Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-22 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketAgenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, September 22, 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 1477052. 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 staff member will introduce you when it is your turn. Or attend the meeting to provide testimony, City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th St. Call To Order Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission August 25, 2021 V. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the some issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. Public Hearings A. B-21-28: Front Yard Setback Variance at 313 Griffit Street B. B-21-26, variance request for 5101 Windsor Ave. C. B-21-29 Variance request 5615 Woodcrest D. Preliminary Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan with Variances for City Homes at 4630 France Avenue E. Site Plan Review with Variances - 6500 Barrie Road VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Impervious Surface, Basements, 1-foot rule and setback definitions B. 2022 Planning Commission Work Plan VIII. Chair And Member Comments IX. Staff Comments X. Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: _, 2021 Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request for a 3.75 first floor elevation variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Tim Bellin, representing owner of the property, introduced himself and addressed the Commission. Public Hearing Ms. Janie Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission and indicated she was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the variance. Motion Commissioner Strauss moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the 3.75-foot first floor elevation variance for a new home at 4230 Crocker Avenue So. as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Commissioner Bennett arrived at 7:28 p.m. B. B-21-9. an 81.4 Foot Variance from the Required 98.7 Foot Front Yard Setback for a New Home at 6716 Arrowhead Pass Assistant City Planner Bodeker presented the request for an 81.4-foot variance. 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. Nate Pribyl, Valley Partners, introduced himself and addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing Mr. Eric Perkins, 6715 Indian Hills Road, addressed the Commission and indicated he did not have any issues with the project. Page 2 of 5 Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: _, 2021 Commissioner Alkire moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the variance and offered the following comments: • Unusual lot with challenges. • Almost impossible to meet the front yard setback without this variance. • Significant distance from the street. • There is nothing typical with this lot. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the front yard setback variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Impervious Surface, Basements, I -Foot Rule and Setback Definitions Director Teague presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The Commission is asked to direct staff to set a public hearing date and post the ordinance on Better Together Edina. Staff answered Commission questions. Staff will come back to the Planning Commission at its next meeting with an updated draft of the ordinance based on Commission feedback. No public hearing date was set. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. B. Sketch Plan Review — 7300 West Bush Lake Road Director Teague presented the request for a sketch plan review. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Page 3 of 5 Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: _, 2021 Mr. Nicholas Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architect, Inc, introduced himself and addressed the Commission and answered questions. The Commission discussed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: • Add more landscaping • The future use of this being an industrial park and if it is the City's vision for the area • Parking seems to be adequate for the area with on street parking available • Rare opportunity to connect areas for bike and pedestrian traffic • Needs bike and pedestrian pathways Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. C. Resolution B-21-27: Finding that the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing Plan with Modification #4 is Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf presented the request for Southdale 2 TIF Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Southdale 2 TIF Plan, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing Plan modifications as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Vill. Chair and Member Comments Received. IX. Staff Comments Received. X. Adjournment Page 4of5 Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: _, 2021 Commissioner Strauss moved to adjourn the August 25, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:02 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Page 5 of 5 CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The subject property, 313 Griffit Street, was built in 1957. The lot is 13, 504 square feet and is located on the east side of Griffit Street, west of the pond. The existing dwelling is a split-level home with a two -car garage. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and submitted with comments as attached in their September 14, 2021, memorandum. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side — 10 feet 9.2 feet Side yard (Existing non -conforming, no change proposed) West Side — 37.1 feet 30.8 feet* Front Yard South Side — 10 feet 27.6 feet Side Yard East Side — Rear Yard 50 feet 50.5 feet (Required setback to naturally occurring lakes and ponds) Building Coverage 25% 22% Lots greater than 9,OOOsf Height 37 feet 26'8 %2" *Requires a variance STAFF REPORT Page 3 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Staff believes the variance criteria is met in this instance. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively to grant a variance. The proposed variance will: i) 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. The proposed use is permitted in the R- I Single Dwelling Unit District and the proposed addition complies with zoning standards with the exception of the side yard setback requirement. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home and the required setbacks based on the house to the north. Due to the addition being on a different floor, the non -conforming setback standard does not apply. The home will be refurbished and modified within the existing setbacks. The original home was constructed without variances. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing house has non -conforming setbacks and was built prior to the current ordinance requirements. There were no variances granted for the original construction of the home in 1957. The proposed addition will continue the non -conforming setback on the second floor that was allowed when the home was originally built. Setback requirements have changed over time and have created non -conformities. This was not self-created by the applicant. The proposed addition conforms to all other zoning requirements. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The addition will match the non -conforming first -floor setback. Staff Recommendation Approve a 6.3-foot front yard setback variance for a second -floor addition at 313 Griffit Street. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal meets the variance criteria. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home and existing non -conforming front yard setback. 2. The proposed addition is reasonable and was not self-created. The current house has non- conforming front yard setback and was built prior to the current setback requirements. 3. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I. Plans date stamped September 2, 2021. 2. Comments and conditions listed in the September 14, 2021, Engineering Memo. mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL Date:09/01/21 To: City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 For: Trevor & Becky Fladwood 313 Griffit St Edina, MN 55343 Designer/Builder: Plekkenpol Builders 401 East 781h Street Bloomington, MN 55420 Re: Variance Application 313 Griffit St, Edina MN 55343 Lot description Lot 4, Block 4, Mendelssohn, Hennepin County, Minnesota Variance Request: We are requesting a front yard setback variance to allow for a second story addition. The new addition will be built directly above the existing home/foundation and does not move any portion of the home closer to the road than the existing structure. The current restrictions would prevent an addition that would allow for the desired size, aesthetic appeal, and would complicate standard building practice. 1. "Relieve practical difficulties in complying with zoning ordinance and that use is reasonable." Due to the language of the front yard setback requirements and the existing conditions of the home's location, the second story addition must match the front yard setback of the adjacent home or the front street setback of all other dwelling units on the same side of that street between intersections. Because the subject home is closer to the road than the 3 other homes on it's block it does not meet said requirements. The proposed addition would allow for additional bedrooms for a growing family. The homeowner would prefer to add space to the existing home rather than tear down and build new. 2. "Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to the other property in the vicinity or zoning district." Although the home would meet the current 30 foot setback for new undeveloped subdivisions, it is uniquely excluded from being able to complete a second story addition because it was originally built closer to the street than the 3 neighboring homes on it's block. This presents the extraordinary circumstance that that prevents our subject home from making an improvement that the neighboring homes would have the capability to complete. "Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance." We believe that because the home is not moving any closer to the road than when it was originally built and because it falls within the 30 foot new subdivision requirements that it is in harmony with the general purposes/intent of the zoning ordinance. 4. "Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood" The home's exterior has been designed to match it's existing style and is no taller than multiple 2 story homes within the neighborhood, specifically the block directly south of the subject home. NIVNMI NIVW37 NIVW37 NIVW3?J Ol 'MaM II Ol 'MaM Ol 'MaM Ol 'MaM II LL W i �N O 0oo 30 3¢ o 0 o I ° wv L zooa 3nOVU3 3 f c y� NIVW3�O111ddOS —� Ow c�`y ICI '� NIVW3f Ol NI--jning �, L CIIEI° II lW1w Sl�LVW�3nnOIWIV3M 3�Ol W-ni19 I If. I llvM3nOW32 0vaAII — — — — — 3 a Izw OII�IYz e CE 1I dQ —oW 1YT I�Ww°CI—_ VM— 3—nO—VJ3_?1 —�IZa—H�aI 3L—d0\`�a-3IwoLLnOI —0d oz N2<Io 7 IIIIII Nw o IIW 3� oe I I o� O II° �LL I w9=L I o IIo I i 'C �LL III rT --- T, I I V I r------, I w u S I w Z w � I U O O oW[ z I LL� z_Z K W I �< K p Z I } O J LL z w U N zw QQ N 4t W r II\ 11 "1111 3No 3 3 3 N W X W W W ZWLL Z Z Z W N Z N PEaloj z W F N Y U OON W <Z N LM '� O No<UW LL 2 < oz03 Z X N W 57, W W X lel 2 In LL lY <�Z �NOO O N Z r W W W p Z W J Z ON- Z Z W y{UQ } ¢NQ N Q QZ LL W X OOC � ZWLL (� oomo 00�0 flfl�flfl; � W N � � Z Z_ ~ N N W k W z p� N l9p I N V a l3NVd 43XIj z � z 3. c L_J Ei 4 `� 3x . wLL \ e / N1 32lnl301JN3'HS'10'JW31M3N O III L L 7�8-7 a z LL' N U 111 J z Q J J z LLj Q Q N �/ Fsuglouu®suq 24s Fu Nul?pO s wuizjewq uutj , wuq(e u4I uugjuuu bwkueeiuuuj Levuwc I I L ricsu2s• Ho• 51235 Hsntasq: i3\OJ\505J FEILL Hn u Dsls: 805050 s 0 tr 0 :E 1ps 2lsls of Wluus20ls• CDglLscl 2nbsw2lou suq 1psl I sw s gnjA Ilceu2eq rsuq 2nusAoL nugsL 1ps IsM2 01 o i psLspA csglo 1psl 1pi2 amok blsu oL Lebo4 M92 bLebsLeq pA ws oL nugGL WA HEV117EbIV1 COnmi,k COOISDIMVIE 2AKEW' 5' EOK 1HE bn13bO2E2 OE 1HI2 2n5AEA 1HE BEdVIWe 2J.21EW 12 MED OM 1HE FV14DLOEVI OV181d15050 EXbBE22FA LOB iHI2 bBOIEC1' J' BVCKGk50nAD IMLOLSMAOV12HOAA14 bEIS BOnMDVgA 2nKAEA bEHLOEINED BA .Un.0 rm d' BrOCKI' WEWDEr220HH' HEWMEbIW COnmik iNmE201H .9 1.701 . 13 FAI 1 bISObO2ED = 5ell 2t' = 55oR EXIailwe = sell 2E' = 55OR I rr rr f-- N m m F— U 288o33,10„E e2'05 - 99;' Msll --y ---- 30'8 ---- S J o #\3J 3 CD J J'a, 2 2i=' Bnilglua co rt� yues = EX121!ua ; - ps � lgEX121! \ boLcp ElooL `dgglllou 2cLssu 0o btobozsq suq Exlalluc L09: b16KKsubol gnilgeL2 eSLsas EXl2llua lop Vlo' SSS502,f4 Etow 2!te m Nulzp r v 0 DLsMlua: =0214 CO2'gMa BA 2bK • Msp: !sugtOl.u.I-usf • W!uuesbo!!2' WU 22,104 E ® K W 2n1fe 243 402 2onfu �!tfp ynsune 2CVFE 10 EEEI 0 30 ROMEMMM MOKIH •® • • • • 190H blbE bOnMD CVb AV9KED #J 302109 #51335 O 4\5„ x 41. IKOV blbE 2E1 MI1H V bFV211C MslsL r-lus E— EX12llua Hlap e N s S o �OI ® CO m CA) Ms 20'2-------- 0s 0 0 I o o CA 2Nsq QO ��- Ex�llua J 52.00 ' r-----, — R 28a.33,,I E 431V00 Bnllglua I < Exl2llua CE9iILICViE • angAEA k Hiatt MslsL plus 20, 2slpscK tLow Iin=50ft The CITY of N EDINA W E S September 8, 202 Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 16 September 2021 Public Hearing Comments-313 Griffit Street Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: a 6.3 foot variance from the 37.1-foot front yard setback requirement for a second floor addition above the existing first floor at 313 Griffit Street CONTRIBUTORS 5 0 0 Registered Unverified VISITORS 7 5 Anonymous 0 Registered RESPONSES 5 V V V V V CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features 5101 Windsor Avenue S is a two-story built in 1953. The current home does not meet the setbacks required in today's code from the north, west or south lot lines. The existing setbacks to the property lines are nonconforming with the proposed addition maintaining the existing setback on the north, west and south sides of the house. The proposed addition is a second -floor addition, which does not fall within the allowable non -conforming alternate setback standard. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Grading & Drainage Low -Density Residential R-I, Single -Dwelling District The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their September 10, 2021, memorandum. Stormwater precautions per City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 are neither triggered nor required. The subject property currently drains to Melody Lake. Re -grading is not proposed. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Windsor 61.2 feet 35.8 feet existing* (second floor) Front yard 35.8 feet existing South Side — 25 feet 9 feet existing* (second floor) 6.5 feet existing East Warwick 49.13 feet 26.2 feet existing* (second floor) Front yard 26.2 feet existing West Side — 10 feet 13.8 feet Building Coverage 25% 22.94% *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF REPORT Page 3 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 practical difficulty is caused by how the existing house is situated on the lot. The proposed use is permitted in the R- I Single Dwelling Unit District and the proposed addition complies with zoning standards with the exception of the street and rear yard setback requirement. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home and the required setbacks. Due to the addition being on a different floor, the non- conforming setback standard does not apply. The home will be added to and modified within the existing setbacks. The original home was constructed without variances. 2. There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing house has non -conforming setbacks and was built prior to the current ordinance requirements. There were no variances grated for the original construction of the home in 1953. The proposed addition will continue the non -conforming setback on the second floor that was allowed in 1953 when the original home was built. There is a large portion of right-of-way along the intersection of the street frontages that provides green space between the existing garage and street. The added green space/boulevard provides additional distance from the street edge, so generous spacing to the street exists. Setback requirements have changed over time creating non -conformities. This was not self-created by the applicant. The proposed addition conforms to all other zoning standards. 3. Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The addition will match the existing homes setbacks on the first floor. All other aspects of the addition will conform to the ordinance requirements. The applicant will be changing the siding and look of the home to compliment the neighborhood. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Recommended Action: Approve the 3 setback variances for an existing non -conforming home expansion at the same setbacks at 5 10 1 Windsor Ave S. Approval is subject to the following findings: I. The proposal meets the variance criteria. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home and existing non -conforming setbacks. 2. The proposed addition is reasonable and was not self-created. The current house has non- conforming setbacks and was built prior to the current setback requirements. 3. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The addition and new siding will complement the existing neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I . Survey and plans date stamped August 17, 2021. 2. Comments and conditions listed in the September 10, 2021 Engineering Memo. mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL tJ + { TA � i 1 '�sni�y.i '4�r�'�►. q' ' ��. Windsor Ave F' oop CD x1. o Y 1 e" AW Q 4' i 1 1 56 t h �2St�W�L1� , �* .. �� i Ig�iWIL•q IM�IIIWUp�O b0 0 �unr�inuuo �O�O In' 00 Applicant Narrative for Variance Request Stackhouse Construction, LLC and Matt and Maggie Arnold would like to request a variance at 5101 Windsor Ave. The scope of the project would be to add a 2nd story master suite above the garage, including an additional full bathroom and walk in closet. Also adding more curb appeal to the exterior of the house with a couple added gables and roof over front door to make the house more fitting to the neighborhood. We also plan to install all new siding and trim to update the exterior of house, the material will be a LP wood siding then site painted. The project will not change the current lot coverage and we will not be disturbing any soil on site other than digging two small footing holes for the front porch. All work and storage of any materials will be done from the driveway not disturbing any of the existing vegetation or trees. Matt and Maggie have Lived at 5101 Windsor for roughly 8 years now and have two little boys they are raising in the house. Matt has lived in Edina his whole life and is a loyal resident to the city. They have really grown to absolutely love the neighborhood they settled into and all the wonderful neighbors around them. They are just running out of room to grow in the house as is! They only have one full bathroom in the house currently. Last year they hired me to complete a large remodel of the main living area of the house and it turned out beautiful for them. They love the house so much but are in need of a little more space to grow in and another Full Bathroom. Given the very unique lot they live on we have decided the only way to get more space is to go above the garage. Variance requested would include 3 sides of the house as it is a very unique lot to work with. Again, we are not trying to encroach into these set backs any more than existing structure sits, only going taller with the structure. Front Yard Setback Required 61.5 feet Current 35.8 feet Requested 25.7 feet Side yard Setback Required 48 feet Current 26.2 feet Requested 21.8 feet Rear Yard Setback Required 25' feet Current 6.5 feet Requested 18.5 feet The Proposed Variance Will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable The house is already non complying on 3 sides as is, we are only asking to go above garage to give the house more character and to make it more usable to current and future homeowners of the property. They currently only have 1 bathroom with a shower in it! Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district This property sits in the point of three different streets that are all curving and makes it very difficult to meet any new current zoning rules on setbacks. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance We are just trying to give the house a better curb appeal and make it more functional inside, with this said we are just going above garage rather than encroach into setbacks further. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood The house as it currently sits is the odd house in the neighborhood and really doesn't fit in with all the other houses, with this variance and project it will blend in and match other existing houses better and enhance the Character of the neighborhood. (a25)SS3-0023 CNsuN922su' AV 2231 bO Box SJ � V- suq 2nv.As1�\ua FlAADeY)EVk A!uus2019 f-Icsu2s NnwpsL a2 J je Euc g• F!ugaLsu' I-suq 2nLAGAOL 2lausq: D9fs: 1nl 59' 505J suq fpsl I sw s gnlA FIceu2eq F-suq 2nLnsAOL nugeL JNs I9M2 0{ fpG 219i6 01 IN!uue20fs- I PGLGPA CG4!0 W91 jP!2 2nLAGA' wsb' oL LGb04 Ms2 bLsbsLsq PA we oL nugsL wA q!LSCf 2nbsLn!2!ou t DGclgnon2 JLss COUIt6LOn2 I L66 2CVF IV LEEl car Lisa boll eW es2lNslsL 0 SO ,O' bOMGL bOle EW EI6CILIC I GILL 0 2s( ILou blb6 W9LKsq LS1­218Jle gonuq Wounwsu,< (92 uo,:sq) rs euq M kG'a - 2ae 2MAG7\ V�O;sz ou 2Nee� 5- b6 Ex'21!ud # 2J e MsLMIcK bl' Org`\J6� \6 2 �\�6\? 2°r�6`e0T0 °a ov ,aGO Q6J r- r N I I A i 2M COLUGL Ot I -Of J t // v 1\ 2a0o0010011M 442'01 S,r \ I'b' Ob6co u �- �- �- �� I _ co \\1 gonuq J\5ii L_ .- I_ L_ L/ \1 off, \� 00 16,,E s9 zoo °9'Gi.` ° L bsl!o M /0�ST o N (Vb Qj ia seJ 9;bObO2LA °�' � o 13010) `vS\° d eW EX 52� \�g \3a- b°s�L V 0 \Ilus O� Foi J I�04PGS2fGLIA - V a 6g2 M6\0- % �\ II 6otCu \��\ \�64ob02 4 CowsL O� FOI J Wo21 U014PGyA ._��a ` •' r!auc 1,1 a�� v I \ i b'C' !u Fol S' bonuq 4\5,1 I'b' / A20'e2lblsi J3Jl i VO4PG921 COLUSL of I -Of 2' gonuq 3\4I: I-b- 11 0 b!ucp lob b!be gonuq J\5„ S 0 0 0 0 O 0 m ti GO rti CA L 1! L l K / V / I 2nLAGNiva' bFFC' V11 uapf2 LGLGLneq• I 005\Oar CcbAuaNj © 3034 PA F!ugaLsu Leuq g00K\0a'l J of S 2HEEl 01a5J 1s bl5oq' V10' brWoIVIC DEbVLUVlEV!- tine I Is SOSI CI_LA OE EDIVIV 2 � St __---12'00 (10 2E CoweL o{ I -Of J)--- -- \\ —FI / I n /\ r— r— :a Ot I -Of J WOL PG92(sLI� I -!us \ X J 0�6 a./v a r=J *sa E=2eno —0=0.4 5,22,1 \Aeuueb\u COnu�1 Muus20P' IJ01. Gg2�Gv\?\ \11J6 O� 251q 7-(D� A p ;\J6 bol.u� 0> lee' 1u1J Pa, 9CCOlglua p ape )0\(a; �PG6-God ou �1\6 9uq 0� 1-Gco q lu �\IG 0�CG 0� (\Je \Z'Gal.s 6 0� D66g2 Iu 9uq p_ 2°nW NG WGVGO� -\2 vGev. wGUCG s( t_la\J\ sua\G V/ aq\J \O \\JS bcmA O� MlW (\J6 u04\J6s2;61\�\ \lu6 O} 2slq 70; A'. WGUCG 20n;\JGW\ 9uq 652{61A\ \ 9\Oua WG 20n\\JM62\ COWG\6 \\J6\.60V `q\20 SXCGb\ Wa; blaq O�2slq 70\ A' g62Cup6q 92 �O\\OM2'. rQUJW6uClua s\ \\36 20n;\J8s2\ CO\,uGL O1`2s1q r0\ A'. (\JGUCS NNG2\ s\Oua \\J6 20n\\J6s2\61\?\ uJ6s2mGq s\Oua 2slq u014\J6s2;GV\?\ \lu6 VIOW j\16 WOZ2 u0q\JGV\�\ COLUG6 . �\J6\60� \O s bMA Ou {\JG '20N\J \lu6 0k 2s1q r0\ A' q12\su( 2 EGG( Es2\ O� (\J6 To4 �' g\oC\c 2' ME21CHE21E)6 KV\O«2' 8XCeb; (\Js\ 6s1.\ \T\1ua uol\\.)M62�61\�\ CAS \lu6 g1_aMu VWW s b01u\ Ou ;\.16 0� 2alq `O\ A' q12\su1 50 EGG( bvobeVAX De2ciib;\ou: yccol_q\ua p N\(aWau;)\ D6eq Hsuusb\u Conu�l\ DOU V\O' 'dA005�a3�' 2m.ns1\ bvGbskGq bo►.: 2�aC\c\JO12e COu2\llACc( Du \ n9 4t4 suq Wsaa\6 y\.uO\q c6glklcq�r, Ok ?,(A%Ar. (a25) S53-00e3 CNsuNs22su' WA 223J� b0 Box SA � 2ntnsTiva' bfFC' VII Lldpf216261A8q• I 005\Oad coba our ©sos4 PA r!uga eu �9uq BOOK\bVeE V-gUq 2"I.AG lUa TmlvkDev)Evk MsUAICK bl' I I #225d � I M9WICK bl' \ #2250 2CVFE IN EEEl 0 20 7 K I/II II I ' EXIS>Iua gnjjgjua EILOUk 2s�pgCKa OU MS M►CY, guq KGUk S of 5 2HEEl 0IM4B b1509* AO' bf yViV IV (3 DEbVi3INEV I dne T s sosa CI -LA OE EDIVI- 2' 11J6 6x12\IUa COugl OU2 2\JOMu Ou (j.112 2nu\6�\ 9',6 \6b1626up;j j\6 0� \\JB 21(6 cougl;kOU2 OU (\J6 q%G O�\92j E16\qM0 .W. 1n\)\ 58' S05d b�,obozsq Cons�sa6•. 5' �8H 2d' t=�' 3d' 1 Ex\2i\ua Cons�sas•. 5' �8H 2d �4" 3 �' d \ lgo6z uo� \uc\ngs pon\6ns�q� �' \wb611�10 n2 2n1{9C6 W6s2n1.6w6U(2 lbl.Ob6u;� tJ1.69 a' 223 2d' �('�'. 3' g6ucpws�.K'- C\IN oL Eq\us gsuc\JWSW V\)wpe%. d030' lob H53' A5 Mel\D581' g12I9UC62 glj}6l �-Ow b\S; g1ZISUC62' 1\J6 [b\SQ gIw6U210U 12 9\20 2\30MU' S. gsswaz p. tu\z znA61 sus 9zznw6q 1ps 20nlp \\us ok 704 A \z 9zznw6q fo psst ME21' Wsszntsq p6syuaz suq q\zpuce2 9�.6 2\JOMu col. Apr. ponugstN' M\Jeue wrszn\.6q q\2c\oz6q pT 2nC\J s \.ebOq (O 2\JOM 9\\ Iwbl0N6w6U(2 M. 6uc109C\Jw6U(,2' `d Lg\6 \j6boq M92 uoj lnw12\J6q p (\J6 'Zn1JN6NO .lu b1.6b91.sj10U 0k p? SMAGN' tjgg1;1OU9\ 6UCnwpl9UC62 OU (\J6 b%.ObGq)\ w9'h p6 �• 1FJ\z 2n�n61� \ul6ugz to z\JOM ><\J6 ponugsy6z o� 4\J6 spon6 gszc�.\p6q b�.ob6t.�1� suq �\J6 \ocs><\ou o�cs�s\u 6x\z�\ua suq b�.oboz6q \wb�.onsw6u4z gJ6�sou\G go6z uot, bntbou< \AO t62 2n►AG71 bvrbs16q b-ov. 2pcy,�c -aG oou21rnc�lou \ Ws4 suq WsalP `�uop e6qjkjCS�G ok 2n.n�s -------------- h I o000 I II i o000 - I -- I Doan -� u Iouo0 -.-, o000 -- I IH II I II I m - v - L--- ry r °o u 4 I S I I ,I - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - -I I I I I S I rrl a I I m v 4 I I 1 co U \\ I I - J \\ U d .V W L - 4 i u w - 4 N - 'ir J Q ® S i _ O m i� y Q m Q �^ Q i < � m 3JHAT NOIc'IV39 JHI��aOM�51 �ZUGH�JATZ zz-95�aaA TIC Q Q �'• 4- � o N n N = NOI79159333a Y8 43c'IV3Sl 37kQ A33MUN - -- - - - - - - --------------- I II � 4 I a u I u Ly I I I I a. I -01 ' m X I a I F- ti sw u Z: u Tr I I o _ 14 I I r I a I I I I j -- - - - I "Me P 1as i I � I X S o N I N n 'o Q s rr >v vt o 4 Q S 9JaAT W30V959 Z)MIJ5QOM-9A SeUGHA3ATZ p 4 N (U 14OIT9l5R3e3Q Y8 Q3@IV95R 9TA(03 .9-9 MUN ta— 41 Q m z2Ei91QQA -9TIC m c i m_ ° 3VA5ROZQHIW P0f2 AMQ-9 u 11 r----------------- 7---- --------- .�-� .. .. .. . I I I I ---------------- I I , ----------------- i 2 ° iL - I � I I I 4 I ti i F- I 4 1° I , K I ------------ T. I •� � f• o I � I Q � 0-144 u ------------- -- "' w Tl II U P s o - - - (] IV R1 S m j119 1 } O 0 •O I � � I I I ��I d --- - \77 x \ / \ I rn �T I r I t l Q m \ m o I � I -- - -� ti m w E nelrvY7 m � m o � Q � 5 co r. rr m m m o � 5 m 5 3.18AT N0121VaR p 4 N N WNT913IR3asa Y8 a3e1V3Sl 37AU A38MUH CHI-l-9QOM�St aeUGHAZ)ATe Q n = CC-9,9CICA EiTIZ mLAm__ ° EVA �ozQMIl N rote LA 4 AklIQ� tD m m 4 CO 4 O 4 0 nmm 0m D 0 1-� rr ,40rt 0_ • V 1ty m-r4$ rz ����I�ri ri1 S S - Q 0Sm� 0m�4� �~ - rrl �A < ��R�imp ru 4s row � CNN > � 0 mm�i r Q r 4 -r F =F� O z F�F S m S m m m °' D (AL m40 �H j Q Q N N m m =NQ (A IV - X -U m o m > N U EA N OFr1 mmX--� 7 Srj S r HrrU 7om� D -- rJ Q X D E: O N 2� = d S < Cl rr. tv mr4m m < 2 0 F=sat (� n 0� sOS O r Q4 N n S m m Q ^ 0 — S c�ii Iz ro < m m S m i- N N 3.18AT NOIc'IY35R JVII��QOM3Si EC�UGH>IJrATc p 4• NOIT91AJ23Q Y8 Q321V3A 3TAQ A38MUN � Q m CC35RQQ,A 3TIc' m G m u F- ° 3V,ASiOZQHIW fOre y N L r4HIQ� irr �XCo O 7 m mNll- F s I Ir IFf l S N O IDmv in ro F 7 N > ID Q 7CSm QSH rJ 0 rr/JQ v 4 N ` v F- m iTm S -7 m m?v v otD OXO rn 160) O M N Nm;a 07 m 0 mV0. nT 7< 1 ff- s0 O no m O O S 1� 1 U Q T x m _'u R 2 F m ° rr -7 < ° v FFmm I CU m_Tn M v v �m N S Intl = ti 0 =°m i D 2nK 0rj q a- XDFN 0/J = O �n F�m� n� s im RmQ°j rry �D F SED 2:rr7 m0 Hm m NFm- rDUDS mX F rn rn <co00 mS m S D M F F- D m rr Q O U- F Q O N- C m F LZ Q I77.T m D m sro N N O M N m 5 F- `� U } c� Q rr m >✓ m Q Q � � m s 3J8AT N0121V35R Q 0NIJ-9aOM-951 -9eU3H 4 N N NOIT91A3c'3Q YS Q3c'IV9A 3TAQ A3SMUN -------------- °s 'as -------- -- -- I I noon I Dunn I I I I I-- Man U u I QQQQ I I I I I I annI �---------- Im I I ti I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I li I I I I I I I I 110 I I I0 N q I I I II II = I I I I--- I -- L- --- I I I I S I I m a , I m 7K co \\ U a 10 w 4 CO L4 U w f 4 N I - - Q � � s S rr m y CT C o � Q t— Q m 3U8AT N0121Y351 JNI��QOM�Si �c�UGHiIJ�TZ Q 4 n _ WOIT95R3eSQ Y8 Q8eF/EiA 3TAQ SI38MUN ea-95IQQA STle �'- (A m o ir 3Y,�SI02QHIW fOP2 N AMIQ-9 r-- -----T - I I U I Q U I w I I I � i o I m t o I I X I— ti l S U I - ` .� „ r r. I „AE P-�4 r i w it i I 4 I � i 1 4 I I I I d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L-----------------------------� I I I L m X F- S r O N N n 0 7 T Q s lJ Q S } Z S Q O m m m � o Q F- m co 3-l8AT N0121V35R OVIII�QOM�Si-9eUGHA3ATZ p 4 N M(3lT91SiJ23Q Y8 Q321V3i1 3TAQ st38MUV Q m ee-9RQQA -9TIZ r" (Am ° EIVA R13eQHIW Mrie o u AMIQ3 318AT 110121V3A JHI��QOM�SI 3c'UGH�IJ,4T2 c'c'�SIQQ�4 �Tlc' -9YASfOZQLtIW fOf2 AHIQ-9 p "•'• 4 i N Q m N m � NOIT91RJc'3Q Y Q3c'IV3R 3TAQ R3aMUN r-------------7----f- - - - - - - - -� I I I CO I n I I I rn I I / ry / I v 4 o va / I F I •o q my � I O X I I v I I I P { II I s I I I - I I I I I I I I I I � I //I I _ I / I I / I I / I I � I I � I I I I I I I---------------------------------� m U S d rr 1 O O d _d F- 0 S rn K] �H1.1BQOMBR -9ZUGHA3ATz CC-99iQQA -9TIZ E]vA5;1ozQMIVq rore AMIQ-9 m 4 i i -Q-i • c� m 0 "I m m a •• L 4 < m u R > X4�°� N fU (A 4�4N Qm 4 U n jM C O U_ F.';EOrr m 0 ED s< CUM vm s o'�< v-.7 �^f� 1vvMv o v_Cl s O < m jr 7 M DO a 1 = F o H � S _m gym I 2 I m m m v v u - CAL X40 m F H V Q j < p v m =vq u�u X�uru Hom mOu vQXD =r? S IrX Ftru FUF n7 � CT -1 O V Q) N Tr: S O ,n Q D<u � 7 X < 0 Ir F, O N 2 1r S iv OTv 4 n2mm Q20 F- >- mr(VED m ~srDC O C.�. QQ Q S 7 S r r v < m — ti m m F cu 3J8AT HOI&V92 OHI��QOM�SI Q 4 1 _ WNTTR3a90 Y8 Q3c'IV95t 9TAQ I R98MUN -9ZUGHAZATz m Zz-99fQQA -9TIZ o m U o tr 3VA5;V3eQlllN fOP2 ti AVIQ-9 i �i x m >T n mm 7C m O - - = F� m it u Om S 4 I , � S '1 `D s ro O O m m m x 7<C F- ri H tD 0 mmm \ 0 xxx d N N N t l H H h- tD0� N limn N s0 \fir' �Om u-- ms 4 s� N F- gyros 0p S 0-1 T4 0 0 _- ~ mx Q <O IU F O S 0 S S fi N rJ F �F 2 cA j m to N to s F- rn fora uu2S U4 ai Q �-rm = =x �xxN S 2~OzQ m.4 o-vv� E Ci 5 FV- m�4tz v<v< � } S v m r ��� 0 m ro m E c� Q s n _� m(�ti ro s v gym°- < 0 fr m �J 2 `u ry n T m lV m m m mum �_ c� Q N 0 H= r S o m S F-- 3J8AT NOIc'IVEIR p 4 N N N3IT9lR3e3Q Y8 Q3c'IV351 3TAQ 9138MUN JHI��QOM�SI �c'UGH>fJATc' Q n = ZZ-9AQQA EfTlz i m " rr o 3VA5RQeal4lN r0re LA o L AP110a m co QXO m m rU-I qr sU mSm SmmR rn v0-v O IDMv m�0 F D[7 NO ID > 'Q 7C S m rn co m Srn F- n rnO rrOq 4fD (DC V �v m¢m m>p v oAD O x O rri i O N T F- N OM times Hq= mm0 m d 0. n T SO O a 2 N m f- O u q rr I ° to m L4 mx rn g q m X o v rr q F FFirm mromg v� m �LAm ro O-T m 4 2 N I to O Xom— q T O F N s 6. �myccu< mp n F co fmm0 F- M 0 m m (A p S m X F- m <,00 s m m v S vMF-r rr �4 m T n F N- Oto F- m ~ ~ Q J m o m s ti Z p m Nm Q H u it = 5: } c� Q O m m cc o � 2 m s I— 3.18AT KNeIVEIA p 4 N N NOIT415;1323Q Y9 Q321V3A 3TAQ Sl38MUN OH1.I-9QOM-9Sf BZUGHAJATZ a, Q u m zz-991QQA 3TIZ mi m rr O EYA X)eCHIN PO re AHIQ� Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 16 September 2021 Public Hearing Comments-5101 Windsor Ave Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: A 25.9-foot setback variance from Kent/Windsor Avenue, a 22.94-foot setback variance from Warwick Place and a 16-foot rear yard setback variance for an addition above an existing garage at 5101 Windsor Avenue VISITORS 2 CONTRIBUTORS RESPONSES 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Registered Unverified Anonymous Registered Unverified Anonymous V CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The property consists of a two-story home with a two -car garage built in 1969. The proposed addition will include an added bedroom. The addition will be located 4.4 feet from the north lot line at the same setback as the existing garage below. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low -Density Residential Zoning: R-I, Single -Dwelling District Grading & Drainage Proposed grading and drainage paths will remain as existing drainage paths. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in a memorandum dated September 10, 2021. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side — 10 feet *4.4 feet 4.4 feet existing East Rear- 25 feet 50 feet South Side— 10 feet 16.2 feet West Front— 31.95 feet 32 feet Building Coverage 30% 29.17% 2,250 sq ft 2,291 sq ft 2,591 sq ft existing Reauires a variance STAFF REPORT Page 3 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION 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. The practical difficulty is that the existing north side wall of the home is closer to the side lot line than the minimum 10 feet required. The home was built under different ordinance standards and did not require a variance at that time for a setback less than the 10 feet currently required. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing house is nonconforming with the addition above the garage matching the nonconforming side yard setback. The existing garage is closer to the side lot line than currently allowed. The home was built closer to the north lot line under different setback requirements. The alternate setback standard does on apply to the second -floor addition. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicants are hoping to provide additional interior space above an existing two -car garage, like other homes in the neighborhood. The addition will be seamless and will look as if it were part of the original plan for the home. There are homes of similar scale in the area. The home is two-story and will match existing ridge height. Recommended Action: Approve a 4.4 foot side yard setback variance for the property line at 5615 Woodcrest Dr. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: Survey dated: August 30, 2021 Elevations and building plans dated August 30, 2021. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated September 10, 2021. STAFF REPORT Page 4 mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL 5615 Woodcrest A-1 i, `. e v� . � IL i ti � r► k 31 � � 4 ift ' �« �3Edina�Henne'inI M, oGrIS Edina Henne-in MetroGlS ©WSB&Associates �01�3�••© �NSB� & Assooia�tes 2013 1 in = 94 ft 'n1-? CITYof x= EDINA N W+E S September 9, 202 bft w0jV1e DEbVBiViEVII dne a o SOS, CliX Ob EDIWV U61RppOLpooq 2ncp 92 Loot blfCp62' I;9pI6 OLI6Uf9fIOU' 9Uq 21g11JE f6XfnL62' d: DG21RU 6IGWGIJf2 Ot fp6 9ggIf10U p9A6 p66U UJ9g6 fO 2f9A IU IIU6 MIfp 6X12f!ug pon26 9Uq a I401 9If6L fp6 6226Uf191 Cp9L9Cf6L Ot 9 U61IippOLpooq' p919000 Ot jp6 9gg1flOU OAGL fp6 L?9L9T?6 fO p6 WOL6 962fpGf!C911A bI69211JE' {OOfbL1Uf Ot fp6 6XI2fIUE pon26 OU pofp 21g62' 1p6 {9126 T?9pI6 OAGL fp6 }LOUT gOOL 12 fO cowb6U29f6 fp6 d: 1p6 bLOIGCf 9f 2eT2 MOOgCL62f DL MIII p9A6 fp6 29WG 21g6 A9Lq 26fp9CI<2 92 M6 9L6 2f9AIUE MIfpIU fp6 U7 B6 IU p9LWOUA MIlp �p6 RGUGL91 bnLbO262 9Uq IUf6U; Oj �p6 SOUIUR OLq!U9UC6' U61>?ppoLlUR pon262 oU fp6 2nLAGA bLOAlg6q' I M6 9L6 UOf 9pI6 fO WOA6\91f6L fp6 tonug9f10U MIfponf 9ggIU1? 9 21RUItIC9Uf CO2f' bI6926 L6t6L6UC6 pOfp /\oogCL62f DU LOL fp6 bLol6cf 9f 2eT2 MoogcL62f DL' M6 9L6 n21UR fp6 6X12f!LJR pOn26 9Uq tonUg9flOU 20 d: NgUA Ot fp6 pOn262 IU fp12 9L69 M6L6 pnllf MIfp 21WI19L 21gG A9Lq 26fp9CK2 fo fp6 bL0]6Cf 9f 2eT2 bLobsLfA IU fps AlclulfA OL soulug g12fLICf' a: COLLGCf GXIL9OLgIu9LA CILCnU219UCs2 9bbllc9pls jo fp12 bLobsLfA pnf uof 9bbllC9pls 10 OfpsL 26fp9C1<' tonUg9f10U 9Uq W91U IGAGI' 1p12 Mill UO� MOLI<M611 I}M6 9L6 U0f 9llOM6q fo nf1IIS6 fp6 6X12f!LJR pOn26 g062 UOf UJ66f CnLL61Jf 26fp9C1< L6dnILGWGLJf2' /\A6 MOnlq III<6 jO 9qq 9 SUq UOLA OAGL fp6 6X12f!Ug d: 1p6 bL9Cf!C91 g1t1;ICnifA 0{ fpi2 bLOb6L[A 92 (O fp6 COg6' 12 fp6 OLIRIU91 26fp9CK Ot fp6 6X12f1U>i pon26 d: U6I16A6 bL9CfIc9l gl{jICn1f162 IU cowbIAIug MIlp fp6 SOUIUR OLq!U9UC6 9Uq Ip9l fp6 n26 12 LG920U9pl6' 2E12 M6OgCLG4 pL ASLISUCG bFVVI0114e DEbdblwEV1! Vne 3 0 SOS, Cli,k OE EDIM b9R6,412 9 2nLAGA MIfIJ LU9LICIuR2 UJ9g6 PA BLA9U 2POMIUR f1J6 L6gnC6q 2156 Ot f1J6 g6CK' b9Pa6 3 12 9U GW911 MIfP BLA9u OU If 6Xbl91ulug fpsf 1J6 OUTA L6bl9c6q g6C1( pO9Lg2' b9R6 3 12 9U GW911 tLOW BLA9u' 6Xbl91UluE jp9f PG L6gnc6q f1J6 g6cK 2IS6 PA 1$02d{f mifp blCfnL62' UGM 2nLAGA' 6Xl2f!UR 1012f2 O} fP6 29W6 g6C1C' _Lp!2 12 mpgf C9n26q fP6 g6CK fO p6 f!fl6q „nugGL COU2fLncfloU„ ou fPG ELOnuq' AAP6U f1J6 2nLA6A M92 b6LtOLUJ6q' fPG HOWGOMUGL M92 L6bl9CluE u6M g6cK pO9Lg2 Ou fpG pE; qlq uof u66q 9 b6LWIf }OL fp!2' 92 fpG g6CK 12 uof 9J:l9CpGq f0 fpE; POW 9Uq 1f,2 IOMGL f1J9U 3{f Ott f1J6 fIJ6 (/10Lf1J692f 21g6 0t f116 IJOUJ6' B61:OL6 2f9Lf!UR fp!2 bLOIGCf' BLA9U qIq AGUtA mifp JPG CIfA IU Vg9LCp fpgf B6}OL6 f1J6 2nLAGA M92 2f9Lf6q' f116 HOUJ60MUGL' BLA9u 13Lnf19g' LGWOA6q 9 bOLf!OU Ot 9U 6X12fIUlR g6CK OU g9f6 2nLA6A: -Lp!2 b9R6 9uq J116 }OIIOMIUE 3 9L6 9U 6Xb19u9f1ou of fpG „grcK nug6L Cou2fLncflou„ Ou fPG wo2f nb fO i�-x br-VV7'V.io c-, Qk, PSCk- nhaE#S bV0'a I " != rl r I owl 2npjGc;: YE: 2eT2 MoogCLs2f DL Cc: gLAgU gLnfIgE <pLnjlp(« Rw911'cow>! eLlttlu JOUs2 <RLItt!U@jnoucowb9Uls2'COW> lo: loin AOubngGU <fOW@noucowbguls2'COW> 26u;:1n62ggAl 1nIA 501 505T e:00:22 bW LLOW: KLI2 V1KGL <KygKGL@EgIUgVgL4'EOA> Osf pnflooK }oL iQ2 1f M92 OLIRIU91 fO fpG pon26 MPGU pG pongpf If guq 512o w9gG If 2W911GL' br` WWIW(3 DEbVBiWEV i Ou 1nl SO' S05V 9f a:T2 bW' IOW Aoubng6U <fOW AOLjcowbgUls2'COW> MLOfs: gLAgU gLnflgg f,! dne a 0 HSI C11A OL EDIVI`d AgLISUCG' blcfnLG2 p6IOM' LGtGL6UCG' fpG bLGAIOn2 g6CK M92 350 2d U' guq MG LGgncGq fO S00 2d {f II Ij: P92 9UA LGIGAgUCG fO AOM gbbl!cgf!ou }OL S 1,11 blgu OU LnUUIUR OAGL fO fpG b6LWIf Ott!CG fp!2 M66K fO LG201AG ItAOn CgU COUtILW fpgf 12 fpG gbbLObLlgf6 UGXj_ 2fGby EOL HGA (2LItj!u guq loin' 2nplecrF: KG: 2eJ 2 MoogcLs21 DL lo: low nougngsU' OLI{}lU louse 2GUS: 1n62ggk 1nIA SO' SOSJ 8:10 bW LLOUK gLAgu gLnflga <pLntlp@awgll'cow> (!L1ttiu JOU62 kb� tis H ► c� �'1 n i- Decn h D ►s c �� h 2-L'�r' cam► o ") ba F- - 5 <!LU9Re003 -buR> RNIME9 ID BCnQ-3'd'a AOU COIJJ QfU(62 (en),+T,+-38T0 -LOW AOu I5ngsu 21Uc6LGIA` bFVVlMIO(3 DEbVbiVgEVi vne i o soli CUA OE EDIVIV MIJ9t u66g2 fO p6 gout Mlfp fpG g6cK' 20 M6 C9u SbblA tOL A9LI9UC6 OU fpG sggltl0us I'6t n2 KUOM' 291q fpgf IJ6 C5116q fpG CItA t0 COUt!LW fpgf IJ6 qlq UOf U66q 9 b6LWIf tOL L6blgclug' C9u AOn 16f n2 KuOM gLA9U gLnfl9R` MIJO 12 9tt9CpGq t0 fp!2 6UJ9111 fpgf p6 OUTA L6b19C6q bOLf!OU2 Ot fN6 6xl2tlug g6CK' H6 9120 -LpgUK2 9991U {OL AOM PGIb 6xb191U1Ug tIJ6 COUCGLU2 Mlfp fp!2 bLOIGCt' I q!q COUt!LW m!fP tIJ6 HOw60MUGL' Cooq 9}t6LUOOU KL12' stt9c!Jwsut2 nuIG22 Aon LscOGUISs tps 26ug6L suq KuoM fpG couteut !2 2916' EXIEuwvr EWdlf vrEKl: _LP12 6LusII OLIRlu9t6q {Low ont2lg6 tps Of O} Eq!us' DO not CI!CK Pup OL obeu 2nplscf: 2ei2 MoogCL62f DL Cc: gLA9u 13Lnfl9g <pLnfjp@SW911'C0w>! CLIJI!u Jou62 <RLljt!U@A0ucowb9Ul62'c0w> j0: KLI2 VgKGL <KVgKGL@EQIusimM'POA> 265U�:1n62g9A' InIA SO' 505j 3:52 bW FLOW: lOw AOUgng6U <t0w@n0ucowb9Ul62'C0w> gsgs�lo s1ue�EglU9 0� �conlD-�a 'WX Npwaq 9pon1 we CA( s Amboms p COMD-aa 94 Eq1 SMA IAGsq 9 11913q Ol M9U( j0 pelb j n1211 KVsKsLEq!USINW on I Eglusyyyl on\blsuulu <Iw9Ii6QQj-Rp 14804 M' 201u 2F 1 Eqlus' IN14 22d5d 825-85e-04N I E9x a25-95@-038a KL12 d9KOL' b►221219u4 CIA bl9lJUGL KLI2 ipguK2' COUJIRnL9tlOU 92 fpE; bL6AlOn2 g6cK' fPGU fpG bLOb6LtA OMUGL w9A sbblA tOL 9 ASL19UC6' 1t gnllglug lu2b6Ctlou2 go62u,t u66q 9 b6Lwlt tOL g6CK p09Lq L6blgC6w6Uf sUq If I2 f1J6 29w6 ESC d''b �i y L, a ►� c� ! �� c/C— 01-, p.l` J�t Cc, t? 2,,t 6n c- L.Lf 011 A_� 3 �, c- '� t;Ncr ' c3 6 _ '� a ° a4 N n �n n (D a- '' �� Nd JL� a o� ' ; —� V „S �,$ �a Sa.�Sl� ah i 4 a am u—------- — J co o Lip _ CnCA ` !J co Da - co 4 4 co co co o ul rn \\ CIOu7 ° �� ..\ �OO N N 000 !O ru co � N �- �. N 57 N v co 7 N co V rJ \\ °� A��a�Lo \ a\ moo (1 � 3�_NN� d O uJ \ 4 2 W N y ow N '4, LIO co U)O co ") 4 \ Ir- do co W cl\ QON "'r N 3 \ CA 0 cr m 0 P'S / 5 co�t-5 m0 O Q741i� N (D No Cosa \ OQ ov f yy <' ro 3 cr c0 \\ \ rU 3 Lo N 1 \ 2 � I t7i cc ego M) \ N rfl �, S c0 � �'_ G� o (D0 to \ Z W a ro (D co _ A = CO _ 0 a O ro ins O NCIC N. 9 40 GOm ' L4 La coto (D [/ LIO co CA ev do "� io G \\\ q 3 �O V Ci -:ICS CD M c.4 \ 3�O �. ni . O L+NJ co N �\ O \ ,i \ CAD 0 0co� s �, u / ✓0 -V m rV i `A 9' co OO 00 v V NN \ c01 M17 N \ -r, V a D o n r \\ I J i 4��- tT0 a n '� n �V\ rr ' a co ti r d CD W 'Ore' 6CO4(DrV(/I QJN CO ��IDcOOf� �OJ a. a. a. a, a. a.' Ah VIIfV�� el-7 0 0 4 N O O O c d r O O CO _ _ X Q- rr < °� ° fQ N co > m 3 co _ x 40 O ry c9mm m � O O QJ ✓ c c N ie CD .>' co 5 N a N o—z O S � o N O O N p� cu 0 El N00 O ON # :2 ru °�i 00000000 (m�¢� �>1N�co c c c c c c c c n O i C CD o Qc O a) m cc y ^m ^m m ^m ^m m ^m m d O m o ^� o f N N N CO co coN co(Q �—y J Y co S ("a* O 0 t 0 0 o x o x 5 v Q d S on) v2 ? o= m m F y co CO N o 3� ( o c E cv Oc 0 m m m a r7 S� S (� c Q N coil c o c �? 0 °c 'c c _ C� m m o o N °c = m Q S m m y � N m m N c O m�M _� a� o� O Q o c II > M CA 0 C� c4 N °'m d m c N CJ g O ° >' _ w E _ o co C x C = cQ C A)y r� � N (D Q1 p� � cor00 r,4O t0 (U r N CJ c0 N •Q Y OJ L rT00 CA 44 (nl �_(g9 1 a o dN� gyp— �+�.a R1 n ji CQ J(D�d nV y a(D---__—_— Vor:/ Jam' O �a CIO / r_ cO - �D tn. f a° p o A�I y JJ cil C700 O N \ CIO 00 -11 (DW \\ o CIO a s o �� �0 n N \ a <(D cJ ru do�Q � o �,tC _ cil co v c0 \ a (p W N N N \ O \� i�. \ u7 V � 300 \ cD rt� rr W \ rr�� CO17 N N 00 (D \ 34V «i 3 dJ \` CA 0 O CQ �e'O / � ( N 0 S' \\ Q 0 D • e ry RJ cA O LO \ n OCO 3 oo N \ 4� 0 ((°I1 I O cl\ �` rthz \ `�� ate- m� rv'V ��rn �(D co 0 CIO CIO -- S moo= (D '= \ 1 — 6a N ru1\/3 r a a _ D N 3 rn e is YNci �m '3� 5� r _l ti c D I Jul rn N \\ �a �sU�: 3 (Dl ���:�' � m y 00 �\ cO a . /' A. �j Nca Q� Z \\ (DD-11: cp N 3 �- G / / N CIO a) N n \\ 4 O N/ �} O C/I m CNZ Q \ - I. ti4 N BOO v ell 00 00 m cOi nj c \ 40 \\ r 0 l� N 0 \� CO/ G Q 1_1 fi 'c � p Allco n ry 1I o7 / p no rr N arLy , } 00 N n %- o LO � f Cl) CD ro A a. a.d.a.a. 0.' �Ah�VIV111V� � � � 0 0 4 U 0 O O C O) r O O JC— N V 1, r - S r- W s > a��3 O N o •J N Y N ° m g 0 o Nm Tmm m \ O O O W 13Q�c ":Q tNm� CD > O. O, fll Q m o x s O 3� N �� C ~ f0 N C cu d d • O ,' O O p v, Q � NwN oo dF °.2 �� ri ym CA M> C O O O O O O O O S O �" Q> •* '� s c m m CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q n > c v1 )F N c— o m m m ^m m m m ^m m O Q m h o ^� o f ° oy �c ` N N >N N N N N Ncc CT = O' O N �+ t.4 O Y C c o B ,� m .� m �i 0 — y R1 m cv o 3 m o 0 m O •� Qi 0 C m Ci 3 N a� d N E co n m ITI io 'p '� 'S s (Q c CT N O o T m 0 °c > '� c E m m a o CJ o Y cr 0 O N j C 0 I-c•i S VO T 4 0 N C O m .w.iE > CA CO Qo0 II �I E5 5 t17 a s w N AWE o °o y o > j 00 _C lQ Y p O y L 9 O d � C7� L.,o'c�-��� -- C ON � m 0_ �ry0 N '� 41ooOn oIOD NG A� aN u~ - ✓ `'` eD N 1 _ 0 ^sr'sA• dsassr a_ - s ^ai ai Ili/ a 101-- -- P N- iiQJJ 3 N •'• - d • ♦ O I Y_ N ♦I � TJ P CJ m N 1 . • mod. Ai, N _ o W \ • NNb • �� \ N N � � � ♦ ♦ 3 N n? AD �j V W N \1 ' '!'' (D 8a ✓ N n oN 3 �Ap di \ \ W\1 � qm \ N O N A) it N ' 0 O S IP•0 CC P�5 N5 °a0 o 0— o 10 K 50 w m A �pg0� .� m to IV I m 9� o q o .' 0 a 5 E z' " ;'00 ,' 1 .n NNN \ A O ry m N Q \ 0 0 \ > a✓ ` Lt ' ✓,0 o N \ ml N O \ Ev cl cl a rU o 1 '0 Q fin n � C 0 CT Q j N n n I g � � N Q 0 �n�l•aioil N (p rO cA N ro m �IV di I AhAh''6IVIIM e Q c"I � e m Cc s r � N_ rr .� -oaCO rD ♦`C (� S lti x a�� • O O 000 m ca' N Vs ,o R o R o 0 0 x C' � a d* p 2 t a m 3 H to s ci e'er ` m m €� m a m $ Fi m m co3� ccG o` fa] m o o v O C S c�92 N c p i r° o n m S c m .� c vul m :wi O 'b G c> �mw's o lit s J a N E N m m S m Nca w E O r > N � 0 m YO OI 4 Q °d�E-DES m i O 0 09 Sl �R iL O O � g O t (71 9 § a 2 O 52 aN g c n 0 0 m 0 0 rr C) } 0 rr m s n g g 0- N O rS �C m 2 4 L Q O r m N s Q Q s Q r IK n m B O �m O �`�' Q2 33 a Q x � `3 0 O p S N O arl N 0: O ""as s m n = m t02 �2,� n?5 >mv� mGc n4a Q°N m Q m m N OZ m n$ S(J :9 nN O g rit OC O r �N Q �a w 33US tiN Q'S v as monq NR a m eq 4 �8 �cm'a� gaM � $ �l0r "' Qx Q�9N m NR m a ado m� -°�j3 o a g a o aa a s 8 ass a 4 O nK m N n m 5 a fa cr c °o u u aSIVA9MOJ WOV rJAJTOlB Rf JYAT bna VAY,98 anib3 �v1�Q ta�i�booW 21c�2 t" 64F 'F-S n 0. A O o to 0 m a 0 S tr M O s N m f d O s CO n a m a a 0 tt- 4 w o N T •a iq WRIX3 5i3vsJITVA,Z of SI m 8 O a• a � Tt� N (� S u � � m N M M ✓O&0 �% t . aDIPI INC? O J si cy� O k O O� 4 z Oa °i N R N s 6 s 4 0 J- S S U- Er-=3 N o 9; n m o m mx j n s = m S m p O m O = s m Q � x C ,S: O zo -4 i 0 m !J S 3°C�'> N p m N p O � r 83I14A9MOZ) V (3\/ ZAJTU918 FWAT bns 1IAY5Ra Bniba 9VI9Q 1891.-3bQQW 21.81a N m 0� CD S I m 4 O S N n Q m Q nF � O O u m � o O ° N O �� O .4 s O rr m a s O O� m OhITZIX3 A �d Q 8 N S Q s 5 S Q 0 m r; Q Iz m s F- a"a-,a ,� n� o meb a o� 111 a-, rY tl' _I(31 III ---------------- III L 1 >)NITZIX3 � ��� col O y lu n � ul L� m ui '' III m _ ♦ 1 I II III iC S III N 8alj4A9M0loD NOV rJAJTIJSIB 510JYAT bms VAY518 Bntb3 avtiQ teaiobooW dla2 I11 Ib In lu III lu m w nl nl III 111 I11 ul ul ul III III III III Ixon-, illy m' NI 4 IIIT ti II,m m m O w O n m III S ra III III 111 111 111 ul nl III I11 III m ul ,II III III III I11 III In lu III III III III II, III III II, III TV I. I'. mna m -dl- ea � O m ^ IN A 4 w I O n No xm S �iO m a O s N6 b g2 Q 4 d ffful111• Llpx� m I°Cb O o� S N i � nQ A Q Q �9!O AA4 4 � 4 v S N >U �I 4 T� V m m m m I / V� m S O O s tr d s N n Q Z m 4 In O o 0 w O 0, O O v S $ CA Q � Ir �7 ri2} ZABZIA "T TA I MOOA0A3u 0-6 (MuMIMM BOOO B•d) tr M U- N 19 lu O S N O Ll_ u� w H-o � m CK a 82 s Ilr�r cr 1 Q S S S 0 M Ir Q Q F- m 5 F- n� �� 0 o o � o � o R M M T P O N n a M 4 Its, Ci M in != —T m S p ^ 4 S m 5 O 14 � o � s j 4 I :"o 'r I w o N n �( m s anmi -'! GE OOP v gso B f S N D O p N m gymlu Ir M N 7 g O � m ril tr N o O M k LI v 23114A9MO3 V (3\/ ZAJTU5[8 910JYAT bns AYRa snib3 avTlQ taa1DbOOW 121,81a t" n� o v� N s d s n 0 CO co CO n f� S m N s: _ K 4 m M M s M N N M 0 S N In 4 1 M A u .6 0 -4- 04 Q, O O T 4 HMO yFY Ij AS ,j W14 2 �00 or i v � y i qs: TI Q 4 L, : 74 Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 16 September 2021 Public Hearing Comments- 5615woodcrestave Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: a 4.4-foot side yard setback variance from the required 10-foot setback for an addition above an existing non -conforming garage at 5615 Woodcrest Ave CONTRIBUTORS 0 0 0 Registered Unverified VISITORS 2 0 0 Anonymous Registered No Responses RESPONSES 0 0 0 Unverified Anonymous Better Together Public Hearing Corrmrnt Report 9-16-21 Noon CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M STAFF REPORT Page 2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: A 4-unit single dwelling unit attached residential development; zoned PRD-2, Planned Residential District and guided Low Density Attached Residential. Easterly: France Avenue and the City of Minneapolis. Southerly: Single-family home, zoned R- I, and guided Low Density Attached Residential. Westerly: Single-family homes, zoned R-1, and guided Low Density Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 10,032 acres in size and contains a single-family home. Planning Guide Plan designation: LDAR, Low Density Residential Attached Residential (4-8 units per acre). Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Rezoning Per Section 36-213 of the Zoning Ordinance "the commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:" (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The subject property is guided low density residential attached, which is described as "two- family and attached dwellings of low densities and moderate heights. This category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional districts between single- family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts. May include single-family detached dwellings." "Introduction of more contemporary housing types, such as low- density townhouses, may be an appropriate replacement for two- family dwellings in some locations, provided that adequate transitions to and buffering of adjacent dwellings can be achieved." The density allowed within this district is 4 - 8 residential dwelling units per acre. The proposed project consists of two single-family detached dwellings in a configuration like the townhome development to the north. The proposed density is the same as the development to the north. The average lot size is 4,388 square feet in size to the north, which is smaller than the proposed two lots. (Proposed lots are 5,016 square feet in size.) STAFF REPORT Page 3 (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; The project would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The proposal is consistent with the lot sizes to the north, (slightly larger) and provides a buffer from the single-family homes to the west to France Avenue. The land use configuration is as described in the Comprehensive Plan "This category (Low Density Attached Residential) recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional districts between single- family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts." (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use; With the reduction of the size of the homes provided to reduce the number of variances requested (rear yard setback variance and building coverage) the development would not result in an overly intensive land use. The density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the lot sizes are consistent with the lot sizes to the north and similarly zoned property. (4) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; The addition of one single-family home would not result in an undue traffic congestion or hazards on France Avenue. (5) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code; and There are several variances requested with this project. Staff is not in support of all of the variances as proposed. The size of the homes should be reduced to eliminate the building coverage variance and the rear yard setback, variance. The other variances are reasonable due to the small lot size and narrow lot width. (6) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. The proposed lot configuration and building location is similar to the development to the north. (See attached aerial photograph of the area.) There would be a 17-foot distance between the duplex to the north and the proposed home, and a 19-foot distance between the proposed home and the single-family home to the south. Within the City's single-family residential areas with 50-foot-wide lots (Country Club and much of east Edina) the separation between single-family homes is often 10 feet. Therefore, staff believes the relationship between structures is reasonable. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and has recommended some changes. These changes would be required at the time of building permit. (See attached.) Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creel, Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Sustainability The applicant has provided the sustainability questionnaire. (See attached.) Additionally, the City's sustainability coordinator has reviewed the plans and provided comments and recommendations in the engineering memo. (See attached engineering memo.) These shall be made conditions of approval. Park Dedication Park dedication for one new lot would be required to be paid at the time of building permit in the amount of $5,000. COMPLIANCE TABLE City Standard (PRD-2) Proposed Structure Setbacks Front — France Avenue 30 feet 30 feet Side — North 20 feet 7 feet* Side — South 20 feet 15 feet* Rear — West 35 feet 25 feet* Height 2-1/2 stories and 30 feet 2-1/2 stories and 30 feet Density Lot area per unit - 7,300 s.f. 5,016 s. f.* Building Coverage 25% 26%* *Variance Required Variances — Setbacks & Building Size This section considers the following variances: Side yard setback variances from 20 feet to 7 feet and 15 feet; rear yard setback variance from 35 feet to 25 feet; building coverage variance from 25% to 26.3%; lot size variance from 7,300 square feet to 5,016 square feet. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: STAFF REPORT Page 5 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances mentioned above are reasonable if the proposed building sizes are reduced. The practical difficulty is caused by the small size of the lot and narrow width. The proposed two lot development is the same as the 4-lot development to the north. Staff believes it is reasonable to development the subject lot in the same manner. Staff recommends reducing the size of the buildings to meet the rear yard setback to maintain code compliant separation with the single-family development to the west and meet the building coverage requirement of 25%. The proposed development is reasonable compared to the existing 4-lot detached single - dwelling unit development to the north. The proposed lot sizes are slightly larger than the existing lots to the north. The average lot size of the development to the north is 4,388 square feet in size, smaller than the proposed two lots. Proposed lots are 5,016 square feet in size. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? Yes. The circumstance of this single -dwelling unit lot being guided as low density attached residential in the Comprehensive Plan and located adjacent to a PRD-2 zoning district is unique to the property and not common to the vast majority of the R- I zoning district lots. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The variance would not alter the essential character of the district. The proposed homes would be located similar on the site than the single family detached homes to the north that are also accessed by a shared driveway. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Rezoning reasonable? Yes. Staff does support the revised rezoning of the site, for the following reasons: STAFF REPORT Page 6 1. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with the adjacent 4-lot development to the north which has the same PRD-2 Zoning Designation. 2. The proposed lots are similar in size to the 4-lot development to the north. The average lot size of the development to the north is 4,388 square feet in size, smaller than the proposed two lots. Proposed lots are 5,016 square feet in size. 3. The relationship and spacing between adjacent structures is reasonable. There would be a 17-foot distance between the duplex to the north and the proposed home, and a 19-foot distance between the proposed home and the single-family home to the south. Within the City's single-family residential areas with 50-foot-wide lots (Country Club and much of east Edina) the separation between single-family homes is often 10 feet. 4. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. S. The proposal meets the criteria for considering rezoning in Section 36-213 of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined on page 5-6 of this staff report. • Are the proposed variances reasonable? Yes. Staff does support the side yard setback variances and the lot size variances for the following reasons: The practical difficulty is caused by the small size of the lot and narrow width. The proposed two lot development is the same as the 4-lot development to the north. Staff believes it is reasonable to development the subject lot in the same manner. 2. The requested rear yard setback and building coverage setbacks are not reasonable due to the large structure sizes. The size of the structures could be reduced and shifted to meet the rear yard setback and 25% building coverage requirement. The 35-foot rear yard setback provides a code compliant setback to the adjacent R- I property to the west. 3. The proposed development is reasonable compared to the existing 4-lot detached single - dwelling unit development to the north. The proposed lot sizes are slightly larger than the existing lots to the north. The average lot size of the development to the north is 4,388 square feet in size, smaller than the proposed two lots. Proposed lots are 5,016 square feet in size. 4. The circumstance of this single -dwelling unit lot being guided as low density attached residential in the Comprehensive Plan and located adjacent to a PRD-2 zoning district is unique to the property and not common to the vast majority of the R- I zoning district lots. 5. The variance would not alter the essential character of the district. The proposed homes would be located similar on the site than the located of the single family detached homes to the north that are also accessed by a shared driveway. STAFF REPORT Page 7 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 A. Recommend the City Council approve the request for Preliminary Rezoning from R-I to PRD-2, Preliminary Plat, Side yard setback variances from 20 feet to 7 and 15 feet, and a lot size variance from 7,300 square feet to 5,016 square feet. Approval is based on the following findings: The practical difficulty is caused by the small size of the lot and narrow width. The proposed two lot development is the same as the 4-lot development to the north. Staff believes it is reasonable to development the subject lot in the same manner. 2. The requested rear yard setback and building coverage setbacks are not reasonable due to the large structure sizes. The size of the structures could be reduced and shifted to meet the rear yard setback and 25% building coverage requirement. The 35-foot rear yard setback provides a code compliant setback to the adjacent R- I property to the west. The proposed development is reasonable compared to the existing 4-lot attached residential development to the north. The proposed lot sizes are slightly larger than the existing lots to the north. The average lot size of the development to the north is 4,388 square feet in size, smaller than the proposed two lots. Proposed lots are 5,016 square feet in size. 4. There would be a 17-foot distance between the duplex to the north and the proposed home, and a 19-foot distance between the proposed home and the single-family home to the south. Within the City's single-family residential areas with 50-foot-wide lots (Country Club and much of east Edina) the separation between single-family homes is often 10 feet. Therefore, staff believes the relationship between structures is reasonable. 5. The circumstance of this single -dwelling unit lot being guided as low density attached residential in the Comprehensive Plan and located adjacent to a PRD-2 zoning district is unique to the property and not common to the vast majority of the R-I zoning district lots. 6. The variances would not alter the essential character of the district. The proposed homes would be located similar on the site than the located of the single family detached homes to the north that are also accessed by a shared driveway. 7. The proposal meets the criteria for considering rezoning in Section 36-213 of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined on page 5-6 of this staff report. STAFF REPORT Page 8 B. Recommend the City Council deny the proposed rear yard setback variance and building coverage variance. Denial is based on the following findings: I. There are no practical difficulties associated with these requests. 2. The proposed structures could be reduced in size to meet the rear yard setback requirement and building coverage requirement. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Plans and Final Plat must be adjusted to meet the following: a. The rear yard setback for the structure on Lot 2 must meet the required setback of 35 feet. b. The overall building coverage may not exceed 25%. c. The front yard setback shall be no closer than 30 feet to the lot line on France Avenue. d. All revisions required in the engineering memo dated September 14, 2021 e. The Final Plat must include a 10-foot easement along France Avenue for Pedestrians and future sidewalk improvements. 2. Submittal of a construction management plan subject to review and approval of city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. No dumpsters or construction material shall be stored in the street. Hours of construction must be consistent with City Code. 4. Park Dedication of $5,000 due at the time of building permit. 5. Compliance with the conditions required in the engineering memo dated September 14, 2021. 6. A shared driveway and maintenance agreement/easement must be established over the share driveway. The easement must be filed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first structure. 7. A separate water and sewer service and permit are required for each unit. 8. A 13-D Fire Sprinkler System is required in each home. Provide the required size of the domestic water for each unit to ensure complies for the fire sprinkler system. Denial Recommend the City Council deny the request for Preliminary Rezoning from R- I to PRD-2, Preliminary Plat, side yard setback variances from 20 feet to 7 and 15 feet, rear yard setback variance from 35 to 25 feet, and a lot size variance from 7,300 square feet to 5,016 square feet. Approval is based on the following findings: Denial is based on the following findings: STAFF REPORT Page 9 . The proposed density is not reasonable for the site. 2. The proposal does not meet the criteria for considering rezoning in Section 36-213 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed variances do not meet the findings for a variance. 4. The proposed development is too large for the site. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the findings and conditions listed above, and denial of the rear yard setback variance and building coverage variance. Deadline for a City decision: December 7, 2021 / 3 0 0 } § a)a) D ƒ / cn / ® ® / (D a)$ S * \ ) L 's 2 / \ / � 0 \ u / o & 2 0 7 g o E 7 0§ / / 0 a . ) / \ 2 § 0 u 0 2 n O E 2 0 E / \ a) 0 2 E E\ A° / \ __ \ \ a)2 1 E a)E 4-0 > 0 'n ( § ± 0 o p f / 2 0 / a)/ / § c - a 7 0 00 / 2 0 3 / $ * % ) § n 2 / t ] ° \ j / / ( 0 § o \ \ 0 E § 1 00 & 0 u A)u E°> $ �' ±I //. a)0 / ® * / O o / \ § 0 \ 0 0 ± 0- > 3 O/ E >1 a) / 2 / _ [ o D 0- / E / \ > / ± / 2 / % C 2 % ° $ ° £ 0 0 -0 / £ % D- '3 ± - 2 u $ a) ° £ ^ o \ -0 2 @ 3 « E / / d D > 'cn O O D cn \ / \ ƒ / $ o m 0 / 2 4 0 E •e '- o �- '§ 4 o - \ _ � § O / 5 f = / / / k 2 E $ 'E 4 $ 0. ( 0 §\ 0-0 E Dƒ a) / ®� 10 \ /) n 0 $\o 2 0 ƒ§ %. O$ o " 2 ' I / u I D c E> %•#% to) u± O 7 0 (n 6± ® / § / 4 E 2 — £ o \ 3 2 / / \ o ± 2 \ k ® o }_ / = § — E o 0 0 E 0 .g $ o 0-E w o 3 § # o 0/ a) a) / / / / > / k 0 § 0 0 \ 0 $ � E u E 2 3 0 \ D E � •� o 0 D E § E u 4 q 0 t > � .1 4.1 / 2 0 0 � § 0 O 0 E 0 � D � u / \ 3 / 0 0 � 0 E m \ e 2 0 0- E f 0 / _ 2 / 0 \ / 0 E m £ / � _ 0 0- 0 7 � � u / / 4 2 0 % E � 6 g � ± 0 e / e > 4 e / § LL n 10 ,;T % E V� R � q E i7) C: N + m E a) °> a O a 3 = O O C E v c }L— T } N -O m 7 3 7 N O Il L a a 3 U o c y o-0 Q a) o c O a) 3 H a) �� N> 3= 3'� E° E O T O u L (D E T*' 0 7 a (n N w O a) m E E 0) �, C a T C O 7 3 O a ++ u 0 4) 3 N .> a) O S •>, c — O E E +� E rn �' 7 LO a t -0 O w 5 c = 7 -0 O 0 7 L C a a E a) — u C a o in c T cn a: o 0� N -0 ° 01 > a Q -O a)0 y Na) a) a) i ° cE fn +0+ o c a O y 0 _ O c(n Q m u o u a a c o 'a m a E 0 o Q y O C N y i E c a) 0 cn C 0 m m t +� C) m 7 C Ca E °' c o m Q N E O +� *' Q L O CL ° V ap >, 0 o 2 +, C cn E pV y> �O C a > L >+ Or V N a) y a 41 o V Q ° a) "O a) o o `� m E 3 -d T -0 _T L a 2 O C V m O E m e a) a 3 0° c rn 0 o 'o c "0 i 0 a) a O c N a) C y O L a) T "O Q N° +� L C 7 +' i 7 C "a u L +' Q c a C: T o 3CL Eb E Co L a C L y uo a a) °) ;� .O u m O � -C y E a 0 a w C 0 O c C N 7 to a) 0 0-a) _ u to c Ou O L y i OE V 0 i 7 a) L 7 V -a "� a) a) o > L L o y O c " 0 x 7 a c w > c C a) a E a) +, c rn C Q 7- M L +� = 7 c C .c•� j O N L ,a) u >, ' ° 0 a a a E L '++ ° a 7 L a) rn r o c C 0 a) E E o a) -0 a) 41 ++ C +L+ V i 0 � to in 0 L C L 3 C a) o -O ++ al 7 C Q X a) Y y a ti 0 T 0 a) _ O` ++ 0 7 C p O i o 7 u V o m -0 -Ca) m y 0 �, -0 'o E° ° E 'N C W i+ a m 0- ° � N C a)-0 ° m a o m C 3 a c y o° -a > aoi t > m> E +� g° a L a) °' C C ti m 0 Q a _ 75 w � h +' +' +� ° a a C Q O n o c 0 a 3 c O 7 +- Y O a >, O V E +� u N +, O cn 0) aai a m L a) o Q OV O cn s C H O a) m L a) 3 m >, ca O a u i N L c C a) O L X o O a) C L o a) ++ +� C a) 0) E N > C_ N a) "a a C 7 a) m c N N° -0 O u> O C L a) i E E u -a E > Q co -a C w N o �n u + a > Q O N V O TL +� V a -0 y m C .__ > (n 3 C ° o V Q ° > a E a > L C CO a C 7 a) a) a) u 0 ma -0Ln Cam' c U° 3 aC 0 uo C -a -C -a -0 C N 7 a) 0 a1 -O O Q N U) O CO t W 7 W 0 c +(D +L+ a) .0 a a)y+ a C O C V O a a V a C N 0 E° C "0 c 41 W N a o N "O O c u o E� m y o > 3 m .S 7 Q -0 0'0 E ° o- aoa -C a -a) O E C)a) +, E o- a) a) 4t 0 N C a) a co > 0) N O V c a) 4- cn> Q N m -o O 0 -a E C 0) 'a a a` _0 V (n +O+ L C u 3 0 7 0 a) 3 y u-0 y •� 7 L �, 0 0 a ti Q N C N C-0 a) ° c C 3 #A d C ~ C I I a O (n a a *' N L U a o *' N a a) N 0 Q a) L a L s N 3 - N I a) N O N N ` E E J a o m m o N L +. v 0 2 m vs s y C =O E � O 7 Q a s i U a a 0 LL ++ Q Y w _a o J "a = y i a = +, mod a a r fx a � a) )n T *� o E a; ° at = o E 0-E °'Lo $ E V V u in to u m 0 0 LU 3 w H o in 0 h a a 0- 0 � a) 3 0) a N V O c7 a) ° -0 N Y h C � O C N o Y .> J -0 C o E N t ° N a � L � •3 0 L � u +, N N m N a a) c o 0 L N >+ c E Q O m 3 rn ° a 7 C w 7 ++ a 7 a) L v C fn a) N m � rn c o 'c 0 N a O C Q o N N m t E O L CO E 0 C N V Q c 0 3 I � O C o 3 3_0 c a 0� _0 0 a O� Q N 0 M 0 > N -O • N Q) N O V = r a N Q LL N E M N C: N + y\ 1 C7 cli yl y, •ham �k 'x' e _ •�. '1p •�k - } y 1 1 O y, ems, - 1 y r 1 fq r I, �r I ' 1 I " I _ I 1 � I I� I I I I I I I I I k t 0 z � d i y i 4 tun IL IL R RRR M MO 0 st A. MW 30 ,PmA I i p pp Y uun RRR t*, R i F. F. 0 i ii.� IE it it S20 S da ff [T .9 r- 5L Pie Oj , UI P' A Y ri I V F Q1 A T rr m m 0 0 rU ZZrururoco M Ir [O 0 C7 = mmm M 7. 0 � m 41 .0 2 m 0 00 m� to O� rn66 CD H CD CO2 0 rr I— 3 cr {7} 0 i11 ar = t C — C m — P 5 m, co_ Cc I?1!m ca 0 W+ m�� ti- as L 00 F1{ P'- +mS _ I " a:) m o m Cr m � cr co ' F=•ro,�o�Pv w r r r c or _ m cr- 0 co rr- m = dr mIQ 2 ,r On 0 0 :r o o rr CD m .car (P f f1, 0 n x � � no m' o � 0 r all U. o M m _ 0 ECT + 0 � m 07 0 (a m c roo lil cn CD e. > d7 x [T (7 4 J O ( r7 r— t. C {.� C= -h-, iU N N N C Q 07 O o 9? L 0 07 CC CC IM aI a J— JO [ — Cl) Sul tr 4T' I I I I I I 111143f1 k qw-"�r- A A Y 'il' lil l } x , 1ilo 1 I � I — i ai. ! l . _ II II �I -- 11 '+ mrd mm me'e m mm $ fl AI r 1 m h, M 1-7 1J. mT mmmFl T I —HC —HC `r Fr la; 1�3 n1 �R rr „ m ^' 1 e m t e n 'i ' L AI 4L' rr, G 'r' G^. A FA'AI r�r{p A,A 7 'k �7 C„A 1 a 1 `r L �1 id Iz 1' co N� M LO F C� C 4 71 � ZL m M N z V v NV N M N E O d N F O- LO A L � � � � a a P% SMOPuIM gnOIOOI I I I I I I I G I I I I I I I , I I I I , 'F I I , , „0—AL I I I I T e0 IOS „Z—AL ►O � O � > Nk- N Oft - I F -us - L w O x F U E r"- No N r- a: T, r- Id— ML i mw-- 11 mor r- `rS , t= �lI I I I I I I Ww -1 r,mOPuiM uiiut?W Pt l) l9t?k� V U g z 7 S � N ct O O U N ct 'B t A ti V cd O y p cd N a� -0 w Q. p cdco cF r"z N O a� O y n p +-.• _ p cz o N �, ° o a) p 0 0 y0 al p, CA) CAa� p m a> o 'o o o cd p cd 4-4 -+-; cd �, v a� bA a) s� ,� p $z O O } U s�•� "� Vim] O ,i �' +' '-� �" �' �' C� 4-4 p4 'i' cqj t+—+ o ct 3 O c,CA.• cd cl xi cn cn rn 4-4 Cd En Ln ocn M a, SZ V1 U UO � p v� U > O�bj), 03 cn Ici ¢, V cd cn Q cd xi }, O o U � `Y') X X (U • m g ,, o m X �� J /LU � //CD /oo - g0$ / o / m Ln- D pp / gp6 X CD i / CD CD Ln CD � p m m pOh / m w X m CD L4 / CD CD � � o / m X �X CPID / CD pp� mo0 W «Z/I punoj X ao qaa p c L LL O —; U c E d O J 3 co E �O U E 0 0 V o o c U c U O aai �(D m C^` (n o O o O ; a) X a) �' m fn (n W W_ .� N N L 0 0 0 Co (0 _M a) U' O C O p C Z co = d L Q O = _O�n J co � L C Q Q' a� U) fC L OZ V O O c Q" wNoo� + o -C QUU ca Co (1) 4- O WL 0 0Ca O N c m m L -0 06 w �� V .0 a� a� = V vi Xo o w o a) a w y 'U m 7 UC)) U) Z Z o 7 Q O i 0 U0�H C9LidM LL LL: w a z O a oocuoo�o��ooz a LO zLL( �LL0-wwCL z z v i .i w > c o c c Q_ � Q Z w w _Q c cam- c Z ZQ U w / 11 0000 cn CO)Fu c L C E w .c E w U U V 1` + J c > w Y 0� o- 3 C- z C� W — Q co ��_� n� c > ate+ m >1 J V E 0 w O O o -- -- H --- 3 Z �No z Q W � Lo a� N L O � a 0 0 r 6) N CO r 00 r M r O r 00 00 /CL/� A yA,� 9re W Z r 1 `V b cn i+ W 0)n3 IM W~ --- ---- r J w QQ� w w F- z o O Q J w zvLncflr-- 0 0 0 m� aorno� 0 LO cO c0 W 0 0 F- Uncontrolled Runoff (WEST) S4 Reach on Link El Uncontrolled Runoff (EAST) Existing Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment E1: Uncontrolled Runoff (EAST) Runoff = 0.09 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.85" 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 2,044 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,019 98 Impervious Area 3,063 59 Weighted Average 2,044 66.73% Pervious Area 1,019 33.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: Uncontrolled Runoff (WEST) Runoff = 0.05 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.38" 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 5,740 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,193 98 Impervious Area 6,933 49 Weighted Average 5,740 82.79% Pervious Area 1,193 17.21 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.5 50 0.0400 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 25 0.3000 8.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.6 75 Total Existing Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment E1: Uncontrolled Runoff (EAST) Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af, Depth= 2.85" 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 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Area (sf) CN Description 2,044 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,019 98 Impervious Area 3,063 59 Weighted Average 2,044 66.73% Pervious Area 1,019 33.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: Uncontrolled Runoff (WEST) Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Depth= 1.85" 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 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Area (sf) CN Description 5,740 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,193 98 Impervious Area 6,933 49 Weighted Average 5,740 82.79% Pervious Area 1,193 17.21 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.5 50 0.0400 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 25 0.3000 8.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.6 75 Total P2 G1 Runoff to Rain Garden Rain Ga den #1 #1 G2 " P3 Rain Garden #2 Runoff to Rain Garden (RUNOFF WEST) #2 F N THE Uncontrolled Runoff TOTAL RUNOFF EAST (EAST) SubCat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edin Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCADO 10.00-16 s/n 09367 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment P1: Uncontrolled Runoff (EAST) Runoff = 0.09 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 2.11" 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 305 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 587 98 Impervious Area 892 78 Weighted Average 305 34.19% Pervious Area 587 65.81 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P2: Runoff to Rain Garden #1 Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth= 1.26" 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 1,552 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,320 98 Impervious Area 2,872 66 Weighted Average 1,552 54.04% Pervious Area 1,320 45.96% 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" 0.1 35 0.0800 4.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 6.1 85 Total Summary for Subcatchment P3: Runoff to Rain Garden #2 Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 1.59" 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" Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Area (sf) CN Description 2,807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 3,425 98 Impervious Area 6,232 71 Weighted Average 2,807 45.04% Pervious Area 3,425 54.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.1 50 0.0500 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 45 0.1800 6.36 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterwav Kv= 15.0 fps 4.2 95 Total Summary for Pond RG1: Rain Garden #1 Inflow Area = 0.066 ac, 45.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.13 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.007 of Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 14.47 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 145.4 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 14.47 hrs, Volume= 0.007 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 910.16' @ 14.47 hrs Surf.Area= 206 sf Storage= 182 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 422.0 min calculated for 0.007 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 422.1 min ( 1,246.0 - 823.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 907.50' 441 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) 907.50 105 40.0 0.0 0 0 105 909.50 105 40.0 40.0 84 84 185 910.00 170 50.0 100.0 68 152 260 910.50 295 70.0 100.0 115 267 453 911.00 405 80.0 100.0 174 441 579 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 910.50' 8.0' 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 907.50' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 14.47 hrs HW=910.16' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=907.50' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond RG2: Rain Garden #2 (RUNOFF WEST) Inflow Area = 0.143 ac, 54.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.59" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.41 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.019 of Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 14.97 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 176.7 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 14.97 hrs, Volume= 0.019 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 899.95' @ 14.97 hrs Surf.Area= 413 sf Storage= 537 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 534.1 min calculated for 0.019 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 534.2 min ( 1,346.2 - 812.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 896.30' 1,072 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) 896.30 265 75.0 0.0 0 0 265 899.30 265 75.0 40.0 318 318 490 900.00 425 90.0 100.0 239 557 695 900.80 570 100.0 100.0 397 954 864 901.00 610 105.0 100.0 118 1,072 949 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 900.60' 10.0' 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 896.30' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 14.97 hrs HW=899.95' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=896.30' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 10-yr Rainfall=4.28" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Link TRE: TOTAL RUNOFF EAST Inflow Area = 0.086 ac, 50.