Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-01-27 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Packet
Agenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Public Hearings: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 3089756. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta< member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes, Planning Commission, January 13, 2021 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project Update VI.Public Hearings A.B-21-01, 5844 Fairfax Ave. Variance request VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Sketch Plan Review - 4660 77th Street West VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments X.Sta9 Comments XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortable being part of the public proc ess . If you need as sistance in the way of hearing ampli;c ation, an interpreter, large-print documents or s om ething els e, pleas e c all 952-927-8861 72 hours in advanc e of the m eeting. Date: January 27, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes , P lanning C ommission, January 13, 2021 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the minutes from the J anuary 13, 2021 P lanning C ommission. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission VIRTUAL MEETING January 13, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Strauss, Cullen, Olsen, Agnew, and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Bennett. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the January 13, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, December 9, 2020 Commissioner Berube moved to approve the December 9, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Variance Request B-21-02 - 5716 Wooddale Avenue Chair Nemerov recused himself and turned the meeting over to Commissioner Berube. The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Ms. Melissa Boughton, homeowner, explained what her family was trying to do with the variance request. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Adam Bender, Ispiri Design Build, made a quick presentation to the Commission. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. Motion Commissioner Miranda moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Ayes: Miranda, Berube, Strauss, Olsen, and Agnew. Nays: None. Abstain: Nemerov Motion carried. B. Variance Request B-21-03 –5117 Richmond Drive The public hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. & Mrs. Stroncek, homeowners, addressed the Commission. Public Hearing Chair Nemerov noted one comment was received from Better Together Edina in favor of the variance. Commissioner Agnew moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried. Motion Commissioner Strauss moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 3 of 4 VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review – 4917 Eden Avenue Director Teague presented the request for a sketch plan review. Staff answered Commission questions. Mr. Nick Walton from Reuter Walton, and Chris Palkowitsch from BKV Group made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission asked questions of the applicant. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: Residential Density and Height is adequate. Likes the larger buffer between the development and single-family residential homes. Concern with traffic and safety, especially an office use. Well-designed building Would like a protected bike path. Add some mixed use (retail). Green space would probably not be used and wasted due to the noise in the area. Clear glass walkway between buildings would shield the noise from the highway. Introduce a co-working space to the plan. General preference for Plan B. Like to see less parking. Plan B appears to be overparked. B. Sketch Plan Review – 4040 West 70th Street Director Teague presented the request for a sketch plan review. Staff answered Commission questions. Ms. Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Manager for the City answered Commission questions. Mr. Steve Minn, Lupe Development Partners made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission asked questions of the applicant. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: Nice part of the plan is the affordability. Too suburban and not what the City is trying to do in the area. Better balance between the buildings and the housing in the area. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Likes the way the building is facing with access to Valleyview. Solar and raingardens will create a good learning experience. Building looks nice and will be a great asset. Might want to flip the building. Great environmental focus. Like to see evidence for the need for that much parking, maybe reduce parking. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None IX. Chair and Member Comments None. X. Staff Comments Planner Teague updated projects the Commission previously reviewed. He also explained the process for Commission replacement. XI. Adjournment Technical difficulties arose during the adjournment. Motions were made in the chat function by Commissioners using WebEx. Commissioner Olsen moved to adjourn the January 13, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:45 PM. Chair Nemerov seconded the motion. Motion carried. Date: January 27, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Jes s ica Vanderwerff Wilson, Water R esources C oordinator Item Activity: Subject:Mornings ide F lood Infras tructure P roject Update Information C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: None. I N TR O D U C TI O N: Jessica V. Wilson, Water Resources Coordinator, and R oss Bintner, Engineering S ervices M anager, will briefly introduce the project and the proposed concept design for flood infrastructure within the context of the City’s F lood Risk Reduction S trategy. Staff will describe the tradeoffs and opportunities of flood infrastructure options, particularly as it relates to climate trends, flood risk reduction, development, and land use decisions. For more background information, visit the project webpage www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside AT TAC HME N T S: Description Flood Ris k Reduction Strategy How we work with the community to comprehensively reduce flood risk: •INFRASTRUCTURE : We renew our infrastructure and operate it to reduce risk. We plan public streets and parks to hold and move flood waters to reduce the disruption of city services. •REGULATION : We understand competing demands of land use and their effect on drainage, groundwater and surface water issues. We help solve issues while looking at the bigger picture. •OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT : We make flood information available to the public and give residents tools for flood resilience to help reduce their risk. •EMERGENCY SERVICES : We help people prepare for floods, remove people from harm during floods, and help people and the city recover after floods. EdinaMN.gov 1 Context - Flood Risk Reduction Strategy EdinaMN.gov 2 Context -How we view risk Context -Pathways to structural flood risk EdinaMN.gov 3 Groundwater Sanitary Backflow Surface Water Context –Online Forum EdinaMN.gov 4 www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/Morningside How We Engaged People EdinaMN.gov 5 •Flooding experiences on individual properties •Impacts of recent redevelopment •Possibility of land acquisition •Impacts of climate change •Restricting construction on high-risk properties •Benefits of options, natural resource tradeoffs, tree removal •Cost of options and who pays •Interrelation and causes of flood risk Concerns Expressed About: EdinaMN.gov 6 EdinaMN.gov 7 Context –Timeline Planned street reconstruction EdinaMN.gov 8 •Safely store and move flood water by repairing and upgrading aging infrastructure to share benefits and risks neighborhood-wide •Reviewed five scenarios •Three scenarios taught us about balance –Storage, Pipes, Combined. •Two scenarios taught us about value –Pumping, and overflows •Your stories and input help us find the best fit Infrastructure Goals EdinaMN.gov 9 What have we tried? •Pipes •Storage •Surface overflows •Ponds and Pumping •Combined Scenario Issues Review EdinaMN.gov 10 Storage •Weber Pond •Lynn/Kipling Inundation •Avail Academy •Susan Lindgren •Weber Field Revised Design EdinaMN.gov 11 Pipes •40th & Inglewood •Kipling to Grimes Overflow •Monterey to Lynn Overflow •42nd Street to Branson •42nd Scott Ter, Alden disconnect Revised Design EdinaMN.gov 12 Scale & Reach Varying benefits •Good / Better / Best Three Sizes •Big / Bigger / Biggest Varying costs •$5M / $10M / $15M Revised Design EdinaMN.gov 13 Existing Status Quo Good Big Better Bigger Best Biggest Structures Removed / Reduced risk 0 / 0 6 / 106 19 / 138 27 / 139 Annualize Benefit $0 $102,000 $172,000 $181,000 Cost $2M $5M $10M $15M Tradeoffs/ Opportunities Flooding Cost savings Trees Park Space Trees Park Space Trees Park Space Summary EdinaMN.gov 14 Existing EdinaMN.gov 15 Flooding from a 6.4 inch storm event (over 24 hours; 50 yr storm) Good EdinaMN.gov 16 Flooding from a 6.4 inch storm event (over 24 hours; 50 yr storm) Better EdinaMN.gov 17 Flooding from a 6.4 inch storm event (over 24 hours; 50 yr storm) Best EdinaMN.gov 18 Flooding from a 6.4 inch storm event (over 24 hours; 50 yr storm) EdinaMN.gov 19 Discussion & Next Steps Share Information -Summer 2020 Information about flood risk, Edina's Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, and actions people can take to reduce their own flood risk will be shared. Present Initial Concepts -Fall 2020 Initial concepts will be presented for feedback. Present Refined Concepts -Winter 2020 Refined concepts based on feedback will be presented. Make a Decision -Spring 2021 Staff will make a recommendation and City Council will make a decision. Close the Loop -Spring 2021 The decision will be communicated to the public and archived on the Better Together Edina project page. Date: January 27, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-01, 5844 F airfax Ave. Varianc e reques t Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the variances as requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: A .37-foot side yard and a 9.85-foot side street setback variance for a second story addition to an existing nonconforming house. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Engineering Memo Site Location Narrative Narrative Survey Plans The subject property, 5844 Fairfax Ave., is approximately 6,762 square feet in area and is a corner lot in the north west corner of Fairfax Ave. and West 59th Street. The existing structure is a one-story home built in 1952 with a detached two car garage. The current home does not meet the setbacks required in today’s code from the south side street and north side yard. The existing home is nonconforming and will be remodeled to include a second story addition while maintaining the existing nonconforming setbacks. The applicant is requesting a .37-foot side yard setback variance and a 9.85-foot north side yard setback variance to maintain existing setbacks for a second story. The home has non-conforming setbacks to both the north and south property line, while conforming in all other aspects of the zoning ordinance. The required north side setback is 5 feet and the required south side street back 15 feet. The north setback is minor with slightly over 4 inches of encroachment, so a minor point intrusion into the setback. The existing south side street setback of 5.15 feet would require the new second floor be in-set almost 10 feet, impacting the opportunity for room space. The plan adds onto the home within the existing nonconforming footprint with exception of a porch addition to the front of the home and a second- floor cantilever towards the rear yard. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential.. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features January 27, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-21-1, A .37- foot north side and 9.85- foot side street setback variance for a 2nd story addition to an existing nonconforming home for property at 5844 Fairfax Ave. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 5844 Fairfax is a one-story home built in 1952 with a detached two car garage. The current home does not meet the setbacks required in today’s code from the north side yard and south side street. The existing setback on the north property line is 4.63 feet instead of today’s required setback of 5 feet. The existing south side street setback is 5.15 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The proposed new addition will maintain the existing non-conforming setback from both the north and lot south lines of the property. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their memorandum. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – East Side - South– West Side – 5 feet 34.54 feet 15 feet 25 feet 4.63 feet * 35.68 feet 5.15 feet* 76 feet Building Coverage Building Height 25% 2 ½ stories/30 feet 22.9% 2 stories/29.81 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed variances justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical STAFF REPORT Page 3 difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the existing nonconforming northside yard and south side street setbacks. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home and the required setbacks and the narrow corner lot. The proposed addition is reasonable due to the existing home’s non-conforming setbacks and limited expansion opportunity. The home will be refurbished and modified with existing setbacks. The original home was constructed and without variances. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing house has non-conforming setbacks was built many years ago prior to the current ordinance requirements. There have been no variances grated for original construction of the home, so it conformed to at the time it was constructed in 1952. The proposed new home will continue the non-conformities as allowed in 1952 when the existing home was built. Circumstances have changed over time creating a nonconforming situation on the property with the existing home non- conforming. The proposed additions will conform to all other zoning standards. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The additions will match the existing home’s setbacks on the 1st floor. All other aspects of the home will conform to the ordinance requirements. Recommended Action: Approve the .37 foot side and 9.85 foot side street setback variance for an existing nonconforming home at 5844 Fairfax. Staff recommends the variance request is subject to the findings listed in the staff report above and subject to the following conditions: • Subject to the survey and plans date stamped: December 22, 2020 • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Deadline for a city decision: February 12, 2021 DATE: 12/10/2020 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 5844 Fairfax Ave - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included existing and proposed surveys revised November 25, 2020. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a second story addition. The request is for a variance to the side yard setback. Easements No comments. Grading and Drainage Site drains to 59th St W and Fairfax Ave. No proposed changes to the grade. Stormwater Mitigation A stormwater management plan will be required if the project is categorized as a new home permit. Floodplain Development No comments. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control will be required if the project is categorized as a new home permit. Street and Driveway Entrance No comments. Public Utilities Sump line available for connection. If connecting to the City sump line, a permit and compliance with City of Edina Building Policy SP-006 will be required. Miscellaneous A watershed district permit will likely not be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A well is likely not located onsite (water connection and structure built 1952). Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will not be required. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Lege nd Addresses January 12, 20 21 1 in = 94 f t / The following Explanations apply to both variances - this is from page 2 of the variance application. 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. -Hardship caused by variance that does not allow for viable living space for the family. The variance will allow the homeowner to build a 2nd story that provides acceptable livable square footage to accommodate the family. Finish total square footage above ground 2200 SF. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district -Corner lot with "new" side street setback requirement. Many homes in the area that have been remodeled in the past 10-15 years all have new 2nd floor walls that are within (non-conforming) to the 15 ft side street setback. These houses were added to within the original footprint of the existing single story home as would apply to 5844 Fairfax Ave. The new second story walls align with the original existing first floor walls. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance -The houses were added to within the original footprint of the existing single story home as would apply to 5844 Fairfax Ave addition. The addition would not reduce the existing setback on either North and South (or east) sides. 4. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood -Out of the 24 houses on Fairfax Ave between 59th and 58th street seven are new 3500 to 4500 square foot two story houses with another on the way being 8. Eight is 1/3 of the 24 houses. The blocks to the south and west of 5844 Fairfax Ave have a similar quantity of mix of new two story houses. East one block is Wooddale. VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 5844 Fairfax Ave REMODEL/2ND STORY ADDITION Summary: Homeowners are looking to remove existing roof and build a 2" story addition on the existing home. Foundation and all exterior first floor walls remain AS-IS. Issue: Sidestreet setback required is 15'. Existing first floor wall setback to property line is 5.15' with an additional 15' + to the curb and gutter (see survey). 2 nd floor addition would require an additional 9.85' setback off of the south wall of the home. This is not ideal and does not allow for sufficient square footage of living space for the second floor and/or total SF in the home for the family. There are many corner lot homes in the area that have 2 nd story additions built directly over the existing side street first floor wall which is within (less than) the 15' setback. Most recently reviewed and approved 6000 Beard Ave. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 0 3 2020 CITY OF EDINA P ; 11'-0 - • 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY OF EDINA 12/21/2020 10'54 JOB NO: 5844 0, ( - 6 3/4" - 6" - 4' - 9 1/4" 10' - 9 1/4" 14' - 2 3/4" / 30" _j\ 4; / 6 30" UP 0 r- Co _ I_ _I__ _J 16' - 5 1/2" 20" ENG. TRUSSES BY MANUF LOWER FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0" ur I 10' - 51/2' REF 0 0 0 A4 PLANNING DEPARTMEN-1 DEC `1, 'A 2020 MAIN FLOOR TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE I'REDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. 5844 FAIRFAX AV S SHEET NO: Al MAIN FLOOR DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: UPDATED 2020-11-30 VARIANCE 2020-11-30 E S G N TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 WENTWORTH AV SO MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55419 P: 612-251-1041 VVWW.TODDKNUTSONDESIGN .COM 12/21/2020 10:54:32 PM 5844 FAIRFAX AV S JOB NO: 5844 UP D U) LL 7 7 ct < 1— 2 72" C,) U ) To 72" ENG. TRUSSES 30" BY MANUF 1Z - 9 1/4" _1' - 11 1/4" — 12' - 3 1/2". 4 1Z - 0" fV ;4- al 15' - 10 1/2" 18" 9'-7' U) - 1 - 7 1/4"4'-7' ,r Ar 6' - 8 1/4" - 3 1/2" To 1/4" = 1'-0" © 2ND FLOOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 2 2020 CITY OF EDINA TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: UPDATED 2020-11-30 VARIANCE 2020-11-30 TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 WENTWORTH AV SO MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55419 P: 612-251-1041 VVWW.TODDKNUTSONDESIGN .COM SHEET NO: A2 2ND FLOOR DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: UPDATED 2020-11-30 VARIANCE 2020-11-30 TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 VVENTWORTH AV SO MINNEAPOLIS. MN. 55419 P: 612-251-1041 VVVVW.TODDKNUTSONDESIGN .COM TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. 5844 FAIRFAX AV S PLANN JOB NO: 5844 SHEET NO: A3 ELEVATIONS NG 77.7,7177.7=NT C 2 2 ?CH - 7ND CEILING 1 e 9 1/8" 12/21/2020 10:54:34 PM Section 1 Section 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 12/21/2020 10:54:35 PM JOB NO: 5844 2ND CEILING 18' - 9 1/8" 2ND FLO:101_2LP' in, _ R,, NEW CEILING 9' MAIN CEILING Obi - 0" \-1, MAIN FLOOR op 0" Ar LOWER CEILING -8" GRADE AL -1' - 10" LOWER FLWI - Section 2 3/16" =t-0" I I I I I 1 q IA 1E1 Er 4- - .1. n . , n 1 / / ,, , -,-, ' \ — i! \ \ II 0 . El . —_ , l (- ' _ \ — ::--7 ! -, • / a 1111111 i 1 i I I I I \ f m • i_i_ I l_i_ __1111__L_II_L__ 1111 111111111111111 1 1 1 1 111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1111( IM=IIMMIN==111•1======M11111111E 1111 1111 111111111111111 / 111111111111111 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 I liNii i l 1 I 1 I 111I 1111I 11I 11J 11 I I 1 I I l I I I C.04 io rn w 0 1' - ICY' 0 2ND CEILING 18' - 9 1/8" \-V 2ND FLOOR 10' - 8" NEW CEILIN MAIN CEE.:49: 8' - 0" MAIN FLOOR LOWER CEILING -8" GRAL, -1' - 10" LOWER FLOO TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. ANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 2 2 JITY OF EDINA in! 5844 FAIRFAX AV S 2020 SHEET NO: A4 SECTIONS DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: VARIANCE 2020-11-30 E S G N TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 WENTWORTH AV SO MINNEAPOUS, MN. 55419 P: 612-251-1041 WWW.TODDKNUTSONDESIGN .COM 12/21/2020 10:54:36 PM 0 EAST ELEVATION STUDY 1" = 10'-0" ,....cr'tPr2"As SOUTH ELEVATION STUDY 1" = 10'-0" SITE STUDY 1" = 20'-0" 25' - — — p. MOO 0011=10 DODO mED mm MOO DODO DEIDE DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 WENTWORTH AV SO MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55419 P: 612-251-1041 INWW.TOODKNUTSONDESIGN .COM TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. 5844 FAIRFAX AV S p FOB NO: 5844 SHEET NO: A5 STREET SCAPE !ING r:,17.77,f,":',TMENT EC 2 2 2020 Y OF EDINA UV • • I ,,XXX-*/\Xxx X ' DATE: 2020-11-15 REVISIONS: UPDATED 2020-11-30 VARIANCE 2020-11-30 E S G N TODD KNUTSON DESIGN 5757 INENTVVORTH AV SO MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55419 P: 812-251-1041 WVWV.TODDKNUTSONDESIGN .COM 5844 FAIRFAX AV S TERMS: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, AS BUILT CONDITIONS (IF APPLY) AND SITE CONDITIONS, BEFORE ORDERING MATERIAL OR DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBS MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGNER IMMEDIATLY. AS BUILT AND SITE CONDITIONS OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE CON- DITIONS THAT CANNOT BE PREDICTED OR FORSEEN AT DESIGN COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR, SUBS AND DESIGNER WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REACH A SOLUTION IF ANY SITUATION MAY ARISE. JOB NO: 5844 SHEET NO: E EXISTING OE EXISTING MAIN FLOOR 0 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR 1/8' = 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" PLANNING DEM DEC 2 2 2020 CITY OF EDINA 12/21/2020 10:54:36 PM Date: January 27, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview - 4660 77th S treet West Dis cus s ion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: P rovide the applicant non binding comments on a potential future re-development plan. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Proposed Narrative and Plans AFO, Architectural Field Office Review (Mic Johnson) 2007 Approved Overall Development Plan and Approving Res olution 2017 Plan - Denied by the City Council 2017 Res olution for Denial City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: January 27, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4660 77th Street West The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4660 77th Street West, which is part of the Pentagon Park office development. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two office buildings on the site and construct a 5-6 story, 404-unit apartment. (See attached plans.) As this parcel is considered part of the Greater Southdale District, Mic Johnson, the City’s consultant has provided a review of the proposed plans. (See attached memo.) This site was rezoned to Mixed Development District – 6 in 2008; however, no re-development has taken place. Attached is a copy of the approved Overall Development Plan Concept that was approved as part of the rezoning. There was to be a mixture of office and residential uses. The proposed plans would introduce housing into this MDD-6 District, which was the original intent. The subject property was specifically contemplated for multi-family residential housing. This site was considered for a PUD Rezoning in 2014 and 2017. However, that proposal was ultimately denied. (See attached resolution denying the project and the concept plan that was considered.) A PUD was granted for the south portion of the original MDD-6 District in 2017. The request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from parking and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is also used to ensure affordable housing on the site. The table on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing MDD-6 standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (MDD-6) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – 77th Street Rear – Fred Richards Park Side – West Side – East 35 feet 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 70 feet 38 feet 20 feet 20 feet Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 5-6 stories Density 20-75 units per acre (5.44 acres) 74 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0% 1.5%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 700 spaces required 533 spaces* 1.27 spaces per unit enclosed + 20 surface spaces *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Issues/considerations: Density. The development density is on the top end of the density range. The applicant is agreeable to meeting the affordable housing policy. The proposed project introduces housing into the area, which was the intent of the MDD-6 District. Housing could begin to activate the area after 5 pm when the offices close. Overall Development Plan. Because the properties are held in common ownership with the same MDD-6 Zoning; a general long-term plan for the entire should be included with a formal application. The property owner has indicated a desire to maintain the office buildings in the foreseeable future. Should the property immediately to the east re-develop, provision should be made to make a significant entrance to Fred Richards Park. The revised overall plan could be as simple as replacing the proposed residential plan into the approved plan, with the emphasis on the new park entrance. Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Proposed heights. The proposed height of 5-6 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. The heights seem reasonable as the step back away from the park and the single- family residential neighborhood north of the park. Pedestrian connection to the park. Final development plans should include a more prominent connection to Fred Richards Park from 77th Street. Consideration should be given to pedestrian connections from 77th to the Park on both sides of the proposed building. Sustainability. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire as part of a formal application. Consider a green roof installation to reduce the impacts of the urban heat island and improve energy efficiency. Consider including EV-ready parking stalls, and at least 5% parking stalls with EV chargers. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 EDINA, Minnesota Entitlements Package DEC 31, 2020 PENTAGON PARK PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 EDINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROJECT DISTRICT OVERVIEW GREATER SOUTHDALE DISTRICT PLAN CONCEPT ILLUSTRATING POTENTIAL PUBLIC AMENITIES AND MOBILITY HUBS 01 Greater Southdale District Plan – Adopt Greater Southdale District Plan – Adopted Decemb A tremendously successful suburban center, the Greater Southdale District plays a unique role in the City of Edina and Twin Cities region: Greater Southdale District Plan – Adopted December 18, 2018 Page v its inception. It has more capacity for growth and change than many other areas of the city . The resident population of the Greater Southdale District is approximately 7,500. The daytime population in 2018 is estimated at over 26,000, including both residents and workers. those choices based on a shared community vision for the District’s evolution. Greater Southdale District Plan will manage change and de growth over the next ten years, and beyond, to build a ng and resilient community for present and future nerations. is Plan builds on the district’s assets while charting a more ban and connected vision to create a more livable, even more prosperous, mixed -use district in which to live, work, The Greater Southdale District is generally bounded by Highway 62, about one block west of France Avenue, Minnesota Drive, and Xerxes Avenue. The study area was expanded to include the 76th Street/77th Street corridor westward to Highway 100. SITESITE SITESITE The Greater Southdale District is generally bounded by Highway 62, about one block west of France Avenue, Minnehaha Drive, and Xerxes Avenue. The study area was expanded to include the 76th Street/77th Street corridor westward to Highway 100. As it has in the past, the 750 -acre Greater Southdale District will continue to play a significant and pivotal role in Edina’s DISTRICT GOALS The guid stro gen Unique Experiences Economic Vitality Goal #1: Offer unique experiences for living, playing, working, and learning, and memorable public places for civic and social gathering for multiple generations and diverse populations.ge Th urb Pattern and Connectivity Urban Design Goal #1: Support a vibrant public realm, foster a connected and accessible network for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit patrons, and encourage investment resulting in innovative and enduring development patterns, buildings, and public and private spaces. m Scale and Form Urban Design Goal #2: Utilize appropriately-scaled development and built form that adds vitality and activity to the District to create inviting and comfortable human experiences, enduring buildings and spaces, and a fitting sense of place. Placemaking Urban Design Goal #3: Offer thoughtful and intentional public spaces oriented to gathering and resulting in a unique signature for the District and community. Connectivity, Accessibility, and Mobility Urban Design Goal #4: Offer connectivity and accessibility that promotes health and active living and supports multimodal transportation choices. Access vs Mobility Urban Design Goal #5: Embrace major streets as community and gateway corridors, shifting from through-vehicle dominance toward balancing the needs of all right-of-way users. Sustainability and Resilience Urban Design Goal #6: Espouse sustainable, resilient, and innovative public spaces and private development, adapting over time including the ability for adaptive reuse over time. Overall Land Use Goal #1: Facilitate the evolution of this regional destination into a higher density, sustainable, mixed-use area for “shop, live, work, play, learn, interact” with a distinctive and definable identity as “Edina’s Living Room.” District Services, Arts, and Culture Land Use Goal #7: Accommodate public, institutional, arts, and cultural elements that are needed to create a complete and livable community. SITE GOALS Incorporate elements of pedestrian connection with a landscaped green buffer from W 77th Street through a landscaped pathway that ribbons through to a new public connection to the park - visible access to the park with the ribbon artery and pedestrian friendly path. Intent is to promote movement (walking, skating, biking, etc.) for health and the creation of pedestrian presence Connected Integrated storm water that is filtered and mitigated with landscaping to create a riparian zone with pollinator and rain gardens with native plantings. Every space within the site has an integrated and intentional purpose. Integrated Pedestrian Friendly In scale, perception of safety, and comfort barriers between high-traffic areas. Amenities include: wide sidewalks, path and street-lined trees, lighting, and furnishes (benches, trash receptacles, art, etc.) Concentration of jobs, residences, medical services, traffic, and activity. Attracting residents, workers, customers, patients, visitors, and others from throughout the region, Greater Southdale District is a major destination. Role as economic engine for the city and region. The economic impact of this area is significant, particularly in terms of sustaining the tax base for the City of Edina. Meeting diverse housing needs of the population. Greater Southdale District has a variety of diverse housing types that meet the needs of Edina residents, and are not generally available in many areas of the city. Retail and services hub for the community. In addition to its role in the regional economy, Greater Southdale District meets the needs of the community for retail and services, with the capacity to evolve for changing preferences. Capacity for growth and change. The Greater Southdale District has been an evolving area will continue to play a significant and pivotal role in Edina’s future. Building that future means making choices, sustainable choices to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Comprehensive Plan, provides a framework for making since its inception. It has more capacity for growth and change than many other areas of the city. The Greater Southdale District Plan, part of the Edina 2018 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 SITE ZONING INFORMATION Page 1 2395.03 Zoning Memo.xlsx ALTERNATE CALC METHOD BELOW: Allowable Density 42 units Proposed Density 148 units Allowable Density 42 unitsProposed Density 148 units Proposed Denity Increase 106 units 252%02 EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITE - 24% PERMEABLE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE - 45% PERMEABLE ELEMENT Current Zoning Proposed Reference Notes Site Data Site Area (SF)236,950 236,950 Site Area (acres)5.44 5.44 District MDD-6 Mixed Use (PUD-17 Pentagon Park South) MDD-6 Mixed Use (PUD-17 Pentagon Park South)Section 36-510 Area per unit MDD-6 (3300 sf)MDD-6 (3300 sf)Section 36-552 Units /Acre 20-75 (109-408)74 (404)2040 Edina Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use FAR 1.5 (355,427 SF)1.5 (355,262 SF)Section 36-510 Max Building Coverage 30% (71,085 SF)34% (80,476 SF)Section 36-510 Area includes enclosed garage parking area Height 12 stories 144 feet 7 Stories, 70-74'-8" depending on average grade plane Section 36-510 Average grade plane to be determined Permeable/Impermeable 56,198 sf Perm/180,752 sf Imperm = 24% Permeable 105,831 sf Perm/131,119 sf Imperm = 45% Permeable See Diagrams Below Setbacks Front Street (ft) ( W 77th)15 70 Section 36-510 Side Street (ft)35 NA Section 36-553 Interior Side Yard (ft)20 25 Section 36-553 Rear Yard (ft)35 38 Section 36-553 Required Parking 1 enclosed + .75 exposed (1.75 per unit) 700 Required Max 20% Compact Stalls Allowed 1.27 enclosed + 20 spaces exposed = 533 Provided 19.8% Compact Stalls Provided Section 36-1311 Visitor Parking No Standard No Standard 90 degree Parking 8'-6" x 18'-0"8'-6" x 18'-0"Section 36-1317 Compact 7'-6" x 16'-0"7'-6" x 16'-0"Section 36-1317 Drive Aisle 24'-0"24'-0"Section 36-1317 Accessilble Parking State Code State Code Section 36-1317 Bumper Overhangs 1'-6"1'-6"Section 36-1317 Parking Setbacks Front Street (ft)20 50 Side Street (ft)No Standard No Standard Section 36-1317 Zoning Summary for West 77th Street Edina ( Pentagon Park ) PID 3102824340007 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 CONTEXT SITE PLAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT I-494I-494 AMERICAN BLVD W-76TH ST W-77TH ST LAKE LAKE EDINAEDINA WILLIAMWILLIAMWARDWELLWARDWELLLEWIS PARKLEWIS PARK CENNTINIAL CENNTINIAL LAKELAKE ADAMS ADAMS HILL HILL PARKPARK NORMANDALE NORMANDALE LAKE PARKLAKE PARK PAULYS PAULYS POND POND PARKPARK LAKELAKEGIRARD GIRARD PARKPARK HAEGHAEGPARKPARK EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD MINNESOTA DRI-100I-100I-100I-100FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SPENN AVE SPENN AVE SYORK AVE SE BUSH LAKE RDSITESITE 03 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 LOCAL CONNECTIONS AND DESIGN CONCEPTS 04 THE FRED FORMER FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE (CITY PARK) LAKE EDINA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PENTAGON VILLAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PENTAGON VILLAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIALCOMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL W 77TH STREET EXIST. TRAIL SYSTEM EXIST. TRAIL SYSTEM PROPOSED SITE PROPOSED SITE SITE DESIGN CONCEPT SKETCHGREENWAY LINKEXPAND THE PARK INTO THE SITE EXPAND THE PARK INTO THE SITE ACTIVATE 77TH STREETACTIVATE 77TH STREET LINK 77TH STREET WITH THE PARK LINK 77TH STREET WITH THE PARK COMMERCIAL/OFFICECOMMERCIAL/OFFICE OFFICEOFFICE PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 SITE VISION 05 TRAILS, PLACEMAKING, EXPANDING THE PARK SPORT COURTS, PLAZAS, PERMEABILITY, WHIMSY POOLS, CABANAS, RESORT PLAZA/FORMAL RAISED ENTRY DRIVE - ACTIVATE 77TH STREET RIPARIAN GARDENS, CONNECTIONS, ACCESS DOG RUN, FAMILY, VITALITY PROMENADE, LINKING 77TH WITH THE PARK GREEN INFRASTRUCURE, CREATIVE STORM WATER TREATMENT, NATIVE HABITAT, POLLINATORS PROMENADE, LINKING 77TH WITH THE PARK PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 AXON VIEWS NORTHEAST AXON VIEW NORTHWEST AXON VIEW SOUTHEAST AXON VIEW SOUTHWEST AXON VIEW SOUTHEAST AXON VIEW SOUTHEAST AXON VIEW 06 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 ELEVATORS STAIR M M RAMPUPM PARKING 187 STALLS STAIR FLOOR PLANS 07 BUILDING AREA:71,915 SF MEP STORAGE:848 SF TRASH/LOADING:- SF PARKING/ SERVICES:71,067 SF 231 SPACES 187 SPACES 44 SPACES BASEMENT TOTAL PARKING: STANDARD PARKING COMPACT PARKING PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 T M ELEVATOR ELEVATORS STAIR STAIR M M RAMPDNGARAGE ENTRY RAMPUPM STAIR RESIDENTIAL UNITS T PARKING 187 STALLS FLOOR PLANS 08 BUILDING AREA:80,476 SF MEP STORAGE:948 SF TRASH/LOADING:747 SF GROSS RES. AREA:15,240 SF CIRCULATION:1,510 SF NET RES. AREA:13,730 SF UNIT COUNT:19 UNITS PARKING/ SERVICES:63,541 SF 187 SPACES 142 SPACES 45 SPACES GROUND LEVEL TOTAL PARKING: STANDARD PARKING COMPACT PARKING PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ELEVATOR M T MMELEVATOR ELEVATORS STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR M M SPEED RAMPDNPARKING 95 STALLS CLUB ROOM CO- WORK FITNESS MAIL LOBBY/ LEASING COVERED ENTRY PORTE COCHERE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FLOOR PLANS 09 LEVEL 3-4 BUILDING AREA: 5,787 SF AMENITY: 4,444 SF BUILDING AREA:87,432 SF MEP STORAGE:656 SF TRASH/LOADING:105 SF AMENITY:5,080 SF CO-WORK:1,660 SF LOBBY/LEASING:2,580 SF GROSS RES. AREA:41,658 SF CIRCULATION:5,749 SF NET RES. AREA:35,909 SF UNIT COUNT:48 UNITS PARKING/ SERVICES:35,693 SF 95 SPACES 82 SPACES 13 SPACES LEVEL 2 TOTAL PARKING: STANDARD PARKING COMPACT PARKING PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ELEVATOR MMTT MMELEVATOR ELEVATORS STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR FLOOR PLANS 10 BUILDING AREA:64,157 SF MEP STORAGE:980 SF TRASH/LOADING:210 SF GROSS RES. AREA:62,967 SF CIRCULATION:6,833 SF NET RES. AREA:56,134 SF UNIT COUNT:76 UNITS LEVELS 3-5 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ELEVATOR MMTT MMELEVATOR ELEVATORS ROOF DECK BELOW ROOF DECK BELOW STAIR STAIR STAIR FLOOR PLANS 11 BUILDING AREA:60,452 SF MEP STORAGE:980 SF TRASH/LOADING:210 SF GROSS RES. AREA:59,262 SF CIRCULATION:6,553 SF NET RES. AREA:52,709 SF UNIT COUNT:71 UNITS LEVEL 6 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AMENITY ELEVATORS MMTT STAIR STAIR ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW FLOOR PLANS 12 BUILDING AREA:32,817 SF MEP STORAGE:780 SF TRASH/LOADING:210 SF AMENITY:900 SF GROSS RES. AREA:30,927 SF CIRCULATION:2,853 SF NET RES. AREA:28,074 SF UNIT COUNT:38 UNITS LEVEL 7 PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 SECTIONS PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.22.2020 SECTIONS PROPERTYLINE820 835 884 873'-4" 894'-8"PROPERTYLINEDISTANCE CONDENSED BY HALF FOR CLARITY (5) LEVELS OF TYPE III CONSTRUCTION OVER (2) LEVELS OF TYPE I PODIUM CONSTRUCTION OVER (1) LEVEL OF TYPE 1 BELOW GRADE GARAGE -TYP. TYPE III FLOOR 10'-8" -TYP. TYPE I FLOOR 10'-0" -TOTAL HEIGHT NOT INCLUDING BELOW GRADE GARAGE = 74'-8" MAXIMUM (AVERAGE GRADE PLANE TBD) -MAX BUILDING CODE HEIGHT FOR TYPE III IS 85'-0" (4) LEVELS OF TYPE V CONSTRUCTION OVER (1) LEVEL OF TYPE I CONSTRUCTION -TYP. TYPE V FLOOR 10'-8" -TYP. TYPE I FLOOR 10'-0" -TOTAL HEIGHT 53'-4" (5) LEVELS OF TYPE III CONSTRUCTION OVER (1) LEVEL OF TYPE I CONSTRUCTION -TYP. TYPE V FLOOR 10'-8" -TYP. TYPE I FLOOR 10'-0" -TOTAL HEIGHT 64'-0" BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAM (CUT EAST TO WEST) BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAM (CUT NORTH TO SOUTH) SITE SECTION (CUT NORTH TO SOUTH) 13 77TH STREETPARK SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PENTAGON PARK - EDINA, MN | BKV 2395.03 | 12.31.2020 PROJECT DATA Edina - Pentagon Park 12/22/2020 Unit Type Total AB Lobby/Leasing Co-work Amenity MEP & Services Loading& Trash Parking Area Parking Count Gross Building Area GRSF NRSF Efficiency Area (SF)(NRSF / (GROSS BLDG − PARKING)) 0 848 0 71,067 231 71,915 19 948 747 63,541 187 80,476 15,240 13,730 81.07% 48 2,580 1,660 5,080 656 105 35,693 95 87,432 41,658 35,909 69.40% 3 76 980 210 64,157 62,967 56,134 87.49% 71 980 210 60,452 59,262 52,709 87.19% 38 900 780 210 32,817 30,927 28,074 85.55% TBD TBD 404 2,580 1,660 5,980 7,152 1,902 170,301 513 525,563 335,988 298,824 84.1% 1.00 Per Unit 2.00 Per Unit 340 Area/space Stalls Stalls TBD 1.27 Parking Ratio 533 (Per unit) 513 20 Total Unit 404 236,950 Site Area 5.44 Acres Bed Count 74.3 Density =Total units / Acreage NRSF by Type 298,824 0.34 Lot Coverage =Ground Floor/Site Area NRSF Ave. unit 740 355,262 GFA =Gross Bldg Area - Parking Area Unit Mix 1.50 FAR =GFA / Site Area Unit per Type Parking Ratio Parking Required Surface parking Total Parking Provided Tabulations B Level 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS Amenities & Support G 2 Parking Garage 6 3-5 7 14 1 2200 Zane Ave N | Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com Cary: Per your request, we reviewed Solhem’s proposal for the Pentagon Park redevelopment on West 77th Street based on our experience working with the Greater Southdale Work Group to craft a physical vision for the future district, translating their guiding principles to the built environment. The resulting vision for development in the Greater Southdale District is to create an enhanced human experience along existing major and new connector streets, with overall experience shaped via landscape setbacks, building st ep backs, a hierarchy of street typologies, transparency at street level, a minimized impact of the car, and managing storm water as an amenity. The outcome of our collaborations with the Work Group is described in the urban design chapter of the Greater Southdale District Plan and resulted in the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. Fred Richards Park is one of the most valuable assets in the southwestern quadrant of the Greater Southdale District. With Pentagon Park offering ample opportunity for redevelopment, the potential addition of housing would dramatically transform West 77th Street, and add new public life to Fred Richards. Because of the scale and quality of the park, it is poised to be considered as cultural destination within the district, with opportunities for park venues to share in and support the quality of life in the neighborhood. To that end is important all new development, especially housing, embrace the park, with edges that are integral with the park. Water is already present in the park, and each new development should positively contribute to both the natural water conditions and water management at the southern edge of the park. It is a unique opportunity in creating a more ecological framework for how the district will continue to develop. In addition, it is important to provide welcoming, inclusive, and shared outdoor places within new developments. Providing continuity between parkland and new development will enhance the social connections between neighbors, especially those who live on the park edges. The need for healthy neighborhoods and healthy ecosystems is a shared responsibility and should be reflected in how new and existing landscape work together for the health of both made and natural systems. This proposal adds significant green space along the edge of the park and increases the site’s permeability, which should mitigate storm water run-off. We look forward to seeing how the integration and connections between the northern edge of the proposed development and Fred Richards Park are resolved in further iterations of the design. To City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date January 20, 2021 2 Concerns for the scale of buildings along the park should be noted in terms of an already measurable distance between the northern edges of the park where single family residents will have a direct view across the park to new development along W est 77th Street. In general, buildings with expansive walls parallel to the park should minimized. This U-shaped footprint is a good model for consideration for future developments along West 77th Street at the edge of the park. Similar to the Cornelia transition zone, this proposal has reasonable building heights that step back as a transition in height relative to other residential buildings surrounding the park . It also introduces appropriate building form perpendicular to the park, which should minimize the intrusion from any building appearing too massive. The building facade along West 77th Street is different than that facing Fred Richards Park in its relationship to the street. As noted in the Experience Guidelines, the quality of the street wall is vital to pedestrian continuity of the public realm. Building scale and massing along the street carries with it a measure in how the building mass is seen as part of the pedestrian experience. The Guidelines recommend that buildings do not exceed 200 feet in length without significant change in the direction of the building wall. In the current proposal, the building is over 420 feet in length. It does have significant changes in the building at both ends from base to top but the center section is only marked by the entry canopy. It is suggested that the architects introduce a bottom-to-top expression that beaks up the length of the façade in the center of the south elevation along West 77th Street. In addition, the transition between W est 77th and the drop-off canopy seems disconnected in elevation. The fundamental idea of a street room is easy access to the main entry of buildings, and a sense of transparency of the building wall. The grades along West 77th need to be carefully delineated to understand what the experience for pedestrians will be; that is not entirely clear in the submitted package. It should also be noted that West 77th is a major district street, similar to France Avenue. In the general setbacks for these major streets, the expectation is that there would be a double row of street trees that would mark a more formal approach to the overall street landscape. The east and west sides of the proposed development will eventually become part of a larger and connected place, when considered along with future neighbors. Thinking about and anticipating how the proposal can align with these future adjacent developments should be a consideration of the development team. As an example, the guest parking located on the west side of the property is currently shown as up against the building and the adjacent property line. This area could be developed as a Woonerf, a combined/shared street to include a pedestrian-friendly walkway and parking area, and then extended to the north without cars as a pedestrian and bike connection as the “Greenway Link” to Fred Richards Park. This would create a purposeful pedestrian street and can be a local connection that will evolve in new ways over time with the adjacent buildings. The west connection should be addressed as a pedestrian walkway with appropriate landscaping on both sides, and not located immediately next to the property line as currently depicted. It must be noted that the most important aspect of this project is the achieved density, and the integration of open landscape space with the park, without which, the effort to conceal all parking below grade would not have worked as well. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic