Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-22 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 22, 2012 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission July 25, 2012. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. 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. Gengrally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Front Yard Setback Variance for Daniel Wagner & Lindsey Gerrity, 5000 Schaefer Rd., Edina, MN 3 B. Lot Area Variance for Mike and Matt Knodt, 3928 49`h St West, Edina, MN. C. Conditional Use Permit, Paul & Kristen Commers, 4710 Golf Terrace, Edina, MN D. Site Plan, Bruce Carlson, 7501France Avenue, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS A. Sketch Plan, Mount Properties, 6500 France Avenue, Edina, MN B. 2013 Work Plan VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • City Council Meeting Minutes VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please can 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission September 12, 2012 o e N .,�'Z PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker August 22, 2012 B-12-08 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 38.6 foot setback variance from Interlachen Blvd for property located at 5000 Schaefer Road to extend the existing garage by an additional stall and add a mud room. INFORMATIONIBACKGROUND The subject property owned by Daniel Wagner and Lindsey Gerrity is a corner lot located south of Interlachen Boulevard and west of Schaefer Road. It consists of a one story home with an attached two car garage built in 1954, (see attached Fig. A.1-A.7,site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent properties and photos). The property owners are hoping to add a garage stall and mud room onto the west side of the existing garage The existing garage is nonconforming regarding setback from Interlachen Boulevard . The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks. The property must match the front yard setback of the home to the west fronting Interlachen Bloulevard at 6405 Interlachen Boulevard that was built one year later than the subject home. The adjacent home to the west is setback 122.6 feet from Interlachen establishing the setback for the subject property. The garage of the existing home on the subject property is located 76.2 feet from Interlachen and is therefore nonconforming regarding the required 122.6 foot setback. The proposed garage and mudroom addition will be located approximately 84 feet from Interlachen or 7.8 feet farther back from Interlachen than the existing garage. Setback of the garage will remain the same with the addition farther from Interlachen than the front wall of the garage, (see attached Fig. A.8 -A.12., existing/proposed survey, photos and plans). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 33,664 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1954 and pre -dates the current setback requirements and is closer to the north lot line than currently allowed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to extend the garage by an additional stall and add a mud room. Finish materials will match the existing materials on the home. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 City Standard Proposed Front - 122.6 feet *76.20 feet Side- 10+ height, (living) 11.5 feet Rear- 25 feet 45.04 Building Height 2 1/2 stories 1 story, 35 feet to ride 20 feet to the rid e Lot coverage 25% 15.4% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of north (street), setback. Setbacks will not change and building footprint on the property will be to the side yard or rear yard and not affect existing street sight lines. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The home will remain a one story rambler. 3. The improvements will provide additional garage and living space without drastically changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: ?) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The setback of the existing garage will not change with sight lines along the streets remaining the same. Practical difficulties present on the property include the existing nonconforming street setback and limited design opportunity. The design is limited given that the required setback from Interlachen bisects the house severely reducing opportunity for expansion. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home and garage, limiting design opportunities for adding onto the home. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setback along Interlachen will remain the same. Staff Recommendation Recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with. surrounding properties is deeper than the nonconforming setback that has historically been provided by the existing garage. 3) The imposed setback limits design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between structures and the street. Spacing will not change from Interlachen. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: 4 Survey date stamped March 30, 2012/revised July 27, 2012. Building plans and elevations date stamped August 3, 2012 Deadline for a city decision: October 6, 2012. 5 8k/ tci L _t CASE NUMBER-VDATE U � FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (962) 826- 0389 FEE: RES - $350.00 APPLICANT: NON -RES - $600.00 NAME: betlie l Wcc' ner' L -,J5 -e-7 6e.m►� JI -(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: S,db6 SJi to t ft?f 4 , c cid! -1, M nl PHONE:_6 17 ' 1 d EMAIL: oEF (9 seta' 0'1 . Lo W PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Nn"d i)a5n-v, ,h 1e U r _(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 5000 3dnot-kf (;f a4 eil►�e.. rA1y PHONE: 60 -dl6 - al?o LEGAL DESCRIPTI N OF PROPAt dLkERTY (written and el ctronic form): You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS:_ t60 S to-eftF Ro r MAi 513 k PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D. d 1 7 -Z t N 06 i EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:`{'' `d f C�J,,kj Jeu r e� c►rt r' (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) J ARCHITECT: NAME: J�L�nr�grP� -J�fr'�DesJ'Jn PHONE: 2E3 EMAIL (� ► nc� ff� �j, ; ai'► n - oi�� n . ca�✓t SURVEYOR: NAME: av, LrOcrte -PHONE: 9�a-767-�$ EMAIL: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve an undue hardship which was not ❑ self-imposed or a mere inconvenience; Correct extraordinary circumstances ❑ applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. s.eQ- a Preserve a substantial property right ❑ possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. Ste- r,-, 0 "UJ Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the ❑ vicinity or zoning district. 2 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. gp/m Applic#fif'� Signature OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. August 2, 2012 Daniel Wagner Lindsey Gerrity 5000 Schaefer Road Edina, MN 55436 daiiiel.wagiiei-@bestbuy.com City of Edina Planning Commission c/o Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Ms. Aaker: Please accept this statement to satisfy the Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances for zoning variance application. We are the owners of the home located at 5000 Schaefer Road in Edina. We closed on our purchase of the property in May 2012 after relocating to the Minneapolis area for Dan's job (he accepted a leadership position with Best Buy) in February 2012 from Charlotte, North Carolina with our then three month old daughter (Ashley). Lindsey continues in her role in the Global HR division at Bank of America - working remotely out of our home. When we arrived in the Minneapolis area in February, our search very quickly led us to Edina. We consider ourselves so lucky to have found (and fallen in love with) the 5000 Schaefer property as a place where we could raise our daughter, and our dog "Buzzard" could enjoy a yard with critters at every turn to keep him entertained. We were told the prior Homeowners, owners of the Old Dutch Potato Chip company who lived at the home for more than 40 years, turned down a handful of other buyers whom all wanted to tear the existing home down and start fresh - as is apparently quite common across Edina. Our proposal, however, was accepted as we had no intention of raising the structure, instead seeing the character of the home and its place in the history of this magnificent neighborhood. We envisioned putting our own touch on the home, updating (it hadn't been updated since it was built in the 1950s) and improving it to more closely resemble the features of the homes in our surrounding neighborhood. After closing, as we began to formulate our plans to enhance the structure, we learned from our designer that some aspects of our desired improvements (adding a third car garage and mud room to connect our garage area to the main floor of the home) might require zoning approval. We were certainly not experts in this area, but thought it seemed odd given the size of our the lot (.77 acres), distance away from the nearest neighbor (55+ ft) and a seemingly small improvement to the existing structure along the same setback footprint that was constructed in 1954. We subsequently met with Kris Aaker from the Planning Commission and she confirmed that as a result of our west -side neighbor's housing setback, even though our home was constructed prior (thereby establishing the initial setback boundary) we would need to seek a variance to move forward. There are two aspects of our desired updates that require variance approval. First, the existing garage is a standard two car garage, while almost every home in the neighborhood has (at a IONI minimum) a third garage stall. We wish to add a third garage stall to the existing structure. Second, there is currently no garage access from the main level of the home, which therefore requires gar access either from the lower level (basement) or via the outdoors. We wish to add a mudroo enable the main floor and garage area to be connected and enable main Floor access to the space. To accomplish these updates, we respectfully request a decrease in the side yard pdrty .' setback found on the North side of the property. We request that the setback line be.eg6al to the,, `'' North existing garage corner which is 76.2' from said property line, rather than basing the setback off the existing adjacent home. We have discussed the proposed enhancements with our neighbors along both property lines and neither expressed opposition to our plans. In fact, our neighbor to the south added a third car garage, however was not subject to variance restrictions given the conforming setbacks created when the homes were originally constructed. Additionally, our extended neighbors in every direction have made it a point to visit us and offer how happy they are that we are not tearing the existing house clown, instead choosing to make practical and prudent improvements that preserve the original character of the property and its place in the neighborhood, yet offer us the ability to bring the structure more in line with its surrounding peers and the needs of a growing, modern day family. Please find enclosed our Variance Application. Dan Wagner & Lindsey Gerrity 5000 Schaefer Road Edina, MN 55436 Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a mere inconvenience: As a corner lot, with approximately .77 acres, the current zoning setback restrictions based on the setbacks of neighboring properties to the west and south render approximately 75% (1/2 acre) of the property off-limits for modification, even though the current house has —50% of its structure located in front of the setback of the neighbor to the west. The reason for this is due to the fact that the neighboring property was constructed after our house and sits on a larger land area bordered by a pond to the rear. The neighboring house was constructed to take advantage of the pond view, and in doing so created a substantial setback on the front side - while at the same time rendering 50% of our housing structure in non-compliance with the current zoning restrictions preventing even simple updates and enhancements in the non-compliant area. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The 5000 Schaefer lot is a corner lot, which imposes two setbacks with which it must conform in order to be in compliance with zoning restrictions. In most cases, the homes on either side of a corner lot are constructed along the same setbacks as the corner lot home. However, 5000 Schaefer and its neighboring properties are an exception. The lots in this neighborhood area are, in most cases, more than an acre and our neighbor to the west (with 1.42 acres) also backs up to a pond. Our home was built in 1954, while our neighboring home was built in 1955. As such, while our home's construction established the initial setback, the subsequent construction of the neighboring property significantly behind our structure (-40% of our existing home is set in front of the neighboring setback to the west) has created a unique setback situation that creates extra -ordinary, non -self- imposed hindrances to our property and structure. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity a �n'ing district.< �r Our neighbor to the South added a third garage stall without the same setback challenges thatWe face at 5000 Schaefer. Properties in the vicinity and zoning district are able, while maintaining the appropriate distances from neighboring property lines, to enhance/add on to their property as their setbacks lines are typically aligned with their neighbors on either side. In our situation, extending backwards along our current footprint setback is prohibited given the neighboring property structure setback (even though it sits more than (70 ft away). Had our neighboring property to the West been constructed (in 1955) along the same setback as our property was constructed (in 1954) we would not be inhibited as our distance to neighboring property line is sizable (-55 ft at current structure). This represents a substantial right that other properties in the vicinity and zoning district have, that we do not without a variance. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Our property is —.77 acres with our neighbor's property line to the West sitting —57 ft away from the current garage structure. Our plans will decrease the distance by — 12 feet, yet still maintain —45 foot separation between the end of our desired third garage stall addition and the neighboring property line, and all even greater distance to the neighboring structure. This area is, and will continue to be, populated by large oak and other trees preserving privacy and the current look and feel of the neighborhood. J I f J s sJ t J LOGISMap Output Page Page l of 2 Property Assessing J�! , littp://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 8/15/2012 Site Location NI 6417 NS N1, 6409 5 6401 6114 k 3 WpI111ghLo �lCM6 k S IJ WATIMM HAVE Surrou"n 110116. Number 71 label. 1916 6301 IJ 6411 ; 6413 603 6,11 6,15 6NM 830S NOue. Number labels 1 IJ 606 Sbeet N.—labels { city umk. 1977 4ror LBk. j 124 609 rnl Cloak. 1900 i.. _••...1 4901 6,OB 6304 lake Nam.■ MIO 6300 .0. ~A ((}.. Lk.. f.vA Parke 491/ N s kl 4904 El Parcel. $914 @8 21 4913 6406 6400 - 0 6424 6,28 4909 6416 N20 Men 4929 14}., 1 m611uc1rEr+alvn 6319 6501 ?j 6,21 24 5004 s000 6413 6409 6#05 5009 3006 3908 $ 6001 5013 SD,f 1 361, 3017 5666 SD,1 a 6003 _ 6466 SDI, 5027 506! 6016 3009 6101 6501 AAAOIp N'0006 yl 5023 3010 5016 640 5f 11 5/09 LS..G f9�itI�O�EGKA43 5 1 i e lf5h PID: 3011721420018 Ok, p � �, e' l.•'� ° ► 5000 Schaefer Rd , 4 Edina, MN 55436 v Property Assessing J�! , littp://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 8/15/2012 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 A I t http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_AreIMS/ims'?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE&ClientV ... 8/15/2012 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/inis?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE&ClientV... 8/15/2012 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcI MS/inis?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 8/15/2012 Page I of I X, `J file://ed-ntI /citywide/I'llSImages/Photos/3Oil 721420018001.jpg 8/15/2012 Page 1 of 1 file:Hed-ntl /citywide/PDSImages/Pliotos/3011721420017001.jpg 8/15/2012 Page i of 1 X, 7 file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSIu►ages/Photos/3011721420019001 jpg 8/15/2012 mjp r�s�a a tai ums,anImp NOps3(ad xwn polears 3a � —Lt6� •M l/V\,l `\ 5'ry'89! M „ S'ts Z>y. 8 S •� p wit �7 ��'� . +�aa t. / / a MY# l -P \ sn9 \d•� rrt 35t/Hd� � r� \ oo'1G6- uv / a I i 9N�sa, p 113Wdr I 1 09 \ 01 > (Zz' 1 rs -13�.ei�. \---- --tFr �t 7 'au NHII;)6'7YVLLAII SSi[6•I+aNa Yti d:l Y-,R'tFQ7 Y 0> tfa[ r>aT[ vts ssa•r vu «t -Va vas ewt rsvaro 34t�7 ;fi"!07+09 0h95� 1a9 —.. ;— rpy YP- zn e,a -.as t:x aC a>,cn •7'O O6>0-LgL .pi.,t wq 7 F.-0 6f>GS Na •p'+:F3 xaa-.ac VII 7g1NVo' ASAMS dO SIVOIJ119,93 Orr,:ns ps •aay �aya.;p sca9 ,Yjyg aay.;n w n=;s rw to k�, •n .•w, .arw,s 'BVI 'SBOASAMaS WWI O ee[et .w � �ao3 o3ayd3ad Ry, v+a;!s•a i.ro�r am :qnn vw w.!.�.aa is+.p <.• is va:xw ... uxa. .xa •,u,,.,..w nw kvar ..a-* n k..>. , 1312f8Y'J-S8Y/Y30 rtWtr/t 'tea L:W:[/[ '•W aEou ap .aa�+�s la;nvq n-r/:h '•+a `a Via, asY.aA . pvq (p hro) a tt: aZ uq ozo yne� yv>W��::aa a Zf9Iwua NOJl/OOV 0706tNH "[ Y0049 " 107 K YN103 �1�I0ItLdI sia 7VDV7 9f>sG O roa au3nus cans y✓ S :sSibacy 31is r rn at+�aO'et �. >BGSS•:tc:1 7x1 -uti r[�t rtw•aa x:ai snpH yvaapfpy ves st:•r - 'p 30r2j3W &N,14,19 03SOaUK> � —Lt6� •M l/V\,l `\ 5'ry'89! M „ S'ts Z>y. 8 S •� p wit �7 ��'� . +�aa t. / / a MY# l -P \ sn9 \d•� rrt 35t/Hd� � r� \ oo'1G6- uv / a I i 9N�sa, p 113Wdr I 1 09 \ 01 > (Zz' 1 rs -13�.ei�. \---- --tFr �t 7 'au NHII;)6'7YVLLAII SSi[6•I+aNa Yti d:l Y-,R'tFQ7 Y 0> tfa[ r>aT[ vts ssa•r vu «t -Va vas ewt rsvaro 34t�7 ;fi"!07+09 0h95� 1a9 —.. ;— rpy C) ?i �D) 0/11/ 11/ I ft in ti I $ till If ii O y �t S G1 f � o I r ?, r 1_ fe \ \ \ y\ fit IL ce9 \ \ 1 GARAGE / MUD ROOM ADDITION N'ag— Resid — 1--�+ _ 5000 S,h f Rmd Ediw, t.1n. 55436 lit !/ sy -- — — — — —- - ----- --------- — GARAGE / MUD ROOM ADDITION H/ %Vagnet Residence L.., N 5000 Shu , R.ad �� Edia M.. 55416 m IN 9 wt GARAGE / MUD ROOM ADDITION W.I— Residence 5WOS6aef Read Edina, I.fn. 53336 ow e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker August 22, 2012 B-12-09 Assistant Planner Double -dwelling homes Recommended Action: Approve the 2,532 square foot lot area variance as requested. Project Description A 2,532 square foot lot area variance to build a new twin home to replace an existing double dwelling unit at 3928 49th St. owned by Mike and Matt Knodt. INFORMATION/BACKG ROUND The subject property is a 12,468 square foot lot developed with a double dwelling unit located north of 49th Street and is zoned R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District, (see attached pages: A.1 -A.6., site location, aerial photographs, photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner is hoping to demolish the existing double for the construction of a new double dwelling home, (see attached pages: A.7 -A.12 site surveys, and bulding plans). The ordinance requires a double dwelling unit lot consist of no less than 15,000 square feet. The lot consists of 12,468 square feet, so is therefore 2,532 square feet short of the minimum 15, 000 square foot requirement. The existing double dwelling unit was built in 1954 and pre -dates the current lot area requirements. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Double -dwelling homes. Westerly: Double -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 12,468 square feet in area and is a double dwelling unit lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Double Dwelling Unit R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story double home with attached two car garages. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is an existing nonconforming lot that has always been developed with a double dwelling unit. 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent Average of adjacent Side- 10+ height, (living) 10 feet Rear- 35 feet 42 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 35 Ft 2 stories, 29 Ft Lot Area 15,000 Sq Ft *12,468 Sq Ft Lot coverage 25% 25% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of lot area. 2. The homes are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is an existing nonconforming lot that has always been developed with a double dwelling unit. 2 4. The homes are a new two story walkout with attached two car garages and should complement the character of the neighborhood. The homes are within the setback, coverage and height requirements. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 9) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that historically the existing double home has been on a lot that is less than the required 15,000 square foot lot since it was built in 1954. The practical difficulty for the subject property is that the ordinance has changed regarding minimum lot size for a double unit lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned properly, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing property predates the ordinance and was not self-created after the fact. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3 No. The proposed homes will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new twin homes will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property as a double dwelling lot. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions. 3) The imposed lot area does not allow redevelopment of the property without the benefit of a variance or a zone change. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: August 9, 2012. Building plans and elevations date stamped: August 9, 2012 Deadline for a City Decision: September 8, 2012. 4 YILIA I ! ` A 0 �t a l'4ronro�'�� a e2� rase CASE NUMBER �DATE*2 FEE PAI© OO City of Edina Planning Department * www.cilyofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 8260369 * fax (952) 826- 0389 260389 e________________ a.a__._.___-_-__________.______a__________________-______..____n.___________..4__.__.e FEE: RES e $350,00 NON -RES s $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME:' e 3 A-ff (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: -5-02-It rte4A-oat .b Z CPPIP4,AAI PH0NE:Cel2 EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: /" +�-� ? A('O d T kaa�—L� (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 5 -ORA R t tIIM a D ,152 OpIk A, AW PHONE: 6/2-37,2_ 44 7 Cp LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): Lei, f - -I_ 3 Loe e 2 , E_ t o c (.{__ 5LP As: 0 **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3q .;--1 LJ -1-0- 5`. GU E,r)i� �, �'1✓1/ PRESENT ZONING: t_.;2, P.I.D.# EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: %c.,o 1a.e,.e ,& ,l i S•T I b4-� .,,.. 0[ l6 `� (•2Sf �C �u .._ reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: G^at^ y ,el} ,�Z/� PHONE: EMAIL: Stoma r'E'A"4616 r SURVEYOR: NAME: �A'edn s PHONE: EMAIL: l c, m� G �h r o a•. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a more inconvenience: Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. YES NO M ❑ 9 ❑ zc fft.elc t S vCelcr/PZ��b Request for Variance: Knodt 3928 W 49th St. Edina, MN Supporting Answers 1) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed ora mere inconvenience. Yes. The lot is currently zoned R2 and has (and always had) a two-family unit on it. The property cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance. This was not self-imposed because this lot has always been an R2 lot- and after the lot was created and zoned as such the ordinance was amended to require any new R2 lot to be a minimum of a 15,000 sq/ft lot. This plight was not created by the petitioner; it has always been an R2 with less than a 15,000 sq/ft lot. We believe this keeps with the intent of the ordinance because all the R2 zoned lots in this vicinity are less than the current zoning of a 15,000 sq/ft lot and any of them that require them to be re -built, cannot do so under the ordinance as it is written today. 2) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Yes. Because other properties zoned R2 throughout the zoning district have greater than 15,000 sq/ft lot, this variance would correct the extraordinary circumstance of already being an R2 zoned two-family home that is less than 15,000 sq/ft. 3) Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. Yes. This exact variance was given to other properties in the vicinity (specifically 4003 49th St W) and every other R2 property in the vicinity has a current R2 built two-family home and is less than a 15,000 sq/ft lot. 4) Not be materially determinately to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Yes. Since this keeps within the current R2 zoning for this lot- and a two-family home already exists on the lot (and many others with this same situation are in the immediate vicinity), it would not be detrimental to public welfare or injury any other property in the area. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. TI -7 X Applicant's Signature Bate OWNER'S STATEMENT am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this d/ apr-L"o on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) 0 Signature Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 Site location 4800 Legend 489r � wghggtded Faelure 4009 4005 4001 24 3917 3909 3905 4804 Surrounding Miss Numbar Labels 4808 NOd80 Number labels Street Name Labels 4809 .1 City Umite 4813 4812 Creeks Lake Names 4811 0 Lakas El Parks 4824 Parcels 4821 4837 4877 4841 4845 4825 4870 4620 4846 4873 48$0 3910 J97B 7971 iii:7928+1�i 3922 ]918 4851 /853 4877 1111:%1 49TH5 W 4901 4901 4909 4913 4005 4003 4001 3949 3945 7941 3937 3927 7927 3961 4915 24 3948 J9N 7910 3076 5970 4916 3918 4917 4921 191/2 BTW N }4 1�4 21 24 4930 1 �q`1 24 24 49]8 24 1925 uyeem.a,rws.c�tgepnnraasma a um I R PID:1802824140041 0 p 3928-30 49th St W O Edina, MN 55424 Property Assessing http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 8/15/2012 ACT Ma phi OWNS 9 r y v _ � . - Cn lilt e F1wrf '{ . ��d TFC' � g Rte• 'i ��"' 3 3 - 1 1F 6 04 -6.w,. E - 3 y 3 � M1 _ vns A- t r AM 1 i if' ARA qp`f €, Z a..' IN f',� MAO l" F . C Ism C � 54 P`�`'1J a _ a { fid., Fi # Aax3 r�We # �v -IVB � ,+ t` y �c P .3s$ i '�`� � '� � ,{�'_,•* sir`+='-;�-.. 'Fti_s� �- Asa, Wn F I P a w _ _ a a t vy ' u R 3N A Certificate of Survey Prepared for.' Matt KP o d t 49th Street W kN A Legen 0 found Iron Monument O O Z� p SCALE + o '0'o 1 inch - 20 feet Lot 9, Block 9, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, — P10i 18-028-24-14-0041 Property Address: 3928 49th St. W Edina, MN iy n er ane os rave eel Total Area = 0.29 Acres — -- (12,468 sq. ft.) Bearings and elevations based on assumed datum. 1 hereby certify that this certificate of survey was Job Number." 7443 SCHOBORG prepared by me or under my direct supervision and Book/Page: 75/50 that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the LA D SERVICES. laws of the:•S & of M' nesota• Survey Date: 7-17-12 1// Drawing Name: knodt.dwg INC '� ---- Drawn by. KL8 Paul 8• Sch66org - - Revisions: 76J-972-3221 6997 Ca Rd. 13 SE www.senobwgLcndcom Delano, UN W328 Date.,1r� Z��Z��l� Registration No. 14700 k 7 Certificate of Survey Prepared for.' Matt Kn odt 49th Street W Le end • Found Iron Monument SCALE L�6� I inch - 20 feet Lot 1, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, PID# 18-028-24-14-W41 Property Address: 3928 49th St W Edina, MN �yCenterl/ne (as traveled) Total Area = 0.29.Acres _ - — — — (12,468 sq. ft.) Bearings and elevations based on assumed datum. I hereby certify that this cert/flcote of survey was Job Number: 7443 SCHOBORG prepared by me or under my direct supervision and Book/Page: 75/50 that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the LA- D SERVICES laws of the.: S?�te of M' nesofa. Survey Date: 7-17-12 Drawing Name: knodt.dwg I. : i .• � Drawn by. KL9 • Paul B. So�6borg - - Revisions: 76J -972-J221 8997 Co. Rd. 1J SE rww.Schobn9Lvnd,can Delano, YU M328 Date: ZU�ZU�� Registration Na. 14700 110 23 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # VI.0 Cary Teague August 22, 2012 Planning Director Recommended Action: Approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the new first floor elevation of a home to exceed the 1 foot maximum increase allowed by ordinance. Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit request to allow the first floor elevation of a new home to be 3.2 feet higher than the existing first floor of the home to be replaced, (2.2 feet higher than allowed by ordinance), due to ground water issues, at.4710 Golf Terrace. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Property owns Paul and Kristin Commers are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new home at 4710 Golf Terrace. (See site location, photos of the subject property and adjacent homes on pages A.1 A.4) A Conditional Use Permit is being requested to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the previous home by more than one foot. Specifically the applicant would like to raise the first floor elevation 3.2 feet above the first floor elevation of the previous home that had occupied the site. The first floor of the previous home was at 902.6 feet. The new first floor is proposed to be at 905.8 feet. The maximum allowed increase without a Conditional Use Permit is 903.6 feet, (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A.5 — A13.) The new first floor is proposed to be 2.2 feet over the one foot allowed by city code in order to reasonably protect the lower level of the new dwelling from ground water intrusion. The attached Report of Geotechnical Exploration dated July 24, 2012, from Geo Engineering Consultants, Inc., regarding ground water levels indicates ground water at a level of 897.7 feet with a recommended lowest floor elevation of at least 894.0 to 895.0 feet, (see report: page A.14). Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Edina Country Club Golf course; zoned and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single-family residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential Southerly: Single-family residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential Westerly: Single-family residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential Existing Site Features The existing 18,417square foot lot is currently occupied by a single story rambler with a two car garage built in 1951. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Grading & Drainage Low -Density Residential R-1, Single -Dwelling District Drainage patterns would generally remain the same. The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. Final grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval of the city engineer at the time of building permit application. The proposed plans will also require a review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 850.04 Subd. 5.E, 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 proposal for a rebuild of a new single-family home would not have an impact on governmental facilities or services. A single-family home is a permitted use on the site. PA 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; The proposal to rebuild a single-family home would not have an impact on traffic or the capacity of the streets serving the property. The use, a single- family home, remains the same on the property. 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; Again there would be no impact, as the use of the property remains the same. 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; The proposed new home would fit the character of the existing neighborhood. The proposed new home is two stories and there are a number of two story homes within the neighborhood, (See home comparisons on pages A.15 — A.30). S. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and The new home would meet all applicable zoning ordinance requirements. 6. /s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A single-family home is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Additional Conditions Per Section 850.11. Subd. 2: Additions to or replacement of single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building. Such additions to or replacements of single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three (3) conditions listed below, and always meet condition four (4). 1. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the City's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan; or 2. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from ground water intrusion. Existing and potential ground water elevations shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by a professional civil engineer licensed under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 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 3. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet State Building Code, City of Edina Code, or other statutory requirements; and 4. 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. Conditions #2 and #4 above apply to the proposed new home. The proposed new home would have a low floor elevation of 893.8 The applicant would like the new home to have a 9 foot ceiling height in the basement. An eight to nine foot basement ceiling height within single-family homes in an Edina is typical, even though the minimum building code requirement is seven feet. The inability to go down lower to accomplish an 9 foot ceiling height in the basement, the desire to raise the low floor elevation and an upgrade of building materials from previous building practice will result in the new home being 3.2 feet above the first floor elevation of the existing home and 2.2 feet above the allowable limit per ordinance. The proposed new home would fit the character of the neighborhood. (See pages A.15 — A.30), which shows existing homes in the area). The proposed new home is a two story home with an attached three car garage. There are a mixture of housing styles and periods of construction throughout the neighborhood. There are ramblers to full two story homes nearby. The applicant's builder has indicated that home has been designed with mass and scale to minimize any impact of the new home may have on the adjacent homes. 4 Compliance Table PRIMARY ISSUE & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed new home with a first floor elevation 3.75 feet higher than the existing home reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings. As demonstrated on pages 3-4 of this report, the findings and conditions required for this conditional use permit would be met. 2. As demonstrated on the Compliance Table on page 5 of this report, the proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards. 3. Because of ground water issues, the basement of the new home must be elevated to a minimum recommended height of 894 — 895 ft. The new first floor height will be at 905.8, the basement providing 9 foot ceiling heights. A basement with an 9 foot ceiling is considered reasonable within the City. Front — Match neighbors 41.6 feet Side — East 10 feet 13.52 feet Side — West 5 feet (garage) 40 feet Rear — 25feet 37.3 feet Building Coverage 25% 19.3% Building Height 35 feet 31 feet PRIMARY ISSUE & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed new home with a first floor elevation 3.75 feet higher than the existing home reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings. As demonstrated on pages 3-4 of this report, the findings and conditions required for this conditional use permit would be met. 2. As demonstrated on the Compliance Table on page 5 of this report, the proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards. 3. Because of ground water issues, the basement of the new home must be elevated to a minimum recommended height of 894 — 895 ft. The new first floor height will be at 905.8, the basement providing 9 foot ceiling heights. A basement with an 9 foot ceiling is considered reasonable within the City. 4. The proposed new home is in character within this neighborhood. The home is similar to other homes constructed within the general area. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a new home at 4710 Golf Terrace. The Conditional Use Permit allows the new home to have a first floor elevation of 905.8 feet which is 3.2 feet above the first floor elevation of the existing home and 2.2 feet above first floor height allowed by ordinance. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The proposed new home is in character with this neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: Survey date stamped July 25, 2012 Building plans and elevations date stamped July 25, 2012. 2. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 3. Final grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval of the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Drainage patterns may not be directed to adjacent properties. Deadline for a city decision: September 23, 2012 0 A, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ow a APPLICATION 0 R E L�'0 E E10 I 2 5 "�? i� ' �.�JUS. 1888 �j ��o CASE NUMBERDATE 1.20 11 FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: $800.00 APPLICANT: NAME: (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 4/716 6&1f` �. ekk C.Ce- PHONE: Oz -?do- 76S"7 EMAIL: PI-c.OV %P%6HS CV- At'Vk kL' PROPERTY OWNER: Co `► t �� (c'tou kAed-S NAME:__ of w Gtyi 5k� (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: Li-? I U 6 y l F De vvaCe­ PHONE: 61 Z -Wo — 745-7 OF PROPERTY (writtan lectronic form): 'I 00T 29a I� Tew-Ace fi4:v&� PROPERTY ADDRESS: (4,710 651 P- TCvva PRESENT ZONING: F— l P.I.D.# !�J- �L�— 2 �/-2 2 000? EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: // C.. t lac. N e (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: b FP PHONE: %e ? - -7 go - ?0 d Lf EMAIL: �1 h; c6 c.-vw.. SURVEYOR: 'NAME: 13 Vo /, -n PHONE: rZ '" ?6Ss7 71 — EMAIL: _ 1�J A 6A Sv Y VC. f LV- C -d i . to k' -XWw*eA 1a 4 s ?k s 6y-aa4-- tiQ;5 < ovd 07 S — 80 7— 9 7 65' SG, 4Lt.rg1-1 Cr CG'k'C-d T/ APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. Applicant's Signature Z5/2vIt Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (if a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Owner's Signature -211 S'/ 7 -1t-- Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. G ECCOMS D JUL 2 5 2012 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 Property Assessing http://gis.logis.org/LOCTIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 8/2/2012 7 4710 Golf Terrace Conditional Use Permit Application We are proposing building a new home at 4710 Golf Terrace with a new floor 3.2 feet above the floor height of the previous home (that has since been demolished). This new floor is being built 2.2 feet over the one foot allowed by city code in order to reasonably protect the lower level of the new dwelling from ground water intrusion. The attached documentation from Geo Engineering Company shows the groundwater level at 892 and the recommended lowest floor elevation height of 895. All other dimensions of the new home will meet Edina's zoning rules and the home is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood in height, mass, and scale. The home exterior will feature stone details facing Golf Terrace, cedar shingle siding, and an asphalt roof. These are materials that blend in with the character of homes on Golf Terrace. JUL 2 5 2012 eH$ ;I v � v i e as s3�;ae �'-sem o 8 'III 0 d °ss� eH$ ;I v � v i o 8 0 ug- # e �a Jos ag eH$ ;I v � v i SRE ADDRESS: 4710 GOLF TERRACE EDINA, NN 55424 ` l�eQ� t� C> _J _J �J" 1333 FRSfrr RIIRryOLl fMyLE RAOR.yg5.2 YIRn11G NYGYr-34 Fr. �fine.aa,M >. :L. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FOR: Legend GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES —SWC—SOngory Sewer S89'44'47'E , Hme wdw �j3�e 3 T :� e—'�.a--.-.i.-_-.� �uew®n.rmx:� _•�— uneo�wndw � � 135.00 O NOnfak I 0.em �� o ce. uaeer � I a m Poen Pole jrr4 �• �amv ma z 1 '�4I I J n -1 r n r I 1 b r . 1 � t .p...;. ..� -•_moi •' I - 1 1 1 . • 13653 PUT 44'47"W aoup Mtg G 0 L F :t:- T E R R A C E _-+�-.Y_ QNclduaua Tme lan3emua Tree ememl. uvro iA00A E'YtWy Spet Elerugon n r SCALE: 1 INCH 20 FEET amxf Top d Weg M—U. V I 1 e9WAre Tey d 0.ro eergtlOn r-9t10-� EWA" Colour 7 �— aelneg. � Oenotu Imo Yemment FOu,d e Mnelee Se t 14" sucdbeq � 1�2lO�y �a.eeaat• F'NISTMG 1d Irev t3.417* 5, R tet Ana . 144171 Sq. FL RVERV W3 SURFAM NPEWM sumce -- x phgpoep 11wew - 7.535! Sq. R FAIOMIp Ih1ev - 21801 Sq. R r Tatd 3,303* 53, R TOW . 2,48 Sq. R N 10.7! - 13.57. - wmov m wu /48ge . 42o R 03 . 1471 R '^�^' iimP0i0 Alwnge - 41A FL &111W6 IE1gNf d R. i4no Hgye..a net ww. tondyn t}g3A) DCZRPTMK 'y n -t pm! d 1d 1. B 2, 1r"1 wet d a 9ne 13,. is tp ry0.PhtORatn"ft.pa Z of a OO7it Nom a dYEefSad7en 1 135 fad Wad I�em the NOeNeeef Crtnv d Wt 1. 1 Book ]. IneudSp adJaeaM port d vacated 44ee1, D7lF l mnlucc HE1ty02 nmmpm WuatY. Nsv.xm. I I I I Rftl RAWK I ma 41f Fe Yenheia idlm logs oe c d o. 1� nvoa. F7avogen - ms�e. 1 1 � No1e rb swan wee Ilaee F r kW Eae.n,enla I I .eYn j nice the bmtbn d oo ugWes elven an train plum I aumunw YF ma u1Wy aomponYa and ae L— r� cn"v°"1.. wed e. mgnnd JUL J 1�:ht� V'r1�t. . I newly mriny uet tnb urwy, gun m rata.** vroa wwomd s7 ' JUL a• 5 ZL12 e.r „y elms .,ye,wdm, aad qet 1 mm e eay aegidwOa 1n+d SWryor.. oder the bws d Yu Stab d Ylnnaeela. I - W. ORM W49 WRh1WG INC. --_ W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. d070 Wdo<Avan a Se. E 22A. 91ooM,pbn, YN 65425 Woodrow A, S.— RLS. AW REG 15230 Bok �)) 854-9035 Faa: (g3Z) 351-4233 OOted: 0]-21-2312 510E L2y6, ll] -25-2012 41 4i. %'l0 IV Or Page 1 of 1 Scott Busyn From: Ahsanur Siddique [ahsan@geoenginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:51 PM To: Scott Busyn (scottbusyn@comcast.net) Subject: Water Level Monitoring, 4710 Golf Terrace, Edina, MN Scott, We installed a piezometer at about 20 feet north and 3 feet east of northeast corner of existing house on July 14, 2012 to monitor water level. The surface elevation at this location is about 897.7 feet based to lot survey. On July 20, 2012, we measured water level in the piezometer. Water level was 5.7 feet below the ground surface and which corresponds to elevation 892.0 feet on July, 20 2012. We will take another water level reading by the end of this week to verify any change in water level elevation. We understand existing house will be demolished and a new house will be constructed at his site. The new house will be a two-story with full basement. The structure will be of wood frame construction supported on foundation walls. It is our opinion that the lowest floor elevation of the new house should be at least 2 to 3 feet above water level. Based on our water level reading on July 20, 2012, the lowest floor elevation should be at least 894.0 to 895.0 feet. After final water level reading, we can provide more specific recommendations. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Thanks, Ahsanur R Siddique PE Geo Engineering Consultants Inc PO Box 21490 Minneapolis MN 55421 ahsan@geoenginc.com email 763.502.9945 Phone 763.502.9946 Fax 612.384.3245 Mobile Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20200) http://www.pctools.com 7/30/2012 14, /� GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES GREAT LOCATIONS I GREAT DESIGN I GREAT QUALITY July 23, 2012 To: Cary Teague, Planning Director - City of Edina From: Scott Busyn - Great Neighborhood Homes Subject: CUP Application for 4710 Golf Terrace Neighborhood Character Study We are submitting the attached documentation showing how the new home being proposed at 4710 Golf Terrace will fit the character of the neighborhood in height, mass, and scale. 4710 Golf Terrace is located on the west and of the block overlooking Edina Country Club As can be seen in attached photos, the homes on Golf Terrace are stately in nature and represent an eclectic collection of homes built in the 40's, 50's, and several recently constructed homes. Many homes styles can be found including cape cod, ranch/rambler, colonial, French provincial, Modern, and American cottage/shingle. The homes are all set far apart on large lots with many mature trees. It is very evident that this is an area of transition with many new homes and remodels in progress. The proposed home at 4710 Golf Terrace will be a two story home with rooflines that are designed to reduce the mass and scale of the home by having the eve lines come down to the first level ceiling. This gives the home the character of a "story and a half' home that can be found on other homes in the neighborhood. In addition, all four sides of the home are being designed with character details (detailed windows, gables, stone, shed roofs, etc) to avoid any type of "movie screen" fagade. The west and east sides of the home have been designed with a smaller mass and scale than the front elevation (facing Golf Terrace). This will allow for a better blending of the new home with the two adjacent homes. We have also made an effort to avoid blocking the sitelines of the golf course for the adjacent homes. The proposed home will fit the character of the neighborhood by using quality materials such as cedar shingle siding, stone, detailed window trim and corbels, and divided light windows. In addition, the new horde will have a stone chimney, a feature common on older homes in the neighborhood. Please let me know if you would like to see additional information or feel free to call me anytime at 962-807-8765. Thank you. l Jut 2 5 ?519 SCOTT BUSYNARGAR_E_T BU.SYN - PHONE 952-807-8765 - SCOTT.BUSYN@COMCAST.NET PHONE 952-80 @�Coh 4615 WOODDALE AVENUE, EDINA, MINNESOTA 554241 FAX 952-926-1168 MN BUILDERS LICENSE # BC -521688 A/15- VIA, tc rel+: r iJ f� F r` - [ JJ 1 f ! f 1 .T. - l 4 - Al a t 133 kl t tj 'I k� _ 1 t 5tt Jj f { �� � w y r • r d�2.Nr• if. YitA ''i •1 i 1 _ ��1a Aliiol .i�•j`i\�1� P �rJ 0 1 � W 1 ` ���• h 5 a - z py �1 5 i •if i i i_ roS •`y i .ti. � F E , Vi ��' � � } •rte � � ,v � � j ' � � , r - r j'��4n�y. sn�' •0.v•s t. II � F� i r v i u } %- / r ## j,Y �'r airy Ey► s1?; I' 1�T. i Dill JI N` R a {r 1. —44 1,5 •r4+',I �t S {� � �t-t; ��/� lCp A j. �',I f y Nw � h t Y 4 L- 5dT St - F 4 b+ "I I i 1 �iSY t F �` 4 �� �` "4c ►� t f g� y � �. ,ear t •'�•� ji ,-� iVa r:�d 3 �y^f'P: t � t Al r _ , y PJF4' 6 i �iSY t F �` 4 �� �` "4c ►� t f g� y � �. ,ear t •'�•� ji ,-� iVa r:�d 3 �y^f'P: t � t Al k7 6 i Y. x � t �r q ik ,7.7' A_.',f', rbc � 6 i -� •�-IV .i • wl t � � f i t a � Y. x � Y. .i • i