Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-17 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketAg enda Planning Commission City Of E dina, Minnesota City H all, Council Cham ber s Wednesday, Novem ber 17, 2021 7:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Public H ear ings: Call 800-374-0221. E nter Conference ID 7375703. Give the operator your nam e, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta7 m em ber will introduce you when it is your tur n. Or attend the meeting to provide testimony, City Hall Council Cham bers, 4801 W. 50th St. I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approva l Of Meeting Min u tes A.Min u tes: Pla n n ing Com m ission October 27, 2021 V.Com m u n ity Com m ent During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. G enerally 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 sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Pu b lic Hea rings A.B-21-32 Setba ck Va ria n ce for a Freesta n d ing Sign at 5050 France Aven u e B.PUBLIC HE ARING: Con d ition al Use Perm it - 5701 Ben ton Avenue (Country sid e School) C.PUBLIC HE ARING: Zonin g Ord ina n ce Am en d m ent - Im pervious Su rface, Ba sem ent, 1-foot rule and Setb ack De7nitions. VII.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.Sketch Plan Review - 5780 Lincoln Drive (Lon d onderry Ap artm ents) B.Sketch Plan Review - 4701 77th Street W est VIII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents IX.Sta> Com m ents X.Adjournm en t 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 ampli7cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion O c tober 27, 2021 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the minutes from the O ctober 27, 2021 P lanning C ommission. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes Planning Commission October 27, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 1 of 3 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers October 27, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Agnew called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Strauss, Bennett, Hayward, Barberot and Chair Agnew. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Addison Lewis, Residential Redevelopment Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Olsen, Bartling, and Alkire. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Berube moved to approve the October 27, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, October 13, 2021 Commissioner Miranda moved to approve the October 13, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Motion carried. V. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review – 6016 Vernon Avenue Director Teague presented the request of 6016 Vernon Avenue for a Sketch Plan Review. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Marty Collins and Mr. Chris Davis, applicants addressed the Commission and answered questions. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments:  Concern with the number of seats available in the restaurant with fewer parking spaces available  Concern with the hours of operation  Liked the sketch plan but there is no parking  Could be made into a cafe so parking would not be needed  Vision for Vernon is to make it into a nice corridor for walking and biking  Kernel of a brilliant idea but the details are wrong  Liked on street parking idea  Single story building with surface parking is not the best use of the property  Likes that the proposal is not a drive through operation  Likes the idea of having something that will be walkable  Having a gathering space would be great  Great place for a restaurant/gathering area  Difficult space for anything A. Cahill District Area Plan – Working Group Greenprint Director Teague presented Cahill District Area Plan. Staff recommended approval of the Working Group Greenprint. He introduced Edina’s Residential Redevelopment Coordinator Addison Lewis to the Commission. Mr. Lewis addressed the Commission. Chair Agnew explained what the Working Group Greenprint entails. The Commission asked questions of staff about the Cahill District Area Plan. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission approve the Working Group Greenprint as presented. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments Received. X. Staff Comments Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Received. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Berube moved to adjourn the October 27, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:14 PM. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s itant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-32 S etbac k Varianc e for a F reestanding S ign at 5050 F rance Avenue Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the 10-foot setback variance for a freestanding sign at 5050 F rance Avenue South as requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he applicant is requesting a setback variance for a freestanding sign at 5050 F rance Avenue South. T he proposed sign is located within an existing planting bed approximately 10 feet from the curb along France Avenue. T he City’s sign code requires freestanding signs to be setback 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street, which is interpreted as the curb. T he size and height of the proposed sign is compliant with the C ity’s S ign Ordinance. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Site Location Map Applicant Submittal Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report The applicant is requesting a setback variance for a freestanding sign at 5050 France Avenue South. The property is located on the west side of France Avenue, at the northwest corner of the intersection of France Avenue South and 51st Street West. The proposed sign is located within an existing planting bed approximately 10 feet from the curb along France Avenue. The City’s sign code requires freestanding signs to be setback 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street, which is interpreted as the curb. The applicant has indicated that there is no intent to add tenants to the proposed monument sign and the sign will be dedicated to the University of Minnesota Physicians’ sole use for the duration of their lease and renewals. The size and height of the proposed sign is compliant with the City’s Sign Ordinance. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Commercial building zoned PCD-2 and guided Mixed Use Center. Easterly: Commercial building, City of Minneapolis Southerly: Multifamily building zoned PRD-4 and guided Mixed Use Center. Westerly: Multifamily building zoned PRD-4 and parking garage zoned APD, Automotive Parking District and guided Mixed Use Center. Existing Site Features The 26,857 square foot lot (.62 acres) is located on the west side of France, at the northwest corner of the intersection of France Avenue South and 51st Street West. There is a two-story office building and associated parking on site. Planning Guide Plan designation: Mixed Use Center Zoning: PCD-2, Planned Commercial District November 17, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-21-32, A 10-foot setback variance for a freestanding sign located 10 feet from the traveled portion of the street at 5050 France Avenue South Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Compliance Table Sign Standards in PCD-2 Proposed Setback – Square footage- Freestanding Sign Height– 20 feet to the traveled portion of the street 80 square feet 8 feet 10 feet* 29.33 square feet 8 feet *Requires a variance. The 20-foot setback requirement for freestanding signs is consistent across all zoning districts. PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Yes, Staff believes the requested setback variance is justified. If the proposed sign was placed 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street, it would be placed within the existing parking stalls. The proposed sign location doesn’t interfere with any sight lines or the sidewalk along France Avenue. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances required that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively to grant a variance. 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 layout of the site. The site is compact and doesn’t allow for a freestanding sign to be placed on the east frontage of the site without a variance. The proposed location will not interfere with sight lines or the sidewalk along France Avenue. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? There are limited lots in the 50th & France District that allow for freestanding signage because the majority of the buildings in the district encompass the lot in which they are on. The subject property is one of the few lots where that is not the case and is unique in the fact that there is STAFF REPORT Page 3 parking available on site. The freestanding sign will help with wayfinding and identification of the building and available parking on site. Similar variances have been granted in the general vicinity of the subject property. There was a variance granted for Gateway Bank at 4530 France Avenue, near 44th & France, in 2016 to locate their freestanding sign 10 feet back from the traveled portion of the road. A setback variance was granted in 2019 for a freestanding sign at Tufford-Hughes, 4536 France Avenue, to allow for the sign to be placed 13.67-feet from the traveled portion of the street. An eight-foot setback variance was granted in 1993 for the freestanding sign located at Lunds & Byerlys, 3945 50th Street W. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No, the proposed variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are signs in the general vicinity that have a similar setback. With the exception of the setback, the proposed sign meets code requirements. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance to allow the freestanding sign at 5050 France Avenue South to be located 10-feet from the traveled portion of the street based on the following findings: 1. The proposed sign complies with zoning standards, with exception of the setback. 2. The existing layout of the site does not allow for the sign to be placed to meet the required setback. Relocating the sign to meet the required setback would put the sign in the middle of existing parking. 3. The proposed sign fits the character of the neighborhood. The sign is appropriate in size and scale. 4. Similar setback variances have been granted for properties in the area. Gateway Bank at 4530 France Avenue in 2016; Tufford-Hughes at 4536 France Avenue South; and Lunds & Byerlys at 3945 50th Street West in 1993. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:  Sign plans and elevations date stamped October 8, 2021. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, Henn epin County, Edin a, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 5050 France Ave S Octob er 27, 202 1 1 in = 50 f t / Variance Request University of Minnesota Physicians Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. The sign code requires a 20 ft setback for a free-standing monument sign from the traveled portion of a road. There is no location on this property that would enable the 20 ft setback. The proposed location along France Avenue would allow for visibility of the sign while not interfering with driver’s vision. Allowing this monument sign would increase clinic identification and ease of navigating for vehicle traffic, to reduce potential traffic congestion in the surrounding neighborhood. Vehicle traffic would be directed to the private and dedicated off-street surface parking lot spaces, resulting in less use of high demand public street parking. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The area around 50th and France is a highly dense urban environment with little room for setback of signs. Most of the sites within a similar zoning district have ample room for the 20 ft sign setback. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent a sign from interfering with a driver’s field of vision while navigating the streets. The proposed monument sign would only partially block a driver’s vision of the building itself and the parking lot. The sign does not block any traffic control signs. Additionally, the 11 ft lane directly adjacent to the west sidewalk of France Avenue is for parking only and not an active “traveled portion” of the street. This buffer, when included, would allow for a 20+ foot setback of the sign from the traveled portion of France Avenue. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. The proposed design of the monument sign is contemporary in style and will not alter the essential character of the area. Ail PHYSICIANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Executive Offices 720 Washington Ave SE Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 October 8, 2021 CITY OF EDINA OCT 0 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Whom It May Concern at the City of Edina Fr: Joel Schurke, VP Real Estate & Facility Operations, University of Minnesota Physicians RE: Request for Set-back Variance for Monument Sign University of Minnesota Physicians (UMP) is relocating and expanding the Hilger Face Clinic currently located at 7373 France Avenue, Edina, MN to 5050 France Avenue, Edina, MN. The new location at 5050 France was selected over a number of other site options due to the visibility and the availability and ease of access to dedicated surface parking for our patients. A significant part of UMP's mission for the Hilger Face Clinic is facial reconstructive surgery and service to patients who are at a higher level of acuity and impairment (some with sight impairments) increasing the need for highly visible signage. As an academic medical services provider, UMP continually seeks ways to provide the most effective care. UMP's research into wayfinding and signage found effective signage to be a major contributor to reducing the stress of patients arriving to their clinical visits — especially in a high traffic areas. To address this, UMP retains Engrafik for our clinic projects to assess wayfinding and to define the most effective exterior signage for our patients. Clarity of the exterior signage was a design goal for the exterior signage and this monument sign is critical to patients in easily finding the new clinic location. This monument sign means: 1. vehicle traffic expediently gets to the right place reducing traffic congestion in the surrounding neighborhood, and 2. vehicle traffic is directed to our private and dedicated off street surface parking lot spaces resulting in less use of high demand public street parking. The monument sign proposed is a key component to the success of our wayfinding plan and to the satisfaction of our patients at this new location. I respectfully request approval of the variance request to the setback requirements to allow the monument sign as proposed. My sincere appreciation for consideration of this request. Joel Schurke VP Real Estate & Facility Operations, University of Minnesota Physicians Sincerely, O'BRIEN-STALEY PARTNERS October 7, 2021 To: Whom It May Concern at the City of Edina Fr: Adam Bernier, Managing Director/Chief Operating Officer, O'Brien-Staley Partners RE: Letter of Support for UMP's Monument Sign Set-back Variance Request at 5050 France Ave S. I represent the owners of the BMO building and surface parking lot at 5050 France Avenue S and serve as landlord to University of Minnesota Physicians (UMP) as my tenant for their Hilger Face Clinic. The Hilger Face Clinic is a welcome addition to the area and brings a long term, stable tenant providing medical services to the current mix of retail uses. The monument sign will serve to clearly mark the entrance to the private parking spaces within the 5050 France Avenue surface lot and the tasteful, streamlined design of the sign works well with the overall aesthetics of my property. I am writing to express my full support for and encourage the City of Edina to approve UMP's request for a set-back variance for their monument sign at 5050 France Ave S. Adam Bernier CITY OF EDINA 612-770-7050 cell OCT 0 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3948 W. 49'/2 STREET • BOX 24794 • EDINA. MN 55424 • TEL: 952-920-9260 SIGN PACKAGE REVISION A 10/1/2021 Page 13 of 33 SIGN PACKAGE REVISION A 10/1/2021 Page 14 of 33 SIGN PACKAGE REVISION A 10/1/2021 Page 15 of 33 SIGN PACKAGE REVISION A 10/1/2021 Page 16 of 33 SIGN PACKAGE REVISION A 10/1/2021 Page 32 of 33 10 ft 11 ft Monument Location 5050 France Avenue South PARKING LANE 10 ft11 ft 5050 France Avenue South 8 ft Monument Location 3945 W 50th Street 8 ft 3945 W 50th Street Monument Location 10 ft 4530 France Avenue South 10 ft 4530 France Avenue South Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 11 November 2021 Public Hearing Comments- 5050 France Avenue South Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: a 10-foot setback variance for a freestanding monument sign at 5050 France Avenue South No Responses VISITORS 0 CONTRIBUTORS 0 RESPONSES 0 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:P UBLI C HEAR I NG : C onditional Us e P ermit - 5701 Benton Avenue (C ountrys ide S c hool) Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the Conditional U se P ermit. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he E dina P ublic Schools are proposing to expand their parking lot and reconfigure their bus pick-up and drop-off area at C ountryside School located at 5701 Benton Avenue. T he purposed of the request is to separate bus and student drop off traffic for improved on-site safety. T he number of parking spaces would increase from 94 to 122 stalls by expanding and restriping the lot on the east side of the building. T he bus pick-up and drop-off area would be reconfigured on the east side of the building and a new access to the site would be added off T racy Avenue . (See attached plans.) B uses would now enter and exit the site off Tracy Avenue rather than Benton Avenue. T he parent drop off would now occur in the north parking lot. T he request requires a conditional use permit for the expansion of parking spaces on the east side of the building. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative Site Location November 17, 2021 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Conditional Use Permit – 5701 Benton Avenue (Countryside School) Information / Background: The Edina Public Schools are proposing to expand their parking lot and reconfigure their bus pick-up and drop-off area at Countryside School located at 5701 Benton Avenue. The purpose of the request is to separate bus and student drop off traffic for improved on-site safety. The number of parking spaces would increase from 94 to 122 stalls by expanding and restriping the lot on the east side of the building. The bus pick-up and drop-off area would be reconfigured on the east side of the building and a new access to the site would be added off Tracy Avenue. (See attached plans.) Buses would now enter and exit the site off Tracy Avenue rather than Benton Avenue. The parent drop off would now occur in the north parking lot. The new driveway would only be for buses and staff. The request requires a conditional use permit for the expansion of parking spaces on the east side of the building. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The existing 14.6-acre site contains the school, parking areas, play fields a wetland and a scattering of mature trees. (See page A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Public/semi-public Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Conditional Use Permit Per Section 36-305, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. The project would not have an adverse impact on the above. Both police and fire would be able to access the site off of Benton as they do today, and now off of Tracy with the new access point. There would be no change to utilities by the project. The existing utilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property. The improvements would not generate any increase in traffic or increase usage of school facilities. There are no expansions proposed for the school. The new driveway would only be for buses and staff. Parent drop-offs would continue off Benton Avenue. The south exit onto Tracy Avenue will not be a one-way exit. Staff and buses will be able to enter and exit from both Tracy Ave and Countryside Rd. The application would not require larger infrastructure improvements related to the streets around the school. Engineering staff has reviewed the left- hand turn movements on Tracy Avenue and feel there would be adequate sight lines. Staff believes the timing of student crossings compared to staff entering and exiting the site will be different and thus not create additional issues for crossing of Tracy. If the project is implemented, city staff can monitor the number of crossings of Tracy at the crosswalk to determine if pedestrian flashers are warranted to add extra notification of crossings. Staff feels there is adequate sight lines of the crosswalk today. The project would not change those sightlines. The school may also consider crossing guards to assist with crossings. 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff does not believe the project would have an adverse impact on public health, safety, or welfare. The separation of buses and parent drop off should improve on-site safety. Engineering staff does not believe any roadway improvements would be necessary. STAFF REPORT Page 3 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity. The proposed improvements would not impede development in the area. 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section. The proposed project meets all city code provisions. Schools and expansion parking lots are conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 Zoning District. 6. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned previously, parking lot expansions are a conditionally permitted use within the R- 1 zoning district. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Landscaping New landscaping is proposed along Tracy Avenue to help screen the expanded parking area. (See attached landscape plan) Additionally, there is an accessory building that would be relocated as part of the parking expansion. Techney Arborvitae would be planted surrounding the building as planted around the building currently. The city forester has reviewed the proposed landscape plan and has recommended additional landscaping along Tracy Avenue to provide better screening of the parking lot. A landscape plan would need to be submitted as part of the grading permit, subject to approval of the city forester. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts, as they are the City’s review authority over the grading of the site. Lighting The parking lots would be required to meet all minimum standards for lighting as follows: “All exterior lighting and illuminating devices shall be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of the lighting or illuminating devices. Rays of light or illumination shall not pass beyond the property lines of the premises utilizing the lights or illumination at an intensity greater than 0.5 footcandle measured at property lines abutting property zoned residential and one footcandle measured at property lines abutting streets or property zoned nonresidential. No light source, lamp or luminaire shall be directed beyond the boundaries of the lighted or illuminated premises.” STAFF REPORT Page 4 A lighting plan has been submitted and demonstrates the foot candle power generated from the lights, would meet city code requirement. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front – Benton Avenue Side Street – Tracy Avenue Side Street – Stuart Avenue Side – South 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 & 35 feet 30 & 60 feet 20 feet (existing) 100+ feet Parking Stalls 83 (1/3 the seating capacity of the gym which is 250) 111 Over-story Trees 98 trees required (number is based on the perimeter of the site) 187 trees existing and proposed on the site PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) criteria met? Yes, staff believes the criteria is met. 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings. As demonstrated on pages 2-3 of this report, the findings for a conditional use permit would be met. 2. The proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards. All setback requirements and lighting standards would be met. 3. The proposal would improve traffic and circulation on the site. The number of parking stalls remains in compliance the Zoning Ordinance. The new driveway would only be for buses and staff. Parent drop-offs would continue off Benton Avenue. Staff and buses will be able to enter and exit from both Tracy Ave and Countryside Rd. Engineering staff has reviewed the left-hand turn movements on Tracy Avenue and feel there would be adequate sight lines. Staff believes the timing of student crossings compared to staff entering and exiting the site will be different and thus not create additional issues for crossing of Tracy. If the project is STAFF REPORT Page 5 implemented, city staff can monitor the number of crossings of Tracy at the crosswalk to determine if pedestrian flashers are warranted to add extra notification of crossings. Staff believes there is adequate sight lines of the crosswalk today. The project would not change those sightlines. The school may also consider crossing guards to assist with crossings. 4. The plan includes landscaping and trees planted along Tracy Avenue and around the re- located maintenance building to provide partial screening. Staff does recommend additional plantings along Tracy to provide additional screening of the parking lot. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to expand the parking area for Countryside School at 5701 Benton Avenue. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions per Chapter 36 Sec. 36-305 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The proposed project meets all city code provisions and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Public schools and associated parking lots are a conditionally permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Site plan date stamped October 13, 2021. • Grading and drainage plan date stamped October 13, 2021. • Landscaping plan date stamped October 13, 2021. • Geometric plan date stamped October 13, 2021. • Utility and erosion control plan date stamped October 13, 2021. 2. A grading permit is required for the improvements. 3. A lighting plan must be submitted with the grading plan and must meet all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. 4. Additional landscaping must be provided along Tracy Avenue to provide more screening of the parking lot. Therefore, prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape plan would need to be submitted, subject to approval of the city forester. STAFF REPORT Page 6 5. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. Deadline for a city decision: February 1, 2022 Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 11 November 2021 Public Hearing Comments-Countryside Elementary Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 5701 Benton Avenue (Countryside Elementary) Conditional Use Permit VISITORS 13 CONTRIBUTORS 11 RESPONSES 11 0 Registered 0 Unverified 11 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 11 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 08, 2021 15:59:19 pm Last Seen:Nov 08, 2021 15:59:19 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Tom Kluis Q2.Address 5611 Countryside Road Edina MN 55436 Q3.Comment I live on Countryside Road, 3 houses in from Tracy. We have a wonderful neighborhood with kids, dogs, and active families. Generally more than two dozen people walk down Countryside to get to school each morning. However, there are two times during the day when Countryside Road is dangerous to kids, dogs, and families - school drop off and school pick up. Unfortunately, parents who are in a rush to drop off or get their kids sometimes use Countryside Road as a cut through, or they make U-turns in driveways without really looking for the kids or animals around them. Luckily, the majority of the school drop-off and pick-up traffic happens from Benton or says on Tracy so we only get a dozen or so cars every day who make our neighborhood street hazardous. The proposed plan will make our street dramatically more dangerous - specifically the exit onto Tracy/Countryside Road. The new exit will greatly increase the number of cars shooting down Countryside Road to get to eastbound Benton, pulling into driveways, or making middle-of-the-road U-Turns. The additional traffic is dangerous and not what is intended for Countryside Road, a quiet neighborhood street. My recommended modification: angle the exit driveway to ONLY allow vehicles to proceed south on Tracy. Tracy is a major thoroughfare and accommodating to the school's traffic. There are sidewalks on Tracy, Countryside Road has none. There are bike lanes on Tracy. Countryside Road has none. There is a center stripe and lane markings on Tracy, Countryside Road has none. I urge you to modify the exit for this project for the safety of the families in the Countryside neighborhood. Regards, Tom and Kristin Kluis Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 13:36:29 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 13:36:29 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lindsay Atherton-Ely Q2.Address 5501 countryside rd Q3.Comment This plan, if I am understanding it correctly, would have cars leaving directly from the parking lot to countryside road. I have multiple concerns, first being this exit is in the middle of a hill with decreased visibility. Add to that an already slippery intersection during the winter and you’re asking for accidents. Furthermore, there are dozens of kids that walk home via countryside rd and we already face a large issue with parents parking on both sides of the street to pick up their kids. Add to that a huge increase in traffic and no sidewalks or bike lanes, the snow piles that grow during winter, and it creates a very congested and unsafe area for kids that walk home that route. Secondly, while Tracy and Benton are set up to handle an increase of traffic flow, countryside rd is not. You’re not only placing the families that live on that road in danger, but you’re also going to risk them having increased assessments to pay for road damage caused by a huge influx of traffic. How will you compensate the families that recently paid a huge assessment for road improvements? Third, how will the traffic flow if you’re cutting off a main artery with a parking lot exit? Congestion from Tracy to Vernon will be a nightmare, not to mention a Tracy to Olinger/62. Fourth, the intersection of crescent and countryside rd has been begging for years to have stop signs installed because people race through those intersections. Now there is a potential for many more cars flying down our streets and risking lives. Are you going to get stop signs and speed bumps put in? This seems like an idea that hasn’t been well thought out and puts kids and roads at a huge risk. While I agree the parking lot situation needs some help, I strongly feel having an exit to countryside rd is NOT a solution. Thanks! Lindsay Atherton Mother of 3 boys (2 at countryside, one attending next year) ages 8, 6 and 4. Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 14:23:38 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 14:23:38 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Katie Mahlum Q2.Address 5616 Countryside Rd Q3.Comment I am very surprised by this plan and oppose it. Countryside Road at Tracy is already a high traffic intersection and heavy pedestrian crossing. Additionally, to subject a neighborhood to less green space and headlights seems like a hasty solution to a parking lot issue. I would like to see the city use ingenuity to incorporate a solution to the longtime unsafe and asymmetrical intersection at Benton and Tracy, while incorporating a resolution to the Countryside Elementary School parking lot issue. An exit to a roundabout could alleviate the parking lot issue while addressing the heavy traffic flow of adjacent streets. Furthermore, I believe there is a Vernon Avenue project in the works. I hope the potential increase of traffic from that project, to the Tracy Benton area, is also being considered. I hope for the safety of kids in this neighborhood, that the city is doing its due diligence, and truly listening to public commentary and weighing all possible options before proceeding to make permanent changes to green space on school grounds. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 16:40:19 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 16:40:19 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jerry Groven Q2.Address 5716 Benton Ave Q3.Comment Hello, I can only see one option when I look at the site this evening. I am excited to see the rest of the options soon. The plan I did see, added the entrance/exit on Tracy Avenue which I believe is a great idea. I do have one suggestion that would improve the safety for the residents living to the North of the school. Currently kids and parents have to walk in the street (Benton Ave), next to cars to access the crosswalk at the intersection. This stretch of Benton directly North of the school is extremely busy during school hours and unsafe for elementary age children to walk in my opinion. It gets extremely dangerous as the streets narrow and get slippery in the winter time. I would like to see a sidewalk along the North side of Benton from Tracy to Staurt. Also, on the East side of Stuart from Benton to Grove would be helpful as well. Thank you for all of your hard work on this, Jerry Groven Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 17:09:42 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 17:09:42 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Natalie Hunter Q2.Address 5420 Countryside Rd Q3.Comment We currently have a son in K at Countryside who walks to school and crosses right where the proposed new entry/exit will be. I can’t imagine the traffic nightmare that would be created by this opening. Kids trying to cross the street, cars going up and down the hill, cars turning left and right. It would be impossible for all of this to occur fluidly and safely. I also worry about the burden this puts on the crossing guards to try and manage kids crossing, cars driving past and cars trying to leave the parking lot. It seems more parking space can easily be made available as the plans propose, but keep the current entry and exit points. Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 17:24:05 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 17:24:05 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Connor Houlihan Q2.Address 5517 Countryside Rd Edina, MN 55436 Q3.Comment I live at the corner of Countryside Rd and Tracy Ave. You can image how disappointed and genuinely upset our family and neighbors are learning of this. Tracy is already a VERY dangerous street and this will increase that - and also promote more traffic down Countryside Rd and our Neighborhood. This put the students walking to and from school at more danger - and also other children and people that live in the area. I hope the City is thinking about this additional risk and lawsuit(s) waiting to happen. Are you also familiar with the downhill pitch of Tracy avenue when heading south by the school? Cars slide on the snow and ice regularly during the winter - or can't make it up the hill heading north. Anyone turning left out of the new proposed exit would experience this. The current entry and exit path is not only completely fine - but also much more safe. You have the intersection of Benton and Tracy (a four way stop) to slow and regulate traffic. Lastly, this is also going to materially impact all of our home values. I hope someone is thinking about that - or maybe you're not since you don't live in the neighborhood. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 17:42:31 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 17:42:31 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kristin Kluis Q2.Address 5611 Countryside Road Q3.Comment While Countryside Elementary is in need of additional parking, the current school exit plans and communication of that plan raise concerns and need for additional communication from the planning council. My concerns with the plan include: 1. The increased traffic on residential Countryside Road with no sidewalks or bike lanes and many kids walking to or from school. Tracy was designed to handle the traffic, but not Countryside Road is not. 2. Students crossing Tracy safely is already a problem at Countryside Road and Tracy Ave, this plan increases additional cars and traffic to the area 3. Due to the crest of the Tracy Ave hill, drivers can't see the Countryside crosswalk from the north. Additionally, Countryside drivers often cannot see cars coming south on Tracy. This makes the new intersection even more dangerous and is compounded with icy roads in the winter. 4. The traffic turning left (North onto Tracy) at the same time as parents are leaving drop off will delay any exit from the school. I believe further research and/or communication from the planning commission is needed around: 1. What improvements are planned at the top and bottom of the hill for pedestrian safety? 2. What input was sought from the neighbors, kids walking to school and the safety patrol on the plans? 3. This will be a new burden on the school staff to direct car and pedestrian traffic with cars leaving the lot turning left/straight will hold up all traffic. EHS and VVMS have traffic problems today that the school struggles to solve. What is the school's plan to keep kids safe and keep traffic moving? 4. At what time of day and season did the planning commission do site visits to understand the impact of this change? Where are those findings? As a parent at Countryside Elementary, I welcome the addition of parking spaces. As a parent living on Countryside Road – I have great concern for the safety of our children without additional information from the Council on their plan and research to have created that plan. Thank you. Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 10, 2021 20:26:29 pm Last Seen:Nov 10, 2021 20:26:29 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Trent Jaeger Q2.Address 5604 Countryside Road Q3.Comment I've reviewed the plans for a new parking lot at Countryside Elementary and the proposed driveway location is mystifying. No competent designer could think putting the lot exit on Tracy directly across from Countryside Road, on that hill is a good idea. This area already has poor sightlines for SB Tracy traffic and WB Countryside driver, often resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians, children crossing the street, and drivers. The hill and retaining walk on the NE corner limit drivers' vision. In slippery conditions, it's even worse because traffic coming down the hill has more trouble stopping and traffic coming off Countryside has a difficult time making that turn to get up the hill AND crossing NB Tracy to make a left turn. In fact, it is already difficult for WB Countryside traffic to get onto Tracy, slippery conditions or not. Left turns are particularly difficult due to traffic speeding down the hill. Traffic exiting the school lot at that location would exacerbate these dangerous conditions to an unacceptable degree, as SB drivers now have traffic entering from both sides of the street and WB drivers have to contend with traffic coming right at them in order to negotiate their turn. In addition, this design encourages more traffic to take Countryside EB rather than Benton , which is the natural through street. Countryside does not have sidewalks and carries a high volume of pedestrians and children that play near and on the roadway. Countryside already gets increased traffic from people trying to avoid the 4 way stop at Benton. These drivers often don't live in our neighborhood and drive too fast for the conditions. The proposed location of the driveway would make these conditions worse by directing drivers straight onto Countryside. Common sense dictates that if an additional parking lot exit has to empty onto Tracy, the driveway should be extended such that cars enter Tracy well south of Countryside, which would give SB Tracy traffic more time to see and avoid that traffic, give WB Countryside traffic a fighting chance to get onto Tracy, and eliminate the tendency for cars to exit directly onto Countryside. I oppose the current plan and encourage that the exit be eliminated or at least redesigned to intersect with Tracy further to the south. If someone involved in the project would like to speak to a Countryside resident about the plan, feel free to reach out to me. Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 11, 2021 04:37:33 am Last Seen:Nov 11, 2021 04:37:33 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Matthew Huss Q2.Address 5529 Countryside Rd Q3.Comment I understand additional parking and better routing for buses and child drop-off are needed but the plan needs to be altered, specifically the proposed exit at Tracy Ave facing Countryside Road. Countryside Road is already a 'cut through' street for traffic to avoid the congested intersection of Benton Ave and Tracy Ave and traffic is busy, especially for a residential street. Being a cut through street leads to drivers not observing local speed limits and not being focused on the residents of the street. The addition of the exit in that location will further increase already heavy traffic on the street and add to an already congested street. Unlike Tracy Ave or Valley View Road, Countryside Road is a residential street and was not designed to handle the amount of traffic it currently handles, especially during mornings and afternoons. The proposed exit facing the street will be a natural go to for parents and buses dropping or picking up kids at the school. What additional improvements or enhancements will be made to Countryside Road to make the street safer with the increased traffic? Will the city ensure vehicles will utilize Tracy Ave as the main exit? What will the be done to ensure pedestrians (students and neighbors) are safe with the increased traffic? I highly encourage the city to address the intersection of Benton Ave and Tracy Ave and alter the plans to add the additional exit in that area. I understand the elevations are different in that area but without addressing the mess at the 4 way stop any additional development will send more traffic onto the residential streets. What has the city done to observe traffic in the area? I seems the plans are designed on the elevations and what works best for the city. I encourage city officials to spend a week (mornings and afternoons) observing traffic patterns in the area and watching driving behaviors (both buses and cars) to see how dangerous and detrimental the proposed exit will be for the neighborhood and it's residents. Respondent No:10 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 11, 2021 07:16:36 am Last Seen:Nov 11, 2021 07:16:36 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kathryn Matchinsky Q2.Address 5504 Countryside Road, Edina, MN Q3.Comment My main concerns with this addition have to do with traffic flow patterns. 1. Just north of the new proposed parking lot entrance on Tracy Avenue is a hill. There is already a significant problem with cars, heading south on Tracy, coming down that hill and not seeing people/children at the crosswalk. It gets worse during winter when that hill is icy/snowy and it becomes difficult to make any sort of quick stop. When I think about more traffic coming out right at Countryside Road - right at the location of that hill - I am very nervous for the safety of the buses, cars and students walking. 2. How will the traffic be handled coming out of this lot? Will there be traffic directors to ensure safe turns in an out of the lot? 3. There are a significant amount of students that walk to and from school in the coutryside neighborhood. I am certain that this will result in more traffic coming down Countryside Road (which does not have sidewalks) and I am VERY concerned with the safety of those students. I live on this street and see it first hand. We plead with parents doing pick up to watch for kids walking every year. It is a real issue. I have had children at Countryside for the last decade. I am aware of the need for additional parking and don't necessarily have an issue with parking being added - BUT - I just want to be sure all angles of the traffic patterns, cars, buses and pedestrians is THOROUGHLY vetted before moving forward with the project. I do have a lot of concern for the safety of all coming in and out of that entrance. Respondent No:11 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Nov 11, 2021 08:17:49 am Last Seen:Nov 11, 2021 08:17:49 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Tom Matchinsky Q2.Address 5504 Countryside Rd, Edina Q3.Comment Good morning, I’m writing to express my concerns over the proposed Countryside Elementary parking lot exit at Tracy Ave and Countryside Rd. I agree that parking is an issue at the school but the design is where I have issues: 1 - The Intersection of Countryside Road and Tracy Avenue is already a difficult one for pedestrians to navigate, especially Countryside students going to and from school. Even with crossing guards in place, there have been too many close calls because of all of the traffic in that area. 2 - There are already issues with school related traffic in the mornings and afternoons on Countryside Road, which has no sidewalks or bike lanes. There are a large number of school aged children in the neighborhood who all walk to and from school and are put at even greater risk by increased vehicle traffic. 3 - The hill on Tracy Avenue at Countryside Road already poses safety issues. It is difficult to see the intersection coming southbound on Tracy and vehicles get up to and over the speed limit very quickly. In addition, winter weather can pose even greater hazards, even with no cross traffic currently. 4 - It seems almost certain that there will be even greater traffic issues on Tracy Avenue north of the intersection. If cars are stopped while vehicles exit the parking lot, it could conceivably back all the way up into the Benton Avenue intersection. Moreover, there are pick up/drop off turn outs on both the east and west side of Tracy That would be affectively blocked in by traffic. Again, I agree that there’s a shortage of parking at Countryside elementary. But I think this design, as it stands, presents more issues than it solves, most notably the safety of our kids. If it is determined that the intersection must be at Countryside Road, could it be an exit only, right turn only onto southbound Tracy? Could there be pylons placed in the middle of the road preventing a vehicle exiting the parking lot from going north on Tracy or onto Countryside Road? What sort of traffic controls will be in place at that intersection, primarily for when kids are going to and from school, but also more broadly for anyone attempting to cross Tracy? Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal. I urge you to take a step back, gather more feedback and input from residents and Countryside elementary staff and rethink this design. Respectfully submitted, Tom Matchinsky 5504 Countryside Road Myken Edwards 5524 Countryside Road I have a child at Valley View and a child at Countryside. I am wondering where the parking lot will be located. We seem to get a lot of parent traffic on Countryside and we have a lot of walkers. I’m just looking out for the safety of the walkers and wondering if our street is going to be used as like a cut through or they’re encouraging the buses and traffic to turn on to Countryside Road after they exit this new parking lot. My concern is about the safety of the walkers we have that use Countryside Road to get to school and the crosswalk that is there also. -Transcribed by City Staff (voicemail received 11-9-21 8:12 am) MEMORANDUM To: Cary Teague, City of Edina From: Maria Kennedy | MK Date: October 13, 2021 Comm. No: 212137 Subject: Independent School District #273 -Edina Public Schools Countryside Parking Expansion Written Description for Conditional Use Permit Submittal Independent School District #273, Edina Public Schools, passed a successful referendum in May of 2021 to replace and expand the existing parking lot at Countryside Elementary. The project will also include required upgrades to create a dedicated bus loop. The existing storm water management system as a result of the site modifications. The main goal of this project is to provide a safe division between the bus and parent drop off and pick up to meet district safety standards. The project will also provide additional parking spots to serve daily staff parking needs as well as supplement event parking. The site currently has one combined entry for buses and parent drop off, creating traffic management challenges and safety issues for students who need to cross the parent drop off lines to get to school. The main goal of this project is to create a new, separate entrance off Tracy Avenue dedicated for staff parking and buses. The existing site entry off Benton Avenue will be dedicated to student drop off, allowing students to be safely dropped off at the school’s main entry on the north side of the building. This allows parent traffic to continue accessing the site from the same streets and direction as currently is in practice, meaning there will not be noticeable changes to area residents. This aligns with best practices for school site traffic safety, and responds to the existing building’s entry locations in a logical way. This improvement to site safety also allows expansion of the school’s parking stall count by 28 to accommodate the school’s staff and visitor parking needs. The existing parking capacity is 94 parking stalls and the project will increase this capacity to 122 stalls in total, providing needed parking for staff who currently park on grass areas, as well as for community events at the school. New parking lot lighting will be LED, and will be provided with shields to minimize light transmission to the surrounding neighborhood. The project will also include landscaping modifications to maintain the number of trees currently on site. Landscaping will screen the parking lot and existing storage shed from surrounding neighborhood streets. The attached photometric lighting diagrams and landscape drawings provide more information on these features. MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Wold Architects and Engineers is a client and public environment focused firm that has worked in the community for over 50 years. Our firm has a robust portfolio of projects that address school site safety and traffic flow, and have worked on project of a similar scope to modify existing sites. We have implemented this approach at other ISD #273 school facilities, and are currently working on projects to integrate these safety standards at the District’s remaining sites, including Countryside Elementary. TD/ISD_273/212137/crsp/oct21 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS | © WSB & Asso ciates 2013 , © WSB & Associate s2013 Site Locat ion Novem be r 12, 202 1 1 in = 752 f t / Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Site Locat ion Novem be r 12, 202 1 1 in = 188 f t / Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C . To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:P UBLI C HEAR I NG : Zoning O rdinanc e Amendment - Impervious S urface, Bas ement, 1-foot rule and S etbac k Definitions. Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approved the proposed O rdinance Amendment. I N TR O D U C TI O N: As part of the 2021 P lanning C ommission Work P lan, the C ommission has been working on Z oning Ordinance Amendments to establish an impervious surface requirement, eliminate the requirement for basements, amend the one-foot rule for tear down rebuilds when a low water table is present and amend setback definitions. Attached is the final draft to be considered as recommended by the P lanning C ommission. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Draft Ordinance Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Mornings ide Impervious Surface Study Imperviousnes s Surface Background information Coverage Survey of Cities City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: November 17, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Impervious Surface, Basement, 1-foot rule, and Setback definitions. As part of the 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan, the Commission has been working on the above Ordinance Amendments. Attached is the final draft to be considered as recommended by the Planning Commission. The following provides a summary of each Section within the proposed Amendment. Section 1. Definitions.  Impervious Surface is defined.  The definition of “setback” is revised to include the new measurement method for setbacks from buildings to curbs in the Greater Southdale Area. This form of measurement was adopted into the Zoning Ordinance last summer. Section 2 & 5 – Building Coverage is clarified, and an Impervious Surface Lot coverage regulation is created. Building coverage is clarified to eliminate patios and recreations facilities like tennis courts. Patios, tennis courts or similar uses would now be regulated under the impervious surface regulations, and not building coverage. The proposed impervious surface requirement is 50% as recommended by the work group of the planning commission (Commissioners Strauss, Miranda and Bennett) and staff. Section 3 & 4 – Basements and First Floor Elevation. The requirement to install a basement with any new single-family home is eliminated. Additionally, the “One-Foot Rule” is revised to allow an increase to the one-foot rule only if there is a flood plain or high- water elevation issue. (the first-floor elevation of a new home may not exceed the first- floor elevation of the previous home by more than one-foot) City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 The Planning Commission has experienced over the past several years that the current ordinance conflicts with the City’s requirement for the low floor elevation of new homes to be 2 feet above a flood elevation. This amendment would not impact the overall height of new homes as they would still be required to meet the overall height requirement, which is measured from existing grade. The amendment also would not impact site’s that do not have a flood plain or high water table issue. Section 6 – Setbacks. The section simply clarifies the Zoning Ordinance regarding how setbacks in the Greater Southdale District are measured. This issue came up at a recent City Council meeting regarding the 4040 70th Street project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance Amendment. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE, SETBACKS, BASEMENTS AND THE 1-FOOT RULE THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: 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. including, without limitation, patios. 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. a. 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 – XXXX 2 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 and patios. The first 150 square feet of an unenclosed deck or patio shall not be included when computing building coverage. 2. Gazebos. 3. Balconies. 4. Breezeways. 5. Porches. 6. Accessory recreational facilities constructed above grade, such as paddle tennis courts. e. The following improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: 1. Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios, subject to subsection (1)d.1 of this section. 2. Parking lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts. 4. Unenclosed steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. 5. Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. (2) Impervious Surface Lot coverage. Impervious surface lot coverage shall be limited to a maximum of Fifty percent (50%). (2) (3) Setbacks. (3) (4) Height. Section 3. Sec. 36-439. (3) (7) AND (8). Special Requirements is amended as follows: (3) Basements. All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. The floor area of accessory uses shall not be included for purposes of this subsection. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 3 (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 f irst-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation , unless one of the conditions in (8) below exist s 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) Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first -floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per [article II], division 3. Such additions to, or replacements of, single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of conditions a-c and always meet condition d.: 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 feet. a. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the There is a 100-year flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the city's compr ehensive water resource management plan; or b. 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 enginee ring 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: Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 4 (3) Basements. All double dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. The floor area of accessory uses shall not be included for the purposes of this subsection. Section 5. Sec. 36-1259. – Building Coverage Computation; exclusion and inclusions are amended as follows: (a) The following structures and improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: (1) Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios. (2) Parking lots and parking ramps. (3) Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts; but facilities which are constructed above grade, such as paddle tennis courts, shall be included when computing building coverage. (4) Unenclosed and uncovered steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. (5) Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. (b) Building coverage computations, however, shall include all other principal or accessory buildings, including, but not limited to: (1) Decks and patios, subject to allowances provided by this chapter. (2) Gazebos. (3) Balconies. (4) Breezeways. (5) Porches. (6) Accessory recreational facilities constructed above grade, such as paddle tennis courts. Section 6. Sec. 36-1276. – Setbacks in the Greater Southdale District is amended as follows: (a) Front Street Setbacks on France Avenue between Highway 62 and Minnesota Drive and the on York Avenue between 66th Street and 78th Street: A 50-foot setback is required from the face of the curb to the face of building. Above a building height of 60-feet the additional height must step back 10 feet from the face of the building. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 5 (b) Front Street Setbacks on streets other than France Avenue and York Avenue: A 30-foot setback is required from the face of curb to the face of building. with a building podium height of 60 feet. Above the 60-foot height limit, additional height should step back 30 feet from the face of the building, to a maximum height of 105 feet. Any height about 105 feet should step back and additional 10 feet from the face of the building. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX 6 Section 7. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 11 November 2021 Public Hearing Comments-Ch 36 Ordinance Amendments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Impervious Surface, Basement, 1-foot rule, and Setback definitions. No Responses VISITORS 0 CONTRIBUTORS 0 RESPONSES 0 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous MorningsideNeighborhood Boundary 2015 ImperviousSurfaces Morningside Impervious Surfaces 0.00 500,00 0.00 1,000,0 00.00 1,500,0 00.00 2,000,0 00.00 2,500,0 00.00 1950 1960 1975 1985 2000 2015square feetTotal Impervious Surface Area within Parc els 26.46 28.62 29.98 31.08 31.66 35.30 24.30 26.47 27.62 28.78 29.39 32.95 0 10 20 30 40 1950 1960 1975 1985 2000 2015percent AveragePercentageCovered perParcelPercent ofResidentialParcelsCovered Impervious surface area includes primary and accessory structures, driveways, private paths, decks, patios, and pool decks. Average percent covered per parcel (2015): 35.30%Average impervious area per parcel (2015): 3,419.03 sq ftMinimum percent covered: 0.34%Maximum percent covered: 65.74% Percent Impervious Surface0-1010-2020-3030-4040-5050-6060-70 2015 1960 1950 52% 30% 3% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Impervious Surfaces 2015 Primary structure Driveway Private paths Accessory structure Deck Patio Other Pool deck 0.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 1950 1960 1975 1985 2000 2015square feet Average Size ofOccupiedParcel AverageImperviousSurface Areaper Parcel 0.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 1950 1960 1975 1985 2000 2015square feet Pool deck Other Patio Deck AccessorystructurePrivate paths Driveway Primarystructure 2 51 184 201 142 63 14 0 50 100 150 200 250 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70Count of Parcels Percent of Parcel Covered Parcels Histogram 2015 Average impervious surface area per parcel increased 39% from 1950 to 2015. Average size of occupied parcels increased by 3%. Average impervious surface area per parcel increased 12% from 2000 to 2015. Average size of occupied parcels increased by <1%. 1950 2000 2015 65.74% 64.46% 1950 2000 2015 63.44% 62.17% 1950 2000 2015 61.1% 60.79% Sec. 36-438. - Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. The minimum requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height in the Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) are as follows: (1) Building coverage. a. 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 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 and patios. The first 150 square feet of an unenclosed deck or patio shall not be included when computing building coverage. 2. Gazebos 3. Balconies. 4. Breezeways. 5. Porches. 6. Accessory recreational facilities constructed above grade, such as paddle tennis courts. e. The following improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: 1. Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios, subject to subsection (1)d.1 of this section. 2. Parking lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts. 4. Unenclosed steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. 5. Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. 95 14% 237 36% 327 50% Non-Code Compliant Maybe Code Compliant Code Compliant Parcels with red boundaries are non-code compliant based on building structure area (greater than 2,250 sq ft) despite being within 5% of their coverage limit (30%). *2,250 sq ft limit only applies to parcels under 9,000 sq ft. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: October 23, 2019 – Planning Commission Work Session To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Impervious Surface Requirement One of the 2019 Planning Commission work plan items is to consider establishing an impervious surface ordinance requirement. To accomplish that goal, planning and engineering staff have put together some background information for the Planning Commission to consider and discuss. The most significant take away from the engineering study (attached) is that impervious surface increases in the city is not the main contributing factor causing flooding/drainage concerns, rather it is climate changes. A secondary driver is service level of the design is not up to current standards (This can be thought of as past climate change, changing the goalposts) and the final driver is impervious surface change. The information included in the packet is as follows: • 2019 Morningside Impervious Surface analysis (post and slide deck) • This is a historic review that was done to create a poster presentation for the Minnesota Water Resources Conference. • 2018 CWRMP appendix A • This is an analysis of imperviousness rates citywide to set the stormwater model parameter for various land uses. • In past models, we used 40% total impervious and 20% directly connected impervious for single family areas (LDR). • Section 4 has a good discussion of the variability in neighborhoods for LDR. • Section 5 and 6 have good discussion of why this trend matters for stormwater. • As a result of this we changed LDR impervious modeled value to 40% total, 25% directly connected. • 2014 SWPPP Appendix G • An example of site by site treatment to make volumes and rates of stormwater City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • Survey of Cities • How other cities regulate impervious surface • Impervious surface examples of existing lots with the Country Club District. (An area of large houses on small lots with detached garages (long driveways) in the rear yard. The next steps in this process could be for staff to draft an ordinance amendment to address the issue based on the feedback from the Planning Commission at the work session. Staff could also provide the commission with any additional information that may be needed. We would then continue discussion of the issue at a regular Planning Commission meeting. MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURE 4 and 5 Standard Operating Procedures Minimum Control Measure 4 and 5 City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 2092-65 Page 2 Appendix G Small Site Stormwater Evaluation engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 St. Cloud  Minneapolis  St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com     K:\02092‐650\Admin\Docs\Ordinances\Small Site Policy and BMP Evaulation\MEMO_SF and MF Credit and BMP Evaluation_1‐3‐14.docx  Memorandum To: Ross Bintner, City of Edina Laura Adler, City of Edina From: Jesse Carlson Bob Barth Date: May 13, 2014 Re: Ordinance Update – Small Site Policy and BMP Evaluation WSB Project No. 2092-65 Overview The City of Edina’s Code, Section 411 – Demolition Permit and Building Permits for Single and Two Family Dwelling Units, requires a stormwater and erosion control plan showing how the applicant will control stormwater to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The ordinance does not currently stipulate technical requirements to prevent these adverse impacts. To bridge this gap, this memorandum identifies policy options to address the increased runoff generated by single lot residential reconstruction projects. The City maintains a stormwater utility whereby residents pay a quarterly fee for the service that the stormwater system provides. City staff and policy-makers should consider whether properties that implement the new requirements explored herein should obtain a credit toward their utility bill to the extent the improvements are adequately maintained. Policy Introduction The additional impervious surface created by residential reconstruction projects increases runoff and thereby affects the service other residents obtain from the stormwater system. These adverse impacts include:  Localized flooding (lot to lot)  Neighborhood flooding  Subwatershed flooding  Water quality impacts to streams, lakes and wetlands Ross Bitner and Laura Adler February 24, 2014 Page 2  K:\02092‐650\Admin\Docs\Ordinances\Small Site Policy and BMP Evaulation\MEMO_SF and MF Credit and BMP Evaluation_1‐3‐14.docx  Substantial precedent exists for regulating increased impervious surface due to redevelopment. However, we find very little precedent for regulating increased impervious surface at the scale of a single residential lot. Consequently, a model for the City's smaller scale policy comes not from similar policies in other communities, but rather from policies used throughout the Twin Cities to regulate the redevelopment of larger parcels. The policies presented here each have a distinct perspective. The differences are in how much mitigation occurs through private implementation versus public implementation. Policy Options 1through 3 require mitigation for all new and disturbed impervious on a lot. This includes existing impervious that is rebuilt, plus all new impervious. The differences among these policies concern the amount of mitigation required. Policy Option 4 considers the existing site impervious as exempt from the requirements and looks for mitigation for new impervious only. To avoid confusion with wetland mitigation, we will use the term credits in lieu of mitigation for this policy discussion. Credits occur through the construction of on-site practices that capture and hold runoff. These include:  Retention: depressions within the landscape  Bioretention: depressions within the landscape that include special soils and vegetation to improve pollutant removal and infiltration  Pervious Pavement or Pavers: underlying gravel bed provides storage  Underground Storage: tanks, pipes or cisterns that capture runoff. Captured water can be used for irrigation. These systems require a small pump.  Rainbarrels: Due to their small size, these do not generate enough credits for most sites. Policy Discussion When discussing each policy we consider its impact to the private system and the public system. The private system consists of the practices that occur on the lot while the public system consists of the catch-basins, storm sewer, streets, ponds, streams, lakes and wetlands that occur within the neighborhood and subwatershed. The policies presented here each have a distinct perspective. They are: Policy #1: Protect water quality Private system impact: On-site credits maintain downstream discharge of pollutants and decrease runoff from small rainfalls (< 1.5 inches, single event). Public system impact: Increased runoff for moderate (1.5 to 3.0 inches, single event) and large rainfalls (3.0 to 6.0 inches, single event) create the potential for increased neighborhood and subwatershed flooding. Ross Bitner and Laura Adler February 24, 2014 Page 3  K:\02092‐650\Admin\Docs\Ordinances\Small Site Policy and BMP Evaulation\MEMO_SF and MF Credit and BMP Evaluation_1‐3‐14.docx  Policy #2: Protect water quality, maintain flood control for moderate rainfalls Private system impact: On-site credits maintain downstream discharge of pollutants and decrease runoff from small and moderate rainfalls. Public system impact: Increased runoff for large rainfalls creates the potential for increased neighborhood and subwatershed flooding. Policy #3: Protect water quality, maintain flood control for large rainfalls Private system impact: On-site credits maintain downstream discharge of pollutants and decrease runoff from large rainfalls. Public system impact: No impact according to current design standards. For extreme rainfall events (beyond current design standards) there could be an increased potential for neighborhood and subwatershed flooding. Policy #4: Same as policy #3 except that existing lot impervious is exempt from having to provide credits. Table 1 presents design standards that achieve the desired policy goals. Essentially, the policies require the project to provide storage (credits required in Table 1). The storage can be calculated in two ways: 1) a depth of runoff over the regulated impervious surface or 2) a volume of runoff for each square foot of regulated impervious. The two methods calculate the same number of credits. Table 1 – Design Standards Credits Required (inches x impervious)(cubic feet/square foot impervious)1 Policy #1 1.1 0.09 Policy #2 1.5 0.13 Policy #3 2.3 0.19 Policy #4 3.9 0.33 1. Policy #1 through #3 for new and rebuilt impervious. Policy #4 for new impervious only. Chart 1 shows the relationship between new and rebuilt impervious and runoff for a 6.0-inch rainfall event. The chart shows the change in runoff as a percentage of runoff generated by a base condition, which is assumed to be a 10,800 square foot lot with 4,000 square feet of impervious surface. Ross Bitner and Laura Adler February 24, 2014 Page 4  K:\02092‐650\Admin\Docs\Ordinances\Small Site Policy and BMP Evaulation\MEMO_SF and MF Credit and BMP Evaluation_1‐3‐14.docx  Chart 1. Runoff Volume Comparison Cost Summary The cost for credits varies considerably depending on the type of practice used. Table 2 presents typical costs for four different practices. Table 2 - Cost Comparison Practice Unit Cost Retention $0.40/CF Bioretention $1.10/CF Pavers/Pervious Pavement1 $4.50/CF Rain Barrel $12.00/CF 1 Pervious pavement cost is representative of the additional cost to install vs. a typical driveway installation. Most likely, homeowners would create credits by constructing simple retention. To cover the complete set of options homeowners might use, an average cost of $1.00/CF will be used in the subwatershed comparisons presented below. ‐30% ‐20% ‐10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Change in Runoff Volume for 6.0‐inch RainfallNew and Rebuilt Impervious Surface  (10,800 sf Lot Starting with 4,000 sf Impervious Surface) (sf) Policy #1 Policy #2 Policy #3 Policy #4 Ross Bitner and Laura Adler February 24, 2014 Page 5  K:\02092‐650\Admin\Docs\Ordinances\Small Site Policy and BMP Evaulation\MEMO_SF and MF Credit and BMP Evaluation_1‐3‐14.docx  Private Implementation at the Subwatershed Scale Implementing credits on site, in the private system, may be the only option in certain subwatersheds. To understand the magnitude of the cost difference between the different policies, we have prepared a subwatershed analysis for the options presented here. Table 3 summarizes this analysis. Table 3 – Cost Impacts of Private Implementation Policy #1 Policy #2 Policy #2 Policy #4 0.09 cf/sf 0.13 cf/sf 0.19 cf/sf 0.33 cf/sf (ac) (%) (%) (sf) Existing 14 20% NA NA NA NA NA NA Case 1 14 20% 27% 40,276 14,445 20,865 30,495 13,291 Case 2 14 20% 33% 79,950 14,445 20,865 30,495 26,384 Case 3 14 20% 40% 120,226 14,445 20,865 30,495 39,674 Subwater shed LP‐ 20 ($) Cost to ImplementImpervious Area Existing Potential1 ChangeArea 1 Potential increase in impervious based on 3 different redevelopment cases. The potential change in subwatershed impervious coverage is estimated based on three different redevelopment cases  Case 1 impervious increase is 6.7% (1/3 redeveloped).  Case 2 impervious increase is 13.3% (2/3 redeveloped).  Case 3 impervious increase is 20% (3/3 redeveloped). Conclusion Private implementation of on-site practices can eliminate adverse impacts due to increased impervious surface on residential lots. Different policy options can accomplish different objectives. Policy Options 1 and 2 are similar in that they reduce runoff volume for small changes but allow impacts to the public system (through increased runoff) when the total post project impervious surface increases beyond 5,500 and 6,500 square feet, respectively. Policy Option 3 sets this threshold for adverse impact at 10,000 square feet post project impervious. Policy Option 4 exempts existing impervious and holds impacts to very near existing conditions for any future impervious condition. Since the analysis is based on an old definition of the 100- year storm, the City of Edina may consider whether it wants to increase these numbers to reflect the newly published definition of a 100-year storm in which case approximately 50% should be added to credit calculation for each policy option. Appendix A City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Project: 23/27-0354.00 BCO 160 1.0 Introduction Redevelopment throughout the City of Edina (City), particularly the rebuilding of older homes with newer, larger homes, has raised questions about the imperviousness assumptions used for stormwater modeling. Therefore, as directed by the City, Barr evaluated the most recent imperviousness data throughout different neighborhoods of the city to help determine if the assumptions that were previously used for stormwater modeling are representative of current conditions. This memo documents the findings of this imperviousness assessment, referred to herein as the “2016 analysis”. There are two forms of imperviousness: (1) “Total Impervious” which represents the total area of impervious surfaces such as pavement, roof tops, etc., and (2) “Directly Connected Impervious” which represents the area of impervious surface from which water flows directly into storm sewer or water bodies. The Directly Connected Impervious area is the area that is most important for hydrologic modeling. The majority of this memo discusses the Total Impervious, and Section 5.0 discusses methods for converting from Total Impervious area to Directly Connected Impervious area. Table 1 provides a summary of the imperviousness assumptions used for modeling associated with both the 2003 and 2011 CWRMPs (2003/2011 CWRMPs). Table 1 Imperviousness assumptions from the 2003/2011 CWRMPs Land Use Type Total Impervious % Directly Connected Impervious % Ratio of Directly Connected to Total Commercial 90% 80% 0.889 Developed Park Not previously used Not previously used N/A Golf Course 5% 2% 0.400 High Density Residential 70% 40% 0.571 Highway 50% 50% 1.000 Industrial/Office 90% 80% 0.889 Institutional 40% 20% 0.500 Institutional - High Imperviousness 70% 50% 0.714 Low Density Residential 40% 20% 0.500 Medium Density Residential 55% 30% 0.545 Natural/Park/Open 2% 0% 0.000 Open Water 100% 100% 1.000 To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Land Use Type Total Impervious % Directly Connected Impervious % Ratio of Directly Connected to Total Other Not previously used Not previously used N/A Very Low Density Residential 12% 8% 0.667 Wetland 100% 100% 1.000 2.0 Data Sources The main data source for this 2016 analysis is the 2011 Twin Cities impervious surface area dataset developed by the University of Minnesota (reference [1]). This geographic information system (GIS) dataset is a 30-meter resolution raster (grid) of impervious surface classification for the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The values in this GIS layer represents total imperviousness, not directly connected imperviousness. The impervious surface classification was created using a combination of multi-temporal Landsat (satellite) data and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. This raster data set is shown in Figure 1. Barr analyzed the imperviousness data by land use type and neighborhood. This approach allowed us to review the range of results by neighborhood for imperviousness of each land use type. A neighborhood analysis was performed (as opposed to a parcel analysis) due to the larger grid size of the imperviousness raster dataset (i.e., the U of M’s imperviousness data is too coarse for a parcel-level analysis). The City provided the neighborhood GIS layer containing 45 neighborhoods throughout the city (Figure 2 (reference [2]). The land use data utilized for this analysis was the same land use data provided by the City for the 2003/2011 CWRMPs (reference [3]). Using the same land use data allowed us to analyze results with the understanding that changes were strictly based on the changing imperviousness within the city. The land use data is shown in Figure 3. 3.0 Analysis Methods The neighborhood and land use type polygon GIS layers were intersected to define smaller polygons of land use type within each neighborhood. Zonal statistics were then used to calculate the average raster cell value for each land use type within each neighborhood (Table 2). Additionally, the area of each land use type within each neighborhood was calculated to understand which land use types are more prevalent in each neighborhood (Table 3). The data from Table 2 and Table 3 were then used to create a histogram of imperviousness and a cumulative area function to understand the range of imperviousness for each land use type. Figure 4 also shows the average and range of the resulting imperviousness values of all neighborhoods by land use type. These results are presented and discussed in Section 4.0. CahillBraemar Hills Countryside Parkwood Knolls Concord Southdale Bredesen Park Lake Cornelia Indian Hills Highlands Dewey Hill Creek Valley Todd Park Birchcrest Grandview Presidents The Heights Prospect Knolls Parklawn South Cornelia Melody Lake Arden Park Normandale Park Pentagon Park Morningside Pamela Park Lake Edina Fox Meadow Golf Terrace Heights Country ClubInterlachen Park Chowen Park Indian Trails Hilldale Promenade Rolling Green Brookview Heights Edinborough Minnehaha Woods Strachauer Park White Oaks Centennial Lakes Sunny Slope Creek Knoll 50th and France Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community PERCENT IMPERVIOUSNESS2011 U OF M DATASETImperviousness AnalysisCity of Edina FIGURE 1 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-09-16 16:52 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\CRWMP_Update_2017\Maps\Meetings\Percent Imperviousness.mxd User: cda1 0 1 Miles !;N Percent ImperviousnessHigh : 100 Low : 0 Edina Neighborhoods Note: Raster grid cells with0% imperviousness aretransparent and the backgroundimagery is visible. §¨¦494§¨¦494 £¤212 £¤169 £¤169 100 62 7 10062 7 456728 456717 456753 456734 456731 45673 4567158 456720 456732 456761 CahillBraemar Hills Countryside Parkwood Knolls Concord Southdale Bredesen Park Lake Cornelia Indian Hills Highlands Dewey Hill Creek Valley Todd Park Birchcrest Grandview Presidents The Heights Prospect Knolls Parklawn South Cornelia Melody Lake Arden Park Pentagon Park Morningside Pamela Park Lake Edina Fox Meadow Golf Terrace Heights Country ClubInterlachen Park Chowen Park Normandale Park Indian Trails Hilldale Promenade Rolling Green Brookview Heights Edinborough Minnehaha Woods Strachauer Park White Oaks Centennial Lakes Sunny Slope Creek Knoll 50th and France Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community EDINA NEIGHBORHOODSImperviousness AnalysisCity of Edina FIGURE 2 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-09-16 16:24 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\CRWMP_Update_2017\Maps\Meetings\Edina Neighborhoods.mxd User: cda1 0 1 Miles !;N Edina Neighborhoods Streets and Highways Interstate Highway US Highway State Trunk Highway County State-Aid Highway Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community LAND USE TYPEImperviousness AnalysisCity of Edina FIGURE 3 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-09-16 16:44 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\CRWMP_Update_2017\Maps\Meetings\Land Use Map.mxd User: cda1 0 1 Miles !;N Edina Neighborhoods Land Use Natural/Park/Open Developed Parkland Golf Course Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Institutional Institutional - High Imperviousness Highway Commercial Industrial/Office Other Open Water Wetland Table 2 - Mean total imperviousness by land use type within each neighborhood Commercial Developed Park Golf Course High Density Residential Highway Industrial/ Office Institutional Institutional - High Imperviousness Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Natural/Park/ Open Open Water Other Very Low Density Residential Wetland Average % Impervious Legend 50th and France 87.3 72.6 52.0 61.8 86.5 Arden Park 64.6 0.0 34.3 63.4 39.4 32.6 65.6 7.3 100.0 36.6 100.0 Birchcrest 48.9 68.1 32.8 18.4 100.0 21.0 36.9 90.0 Braemar Hills 66.7 3.5 63.3 69.3 54.8 27.9 14.2 100.0 12.5 100.0 29.7 80.0 Bredesen Park 72.2 4.6 40.9 61.8 33.7 42.1 5.6 100.0 100.0 46.4 70.0 Brookview Heights 71.8 59.7 30.9 12.6 100.0 21.3 100.0 37.9 60.0 Cahill 72.4 49.9 74.1 60.4 63.5 24.3 100.0 41.9 100.0 70.5 50.0 Centennial Lakes 88.0 41.3 60.0 83.0 100.0 76.9 40.0 Chowen Park 42.2 38.9 7.7 100.0 38.6 30.0 Concord 53.2 38.6 53.6 60.6 35.3 19.4 100.0 100.0 45.5 20.0 Country Club 33.8 65.6 38.0 100.0 41.1 10.0 Countryside 22.3 37.7 32.7 28.6 49.1 25.7 100.0 18.8 100.0 32.0 0.0 Creek Knoll 62.2 34.2 76.7 14.9 100.0 36.9 Creek Valley 12.8 39.6 30.8 27.7 2.0 100.0 100.0 36.9 Dewey Hill 6.5 65.5 32.0 41.2 11.8 100.0 100.0 39.3 Edinborough 64.5 63.1 57.9 64.5 76.3 34.0 47.9 57.0 Fox Meadow 19.6 28.9 51.4 6.9 100.0 21.6 37.4 Golf Terrace Heights 65.6 27.5 7.2 68.3 61.3 35.1 100.0 28.7 Grandview 80.0 42.0 46.8 59.0 46.5 66.6 37.7 54.0 100.0 44.7 50.4 Highlands 12.5 26.0 35.3 28.4 10.7 100.0 27.8 100.0 31.8 Hilldale 0.0 21.5 100.0 100.0 39.7 Indian Hills 62.8 30.5 56.3 27.6 100.0 18.1 100.0 38.0 Indian Trails 65.8 56.0 71.7 28.6 4.6 13.3 100.0 33.5 Interlachen Park 57.5 6.6 25.8 100.0 100.0 17.6 Lake Cornelia 60.2 34.1 60.6 48.1 33.5 11.3 100.0 100.0 45.2 Lake Edina 90.7 9.2 0.0 62.4 34.6 15.2 100.0 100.0 43.9 Melody Lake 53.4 44.5 30.3 3.1 100.0 23.7 33.7 Minnehaha Woods 56.2 4.4 16.7 34.6 71.5 34.7 100.0 100.0 35.4 Morningside 68.2 15.2 45.1 32.1 2.7 15.4 100.0 100.0 32.3 Normandale Park 10.0 53.5 43.0 31.6 10.0 100.0 24.5 100.0 34.0 Pamela Park 72.0 8.4 59.0 59.2 37.1 28.0 100.0 100.0 35.9 Parklawn 77.2 6.7 61.9 72.8 26.7 100.0 51.6 Parkwood Knolls 66.4 19.7 47.5 59.0 29.5 51.7 3.6 100.0 22.1 100.0 31.7 Pentagon Park 78.0 40.4 60.5 71.3 0.0 100.0 75.2 Presidents 13.8 63.1 56.5 29.5 24.8 100.0 29.1 Promenade 80.2 52.8 63.6 73.8 71.9 Prospect Knolls 57.4 17.1 34.3 52.2 27.4 45.7 0.4 100.0 100.0 29.7 Rolling Green 17.4 21.4 100.0 100.0 27.1 South Cornelia 76.9 58.2 34.3 39.0 30.7 41.0 Southdale 81.2 67.7 59.0 60.7 84.5 49.9 100.0 76.1 Strachauer Park 7.1 55.5 39.7 39.1 Sunny Slope 39.8 68.7 75.0 29.4 100.0 41.0 The Heights 64.0 15.2 74.3 39.2 30.9 45.1 8.6 16.0 100.0 33.3 Todd Park 37.4 12.5 60.9 31.0 39.0 22.8 100.0 100.0 37.2 White Oaks 40.6 44.5 30.3 47.8 100.0 100.0 36.0 Commercial Developed Park Golf Course High Density Residential Highway Industrial/ Office Institutional Institutional - High Imperviousness Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Natural/Park/ Open Open Water Other Very Low Density Residential Wetland Maximum 90.7 67.7 40.4 72.6 71.8 83.0 75.0 84.5 60.4 76.7 34.7 100.0 44.7 27.8 100.0 Minimum 37.4 0.0 0.0 38.6 37.7 52.2 16.7 56.3 21.4 2.7 0.0 100.0 16.0 12.5 100.0 Average 77.6 18.7 5.4 58.7 53.8 71.7 41.7 71.6 31.7 42.6 10.5 100.0 31.3 20.1 100.0 Table 3 - Area (acres) of each land use type within each neighborhood Commercial Developed Park Golf Course High Density Residential Highway Industrial/ Office Institutional Institutional - High Imperviousness Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Natural/Park/ Open Open Water Other Very Low Density Residential Wetland Total Acres of Neighborhood 50th and France 18.91 0.97 0.004 0.06 20 Arden Park 8.87 0.003 0.60 4.40 2.48 114.16 1.98 12.47 6.20 151 Birchcrest 25.23 3.95 150.04 2.73 4.76 3.91 191 Braemar Hills 31.69 263.86 28.79 32.89 23.17 134.46 91.91 23.33 4.42 43.16 678 Bredesen Park 2.72 12.57 44.07 40.70 125.31 52.99 104.13 17.25 97.77 497 Brookview Heights 13.80 5.28 144.99 2.56 3.01 2.51 5.88 178 Cahill 64.78 26.48 255.13 0.26 0.03 7.41 4.52 14.58 5.43 379 Centennial Lakes 38.64 13.35 17.48 18.10 10.05 98 Chowen Park 1.26 176.30 4.25 1.33 183 Concord 1.87 3.97 28.21 48.29 192.44 1.15 17.91 1.38 295 Country Club 5.74 1.49 164.24 8.68 180 Countryside 35.12 14.79 42.68 355.49 5.11 1.98 17.09 4.60 4.05 481 Creek Knoll 2.83 33.47 1.05 13.15 4.27 55 Creek Valley 18.36 21.55 97.42 73.60 18.11 0.95 35.28 265 Dewey Hill 16.17 12.15 111.44 60.86 16.00 20.62 1.48 239 Edinborough 8.36 0.39 43.10 16.01 6.79 10.32 12.70 98 Fox Meadow 0.25 132.88 5.58 10.21 27.29 20.89 197 Golf Terrace Heights 5.92 5.57 127.51 18.80 7.81 130.09 10.04 306 Grandview 25.54 0.13 28.21 9.59 23.51 20.87 77.02 1.32 0.40 3.17 190 Highlands 13.72 0.30 12.26 226.84 19.85 16.89 10.81 4.34 305 Hilldale 0.74 59.42 5.42 12.99 79 Indian Hills 28.33 3.83 6.20 166.68 42.64 88.49 0.98 337 Indian Trails 5.69 13.63 14.02 88.52 4.76 22.82 0.18 150 Interlachen Park 1.96 153.62 53.14 13.46 0.88 223 Lake Cornelia 0.12 30.50 0.15 29.27 289.09 14.18 66.43 8.32 438 Lake Edina 2.06 14.78 0.07 11.31 112.77 7.03 25.43 0.58 174 Melody Lake 6.72 0.31 157.97 4.35 8.51 3.00 181 Minnehaha Woods 0.02 1.06 3.69 132.39 1.14 0.67 1.06 1.58 142 Morningside 7.90 12.08 7.79 192.01 10.28 6.02 3.15 0.82 240 Normandale Park 14.07 31.98 0.05 155.17 6.51 0.79 4.75 3.71 217 Pamela Park 4.98 51.10 0.01 3.89 153.82 0.08 4.08 10.94 229 Parklawn 28.42 38.14 58.45 7.95 0.77 4.91 139 Parkwood Knolls 11.34 20.33 4.76 3.68 369.33 18.96 42.00 30.65 118.87 4.30 624 Pentagon Park 86.52 0.26 6.88 49.05 0.18 2.53 145 Presidents 5.11 1.24 2.89 135.05 35.08 0.77 180 Promenade 59.92 8.69 42.49 9.46 121 Prospect Knolls 0.17 19.23 0.56 0.67 174.03 36.74 10.25 4.13 0.51 246 Rolling Green 0.26 126.78 4.65 5.31 137 South Cornelia 8.75 11.01 22.24 167.28 2.71 212 Southdale 248.23 0.15 61.71 12.39 13.86 8.14 3.24 348 Strachauer Park 5.89 7.85 101.19 115 Sunny Slope 0.35 6.11 0.07 55.82 8.01 70 The Heights 0.03 7.83 0.05 4.06 171.32 2.15 6.00 1.35 10.07 203 Todd Park 8.58 15.52 6.41 129.88 14.22 0.33 0.05 16.02 191 White Oaks 0.19 0.05 61.87 1.33 0.23 4.95 69 Commercial Developed Park Golf Course High Density Residential Highway Industrial/ Office Institutional Institutional - High Imperviousness Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Natural/Park/ Open Open Water Other Very Low Density Residential Wetland Maximum 248 51 264 62 44 255 97 21 369 61 104 66 15 119 98 Minimum 0.02 0.003 0.07 0.01 1.24 0.05 0.004 3.95 0.26 0.03 0.08 0.05 1.35 4.42 0.18 Total Acres in Edina 683 315 602 272 404 456 312 52 5416 227 446 396 38 266 309 To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 8 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx 4.0 Results The average imperviousness for each land use type and the range of imperviousness among neighborhoods is shown in Figure 4. The imperviousness values assumed for the 2003/2011 CWRMPs are also shown in Figure 4. For some land use types such as Golf Course, Highway, Institutional, and Institutional – High Imperviousness, the 2016 analysis average value matches very closely with the 2003/2011 CWRMPs assumed value. For others, such as Commercial, High Density Residential, and Industrial/Office, the 2003/2011 CWRMPs assumed value is substantially higher when compared to the results of this 2016 analysis. For a few other land use types, such as Natural/Park/Open and Very Low Density Residential, the 2003/2011 CWRMPs assumptions appear to be low compared to the results of the 2016 analysis. Low and Medium Density Residential land use types both have wide ranges of imperviousness based on the 2016 analysis, and the 2003/2011 CWRMPs assumptions are on the high end of these new results. Open Water and Wetland land use types are 100% in both the 2003/2011 CWRMPs and this 2016 analysis; those will not change. Land use types Developed Park and Other were not used previously. The following figures (Figure 5 through Figure 17) show the resulting histograms of each of the land use types. Figure 4 - Average and range of imperviousness within all neighborhoods by land use type 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Imperviousness (%)Maximum Minimum Average 2003/2011 CWRMPs To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 10 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 5 Percent impervious histogram of the Commercial land use type Figure 6 Percent impervious histogram of the Developed Park land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Commercial; N = 27 Neighborhoods Total Commercial area in Edina = 683 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 90% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Developed Park; N = 27 Neighborhoods Total Developed Park area in Edina = 315 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = N/A 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = N/A To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 11 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 7 Percent impervious histogram of the Golf Course land use type Figure 8 Percent impervious histogram of the High Density Residential land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Golf Course; N = 13 Neighborhoods Total Golf Course area in Edina = 602 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 5% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) High Density Residential; N = 12 Neighborhoods Total High Density Residential area in Edina = 272 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 70% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 40% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 12 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 9 Percent impervious histogram of the Highway land use type Figure 10 Percent impervious histogram of the Industrial/Office land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Highway; N = 25 Neighborhoods Total Highway area in Edina = 404 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 50% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Industrial/Office; N = 13 Neighborhoods Total Industrial/Office area in Edina = 456 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 90% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 80% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 13 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 11 Percent impervious histogram of the Institutional land use type Figure 12 Percent impervious histogram of the Institutional – High Imperviousness land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Institutional; N = 20 Neighborhoods Total Institutional area in Edina = 312 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 40% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Institutional -High Imperviousness; N = 5 Neighborhoods Total Institutional -High Imperviousness area in Edina = 52 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 70% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 50% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 14 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 13 Percent impervious histogram of the Low Density Residential land use type Figure 14 Percent impervious histogram of the Medium Density Residential land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Low Density Residential; N = 41 Neighborhoods Total Low Density Residential area in Edina = 5416 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 40% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Medium Density Residential; N = 17 Neighborhoods Total Medium Density Residential area in Edina = 227 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 55% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 30% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 15 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 15 Percent impervious histogram of the Natural/Park/Open land use type Figure 16 Percent impervious histogram of the Other land use type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Natural/Park/Open; N = 29 Neighborhoods Total Natural/Park/Open area in Edina = 446 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 2% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Other; N = 8 Neighborhoods Total Other area in Edina = 38 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = N/A 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = N/A To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 16 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 17 Percent impervious histogram of the Very Low Density Residential land use type Table 4 shows the fraction of the area throughout the city in which the imperviousness from this 2016 analysis is below the assumptions used for the 2003/2011 CWRMPs. In other words, high numbers in Table 4 suggest that the previously used assumptions are conservative with respect to runoff volume because they may be overestimating the imperviousness of the land use type in some areas within Edina. Percentages in Table 4 around 40% to 50% suggest that imperviousness is underestimated for about half the area, and therefore, overestimated for the other half of the area. Low percentages in Table 4 (e.g., Very Low Density Residential) suggest that the previous assumptions in the 2003/2011 CWRMPs for associated land use types may be too low, and consideration should be given for increasing those imperviousness values. Table 4 Percent of total area of Edina where new average imperviousness value is below 2003/2011 CWRMP values Land Use Type Percent of Area below 2003/2011 CWRMP Imperviousness value Commercial ~100% Developed Park Not previously used Golf Course ~44% High Density Residential ~100% Highway ~41% Industrial/Office ~100% Institutional ~60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%25% - 30%30% - 35%35% - 40%40% - 45%45% - 50%50% - 55%55% - 60%60% - 65%65% - 70%70% - 75%75% - 80%80% - 85%85% - 90%90% - 95%95% - 100%Fraction of Total Land Use AreaNumber of NeighborhoodsPercent Impervious (U of M 2011 data) Very Low Density Residential; N = 6 Neighborhoods Total Very Low Density Residential area in Edina = 266 acres 2003/2011 CWRMP Total Imp% = 12% 2003/2011 CWRMP Directly Connected Imp% = 8% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 17 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Land Use Type Percent of Area below 2003/2011 CWRMP Imperviousness value Institutional - High Imperviousness ~60% Low Density Residential ~100% Medium Density Residential ~98% Natural/Park/Open < 18% Open Water ~100% Other Not previously used Very Low Density Residential < 10% Wetland ~100% A discussion of the results for four different land use types is presented here to provide guidance for interpreting the results. • Open Water: This land use type, by definition is 100% impervious. Therefore, the imperviousness values of this 2016 analysis match the 2003/2011 CWRMPs and do not need to be adjusted. • Commercial: There are 27 neighborhoods that contain the Commercial land use type. The total area of Commercial land use is about 680 acres, with nearly 250 acres of Commercial land use falling within the Southdale neighborhood. There are five neighborhoods with imperviousness less than 60%, and there is one neighborhood with imperviousness greater than 90%. However, those extremes comprise only about 13 acres of the 680 total acres of Commercial land use. Close to 50% of the area of Commercial land use is less than 80% impervious, and about 90% of the Commercial land use area is below 85% impervious. Finally, essentially all of the Commercial land use area is less than 90% impervious. Therefore, the assumption of 90% impervious used in the 2003/2011 CWRMPs for Commercial land use may be overestimated. Alternatively, 90% impervious can be thought of as a conservative assumption with respect to runoff volume. • Institutional: There are 20 neighborhoods that contain the Institutional land use type. The total area of Institutional land use is about 310 acres, with nearly 190 acres of Institutional land use within the Concord, Countryside, and Creek Valley neighborhoods. There is one neighborhood with imperviousness less than 20%, and there are two neighborhoods with imperviousness greater than 70%. However, those extremes comprise only about 13 acres of the 310 total acres of Institutional land use. Roughly 60% of the area of Institutional land use is less than 40% impervious. Therefore, the assumption of 40% impervious used in the 2003/2011 CWRMPs for Institutional land use is right in the middle of the imperviousness results of the 2016 analysis. • Very Low Density Residential: There are six neighborhoods that contain the Very Low Density Residential land use type. The total area of Very Low Density Residential land use is almost 270 acres, with about 230 acres of Very Low Density Residential land use within the Indian Hills, Indian Trails, and Parkwood Knolls neighborhoods. The three neighborhoods between 15% and 25% impervious make up about 85% of the Very Low Density Residential area. Close to 50% of the total area of Very Low Density Residential land use is less than about 20% impervious, and about To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 18 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx 95% of the Very Low Density Residential land use area is below 25% impervious. There are no neighborhoods with imperviousness less than 12%. Therefore, the assumption of 12% impervious used in the 2003/2011 CWRMPs for Very Low Density Residential land use may be underestimated which is consistent with the assumption that increasing development has impacted imperviousness. However, the increase in imperviousness does not appear to be significant enough to make the imperviousness values for this land use type consistent with the imperviousness values for the Low Density Residential land use type. There is still a difference in the imperviousness values of these two land use types. 5.0 Conversion from Total Imperviousness to Directly Connected Imperviousness Sections 1.0 – 4.0 of this memo have discussed total imperviousness for each land use type. However, what is important for hydrologic modeling is the directly connected imperviousness which is similar to effective impervious area. A July 2015 report on effective impervious area suggests that these terms are slightly different (reference [4]). The report describes how the effective impervious area is usually less, about 80% to 90% of the directly connected impervious area. Two possible approaches for converting from total to directly connected imperviousness are listed below. First, the simplest approach for converting the total imperviousness described in Section 4.0 to directly connected imperviousness is to simply use the same conversion ratios (ratio of directly connected to total) used in the 2003/2011CWRMPs as shown in Table 1 and then apply some engineering judgment to the results. For example, if the total imperviousness of Commercial land use was changed from 90% to 80%, and the same ratio was then used to convert total imperviousness to directly connected imperviousness (0.889), the result for Commercial land use would be 71%, or potentially rounded to 70% directly connected imperviousness. Second, an alternative method is proposed in a report by John Gulliver and others at the University of Minnesota (reference [4]). The proposed method of determining the directly connected impervious area fraction in ungauged urban watersheds is summarized in the following steps: • Extract total imperviousness from land use and the hydrologic soil groups from the SSURGO data set and calculate the weighted average saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil. • Estimate the actual curve number of the watershed as a function of total imperviousness and the saturated hydraulic conductivity. • Determine the fraction of effective impervious area as a function of the actual curve number. • Assume that the effective impervious area is roughly 85% of the directly connected impervious area, and scale up the values to account for this difference with a factor of 1.176 (or 0.85-1). To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 19 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx The approach suggested in the paper by Gulliver could be followed to determine the directly connected impervious area for the purposes of the 2017 XP-SWMM modeling. However, there are some concerns about the applicability of the paper to this modeling. First, much of the method relies on regression equations that do not account for the spread in the data and the error bars, which appear to be relatively significant. Second, the suggested approach is likely more useful for simpler hydrologic modeling methods, such as the rational method. In XP-SWMM, hydrologic factors such as depression storage and infiltration parameters based on soil type are treated as independent inputs. In the method described in the paper, it appears that these other hydrologic factors are implicitly included in the estimated value of effective impervious area. Therefore, we do not recommend using this approach to estimate imperviousness for the 2017 XP-SWMM modeling. 6.0 Consequences and Risks Understanding the consequences and risks of over- or under-estimating the imperviousness can help determine an appropriate value for each land use type in the city of Edina. Figure 18 is a simple diagram to help illustrate this decision making process. Currently, there is a range of imperviousness throughout the city, and it varies by land use type (residential versus commercial versus park space, etc.). Accounting for the trend that the city is becoming more impervious, it is reasonable to expect that in the near future, the imperviousness will be higher than what it is today. However, with policies and regulations being put in place to limit the increase in imperviousness and to offset any additional imperviousness being created (e.g., using stormwater BMPs), the long term outlook is much more uncertain. If the current imperviousness is used in the modeling for the 2017 CWRMP, then the risk is that it will likely be outdated and too low in the near future. The consequence is that flooding of structures may increase, stormwater infrastructure may be undersized, and the level of service provided by the City will decrease creating frustration within the community. If the current trend of increasing imperviousness is extended into the future, the risk is that the imperviousness will be overestimated. The consequence is that more locations may be identified as flood risk locations and may require expensive updates to infrastructure. The flooding of structures may decrease because the stormwater infrastructure will generally be oversized. The level of service will increase, but it will come at a significant and potentially unnecessary cost to the community. Finally, choosing an imperviousness value that is higher than the current average, but one that captures the current trend of increasing imperviousness without extending it too far into the future may be the best selection. Risk of over- or under-estimating the imperviousness still exists, but the consequences may be less because the error in the selected value will likely be less. Therefore, for each land use type, selecting a value that is higher than 80% to 90% of the total area of that land use type is expected to be a reasonably protective, yet still accurate value. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 20 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx Figure 18 Total imperviousness estimation; consequences and risks diagram current status likely future ??? current trend low total imperviousness high Consequences and risks •Flood risk •Infrastructure size •Level of service current range of imperviousness likely near future range of imperviousness To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 21 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx 7.0 Conclusions An analysis of the imperviousness throughout the city of Edina for multiple land use types was completed using the most recent available imperviousness data set. For some of the land use types, the imperviousness has historically been over- or under-estimated, and for others, the current value has been estimated very well. The values for total imperviousness were updated based on the 2016 imperviousness analysis and consideration of the risks and consequences presented in the previous section. Recommended total imperviousness values for stormwater modeling associated with the 2017 CWRMP are listed in Table 5. Additionally, after discussion with City staff concerning the trends in residential development throughout the city, recommendations for updates to the directly connected imperviousness are also presented in Table 5. For most of the land use types, the recommended total imperviousness for the 2017 CWRMP is at or above the average imperviousness of the 2016 analysis. The two exceptions to this are the “Natural/Park/Open” and “Other” (essentially a railroad corridor) land use types. In both cases, these land use polygons tend to be small and narrow and the analysis was highly affected by the adjacent land use polygons which were often Industrial/Office or Commercial and were raising the average imperviousness. A closer look at the aerial imagery within the small and narrow land use polygons representing Natural/Park/Open and Other justifies using lower numbers for the total imperviousness. Table 5 Summary of imperviousness values and recommendation for impervious assumptions for the 2017 CWRMP update Land Use Type Total Area (acres) Imperviousness Value Assumptions (%) 2003/2011 CWRMPs 2016 Imperviousness Analysis Recommended for 2017 CWRMP Total Directly Connected Total (Range) Total (Average) Total Directly Connected Commercial 683 90% 80% 37% - 91% 78% 85% 80% Developed Park 315 not previously used 0% - 68% 19% 30% 20% Golf Course 602 5% 2% 0% - 40% 5% 5% 2% High Density Residential 272 70% 40% 39% - 73% 59% 65% 50% Highway 404 50% 50% 38% - 72% 54% 65% 65% Industrial/Office 456 90% 80% 52% - 83% 72% 75% 75% Institutional 312 40% 20% 17% - 75% 42% 60% 30% Institutional - High Imperviousness 52 70% 50% 56% - 85% 72% 80% 70% Low Density Residential 5,416 40% 20% 21% - 60% 32% 40% 25% Medium Density Residential 227 55% 30% 3% - 77% 43% 50% 40% Natural/Park/Open 446 2% 0% 0% - 35% 11% 2% 0% Open Water 396 100% 100% N/A 100% 100% 100% Other 38 not previously used 16% - 45% 32% 20% 20% Very Low Density Residential 266 12% 8% 13% - 29% 20% 25% 15% Wetland 309 100% 100% N/A 100% 100% 100% To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: City of Edina Imperviousness Assumptions for Stormwater Modeling Date: October 25, 2016 Page: 22 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271514 2017 CWRMP SW Modeling Updates\WorkFiles\Imperviousness Analysis\Imperviousness Analysis Summary.docx 8.0 References [1] Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Marvin Bauer, "Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Land Cover Classification and Impervious Surface Area by Landsat Remote Sensing: 2011 Update," St. Paul, MN, 2011. [2] City of Edina, "Neighborhood Layer," Edina, MN, 2016. [3] City of Edina, "Land Use Data," 2000. [4] J. S. Gulliver, A. Ebrahimian and B. N. Wilson, "Determination of Effective Impervious Area in Urban Watersheds," Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, July, 2015. Weber Pond subwatershed service level expectation gap (50 year to 100 year) increasing impervious trend gap future climate change gap landlocked subwatershed 100-yr flooding 500-yr flooding Impact to Structures For reference, data for the June 19, 2014 rainfall event: •Total precip (at MSP): 4.13" daily. 4.03" falling in 9 hour period. This ends up being a ~16 year RI (4.03" in 9 hr). •According to MNDNR, highest single day rainfall total in 5 years. •0.5" of precip the day before. •2.6" of precip June 14th through 16th. •All this to say, very wet conditions. Source: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Facebook page Source: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Facebook page Source: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Facebook page Detailed Areas (5 areas)FID(s) # homes/apt buildings TOTAL # of structures Weber Park 4, 19, 79 39 57 Concord 8 35 51 Halifax 0, 1, 81 28 42 Southdale 11 29 39 62&100 33, 53, 54, 55 26 36 Total in Detailed Areas 157 225 From City staff report that Martha and Ross provided for the last meeting: Screening Level areas (20 areas)FID(s) # homes/apt buildings TOTAL # of structures Morningside Road, Branson Street, Grimes and 44th 21 11 20 Sally Lane 65 19 19 Northeast of Concord, Wooddale and Tower 7, 27, 28 11 17 East side of Mud Lake / Bredesen Park 44 15 17 Hawkes Lake, upstream and downstream of Vernon 39, 46, 68 16 16 North of Morningside Road, between Lynn Ave. and Crocker Ave.20 10 10 Ridgeview Drive, north of 70th, west of 100, south of 62 50, 51 10 10 South of 62, West of Gleason, Duplex/Townhomes 45 9 9 66th Street, west of 100 52 9 9 Blake Road and Belmore Lane 13 5 8 Centennial Lakes 61 0 8 South of Mirror Lake, north of Vernon, east of Blake Road 36 7 7 East of Schaefer Road, along Parkwood 38 6 6 Schaefer Road and View Lane 42 6 6 Upstream of Mirror Lake, Maloney Ave. & Tyler Ct.12 5 5 Valley View Road and Antrim, south of the High School 49 5 5 Cornelia Street, 70th and West Shore Drive 59 4 4 50th & France 6 1 3 West of 100, near the creek crossing 16 3 3 East of Braemar, south of Dewey Hill Road, east of Gleason 64 2 2 Total in Screening Level Areas 154 184 What are the top areas in the City for flood risk? During the development of the 2018 CWRMP, staff and consultant reviewed model data inundations intersecting building structures at a citywide level to sort which areas to do detailed level review or screening level review. An additional 54 areas were not studied, totaling 381 homes/apts and 454 structures. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com 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). 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 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx 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. Figure 2 Example of an underground storage vault (37th Avenue Greenway, Minneapolis). 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: 3 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 3 Private stormwater storage sizing examples for storing varying amounts of runoff. Barr also analyzed using stormwater storage under streets and/or in the public right-of-way. Figure 4 provides a graphic that shows the approximate extent of underground storage available for a typical road within the Morningside neighborhood. Assuming two 15-foot wide (and 3 feet deep) underground storage vaults can be installed under all of the roads or right-of-way in the Morningside neighborhood, 3-inches of runoff could be stored in those vaults. 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: 4 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 4 Stormwater storage sizing (width) available for typical roads or right-of-way in 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: 5 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx 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). Figure 5 Map showing subwatershed divides in and around 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: 6 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx In Figure 6, the horizontal, maroon-dashed lines represent approximate low elevations based on structure footprints for the four 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. Figure 6 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in the Weber Pond subwatershed (MS_40). At first glance, the reductions shown in Figure 6 appear smaller than would be expected. There are multiple other factors affecting the flood volume stored in Weber Pond. First, Weber Pond ultimately receives water from Edina and also from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. While private infrastructure is overall beneficial, reducing the runoff to Weber Pond from Edina may allow more water from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis to fill the pond back up during an event. Second, at the peak flood elevations shown in Figure 6, stormwater flows out of Weber Pond both into Weber Park and over France Avenue to the east to Minneapolis. When ponds rise high enough to overflow banks, additional water does not tend to have a significant impact on the water level since water can start following natural overflow paths. 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: 7 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 7 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in subwatershed MS_48. 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: 8 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 8 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in subwatershed MS_2. Barr commonly estimates that the cost per cubic foot of underground stormwater storage is approximately $10 to $20. For one inch of runoff, for one 0.25-acre parcel, storage volume equals 900 cubic feet. This equates to a little under $15,000 (+/- $5,000) per parcel per inch of runoff stored. Figure 9 shows the approximate cost per parcel of underground storage using varying widths of underground storage units and varying amounts of runoff stored. To put the cost of private underground storage into perspective, Figure 10 shows a portion of the Morningside neighborhood (~180 parcels) and provides a breakdown of an approximate cost to capture two inches of runoff from every parcel. 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 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 9 Approximate cost per parcel of underground storage using varying widths of underground storage units and varying amounts of runoff stored. 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: 10 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx In total, there are approximately 570 residential parcels in the Morningside neighborhood watershed drainage area, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 Parcels in the Morningside neighborhood watershed/drainage area. 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 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx 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 Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com 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. Figure 1 Imperviousness raster data set from the University of Minnesota. The Morningside neighborhood is in the northeast corner. 