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.09 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.004 of Primary = 0.09 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment P1: Uncontrolled Runoff (EAST) Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Vol ume= 0.008 af, Depth= 4.92" 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 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Area (sf) CN Description 305 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 587 98 Impervious Area 892 78 Weighted Average 305 34.19% Pervious Area 587 65.81 % Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P2: Runoff to Rain Garden #1 Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 3.59" 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 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Area (sf) CN Description 1,552 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1,320 98 Impervious Area 2,872 66 Weighted Average 1,552 54.04% Pervious Area 1,320 45.96% 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" 0.1 35 0.0800 4.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 6.1 85 Total Summary for Subcatchment P3: Runoff to Rain Garden #2 Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af, Depth= 4.14" 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 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Area (sf) CN Description 2,807 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 3,425 98 Impervious Area 6,232 71 Weighted Average 2,807 45.04% Pervious Area 3,425 54.96% Impervious Area Tc Length (min) (feet) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Capacity Description (cfs) 4.1 50 0.0500 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 0.1 45 0.1800 6.36 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterwav Kv= 15.0 fps 4.2 95 Total Summary for Pond RG1: Rain Garden #1 Inflow Area = 0.066 ac, 45.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.59" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.36 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.020 of Outflow = 0.22 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Atten= 39%, Lag= 6.7 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.011 of Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.009 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 910.55' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 305 sf Storage= 282 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 253.6 min calculated for 0.020 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 253.7 min ( 1,046.2 - 792.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 907.50' 441 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) 907.50 105 40.0 0.0 0 0 105 909.50 105 40.0 40.0 84 84 185 910.00 170 50.0 100.0 68 152 260 910.50 295 70.0 100.0 115 267 453 911.00 405 80.0 100.0 174 441 579 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 910.50' 8.0' 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 907.50' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=910.55' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=910.55' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.21 cfs @ 0.53 fps) Summary for Pond RG2: Rain Garden #2 (RUNOFF WEST) Inflow Area = 0.143 ac, 54.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.14" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.99 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.049 of Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af, Atten= 61 %, Lag= 9.6 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.029 of Primary = 0.37 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.020 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 900.66' @ 12.18 hrs Surf.Area= 544 sf Storage= 877 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 407.7 min calculated for 0.049 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 407.9 min ( 1,192.2 - 784.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 896.30' 1,072 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) 896.30 265 75.0 0.0 0 0 265 899.30 265 75.0 40.0 318 318 490 900.00 425 90.0 100.0 239 557 695 900.80 570 100.0 100.0 397 954 864 901.00 610 105.0 100.0 118 1,072 949 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 900.60' 10.0' 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 896.30' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=900.66' (Free Discharge) L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.37 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=900.66' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.37 cfs @ 0.59 fps) Proposed Conditions - 4630 France Ave S Edina Atlas 14 24-hr SO 100-yr Rainfall=7.49" Prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Printed 8/18/2021 HydroCAD®10.00-16 s/n 09367 ©2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Link TRE: TOTAL RUNOFF EAST Inflow Area = 0.086 ac, 50.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.40" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.017 of Primary = 0.27 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-50.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs TO: Cary Teague, Community Development Director FROM: Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager DATE: August 30, 2021 RE: Proposed Villas on France The proposed Villas on France development entails demolishing a single family house at 4630 France Avenue and replacing with two single family houses. The rationale is that the property is too costly for a single family teardown, and there is a demand for houses for empty nesters who want to downsize. Comments in support of proposal: • The Housing Strategy Task Force recommended upzoning, or increasing density, along transit corridors. As the proposed development is not small (each unit would be 2,800 square feet; 3 bedrooms and 3 baths and 2 car garages) and the sale prices is unknown, but anticipated to be market rate for the area, it is unlikely to help the City in reaching the affordable housing goals. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 EdinaMN.gov . 952-927-8861 mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M 0 U n U L/] C`�' P. a. F. P. P. F. o. F. P. �. P, fidr.•i � C. Q a. m Ima�� �nlllpu • � \ �0.1 Illdl sA 1 W 0 8F 0 �. 8t o� LO LLd II _ I I� � to o.y�d �ea� 9 \1 0 m h., 42! oc 0, 1 II w Comprehensive Land Use Plan Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 16 September 2021 Public Hearing Comments-4630 France Ave. S. Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Proposal by City Homes to tear down the existing single- family home and build two villa type homes at 4630 France Avenue CONTRIBUTORS 2 0 0 Registered Unverified VISITORS 6 2 Anonymous 0 Registered RESPONSES 2 V V Proposed Plans 2 of 3 Proposed Plans 3 of 3 Review continents from AFO (Mic Johnson) Building Official Review Memo Better Together Public Hearing Corrttnent Report 9-16-21 Noon CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M STAFF REPORT Page 2 Southerly: Four-story medical office building; zoned POD-1, Planned Office District and guided Regional Medical Westerly: Large surface parking lot for medical office; zoned POD-1, Planned Office District and guided Regional Medical Existing Site Features The subject property is 30,286 square feet in size and contains a medical office building with parking under the building. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Access RM, Regional Medical POD -I, Planned Office District The primary access to the site would be off Barrie Road, and a new access provided off 651" Street West. Parking As mentioned above, a parking space variance is requested to accommodate the required number of parking spaces for the site. Based on the square footage of the facility 120 parking spaces are required for the entire site. (Under the proposed parking ordinance revisions, 80 stalls would be required.) The proposed plans demonstrate 73 parking stalls. (Plans were revised to add three stalls.) Wencl< Associates completed a parking study for the use. (See attached study.) The study concludes that there would be adequate parking. Traffic Wenck Associates also completed a traffic study for the use. (See attached study.) The study concludes that the existing roadways would support the project. Per City requirements, a Tier 2 Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for this project. TDM strategies for this site include: • Providing maps that show the area bus routes, bus schedules, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. • Providing bicycle parking spaces for employees. • Offering a pre -paid Metro Transit Go -To Card to all employees during orientation. The TDM plan strategies should be implemented at the time the project is complete and fully operational. The overall cost of the strategies is estimated at $1,000. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Landscaping The existing landscaping exceeds the City's requirements. Based on the perimeter of the site, 19 over story trees and a full complement of understory trees and shrubs are required. The site contains 20 proposed over story trees around the site & a full complement of understory trees and shrubs. Building Materials The proposed building would be made primarily of brick, glass and metal panel. (See attached building plans.) Signage Any proposed signage must meet the City's sign ordinance, and not to exceed 86 square feet total and no individual sign larger than 50 square feet. Setback must be 20 feet back from the street. The following table demonstrates compliance with POD -I Zoning: COMPLIANCE TABLE City Standard (POD-1) Proposed Structure Setbacks Front — 65t" Street 30 feet to the curb 18 feet to the curb* (10 feet to lot line) Front — Barrie Road 30 feet to the curb 35 feet (25 feet to lot line) Side — West 20 feet 10 feet* Rear — South 20 feet 50 feet Height 12 stories and 144 feet 3 stories and 40 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .50% .80 s. f.* (53 existing) Building Coverage 30% 45% (28% existing) Parking I stall per 200 s.f. plus one space per physician = 120 stalls 73 stalls* (I per 300 s. f. proposed Ord) = 80 stalls *Variance Required STAFF REPORT Page 4 Variance — Parking Stalls Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed parking stall variance is reasonable. A parking study was conducted by Wenck Associates that demonstrates that the use would be supported by the 73 parking stalls that are proposed. The plans originally called for 70 stalls. As a result of the parking study, the parking area was revised to accommodate the three stalls that were short. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? Yes. The site is unique in terms of its size and shape. The city is in the process of amending the zoning ordinance in regard to the number of parking spaces required for medical uses. Under the proposed ordinance, the proposal would only be short parked by 7 spaces. The parking study has demonstrated that the 73 spaces would be adequate to accommodate the proposed use. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The variance would not alter the essential character of the district. There are a variety of building sizes and height in this neighborhood, and there are a variety of ways the uses are parked including surface lots and ramps. The reduction in parking would not be noticed in the neighborhood. Variances — Setbacks & Building Size This section considers the following variances: front street setback variance from 30 feet to 18 feet (measured from building to curb); side yard setback variance from 20 feet to 10 feet; building coverage variance from 30% to 45%; floor area ratio (FAR) variance from 50% to 80%. STAFF REPORT Page 5 Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances mentioned above are reasonable. The practical difficulty is caused by the small size of the lot and narrow width. The proposed building is slightly larger than the existing building on the site. Given the property values in this area, the proposed building is reasonably sized, and far below the maximum height allowed for the site. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? Yes. This lot is the narrowest in the district. The lot to the south that is the same size is held in common ownership with the larger property to the west. The circumstance of the small lot size and narrow width are not common in this area and zoning district. These circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The variance would not alter the essential character of the district. There are a variety of building sizes and height in this neighborhood. The building would still be one of the small structures in the area. There is a large surface parking lot to the south and to the west, which would make the building appear to be located on a larger lot. STAFF REPORT Page 6 PRIMARY ISSUE/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposal reasonable to justify the proposed variances? Yes. Staff does support the site plan and the requested variances on the site for the following reasons: I . The Wenck parking study demonstrates there would be adequate parking to support the project. 2. The proposed setback, building coverage and floor area ratio variances are reasonable. The practical difficulty is caused by the small size of the lot and narrow width. 3. The proposed building is slightly larger than the existing building on the site. Given the property values in this area, the proposed building is reasonably sized, and far below the maximum height allowed for the site. 4. This lot is the narrowest in the district. The lot to the south that is the same width is held in common ownership with the larger property to the west. Therefore, the circumstance of the small lot size and narrow width are not common in this area and zoning district. These circumstances were not created by the applicant. S. The variance would not alter the essential character of the district. There are a variety of building sizes and height in this neighborhood. The building would still be one of the smallest structures in the area. There is a large surface parking lot to the south and to the west, which would make the building appear to be located on a larger lot. 6. The proposed sidewalk would be an improvement to the area where there are currently no sidewalks. This sidewalk would allow residents to the north to walk to Southdale and surrounding area more safely. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Site Plan with Variances at 6500 Barrie Road. Approval is based on the following findings: Wenck conducted a parking and traffic impact study. The study concluded that the existing roadway system would support the proposed project. No improvements are necessary to the adjacent roadway. Additionally, the proposed 73 parking spaces provided would adequately serve the development. 2. The building is reasonably sized given the context of the immediate area and neighborhood. STAFF REPORT Page 7 The practical difficulty is due to the narrow lot width and small area of the lot. 4. The project would improve pedestrian movement in the area with the construction of the boulevard style sidewalks. 5. The proposed building is slightly larger than the existing building on the site. Given the property values in this area, the proposed building is reasonably sized, and far below the maximum height allowed for the site. 6. Consider the recommendations of Mic Johnson, Architecture Field Office in the review memo dated September 16, 2021. Approval of the Site Plan is subject to the following conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan dated August 20, 2021. • Grading plan dated August 20, 2021. • Building elevations dated August 20, 2021. • Landscape plans dated August 20, 2021. • Utility plans dated August 20, 2021 • Building materials plans dated August 20, 2021. 2. If required, 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. Per City requirements, a Tier 2 Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required for this project. TDM strategies for this site include: • Providing maps that show the area bus routes, bus schedules, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Providing information on starting and joining commuter programs. • Providing bicycle parking spaces for employees. • Offering a pre -paid Metro Transit Go -To Card to all employees during orientation. The TDM plan strategies should be implemented at the time the project is complete and fully operational. 4. Public sidewalk to be minimum 5 feet in width with a 5-foot boulevard extended to property line on both 65th Street and Barrie Road. Sidewalks to be maintained by the property owner, including snow plowing. 5. Provide 6 bicycle parking stalls (minimum) on site (5% of the required parking per City Code). These stalls should be in convenient, well -lit locations within 50' of a public entrance to the building. Rack style and spacing should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). STAFF REPORT Page 8 6. Compliance with the conditions required in the engineering memo dated September 14, 2021, including the items marked "yes" in the sustainability questionnaire. 7. Compliance with the building official's memo dated September 16, 2021. 8. Any proposed signage must meet the City's sign ordinance. Deadline for a city decision: December 7, 2021 mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL mmmEq!uuW;4'Ron • a23-85Q-03LI • Lux a23-85C-o363 L,f2o I/ GfLO B0rr1sesxq • Egruw Ylruuszots 22,t3a E14CI14EEISIZC DEbV][fLYIEZL 3aw a S N ccvQ Q m n O 5 m 1 Q OCom > 1 oOC X N F > IIF W c-D O N �Q N ^�' 1.� Q m > m tr Q 5 m m w Q 5 n 0 2 D o oo?o?M a a cr n�Q �F' m m m CJ `�j s� o_ � "�•yo ti I 0 m N co lY l Jj m S � m y T m o < Ll yo .NTpQS a a F- J� cr n m s N Q m p� IT 1 O cr i 5 N 1 Q 5 (en) evs-asoo I bvx (e2r)eas-noi 21 bvnr' WN 22romin m2 BV61DV61V BOnrEAVKD N' 2niiE Soo 606E VHCHIlEC1.2' INC' MMM'bOb69LCN'COW v K C H I l E C 1 2 b V C V V V V V E E E C _ O O O - v ocC d d d U U U cl C C C C C C C C d a c h a- - - o in 0 c4 m 6 6 6 gs1mooll AL rn v v w iii�i•i��iii ii 1xIiIxui ilfr�r■��7, �i �i�iw �� �I nil�in �niu: �IIIItYYYlill � � -�- �:p,-••••• mrr• �uunw mar= 111 {IIIIIIII IHlill: IIWIIt01�■ E + u nrmruru ar a�u■ww�/y�Y+ar uioo■■nu�r e■u 'h ��r uurunn■r w■■�■■� i ., liirui!!0 -WI■ iFli w' � i nuouno■uu u■r�r■ ■rw ss, m maw wwnin ■y nn r. nano unnaii n�l���� �fll " n loon unnui nhtlnlli P .iFEWI m"I'MiU E urw i� r■•_e■ urw■ m■r ira�6�.a■r■ wn .■ e■� �r%i n. ��ii■ wawa xwr� am ��!!w■� . Isr ■Illllf'■Z Iy� Ilr ■ur, - ., iofind nilu,ll'yrl ±p±l■ +{YCS I��1■��i�i4�..urr — y T lormo n. itwl :dinSO !I 6a as X241mm Er 1 h� I.W g.8 0 m I n� ac a�a am aw ao a a� 9 N 9 M 99 L0 .2- II R N❑ ;2, eia6 o •y] N Q N O 9 d�9 � 9 y� f3 A Q N a p�yj A Q fCL o ° m r ma a ❑ 0 0 m� o 0 GG a m o 0 m a N o � o r a m z a T-f ��+ - a. . ......... �- 41 m I 0 ao Z F c 0 w Prepared for: City of Edina 'V^VWENCK now part of Stantec File #227704227 September 15, 2021 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax:763-479-4242 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.............................................................3-3 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES..........................................4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES...........................................4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM LOS RESULTS......................................................5-5 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM LOS RESULTS......................................................5-6 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. V - L DATE: September 15, 2021 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 V^VWENGK September 2021 i n-. 1 ® Stantec ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK Pamela Pond -]1 0 N t I � SWI m T^VWENCK Mwpod of 5 Stantec u 17 Q .hP, ony m O U W 69th St h 52. W 701h Rabt 53. W 70th Rabt 54. W 701h Rabt 55. Xerxes Ave S 56. Xerxes Ave 5 TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY FOR 6500 BARRIE ROAD IN EDINA, MN cu X tsv m 2X PROJECT LOCATION M U) ti un FAPPROXITMATIE SCALE Ad ■ 1- 0 950' FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION t GARAGE ENTRANCE/EXIT �I PROPOSED j MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 13,665 GSF FOOTPRINT 54,660 GSF TOTAL I!' 3 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE 1 LEVEL BELOW GRADE iI -------------- �l I. I I I, V^VWENCK rpw port p} Sta ntec GARAGE ENTRANCE/EXIT ti , V4 PROP- MAIN ENTRANCE l OUT000R PATIO RAMP DOWN TO LOWERL£VEL PARKING TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY FOR 6500 BARRIE ROAD IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK INVW I: 'jib 3k (D < O� 0 Z < 0 ❑ LL z < 0 2 �- 5 w LL W C) Z LL Q LO F- L UL 4-1 C La 41 eAvisia Sul n z ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK oN•- AMA N r <-- ZEIZEIZE 14 - V-991Lb/Lb 01010- T r 9LILL/01-> 6Z/6Z/6Z—> Eb1Etr1Etr� m N 81-l- `°ram z UO Ln c*>n W�- OU rn bl-1 ILO SSQ= uado�anaa ;uawdolE L� 0 ; ti v a ti � L 0 N rnCl) �9L419L41EL4 86b188b1E8b L91G9199 EJ 9EZ148ZI6Zz--:� 9trL19bLI8EL—> in v N 6041604/BOL ti 0r N Cn 1- N N I S N C N �89419941b9L tr ��oll szl9zlsz — T r 94b194b141b� vcoCn 9LZ1bLZ14LZ N N Or V N CO -T N N N N - CA co O 01 r co co O C'O 00 �841-I- 1 � 'Pa 0 1Lee ZslEtrlEtr-,� v� v� ti v N N co 0 Cl) Q LO "It iz m _C) Cl) r 01r �Z4 ,nM{ 4/6041606 9b919tr9/Ob9 Zb1Zb2b IF eny aoueJj 9Z418Z41LZ4 T 8tr9l8b91Zb9 � ro � Z9lZ9149�� Ln r u> ao <r v T z V W V LL UN W w � av aLL. no a� Wy} = 2 z a 4z aaL¢Cl 0 `H-nLU LL Y J C L� LO CO F- ZIZIZ o r o � 9b19b19b �EL19S199 0/010 ] 1109/Ob/ob-> 641W%—> 6EI6E16£ � v�v r £!-/-� � N Z o N wO �a �0 rnco rn z �OZ/-/- ;uauadolSSQ=E w do�anaa 10 .: cp L N cD to co— m � � b81b8/E8 amo rn � _� �Z846IZH4410L4b LEILEIL£ 46168188� 8bL18bL14bL—> o) ZE/Z£IZ£� � o 89a5 co c) � h m Q F--- Z WvU/E0 4 � 81-1- M C3 O � � vm � � r Q r r oFo 4bE16bE18EE Cl) <-- EZLIEZL,194L EI y ,�sH4ras41ssL tr �ioA 8BI88lLH —� Z8bIZ8b/LLB --> M c,4 No 46L14641886 � � � N CO moo lf)eN N a W J � J zm m m 000 N N N V r (�1 C'�S ti CN m n ill 'Pa aPies O04/09169� M N CV N m� 0 0 W V z a xwoz aaL¢ ZE Z cl 0 W Z UHmW LgtLL �CZ L� LO CO F- N 0 rn Z L�1 c N`m°N ZZZIOZZ/9 4 Z �4404/440414444 g $ �E441E441ZL4 ; g � eny aouEjj LS 61LS 4159 4 4O9/4091969 OIOM C� tO S81S8/b8 � rn � h O] r rn� cp z ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK droro V/VIV droro /V F-vV/rV/- aa d roro � eroro� aaa aaa C)o wL 0Q �M aQ 0�o V/-1- � J om 0 y y �'dl"1- m ❑ T WdOj9 ssawla ;uauado�anaa QQ a a ct L aaa aaa � droro J droro m `m droro droro —> U Q U droro UaU if � PH aPieg UQ Ua QQQ U 81818 U Olala eny aoueJj U G/G/G 8/8/8—a ❑UU 81818 p U U DUU Z -40� D 2 a W a a� aN) LU i ILL C7 W 0 LL 3: J z a XWOZ aaL¢ ZE ZOW9 UHmW LL W C) LPL LO CO f-" V/V/V V/roro drorod F-vaV/r/V Vl- aa T rodlI- VIV/V mm _ro �, eroro� m mmm UZ. O wL Oa my as �o � J om ro W � �'d1"r m ❑ T WdOj9 ssawia ;uauado�anaa as a a ct L U a a 8/919 m e/ro/V m dro/ro `m vIvfv UaU U U o 01010 y y U G/G/G U U F> a1a10 DUU ll � Pa a1Les 91918 ma ma U Olala eny aoueJj U Qlala 010/0 p U U DUU z -40� 2 Q W a a� Va U) LU i ILL C7 W 0 LL 3: J z a xwoz aaL¢ ZE z0wz UHmW LL W C) LPL LO CO f-" ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK ® 2pupc uom bay 01 ,,*,MEMCK HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 161 42 40 43 197 66 483 173 229 738 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 161 42 40 43 197 66 483 173 229 738 108 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 175 46 43 47 0 72 525 0 249 802 117 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 294 242 64 112 97 498 2784 703 2640 383 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.09 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 1359 1428 375 219 573 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 4504 653 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 0 221 90 0 0 72 525 0 249 605 314 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1359 0 1803 792 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1753 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 8.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 4.1 6.3 6.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 8.2 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 4.1 6.3 6.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 0 306 210 0 498 2784 703 1995 1027 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.72 0.43 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.35 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 553 0 649 485 0 642 2784 1126 1995 1027 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.4 0.0 27.8 27.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 8.2 0.0 5.3 7.4 7.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.8 0.0 31.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 8.3 0.0 5.7 7.8 8.2 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 301 90 A 597 A 1168 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 28.8 8.1 7.4 Approach LOS C C A A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 43.1 16.5 8.3 46.0 16.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 27.5 25.5 9.5 41.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.1 5.7 10.2 3.2 8.4 11.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.7 3.6 1.3 0.1 7.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 154 45 171 139 151 42 540 108 127 642 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 85 154 45 171 139 151 42 540 108 127 642 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 167 49 186 151 164 46 587 117 138 698 55 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 120 455 203 288 512 228 76 2157 670 179 2317 182 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4828 378 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 167 49 186 151 164 46 587 117 138 491 262 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1802 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.6 6.7 1.7 5.1 3.1 5.1 5.9 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.6 6.7 1.7 5.1 3.1 5.1 5.9 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 455 203 288 512 228 76 2157 670 179 1634 865 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.37 0.24 0.65 0.29 0.72 0.60 0.27 0.17 0.77 0.30 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 329 1076 480 587 1023 456 197 2157 670 434 1634 865 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 27.0 26.6 30.1 25.9 27.7 31.8 12.8 12.2 29.7 10.7 10.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.5 0.6 2.4 0.3 4.2 7.5 0.3 0.6 6.9 0.5 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.7 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.1 2.7 0.9 1.8 1.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 27.5 27.2 32.5 26.2 31.9 39.3 13.1 12.8 36.6 11.2 11.6 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C D B B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 308 501 750 891 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.4 30.4 14.6 15.2 Approach LOS C C B B Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 33.1 10.1 13.2 7.4 37.0 9.1 14.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 23.5 11.5 20.5 7.5 32.5 12.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 7.1 7.1 5.5 4.9 3.7 8.0 5.4 8.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 4.1 0.3 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 40 1 2 0 47 32 1 0 29 43 Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 40 1 2 0 47 32 1 0 29 43 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 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 7 1 43 1 2 0 51 35 1 0 32 47 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 195 194 56 216 217 36 79 0 0 36 0 0 Stage 1 56 56 - 138 138 - - - - - - - Stage 2 139 138 - 78 79 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 764 701 1011 740 681 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Stage1 956 848 - 865 782 - - - Stage 2 864 782 - 931 829 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 743 677 1011 689 658 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 743 677 - 689 658 - - - Stage 1 923 848 - 836 755 - - - - - - - Stage 2 832 755 890 829 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 10.4 4.4 0 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1519 - 957 668 1575 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - 0.053 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9 10.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 474 1078 60 0 43 Future Vol, veh/h 41 474 1078 60 0 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 45 515 1172 65 0 47 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1237 0 0 619 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 300 - - - 0 370 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 300 - - 370 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 16.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 300 - - - 370 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.149 - - - 0.126 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.1 - - - 16.1 HCM Lane LOS C - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - 0.4 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 222 200 105 249 718 61 164 336 132 25 411 271 Future Volume (veh/h) 222 200 105 249 718 61 164 336 132 25 411 271 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 241 217 0 271 780 66 178 365 143 27 447 295 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 339 991 373 1025 457 268 1216 542 51 1042 465 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 241 217 0 271 780 66 178 365 143 27 447 295 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 3.5 0.0 5.6 14.9 2.3 3.7 5.6 4.8 1.1 7.6 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 3.5 0.0 5.6 14.9 2.3 3.7 5.6 4.8 1.1 7.6 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 991 373 1025 457 268 1216 542 51 1042 465 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.22 0.73 0.76 0.14 0.66 0.30 0.26 0.53 0.43 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 535 1364 582 1412 630 442 1216 542 134 1042 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 20.6 0.0 32.1 24.1 19.6 33.3 17.9 17.7 35.6 21.2 22.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.1 0.0 2.7 1.6 0.1 2.8 0.6 1.2 8.2 1.3 6.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 1.4 0.0 2.4 6.1 0.8 1.6 2.3 1.9 0.6 3.2 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 20.7 0.0 34.8 25.7 19.8 36.1 18.5 18.9 43.7 22.5 29.2 LnGrp LOS D C C C B D B B D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 458 A 1117 686 769 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 27.6 23.2 25.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 29.9 12.5 25.2 10.3 26.3 11.8 25.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.6 25.4 12.5 28.5 9.5 21.5 11.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.1 7.6 7.6 5.5 5.7 14.0 7.0 16.9 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 2.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 2.4 0.3 4.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 163 42 40 43 199 67 488 175 231 745 109 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 163 42 40 43 199 67 488 175 231 745 109 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 177 46 43 47 0 73 530 0 251 810 118 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 295 244 64 112 97 495 2777 700 2636 382 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.10 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 1359 1431 372 218 569 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 4505 652 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 0 223 90 0 0 73 530 0 251 611 317 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1359 0 1803 786 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1753 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 8.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 4.1 6.4 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 8.3 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 4.1 6.4 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 308 209 0 495 2777 700 1992 1026 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.00 0.72 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.36 0.31 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 551 0 648 482 0 638 2777 1121 1992 1026 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.4 0.0 27.8 27.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 8.2 0.0 5.4 7.4 7.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 1.2 2.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.9 0.0 31.1 28.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 8.4 0.0 5.7 7.8 8.2 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 305 90 A 603 A 1179 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 28.8 8.1 7.5 Approach LOS C C A A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 43.1 16.6 8.3 46.0 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 27.5 25.5 9.5 41.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.1 5.7 10.3 3.2 8.5 11.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.7 3.6 1.3 0.1 7.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 156 45 173 140 153 42 545 109 128 648 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 156 45 173 140 153 42 545 109 128 648 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 170 49 188 152 166 46 592 118 139 704 57 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 121 460 205 290 516 230 76 2148 667 180 2306 186 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4817 388 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 170 49 188 152 166 46 592 118 139 496 265 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1801 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 3.0 1.9 3.6 2.6 6.8 1.7 5.2 3.2 5.2 6.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 3.0 1.9 3.6 2.6 6.8 1.7 5.2 3.2 5.2 6.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 460 205 290 516 230 76 2148 667 180 1630 862 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.37 0.24 0.65 0.29 0.72 0.60 0.28 0.18 0.77 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 328 1073 479 585 1021 455 197 2148 667 433 1630 862 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 27.0 26.5 30.1 25.9 27.7 31.9 12.9 12.3 29.8 10.8 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 0.5 0.6 2.4 0.3 4.2 7.5 0.3 0.6 6.9 0.5 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.1 2.7 0.9 1.9 1.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 27.5 27.1 32.6 26.2 31.9 39.4 13.2 12.9 36.7 11.3 11.7 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C D B B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 312 506 756 900 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.4 30.4 14.8 15.3 Approach LOS C C B B Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 33.1 10.2 13.3 7.4 37.0 9.1 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 23.5 11.5 20.5 7.5 32.5 12.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 7.2 7.2 5.6 5.0 3.7 8.1 5.5 8.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 4.1 0.3 1.0 0.0 5.3 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 40 1 2 0 47 32 1 0 29 43 Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 40 1 2 0 47 32 1 0 29 43 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 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 7 1 43 1 2 0 51 35 1 0 32 47 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 195 194 56 216 217 36 79 0 0 36 0 0 Stage 1 56 56 - 138 138 - - - - - - - Stage 2 139 138 - 78 79 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 764 701 1011 740 681 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Stage1 956 848 - 865 782 - - - Stage 2 864 782 - 931 829 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 743 677 1011 689 658 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 743 677 - 689 658 - - - Stage 1 923 848 - 836 755 - - - - - - - Stage 2 832 755 890 829 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 10.4 4.4 0 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1519 - 957 668 1575 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - 0.053 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9 10.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 479 1089 61 0 43 Future Vol, veh/h 41 479 1089 61 0 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 45 521 1184 66 0 47 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1250 0 0 625 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 296 - - - 0 367 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 296 - - 367 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 16.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 296 - - - 367 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.151 - - - 0.127 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.3 - - - 16.2 HCM Lane LOS C - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - 0.4 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 202 106 251 725 62 166 339 133 25 415 274 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 202 106 251 725 62 166 339 133 25 415 274 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 243 220 0 273 788 67 180 368 145 27 451 298 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 341 998 374 1032 460 270 1211 540 51 1036 462 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 243 220 0 273 788 67 180 368 145 27 451 298 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 3.5 0.0 5.7 15.1 2.3 3.8 5.7 4.9 1.1 7.7 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 3.5 0.0 5.7 15.1 2.3 3.8 5.7 4.9 1.1 7.7 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 341 998 374 1032 460 270 1211 540 51 1036 462 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.22 0.73 0.76 0.15 0.67 0.30 0.27 0.53 0.44 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 533 1359 579 1406 627 440 1211 540 134 1036 462 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 20.6 0.0 32.2 24.1 19.6 33.4 18.1 17.8 35.7 21.4 23.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.0 2.7 1.7 0.1 2.8 0.6 1.2 8.2 1.3 6.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 1.4 0.0 2.5 6.2 0.8 1.6 2.3 1.9 0.6 3.2 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.3 20.7 0.0 34.9 25.8 19.7 36.3 18.7 19.1 43.9 22.8 29.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C B D B B D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 463 A 1128 693 776 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.4 27.7 23.3 26.2 Approach LOS C C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 29.9 12.6 25.4 10.3 26.2 11.9 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.6 25.4 12.5 28.5 9.5 21.5 11.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.1 7.7 7.7 5.5 5.8 14.2 7.1 17.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 2.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 2.4 0.3 4.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 164 42 40 44 200 67 488 175 235 745 109 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 164 42 40 44 200 67 488 175 235 745 109 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 178 46 43 48 0 73 530 0 255 810 118 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 294 245 63 111 99 494 2769 700 2634 381 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.10 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1357 1433 370 215 576 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 4505 652 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 0 224 91 0 0 73 530 0 255 611 317 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1357 0 1804 791 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1753 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 8.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.8 0.0 4.2 6.4 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 0.0 8.3 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.8 0.0 4.2 6.4 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 0 309 210 0 494 2769 700 1991 1025 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.00 0.73 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.36 0.31 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 0 648 483 0 637 2769 1119 1991 1025 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.4 0.0 27.8 27.4 0.0 0.0 6.1 8.3 0.0 5.4 7.5 7.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 1.3 2.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.9 0.0 31.1 28.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 8.4 0.0 5.7 7.9 8.3 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 306 91 A 603 A 1183 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.0 28.8 8.2 7.5 Approach LOS C C A A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 43.0 16.7 8.3 46.0 16.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 27.5 25.5 9.5 41.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.2 5.8 10.3 3.2 8.5 11.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.7 3.6 1.3 0.1 7.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 157 45 174 140 153 42 545 112 128 648 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 157 45 174 140 153 42 545 112 128 648 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 171 49 189 152 166 46 592 122 139 704 57 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 121 459 205 291 516 230 76 2148 667 180 2306 186 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4817 388 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 171 49 189 152 166 46 592 122 139 496 265 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1801 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 3.0 1.9 3.6 2.6 6.8 1.7 5.2 3.3 5.2 6.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 3.0 1.9 3.6 2.6 6.8 1.7 5.2 3.3 5.2 6.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 459 205 291 516 230 76 2148 667 180 1630 862 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.37 0.24 0.65 0.29 0.72 0.60 0.28 0.18 0.77 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 328 1073 479 585 1021 455 197 2148 667 433 1630 862 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 27.0 26.6 30.1 25.9 27.7 31.9 12.9 12.3 29.8 10.8 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 0.5 0.6 2.4 0.3 4.2 7.5 0.3 0.6 6.9 0.5 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.1 2.7 0.9 1.9 1.2 2.5 2.1 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 27.5 27.2 32.5 26.2 31.9 39.4 13.2 12.9 36.7 11.3 11.7 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C D B B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 313 507 760 900 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.4 30.4 14.8 15.3 Approach LOS C C B B Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 33.1 10.2 13.3 7.4 37.0 9.1 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 23.5 11.5 20.5 7.5 32.5 12.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 7.2 7.2 5.6 5.0 3.7 8.1 5.5 8.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 4.1 0.3 1.0 0.0 5.3 0.1 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 52 1 2 0 66 32 1 0 29 43 Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 52 1 2 0 66 32 1 0 29 43 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 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 7 1 57 1 2 0 72 35 1 0 32 47 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 237 236 56 265 259 36 79 0 0 36 0 0 Stage 1 56 56 - 180 180 - - - - - - - Stage 2 181 180 - 85 79 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 717 665 1011 688 645 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Stage1 956 848 - 822 750 - - - Stage 2 821 750 - 923 829 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 689 633 1011 625 614 1037 1519 - - 1575 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 689 633 - 625 614 - - - Stage 1 910 848 - 783 714 - - - - - - - Stage 2 779 714 870 829 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 10.9 5 0 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1519 956 618 1575 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.067 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9 10.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 479 1089 68 0 52 Future Vol, veh/h 56 479 1089 68 0 52 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 61 521 1184 74 0 57 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1258 0 0 629 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 293 - - - 0 364 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 293 - - 364 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0 16.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 293 - - - 364 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.208 - - - 0.155 HCM Control Delay (s) 20.5 - - - 16.7 HCM Lane LOS C - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - - 0.5 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 203 106 251 728 62 168 339 133 25 415 276 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 203 106 251 728 62 168 339 133 25 415 276 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 243 221 0 273 791 67 183 368 145 27 451 300 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 341 1000 374 1034 461 273 1209 539 51 1031 460 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 243 221 0 273 791 67 183 368 145 27 451 300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 3.6 0.0 5.7 15.1 2.3 3.8 5.7 5.0 1.1 7.7 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 3.6 0.0 5.7 15.1 2.3 3.8 5.7 5.0 1.1 7.7 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 341 1000 374 1034 461 273 1209 539 51 1031 460 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.22 0.73 0.76 0.15 0.67 0.30 0.27 0.53 0.44 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 532 1357 579 1405 627 440 1209 539 134 1031 460 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 20.5 0.0 32.2 24.1 19.6 33.4 18.1 17.9 35.7 21.5 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.0 2.7 1.8 0.1 2.8 0.6 1.2 8.2 1.4 7.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 1.4 0.0 2.5 6.3 0.8 1.7 2.3 1.9 0.6 3.2 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 20.7 0.0 35.0 25.9 19.7 36.3 18.8 19.1 43.9 22.9 30.2 LnGrp LOS D C C C B D B B D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 464 A 1131 696 778 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.4 27.7 23.4 26.5 Approach LOS C C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 29.9 12.6 25.5 10.4 26.1 11.9 26.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.6 25.4 12.5 28.5 9.5 21.5 11.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.1 7.7 7.7 5.6 5.8 14.4 7.1 17.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 2.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 2.4 0.3 4.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 14: access & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 8 17 95 3 4 Future Vol, veh/h 55 8 17 95 3 4 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 60 9 18 103 3 4 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 69 0 204 65 Stage 1 - - - - 65 - Stage 2 - - - - 139 - 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 - - 1532 - 784 999 Stage 1 - - - - 958 - Stage 2 - - - - 888 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1532 - 775 999 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 775 - Stage 1 - - - - 958 - Stage 2 - - - 877 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 889 - - 1532 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.012 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 17: Barrie Road & access 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 18 98 75 8 Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 18 98 75 8 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 2 5 20 107 82 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 234 87 91 0 0 Stage 1 87 - - - - - Stage 2 147 - - - 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 754 971 1504 - - - Stage 1 936 - - Stage 2 880 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 743 971 1504 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 743 - - Stage 1 923 - - - - - Stage 2 880 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 1.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1504 - 893 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 am build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 138 83 107 55 98 383 37 1170 83 88 741 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 138 83 107 55 98 383 37 1170 83 88 741 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 90 116 60 107 0 40 1272 0 96 805 35 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 314 153 198 125 187 484 2744 380 2807 122 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.06 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1287 742 956 260 907 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 5018 218 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 0 206 167 0 0 40 1272 0 96 545 295 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1287 0 1698 1167 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1831 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 7.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.6 0.0 1.6 5.8 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 0.0 7.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.6 0.0 1.6 5.8 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 314 0 351 312 0 484 2744 380 1905 1025 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.59 0.54 0.00 0.08 0.46 0.25 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 653 0 798 718 0 552 2744 508 1905 1025 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 24.8 25.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 9.9 0.0 6.9 8.0 8.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 0.0 3.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.9 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.1 0.0 26.3 26.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 10.4 0.0 7.3 8.4 8.7 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A B A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 356 167 A 1312 A 936 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 26.9 10.3 8.4 Approach LOS C C B A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 41.7 18.8 7.2 43.2 18.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.2 34.8 32.5 5.3 38.7 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.6 12.6 12.6 2.7 7.8 12.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 9.9 1.7 0.0 6.3 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 651 78 248 369 208 112 1001 218 155 595 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 99 651 78 248 369 208 112 1001 218 155 595 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 108 708 85 270 401 226 122 1088 237 168 647 91 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 139 860 384 357 950 424 156 1612 501 207 1561 217 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4531 630 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 108 708 85 270 401 226 122 1088 237 168 484 254 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1757 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 15.2 3.5 6.1 7.5 9.8 5.4 15.0 9.7 7.4 8.8 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 15.2 3.5 6.1 7.5 9.8 5.4 15.0 9.7 7.4 8.8 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 860 384 357 950 424 156 1612 501 207 1173 605 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.82 0.22 0.76 0.42 0.53 0.78 0.67 0.47 0.81 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 990 442 449 950 424 280 1612 501 298 1173 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 29.0 24.5 35.2 24.4 25.3 36.1 24.0 22.2 34.8 20.2 20.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 5.1 0.3 5.6 0.3 1.3 8.4 2.3 3.2 10.6 1.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 6.8 1.3 2.8 3.1 3.7 2.7 6.1 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.6 34.0 24.8 40.8 24.7 26.6 44.5 26.3 25.4 45.5 21.3 22.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 901 897 1447 906 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.5 30.0 27.7 26.1 Approach LOS C C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 30.0 12.8 24.0 11.6 32.3 10.8 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 25.5 10.5 22.5 12.7 26.3 12.0 21.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 9.4 17.0 8.1 17.2 7.4 10.9 6.8 11.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 5.1 0.2 2.3 0.1 4.3 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 1 21 0 1 0 55 46 2 0 19 39 Future Vol, veh/h 43 1 21 0 1 0 55 46 2 0 19 39 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 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 47 1 23 0 1 0 60 50 2 0 21 42 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 214 214 42 225 234 51 63 0 0 52 0 0 Stage 1 42 42 - 171 171 - - - - - - - Stage 2 172 172 - 54 63 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 743 684 1029 730 666 1017 1540 - - 1554 - - Stage 1 972 860 - 831 757 - - - Stage 2 830 756 - 958 842 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 719 657 1029 691 639 1017 1540 - - 1554 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 719 657 - 691 639 - - - Stage 1 933 860 - 798 727 - - - - - - - Stage 2 796 726 936 842 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 10.6 4 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1540 795 639 1554 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 0.089 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - 10 10.6 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 1410 747 32 0 59 Future Vol, veh/h 32 1410 747 32 0 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 35 1533 812 35 0 64 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 847 0 0 424 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 464 - - - 0 495 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 464 - - 495 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 13.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 464 - - - 495 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 - - - 0.13 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.4 - - - 13.4 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.4 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 526 741 199 308 410 107 186 716 338 87 477 188 Future Volume (veh/h) 526 741 199 308 410 107 186 716 338 87 477 188 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 572 805 0 335 446 116 202 778 367 95 518 204 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 677 970 420 706 315 287 1128 503 122 1076 480 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.27 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 572 805 0 335 446 116 202 778 367 95 518 204 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 17.4 0.0 7.7 9.4 5.2 4.7 15.7 16.8 4.3 9.7 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 17.4 0.0 7.7 9.4 5.2 4.7 15.7 16.8 4.3 9.7 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 970 420 706 315 287 1128 503 122 1076 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.83 0.80 0.63 0.37 0.70 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.48 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 823 1128 485 781 348 422 1128 503 185 1076 480 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 28.0 0.0 35.0 30.1 28.4 36.6 24.4 24.8 37.5 23.3 22.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.9 4.7 0.0 8.0 1.4 0.7 3.2 3.5 9.0 11.1 1.5 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.9 7.7 0.0 3.6 4.1 2.0 2.1 6.8 7.3 2.2 4.2 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 32.7 0.0 43.0 31.5 29.1 39.8 27.9 33.8 48.7 24.8 25.6 LnGrp LOS D C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1377 A 897 1347 817 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 35.5 31.3 27.8 Approach LOS D D C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 30.5 14.5 26.9 11.3 29.3 20.5 20.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 26.0 11.5 26.0 10.0 24.5 19.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.3 18.8 9.7 19.4 6.7 11.7 15.1 11.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.8 0.2 2.9 0.2 3.4 1.0 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2021 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 139 84 108 56 99 387 37 1182 84 89 748 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 139 84 108 56 99 387 37 1182 84 89 748 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 91 117 61 108 0 40 1285 0 97 813 35 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 315 155 199 125 188 480 2735 376 2800 120 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.06 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1286 743 955 262 900 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 5020 216 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 0 208 169 0 0 40 1285 0 97 551 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1286 0 1698 1162 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 7.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.8 0.0 1.6 5.9 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 0.0 7.7 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.8 0.0 1.6 5.9 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 0 355 313 0 480 2735 376 1899 1022 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.59 0.54 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.26 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 649 0 796 713 0 547 2735 511 1899 1022 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 24.7 25.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 10.0 0.0 7.1 8.1 8.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 0.0 3.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.1 0.0 26.3 27.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 10.6 0.0 7.4 8.5 8.8 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A B A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 359 169 A 1325 A 945 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 27.0 10.5 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 41.7 19.0 7.2 43.2 19.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 34.5 32.5 5.3 38.7 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.6 12.8 12.8 2.7 7.9 12.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 9.9 1.7 0.0 6.4 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 658 79 250 373 210 113 1011 220 157 601 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 658 79 250 373 210 113 1011 220 157 601 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 715 86 272 405 228 123 1099 239 171 653 92 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 140 863 385 358 953 425 157 1603 498 210 1557 217 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4530 631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 715 86 272 405 228 123 1099 239 171 489 256 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1757 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 15.5 3.5 6.2 7.6 10.0 5.5 15.3 9.9 7.6 8.9 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 15.5 3.5 6.2 7.6 10.0 5.5 15.3 9.9 7.6 8.9 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 140 863 385 358 953 425 157 1603 498 210 1170 604 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.83 0.22 0.76 0.43 0.54 0.79 0.69 0.48 0.82 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 985 439 447 953 425 281 1603 498 296 1170 604 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.7 29.1 24.6 35.4 24.5 25.4 36.3 24.3 22.5 35.0 20.4 20.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 5.4 0.3 5.8 0.3 1.3 8.4 2.4 3.3 11.3 1.1 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 7.0 1.3 2.8 3.2 3.8 2.7 6.2 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 34.5 24.9 41.2 24.9 26.7 44.6 26.8 25.8 46.3 21.5 22.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 910 905 1461 916 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 30.2 28.1 26.4 Approach LOS C C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 30.0 12.9 24.2 11.6 32.4 10.9 26.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 25.5 10.5 22.5 12.8 26.2 12.1 20.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 9.6 17.3 8.2 17.5 7.5 11.1 6.9 12.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 5.0 0.2 2.2 0.1 4.3 0.1 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 1 21 0 1 0 56 46 2 0 19 39 Future Vol, veh/h 43 1 21 0 1 0 56 46 2 0 19 39 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 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 47 1 23 0 1 0 61 50 2 0 21 42 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 216 216 42 227 236 51 63 0 0 52 0 0 Stage 1 42 42 - 173 173 - - - - - - - Stage 2 174 174 - 54 63 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 740 682 1029 728 665 1017 1540 - - 1554 - - Stage1 972 860 - 829 756 - - - Stage 2 828 755 - 958 842 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 716 654 1029 689 638 1017 1540 - - 1554 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 716 654 - 689 638 - - - Stage 1 932 860 - 795 725 - - - - - - - Stage 2 793 724 936 842 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 10.7 4 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1540 793 638 1554 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.089 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - 10 10.7 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 1424 754 32 0 60 Future Vol, veh/h 32 1424 754 32 0 60 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 35 1548 820 35 0 65 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 855 0 0 428 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 460 - - - 0 492 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 460 - - 492 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 13.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 460 - - - 492 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 - - - 0.133 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 - - - 13.4 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.5 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 531 748 201 311 414 108 188 723 341 88 482 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 531 748 201 311 414 108 188 723 341 88 482 190 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 577 813 0 338 450 117 204 786 371 96 524 207 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 677 967 421 703 314 287 1144 510 123 1093 488 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.27 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 577 813 0 338 450 117 204 786 371 96 524 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 18.0 0.0 8.0 9.7 5.3 4.8 16.1 17.3 4.4 10.0 8.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 18.0 0.0 8.0 9.7 5.3 4.8 16.1 17.3 4.4 10.0 8.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 967 421 703 314 287 1144 510 123 1093 488 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.84 0.80 0.64 0.37 0.71 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.48 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 806 1101 480 765 341 418 1144 510 162 1093 488 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 28.7 0.0 35.7 30.8 29.0 37.3 24.7 25.1 38.3 23.5 23.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 5.4 0.0 8.6 1.6 0.7 3.2 3.4 8.8 16.3 1.5 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 8.1 0.0 3.8 4.2 2.0 2.1 7.0 7.5 2.5 4.3 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.0 34.1 0.0 44.3 32.4 29.8 40.6 28.1 33.9 54.6 25.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS D C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1390 A 905 1361 827 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 36.5 31.5 28.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 31.4 14.7 27.2 11.4 30.2 20.9 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.6 26.9 11.6 25.9 10.1 24.4 19.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.4 19.3 10.0 20.0 6.8 12.0 15.5 11.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 4.0 0.2 2.7 0.2 3.4 0.9 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm no build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: France Ave & 65th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir t r ) tt ) t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 139 84 108 56 100 392 37 1182 84 91 748 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 139 84 108 56 100 392 37 1182 84 91 748 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 91 117 61 109 0 40 1285 0 99 813 35 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 315 155 200 125 189 479 2731 376 2799 120 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.53 0.00 0.06 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1284 743 955 262 904 1585 1781 5274 0 1781 5020 216 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 0 208 170 0 0 40 1285 0 99 551 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1284 0 1698 1166 0 1585 1781 1702 0 1781 1702 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 7.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.9 0.0 1.6 5.9 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.9 0.0 7.7 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 10.9 0.0 1.6 5.9 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 0 355 314 0 479 2731 376 1898 1021 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.59 0.54 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.26 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 647 0 795 714 0 546 2731 510 1898 1021 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 24.7 25.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 10.0 0.0 7.1 8.1 8.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 0.0 3.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.1 0.0 26.3 27.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 10.6 0.0 7.5 8.5 8.8 LnGrp LOS C A C C A A B A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 359 170 A 1325 A 947 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 27.0 10.5 8.5 Approach LOS C C B A Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 41.6 19.0 7.2 43.2 19.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 34.5 32.5 5.3 38.7 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.6 12.9 12.9 2.7 8.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 9.9 1.7 0.0 6.4 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: France Ave & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r ) ttt r ) tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 658 79 254 375 210 113 1011 222 157 601 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 658 79 254 375 210 113 1011 222 157 601 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 715 86 276 408 228 123 1099 241 171 653 92 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 140 863 385 362 956 426 157 1601 497 210 1555 217 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 4530 631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 715 86 276 408 228 123 1099 241 171 489 256 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1757 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 15.5 3.5 6.3 7.7 10.0 5.5 15.3 10.0 7.6 9.0 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 15.5 3.5 6.3 7.7 10.0 5.5 15.3 10.0 7.6 9.0 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 140 863 385 362 956 426 157 1601 497 210 1168 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.83 0.22 0.76 0.43 0.53 0.79 0.69 0.48 0.82 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 983 438 446 956 426 280 1601 497 296 1168 603 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.8 29.2 24.7 35.4 24.6 25.4 36.3 24.4 22.6 35.0 20.5 20.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 5.4 0.3 6.1 0.3 1.3 8.4 2.4 3.4 11.3 1.1 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 7.0 1.3 2.9 3.2 3.8 2.7 6.3 4.0 3.9 3.6 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.8 34.6 24.9 41.5 24.9 26.7 44.7 26.8 26.0 46.4 21.6 22.7 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 910 912 1463 916 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.0 30.4 28.2 26.5 Approach LOS D C C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 30.0 13.0 24.2 11.7 32.4 10.9 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 25.5 10.5 22.5 12.8 26.2 12.1 20.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 9.6 17.3 8.3 17.5 7.5 11.1 6.9 12.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2 5.0 0.2 2.2 0.1 4.3 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8 HCM 6th LOS C U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 1: Barrie Road & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 1 44 0 1 0 73 46 2 0 19 39 Future Vol, veh/h 43 1 44 0 1 0 73 46 2 0 19 39 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 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 47 1 48 0 1 0 79 50 2 0 21 42 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 252 252 42 276 272 51 63 0 0 52 0 0 Stage 1 42 42 - 209 209 - - - - - - - Stage 2 210 210 - 67 63 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 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 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 701 651 1029 676 635 1017 1540 - - 1554 - - Stage1 972 860 - 793 729 - - - Stage 2 792 728 - 943 842 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 672 616 1029 618 601 1017 1540 - - 1554 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 672 616 - 618 601 - - - Stage 1 920 860 - 751 690 - - Stage 2 749 689 898 842 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 11 4.5 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1540 812 601 1554 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.118 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10 11 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.4 0 0 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 9: 66th Street & Barrie Road 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt if Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 1424 754 36 0 100 Future Vol, veh/h 39 1424 754 36 0 100 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 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 42 1548 820 39 0 109 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 859 0 0 430 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 458 - - - 0 490 Stage 1 - 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 458 - - 490 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 458 - - - 490 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 - - - 0.222 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 - - - 14.4 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.8 U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: York Avenue & 66th Street 1I09/15/2021 -11 --1, 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 532 752 202 311 416 108 189 723 341 88 482 191 Future Volume (veh/h) 532 752 202 311 416 108 189 723 341 88 482 191 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 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 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 578 817 0 338 452 117 205 786 371 96 524 208 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 678 970 420 705 314 288 1142 510 123 1091 487 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.27 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 578 817 0 338 452 117 205 786 371 96 524 208 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 18.2 0.0 8.0 9.8 5.3 4.8 16.1 17.4 4.4 10.0 8.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 18.2 0.0 8.0 9.8 5.3 4.8 16.1 17.4 4.4 10.0 8.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 970 420 705 314 288 1142 510 123 1091 487 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.84 0.80 0.64 0.37 0.71 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.48 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 805 1100 479 764 341 417 1142 510 162 1091 487 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 28.7 0.0 35.8 30.8 29.0 37.4 24.7 25.2 38.3 23.6 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 5.5 0.0 8.6 1.6 0.7 3.2 3.4 8.8 16.4 1.5 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 8.2 0.0 3.8 4.2 2.1 2.1 7.0 7.5 2.5 4.3 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.1 34.2 0.0 44.4 32.4 29.8 40.6 28.1 34.0 54.7 25.1 25.9 LnGrp LOS D C D C C D C C D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1395 A 907 1362 828 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.7 36.5 31.6 28.7 Approach LOS D D C C Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 31.4 14.7 27.3 11.5 30.2 20.9 21.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.6 26.9 11.6 25.9 10.1 24.4 19.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.4 19.4 10.0 20.2 6.8 12.0 15.5 11.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.9 0.2 2.7 0.2 3.4 0.9 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 14: access & 65th Street 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 69 4 8 105 9 20 Future Vol, veh/h 69 4 8 105 9 20 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 75 4 9 114 10 22 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 79 0 209 77 Stage 1 - - - - 77 - Stage 2 - - - - 132 - 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 - - 1519 - 779 984 Stage 1 - - - - 946 - Stage 2 - - - - 894 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1519 - 774 984 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 774 - Stage 1 - - - - 946 - Stage 2 - - - 889 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 908 - - 1519 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 17: Barrie Road & access 09/15/2021 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 20 8 112 60 3 Future Vol, veh/h 9 20 8 112 60 3 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 10 22 9 122 65 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 207 67 68 0 0 Stage 1 67 - - - - - Stage 2 140 - - - 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 781 997 1533 - - - Stage 1 956 - - Stage 2 887 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 776 997 1533 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 776 - - Stage 1 950 - - - - - Stage 2 887 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1533 - 916 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.034 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - U:\227704227\technical\227704227 6500 Barrie Road\synchro\2023 pm build.syn Synchro 10 Report Page 1 r L % If I� t 6 14 F W 0 _n N ca Q -�-, ^�' 1.� N Q 1 • /' t i fICA �t • s- cm ra. l O ro ri O Q W?v?� a f,1 _ — m uz n m D n NR nm Y LOmm H Q mp °C oz os� _ J 0y0 ~ 5 n OQ m D p F /� co I m S p m l Y r �.rr l Y m a Li n .J tv [� m S N r , tv 2 m m 5 v x p g ti n Q 'rW ti n Q y 0 4 > r N s O a v s N -mi n H Q S m Q S cr O O n @ O m @9 m n m N n c� S O= Q H} p T H m m 0 cc Q S m / Q S Q M S m CO n m n Q^ n Q m Q 5 v = M N F Q N— n` Q m S m H Q Cv N S ~ —Ll S w S ro N N ru (o y ru W W ruIX1 � 0 C)W C r" t" �I Q O i^ p n n aA < d > > w F M ru S m m c m Q a 0 F2 C7 rr =, m LU ru r Q Q 5 n` H e m S Q m Q_ In co = Q u- c N > m < S ~ m r N p CO �_ cc O ` H O N r m T < 1 C O rT O N O 7 H m N r a n ¢ F 7) n OZ c In g F S O S _ r N ru c N 4 t O C 00 rD r O O X L-Ii LA N m X In O S H S (� s m m N � X F- n m s H O S N CIR n O S m m X H ON OV J 4 m � � X X j m t- m QFQ-- Q R O O s Q cr a S p ocz m� N R S m m m Q � M S N iJ N N n N N N N O t--I '--I in W 4 ru ru t--I 1 O t--I vl W H N Q N m p n n � N N N N Cr Cr Cr m m 2 m Q S >> = j Q S j p p U- U- U- U- m j Q S (J [r H H Q m S ~ m N< m m } Q S N N N O H Q Q S ~ a S 5 O N H N III > In p m O In S O p S H p_ O � S p N S N 8 O m oz m m H 4 � ' f, ■ W;y It I a �j E. �,FFr Myl io I Ir is v Y a , { L] •'0 n r ri r Nt r _N � .�. ' R . Now ` loll jl ( 7r t7 .4 t 1 i 1 I1 Y c-D c N ^�' 1.� N a A V id •tee of N N � .u�ry xx Q Q mtn 2? N _ � 7n Q= m m =05 .,... •, (ID r n H ' r=r meD xr-ram,., ��i N A _ 0 0_ cr 10 IAY y. cr cr N � `I VOL „ 0 O >Ev 00 m 5 N F rz I x S1 � - 1 1 N A. y .. r rr 0 * r vn ` zz 0 ' -4%�Omrffl (o a w�- A.�,N tN•• r w _ 00 i • tr On A7C m _ .L 2 3VA 23X313X / • 02 N 5mo0oCcr /� ac n m r n Q H5�5n o mD 0 o ng Q o T m n J .NT_pQ5 a ^ a cr l J I',"I S ry Q m p� �l Ad FAO V !a k ob w7ir'�'4mml bArA 4 n W CD ca �'' N `^ I�i � Q t N ri pp N m G0 oC F5 oz oz ~ 5m 5 n o (z FM rr m s ;^%rroQ� a n m S Q m pz s N n�� >Q� 0 m m � S N W O S LO Q y 1 6A l CD W 0 T S N � Q N r^�'' ILL � Q �Q W a s 0 cr ru Qua mQ fV mA4 Q� Q om% >X � N n n Aj OrD o a W�ov� a n m Q n m m oz n 5 H H Q p oz m 0SN J ay 5 1 5 ¢ m o co I } O O m L'i ni NT('m s a o n J �� N yM tr IT CQ Q Q H cr n m S N Q m OZ m > m Lol tr Q 5 m m w tr Q 5 ti 4�u �-I Q 5 2 n F 0 I c e 3 WE r _o N CQ MIME% Q N D CT � Q `n c a c n `n F- N a F n m 1 m 2 ¢c S4 m Q N N uo T 2 m aC �S S C m` N FEE m H O 5 2 m ¢ S m 2 m S m 2 m F IT S m a 0 c 7 2 m v S m 2 m a ¢ S U- m n N 02 ro Co 5 m co Q m S a mD � 0sN = Jam'*Q O Q /~ 5 T 5 nC) Q m D H � O .y iu l Y L O lj m 5 o m 9 O rr T o a6� J m 5 S r T 00 ¢ ¢ T N n m S N Q T p� m Q N m 1 m L r 5 C) W N c ^�' 1.� N Q ;�� ♦ .� At n�.rrni, r 1 'L 1 i r • '.i .. �. a, 41 n O o op N m o0 oC =vo» ~ 5 m 5 n f�Hrr m s 5 1150,111111111 rr pQ � cr n m S Q m p� a N n i M Q D Q � 0 T m 0 S N W s a o Q y :J �J 1 •1, I\ , CCZ r' (00 m � y Q N N it 0 N MIME% Q E"% N f 1 Y I I I" I I I II � I I II� II III O o W= v ri co a m a �R 2 m OCZ C) m 7 m < CZD J r Q v O o N� J ®y 0 ~ 5m 5 n a moo O o ni H T ni m o a o n S �-1 T pQ F� ¢ a — cr n m S N Q m p� 5 O H 2 m N H cr m OC N m n H m m IT Q OC G �O rU H 2 N H Q m m H m v m Q 0,A� 14 c-D _o N c Q ^�� 1.� N m Q a 5 m I n O 1 O OCZ LA n O� N 5ma,oz W N ra mn m D n ccQ i n i m > Q= S Q Q Q O S H 5 m 5 o moo o T m g < Li n J . T M s y or n m S N Q m p� 5 D rr n D OCZ 0 N F— O 5 m I. :�':I' � LEI : : : \: •� :�:0. • : 'I: I� :.. > L L ar to 00: .p. N. ell `•OZ ` ak ----=oZ==iT-::: . : . �I Ivy m r I' .:.A ' i U a Mjl. '•. •' . `. ��Y :1• : 1 : : , jl �ni:: • • ,1LL00 ODE. ' ,—. _:�� t. I : * * * * ' 'N': < :a.p : : oo :::�:::::::::::::: .... m m U .. .�' N . h .:. .. . . LL / * ( ~ +p�^ - - �v ^ � J B9 £98=�1 9S £B �lp x i 5l'£98=ft7 : ' : ' : 0 ate.;,• . ft, N a L 4 3 w 0 CL zct w CO LU Ix LU Ca Z: ta, p-- bf: LU . . . . Lij. - : ij : Fz Ix CO C/) I C/)l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . - - . - . - . . 2 Z. *-*-*-l* . . . M* w . . � - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lu - - .-.- . . . . . . . . . . . �.w toT .... .. ... z........ W:o Z.U) Z 0: .................. . .. . ..... -Z:LLI: Z-.. LJ4- Fn :U): W In. Z. LU . . . . . . . . . . 0. w- a Z Lu < M > cl LLJ U) 0 LLJ < Lu 0 z LLJ U) C) z z > 0 z > 0 Cl) -D zi < t 401 co I. .��. w ■ ('� Z I. .I . 010 I. .I• .� � 3-3-33-3-3-3-3-333333-3- �` 3�3� �� \ 3 3�3� �3 • cwc w x L �, .'.'.'.'. Iv') I' co . . ' �L.� . . :�.:.:.:.:.....:w. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.'.'. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. OC) x ........ y I " ..... I :':':': :':'.'. :': : .:.�............... :::::::::: " :`' rwa'V o nW-�Uz cW )w wZ w n OUapZ0 CO W �pawQ owwQH J Wo0U=0 Uz OW (If W wWF�W ZZ�Q 0U) W �pUcnQ w�wr =-1 Qr-�w o a a� � -2 Z0awp�p OwZ F- a� a Z Q Q J w 0 w a ww o 2Of 1E =w WQ OLLJaZpO w O W O n J Z }0 n W o � Of WWO WM0w�WE > �H }Q W W )� LLJo n �j U U)Un Q n W nQ Cn n n W UQW CO W Q O Q Of < QW0Z0 W W 0Y W W Zw 2 LU Q aLLJ a = LU p LL W W Q W W W of W W W Q J~Q W 2JW a2H~x J aW OWH Q wZ JHo po -a O ¢ m0 WHUwH a~QUW HH - n-HHJ o cl - a } m o 2LU Q of of Of o W} O w Z U) �Un000Za0-<L) W W U O x W Un W-i awaLLU F o W O W O W of W H W 0W W W SQ O m J3: W U x W apaUaoa0aZwaaa000ZCoa 2 W 0Un Q ri v Lci co of o z C° L U O C) w� Qaa H Q z a Ow z w O H a Y� H W Z W W W W Q CO 0W Of zaL Dui wZoaan a J p az Ju W ~ �� w } 2 ~� oJ~ LLI Q z2 a Q 00 QY W O w z O �afr p Q O= UW Of�CDcQ �0 a n a �0 =Ofa� z ofco �nQ �O za ~0�� i) wO �O z ?a z Z z LU O� O O W 21= LLI LU pH} UJ a D(nQF p a wz gC� =J W } O O O w< Q Z oLL Qa z0U W 0co W01 Y W 2Y W a C6Up F o 0 o > p "—' a== S H} U Q Z z o o Q 0 � of 0 0 F U J Z 2 v) Z W p Q w O m Z�� a' Of a�� z p2QQ � Z Of �Q<Y J} QLU z Oawr W HQU) O n UO U�w� 2 Q C7 0 w~zQ Un Q o a)o J m W J Cn 2 Z m aQ(j Un Z Z oW H p <Y 3:of W ~J w QU Un ZQ Q Zo p� z��Q w>ow � ¢QJ U �� Un U > z¢o LY ¢Z 2 000U J co C:j W OQ�� w 0)�J Lu LU �aU z0 Q w Z z Sxow 0 L�U/ � a 0 a Qzc2no F- w z v Un �- Q ~ Via- p UU)p O- 0cnw � z Ocn ?> Z J Q LL a Q U J Z LU OFH0 W o pZ0zZHp Z CnLU W Q a�0p Om UZ WW F ZS n W W �W wa wU Q>waz o0ZCn a J �Z x �z> W z m �Qz<z Zo ao JHZZ ~Z00 U) -i 0- pOp aaFna-o z �z0 0 zL ZUa � z �0Z0OfzQ w O��o z U�= 0o�O0 C) 0 O <� Q Qwn W UpF�) LLI W OVwa CY�Z W Q n2 Jm� oapa i a2O UZ}w a aLp zQ[Y OO� Z LU aa �O zF� �aQQn L coZ0 �Z<LL U Co wZ C) �aa oLL QJzQU) �= O WQ0Of5 <�a Of zQQ U W� CZJ zQ wpz J vN � n n z Y 0 w} 0 W W W J 0 p OcoW LL WU) LL Q Z UW z O� oL1Lu j� Op Q Wp p Qo LLI U LU 0W W Z�Jwp n W Q2 W 00w LWp~aw �U0L0COn>zc)QaW =�OF-Z Q0 W H2H J= Cn cf) Z m_o�Z N W W a'm�02 W~QZOo n W 0aW UF 70 W LLJ nO aoo Q 0zz�wwmpZ0 Irf�mO ZQLLI OW �QO W 0 C7�CY �pQ Z 2� �H QQ 0Z z� On Jz -~_=pUOZ JJ� W LwnnnUpQQQJQ a aJ 0 p~o W Of d LLJ LU O Q 2 z ZZ Of W o O�Jna ?U Z Q W 0 JJ O am 0 0 0 Q QQ����pQ2Qww O LLJ LZ Z O W w p 0 LL U w z z z z v 0 v 0 w z z z z m LL= LL w w Z m = a O? O H�UQU (n Of cn HcnQw 2---- 0�������.0mJ L1J H-CV m 4 6 6r- .0 o-, � 0 �' 22Q HHU J2 QUn / % 8 §qE o I v �cp - a o a. vo .mom o. dDA .6tj L 0 Nz� n Qv ro o q(D < C1 N > v L U A o cn�c D ♦_v L 4 � � �zA / o I_ O- a Vn � I U Y � U M I co X 3. 3�9T�3T-.3. . . . . . . . . 00*0 I'.'.'.'.'.'.n.;.:.;.:. ............... a. J . • . . . . . . ... ............... ............. .�. Q X . . Q I .�..'. IL .F^. ' . I .. . . U:O:�:':':':':':' c_ cn zz z w U) J U J' d 0:w :Q: . :W: Q.M n z z w � U) J �Uz0000 W �owQCnQ W z�mz Jw0�ZOF-- Z W Owrw���ZQU` v�wc Z� JQazww —� >—a�>wQcnQ w <�- w cn W O W Um aC7amo CO Q <w a—Jw-ozOD=cnogUQwpw wcnzwwwcn�,n���wz_pz- Q W COm J W U H a' a' - Cn a' - a' w CO Q �HUa W C7 aaJ 2 -x a0a W mH-- wOZ W m a p O a a H Q H Q Z H a H H H H H H H H H Z Q Q �_ W a o F ~Of - ~ w Z 2 W a' Q W p Z 2 H CO CO (n 2 0 2 2 a W 2 2 2 W Q W U p a ZU) LLJ W Z O� Cn J ZZ C) -F- W a}Q2 W W �>�F�0)=) [If W Hp Cn LU C) O Q }U Cn W o Cn Cn� Cn a CnW � Cn-Cn U Cn Q Cn W CnQ Cn Cn Cn W UQF- m W CO W Q Q W Z W W Of LLJ w a' W w W C7 � p w Q W Q W a W W W a' Z w w w a Q J= Z = w m� J W z � �~ 2 J W H� W p~ J H Z p W H U H} H O H~ ¢ H H H J m p w Q 0 H~ Q U W a W O U) Q L >-i c=i� ~ m— m U a— Z— W— z— U)—} a--- m a a U a— a J LU w>- O� z w w Cr U 0= w U) w-i F- o w O w O w a w F- w¢ w w w O w O o � w U== w Q F- cn U Q o z a a Q U H a w a LL U W a m a 0 a o a p a Z w a a aZ W M F- 0 W ri v Lci co ai o z C° L U O C) w� Qaa F- a w F a z Ow z O w� H W w Z W w w w QQJ mF- Cn0 J CJ ~ 2 z oaac" zaw� z Dui ww J a J m az J w a W Q~ } 2 � ?) Q z a Z 0 (n M~ w z LLI p O a Q U m a= W in LU O z CD� H a fr 0 Q � W = Q w � �0 =� Of a J = 0 H H 00 a cn a a z o z a- ir Ow o?a� oOUz wZ ) z O F O oawO LU OJa=�wHU o w zQ0(n<� wjQ�}az}ww FpQo woo U)U cn0cno of W UUp �oozp -aa_= Q� zip �of 0 F- x F-} v z w Q p o 0 c~)�zv (n zwoQ om zF— LU� zaR� H m=Qa � z Of �aD� J} o;� z F—<U) ' o U) �W UUo Qz U�w� LJJ w~ZQ m LL �Q� 0w x Q C9 O cn Q o cn O cn x z m cn z z H m � o z W F- J W Q U cn z Q Z oof - o x z Q w> o w a Q¢ J LU " J "' z a o a z 2 � J Cn U > � C)U) c�<�m w 0QF� w 0)WJ �av Zo Q w Z z 0 F- a o a F- w Z v cn �- Q O- � z 2=ow L�U/ Qz cxno ~ <O- o pu'o ocnw LU Ocn ?> Z J Q LL a Z Q U J Z p Q 2i H W W W O p W ~ Cr p m U F IL �wpz Z ���m Qw ZOaw Wm xzUzw ZMn W� a z w z0 0 m m z Cn w 0 J a F- Q x = �' z m a zLLJ � z z> z Q� m 0 � z m z � Z � z o w m � F- Z �� z000 W HCnZJ Ofz OfF-F- a U) m�noa-Lu m Q~Z �z pp = z Q z LU W o of z z LU p CW.0 � Z a o z m z 0 Z w Or z 0 U�=O (D C) 0O o 0 U<0Q UQ- wa<cnF mLU �cwn <wLL} co<LL a�zw¢cWnF-F- F- J�m�o v=LL az Z20Q m JZZ pa'�L.LJ}ZCn �a W JZZ=� Z}a am C) F- = Jaa� <Cna'�QQ�O J ZQa cn�O V W Co=0 �Z Ua' Z ?i aa- ZQ-H�- a' W J CnJ m Z w Q �U^ a s (] LLI O o W U Q a LU w � a Of W Z Ir Q Q a O w W� J�W 0 vNJ �Cn Cn0 Of W C)ZU W a'p W }zpw W W JOF- F-�mEOZ Z O� W Fp mQp� N a�LLJ of UQ Z�JO�p�w JuLL W 0U�LLJQz2 W O Ocj� W Q W H Q 2 a'Z w W a- =)LLI aaYU Wm �zCnz �2 �z �� LZ QpZ= Hp J 2CnCnH oN W W �00�00 U2 W ~QZ00W W ZUH Cn LLj OJ= � wz w J0o W a0zzF- W �Wj,JmomxaZa W C7pw x2 va�oo Q LL oZtz> oCD <LuC��c7woozF-aamoUo0z az_z �� 2 CnW a-i Q Q-~_=QQQJ �� (n W Q Q�ON wo Ja' W F-� Z �a'W Cn Cn U) 0a' LLJa.JQ (n 2H o of F- z w 0 d ? U Z Z w J J O J a w a Q 2 m 0 0 0 Q J O J z Z a mW Y Z H O�Jcna d Q W Op �QQQQQCnQac� F-F-F-FxQ2Q W w FZ W H = a O? O w w o o w z z z z v v F- a c~i> z z z z m = LL � �U w w co 0 z m Soma 2---- o�c�iriv�ricflr--.0m L1J 22Q Jx HUQU (n Cn F- CnQw H—C�Mv�ticor-amoi�������R— w (if F- F- U Qcn Architecture Field Office 2200 Zane Ave N I Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 501h Street To Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date September 16, 2021 Cary: At your request, we reviewed the Sketch Plan submission for the proposed Bhatti GI development at 65th and Barrie Road based on our experience working with the Greater Southdale Work Group to craft a physical vision for how their guiding principles may translate to the built environment. The resulting vision for development in the district is to create an enhanced human experience along existing major and new connector streets, with overall experience shaped via landscape setbacks, building step backs, a hierarchy of street typologies, transparency at street level, minimizing the impact of the car, and managing storm water as an amenity. The outcome of our collaborations with the Work Group is described in the urban design chapter of the Greater Southdale District Plan and resulted in the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. The project proposed is located on a smaller parcel, and while it does not completely align with the Design Experience Guidelines, we believe that the proposed project does demonstrate several positive attributes, including: • Landscaping along Barrie Road is consistent for pedestrian -oriented streets. • Outdoor public realm space is accessible to both occupants of the building and residential neighborhood to the north. • Parking below grade and on grade parking has been screened from view from both W 65th Street and Barrie Road. Our specific comments on the proposed plan are as follows: Building Orientation and Parking Access: The Guideline diagrams illustrate primary intersections along 65th: at France, Drew, Barrie, York, and Xerxes, all of which reinforce 65th as a major east -west street through the Medical District. It also provides for a transition between residential and healthcare -related services. The Guidelines imagine 65th as a well - traveled pedestrian street offering connections through the Medical District and on streets like Barrie Road and Drew, connections to the Southdale Center District. This proposal does not recognize 65th and Barrie Road as a primary intersection as it locates one of the two parking entries, trash pick up, exit stair etc. along nearly the entire building face at 65th. None of these offer any benefit to the public realm experience. It is our recommendation that the main Architecture Field Office entry currently shown on the southeast corner of the building be located at 65th and Barrie Road, thereby moving access to parking and building services such as trash to the south end of the building and the center of the block, particularly in light of the greater setback along Barrie Road allows for the greater screening of those elements than can be accomplished along 65th where the sidewalk is narrower and there are fewer opportunities for screening. In this scenario, the outdoor public space would also move closer to Barrie Road, stretching it along the east side of Barrie Road and facilitating greater public impact and identity. The image below simply `flips' the rendering provided in the sketch plan packet as an illustration of this concept. [Not to be intended as a final solution] Material Usage. The use of certain materials (brick and stone) are appropriate to the Medical District and are consistent with the Experience Guidelines. However, the Guidelines discourage the use of metal panel on building faces below 60' in height and facing the public realm. The current design uses metal panel as its primary building cladding above the ground floor. We would suggest metal panel could be allowed on the entire west face of the building and a portion of the south facade, with brick used on the east and north facades —which have greater impact on the public realm experience. In addition, the design uses stone as a feature element at the center of the east facade. We would encourage the use of stone in areas where it has a greater impact on the experience of pedestirans and visitors arriving at the building. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic CA 01 E9!us • 1801 M 20CP 2r • E9!us' WW 22d34 2nplecc: E do w: 10: DgCG: 9 M Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 16 September 2021 Public Hearing Comments-6500 Barrie Rd. Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Bhatti G.I. Consultant, P.A. is proposing to tear down the existing 16,032 square foot medical office building at 6500 Barrie Road, and build a new 3-story, 24,000 square foot medical office and surgery center. VISITORS CONTRIBUTORS 0 RESPONSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Registered Unverified Anonymous Registered Unverified Anonymous No Responses WEYIO WEYIO WEYIO ORDINANCE NO. 2021- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE, SETBACKS, BASEMENTS AND THE 1-FOOT RULE IIIIItil1111 CL416111014lto] 211071►I_lwe]all DJ11►16I Section 1. Sec. 36-10 Definitions is amended as follows: Building coverage means the percentage of the lot area occupied by principal and accessory buildings and structures. iReludiRg, lAoffithei-A' tatie" patoes. Impervious surface: A constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to placement. Examples include, but are not limited to, buildings, decks, rooftops, cantilevers or overhangs greater than 5', sidewalks, patios, permeable pavers, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel driveways. Setback, front street, means the shortest horizontal distance from the forward most point of a building or structure to the nearest point on the front lot line. Within the Greater Southdale District, front street setbacks shall be measured from the forward most point of a building or structure to curb per Section 36-1276. Setback, interior side yard, means the shortest horizontal distance from any part of a building or structure to the nearest point on an interior side lot line. Setback, rear yard, means the shortest horizontal distance from any part of a building or structure to the nearest point on a rear lot line. Setback, side street, means the shortest horizontal distance from any part of a building or structure to the nearest point on a side lot line that adjoins a street. Within the Greater Southdale District, side street setbacks shall be measured from the forward most point of a building or structure to curb per Section 36-1276. Section 2. Subsection 36-438 of the Edina City Code. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height Special Requirements are amended to add the following: Sec. 36-438. - Requirements for building coverage, impervious surface lot coverage, setbacks and height. The minimum requirements for building coverage, impervious surface lot coverage, setbacks, and height in the Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) are as follows: (1) Building Coverage. Lots 9,000 square feet or greater in area. Building coverage shall be not more than 25 percent for all buildings and structures. On lots with an existing conditional use, if the combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — and structures, excluding attached garages, is 1,000 square feet or greater, a conditional use permit is required. b. Lots less than 9,000 square feet in area. Building coverage shall be not more than 30 percent for all buildings and structures; provided, however, that the area occupied by all buildings and structures shall not exceed 2,250 square feet. C. Combined total area. The combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages, shall not exceed 1,000 square feet for lots used for single dwelling unit buildings. d. Building coverage shall include all principal or accessory buildings, including, but not limited to: 1. Decks des. The first 150 square feet of an unenclosed deck OF shall not be included when computing building coverage. 2. Gazebos. 3. Balconies. 4. Breezeways. 5. Porches. 2. PaF!(*ng lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessery faeoleties by Feereational net enclosed selffid walls and net (2) Impervious Surface Lot coverage. Impervious surface lot coverage shall be limited to a maximum of Fifty percent (50%). Q4 (3) Setbacks. 434 (4) Height. Section 3. Sec. 36-439. (3) (7) AND (8). Special Requirements is amended as follows: Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX (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, unless one the conditions in (8) below exist on the site. 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. (8) elevation of more than o e foot aheye the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelliRg unit buildiRg require a variance per [artiGle 11], divisiOR 3. SUE;h more Of Goonditien - nrl always meet GO dition d.:. If one of the conditions below exist on site, the one -foot requirement in (7) above could be increased to the minimum extent possible, as long as the low floor elevation is no higher than 2.5 feet above the low water elevation and the basement ceiling height is not taller than 9 fPPt_ a. The first floor elevation may he increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to a elevation of two feet abe .e the There is a 100-year flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the city's comprehensive water resource management plan; or The first -floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing and potential groundwater elevations shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by a professional civil engineer licensed under Minn. Stats. ch. 326, or a hydrologist certified by the American Institute of Hydrology. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow thorough review and approval; or c. The first -floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet the state building code, this Code or other statutory requirements. 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. Section 4. Sec. 36-467. (b) (3) - Special requirements is amended as follows: Section 5. Sec. 36-1259. — Building Coverage Computation; exclusion and inclusions are amended as follows: Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 20 dam{ Pscs 1W11cfsun zpb RS ro �4 resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Project: Edina Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Support (23271728.00) Executive Summary Barr was asked to review model -predicted flood impacts in the focal geography of the Morningside neighborhood, and to review the sensitivity of those impacts to the magnitude of imperviousness (the hard surfaces that prohibit water infiltration). For reference, the impervious area that is directly connected to the storm sewer system in the Morningside neighborhood is estimated to be about 25% of the total land area, in aggregate (Figure 1). The directly connected imperviousness is the portion of the watershed that is impervious and routes flow directly to an outlet (catch basin, pond, depression, outlet, etc.). Some prominent examples of this type of imperviousness in a low -density residential neighborhood tend to be streets, parking lots, driveways, water bodies (i.e., Weber Pond), portions of roofs with gutters and downspouts directed to impervious surfaces such as a driveway, etc. �+ ' • �" ' t+� �-� Percent Imperviousness 2011 U of M Dataset Figure 1 I r Percent Imperviousness mmmmw- High: 100 _ Low: 0 0 Edina Neighborhoods Note: Raster grid cells with 01/8 imperviousness are transparent and the background imagery is visible. _,. Imperviousness raster data set from the University of Minnesota. The Morningside neighborhood is in the northeast corner. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 2 Barr tested the sensitivity by modifying the stormwater model so that the imperviousness of the entire contributing drainage area was increased, decreased, and even lowered all the way to 0%, which reflects a pre -development condition. This sensitivity test was also completed for a range of storm events, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm) to the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm). As expected, the imperviousness sensitivity test showed that less impervious area generates less stormwater runoff and more impervious area generates more stormwater runoff. However, the magnitude of the runoff changes generated by adjusting imperviousness were not as impactful as may have been expected. For reference, in the Weber Pond subwatershed, the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm) flood level would need to be reduced by just over 4 feet in order to remove the 5 lowest homes from potential structural impacts from flood inundation. Based on Barr's imperviousness analysis, reducing or increasing impervious area by half (50%) tends to cause the peak water level to decrease or increase by up to approximately half a foot. This effect is more significant for small storm events, and less so for larger storm events. While affecting the flood level by half a foot may seem like a big gain, this change removed one impacted home at most from the flood inundation area around Weber Pond. Again, to achieve even this low level of impact, the entire contributing area (all of the Morningside neighborhood) would be required to reduce imperviousness by half (i.e., road widths are cut in half, driveway widths are cut in half, roof area cut in half and/or downspouts Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Details The sensitivity analysis focused on design storm events (NOAA Atlas 14, MSE3 temporal distribution) rather than an observed historical event(s). Modeled design storm events included the 5-year (3.59 inches), 10-year (4.29 inches), 50-year (6.39 inches), and 100-year events (7.49 inches), all 24-hour durations (i.e., for a 100-year storm event, 7.49 inches fall over a 24-hour period of time). Imperviousness parameter values were adjusted relative to "base case" values from the stormwater model. In general, the "base case" imperviousness parameter values were adjusted to +50%, +25%, -25%, -50%, and finally a "low" case to attempt to significantly reduce runoff. The range of values for each of the sensitivity cases is listed in Table 1. Most of the Morningside neighborhood is "low density residential"; for simplicity, only the values for this land use type is presented in Table 1. All other land use types, with varying imperviousness were similarly adjusted upward and downward for this sensitivity analysis. Table 1 Imperviousness parameter values for the sensitivity analysis Directly Connected Percent Impervious' 0%2 �13% —19% —25% —31% —38% 1) Only the value for "low density residential" is shown here, as this covers most of the model area. All land use types were similarly modified for each of the sensitivity cases (-50%, -25%, etc.) Subwatersheds in the Morningside neighborhood are shown in Figure 2. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 3 J:IiCityBoundary f ❑ Subwatersheds Figure 2 Map showing subwatershed divides in and around the Morningside neighborhood The directly connected impervious percentage tends to have an impact up to ±0.5 feet for the ±50% change in the base value. Example graphs are included that show the results for Weber Pond (MS _40, Figure 3), for the low area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue, north of West 42"d Street (MS_26, Figure 4), and for a landlocked subwatershed (MS_22) between Lynn Avenue and Crocker Avenue, south of West 42nd Street (Figure 5). To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 4 In these figures, the horizontal, maroon -dashed lines represent approximate low elevations based on structure footprints for the five lowest homes around Weber Pond. They may or may not represent actual low entry elevations of these homes. However, they give a good representation of the home elevations and how close they are to the flood levels. 870.0 869.5 869.0 868.5 c 0 a 868.0 a� w a) u 867.5 Ln Ln a5 867.0 m 866.5 a 866.0 865.5 865 0 Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_40 I I c I .0 v Z3 I '---------- U o V I Zero Percent Impervious(undeveloped) -50% -25% 0% % Change in Percent Impervious 25% 50% 75% �20%Annual Chance (5 year) 10%Annual Chance (10 year) 0 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 0 1%Annual Chance (100 year) - ---•Low Houses Figure 3 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in Weber Pond (subwatershed MS_40) for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 5 Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_26 874.0 873.0 c 872.0 0 a� w m 871.0 in Y 870.0 a� a 869.0 - U 1 U O 1 U 868.0 % I Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped) -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% % Change in Percent Impervious 20%Annual Chance (5 year) 10%Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1 % Annual Chance (100 year) ---- Low Houses Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in MS_26 for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 6 Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_22 873.5 873.0 872.5 a� w a� m 871.5 in aD m 871.0 a� a 870.5 I 870.0 ----------- U O 1 U 869.5 Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped) -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% % Change in Percent Impervious 20%Annual Chance (5 year) 10%Annual Chance (10 year) 0 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1 % Annual Chance (100 year) ---- Low Houses Figure 5 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in MS_22 (a landlocked subwatershed) for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 7 As mentioned previously, some prominent examples of directly connected imperviousness in a low - density residential neighborhood tend to be streets, parking lots, driveways, water bodies (i.e., Weber Pond), portions of roofs with gutters and downspouts directed to impervious surfaces such as a driveway, etc. To achieve a 50% decrease in this parameter, these portions of the watershed would need to decrease in area by 50%. In essence, this means driveway and street widths would be cut in half, half of the directly connected roof area would be rerouted to pervious surfaces, half of the parking spaces converted to pervious surfaces and/or routed to BMPs to offset the runoff, etc. Such changes over the entire watershed would be significant and require a coordinated effort from all parcels. This would produce a beneficial change in the peak flood level, but would generally be limited to a benefit of about half a foot or less in this neighborhood. For some homes adjacent to Weber Pond, for example, where the 100-year peak flood level is multiple feet above the suspected low entry elevations, the impacts to peak flood levels shown in Figure 3 due to changes in directly connected imperviousness do not change whether these homes are wet or dry during a large, intense storm event. The results of the sensitivity analysis change depending on the storm event that is being modeled (e.g., 5- year versus 10-year). Trends and overall magnitudes do not change substantially from what is shown in the few example figures above. Other cases of interest (different storms, different subwatersheds, etc.) can be viewed in a companion Excel spreadsheet generated for the Morningside XP-SWMM Modeling technical memorandum (Barr, March 2020). Finally, it is also important to remember that the results of the sensitivity analysis depend on the input storm itself. As described, this analysis used the NOAA Atlas 14, 24-hour design storm with a MSE3 temporal distribution. This storm is both significant in total precipitation depth and very intense in the middle part of the storm. Storms with high intensity near the beginning or near the end of the event may produce different results, as will storms with more moderate, consistent intensity. However, given that flood management within the City is currently informed by Atlas 14 storms with the MSE3 temporal distribution, this storm was used for the sensitivity analysis. resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Project: Edina Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Support (23271728.00) Executive Summary Barr was asked to review model -predicted flood impacts in the focal geography of the Morningside neighborhood to evaluate the sensitivity of those impacts to the magnitude of stormwater storage within the watershed. In particular, the focus was on underground storage methods within private property, the right-of-way, or under streets. This evaluation was conducted as a result of Task Force discussions about the potential benefits of requiring private homeowners to store stormwater on -site similar to requirements for commercial development. Barr reviewed the benefits achieved by storing the first 1-inch, 2-inches, and 3-inches of precipitation from storm events of varying size, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm; 3.59 inches) to the 1 %-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm; 7.49 inches). For the private storage evaluation (underground storage vaults under a portion of each of the 570 residential parcels), storage was assumed for every parcel within the Morningside neighborhood. Barr found that storing the first 1-inch of storms of this magnitude had a negligible impact on flood levels. Storing the first 2-inches and 3-inches showed a more significant benefit with regards to reduction in peak flood levels. Depending on the storm event, and depending on the location within in the neighborhood, the results varied anywhere from flood level decreases of a few inches to decreasing nearly a foot and a half. However, this apparent benefit comes at an initial cost of approximately $15,000 per inch of stormwater stored, per residential parcel. To store 2-inches of runoff in the entire neighborhood (-570 residential parcels) would cost approximately $17 million. In addition, while the flood levels may be lowered, the number of homes that are removed from potential impacts from flood inundation is small. For example, one home may potentially be removed from flood inundation at Weber Pond depending on the storm event. Finally, the management and maintenance of these underground stormwater storage vaults distributed throughout an entire neighborhood is expected to be complicated and unprecedented. This is all to say, this solution would provide a moderate benefit for a very high cost. Additionally, a preliminary look at the compounding effect of climate change suggests that improvements realized by implementing additional private storage may eventually be negated by climate change (i.e., increased precipitation amounts, see Appendix B on Climate Change Impacts Analysis). Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 2 Private Infrastructure Analysis Details A common example of private stormwater management infrastructure (infrastructure on a privately owned parcel), is a rainwater garden (Figure 1). Rainwater gardens are typically designed to store the first one inch of runoff generated from a storm, aimed at both reducing the volume of runoff and improving water quality downstream. Figure 1 Photo of a rainwater garden. Other examples of private infrastructure for stormwater storage can include tree trenches, cisterns, permeable pavement, and underground storage vaults. Figure 2 shows an example of an underground stormwater storage vault. To simplify our analysis, we assumed that all parcels in the Morningside neighborhood are approximately 60 feet wide (along the road), and also assumed that every parcel would have underground storage (below grade) that is 3 feet deep. Then we determined how wide the underground storage vault would need to be to contain 1 inch of runoff, 2 inches of runoff, or 4 inches of runoff. We found that underground storage vaults on every parcel in the Morningside neighborhood would need to be 5 feet wide to store 1 inch of runoff, 10 feet wide to store 2 inches of runoff, and 20 feet wide to store 4 inches of runoff. Figure 3 provides a graphic that shows the extent of underground storage needed for sample parcels in Morningside. srorage vauiT (si... Avenue Greenway, Minneapolis). .-L "-ON 2 tGG; miqG (j !LJCP 01 UILJCJ�) 10 tGGf AAIqG (5 !UCP62 O� LflLJOIJ) 50 tGGI miqG (q!UCP62 01 LflLJOtj) 210L.92G PGIOM RL9qG- bgLcGl)' cjuq f ligi f pG qGbf p !-a 9POfIf 3 tGGf Ot tG-3jnLG 2b!guz! JPG GUf!LG b!gLCGI (—eo, jouR bGL V 1192-2 rl W 6 1 p 91 f IJ 6 2fO L.WfOgf GL 2f 0 L9RG 2�01.9E6 Ex5wbI62 Y621q6Ljf19l1bLIA9f6 2fOLWM9;61. A, A. T2 jrrf miqr. (31UCP62 Ot Lnuolt) Wax wayF, Ubbl'our-V ql�L�cn�t- 2foLG 3 tccf qGcb- lGiAlp ol ;pG plocKI qwq pGiLjagplG fO Vggiu' fp!z 922nW62 MiIJE JPG 6[Jf!,16 Ot Agnp IIJ f PG 2f LGGfA&iq;p (OL IIJ fpr. LlEpf- CgU J!f LonPaplA fAAo 12-1; miqG 2gOOEG To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 5 Figure 5 shows the subwatersheds in the Morningside neighborhood. Graphs are included below that show the results and range of benefits of residential/private stormwater storage for Weber Pond (subwatershed MS_40, Figure 6), for the area along Branson between Oakdale Avenue and Grimes Avenue (subwatershed MS_48, Figure 7), and for the area along Crocker Avenue between West 42nd Street and Morningside Road (subwatershed MS_2, Figure 8). 3 M:1City, Boundary b ❑ subwatersheds P \ Figure 5 Map showing subwatershed divides in and around the Morningside neighborhood Iucp62 of Knuol{ 2fOLsq -T 0 T 5 3 8e z i 8ez'z - ----- n O � c m c. Bee — s C v 8ee'z La in 8e� r N IE 8e�'z m m Bea 0 C Q1 aes'z uv 0 ---- HOMG- #14 ---- HOMG #3 ---- HOMG #5 ---- HOmr- #7 Tg duunsl CNsuc6 (T00 X691) 5g duunsi CNsuce (20 aesl) Tog Vuunsl CNsuce (TO �z%) 50,T Vuun9i Cl19uc6 (2 A691) Cowb9LIUP fpG En6UL2 tOL fpG UG21g6UJ19l 2fOL9R6 b9LgWGJGC 9f N ,10 Iucps2 of Knuoj} 2JOLGq aoo �n m N aoo 2 rl n m > aO r 0 C :1 ..o -7 0 7 5 3 C l5, r r C n 0 c . TX yuun9l CN9uc6 (700 M91) '59 duun9l CN9uc6 (20 a691) � 70.T vuun9l Cl19uc6 (70 a691) �50g duun9l Cp9uc6 (2 %t691) Cowb9LIUE? fPG EAGUf2 tOL jP6 Ij621g6Uf19l 2fO19E?6 b9L9UJ6f6C 9f W2 ,1$ Iucp62 of 15nuoq: 2f0LGq -1 0 7 5 3 6 K3 KY2 c W K14 2 K2 K2 2 M I t TO V%junsl CNeuc6 (700 �690 5g duunsl CNsuce (20 XrgL) TOO duun9l C119uc6 (70 %"L) t50g Vuun9l CIN9uc6 (2 A691) COLUb9LIUP J)J6 En6Uf2 tOL JPG EG21g6Uf19l 2fOL9P6 b9LgWGJGC 9i w2 S To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 9 30 41 av 25 Z3 av m 20 O 15 0 L a0 L a 10 0 5 • 0 • • • Ll C $90,000 0 m m $75,000 v $60,000 L $45,000 0 U $30,000 X O L $15,000 Q a $0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inches of Runoff Stored Figure 9 Approximate cost per parcel of underground storage using varying widths of underground storage units and varying amounts of runoff stored. J-1-_LT I I In the window to the left, there are 4 _...... 1 blocks, covering just over 50 acres. This also means there are about 180 parcels in these 4 blocks. — To capture 2 inches of runoff from every parcel would cost about $5,400,000 2 inches of runoff is what is generated typically (.o..n.the.whole.) in this area - — from the 10-year storm (4.3 inches of rainfall). This would remove nearly 400,000 cubic feet of water from the system IT I T7, -TT --=— I:--- FT-7-1 (lust over 8.5 ac-ft). Figure 10 Cost breakdown for using private stormwater storage for a portion of the Morningside neighborhood. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 11 The results of Barr's private storage analysis are summarized in Table 1 below. Recall that storing 1-inch of runoff from every parcel in Morningside had a marginal benefit in general on peak flood levels. Table 1 below shows that to store 2-inches of runoff in the entire neighborhood would cost approximately $17 million. While storing 2-inches of runoff does reduce flood levels, the number of homes that are removed from potential impacts from flood inundation is small. For example, as shown in Figure 6, depending on the storm event, this level of effort may potentially remove only one home from flood inundation at Weber Pond. Table 1 Summary of costs and benefits of private stormwater storage for the whole Morningside neighborhood. Inches of Runoff Stored Cost for All Parcels to Store the Runoff Flood Level Reduction Benefit (in feet) for Weber Pond Subwatershed (MS_40) 5-yr Storm (3.59" of precip) 10-yr Storm (4.29" of precip) 50-yr Storm (6.39" of precip) 100-yr Storm (7.49" of precip) 1 inch $ 8,550,000 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 2 inches $ 17,100,000 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 3 inches $ 25,650,000 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 C:) Z M M Z N U) to < l0 f r-i c M O r-I M 00 O1 0) _ C) C) C) C) C:) N N LD 00 N C:) Lo L i 0 ` ©` \, fG:! ; ! \ )f: \[) \)/ a/� {: o 4 M v LA LA ra M a) v U U c c _N In a) a) a) L L f6 f6 Q Q a) a) Q .Q U U U U O 0 4- 4- 0 O a) a) N N V .V) a) a) qA bA ca cB L i a) a) a a Lli Lli r-I r-I 00 N N O 0 00 LO 0 rn o ri N E E O 0 0) N M r-I a) a) V) N f6 C6 L1 U U a a L L m m a) a) m m v a) c� ca U U L L 0 In Ln N M n O 0 �L �L a) a) Q Q E a .a) bzbn a) aJ a a U O i1 Q QLJ 0 Q) 3 L .L 0 a a- 0 m (1) U 0-o a L •i a o .L a L ul Ln O N O O O N Ln 00 r-I n r-I O al r-I O Q1 ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O 00 O O O 0 O O Ln 0 N N c I ri laal aienbs Q1 L L }J U lA L Ln f6 cC Q i O U � m yL O -Ile a) U QJ +J 0 p a a a a O a N ■ ■ ■ ^N W U o L N Ln N Z) O O •i o F ^L O E M o o c M O M r 0 M 4- 0 N v) (10 N v ° L a � v 0-(.0 v i U U L f6 L aI 73 U U L L Qi N Q- L d L < I o a a' I E L Ln r-i O N O 0 O N Ln 00 m c-I Ln c-I O to 0) r-� O Ln c-I O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O N O 00 l0 -ze N ri ri ;aal aaenbs O O Ln m O � � O O Ln a1 q O i > 0 � bn o O O a--+ O N a N 4- 0 00 cn O v � u O a O ^C6 (N O ry O T O 00 0 00 O O N N c-I c-I sla3aed jo juno:) 0 0 Ln Ln 0 � (3) 0 0 r-i r4 r14 I kf -J N W* YS. 11 0-01 ":T 1.0 0 0 Ln 0 m 0 r-i r,4 in pr:- 0) W 0 r-I r4 l0 4 t M O O u) I_f) O r-i a) O O r1 N N i t�A f� N U f6 a--+ N N N t]A L. Qi O U tko 0 N a-•+ C N ai i ai OC o6 m i lD m U N 0) -0 -0 -0 0 m m m N U O cn cn U N tB 7 Q C C C1 E cn -0 4) O O -0-0 X C L O L_ O X r i L Q � L Q 0- _ +r C U v •� U s V N c CLm,E � 5 •E � C O.d N Q M "r O O O U C O 3 r — cn cn � y M (n � _ .� ys.+ 0) U N U C L. O O L i �_ �_ O N Q E O E O C Q 70 a.+ L C O m O �, Ui O m c >, 07 L O m Q _ C o.� U m N — U - C C L C N U � .0 — U m O — - �_ N cQ cn O -0 E L N m = O U O O 0) > i .0m cl)M O N N > O N N >4)0 � N L a) O O •—Q. U Q U C (a 7 C C 4)m C O V U cn V O 70 nr, C) m (1) O O L O C (6 O L ca M y L- U -0 4% C N M C (0 t — O O L c O U U O C ++ -0 L- M .i U O t!) d > L m 0) w m s C� In OU M w- (0 ) —W jE U .O L U) 0 L E � cn L M> o C) a� ca ° m M s 3 c H o L 0 _ O p s CD N CO U i 0) 4- p � p� N m O CL i O M "0 o � r > +� cm -0 > N >+ U O � O +s+ Q �; M > O to N n n ycn a OV dV °' � Z � aE t� N °L E � E� �_ p C7 m m aV Q Z a 0 p U O L O u J U 6 .E cn 0)m CV C6 4 6 mU) _0 m U O N C O U U cn L_ O C O U O U O U N Z5 U cn O CO Q O C N Y C ca U 0 cn Q C QL C ca cn O CM C Y L�� O uj U O U N (a O O � U N N =3 C � cn C N � _ U) U 0 O U cn C � o CD N N U O O 0. O cn cn E O U N N c0 C U O L(� c0 U cn cn Q O O cn C U) Q O O cn O U C a� C mWJ L N M 4 L6 mom I Edo Ia ion ■..��i il�M��:��.i <k! z��-�� #;• ilra.:L070�� T�=is1.Mr���. :. ���� ■fir; ¢ I�r r ��i 1 MaL 6 6�'s�� Il. # �■ .l it t� � i� ■ �'.Fvk •w'*■w�-yam* wy �.w� i' ��. r * ��� ■, r � y F1' ■ rs? Lill j ti■ ■,i� F w w i. ■a w w l ` ,■mom I � y 1Ff. a i 'i MURA �+ r�r■fir■ �r � � a�B: �' � � ..- �,. !��' �' s �r-�� '1► F s� iF lb ■ t ■ R� .. i �.1 R tr. OF *+� r. * I � ■',�. Id�' ■ `yam `y * IL A=IN ON! ir I4 �:. 1 1 M . Survey of Cities Single -dwelling unit residential standards Coverage and impervious maximums Metro Cities Apple Vallev Zoning R-5 R-2 R-3 FAR None None None Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface None None None Blaine Zoning R-1 R-1 A R-1 AA Max. building None None None coverage Max. impervious None None None surface Bloominqton Zoning R-1 RS-1 Max. building None None coverage Max. impervious 35% 35% surface Burnsville Zoning R-1 Max. building None coverage Max. impervious None surface Eagan Zoning R-1 R-1 S Max. building 20% 25% coverage Max. impervious None None surface 25% for shoreline 25% for shoreline Eden Prairie Zoning R1-22 R1-13.5 R1-9.5 Max. building None None None coverage Max. Impervious None None None surface 30% for 30% for 30% for shoreline shoreline shoreline Edina Zoning R-1 Max. building 25% coverage 30% if lot is less than 9,000 square feet Max. Impervious None surface Hopkins Zoning R-1 A R-1 B R-1 c FAR None None None Max. building 35% 35% 35% coverage Max. None None None Impervious surface Lakeville Zoning IRS-1 IRS-2 IRS-3 RS-4 Max. building None None None None coverage Max. impervious None None None None surface Maple Grove Zoning R-1 R-2 R-213 Max. building None None None coverage Max. impervious None None None surface Minneapolis Zoning R-1 R-2 R-3 Max. building 45% 45% 45% coverage Max. impervious 60% 60% 60% surface Minnetonka Zoning R-1 Max. building None coverage Max. Impervious None surface 30% Impervious within 150 ft of lake 75% impervious within 1000 ft of lake New Briqhton Zoning R-1 Max. building 30% coverage Max. Impervious 50% surface Plymouth Zoning RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 Max. building 30% 30% 35% coverage Max. impervious None None None surface 25% within 1000 ft 25% within 1000 ft 25% within 1000 ft of water body of water body of water body St. Louis Park Zoning R-1 R-2 Max. building 35% 35% coverage Max. impervious None None surface Wayzata Zoning R-3A R-2A R-2 Max. building 30% 20% 20% coverage Max. impervious None None None surface Woodbury Zoning R-4 Max. building 35% coverage Max. impervious None surface c 'y H O •E a E 0 O CL V a C L A� 3li O � -N C LA a E Q E N O cV VN ai ++ C V C O - CL 4 4J C Q. CL E m C f6 H u O--------------------- vi C O = Q. R + th L o ■.. �n ,A IA a m a N m N > v m J L r N +d N O 4 d {A £ v fD fp m N Q. C •• o a m a 4, o C s V1 M � M++ in L C O C �+ a E u Q E u C m 0 > O C Q. (uavi _ M tw C L . IL �Q v) U 0 a u � i V > N > u m V m Y y .L (u a+ •. o > � 0 3 ■--------------------- - CL C 0 L Q' � CC 0 L C ■ M O to 4 o E OP to a o 0 v t0 u • • 00 ►� .. W • N 0 tr: mo a m z +d d ■ ■ a ° -tea 0 Q V�f 4J Y 41 +� E N s J CL U , 4+ C �n d E 1n 0 +' 0 d ' 0 � Q. E .� w �cc(Uu8 = 4' E 3 W 1 ar ar c1 U CL 0 m � CC U� H H 0 0 3 0 CCm i i i i m _ r t .a f�O IA L c w m hQ bA m J c (A a; m = N C O y N d Q O -_ mo E U H LL -------------------------- .. 3 -0 C Y '> dp (6 Q ^ C O (Ij am Nf L) ROcu L J k Q oiS 41 V) lC 0 m C O _ C 'U fa O 3 a o NU C u � E U C E J, u �..1 to Y. tiw tic 4! C 4— C Gl C }r y u C L ■ --------------------------- "O v L a, — -0 Q L > M -0 C 3 N O 7 C O r ca FA — . C o 3 41 ' W :2- Q. -0 ■ •• - 3 n toy a� 0 s N u t >- ri • T tw t G S H V)� N H v E - C > '0 " ^ >, O 04 ■ L Uj 0 + 3 a 0 C -0 -0 `l h 0 a d i1 S Q. -0 C i a) s C c ' cu � V) V U OOA 41 E E-to 0 d O 0 GOi E _ v w c -p g C E O 0 v 10 0 a + f9 -0 7 L 0 +r a o E oaGJ s L °J I= a u c > H 41 E +d 0 m E m Y 0 i+ L OA v— N > 41 c M O avi o +d m O 0 ri N O N v fu Q D Q E V V V V O O O O a a a a ai F m 0 O N O 0 y N v a O ' tio E • m O C H V W ' ---------------------- � C — O E s .� 1 In +' E 06 o E a o = U N L- r CA • %n C � L i 1 M Q m J � a 0 s m+� m o c o E a E +� m s O � U � E N E v m O L to U � E � v '� E C i >_ V N � O � • ♦ 0 V a .� IA In L_ 0 L a d L y t O V L • tw -IO O O C U m O a) {A • • • '6 O 3 ++ a 07 w O ? � • � v m � w c v cn � � u E CA E h00 } (U� � • O a OCL 'F 7 L u O m C m u m F A 3 ►� (A° 3 a 3 °' GJ > L O L '^ E 7 Q. Q a m E U a 3 4p H (A C y 'i E M o L of E 1 S u 3 C O d ' oc it a, E V L it O a M O L N > ~wo w a v c fA 0 0 0 r -W m fA d d d E 7 .a w H to to OA to am_+ X 3 0 3 " m ++ O O O O a — w c= m fA u a a a ai � N O y N N a O I E • O C H V w ' --------------------- G! C s O +' .- V) O c a m 3 E L 0 m u N 41 r C 'O • O) 'O 1 C v O O m m c • N u L O 1 ++ O ++ .. r =c O c m E E m uu O a, E N a, •U E � C m = � > U 4A c IA cu • � V N i ------------------- ar o to I �7 L U y m N L' a t v _ v) Q. v 4, -O w GJ bD a L ++ O m a L } O O •L 4A O • m C Y N o s m V) • LL i R m ++ H O C } N = O V) .� E O O coo C E o L U a >' ++ N i C v E .2= CL O i m w .w E a L C C N V 0 o m W to - - E E CU p v Ou Q c a +� N a) ai O m L OC +' M-0 M c c 3 or w O a E o 0) 15 3 e cC a V ++ 0 I- 'mN A 1A O O +_ O u �+ .a IA O V1 .0 5 m N J 00 O 0 ri N O N v fu Q D O m fl. E O ZA � E 0 /to to to t o o o o Q a a a a k m 0 . m E u LU ------------- aj \ E Z � 2�\ 2 § § /tom .c: 2 k ' 0 k a ------------- . ' $ § E ' 0 k g E \ m _ ■ m E E & S ] o � f � \ k E 0 o \ t u r Q 0 ■ ------------ \ tw � cr k % -0§ IAt C a > ■ ° 2 o m £ 0 / -0 C 2 a 2 - 2 $ R \ 0 M CL • - .- ■ E _ 2 \0 § m j aj 0 - = � o k ° ■ CA k§_£\ a 0 2 .0 2 k } / 1 / $ . $ 2 % A f § . 2 0 _ CL 0. / k 0 0 a a ± 4- 0. U ■ � f_ U r E d E E c c= E o 0 f$ k - § (A \r= 2 = w u / 2■ IV�� e 5 41 E 2 2 3 0= k§� U U c K t a m) 2 �§ = §■ 0 0 0 CL t (U t / k/ 2\ > % M 0 0 0 0 -( 7� I-LL. 2AA VA O a a a a f \ w / k # D $ ig CL E / 00 O 0 ri N O N v a-+ Q D 0) CL E C) H Staff Support —Staff Liaison Completes. List all staff support needed to complete this initiative. Include the hours and responsibilities. Select all groups needed. Le. IT, Communications, Equity, etc tIMELI N EI Commented [ML11: @Cary Teague here are the key dates. 9 June —August 9 October 5 4 December 7 ; Commissions develop TT; Chairs present proposed ; Council feedback proposed work plans with work plans to Council incorporated into work liaison feedback plans Council approves work plans Commission's approve proposed work plan at September meeting Staff present Sept. 28, Proposed work recommendations to plans due Council � Work plans begin September 6November 3 ^llJanuary MEETING INFORMATION & ROLES October 5, 2021, City Council Work Session Meeting goals Introduce the commissions proposed 2020 work plan to Council for the first time. Attendance/Stage Direction Commission chair (or designee) sits the table with Council. Liaisons sit on the perimeter. Liaison Role Do not present, be available for questions only. Chair Role Commission Chairs (or designee) present the commission's 2020 proposed work plan. City Manager Role Remind Council of meeting goal and help move along discussion to allow all commissions to have time City Council Role Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Give feedback to City Staff on possible amendments to work plan initiatives. November 3, 2021, City Council Work Session Meeting goals Review staff/liaison feedback on proposed 2020 commission work plans. Attendance/Stage Direction Commission members are not in attendance. Liaisons sit at the table with Council. Liaison Role Do not present, be available for questions. Chair Role Not in attendance. City Manager Role Present proposed 2020 commission work plans with City Council Role Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Provide feedback on work plan initiatives. This would include: • Adding / removing an initiative • Changing scope of an initiative • Moving an initiative from one work plan to another December 7, 2021, City Council Meeting goals Approve 2020 commission work plans. Attendance/Stage Direction None. Liaison Role Do not need to attend. Chair Role Do not need to attend. City Manager Role Available for questions. City Council Role Approve work plans.