Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-04-28 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Packet
Agenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, April 28, 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 4363588. 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 April 14, 2021 V.Public Hearings A.B-21-07: Front Yard Setback Variance at 4248 Alden Drive B.B-21-10, An appeal of an administrative decision at 5708 Woodland Lane C.B-21-11, variance request for no basement, 5312 Halifax Ave. D.Preliminary Rezoning from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District- 1 and APD, Automobile Parking District to PUD at 4917 Eden Avenue. E.Zoning Ordinance Amendment - O:-Street Parking Regulations VI.Reports/Recommendations A.2021 Planning Commission Attendance Log VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta: Comments IX.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: April 28, 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 ommis s ion April 14, 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 April 14, 2021 P lanning C ommission. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 14, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission VIRTUAL MEETING April 14, 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, Bennett, Agnew, Alkire, Bartling and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Dave Fisher, Chief Building Official, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Olsen, and Cullen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Berube moved to approve the April 14, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously as presented. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, March 10, 2021 Commissioner Berube moved to approve the March 10, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously as presented. V. Public Hearings A. Continue to April 29, 2021, B-21-07, request for a front yard setback variance at 4248 Alden Drive Director Teague indicated the Planning Commission is asked to continue the public hearing to the April 28, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the April 28, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 2 of 5 B. B-21-06, A request for reasonable accommodation from the permitted 6 residents to 10 residents at 6222 Braeburn Circle Assistant City Planner Aaker presented the request of 6222 Braeburn Circle for reasonable accommodation from the permitted 6 residents to 10 residents. Staff recommends denial of the request for reasonable accommodation from the permitted 6 residents to 10 residents at 6222 Braeburn Circle, based on the findings listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, introduced himself and made a short presentation to the Commission. Mr. Scott Hemenway, President and Founder of Geneva Suites, addressed the Commission. Ms. Rebecca Reich, LPN and owner of Guardian and Conservator Services also addressed the Commission. Mr. Matt Hanley, CFO of Geneva Suites, addressed staffing and parking. The applicants answered Commission questions. Public Hearing Chair Nemerov noted some public comment has already been received by the City via electronic means. Ms. Lindsay Berg, 6230 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and indicated she was concerned with the traffic. Ms. Rose Norman, 6208 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and was concerned about the facility itself because it is disruptive with a significant impact to the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Shelley Psyhogios, 6228 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and voiced her concern about the calls for service and parking to Geneva Suites. Mr. Tom Smith, 6228 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and voiced his concern about the proposed increase in the number of residents as well as the parking situation in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Randy Sawatzky, 6214 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and was also concerned about the issues at the facility including traffic. Ms. Kirsten Karlsson, at 6218 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and was concerned with the number and speed of cars on the block as well as facility standards. Ms. Laura Sawatzky, 6214 Braeburn Circle, addressed the Commission and echoed the concerns of the other residents. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission continued discussion with the applicant and staff. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend of the requested variance to allow an increase from 6 to 10 residents in the existing home care group home facility at 6222 Braeburn Circle based on the findings within the staff report as discussed. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1 (Miranda Nay). C. B-21-08, A 68 square foot variance for a garage addition, 6213 Tracy Ave. Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 6213 Trace Ave for a 68 square foot variance for a garage addition. Staff recommends 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 Mr. Mark Salsbury introduced himself and made a short presentation to the Commission. He indicated he was available for questions. Public Hearing None Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed this item. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of comments. Motion Commissioner Bartling moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 68 square foot variance for a garage addition as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review – 5146 Eden Avenue (Former Public Works Site) Director Teague presented the request of 5146 Eden Avenue for a sketch plan review . Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Staff answered Commission questions. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Williamson introduced themselves and addressed the Commission. The applicants answered Commission questions about the sketch plan. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: Does not like the high rise feel of the buildings Likes the affordable housing concept Possibly lower the square footage to bring price down to reach price point for more people Important for Senior Housing is the cross generational mix, would like to see more of this There is no retail, and the courtyard plaza feels unwelcoming and only for the residents Likes the co-op and shared spaces Needs more livelihood Would like to see this more as a neighborhood look Needs more pedestrian access Would like a usable roof or green roof and sustainability Needs more green space with expanded creativity Likes the amount of parking, especially in the residential area Excited about sidewalk access to the north from Acadia to the new homes Narrow crossing on the bridge, should make it wider for cargo type bikes. It seems to be lacking in many ways and not what was envisioned in the Grandview Development Framework Would like to see a major outdoor amenity Looks like a suburban development from decades ago which is disappointing Generic looking buildings with extremely long walls Share the desire for housing diversity which this is not, there is too much senior housing in the area Would like to see more spark to the neighborhood area Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of more detailed comments. B. Sketch Plan Review – 4630 France Avenue Director Teague presented the request of 4630 France Avenue for a Sketch Plan Review . Mr. Jeff Ziebarth introduced himself and addressed the Commission. He answered Commission questions. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: Good idea to pursue but need to look at the houses on the other side Landscaping would be important Appreciate the effort to bring in other types of housing Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Support the density and creativity involved Design is fresh with an urban feel Likes roof decks4 Reduce the garage from two to one car Minimize impacts to the west Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of all comments. VII. Chair and Member Comments Chair Nemerov indicated the Commission will have a Worksession in two weeks. He asked for Commission feedback for the meeting. VIII. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported on upcoming agenda items. IX. Adjournment Commissioner Berube moved to adjourn the April 14, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 11:13 PM. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-07: F ront Yard S etback Variance at 4248 Alden Drive 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 6.3 foot front yard setback variance at 4248 Alden Drive. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4248 Alden D rive, is approximately .23 acres (9,987 square feet) and is located on the northwest corner of Alden Drive and Morningside R oad. T he existing home on the lot is a two-story home built in 1914. T he applicant intends to tear down the existing structure and rebuild a new two-story home. 4248 Alden D rive is a 50’ x 200’ corner lot that requires two front yard setbacks. T he required front yard setbacks are equal to the existing front yard setbacks for the homes on either side of the subject property, or the average of the block. T he existing house has a non-conforming setback of 10.2 feet from the property line alongside Morningside R oad. T he average setback of the homes located west of the subject property is 21.3 feet, which is the reason the required setback along Morningside R oad is 21.3 feet. T he applicant is requesting a 6.3-foot variance from the 21.3-foot required setback and is proposing a 15 foot setback along south property line of the subject property (along M orningside Road). With the exception of the front yard setback along M orningside Road, the proposed project meets all other zoning requirements. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Staff Report Applicant Submittal Engineering Memo Aerial Map Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 22 April 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 6.3 Foot Front Yard Setback Variance to the Required Front Yard Setback along Morningside Road for a New Home at 4248 Alden Drive VISITORS 4 CONTRIBUTORS 1 RESPONSES 1 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 22, 2021 08:15:39 am Last Seen:Apr 22, 2021 08:15:39 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jeff & Jilene Framke Q2.Address 4105 Morningside Rd Edina Q3.Comment Thank you for listening to our previous concerns. We are thumbs-up on this new plan. The subject property, 4248 Alden Drive, is approximately .23 acres (9,987 square feet) and is located on the northwest corner of Alden Drive and Morningside Road. The existing home on the lot is a two-story home built in 1914. The applicant intends to tear down the existing structure and rebuild a new two-story home. 4248 Alden Drive is roughly a 50’ x 200’ corner lot that requires two front yard setbacks. The required front yard setbacks are equal to the existing front yard setbacks for the homes on either side of the subject property, or the average of the block. The existing house has a non-conforming setback of 10.2 feet from the property line alongside Morningside Road. The average setback of the homes located west of the subject property is 21.3 feet, which is the reason the required setback along Morningside Road is 21.3 feet. The applicant is requesting a 6.3-foot variance from the 21.3-foot required setback and is proposing a 15-foot setback along south property line of the subject property (along Morningside Road). With the exception of the front yard setback along Morningside Road, the proposed project meets all other zoning requirements. There was a variance request that was heard by the Planning Commission May 13, 2020 for an 18.6-foot front yard setback variance at 4248 Alden Drive. The Planning Commission approved the variance request, the decision was appealed by a neighboring property owner, and ultimately the variance request was denied by City Council. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. April 28, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-21-07, A 6.3-foot front yard setback variance to the required front yard setback along Morningside Road for a new home at 4248 Alden Drive Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features There is an existing two-story home on the lot oriented towards Alden Drive that was built in 1914. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their April 7, 2021, memorandum. The subject property drains to private property, Morningside Road, and Alden Drive-ultimately to Weber Pond. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – Side yard East Side – Front Yard Alden South – Front yard Morningside West Side – Rear Yard 5 feet 42 feet 21.3 feet 25 feet 5 feet 42 feet 15 feet* ~50 feet Building Coverage 25% 23% Building Height 30 feet 30 feet *Requires a variance STAFF REPORT Page 3 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed variance 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 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 the exception of the required front yard setback along Morningside Road. The lot has two required front yard setbacks which greatly affect the buildable area within the required setbacks due to the narrow lot. 2. There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances are unique to the subject property and are not self-created. The width of the lot and the limitations of the required setbacks are not common to every similarly zoned property. 3. Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed front yard setback is similar to the setback of the existing home. The proposed project complies with the other zoning requirements. Recommended Action: Approve a 6.3-foot front yard setback variance for a new home at 4248 Alden Drive. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the variance criteria. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the homes to the west, which have an average front yard setback of 21.3 feet. The front STAFF REPORT Page 4 yard setback for the subject property is established by the average setback of those two homes. 2. The proposed setback is reasonable and was not self-created. The current house has a non- conforming front yard setback along Morningside Road. With a 21.3-foot setback to Morningside, and a 5-foot setback to the north lot line, there would be a 23.7-foot buildable area for this lot. 3. The proposed home is reasonably sized for the neighborhood and would be setback further from Morningside than the existing home. 4. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Survey and plans date stamped March 9, 2021. 2. Comments and conditions listed in the April 7, 2021 Engineering Memo. CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 Variance Application for 4248 Alden Avenue - Supplement PLANNING DEQ MEN I Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. has purchased 4248 Alden Drive on behalf of our clients Matt and Jacy Jackels. It is the client's intent to replace the existing home on the site with a new home for their growing family. 4248 Alden is a corner lot and the zoning code requires a new home to meet both the 42.0' front setback of the adjacent home to the north on Alden (4246) and the 21.3' average front setbacks of the adjacent homes to the west on Morningside Road (4110= 29.8', 4114 = 12.8'). 4248 Alden is a narrow 50' lot. Complying with the zoning would seriously impact the buildability of a new home if it had to meet the required 21.3' average setback. Given the zoning requires at a 5' side yard setback on the north side, the resulting new home could only be 23.7' wide. The existing home at 4248 Alden is 36.4' wide and is setback 10.2' from Morningside Road. We are proposing a new home that would be 30' wide at its greatest width and have an improved 15' setback from Morningside Road. Therefore, we are requesting a variance of 6.3'. In addition, we have designed the home to have extensive articulation to allow increased setbacks from Morningside. Only 21' of the new home is at the 15' setback. The remainder of the home will have gradually increasing setbacks of 16.75', 18', 23', and 33'. The clients have worked hard to make sure both the Alden Drive and the Morningside street facades of their new home are well articulated and attractive, in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and the use is reasonable. The ordinance requires a 21.3' front setback from Morningside Road. This would require an abnormally narrow home to be built. The plight of client is due to the unique nature of corner lots and their dual front setback requirement. These circumstances were not created by the homeowner and will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. A similar setback exists on the corner lot across the street at 4249 Alden Drive. This home is set back 12.1' from Morningside Road. The home behind 4249 Alden (4010 Morningside) faces Morningside Road and is set back at 28.' The proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other properties in the vicinity. Several nearby corner lot homes have setbacks from Morningside similar or less than the proposed home. 4249 Alden Drive (NE Corner of Alden/Morningside) is setback 12.1' from Morningside Road. 4114 Morningside (NE corner of Morningside and Grimes) is setback 12.8' from Morningside Road. 4200 Morningside (NW corner of Morningside and Grimes) is setback 15.1' from Morningside. 4300 Eaton Place (SW corner Morningside and Eaton) is setback 13' from Morningside. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The intent of the front street setback ordinance is to maintain existing streetscapes and prevent obtrusive structures impairing the sightlines of the neighboring homes. The new 15.0' setback from Morningside will be an improvement over the existing 10.2' setback. In addition, our proposed new home is approximately 65' away from the home to the west at 4110 Morningside, and 23.9' away from the home to the north at 4246 Alden. In addition, our proposed home will be setback 5' from the property line to the north (4246 Alden), an improvement over the existing home's 3.3' setback. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As you can see in the photos, this neighborhood is an eclectic mix of different style homes. Feedback from neighbors was taken into account when designing the home. The main points of feedback were: 1) Maintaining a setback that is not too close to Morningside Road, 2) Not having a garage facing Alden as it would look to dominant and detract from the character of the homes on Alden. The clients have designed a dual facade home to respect both the streetscapes of Alden Drive and Morningside Road that will blend with the existing character of the neighborhood. Careful planning went into designing a timeless exterior style including: Painted LP Smartside siding, decorative painted trim, divided light windows, coach style garage doors, a street facing chimney, and welcoming front porch. 4248 Alden new home proposed building materials: • Traditional Painted LP Smartside siding • Asphalt roof • Detailed trim. • Divided light windows • Coach panel garage doors Several neighbor meetings were held to share our plans with the neighbors and get their feedback prior to submitting this application. I also met several neighbors in person to listen to their concerns and answer specific questions about the proposed project, construction management during the project, etc. MY OF iLANNING DEPARTMENT rtetu wkay- V.,44/161,t-riz(---A-a.m0 4245 41-i0f,A Et2 i4A- JA1 git -6CA Cis M. CITY OF EDINA MAR 092021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PIL6pr, 'Z-rt ‘16421r-r may. • f. I-A4AZ; .AU-oco‘t) ..y46 - -1 0 10k WA-Lk. 4N4L-et) To wr cwzmiee— T6-,1,1rt-44; v.)41,6-z • cAK - GmUat, Vk.115rc(7 T FLAN\ 147 0 t‘,6,0 . 4/2.4 t2R. kt 61 /2f2Ar ...Niti.6,14,..tF2-4.1g4Amp 0/IC 2 4,14-i;r- 14o5S_De 1--(ou4w e.r.1111/4 PoAc.k.i amo.44E =t 111,4 5F Tr 1-1- 1:60 A-1 lot'. s • 4/ 4 Ot4, MM) Vz.Nt. . _„ of.mily -1m ,00r izt,c(oz • Avv 61/2-41" Zdck —'-,-/vAc 7 '•-k -• II • 4 II II L 1 i II • 7404 11111 11111111111111 .immesmoseimmuJ IC_Pt1WW"2"N (040 CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT t(s 1-1," 11,-(65 e,:= C &_0.(1140 CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPART Nr,-.-NT Rouo,1-1 1-1) 11107 P {77-- Li' W Y, -:— tb-1[4. CI 11•11111111111M1 111•1111411* 0 .10 ".-;f•: Ate-- r ___4124&_Aux8_1K121w1171:11: - (St PUZ 4`4 40V:rift / N(01444 ($44—. cPief 7t/L _ r C/Tpee' 1( t0tr.lr)cw, L.4,54.„1„ 4 I. CITY OF EDINA MAR 09 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 74r0(46,o zt• NO(j.k.• • 0:/ - 414 AA.E.0 w • • wi mpom triett, 12(2t,-71.4/MArq &\()-st11.. rLAN (6(0 - 6F tig 11 , 11_ 1% s A 1.0E4-1 P. , 20-14 RtAr N&\ 6,0 e,0RJA i-4o it (Mt-, t via 1. I • 41427 A OK./ V 2INIA- Lark 1310R1-1, 0 op • yr, T-r 0 • MR07- CITY OF EDINA MAR 09 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT \i•lEt2T \TA-1-10 ikt V " r z ' 1 g or .B O1 Lk og (.4( 0 110 „ I TC-7,': • / otV\ 4tit bit6txt.iikti„ t ro.2_12e,417 ___ c7. ki\J 1-1.4stAe. 7.4:20 / 12tEAT A %‘. tikkit VZ60Y-• -1rIcfPv2iiwit-161N;Av.o.;6A-17tt,t4 vaolg: .r" uv.terit-(6. tE O•fet : AS 4 • CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9144. /0-1,),4 _ 176V, 917 Ylzr•V'o`er) t7i?.ort:/3W••.., •I "'''.;‘ • - 1 •T's tt -n t tt r qt,r;•b• A1420( J14:4 t-Y-tez;T: fit1.21,z, AAs: - AL.19V.1-4 VPZ, if "'t .9A '4 1 '-1712.WeW if tr; c.15.7.-rot,,474a,;"2 4°) ,11'l•?- - , tv r 45( 4e-1111 TITV '. ry • •4r.--z3 - t „ (Ne.tf-yr, 1-triuk1-,e alma?) F:i F2Kopo t\-1 LI iyA rr aL t -61 CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY FOR: C. ALAN HOMES LEGEND Fence Stone Retaining Wail • Sanitary Manhole o Storm Manhole 900-- Existing Contour • Sat Mag Nail • Found Iron Monument O ? roM SnICAb:d RTg230 20 54745 &OEN DR. MOM ENMV-9160 PDX 1999117=943.6 914.1 4.240 914.1 913,9 0913.7 L.LJ LL 0 z LLI 0 91 STC House 851 SF Detached Garage = 368 SF Shed ix 103 SF Paver Patio 107 SF 510 9117,71•C 10 0 20 SCALE IN FEET W. B11 LAND SUI 5030 Canes Avisse So., OURS 220. BtoomiNaTes, MN 55425 Biro 1952) 554.4055 F 1952/ 854-4268 EMAIL: INFOOWBROINNLANDSURVEVING.COM REVISIONS SITE ADDRESS 4248 Alden Dr. Edina, MN 55416 Rentemoe wax BOOK/PAGE JOB NO. SCALE 22-20 10' DRAWN CME 166/25 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The South 50 feet of Lot 65, MORNINOSIDEL Hennepin County, MInnefote. REFERENCE BENCHMARK T N H. on the south tide of MorranssIde RA eut of Alden Dr. Elevation •• 909.37. SHEST 1 of 1 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and (hot I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the Vows of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING. INC. Orrolo: 02-20.2020 W000row A. Bflovar,R.L.S. MN REG 115230 2 `DECO. x914.2 x964.2 0914.0 S89'47'13"E 1 arTfliE) Cl x915.5 x915.6 OM 5Q USE OF THE SOUTH ' OF LOT 65 915.7 0916.4 9I5. 16.5 4 x9162 x9115.3 " r//9X/ 9 1"9".° 9 '----91 16.8 06111.4 \ OIJVAE J 916.30 ,, 2 I \ ' R00R.4118.3 • - t 918.30 x106.4 egie.5 0917.0 4 x916.9 62 IC 0914.3 9152 915.6 • 916;1^ 5°"CREM 'thLIC 14248 ALDEN DR. ROW ENTRY-917.8 915.10 / PEAS Nos12-938.2 915.7 .11.5 91530 0914.3 x915.5 _x915.4 0915.4 \915.5 x915. x91 09 4.8 911.0 O O 909.7 o. 01 ‘1- 9109 RFT XING 1VAL1 PRIM 909.4 m 909.9 4 11/ x915.5 50 3915.3 0915.2 x91313 9155 x915,3 x915 915.9 LOT COVFRAGE• Lot Area 9,987 SF COVERAGE: ALLOWANCES: Patio -107 SF Total UN SF 250 Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage JIAPERVIDUS SURFACE. Lot Naa 9.987 SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: House .4 851 SF Detached Garage = 368 SF Shad 4= 103 SF Paver Pott vr/ Steps - 115 SF Paver Walk 238 SF Concrete Walk .4 45 SF Driveway & Garage Apron .4 791 SF Total 1.14 SF 502 Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage 11.0.1F5: -NI existing building dimensions ore measured to the finished siding and not the building foundation. -No search was made for any easements. -The locatien 0 oll utilities shown are from either observed evidence In tile field rind/or from plans furnished by the ublty componles and are opproximote. Utility companies should be notified for excel location before d Ing any excavation. s N89'47 -1r$'1__1.99.7.7-11EAS. 9124 • • 911.2 909.9 APRON 911.810 9 1 1 ‘?, .200 MORNINGSIDE ROAD 0 Foitlinai SAN Int TOP-910.50 9VERT-1585.4 0915.8 09111.5 1 -r L. 5.1 I 14111 120199/106272 110. FRONT ENMY4-917.5 CRINGE FLOOR-915.5 0914.3 x914.5 15.7 4916.3 ASPHALT 0800001 915 915.1 0, 917 LEGEND CITY OF EDINA CD Sanitary Manhole • Storm Manhole Existing Contour • Set 17a9 Nail • Found Iron Monument O Pne.tcAtoend R.LSm75 230 Proposed Contour 4900.0) Proposed Elevation Fence Stone Retaining Wall MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 915.7 // ;AIM/ /// x914.1 • x914.3 :I .11.3 -I x914.3 1 x914.0 6914.5 STORM V.N. TOP=910.83 SAN Y.H. TOP-910,60 MERE-868.4 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SI oEscl:, Lot Area - 9,987 SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: MORNINGSIDE ROAD REVISIONS DATE DOCK/PAGE 166/25 SHEET 1 of 1 22-20A .100 NO. SCALE 38-21 16 N =10' DRAW CME REFERENCE 22-20 166/25 SETE ADDRESS 4248 Alden Dr. Edits, MN 55416 .PROSERTY DESCRIPTION th 50 feet of Lot 65, MORNINOSIDS, Hennepin Commy,Minneals. BENCHMARK T N H. on the south side of Morello/4de Rd. test of Alden Dr. BlevatIon - 909.37. I hereby certify that this survey, Man, or report woe prepared by me under my direct supervie!on and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. DA750: 03-05-2021 W000noW A. BROWN, R.L.B. MN REG 15230 W. BROWN LAND SURVEY ' 8030 CEDAR AvaNust flo.,Burre 228. BLoolsomois, MN 50425 Bum 1902) 584-4050 FAP 1952) 054.42513 EMAIL: INFO9WBRoWNLANDSURVEYING.COM 0 20 EXIMING FIEVATION% Front Peak Height 9x2 20 /4246 ALDEN DR. FRONT 00117-919.0 PEN( NEMIR.943.6 0914.6 6915.0 x913.6 910.9 915.9 19.0 0915 4 x915.2 x9150 015.1 .115.41 25% Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage 916.0 r//,' `K' /1 ' '016-5 0916.4 H,.., . ,„5 , 5' SIDE HARD SEIPAC.X ISTx916.8 x916 2 09 916,8%. - - - 91" x9I6.4 0917.0 gl .915.6 x9I5.0 911.5 99115.3 0915.2 6.3 1411O LIORMNCSAC RD FREW 08113,917.5 SWAGE ELDOR=915.5 .914.9 915.60 909.9 tn 909.7 8 b 919.30 /XHOSA IMPERVIrvIS SURFACE. Lot Area .= 9,987 SF InPEFMOUS SURFACE: x9I5.2 4r0d- 17.00 If 52 -.-a915.7 2 091 8.3 x9I3.3 {4248 ALDEN DR. PROPOSED HOUSE 1 915.5x 915 4 x9I55 x915.4 FIRST FLOOR=017.4 TOP OF MD.:T(916.5) x916.9 S I x916.8 0 9165 5.50 E1EVAI01 PA110, eyl x916.2 House 851 SF Detached Garage = 368 SF Shed = 103 SF Paver Patio ve/ Steps = 115 SF Paver Walk = 238 SF Concrete Walk = 45 SF Driveway & Garage Apron 791 SF Total = „ .5 511 SF alto 916.3x x916.4 32.50 915.0x 915.10 14.1 CO COVERED .1" 0915.4 PORCH 915.70 vi 09140 14.00 915.6x 8.0 760 50% Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage oft.. O T 21110 b 17, 914.4. 915.9119 x916..4 PROPOSED 0940840 x913.3 913.10 915.81 15.3 of x9.15.13 X915.3 .11 915541 T9C113 11916.006 0916.8 H1117/1 15' SDE STREET SMACK 0916.8 5016.5 9166 9I6.4. 10.2' E1151140 SEE STREET SETBACK pROPOSED IST COVERIGE• Lot Area - 9,987 SF COVERAGE: House = 2,247 SF Covered Porch - 68 SF Patio - 138 SF Demo Existing Shed = 0 SF ALLOWANCES: Patio - -150 SF Total 33 . 81 SF - AEAS. N89'47.13"W 199.77 912.2 ......012 SET YAG NAIL ON 9E1 910.00C 91t.8TC 910,71r 911.5TC 911„91C 91e1C PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES House = 651 SF Detached Garage = 368 SF Shed = 103 SF Paver Patio - 107 SF ALLOWANCES: Polio = -107 SF Total = 1 322 SF . x9I6.3 0916.0 09155 09156 NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTH 5 . OF LOT 6 914.1 14.1 )RET 91910 WALL PALM °"-° 909 EXISTING IGT COVERAOF- Lot Area = 9,987 SF COVERAGE, 42.0 I r'3 TB I x9138 x913.7 S89'47'13"E 199.72 MEAS. 25% or 2,4913 SF Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage House - 2,247 SF Covered Porch - 66 SF Patio w/ Walks, Stoop, Steps - 399 SF Driveway = 587 SF Demo Existing Shed = 0 SF Total 3s2.3Z SF 50% or 4,993 SF Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage f9(19-nrM SF-TRACKS TO MORNINGS1DE RD 4110 Monningside Rd. per survey by W. Brawn Land Summing dated 02-20-2020 29.8' 4114 Morningside Rd. per Survey by Advance Surveying dated 05-09-2017 = 12.8' Average = 21.3' RUM -All existing building dimensions aroosured to the finished siding and not the building foundation. rne -No search was made for any easements. -The location o all utilities shown a e from either observed evidence In th field and/or from Ions famished by the utility companion and ore approximate. Utility companies should be notilled for exact location before d log any excavation. 10 SCALE IN FEET 2 .DECID x9I4.2 1.T x9f4,2 915—, 50 i N89'47' 13"W 199.77 I_ 113 0 TOP.910.83 MORNINGSIDE ROAD STORY Y.N. 0 10 20 FEET SCALE BLOCH ENGINEERING, PLLC blochenglneering.com 32210 WON ST NW CAMBRIDGE. MN 55008 507-995-2981 krystleOblochanglnaoring.com B ENGIN BRING 42 0 PHD IMPFR1/101/5 SURFACE. Area .. 9,957 SF ENVIOUS SURFACE: no = 851 SF ached Garage - 368 SF 103 SF or PO* w/ Stems — 115 SF or Wolk . 238 SF taste Wolk 4. 45 SF nosy & Garage Apron 791 SF al = 2,511 SF 25.1% C Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage )POSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Ara° — 9,987 SF ENVIOUS SURFACE: nem 2.247 SF nand Porch - 88 SF lo 41/ Wolk.. Stoop, Steps = 399 SF Now = 590 SF no Existing Shod 0 SF al = 3,356 SF =33.6% FKISIBIG IMPFRV1OUS SURFACE DRAJNA0F ARFAVINRFCRON. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA DRAINING TO MORNINGSIDE . 1663 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA DRAINING TO ALDEN OR NORM NEIGHBOR = 848 SF PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACF ORA/NAGE ARFA/CORFCTION. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA DRAINING TO MORNINGSIOE (PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND HALF OF GARAGE) = 958 SF TOTAL RAPE/MOUS AREA DRAINING TO ALDEN (REMAINING IMPERVIOUS) . 2398 SF O 17,00 N la r 18 So[ emir sMx — ras AMR Mr EMIR araldiratair Si I 5/72,1 CRADiA/C 21.110 4:R0510117 CYONPROZ 1-Y24117 1218 21,ZWEN ZOI/VA, JfiV 5 NORTH UNE OF 114E 505111 ' OF LOT 6 PROTECT NEIGHBOR'S TREE SILT FENCE (TYP) 2.4 -CEC.D. el SILT T— SILT — R r ETIMWO WALL PILLAR MAO MAX ON RETAINING WALL PROPOSED DRVEWAY 915 90PROPOSED BERM 915 4,00 0913.75 vt !WO:, ('0. PORCH 7.80 .0 4,96 1 .I'DEC D. 11D915.90 ID Dl O LA a z LLI 0 _J SET LUG NAIL IN CRETE SA/4 Y.H. T01,010.50 PNENT.688.4 EAS. — !MS — 1118 rILT 1.11$ 1118 11/1 X11 1116 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR 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. Fogg Krystla I., Bloch DATE BY CHK DESCRIPTION DESIGNED KLB DRAWN OLE CHECKED KLB 0010 3•B•2021 SHEET c_j. OF JUIN )280-0E1102i LEGEND . . . . FIRE HYDRANT . . WATER VALVE . . . . MANHOLE . . . . CATCH BASIN . . . . POWERPOLE . . LIGHT POLE . . IRON MONUMENT FOUND . . . . IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION — su:r — DENOTES SILT FENCE / TREE PROTECTION FENCE FLOW ARROW PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL . . . PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 0 0.2 0 S89'47'13"E 199.72 MEAS. MET -SILT SILT 95.50 CITY OF EDINA MAR 0 9 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 091.5.70 , • . ELEVATED PATIO 914 913 PROPOSED BERM SITE, GRADING, EC FOR 4248 ALDEN DRIVE EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN MIK 4200 Morningside 15.1' setback 4300 -94torr' Eaton Place 13.0' setback 4114 Morningside 12.8' setback _ 4 ''"'" 302 4249 Alden 12.1' setback setback 3. LL Similar setbacks to proposed setback at 4248 Alden *.t =Om t 0r CITY OF EDINA MAR 09 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4248 Alden Existing Home ,141:A,i 4246 Alden Drive (next door MAR 0 UZI 4110 Morningside (adjacent home to west) f•A M A }-; 0 9 20 21 4249 Alden (across the street-corner) 4247 Alden across the street 4245 Aieim e MN NN PI Oyeft“., INC. 651 2111.1305 MAR 0 2021 4101 Morningside Road across the street) ')‘ 2 02 4103 Morningside Road (across the street) .ji',!\!HIN!(=:i)!1•121,t, 4105 Morningside Road (across the street) 4107 Morningside Road (across th street) DATE: 4/7/2021 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4248 Alden 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 and site, grading, and erosion control plan dated 3/9/2021 Summary of Work The applicant proposes demolish the existing residential structure and build a new home. The request is for a variance to a setback. Easements No comments. Grading and Drainage Site drains to private property, Morningside Rd, and Alden Dr—ultimately to Weber Pond. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Proposed egress window well at the northeast corner of the structure should be elevated above the adjacent grade to ensure proposed flow path does pose a flood risk for the basement. Floodplain Development No comment. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to relocate/replace the existing curb cut. A driveway entrance permit will be required. The street was reconstructed in 2014. Refer to standard plates 540 and 542 for patching requirements. Public Utilities Water and sanitary are served from Morningside Rd. A one-inch water service line from the curb stop to the dwelling is required per the City’s policy SP-024. Sump line available for connection near the SW corner of the lot. If connecting to the City sump line, a permit and compliance with City of Edina Building Policy SP-006 will be required. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required; applicant will need to verify with the district. A sealed well is located onsite. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will not be required. Applicant must maintain sidewalks open for pedestrian access during construction. Road or lane closures require a permit from the Public Works Department. Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-10, An appeal of an administrative dec is ion at 5708 Woodland Lane 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: Deny requested appeal of administrative decision. I N TR O D U C TI O N: An appeal of an administrative decision: C laim of Appeal: T he house proposed to be built at 5708 Woodland Lane was issued a building permit without fully complying with the E dina Zoning C ode. the proposed house's correct first-floor elevation is its main floor elevation, 871.72, not 868.05. Elevation 871.72 is 7.82 feet higher than the correct split entry first floor elevation of the demolished house of 863.9, or 6.82 feet more than required by code. T here is a video of the house, prior to demolition, view here. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Engineering Memo Site Location Narrative Narrative Letter from Property owner's repres entative Letter from Pacyna Family Video of home prior to demolition (YouTube link) Survey/existing Former home Survey/proposed Exterior finishes elevation not to s cale April 28, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Appeal of an administrative decision for a new home Building permit #ED183412; 5708 Woodland Lane. Recommended Action: Uphold City staff’s administrative decision approving building permit #ED183412, for a new home plan for the property located at: 5708 Woodland Lane. Project Description: A building permit #ED183412 was submitted on October 27, 2020, approved by city staff and issued on February 24, 2021, to construct a new home at 5708 Woodland Lane. The previous home consisted of a rambler built in 1952, (see photo attached, now demolished). The property is adjacent to Minnehaha Creek along the rear lot line. The plans are for a two-story house with a full basement has been reviewed and approved by the Building Inspections Engineering and Planning Departments complying with all requirements and zoning ordinances. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District 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/Minnehaha Creek. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The existing 12,833 square foot lot is located west of Woodland Lane, east of Minnehaha Creek and south of Woodland Circle. The property backs up to flood zone with the 100 year flood elevation at 860.2 and a new basement elevation required to be no lower than 862.2’. The lot is currently vacant with the former rambler home removed. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front – (NE) Woodland Lane Sides - (NW) North/South Rear– (SW) West 29.7 feet 10 feet 25 feet/50 feet from creek 31.8 feet 10 feet 67.9 feet From creek Building Coverage 25% 22.97% Building Height From existing grade Max 2 ½ stories 1st Floor Height 37’-1” 2 ½ stories 868.1’ 36’-9 3/8” 2 stories 868.05’ The following is the Statement of Appeal from the Appellant: Claim of Appeal: The house proposed to be built at 5708 Woodland Lane was issued a building permit without fully complying with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE I - IN GENERAL / Sec. 36-10 – Definitions Split level dwelling means a dwelling that has two or three short sets of stairs, and two to four levels. The front entry is on a middle floor between two floors. The front door opens in a foyer or entry area located in a wing off the main house. From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. STAFF REPORT Page 3 The recently demolished 5708 Woodland Lane house precisely matches this definition of a split level dwelling. It, therefore, can be considered nothing other than a split level dwelling when discussed in context with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE VIII – DISTRICT / DIVISION 2. – SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R-1) / Sec. 36-439. – Special Requirements (7) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the first-floor elevation of the dwelling unit being torn down is deemed to be the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrance to the garage and entrances that do not face a street. Therefore, the correct first-floor elevation of the recently demolished house is the lowest elevation of an entrance to that dwelling, which was 863.9. Therefore, to be code compliant, the proposed house's first-floor elevation must not be over 864.9. The lowest elevation of an entrance to the proposed house is 868.05, which is 4.15 feet higher than the recently demolished house, and therefore clearly non- compliant. (8) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first-floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per (article II), division 3. Such additions to, or replacements of, single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of conditions a-c and always meet condition d: d. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. Condition's a-c are not applicable since the proposed house can be designed with the lowest level at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation without raising the lowest entrance, which faces the street more than one foot above the demolished house lowest entrance which faced the street. 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal Condition d is not met since the extreme increase in the height of the garage floor (4.6 feet higher), and lowest entrance facing the street (4.15 feet higher) of the proposed house compared to the recently demolished house does not fit the character of the neighborhood in height, mass or scale. Additionally, the proposed house does not fit the code definition of a split level dwelling. From the code definition shown above: From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. Inside the lowest elevation front entry of the proposed house, a short flight of stairs leads up, but there exists no short flight leading down. Therefore, the proposed house is not a split level dwelling. Therefore, the proposed house's correct first-floor elevation is its main floor elevation, 871.72, not 868.05. Elevation 871.72 is 7.82 feet higher than the STAFF REPORT Page 4 correct split entry first floor elevation of the demolished house of 863.9, or 6.82 feet more than required by code. APPELLENT’S ALLEGATION: According to the language and the clear intent of the code, the demolished house is a split level dwelling, and the proposed house is not. If the proposed house is to be considered a split level dwelling, as the builder claims, then surely the demolished house is also a split level dwelling. If the demolished house is to be considered not a split level dwelling, then surely the proposed house is also not a split level dwelling, based on the language of the code. Designating the proposed house as a split level dwelling, when it actually is not, and designating the demolished house as not split level dwelling, when it actually was, appears to be an attempt to arbitrarily manipulate what constitutes the correct definition of a first-floor elevation to avoid the variance process to expedite approval of a non-compliant design. CITY STAFF CONCLUSION: Staff does not agree with the appellant’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The existing/former home was a rambler and the new plan is a two-story home. Neither are considered a split-level dwelling. The following ordinances were taken into consideration by City Staff as part of the building permit review with the City determining that the previous/existing home was not a split-level dwelling for the following reasons: This is the definition of a split-level dwelling unit per Sec. 36-10. – Definitions: Split level dwelling means a dwelling that has two or three short sets of stairs, and two to four levels. The front entry is on a middle floor between two floors. The front door opens in a foyer or entry area located in a wing off the main house. From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. (emphasis added). The previously existing home had two doors located at the front of the house: a door leading to the main living area of the house and a door located adjacent to the garage. As determined by common usage and definitions, the door on the main level of the previously existing home was the front door, and the door next to the garage was not the front entry or front door (please see photos). Based on review of the photographs and the layout of the previously existing home, individuals approaching the home would not assume that the door adjacent to the garage was the front door. There was a clear path leading past that garage door and along an inviting sidewalk leading up to the door located on the main level of the house. When individuals such as service providers and visitors approached the house to deliver packages, deliver pizzas, visit residents, etc., it appeared most likely that they would walk past that garage door and up to that front door located on the main living area of the house. That is where they would expect to find individuals occupying the home nearby and available to answer STAFF REPORT Page 5 the door. It did not appear that visitors to the home would expect to receive an answer at that door adjacent to the garage, or that the door adjacent to the garage was designed or intended to function as the “front door” to the residence. The stairs led up to another door, leading to the main level of the home, so that the stairwell was not open to the main level of the home. It did not appear that the occupants of the home could see or hear anyone entering from the door adjacent to the garage, as the door at the top of the stairs would block their view of the door adjacent to the garage. It did not appear that there was a doorbell on that garage door, or anything else that would designate it as the front door. Rather there was a sidewalk and lighting along that path leading to the door on the main level to the home, including the kitchen and the living area, where visitors might expect to find the occupants of the home. The door on the main level of the home appeared to be the designated front door or front entry based on the design and layout of the home. Therefore: 1) the front entry was not in a middle floor between two floors, rather it was on the same level as the main living area of the house; 2) the front door was not in a wing off the main house, rather it lead directly into the main house; 3) from the front entry, a short flight of stairs did not lead up to the top floor, rather when you walked through that door you were already on the top floor. This existing home did not meet the definition of “split level dwelling” per city code. Based on this analysis, the City determined that the “front door” was on the same level as the main living area. It followed that that the “first floor” was that same floor containing the main living area. The lower door next to the garage opened into the small landing of a stairwell. This small landing was not determined to be the “first floor”. Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. The City did not determine that the “first floor” of the old house was that small stairwell landing. Therefore the City could not require that the new house could only be one foot higher than that stairwell landing. The first floor of the previously existing house was higher than the stairwell landing, and that set the standard for the new structure. STAFF RECOMENDATION. Based on the existence of the primary front door which opened into the main level of the previously existing home, including the kitchen and living space, Staff recommends that the previous home not be determined to be a split entry home. Therefore, staff recommends that the first floor of the new structure be compared with the first floor of the previous structure, where the front door was located. On February 24, 2021, City staff approved and issued building permit for a new two-story home at 5708 Woodland Lane determining it complied with the zoning ordinance. The previous STAFF REPORT Page 6 rambler home was torn down with a new 2-story home proposed in its place. The former home was not a split level dwelling and the proposed new home is not a split level dwelling. The zoning ordinance defines the term “split level dwelling” and staff determined that the previous home did not meet the definition of “split level dwelling”. The zoning ordinance does not define the term “first floor”. For the purposes of the replacement home, the new “first floor” was established by the architect/designer of the new home and is not more than one foot above the former first floor. The designer of the new home established the new first floor elevation to be no higher than one foot above the floor level between the garage and the remainder of the home. To the extent that there is ambiguity in a document or law, legal principles dictate that the ambiguity is construed against the drafter of the document or government entity promulgating the law. City staff takes the position that there is not ambiguity in City Code sections governing the present case. However, to the extent that there is ambiguity in city code, that ambiguity generally must be construed “against” the City’s ability to regulate or limit the rights of the property owner and in favor of the property owner’s ability to exercise those rights associated with their property. City staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold staff’s administrative decision of approval for building permit #ED183412 for a new home plan for the property located at 5708 Woodland Lane. Deadline for a City decision: May 5, 2021. Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 22 April 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: An appeal of an administrative decision regarding a new home building permit at 5708 Woodland Lane VISITORS 1 CONTRIBUTORS 1 RESPONSES 1 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 22, 2021 10:01:09 am Last Seen:Apr 22, 2021 10:01:09 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Nancy and Richard Wyatt Q2.Address 5631 Woodcrest Dr Q3.Comment My husband and I fully support the claim of appeal by Nick Boosalis. The house proposed to be built is at 5708 Woodland Lane. We believe that a building permit was issued without fully complying with the Edina Zoning Commission. We are taking issue with the height and elevation. We live directly across the Minnehaha Creek from the property in question. We are most concerned that this new house complies with the zoning code and also in keeping with the neighborhood. Thank you very much. -Voicemail Transcribed by City Staff DATE: 3/17/2021 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 5708 Woodland La – Administrative Appeal The Engineering Department reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections during permit review. This memo was prepared at the request of the Planning Department. Summary of Work Permit ED183412 is for a new home with deck at 5708 Woodland La. Permit ED185638 is for grading at 5712 Woodland La. Grading, Drainage, and Floodplain Development The Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the proposed grading at 5708 and 5712 Woodland La. The proposed grading is in compliance with the stormwater and floodplain development policies. The Engineering Department required the builder to apply for a grading permit for the proposed work at 5712 Woodland La. A final as-built survey of 5708 and the disturbed areas at 5712 Woodland La is required for final inspection approval and permit close-out. Final inspection will confirm grading was completed according to the approved stormwater management plan and no net fill below 860.2’. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 5708 Woodland L ane April 15, 2 021 1 in = 94 f t / Statement of Appeal of Building Permit Issue for 5708 Woodland Lane For the reasons stated below, we believe the building plans approved require a variance. 1. Need 3.15' variance for Lowest Front Entry Door, which is at the Mudroom level. 2. Garage floor elevation 4.6' above previous garage floor does not fit the character of the neighborhood. 3. Main Floor elevation (as opposed to First Floor Elevation, or FFE) 4.62' higher than previous main floor does not fit the character of the neighborhood. 4. Grade along south garage wall is over 5' higher than the existing grade of the previous house to accommodate the extremely high garage elevation. I believe this does not fit the character of the neighborhood. 5. Grade along the south property line is 2.5' higher than the previous established existing grade, and encroaches onto the neighboring property, 5712 Woodland. 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal P a g e 1 | 2 Claim of Appeal: The house proposed to be built at 5708 Woodland Lane was issued a building permit without fully complying with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE I - IN GENERAL / Sec. 36-10 – Definitions Split level dwelling means a dwelling that has two or three short sets of stairs, and two to four levels. The front entry is on a middle floor between two floors. The front door opens in a foyer or entry area located in a wing off the main house. From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. The recently demolished 5708 Woodland Lane house precisely matches this definition of a split level dwelling. It, therefore, can be considered nothing other than a split level dwelling when discussed in context with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE VIII – DISTRICT . . . / DIVISION 2. – SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R-1) / Sec. 36-439. – Special Requirements (7) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the first-floor elevation of the dwelling unit being torn down is deemed to be the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrance to the garage and entrances that do not face a street. Therefore, the correct first-floor elevation of the recently demolished house is the lowest elevation of an entrance to that dwelling, which was 863.9. Therefore, to be code compliant, the proposed house's first-floor elevation must not be over 864.9. The lowest elevation of an entrance to the proposed house is 868.05, which is 4.15 feet higher than the recently demolished house, and therefore clearly non -compliant. (8) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first-floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per (article II), division 3. Such additions to, or replacements of, single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of conditions a-c and always meet condition d: d. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. Condition's a-c are not applicable since the proposed house can be designed with the lowest level at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation without raising the lowest entrance, which faces the street more than one foot above the demolished house lowest entrance which faced the street. 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal P a g e 2 | 2 Condition d is not met since the extreme increase in the height of the garage floor (4.6 feet higher), and lowest entrance facing the street (4.15 feet higher) of the proposed house compared to the recently demolished house does not fit the character of the neighborh ood in height, mass or scale. Additionally, the proposed house does not fit the code definition of a split level dwelling. From the code definition shown above: From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. Inside the lowest elevation front entry of the proposed house, a short flight of stairs leads up, but there exists no short flight leading down. Therefore, the proposed house is not a split level dwelling. Therefore, the proposed house's correct first-floor elevation is its main floor elevation, 871.72, not 868.05. Elevation 871.72 is 7.82 feet higher than the correct split entry first floor elevation of the demolished house of 863.9, or 6.82 feet more than required by code. CONCLUSION According to the language and the clear intent of the code, the demolished house is a split level dwelling, and the proposed house is not. If the proposed house is to be considered a split level dwelling, as the builder claims, then surely the demolished house is also a split level dwelling. If the demolished house is to be considered not a split level dwelling, then surely the proposed house is also not a split level dwelling, based on the language of the code. Designating the proposed house as a split level dwelling, when it actually is not, and designating the demolished house as not split level dwelling, when it actually was, appears to be an attempt to arbitrarily manipulate what constitutes the correct definition of a first-floor elevation to avoid the variance process to expedite approval of a non-compliant design. David Schooler 612-305-7561 dschooler@nilanjohnson.com 4845-5864-2662 April 22, 2021 Mr. Ian Nemerov Chair, Edina Planning Commission RE: Appeal of Building Permit for 5708 Woodland Lane Dear Chairman Nemerov: I write in anticipation of the City of Edina (“City”) Planning Commission’s (“Commission”) April 28, 2021 hearing on the appeal of the 5708 Woodland Lane building permit issued to Refined, LLC. Specifically, I would like to share with you concerns my client and I have about this appeal and the process in which it is being heard. Refined has already spent a lot of time and money to obtain the necessary permits for its clients—current Edina residents—to build their dream home at 5708 Woodland Lane. Refined and the prospective homeowners have (and had) every right to reasonably rely on the City’s decision that the project met code, so as to promptly begin its construction. A. Scope of the Appeal While the appeal asserts the City issued Refined a building permit without fully complying with the zoning code, the sole issue raised therein involves the dwelling classification of the prior structure at 5708 Woodland Lane. (See attached, 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal.) Accordingly, I expect the hearing to focus on this narrow issue, and this narrow issue alone. The time within which to assert grounds for the appeal has long since elapsed. B. The Appeal is Untimely Not only has the door closed on raising additional issues to appeal, I believe the appeal was untimely filed. The City relies on Edina City Code of Ordinances (“Code”) Ch. 36, Art. III, Sec. 36-96, for its belief that the Appellant is permitted to appeal the building permit. That section (which, oddly, is under the “Variances” division, and this is not a variance hearing) provides: A person who deems himself aggrieved by an alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter may appeal to the board by filing a written appeal with the planning department within 30 days after the date of such order, requirement, decision or determination. The appeal shall fully state the order to be appealed and the relevant facts of the matter. Mr. Ian Nemerov April 22, 2021 Page 2 4822-1286-1666 Id. (Emphasis added.) Here, the City determined in November 2020 the prior structure at 5708 Woodland Lane was not a split-level home. (See attached, November 2020 Email Correspondence.) In other words, the City, in November 2020, had made the administrative “decision or determination” that is precisely at issue in this appeal. Under a plain reading of Sec. 36-98, an appeal of that decision or determination was required to have been made back in December 2020. This appeal occurred in March 2020. For this reason, the Commission is empowered to dismiss the appeal outright before assessing its merits at the hearing. The City cannot both rely on Sec. 36-98 to permit Appellant the opportunity to tamper with my client’s business and obligations to the prospective homeowners, but then ignore that provision’s plain language. C. Appellant is Not Aggrieved A second independent reason for dismissing the appeal outright before the hearing is that the Appellant has not made a threshold showing that he is “aggrieved by an alleged error” by a City administrative decision. Id. While Appellant makes many claims regarding purported mistakes in granting Refined its permit, he does not specify how he is aggrieved by any alleged erroneous decision of the City. Individuals generally must have suffered an injury in fact to have standing in an action, quasi-judicial or otherwise, and Appellant’s appeal, where he is acting as a private building inspector acting under the auspices of the City, alleges no such injury. Accordingly, this is yet another reason why a long drawn-out process to resolve this appeal does nothing other than to penalize property owners—current Edina residents in this case—desiring to live in, or relocate within, the City. D. Unwelcome Precedent Relatedly, this appeal process—which is not written in the Code1—will set an unfortunate precedent in the City that will negatively impact current and prospective residents in the City for years to come. The effect of not hearing and resolving this appeal immediately will mean that any person can act as a private, vigilante building inspector and file an appeal to substantially delay building in the City. Current and prospective residents are entitled to rely on the decisions and opinions made by those employed by the City during the permit process without having to worry that someone who is not truly aggrieved by the issuance of the permit delaying construction many months at the cost of time, money and goodwill. This cannot be what the Code envisions when it provides for an appeal process—notwithstanding the fact that the appeal provision is under the “Variances” portion of the code and that the proposed appeal process is following the variance application process. See Code Ch. 36, Art. III & Sec. 36-95. 1 While the board of appeals and adjustment does have “the power and duty of hearing and deciding, subject to appeal to the city council . . . [a]ppeals in which it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the interpretation or enforcement of this chapter,” the Code appears not to describe the process in which such appeals are to be resolved. See Code Ch. 36, Art. II, Sec. 36-68. Mr. Ian Nemerov April 22, 2021 Page 3 4822-1286-1666 In sum, I believe the appeal need not be heard by the Commission, given the appeal’s facial infirmities. If, however, the Commission desires to hear the appeal’s merits, we expect the hearing to be focused only on the lone issue raised in the appeal. I appreciate your prompt consideration to the issues discussed above. Yours Very Truly, NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA /s/David Schooler David A. Schooler DAS:kej 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal P a g e 1 | 2 Claim of Appeal: The house proposed to be built at 5708 Woodland Lane was issued a building permit without fully complying with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE I - IN GENERAL / Sec. 36-10 – Definitions Split level dwelling means a dwelling that has two or three short sets of stairs, and two to four levels. The front entry is on a middle floor between two floors. The front door opens in a foyer or entry area located in a wing off the main house. From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. The recently demolished 5708 Woodland Lane house precisely matches this definition of a split level dwelling. It, therefore, can be considered nothing other than a split level dwelling when discussed in context with the Edina Zoning Code. Edina, Minnesota Code of Ordinances / Chapter 36. – ZONING / ARTICLE VIII – DISTRICT . . . / DIVISION 2. – SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R-1) / Sec. 36-439. – Special Requirements (7) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the first-floor elevation of the dwelling unit being torn down is deemed to be the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrance to the garage and entrances that do not face a street. Therefore, the correct first-floor elevation of the recently demolished house is the lowest elevation of an entrance to that dwelling, which was 863.9. Therefore, to be code compliant, the proposed house's first-floor elevation must not be over 864.9. The lowest elevation of an entrance to the proposed house is 868.05, which is 4.15 feet higher than the recently demolished house, and therefore clearly non -compliant. (8) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first-floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per (article II), division 3. Such additions to, or replacements of, single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of conditions a-c and always meet condition d: d. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. Condition's a-c are not applicable since the proposed house can be designed with the lowest level at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation without raising the lowest entrance, which faces the street more than one foot above the demolished house lowest entrance which faced the street. 5708 Woodland Lane Claim of Appeal P a g e 2 | 2 Condition d is not met since the extreme increase in the height of the garage floor (4.6 feet higher), and lowest entrance facing the street (4.15 feet higher) of the proposed house compared to the recently demolished house does not fit the character of the neighborh ood in height, mass or scale. Additionally, the proposed house does not fit the code definition of a split level dwelling. From the code definition shown above: From the front entry, a short flight of stairs leads up to the top floor and another short flight leads down. Inside the lowest elevation front entry of the proposed house, a short flight of stairs leads up, but there exists no short flight leading down. Therefore, the proposed house is not a split level dwelling. Therefore, the proposed house's correct first-floor elevation is its main floor elevation, 871.72, not 868.05. Elevation 871.72 is 7.82 feet higher than the correct split entry first floor elevation of the demolished house of 863.9, or 6.82 feet more than required by code. CONCLUSION According to the language and the clear intent of the code, the demolished house is a split level dwelling, and the proposed house is not. If the proposed house is to be considered a split level dwelling, as the builder claims, then surely the demolished house is also a split level dwelling. If the demolished house is to be considered not a split level dwelling, then surely the proposed house is also not a split level dwelling, based on the language of the code. Designating the proposed house as a split level dwelling, when it actually is not, and designating the demolished house as not split level dwelling, when it actually was, appears to be an attempt to arbitrarily manipulate what constitutes the correct definition of a first-floor elevation to avoid the variance process to expedite approval of a non-compliant design. Archive d: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:49:20 AM From: Andy Porter M ail re ce ive d time : Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:01:31 Se nt: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:01:33 AM To: David A. Schooler Christopher T. Ruska Subje ct: Split level administrative decision Importance : Normal Se ns itivity: None From: Kri s Aake r [mai l to:KAake r@Edi naMN.gov] Sent: We dne sday, Nove mbe r 25, 2020 11:21 AM To: Andy Porter <aporter@refinedl lc.com> Cc: Cary Teague <cte ague@EdinaMN.gov>; Eri c Nel son <e ne lson@refi ne dl l c.com>; Emi l y Bodeker <EBode ke r@Edi naMN.gov>; David Fi she r <DFishe r@Edi naMN.gov>; Ste phe n Kartak <SKartak@Edi naMN.gov> Subject: RE: ED183412 5708 Woodl and Land Andy, Ci ty staff has dete rmi ne d the e x isti ng home i s not a spli t level dwe l l i ng. Staff agrees wi th your i nterpretati on for the f ront e ntry and where to me asure the 1s t fl oor e levation on the e x isting home . Thanks, Kri s Members of the Edina Planning Commission: Please allow us to introduce ourselves. We are Mark and Kate Pacyna, the future homeowners at 5708 Woodland Lane. We have lived in the city of Edina for nine years where are children Wyatt (14) and Claire (12) have attended public school since Kindergarten. When we returned to the Twin Cities, we chose Edina because of the wonderful resources, including parks and schools as well as the close-knit small-town feel. We have loved living in our home in the Country Club District but found ourselves longing for a larger yard as we enjoy spending time outside as a family. We searched for a new home for two years before we spotted the lot at 5708 Woodland Lane and began to consider building a new home at that site. We initially contacted Andy Porter from Refined in late March of 2020. Designing a home during a pandemic wasn’t ideal, but we persevered to move the process along as efficiently as possible. We are increasingly aware that our time with our teenage children still in our home is fleeting. We have always loved and appreciated historical homes and architecture. In fact, that was one of the main things that drew us to our home in Country Club. We have lovingly invested in and restored the home over the last nine years. When it came to the design of the new house we made it clear that we wanted a house that was timeless and looked like it had always been there. Despite added cost, we hired Murphy & Co. to design the home. As one of the preeminent historically-driven architecture firms in the Midwest, we felt that their talents would help us to navigate through the intricacies of a lot on the creek while producing a classic, understated home. When discussing the home’s design, we recognized that we were replacing a smaller home with a larger one and in an effort to be thoughtful neighbors we discussed building a 1 1/2 story style home with dormers an in effort to keep the overall massing down. We also discussed ways to limit sight-lines from the interior of the home to the house to the North and South. Finally, when reviewing how to place the home on the lot, we opted not to use the full buildable area on the North side of the lot so as to stay clear of any creek views of the neighbor to the North (Mr. Boosalis). These were not necessarily cost-effective decisions, but we felt strongly that these were the right thing to do. At the beginning of the process our builder, Andy Porter, notified us that in order for the house to meet the City’s code, certain criteria would need to be met. We were very concerned about this and did not want to invest time and money in a house that could not be built. So much so, that we wrote it into our initial contract to ensure we would stop and check in with the City Planning Department early on in the process. We lost about a month of progress in July 2020 while the city reviewed and ultimately confirmed that we were on the right track with our plans. At that point we invested in the remaining architecture and interior design to get the house to the final plans stage. In the fall, we learned that the neighbor to the North of our home (Mr. Boosalis), had filed an appeal regarding the classification of the previous home on the property. This slowed us down again while Andy Porter worked with the City of Edina and the city ruled that the existing home on the structure was a rambler and we were indeed still on the right track with our plans. Finally, on February 24, 2021 we learned that the City of Edina had issued a building permit for our home. This was a very exciting day for our family. We watched the demolition of the previous home and it felt like our dream was finally beginning to take shape. We began to finalize selections for the interior of the house and even began making preparations to sell our current home. As you can imagine, we were devastated to hear of Mr. Boosalis’ second appeal. Not only was the appeal going to slow down the progress yet again, but we felt that we had done everything exactly as had been asked of us by the City; even going above and beyond to try to build an architecturally appropriate home. As we see houses torn down and replaced in Edina all the time, we never imagined our home size would be a source of controversy. As people who have always strived to be friendly, thoughtful, and respectful neighbors, this was never our intent. Out of respect for the City of Edina’s time and efforts we attempted to reach out to Mr. Boosalis directly to resolve his concerns. We were hoping that perhaps if he understood a little but more about the exhaustive efforts we had undertaken towards building a classic home in the neighborhood as well as our desire to be good neighbors, he might consider dropping the appeal. Unfortunately, despite multiple courteous and respectful exchanges between Mark and Mr. Boosalis it became clear that he had no intention of relenting as his real intent was to have a smaller house built on the lot that he approved of. He even referenced in his final email to us that the issues could have been avoided had we just consulted him for input on the home’s design. We worked diligently with our builder, architect, and the City of Edina for the better part of a year to ensure we met all appropriate codes for this unique lot. The City Planning Department was helpful but firm in their guidance. We greatly thank them for their partnership. While we are interested in being good neighbors, we feel this appeal is far and above anything that is required, is factually incorrect, is placing a substantial hardship on our family, and certainly isn’t following past precedent for construction plans. If Mr. Boosalis wanted to have a direct say in the design of the home, he should have simply purchased the property himself last spring. While we recognize that good fortune in life has put us in the position to build this home, the process has ended up causing our family quite a bit of emotional distress. We simply ask for the City Planning Commission to reject this appeal on the merits of the case so we can move ahead with building our dream home. We very much appreciate your thoughtful attention and consideration to our side of the story. Respectfully, Mark and Kate Pacyna 4531 Casco Avenue https://youtu.be/WAO24bs6ufk 860.2 860.2 858.2Guy Anchor Power Pole Power Pole Guy 856.4 856.3 856.5 856.1 856.5 856.4 856.3 856.5 856.5 856.4 856.5 857.8859.8 860.2 860.0 859.1 858.3 857.4 857.0 856.9 857.0 857.9 858.3 858.8 859.2 859.4 860.0 860.8 860.9 862.9 861 .3 860.9 861 .1 861 .1 859.3 859.9 860.0 860.7 861 .2 858.5 859.6 861 .2 E Elec. Meter 861 .8 860.7 860.4 860.4 860.1 859.9 tcc 861 .1 5 tcc 860.41 tcc 859.68 tcc 859.57 tcc 859.40 tcc 859.26 tcc 859.05 GF 862.9 862.6 861 .9 861 .3 861 .3 862.2 862.5 864.3 864.4 865.0 865.6 862.6 863.9 864.0 866.9 FFE 867.1 865.7 865.7G Gas MeterA/C 5" spruce 865.6 864.1 862.7 861 .7 860.1 Flag Pole 9" 861 .1 Flood Light 862.9 863.7 864.0 865.2 865.6 7" 865.3 866.5 865.6 863.3 867.1 867.0 866.6 864.3 1 2" 9" 857.1 8" twin 857.3 1 4" twin 857.2 8" 857.0 1 4" 1 7 857.8 6" 857.6 1 2" 857.9 9" spruce 865.4 863.3 862.4 860.6 860.5 WO 859.4 S 89°50'47" W 135.00 N 15°30'10" W 137.40S 6 0°46' 01" W 1 2 0. 0 0 S 00°09'39" E 50.0035.0 1 7.92.0 6.7 24.836.29.0 21 .735.0 20.72.05.92.0 1 8.63.0 5.52.9 0.54" Brick ledge along front of bldg.(not part of meas. shown) RESIDENCENo. 5708RESIDENCENo. 5704V A C A N T L O T 5 5 30.0 29.8 1 2 .77.68 6 0 8 5 8 86286486686085886086286486286486629.7 C o n c r e t e O v e r h e a d W i r e s O v e r h e a d W i r e sO v e r h e a d W i r e sMINNEHAHA CREEKWOODLAND LANE1 6.4 74.2 63.3 64.3 L=25.23R=50.00=28°55'00"S h e d on conc.Uti l i ty Easement860.2860.2Concrete CurbS t e p sD e c k D e c k C o n c r e t eC a n t i l e v e rD e c k Top of Creek Bank1 00 year flood contourOrdinary high water1 00 yearflood contourF:\survey\colonial grove fourth addition - hennepin\3\01 Surveying - 88834\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg Basis for bearings is assumed Surveyors Certificate x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Existing Contours NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at end of Woodland Lane Elevation = 860.83 Drawn By Signed Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Scale: 1" = 20' F.B.No. Project No. I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. rev Address: Legal Description 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com 88834 1114-10 Existing Conditions Survey For: 5708 Woodland Lane Edina, MN Surveyed this 16th day of January 2020. REFINED, LLC Lot 3, COLONIAL GROVE FOURTH ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota Property located in Section 19, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Existing Hardcover Lot Area 1 2,833 sq ft Residence 2,356 sq ft Deck - upper 1 97 sq ft Deck - lower 427 sq ft Deck allowance -1 50 sq ft Shed 64 sq ft Total 2,894 sq ft Percentage 22.55% 100 year flood elevation - 860.2 feet per Fema panel 27053C0364F Effective date 11/04/16 Report Name: Images PID: 19-028-24-14-0045 Printed: 4/15/2021 Page: 1City of Edina Property Images N 15°30'10" W 137.40 S 60° 4 6' 0 1" W 120.0 0RESIDENCENo. 5704V A C A N T L O T 5 5 8 6 0 8658 5 8 8598 6 1862 86 3 864866860 8588598 6 0 861862865 86186286386486586286386486629.7 O v e r h e a d W i r e sMINNEHAHA CREEKWOODLAND LANE16.426'4"2'5"6'8"15'7"5'0"2'2"1'2"13'7"1'2"2'2"8'1"10'1 1/2"2'11 1/ 4 "30'9"7'0"22'2"D e c kP o r c h3'8" D r i v e w a y 5'2" 10%stepsstep s 8 6 1 31.7 10.010.031.8 74.3 20'8"10'0" 67.9 16'2"32'5 3/4"26'11"32'3"AVERAGE GRADE LINES 89°50'47" W 135.00 FFE = 868. 05 8 6 7 . 5 8 6 1 . 7861.7Utili ty Easement860.2860 .2Concrete CurbD e c k Top of Creek Bank100 year flood contour 860.2Ordinary high waterProposed Residence 100 yearflood contour860.4 860.2860.0 860.7 860.2 860.2 860.2 860.0 860.0 860.0861865867866 8 65 864 863 862 861L=25.23R=50.00=28°55'00"862863864Portion ofBasement116.9 linear feet53.5% aboveaverage gradePortion ofBasement101.5 linear feet46.5% aboveaverage grade860.2S 00°09'39" E 50.00Sump discharge F:\survey\colonial grove fourth addition - hennepin\3\01 Surveying - 88834\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg Basis for bearings is assumed Surveyors Certificate Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at end of Woodland Lane Elevation = 860.83 Drawn By Signed Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Scale: 1" = 20' F.B.No. Project No. I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. rev Address: Legal Description 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com 88834C 1114-10 Site Plan Survey For: 5708 Woodland Lane Edina, MN Prepared this 29th day of September 2020. REFINED, LLC Lot 3, COLONIAL GROVE FOURTH ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota Property located in Section 19, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota 100 year flood elevation - 860.2 feet per Fema panel 27053C0364F Effective date 11/04/16 000.0 x000.0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing Contours NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed grades shown on this survey are interpolations of proposed contours from the drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor elevations to be verified by builder. NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Proposed Top of Foundation Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Basement Floor Type of Building Proposed First Floor868.05 870.36 867.53 862.2 Fullbasement Walkout Proposed Hardcover Lot Area 12,833 sq ft Building 2,811 sq ft Front Porch 81 sq ft Deck allowance -150 sq ft Deck-no steps 207 sq ft Total 2949 sq.ft Percentage 22.98% 10-13-20 proposed 100-year flood 12-17-20 bldg, drive 12-31-20 driveway 1-5-2021 1-11-2021 proposed contours 1-13-21 prop grds 2-4-21 City comments Width of Lot at 50 feet setback = 99.3 feet 867.1 868.05 867.86 .1250 0.0000 .0625 868.0475 PTOF for PFFE is located on sheet number 9 of the plan set Note: Floor trusses are set within the foundation. See page 9 of plan set to view the detail. 02/22/21 ED183412 Stephen Kartak Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.C . To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-11, variance request for no bas ement, 5312 Halifax Ave. 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 variance request for a new house with no basement at 5312 H alifax Lane as submitted. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 5312 Halifax Avenue is approximately .35 acres (15,388 square feet) and is located on the west side of H alifax Avenue, between 54th Street W and 52nd Street W. T he applicant, Alex Lang, City H omes, L L C, is requesting a variance from the minimum basement requirement in order to build a new two-story home without a basement at 5312 H alifax Lane. T he average grade of the subject property is 879.9’. D ue to the floodplain, the lowest floor for this property cannot be below 879.5 feet. T he home has been designed with no basement to accommodate the elevation requirements due to the floodplain. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Staff Report Applicant Submittal Engineering Memo Aerial Map The subject property, 5312 Halifax Avenue is approximately .35 acres (15,388 square feet) and is located on the west side of Halifax Avenue, between 54th Street W and 52nd Street W. The applicant, Alex Lang, City Homes, LLC, is requesting a variance from the minimum basement requirement in order to build a new two-story home without a basement at 5312 Halifax Lane. Due to the 1% and 10%-annual chance floodplain elevations of 878.3 feet and 877.5 feet, the lowest floor for this property cannot be below 880.3 feet and 879.5 feet. The home has been designed with no basement to accommodate the lowest floor elevation requirements due to the floodplain. The City of Edina’s zoning ordinance requires that all new homes have a basement. A variance is requested from the following ordinance requirement: Basements. All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features There is an existing single home on the lot that was built in 1947. April 28, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-21-11, A variance request to build a new home without at basement at 5312 Halifax Avenue Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their April 22, 2021, memorandum. Grading and Drainage This lot is located in and drains to a landlocked area and structural flooding issue. The landlocked basin overflows in the 1%-annual-chance flood event, but not in the 10%-annual chance flood event. Generally, the drainage areas a maintained. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater requirements include: (1) no increase in peak flood elevations for 10%-annual-chance flood event (NOAA Atlas 14, 10-year), i.e. no fill, rate and volume maintained; (2) provide volume control if adding more than 600 sf of new impervious; (3) demonstrate rate control to private property for the 10-year event. Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The 1%-annual-chance flood elevation is 878.3’. Thus, the lowest opening elevation is required at no less than 880.3’. The 10%-annual-chance flood elevation is 877.5’. Thus, the lowest floor elevation is required at no less than 879.5’. The proposed lowest opening (880.3’) and floor (880.63’) elevations meet these requirements. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – Side Yard East Side – Front Yard South – Side Yard West Side – Rear Yard 12 feet total, with no less than 5 feet on one side 37.5 feet 12 feet total, with no less than 5 feet on one side 25 feet 5 feet 37.5 feet 8 feet ~129 feet Building Coverage 25% 24.7% Building Height 30 feet 27’ 7 7/8” Basement 50% None* *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed variance 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 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 the exception of not having a basement. The current code requires 50% of the new home’s first floor to have full basement below. The practical difficulty is STAFF REPORT Page 4 caused by the floodplain elevation and the need to keep the lowest level of the proposed home outside of the floodplain. 2. There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances are unique to the subject property and are not self-created. There are not floodplain elevation limitations on every similarly zoned lot. 3. Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. If the applicant had to comply with the basement ordinance the first floor of the new home would have to be raised substantially. The applicant wishes to not construct a basement and is not asking for a first-floor elevation variance or overall height variance for the new home. Recommended Action: Approve a variance to the basement requirement so a new two-story home without a basement can be constructed at 5312 Haliafax Lane. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the variance criteria. The practical difficulty is caused by the floodplain elevation and the need to keep the lowest level of the proposed home outside of the floodplain. 2. The circumstances are unique to the subject property and are not self-created. 3. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans date stamped March 26, 2021. 2. Updated survey and stormwater management plan submitted to staff April 22, 2021. 3. Comments and conditions listed in the April 22, 2021 Engineering Memo. Ferrara-Gleason Variance — 5312 Halifax Ave, Edina Our proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties by allowing the clients to build a house with no basement. The average grade of the lot, determined by the city, is 879.9'. Due to the floodplain, the lowest floor for this property cannot be below 879.5'. Edina's requirement of 50% basement in new homes is not feasible with the restraints on the property. We respect the intent of the zoning ordinance, and therefore are not asking for setback or height variances. The variance does not disrupt the harmony of the zoning ordinance, and we are meeting all other zoning codes. Additionally, the design and proposal does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. CITY OF EDINA MAR 2 6 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SKUCH DESIGN G,IDLI. 952-544-3844 18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Copyright 2021 CITY HOMES • 612-217-2853 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 HALIFAX HILL RESIDENCE 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA MN 1 STREET RENDERING CITY OF EDINA MAR 2 6 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE SET 24 MARCH 2021 SHEET Al 1 EAST ELEVATION HALIFAX HILL RESIDENCE 2 SOUTH ELEVATION SHEET CITY OF EDINA PLANNING DEPARTME' VARIANCE SET 24 MARCH 2021 A2 I I I 1, I I 1 I 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 12' 14' 16' GRAPHIC SCALE All SLA 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA MN LOWEST FLOOR AL81.07W9 878.3'. 877 5..1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1 DV', ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.. 880 LOWEST OPENING ALLOWED M.L SLAB FLAT ROOF D 880.63' 1 YZ790 AVERAGEI11NG FRONT GRADE L. SLAB 952-544-3844 18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Copyright 2021 612-217-2853 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 SIKUCH DESIGN CITY OF EDINA MAR 26 2021 PLANNING DEPARTM VARIANCE SET 24 MARCH 2021 ISLAS 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 12' 14' NORTH ELEVATION SHEET A3 =SI<UCH= MESIGN G701.-IP 411MEEta 612-217.2853 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 952-544-3844 18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Copyright 2021 Mi sue+ L SIM 1 WEST ELEVATION GRAPHIC SCALE HALIFAX HILL RESIDENCE 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA MN 612-217-2853 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 SIKUCH DESIGN GROUP 952-544-3844 18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Copyright 2021 SLAB ON GRADE SLAB ON GRADE HALIFAX HILL RESIDENCE 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA MN MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CITY OF EDINA MAR 26 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE SET 24 MARCH 2021 11 ,1 I I , I , 1 ' I 1 I 1 1 ! 1 i 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 12' 14' 16' GRAPHIC SCALE SHEET A4 '101111111111111110111"— CITY OF EDINC, MAR 2 6 2021 =SKUCI-1- MESIGN G7OUP 952-544-3844 18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Copyright 2021 612-217-2853 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 PLANNING DEPARTMENT HALIFAX HILL RESIDENCE 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA MN VARIANCE SET 24 MARCH 2021 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0' 2' 8' 10' 12' 14' GRAPHIC SCALE SHEET A5 886.7 1 x 873.7 N 87'30'4 25 EXISTING DWELLING 878.5 In 7,9 9 879,8x 878.9 1 1 1 1 1 877.0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4. Existing building dimensions and setbacks measured to outside of siding or stucco. 5. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements 883,5x ----1-------_-_-_-_t.-_-,-,.-`;. \ I 1 to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. 6. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 7. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "•" Denotes iron survey marker, found, unless otherwise noted. 20 885,2x (I V ‘I 00 in; V (0 00 \ \\\ I I %\ \ \ 1 \ 1 i 1 i I I nI 20 888,1 1 4 - - - - 1J % ---,----- 4,7 • co co / 257.63 87" N 8 7.34'52 " W h. 877.8 EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE 1,479 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY/WALK 885 SQ. FT. REAR STOOP 67 SQ. FT. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 2,431 SQ. FT. AREA OF LOT 15,388 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE 15.8% CITY OF EDINA d<> lt) eau --------- 40.7 92 MAR 26 2021 PL1NNING DEPARTMENT I— I ---- 30 ------ 879,6 879.3 ------- 878.4 878.7X 878.7 878.9 879.7 0) x 879,8 ------------- ------ 879,7 N ly Al N Ts- 879.4 a) , 878.4 GARAGE FLOOR co ELEV. t• ,880.1,'q 878 9 878 , 879.9 879.5 DRIVEWAY 8792 879,3 879.5 In x 879.1 879.3 ---------- ---------- tI `I o 9 N 0 0 ci 00 tr) J II CC BENCHMARK TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ELEV. = 881.7 (ASSUMED) EXISTING DWELLING DATE J REVISION DESCRIPTION CLIENT/JOB ADDRESS CITY HOMES LLC 5312 HALIFAX AVE. EDINA, MN SHEET TITLE EXISTING SURVEY SHEET SIZE: 11 X 17 SHEET NO. S1 SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE 0 10' 20' Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. 17917 Highway No. 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: www.edvsur.com DATE DRAFTED: OCTOBER 23, 2020 DATE SURVEYED: OCTOBER 21, 2020 DRAWING NUMBER 201938 WP DWELLINGPROPOSEDS1Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway No. 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CITY HOMES LLC5312 HALIFAX AVENUE CLIENT/JOB ADDRESSEDINA, MN SHEET TITLEPROPOSED SURVEY &TREE PROTECTION PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1210346 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE: 22 X 34EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGEHOUSE 1,479 SQ. FT.REAR STOOP 17 SQ. FT.TOTAL EXISTING COVERAGE 1,496 SQ. FT.AREA OF LOT 15,388 SQ. FT.LOT COVERAGE 9.7%GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES:BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN·Install silt fence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area.·Sediment control measures must remain in place until final stabilization has beenestablished and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed toaccommodate short term construction activity but must be replaced before the next rain.·A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the siteand a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inch rock extending at least 50 feet from the street into the siteand shall be underlain with permeable geotextile fabric. The entrance shall be maintainedduring construction by top dressing or washing to prevent tracking or flow of sedimentsonto public streets, walks or alleys. Potential entrances that are not so protected shall beclosed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from the site.·Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing storm sewer inlets in accordance withthe city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided on all proposed stormsewer inlets immediately following construction of the inlet. Inlet protection must beinstalled in a manner that will not impound water for extended periods of time or in amanner that presents a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.DURING CONSTRUCTION:·When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be placed toprevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed areas are toremain in place for more than 14 days, they shall be seeded with Minnesota Department ofTransportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch.·A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of construction debris. Thesedumpsters shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing onto adjacentproperties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in accordance with MinnesotaPollution Control Agency requirements.·A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastesshall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements.·Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as solidwaste.·Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events andshall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection.·Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and if litter or soils has beendeposited it shall promptly be removed.·If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting thesite in the rock entrance areas·Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed.·Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properlymaintained.·If it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pump discharge shallbe into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can filter thewater before it leaves the site.·Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days after the site is firstdisturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department ofTransportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch.·Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. Thecontractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins and additional siltfencing as deemed necessary to control erosion.SITE WORK COMPLETION:·When final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod an “as built”survey shall be done per City of Edina requirements to insure that grading was properlydone.·When any remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completedincluding any erosion control blankets for steep areas.·When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devicesshall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned as needed todeliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean.·Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a minimum 2% slope away from proposedbuilding.LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 15, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services doesnot include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records orconsult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such aseasements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property.4.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmentalagencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding withconstruction.5.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have alsoprovided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relateonly to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on thesurvey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction.6.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements orother encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport toshow any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.7.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you,your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard gradescarefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codesand minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show thissurvey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtaintheir approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property.8.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and orstucco of the building.9.While we show the building setback lines per the City of Edina web site, we suggest you show this survey to theappropriate city officials to be sure that the setback lines are shown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use this survey todesign anything for this site.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, found, unless otherwise noted.#LICENSE NO.DATEMARCH 26, 2021DATE DRAFTED:MARCH 26, 2021# 52716Joshua S. RinkeOCT. 21, 2020DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BYADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.EXISTING HARDCOVERHOUSE 1,479 SQ. FT.DRIVEWAY/WALK 885 SQ. FT.REAR STOOP 67 SQ. FT.TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 2,431 SQ. FT.AREA OF LOT 15,388 SQ. FT.LOT COVERAGE 15.8%DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETPROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGEHOUSE 3,339 SQ. FT.COVERED ENTRY 105 SQ. FT.FRONT PATIO 135 SQ. FT.REAR PATIO/STEPS 405 SQ. FT.PATIO CREDIT -150 SQ. FT.TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE 3,834 SQ. FT.AREA OF LOT 15,388 SQ. FT.LOT COVERAGE 24.9%PROPOSED HARDCOVERHOUSE 3,339 SQ. FT.COVERED ENTRY 105 SQ. FT.DRIVEWAY/WALK 948 SQ. FT.FRONT PATIO 135 SQ. FT.REAR PATIO/STEPS 405 SQ. FT.STEPPER STONES 113 SQ. FT.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 5,045 SQ. FT.AREA OF LOT 15,388 SQ. FT.LOT COVERAGE 32.7% E1E2DWELLINGPROPOSEDP3P1P2S2Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway No. 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CITY HOMES LLC5312 HALIFAX AVENUE CLIENT/JOB ADDRESSEDINA, MN SHEET TITLEPROPOSED STORMWATERMANAGEMENT & EROSIONCONTROL PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 2 OF 2210346 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE: 22 X 34#LICENSE NO.DATEMARCH 26, 2021DATE DRAFTED:MARCH 26, 2021# 52716Joshua S. RinkeOCT. 21, 2020DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BYADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40'20'01 INCH = 20 FEETE1P110-YEARSTORM EVENTEXISTING STORMWATER RUNOFF VOLUME SUMMARY1176.1STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS566.2PROPOSED STORMWATER RUNOFF VOLUME SUMMARY10-YEARSTORM EVENT827.6435.6PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAPEXISTING DRAINAGE MAP10-YEARSTORM EVENTE1 (STREET)(CFS)EXISTING STORMWATER RUNOFF RATE SUMMARY0.51E2 (NORTH)(CFS)0.29PROPOSED STORMWATER RUNOFF RATE SUMMARY10-YEARSTORM EVENTP1 (STREET)(CFS)0.37TRN (NORTH)(CFS)0.21E1 (STREET)(CF)E2 (NORTH)(CF)P1 (STREET)(CF)TRN (NORTH)(CF)···· Uncontrolled Runoff (North) Uncontrolled Runoff (Street) Routing Diagram for Existing Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 3/26/2021 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Existing Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 3/26/2021 Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.297 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E1, E2) 0.056 98 Impervious Area (E1, E2) 0.353 67 TOTAL AREA Existing Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 3/26/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment El: Uncontrolled Runoff (Street) Runoff = 0.29 cfs © 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 2.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 1,591 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,546 98 Impervious Area 3,137 79 Weighted Average 1,591 50.72% Pervious Area 1,546 49.28% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 40 0.0200 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" Summary for Subcatchment E2: Uncontrolled Runoff (North) Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.027 af, Depth= 1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 11,366 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 885 98 Impervious Area 12,251 64 Weighted Average 11,366 92.78% Pervious Area 885 7.22% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.5 50 0.0400 0.18 0.5 75 0.0330 2.72 5.0 125 Total Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps P1 Uncontrolled Runoff (Street) P2 Runoff to Infiltration Trench P3 Uncontrolled Runoff (North) IT Proposed Infiltration Trench TRN TOTAL RUNOFF (NORTH) Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 4/22/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Proposed Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Printed 4/22/2021Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.237 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P1, P2, P3) 0.116 98 Impervious Area (P1, P2) 0.353 73 TOTAL AREA Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28"Proposed Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Printed 4/22/2021Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Uncontrolled Runoff (Street) Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 1,604 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B * 1,113 98 Impervious Area 2,717 76 Weighted Average 1,604 59.04% Pervious Area 1,113 40.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 50 0.0200 0.14 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" Summary for Subcatchment P2: Runoff to Infiltration Trench Runoff = 0.84 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.041 af, Depth= 1.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Area (sf) CN Description 8,419 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B * 3,932 98 Impervious Area 12,351 73 Weighted Average 8,419 68.16% Pervious Area 3,932 31.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.1 50 0.0300 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.5 95 0.0380 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 5.6 145 Total Summary for Subcatchment P3: Uncontrolled Runoff (North) Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 0.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28"Proposed Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Printed 4/22/2021Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 320 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 320 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond IT: Proposed Infiltration Trench Inflow Area = 0.284 ac, 31.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.73" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.84 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.041 af Outflow = 0.37 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Atten= 56%, Lag= 11.0 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af Primary = 0.36 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 874.55' @ 12.22 hrs Surf.Area= 1,055 sf Storage= 679 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 357.7 min ( 1,167.3 - 809.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 869.90' 1,373 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 869.90 180 72.0 0.0 0 0 180 873.90 180 72.0 40.0 288 288 468 874.00 351 90.0 100.0 26 314 700 874.50 970 135.0 100.0 317 631 1,508 875.00 2,065 200.0 100.0 742 1,373 3,243 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 874.50'15.0' long x 6.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.76 2.83 #2 Discarded 869.90'0.300 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=874.55' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.36 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=874.55' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.36 cfs @ 0.51 fps) Atlas 14 24-hr S0 10-yr Rainfall=4.28"Proposed Conditions - 5312 Halifax Ave Edina Printed 4/22/2021Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link TRN: TOTAL RUNOFF (NORTH) Inflow Area = 0.291 ac, 31.03% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.77" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.37 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af Primary = 0.37 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DATE: 4/22/2021 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 5312 Halifax 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 proposed survey, proposed stormwater management plan, and existing and proposed hydraulic modeling dated 3/26/21 and 4/22/21. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a new home. The request is for a variance for no basement. Easements No comment. Grading and Drainage This lot is located in and drains to a landlocked area and structural flooding issue. The landlocked basin overflows in the 1%-annual-chance flood event, but not in the 10%-annual chance flood event. Generally, the drainage areas a maintained. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater requirements include: (1) no increase in peak flood elevations for 10%-annual-chance flood event (NOAA Atlas 14, 10-year), i.e. no fill, rate and volume maintained; (2) provide volume control if adding more than 600 sf of new impervious; (3) demonstrate rate control to private property for the 10-year event. Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The 1%-annual-chance flood elevation is 878.3’. Thus, the lowest opening elevation is required at no less than 880.3’. The 10%-annual-chance flood elevation is 877.5’. Thus, the lowest floor elevation is required at no less than 879.5’. The proposed lowest opening (880.3’) and floor (880.63’) elevations meet these requirements. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to relocate the existing driveway entrance. A driveway entrance permit will be required. The street was reconstructed in 2015. Refer to standard plates 525, 540, and 542 for patching requirements. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served from Halifax Ave. 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 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A well is not likely located onsite (watermain installed 1946; structure built 1947). Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will be required. Retaining walls are proposed. If greater than 4-feet, the applicant will be required to submit drawings, cross- section, and calculations prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. Note, no access from the back ROW. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 5312 Halifax Lane April 15, 2 021 1 in = 75 f t / Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.D. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:P reliminary R ezoning from P C D-1, P lanned C ommercial Dis tric t-1 and AP D, Automobile P arking Dis tric t to P UD at 4917 Eden Avenue. 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: R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the project, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he P lanning Commission is asked to consider a proposal to re-develop 4917 Eden Avenue, which is currently occupied by a P erkins R estaurant. (S ee attached plans and narrative.) T he applicant would tear down the existing P erkins and office building and build a seven (7) story 208-unit apartment and 3,700 square foot restaurant. Twenty percent of the units would be for affordable housing for families earning 60% area median income (AM I) for the Twin C ities. P arking for the housing would be provided underneath the building with 277 stalls. T here would be 29 surface parking stalls on the west side of the site to serve the restaurant. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Staff Report Draft Ordinance - PUD-21 Site Location, Zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Height Traffic and Parking Study Staff Memo: Trans portation Planner Staff Memo: Fire & Building Staff Memo: Engineering/Sustainability Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative Proposed Building Elevations/Graphics Applicant Respons e to the 7 Guiding Principles Sustainability Questionnaire Grandview Development Framework Grandview Trans portation Plan Roof Plan Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 22 April 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Rezoning from PCD-1 and APD to PUD at 4917 Eden Avenue, Perkins VISITORS 27 CONTRIBUTORS 10 RESPONSES10 0 Registered 0 Unverified 10 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 10 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 07:44:42 am Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 07:44:42 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Suzanne Wortham-Ressemann Q2.Address 4600 W 58th St., Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment I think that the building design is attractive and well thought out, offering Edina a great opportunity to continue improving neighborhoods. I’m pleased to see another restaurant taking the place of Perkins, giving those who live near by, a place to walk to, gather and socialize. I feel it’s a move in the right direction. Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 08:27:35 am Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 08:27:35 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mary Jane Yue Q2.Address 6812 Gleason Road Q3.Comment I am on the NextDoor website and I am seeing so many comments from Edina residents upset over the development of so many new apartments, houses, high rises, and the latest being the Eden Avenue plan for Perkins after the restaurant moves out. There are so many concerns about too many apartments going up so quickly and one after another. I’m hoping that the City Council members will look at these comments on the NextDoor website and get an idea of how many people are upset over this, and I am one of them. Please let us know what we can do about it besides sharing our dislikes on NextDoor. Is there any way you can put it out for the residents to vote on. I know it’s a reach, but I think that the City Council needs to know what the residents are thinking. Thank you. Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 08:52:09 am Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 08:52:09 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Dana O'Connor Q2.Address 4602 Lakeview Drive Q3.Comment I am very opposed to the proposed development at the Perkins site. That is a small intersection used mostly be local residents, and traffic from schools. Addiing multi-level housing will overload that road and intersection. I'm assuming you want a stop light there? Sure, make more slow-down and traffic congestion. Why can we just not have single family dwellings as has existed since prob the 1930's??? This will be added traffic and just add more difficulty in getting around this area. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 13:04:18 pm Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 13:04:18 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name John Wald Q2.Address 4503 Oak Dr., Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment As someone who lives just south of the Edina Country Club golf course, about a half mile from the site, I think this looks like a good project. Here are my general comments, based on my quick, layperson’s review of the proposed plans: 1 ) The site is crying out for redevelopment and is appropriate for a multi-family residential building of this scale: it is on a freeway; it is near a relatively dense commercial area; and it is far away from any single-family residential neighborhoods. 2 ) The height of the proposed building, seven stories, seems appropriate for the site. 3) I am not concerned about traffic generated by the project. For one thing, I would guess that it will generate less traffic than the Perkins did pre-COVID, and for another, it is located near arteries that seem to have appropriate capacity (Highway 100 and 50th Street/Vernon Avenue). 4) I hope that in looking at the area near the site, the City is considering ways to make crossing Highway 100 easier, safer, and more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. Walking and biking on 50th Street/Vernon Avenue between the east and west sides of Highway 100 are treacherous and impracticable, and things are not much better on the existing Eden Avenue. I was not a fan of the Lid, but I did appreciate the desire to improve connections between the east and west sides of the City. I would love to be able to safely ride my bike to the Grandview area to do quick errands. Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 21, 2021 11:29:19 am Last Seen:Apr 21, 2021 11:29:19 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Bill Chrysler Q2.Address 5100 Wooddale Ave Q3.Comment April 21st, 2021 To: Edina Planning Commission RE: Rezoning of 4917 Eden Avenue Please accept these comments on behalf of Edina Country Club. Edina Country Club has been an integral part of the Edina Community since 1923. It serves as the center of the Country Club District and was one of the first residential developments in the city. Lots has changed both at the club and around the club in our 98-year history and Edina Country Club is a proponent of positive progress. As you are aware 4917 Eden Ave. (The Perkins Site) is directly adjacent to the golf course at Edina Country Club. In general terms, the Club is supportive of the direction of the proposed project. We understand the property is not currently being used to its full potential. We agree the property should be a residential development with limited retail/commercial space. We are not opposed to the property including a small restaurant/coffee shop but would oppose a larger commercial/retail presence. Constant traffic and commercial operations would be disruptive to people using the golf course. We do feel the developer is on the right track with the development and understand the need to rezone the property to PUD. The current owner of the property is also entitled to maximize their return on the investment they have made in Edina. The positives from our point of view are the thought and detail that have gone into the look and function of the property and the reputation of the developer for actively managing their properties to ensure the residents follow community rules and regulations. We were also very happy to see the developer rethought the setbacks on Wilson road to offer a green space buffer. We do ask these setbacks remain in the final approved plan. We do have a couple other concerns that we hope will be addressed during re-zoning process. 1. The height of the building(s) – This is our biggest concern as the property sits on a hill overlooking the Northwest corner of our golf course. 7 stories is going to have a very negative impact on the aesthetics of the golf course and a building of that height will cast shade over part of the golf course in the afternoons certain times of the year. While the golf course adds value to the development with great green space views, the development, as proposed, detracts from the value of the golf experience with a towering set of buildings dominating the skyline. We do like the approach of stepping back the upper stories but would ask that something closer to the 4 story limit the property is currently zoned for be seriously considered as part of the PUD. 2. The overall density of the project – 208 units feels like a lot for the services in the area. Both Edina Country Club and Interlachen Country Club are full and currently have waitlists, limiting our abilities to provide our services to the residents of the new development. If you have tried to get a table at the Hilltop on Friday night or coffee at the Starbucks across from OLG in the morning, there is always a substantial wait. There is also capacity at the schools, access to healthcare and many other considerations to be thought through. I don’t know what the right number is, but thoughtful consideration should be given before maximizing the density. Thank you for in advance for your thoughtful work to balance the needs of our growing community with the values and lifestyle expectations of the residents. I am happy to meet and discuss in more detail at your leisure. On Behalf of Edina Country Club, Bill Chrysler – General Manager Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 21, 2021 11:58:33 am Last Seen:Apr 21, 2021 11:58:33 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name John Potter Q2.Address 4617 Tower St Q3.Comment We do not need more high density, high rise residential development in Edina, given the substantial increase in such space over the past five years. And certainly not in a location that would be albatross on a hill on its own. Solve the old maintenance facility/bus depot scar first. But please do not create more zoning variances for a project that is 8x the current height and 5x the height of its nearest neighbor, the old school house. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 21, 2021 18:37:27 pm Last Seen:Apr 21, 2021 18:37:27 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Chase Sayles Q2.Address 5525 Concord Ave Q3.Comment I have been going to this Perkins for my entire life, it’s a pillar of our community and one of the only things that’s stayed as- is in Edina. Replacing it with ugly, expensive condos that seem to be everywhere now should be a criminal act. This is one of the only remaining places where local youth can gather and similar housing projects that have been built have not added anything into the community. This complex is not suitable for this neighborhood and adds nothing. Please do not approve this proposal. Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 21, 2021 19:21:25 pm Last Seen:Apr 21, 2021 19:21:25 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Roberta Castellano Q2.Address 4854 France Ave S Q3.Comment Reviewing the Public Notice on Edina’s website regarding the proposed redevelopment of Perkins (4917 Eden Ave.), the City states that public comments submitted through BetterTogether, and received by Noon on Thursday, April 22, 2021, will be included in the Agenda Packet for the Planning Commission’s (PC) April 28, 2021 Public Hearing. However, I confirmed with Community Development Director Cary Teague, that the City is not providing access to the Public Hearing materials until Friday, April 23, which is one day AFTER the BT submittal cut-off. Therefore, the public comment content of the PC Agenda Packet is being artificially constrained by the City’s withholding of data from the public, save for any persons who have insider connections. While some parameters are known and can be commented on prior to the full data release, the current situation is unacceptable. Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 21, 2021 20:34:26 pm Last Seen:Apr 21, 2021 20:34:26 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jeffrey Shlosberg Q2.Address 6304 Knoll Drive, Edina, MN 55436 Q3.Comment The architecture of the proposed building is cheap and trite. It does not befit the location, high on an elevated parcel, literally casting a shadow over the better architecture of City Hall. Edina deserves better design. I note that the building being replaced, the Perkins restaurant and offices, is NOT itself great architecture. But it sits low on the site, almost invisible from most elevations. This will rise high and be visible from a distance in every direction. If this building were situated in the Southdale area, I would have fewer objections. It would fit right in with some of the "army barracks" apartment buildings thrown up in recent years. But this site borders a residential area, is adjacent to the City's most important administrative building and should represent the best the City has to offer. Please send it back to the drawing board. Respondent No:10 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 22, 2021 08:50:09 am Last Seen:Apr 22, 2021 08:50:09 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Roberta Castellano Q2.Address 4854 France Ave S Q3.Comment I object to the housing unit density of the proposed redevelopment at the Perkins site (4917 Eden Ave.) due to the manner by which the City of Edina initially raised the permitted density to a maximum of 100 dwelling units per acre for this site, which actions included falsely informing the public as to the intended amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, falsely attesting to the public hearing content in the official Resolution, and falsely representing the hearing content to the Metropolitan Council. In the Comprehensive Plan, the land use category assigned to the Grandview District (guiding the District) is called "Mixed Use Center", abbreviated "MXC". In 2014, the City of Edina completed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, by which the residential housing unit density (“Density”) for the Grandview District MXC was set within a specified range of minimum 12 to maximum 30 dwelling units per acre (“du/acre”). In the summer of 2017, the City conducted public hearings regarding a combined request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for, and redevelopment of, the school bus garage site on Eden Ave., to construct a large apartment building, now known as the Avidor Senior Apartments, next to Jerry's Foods. In the published, public hearing notice (“published notice”), the City was required by Statute to inform the public of the purpose of the hearing. Even though the existing permitted Density was actually a maximum of 30 du/acre, the City falsely declared in the published notice that the current maximum was 75 du/acre. The City stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider a maximum Density of 105 du/acre. In the notice, regarding location, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment appeared to pertain only to the two parcels that were to be redeveloped, as requested by the developer, quote: "Trammell Crow Development is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase density on the MXC-Mixed Use Center from 75-units per acre to 105-units per acre and Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development to redevelop 5150 and 5220 Eden Avenue into a 6-story, 165-unit senior housing development." During both the Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings, the staff presentation was consistent with the published notice by reporting (falsely) a current maximum 75 du/acre. The requested Density was stated to be maximum 100 du/acre, which was slightly less than the 105 du/acre stipulated in the published no tice . When it came time to make a motion to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Commissioner Thorsen (Planning Commission@June 28, 2017) and Mayor Hovland (City Council@July 18, 2017) both stated that the Comprehensive Plan was to be amended, but neither of them gave an explicit, verbal declaration of precisely HOW it was to be amended. PC Thorsen (Quote:) “I move approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, um, as outlined in the staff memo, adding condition #9, that an agreement is worked out, uh, for a cross, uh, for crossing Eden Avenue, subject to approval of City Engineering.” (End quote.) Link queued to 1.24.43: https://youtu.be/myle7-udyl8?t=5083 Mayor Hovland (Quote:) "I would entertain, that we’ve got a, we’ve got a, three things we need to do tonight if we’re gonna do it, and I think we are, the way it sounds up here, the, on the dais. The first thing is we need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and that requires a super majority, a four-fifths vote. So is there a motion to adopt Resolution 2017-73, which is the Resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding density in what we call the M, MXC Mixed Use Center District.” (End quote.) Link queued to 3.10.04: https://youtu.be/VH1ETZFNJTU?t=11404. Through its Community Development Director Cary Teague, the City of Edina submitted to the Metropolitan Council a copy of the formal Resolution. Mayor Hovland had signed the Resolution, in which he falsely attested to the content of the public hearing process. The Resolution stipulated a density increase from the actual existing maximum of 30 du/acre to a new maximum of 100 du/acre, quote: “A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the density from 30 units per acre to 100 units per acre in the MXC- Mixed Use Center.” Regarding the matter of WHERE the Amendment was to apply, given that the bus garage site is located “in the MXC- Mixed Use Center”, the Resolution appeared to be consistent with the published notice, and, therefore, limited to the bus garage site. However, Community Development Director Teague convinced the Met Council staff that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment applied to the entire Grandview District (and beyond, but I will not address that here), and the Amendment was subsequently approved by the Met Council Board. And that is the story of how the Perkins site came to be guided with a maximum Density of 100 du/acre in the Comprehensive Plan. Understandably, the Met Council procedures did not require a copy of the published notice. The Met Council required a copy of the signed, official Resolution, which is signed after completing the City-Public process. Both the public and the Met Council should be able to expect the attestation to be accurate and truthful. Why has that not consistently been the case in the City of Edina? This is not the only example. The Planning Commission is asked to consider a proposal to re-develop 4917 Eden Avenue, which is currently occupied by a Perkins Restaurant and office building. (See attached plans and narrative.) The applicant would tear down the existing Perkins and office and build a seven (7) story 196-unit apartment and 3,700 square foot restaurant. The applicant has indicated a desire to reduce the number of units from 208 to 196. Twenty percent of the units would be for affordable housing for families earning 60% area median income (AMI) for the Twin Cities. Parking for the housing would be provided underneath the building with 277 stalls. There would be 29 surface parking stalls on the west side of the site to serve the restaurant. There would be 8 stalls on the east side of the building that could also be utilized. This site is impacted by the 2016 Grandview Transportation Plan. The Plan calls for a proposed roadway on this site that would accommodate a new exit ramp off 100 and a frontage road. (See attached pages from the Grandview Transportation Plan.) The applicant is proposing to dedicate that area to City of Edina in an easement for future road construction. The applicant has provided responses the seven guiding principles for development in the Grandview District. (See attached.) The request would require the following: 1. Rezoning from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District (the south parking lot is zoned APD) to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from setback, height, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is used to ensure that the affordable housing proposed in the project is included. The applicant has gone through the sketch plan process and has revised the plans to respond to comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Below is a list of some of the changes: April 28, 2021 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Preliminary Rezoning from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District (the south parking lot is zoned APD) to PUD at 4917 Eden Avenue. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Eliminated the 52,000 square foot office building. Added a restaurant/coffee shop to provide some mixed use on the site. This was recommended by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Proposed dedication of a roadway easement to accommodate a potential new off ramp from Highway 100. Provided responses to the seven guiding principles for development in the Grandview District. Attached is the city attorney’s “pyramid of discretion.” This project is within the “green” zone, meaning this is a legislative decision in which the City has significant discretion when reviewing this application. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Grange Hall/Park; zoned R-1, Single-dwelling Unit District, and guided Mixed-Use Center (20-100 units per acre). Easterly: Edina County Club; zoned R-1, Single-dwelling Unit District and public/semi-public. Southerly: Office building; zoned POD-1, Planned Office District, and guided Mixed-Use Center (20-100 units per acre). Westerly: Highway 100. Existing Site Features The subject property is 2.08 acres in size and contains a Perkins Restaurant and office building. Planning Guide Plan designation: Mixed Use Center (12-100 units per acre). Zoning: PCD-1, Planned Commercial District and APD, Automobile Parking District Seven Guiding Principles for Development The applicant has responded to the Seven Guiding Principles. (See attached responses.) The project would dedicate public space for a future off ramp from Highway 100 to help organize the future transportation system; the project introduces residential use to the site and returns a smaller restaurant to the area to enhance the economic viability; bicycling is encouraged; EV charging stations are provided in the site with a potential for more in the future; there would be green roofs, solar gardens, and sidewalks provided along the streets. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Parking Based on the proposal for a total of 196 residential units in the PCD, Planned Commercial District 196 parking stalls are required. The proposal is to provide 277 stalls under the building for residents. There would be 8 surface stalls for a total of 285, therefore, in compliance with City Code. For the 3,700 square foot restaurant, there would be 29 additional parking stalls on the west side of the building, and the 8 surface stalls would be available. There is room to add 4 more parking stalls if needed. The parking provided would allow for a 87-seat restaurant. Site Circulation/Traffic Vehicular access to the site for the restaurant would be off Eden Avenue and access to the apartments would be off Willson Road. A roadway easement would be dedicated to the City of Edina for future roadway improvements of a new access off Highway 100, which is recommended as part of the Grandview Transportation Plan. (See future roadway improvements recommended in the Transportation Plan.) Wenck/Stantec Consulting conducted a parking and traffic study. (See attached study.) The study concludes that the existing roadway system would support the project. The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development would have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements beyond those already planned by the City are needed. The study further concludes that there would be adequate parking provided to support the project. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site 31 overstory trees would be required. The applicant is proposing 94 overstory trees in the boulevards along the perimeter of the site and within the courtyard. (See attached landscape plan.) A full complement of understory shrubs and bushes are proposed. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined in their review memo. (See attached.) A developer’s agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks and utilities. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as they are the City’s review authority over the grading of the site. Building/Building Material The building materials would be a combination primarily brick and stone and glass, with metal panel and cement board siding accents. (See attached renderings.) STAFF REPORT Page 4 Mechanical Equipment No 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 of the development. Signage The signage allowed on the site would correspond to the use. The office uses would be subject to sign regulations of an office district; the retail uses would be subject to sign regulations of commercial districts; and the residential uses subject to the planned residential district. This would be written into the PUD. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the city and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the city to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the city's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails, or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist, or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the STAFF REPORT Page 5 city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. The applicant would be installing sidewalks along the streets. As recommended by engineering the sidewalks should be boulevard style to provide separation from the adjacent streets. See the attached memo from the transportation planner regarding the city’s Living Streets Policy. Some of the highlights and recommendations include: Proposed public sidewalks along Eden Ave and Wilson Rd should be 5’ wide (min.) with 5’ boulevards (min.) to improve user safety and comfort. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code Turning movements and travel routes for delivery vehicles should be reviewed by the applicant. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (additional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.) The site plan notes a bike room located in the upper-level underground parking garage. Staff recommends that this room be equipped to accommodate a minimum of one bike for every 10 residential units (21). It is also recommended that this room be relocated closer to the garage entrance and/or stairs and elevators. Staff recommends providing surface bike parking stalls at a rate of 1 for every 20 residential units (11) and 1 for every 5 restaurant seats (5, assuming capacity is capped at 87 based on provided vehicle parking). These parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing for surface and underground bike storage should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Staff recommends installing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for a minimum of 5% (20 stalls) of proposed parking in addition to wiring 10% (40 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. EV charging stations should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Install a sidewalk from the restaurant entrance and west side parking area to Eden Avenue for pedestrian access and safety. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 36-253 the following are the 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 STAFF REPORT Page 6 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; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for “Mixed Use Center,” which allows for residential and retail. The existing zoning on the site would also allow residential and retail uses. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property than existing. The project provides a mixture of uses on the site. The buildings would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. The apartment opens toward the streets as does the restaurant. The corner is designed to be a public “art plaza.” There would be no surface parking in front of the building as the current site does. The surface lot for the restaurant is STAFF REPORT Page 7 located on the west side of the building adjacent to Highway 100. It is located 100 feet from Eden Avenue. There would be a green roof and solar gardens. The proposed buildings would be a high-quality brick, stone, and glass. The design is influenced by nearby residents and commercial building. (See the attached building renderings and buildings that influenced the design.) Perhaps most importantly, twenty percent (20%) of the units (39 total) within this project would be provided for affordable housing, for families earning 60% area median income (AMI) for the Twin Cities. 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 this Chapter shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses are all consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Center. Uses contemplated within that area include: Primary uses are retail, office, service, multifamily residential and institutional uses. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages mixed-use development. Through the PUD rezoning, the multi-family housing would become a permitted use. 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; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Mixed-Use Center; the proposal includes mixed uses with residential and restaurant. 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; The proposed land uses include a mixture of uses retail and multi-family residential within the building. These uses are also allowed in the current zoning of the site. STAFF REPORT Page 8 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 mentioned, the uses allowed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The densities allowed would be specifically stated in the PUD Ordinance. The density proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The density is at the maximum; however, is justified given that 20% of the units would be for affordable housing. 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 table on the following page shows how the proposed new building would comply with the PCD-1 Zoning Ordinance Standards and the zoning standard in the new PUD-21 District. Please note that several of the city standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout would be improved by bringing the buildings up to the street, providing front door entries toward Eden and Wilson Avenue. The proposal includes improved sidewalks to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment along the street. The design of the buildings is of a high-quality brick and stone with large windows with a green roof and solar garden. The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space, reduction in surface parking, and an underground infiltration area. The project would also provide a future roadway easement for the potential future new off ramp from Highway 100. The setbacks below reflect the proposed change to the plans that shift the building 5 feet to the south to move the building further away from Eden Avenue as recommended by staff. The proposal would provide extra space for the sidewalk, landscaping and plaza area. STAFF REPORT Page 9 Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – Eden Avenue Front – Wilson Road Side – Highway 100 Side – South 35 feet or bldg. height – 76’ 35 feet or building height – 76’ 35 feet or building height – 76’ 25 feet 15 feet building 5 feet posts* (30 feet to curb) 15 feet* (35’ to curb) 100+ feet* 10 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 7 stories and 76 feet* Proximity to R-1, Single- family homes 4 times the building height 76-foot-tall building = 304-foot setback required 540 feet Density 20-100 units per acre (2.08 acres) 94 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0% 2.5%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit = 208 spaces required 3,700 s.f. restaurant (77 seats) 277 spaces 29 + 8 on east side, with room for more on west side if needed *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD…setbacks assume a 5- foot shift of the building to the south. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposal reasonable to justify PUD rezoning for this site? Yes. Staff does support the revised rezoning of the site, for the following reasons: 1. The location of this site in the Mixed-Use Center in the Grandview District. The property is Zoned PCD, Planned Commercial district. The PCD District allows restaurants and multifamily housing as a conditionally permitted use. Therefore, the uses proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Zoning. STAFF REPORT Page 10 2. The project would provide 20% of the units (39 unit) within the building for affordable housing for families earning 60% area median income (AMI) for the Twin Cities. These units would help the City of Edina achieve its goal with the Met Council of creating 1,804 units by the year 2030. 3. The project would provide a roadway easement for future roadway improvements per the Grandview Transportation Plan. 4. The proposed height of seven stories is reasonable for this site. To provide affordable housing within this project, the additional height is needed to create more market rate units to help absorb the cost of the affordable housing units. The building height overlay district limits this site to four stories. The nearest single-family home to this site is 540 feet to the north. Section 36-618 (6) of the City Code requires that buildings within the PCD District that are 7 stories tall, be setback 4 times the height of the building. The building would be 76 feet tall, therefore, a 304-foot setback is required. 5. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use Center and zoned PCD-1, which allows for retail and multi-family housing in a density range of 20-100 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to use the site as a mixed-use development including multi-family residential and a restaurant within the required density range. Project would meet the City’s affordable housing policy, by including the units in the residential building (39 units). The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property than existing. The design of the building is of a high-quality brick and stone with large windows with a green roof and solar garden. The building would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. The apartment opens toward the streets as does the restaurant. The corner is designed to be a public “art plaza.” There would be no surface parking in front of the building as the current site does. The surface lot for the restaurant is located on the west side of the building adjacent to Highway 100. 6. The proposed project would meet the following additional goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. “Multifamily. This land use is defined by the multiple unit building type where each individual unit does not have direct ground floor access to the exterior. Multifamily developments are concentrated primarily along the main traffic arteries and are generally located toward the edges of the city, often in proximity to retail business establishments. Concentrations of multifamily developments are found along York Avenue, France Avenue, Vernon Avenue, Lincoln Drive, and Cahill Road.” b. Per the Mixed-Use Land Use Description: “Primary uses: Retail, office, service, multifamily residential, and institutional uses. Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites.” c. “Mixed-use development allows for a savings in time and convenience for residents who choose to live in closer proximity to where they work and shop. Community STAFF REPORT Page 11 interest is served by this type of development, as the city is able to integrate additional residences and businesses more efficiently within existing city infrastructure. Pedestrian amenities and proximity of uses encourage more trips to be made by foot or bike, reducing the increase of congestion that can otherwise result from conventional development of separated land uses.” d. “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. On existing auto-oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. e. “Support the development of mixed-use districts that provide a variety of living opportunities within a walkable and livable area.” Staff Recommendation Options for Consideration & Recommendation A case can be made for approval and denial of this project. Below are options for the planning commission and city council to consider for approval and denial: Approval Recommend the City Council approve the request for Preliminary Rezoning of the site from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District to PUD-21, Planned Unit District – 21. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses, and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Zoning on the site. 2. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The PUD zoning would: a. 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 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. STAFF REPORT Page 12 d. Project is of high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. e. Maintains the efficiency of public streets and utilities. f. Provides a mixture of land uses within the development. g. Project would meet the City’s affordable housing policy. 3. The PUD would ensure that the development proposed would be the only building that would be allowed on the site unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. The PUD would ensure 20% of the units within the building would be for affordable housing. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. The 39 affordable housing units would help the City of Edina achieve its goal with the Met Council of creating 1,804 units by the year 2030. b. A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern present in much of the city will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. i. Provide visual screening and privacy to buffer cars from people, provide visual relief and allow stormwater infiltration in parking lots. ii. Evaluate current parking standards in order to encourage shared parking and minimize the visual impact of surface parking. iii. Landscaping is essential to screen parking areas, buffer adjacent residential uses and create a pedestrian-friendly environment along streets. c. Encourage successful mixed-use development. d. Create and maintain housing options that serve a diverse range of ages, household types, and economic situations. e. Ensure that public realm design respects community character, supports of commercial and mixed-use development, promotes community identity, and creates high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. f. Multifamily. This land use is defined by the multiple unit building type where each individual unit does not have direct ground floor access to the exterior. Multifamily developments are concentrated primarily along the main traffic arteries and are generally located toward the edges of the city, often in proximity to retail business establishments. Concentrations of multifamily developments are found along York Avenue, France Avenue, Vernon Avenue, Lincoln Drive, and Cahill Road. STAFF REPORT Page 13 g. Per the Mixed-Use Land Use Description: “Primary uses: Retail, office, service, multifamily residential, and institutional uses. Vertical mixed-use should be encouraged and may be required on larger sites.” h. “Mixed-use development allows for a savings in time and convenience for residents who choose to live in closer proximity to where they work and shop. Community interest is served by this type of development, as the city is able to integrate additional residences and businesses more efficiently within existing city infrastructure. Pedestrian amenities and proximity of uses encourage more trips to be made by foot or bike, reducing the increase of congestion that can otherwise result from conventional development of separated land uses.” i. “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. On existing auto-oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. j. “Support the development of mixed-use districts that provide a variety of living opportunities within a walkable and livable area.” 6. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Wenck Consulting conducted a traffic and parking impact study and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. 7. The proposed height of seven stories is reasonable for this site. To provide affordable housing within this project, the additional height is needed to create more market rate units to help absorb the cost of the affordable housing units. The building height overlay district limits this site to four stories. The nearest single-family home to this site is 540 feet to the north. Section 36-618 (6) of the City Code requires that buildings within the PCD District that are 7 stories tall, be setback 4 times the height of the building. The building would be 76 feet tall, therefore, a 304-foot setback is required. 8. The proposed uses would be an upgrade to the current development on the site. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated March 12, 2021. 2. The Final Plans should include a shift of the building/project 5 feet to the south. 3. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be STAFF REPORT Page 14 submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 4. Provision of code compliant bike racks for each use near the building entrances. Proposed bike parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) 5. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 6. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 7. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 8. A Developer’s Agreement/Site Improvement Plan Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 9. The project must conform to the City’s affordable housing policy. The project shall provide 20% of the units (39 unit) within the building for affordable housing for families earning 60% area median income (AMI) for the Twin Cities. 10. Compliance with all the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated April 21, 2021 and the transportation engineer memo dated April 21, 2021. 11. Compliance with the Wenck Consulting Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. 12. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 13. Dedication of public access easements of the east-west and north-south sidewalks and drive- aisles through the site and sidewalks around the perimeter of the site including an easement over the future extension of the north-south internal street and sidewalk on the Bank site. 14. Provision of a green roof and solar garden as shown on the building renderings. 15. Compliance with all the conditions outlined in the fire marshal and building official’s memo dated April 22, 2021. 16. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must demonstrate minimal impact to pedestrian and vehicle movement. 17. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. STAFF REPORT Page 15 18. Provide the necessary easement for potential highway off-ramp along the westerly property line. 19. Driveway Entrance permit required for entrance reconstruction. Driveway on Wilson Road shall be at least 50-feet from the intersection with Eden Ave per City Code. 20. Maintenance of sidewalks and streets internal to the site to be responsibility of property owner. Maintenance of sidewalks on Eden Ave and Wilson Road will be by the City. City snowplowing operations are 5-feet wide on these sidewalks. If owner wants a wider path, this would be the responsibility of the owner. 21. Install a sidewalk from the restaurant entrance and west side parking area to Eden Avenue for pedestrian access and safety. Denial Recommend the City Council deny the request for Preliminary Rezoning of the site from PCD-1, Planned Commercial District-1 and APD, Automobile Parking District to PUD-21, Planned Unit District – 21. Denial is based on the following findings: Denial is based on the following findings: 1. Does not adequately address the Seven Guiding Principles of the Grandview District. 2. The proposed height and density are not reasonable for the site. The maximum height for the property is four stories and 24 feet. 3. The proposal does not meet the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The proposal does not meet 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; STAFF REPORT Page 16 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; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions listed above. Deadline for a City decision: July 21, 2021 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION MAY 18, 2021 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD PUD-21, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-21, AT 4719 EDEN AVENUE The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to add the following: Sec. 36-505 Planned Unit Development District-21 (PUD-21) – 4719 Eden Avenue (a) Legal description: Tract A and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1501 Hennepin County Minnesota. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re-development plans, including the master development plan for the site received by the City on ___________ except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2021-___ on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: All uses allowed in the PCD-1 Zoning District Multifamily Residential (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-1 Zoning District. All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-1 Zoning District (e) Conditional Uses: None Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 2 (f) Development Standards. In addition to the development standards per the PCD- 1 Zoning District, the following shall apply: Standard Building Setbacks Front – Eden Avenue Front – Wilson Road Side – Highway 100 Side – South 15 feet building 5 feet posts (30 feet to curb) 15 feet (35’ to curb) 100+ feet 10 feet Building Height 7 stories and 76 feet Proximity to R-1, Single- family homes 540 feet Density 94 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.5% Parking 277 spaces 29 + 8 on east side, with room for more on west side if needed (g) Signs shall be regulated per the PCD-1 Zoning District for the retail uses, and PRD, for the residential uses. (h) The residential housing on the site shall include 20% of all the dwelling units to meet the City’s definition of affordable housing. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Sharon Allison, 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 _______, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of ____________, 2021. ________________________________ City Clerk EdinaMN.gov 1 8 Site EdinaMN.gov 2 Site EdinaMN.gov 3 Site File #227702673 April 19, 2021 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Traffic and Parking Study for 4917 Eden Avenue in Edina, MN April 2021 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 PARKING ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 6-1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 7-1 8.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 8-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN ................................................................................ 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-4 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .......................................... 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ........................................... 4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM LOS RESULTS ...................................................... 5-7 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM LOS RESULTS ...................................................... 5-8 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. __________________________________ DATE: April 19, 2021 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 April 2021 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 4917 Eden Avenue Edina, MN. The project site is located on the south side of Eden Avenue west of Willson Road. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a Perkins restaurant, office space, and a parking lot. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • Grange Road/TH 100 northbound ramps • Arcadia Avenue/TH 100 southbound off ramp • Eden Avenue/W 50th Street • W 50th Street/Dale Drive • W 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road • Eden Avenue/Grange Road/Willson Road • Grange Road/W 50th Street • Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/TH 100 southbound ramp Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 208 dwelling units. The building will also include 3,700 square feet of restaurant space on the first floor. The project includes 292 underground parking stalls and 37 surface stalls. As shown in the site plan, one access point is provided on Eden Avenue and three access points are provided on Willson Road. The project is expected to be completed in 2023. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to add 57 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 88 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 1,190 net trips daily. Net trips account for new trips generated by the development and trips eliminated by removal of the existing Perkins restaurant and office space. • The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements beyond those already planned by the City are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the prop osed project. • The residential portion of the development without the restaurant would generate fewer weekday trips than the existing restaurant and office uses during the a.m. peak hour, the p.m. peak hour, and on a daily basis. • Traffic volume data collected in 2019 for previous studies in this area was used whenever possible to avoid traffic volume reductions that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacts. However, some intersections included in the study did April 2021 1-2 not have previous data and therefore new data was collected. This data was carefully reviewed and adjusted using data from nearby intersections to account for pandemic related traffic volume reductions. This process resulted in reasonable estimates for the weekday peak hours that would occur under non-pandemic conditions. • Under both existing and future conditions at the 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access intersection, the northbound left turn from City Hall operates at LOS F and the southbound movements from Dale Drive operate at LOS E. At the 50 th Street/Sunnyslope Road intersection, the southbound movements operate at LOS E in 2021 and LOS F in 2024 under both scenarios during the p.m. peak hour. While not desirable, minor street stop approaches often experience delay when accessing a major street during peak traffic periods. In this case, the minor approach volumes are very low compared to the major street volume resulting in acceptable levels of service for the overall intersection. • Under existing all-way stop conditions at the Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue intersection, the eastbound through/right turn movement operates at LOS E. This intersection is scheduled to be reconstructed with a roundabout in 2022. Under roundabout control, all movements operate at LOS A. • Under existing and future conditions at the Grange Road/TH 100 ramps intersection, the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E under existing and future conditions during the p.m. peak hour. Additional review of vehicle queue lengths for this movement indicates adequate space exists on the exit ramp to accommodate the queue without interfering with traffic operation s on TH 100. • Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on Grange Road from Eden Avenue to 50th Street and on 50th Street/Vernon Avenue to Eden Avenue. Future plans for this area also include a buffered bike lane on Vernon Avenue/50th Street and Eden Avenue. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. • The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents. • The proposed number of parking spaces can accommodate the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. • The project owner is encouraged to implement Travel Demand Management strategies for this site with the goal of reducing vehicular trips during peak hours and reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Potential strategies for this site include: o Providing maps that show the area bus routes, bus schedules, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. o Providing charging stations for electric vehicles in the resident parking areas. o Providing long-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. o Providing short-term bicycle parking spaces for restaurant patrons. o Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. April 2021 1-3 • A planning level review of a future new TH 100 exit ramp at Eden Avenue and frontage road on the east side of TH 100 was completed. The review indicates traffic volume levels on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be similar to existing levels since the same TH 100 access movements would still exist. Traffic volumes at the new intersections on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be at a level requiring either traffic signal or roundabout control. • The proposed project includes an access onto Eden Avenue for the restaurant parking. This access may need to be converted to a right in/right out access in the future when the new exit ramp and frontage road are constructed. The access would likely be too close to the new exit ramp to allow for full access t o continue. April 2021 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 4917 Eden Avenue Edina, MN. The project site is located on the south side of Eden Avenue west of Willson Road. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a Perkins restaurant, office space, and a parking lot. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the propo sed development at the following intersections: • Grange Road/TH 100 northbound ramps • Arcadia Avenue/TH 100 southbound off ramp • Eden Avenue/W 50th Street • W 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access • W 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road • Eden Avenue/Grange Road/Willson Road • Grange Road/W 50th Street • Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/TH 100 southbound ramp Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 208 dwelling units. The building will also include 3,700 square feet of restaurant space on the first floor. The project includes 292 underground parking stalls and 37 surface stalls. As shown in the site plan, one access point is provided on Eden Avenue and three access points are provided on Willson Road. The project is expected to be completed in 2023. The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. April 2021 2-2 April 2021 2-3 April 2021 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site is currently occupied by a Perkins restaurant and office space. The site is bounded by Eden Avenue on the north, Willson Road to the east, an office building to the south, and TH 100 to the west. Near the site location, Eden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway. Arcadia Avenue is a north/south roadway that connects Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue on the west side of TH 100. Grange Road is a north/south roadway that connects Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue on the east side of TH 100. Vernon Avenue is a four-lane east/west roadway that changes to 50th Street at Grange Road. The posted speed limit on all streets in the study area is 30 miles per hour. Existing conditions at the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Vernon Avenue/Arcadia Avenue This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the northbound Arcadia Avenue approach. The eastbound approach provides one through/right turn lane and two through lanes. The westbound approach provides two through lanes. The northbound approach provides one right turn lane. All northbound traffic on Arcadia Avenue must turn right onto Vernon Avenue. Vernon Avenue/TH 100 southbound ramp This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides one right turn lane and two through lanes. The westbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one through lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn lane, one shared left turn/through lane, and one channelized right turn lane. A striped crosswalk is provided on the north approach. 50th Street/Grange Road This three-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The eastbound approach provides one through/right turn lane and one through lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one through lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one right turn lane. A striped crosswalk is provided on the east leg of the intersection. 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access This four-way intersection is controlled with a stop signs on the northbound City Hall access approach and the southbound Dale Drive approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/through lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The westbound approach provides left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. April 2021 3-2 50th Street/Eden Avenue This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the northbound Eden Avenue approach. The eastbound approach provides one through/right turn lane and one through lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane and two through lanes. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the southbound Sunnyslope Road approach. The eastbound approach provides one through/left turn lane and one through lane. The westbound approach provides one through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on all approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. A striped crosswalk is provided on the south leg. This intersection is planned to be reconstructed with a roundabout in 2022. Eden Avenue/Grange Road/Willson Road This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on all approaches. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one channelized right turn lane. Grange Road/TH 100 northbound ramps This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastb ound and westbound approaches. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The west leg of the intersection serves as entrance and exit ramps to northbound TH 100. The east leg serves as right in/right out access for City Hall. Arcadia Avenue/TH 100 southbound off ramp This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound approach. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane and one right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one through lane. The east leg provi des access from the southbound TH 100 entrance ramp. April 2021 3-3 Traffic Volume Data Turn movement data for the following intersections was collected during the weekday a.m. (7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in March 2021: • Grange Road/TH 100 northbound ramps • Arcadia Avenue/TH 100 southbound off ramp • Eden Avenue/W 50th Street • W 50th Street/Dale Drive • W 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road Existing turn movement data previously collected for other studies in the area was obtained from City staff for the following intersections: • Eden Avenue/Grange Road/Willson Road • Grange Road/W 50th Street • Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/Arcadia Avenue • Vernon Avenue/TH 100 southbound ramp April 2021 3-4 April 2021 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2024. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2021 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2024 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2024 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on both recent growth experienced near the site and projected growth due to additional development in the area. • 2024 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2024 No-Build volumes to determine 2024 Build volumes. Estimation of Existing Volumes Due to COVID-19 Impacts The impacts of COVID-19 have resulted in significant reductions in traffic volumes due to changes in work and travel habits. Traffic volume data collected for studies completed prior to the pandemic was used to adjust the existing counts, resulting in reasonable estimates for the weekday peak hours that would occur under non-pandemic conditions. These volumes were used for the traffic forecasts presented in this report. Trip Generation for Proposed Project Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed development were calculated based on data presented in the tenth edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The resultant trip generation esti mates are shown in Table 4-1. April 2021 4-2 Table 4-1 Trip Generation for Proposed Project and Existing Uses Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Proposed uses Apartments 208 DU 19 56 75 56 36 92 1132 Fast Food Restaurant w/o drive-thru 3,700 SF 56 37 93 52 53 105 1281 Subtotal 75 93 168 108 89 197 2413 Existing uses to be removed Sit-down restaurant 10,073 SF 55 45 100 61 37 98 1130 Office 9,653 SF 9 2 11 2 9 11 93 Subtotal 64 47 111 63 46 109 1223 Total net trips +11 +46 +57 +45 +43 +88 +1190 DU=dwelling unit, SF=square feet As shown, the project adds 57 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 88 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 1,190 net trips daily. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 30 percent to/from the north on TH 100 • 30 percent to/from the south on TH 100 • 20 percent to/from the east on 50th Street • 10 percent to/from the west on Eden Avenue • 5 percent to/from the west on Interlochen Boulevard • 5 percent to/from the south on Willson Road Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figures 4 and 5. April 2021 4-3 April 2021 4-4 April 2021 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. April 2021 5-2 The LOS results for the study intersections are shown in Figures 5 and 6 and are discussed below. Vernon Avenue/Arcadia Avenue (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Vernon Avenue/TH 100 southbound ramp (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. 50th Street/Grange Road (traffic signal control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better except the northbound left turn and the southbound movements. The northbound left turn operates at LOS F and the southbound movements operate at LOS E under all scenarios. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better except the northbound left turn and the southbound movements. The northbound left turn operates at LOS F and the southbound movements operate at LOS E under all scenarios. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. 50th Street/Eden Avenue (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. April 2021 5-3 During the p.m. peak hour under 2021 conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. Under 2024 No-Build and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2020, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better except the southbound movements. The northbound left turn operates at LOS E in 2021 and LOS F in 2024. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue (existing all-way stop control, future roundabout control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021 conditions, all movements except the eastbound through/right turn movement operate at LOS D or better. The eastbound through/right turn movement operates at LOS E. The overall intersection operates at LOS D in 20 21. Under 2024 No-Build and 2024 Build conditions with roundabout control, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all 2024 scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021 conditions, all movements except the eastbound through/right turn movement operate at LOS D or better. The eastbound through/right turn movement operates at LOS E. The overall intersection operates at LOS D in 2021. Under 2024 No-Build and 2024 Build conditions with roundabout control, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all 2024 scenarios. Eden Avenue/Grange Road/Willson Road (all-way stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. Grange Road/TH 100 northbound ramps (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better except the eastbound left turn. The eastbound left turn operates at LOS E under all scenarios. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. April 2021 5-4 Arcadia Avenue/TH 100 southbound off ramp (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2021, 2024 No-Build, and 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Willson Road/development access (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Eden Avenue/development access (minor street stop control) During the a.m. peak hour under 2024 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under 2024 Build conditions, all movements at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Overall Traffic Impact The net number of trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. The net trips account for new trips generated by the development and trips eliminated by removal of the existing Perkins restaurant and office space. No improvements beyond those already planned by the City are needed at the subject intersections to accom modate the proposed project. The traffic analysis identifies the following intersections that experience level of service E of F for individual movements under both existing and future conditions: • 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access • 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road • Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue • Grange Road/TH 100 ramps At the 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access intersection, the northbound left turn from City Hall operates at LOS F and the southbound movements from Dale Drive operate at L OS E. At the 50th Street/Sunnyslope Road intersection, the southbound movements operate at LOS E in 2021 and LOS F in 2024 under both scenarios during the p.m. peak hour. While not desirable, minor street stop approaches often experience delay when acces sing a major street during peak traffic periods. The minor street movements must wait for an acceptable gap in traffic, resulting in additional delay and poor levels of service. In this case, the minor approach volumes are very low compared to the major street volume resulting in acceptable levels of service for the overall intersection. April 2021 5-5 At the Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue intersection, the eastbound through/right turn movement operates at LOS E under existing all-way stop conditions. As noted earlier, this intersection is scheduled to be reconstructed with a roundabout in 2022. Under roundabout control, all movements operate at LOS A. At the Grange Road/TH 100 ramps intersection, the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E under existing and future conditions during the p.m. peak hour. Additional review of the expected vehicle queue lengths for this movement indicates adequate space exists on the exit ramp to accommodate the queue without interfering with traffic operations on TH 100. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Under existing conditions, sidewalk is provided both sides of Eden Avenue and on the west side of Willson Road. No sidewalk is provided on Grange Road. Sidewalk is provided on the entire east side of Arcadia Avenue and on the west side from the mid-way point to Vernon Avenue. Sidewalk is provided on the north side of Vernon Avenue and 50th Street through the study area. Sidewalk is provided on the south side of 50 th Street from City Hall to the east. Bicycles are allowed on all the surrounding streets. Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on Grange Road from Eden Avenue to 50th Street and on 50th Street/Vernon Avenue to Eden Avenue. Future plans for this area also include a buffered bike lane on Vernon Avenue/50th Street and Eden Avenue. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. The area near the project site is attractive for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. City Hall on the east side of TH 100 and the retail uses on the west side of TH 100 are popular destinations for the surrounding neighborhoods. The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents. Transit Facilities The subject site presently is served by the Metro Transit bus route 46 on 50th Street. Bus stops exist on 50th Street between Grange Road and Dale Drive/City Hall access. Potential Travel Demand Management Measures The project owner is encouraged to implement Travel Demand Management strategies for this site with the goal of reducing vehicular trips during peak hours and reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Potential strategies for this site include: • Providing maps that show the area bus routes, light rail and bus schedules, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. • Providing charging stations for electric vehicles in the resident parking areas. • Providing long-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. • Providing short-term bicycle parking spaces for restaurant patrons. • Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. April 2021 5-6 Impacts of a Future New Exit Ramp Location and Frontage Road As shown in the Grandview District plan, future plans for this area include revisions to the TH 100 access ramp locations and creating a new frontage road between Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue. This would allow for the removal of the entrance and exit ramps that currently access Grange Road at the City Hall access location. This revision would create a new intersection on Eden Avenue at the exit ramp location, which would be located immediately west of the proposed project site. In addition, a new intersection would be created on Vernon Avenue at the location of the existing northbound TH 100 entrance ramp. These revisions would result in traffic being shifted away Grange Road onto the new frontage road and intersections on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue. Traffic volume levels on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be similar to existing levels since the same TH 100 access movements would still exist. Traffic volumes at the new intersections on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be at a level requiring either traffic signal or roundabout control. The proposed project includes an access onto Eden Avenue for the restaurant parking. This access may need to be converted to a right in/right out access in the future when the new exit ramp and frontage road are constructed. The access would likely be too close to the new exit ramp to allow for full access to continue. April 2021 5-7 April 2021 5-8 April 2021 6-1 6.0 Parking Analysis As described earlier, the project includes 292 underground parking stalls and 37 surface stalls for a total of 329 stalls on site. The proposed amount of parking was compared to industry standards to determine adequacy. Parking data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was used to determine the expected parking demand for the proposed land uses. Data provided in the ITE publication Parking Generation, 5th Edition, indicates the various proposed uses peak at different times during the day. The ITE data was adjusted to account for the expected modal split for the site. Based on the ITE data, the peak weekday parking demand for the overall site occurs between 6 am and 8 am. The peak parking demand during that time period is 275 spaces. The 329 spaces provided can accommodate the expected peak parking demand. April 2021 7-1 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to add 57 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 88 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 1,190 net trips daily. Net trips account for new trips generated by the development and trips eliminated by removal of the existing Perkins restaurant and office space. • The net trips added to the roadway system by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements beyond those already planned by the City are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the prop osed project. • The residential portion of the development without the restaurant would generate fewer weekday trips than the existing restaurant and office uses during the a.m. peak hour, the p.m. peak hour, and on a daily basis. • Traffic volume data collected in 2019 for previous studies in this area was used whenever possible to avoid traffic volume reductions that have occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacts. However, some intersections included in the study did not have previous data and therefore new data was collected. This data was carefully reviewed and adjusted using data from nearby intersections to account for pandemic related traffic volume reductions. This process resulted in reasonable estimates for the weekday peak hours that would occur under non-pandemic conditions. • Under both existing and future conditions at the 50th Street/Dale Drive/City Hall access intersection, the northbound left turn from City Hall operates at LOS F and the southbound movements from Dale Drive operate at LOS E. At the 50 th Street/Sunnyslope Road intersection, the southbound movements operate at LOS E in 2021 and LOS F in 2024 under both scenarios during the p.m. peak hour. While not desirable, minor street stop approaches often experience delay when accessing a major street during peak traffic periods. In this case, the minor approach volumes are very low compared to the major street volume resulting in acceptable levels of service for the overall intersection. • Under existing all-way stop conditions at the Eden Avenue/Normandale Road/Arcadia Avenue intersection, the eastbound through/right turn movement operates at LOS E. This intersection is scheduled to be reconstructed with a roundabout in 2022. Under roundabout control, all movements operate at LOS A. • Under existing and future conditions at the Grange Road/TH 100 ramps intersection, the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E under existing and future conditions during the p.m. peak hour. Additional review of vehicle queue lengths for this movement indicates adequate space exists on the exit ramp to accommodate the queue without interfering with traffic operation s on TH 100. April 2021 7-2 • Future plans for this area include a new primary sidewalk on Grange Road from Eden Avenue to 50th Street and on 50th Street/Vernon Avenue to Eden Avenue. Future plans for this area also include a buffered bike lane on Vernon Avenue/50th Street and Eden Avenue. The proposed project will benefit from the existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities in this area. • The project owner is encouraged to provide bicycle parking spaces to promote bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents within the building and outside racks for short-term parking are recommended. The provision of a bicycle maintenance station will also help encourage bicycle use by residents. • The proposed number of parking spaces can accommodate the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. • The project owner is encouraged to implement Travel Demand Management strategies for this site with the goal of reducing vehicular trips during peak hours and reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Potential strategies for this site include: o Providing maps that show the area bus routes, bus schedules, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. o Providing charging stations for electric vehicles in the resident parking areas. o Providing long-term bicycle parking spaces for apartment residents. o Providing short-term bicycle parking spaces for restaurant patrons. o Offering a pre-paid Metro Transit Go-To Card to all new residents. • A planning level review of a future new TH 100 exit ramp at Eden Avenue and frontage road on the east side of TH 100 was completed. The review indicates traffic volume levels on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be similar to existing levels since the same TH 100 access movements would still exist. Traffic volumes at the new intersections on Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue would likely be at a level requiring either traffic signal or roundabout control. • The proposed project includes an access onto Eden Avenue for the restaurant parking. This access may need to be converted to a right in/right out access in the future when the new exit ramp and frontage road are constructed. The access would likely be too close to the new exit ramp to allow for full access t o continue. April 2021 8-1 8.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 808 31 0 758 0 76 Future Vol, veh/h 808 31 0 758 0 76 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 878 34 0 824 0 83 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 439 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 566 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 566 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 566 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.146 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 670 214 208 537 0 0 0 0 357 61 221 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 670 214 208 537 0 0 0 0 357 61 221 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 728 233 226 584 0 435 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1914 854 336 943 0 1106 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 422 1837 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 728 233 282 528 0 435 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 557 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.1 4.7 22.4 13.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.1 4.7 29.4 13.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1914 854 409 871 0 1106 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.38 0.27 0.69 0.61 0.00 0.39 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1938 864 413 882 0 1106 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.0 7.4 15.5 9.4 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.2 4.8 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.2 1.3 3.6 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.1 7.6 20.3 10.6 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A C B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 961 810 435 A Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 14.0 17.2 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 23.0 36.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 7.7 31.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.2 1.2 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 633 73 8 1220 104 127 Future Volume (veh/h) 633 73 8 1220 104 127 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 688 79 9 1326 113 138 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1923 221 108 2079 255 227 Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 3306 369 5 3558 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 380 387 715 620 113 138 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1804 1861 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 3.8 0.0 8.7 2.0 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 3.8 8.7 8.7 2.0 2.8 Prop In Lane 0.20 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1064 1080 1219 968 255 227 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.36 0.59 0.64 0.44 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1678 1703 1852 1527 925 823 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.6 3.6 4.5 4.6 13.7 14.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.8 3.8 5.0 5.3 14.9 16.6 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 767 1335 251 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.1 15.8 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 25.4 25.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 32.9 32.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 5.8 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 5.3 10.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.8 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 699 42 12 1206 2 2 1 3 5 1 20 Future Vol, veh/h 19 699 42 12 1206 2 2 1 3 5 1 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 760 46 13 1311 2 2 1 3 5 1 22 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1313 0 0 806 0 0 1484 2141 380 1761 2186 657 Stage 1 - - - - - - 802 802 - 1338 1338 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 682 1339 - 423 848 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 523 - - 814 - - 87 48 618 54 45 407 Stage 1 - - - - - - 344 395 - 161 220 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 406 220 - 579 376 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 523 - - 814 - - 73 42 618 48 39 407 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 73 42 - 48 39 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 319 366 - 149 207 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 360 207 - 532 349 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0.4 39.6 35.7 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 73 140 523 - - 814 - - 145 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.031 0.039 - - 0.016 - - 0.195 HCM Control Delay (s) 55.8 31.5 12.2 0.4 - 9.5 0.3 - 35.7 HCM Lane LOS F D B A - A A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.7 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 703 4 203 1220 1 156 Future Vol, veh/h 703 4 203 1220 1 156 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 764 4 221 1326 1 170 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 768 0 1871 384 Stage 1 - - - - 766 - Stage 2 - - - - 1105 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 842 - 64 614 Stage 1 - - - - 419 - Stage 2 - - - - 279 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 842 - 47 614 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 47 - Stage 1 - - - - 419 - Stage 2 - - - - 206 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 14 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 570 - - 842 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.299 - - 0.262 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14 - - 10.8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - - 1.1 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 858 1414 5 1 6 Future Vol, veh/h 1 858 1414 5 1 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 933 1537 5 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1542 0 - 0 2009 771 Stage 1 - - - - 1540 - Stage 2 - - - - 469 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 427 - - - 51 343 Stage 1 - - - - 163 - Stage 2 - - - - 596 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 427 - - - 51 343 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 51 - Stage 1 - - - - 162 - Stage 2 - - - - 596 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 24.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 427 - - - 189 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.04 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 0 - - 24.8 HCM Lane LOS B A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 18 135 0 0 140 Future Vol, veh/h 51 18 135 0 0 140 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 55 20 147 0 0 152 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 299 147 0 - - - Stage 1 147 - - - - - Stage 2 152 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 692 900 - 0 0 - Stage 1 880 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 876 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 692 900 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 692 - - - - - Stage 1 880 - - - - - Stage 2 876 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.4 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 736 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.102 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.4 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 183 0 288 0 0 4 96 44 54 0 76 5 Future Vol, veh/h 183 0 288 0 0 4 96 44 54 0 76 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 199 0 313 0 0 4 104 48 59 0 83 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 374 401 86 528 374 78 88 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 86 86 - 286 286 - - - - - - - Stage 2 288 315 - 242 88 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 583 538 973 461 557 983 1508 - - 0 - - Stage 1 922 824 - 721 675 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 720 656 - 762 822 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 547 498 973 295 516 983 1508 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 547 498 - 295 516 - - - - - - - Stage 1 854 824 - 668 625 - - - - - - - Stage 2 664 607 - 517 822 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 8.7 3.7 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1508 - - 547 973 983 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 - - 0.364 0.322 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 15.3 10.4 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.7 1.4 0 - - HCM 6th AWSC 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.7 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 371 47 44 284 86 63 27 56 66 44 109 Future Vol, veh/h 40 371 47 44 284 86 63 27 56 66 44 109 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 403 51 48 309 93 68 29 61 72 48 118 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 35.9 26.4 14.3 16.3 HCM LOS E D B C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 43% 100% 0% 100% 0% 30% Vol Thru, % 18% 0% 89% 0% 77% 20% Vol Right, % 38% 0% 11% 0% 23% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 146 40 418 44 370 219 LT Vol 63 40 0 44 0 66 Through Vol 27 0 371 0 284 44 RT Vol 56 0 47 0 86 109 Lane Flow Rate 159 43 454 48 402 238 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.334 0.089 0.858 0.099 0.76 0.468 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.58 7.389 6.796 7.487 6.806 7.083 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 478 482 532 476 527 505 Service Time 5.58 5.176 4.582 5.277 4.597 5.183 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.333 0.089 0.853 0.101 0.763 0.471 HCM Control Delay 14.3 10.9 38.3 11.1 28.2 16.3 HCM Lane LOS B B E B D C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 0.3 9.1 0.3 6.7 2.5 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 136 105 85 44 270 3 96 55 41 35 119 210 Future Vol, veh/h 136 105 85 44 270 3 96 55 41 35 119 210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 148 114 92 48 293 3 104 60 45 38 129 228 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 14.6 26.5 17.4 14.6 HCM LOS B D C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 50% 100% 0% 14% 23% 0% Vol Thru, % 29% 0% 55% 85% 77% 0% Vol Right, % 21% 0% 45% 1% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 192 136 190 317 154 210 LT Vol 96 136 0 44 35 0 Through Vol 55 0 105 270 119 0 RT Vol 41 0 85 3 0 210 Lane Flow Rate 209 148 207 345 167 228 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.456 0.326 0.407 0.707 0.354 0.429 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.864 7.93 7.095 7.39 7.603 6.767 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 457 452 506 489 472 530 Service Time 5.946 5.705 4.869 5.461 5.375 4.539 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.457 0.327 0.409 0.706 0.354 0.43 HCM Control Delay 17.4 14.5 14.7 26.5 14.5 14.6 HCM Lane LOS C B B D B B HCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 1.4 2 5.5 1.6 2.1 HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 832 32 0 781 0 78 Future Vol, veh/h 832 32 0 781 0 78 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 904 35 0 849 0 85 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 452 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 555 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 555 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 555 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 690 220 214 553 0 0 0 0 368 63 228 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 690 220 214 553 0 0 0 0 368 63 228 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 750 239 233 601 0 449 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1925 859 332 939 0 1098 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 412 1820 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 750 239 285 549 0 449 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 530 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.4 4.9 24.8 14.1 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.4 4.9 32.2 14.1 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.82 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1925 859 396 876 0 1098 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.39 0.28 0.72 0.63 0.00 0.41 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1925 859 396 876 0 1098 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.0 7.4 16.4 9.5 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.2 6.2 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.3 1.4 3.9 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.1 7.6 22.6 11.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A C B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 989 834 449 A Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 14.9 17.5 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 8.0 34.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.4 1.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 652 75 8 1257 107 131 Future Volume (veh/h) 652 75 8 1257 107 131 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 709 82 9 1366 116 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1935 224 105 2094 260 231 Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3303 371 5 3558 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 392 399 736 639 116 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1804 1861 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 4.0 0.0 9.3 2.1 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 4.0 9.2 9.3 2.1 3.0 Prop In Lane 0.21 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1071 1088 1224 975 260 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.37 0.60 0.65 0.45 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1612 1637 1782 1467 920 819 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 14.0 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.4 15.2 17.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 791 1375 258 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.3 16.2 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 26.1 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 32.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 6.0 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 5.5 10.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.0 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 720 43 12 1243 2 2 1 3 5 1 21 Future Vol, veh/h 20 720 43 12 1243 2 2 1 3 5 1 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 783 47 13 1351 2 2 1 3 5 1 23 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1353 0 0 830 0 0 1529 2206 392 1814 2252 677 Stage 1 - - - - - - 827 827 - 1378 1378 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 702 1379 - 436 874 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 504 - - 798 - - 80 44 607 49 41 395 Stage 1 - - - - - - 332 384 - 152 210 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 395 210 - 569 365 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 504 - - 798 - - 66 38 607 42 35 395 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 66 38 - 42 35 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 305 353 - 140 196 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 346 196 - 518 335 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.4 43.2 39.2 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 66 128 504 - - 798 - - 134 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.034 0.043 - - 0.016 - - 0.219 HCM Control Delay (s) 61.4 34.1 12.5 0.5 - 9.6 0.3 - 39.2 HCM Lane LOS F D B A - A A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.8 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 724 4 209 1257 1 161 Future Vol, veh/h 724 4 209 1257 1 161 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 787 4 227 1366 1 175 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 791 0 1926 396 Stage 1 - - - - 789 - Stage 2 - - - - 1137 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 825 - 58 603 Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 268 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 825 - 42 603 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 42 - Stage 1 - - - - 408 - Stage 2 - - - - 194 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 557 - - 825 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.316 - - 0.275 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - - 11 - HCM Lane LOS B - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - - 1.1 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 884 1457 5 1 6 Future Vol, veh/h 1 884 1457 5 1 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 961 1584 5 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1589 0 - 0 2070 795 Stage 1 - - - - 1587 - Stage 2 - - - - 483 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 409 - - - 47 330 Stage 1 - - - - 153 - Stage 2 - - - - 586 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 409 - - - 47 330 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 47 - Stage 1 - - - - 152 - Stage 2 - - - - 586 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 26.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 409 - - - 177 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.043 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.8 0 - - 26.3 HCM Lane LOS B A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 19 139 0 0 144 Future Vol, veh/h 53 19 139 0 0 144 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 58 21 151 0 0 157 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 308 151 0 - - - Stage 1 151 - - - - - Stage 2 157 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 684 895 - 0 0 - Stage 1 877 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 871 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 684 895 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 684 - - - - - Stage 1 877 - - - - - Stage 2 871 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 729 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.107 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.5 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 189 0 297 0 0 4 99 45 56 0 78 5 Future Vol, veh/h 189 0 297 0 0 4 99 45 56 0 78 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 205 0 323 0 0 4 108 49 61 0 85 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 386 414 88 545 386 80 90 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 88 88 - 296 296 - - - - - - - Stage 2 298 326 - 249 90 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 573 529 970 449 548 980 1505 - - 0 - - Stage 1 920 822 - 712 668 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 711 648 - 755 820 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 537 488 970 282 506 980 1505 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 537 488 - 282 506 - - - - - - - Stage 1 849 822 - 657 617 - - - - - - - Stage 2 653 598 - 504 820 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.6 8.7 3.8 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1505 - - 537 970 980 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 - - 0.383 0.333 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 15.8 10.6 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.8 1.5 0 - - HCM 6th Roundabout 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 512 464 164 245 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 522 473 167 249 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 175 149 544 446 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 520 562 153 176 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 7.1 6.9 7.3 Approach LOS A A A A Lane Left Left Left Left Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow, veh/h 522 473 167 249 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1154 1185 792 876 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.984 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 512 464 164 245 Cap Entry, veh/h 1132 1162 780 862 V/C Ratio 0.452 0.399 0.211 0.284 Control Delay, s/veh 8.0 7.1 6.9 7.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 2 1 1 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 139 108 88 45 278 3 99 57 42 36 123 216 Future Vol, veh/h 139 108 88 45 278 3 99 57 42 36 123 216 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 151 117 96 49 302 3 108 62 46 39 134 235 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 15.2 29.2 18.3 15.2 HCM LOS C D C C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 50% 100% 0% 14% 23% 0% Vol Thru, % 29% 0% 55% 85% 77% 0% Vol Right, % 21% 0% 45% 1% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 198 139 196 326 159 216 LT Vol 99 139 0 45 36 0 Through Vol 57 0 108 278 123 0 RT Vol 42 0 88 3 0 216 Lane Flow Rate 215 151 213 354 173 235 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.479 0.339 0.428 0.74 0.371 0.45 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.018 8.071 7.233 7.519 7.735 6.899 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 448 444 496 478 463 519 Service Time 6.111 5.853 5.015 5.597 5.516 4.68 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.48 0.34 0.429 0.741 0.374 0.453 HCM Control Delay 18.3 15 15.4 29.2 15.1 15.3 HCM Lane LOS C B C D C C HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 1.5 2.1 6.1 1.7 2.3 HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 832 33 0 784 0 78 Future Vol, veh/h 832 33 0 784 0 78 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 904 36 0 852 0 85 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 452 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 555 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 555 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 555 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 690 220 214 556 0 0 0 0 372 63 228 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 690 220 214 556 0 0 0 0 372 63 228 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 750 239 233 604 0 453 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1925 859 332 941 0 1098 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 412 1822 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 750 239 286 551 0 453 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 532 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.4 4.9 24.8 14.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.4 4.9 32.2 14.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.81 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1925 859 397 876 0 1098 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.39 0.28 0.72 0.63 0.00 0.41 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1925 859 397 876 0 1098 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.0 7.4 16.4 9.6 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.2 6.3 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.3 1.4 4.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.1 7.6 22.6 11.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A C B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 989 837 453 A Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 15.0 17.6 Approach LOS A B B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 8.0 34.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.4 1.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 652 79 8 1257 110 134 Future Volume (veh/h) 652 79 8 1257 110 134 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 709 86 9 1366 120 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1918 233 104 2088 266 236 Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3284 387 5 3558 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 395 400 736 639 120 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1801 1861 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 4.1 0.0 9.4 2.2 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 4.1 9.3 9.4 2.2 3.1 Prop In Lane 0.21 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1068 1083 1220 972 266 236 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.37 0.60 0.66 0.45 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1602 1624 1770 1458 914 813 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.7 3.7 4.7 4.7 14.0 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.9 3.9 5.2 5.5 15.2 17.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 795 1375 266 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.9 5.3 16.2 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 26.2 26.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 32.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 6.1 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 5.5 10.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.1 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 723 43 12 1243 2 2 1 3 5 1 21 Future Vol, veh/h 20 723 43 12 1243 2 2 1 3 5 1 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 786 47 13 1351 2 2 1 3 5 1 23 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1353 0 0 833 0 0 1532 2209 393 1816 2255 677 Stage 1 - - - - - - 830 830 - 1378 1378 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 702 1379 - 438 877 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 504 - - 796 - - 80 44 606 49 41 395 Stage 1 - - - - - - 331 383 - 152 210 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 395 210 - 567 364 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 504 - - 796 - - 66 38 606 42 35 395 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 66 38 - 42 35 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 304 352 - 140 196 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 346 196 - 516 334 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.4 43.2 39.2 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 66 128 504 - - 796 - - 134 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.034 0.043 - - 0.016 - - 0.219 HCM Control Delay (s) 61.4 34.1 12.5 0.5 - 9.6 0.3 - 39.2 HCM Lane LOS F D B A - A A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.8 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 727 4 210 1257 1 166 Future Vol, veh/h 727 4 210 1257 1 166 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 790 4 228 1366 1 180 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 794 0 1931 397 Stage 1 - - - - 792 - Stage 2 - - - - 1139 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 823 - 58 602 Stage 1 - - - - 407 - Stage 2 - - - - 267 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 823 - 42 602 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 42 - Stage 1 - - - - 407 - Stage 2 - - - - 193 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 14.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 557 - - 823 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.326 - - 0.277 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 - - 11 - HCM Lane LOS B - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 - - 1.1 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 892 1458 5 1 6 Future Vol, veh/h 1 892 1458 5 1 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 970 1585 5 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1590 0 - 0 2075 795 Stage 1 - - - - 1588 - Stage 2 - - - - 487 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 409 - - - 46 330 Stage 1 - - - - 153 - Stage 2 - - - - 583 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 409 - - - 46 330 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 46 - Stage 1 - - - - 152 - Stage 2 - - - - 583 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 26.5 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 409 - - - 175 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.043 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.8 0 - - 26.5 HCM Lane LOS B A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 19 139 0 0 145 Future Vol, veh/h 53 19 139 0 0 145 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 58 21 151 0 0 158 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 309 151 0 - - - Stage 1 151 - - - - - Stage 2 158 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 683 895 - 0 0 - Stage 1 877 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 871 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 683 895 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 683 - - - - - Stage 1 877 - - - - - Stage 2 871 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 729 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.107 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.5 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 189 0 301 0 0 4 113 51 56 0 82 5 Future Vol, veh/h 189 0 301 0 0 4 113 51 56 0 82 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 205 0 327 0 0 4 123 55 61 0 89 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 426 454 92 587 426 86 94 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 92 92 - 332 332 - - - - - - - Stage 2 334 362 - 255 94 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 539 502 965 421 520 973 1500 - - 0 - - Stage 1 915 819 - 681 644 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 680 625 - 749 817 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 500 458 965 259 474 973 1500 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 500 458 - 259 474 - - - - - - - Stage 1 834 819 - 621 587 - - - - - - - Stage 2 617 570 - 495 817 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 8.7 3.9 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1500 - - 500 965 973 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.082 - - 0.411 0.339 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 17.1 10.6 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 2 1.5 0 - - HCM 2010 Roundabout 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.2 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 512 469 164 246 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 522 478 167 250 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 176 149 545 451 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 525 563 153 176 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.3 9.8 8.8 9.5 Approach LOS B A A A Lane Left Left Left Left Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 522 478 167 250 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 948 974 655 720 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.984 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 512 469 164 246 Cap Entry, veh/h 929 954 645 708 V/C Ratio 0.551 0.491 0.255 0.347 Control Delay, s/veh 11.3 9.8 8.8 9.5 LOS B A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 3 1 2 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 22.7 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 110 102 43 278 3 124 72 45 36 114 233 Future Vol, veh/h 145 110 102 43 278 3 124 72 45 36 114 233 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 158 120 111 47 302 3 135 78 49 39 124 253 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 17.1 34.9 23.9 17 HCM LOS C D C C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 51% 100% 0% 13% 24% 0% Vol Thru, % 30% 0% 52% 86% 76% 0% Vol Right, % 19% 0% 48% 1% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 241 145 212 324 150 233 LT Vol 124 145 0 43 36 0 Through Vol 72 0 110 278 114 0 RT Vol 45 0 102 3 0 233 Lane Flow Rate 262 158 230 352 163 253 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.611 0.374 0.492 0.786 0.371 0.517 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.397 8.546 7.682 8.039 8.2 7.353 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 430 421 470 451 439 491 Service Time 6.453 6.298 5.433 6.09 5.951 5.103 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.609 0.375 0.489 0.78 0.371 0.515 HCM Control Delay 23.9 16.3 17.7 34.9 15.7 17.8 HCM Lane LOS C C C D C C HCM 95th-tile Q 4 1.7 2.7 7 1.7 2.9 HCM 6th TWSC 28: access & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 347 7 49 615 15 22 Future Vol, veh/h 347 7 49 615 15 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 377 8 53 668 16 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 385 0 1155 381 Stage 1 - - - - 381 - Stage 2 - - - - 774 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1173 - 218 666 Stage 1 - - - - 691 - Stage 2 - - - - 455 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1173 - 202 666 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 202 - Stage 1 - - - - 691 - Stage 2 - - - - 422 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 16.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 345 - - 1173 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.117 - - 0.045 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.8 - - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.1 - HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1050 37 0 858 0 165 Future Vol, veh/h 1050 37 0 858 0 165 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1141 40 0 933 0 179 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 571 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 464 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 464 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 17.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 464 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.387 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.6 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 940 266 177 507 0 0 0 0 635 53 351 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 940 266 177 507 0 0 0 0 635 53 351 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1022 289 192 551 0 731 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1806 806 238 850 0 1217 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 247 1757 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1022 289 220 523 0 731 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 302 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.9 6.6 18.6 14.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.9 6.6 30.5 14.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1806 806 266 822 0 1217 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.57 0.36 0.83 0.64 0.00 0.60 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1806 806 266 822 0 1217 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.2 8.9 22.6 10.7 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.3 19.2 1.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.9 1.9 4.4 4.5 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.6 9.1 41.9 12.3 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A D B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 1311 743 731 A Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 21.1 18.6 Approach LOS B C B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 25.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 12.2 32.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 2.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1197 72 4 790 226 194 Future Volume (veh/h) 1197 72 4 790 226 194 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1301 78 4 859 246 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1935 116 93 1974 367 326 Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3500 204 3 3559 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 677 702 462 401 246 211 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1834 1860 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 10.7 0.0 5.7 5.1 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 10.7 5.6 5.7 5.1 4.9 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 1042 1148 919 367 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.67 0.40 0.44 0.67 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1450 1497 1597 1320 828 737 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 6.0 4.9 4.9 14.6 14.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 2.1 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 2.4 1.2 1.1 1.9 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.8 6.8 5.2 5.3 16.7 16.6 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1379 863 457 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 5.2 16.7 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 27.1 27.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 32.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 12.7 7.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 10.0 6.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 1348 19 6 749 3 22 1 25 7 1 23 Future Vol, veh/h 24 1348 19 6 749 3 22 1 25 7 1 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 1465 21 7 814 3 24 1 27 8 1 25 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 817 0 0 1486 0 0 1939 2348 733 1615 2368 409 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1517 1517 - 830 830 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 422 831 - 785 1538 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 807 - - 448 - - 39 36 363 69 35 592 Stage 1 - - - - - - 125 180 - 331 383 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 580 383 - 352 176 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 807 - - 448 - - 30 28 363 52 28 592 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 30 28 - 52 28 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 102 146 - 269 372 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 538 372 - 263 143 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.3 145.3 36.4 HCM LOS F E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 30 249 807 - - 448 - - 148 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.797 0.113 0.032 - - 0.015 - - 0.228 HCM Control Delay (s) 291.8 21.3 9.6 0.9 - 13.2 0.2 - 36.4 HCM Lane LOS F C A A - B A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 0.4 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.8 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1372 8 125 758 1 117 Future Vol, veh/h 1372 8 125 758 1 117 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1491 9 136 824 1 127 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1500 0 2180 750 Stage 1 - - - - 1496 - Stage 2 - - - - 684 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 443 - 39 354 Stage 1 - - - - 172 - Stage 2 - - - - 462 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 443 - 27 354 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 27 - Stage 1 - - - - 172 - Stage 2 - - - - 320 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.4 23.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 321 - - 443 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.4 - - 0.307 - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.5 - - 16.7 - HCM Lane LOS C - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 - - 1.3 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 1487 880 11 7 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 1487 880 11 7 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 1616 957 12 8 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 969 0 - 0 1775 485 Stage 1 - - - - 963 - Stage 2 - - - - 812 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 707 - - - 74 528 Stage 1 - - - - 331 - Stage 2 - - - - 397 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 707 - - - 72 528 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 72 - Stage 1 - - - - 322 - Stage 2 - - - - 397 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 46.7 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 707 - - - 97 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.112 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.1 - - 46.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 28 131 0 0 136 Future Vol, veh/h 61 28 131 0 0 136 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 66 30 142 0 0 148 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 290 142 0 - - - Stage 1 142 - - - - - Stage 2 148 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 701 906 - 0 0 - Stage 1 885 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 880 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 701 906 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 701 - - - - - Stage 1 885 - - - - - Stage 2 880 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 755 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.128 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.5 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 19.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 329 0 200 0 0 22 145 69 25 0 66 10 Future Vol, veh/h 329 0 200 0 0 22 145 69 25 0 66 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 358 0 217 0 0 24 158 75 27 0 72 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 495 496 78 591 488 89 83 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 78 78 - 405 405 - - - - - - - Stage 2 417 418 - 186 83 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 485 475 983 419 480 969 1514 - - 0 - - Stage 1 931 830 - 622 598 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 613 591 - 816 826 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 433 422 983 299 427 969 1514 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 433 422 - 299 427 - - - - - - - Stage 1 828 830 - 553 532 - - - - - - - Stage 2 532 525 - 636 826 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 29.9 8.8 4.6 0 HCM LOS D A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1514 - - 433 983 969 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.104 - - 0.826 0.221 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 42.1 9.7 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 7.8 0.8 0.1 - - HCM 6th AWSC 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.1 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 363 50 49 167 60 79 35 58 88 108 103 Future Vol, veh/h 36 363 50 49 167 60 79 35 58 88 108 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 395 54 53 182 65 86 38 63 96 117 112 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 39.5 16.4 15.2 21.3 HCM LOS E C C C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 46% 100% 0% 100% 0% 29% Vol Thru, % 20% 0% 88% 0% 74% 36% Vol Right, % 34% 0% 12% 0% 26% 34% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 172 36 413 49 227 299 LT Vol 79 36 0 49 0 88 Through Vol 35 0 363 0 167 108 RT Vol 58 0 50 0 60 103 Lane Flow Rate 187 39 449 53 247 325 Geometry Grp 2 7 7 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.388 0.083 0.879 0.119 0.504 0.632 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.479 7.653 7.052 8.066 7.358 6.998 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 480 470 516 444 489 517 Service Time 5.54 5.376 4.775 5.819 5.111 5.019 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.39 0.083 0.87 0.119 0.505 0.629 HCM Control Delay 15.2 11.1 42 11.9 17.4 21.3 HCM Lane LOS C B E B C C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 0.3 9.7 0.4 2.8 4.4 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 97 124 90 50 170 10 96 132 72 33 106 127 Future Vol, veh/h 97 124 90 50 170 10 96 132 72 33 106 127 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 105 135 98 54 185 11 104 143 78 36 115 138 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 14.5 18.3 22.3 12.6 HCM LOS B C C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 32% 100% 0% 22% 24% 0% Vol Thru, % 44% 0% 58% 74% 76% 0% Vol Right, % 24% 0% 42% 4% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 300 97 214 230 139 127 LT Vol 96 97 0 50 33 0 Through Vol 132 0 124 170 106 0 RT Vol 72 0 90 10 0 127 Lane Flow Rate 326 105 233 250 151 138 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.645 0.227 0.448 0.517 0.313 0.253 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.116 7.744 6.93 7.441 7.45 6.609 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 505 463 519 483 480 541 Service Time 5.178 5.509 4.695 5.509 5.217 4.377 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.646 0.227 0.449 0.518 0.315 0.255 HCM Control Delay 22.3 12.8 15.2 18.3 13.6 11.6 HCM Lane LOS C B C C B B HCM 95th-tile Q 4.5 0.9 2.3 2.9 1.3 1 HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1082 38 0 884 0 170 Future Vol, veh/h 1082 38 0 884 0 170 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1176 41 0 961 0 185 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 588 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 452 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 452 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 18.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.4 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 968 274 182 522 0 0 0 0 654 55 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 968 274 182 522 0 0 0 0 654 55 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1052 298 198 567 0 754 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1806 806 232 843 0 1217 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 234 1744 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1052 298 222 543 0 754 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 276 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.4 6.8 18.1 14.9 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.4 6.8 30.5 14.9 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1806 806 254 822 0 1217 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.58 0.37 0.87 0.66 0.00 0.62 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1806 806 254 822 0 1217 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.3 8.9 23.6 10.9 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.3 26.5 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.1 2.0 4.9 4.8 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.8 9.2 50.1 12.9 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A D B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 1350 765 754 A Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 23.7 18.9 Approach LOS B C B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 25.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.4 12.6 32.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.9 2.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1233 74 4 814 233 200 Future Volume (veh/h) 1233 74 4 814 233 200 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1340 80 4 885 253 217 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1951 116 90 1989 371 330 Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3501 203 3 3559 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 697 723 476 413 253 217 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1834 1860 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 11.4 0.0 6.0 5.4 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 11.4 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.2 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1017 1050 1153 926 371 330 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.69 0.41 0.45 0.68 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1406 1451 1549 1280 803 714 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 6.2 5.0 5.0 15.0 14.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 2.2 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 2.6 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.0 7.0 5.3 5.4 17.2 17.1 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1420 889 470 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.0 5.3 17.2 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 28.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 32.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 13.4 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 10.1 6.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.2 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 1389 20 6 772 3 23 1 26 7 1 24 Future Vol, veh/h 25 1389 20 6 772 3 23 1 26 7 1 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 1510 22 7 839 3 25 1 28 8 1 26 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 842 0 0 1532 0 0 1998 2420 755 1665 2441 421 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1564 1564 - 855 855 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 434 856 - 810 1586 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 789 - - 430 - - 35 32 351 63 31 581 Stage 1 - - - - - - 117 171 - 319 373 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 570 373 - 340 166 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 789 - - 430 - - 26 24 351 45 23 581 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 26 24 - 45 23 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 90 131 - 245 361 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 526 361 - 238 127 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.3 186.9 41.4 HCM LOS F E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 26 233 789 - - 430 - - 133 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.962 0.126 0.034 - - 0.015 - - 0.262 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 379.7 22.7 9.7 1.1 - 13.5 0.2 - 41.4 HCM Lane LOS F C A A - B A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3 0.4 0.1 - - 0 - - 1 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1414 8 129 781 1 121 Future Vol, veh/h 1414 8 129 781 1 121 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1537 9 140 849 1 132 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1546 0 2247 773 Stage 1 - - - - 1542 - Stage 2 - - - - 705 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 425 - 35 342 Stage 1 - - - - 162 - Stage 2 - - - - 451 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 425 - 23 342 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 23 - Stage 1 - - - - 162 - Stage 2 - - - - 303 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.5 25.4 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 307 - - 425 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.432 - - 0.33 - HCM Control Delay (s) 25.4 - - 17.6 - HCM Lane LOS D - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - - 1.4 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 1532 907 11 7 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 1532 907 11 7 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 1665 986 12 8 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 998 0 - 0 1829 499 Stage 1 - - - - 992 - Stage 2 - - - - 837 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 689 - - - 68 517 Stage 1 - - - - 320 - Stage 2 - - - - 385 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 689 - - - 65 517 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 65 - Stage 1 - - - - 308 - Stage 2 - - - - 385 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 51.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 689 - - - 88 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.124 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.2 - - 51.6 HCM Lane LOS B A - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 29 135 0 0 140 Future Vol, veh/h 63 29 135 0 0 140 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 68 32 147 0 0 152 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 299 147 0 - - - Stage 1 147 - - - - - Stage 2 152 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 692 900 - 0 0 - Stage 1 880 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 876 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 692 900 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 692 - - - - - Stage 1 880 - - - - - Stage 2 876 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 746 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.134 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.6 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.5 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 22.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 339 0 206 0 0 23 149 71 26 0 68 10 Future Vol, veh/h 339 0 206 0 0 23 149 71 26 0 68 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 368 0 224 0 0 25 162 77 28 0 74 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 508 509 80 607 500 91 85 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 80 80 - 415 415 - - - - - - - Stage 2 428 429 - 192 85 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 475 467 980 408 473 967 1512 - - 0 - - Stage 1 929 828 - 615 592 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 605 584 - 810 824 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 414 980 287 419 967 1512 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 414 - 287 419 - - - - - - - Stage 1 823 828 - 545 525 - - - - - - - Stage 2 522 517 - 625 824 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 34.5 8.8 4.6 0 HCM LOS D A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1512 - - 422 980 967 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 - - 0.873 0.228 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 49.5 9.8 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 8.9 0.9 0.1 - - HCM 6th Roundabout 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 504 308 192 335 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 514 314 196 341 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 279 171 557 336 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 398 582 236 149 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 5.7 7.5 7.5 Approach LOS A A A A Lane Left Left Left Left Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow, veh/h 514 314 196 341 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1038 1159 782 980 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.982 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 504 308 192 335 Cap Entry, veh/h 1018 1138 767 961 V/C Ratio 0.495 0.271 0.251 0.348 Control Delay, s/veh 9.4 5.7 7.5 7.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 1 1 2 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 18 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 128 93 52 175 10 99 136 74 34 109 131 Future Vol, veh/h 100 128 93 52 175 10 99 136 74 34 109 131 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 109 139 101 57 190 11 108 148 80 37 118 142 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 15.1 19.4 24.2 13.1 HCM LOS C C C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 32% 100% 0% 22% 24% 0% Vol Thru, % 44% 0% 58% 74% 76% 0% Vol Right, % 24% 0% 42% 4% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 309 100 221 237 143 131 LT Vol 99 100 0 52 34 0 Through Vol 136 0 128 175 109 0 RT Vol 74 0 93 10 0 131 Lane Flow Rate 336 109 240 258 155 142 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.676 0.238 0.471 0.543 0.328 0.267 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.248 7.881 7.066 7.587 7.595 6.753 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 497 454 507 474 473 530 Service Time 5.316 5.653 4.837 5.662 5.368 4.526 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.676 0.24 0.473 0.544 0.328 0.268 HCM Control Delay 24.2 13.1 16 19.4 14.1 12 HCM Lane LOS C B C C B B HCM 95th-tile Q 5 0.9 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.1 HCM 6th TWSC 14: Arcadia & Vernon 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1083 40 0 887 0 170 Future Vol, veh/h 1083 40 0 887 0 170 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1177 43 0 964 0 185 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 589 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 452 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 452 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 18.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.4 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 - - - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: Vernon/50th & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 969 274 182 525 0 0 0 0 668 55 362 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 969 274 182 525 0 0 0 0 668 55 362 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1053 298 198 571 0 769 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 0 1806 806 232 845 0 1217 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 233 1746 0 3563 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1053 298 223 546 0 769 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 277 1617 0 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.4 6.8 18.1 15.1 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.4 6.8 30.5 15.1 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1806 806 254 822 0 1217 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.58 0.37 0.88 0.66 0.00 0.63 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1806 806 254 822 0 1217 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.3 8.9 23.5 11.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.3 27.1 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.1 2.0 5.0 4.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.8 9.2 50.6 13.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A D B A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 1351 769 769 A Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 23.9 19.1 Approach LOS B C B Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 25.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.4 12.9 32.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.9 2.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Grange & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1233 89 8 814 196 203 Future Volume (veh/h) 1233 89 8 814 196 203 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1340 97 9 885 213 221 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1943 140 94 1992 362 322 Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3454 243 8 3532 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 707 730 476 418 213 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1827 1838 1617 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 11.6 0.0 6.1 4.5 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.5 11.6 5.9 6.1 4.5 5.3 Prop In Lane 0.13 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1027 1056 1152 935 362 322 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.69 0.41 0.45 0.59 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1404 1443 1520 1278 801 713 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 6.1 4.9 4.9 14.8 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.5 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 2.6 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.9 7.0 5.2 5.3 16.4 17.8 LnGrp LOS A A A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1437 894 434 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 5.2 17.1 Approach LOS A A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 28.3 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 32.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 13.6 8.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 10.2 6.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th TWSC 7: City Hall/Dale & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 1392 20 6 776 3 23 1 26 7 1 24 Future Vol, veh/h 25 1392 20 6 776 3 23 1 26 7 1 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 1513 22 7 843 3 25 1 28 8 1 26 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 846 0 0 1535 0 0 2003 2427 757 1670 2448 423 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1567 1567 - 859 859 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 436 860 - 811 1589 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 787 - - 429 - - 35 32 350 63 31 579 Stage 1 - - - - - - 116 170 - 317 371 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 569 371 - 339 166 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 787 - - 429 - - 26 24 350 45 23 579 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 26 24 - 45 23 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 89 130 - 242 359 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 525 359 - 236 127 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.3 186.9 41.4 HCM LOS F E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 26 233 787 - - 429 - - 133 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.962 0.126 0.035 - - 0.015 - - 0.262 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 379.7 22.7 9.7 1.1 - 13.5 0.2 - 41.4 HCM Lane LOS F C A A - B A - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3 0.4 0.1 - - 0 - - 1 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Eden & 50th 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1417 8 133 785 1 127 Future Vol, veh/h 1417 8 133 785 1 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1540 9 145 853 1 138 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1549 0 2262 775 Stage 1 - - - - 1545 - Stage 2 - - - - 717 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 424 - 35 341 Stage 1 - - - - 162 - Stage 2 - - - - 445 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 424 - 23 341 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 23 - Stage 1 - - - - 162 - Stage 2 - - - - 293 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.6 26 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 308 - - 424 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.452 - - 0.341 - HCM Control Delay (s) 26 - - 17.8 - HCM Lane LOS D - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - - 1.5 - HCM 6th TWSC 3: 50th & Sunnyslope 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 1541 915 11 7 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 1541 915 11 7 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 1675 995 12 8 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1007 0 - 0 1843 504 Stage 1 - - - - 1001 - Stage 2 - - - - 842 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 684 - - - 67 513 Stage 1 - - - - 316 - Stage 2 - - - - 383 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 684 - - - 64 513 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 64 - Stage 1 - - - - 303 - Stage 2 - - - - 383 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 52.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 684 - - - 87 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.125 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 0.2 - - 52.2 HCM Lane LOS B A - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 HCM 6th TWSC 16: Arcadia & TH 100 ramp 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 29 135 0 0 142 Future Vol, veh/h 63 29 135 0 0 142 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 68 32 147 0 0 154 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 301 147 0 - - - Stage 1 147 - - - - - Stage 2 154 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 691 900 - 0 0 - Stage 1 880 - - 0 0 - Stage 2 874 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 691 900 - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 691 - - - - - Stage 1 880 - - - - - Stage 2 874 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 746 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.134 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.6 - HCM Lane LOS - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.5 - HCM 6th TWSC 18: Grange & TH 100 ramp/City Hall 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 20.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 299 0 220 0 0 23 162 77 26 0 87 10 Future Vol, veh/h 299 0 220 0 0 23 162 77 26 0 87 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 325 0 239 0 0 25 176 84 28 0 95 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 564 565 101 670 556 98 106 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 101 101 - 450 450 - - - - - - - Stage 2 463 464 - 220 106 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 436 434 954 371 439 958 1485 - - 0 - - Stage 1 905 811 - 589 572 - - - - 0 - - Stage 2 579 564 - 782 807 - - - - 0 - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 383 379 954 251 383 958 1485 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 383 379 - 251 383 - - - - - - - Stage 1 790 811 - 514 499 - - - - - - - Stage 2 492 492 - 586 807 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 32.6 8.9 4.7 0 HCM LOS D A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1485 - - 383 954 958 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.119 - - 0.849 0.251 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - 49.2 10 8.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 8 1 0.1 - - HCM 6th Roundabout 22: Normandale/Arcadia & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS A Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 508 311 192 335 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 518 317 196 341 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 279 171 561 339 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 401 586 236 149 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 5.7 7.6 7.5 Approach LOS A A A A Lane Left Left Left Left Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow, veh/h 518 317 196 341 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1038 1159 779 977 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.982 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 508 311 192 335 Cap Entry, veh/h 1018 1138 764 958 V/C Ratio 0.499 0.274 0.252 0.349 Control Delay, s/veh 9.5 5.7 7.6 7.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 1 1 2 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Willson/Grange & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 21.6 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 112 134 102 54 177 10 115 143 74 34 127 146 Future Vol, veh/h 112 134 102 54 177 10 115 143 74 34 127 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 122 146 111 59 192 11 125 155 80 37 138 159 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 17.2 22.2 32.2 14.6 HCM LOS C C D B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 35% 100% 0% 22% 21% 0% Vol Thru, % 43% 0% 57% 73% 79% 0% Vol Right, % 22% 0% 43% 4% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 332 112 236 241 161 146 LT Vol 115 112 0 54 34 0 Through Vol 143 0 134 177 127 0 RT Vol 74 0 102 10 0 146 Lane Flow Rate 361 122 257 262 175 159 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.771 0.282 0.536 0.59 0.389 0.316 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.691 8.348 7.521 8.108 7.998 7.167 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 473 432 482 445 450 501 Service Time 5.709 6.072 5.245 6.165 5.752 4.92 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.763 0.282 0.533 0.589 0.389 0.317 HCM Control Delay 32.2 14.3 18.6 22.2 15.8 13.2 HCM Lane LOS D B C C C B HCM 95th-tile Q 6.7 1.1 3.1 3.7 1.8 1.3 HCM 6th TWSC 28: access & Eden 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 327 7 45 419 21 32 Future Vol, veh/h 327 7 45 419 21 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 16974 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 355 8 49 455 23 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 553 455 0 0 Stage 1 553 - - - Stage 2 0 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.52 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 4.018 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 441 605 - - Stage 1 514 - - - Stage 2 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 605 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 - - - Stage 1 0 - - - Stage 2 0 - - - Approach EB WB HCM Control Delay, s 19.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBLn1 WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 605 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.6 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 - - HCM Lane LOS C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4 - - HCM 6th TWSC 26: Willson & access 04/19/2021 T:\3022 City of Edina\21-506\synchro\2024 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 2 3 311 255 53 Future Vol, veh/h 34 2 3 311 255 53 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 37 2 3 338 277 58 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 650 306 335 0 - 0 Stage 1 306 - - - - - Stage 2 344 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 434 734 1224 - - - Stage 1 747 - - - - - Stage 2 718 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 433 734 1224 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 433 - - - - - Stage 1 745 - - - - - Stage 2 718 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1224 - 443 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.088 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 13.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - - Date: April 21, 2021 To: Cary Teague – Community Development Director Chad Millner, PE – Director of Engineering Cc: 4917 Eden Avenue, Owner and Development Team From: Andrew Scipioni – Transportation Planner Re: 4917 Eden Avenue – Transportation Review Reuter Walton and BKV Group are proposing to redevelop 4917 Eden Ave, currently occupied by Perkins Restaurant & Bakery. The proposed redevelopment would replace the existing building with a seven-story building with 208 residential units and a 3,700-square-foot restaurant. Wenck completed a traffic impact study (TIS) for this project on behalf of the City. This memo will review the findings of the TIS and other transportation impacts of the proposed development. Trip Generation To account for changes in traffic patterns that has occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Wenck used a combination of data collected for previous studies in the area and data collected in 2021. The newly collected data was reviewed and adjusted using previous data to account for pandemic-related traffic volume reductions. This process resulted in reasonable estimates for existing volumes in non-pandemic conditions. Wenck analyzed proposed trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. This manual provides national average traffic generation rates for different land uses. Wenck estimates that the proposed development will generate an additional 1,190 daily trips compared to the existing uses. Figure 1 shows the distribution of trips for existing and proposed uses. Figure 1: Trip Generation for Existing and Proposed Uses Wenck noted that the residential portion of the development alone would generate fewer trips than the existing restaurant and office uses during the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour and daily. 1,130 1,281 93 1,132 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Existing Uses Proposed UsesTrips Apartments Office Restaurant Capacity Analysis Four roadway corridors surrounding the site were studied by Wenck (Vernon Ave/W 50th St, Grange Rd, Arcadia and Eden Aves), as well as 10 adjacent intersections along those corridors (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Study Intersections The net trips added by the proposed development are anticipated to have minimal impact on the surrounding roads through 2024. However, poor Levels of Service (LOS) were noted to four study intersections: West 50th St and Dale Dr/Sunnyslope Rd E At W 50th St and Dale Dr (Intersection 4 in Figure 2), the northbound left turn from City Hall operates at a LOS F and southbound movements from Dale Dr operate at LOS E under both existing and future conditions. Additionally, at W 50th St and Sunnyslope Rd E (Intersection 6 in Figure 2), southbound movements currently operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour and are expected to worsen to LOS F by 2024 in both Build and No-Build scenarios. As noted by Wenck, the minor street volumes in these cases are very low compared to the major street volume (6-31 southbound vehicles at Dale Dr and Sunnyslope Rd E during the peak hours compared to over 2,000 vehicles traveling on W 50th St during the peak hours). Minor street approaches often experience delay when accessing a major street during peak periods. However, the ratio of traffic volumes results in an acceptable level of service for the intersections overall (LOS A in all scenarios). No improvements are recommended at these intersections as any aimed at improving southbound movements would have a negative effect on the intersections overall. Grange Rd/ TH 100 northbound ramps At Grange Rd and the TH 100 northbound ramps (Intersection 8 in Figure 2), the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour during existing and future conditions. No improvements are recommended as adequate space for vehicle queues exists on the ramp without impacting traffic on TH 100. Eden Ave/Arcadia Ave (9) At Eden Ave and Arcadia Ave (Intersection 9 in Figure 2), the eastbound thru and right turn movements operate at LOS E. This intersection is anticipated to be reconstructed with a roundabout in 2022, which is expected to accommodate all movements at LOS A. Parking Analysis 292 underground parking stalls and 37 surface stalls are proposed for a total of 329 stalls for this site. City Code requires a minimum of one parking stall for each residential unit and one stall per three seats in the restaurant. The 292 underground parking stalls plus the 8 surface stalls shown on the east side of the property (300 total) exceed the City’s residential requirements. Based on the 29 parking stalls proposed adjacent to the restaurant, the seating capacity should be capped at 87 to comply with City requirements. Wenck evaluated parking demand for the proposed development using national data from ITE’s Parking Generation, 5th Edition. Based on this analysis, the peak parking demand is estimated at 275 stalls between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays, and the number of stalls proposed is sufficient to accommodate this demand. Multi-Modal Facilities 4917 Eden Ave is currently bordered by a 5-8’ edge-of-road sidewalks along Eden Ave to the north and Willson Rd to the east. 5’ edge-of-road sidewalks are also present on the north side of Eden Ave across from the site and on both sides of Eden Ave east of Grange Rd. There are no dedicated bicycle facilities on any adjacent roadways. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) recommends a new sidewalk on Grange Rd north of the site, buffered bike lanes on Eden Ave to the north and standard bike lanes on Willson Rd to the east. None of these recommended facilities are proposed for construction in the current 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The Grandview District is currently served by Metro Transit Local Route 46, which serves Edina, south Minneapolis and St. Paul. Route 46 operates seven days a week with an average frequency of 30-60 minutes (15-30 minutes during a.m. and p.m. rush hours). The closest transit stops to 4917 Eden Ave are on W 50th St between Grange Rd and Dale Dr. These stops are less than ¼ mile away (less than a 5-minute walk), accessible using existing sidewalks at Edina City Hall. Additional stops exist along Eden Ave and W 50th St that are less than ½ mile away (less than a 10-minute walk) and are accessible using existing sidewalks along these streets. Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies Table 1 details the ways in which the proposed redevelopment supports current City transportation plans and policies. Table 1: Compliance with Transportation Plans/Policies Comprehensive Plan (2018) Goal Assessment 1. Improve mobility for residents, visitors and businesses with a balanced system of transportation alternatives for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The project provides facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. 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. The project provides facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. 3. Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Staff recommends installing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for a minimum of 5% (20 stalls) of proposed parking in addition to wiring 10% (40 stalls) for EV conversion in the future. EV charging stations should be in convenient locations near primary building entrances. 4. Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single- occupancy vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicle trips and the use of alternative travel options. The project promotes walking and biking with varied on-site amenities (restaurant, fitness center, clubhouse) and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 6. Encourage and support attractive and reliable high- performance transit service and connections. The applicant should consider providing directional signage/information for local transit service or subsidizing transit passes for tenants and employees (see Draft Travel Demand Management Policy below). 7. Develop and manage parking provisions to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride- sharing and bicycle parking. The site plan notes a bike room located in the upper level underground parking garage. Staff recommends that this room be equipped to accommodate a minimum of one bike for every 10 residential units (21). It is also recommended that this room be relocated closer to the garage entrance and/or stairs and elevators. Staff recommends providing surface bike parking stalls at a rate of 1 for every 20 residential units (11) and 1 for every 5 restaurant seats (5, assuming capacity is capped at 87 based on provided vehicle parking). These parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing for surface and underground bike storage should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Staff recommends providing a bike repair station on-site, located adjacent to surface or underground bike parking. 9. 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. Turning movements and travel routes for delivery vehicles should be reviewed by the applicant. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact of delivery vehicles on pedestrian and bicycle movement through the site (additional signage, designated delivery zones, etc.) 13. Provide and maintain adequate access to and from, and safety on, local and regional roadway adjacent to community redevelopment and other activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code. 14. Manage, maintain and operate roadways to maximize wherever possible the safety and mobility of all users and all modes. Proposed public sidewalks along Eden Ave and Willson Rd should be 5’ wide (min.) with 5’ boulevards (min.) to improve user safety and comfort. Living Streets Plan (2015) Principle Explanation 2. Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. The project provides accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. 4. The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development. The project includes perimeter sidewalks that connect to existing facilities in the area. 10. Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts. Staff recommends installation of an internal sidewalk on the west side between the restaurant entrance and Eden Ave to improve pedestrian access and safety. 13. Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life for the public. Boulevard-style sidewalks along Eden Ave and Willson Rd will improve pedestrian safety and comfort adjacent to the property. Grandview District Transportation Study (2016) Long-Term Changes Explanation Future NB TH 100 Exit Ramp/Frontage Rd Simplification of the access to TH 100 is proposed through the construction of two new frontage roads between Vernon Ave/W 50th St and Eden Ave and realignment of entrance and exit ramps. With this concept in mind, this project has been designed in a manner to allow future realignment of the northbound TH 100 exit ramp into Eden Ave. Though implementation of this concept is potential decades away, Wenck notes that the proposed restaurant parking access off Eden Ave may need to be converted to a right-in/right-out access in the future due to its proximity to the new exit ramp. Grandview District Development Framework (2012) Transportation Goals Explanation 2. Create a more bike and pedestrian friendly environment by applying Complete Streets and Living Streets principles to Vernon, Eden and the local street network. Boulevard-style sidewalks along Eden Ave and Willson Rd will improve pedestrian safety and comfort adjacent to the property. 13. Reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that encourage non-motorized transportation options, increasing the overall capacity of the transportation network. The project provides accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Draft Travel Demand Management Policy (2021) Proposed Strategies (Tier 1 – min. 5 unique strategies identified) • Underground bike storage for residential tenants Suggested Additional Strategies • Directional signage/information for adjacent pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities • Subsidized Metro Transit passes for tenants and employees • Surface bike parking exceeding City requirements • Bike repair station • Construct perimeter and internal sidewalks 8’ wide or more to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists • Participate in car sharing service/provide designated residential parking stalls for car sharing service • Provide information on starting/joining commuter programs • Provide private shuttle for residential tenants to access grocery, retail and other amenities April 22, 2021 Cary Teague, Community Development Director David Fisher, Chief Building Official & Rick Hammerschmidt, Fire Marshall 4917 Eden Ave – Old Perkins Site - New Apartment Building - Rezoning Information / Background: New seven story apartment building with 208-units and 2 tiers of underground parking. - This would be an S-1 parking and R-2 residential apartment building using the 2020 Minnesota State Building Code & Fire Code. - Provide a complete Build Code analysis with plans when submitting for the building permit. - An NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler System is required. - Verify Address. - Verify Fire Department access. - Verify bathroom requirements are met for the occupied roof. - Verify noise ordinance is complying and is understood. Working Hours: Monday – Friday 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Saturdays – 9A.M. to 5 P.M. Sundays and Holidays – No Work Allowed - Recommend a meeting with staff for 30, 60 and 90 percent before submitting for building permit. DATE: 4/21/2021 TO: 4917 Eden Ave, Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner RE: 4917 Eden Avenue – Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, flood risk, and storm water. Plans reviewed included civil, landscape, stormwater dated 3/12/21. Review Comment Required For General 1. Existing right-of-way or easements held by MnDOT require the City to formally ask for a turn-back. The turn-back process can take up to 12-months. General Comment 2. Deliver as-build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 3. Maintenance of sidewalks and streets internal to the site to be responsibility of property owner. Maintenance of sidewalks on Eden Ave and Wilson Rd will be by the City. City snowplowing operations are 5-ft wide on these sidewalks. If owner wants a wider path, this would be the responsibility of the owner. General Comment Survey 4. An existing and proposed site condition survey is required. Grading/Building Permit 4.1 Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Grading/Building Permit 4.2 Note the location of City fiber along the Wilson Rd ROW. Grading/Building Permit Living Streets 5. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Grading/Building Permit 6. Saw cut concrete sidewalk joints on public sidewalks. Grading/Building Permit 7. Public sidewalk to be minimum 5-ft wide minimum with a 5-ft minimum boulevard. Grading/Building Permit 8. Install a sidewalk from the restaurant entrance and west side parking area to Eden Avenue for pedestrian access and safety. Grading/Building Permit Traffic and Street 9. Review fire access requirements with fire department. Fire truck turning template attached. Grading/Building Permit 10. Driveway Entrance permit required for entrance reconstruction. Building Permit 11. Wilson Rd scheduled for mill & overlay in 2024 (last done in 2012). Eden Ave concrete. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates 540, 543, and 545 as pertinent. Certificate of Occupancy 12. Provide easements if necessary, accommodate recommended sidewalk facilities where city has maintenance responsibility. Certificate of Occupancy 13. Provide easements for a potential highway off ramp along the westerly property line. Certificate of Occupancy 14. Proposed bike parking stalls should be in convenient, well-lit locations within 50’ of a public entrance to a principal building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Grading/Building Permit 15. Staff recommends installation of a bike repair station in a convenient location near the bike parking stalls. General Comment 16. Proposed trees, vegetation, signage and other items adjacent to intersections should maintain a clear view zone as defined in Section 26-190 of City Code. Grading/Building Permit 17. Driveway on Willson Rd shall be at least 50-ft from the intersection with Eden Ave per City Code. Grading/Building Permit 18. South driveway on Willson Rd and service driveway will only be allowed one curb cut. Combine driveways using one curb cut. Grading/Building Permit 19. Driveway entrances must conform to Standard Plates 410 and 415. Minimum 12’ and 24’ for 1- and 2-way entrances, respectively. Grading/Building Permit 20. Staff recommends relocating proposed bike room closer to the garage entrance and/or stairs and elevators. General Comment Sanitary and Water Utilities 21. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Attached system flow/pressure curve provided for developer’s design. Grading/Building Permit 22. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 23. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 24. A new sanitary main shall be installed per the plans along Wilson Rd from 5200 Wilson Road to the development site at the cost of the developer. Pipe may be installed by horizontal directional drill method. Installation coordinated with Public Works. General Comment 25. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit with Public Works. Prior to Starting Utility Work 25.1 Meter required for building service line and combined lines. No meter required for fire only service line. Grading/Building Permit 25.2 Public Works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 26. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 27. A SAC determination will be required by the Metropolitan Council. The SAC determination will be used by the City to calculate sewer and water connection charges Grading/Building Permit 28. Single connection from main for fire and domestic, split after main connection if allowed by the building code. Grading/Building Permit 29. Note, well onsite sealed in 2005. Moderate and low vulnerability for infiltration. Not located in a wellhead management zone. Certificate of Occupancy Storm Water Utility 30. Provide final geotechnical report with soil borings. Grading/Building Permit 31. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report meeting watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Grading/Building Permit 32. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 33. A SWPPP consistent with the State General Construction Site Stormwater Permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 34. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Be prepared to provide detailed plans for construction phasing and minimization of pedestrian and traffic impacts. Grading/Building Permit 35. Retaining walls over 4-ft in height require design by a structural engineer. Grading/Building Permit 36. Any short-term road closures shall be approved by the City Engineer. General Comment 37. Construction staging or construction fencing shall not impede the City’s ability to snowplow the adjacent streets. If construction fencing removes storage space for snow, developer shall be responsible for snow removal in the street adjacent to any impacts to City operations. General Comment Other Agency Coordination 38. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 39. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Sustainability 40. Staff recommends installing EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of proposed parking in addition to wiring 10% for EV conversion in the future. General Comment 41. Staff prefers a larger green roof as shown in the original application. General Comment 42. Staff prefers the solar roof installation to occur with the build out of the project. General Comment 43. Staff recommends including organics recycling drop-off onsite for residents. General Comment G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:27:10 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 G100 COVER SHEET 4917 EDEN AVE 4917 EDEN AVE 4917 EDEN AVE (EDINA, MN) REUTER WALTON PROJECT LOCATION RENDERING PROJECT TEAMPROJECT SUMMARY (UNIT MATRIX) Architect: Chris Palkowitsch & Mike Krych Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Architect's Name OWNER / APPLICANT: NICK WALTON OWNER / APPLICANT : REUTER WALTON ADDRESS 1710 W Lake St, Minneapolis, MN 55408 Phone: 612-823-3489 Contact: PERSON Civil: MICHAEL J. ST. MARTIN, PE (MN, WI) COMPANY NAME : Loucks ADDRESS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phon 763.496.6713 |C 612.237.8532 Contact: Civil Engineer's Name Landscape: Brady Halverson Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Landscape Architect's Name Structural Engineering: Lionel Dayton Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Structural Engineer's Name UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE / TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF SITE ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE 15 18 15 15 22 18 10 3 6 3 3 1 16 3 LOUCKS W:\2021\21081\CADD DATA\SURVEY\_dwg Sheet Files\21081-ALTAPlotted: 03 /12 / 2021 5:19 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL CADD QUALIFICATION EDEN AVENUE PROJECT 4917 EDEN AVENUE EDINA, MN 55424 BKV GROUP 222 NORTH 2ND STREET SUITE 101 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 N SCALE IN FEET 0 #### BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1 OF 1 03/12/21 SURVEY ISSUED SITE License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. VICINITY MAP Field Crew Max L. Stanislowski - PLS 48988 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.21081 MLS KMM MLS MJA 03/12/21 SCALE IN FEET 0 #### (Per Commonwealth Title Insurance Company Commitment No. 207679 dated April 4, 2005.) Tracts A and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1501 Hennepin County, Minnesota. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED N SPOT ELEVATION SIGN CATCH BASIN CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CONCRETE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL UTILITY MANHOLE GAS METER HAND HOLE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE YARD LIGHT FLAG POLE GUARD POST LOCUST OAK SPRUCE COTTONWOOD MAPLE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE OVERHEAD UTILITY MISC FRUIT POST INDICATOR VALVE ELEV @ THRESHOLD GUARDRAIL ROOF DRAIN TREE LINE TRENCH DRAIN PARKING STALL COUNT DISABLED PARKING STALLTOP OF CURB SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988" FOUND OPEN IRON MONUMENT FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENT FOUND REBAR RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING SETBACK LINE PARKING SETBACK LINE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT TOP NUT HYDRANT CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE 1 SCHEDULE B II ITEM 2 RETAINING WALL SANITARY MANHOLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE NO PARKING FIRE CONNECTION CURB CUT MAPPED STORM SEWER MAPPED SANITARY SEWER MAPPED WATERMAIN ACCESS POST VENT LIGHT POLE SURVEY LEGEND Match Line (See Left) Mat c h L i n e (See L e f t ) 1.This survey was performed without the benefit of a Title Commitment. There may or may not be easements of record encumbering this property. 2.The bearings for this survey are based on the Registered Land Survey No. 1501. Benchmark: GISD Station #11468 KIN MNDT; Located in the N sidewalk of Eden Ave. Bridge No. 27029 over Hwy. 100, 21.1 Ft. N-NW of Eden Ave. Elevation = 938.24 (NGVD 29) Site Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant; Located on N side of Wilson Rd. approximately 220 Ft. SW'ly of the SE corner of the site. Elevation = 918.48 (NGVD 29) 3.Trees shown hereon are measured at breast height. 4.The Gross land area is 97,452 +/- square feet or 2.24 +/- acres. 5.Snow and ice conditions during winter months may obscure otherwise visible evidence of on site improvements and/or utilities. 6.We have shown underground utilities on and/or serving the surveyed property per Gopher State One-Call Ticket Nos. 210540713 and 210540720. The following utilities and municipalities were notified: ARVIG (218)346-5500 CITY OF EDINA (952)826-0375 COMCAST (800)778-9140 CENTURYLINK (800)778-9140 MCI (800)624-9675 MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC.(612)258-4222 CENTER POINT ENERGY (608)223-2014 MNDOT (651)366-5750 XCEL ENERGY (800)848-7558 ZAYO BANDWIDTH (888)267-1063 i.Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for surveying purposes such as this. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate utilities from their main line to the customer's structure or facility. They consider those utilities “private” installations that are outside their jurisdiction. These “private” utilities on the surveyed property or adjoining properties, may not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" utilities. A private utility locator may be contacted to investigate these utilities further, if requested by the client. ii.Maps provided by those notified above, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 811 or (651) 454-0002. SURVEY REPORT NO PARKING2 12.0' SERVICE DRIVEWAY DROP OFF EDEN AVE. BUILDING FFE=935.50 GFE=925.00 R 45' 13 16 R 45' R 69' R 21' R 10' R 5' COURTYARD, PATIO/AMENITY AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE) CONCRETE TRANSFORMER PAD (COORD. WITH MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL) 18.0'18.0' 8.5'8.5' DOG PARK (SEE LANDSCAPE) ACCESSIBLE STALL, SIGNS, STRIPING, ETC. TYP. - (SEE DETAIL) RETAINING WALL W/ FENCE WHERE WALL IS OVER 2.5' TALL (SEE GRADING PLAN & LANDSCAPE ) FLAT CURB W/ 3' TAPERS (SEE DETAIL) FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPE) HEAVY-DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP. (SEE DETAIL) FUTURE B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP. (SEE MNDOT) FUTURE HEAVY-DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) FUTURE EXIT RAMP (COORDINATE WITH CITY / MNDOT) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) LOADING ZONE FUTURE DRIVEWAY POOL (SEE LANDSCAPE) 24.0' 24.0' 24.0' GROUND LEVEL RESTAURANT (SEE ARCH.) ALTERNATE OUTDOOR SPACE (SEE ARCH.) RETAINING WALL W/ FENCE WHERE WALL IS OVER 2.5' TALL (SEE GRADING PLAN & LANDSCAPE ) 5.0' 5.0' 10.0' 10.0' 15.0' 15.0' 10.0' 10.0' 10.0' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP. (SEE DETAIL) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (MATCH EXISTING SECTION) BITUMINOUS TRAIL (MATCH EXISTING SECTION) B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP. (SEE DETAIL) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) 6.0' CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (MATCH EXISTING SECTION) SCULPTURE (SEE LANDSCAPE) 24.0' HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE APRON (SEE DETAIL) B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP. (SEE DETAIL) CONCRETE RISERS W/ RAILING (SEE GRADING, ARCHITECTURAL, & STRUCTURAL) CONCRETE RISERS W/ RAILING (SEE GRADING, ARCHITECTURAL, & STRUCTURAL) COURTYARD CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) 6 HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE APRON (SEE DETAIL) HEAVY-DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL) RETAINING WALL W/ FENCE WHERE WALL IS OVER 2.5' TALL (SEE GRADING PLAN & LANDSCAPE )R 77' R 53' 24.0' 9.0' 18.0' 24.0' 20.0' 9.0' EXISTING MNDOT CONCRETE RETAINING WALL R 5' R 5' R 5' R 5' R 5' R 5' 4.9' FLUSH CURB 9' TAPER 10' TAPER HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE APRON (SEE DETAIL) SERVIC E D R I V E W A Y 6 73 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. EOE License Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional under the laws of the State of Minnesota.BKVTB-30x42Engineer Date XX/XX/XXXX24440 Michael J. St. Martin, PE LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 21081.00 © 2016 BKV Group, Inc. EOE SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER ISSUE #DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N CERTIFICATION DATE 4917 EDEN AVE. 21081.00 XX/XX/XXXX JBT MJS OWNER/DEVELOPER 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WARNING: AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUNDGopher State One Call SITE PLAN C2-1 REQUIRED SURFACE ACCESSIBLE PARKING:xxx STALLS* *REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 101-150 STALLS SURFACE ACCESSIBLE PARKING:xxx STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED: 37 STALLS SITE NOTES 1.ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2.ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3.ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4.ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' WITH A 24' WIDE TWO WAY DRIVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 3.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7.BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. 8.SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. CURRENT ZONING:xxx PROPOSED ZONING:xxx BUILDING SETBACK:xxx TOTAL PROPERTY AREA:2.08 AC. AREA OF DISTURBANCE:2.58 AC. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:1.82 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:1.48 AC. SITE DATA SITE PLAN LEGEND CONCRETE SIDEWALK BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SPECIALTY LANDSCAPE PAVING N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 N N NO PARKINGEDEN AVE. BUILDING FFE=935.50 GFE=925.00 922 923 928 923 924 932 93 3 934 9 2 8 4 4 444425.00 8.0% 92 9 9 3 0 93 1 9 2 2 9 2 3 FG. 39.3 FS 4.0%FG. 29.0 FS 4.0%8 8 8 8888888 888888888888888888810:138.54± EX. 38.27± EX. 35.72 37.14 33.52 33.04 33.14 33.50 33.14 32.14 32.46 32.33 32.28 32.26 31.72 32.21 32.79 32.33 32.36 33.40 33.40 33.50 33.50 TW=???.??? TW=30.42 BW=25.00 BW=25.00 BW=22.75 TW=28.72 28.12 TW=28.57 TW=28.35 27.61 27.51 30.46 TW=28.20 BW=24.74 BW=23.50 BW=23.50 25.00 26.82 27.83 27.934.9%5.9% 2.0%5.0%1 . 7%5.5%1.0%4.0%4.0%1.0% 2.7%3.0%2.7%33.33 33.39 28.94 28.68 28.20 5.0%2.0%8.0% 1.0%2.0%0.5%35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.50 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.2035.2035.2035.20 31.10 31.00 31.50 31.63 31.77 31.84 31.78 32.08 34.87 35.35 34.8535.35 35.35 35.02 34.33 33.95 33.63 33.25 32.96 34.69 2.0% 6.7% 7.4%5.6%1.3%4.0%1.6% 1.6%1.6% 34.18 33.00 33.52 33.19 33.98 1.0% 3. 0 % TW=37.60 TW=37.84 TW=37.84 TW=37.10 TW=37.10 TW=37.10 TW=35.30 TW=35.30 TW=35.20 TW=35.20 TW=35.31 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=35.30 BW=33.00 BW=32.58 BW=35.20 37.61± EX.37.50± EX.36.80± EX.36.66± EX.0.7%1.0%2.0%1.5%2.4%3.4%88888888888888888883.5%5.5%7.0%26.77 27.0027.39 27.48 25.0024.89 24.00 25.00 9279269259319339349359349339329 3 7 9 3 6 9 3 5 935 934 935 936 937 938 925932 933934935936937938939 34.00 36.57 8888FUTURE FRONTAGE ROAD FUTURE FRONTAGE ROAD FLUSH CURB 9' TAPER 10' TAPER 92 8 4 4 44444444444448.0% 26.82 27.83 27.93 28.94 28.68 28.20 5.0% 2.0%8.0% 33.198 826.77 27.00 27.39 27.48927926 73 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. EOE License Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional under the laws of the State of Minnesota.BKVTB-30x42Engineer Date XX/XX/XXXX24440 Michael J. St. Martin, PE LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 21081.00 © 2016 BKV Group, Inc. EOE SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER ISSUE #DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N CERTIFICATION DATE 4917 EDEN AVE. 21081.00 XX/XX/XXXX JBT MJS OWNER/DEVELOPER 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WARNING: AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUNDGopher State One Call GRADING PLAN C3-1 N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 N N GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1.SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 3.ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 4.FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), "GW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT WALL GRADE TRANSITION, AND "BW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 5.STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 6.DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 7.SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. 8.SEE UTILITY PLANS FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. 9.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. 10.SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. 11.NOTIFY CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DEPT. AT 952-826-0371, AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER BMP'S. NO PARKINGEDEN AVE. BUILDING FFE=935.50 GFE=925.00 4 4 44448 8 8 8888888 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE INV=908.36 (VERIFY LOCATION & INV. W/ MECHANICAL) SAN SMH 100 RIM= 927.25 INV(W)= 907.39 INV(S)=907.39 48 LF 8" SANITARY @ 2.00% 270 LF 8" SANITARY @ 2.00% 5 LF - 6" FIRE PROTECTION WATER SERVICE (VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, & INV. W/ MECHANICAL) 5 LF - 6" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE (VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, & INV. W/ MECHANICAL) 6" GV & HYDRANT 22.5° 6" BEND CONNECT TO EX. WATER MAIN (VERIFY LOCATION & SIZE) 30 LF 6" WM 45° 6" BEND 28LF 6" WM 6" GV 4 4 444444444444488REMOVE TOP SECTION OF MANHOLE TO ALLOW FOR DIRECTIONAL BORING, CONNECT TO MANHOLE WITH 2' INSIDE DROP AT 901.07 WITH INSIDE DROP DIRECTIONAL BORE 270 LF OF 8" PVC 8" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE INV=908.36 (VERIFY LOCATION & INV. W/ MECHANICAL) SAN SMH 100 RIM= 927.25 INV(W)= 907.39 INV(S)=907.39 48 LF 8" SANITARY @ 2.00% 270 LF 8" SANITARY @ 2.00% DRILL RIG LOCATION PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER TO BE DIRECTIONALLY BORED TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE TO STREET AND ROOTS OF MATURE TREES LAYDOWN AREA FOR PIPE FUSING AND PULLING 73 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. EOE License Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional under the laws of the State of Minnesota.BKVTB-30x42Engineer Date XX/XX/XXXX24440 Michael J. St. Martin, PE LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 21081.00 © 2016 BKV Group, Inc. EOE SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER ISSUE #DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N CERTIFICATION DATE 4917 EDEN AVE. 21081.00 XX/XX/XXXX JBT MJS OWNER/DEVELOPER 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WARNING: AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUNDGopher State One Call SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN PLAN C4-1 N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 N N UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), LATEST EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL OTHER UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE SCH. 40 PVC. 9.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 10.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 11.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. 12.HYDRANT USE: CONTRACTOR IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE HYDRANTS. ALSO APPLIES TO SUBCONTRACTORS. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AND GIVE AT LEAST 48 HOURS NOTICE TO HAVE WATER SHUT OFF. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND OPERATE ALL VALVES AND FILL ALL WATER MAINS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE). CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING, ALL AFFECTED CUSTOMERS AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE BEFORE SHUT OFF; ATTACH DOOR, ET., NOT IN MAILBOXES. 14.TEMPORARY SERVICE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY SERVICE IF SERVICE CANNOT BE RESTORED SAME DAY. IF USING HYDRANT FOR TEMPORARY SERVICE, NOTIFY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND USE ONLY PRE-APPROVED HYDRANT AND SUPPLIED HYDRO METER WITH BACK FLOW. THE CONTRACTOR'S TEMPORARY MAIN SHALL BE DISINFECTED, FLUSHED AND BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS SHOWN NEGATIVE PRIOR TO PUTTING THE TEMPORARY SYSTEM IN SERVICE. THE TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT SHUTTING OFF ANY WATER MAINS. 15.SANITARY SEWER MATERIAL: PVC SDR 26 16.WATERMAIN MATERIAL: 6" PVC C900 NO PARKINGEDEN AVE. BUILDING FFE=935.50 GFE=925.00 4 4 44448 8 8 8888888 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888839 LF 12" STORM @ 2.00% CBMH 202 RIM= 926.75 INV(E)=917.22 INV(W)=917.22 CBMH 201 RIM= 924.00 INV(E)=916.70 INV(S)=916.70 CB 203 RIM= 927.55 INV(E)=925.26 CBMH 204 RIM= 927.63 INV(W)=925.06 INV(NE)=924.96 36 LF 12" STORM @ 19.08% 69 LF 12" STORM @ 8.27% BUILD CB OVER EXISTING STORM LINE 84 LF 12" STORM @ 2.27% CBMH 221 RIM= 934.00 INV(S)=919.90 AD 206 RIM=935.20 AD 214 RIM=935.20 AD 215 RIM=935.20 AD 216 RIM=935.20 AD 217 RIM=935.20 AD 213 RIM=935.20AD 2312 RIM=935.20 AD 210 RIM=935.20 AD 211 RIM=935.20 AD 207 RIM=935.20 AD 208 RIM=935.20 AD 209 RIM=935.20 CLEANOUT 231 INV= 921.38 (12") N INV= 918.68 (12") E INV=921.30 (12") W 21 LF 12" STORM @ 2.00% 109 LF 12" STORM @ 2.02% CLEANOUT 232 INV= 919.10 (12") E INV=919.10 (12") N 20 LF 12" STORM @ 2.00% CLEANOUT 233 INV= 918.70 (12") S INV=918.70 (12") W 38 LF 12" STORM @ 1.86% 26 LF 12" STORM @ 2.00% COURTYARD EOF =34.8 AREA DRAINS ALONG GRIDLINES RIM= ±935.2 STORM IN LOWER GARAGE CEILING @2.0% 20 LF 12" STORM @ 1.00% STORM TANK 96" DIA. TOP=921.00 INV=913.00 INV=18.0 INV=18.0 INV=18.0 INV=18.0 DROP STORM DOWN TO LOWER GARAGE INV= ±923.0 TRENCH DRAIN AT BASE OF WALL RIM - 35.3 0.5% PRESLOPE TRENCH DRAIN AT BASE OF WALL RIM - 35.3 0.5% PRESLOPE TRENCH DRAIN AT BASE OF WALL RIM - 35.3 TRENCH DRAIN AT BASE OF WALL RIM - 35.3 62 LF 12" STORM @ 4.32% CBMH 219 RIM= 933.00 INV(N)=928.75 CBMH 220 RIM= 931.78 INV(S)=926.09 INV(W)=925.99 INV(N)=927.39 CBMH 219 (2) RIM= 932.08 INV(S)=927.83 STORM IN GARAGE STORM OUTSIDE CBMH 240 RIM= 924.91 INV(N)=920.66 4 4 44444444444448873 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. EOE License Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional under the laws of the State of Minnesota.BKVTB-30x42Engineer Date XX/XX/XXXX24440 Michael J. St. Martin, PE LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 21081.00 © 2016 BKV Group, Inc. EOE SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER ISSUE #DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N CERTIFICATION DATE 4917 EDEN AVE. 21081.00 XX/XX/XXXX JBT MJS OWNER/DEVELOPER 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WARNING: AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUNDGopher State One Call STORM SEWER PLAN C4-2 N SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 N N UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), LATEST EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL OTHER UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE SCH. 40 PVC. 9.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 10.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 11.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. 12.HYDRANT USE: CONTRACTOR IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE HYDRANTS. ALSO APPLIES TO SUBCONTRACTORS. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AND GIVE AT LEAST 48 HOURS NOTICE TO HAVE WATER SHUT OFF. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND OPERATE ALL VALVES AND FILL ALL WATER MAINS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE). CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING, ALL AFFECTED CUSTOMERS AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE BEFORE SHUT OFF; ATTACH DOOR, ET., NOT IN MAILBOXES. 14.TEMPORARY SERVICE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY SERVICE IF SERVICE CANNOT BE RESTORED SAME DAY. IF USING HYDRANT FOR TEMPORARY SERVICE, NOTIFY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND USE ONLY PRE-APPROVED HYDRANT AND SUPPLIED HYDRO METER WITH BACK FLOW. THE CONTRACTOR'S TEMPORARY MAIN SHALL BE DISINFECTED, FLUSHED AND BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS SHOWN NEGATIVE PRIOR TO PUTTING THE TEMPORARY SYSTEM IN SERVICE. THE TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT SHUTTING OFF ANY WATER MAINS. 15.STORM SEWER MATERIALS: 12" OR GREATER: HDPE NO PARKINGGRAPHIC LEGEND: CIP STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, BROOM FINISHED, TYP. TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) PLANTING BED #1: ROCK MULCH, 4" MIN., MIXED SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS PER PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING BED #2: HARDWOOD MULCH, 4" MIN., MIXED SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS PER PLANT SCHEDULE CIP COLORED CONCRETE, BROOM FINISHED, TYP. SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, SEED MIX TBD TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_LAND_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:47:21 PMSB BH 2286-05 L100 SITE - LANDSCAPE PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1" = 20'-0"L100 1 SITE - LANDSCAPE PLAN FRONT PLAZA AMENITY SPACE VISITOR PARKING LOT AND TURNAROUND PARKING GARAGE RAMP ENTRANCE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PAD DENSE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING SURFACE PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGS PER PLANT SCHEDULE SURFACE PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGS PER PLANT SCHEDULE SITE RETAINING WALL PARKING LOT CENTRAL AMENITY COURTYARD SPACE SITE RETAINING WALL UNIT WALK UPS PARKING LOT ACCESS DRIVE MAINTAINED TURF STRIP SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE SEED MIX SITE RETAINING WALL SURFACE PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGS PER PLANT SCHEDULE DENSE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING DENSE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING SURFACE PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGS PER PLANT SCHEDULE SURFACE PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGS PER PLANT SCHEDULE MOVE-IN AND TRASH ACCESS LANE RESTAURANT PATIO PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE BOUNDARY UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE BOUNDARY NO PARKINGGRAPHIC LEGEND: CIP STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, BROOM FINISHED, TYP. TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) PLANTING BED #1: ROCK MULCH, 4" MIN., MIXED SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS PER PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING BED #2: HARDWOOD MULCH, 4" MIN., MIXED SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS PER PLANT SCHEDULE CIP COLORED CONCRETE, BROOM FINISHED, TYP. SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, SEED MIX TBD PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE: TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_LAND_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:47:23 PMSB BH 2286-05 L101 SITE - PLANTING PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1" = 20'-0"L101 1 SITE - PLANTING PLAN QTY SYM COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING SIZE PERENNIALS/VINES/ANNUALS 1 ac MAGGIE DALEY ASTILBE Astilbe chinensis 'Maggie Daley' #1 CONT. 1 ca FEATHER REED GRASS Calamagrostis arundinacea var. brachtytricha #1 CONT. 1 hb BLUE ANGEL HOSTA Hosta 'Blue Angel'#1 CONT. 1 hh HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY Hemerocallis 'Happy Returns' #1 CONT. 1 pa HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' #1 CONT. 1 pt PACHYSANDRA 'Green Carpet' Pachysandra terminalis 'Green Carpet' #1 CONT. 1 pv NORTHWIND SWITCHGRASS Panicum virgatum 'Northwind' #1 CONT. 1 rh WALKER'S LOW CATMINT Nepeta x faassenii 'Walker's Low' #1 CONT. 1 sh PRAIRIE DROPSEED Sporobolus heterolepis #1 CONT. 1 ss LITTLE BLUESTEM 'Blue Heaven' Schizachyrium scoparium 'Minnblue A' (PP17, 310) #1 CONT. ORNAMENTAL TREES 7 AG AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchir x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' 2" CAL. 2 BP WHITESPIRE BIRCH (CLUMP) Betula populifolia 'Whitespire' 2.5" CAL. 8 CC NORTHERN CLUMP REDBUD Cercis canadensis #20 CONT. 5 SR SUMMER STORM LILAC Syringa reticulata 'Summer Storm' (PPAF) 2" CAL. DECIDUOUS TREES 8 AS GREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 'Green Mountain' 2.5" CAL. 7 BN RIVER BIRCH Betula nigra 2.5" CAL. 6 BP DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' 2.5" CAL. 3 GB AUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo Biloba 'Autumn Gold' 2.5" CAL. 8 GT SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Skycole' 2.5" CAL. 6 PT PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN Populus tremuloides 'NEArb' 2.5" CAL. 8 QA QUAKING ASPEN Populous tremuloides #20 CONT. 7 QB SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor 2.5" CAL. 5 QW KINDRED SPIRIT OAK Quercus x warei 'Nadler' 2.5" CAL. 5 TA AMERICAN SENTRY LINDEN Tilia americana 'MnKSentry' 2.5" CAL. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 1 Bw NORTHERN CHARM BOXWOOD Buxus 'Wilson'#3 CONT. 1 Cc SUGARTINA CLETHRA Clethra alnifolia 'Crystalina' (PP21, 561) #2 CONT. 1 Cf ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD Cornus stolonifera 'Farrow' (PP18,523) #5 CONT. 1 Cs CARDINAL DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' #5 CONT. 1 Ds BUTTERFLY BUSH HONEYSUCKLE Diervilla sessilifolia 'Butterfly' #5 CONT. 1 Dw DWARF WINGED EUONYMOU Euonymous alatus 'Compactus' #10 CONT. 1 Ra GRO LOW SUMAC Rhus aromatica 'Gro Low' #5 CONT. 1 Sm DWARF KOREAN LILAC Syringe meyeri 'Palibin' #5 CONT. 1 Sr RED ELDERBERRY Sambucus racemosa #5 CONT. 1 Ss SEM FALSE SPIREA Sorbaria sorbifolia 'Sem'(PP16,336) #2 CONT. CONIFEROUS TREES 1 JC SPARTAN JUNIPER Juniper chinensis 'Spartan' 6' B&B 12 PA NORWAY SPRUCE Picea abies 8' B&B 7 PS WHITE PINE Pinus Strobus 6' B&B CONIFEROUS SHRUBS 1 Cp KING'S GOLD CHAMAECYPARIS Chamaecyparis pisifera 'King's gold' #5 CONT. 1 Ct HEATHERBUN CHAMAECYPARIS Chamaecyparis thyoides 'Heather Bun' #5 CONT. 1 Jh BLUE CHIP JUNIPER Juniperus horizontalis 'Blue Chip' #5 CONT. 1 Jp SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniperus x pfitseriana 'Sea Green' #5 CONT. 1 Js BLUE FOREST JUNIPER Juniperus sabina 'Blue Forest' #5 CONT. 1 Pb SCHOODIC PINE Pinus banksiana 'Schoodic' #3 CONT. 1 Tc TECHNITO ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis 'Bailjohn' (PP15, 850) 6' B&B *PLANT SCHEDULE FOR SPECIES REFERENCE ONLY, FINAL QUANTITIES TO BE DETERMINED IRRIGATION NOTE: ALL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE DRIPLINE IRRIGATION, ALL TURF AREAS TO RECEIVE SPRAY NOZZLES PERENNIAL PLANT SPACING VARIES; (SEE PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE) GENERAL NOTES: • HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTANERIZED MATERIAL, TYP. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH; (SEE SPEC); 4" DEPTH, TYP. EDGE CONDITION VARIES PER PLAN PLANTING SOIL; (SEE SPEC) 18" MIN. DEPTH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SUBGRADE VARIES PER PLAN 1' - 6"VARIES SHRUB PLANT SPACING VARIES; (SEE PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE) GENERAL NOTES: • HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTANERIZED MATERIAL, TYP. • SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING PIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION • CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION FROM EDGE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH; (SEE SPEC); 4" DEPTH, TYP. EDGE CONDITION VARIES PER PLAN PLANTING SOIL; (SEE SPEC) 18" MIN. DEPTH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SUBGRADE GENERAL NOTES: • TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. • SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING, TYP. 8' 0" STEEL STAKE DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE; 3' @ 120 DEGREE INTERVALS, TYP. 16" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE-40 MIL.; 1 1/2" WIDE STRAP, TYP. TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH OR APPROVED EQUAL, TYP. FLAGGING; ONE PER WIRE, TYP. ORGANIC MULCH; 4" DEPTH-NO MOUNDING; 36" DIA. AROUND OUTER TRUNK, TYP. (SEE SPEC) ROOTBALL TO SIT ON MOUNDED SUBGRADE, TYP. REMOVE BURLAP AND CAGE FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL DRAIN SYSTEM AS REQUIRED; (PER SPEC) 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE WITH SOCK-PLACED IN 42" MIN. DEPTH AUGURED HOLE; FILL WITH 3/4" DRAIN ROCK PLANTING SOIL WITH AMENDMENTS; (SEE SPEC) EDGE CONDITION VARIES; (SEE PLAN) 2" X 2" X 24" WOOD OR STEEL STAKE; SET AT ANGLE, TYP. GENERAL NOTES: • TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. • SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING, TYP. • CONIFERS TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NO MULCH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK, TYP. 8' 0" STEEL STAKE DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE; 3' @ 120 DEGREE INTERVALS, TYP. 16" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE-40 MIL.; 1 1/2" WIDE STRAP, TYP. FLAGGING; ONE PER WIRE, TYP. ORGANIC MULCH; 4" DEPTH-NO MOUNDING; 36" DIA. AROUND OUTER TRUNK, TYP. (SEE SPEC) ROOTBALL TO SIT ON MOUNDED SUBGRADE, TYP. REMOVE BURLAP AND CAGE FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL DRAIN SYSTEM AS REQUIRED; (PER SPEC) 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE WITH SOCK-PLACED IN 42" MIN. DEPTH AUGURED HOLE; FILL WITH 3/4" DRAIN ROCK PLANTING SOIL WITH AMENDMENTS; (SEE SPEC) EDGE CONDITION VARIES; (SEE PLAN) 2" X 2" X 24" WOOD OR STEEL STAKE; SET AT ANGLE, TYP.SUBGRADE SUBGRADE6' - 0"2' MIN.G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_LAND_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:47:23 PMSB BH 2286-05 L300 LANDSCAPE DETAILS 4917 EDEN AVE 3/4" = 1'-0"L300 1 SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAILS-TYP. 1/2" = 1'-0"L300 2 TREE PLANTING DETAILS-TYP. ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN (12"RCP)NO PARKING30' - 0"5' - 6"30' - 0"STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEC/DATA ELEV C ELEV B 3337 SF RESTUARANT ENTRY VESTIBULE 1197 SF LEASING CENTER 1370 SF LOBBY 210 SF PARCEL 217 SF MAIL 1434 SF CLUBROOM 348 SF GOLF 381 SF GAME 435 SF RESTROOMS / LOCKER ROOM 1103 SF FITNESS CENTER SCULPTURE DROP OFFCOURTYARD EDEN AVE WILLSON RDBUILDING ABOVE FUTURE OUTDOOR SPACE (MN DOT LAND) ALTERNATE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 29 SURFACE PARKING SPACES -3 PARKING PACES -FUTURE DRIVEWAY EXISTING RETAINING WALL BELOW GRADE WATER RETENTION BELOW GRADE WATER RETENTION RAMP DN 12% ALTERNATE LOADING AREA DOG RUN AREA + 934.5 6 14 15 + 930 + 935 + 935.5 + 935.5 + 924 +/-GRADE AT WALL+ 923 +/-GRADE + 930 + 925 + 927 + 937 + 935 2 TRASH CORRIDOR OPEN MN DOT LAND + 933.5 + 933.5 2 ' - 0 "SERVICE DRIVEWAY + 925 +/-GRADE + 937RAMP 15' - 0"15' - 0"10' - 0"1 0 ' - 0 "10' - 0"10' - 0"1 0 ' - 0 " 252' - 0"212' - 0"150' - 5"1 3 7 ' - 2 "125' - 7" TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:37:09 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A010 SITE PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE SITE PLAN KEYNOTES A010 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 SITE ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 3,700 SF STAIR A ELEV A ELEV C ELEV B STAIR B18' - 0"24' - 0"21' - 2"25' - 0"8"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0" 1 8 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 6 "18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"2 4 ' - 0 "RAMP 12% SLOPE UP LOWER LEVEL PARKING 2 6 ' - 0 "1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 ELECTRICAL & MECHMECH C C TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:13 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A098 LEVEL OVERALL LOWER BASEMENT PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE A098 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P2 ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTESParking Schedule Family Level Count BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 142 STANDARD: 142 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 125 STANDARD: 125 Grand total: 277 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF BIT. TRAILSTAIR A ELEV A RAMP 12% SLOPE ELEV C ELEV B STAIR B18' - 6"24' - 0"21' - 2"25' - 0"8"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"DN 24' - 0" 1 8 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 6 "18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"2 4 ' - 0 "1 8 ' - 0 "TRASH ROOM BIKE ROOM POOL ROOM LOADING / STAGGINGMECH ROOM DOG WASH UPPER LEVEL PARKING VAN VAN 24' - 5" 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 DOG RUN 1' - 2 1/2"RAMP 12% SLOPE DN BUILDING ABOVE WATER ROOM & FIRE PUMP SERVICE DRIVEWAY TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:16 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A099 LEVEL OVERALL UPPER BASEMENT PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A099 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P1 Parking Schedule Family Level Count BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 142 STANDARD: 142 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 125 STANDARD: 125 Grand total: 277 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF 1 A401 2 A402 1 A402 2 A401 2 A403 1 A403 65' - 6"1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEC/DATA ELEV C ELEV B 3337 SF RESTUARANT ENTRY VESTIBULE 1197 SF LEASING CENTER 210 SF PARCEL 217 SF MAIL 1370 SF LOBBY 1434 SF CLUBROOM 1103 SF FITNESS CENTER 435 SF RESTROOMS / LOCKER ROOM 381 SF GAME 348 SF GOLF TRASH 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1204 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED - - - - - - 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 746 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 30' - 0"5' - 6"30' - 0"65' - 6"80' - 0"65' - 6"30' - 0"5' - 6"30' - 0"1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED RAMP TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:23 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A101 LEVEL 1 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A101 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE / TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF 3,700 SF 1 A401 2 A402 1 A402 2 A401 2 A403 1 A403 STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B MECH - B ELEV C ELEV B TRASH OPEN TO DRIVE BELOW OPEN TO LOBBY BELOW 869 SF COCKTAIL BAR / TECH LOUNGE ELEC/DATA 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1204 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED - - - - - - 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1161 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 107 SF CONFERENCE 63 SF CO-WORKING OFFICE 72 SF CO-WORKING OFFICE 74 SF CO-WORKING OFFICE 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED OUTDOOR DECK TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:31 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A102 LEVEL 2 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A102 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE / TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF 1 A401 2 A402 1 A402 2 A401 2 A403 1 A403 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEV C ELEV B MECH - B TRASH ELEC/DATA 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 1247 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED - - - - - - 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1161 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1204 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:40 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A103 LEVEL 3-6 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A103 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 3 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE / TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF UP 1 A401 2 A402 1 A402 2 A401 2 A403 1 A403 1496 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEV C ELEV B MECH - B 599 SF ROOFTOP AMENITY 1448 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1737 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE TRASH ELEC/DATA 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 698 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 698 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1067 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED - - - - - - 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1067 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED OUTDOOR DECK TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:45 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A107 LEVEL 7 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A107 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 7 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE / TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF DN 1 A401 2 A402 1 A402 2 A401 2 A403 1 A403 STAIR B PHOTOVOLTAIC ZONE STAIR ROOF 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 ELEV OVERRUN GARDEN PLOTS MECH UNIT RESTAURANT VENTING MECH UNIT ROOF HATCH - - - - - - ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONSSLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:50 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A140 ROOF PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE A140 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FBR-1 WHITE BRICK STN-1 KASOTA STONE OR MANUFACTURED STONE FSDG-1 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM DARK GREY DCMU-1 SPLIT FACE BLOCK - BUFF COLOR MP-1 METAL PANEL - COPPER FINISH UNACLAD FIRESTONE - CLASSIC COPPER MP-2 DECORATIVE METAL CEILING PANELS COPPER FINISH FSDG-2 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM BUFF COLOR LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"75' - 10"METAL RAILING -BLACKMETAL FRAME CANOPIES -DARK GREY FBR-1 FSDG-1FSDG-1 STN-1 MP-1 STN-1 DCMU-1 METAL CANOPY -COPPER METAL CANOPY -COPPER BLACK WINDOW FRAMES DECORATIVE EXTRUDED BRICK DECORATIVE CEMENT BOARD TRIM LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 0"10' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 6"FBR-1 FSDG-1 FSDG-1 STN-1 MP-1 FSDG-1METAL FRAMED CANOPY -COPPER METAL CANOPIES -COPPER BLACK WINDOW FRAMESDECORATIVE EXTRUDED BRICKDECORATIVE CEMENT BOARD TRIM UNIT MECH. UNITS - MATCH ADJACENT COLOR FBR-1 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:29:06 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4917 EDEN AVE EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"75' - 10"FBR-1 FSDG-1 MP-1 FSDG-1 STN-1FSDG-1 METAL CANOPY FRAMES -COPPER METAL CANOPIES -COPPER BLACK WINDOW FRAMES BLACK METAL RAILINGS EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FBR-1 WHITE BRICK STN-1 KASOTA STONE OR MANUFACTURED STONE FSDG-1 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM DARK GREY DCMU-1 SPLIT FACE BLOCK - BUFF COLOR MP-1 METAL PANEL - COPPER FINISH UNACLAD FIRESTONE - CLASSIC COPPER MP-2 DECORATIVE METAL CEILING PANELS COPPER FINISH FSDG-2 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM BUFF COLOR LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0"10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"75' - 10"DOG RUN AREA FSDG-1 FBR-1 FSDG-1 STN-1 DCMU-1FSDG-1DCMU-1 BLACK METAL RAILING DECORATIVE EXTRUDED BRICK DECORATIVE CEMENT BOARD TRIM MECH LOUVER -BUFFMECH. LOUVER -BUFF BLACK WINDOW FRAMES OVERHEAD LOADING DOOR G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:29:22 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4917 EDEN AVE EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"75' - 10"FSDG-1 FBR-1 STN-1 FSDG-1UNIT MECH. LOUVERS - MATCH ADJACENT COLOR DECORATIVE EXTRUDED BRICK DECORATIVE CEMENT BOARD TRIM BLACK METAL RAILING BLACK WINDOW FRAMES FSDG-2 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 0"10' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 6"75' - 10"MP-1 FBR-1 FSDG-1FSDG-1 STN-1 METAL FRAMED CANOPY -COPPER DECORATIVE EXTRUDED BRICK DECORATIVE CEMENT BOARD TRIMBLACK WINDOW FRAMESUNIT MECH. LOUVERS -MATCH ADJACENT COLORBLACK METAL RAILINGSMETAL FRAMED CANOPY -COPPER FSDG-2 EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FBR-1 WHITE BRICK STN-1 KASOTA STONE OR MANUFACTURED STONE FSDG-1 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM DARK GREY DCMU-1 SPLIT FACE BLOCK - BUFF COLOR MP-1 METAL PANEL - COPPER FINISH UNACLAD FIRESTONE - CLASSIC COPPER MP-2 DECORATIVE METAL CEILING PANELS COPPER FINISH FSDG-2 CEMENT BOARD SIDING AND TRIM BUFF COLOR G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:29:36 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4917 EDEN AVE A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 COURTYARD -NORTH A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 COURTYARD -SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4"10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"(+735'-00" CIVIL)75' - 10"RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AMENITYCOURTYARD PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" P1 90' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 175' - 10" P2 80' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 6 154' - 8" LEVEL 7 165' - 4" (+735'-00" CIVIL)10' - 6"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"75' - 10"PARKING GARAGE RESIDENTAIL G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:35:50 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A501 BUILDING SECTIONS 4917 EDEN AVE A501 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Section 1 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A501 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 Section 2 2 2 1 1 Memorandum TO: City of Edina City Council, Planning Commissioners, and Planning Staff COPY: Nick Walton & Kyle Brasser – Reuter Walton, Carol Lansing – Faegre Drinker Mike Kyrch & Jeff Ellingson – BKV Group FROM: Chris Palkowitsch, AIA – BKV Group DATE: 3/29/2021 RE: 4917 Eden Avenue Redevelopment – Preliminary Development Application Reuter Walton, with BKV Group, is proposing a new mixed-use, multi-family development for 4917 Eden Avenue. The site is located at the southwest corner of Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road. This site is 2.08 acres (90,553 SF) and is currently occupied by the Perkins Restaurant. We are proposing a seven-story building with 208 residential units and a 3,700 SF restaurant. Twenty percent of the units will be affordable to families earning 60% AMI, in accordance with the City of Edina affordable housing policy. Based on input received through the concept design meetings with Planning Commission and City Council, a portion of the west side of the site will be reserved for a potential future off-ramp and frontage road from Highway 100. Reuter Walton Experience Reuter Walton Development is a Twin-Cities based real estate developer. We specialize in developing innovative, sustainable properties in the multifamily, student housing, hospitality, and commercial sectors. Our current development focus is multifamily housing. In the past 15 years, Reuter Walton has developed 32 ground-up developments throughout the Twin Cities metro area. Our development approach is collaborative and forward-thinking, with an eye for detail and efficiency. Our team is committed to ensuring each project aligns with unique community needs and values, delivering lasting benefits to residents, investors and communities alike. Some recently completed developments: · The Asher apartments – 1125 Lagoon Ave S, Minneapolis. 175 apartment units and 5,000 SF of commercial/retail space · Sora Apartments – 600 5th Ave S, Minneapolis – 125 apartment units and 3,200 SF of skyway connected commercial/retail space · The Donegan – 241 Kellogg Blvd – 93 apartment units in Lowertown St. Paul · Marquee Apartments – 1400 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis. 231 apartment units and 10,000 SF of commercial/retail space · Cordelle Apartments – 84 Water Street W, St. Paul – 136 apartment units · Luna – Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis – 85 apartment units Current projects under construction: · 200 12th Ave S (to be named) – 225 apartment units in the Mill District of Minneapolis – opening June 2022 · The Isaac – 2720 Fairview Ave, Roseville, MN - 127 apartment units in Roseville, MN – opening Fall 2021 · The Shale – 4757 Hiawatha Ave, Minneapolis – 85 apartment units – opening summer 2021 · Fairview & University – 243 apartment units located along the Green Line in St. Paul – opening summer 2022 Site & Zoning Currently the site is zoned PCD-1 (Planned Commercial District) and APD (Automobile Parking District). The future land use designation for the site in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is Mixed- Use Center (Grandview area). See Table 3.6 for Grandview information related to the MXC future land use category. The table sets forth density and intensity guidance of 20-100 units per acre. This proposal is within the comprehensive plan guidelines at 100 units per acre. Edina Comprehensive Plan (Table 3.6) We propose to rezone the site as a Planned Unit Development District (PUD). This will allow the development team an opportunity to work collaboratively with the City and the community to create the best project for the site. For the residential portion of the building, we are proposing 277 below grade structured parking stalls and 8 stalls at grade, for a total of 285. 29 additional surface stalls are proposed for the restaurant on the west side of the site. Zoning code requires 1.75 stalls per unit with one enclosed space per unit and .75 exposed spaces per unit. Based on Reuter Walton’s experience with multiple developments of similar scale, we are proposing 1.37 stalls per unit. We believe this will adequality park the building. We are proposing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.52 with 228,382 SF in 7 stories of building above grade. The comprehensive plan does not establish density goals based on FAR but, as noted above, the project is consistent with the residential density guidance of the comprehensive plan of 20 – 100 units per acre. The project site is unique in that it is bordered by highway and MnDOT land, broad local rights-of-way, parking lots and the golf course. The expansive open space surrounding the site will mitigate the impact of the proposed FAR. Additionally, Reuter Walton would like to acquire the triangular piece of MnDOT land to the north of the site and make it part of the development. If this 8,300 SF is added to the current site, 90,553 SF, the FAR would be reduced to 2.31. Development + Site Impacts Through the Sketch Plan Review process, we received feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council to preserve the west side of the site for the potential future off-ramp and frontage road. The location of this roadway is roughly determined by the August 31, 2016 Grandview Transportation Study. The 2016 Study creates frontage roads on the east side and west side of Highway 100 that connect directly to redesigned on and off ramps from the Highway. In response to the direction we received, we have omitted the 4 story, 52,000 SF office building that was presented as an option in the sketch plans. Pending construction of the off- ramp and frontage road, the west portion of the site will be maintained as landscaped green space. Project Design The design of the project takes into consideration the Community Design Guidelines of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan notes that, “[a]s a largely developed city, Edina’s future growth will be built on infill and redevelopment sites and will need to fit in, improving the character of surrounding areas.” The Plan includes the following overall principles to guide redevelopment. Chapter 3 Design Principles 1. Design buildings with an interesting and varied pedestrian-scaled street frontage, as expressed through building massing, façade articulation, materials, and details. 2. Recognize that diverse architectural styles can be employed to achieve city-building goals. 3. Position buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by facing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. 4. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. 5. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. The project is being designed to create a positive impact for the community through the redevelopment of the site to a high quality visual, pedestrian, resident, employee, and patron experience. The seven-story residence is V-shaped and is open toward the Edina Country Club Golf Course, creating a building that is connected to and relates to the open space of the golf course. The massing of the housing building is broken up by a copper lined glassy link between the two primary housing bars of the building. The top floor of the building is stepped back on the primary street facades to lessen the impact of the building’s height. The main corner of the building is at the intersection of the Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road. The building is set back from this corner to allow for an Art Plaza. This corner area also serves as the primary residence entry. It is defined by the two-story veranda and copper- lined vehicle entry portal. The veranda concept was designed to complement the two-story entry fin of City Hall. Additionally, the veranda creates a large “front porch” for this building, creating a strong pedestrian presence and design reference to the single-family homes around the golf course. Vehicle access into the two-level, below grade parking garage is south on Willson Road, utilizing the naturally low side of the site to minimize surface ramping. The project restaurant is located on the northwest corner of the project facing Eden Avenue. It has a surface parking lot with 29 stalls for the restaurant (26 when connected to the future off ramp/frontage road). The design of the building features an active and enjoyable pedestrian experience with walk-up units and robust landscaping wrapping around the project. On site stormwater management will be improved by the project. Additionally, the project includes a large, below grade storm water tank that will control the rate of discharge and filter the storm water. The roof of the housing building will feature a roof top patio, garden boxes for the residents, and will be solar ready for a photovoltaic array. Additionally, we have provided a list of our sustainable features in the sustainability questionnaire. The exterior design of the apartment building has been influenced by nearby residents and other community stake holders. The design team initially completed a design that had a more modern aesthetic inspired by new buildings in Edina. In response to the feedback we received, Reuter Walton had the design team create a more contextual design based on buildings and homes in the area. The design team started by reviewing local context examples in the Grandview area, near 50th & France and homes in the Sunny Slope neighborhood and around the gold course. The current design incorporates traditional and historic elements of the local Edina context into an updated and refined design concept. The building features buff stone at the first two levels and at the veranda delineating a strong base. The buff stone was selected to complement the stone on City Hall. Similar to City Hall, copper panels are utilized on the building as an accent material, placed on the underside of the veranda and at the vehicle entry portal to create richness within the design. Copper is also used on the building trellises, the glassy link, and light fixtures. The building has white brick as a primary material from levels 3-6. The brick features additional detail at the capitals and at the columns. The mid-gray painted material will be cement board siding and trim. Select Specific Design Items that Meet the Intent of the 2040 Guidelines Pedestrian Friendly Focus a) Interesting and active street edges with the main entries and walk-up units. b) New sidewalks with boulevards separating pedestrians from the street edge. c) Incorporation of an Art Plaza at the corner Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road d) Robust and interesting landscaping and vegetation. e) Primarily enclosed and below grade parking with surface space for convenience and drop offs. Building Placement & Design a) The building is located near the street edges but set back to allow for additional greenspace. b) The building is designed to meet the primary corner with a visually distinct and attractive building, with a two-story veranda wrapping the corner and a stepping back of the building above. c) Windows and entries are located throughout the street facing facades. Façade Articulation a) The facades of the buildings clearly articulate the base, middle and top. b) The drop-off area for the housing is clearly defined and integrated into the veranda with a well detailed and appointed portal. c) The building façade is broken up into smaller masses through stepbacks and material articulation. Building Height Transition a) The building is seven stories tall. At the intersection of the Eden Avenue, Willson Road, and Grange Road, the height of the building and massing are broken up by the two- story corner veranda and the stepback at the top level. The top-level stepback continues along Eden Ave on the north elevation and is also on the west elevation. Schedule This project went through Sketch Plan Review with the Planning Commission and City Council in January 2021. A meeting was held with neighbors on 2/18/21 to review the project and hear their thoughts. An additional neighborhood meeting will be held in the future after the traffic study has been completed. Upcoming steps are the Preliminary Development Review meetings and the Final Development Review submittal and meetings. Reuter Walton is working toward a closing deadline of August 2021 for acquisition of the site. Construction of the project is anticipated to start in November of 2021 and last 16-18 months. [End of Memo] March 12th, 2021 4917 EDEN AVE. EDINA, MINNESOTA RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Vicinity Map LEGEND Project Site Parks / Recreation Area 1. Edina Parks Recreation 2. Edina Country Club 3. Utley Park 4. Wooddale Park 5. Arden Park 6. Arden Park Rink 7. Todd Park 8. Highlands Park 9. Garden Park Education 1. Edina Cahill Historical School 2. Our Lady of Grace Catholic School 3. Highlands Elementary School Civic Facilities 1. Edina Police Department 2. Edina City Hall 3. Church 4. Edina Hennepin County Library 5. Minnepolis Heart Institute - Edina 6. Funeral Home Neighborhood Amenities 1. Bloomington Lake Clinic - Edina 2. Grocery / Convenience Stores 3. UPS/Postal Service 4. CenturyLin - Telecom Provider Transportation Bus L1 = 46,146, 568 L2 = 46,146, 568, 587 Train 1/2 MILE 1 /4 MILE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 45 1 2 2 6 2 3 # L1 L1 587 L2 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Photographs SOUTHWEST VIEW SITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM EAST ACROSS HIGHWAY 100 - VIEW FROM WESTSITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM SOUTHEASTVIEW FROM NORTHSITE ENTRY - VIEW FROM NORTH RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN CONTEXT - Connectivity 2. EDEN AVE ABOVE HIGHWAY100 1. EDEN AVE + WILSON RD INTERSECTION 3. WILSON RD 5. HIGHWAY 1004. EDEN AVE SITE 14 2 5 3 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - Current Aerial Map True North 0 25 50 100 200 RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN SITE - City Roadway Diagram - Option B True North NEW OFF RAMP/ ROADWAY SPLITS THE SITE NEW N-S CONNECTION ON EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 100 NEW N-S CONNECTION ON WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 100 NEW CONNECTION OVER THE HIGHWAY True North62' - 6"6' - 6"28' - 0"28' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"230' - 0"307' - 8"249' - 4"156' - 11"SITE C 65,384 ft2 SITE B 40,512 ft2 EDEN AVEHIGHWAY 10050th & VERNON258' - 0" 228' - 11" 1 0 '15'15'10' E D E N A V E +8,502 SF SITE A 80,086 GSF 1.84 Acres 88,588 GSF 2.03 Acres170' - 6"GRANGE ROADWILLSON RDOFF RAMP/ NEW ROADGOLF COURSE EDINA CITY HALL RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Site Plans (12"RCP)NO PARKING30' - 0"5' - 6"30' - 0" STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEC/DATA ELEV C ELEV B 3337 SF RESTUARANT ENTRY VESTIBULE 1197 SF LEASING CENTER 1370 SF LOBBY 210 SF PARCEL 217 SF MAIL 1434 SF CLUBROOM 348 SF GOLF 381 SF GAME 435 SF RESTROOMS / LOCKER ROOM 1103 SF FITNESS CENTER SCULPTURE DROP OFFCOURTYARD EDEN AVE WILLSON RDBUILDING ABOVE FUTURE OUTDOOR SPACE (MN DOT LAND) ALTERNATE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 29 SURFACE PARKING SPACES -3 PARKING PACES -FUTURE DRIVEWAY EXISTINGRETAINING WALL BELOW GRADE WATER RETENTION BELOW GRADEWATER RETENTION RAMP DN 12% ALTERNATE LOADING AREA DOG RUN AREA + 934.5 6 14 15 + 930 + 935 + 935.5 + 935.5 + 924 +/-GRADE AT WALL+ 923 +/-GRADE + 930 + 925 + 927 + 937 + 935 2 TRASH CORRIDOR OPEN MN DOT LAND + 933.5 + 933.5 2' - 0"SERVICE DRIVEWAY + 925 +/-GRADE + 937RAMP 15' - 0"15' - 0"10' - 0"1 0 ' - 0 "10' - 0"10' - 0"1 0 ' - 0 " 252' - 0"212' - 0"150' - 5"137' - 2"125' - 7" TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH GArchitectureInterior DesignLandscape ArchitectureBK VROUP222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:37:09 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A010 SITE PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE SITE PLAN KEYNOTES A010 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 SITE ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Floor Plans Lower Basement Upper Basement Ground Level Level 2-6 Level 7 STAIR A ELEV A ELEV C ELEV B STAIR B18' - 0"24' - 0"21' - 2"25' - 0"8"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0" 1 8' - 0" 23' - 6 "18' - 0"24' - 0" 1 8' - 0" 2 4' - 0"RAMP 12% SLOPE UP LOWER LEVEL PARKING26' - 0"1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 ELECTRICAL & MECHMECH C C TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:13 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A098 LEVEL OVERALLLOWERBASEMENT PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE A098 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P2 ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTESParking Schedule Family Level Count BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 142 STANDARD: 142 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 125 STANDARD: 125 Grand total: 277 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SFLEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF BIT. TRAILSTAIR A ELEV A RAMP 12% SLOPE ELEV C ELEV B STAIR B18' - 6"24' - 0"21' - 2"25' - 0"8"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"DN 24' - 0" 18' - 0 " 23 ' - 6"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"24 ' - 0 "18' - 0 "TRASH ROOM BIKE ROOM POOL ROOM LOADING / STAGGINGMECH ROOM DOG WASH UPPER LEVEL PARKING VAN VAN 24' - 5" 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 DOG RUN 1' - 2 1/2"RAMP 12% SLOPE DN BUILDING ABOVE WATER ROOM & FIREPUMP SERVICE DRIVEWAY TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:16 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A099 LEVEL OVERALLUPPERBASEMENT PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A099 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P1 Parking Schedule Family Level Count BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P2 142 STANDARD: 142 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 5 ADA: 5 BKV_SITE-Parking Space P1 125 STANDARD: 125 Grand total: 277 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SFLEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF 1A401 2A402 1A402 2A401 2A403 1A403 65' - 6" 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEC/DATA ELEV C ELEV B 3337 SF RESTUARANT ENTRY VESTIBULE 1197 SF LEASING CENTER 210 SF PARCEL 217 SF MAIL 1370 SF LOBBY 1434 SF CLUBROOM 1103 SF FITNESS CENTER 435 SF RESTROOMS / LOCKERROOM 381 SF GAME 348 SF GOLF TRASH 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1204 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED -- -- -- 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 746 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 30' - 0 "5' - 6"30' - 0"65' - 6"80' - 0"65' - 6"30' - 0"5' - 6"30' - 0"1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED RAMP TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:23 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A101 LEVEL 1 -OVERALL FLOORPLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A101 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 UNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE /TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SFUNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SF TOTAL: 208 188918 SF ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SFLEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF 1A401 2A402 1A402 2A401 2A403 1A403 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEV C ELEV B MECH - B TRASH ELEC/DATA 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 1247 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED -- -- -- 724 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1161 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1204 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G ArchitectureInterior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second StreetLong & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:40 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A103 LEVEL 3-6OVERALL FLOORPLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A103 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 3 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGNUNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE /TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SFUNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SFTOTAL: 208 188918 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SF LEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF Roof Plan UP 1A401 2A402 1A402 2A401 2A403 1A403 1496 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE STAIR A ELEV A MECH - A STAIR B ELEV C ELEV B MECH - B 599 SF ROOFTOP AMENITY 1448 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1737 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE TRASH ELEC/DATA 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 1036 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1060 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 698 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 698 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1067 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 706 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED -- -- -- 680 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF UNIT S1 - ALCOVE 700 SF UNIT A1 - 1 BED 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED CORRIDOR 1070 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1067 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED OUTDOOR DECK TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G ArchitectureInterior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second StreetLong & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:45 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A107 LEVEL 7OVERALL FLOORPLAN 4917 EDEN AVE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES A107 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 7 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGNUNIT MIX - RENTABLE AREA UNIT TYPE UNIT AREA COUNT # RENTABLE /TOTAL AREA UNIT A1 - 1 BED 700 SF 67 46918 SF UNIT A1.1 - 1 BED 746 SF 1 746 SF UNIT A2 - 1 BED 706 SF 7 4941 SF UNIT A2.1 - 1 BED 680 SF 7 4759 SF UNIT A3 - 1 BED 724 SF 11 7966 SF UNIT B1 - 2 BED 1070 SF 52 55640 SF UNIT B2 - 2 BED 1060 SF 12 12714 SF UNIT B3 - 2 BED 1036 SF 7 7253 SF UNIT B4 - 2 BED 1161 SF 5 5807 SF UNIT BD1 - 2 BED DEN 1204 SF 6 7221 SF UNIT BD2 - 2 BED DEN 1201 SF 6 7206 SF UNIT BD3 - 2 BED DEN 1203 SF 4 4810 SF UNIT BD4 - 2 BED DEN 1247 SF 4 4990 SF UNIT PH1 - PENTHOUSE 1496 SF 2 2992 SF UNIT PH2 - PENTHOUSE 1448 SF 1 1448 SF UNIT PH3 - PENTHOUSE 1486 SF 1 1486 SF UNIT PH4 - PENTHOUSE 1750 SF 1 1737 SF UNIT PH5 - PENTHOUSE 1694 SF 1 1694 SF UNIT PH6 - PENTHOUSE 1726 SF 1 1726 SFUNIT S1 - ALCOVE 572 SF 12 6863 SFTOTAL: 208 188918 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - L1 TO L7 LEVEL AREA LEVEL 1 32646 SF LEVEL 2 31793 SF LEVEL 3 33884 SFLEVEL 4 32872 SF LEVEL 5 32872 SF LEVEL 6 32872 SF LEVEL 7 31443 SF TOTAL 228382 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA - PARKING LEVELS LEVEL AREA P2 53527 SF P1 53124 SF TOTAL 106652 SF DN 1A401 2A402 1A402 2A401 2A403 1A403 STAIR B PHOTOVOLTAIC ZONE STAIR ROOF 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 ELEVOVERRUN GARDEN PLOTS MECH UNIT RESTAURANT VENTING MECH UNIT ROOF HATCH -- -- -- ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONSSLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G ArchitectureInterior DesignLandscape Architecture BKVROUP 222 North Second StreetLong & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt3/12/2021 4:28:50 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A140 ROOF PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE A140 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONTEXT + DESIGN CONCEPTS EXTERIOR DESIGN: RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Immediate Site Context GRANGE HALL EDINA CITY HALL EDINA EXECUTIVE PLAZA OUR LADY OF GRACEEDINA COUNTRY CLUB RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN Architectural Context 5000 FRANCE AVENUE AVIDOR NOLAN MAINS, MARKET STREET RESTORATION HARDWARE5200 FRANCE AVENUE RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN CHARACTER IMAGES HOMES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Rendering RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN New Concept - Material RW - Eden Ave, Edina MN FBR-1 white brick STN-1 kasota stone or manufactured stone FSDG-1 cement board siding and trim dark grey MP-1 & 2 metal panel copper finish DCMU-1 split face block buff color FSDG-2 cement board siding and trim buff NEW CONCEPT - Materialss 4917 Eden Avenue – Grandview Guiding Principles 4/7/21 Seven Guiding Principles of Grandview Area 1. Leverage publicly owned parcels and civic presence to create a vibrant and connected District that serves as a catalyst for high quality, integrated public and private development. The 4917 Eden Ave development is a private high-quality development adjacent to public space and public buildings. This steppingstone project is on the east side of Highway 100 and will encourage high quality development nearby. 2. Enhance the District’s economic viability as a neighborhood center with regional connections, recognizing that meeting the needs of both businesses and residents will make the District a good place to do business. The Eden Avenue project is a mixed-use project that features 208 residence and a restaurant. The addition of residential units to the site will place more residents closer to the existing and future Grandview businesses. 3. Turn perceived barriers into opportunities. Consider layering development over supporting infrastructure and taking advantage of the natural topography of the area. The current site is primarily a stepped parking lot with aged sidewalks wrapping the site. Further its open nature increases Highway 100 noise into the area. The new project will create a visually rich and interesting experience with new sidewalks, robust landscaping, a corner sculpture plaza, the building veranda, and active uses on the first level along Eden Avenue. Most of the project parking is located below grade. Additionally, the building will reduce the noise impacts of Highway 100 to the direct neighbors. 4. Design for the present and the future by pursuing logical increments of change using key parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life-filled place. The Eden Ave project transformers a two-story restaurant and surface parking lot into a 7-story mixed- use project. The new project brings a walkable, vibrant, and attractive building to the east side of Highway 100. It also preserves space on the east side of the site for the potential future off ramp configuration. This reconfiguration of the off ramps could lead to creation of 2 developable sites to the north. 5. Organize parking as an effective resource for the District by linking community parking to public and private destinations while also providing parking that is convenient for businesses and customers. The Eden Ave project is acting as a steppingstone to bringing new development to the east side of Highway 100. The building provides a convenient surface parking lot for the restaurant. It also provides a small amount of surface convenience stalls and circular off street drop off for ride sharing vehicles, food delivery vehicles, guests, and future residents. A majority of the resident parking is located below grade to minimize its impact on site. 6. Improve movement within and access to the District for people of all ages by facilitating multiple modes of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor. The Eden Avenue project is designed to encourage multiple modes of transportation including walking, bicycling, and automobile use. Walkability of the site is increased by the creation of new sidewalks, robust landscaping, and an active and interesting building design. Bicycling is encouraged on the project with bike racks near the entries to the restaurant and the residential lobby. The building also includes a secure bicycle storage room with a repair station. For automobiles the site locates majority of the resident parking below grade. The project will include 2 EV charging stations and will be designed to accommodate additional future charging stations. 7. Create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina’s innovative development heritage The existing site is a vast stepped parking lot with no current control on rainwater. The new building and site are designed to reflect the context of the area. The design is centered around a large open courtyard that faces toward the Edina Country Club golf course, visually connecting the two spaces. New robust landscaping will be provided throughout the new project. The new project also includes numerous sustainable features. The project incorporates a storm water treatment system that includes a pretreatment chamber and perforated CMP pipe gallery in a crushed rock bed, with a controlled outlet to the MnDOT storm sewer system. The system will provide rate control, treatment and volume control to meet the requirements of the City of Edina, MnDOT and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Additionally, the project will be solar ready on the roof, provide garden bed for residents, native plantings, LED light fixtures, energy star appliances, a recycling chute, and construction waste recycling. A more robust list is provided in the Edina sustainability questionnaire. 4917 Eden Avenue - Development Sustainability Questionnaire Over Date: 3/15/2021 RE: 4917 Eden Avenue – Preliminary Development Application Note: See the project sustainability goals/list below the questionnaire. Questions Answers Sustainable Design & Energy Have you utilized Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance and/or Centerpoint Energy’s Builder and Developer programs for this development? Yes, Xcel Energy Assistance with the Willdan Team leading. Will the buildings meet SB2030 energy goals and/or will they be Energy Star certified? If not, please share the steps you are taking to support energy conservation. No, see below for the project sustainability features. Will affordable housing be a part of this development and if so, have you connected with Xcel Energy and Centerpoint Energy for the additional rebates they give to affordable housing? Yes, 20% of the units will be affordable. We intend to explore the additional rebates. Will you optimizing the roof by installing a green roof or solar ready? We are developing the project to be solar ready. Ownership is exploring the costs and rebates of the photovoltaic array installation during construction. Residents garden boxes are also located on the roof. Will there be any renewable energy generation on site? We are developing the project to be solar ready. Will there be purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs)? No Comments: See below for the project sustainability features. Managing Water What percent of the property is pervious surface before the redevelopment? What is the percent post development? 12.5% - Pre development 28.8% - Post development What new services will be pervious? (i.e. Sidewalks, driveways, overflow parking) These areas will not be permeable. The below grade parking garage is located below much of the site. The existing site is primarily paved, this project adds green space and landscaping. How will the landscaping support the natural ecosystem? What % of landscape, % Rain gardens, % native plants, % pollinator friendly plants? All of the plantings will be native and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. 4917 Eden Avenue - Development Sustainability Questionnaire Over Comments: See below for the project sustainability features. Managing Tree Canopy What percent of the property is covered by tree canopy before redevelopment? What is the percent post development? 12.46% - Pre development 32.40% - Post development Will you be replanting/replacing trees at least four to five inches in diameter to positively impact the tree canopy (ordinance requirement is only 2.5 inches in diameter)? We intend to meet the ordinance; the design adds a number of new trees to the site. Comments: Managing Waste During construction, how will you manage construction waste? Will demolition of current structures meet LEED Green Building Demolition and/or B3 State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines? Construction waste will be split into separate bins and recycled when possible. We do not intend to meet the listed guidelines, see below for the project sustainability features. Will you have a waste management plan when building is operational? Yes Will a recycling service be provided to those in residential units? To all businesses on site? Yes. Additionally, a recycling chute is provided in the building for the residents. Will an organic recycling service be provided to those in the residential units? To all businesses on site? Not intended at this time. Comments: Sustainable Transportation Bike Parking near main entrance for guests? Space in parking structure (e.g. bike corral, bike lockers) for residents’ bikes? Bike parking will be provided near the main entry and near the restaurant entry. Secure bike parking will be provided in the parking garage. How many EV charging stations will you install? Will you lay conduits for future EV charging and if so, how many stalls? 2 to be installed, 4 for future hook ups, we will work closely with our design/build electrical contractor to determine final counts. Will there be parking spaces provided for car-sharing vehicles to support reduction in overall number of cars? No 4917 Eden Avenue - Development Sustainability Questionnaire Over Comments: See below for the project sustainability features. 4917 Eden Avenue Sustainability Features 1. Solar ready - Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. 2. Roof top garden beds for residents. 3. New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site. 4. Walk up units at Level 1. 5. Secure internal bike storage and bike repair for residents. 6. Exterior bike parking will be provided near the housing and restaurant entries. 7. Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. 8. We will plant native and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. 9. We will limit the extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. 10. LED light fixtures to reduce energy consumption. 11. Energy Star appliances. 12. High efficiency water heaters. 13. Recycling collection and chute. 14. Durable exterior materials. 15. Efficient doors and windows, with Low-E coating. 16. Construction waste recycling. 17. Smoke free building. Stormwater Management Summary The existing Perkins site is mainly paved and sheet drains primarily to the southwest and discharges uncontrolled to the flared end section inlet to the Highway 100 storm sewer system, which drains directly to Minnehaha Creek. The proposed project stormwater from the roof, amenity plaza and east entry parking will be piped through the building to a underground stormwater system that also collects drainage from the west entry parking lot. The stormwater treatment system includes a pretreatment chamber and perforated CMP pipe gallery in a crushed rock bed, with a controlled outlet to the MnDOT storm sewer system. The system will provide rate control, treatment and volume control to meet the requirements of the City of Edina, MnDOT and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. STAIR B PHOTOVOLTAIC ZONE (SOLAR READY) STAIR ROOF 1 A501 1 A501 2 A501 2 A501 ELEV OVERRUN GARDEN PLOTS MECH UNIT RESTAURANT VENTING MECH UNIT ROOF HATCH ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONS ROOF ANCHOR LOCATIONSSLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPEROOF TOP PATIO STRING LIGHTS ABOVE FIRE FEATURE TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2286-05_4917 Eden Ave/2286-05_4917 Eden Ave_AI_2019.rvt4/7/2021 9:23:28 PMAuthor Checker 2286-05 A140 ROOF PLAN 4917 EDEN AVE A140 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 03/12/2021 PRELIMINARY DESIGN Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.E. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:Zoning O rdinanc e Amendment - O ff-S treet P arking R egulations Action, Disc ussion 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: T he P lanning Commission has options to proceed: 1. S uggest recommendations to staff for revisions to the O rdinance to be brought back to the P lanning C ommission at another meeting for consideration and vote. 2. Recommend the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the proposed draft ordinance with any recommended changes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: I n 2020, the Edina City Council requested that the P lanning Commission evaluate the appropriateness of the City’s O ff-Street P arking R egulations. T he City’s current regulations have not been revised since 1992. M any of the current standards have not been amended since 1970. O ver the past nine months the P lanning C ommission has been considering revisions to the off-street parking regulations. S taff has put together a table (see attached) that compares recent projects in E dina, to the current ordinance and proposed ordinance. It shows the number of parking spaces that the proposed ordinance would have required, compared to the current ordinance, and the number of stalls that were built or will be built. N ote that variances would not have been required in most instances, which demonstrates the ordinance is in line with what developers are building within their projects. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Draft Ordinance Staff Report Recent Edina Project Comparis on to the Draft Ordinance Comparison of Other Cities Parking Regulations Comparison of Cities Regulations - Les s us es , main areas of study Parking Regulations from Similar Cities Pres entation by Nels on Nygard Recommendations from Nelson Nygard Resident Recommendations on the Ordinance - Ross Plaetzer Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 22 April 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Parking Ordinance Amendments VISITORS 52 CONTRIBUTORS 26 RESPONSES 26 3 Registered 0 Unverified 23 Anonymous 3 Registered 0 Unverified 23 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:03:47 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:03:47 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name RuthAnn Metzger Q2.Address 5600 Dale Ave Q3.Comment Since we are in a pandemic right now, I think these changes are not needed. People are not using public transportation like before the pandemic & now crime is increasing to unacceptable rates. We should be focusing on making people feel safe instead of trying to reduce development costs when development is already out of control. People who are single seniors or who have kids in multiple activities are not going to give up their cars so making fewer parking places is just creating more problems. Who is looking at the big picture? Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:06:42 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:06:42 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Joshua Root Q2.Address 6721 Sioux Trl. Q3.Comment Edina was built in an era when car travel was an expected experience. Changes to the parking requirements without understanding the realities the city was built under will result in residents in the vast majority of the city losing access to the businesses and residents being built today. If we change the parking requirements then we need to actually capture the potential benefits of green space etc. to justify the determinant of the car dependent. Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:15:50 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:15:50 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Ann Swenson Q2.Address 6021 Concord ave Q3.Comment I have a friend who moved three years ago into the apartments next to Byerlys in the greater Southdale area. The complex has underground stalls but now charges for them. The two building complex has about 18 spots designated for its building outside.These are hardly ever available. Think Bank has a big “we will tow you “ sign along with the two retail lots that are connected to the apartment buildings. Byerlys also says their lot is only for customers. The front office of the apartment tells its renters if needing outdoor parking to park in the Macy’s home store lot. Their guest parking is more than inadequate and if Macy’s redevelops will be even worse. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 14:18:41 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 14:18:41 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sherry Hottinger Q2.Address 405 Harrison Ave S, Edina, MN Q3.Comment Reduced parking is all well and good, all reasons cited are valid reasons to consider. The reality however is that mass transit is abysmal and walking/biking is only an option for a limited part of our annual season. Walking and biking in winter, especially while shopping, can be difficult or impossible for many people. Inadequate parking forces cars further into neighborhoods which is also not desirable. I'm not going to fight for parking near my destination. I will shop elsewhere because for me it's the only way to do what I need to do. I will happily take transit if it was available, nearby, clean and safe. The demographics around younger generations are promising for reduced cars and environmental thoughtfulness, but to reduce parking without having the alternatives in place is not a great idea. If the city truly addresses these issues by creating transit which is workable for people by all means, reduce parking. Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 16:16:02 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 16:16:02 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name James L Wotipka Q2.Address 7710 Gleason Road Q3.Comment This sounds like another attempt to force people out of their cars. We do not need to win the title for most bicycle metro in the country. Our weather does not allow for practical use of bicycles all year long. As far as public transportation goes, getting to a bus requires long walks which are certainly not safe in our winters. If a residential development has x number of units than at a minimum it should have x number of parking spaces. Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 17:05:15 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 17:05:15 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name mary everett Q2.Address 5600 park place Q3.Comment The reality is: we live in MINNESOTA, we have a hard WINTER, we do NOT choose to take a bus or taxi, we pay HUGE property taxes and want to have 2-3 cars. We have children that have sports activities ALL over the cities and we are not putting our 5-18 year olds on a bus. What is with all these appointed liberals with these CRAZy ideas. We want cars, we want to drive. I feel as though the people with this agenda are appointed people, not people that are current residents or elected people? Maybe I am wrong and out of touch?. I don't know who comes up with these ideas but I believe that most residents, who have children as well as those of us that are older, have no interest in public transportation for our everyday transportation. Although it is great to walk to 50th and France I need my car and always will. I think Edina really needs to start listening to the people that live here, not appointed reps from outside our city. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 04:44:59 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 04:44:59 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Ann Makres Q2.Address 4912 69th Street Q3.Comment We should not reduce the number of parking spaces required for projects. There must be a minimum of 1 parking space per unit and a percentage ( the larger units) must be be required to allow two spaces Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 09:29:32 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 09:29:32 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Aimee Makres Q2.Address 6450 York Ave S, #314 Edina, MN 65435 Q3.Comment I think there should be 2 spots for each livable unit built. In my condo there is only 1 parking spot per unit, yet two people live in a unit and each person has a car. There is not enough parking for everyone in my building and many use the adjacent office buildings parking lot. It takes 2 incomes to live in these condo buildings in Edina and we need 1 parking spot for each person. Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 11:30:16 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 11:30:16 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mary Landberg Q2.Address 5408 Creek View Lane Q3.Comment Changing to less parking required by builders will result in more parking on the street. I don't think this is a good idea. Look at the newest completed buildings. There is less space on the street no place for delivery trucks, trash removal trucks, etc. to park while they're completing their tasks. Bad, bad idea. Respondent No:10 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 21, 2021 10:21:39 am Last Seen:Mar 21, 2021 10:21:39 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Liberta Ledder Q2.Address 6709 Cheyenne Trail Q3.Comment The city has moved to increase density over the past 15 years. We are now at a point of being overcrowded. Reducing parking would only exasperate the problems we have in the city with too much traffic, no availability parking, and high if not out of control density. Please do NOT change our parking ordinances. Please listen to the people of this community and not the developers. We pay your salary and are not happy with the growth we have seen. PLEASE LISTEN!!!! Respondent No:11 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 21, 2021 11:33:15 am Last Seen:Mar 21, 2021 11:33:15 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Heather Tietz Q2.Address 6404 Glacier Place Q3.Comment Would expect the City to NOT allow changes that would drive increased street parking in residential neighborhoods. A huge part of the quality of life of a neighborhood is whether kids/families can safely bike and participate in other outdoor activities. High level of on-street parking makes those activities less safe. Parking requirements in higher density or commercial areas impact what a buyer (housing or commercial) is willing to pay which ultimately impacts long term tax revenues from the property. Hope the City factors that into the analysis; otherwise, may have short term gain and long term pain. Respondent No:12 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 23, 2021 14:08:17 pm Last Seen:Mar 23, 2021 14:08:17 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lucia Copland Q2.Address 4805 Hibiscus Ave, Edina MN 55435 Q3.Comment I am not in favor or reducing minimum parking requirements, for the following reasons: Winter weather makes commuting by any other than motorized transportation (a) extremely difficult and (b) unlikely to occur. Winter weather is a likelihood for this area at least 5 months of the year, if not 6. Reduced parking hurts the disabled and the elderly disproportionately. Many seniors travel only by car for health reasons while not qualifying for handicapped parking spaces (for example, because of lowered immunity, back aches, high blood pressure). Edina should be a handicapped and senior citizen friendly community. COVID-19 has shown us the negative consequences of increasing the numbers of people who use public transportation. Pandemics are not going to end after this one. Reduced parking benefits developers FAR more than the community. Respondent No:13 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 24, 2021 07:03:06 am Last Seen:Mar 24, 2021 07:03:06 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kirk Aadalen Q2.Address 4800 Hilltop Lane Q3.Comment I am against reducing the number of parking spots required for new construction projects. There will be people that own cars moving into these new condos and apartments. Those cars need to go somewhere. Please do not lower the required number of spots for new commercial/residential projects in Edina. Respondent No:14 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 10:56:07 am Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 10:56:07 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sandy Simmons Q2.Address 5038 Bruce Place Q3.Comment Reducing the number of minimum parking spots going forward sounds very 'green' but in fact completely ignores reality. We live in a winter climate with snow, rain, ice. People are not going to bike in the winter. Parents aren't going to carpool on bikes. Couples don't go out for dinner on bikes. Handicaps and age make biking difficult. Cars are here to stay and with increasing population and density, decreasing space for cars makes no sense at all. Our community is 'locked in' to its existing space. With the city continually approving increased density it needs to recognize decreasing parking will effect everyone's quality of life in Edina. Respondent No:15 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 13:42:48 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 13:42:48 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Dorothy Lodahl Q2.Address 5201 Richwood Drive Q3.Comment The premise to encourage walking, mass transit is fine - but mobility and age issues can prohibit using these amenities. If there are not enough parking spaces available - where will people park? In the street and during the winter plowing - I lived in Minneapolis for many many years - I appreciate the clear roads. Respondent No:16 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 14:06:01 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 14:06:01 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kevin Newman Q2.Address 7408 Shannon Drive Q3.Comment I am against reducing the concept or proposal to reduce the minimum parking requirements. I believe the number of parking spots should at a minimum of two parking spot per unit. The city posting lists the “benefits” of reducing the minimum parking requirements, but the downside includes • Less desirable living units. o In today’s world, most families, especially those looking for affordable housing, have two working individuals. In most cases, they need two vehicles to get to work. • Crowded street parking with the overflow of tenant vehicles. • An increased risk of auto vandalism or theft. o The TWC is seeing a record number of car and catalytic converter theft. Local news recommends parking your car in a garage of secure lot. Specific to parking requirements, developers should build units based on today’s consumer wants and needs, not projected trends that rarely come true. If the trends come true and everyone takes mass transit in the future, parking lots can be redeveloped into green space. Respondent No:17 Login:Lynn Hechanova Email:Lhechanova@comcast.net Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 16:12:06 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 22:58:26 pm IP Address:66.182.125.93 Q1.First and Last Name Lynn Hechanova Q2.Address 5601 Dewey Hill Road #302 Q3.Comment Setting a maximum number of parking spots for residential units at 1.5 is overreacting. Many senior couples who would like to downsize their single family home, or who have a second home, still both drive. They may both still be working. Limiting their option to have 2 parking spots available discourages them from giving up their single family home making less room for younger families to move into Edina. We would not have considered moving from our single family home in Edina to a condominium that didn’t have 2 spaces available and we are in a designated senior condo in Edina. Respondent No:18 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 26, 2021 18:40:14 pm Last Seen:Mar 26, 2021 18:40:14 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Bill Noonan Q2.Address 6204 Chowen Ave S Q3.Comment I’m not in favor of reducing the number of parking stalls for buildings. Look at density housing in Minneapolis and you’ll notice that people park in the streets, a real mess in the winter. Mpls has had bike lanes for many years and they’re hardly used between October and April. Sure, a few diehards use bikes all year. Edina already created a two messes. One mess is the building on France where Stripes and others share a dinky parking lot, and a parking ramp with a very steep access. Another mess is the new apartment or condo complex that faces the post office on 49th. I don’t know why anyone would want to rent a condo/apartment that looks at a parking ramp facing north that may have one week of sunshine in a year. I think it is a mistake to allow a structure like this so we get more tax revenue. The idea that someone from out of state would come here to tell us about national trends in parking is a waste of time and money. Does the person lives in our latitude, a very severe cold climate with snow and ice for six months each year? The City of Edina is trying to be a leader in green space, vehicle emissions, narrowed streets, reduced speed limits, and seems to push theory’s that in 40 years everyone will be driving tiny electric cars, riding bicycles, taking busses, and walking to small neighborhood stores, recycling food scraps, etc. Some people may like this life style, but I for one don’t want it forced upon me. I also don’t think we should spend our tax revenue trying to convince people like me that this is the right plan. Respondent No:19 Login:lewi0392 Email:lewi0392@gmail.com Responded At:Mar 27, 2021 14:54:14 pm Last Seen:Mar 27, 2021 21:29:01 pm IP Address:74.81.184.6 Q1.First and Last Name Andrew Lewis Q2.Address 6117 St Johns Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment This is a timely and worthwhile effort on the part of the city to reconsider parking in the context of climate change, transportation patterns, and current development trends. Mandating parking when market forces do not demand it drives up the cost of housing and business development in a time in which both are acute issues. I support these efforts and hope that the project team can come up with an approach that considers the costs and benefits of parking more equally than they have been to this point. Respondent No:20 Login:modern dad Email:tcarlson@carlsonpartnersllc. com Responded At:Apr 06, 2021 07:23:17 am Last Seen:Apr 06, 2021 12:46:16 pm IP Address:66.41.86.71 Q1.First and Last Name Ted Carlson Q2.Address 5516 Knoll Drive Q3.Comment As a 20 year resident and local developer, I am excited that Edina is updating a code that is 50 years old. Focus on transit, ride-share, bikes and pedestrians is very important! Let's figure out how to get rid of huge parking lots that are misaligned with market demands. Respondent No:21 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 10, 2021 12:39:40 pm Last Seen:Apr 10, 2021 12:39:40 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Chris Brown Q2.Address 4504 West 70th Street Q3.Comment This is definitely a step in the right direction! Unfortunately, this feels like a small step instead of broader change. Especially if we hope to create meaningful change regarding how residents, employees, and visitors travel throughout Edina. The E Line, Green Line extension, and improved bike/ped connections, as well as more mixed-use and dense development planned for parts of the City could all create significant opportunity for parking space reductions. I urge you to consider going further with this in mind. I'm not advocating for removing minimums altogether (at least not right now), but continuing to require 1:1 minimum ratios coupled with minor increases in square footage requirements feels like this opportunity is missing the mark. Edina is not an exurb. It's a first ring suburb with significant built environment benefits that provide a foundation for greater mode shift away from single family vehicles. Key items for your consideration: Sec 1.b: 1.25 space min. for multi-family housing, especially when most of that will be in transit-served areas seems unnecessarily high. Could we consider a 1:1 at the very least? Sec 1.g: Why require two spaces per classroom when students cannot drive anyway? I understand parent or volunteer activities but as an advocate for safe routes to school, let's think bigger. Sec 1.h, k, m, and v: All of these have minimal increases in square footage. Can't we do more? I'm not a parking expert but increasing by 50 sq ft seems paltry. Sec 1.w: This is probably the biggest disappointment. 1:1 for a mixed-use development when this development is likely located near the most desirable multimodal connections? Couldn't we at least try 0.8 minimum and 1.25 maximum? Do we really need three spaces for every two units? I've parked in the Westin's parking garage and it's an excellent example of wasted space (and money). Sec 2 (all): Three of the four PCDs will be served by the E Line. All of these represent the greatest opportunity for Edina to aggressively promote mode shift away from SOVs. In addition to reducing the minimum, these areas would be great locations to promote affordable housing via reduced parking costs. Sec 3: Could a provision to promote affordable housing be included? This policy seems like an excellent opportunity to provide developers with the tools to incentivize inclusion of affordable dwelling units within a broader project or fully- affordable buildings. There are examples of other municipalities using parking policy to accomplish this, so I strongly recommend your review and consideration. We are in the midst of an affordable housing crisis and as a City with many food service, retail, and other traditionally low-wage industries, wouldn't it be great to have these workers have at least the option to live closer to where they work? Parking costs a lot to build, and that cost usually ends up raising tenant rents. $5,000: Cost per surface space $25,000: Cost per above-ground garage space $35,000: Cost per below-ground garage space $142: The typical cost renters pay per month for parking +17%: Additional cost of a unit's rent attributed to parking Thank you for your consideration of my comments! I'm pleased to see the City considering this step in the right direction but I know we can do more! Respondent No:22 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 13, 2021 07:30:00 am Last Seen:Apr 13, 2021 07:30:00 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name your mom Q2.Address your mom Q3.Comment your mom Respondent No:23 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 13, 2021 07:33:28 am Last Seen:Apr 13, 2021 07:33:28 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Your mom Q2.Address The DEEZ NUTS Rood Q3.Comment its free real estate Respondent No:24 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 15, 2021 06:55:42 am Last Seen:Apr 15, 2021 06:55:42 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Thomas Hoegh Q2.Address 4407 Grimes Ave. S Q3.Comment "If you don't build it, they will still come." - this should be the city's motto regarding parking. The city's 'logic' to reduce parking is reductive. In other words, there is a desire to reduce parking space so they spin explanations and scavenge for data to support that position. This is really, really sad that idealogues are driving public policy. Respondent No:25 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 12:43:53 pm Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 12:43:53 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mic O’Brien Q2.Address 4052 Sunnyside Rd Q3.Comment This sure feels to me like a developer who knowingly built his new building (The Lorient) with insufficient parking, with the knowledge that he would eventually get his way. His subsequent variance request was (somewhat, surprisingly) turned down; however, his new angle is to just get the rules changed. That way, he gets the rent from the large restaurant that he always planned on, the city gets the tax revenue and the surrounding neighborhood takes the brunt of the street-parked cars. Some of my neighbors warned me that this was inevitable — they’ve given up the fight. I guess the city & developer “win”? Respondent No:26 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 22, 2021 09:45:57 am Last Seen:Apr 22, 2021 09:45:57 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Roberta Castellano Q2.Address 4854 France Ave S Q3.Comment I object to any plan that will increase the likelihood of commercial district parking spilling out into the surrounding neighborhoods, reducing the neighbors’ quality of life, and fundamentally and detrimentally altering the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, while simultaneously reducing developers’ required investments into projects. This plan appears to be consistent with City efforts to expand commercial areas into surrounding neighborhoods. At 50th & France, it was discovered during the 50th & France Small Area Planning, that the City had been intending to utilize Eminent Domain, and the City was subsequently found to have inserted into the 50th & France Small Area Plan, an extortion scheme to extract property holdings from Maple Road neighbors, in order to further enable Lunds to redevelop the US Bank site to a greater extent than otherwise possible. This was in addition to multiple underhanded attempts to increase the permitted housing unit density within the district. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX DRAFT - ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ - DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 36-1311 – Minimum number required. Shall be amended as follows: (a) Single dwelling units, double dwelling units and residential townhouses. One fully enclosed space per dwelling unit. (b) Apartment buildings in the PRD district. (1) 1.25 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit minimum and a maximum of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. At least one fully enclosed space per unit required. (c) Senior citizen dwelling unit buildings in the PSR-4 and PSR-5 subdistricts. (1) 0.5 exposed spaces and 0.25 enclosed spaces per senior citizen dwelling unit. (2) In addition to subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following spaces are required: a. One completely enclosed and one exposed space for each non senior citizen dwelling unit located in a building in the Planned Senior Residence District. b. One completely enclosed space per vehicle owned by the building's management and stored on the property; and c. One exposed space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. 0.75 spaces per bedroom, plus one space per employee on a maximum shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management (d) Nursing, convalescent and rest homes. One space for every four five patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management. (e) Day care, nurseries and preschools (principal use). One space per teacher or employee, plus one space per 20 individuals (or major fraction) receiving care. (f) Public or private senior high schools and seminaries. One space per classroom plus one space per ten students, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (g) Public or private elementary or junior high schools. Two spaces per classroom, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (h) Community centers. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, or one space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. (i) Churches and other religious institutions. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, plus spaces for other church Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 2 facilities which are used concurrently with the largest place of assembly, the number of which shall be determined by the council in connection with the granting of a conditional use permit. (j) Theaters (except within shopping centers), stadiums, auditoriums, arenas, lodge halls, mortuaries, and clubhouses. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (k) Governmental administration, public service, post office. The greater of one space: (1) Per employee on the major shift, plus one space per government-owned vehicle, plus ten visitor spaces; or (2) For each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area. (l) Libraries, art galleries. Ten spaces, plus one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. (m) Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals. One space for each 200 300 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per physician, dentist or veterinarian. (n) Hospitals. One space per bed for each two patient beds, plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift. (o) Athletic, health and weight reduction facilities. (1) Six Four spaces per court for handball, racquetball, and tennis courts. (2) One space per 200 400 square feet of gross floor area for all other uses. (p) Restaurants (except within shopping centers). Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, One space for each 100 square feet of indoor floor area, plus one space for each employee on the major shift and one space for each loading dock. (q) Carwashes. One space per employee on the major shift, plus five spaces for each wash lane, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (r) Accessory carwashes. Two parking spaces, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (s) Gas stations. One space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (t) Automobile service centers. Three parking spaces per service bay, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (u) Bowling alleys. Five spaces per lane. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 (v) Offices, medical and dental laboratories, business or professional offices, financial institutions, employment agencies and travel bureaus. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.00025*GFA)+195] Over 220,000 GFA/250 One space per 300 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (w) Mixed Development District. (1) Residential. One enclosed space, plus 0.75 exposed space, per dwelling unit. 1.0spaces per dwelling unit minimum with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit. (2) Nonresidential. Excluding publicly owned facilities and uses accessory to residential uses: Shall be regulated per Section 36-1311 above. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.0005*GFA)+190] Over 220,000 GFA/300 (3) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a commercial restaurant, up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. (4) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a residential use, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. (5) Where there is combined within a single building an office use, a residential use, and a commercial restaurant, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 4 the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, and up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. (x) Multitenant industrial buildings. One space for each 400 500 square feet of gross floor area, or the sum of the component gross floor areas as follows, whichever is greater: (1) One space for each 200 300 square feet of office space. (2) One space for each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space. (3) One space for each 300 square feet of manufacturing, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly space. (4) One space for each 500 square feet of space containing machines and equipment for conducting scientific research, testing or experimentation. (5) One space for each 200 400 square feet of facilities for athletic, health and weight reduction purposes; six spaces per court for handball, racquetball or tennis. (y) Automobile and boat sales, new or used. One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, including showrooms, sales space and offices, but excluding service areas, plus three spaces for each service bay. Required parking spaces shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles, boats or other products. (z) Furniture and major appliance sales. (1) Over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. (2) Under 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. (aa) Hotels and motels. One space per guest unit, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (bb) Taproom and cocktail room. One space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. (cc) Brewery, winery and distillery without on-site sales. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (dd) Brewpub, brewery, winery and distillery with on-site sales. One space per 1,000 gross square feet of production floor area, and spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift for the restaurant. (ee) Uses not Specified. Where ambiguity exists in the application of off-street parking requirements, or where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined herein, the parking requirements for such use shall be determined by the city planner Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 5 or the city planner designee and such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in this chapter. Section 2 Sec. 36-1312. - Planned Commercial District. Shall be amended as follows: For uses allowed in the Planned Commercial District, except uses for which a parking quantity is otherwise specified, the minimum spaces are as follows: (1) Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (2) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (50th and France, area defined in the 50th and France small area plan) Parking for uses in the 50th and France commercial node may rely on the City Parking Ramps with a floor area ratio up to 1.0. Uses exceeding 1.0 must provide additional off- street parking spaces for the square footage above 1.0. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (3) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (Grandview, area defined in the Grandview Development Framework) Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 6 Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (4) Planned Commercial District – 3 (PCD-3) (Property zoned PCD-3 within the Greater Southdale area as defined in the Southdale District Plan) Shopping centers (6+ businesses and at least 25,000 s.f.). One space per 200 350 square feet of gross floor area (including theaters and restaurants), plus one additional space for each ten seats in a restaurant, theater or other place of assembly. Atrium areas and mall areas, not used for retail sales purposes, shall be excluded from gross floor area calculations. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Section 3 Sec. 36-1324. Parking Space Reductions Section 36-1324 is amended to add the following: Reductions. The following off-street parking reductions may be utilized jointly or separately except as indicated otherwise: Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 7 (1) The required aggregate number of spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop; to qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (2) Car-share Parking. A reduction of up to one space or five percent of the overall number of required parking spaces, whichever is greater, may be granted for any development that provides reserved parking for use by car-share vehicles. Parking for car-share vehicles may be provided in any required or non-required off-street parking space. (3) Environmental Sustainability. With the consent of the city planner or the planner’s designee upon review of potential adverse impacts, a reduction of up to ten percent (10%) in parking requirements may be approved for parking areas composed of pervious pavement or where the reduced parking area is used for a low impact development storm water facility; and a reduction of up to twenty percent (20%) in parking requirements may be approved for clustered site design where the reduced parking area is used for tree retention or native landscaping. (4) A 10 percent reduction in parking provided if the following is provided for the following: (a) 1 covered, long-term bike space per 3 dwelling units. (b) 1 covered, long-term bike space per 5,000 s.f. of retail/service uses. (c) 1 short-term bike space per 5,000 s.f. of retail/services uses. In order to qualify for this reduction, the long-term bicycle parking must: (a) Be protected from weather and from access by unauthorized persons; (b) Consist of bike racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed; (c) Allow both the bicycle frame and the wheels to be locked with the bicycle in an upright position using a standard U-lock; Section 4 Sec. 36-1325. Additional Parking Regulations. Section 36-1325 is amended to add the following: (1) Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to collectively provide parking in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant(s) must provide evidence that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the buildings or uses for which the joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. For purposes of this subsection, no substantial conflict shall mean: (a) up to 75 percent of the required parking for daytime use may be provided in the parking facilities of a nighttime or weekend use; or (b) up to 75 percent of the required parking for a nighttime or weekend use may be provided in the parking facilities of a daytime use. A parking plan shall address the hours, size and mode of operation of the Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 8 respective uses. Within the Planned Commercial District, an applicant shall document proposed joint-use parking proposals through the use of the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Model (ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition). (b) The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking. (c) Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable legal agreement running with the land and recorded with the county in a form approved by the city attorney. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the city planner within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the city council. (d) To qualify, parking must be supplied within 300 feet of the main entrance to the parcel and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the principal structure and all parking spaces. (2) Proof of parking measures. An applicant may be eligible for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces where the applicant can demonstrate there is lesser need for the required number of off-street parking spaces, and/or there is a space set aside for code complying off-site parking spaces to be constructed if a need is later indicated by the city issuing authority, provided: (a) Where the applicant is seeking a reduction in the total number of required constructed parking spaces, the lesser number of constructed spaces may be allowed, provided: (i) The city would require a parking study conducted in accordance with accepted methodology approved by the city issuing authority, prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional under the supervision of the city and paid for by the applicant, demonstrating that there is not a present need for the portion of parking for which the applicant is requesting proof of parking flexibility. (ii) Where a site plan is approved with proof of parking measures, a properly drawn legal instrument, memorializing the parking measures drafted and executed by the parties concerned, must be filed with the records for that property in the Registrar of Titles’ or Recorder’s office of the county with proof thereof presented to the issuing authority. (b) Suitability of deferred spaces. The applicant must not assign deferred parking spaces to areas required for landscaping, required buffer zones, setbacks, fire lanes, drive aisles or areas that would otherwise be unsuitable for parking spaces because of the physical characteristics of the land or other requirements of this code. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 9 (c) Conversion of deferred spaces by applicant. The applicant may at any time request that the issuing authority approve a revised site plan to allow conversion of deferred spaces to operable parking spaces. (3) The placement of two (2) abutting off-street parking facilities with continuous street frontage shall not be permitted. Section 5. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: April 28, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Off-Street Parking Regulations. In 2020, the Edina City Council requested that the Planning Commission evaluate the appropriateness of the City’s Off-Street Parking Regulations. The City’s current regulations have not been revised since 1992. Many of the current standards have not been amended since 1970. Over the past nine months the Planning Commission has been considering revisions to the off-street parking regulations. Parking requirements often arise when new developments are proposed. Developers sometimes seek to have more or fewer parking spaces than guided by Edina’s Parking Regulations, and residents are sometimes concerned about proposed developments that are perceived to potentially include too much or too little parking. Goals and factors considered during the evaluation of the parking regulations include: trends nationally and around the Twin Cities metropolitan area regarding parking requirements; usage of decades-old parking lots within Edina; current and projected quantities and availability of mass transit; differing needs for different areas of Edina, such as locations where the City has provided mass parking facilities; creating incentives for reduced parking, including sustainability incentives, increasing greenspace, and enhancing mass transit and other forms of multi-modal transportation, such as bike/pedestrian connectivity; climate change and equity; reducing surface parking lots; and previous approvals or rejections of requested variances to Edina’s parking regulations. The Planning Commission recognizes the continued need to consider district parking structures, multi-modal options, and a robust mass transit system. Benefits of reducing minimum parking requirements may include: • Lowering cost for building projects could reduce rents for multi-family residential. Potential to provide more affordable housing. • Reduction in car emissions (if more people use transit, walk or bike). • Potential for more green space and landscaping and potentially public realm/public space. • Less surface parking creates more land available for development which increases tax base, which helps keep residential taxes lower. The following has been considered in the analysis: • Parking regulations for municipalities within the Twin Cities. (see attached comparison table) City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • Parking regulations for similar and recommended municipalities within the United States. (see attached) • Presentation by Nelson Nygard (parking consultant) with a national perspective regarding parking. (see attached PowerPoint from Nelson Nygard) • Recommendations from Nelson Nygard. (see attached) The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider the attached Draft Parking Ordinance Amendment. Highlights of the Ordinance Amendment include: Adding incentives for developers to reduce parking including shared parking, bike parking. sustainability and location near transit stops. Adding maximum limits on parking spaces. Having separate regulations within the City’s commercial nodes. Generally reducing the number of parking stalls required. Staff has put together a table (see attached) that compares recent projects in Edina, to the current ordinance and proposed ordinance. It shows the number of parking spaces that that the proposed ordinance would have required, compared to the current ordinance and the number of stalls that were built or will be built. Note that variances would not have been required in most instances, which demonstrates the ordinance is in line with what developers are building within their projects. The following provides some background on the draft ordinance and the changes recommended: Section 1. General Reduction in parking requirement. Uses may be allowed further reductions if located within a transit service area. Some of the more significant changes are as follows: • Apartments – Reduced from 2 spaces per unit to 1.25 minimum and 1.75 maximum spaces per unit. The requirement for 1.25 spaces is consistent with most recent requests for new apartments within Edina. • Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals – Reduced from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 300 square feet. • Hospitals – Reduced from one space per bed to one space for each two patent beds. • Restaurants – Changed from one-third the seating capacity to one space for each 100 square feet of floor area. • Offices, medical and dental – Requirements are amended from a formula calculation (generally one space per 200 square feet) to one space per 300 square feet, with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. • Mixed Development District – Uses are amended to be consistent with specific use requirements. Residential reduced from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.75 spaces per unit. Additional incentives are provided for shared use. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Section 2 – Planned Commercial Districts. This establishes separate regulations for the City’s Commercial Nodes (44th and France, 70th and Cahill, Valley View and Wooddale, 50th and France, Southdale and Grandview). Section 3 – Parking Space Reductions. Reduction/incentive provisions are added for ridesharing, environmental sustainability, and bike parking. A ten (10%) reduction is allowed if a use is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop; to qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. Section 4. Additional Regulations. Additional regulations cover shared parking, proof-of-parking, and prevent two abutting off-street parking facilities next to each other. The following highlights the reductions made to the draft ordinance and the current draft: Use Current Ordinance 1-27 Draft Regulation Proposed Ordinance Apartments 2.0 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit minimum 1.25 spaces per unit minimum with a 1.75 space per unit maximum Nursing Home One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 5 patients or residents Community Center One space per 200 s.f. One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. Medical, dental, clinic & animal hospital One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. Restaurant 1 space per 3 seats One space per 100 s.f. plus one space per 150 s.f of outdoor space One space per 100 s.f. no requirement for outside seating Office Formula based on size (generally one space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. with a max of one space per 200 s.f. Residential use in a Mixed Development District 1.75 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit minimum 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Residential use in a Planned Commercial District 1-1.5 spaces per unit depending on unit size 1.0 spaces per unit minimum 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Office use in a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. with a maximum of one space per 200 s.f. Shopping Center within a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. Project Examples Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance 4500 France Restaurant Examples are based on the square footage of the space available. 100 seat restaurant (3,700 s.f.) = requires 43 spaces required 3,700 s.f. restaurant = 42 spaces required (using the 10% reduction - transit stop) Avenue on France (project denied by City Council) Mixed Use District Nonresidential = 1/300 s.f. (708,348 s.f.) 2,361 spaces required Residential = 1 enclosed space/unit (239) + .75 spaces exposed per unit (179) 418 spaces required 2,779 total spaces required Mixed Use District Nonresidential = 1/300 s.f. (708,348 s.f.)(10% reduction – bus stop) 2,125 spaces required Residential = 1 enclosed space/unit (239) 215 spaces required (Council could add spaces if necessary) 2,340 total spaces required 70th and France (project received preliminary approval) Retail (50,000 s.f) & Office (140,000 s.f.) = 1,006 spaces Residential = 379 enclosed spaces 1,385 spaces total required Retail (50,000 s.f) & Office (140,000 s.f.) = 702 spaces Residential = 341 enclosed spaces 1,043 spaces total required (1,170 stalls are proposed) 6950 France (New Furniture Store) 10,000 s.f. of retail = 62 spaces required 10,000 s.f. of retail = 40 spaces required (51 spaces were installed) Amundson Flats (70th and Cahill/Amundson) 62-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 124 total required (77 enclosed) 62-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 77 total required (62 enclosed) (94 stalls total, 62 enclosed approved) Aeon Housing Project (76th Street) 70-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 140 total required (70 enclosed) 70-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 70 total required (70 enclosed) (87 stalls total, 64 enclosed approved) Hazelton Apartments 185-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 370 total required (185 enclosed) 185-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 231 total required (185 enclosed) (277 stalls enclosed approved) 7200-7250 France Development 309-unit apts.-2 space per unit (1.25 enclosed = 618 spaces 30,000 s.f. retail/office = 146 spaces Total Required = 764 spaces 309-unit apt.-1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) = 386 total required (309 enclosed) 30,000 s.f. retail/office = 120 spaces Total Required = 506 spaces (590 stalls approved – 540 underground) Land Uses Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Nursing Home One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 5 patients or residents Community Center One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. Medical, dental, clinic & animal hospital One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. Restaurant 1 space per 3 seats One space per 100 s.f. Office Formula based on size (generally one space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. with a max of one space per 200 s.f. Residential use in a Mixed Development District 1.75 spaces per unit 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Residential use in a Planned Commercial District 1-1.5 spaces per unit depending on unit size 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Office use in a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. with a maximum of one space per 200 s.f. Shopping Center within a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. City OfficeMedical OfficeRetailShopping CenterRestaurants Fast food Mixed Use Apartments Sr Apartments Churches Government Day Care Gas Station/Convenience Gas Auto Service Station Hospitals Health Club Theater Community Center LibraryEdina1/200‐1/250 1/200 1/167‐ 1/2001/200+1/10 seats1/3 seats + employ1/3 s+empl .75/1/200 2/unit .75+employ 1/3 seats 1/200 1/per empl + 1/20 1 per empl + 1/100 sq ft1 per bay + 1 per empl + 1per 100 sq ft1 per bed + 1 per empl 6 per court + 1 per 200 sq ft 1/3 seats+ 1per employee 1/220 ‐300 sq ft/seats 10+ 1/per 300 sq ftEden Prairie1/200‐333 max1/200‐ 333 max1/200‐ 1/3331/200‐ 1/333 max1/3‐1/2max1/3‐1/2 maxby use/TBD 1/unit TBD TBD TBD1 per empl + 1 per 6 students1 per empl + 1 per pump + 1 /200 10+ spaces where cars are serviced TBD TBD 1/3 seats 5/1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 5/1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A.Minnetonka1/2501/175‐ 20 min1/250 1/250 1/2.5 seats 1/60 sq ft by use/TBD 2/unit 1/unit 1/ 2.5 seats 10+1/500 1/per 6 children 4+3 per stall+ 1per 250 sq ft 4+3 per stall+ 1per 250 sq ft 1/2 per bed + empl 1/225 sq ft 1/3 seats/1/4 seats 4.5 per 1,00010 plus 1 per 500 square Ft + 1 per vehicle kept on the premises;Saint Louis Park1/200‐250 max1/200‐250 max1/250‐ 1/150 max 1/250 1/60 sq ft 1/60 sq ft by use/TBD 1/bed 1/unit 1 / 3 seats by useTBD 1/per 2 empl +1/10 children3 + 4 per service bay 3 + 4 per service bay 1 per 350 sq ft1 per 200 sq. ft. non‐court area. Two spaces per tennis/racquetball court. One space per each 50 sq. ft. deck area for a swimming pool. 1 per each four seats 28" Based on uses 1 per 300 ssq ftRichfield1/275‐ 350 max1/200‐ 250 max1/200‐1/285 1/250 1/100 sq ft 1/60 sq ft by use /TBD 2/unit/1.25TBD TBD 1/ 3 seats TBD 1/per 5 children 4+2 per bay +1 per 150 sq ft 4+2 per bay +1 per 150 sq ft not listed 1 per 225 sq ft 1 per 3 seats 1.25 if stand alone not listed not listedBloomington1/285 1/285 1/180‐ 1/220 460+1/285 1/ 3 seats 1/180 sq ft by use /TBD 1.8/1 bed‐.75 1.5/unit 1/3 seats TBD1.2 per 10 child + 1 per empl1/200 sq ft +.5 per pump 1/300 sq ft + 3 per bay not listed 1/250 qsft + 1/500 sq ft pool + 2 per court 1/3 seat capacity 1/3 capacity 1/3 capacityGolden Valley1/250 1/200 1/250 1/200 1/60‐100 sq ft 1/40 sq ft by use/TBD 1.5/unit .5/1/unit 1/3 seats 1/200‐300 1/per 5 children 4 per stall 4 per stall 1/350 sq ft 1/200 sq ft + 2 per court + .5 pool deck sq ft 1/4 seats 1/300 sq ft 1/300 sq ftEagan1/150 1/150 1/200 1/250‐300 1/3 seats 1/60 sq ft by use/TBD 1.5/unit 1/unit 1/3 seats TBD 10 + 1 per 500 sq ft 4 + 2 per bay 1/800 sq ft + 1 per empl 1 per 3 occupants 1 per 3 seats 1 per 3 occupants 1 per 3 occupantsApple Valley1/150‐200 1/150 1/150 1/200 1/2.5 seats 1/3 seats by use/TBD 1.5/unit 1.5 TBD 1/3.5 seats TBDTen spaces, plus one space for each 500 square feet in the principal structure.Four off‐street parking spaces, plus two off‐street parking spaces for each service stall if any.Ten customer parking spaces, plus one additional customer space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet, plus oneadditional space for every two employees.One and one‐half parking spaces for each three patient beds, plus one space for each two employees, plus one space for each staff doctor.Four off‐street parking spaces, plus two off‐street parking spaces for each service stall if any.. One parking space for each three seats.. One parking space for each 3½ seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall.One parking space for each 150 square feet of floor space.Crystal4+1/200‐500 4+1/200‐500 4+1/250 4+1/500 4+1/100 sq ft 4+1/60 sq ft by use/TBD 2/per unit 2/unit 4+1/3 seats TBD TBD4 spaces, plus 2 spaces per service or repair stall if applicable, plus no less than 1 space per 300 square feet of building area used for the sale of goods or services TBDNumber of spaces as required per a parking study 4 spaces, plus no less than 300 square feet of gross floor area, not including court, gym or pool area, plus 4 spaces per basketball court, plus 2 spaces pertennis or racquetball court, plus 1 space per 50 square feet of deck area for a swimming pool.4 spaces, plus no less than 1 space per 4 seats based on the cumulative design capacity of the assembly room or spaces4 spaces, plus no less than 1 space per 3 seats based on the cumulative design capacity of the assembly room or spaces 4 spaces, plus no less than 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area 4 spaces, plus no more than 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area Plymouth1/250 ‐ 300 1/200 1/200 1/200‐300 1/40+1/80 kit 1/2.5 seats by use/TBD 2/per unit 1.5/unit 1/3 seats 1/300 sq ftOne space for each employee, plus one space for each six individuals of licensed capacity. Four spaces plus two spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automobile products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this Chapter. Four spaces plus two spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automobile products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this Chapter. TBD One space for each 300 square feet of floor area. One space for each three permanent seats basedon the design capacity of the main assembly hall.Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this Chapter. One space for each 300 square feet of floor area. One space for each 300 square feet of floor area. New Hope1/300 1/300 1/200 1/200 1/40+1/80 kit 1/40+1/80 ki by use/TBD 2.25 unit 1/unit+employ 1/3 seats 1/300 sq ft TBDAt least five off‐street parking spaces plus three off‐street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this CodeAt least five off‐street parking spaces plus three off‐street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this CodeTBD TBDAt least one parking space for each three seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this Code.. One parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area.. One parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area.Maple Grove1/250 1/150 1/200 1/250 1/40+/80 kit 1/150 sq ft by use/TBD 2/unit 1/unit 1/3 seats TBD TBDAt least four off‐street parking spaces plus two off‐street parking spaces for each service stall. The requirement of at least four off‐street parking spaces may be waived for those facilities designed for sale of items other than strictly automotive products, parts or service, although such facilities shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this article, such as, but not limited to, the requirements of subsections (a)(12) and (a)(16) of this section. Eight off‐street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. Two spaces per each bed. Private racquetball, handball and tennis courts: Not less than six spaces per each court. (29) Other uses: Requirements for other uses not specifically mentioned in this section shall be determined on an individual basis by the city council. Factors to be considered in such determination shall include, without limitation, size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery or service vehicles. At least one parking space for each three seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this article. Ten spaces plus one for each 150 square feet in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. Ten spaces plus one for each 150 square feet in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. Brooklyn Park1/181/200 1/150+Dr. 1/200 1/200‐240 1/40+1/80 kit 1/40+1/80 ki by use/TBD 2/unit+.5 outside .5/unit 1/2.5 seats 1/200‐285No additional spaces required if located in a single dwelling or one unit in a multiple dwelling structure 1 space per employee plusone space per 7 children of licensed capacity of the facility4 spaces plus 3 spaces for each enclosed service stall plus parking figured separately for retail or office space.3 for each bay plus 1 for each employee on peak work shift2 spaces for each patient bed1 space per 300 square feet of floor area, plus 1 space per employee on the largest work shift1 space for each 3.5 seats of design capacity1 space for each 2.5 seats (one seat equals 22 inches of pew or bench space)based on the design capacity in the main assembly area, plus parking figured separately for additional gymnasiums, banquet rooms, meeting rooms, offices, and other multi‐use spacesTBDArden Hills1/250 1/250 1/150 1/150 1/2 seats 1/2 seats by use/TBD 1.1‐2.2 per unit TBD 1/3 seats TBD1 for each teacher or employee plus 1 for each 5 individuals receiving care (design capacity)3 for each enclosed bay plus 1 for each employee on peak work shift3 for each enclosed bay plus 1 for each employee on peak work shiftAs determined by City Council after recommendation by Planning Commission.1 for each 1.5 persons at design capacity 1 for every 3 seats (based on design capacity)1 for every 3 seats (based on design capacity)As determined by City Council after recommendation by Planning Commission.Shoreview1/200 1/200 1/181 1/181 1/3 seats 1/5 seats/15 by use /TBD 1.5 ‐ 2per unit TBD 1/3 seats TBD TBD Fuel Stations. 4 plus 1/150 sq. ft. floor space devoted to retail sales Vehicle & Equipment Sales and Rental. 8 + 1/800 sq. ft. floor area over 1,000 .1.2/bed Commercial Recreation. 10 + 1/300 sq. ft. of floor area 1/3 seats based on max. design capacity 10 + 1/300 sq. ft. of floor area TBDRoseville1/275‐1/325 1/250 1/325 1/3251/3 seats 1/employ11/60 sq ft by use/TBD 1.25/unit 1.25 unit 1/4 seats TBD1 per 10 = 1 per employee3spaces 4 per bay TBD 1/200, 2 per court,,1 per 50sq ft pool deck 1/4 seats TBD/uses 1/300 sq ftMaplewood1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/50 sq ft 1/50 sq ft by use/TBD 2/1 encl 2/per unit 1/4 seats TBD1 per 4 seats 1 per 4 seatsOakdale1/166 ‐ 200 6/Dr. 1/empl 1/200 1/2001/3 seats1/2em 1/table1/per table by use/TBD 1.5 ‐ 2.5 unit .5‐1/unit 1/4 seats TBD TBD 4 + 2 per stall 4 + 2 per stall TBD 3 per court 1/3 cap TBD TBDBurnsville1/666 ‐ 200 3/Dr. 1/empl 1/150 ‐ 1/200 1/2001/3 seats1/2em 1/table1/3 seats+em by use/TBD 1,5 ‐ 2.5 unit .5/unit 1/3 seats TBD 1/empl + 1/6 students 1/200 sq ft + 1 per pump 1/200 sq ft +3/bay + 1per empl 2 per 3 beds 1 per empl 1/2 space per occ, 1/500 sq ft + 1 per empl 1 per 4 seats + 1 empl1per 3 patrons +1 per vehicle + 1 per empl1/250 sq ft + 1/empl + 1/4 seats City OfficeMedical OfficeRetailShopping CenterRestaurants Fast food Mixed Use Apartments Sr Apartments Churches Government Day Care Gas Station/Convenience Gas Auto Service Station Hospitals Health Club Theater Community Center LibraryMpls2/1000‐1/200 2/1000 2/1000‐1/200 1/2002/1000‐1/75 qs ft1/75 sq ft by use TBD 1/unit 1/unit 10% capacit 1/2001 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA + 2 drop off spaces (either off‐street or on‐street by permission of the city engineer) 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of GFA + up to 4 drop off spaces (either off‐street or on‐street by permission of the city engineer) 1 space per 500 sq. Ō. of GFA 1 space per 200 sq. Ō. of GFA 1 Pump islands shall not be counted as parking spaces 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA excluding service bays + 2 spaces per service bay 1 space per 200 sq. Ō. of GFA+ 2 spaces per service bay As approved by C.U.P. based on a parking study of the institution, but not less than 1 space per 3 beds As approved by C.U.P. based on a parking study of the institution, but not more than 1 space per 2 beds 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA + as required by this chapter for applicable indoor recreaƟon areas 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of GFA Parking equal to 20% of the capacity of persons in the auditorium Parking equal to 40% of the capacity of persons in the auditorium TBD1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA in excess of 4,000 sq. ftHighland Park*Office sites in Commercial Districts sites <15,000 sf: 2.5/1,000 >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf4.11 spaces per 1000 sfDevelopment site <15000: 2.5/1000sf >15000: none for first 2000 sf then 2.5 spaces per 1000 sf20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA for kitchen area, serving counter and waiting area, plus 0.5 spaces per seat 20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA for kitchen area, serving counter and waiting area, plus 0.5 spaces per seat See attached word docNursing Facility: .33 space per resident.25 spaces per person in permitted occupancyAs determined by zoning administrator 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA interior sales space plus 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of external display (does not include stock areas closed to the public) plus 3 spaces per service bay2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA plus 3 spaces per service bay0.33 space per person in permitted occupancy 0.25 space per person in permitted occupancy0.25 space per person in permitted occupancy0.25 space per person in permitted occupancyPortland*1 per 500sf of net bu8ilding area 1 per 500 sq. ft. of net building area Medical Center 1 per 500 sf 1 per 330 sq. ft. of net building area 1 per 4 seats or 1 per 6 feet of bench area 1 per 500 sfDurham, NC* 1/250 1/2501/200 for first 50000 sf of leaseable area and 1/250 sf leaseable area after that1/100 sf 1/100 sf 2/unit .6/unit1/28 sf of avaiable seating in assembly area1/300 sf + 1 per 3 employees1 per employee + 1 per each 10 attendees1 per 2 beds + 1 per doctor and nurse + 1 per 4 employees1/100 sf1 per 200 SF floor area available for seating in places of assembly, minimum 20 spacesDenver*Park Ridge* Office Park: 5/1000 / Professional Office 4/10001.5/exam room3/10001/60 sf pulbic seating (excludes outdoor seating)3/1000Efficiency or 1‐bedroom unit:1.5 per dwelling unit 2‐bedroom or more unit: 2 per dwelling unit .25 per bed + 1 per 2 employees1/4 seats 3/1000 sf1 per 2 employees + 2 passenger loading spaces2 per 1000 sf GFA of any accessory convenience retail and/or foold service plus 2 stacking spaces per bay for any accessory automatic car wash2 per service bay + 1 per 500 sf of office and waiting area 1 per 2 beds + 2 per 3 employees based on largest shift 1 per 1000 sf of public use space 4/1000 sf public space 3 per 1000 gfa Glenview, IL*1/300 1/300 1/3001/3 people per max capacity1/3 people per max capacity2 per unit1/3 units 1/3 seats 1/800 1 per 350sf GFA 4 parking spaces plus one for each employee plus one space for each emergency vehcle kept on the premises three parking spaces for each five beds, plus three parking spaces for every five employees, other than doctors, plus one space for each doctor assigned to the staffOne parking space for each three seats or bench seating spaces, based upon the maximum permanent seating capacity. For the purpose of such use, parking spaces already provided to meet off‐street parking requirements for business, commercial and industrial establishments, or off‐street parking facilities provided by the Village, lying within 300 feet of the place of public assembly as measured along lines of public access, and that are not normally in use between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and midnight or on Sundays or holidays, and are made available for other parking, may be used to meet up to 75 percent of the total requirements for parking spaces for places of public assemblyone parking space for each 800 square feet of floor area. one parking space for each 800 square feet of floor area. Nashville1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sfShopping Center Retail: 1 space per 250 square feet for less than 400,000 square feet and 1 space per 225 square feet for 400,000 to 600,000 square feet and 1 space per 200 square feet for 1/100 sf and 10 spaces for takeout 1/100 sf by use 1 per bedroom up to 2 bedrooms; .5 spaces per bedroom for each additional bedroom; 2 bedrooms or more‐1.5 per unit .5 spaces per unit 1 space per 4 seats in the sanctuary or equivalent worship space1 space for each 5 individuals accommodated, up to 50 individuals; for more than 50 individuals accommodated, 10 spaces plus 1 space per 10 individuals4 spaces for each of the first four service bays or stalls,plus 2 spaces for each additional service bay or stall2 spaces per bedEstablished by the traffic engineer (Section 17.20.030)1 space per 3 seats—Established by the traffic engineer for facilities with a capacity of more than 500 spectatorsPuyallup, WAhttps://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Puyallup/html/Puyallup20/Puyallup2055.html Day care centers: one space for each 100 square feet of indoor play area and classroom space; Automobile service stations and repair garages: three spaces for each service bay;(19) Motorcycle and small engine vehicle sales and service: one space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space for each 1,000 square feet of open sales lot;Hospitals: three spaces for each bed the facility is designed to accommodate;Health and physical fitness clubs: one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area;Theaters and auditoriums: one space for each five seats. A “seat” means 18 lineal inches of bench seating or seven square feet of seating floor area where there are no permanent seats;Libraries and museums: one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area;Bloomingtonhttps://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/bloomington/latest/bloomington_mn/0‐0‐0‐109945#JD_21.301.0621.301.06 (e) 1.2 spaces for each 10 program participants based on the facility’s licensed capacity, plus 1 space per caregiver on the maximum shift1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, with no more than 0.5 of the required spaces located at fuel pumps1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area excluding service bays, plus 2 spaces per service bayN/A1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area (not including swimming pools), and additional off‐streetparking for the following uses: Swimming pool: 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area; Tennis, handball or racquetball: 2 spaces per courtSpaces equal in number to 1/3 capacity in persons; if use includes an educational component, those facilities are required to provide additional parking as provided in the ordinance under educational institutionsSpaces equal in number to 1/3 capacity in persons; if use includes an educational component, those facilities are required to provide additional parking as provided in the ordinance under educational institutions See Tables in attached Word Doc‐Minimums and Maximums by use determined by zone‐use first link to see zoning information See email from staff in attached word doc*Detailed information included on word doc City Office Medical Office Retail Shopping Center Restaurants Apartments Sr Apartments Edina - Current Ordinance 1/200-1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/167- 1/200 1/200+1/10 seats (formula)1/3 seats + employ 2/unit .75+employ Edina 1-27 draft 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/300 sf 1/100 s.f. plus 1/150 s.f of outdoor space 1-1.25/unit .75+employ Edina 2-24 draft 1/300 sf (1/200 max)1/300 sf 1/250 sf 1/350 sf 1/100 sf 1-1.25/unit with 1.75 max .75+employ Eden Prairie 1/200-333 max 1/200- 333 max 1/200- 1/333 1/200- 1/333 max 1/3-1/2max1/3-1/2 max 1/unit TBD Minnetonka 1/250 1/175- 20 min 1/250 1/250 1/2.5 seats 2/unit 1/unit Saint Louis Park 1/200-250 max 1/200-250 max 1/250- 1/150 max 1/250 1/60 sq ft 1/bed 1/unit Richfield 1/275- 350 max 1/200- 250 max 1/200-1/285 1/250 1/100 sq ft 2/unit/1.25TBD TBD Bloomington 1/285 1/285 1/180- 1/220 460+1/285 1/ 3 seats 1.8/1 bed-.75 1.5/unit Golden Valley 1/250 1/200 1/250 1/200 1/60-100 sq ft 1.5/unit .5/1/unit Apple Valley 1/150-200 1/150 1/150 1/200 1/2.5 seats 1.5/unit 1.5 TBD Crystal 4+1/200-500 4+1/200-500 4+1/250 4+1/500 4+1/100 sq ft 2/per unit 2/unit Plymouth 1/250 - 300 1/200 1/200 1/200-300 1/40+1/80 kit 2/per unit 1.5/unit New Hope 1/300 1/300 1/200 1/200 1/40+1/80 kit 2.25 unit 1/unit+employ Brooklyn Park 1/181/200 1/150+Dr.1/200 1/200-240 1/40+1/80 kit 2/unit+.5 outside .5/unit Roseville 1/275-1/325 1/250 1/325 1/325 1/3 seats 1/employ 1.25/unit 1.25 unit Burnsville 1/666 - 200 3/Dr. 1/empl 1/150 - 1/200 1/200 1/3 seats1/2em 1/table 1,5 - 2.5 unit .5/unit Mpls 2/1000-1/200 2/1000 2/1000-1/200 1/200 2/1000-1/75 qs ft 1/unit 1/unit Highland Park* Office sites in Commercial Districts sites <15,000 sf: 2.5/1,000 >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf 4.11 spaces per 1000 sf Development site <15000: 2.5/1000sf >15000: none for first 2000 sf then 2.5 spaces per 1000 sf 20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA for kitchen area, serving counter and waiting area, plus 0.5 spaces per seat See attached word doc Nursing Facility: .33 space per resident Durham, NC* 1/250 1/250 1/200 to 1/250 sf 1/100 sf 2/unit .6/unit Park Ridge, IL* Office Park: 5/1000 / Professional Office 4/1000 1.5/exam room 3/1000 1/60 sf pulbic seating (excludes outdoor seating) 1.5 to 2 per dwelling unit .25 per bed + 1 per 2 employees Glenview, IL*1/300 1/300 1/300 1/3 people per max capacity 2 per unit 1/3 units Nashville, Tenn.1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1 space per 250 square feet to 200 s.f. 1/100 sf and 10 spaces for takeout 1 to 1.5 per bedroom .5 spaces per unit City Office Medical Office Retail Shopping Center Restaurants Apartments Sr Apartments Birmingham, Ala 1/300 sf 1/150 sf 1/300 sf 1/300-550 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/UNIT .5 spaces per unit Dublin Ohio 1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/50 sf 2/unit 1/unit Charlotte, NC 1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/250 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/unit .25/unit Sustainable Parking Policies City of Edina, MN Planning Commission Iain Banks, Nelson\Nygaard Tom Brown, Nelson\Nygaard Overview Sustainable Parking Policies gave away free pizza, would you ever have Which uses make your urban areas active? Parking Wastes Land If you require more than 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, parking than land use You Have More Parking than You Think Downtown Portsmouth, NH On-Street Off-Street 330 428 456 463 533 553 287 189 161 154 84 64 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM Sustainable Parking Policies Best Practices for a Sustainable Parking Program Price public parking Parking benefit districts Expand access beyond parking Elimination/reduction of parking minimums Promote/require unbundling of parking costs Promote/enable parking cash-out Residential parking permit 8 Phase I: Price Public Parking Establish as formal policy that: Public parking resources will be priced whenever, and wherever free parking will result in too few available spaces. Prices will be adjusted based on performance (actual vs. preferred utilization rates). 9 Step 1 Put it in Writing Codify Access to public parking will be maintained primarily through pricing Define Performance Target (about 15% availability) Frequency of potential rate adjustments Increment of adjustment Conditions that will trigger an adjustment: Availability consistently 5-10 percentage points above or below target (85% for on-street, 85-95% for off-street), As measured by field conditions surveys to be conducted no less frequently than monthly. 10 11 12 Phase I: Price Public Parking Establish as formal policy that: Off-street supplies will have to be self- financing. Rates must reflect cost of maintaining the facility, including any debt service obligations. No new supply will be built until rates are high enough for user fees to cover its costs. 13 Step 1 Put it in Writing Many parking authorities operate under this philosophy already. Putting it in writing can help stave off political pressure to do the wrong thing. 14 15 16 17 Step 2 Define New Paradigm Define proposed paradigm shift Outline its many benefits, most of which directly benefit them: Parking rates based on performance, not revenue Easier access for their customers Particularly those not scared away by a $1 charge for the best spot in downtown. New revenue will be isolated from general fund. Spent on local improvements, As prioritized by local stakeholders Rates will only go up or down in response to market indicators. Consumers, not planners or politicians, will determine how much a space is worth. 18 Glendale, CA 19 Step 3 Bring Merchants Onboard Create Parking Benefit Districts Famously successful for turning around Old Pasadena, CA Spend new revenue on local improvements. This was a big step toward getting meters installed in Ventura, CA 20 Step 4 Monitor And Adjust 21 Step 4 Monitor And Adjust 22 Step 5 Invest to Expand Access Beyond Parking Most cities in MN have plenty of latent demand for some kind of alternate mode: Bikes: Network improvements, parking facilities, employee benefits, promotional events Transit: Improved stop amenities, employee benefits, subsidize new, improved service Pedestrian: Support Park-Once access via improvements to pedestrian networks and general streetscape. In most cases, these investments can expand access for much less than new parking construction They also reduce parking demand, thereby reducing the need to increase parking rates for drivers. 23 24 25 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking Step 1: Stop Mandating Oversupply Eliminate/ Reduce minimum parking requirements Forcing developers to build more parking than their pro- forma indicates is the best way to ensure that those spaces will be free. Allow developers to build as little or as much parking as they, and their backers, deem necessary. If this might lead to too much parking in sensitive areas, consider Maximums. 26 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking Step 2: Directly Promote Pricing by Building Owners Promote or Require Unbundling Reveals cost of on-site parking to tenants Tenants have opportunity to save $ by parking less Developers must ensure a paying market for proposed supply Works well with parking maximums and shared-parking incentives. Require unbundling only for spaces: Built in excess of desirable levels Not shared with off-site users 27 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Private Parking Step 3: Directly Promote Pricing by Employers Promote or Require Parking Cashout Businesses pass on parking costs to employees/ sub-tenants Employees drive less Tenants save $ on unbundled parking. State of California requires certain employers who provide subsidized employee parking to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space. Enacted after studies showed cash allowances in lieu of parking encourage employees to find alternate means of commuting to work, such as public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or walking. 28 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking Step 4: Lead by Example 29 Phase III: Manage Spillover 30 Image: Flickr User johnducguz Residential Parking Permits This is a more effective way to protect curb parking for residents. Like meters these have not always been used to their full potential, reducing public confidence Emerging best practices to learn from, including: Demand-responsive (matching hours and restrictions to address local conditions) Residential Parking Benefit Districts (Residents park free, others pay, revenue goes to neighborhood improvements) Austin, Montreal Variable permit rates (based on demand, number of permits, time of year, etc.) Arlington County, Canada 31 NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX DRAFT - ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ - DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 36-1311 – Minimum number required. Shall be amended as follows: (a) Single dwelling units, double dwelling units and residential townhouses. One fully enclosed space per dwelling unit. (b) Apartment buildings in the PRD district. (1) 1.25 fully enclosed spaces and 0.75 exposed spaces per dwelling unit. (2) The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) to not less than 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stopnumber of enclosed spaces is increased by a like amount so that the total number of exposed and enclosed spaces equals not less than two per dwelling unit. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (3) [need to specify number of spaces for handicapped, ride -sharing, emergency access, loading, other special use cases] (c) Senior citizen dwelling unit buildings in the PSR-4 and PSR-5 subdistricts. (1) 0.5 exposed spaces and 0.25 enclosed spaces per senior citizen dwelling unit. (2) In addition to subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following spaces are required: a. One completely enclosed and one exposed space for each non senior citizen dwelling unit located in a building in the Planned Senior Residence District. b. One completely enclosed space per vehicle owned by the building's management and stored on the property; and c. One exposed space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. Options: 0.75 spaces per bedroom, plus one space per employee on a maximum shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management; 1 space per unit plus one space per employee on a maximum shift; one space per three units; other? (The aggregate number of required parking spaces for Eemployees parking spaces may be reduced by ten 10 percent (10%) for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a qualified transit stop.) To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (d) Nursing, convalescent and rest homes. One space for every four patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management. (e) Day care, nurseries and preschools (principal use). One space per teacher or employee, plus one space per 20 individuals (or major fraction) receiving care. Commented [BT1]: Consider options to reduce by 10% each, for: 1) transit proximity and 2) the unbundling the cost of residential parking. (https://www.parkingtoolboxntx.org/ptdm-tools- content/Unbundled-Parking-Costs) With both, this would bring the requirement down to 1/DU, which would facilitate developments that intentionally leverage transit proximity to market to low/no-car households. Commented [BT2]: Just noting that the language used directly below uses the term “major shift”. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 2 (f) Public or private senior high schools and seminaries. One space per classroom plus one space per ten students, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (g) Public or private elementary or junior high schools. Two spaces per classroom, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (h) Community centers. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, or one space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (i) Churches and other religious institutions. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, plus spaces for other church facilities which are used concurrently with the largest place of assembly, the number of which shall be determined by the council in connection with the granting of a conditional use permit. (j) Theaters (except within shopping centers), stadiums, auditoriums, arenas, lodge halls, mortuaries, and clubhouses. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (k) Governmental administration, public service, post office. The greater of one space: (1) Per employee on the major shift, plus one space per government-owned vehicle, plus ten visitor spaces; or (2) For each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area. The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (l) Libraries, art galleries. Ten spaces, plus one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 (m) Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals. One space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per physician, dentist or veterinarian. The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (n) Hospitals. One space per bed for each two patient beds, plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift. Required spaces for employees or volunteers may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (o) Athletic, health and weight reduction facilities. (1) Six Four spaces per court for handball, racquetball, and tennis courts. (2) One space per 200 500 square feet of gross floor area for all other uses. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (p) Restaurants (except within shopping centers). Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, One space for each 100 square feet of indoor floor area, one space per each 150 square feet of outdoor floor area plus one space for each employee on the major shift and one space for each loading dock. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (q) Carwashes. One space per employee on the major shift, plus five spaces for each wash lane, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (r) Accessory carwashes. Two parking spaces, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (s) Gas stations. One space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (t) Automobile service centers. Three parking spaces per service bay, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 4 (u) Bowling alleys. Five spaces per lane. (v) Offices, medical and dental laboratories, business or professional offices, financial institutions, employment agencies and travel bureaus. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.00025*GFA)+195] Over 220,000 GFA/250 One space per 250 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (w) Mixed Development District. (1) Residential. One enclosed space, plus 0.75 exposed space, per dwelling unit. 1.25 fully enclosed spaces and 0.75 exposed spaces per dwelling unit. The required aggregate number of exposed spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) to not less than 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop (2) Nonresidential. Excluding publicly owned facilities and uses accessory to residential uses: Shall be regulated per Section 36-1311 above. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.0005*GFA)+190] Over 220,000 GFA/300 (3) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a commercial restaurant, up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. (4) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a residential use, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 5 use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. (5) Where there is combined within a single building an office use, a residential use, and a commercial restaurant, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, and up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. (x) Multitenant industrial buildings. One space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area, or the sum of the component gross floor areas as follows, whichever is greater: (1) One space for each 200 square feet of office space. (2) One space for each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space. (3) One space for each 300 square feet of manufacturing, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly space. (4) One space for each 500 square feet of space containing machines and equipment for conducting scientific research, testing or experimentation. (5) One space for each 200 square feet of facilities for athletic, health and weight reduction purposes; six spaces per court for handball, racquet ball or tennis. (y) Automobile and boat sales, new or used. One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, including showrooms, sales space and offices, but excluding service areas, plus three spaces for each service bay. Required parking spaces shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles, boats or other products. (z) Furniture and major appliance sales. (1) Over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. (2) Under 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. (aa) Hotels and motels. One space per guest unit, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (bb) Taproom and cocktail room. One space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. (cc) Brewery, winery and distillery without on-site sales. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (dd) Brewpub, winery and distillery with on-site sales. One space per 1,000 gross square feet of production floor area, and spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift for the restaurant. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 6 (ee) Uses not Specified. Where ambiguity exists in the application of off-street parking requirements, or where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined herein, the parking requirements for such use shall be determined by the city planner or the city planner designee and such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in this chapter. Section 2 Sec. 36-1312. - Planned Commercial District. Shall be amended as follows: For uses allowed in the Planned Commercial District, except uses for which a parking quantity is otherwise specified, the minimum spaces are as follows: (1) Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 1.25 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 300 square feet. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (2) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (50th and France, area defined in the 50th and France small area plan) Developments with a floor area ratio up to 1.0 Parking for uses in the 50th and France commercial node may rely on the City Parking Ramps to meet the parking requirements for all on-site useswith a floor area ratio up to 1.0. Uses Developments exceeding 1.0 must provide additional off-street parking spaces for the uses linked to the square footage above 1.0. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 1.25 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the Commented [BT3]: Consider options to reduce by 10% each, for: 1) transit proximity and 2) the unbundling the cost of residential parking. (https://www.parkingtoolboxntx.org/ptdm-tools- content/Unbundled-Parking-Costs) Commented [BT4]: I would consider striking this, especially if you do not provide a reduction option for transit proximity. There are other ways for developers to maintain availability for residents in a shared facility. Requiring design/physical barriers to achieve this will prevent potential shared-parking efficiencies, which may become particularly important as mobility trends and car-ownership rates evolve and fluctuate. Commented [BT5]: What is the intent of this? Commented [BT6]: I assume you want to frame the FAR around the project itself, and not the individual uses it contains. A development with a 5 FAR could contain 6 uses that are all smaller than 1 FAR. Commented [BT7]: Consider options to reduce by 10% each, for: 1)transit proximity and 2) the unbundling the cost of residential parking. (https://www.parkingtoolboxntx.org/ptdm-tools- content/Unbundled-Parking-Costs) Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 7 exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (3) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (Grandview, area defined in the Grandview Development Framework) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 1.25 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 300 square feet. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (4) Planned Commercial District – 3 (PCD-3) (Property zoned PCD-3 within the Greater Southdale area as defined in the Southdale District Plan) Shopping centers (6+ businesses and at least 25,000 s.f.). One space per 200 300 square feet of gross floor area (including theaters and restaurants), plus one additional space for each ten seats in a restaurant, theater or other place of assembly. Atrium areas and mall areas, not used for retail sales purposes, shall be excluded from gross floor area calculations. Required spaces may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within one quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 1.25 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Commented [BT8]: I would consider striking this, especially if you do not provide a reduction option for transit proximity. There are other ways for developers to maintain availability for residents in a shared facility. Requiring design/physical barriers to achieve this will prevent potential shared-parking efficiencies, which may become particularly important as mobility trends and car-ownership rates evolve and fluctuate. Commented [BT9]: What is the intent of this? Commented [BT10]: Consider options to reduce by 10% each, for: 1)transit proximity and 2) the unbundling the cost of residential parking. (https://www.parkingtoolboxntx.org/ptdm-tools- content/Unbundled-Parking-Costs) Commented [BT11]: I would consider striking this, especially if you do not provide a reduction option for transit proximity. There are other ways for developers to maintain availability for residents in a shared facility. Requiring design/physical barriers to achieve this will prevent potential shared-parking efficiencies, which may become particularly important as mobility trends and car-ownership rates evolve and fluctuate. Commented [BT12]: What is the intent of this? Commented [BT13]: Consider options to reduce by 10% each, for: 1)transit proximity and 2) the unbundling the cost of residential parking. (https://www.parkingtoolboxntx.org/ptdm-tools- content/Unbundled-Parking-Costs) Commented [BT14]: I would consider striking this, especially if you do not provide a reduction option for transit proximity. There are other ways for developers to maintain availability for residents in a shared facility. Requiring design/physical barriers to achieve this will prevent potential shared-parking efficiencies, which may become particularly important as mobility trends and car-ownership rates evolve and fluctuate. Commented [BT15]: What is the intent of this? Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 8 Section 3 Sec. 36-1324. Parking Space Reductions Section 36-1324 is amended to add the following: Reductions. The following off-street parking reductions may be utilized jointly or separately except as indicated otherwise: (1) RideCar-share Parking. A reduction of up to one space or five percent of the overall number of required parking spaces, whichever is greater, may be granted for any development that provides reserved parking for use by car-share vehicles. Parking for car-share vehicles may be provided in any required or non-required off-street parking space. (2) Environmental Sustainability. With the consent of the city planner or the planner’s designee upon review of potential adverse impacts, a reduction of up to ten percent (10%) in parking requirements may be approved for parking areas composed of pervious pavement or where the reduced parking area is used for a low impact development storm water facility; and a reduction of up to twenty percent (20%) in parking requirements may be approved for clustered site design where the reduced parking area is used for tree retention or native landscaping. (3) A reduction of up to one nonresidential parking space may be granted for every 10 long- term bicycle parking spaces provided on-site. In order to qualify for this reduction, the long-term bicycle parking must: (i) Be protected from weather and from access by unauthorized persons; (ii) Consist of bike racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed; (iii) Allow both the bicycle frame and the wheels to be locked with the bicycle in an upright position using a standard U-lock; (iv) Have minimum dimensions of two feet in width by six feet in length, with a minimum overhead vertical clearance of seven feet. Bicycle lockers are exempt from overhead clearance requirements referenced herein. Section 4 Sec. 36-1325. Additional Parking Regulations. Section 36-1325 is amended to add the following: (1) Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to collectively provide parking in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant(s) must provide evidence that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the buildings or uses for which the joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. For purposes of this subsection, no substantial conflict shall mean: (a) up to 75 percent of the required parking for Commented [BT16]: Another approach to consider: A 10% reduction for providing at least: •1 covered, long-term bike space per 3 dwelling units; and •1 covered, long-term bike space per 5,000 SF of retail/services uses; and •1 conveniently located, short-term bike space per 5,000 SF of retail/services uses. Commented [BT17]: Were bike parking requirements considered for the planned PCDs at all? Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 9 daytime use may be provided in the parking facilities of a nighttime or weekend use; or (b) up to 75 percent of the required parking for a nighttime or weekend use may be provided in the parking facilities of a daytime use. A parking plan shall address the hours, size and mode of operation of the respective uses. Within the Planned Commercial District, an applicant shall document proposed joint-use parking proposals through the use of the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Model (ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition). (b) The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking. (c) Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable legal agreement running with the land and recorded with the county in a form approved by the city attorney. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the city planner within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the city council. (d) To qualify, parking must be supplied within 300 feet of the main entrance to the parcel and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the principal structure and all parking spaces. (2) Proof of parking measures. An applicant may be eligible for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces where the applicant can demonstrate there is lesser need for the required number of off-street parking spaces, and/or there is a space set aside for code complying off-site parking spaces to be constructed if a need is later indicated by the city issuing authority, provided: (a) Where the applicant is seeking a reduction in the total number of required constructed parking spaces, the lesser number of constructed spaces may be allowed, provided: (i) The city would require a parking study conducted in accordance with accepted methodology approved by the city issuing authority, prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional under the supervision of the city and paid for by the applicant, demonstrating that there is not a present need for the portion of parking for which the applicant is requesting proof of parking flexibility. (ii) Where a site plan is approved with proof of parking measures, a properly drawn legal instrument, memorializing the parking measures drafted and executed by the parties concerned, must be filed with the records for that property in the Registrar of Titles’ or Recorder’s office of the county with proof thereof presented to the issuing authority. (b) Suitability of deferred spaces. The applicant must not assign deferred parking spaces to areas required for landscaping, required buffer zones, setbacks, fire Commented [BT18]: Consider at least doubling this in PCDs. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 10 lanes, drive aisles or areas that would otherwise be unsuitable for parking spaces because of the physical characteristics of the land or other requirements of this code. (c) Conversion of deferred spaces by applicant. The applicant may at any time request that the issuing authority approve a revised site plan to allow conversion of deferred spaces to operable parking spaces. (3) The placement of two (2) abutting off-street parking facilities with continuous street frontage shall not be permitted. Section 5. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX DRAFT - ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ - DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 36-1311 – Minimum number required. Shall be amended as follows: (a) Single dwelling units, double dwelling units and residential townhouses. One fully enclosed space per dwelling unit. (b) Apartment buildings in the PRD district. (1) 1.25 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit minimum and a maximum of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. At least one fully enclosed space per unit required. (c) Senior citizen dwelling unit buildings in the PSR-4 and PSR-5 subdistricts. (1) 0.5 exposed spaces and 0.25 enclosed spaces per senior citizen dwelling unit. (2) In addition to subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following spaces are required: a. One completely enclosed and one exposed space for each non senior citizen dwelling unit located in a building in the Planned Senior Residence District. b. One completely enclosed space per vehicle owned by the building's management and stored on the property; and c. One exposed space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. 0.75 spaces per bedroom, plus one space per employee on a maximum shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management (d) Nursing, convalescent and rest homes. One space for every four five patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management. (e) Day care, nurseries and preschools (principal use). One space per teacher or employee, plus one space per 20 individuals (or major fraction) receiving care. (f) Public or private senior high schools and seminaries. One space per classroom plus one space per ten students, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (g) Public or private elementary or junior high schools. Two spaces per classroom, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (h) Community centers. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, or one space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. (i) Churches and other religious institutions. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, plus spaces for other church facilities which are used concurrently with the largest place of assembly, the number of Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 2 which shall be determined by the council in connection with the granting of a conditional use permit. (j) Theaters (except within shopping centers), stadiums, auditoriums, arenas, lodge halls, mortuaries, and clubhouses. Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (k) Governmental administration, public service, post office. The greater of one space: (1) Per employee on the major shift, plus one space per government-owned vehicle, plus ten visitor spaces; or (2) For each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area. (l) Libraries, art galleries. Ten spaces, plus one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. (m) Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals. One space for each 200 300 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per physician, dentist or veterinarian. (n) Hospitals. One space per bed for each two patient beds, plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift. (o) Athletic, health and weight reduction facilities. (1) Six Four spaces per court for handball, racquetball, and tennis courts. (2) One space per 200 400 square feet of gross floor area for all other uses. (p) Restaurants (except within shopping centers). Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, One space for each 100 square feet of indoor floor area, plus one space for each employee on the major shift and one space for each loading dock. (q) Carwashes. One space per employee on the major shift, plus five spaces for each wash lane, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (r) Accessory carwashes. Two parking spaces, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (s) Gas stations. One space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (t) Automobile service centers. Three parking spaces per service bay, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (u) Bowling alleys. Five spaces per lane. (v) Offices, medical and dental laboratories, business or professional offices, financial institutions, employment agencies and travel bureaus. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.00025*GFA)+195] Over 220,000 GFA/250 One space per 300 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (w) Mixed Development District. (1) Residential. One enclosed space, plus 0.75 exposed space, per dwelling unit. 1.0spaces per dwelling unit minimum with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit. (2) Nonresidential. Excluding publicly owned facilities and uses accessory to residential uses: Shall be regulated per Section 36-1311 above. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.0005*GFA)+190] Over 220,000 GFA/300 (3) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a commercial restaurant, the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant in conformity with the requirements of section 36-xxx. (4) Where there is combined within a single building an office use and a residential use, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. (5) Where there is combined within a single building an office use, a residential use, and a commercial restaurant, up to 40% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, and up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 4 (x) Multitenant industrial buildings. One space for each 400 500 square feet of gross floor area, or the sum of the component gross floor areas as follows, whichever is greater: (1) One space for each 200 300 square feet of office space. (2) One space for each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space. (3) One space for each 300 square feet of manufacturing, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly space. (4) One space for each 500 square feet of space containing machines and equipment for conducting scientific research, testing or experimentation. (5) One space for each 200 400 square feet of facilities for athletic, health and weight reduction purposes; six spaces per court for handball, racquetball or tennis. (y) Automobile and boat sales, new or used. One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, including showrooms, sales space and offices, but excluding service areas, plus three spaces for each service bay. Required parking spaces shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles, boats or other products. (z) Furniture and major appliance sales. (1) Over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. (2) Under 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. (aa) Hotels and motels. One space per guest unit, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (bb) Taproom and cocktail room. One space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. (cc) Brewery, winery and distillery without on-site sales. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (dd) Brewpub, brewery, winery and distillery with on-site sales. One space per 1,000 gross square feet of production floor area, and spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift for the restaurant. (ee) Uses not Specified. Where ambiguity exists in the application of off-street parking requirements, or where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined herein, the parking requirements for such use shall be determined by the city planner or the city planner designee and such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in this chapter. Section 2 Sec. 36-1312. - Planned Commercial District. Shall be amended as follows: For uses allowed in the Planned Commercial District, except uses for which a parking quantity is otherwise specified, the minimum spaces are as follows: (1) Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France) Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 5 Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (2) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (50th and France, area defined in the 50th and France small area plan) Parking for uses in the 50th and France commercial node may rely on the City Parking Ramps with a floor area ratio up to 1.0. Uses exceeding 1.0 must provide additional off-street parking spaces for the square footage above 1.0. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (3) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (Grandview, area defined in the Grandview Development Framework) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. One (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. One space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 6 (4) Planned Commercial District – 3 (PCD-3) (Property zoned PCD-3 within the Greater Southdale area as defined in the Southdale District Plan) Shopping centers (6+ businesses and at least 25,000 s.f.). One space per 200 350 square feet of gross floor area (including theaters and restaurants), plus one additional space for each ten seats in a restaurant, theater or other place of assembly. Atrium areas and mall areas, not used for retail sales purposes, shall be excluded from gross floor area calculations. Multiresidential uses. One fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Section 3 Sec. 36-1324. Parking Space Reductions Section 36-1324 is amended to add the following: Reductions. The following off-street parking reductions may be utilized jointly or separately except as indicated otherwise: (1) The required aggregate number of spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the building is located within 800 feet of a qualified transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week until at least 11 pm each day and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (2) Car-share Parking. A reduction of up to one space or five percent of the overall number of required parking spaces, whichever is greater, may be granted for any development that provides at least three reserved parking spaces for use by car-share vehicles. Parking for car-share vehicles may be provided in any required or non- required off-street parking space. (3) Environmental Sustainability. With the consent of the city planner or the planner’s designee upon review of potential adverse impacts, a reduction of up to ten percent (10%) in parking requirements may be approved for parking areas composed of pervious pavement or where the reduced parking area is used for a low impact development storm water facility; and a reduction of up to twenty percent (20%) in parking requirements may be approved for clustered site design where the reduced parking area is used for tree retention or native landscaping. (4) A 10 percent reduction in parking provided if the following is provided for the following: (a) 1 covered, long-term bike space per 3 dwelling units. (b) 1 covered, long-term bike space per 5,000 s.f. of retail/service uses. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 7 (c) 1 short-term bike space per 5,000 s.f. of retail/services uses. In order to qualify for this reduction, the long-term bicycle parking must: (a) Be protected from weather and from access by unauthorized persons; (b) Consist of bike racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed; (c) Allow both the bicycle frame and the wheels to be locked with the bicycle in an upright position using a standard U-lock; Section 4 Sec. 36-1325. Additional Parking Regulations. Section 36-1325 is amended to add the following: Shared parking requirements for restaurants in the Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France). (a) Two or more different use classifications within one or more tracts that are not used for or restricted to single-family residential purposes may share parking spaces to reduce the overall parking space requirement as provided in this section. This section shall not be used to reduce the number of required bicycle spaces or loading berths. (b) The following formula and table shall be used to determine the adjustment, if any, of the minimum number of parking spaces required by this chapter in the Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France): (1) Determine the number of parking spaces required by this chapter for each use classification individually; (2) Multiply the number derived from item (1) of this subsection for each individual use classification by the corresponding percentage listed in the rows of the table found in this subsection for each time period found in the columns of the table; (3) Add the numbers derived from item (2) of this subsection for each time period found in the columns of the table. This is the column total for each column; and (4) Determine the largest column total. This is the shared parking space requirement. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 8 Class Type of Use Typical Weekday Typical Weekend/Holiday Mid- night to 7 AM 7 AM to 5 PM 5 PM to 9 PM 9 PM to Mid- night Mid- night to 7 AM 7 AM to 5 PM 5 PM to 9 PM 9 PM to Mid- night Class: Food and Beverage Small restaurant 10% 50% 75% 40% 15% 75% 100% 50% Neighborhood restaurant 10% 50% 75% 40% 15% 75% 100% 50% Restaurant 10% 50% 75% 40% 15% 75% 100% 50% Tavern or pub 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 10% 80% 100% (c) Upon written request of the applicant supported by information adequate to make a determination, the city planner may approve an additional reduction of up to 10 percent of the required number of shared parking spaces after considering all relevant factors, including: (1) The unique parking characteristics of each use classification, including employee, customer, and patron parking demand, hours of operation, and projected convenience and frequency of use of the shared parking. (2) Whether the use of shared parking spaces will be injurious to public health, safety, and welfare including, but not limited to, whether the additional reduction of shared parking spaces will cause increased traffic congestion, potential harm to adjacent property owners, and spillover parking into surrounding residential neighborhoods; and (3) The recommendation of the director of public works. (e) All shared parking spaces must conform to the following criteria: Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 9 (1) A shared parking space shall not be reserved for or restricted to a specific use classification. A parking space reserved for a specific use classification shall not be considered a shared parking space; (2) All shared and reserved parking spaces shall be identified on a site plan; (3) Each shared parking space shall be clearly identified by signage on each tract and parking facility identifying the location and availability of the shared parking spaces for participating uses; (4) Each shared parking space must be made available at all times for use by employees, customers, and patrons; and (5) Shared parking spaces that are located on off-site parking facilities must comply with the provisions of section 36-xxxx of this Code for each individual use classification. (f) The city planner shall not approve a site plan that proposes to use shared parking spaces unless the applicant or responsible party submits a shared parking agreement to the department that takes the form of a memorandum of lease or a reciprocal easement agreement in a form approved by the city attorney. The shared parking agreement shall comply with the requirements of a memorandum of lease contained in section 36-501 of this Code. (g) After the city planner approves a site plan that uses shared parking spaces, any change in the use classification or parking factor shall require the applicant or responsible party to submit a new site plan to the department for approval and a revised shared parking agreement if necessary. The building official shall not issue a building permit or certificate of occupancy without a site plan approved by the city planner for the revised shared parking agreement. (h) Operation of a use classification without an approved site plan required by this subsection is a violation of this chapter. Sec. 36-xxx. - Off-site parking. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 10 (a) A parking space required by this chapter may be provided on off-site parking facilities if the following conditions are met: (1) The off-site parking facilities are located less than 500 feet from the tract where the use classification is located except as provided for in items (2) and (3) of this subsection; (2) Up to 25 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be provided on off-site parking facilities located: a. Less than 800 feet from a tract where the use classification is located if the building for which the off-site parking is being provided contains less than 30,000 square feet of GFA; or b. Less than 1,000 feet from a tract where the use classification is located if: (1) The building for which the off-site parking is being provided contains less than 30,000 square feet of GFA; and (2) The city planner determines in his or her sole professional judgment that sufficient pedestrian amenities mitigate the impact of the extended distance of the off-site parking facilities. (3) The off-site parking spaces required by this chapter are not already being used to satisfy the parking requirement of a different building or tract. (b) All distances shall be measured as the shortest clearly delineated pedestrian route between the property boundary of the tract where the use classification is located to the property boundary of the off-site parking facility as measured along sidewalks and other passageways that are open and accessible to the public at all times. (c) When an off-site parking facility is located on a tract that is not owned by an applicant or responsible party for the property requiring the parking spaces, the applicant or responsible party shall provide to the department a memorandum of lease that complies with the requirements of section 36-501 of this chapter. (d) Different requirements for off-site parking facilities may be provided for within a special parking area in accordance with this chapter. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 11 Sec. 36-501. - Memorandum of lease. (a) A memorandum of lease required by this chapter shall: (1) Be in the form prescribed by the city planner upon approval by the city attorney and shall not require that the amount of consideration paid or other financial information be reported to the department; (2) Be filed with the department and maintained in the department’s records. (3) Be accompanied by the non-refundable fee set forth for this provision in the city fee schedule; (4) Be signed by all interested parties; (5) Include the legal description of the leased tract; (6) Provide that the leased tract will be used primarily to satisfy the parking requirements of this chapter for the term of the lease or agreement; and (7) Be evidence of an effective lease or shared parking agreement with an effective term of at least one year. (b) In the event that the leased tract becomes unavailable to the use classification whether through termination of the lease, agreement, or other reason, the applicant or responsible party must immediately notify the planning department and take steps to obtain and submit for approval substitute parking arrangements that comply with the requirements of this chapter. The city planner shall cause the certificate of occupancy of an applicant or responsible party to be revoked after the expiration of the grace period set forth below if the applicant or responsible party is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter due to the unavailability of the leased tract in accordance with the following: (1) If the applicant or responsible party has not made substitute arrangements within a 90-day grace period after the date the leased tract became unavailable, the city planner shall cause the certificate of occupancy to be revoked for the use and that use shall cease immediately. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 12 Expiration of a lease at the end of its term without substitute parking arrangements shall not be considered as no fault of the applicant or responsible party. (2) If an applicant or responsible party can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city planner that the leased tract became unavailable through no fault of the applicant or responsible party, the grace period to submit substitute arrangements and have them approved shall be 120 days from the date the leased tract became unavailable. If no substitute arrangements are approved within the grace period, the city planner shall cause the certificate of occupancy to be revoked for the use and that use shall cease immediately. (3) The city planner shall grant an additional 120-day extension to the grace period to an applicant or responsible party who can demonstrate the following to the satisfaction of the city planner: a. The applicant or responsible party has acted in good faith and made reasonable efforts to obtain substitute parking; b. The applicant or responsible party will have reasonable opportunity to obtain substitute parking if an extension is granted; and c. The granting of an extension will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare; (4) The commission shall grant an additional 90-day extension to the grace period to an applicant who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission the criteria of item (3) of this subsection. An application to the commission for the additional 90-day extension shall: a. Be filed with the department before the expiration of the grace period described by this section; b. Be in the form prescribed by the city planner; and c. Be accompanied by the non-refundable fee set forth for this provision in the city fee schedule. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 13 (5) Operation of a use classification after the expiration of the grace period without providing for substitute parking arrangements approved by the city planner is a violation of this chapter. (c) An applicant or responsible party must submit an annual certification to the department not more than one year from the date of the most recently approved site plan or memorandum of lease demonstrating the continued availability of the leased tract. The annual certification shall: (1) Be in the form prescribed by the city planner; (2) Be accompanied by the non-refundable fee set forth for this provision in the city fee schedule; and (3) Include a current and valid memorandum of lease that complies with the standards of subsection (a) of this section showing that the leased tract is available for continued use as shown on the most recently approved site plan. (d) If an applicant or responsible party fails to submit an annual certification to the department, the leased tract shall be considered to be unavailable for the parking purpose intended by the lease and the applicant or responsible party shall take the steps outlined in subsection (b) of this section required for compliance with this chapter. Section 5. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Date: April 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:2021 P lanning C ommis s ion Attendanc e Log 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: I nformation only. N o action required. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description 2021 Planning Commis s ion Attendance Log # of Mtgs. Attendance % Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 NAME Agnew, Kate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% Miranda, Lou 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% Olsen, Jo Ann 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 57% Bennett, Jimmy 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 86% Strauss, Gerard 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 86% Nemerov, Ian 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% Berube, Sheila 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% Alkire, David 1 1 1 3 100% Bartling, Rachel 1 1 1 3 100% Mcullen, Sophie (student)1 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 71% O N D PLANNING COMMISSION J F M A M J J A S