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx 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 Parameter Low Case -50% -25% 0% (Base) +25% +50% Directly Connected Percent Impervious1 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx 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 42nd 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx 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. 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. 865.0 865.5 866.0 866.5 867.0 867.5 868.0 868.5 869.0 869.5 870.0 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_40 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in MS_26 for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. 868.0 869.0 870.0 871.0 872.0 873.0 874.0 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_26 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx 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. 869.5 870.0 870.5 871.0 871.5 872.0 872.5 873.0 873.5 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_22 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition 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 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx 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. Survey of Cities Single-dwelling unit residential standards Coverage and impervious maximums Metro Cities 2 Apple Valley 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-1A R-1AA Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface None None None Bloomington Zoning R-1 RS-1 Max. building coverage None None Max. impervious surface 35% 35% Burnsville Zoning R-1 Max. building coverage None Max. impervious surface None Eagan Zoning R-1 R-1S Max. building coverage 20% 25% Max. impervious surface None 25% for shoreline None 25% for shoreline Eden Prairie Zoning R1-22 R1-13.5 R1-9.5 Max. building coverage None None None Max. Impervious surface None 30% for shoreline None 30% for shoreline None 30% for shoreline 3 Edina Zoning R-1 Max. building coverage 25% 30% if lot is less than 9,000 square feet Max. Impervious surface None Hopkins Zoning R-1A R-1B R-1c FAR None None None Max. building coverage 35% 35% 35% Max. Impervious surface None None None Lakeville Zoning RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Max. building coverage None None None None Max. impervious surface None None None None Maple Grove Zoning R-1 R-2 R-2B Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface None None None Minneapolis Zoning R-1 R-2 R-3 Max. building coverage 45% 45% 45% Max. impervious surface 60% 60% 60% Minnetonka Zoning R-1 Max. building coverage None Max. Impervious surface None 30% Impervious within 150 ft of lake 75% impervious within 1000 ft of lake 4 New Brighton Zoning R-1 Max. building coverage 30% Max. Impervious surface 50% Plymouth Zoning RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 Max. building coverage 30% 30% 35% Max. impervious surface None 25% within 1000 ft of water body None 25% within 1000 ft of water body None 25% within 1000 ft of water body St. Louis Park Zoning R-1 R-2 Max. building coverage 35% 35% Max. impervious surface None None Wayzata Zoning R-3A R-2A R-2 Max. building coverage 30% 20% 20% Max. impervious surface None None None Woodbury Zoning R-4 Max. building coverage 35% Max. impervious surface None Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview - 5780 Linc oln Drive (Londonderry Apartments ) Disc ussion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he P lanning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 5780 L incoln D rive. T he applicant is proposing to tear down the existing office building on the site and construct a 4-5 story 195-unit apartment. (See attached plans.) T his site is currently zoned P I D , P lanned Industrial District, and guided O R , O ffice R esidential in the C ity’s C omprehensive P lan. T he allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. T his site is 2.6 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing to max out the density on the site at 75 units per acre. T he applicant is proposing to provide 10% of the units within the development for affordable housing to meet the C ity’s affordable housing policy. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Site Location, Zoning, & Comp. Plan Proposed Plans City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: November 17, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 5780 Lincoln Drive (Londonderry Apartments) The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 5780 Lincoln Drive. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing office building on the site and construct a 4-5 story 195-unit apartment. (See attached plans.) This site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District, and guided OR, Office Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. This site is 2.6 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing to max out the density on the site at 75 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to provide 10% of the units within the development for affordable housing to meet the City’s affordable housing policy. The request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from parking, height, setback and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is also used to ensure affordable housing on the site. The table on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing PID standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (MDD-6) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – Lincoln Front – Londonderry Front – Highway 169 Side 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 20 feet 40*-53 feet 25-30 feet* 22 feet* 20 feet Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 5 stories 50-72 feet* Density 20-75 units per acre (5.44 acres) 75 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5% 1.6%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 341 spaces required 265 spaces* *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Issues/considerations:  Density. The development density is on the top end of the density range. The applicant is agreeable to meeting the affordable housing policy by providing the units within the development.  Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required.  Sewer Capacity. Currently, there is a sanitary sewer capacity issue in this area. This issue is being addressed by engineering and could be accommodated by upgrading the size of pipes downstream. This issue would have to be resolved prior to any approvals for housing on this site.  Proposed heights. The proposed height of 5-6 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. The heights seem reasonable as the step back away from the park and the medium density residential neighborhood to the east. The site would be screened by existing trees on City owned land along Lincoln Drive.  Pedestrian connection to the regional trail. The regional trail is located just to the south of this site. Consideration should be given to pedestrian connections to better connect to the trail. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424  Sustainability. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire as part of a formal application.  Consider a green roof installation to reduce the impacts of the urban heat island and improve energy efficiency. Consider including EV-ready parking stalls, and at least 5% parking stalls with EV chargers. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 EdinaMN.gov 2 EdinaMN.gov 3 EdinaMN.gov 4 Site EdinaMN.gov 5 Site EdinaMN.gov 6 Site SITE SITEMN Highway 169Minnetonka Edina Highway 62 SITEMAJOR HIGHWAYHIGH DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY LOW DENSITY(73,000 AADT)SKETCH PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME D0 Cover Sheet / Narrative D1 Existing Site Photos D2 Site Plan D3 Concept Design Plans D4 Site Sections D5 Sun Studies D6 Exterior Design Inspiration / Materials Development Summary: PID #: 311172123CC0085 Site Area: 2.59 ACRES (112,990 SF) Current Zoning: PID (Planned Industrial District) Proposed Zoning: PUD (Planned Unit Development) Surrounding Context: North: PID (Industrial) East: R-2, R-1, PRD-2 South: PCD-1, MDD-5 West: HWY 169 / Edina / Minnetonka Boundary Proposed Height: 4-5 Stories Above Grade - Approximately 72' Building Setback: See Plans Proposed Units/Acre: 75.3 Parking Ratio: 1.32 Garage Stalls Per Unit / + 8 Surface Stalls FAR CALCULATION Area FAR Calculation 173086 SF 1.58 GROSS BUILDING AREA BY FLOOR -1 LL GARAGE 45729 SF 0 UL GARAGE 51190 SF 1 LEVEL 39534 SF 2 LEVEL 41773 SF 3 LEVEL 41773 SF 4 LEVEL 41773 SF TOTAL 261771 SF PARKING EXTERIOR 9' x 18' 8 GARAGE 9' x 16' Compact 3 9' x 18' 254 TOTAL PARKING 265 UNIT COUNT UNIT COUNT PERCENTAGE AREA 1 BED 51 26% 31921 SF 1 BED + DEN 53 27% 37280 SF 2 BED 1 BATH 54 28% 45179 SF 2 BED 2 BATH 29 15% 27568 SF ALCOVE 8 4% 4558 SF TOTAL 195 100% 146505 SF C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D0 Cover Sheet / Narrative Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments SCALE 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2 Zoning Map SCALE 1 1/2" = 1'-0"1 Location Map SCALE 1 1/2" = 1'-0"3 Density Map Project Narrative: The proposed 195-unit building is nestled into a corner created by Londonderry Road and Highway 169. The building is 4-5 stories above ground with one partially exposed parking and lower common area level, and one parking level entirely underground. The building massing is concentrated towards the more active highway intersection, presenting two narrow faces along Lincoln Drive to create a transition from the highway to the progressively less-dense residential neighborhoods to the east. The building’s 2-story common space features a lower drive-up entrance, as well as pedestrian access directly to Londonderry on the upper level. The building will read as a 4 story building along the eastward-sloping Londonderry Road. The north and south wings anchor the angled and saw-toothed middle section, designed to give these units light, air, and unobstructed views, white presenting traditional rectangular 4 story forms as the building turns each corner. The primary aesthetic language is one of warm wood tones with darker brick masonry to merge the building aesthetic with its green surroundings. The building is designed to nestle into the existing landscape and integrate with the natural surroundings as much as possible, including maintaining existing trees and utilizing landscape and planting barriers to soften views of the building from the adjacent neighborhoods. Londonderry Apartments Sketch Plan Submittal November 2, 2021 AREA ALLOCATION (EXCLUDING GARAGE) OCCUPANCY AREA PERCENTAGE CIRCULATION 13265 SF 7.5% COMMON SPACE 10681 SF 6.1% SERVICE 2636 SF 1.5% UNITS 146505 SF 83.0% VERTICAL CIRCULATION 3444 SF 2.0% TOTAL 176530 SF AREA ALLOCATION (OVERALL) OCCUPANCY AREA PERCENTAGE CIRCULATION 13265 SF 5.0% COMMON SPACE 10681 SF 4.0% GARAGE 88477 SF 33.4% SERVICE 2636 SF 1.0% UNITS 146505 SF 55.3% VERTICAL CIRCULATION 3444 SF 1.3% TOTAL 265008 SF C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D1 Existing Site Photos Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments FROM LINCOLN DRIVE FROM ACROSS THE STREET AT LINCOLN & LONDONDERRY SITE ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 169 ON RAMP EXISTING BUILDING AND SURFACE LOT EXISTING BUILDING FROM LONDONDERRY & HWY 169 3025 SF COMMON SPACE 43521 SF UPPER GARAGE 804 SF TRASH BUILDING ABOVE BUILDING ABOVE BUILDING ABOVE LANDSCAPE SCREENING 892' - 0" 895' - 0" UL GARAGE ENTRANCE SIDEWALK EASEMENT 895' - 0" LL GARAGE ENTRANCE 895' - 0" 892' - 0" 5163 SF COMMON SPACE 892' - 0" LOWER GARAGE SIMILAR CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL (TOWNHOME) N IN E M IL E C R E E K 619 SF POOL EQUIP. DOG RUN ROOF OVERHANG BUILDING ABOVE 26' - 1"53' - 8"53' - 3"22' - 10"28' - 9"2 0 ' - 1 " 26' - 5" COMMON SPACE ABOVE W/ ENTRANCE FROM LONDONDERRY NINEMILE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL882' - 0" 892' - 0" EXISTING MIXED USE PAVED TRAIL O N E W A Y TWO WAY L I N C O L N D R I V ELONDONDERRY DRIVEM N H I G H W A Y 1 6 9 R A M P LOWER ENTRANCE C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D2 Site Plan Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments 3/64" = 1'-0" SITE CONTEXT PLAN 778 SF UNIT B 949 SF UNIT A 779 SF UNIT B 849 SF UNIT C 566 SF UNIT D 930 SF UNIT V 894 SF UNIT T 607 SF UNIT F 728 SF UNIT H2 675 SF UNIT E 614 SF UNIT K 978 SF UNIT J2 874 SF UNIT G1 690 SF UNIT H1 728 SF UNIT H2 690 SF UNIT H1 690 SF UNIT H1 663 SF UNIT L1 728 SF UNIT H2 614 SF UNIT K 940 SF UNIT J1 545 SF UNIT L2 849 SF UNIT C 779 SF UNIT B 669 SF UNIT O2 640 SF UNIT O1 790 SF UNIT Q 676 SF UNIT R 778 SF UNIT B 903 SF UNIT A 573 SF UNIT P 1025 SF UNIT A 949 SF UNIT A 745 SF UNIT X 745 SF UNIT X 745 SF UNIT X 565 SF UNIT W 928 SF UNIT V 898 SF UNIT C 640 SF UNIT O1 669 SF UNIT O2 922 SF UNIT G2 614 SF UNIT K 849 SF UNIT C 763 SF UNIT M 928 SF UNIT U 578 SF UNIT N 640 SF UNIT O1 781 SF UNIT S Department Legend 1 BED 1 BED + DEN 2 BED 1 BATH 2 BED 2 BATH ALCOVE CIRCULATION SERVICE UNIT STORAGE VERTICAL CIRCULATION 614 SF UNIT K 37' - 6"47' - 6"47' - 4"20' - 6" 21' - 0" 1 8 ' - 2 " 35' - 7"21' - 10"27' - 8"52' - 2"754 SF UNIT B 849 SF UNIT C 566 SF UNIT D 894 SF UNIT T 978 SF UNIT J2 675 SF UNIT E 614 SF UNIT K 607 SF UNIT F 728 SF UNIT Y 690 SF UNIT H1 874 SF UNIT G1 614 SF UNIT K 929 SF UNIT J1 545 SF UNIT L2 849 SF UNIT C 779 SF UNIT B 669 SF UNIT O2 640 SF UNIT O1 676 SF UNIT R 778 SF UNIT B 903 SF UNIT A 640 SF UNIT O1 1025 SF UNIT A 929 SF UNIT A 745 SF UNIT X 745 SF UNIT X 745 SF UNIT X 342' - 1" 728 SF UNIT H2 669 SF UNIT O2 614 SF UNIT K 849 SF UNIT C 763 SF UNIT M 928 SF UNIT U 578 SF UNIT N 790 SF UNIT Q 781 SF UNIT S 690 SF UNIT H1 922 SF UNIT G2 728 SF UNIT H2 690 SF UNIT I 573 SF UNIT P 663 SF UNIT L1 640 SF UNIT O1 2492 SF COMMON SPACE 614 SF UNIT K 565 SF UNIT W OPEN TO BELOW 902' - 0" 905' - 0" 905' - 0" 903' - 7" MONUMENT SIGN 24' - 7" 20' - 6"47' - 10"53' - 7"37' - 5"21' - 5"27' - 8"1 8 ' - 2 " O N E W A Y TWO WAY 1 8 ' - 0 "LINCOLN DRIVELONDONDERRY DRIVEM N H I G H W A Y 1 6 9 R A M P MAIN ENTRANCE C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D3 Concept Design Plans Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments 3/64" = 1'-0" TYP FLOORS 2-4 3/64" = 1'-0" 1ST FLOOR HIGHWAY RAMPDRIVEWAY LINCOLN DR.NINEMILE CREEKEXISTING TOWNHOMES905' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE884' - 4"882' - 0" NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, FOR REFERENCE ONLY 71' - 0"5-6 STORY BLDG. REQS. 2x BLDG. SETBACK TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE (2 x 71' = 142' REQUIRED) APPROX. 231' - 0" MINIMUM (3.25x BUILDING HEIGHT) EXISTING GRADE 21' - 2"47' - 8"57' - 0"1 D4 2 D4 3 D4 PARKING LOT / DRIVE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINELONDONDERRY RD.906' - 0" 902' - 0" NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, FOR REFERENCE ONLY 890' - 0"51' - 0"58' - 6"EXISTING GRADE 36' - 6"22' - 4" 0 UL GARAGE 892' -0" 3 LEVEL 927' -0" 1 LEVEL 905' -0" 2 LEVEL 916' -0" -1 LL GARAGE 882' -0" 4 LEVEL 938' -0" ROOF 950' -0" PENTHOUSE ROOF 962' -0" 0.5 POOL LEVEL 895' -0" ROAD BEYOND RETAINING WALL BEYOND SLOPED DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY PLAZA RETAINING WALL 892' - 0" UL ENTRY 902' -0" EXISTING TREES C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D4 Site Sections Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0"1 E-W SITE SECTION SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0"2 N-S SITE SECTION SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"3 ENLARGED DRIVEWAY CROSS-SECTION C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D5 Sun Studies Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments SCALE 1" = 40'-0"1 SUN STUDY - SUMMER SOLSTICE 5 PM SCALE 1" = 40'-0"2 SUN STUDY - FALL / SPRING EQUINOX 5 PM C 2021 MOMENTUM DESIGN GROUP LLC D6 Exterior Design Inspiration / Materials Edina, Minnesota November 2, 2021 21045 Londonderry Apartments Concept Exterior Design - Driveway Entrance Concept Exterior Design - Londonderry Facade Concept Exterior Material Pallette Concept Exterior Imagery Woodgrain Cladding Fiber Cement Siding Brick Masonry Concrete Masonry Date: November 17, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview - 4701 77th S treet West Disc ussion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he P lanning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4701 77th Street West. T he applicant is proposing to tear down the existing office building on the site and construct a 7 story 189- unit apartment. (S ee attached plans.) T his site is currently zoned P I D , P lanned Industrial District, and guided O R , O ffice R esidential in the C ity’s C omprehensive P lan. T he allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. T his site is 2.37 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing to exceed the density on the site at 80 units per acre. T he applicant is proposing to provide 17 units within the development for affordable housing. To meet the City’s policy 19 units would need to be for affordable housing. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Site Location, Zoning, & Comp. Plan Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative AFO Review (Mic Johns on) City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: November 17, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4701 77th Street West The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4701 77th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing office building on the site and construct a 7 story 189-unit apartment. (See attached plans.) This site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District, and guided OR, Office Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. This site is 2.37 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing to exceed the density on the site at 80 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to provide 17 units within the development for affordable housing. To meet the City’s policy 19 units would need to be for affordable housing. The request would require the following: 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase density on the site. 2. A Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD. Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from parking, setback and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is also used to ensure affordable housing on the site. The table on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building would comply with the existing PID standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (MDD-6) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – 77th Street Front – Computer Side Side 87 feet 87 feet 87 feet 87 feet 28’ structure & 20’ feet patio* 35’ structure & 25’ patio* 45 feet* 35 feet* Building Height 9 stories 7 stories Density 20-75 units per acre (2.37.44 acres) 80 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5% 1.9%* Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 331 spaces required 239 spaces* *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Issues/considerations:  Density. The development density exceeds the Comprehensive Plan allowance for the site. The applicant has expressed a willingness to comply with the 75 unit per acre density.  Affordable Housing. The applicant is agreeable to meeting the affordable housing policy by providing the units within the development.  Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required.  Proposed heights & Setbacks. The proposed height of 7 stories meets the City Code requirement for height. However, the proposed height of the building compared to the proposed setbacks does not seem in proportion. The setback requirement is based on height.  Sustainability. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire as part of a formal application.  Consider a green roof installation to reduce the impacts of the urban heat island and improve energy efficiency. Consider including EV-ready parking stalls, and at least 5% parking stalls with EV chargers. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424  AFO Review. Mic Johnson of Architecture Field Office has provided a review of the project and offered recommendations. These should be considered with any formal application. (See attached AFO review.)  The property is located within the 100-year flood plain. Mitigation must be addressed with any formal application. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 EdinaMN.gov 2 EdinaMN.gov 3 EdinaMN.gov 5 Site EdinaMN.gov 6 Site © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 1 City of Edina Sketch Plan 77th Street Apartments 4701 77th St. W. Edina, MN 55435 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 2 Table of Contents Contents Introduction Table of Contents Vicinity Map Current Site Conditions Site Analysis - Zoning and Land Use Panorama Topography Proposed Development Renderings Project Data Site Plan Floor Plans Aerial View Looking East Architect 333 Washington Avenue N, Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Design Team Owner/Developers 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 15 16 17 Civil Engineer 4931 West 35th St, Suite 200, St Louis Park, MN 5541677th S t . Wes t Site 4701 77th St. W. © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 3 Vicinity Map Vicinity Map 77th St Looking West Computer Avenue Looking North Computer Avenue Looking South 77th St Looking East The project site is a large rectangular lot on 77th St. in Edina, in an area charicterised by medium-density oce parks. The site is in walking distance of Fred Richards Park and the Nine Mile Creek Regional trail. It is located directly on major regional bus routes, and has easy access to nearby highways. There are also commercial services of many kinds in close proximity. The site is currently occupied by a small one story commercial building which only utilizes a small fraction of the site’s bulidable area, the rest of which is lawn. Site 9-mi Creek Regional Trail 77th St Hwy. 100 / I-494 Key N Site Description 1000 ft. 2000 ft. Site © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 4 Current Site Conditions 2. Existing Building from Southwest1. 77th Street Looking East 4. Existing Building from Northeast 5. “Edina Corporate Center,” opposite site on 77th Street 6. 77th Street Looking West 3. Existing Building from Northeast 77th Street Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Viking Drive Computer Avenue1 6 2 4 5 3 N 1 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 5 R-1 R-2 PID PCD-4 POD-1 PUD MDD-6 Park Key - Zoning Edina Site Analysis- Zoning Zoning per City of Edina and City of Bloomington N 77th Street Computer AveViking Drive N o r m a n d a l e B l v d 78th StreetShore DrPoppy Ln Bloomington CS-1 I-2 C-4 IT CS-0.5 Bloomington Edina Site Site Analysis - Land Use Single-Family Duplex Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Key - Usage Land Use N Site © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 6 Panorama - 4701 77th St. W. 1. View South from 77th Street 2. View North from 77th Street Across From Project Site Project Site NKey Plan 77th Street Computer AveSite © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 7 3. View East from Computer Ave Project Site NKey Plan 77th Street Computer AveSite Panorama - 4701 77th St. W. © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 8 Topography 4701 77th St. W. The site is located south of W 77th St and East of Computer Ave. There is an approximate 4-foot elevation dierence from the high point of the site to the low point of the site. Topography @ 2’ contours from Minnesota DNR Existing Topography Low Point - 818 ft High Point - 822 ft © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 9 The Proposed Project 4701 77th St. W. 10.27.2021 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 10 Rendering viewing Southwest Overall Perspective 1 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 11 Overall Perspective 2 Rendering viewing Northeast © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 12 Overall Perspective 3 Rendering viewing Southeast © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 13 Overall Perspective 4 Rendering viewing Southeast © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 14 Overall Perspective 5 Rendering viewing Northwest © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 15 Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. PROJECT DATA EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 07/01/21 Unit Type Count Total Area Average Area LEVEL 3 1BR 16 11,343 SF 709 1BR+D 3 2,960 SF 987 2BR 7 7,183 SF 1026 2BR+D 2 2,916 SF 1458 STUDIO 4 2,092 SF 523 LEVEL 3: 32 26,494 SF LEVEL 4 1BR 17 12,043 SF 708 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 7 7,190 SF 1027 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF 1473 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 LEVEL 4: 35 28,379 SF LEVEL 5 1BR 17 12,043 SF 708 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 7 7,190 SF 1027 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF 1473 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 LEVEL 5: 35 28,379 SF LEVEL 6 1BR 17 12,043 SF 708 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 7 7,190 SF 1027 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF 1473 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 LEVEL 6: 35 28,379 SF LEVEL 7 1BR 18 12,868 SF 715 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 8 8,127 SF 1016 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 LEVEL 7: 35 27,196 SF Grand total: 172 138,828 SF RENTABLE AREA Unit Type Count Total Area (Both Levels) LEVEL 1 and 2 (EACH UNIT IS 2 LEVELS) TH 17 20,695 SF 4701 77th St W EDINA, MN CURRENT PRIMARY ZONING: PID (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL) TOTAL AREA: 103,340 SF (2.37 ACRES) ALLOWABLE FAR: 0.5 (51,670) PROPOSED FAR: 1.86 (191,712) GROSS AREA Unit Type Count Total Area LEVEL 5 CIRCULATION 1 2,853 SF ELEVATOR 2 167 SF MEP 1 607 SF STAIR 3 563 SF STORAGE 1 311 SF TRASH 1 77 SF 1BR 17 12,043 SF 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 2BR 7 7,190 SF 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF ALCOVE 1 604 SF STUDIO 5 2,635 SF LEVEL 5: 44 32,956 SF LEVEL 6 CIRCULATION 1 2,853 SF ELEVATOR 2 167 SF MEP 1 607 SF STAIR 3 563 SF STORAGE 1 311 SF TRASH 1 77 SF 1BR 17 12,043 SF 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 2BR 7 7,190 SF 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF ALCOVE 1 604 SF STUDIO 5 2,635 SF LEVEL 6: 44 32,956 SF LEVEL 7 CIRCULATION 1 2,853 SF ELEVATOR 2 167 SF MEP 1 607 SF STAIR 3 563 SF STORAGE 1 311 SF TRASH 1 77 SF 1BR 18 12,868 SF 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 2BR 8 8,127 SF ALCOVE 1 604 SF STUDIO 5 2,635 SF LEVEL 7: 44 31,773 SF Grand total: 267 191,712 SF GROSS AREA Unit Type Count Total Area LEVEL 1 ELEVATOR 2 186 SF LOBBY 1 977 SF STAIR 3 602 SF TRASH 1 484 SF TH 17 10,069 SF LEVEL 1: 24 12,318 SF LEVEL 2 AMENITY 1 1,211 SF ELEVATOR 2 180 SF LOBBY 1 673 SF STAIR 3 604 SF TRASH 1 27 SF TH 17 10,627 SF LEVEL 2: 25 13,322 SF LEVEL 3 AMENITY 1 3,737 SF CIRCULATION 1 3,476 SF ELEVATOR 2 167 SF MEP 1 607 SF STAIR 3 564 SF STORAGE 1 311 SF TRASH 1 77 SF 1BR 16 11,343 SF 1BR+D 3 2,960 SF 2BR 7 7,183 SF 2BR+D 2 2,916 SF STUDIO 4 2,092 SF LEVEL 3: 42 35,432 SF LEVEL 4 CIRCULATION 1 2,853 SF ELEVATOR 2 167 SF MEP 1 607 SF STAIR 3 563 SF STORAGE 1 311 SF TRASH 1 77 SF 1BR 17 12,043 SF 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 2BR 7 7,190 SF 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF ALCOVE 1 604 SF STUDIO 5 2,635 SF LEVEL 4: 44 32,956 SF PARKING Level Count LEVEL 1 117 LEVEL 2 122 Grand total: 239 (2ND LEVEL) Summary - Project Data PID: 3102824330017 Address: 4701 77th St W Building Height Overlay: District 12 Proposed Rezoning: Planned Unit Development Height: 7 stories / 87’-0” Setbacks: Front - 35’ Required - 27’-0” proposed Side Street - 35’ Required - 36’-0” proposed Side Interior - 20’ Required - 35’-0” proposed Rear - 35’ Required - 36’-0” proposed Density: Lot area (103,340 SF) is less than unit area (524,740 SF) Units: 189 units total (17 for-sale townhouses & 172 rental 2BR, 1BR, STUDIO, ALCOVE) Vehicular Parking Required: 347 stalls Vehicular Parking Provided: 239 total © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 16 Mixed Development (Apts.)4900 77th St W Office (Commercial)4700 77th St W Mixed Development(Commercial) 4660 77th St W MixedDevelopment(Commercial)4660 77th St W Daycare (Commercial)211 Computer Ave Bank (Commercial)5221 Viking DrBloomington Technology (Industrial)7850 Nord Ave SBloomington Technology(Industrial)4625 77th St W Mixed Development(Commercial) 4600 77th St W Mixed Dvlpmt. (Com.) 4600 77th St W Office (Commercial)4820 77th St W PUD(Commercial)4961 77th St W 77TH ST. W.COMPUTER AVE.VIKING DR. Site Plan Grassy Turf & Shrubs Existing Trees Overstory Trees Roof Deck Pool © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 17 WEST 77TH STREET COMPUTER AVENUERAMP UP NEIGHBORING PARCEL SETBACKS LOT LINES NEIGHBORING PARCELSIDEWALK LEVELS ABOVE 35 -0372 -035 -035 -0163 -735 -0835 SF TH 540 SF TH 540 SF TH 539 SF TH 540 SF TH 540 SF TH 540 SF TH 540 SF TH 832 SF TH 541 SF TH 540 SF TH 541 SF TH 541 SF TH 833 SF TH 211 SF STAIR 484 SF TRASH TRASH / MOVER PULL-IN 186 SF STAIR 541 SF TH 541 SF TH 541 SF TH 977 SF LOBBY 25 26 26 8 108 8 4 2 95 SF ELEVATOR 206 SF STAIR 91 SF ELEVATOR Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. RENTABLE PLAN -LEVEL 1 EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 07/01/21 1 30 -01 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1 ParNing Schedule - Level 1 Level Count LEVEL 1 117 Unit Count - Level 1 and 2 Unit Type Count Total Area (Both Levels) TH 17 20,695 SF Level 1 units have a second story on Level 2 Floor Plans - Level 1 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 18 Floor Plans - Level 2 34 -027 -027 -027 -041 -028 -0 27 -0 27 -0 27 -054 -027 -0 27 -0 27 -0 27 -0 27 -0 27 -042 -7 567 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 867 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 575 SF TH 873 SF TH 216 SF STAIR 186 SF STAIR 866 SF TH 567 SF TH 567 SF TH BUSINESS CENTER 27 -027 -027 -0673 SF LOBBY 1,211 SF AMENITY 11 414 7 15 27 27 6 11 87 SF ELEVATOR 202 SF STAIR OPEN TO BELOW 93 SF ELEVATOR RAMP DOWN Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. RENTABLE PLAN -LEVEL 2 EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 07/01/21 1 30 -01 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 2 ParNing Schedule - Level 2 Level Count LEVEL 2 122 Unit Count - Level 1 and 2 Unit Type Count Total Area (Both Levels) TH 17 20,695 SF Level 1 units have a second story on Level 2 © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 19 Floor Plans - Level 3 40 -329 -8 3/8 18 -045 -7 1/224 -0 34 -5 1/443 -633 -035 -532 -7 21 -10 21 -4 10 -4 26 -6 26 -0 18 -0 24 -0 24 -0 24 -0 24 -034 -0 PARTY ROOMFITNESS 30 -0 3/4 24 -0 24 -0 24 -0 31 -031 -0 24 -0 24 -0 24 -0 1,532 SF 2BR+D 1,067 SF 2BR 908 SF 2BR 1,222 SF 2BR 973 SF 2BR 1,384 SF 2BR+D 918 SF 1BR+D 971 SF 1BR+D 726 SF 1BR 1,071 SF 1BR+D 677 SF 1BR 532 SF STUDIO 677 SF 1BR 733 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 758 SF 1BR 3,737 SF AMENITY 607 SF MEP 539 SF STUDIO 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 837 SF 1BR 513 SF STUDIO 508 SF STUDIO 3,476 SF CIRCULATION 168 SF STAIR 84 SF ELEVATOR 198 SF STAIR POOL 198 SF STAIR 77 SF TRASH 725 SF 1BR 673 SF 1BR 954 SF 2BR 1,014 SF 2BR 1,045 SF 2BR 33 -033 -036 -035 -023 -10 1/2 28 -4 311 SF STORAGE 83 SF ELEVATOR 800 SF 1BR 4 -6 1/2 Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. RENTABLE PLAN -LEVEL 3 EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 07/01/21 1 30 -01 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 3 Unit Count - Level  Unit Type Count Total Area Average Area 1BR 16 11,343 SF 709 1BR+D 3 2,960 SF 987 2BR 7 7,183 SF 1026 2BR+D 2 2,916 SF 1458 STUDIO 4 2,092 SF 523 Grand total: 32 26,494 SF © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 20 Floor Plans - Level 4-6 1,532 SF 2BR+D 1,067 SF 2BR 908 SF 2BR 1,222 SF 2BR 977 SF 2BR 918 SF 1BR+D 971 SF 1BR+D 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 725 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 725 SF 1BR 758 SF 1BR 607 SF MEP 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 837 SF 1BR 513 SF STUDIO 508 SF STUDIO 544 SF STUDIO 2,853 SF CIRCULATION 604 SF ALCOVE 726 SF 1BR 197 SF STAIR 673 SF 1BR 952 SF 2BR 1,021 SF 2BR 1,044 SF 2BR 311 SF STORAGE 532 SF STUDIO 733 SF 1BR539 SF STUDIO 84 SF ELEVATOR 198 SF STAIR 77 SF TRASH 775 SF 1BR 1,414 SF 2BR+D 1,072 SF 1BR+D 168 SF STAIR 83 SF ELEVATOR Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. RENTABLE PLAN -LEVELS 4-6 EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 10/25/21 1 30 -01 FLOOR PLAN -LEVELS 4-6 Unit Count - Level - Unit Type Count Total Area Average Area 1BR 17 12,043 SF 708 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 7 7,190 SF 1027 2BR+D 2 2,946 SF 1473 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 Grand total: 35 28,379 SF © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 21 Floor Plans - Level 7 1,107 SF 2BR 1,086 SF 2BR 908 SF 2BR 784 SF 1BR 977 SF 2BR 918 SF 1BR+D 971 SF 1BR+D 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 725 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 725 SF 1BR 800 SF 1BR 607 SF MEP 677 SF 1BR 677 SF 1BR 837 SF 1BR 513 SF STUDIO 508 SF STUDIO 544 SF STUDIO 2,853 SF CIRCULATION 604 SF ALCOVE 726 SF 1BR 197 SF STAIR 673 SF 1BR 952 SF 2BR 1,021 SF 2BR 1,044 SF 2BR 311 SF STORAGE 532 SF STUDIO 733 SF 1BR539 SF STUDIO 84 SF ELEVATOR 198 SF STAIR 77 SF TRASH 775 SF 1BR 1,033 SF 2BR 1,072 SF 1BR+D 168 SF STAIR 83 SF ELEVATOR Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. RENTABLE PLAN -LEVEL 7 EDINA, MN 4701 77TH ST W 20-100.00 07/01/21 1 30 -01 FLOOR PL AN -LEVEL 7 Unit Count - Level  Unit Type Count Total Area Average Area 1BR 18 12,868 SF 715 1BR+D 3 2,961 SF 987 2BR 8 8,127 SF 1016 ALCOVE 1 604 SF 604 STUDIO 5 2,635 SF 527 Grand total: 35 27,196 SF © 2021 DJR Architecture 11.02.2021 4701 77th St. W. Apartments Edina, Minnesota 20-100.00| Page 22 Thank you November 2, 2021 Project Description – 4071 77th Street West The project proposes a redevelopment of a 2.37-acre site at the southeast corner of 77th Street West and Computer Avenue. The site currently houses a one-story 1960’s office and warehouse building which will be removed with redevelopment. The project will provide approximately 17 for-sale affordable townhome style units and approximately 172 market rate rental units. The ground level townhomes wrap the parking for the development including individual parking for the affordable townhomes. The townhomes range in size from 2 bedroom to 3 bedroom and the rental units range from studio to 2 bedroom plus dens. Two car garages are provided for each townhome and 200 parking spaces are provided for the rental units. An additional 2 off-street spaces are proposed for delivery uses and 20 guest parking spaces are shown along Computer Avenue and 77th Street by pulling the curb back to accommodate parallel parking. Due to a high-water table on the site, the parking is completely above grade, but lined with the two-story townhomes that hide the parking areas for the building. The project is 7 stories in height with step backs at the 3rd floor podium and again on the east and west ends. The rear of the podium will feature a south facing amenity deck with interior amenity spaces and green spaces. Site storm water will be managed in both above-grade and below-grade systems around the site. 2200 Zane Ave N | Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com Cary: At your request, we reviewed the Sketch Plan submission for the proposed development at 4071 77th Street West 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 aligns in several areas with the Design Experience Guidelines, demonstrating positive attributes as it relates the creation of an active public realm, and general consideration for the neighborhood. Generally, the elevations and perspectives provided in the sketch plan submission meet the intent of the Experience Guidelines by stepping back from the first 2 stories to create a more pedestrian scale walking environment. The proposal lines above-grade parking with programmed uses (townhomes) and minimizes the visual impact of the car on the pedestrian experience. However, there are also areas for improved alignment. Landscape options for the Public Realm are not currently represented in the plan drawings or the narrative. If the project moves forward, it will be important to distinguish between desired landscaping at the ground level units and the public sidewalk. In addition, the back of the building is very blank by its design. The programmed parking on the back side is counter to the Experience Guidelines that call for all spaces, in particularly at the ground level are occupied and thereby activated on all four sides of the building as a way to enliven all unbuilt land that surrounds the buildings of the Greater Southdale District. We have included a few suggestions to help the proposal better align with the guidelines, along with an accompanying diagram, on the following page. To City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date November 11, 2021 Recommendations: 1. The turning radius at the corner seems designed to prioritize vehicular turning movement over the safety of pedestrians. Most pedestrian-designed blocks require a 15-foot radius curb, allowing the pedestrian and the driver of the car to have greater eye contact. It would also align more effectively with the cross walk. 2. At the entry, a more distinct curb cut at the edge of the street would also make it safer for pedestrians by creating distance between the street and cars turning into the parking. 3. Creating islands of trees between the parallel parking stalls at the edge of 77th Street would break up the length of the parallel parking; in these areas, the double row of trees created along with trees along the townhouse units would shade this east-west sidewalk. This should be considered for the west side of the building as well. 4. Allow the sidewalk to continue straight to create more landscaping at the corner of the site for additional trees to reinforce the edge of 77th Street as a major pedestrian corridor. This would also align with comment #3. 5. Provide screening at the service drive and for the parking ramping between floors. Screening the service drive and the ramping are in support of comment #6. 6. Add units on the south side of the parking garage. The screening and these additional units would create a 360 degree public realm around the building, and it would encourage any future building to the south to also recognize the land between the two projects, adding value to the Greater Southdale public realm. 7. Completing the sidewalk that surrounds the building is an important part of activating all four sides of the building. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic