interior and exterior stairs Open service pits Protect open service pits for emergency egress compliance Fire Protection $ 350.00 Ea 20 $ 7,000.00 $ 500.00 Ea 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 Ea 4 $ 10,000.00 Fire suppression Install code compliant fire suppression system $ 5.32 SF 6,448 $ 34,303.36 Exterior Construction Fascia Replace damaged fascia to prevent water intrusion per code $ 2,500.00 Lump 1 $ 2,500.00 Window Replace clerestory windows to prevent water intrusion per code $ 1,500.00 Ea Exterior Walls 12 $ 18,000.00 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 2 Map No. 10 Paint/seal exterior CMU surfaces to prevent water intrusion per code $ 7.91 SF 6,448 $ 51,003.68 Roof Construction Mechanical- Electrical Total Code Improvements $ 283,026.64 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 2 Map No. 10 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Photos 10, 5150 Brookside Avenue, Bus P1060707.JPG P1060708.JPG P 1060709.J PG P1060710.JPG P1060711.JPG P1060712.JPG P1060713.JPG P1060714.JPG P1060715.JPG P1060716.JPG P1060717.JPG Page 1 of 7 P1060718.JPG P1060719.JPG P1060720.JPG P1060721.JPG P1060722.JPG P1060723.JPG P1 060724.JPG P1060725.JPG P1060726.JPG P1060727.JPG P1060728.JPG P1060729.JPG P1060730.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 P1060731.JPG P1060732.JPG P1060733.JPG P1060734.JPG P1060735.JPG P1060736.JPG P 1060737.J PG ,A P1060740.JPG P1060738.JPG P1060739.JPG P 1060741.J PG P 1060742.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 3 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 P1060743.JPG P1060744.JPG P1060745.JPG P1060746.JPG P1060747.JPG P1060748.JPG P 1060749.J P G P1060750.JPG P1060751.JPG P1060752.JPG P1060799.JPG P1060800.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 4 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 P1060801.JPG P1060802.JPG P1060803.JPG P1060804.JPG P1060805.JPG P1060806.JPG P1060807.JPG P1060808.JPG P1060803.JPG P1060810.JPG P1060811.JPG P1060812.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 5 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 P1060813.JPG P1060816.JPG P1060814.JPG P1060815.JPG P1060817.JPG P1060818.JPG AN* P1060822.JPG P1060820.JPG P1060823.JPG P1060824.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 6 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 P1060825.JPG P 1060826. J P G P1060827.JPG P1060828.JPG P1060829.JPG P1060831.JPG P1060832.JPG P1060830.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 7 of 7 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 10 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report Map No. 11: Parcel 2811721340004 - Bus Storage Estimate Name: Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date: 12/30/2015 5220 Eden Avenue, Edina, Minnesota, 55424 Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Building Type: Steel Joists Location: MINNEAPOLIS, MN Story Count: 1 Story Height (L. F.): 14 Floor Area (S.F.): 17940 Labor Type: OPN Basement Included: No Data Release: Year 2016 Cost Per Square KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide Foot: $73.17 Building Cost: $1,312,718.11 'Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. -1W oLanuaru rounuations Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 2.1 37,724.06 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide 2.1 37,724.06 A1030 Slab on Grade 8.39 150,455.25 Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced 8.39 150,455.25 A2010 Basement Excavation 0.35 6,248.32 B2020 Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand gravel, or common earth, on 0.88 15,819.00 site storage 0.35 6,248.32 A2020 Basement Walls 2.83 50,806.14 Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick 2.83 50,806.14 Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'-0" x B1020 Roof Construction 5.59 100,197.77 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 3 Map No. 11 Roof, steel joists, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on bearing walls, 40' bay, 25.5" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 61 PSF total load 5.59 100,197.77 B2010 Exterior Walls 5.64 101,268.53 Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI, reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted 5.64 101,268.53 B2020 Exterior Windows 0.88 15,819.00 Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5'x 3' 0.88 15,819.00 B2030 Exterior Doors 1.9 34,114.56 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening 0.61 10,971.02 Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'-0" x 12'-0" opening 1.29 23,143.54 B3010 Roof Coverings 6.95 124,639.71 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 3 Map No. 11 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, 3.34 59,976.29 mopped Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite 2.2 39,503.52 Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face 0.98 17,565.73 Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick 0.42 7,594.17 C1010 Partitions 5.12 91,853.58 Lightweight block 4" thick 1.84 32,947.72 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF 4.37 78,409.64 D4020 Standpipes 0.95 17,056.22 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map No. 11 Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no finish 3.28 58,905.86 C1020 Interior Doors 0.41 7,363.02 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, T-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8" 0.41 7,363.02 C1030 Fittings 0.09 1,604.84 Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel 0.09 1,604.84 C3010 Wall Finishes 2.89 51,808.00 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler 1.42 25,394.58 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats 0.82 14,634.02 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler 0.66 11,779.40 C3020 Floor Finishes 1.5 26,965.58 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum 1.25 22,420.98 Vinyl, composition tile, minimum 0.25 4,544.60 C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.45 8,119.39 Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended support 0.45 8,119.39 iiiiiiiiiii�� D Services D2010 --Emlam Plumbing Fixtures 2.65 47,549.91 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 1.01 18,088.91 Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 0.22 3,928.78 Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on Cl, 19" x 17" 0.57 10,138.08 Service sink w/trim, PE on Cl,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 0.56 9,965.53 Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH 0.3 5,428.61 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.64 11,456.42 Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH 0.64 11,456.42 D2040 Rain Water Drainage 1.94 34,759.29 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high 1.61 28,839.82 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each additional foot add 0.33 5,919.47 D3050 Terminal & Package Units 1.7 30,575.00 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 500 SF, 1.67 ton 1.7 30,575.00 D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip 0.5 8,943.92 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay 0.34 6,079.60 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, additional bays up to seven bays 0.16 2,864.32 D4010 Sprinklers 4.37 78,409.64 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF 4.37 78,409.64 D4020 Standpipes 0.95 17,056.22 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 3 Map No. 11 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost SubTotal Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor 0.87 15,641.62 Contractor Fees (General Con ditions,Overhead,Profit) Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, $6.65 $119,338.01 Architectural Fees additional floors 0.08 1,414.60 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.26 4,720.30 Total Building Cost Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & EIKIFNA - wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A 0.17 3,054.80 Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A 0.08 1,359.54 Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 1 phase, 400 A 0.02 305.96 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 4.69 84,138.60 Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF 2.23 40,033.47 Miscellaneous power, 1 watt 0.31 5,534.13 HID fixture, 8'-10' above work plane, 1 watt/SF, type C, 54 FC, 2 fixtures per 1000 SF 2.15 38,571.00 D5030 Communications and Security 3.63 65,082.26 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire 2.14 38,357.42 Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit 1.25 22,341.22 Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. 0.24 4,383.62 D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.09 1,700.79 Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW 0.09 1,700.79 E Equipment & Furnishings 11090 Other Equipment 0 0 SubTotal 100% $66.52 $1,193,380.10 Contractor Fees (General Con ditions,Overhead,Profit) 10.00% $6.65 $119,338.01 Architectural Fees 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 User Fees o 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total Building Cost EIKIFNA - Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Replacement Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 3 of 3 Map No. 11 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report Map No. 11 - 5220 Eden Avenue - Parcel 2811721340004 Bus Storage Accessibility Items Restroom Install accessible restroom $ 47,459.00 Ea 1 $ 42,031.00 Thesholds Modify thresholds for code compliance $ 500.00 Ea 11 $ 5,500.00 Drinking fountain Install accessible drinking fountain $ 5,428.00 Ea 1 $ 5,428.00 Door Hardware Install accessible door hardware $ 250.00 Ea 5 $ 1,250.00 Structural Elements Interior structural columns Paint columns to prevent rusting per code $ 1,500.00 Lump 1 $ 1,500.00 Exiting Lighting Install emergency lighting per code $ 3,500.00 Lump 1 $ 3,500.00 Flooring Replace damaged VCT for unimpeded egress per code $ 1.25 SF 600 $ 750.00 Doors Install secondary emergency exiting per code $ 800.00 Ea 10 $ 8,000.00 Stairs Repair/replace CMU stairs to meet code compliance $ 1,500.00 Lump 1 $ 1,500.00 Fire Protection Sprinkler Install code compliant sprinkler system $ 5.32 SF 17,940 $ 95,440.80 Emergency notification Install fire notification alarming system $ 3.39 SF 17,940 $ 60,816.60 Exterior Construction Masonry block work Paint/seal exterior block to prevent water intrusion per code $ 2.89 SF 17,940 $ 51,846.60 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 1 of 2 Map No. r Roof Construction Roof Remove existing roof Replace roof to prevent water intrusion per code Flashing Replace metal flashing to prevent water intrusion per code Mechanical- Electrical $ 0.92 SF 17,940 $ 16,504.80 $ 5.54 SF 17,940 $ 99,387.60 $ 1.40 SF 17,940 $ 25,116.00 Mechanical Replace HVAC system to meet code compliance $ 1.70 SF 17,940 $ 30,498.00 Install compliant exhaust system in restroom $ 500.00 Ea 1 $ 500.00 Electrical New service for HVAC system $ 0.25 SF 17,940 $ 4,485.00 Total Code Improvements $ 454,054.40 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report LHB Project No. 130153.01 Page 2 of 2 Map No. 11 Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Photos: Map No. 11, 5220 Eden Avenue, Bus Storage P 1060753.JPG P 1060755.J PG P1060757.JPG P1060758.JPG P1060759.JPG P1060760.JPG P1060761.JPG P1060762.JPG P1060764.JPG P1060765.JPG Page 1 of 4 P1060766.JPG P1060767.JPG P1060768.JPG P1060769.JPG P1060770.JPG P1060773.JPG P1060771.JPG P1060772.JPG P1060774.JPG ff` P1060775.JPG P1060776.JPG P1060777.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 4 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 11 P 1060779.JPG P1060780.JPG P1 060781.JPG P 1060782.J PG P1060783.JPG P 1060784.) PG P1060785.JPG P1060786.JPG P1060787.JPG P1060788.JPG P1060789.JPG P1060790.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 3 of 4 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 11 P1060791.JPG P1060792,JPG P1060793.JPG P1060795.JPG P1060797.JPG P1060798.JPG P1060796.JPG Edina Grandview 2 Redevelopment TIF District Page 4 of 4 Photos LHB Project No. 130153.01 Map No. 11 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added to prior to the public hearing But -For Analysis Current Market Value 3,787,086 New Market Value - Estimate 72,433,320 Difference 68,646,234 Present Value of Tax Increment 16,363,834 Difference 52,282,400 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 52,282,400 Appendix G-1 Liaisons: Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting` Meetings/Work000■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type " I under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. Hobbs,- moo■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 71sen, Jo Ann 700 soon ■soon ■■■■■■■moss■■ � OMEN 0 smomminsim Claudial �.son n■■ MEN ■m■mm■n■■n■■m■n ,1 ■■son nlong ■son ■■m■■■mnm■mn a ' ■■■■■■m■■■■mn■Thorsen, mnmm�■mm�■n o�m■m Todd annomismons miss 'Strauss, Gerard looms I somins Nemerov, Ian 000■■■■m■mn■■om looms ■s■ O • ,.000■s■sone■■■■■■omm■s■■ O , ' Peter, .000■■■■■■■■mmmn■■■■■■■n © Liaisons: Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting` Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type " I under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. "A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting.