The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-10-24 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 24, 2012 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER I1. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission October 10, 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. Generally 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. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review — 5109-5125 West 49th Street B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments — For Discussion • Grading/Retaining Walls • Subdivisions VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • Council 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 November 14, 2012 CITY OF MEMO City Hail • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com a x, Q) �J � �O Date: October 24, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review — 5109-5125 West 49" Street The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop three lots at 5109-5125 West 49th Street. (See property location on pages Al A6.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site and build an 18 -unit attached housing development. (See narrative and plans on pages A7 A13.) The subject properties are 1.28 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 14 units per acre. The Planning Commission has considered the following sketch plan proposals for this site: • On March 28, 2012, the applicant proposed sketch plan for a six -story, sixty - foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building. The density proposed was 71 units per acre. (See minutes from the Planning Commission discussion on pages A15—A19.) • On June 27, 2012, the applicant proposed sketch plan for a four-story, forty four -foot tall, 60 -unit senior housing building. The density proposed was 43 units per acre. (See minutes from the Planning Commission discussion on pages A20—A23.) The consensus of the Planning Commission for both of those proposals was that the development proposed was too much for the site. The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant would be seeking a rezoning of the property to PRD -4, Planned Residential District, or PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (1-4 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to HDR, High Density Residential would be required to allow a density over 12 units per acre. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO e The applicant is again requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the applicant shall be considered advisory only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. The following compliance table demonstrates how the proposed new building would comply with the PRD -2, Planned Residence District -2 Ordinance Standards. Please note that several variances would be required under the existing zoning standards. Compliance Table -Variances required The applicant has significantly reduced the density from the previous proposals. The number of variances has been reduced from the previous requests, and the variances would be relatively small. The proposed density seems reasonable for this site, given its proximity to Highway 100, Vernon Avenue, the railroad tracks and Holiday Gas Station. The proposed development is similar to the pocket neighborhood concept that has been discussed over the past year. This site appears to be a good fit for this concept. It would provide a transitional land use between the single-family homes and Vernon Avenue and the Commercial area to the west. While the proposed City of Edina • 4801 W. 506 St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Standard Proposed . (PRD -2) Front — 49th Street 30 feet 25 feet* Front — Vernon 30 feet 20 feet* Side — East 30 feet 15 feet* Side — West 30 feet 20 feet* Building Height 2-1/2 stories or 2 stories & 30 feet 30 feet, whichever is less Building Coverage 25% 37%* Density 8 units per acre (11 13 units per acre* (18 units) units) Parking Stalls 2 enclosed spaces 2 enclosed spaces per unit per unit -Variances required The applicant has significantly reduced the density from the previous proposals. The number of variances has been reduced from the previous requests, and the variances would be relatively small. The proposed density seems reasonable for this site, given its proximity to Highway 100, Vernon Avenue, the railroad tracks and Holiday Gas Station. The proposed development is similar to the pocket neighborhood concept that has been discussed over the past year. This site appears to be a good fit for this concept. It would provide a transitional land use between the single-family homes and Vernon Avenue and the Commercial area to the west. While the proposed City of Edina • 4801 W. 506 St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO density would be classified as high density in the Comprehensive Plan, it is on the very low end, of what the City of Edina has allowed for high density development in the past. See the following table: Development Address Units Units Per Acre Yorktown Continental 7151 York 264 45 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 York Plaza Condos 7200-20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240-60 York 260 29 Edina Place Apartments 7300-50' York 139 15 Walker Elder Suites 7400 York 72 40 Yorkdale Townhomes 7429 York 90 9 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36* Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 Proposed New Apts. at the YMCA 7355 York 130 22 The Waters Colonial Drive 139 22* *Recent City Approvals PUD Zoning Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and L ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The proposed development would be a huge improvement over the existing buildings on the site. The applicant would however, still need to demonstrate that the development would meet the PUD criteria above. Potential ways to meet the criteria, some of which are described in the applicant narrative, would be through building design, creative site design, sustainability, pedestrian oriented development with pedestrian connections, and potentially affordable housing. Given the site's visibility, it could provide a gateway into the Grandview area. Traffic A traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. Concern has been expressed with the previous request from residents in regard to congestion that would be created at the intersection of Brookside and Interlachen Boulevard. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina 4mrarw Legend 4501 SZas 3?0/ 4501 Nouse Number Labe)* I036 81bWName Labels sizf 611T 117 10251014200 3 {505 V crw umtla .ran 48w 4211 1✓ creeks � Labe Names u10 2ii 4212 4013 Off suo Ira rr3 102 s+a a 4202 424 L.abee parks Isla eez+ O parcels 4512 4e4 � � � 4025 bfo} 400/ } 4221 4223 4220 5121 117 5112 4833 $ AUTLOWAVe {232 .403? 42n 4024 $120 life 113 stn 4041 l3 4220 4272 4032 4e4o 4a4o uw � 21 b 24 4000 4s2A5Tw !� l0f Off gg��ppgg 207. T ��0p0pn 105 8� fTb SffT lots 21 4 m1 � 5300 rr------�� i 4920 sole _ h wee V�oOe S $ •lSai �. 1� soot 7At o 2100 Yd2rBL1 sofa 24 5101 5035 a Lk sore 34 24 � sr4t ffi `�'T' 5101 SifO 24 fnM tupn path Yo.mt.wwms.c.ypTcKlN7la6xm o®12111 V PED: 2811721310040 • ° ` @ ° 5115 49th St W �;7�•/{ E'y1., �' 4a L,• Edina, MN 55436r'4 ``�„_ Itt1111 w of Edina N� pV8° MMaNy Ing1� 711 .�R P113:2811721310040 5115 49th St W Edina, MN 55436 A3 L pend Nola* Na°mar Labels ZbeetRown Labels �/ CiOrLAmRs , ✓ ca.&s Lala N.Mm _ tiles Dparks Q Panels 2M AadW Phew ,..tt 4 ♦ ..f 5.:s1 �.7 .t�.Yk "'��, t •' �y �.RpC �J ... '�t-�Y .-uY" R ,�+s'¢,� .ti*4 a e r � a i w k w� 5 • �, � r. ^ fir, r w,�raxi t r�i1�0'...�: Y a� a A ti k *5 i �� .c�. ,dj,'..- �.. 1 W ��, �—. 1 �� 1 I � � �. _ �._ a_.�e�i.f' Afell C4IV� JAI BKV MEMORANDUM R 0 v P PROJECT: Vernon Avenue Housing Architecture Interior resign TO: Cary Teague Landscape Architecture Engineering FROM: David Motzenbecker Boatman Kroos Vogel CLIENT / FIRM NAME: Hunt COMM. NO.: 1874.01 Group Inc. DATE: 10.24.12 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.339.3752 RE: Narrative for Vernon Avenue Housing Development Facsimile: 612.339.6212 www.bkvgroup.com EOE ° After much thought and market study, the Vernon Avenue Housing development has been reconfigured to be an 18 -unit townhome development. The units will be 3 levels and 30' high, each with their own tuck -under 2 -car garage. They will range in gross floor area from 3120 to 3600 square feet. The development is located on three parcels of land adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp from Hwy. 100 southbound. The parcels are between Vernon Avenue on the south and 49th Street on the north. The development is envisioned to meet the demands of empty -nesters and those who want to stay in Edina and downsize their homes. However, life -cycle housing is currently in short supply. We see this development fitting in well with the current GrandView Heights Small Area Plan and many of its suggestions. Taking the Planning Commission's and Staffs previous comments into consideration, we've reduced the density and scale to something we feel better fits within the neighborhood context. The number of units currently equates to approximately 14 units/acre. The building has been reduced in height from the previous scheme from 4 stories to 3 stories, fitting within the zoning requirements for height. Adding a townhome development at this location is appropriate and will bring public value to the city and neighborhood. The creation of life -cycle housing with a high-level of amenities is an excellent public value. With its location near Hwy. 100, the development allows easy vehicular access for those who have cars. We believe that by locating the development here that we are eliminating additional traffic that will filter into the heart of the neighborhood One of the key elements of our site plan is how we are connecting the development to greater Edina. We are still planning to add a public walkway to our site that connects 49th Street and the neighborhood beyond directly to Vernon Al Avenue. This access route works directly into the small area plan route suggestions of bicycle and pedestrian paths. We also anticipate improving the sidewalk and boulevard along Vernon, helping to create a better connection to the east. We envision this as a catalyst towards beginning the "complete streets" transformation of Vernon as outlined in the small area plan. One of our sustainability goals is to retain as much of the mature vegetation and trees as possible, ensuring the development has a good vegetative buffer from the surrounding traffic. This also benefits the developments heating and cooling costs, as the trees will help keep the building cooler during the summer months, and when the leaves drop, allow the sun to warm the building during winter. The parcels - 5109, 5117, and 5125 491h Street W — are 54,393 square feet (1.25 acres) in size and zoned PRD -2. The current zoning allows 2.5 stories/30' and 6 units. The current zoning requires 7300 s.f./unit. Due to our proposed number of units, we are anticipating a need to up -zone these parcels to a PRD4 zoning classification. A rezoning to PRD -4 allows 2900 sf/unit — this would allow 19 units, we are proposing 18. We do not anticipate taking any MLA bonuses at this time, though we will need to address some minor setback adjustments via variances. In conclusion, we anticipate the following land use applications: 1. Rezoning from PRD -2 to PRD4 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3. Setback Variances 4. Site Plan Review We may possibly consider rezoning to a PUD in lieu of the previous list, but would like to hear the Commission and Staffs recommendation. Al PROJECT SUMMARY FLOOR TOTAL u Isr aro FLeOe iLOW BUILDING FOOTPRINT %ego sr FLOOR AREA DWELLING UNITS fe is aea PARKING(IN—UNIT) .x .se siuis (oow�c ueu[) PERVIOUS/ IMPERVIOUS »aoo V srs nrnwws LOT SIZE »..a w 5% w x a. ,.x —mUNIT DENSITY ro wuN vie axw a wea p<.s. FLOOR AREA RATIO »asr x / ss.ew x I I.es BKV G R O U P ArdAxtum InWia D** V"m Gmw Im 222 North SKad Street MV#mpok MN SMI TekpSwc 612-339-37S2 Faakrt 612-339-6212 www.bkv6roup,e I Avenue Senior Housing o3lmarpw �arr�FYrrygerrw Mw+�Mrrxalra.rr�r r.w.rrlwaµ earYalr4MiY� .rrrirrarnr� �i VE=U AVENGE SUM HOUSING SKETCH PI AN .""----------- Am= L010 e LII eNtiyapeie p MEW P � e 4 `i ,Now e A+3 Basement — 30' 1st Floor — 30' 2nd Floor— 30' V I I I I I I I 1 646 SF RO UP7 317 SF FINISHED SF 492 SF UNFINISHED SF 646 SF 0 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FINISHED SF 1138 SF UNFINISHED SF 0 SF FINISHED SF 802 SF UNFINISHED SF 0 SF Basement — 26' 1st Floor — 26' 2ncl Floor.— 26' I I I I 580 SF L-0 VN UP 260 SF FINISHED SF 430 SF UNFINISHED SF 580 SF 0 4' 8' 116' IN MINIM! " SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FINISHED SF 1014 SF UNFINISHED SF 0 SF DN FINISHED SF 715 SF UNFINISHED SF 0 SF 188 SF 149 SF C.) iYII ' '" + ,�, `�.�, • oma, �- 1181 - t. +� ir ki _~MI 142 W Y b Its 21 S.Mino p n -, p19111111aV! PIA(C1 atI�OQ A. Sketch Plan Review for Senior Housing - 5 109-512 5 West 49th Street for Hunt Associates Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop three lots at 5109-5125 49th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartment buildings and single- family home and build a new six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building. Teague pointed out the existing properties are zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District which allow residential buildings containing six of fewer units. Teague said should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site. Continuing, Teague said a traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. Concern was expressed from residents in regard to congestion that would be created at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and Interlachen Boulevard. Concluding, Teague stated which the proposal would be an improvement over the existing buildings on the site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise to the level of meeting the purpose and intent of a PUD. The proposal far exceeds allowed densities. Seven variances would also be required under traditional senior housing zoning. Appearing for the Applicant Daniel Hunt, Hunt and Associates, David Motzenbecker, BKV Group Chair Grabiel explained that before the Commission this evening is a sketch plan review. Grabiel clarified that a sketch plan wasn't a public hearing. It's an opportunity for the developer to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission on their concept. Discussion/Comments Chair Grabiel told the Commission he seems to remember the Commission and Council approving a development concept in this area for townhomes, adding he doesn't remember the unit count. Planner Teague responded that Chair Grabiel was correct. The Council approved a 6 -unit townhouse development, however, the townhouse development only included the R-1 lot and right-of-way. 41 �- Page 9 of 14 Commissioner Forrest observed that ordinance stipulates a building height limit of 2 -stories in the PRD -2 zoning district. Planner Teague agreed adding PRD -2 also contains a density cap of 6 -units. Mr. Hunt addressed the Commission and said he believes the proposed use of the site as senior housing is good. Continuing, Hunt explained in Edina there is demand for senior housing. Edina residents want to be able to remain in their community when it comes time for them to sell their home. This proposal gives them that option. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker to speak more on the proposal. Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission that in his opinion this is a key piece and an excellent location for a senior building. Continuing, Motzenbecker said that the project will entail tearing down the existing two apartments and single- family home to construct a new 98 -unit, 6 story structure and rezoning the site to PUD incorporating the requirements of the City's PSR -4 zoning. The parcel is located adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp and West 49th Street. Motzenbecker said in his opinion the proposed building would bookend with Grandview. With graphics Motzenbecker pointed out design elements and the goal of incorporating this site into the greater Grandview area. Motzenbecker also noted the goal of the ETC was to establish a comprehensive living streets policy that integrated all modes of transportation. Motzenbecker said he believes this project is a step in the right direction in implementing that goal. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they looked to the Grandview small area development plan and incorporated its key principles into their site. One principle was key, turning perceivable barriers into opportunities. In this respect the natural topography actually became an asset. Chair Grabiel said in his opinion this may be a very difficult area to "get out of including getting onto Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Motzenbecker acknowledged that and informed the Commission a traffic study needs to be completed to ensure traffic is handled appropriately. Continuing, Motzenbecker said they also anticipate improving the sidewalks and boulevard along Vernon. Chair Grabiel noted their reference to senior housing and asked exactly what type of senior housing this would be. Motzenbecker said that the population served would be able bodied seniors 62+. Chair Grabiel asked if the units would be market rate or something else. Motzenbecker responded that the units would be market rate and be around $2,000 per month depending on unit size. Commissioner Staunton said he has a concern with the request as it relates to zoning/PUD/PSR-4. Staunton said to him it appears to be an excuse to get around / 1Page 10 of 14 code. Mr. Motzenbecker said their intent was to create the best development possible and tie into the Grandview small area plan by bringing connection to the Grandview area. Vernon Avenue would also be enhanced through landscaping and walkways along with boulevard enhancement. Aligning the project with the PSR -4 zoning district provides the opportunity for the project to implement bonuses. Commissioner Fischer said he has a difficult time justifying a building of this size and density in a small residential neighborhood. Mr. Motzenbecker said their intent was to set the building as far back from the street (491h Street) as possible and add amenities to the front of the building. Motzenbecker said the building would be 200' from the nearest residents across 49th. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they took advantage of the topography when designing the building pointing out that the topography absorbs the building height. Commissioner Carpenter said in his opinion the building is too large. Carpenter asked the developers how parking was handled; not only parking for residents of the building but for guests. Mr. Motzenbecker said the building was designed with 132 enclosed parking spaces those spaces include spaces for visitor parking. Carpenter questioned if that would really work. Commissioner Staunton stated in his opinion this plan is very aggressive and causes him concern. Staunton said he likes the attention paid to Vernon Avenue; however the unit count is way too high; more attention needs to be paid to the north side and traffic is a major concern. Staunton noted the one-way in and out scenario is difficult at best. Commissioner Platteter agreed and questioned site circulation, traffic circulation on West 49th St, site drop-off, metro mobility, deliveries and visitor parking. Platteter said that he doesn't think the drop-off area as sketched would work. There's just too much going on with this building. Commissioner Forrest added she was also concerned with the circulation on the site and on 49th St. This proposal will certainly add additional traffic into the area pointing out it's a one way in and out. Continuing, Forrest also said in her opinion the building is too tall, the site is too tight (especially on the east), and its just too much, Concluding, Forrest said the Commission also has to keep in mind housing trends change over time, adding it may be a senior building today but maybe not in the future. Commissioner Schroeder said the site intrigues him with the question of how you transition from Vernon into the residential neighborhood while maintaining the residential character. Schroeder said in his opinion this isn't a very friendly project. He added the building needs to relate better to the R-1 neighborhood. Concluding, Schroeder said the building at least at the residential level on 49th St. needs to be scaled back. Page 11 of 14 Commissioner Staunton agreed with Schroeder's comments pointing out the proposal increases the density 10 -fold.• It's just too much. Concluding, Staunton said that he's also not sure if this is consistent with the GrandView Framework. The building is way out of scale. Mr. Motzenbecker asked the Commission if they could provide some guidance on the number of units they would be comfortable with. Commissioner Staunton said traffic is another large issue. He said the one way in and out nature of this neighborhood along with the RR tracks is key in redeveloping this site and achieving the correct unit count. Staunton concluded that he doesn't know the "right" unit number. Commissioner Potts suggested that the applicant take another look and respond more to the topography and to the residential neighborhood. Potts asked if their intent was to build the building and sell it or would they continue to manage the property. Mr. Hunt responded they would build and manage the property. Commissioner Fischer asked the applicants if they spoke with their neighbors. Mr. Motzenbecker responded they had, adding around 15-20 neighbors came to a neighborhood meeting. Motzenbecker said they received both positive and negative feedback. Commissioner Forrest indicated the proposed use is fine with her, reiterating her concern is massing and traffic. Forrest said in her opinion this project isn't the right "transition" into the neighborhood. Concluding, Commissioner Forrest said that in her opinion 20 units at 2 % stories may be the right transition. As presented it's just too large. Chair Grabiel said he agrees with all comments thus far adding his concern is that the building is just too large and the transition into the R-1 neighborhood just isn't there. Grabiel said he doesn't want to give false encouragement, adding he believes the use is right; however this is just way to large. Mr. Motzenbecker said he understands the Commissions comments indicating they want to see a smaller building. He asked the Commission if they could provide him with a unit range. Commissioner Schroeder commented that he understands the applicant is looking for a number; however, that can't be provided. Schroeder said he wants to see a creative solution that is sensitive to the neighborhood. Concluding Schroeder said there are other options out there. Commissioner Carpenter suggested considering other areas, adding this may not be the right site. 4« Page 12 of 14 Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their presentation adding the Commission would be receptive to them bringing forward another sketch plan for review. Public Comment David Valentine, 5021 Hankerson, told the Commission he doesn't think a building of this size belongs in a residential neighborhood. Valentine said he has no objection that it's a senior building; however, the building is just too large with too many units. B. M dification to the Redevelopment Plan for Southeast Edina Re velopment Project Area and the TIF Plan for the Establish ent of the Sout ale 2 TIF District. Planner P Planner Teagu7iormed the Commission the City Counci 'sconsidering the establishment TIF District that would include uthdale and surrounding parcels. Teague explained the pu ose o/eatzents. TIF was to facilitate improvements to Southda inclwing renovations to common areas; new entrances, flooring, ligh ' gooms, parking deck lighting, exterior seating, columns and i nts. Teague said at this time there are no proposed changesin use y with the proposed improvement project. Teague told the Commissioat at thi ime they are being asked to determine by resolution that the pro osed improve ent to the common areas are consistent with the/eexplained Plan. CommisPlanner Teague to clarify eir action. Planner ed the Commission is being a ed to determine by resolution that the of TIF funds to improve common reqs was consistent with thee Plan. Fommissioner Fischer moved to adopt the resolution as outlil�ed by City staff on page Al. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried 9-0. All Page 13 of 14 Joint 27, apld Pc 10 A J k) B. Sketch Plan Review - BKV Group - 5109 and 5117 West 491h Street. Vernon Avenue Senior Housing Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop three lots at 5109-5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site and building a new four story 44 -foot tall, 60 unit senior housing building. The density of the project would be 43 units per acre. Teague reminded the Commission the applicant had previously proposed a six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building that was considered by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2012. Teague explained that the existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant would be seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (1-4 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to HDR, High Density Residential would be required. The applicant is again requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the applicant shall be considered advisory only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. Concluding Teague indicated that staff remains concerned with the proposed density of the proposed density of the proposal at 44 units per acre. While the maximum density of the PSR -4 District is 44 units per acre as requested, it is still at the high end of what the City of Edina has allowed for high density development in the past. Additionally, this site is adjacent to single-family residential homes to the north and east. The City's other high density residential sites in town are not located so close to single-family residential areas. They are generally located in the Southdale area. Appearing for the Applicant David Motzenbecker, BKV Group and Jim Hunt, Hunt and Associates, applicant Chair Grabiel welcomed everyone present and explained that the process for Sketch Plan Review allows a developer to bring a development/redevelopment plan before the Planning Commission to solicit comments and opinions. A Sketch Plan Review is not an official application and is not a public hearing. It is a public meeting. /TM6 Page 11 of 15 Jim Hunt, addressed the Commission and said he was excited to be present this evening to share the significant changes made to the plan since the Commission last viewed it. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker. Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission the unit count and building height has been decreased from 98 -units to 60 -units and from 6 to 4 -stories. Continuing, Motzenbecker said the setback of the building from West 49th Street was increased to 82 -feet. Motzenbecker told the Commission he would stand for comments/questions. Commissioner Potts said the massing along Vernon Avenue in his opinion is acceptable; however he has two points of concern as follows: Concerns with the R-1 residential properties directly adjacent and to the east of the subject site. How will this impact them. Traffic. Traffic and stacking is a major concern. There is only one way in and one way out of this neighborhood. Has a complete traffic study been done on the intersection at 49th St and Brookside and Brookside at Interlachen. Also, what about the RR tracks -they potentially poise a real stacking problem. Stacking at the most at the tracks would be 8 -car lengths. This is an issue. Mr. Motzenbecker agreed that with only one egress it will be challenging, however, they have to deal with what exists. Motzenbecker said he was open to any suggestions. Commissioner Platteter agreed with Potts and added that his concern remains the same as before, internal circulation and drop off. Platteter said the site cannot function without a clearly designated drop off area. He pointed out as a senior facility there will be Metro Mobility drop offs, and the usual residential deliveries; not to mention medical deliveries, US mail and visitors. A lot will be going on in this area. Chair Grabiel said the Commission supports redevelopment, but in this instance the topographical issues, proximity to RR tracks and the R-1 properties to north create difficulty for him to support the request as submitted. Grabiel said he can't see the benefit to the immediate neighbors nor the community as the result of this proposal. Mr. Motzenbecker said that the site will be re -landscaped and everything possible will be done to retain the trees along Vernon Avenue and nestle this building into the �d \ Page 12 of 15 hill away from the R-1 properties. Motzenbecker said that in his opinion the introduction of more life-style housing to Edina is a benefit to its residents and improving the site is also a big plus. Continuing, Motzenbecker pointed out market analysis supports the theory when people can no longer live in their single family homes they want to find housing in the same area; even neighborhood when available. Commissioner Fischer commented that this request also includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would be a policy decision; however, for this neighborhood amending the Comprehensive Plan from low-density residential to high-density residential is a big leap. Fischer acknowledged that the proposal can be viewed as an improvement; however, this neighborhood is single family with two low-density buildings, adding he doesn't believe this type of density compensates for the improvements to the site and additional housing options. Commissioner Potts stated he feels certain aspects of the project can be readdressed, adding he believes the proposal presented this evening is better than the previous proposal; however he still can't get by the traffic. Potts said to him that's the largest hurdle. The one way in and out and adding more density is a big concern for him. Commissioner Scherer said she just can't get past the density. She stated in her opinion this is too much and too close to residential R-1 properties, pointing out R-1 properties are directly north and east. Scherer concluded reiterating the density of this project is too much Commissioner Forrest said she has a number of concerns with this project. Her issues are with density, drop-off and pickup, street parking possibilities, staffing and traffic. Forrest stated in her opinion the proposed building is uncomfortable to enter and exit, pointing out the proposal has access steps to Vernon Avenue that are steep; especially for seniors. Concluding, Forrest pointed out a rezoning to PSR -4 may "fit" the project better, adding whatever process they pick; as presented this one is just too much. Mr. Hunt responded that the proposed building will not have 24-hour staff and if "manned" would only have day staff. He asked the Commission to note that the proposed building; although for seniors, is proposed for the active senior that lives independently. Commissioner Staunton said he agrees with many of the comments from Commissioners and added he continues to believe what's proposed is too dense. Staunton stated if the plan were to proceed the density must be reduced significantly. The proposal as submitted is just too dense for this site. Continuing, Staunton said he may feel differently if the entrance to the building was off Vernon Avenue, but it isn't, and the 49th Street entrance/exit is limited to one-way in and out, adding the railroad tracks and the steep hill to gain access to Interlachen/Vernon leave little stacking room for vehicles. Concluding, Staunton said he can't support the project as A J 'G)-, Page 13 of 15 proposed. He said he could envision townhomes; maybe 10-12, but can't visualize an apartment building of this density in this spot. Mr. Motzenbecker informed the Commission they did consider a rezoning to PSR -4, adding with bonuses there may be a comfortable unit count range the developer could proceed with. Motzenbecker said he would take "another look" at the site and the proposed density. Chair Grabiel reiterated his concern is with the size of the building. Grabiel said the building in a sense is on the wrong side of the hill; less disruption to the neighborhood would occur if the topography was more in their favor. Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their plan and told them to take all Commission comments in good faith. Mr. Motzenbecker and Mr. Hunt thanked the Commission for their interest and comments. a VIII. Chair Grabiel acknowledged "back of packet" materials. Commissioner Staunton app ed the Commission that he atte ed a meeting with City Staff on the idea of develop g work plans for each boar or commission. Staunton said he believes someti between now and th all when the Commission and City Council hold their annual rk session the Co mission and planning staff need to "get together" to discuss deve ing a "work an" for the Commission. Commissioner Fischer said he attended a t nsp France Avenue corridor. The meeting touche or consultants are looking at the early start of an said this corridor needs guidance and a A ion. Tl not look like the France Avenue of tod . Fischer bikes along this corridor. Chair Grabiel asked the Cc property located at 54271 some concerns about rear Commissioner � Planner Teague explained the Ci Teague said the that with reg ensure nro erti ,tation meeting that discussed the three key intersections and the )rming France Avenue. Fischer France Avenue of the future will 3aN it's not unrealistic to envision �pfon to refer to a Memo fr6T Kris Aaker on a crest. Grabiel said it appears he City Council had access, fill and retaining walls. :aunto asked if the retaining wall in question was permitted use. ,esp holed in the affirmative. Expanding on his com ent Teague y ouncil expressed concern over retaining walls, fill d access. uestion is should we regulate access. Continuing, Teague explained to grading, fill, etc. that the City's engineering reviews all plans to drainage. Teague said full review is also required if a retaining wall A a 3 Page 14 of 15 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 Property I Assessing A,r.TMS/ims?ScrvieeName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 6/14/2012 ICity Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: June 14, 2012 To: Planning Commission/ Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Kris Aaker Assistant Planner Re: 5427 Woodcrest At the request of the Planning Commission, city staff has reviewed the construction plans for the above mentioned property at 5427 Woodcrest. A new home permit was issued March 1, 2012, for a one story walk -out with an attached two car garage. The home looks like a 1 % story, however, the windows in the roof are vaulted from the first floor or are false dormers. The property slopes downward from west to east and from south towards Minnehaha Creek. The existing first floor elevation of the old house was at 887.0. The new first floor elevation is 887.30, (less than one foot above the old first floor). The over- all height of the home as measured from average existing grade along the new front building wall is 26.5 feet, (includes a I foot increase due to fill above existing grade). Maximum height allowed is 35 feet to roof ridge. The property sloped downward from front to the back of the home along the east side yard next to the neighbor. The proposed sutvey and retaining wall plans show a leveling of the east side and rear yard creating a walkway along the side of the house to a patio area in the back yard over -looking the creek. It looks like the goal was to level off the slope to access the back yard and flatten out area for a more usable back yard and patio. The grading and drainage plans were reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. The neighbor is correct in that there are no setbacks required for retaining walls. The retaining walls are adjacent/right up against the side lot linea Conditions and grades have changed on the property, however, within the allowable limits. Attached are a photo of the old home, house elevations, survey/site plans and retaining wall plan. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 ! ® MEMO Engineering Department •Phone 952-826-0371 , Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com ,rO Date: July 6, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle, PE — Director of Engineering Re: Single Family Home Site Reviews by Engineering Department The engineering department currently reviews site plans for single family home reconstruction projects. The engineering department reviews the following: Survey elements such as proper lot survey, drawing scale; and other required elevations. • Proper drainage and erosion control. Drainage plans are reviewed such that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. Staff also analyzes if known conditions exist and if these can be corrected easily, such as putting a downspout into an underground system and connects to a public sump drain system if . available. • designed by a structural engineer due to the height. Verify if a retaining wall needs to be Checks for easement encroachments — most easements are noted on the City mapping system. However, Hennepin County is the agency that is responsible for recording and maintaining records of all easements. • Check for new curb cuts (number of driveways and location) to conform with City Code. • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevation compared to the proposed elevation of the new home (lower level — so home can drain by gravity). Let me know if you need more information on what we look at during a typical review. Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 MEMO City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861 �g1A4;>\r� Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.corn e Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Grading on 50 -foot lots Based on the concern raised by the resident on 54`h and Woodcrest, and by Councilmember Bennett in regard to grading for the new home built at 4213 Morningside; Wayne Houle, director of engineering will attend the Planning Commission meeting on July I Vh to discuss this issue. (See the attached memo from director Houle.) When our engineering department reviews grading plans, they ensure that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto adjacent property. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss whether or not the City should further regulate grading and drainage on property. Additionally, consider requiring access from front yards to rear yards, which was the problem at 4213 Morningside. In general single-family home lots in Edina can access rear yards from the front, however, there are instances when a lot has been graded or landscaped to prevent outdoor access. For background, attached is the information that was presented to the Planning Commission, at your last meeting. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 have to worry about children in our driveway because they certainly will not think twice about using the convenient route beside their house rather than walking back through their house. How will they get a lawn mower from their garage in front to their backyard? They are now landscaping and of course they are using our driveway. Please check with the city to find a solution to the problem they helped create. Our driveway is not public property. I thank you for all your help in the past and look forward to hearing from you. Thank You, Janet Ingram 4215 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 Work email: iringram@enp-unl.com Home email: jsingrani@comcast.net Cell phone: 952-686-1225 Cary Teague From: Joni Bennett <jonibennett12@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:49 PM To: Scott Neal Cc: Cary Teague Subject: Fwd: teardown/rebuild - new owners accessing their backyard via neighbors' driveway Hello, Scott - I would appreciate very much any information that can help this homeowner. See you about 3:30 - Joni Begin forwarded message: From: "Janet Ingram" <iringram(cDengunl.com> Date: June 14, 2012 7:52:22 AM CDT To: ast.net> Subject: Edina City Council Good Morning Joni, I live at 4215 Morningside Rd. and spoke with you last year about my concerns with the house being built at 4213 Morningside. We thought it was too big for the lot and asked you to check on it. You spent a lot of time with me on the phone and checking with the city planner and emailed me the results. In the end, it was decided that the house met the criteria and it went ahead as planned. Now the house is finished and they are just about done with the retaining walls. As far as I can see, there is no access to their backyard without going through their house or using our driveway. We allowed them to use our driveway during construction because there was obviously no way to get a bobcat in and we wanted to be good neighbors. The previous owner's access was on the other side of the house. However, the current owners chose to build as close as possible to that property line, then, yesterday built a wall blocking access there. It never occurred to us that they would expect us to share our driveway as permanent access to their backyard. This is unacceptable. Once again, I think that Moniingside's 50 foot wide lots were never meant for these large houses. Where is the cities responsibility here? They apparently gave the go ahead and certainly did not ask us if we were willing to share our property so the people at 4213 Morningside could have a house too big for the lot they purchased. We are not! 1! Their children are very young now, but I am sure that in the fiiture we will W, 03:Wla lie? 917?A LmtLymcmnra PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES SCALE: t' €5427 WOODCREST DRIVE} 'IF 'i —don 3le t • • !� �,� FIBS' 4}� � � �l) 4��,i"' � i £ fs� S;�Y� .m6saslYLl 60 p� jC:its 5s,4 t rL3 1A 110 A - '" rim r- s ;,ter Y T' �t.'.. '�rs� }fir„� 7 j�•��v q ^+w �-yh ,. j@ �— cx P�' ° . ”" tr-• tui � �- } � • � - X , , i i� ��• .� _. kid '�.. h' � �. ,�', �i�+ �� ,r<`�� ''� �" ��p¢ . a • ' r A*wxA`�^� a 1 1 . A � T m �) y i LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 Property Assessing littp://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 6/14/2012 CITY OF ® j MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com o e y, 5f m Date: June 14, 2012 To: Planning Commission/ Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Kris Aaker Assistant Planner Re: 5427 Woodcrest At the request of the Planning Commission, city staff has reviewed the construction plans for the above mentioned property at 5427 Woodcrest. A new home permit was issued March 1, 2012, for a one story walk -out with an attached two car garage. The home looks like a 1 'h story, however, the windows in the roof are vaulted from the first floor or are false dormers. The property slopes downward from west to east and from south towards Minnehaha Creek. The existing first floor elevation of the old house was at 887.0. The new first floor elevation is 887.30, (less than one foot above the old first floor). The over- all height of the home as measured from average existing grade along the new front building wall is 26.5 feet, (includes a I foot increase due to fill above existing grade). Maximum height allowed is 35 feet to roof ridge. The property sloped downward from front to the back of the home along the east side yard next to the neighbor. The proposed survey and retaining wall plans show a leveling of the east side and rear yard creating a walkway along the side of the house to a patio area in the back yard over -looking the creek. It looks like the goal was to level off the slope to access the back yard and flatten out area for a more usable back yard and patio. The grading and drainage plans were reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. The neighbor is correct in that there are no setbacks required for retaining walls. The retaining walls are adjacent/right up against the side lot line. Conditions and grades have changed on the property, however, within the allowable limits. Attached are a photo of the old home, house elevations, survey/site plans and retaining wall plan. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Engineering Department - Phone 952-826-0371 Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 6, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle, PE — Director of Engineering Re: Single Family Home Site Reviews by Engineering Department The engineering department currently reviews site plans for single family home reconstruction projects. The engineering department reviews the following: • Survey elements such as proper lot survey, drawing scale, and other required elevations. • Proper drainage and erosion control. Drainage plans are reviewed such that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. Staff also analyzes if known conditions exist and if these can be corrected easily, such as putting a downspout into an underground system and connects to a public sump drain system if available. • Verify if a retaining wall needs to be designed by a structural engineer due to the height. • Checks for easement encroachments — most easements are noted on the City mapping system. However, Hennepin County is the agency that is responsible for recording and maintaining records of all easements. • Check for new curb cuts (number of driveways and location) to conform with City Code. • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevation compared to the proposed elevation of the new home (lower level — so home can drain by gravity). Let me know if you need more information on what we look at during a typical review. Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Grading on 50 -foot lots Based on the concern raised by the resident on 54`'' and Woodcrest, and by Councilmember Bennett in regard to grading for the new home built at 4213 Morningside; Wayne Houle, director of engineering will attend the Planning Commission meeting on July I I`h to discuss this issue. (See the attached memo from director Houle.) When our engineering department reviews grading plans, they ensure that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto adjacent property. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss whether or not the City should further regulate grading and drainage on property. Additionally, consider requiring access from front yards to rear yards, which was the problem at 4213 Morningside. In general single-family horne lots in Edina can access rear yards from the front, however, there are instances when a lot has been graded or landscaped to prevent outdoor access. For background, attached is the information that was presented to the Planning Commission at your last meeting. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50=h St. • Edina, MN 55424 y t N .- t •' w r� �eC ,��4.' i rylt • "r'F�y F,� S s (( I� it 4„ F i 1 I i 5 p C 1 ! F�pyFyt r ,> Y�+ 1 S .t . T• i.' Y� t; 7c}i I i � IR r y 35 c t t 4 NPOW 1 c { Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXYM Added text — XXXX 3. All other buildings and structures 3 stories or 40 feet whichever is less 4. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Section 3. Subsection 850.12. Subd. 5.C.is hereby amended as follows: C. Height: 2-1/2 stories er-3O-fee#,-whishever4s,-Iess Th maximum height to the highest point on a roof of singleor double dwelling unit shallbe $5 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum, height exceed 40 feet. Section 4. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —X. Added text —XXXX Draft 7-2-2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012 -.— AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 7.A.3. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 7. Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply. 3. Interior Side Yard Setback The required interior side yard setback for all structures with a ridge height exceeding 80 feet shall be increased by 6 inches for each foot the building height exceeds 15 feet. For purposes of this subparagraph, building height shall be the height of that side of the building adjoining the side lot line and shall be measured from the average proposed elevation of the ground along and on the side of the building adjoining the side lot line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a Mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof, or to the top of a cornice of a hip roof. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 6.C.is hereby amended as follows: C. Height 1. Single dwelling unit buildings and 2 % stories B eet structures accessory thereto. whic-heveFi&4e 2. Buildings and structures 1 '/z stories or 18 feet accessory to single dwelling unit whichever is less buildings, but not attached thereto. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text—XIX Added text —XXXX Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Building Height As we briefly discussed at our last Planning Commission meeting, some concern has been raised to the City Council in regard to the setback requirements of the second story of single-family homes being built on narrow lots. Request has been made to relax this standard if the ridge line height of the home is below the maximum height requirement. Therefore, if the overall height of the home is reduced, extra area on the second story could be added toward the side lot line. Attached is a draft ordinance that would exempt the second story setback requirement if the ridge line of a house is reduced to 30 feet. The current maximum height to the ridge line is 35-40 feet. The required structure setback on the ground would not be impacted by the proposed ordinance. Builders have indicated to staff that this provision would create more creativity for building design. The attached homes have been cited as examples that could have benefited from the suggested Ordinance amendment. The examples include a home built to the 35 -foot ridge line maximum, and a home built to the 30 -foot ridge line. These homes are located in the 5900 block of Fairfax. When driving down this block, the horne with the 35 -foot ridge -line appears much taller than all others in the neighborhood. The home at 30 feet seems to fit in better with the older- homes. The proposed Ordinance would intent builders to reduce the ridge line in order to achieve more square footage on the second story. Additionally, because we now regulate height to the ridge line, staff is recommending that we eliminate the requirement for a maximum height to the midpoint of pitched roof. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50En St. • Edina, MN 55424 From: Cary Teague Lmailto:cteague0EdinaMN.gov1 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:00 AM To: 'Scott Busyn' Cc: Kris Aaker Subject: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R-1 Zoning District Hi Scott, Attached is a potential ordinance amendment to deal with the height requirements that we discussed"a couple weeks ago. I brought the idea up with the Planning Commission at our last meeting, and they seemed to be ok with the concept. The Ordinance would simply exempt homes with a ridge height of no more than 30 from the increase in side yard setback if the structure is taller than 15 feet. We are also suggesting the elimination of the mid -point height requirement since we are regulating height to the ridge line now for single-family homes. Please let me know if you have any thoughts, comments or suggestions. Thanksl Cary Cary Teague, Community Development Director 952-826-04601 Fax 952-826-03891 Cell 952-826-0236 cteaque(MEdinaMN.gov I vnvw EdinaMN.gov/Planning =/ ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. Were a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choicel Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20090) http://www PctoOls.cOm Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20160) http•///WWW PctoOls.com Scott, Cary wanted me to contact builders to get their opinions on discussion that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting. The question that came up was: What is the impact on rebuilding on a narrow lot if the height/setback rules remain the same and side wall height is now measured from the average existing grade along the new side building wall, instead of average proposed grade. Your comments would be appreciated. The Planning Commission will be discussing possible ordinance changes at a work session after their July 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Thanks, Kris Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner ~ P ''r 952-826-04611 Fax 952-826-0389 t, ,T.! KAaker9DEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ;:` .,.Far Living, Learning, Raising Families &Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.towa ... _working to make the healthy choice the easy choicel From: Scott Busyn jmailto:scottbusynC@comcast.netl Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:20 AM To: Cary Teague Cc: Kris Aaker Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R-1 Zoning District Hi Cary, I took a look at how this ordinance change would impact any of the houses we have built recently. Since the 15' side yard height was measured to the midpoint of the gable, the side yard ridge heights are already higher than 15' in most cases. Therefore, on a house lower than 30', removing the side yard requirement won't impact the look too much other than allowing a more classic side yard ridge that you would find on 1940's capes and colonials. For example, we could eliminate the clipped roofs on the following house we are building at 5337 Oaklawn: The payback on this amendment would be that you would promote building houses below 30'. 1 also like removing the midpoint height measurement as well. Thanks for working on this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scott Busyn Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc.. 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Ph: 952-807-8765 Fx: 952-926-1168 www.greatneighborhoodhomes.com Kris Aaker From: Scott Busyn <scottbusyn@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:20 AM To: Kris Aaker Cc: 'Margaret' Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R-1 Zoning District Hi Kris: Most lots in Edina have some type of existing grade drop off from front to back. Urban, grid -layout neighborhoods such as Country Club, South Harriet Park, Morningside, etc will have small grade dropoffs of 2-5'. Neighborhoods with more natural, varied topography and street layouts with homes built on hills, abutting creeks, lakes, or wetlands will have more dramatic grade drop offs from front to back. In all cases, the grade drop off is there for drainage of the property to the adjacent low grades and subsequent larger drainage areas whether it's a swale at the rear lot line, a creek, storm drain, or lakelcreek. There really are very few "flat" lots. Therefore, this ordinance change would impact almost every lot in Edina. The impacts to building if the sideyard heights were measured from existing grade would be: 1. New homes or additions to new homes would have to be staggered down as the grade dropped going back. The main level, lower level, and upper level would all need to add step down or stairs down inside the home. We have designed sunken living rooms and lower level media rooms, but I would have tough time selling sunken master bedrooms. Many of the new homes we are building along the creek are for aging empty nesters. I feel these step down designs would be a safety hazard for this aging demographic. I 2. New homes or additions would have to narrow as they went back to meet the sideyard height requirement. This would create a telescope type design (wide in the front, narrow in the back). This type of zoning is in direct conflict with today's home trend towards wide and open floor plans in the rear of the home. Almost every new home or addition we build today has an open kitchen/great room design in the rear of the home which requires a wider building footprint in the rear of the home. 3. The combination of these two, issues would make any lot that had a lookout or walkout type grade unbuildable or unsuitable for an addition. I also think it would unfairly impact lots with small grade drop offs as well. I feel Edina's current set of zoning rules are working well overall. As a builder, the current rules encourage builders to design homes that maintain the streetscape of Edina's neighborhoods. I understand the Planning Commission is hearing complaints about retaining walls being built. It sounds like these complaints are due to a new retaining wall being built that prevents the homeowner from getting into their backyard without going on a neighbors property. I would rather see this issue dealt with by requiring a minimum 36" access to the backyard on at least one side of the property. This is a simple fix that will allow the homeowners to design a solution without the City getting into the design business. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this issue. Please let me know if can be of additional assistance. Thanks, Scott Busyn Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Ph: 952-807-8765 Fx: 952-926-1168 www.greatneighborhoodhomes.co From: Kris Aaker [mailto:KAaker@EdinaMN.gov]�� Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:22 AM To: 'Scott Busyn' Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R-1 Zoning District rNi"M Attached is an example of a home plan proposed for an existing walk -out lot. The existing home is a 1 '/Z story walk -out at minimum side yard setbacks. Given that this lot is a walk -out, it's doubtful that the existing home is conforming regarding side yard setback based on side wall height. The new home is larger and will extend farther into the rear yard and with the walk -out, wall height becomes 2'/2 stories. In order to address the height, retaining walls are proposed, however, the height will still require 7.5 foot side yard setbacks from each side lot line for a maximum 2nd floor house width of 35 feet on a 50 foot wide lot. Maintaining the existing grade, or measuring height from existing grade would require side yard setbacks of 9.5 feet providing for a second floor width of 31 feet. In this instance and in other instances like this, the question becomes: Is it more imposing on the neighboring property to have retaining walls next door,(walls that can be up to the lot lines), or is it more imposing to allow the full exposed wall height along the side yard with more natural grade changes? The zoning ordinance does not require a setback for retaining walls, which allows for egress window wells in side yards for homes that are at the minimum 5 foot side yard setback and also allows for walls, steps, etc. around narrow side yards. Grade can be altered for new home construction or it can be altered, (with a permit if required), at any time on a homeowner's property. Retaining walls are often times put in place as part of a landscaping project to level off a yard area, sometimes for a pool, sport court, patio, etc., projects that may or may not relate to new home construction. While retaining walls have been used to bring down the height measured for setback purposes, they are also implemented on properties for a variety of other reasons and can be necessary to be located up against a lot line. Many properties with grade changes, especially those backing up to creeks and water bodies currently have retaining walls along narrow side yards. It may be suggested that the Planning Commission consider requirements that an "access way" from a front to back yard be delineated on a new home site plan so that grade alterations won't prohibit access along a side yard. Staff has requested opinions from builders that are familiar with Edina's ordinances regarding these matters. Attached are comments received so far from local builders contacted relating to sidewall height/setback, grading and retaining walls that were received. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h st. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdinaxom Date: July 25, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Re: Building wall heights/grading MEMO At the request of Planning Commission city staff has reviewed side yard setback based on side wall height and grade measurements and. how potential changes to measurements affect setback and building opportunity. The issue mostly relates to narrow lots of 50-60 feet in width, however, can affect wider lots as well. Currently side wall height is measured from average proposed grade along the new side wall. This allows opportunity for grade alteration along side yards given the new house plans. Typically if a new home is replacing an older home, the new home is larger in width and depth. If there are grade changes, if the lot slopes down towards the back yard, or if it is an existing walk -out, grade affects how a 1 Y2- 2 story structure can fit on a lot. In general the homes that have been rebuilt on narrower lots are designed to be at the minimum side yard setback so as to maximize building width. Building width given the added setback required for height above 15 feet becomes a challenge on narrow lots. The base side yard setback may be 5 feet, however, depending upon the design of the second floor and grade along the side wall, the width of a second floor may be in the range of 30-35 feet. Designers/builders have indicated that the narrowing of the second floor is complicated by area that's required for stair access to the second floor and needed hallway width. A solution to some of the height/side yard setback challenges in maximizing second floor width has been to alter the existing grade along the side yard to bring down the height measurement and reduce the required setback. It usually doesn't prevent the need to "tuck -in" the second floor - because side wall height in most cases, even with retaining walls to flatten grade, will exceed 15 feet and will require some added setback, (but perhaps just not as much if no retaining walls are put in place). Side wall height issues become magnified if the property is an existing walk -out with the full basement exposed. In some instances, the only way to rebuild on a narrow walk -out lot and replace the existing house with a two story home is to flatten the grade along the side wall; otherwise the required setback for a second floor is unworkable. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 had first hand experiences with these issues. We should be reaching out directly to them and asking them to help us figure out the right answers. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Sorry I can't be there tonight. kevin Jackie Hoogenalcker From: Kevin Staunton <kevin@stauntonlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:26 PM To: Cary Teague; Grabiel, Floyd Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments can't attend tonight's meeting but wanted to pass along a couple of thoughts on the issues on our work session agenda. Please pass this along to the rest of the Commission. 1. Subdivision of Lots of less the 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. First, I think we are mis-labeling this item. I don't think we are contemplating subdivisions of lots less than 75 feet wide but are, instead, contemplating permitting subdivisions that would result in lots less than 75 feet wide (and presumably result in lots less than 9,000 square feet in area). Assuming my understanding is correct, we should make that clear. We may also want to consider setting minimum width and area thresholds so that there could not be subdivision of lots smaller than certain dimensions (I certainly don't think we want to create lots narrower than 40-50 feet in any area). I also think we need additional thinking on the criteria we use to determine whether the proposed structures on such lots are "compatible and complimentary" with the neighborhood (more on that in the process section below). Finally, I am uncomfortable with promulgating those criteria in a policy; I think they ought to be part of the ordinance so that people can easily find them when contemplating such proposals. 2. Building Wall Heights/Grading. I think we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve before we solve it. Having watched a number of rebuilds on small lots come before us (and hear about a number that don't have to), it does not seem to me that the problem is a lack of mass. To the contrary, we are constantly hearing about too much house on too small a lot. In that context, it seems to me that we ought to — at a minimum — proceed with caution when contemplating ordinance changes that will permit greater mass (albeit In exchange for reduced height). in addition, the proposed ordinance change does nothing to address two other problems we are hearing about — drainage and retaining walls. Rather than take a piecemeal approach to the code on these issues, I'd like to see us be comprehensive. On retaining walls, there are a number of things we could consider — adopting a fence -type "good side/bad side" rule that would require the property owner creating the retaining wall situation to have the "bad" side (i.e., the side with the shear face) facing their property. In the example we heard about at our last meeting, that would have required the builder to dig down on the other side of the property rather than build up on the side he did. We could also consider retaining wall setbacks after so many feet of height or some kind of average grade requirement. On drainage, it seems unacceptable to me that a builder has no restrictions on the amount he may increase the rate of runoff associated with a new house so long as the runoff follows the same path it did before construction. Why can't we require the builder to engineer solutions (such as downspouts to underground stormwater pipes that go directly to the city's stormwater system) that don't make the neighbor suffer the consequences of the new construction. On both of these issues, I am sure there are other good ideas that could address the problems while still permitting reasonable redevelopment of residential properties. i. Process. The more I think about these issues, the more I understand how much I don't know. To date, we have dealt with this dynamic by staff visiting with some selected local developers to get their suggestions about how to proceed. I'm fine with that being part of our information gathering process (although I'd like to hear from them directly, too) but think we're missing some other experts. People who live in the neighborhoods that have had these issues also know a lot about the how the problems develop and, I'm betting, will have some good ideas about potential solutions. I think we should be working to reach out to folks like those before we go to a public hearing (we have, after all, done such outreach with the developers). Such an effort would give us some suggestions to consider on the PUD issues (what is it that makes a new structure "compatible" with a neighborhood?) as well as the mass, scale, drainage, and retaining wall issues. I think it is critical, though, that we do more than merely put out a blanket notice that we want to hear from people. We know people who have Planner Teague added that for every change to the ordinance there are consequences. Subdivision of lois less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Teague rem i70..the Commissioner they directed staff to draft an dinance amendment that woul llow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots tha are less than 9,000 square feet in areand 75 feet in width. Continuing, Teague said, iat recently the City Council has expresse interest in considering a uniform mediaot area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot' e requirement in the R-1 district. If es blished the median of all lots within 500 -feet beco es the minimum lot size requiremeWt. This approach is what is currently done. Commissioner Platteter said the ast time this was dist did appear that PUD "may be the way to go" but now withou specific guidelines the 00 -foot neighborhood approach the City has been utilizing may be BVst and fairest. Commissioner Carpenter agreed. He ointed out if UD would be developed for residential subdivisions of smaller lots a foresee esidents applying for "a lot of PUD's". Carpenter said as previously mentionedby Com issioner Platteter that specific guidelines would need to be established for lots uIr 75 eet in width or else there would be no regulator. Carpenter stated in his opinion�h 500 -foot rule has value. It's across the board. ft Commissioner Staunton commented if s me fol•rr allowing a PUD in an R-1 zoning distri adding�l because it establishes guidelines. St niton sugge uncomfortable with the present su division code neighborhood maybe in the smal r lots neighbo► of guidelines need to be developed for present "500 -foot rule" may be best ;ted that if the Commission was sing the 500 -foot standard to establish ibods the radius could be lessened. A discussion ensued wi/apoach issioners agreeing tl\athey should proceed with caution in developing a PUD for Rat require variances.was also noted there needs to be fairness with the City's to this topic. Itwasgested that a simple way to approach this on the Pmaybe "what's in it fle City". It was acknowledged that could be considered su Planner Teague sug sted that the Commission could dev op a low density PUD or something to the e ect of subdivision requiring variances. hat could be done in ordinance form. Conti nuin eague added that a number of City's hav policies; not ordinances that regulate neighb hood character, etc. Teague told the Commission he would draft something refl cting those sentiments. The discussn continued with Commissioners requesting that Planner Teague do an informal s(irvey of how other City's deal with subdivisions of non -conforming lots. Commissioners suggested that staff first tackle this from a policy position not ordinance. Page 8 of 11 Planner Teague responded that is an idea; however, lie expressed concern that running the calculations from averaging the existing grade may prohibit two story homes. Commissioners indicated if this were problematic in certain instances a variance could be requested. Planner Teague suggested that staff run different scenario's on measuring from the existing grade and bring those findings back to the Commission for comments. Commissioners agreed and directed staff to "run" scenario's and return with them: Furthering the discussion Commissioner Potts questioned if the City has a code requiring outside access to the rear yard. Planner Teague responded that he doesn't believe there is an ordinance requiring rear yard access from outside the house. Engineer Houle agreed. He said there are a number of homes in Edina that access the rear yard through the house, even on flat lots. A discussion ensued on if the City should require outside rear yard access. It was observed that the City requires minimum side yard setbacks; however, retaining walls and egress . windows could prevent easy access to rear yards. Staff noted that many of these issues are between neighbors. It was further explained that when construction erosion control fences are erected and if there is trespass; again that's between neighbors. Commissioner Potts says he worries that most of the discussion occurs between the City and builder, not the homeowner. He wondered if communication should be "opened up" between the City and homeowner. Engineer Houle pointed out that a number of new homes "do not have an owner", adding in his experience there will always be common lot line issues. Planner Teague said one tool City staff is working on is a Construction Management Guide Plan. Teague said at this time City Staff is reviewing implementing a plan for monitoring compliance during the construction phase. One requirement is posting a sign on the site informing neighbors of what would occur. The City could also add a line item referring neighbors to City Hall if they want to view the complete set of building plans. Chair Grabiel suggested that if the Commission establishes a different way to regulate building height there would probably be those odd lots that would need a variance to comply. Commissioner Staunton agreed, adding topography is a classic hardship for granting a variance. Planner Teague noted that the variance process would also engage the neighbors. Planner Teague clarified the following for future topics of discussion: Draft different scenario's measuring building height that would eliminate the need for retaining walls alongside property lines. (measure from existing grade, not proposed as required) Consider establishing setbacks for retaining walls Discuss requiring access to the rear yard from the outside of the house. Maybe require offsetting side yard setbacks. Page 7 of 11 spring run-off. Houle acknowledged that creating a larger building mass also contributes to an increase in water run-off; however, he reiterated storm water run-off on residential lots is something that is extremely difficult to monitor or control, adding this has been an ongoing issue. Continuing, Houle pointed out that measures can be implemented to mitigate storm water run-off impact such as lot coverage requirements, placement of gutters/downspouts, use of pervious materials for driveways and sidewalks, rain barrels etc. Concluding, Houle stated if a house meets all code requirements a building permit is issued. A discussion ensued on the question of notification responsibility, is it the responsibility of the applicant, the City, or the neighbor(s) when new construction occurs. It was also noted that building plans are available for viewing at City Hall. In response to the discussion Engineer Houle said lie wasn't aware of any storm water management control measures for single family lots. He noted the City and Watershed Districts require grading permits and erosion control measures; however they don't review surface water management for single family lots. Both Nine Mile and Minnehaha watershed districts only require storm water management measures to be implemented for commercial properties. Commissioner Carpenter questioned how difficult it would be to monitor or regulate this. Engineer Houle said in his opinion it would be very difficult. Houle reiterated to mitigate water run-off issues different measures can be implemented. Commissioner Scherer asked if there was a review process for retaining walls. Engineer Houle responded if retaining walls are indicated on a survey it is reviewed. If a retaining wall is higher than 4 -feet the retaining wall is required to be designed by a structural engineer and reviewed by engineering staff. Continuing, Houle said another reason for an increase in retaining walls could be to accommodate basement ceiling height. Houle explained if a property owner wants higher ceilings they need to dig deeper. Planner Teague informed the Commission he has been in discussions with area builders that told him that the City's current way to determine the side yard setback for building height results in builders building up the grade and potentially constructing retaining walls to achieve desired building height. Teague referred Commissioners to a handout placed before them amending the way side yard setbacks are determined. Teague said this change would require the builder to use the existing grade and not the "proposed" grade to determine building height. Teague asked Commissioners for their opinion on the handout. A discussion ensued with Commissioners indicating that manipulating the grade along the side to achieve building height as currently done may be the reason retaining walls are popping up all over the City. Commissioners indicated it may just be easier to either include the retaining wall(s) in the calculation or measure from the existing grade, not proposed. Page 6 of 11 Jj�,bl r 10)+-,S Site Grading n 50-footlots Planner Teague informed the Commission there has been discussion throughout the City on grading that's been occurring on City lots; especially for new construction. Teague said City Engineer Wayne Houle is present to explain the process the Engineering Department follows when reviewing building permit applications. Engineer Houle addressed the Commission and informed them the Engineering Department reviews all building permit applications for grading. Houle explained that every applicant is required to submit a detailed survey, drawn to scale with other required elevations. Houle explained a typical review of the application contains the following to ensure proper drainage and erosion control: • Surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow ensuring that surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. • Analyze the known conditions and if these conditions can be easily remedied (if appropriate). • Verify if a retaining wall needs to be designed by a structural engineer due to the height of the retaining wall. • Check for easement encroachments. • Check for new curb cuts. • Check number and location of driveways • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevations. Engineer Houle presented copies of surveys to help Commissioners see all the details found on a survey to aid in plan review. Commissioner Platteter asked Engineer Houle if downspouts are indicated on the survey or are they indicated somewhere else. Engineer Houle responded that downspouts and the direction of their flow are not required to be indicated on fine survey; however that review (if applicable) occurs at the building department level. Platteter also questioned if neighbors are notified when a remodeling or rebuilding occurs. Houle said there is no notification requirement (except for the applicant) unless a variance was required. Platteter questioned if there should be notification pointing out everyone appears to be building a larger house than what previously existed; thereby creating more water run-off. Houle agreed, adding in Edina that appears to be the case on every lot, pointing out the majority of new construction is to the maximum. Commissioner Staunton commented if he understands the permit process for new construction correctly that "new" water flow pathways can't be created that didn't exist before. Engineer Houle responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Staunton asked if the water continues to flow along its natural path can the rate or volume of the flow be increased. Engineer Houle acknowledged that the rate of flow does increase; adding it's very difficult to control and monitor. Houle reiterated run-off is required to continue to follow its natural path, adding rates fluctuate depending on the "size" of the rain storm and Page 5 of 11 CUTY OF MEMO City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861 A. ,l� Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityoofEdina.com k0 Qi to �O 0 • ,t�1�8u A�Fp+. Date: September 4, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Building Height/Grading Over the past several months the Planning Commission has been considering the issue of site grading and regulations on building height. Attached are minutes, staff memos and a draft Ordinance from those discussions. The Planning Commission would like to create some regulations on site grading; but we need to know the specifics on what we can regulate. The city engineer will provide some guidance with this issue. In regard to building height, the Commission was close to recommending the attached Ordinance, but are somewhat reluctant to recommend and Ordinance that potentially could allow greater building mass in the R- I District. The Planning Commission would like to have a discussion with the City Council in regard to these issues. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 1. Established Front Street Setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: a. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. b. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. c. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. 2. Side Street Setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. 3. Interior Side Yard Setback. The required interior side yard setback shall be increased by 6 inches for each foot the building height exceeds 15 feet. For purposes of this subparagraph, building height shall be the height of that side of the building adjoining the side lot line and shall be measured from the average proposed elevation of the ground along and on the side of the building adjoining the side lot line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a Mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch -type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof, or to the top of a cornice of a hip roof. 4. Rear Yard Setback - Interior Lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then for setback purposes the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Rear Yard Setback - Corner Lots Required to Maintain Two Front Street Setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. Through Lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. 850-63 A t--7 Supplement 2011-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 a. All conditional 50' 50' 50' 50' use buildings or structures including accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet; except parking lots, day care facilities, pre- schools and nursery schools b. All conditional 95' 95' 95' 95' use accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or larger. c. Driving ranges, 50' 50' 50' 50' tennis courts, maintenance buildings and swimming pools accessory to a golf course. d. Daycare facilities, 30' 35' 35' 35' pre-schools and nursery schools. ** See Subd. 7.A.1. below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one street of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units C. Height I . Single dwelling units buildings and 2 %Z stories or 30 feet structures accessory thereto. whichever is less, 2. Buildings and structures accessory to 1 '/i stories or 18 feet single dwelling unit buildings, but not whichever is less attached thereto. 3. All other buildings and structures 3 stories or 40 feet whichever is less 4. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Subd. 7Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply. A. Special Setback Requirements for Single Dwelling Unit Lots. 850-62 A14 Supplement 2011-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 2. Single dwelling 30'** 15' The required 25' unit buildings on interior yard lots more than 60 setback of 5 feet feet in width, but shall increase by less than 75 feet in 1/3 foot (4 inches) width. for each foot that the lot width exceeds 60 feet.' 3. Single dwelling 30'** 15' 5' 25' unit buildings on 60 feet or less in width. 4. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. detached garages, -- 15' 3' 3' tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. attached 30' is, 5' 25' garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses. c. detached garages, -- is, 5' 5' tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard. d.unenclosed decks 30' 15' 5' 5' and patios. e. swimming pools, 30' 15' 10' 10' including appurtenant equipment and required decking. f. tennis courts, 30' 15' 5' 5' basketball courts, sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant fencing and lighting. g. all other 30' 15' 5' 5' accessory buildings and structures. 5. Other Uses: 850-61 Supplement 2011-01 City of Edina Single dwelling unit building 11 C. Minimum Lot Depth. Single dwelling unit building Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 75 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in such neighborhood 120 feet, provided, however if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot depth greater than 120 feet, then the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood. D. Minimum Lot Width to Perimeter Ratio. Each lot shall have a lot width to perimeter ratio of not less than 0.1. Subd. 611equirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. Building Coverage. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. B. Minimum Setbacks (subject to the requirements of paragraph A. of Subd. 7 of this Subsection 850.11). Front Street Side Interior Side Yard Rear Street Yard 1. Single dwelling 30'** 15' 10' 25' unit buildings on Lots 75 feet or more in width. A(,+ 850-60 Supplement 2011-01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 uses shall cease and the building and land shall then be used for only principal uses, and accessory uses permitted in the zoning district in which the land is situated, or allowed conditional uses pursuant to the grant of a conditional use permit. D. Conditional Interim Uses. I. Only the following interim uses are allowed subject to the grant of a conditional use permit: a. administrative offices and meeting rooms for private non-profit organizations, and counseling services, which, together with the other such offices and meeting rooms in the same public school building will, in the aggregate, occupy 35 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building; and b. administrative offices and meeting rooms for private non-profit organizations, and counseling services and schools for teaching music, arts, dance or business vocations which are open for operations between 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on three or more days per week. 2. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the Council finds that the hours of operation of the proposed use(s) will be complementary to other uses in the building or on the property and will not adversely impact the residential character of surrounding properties. Subd. 5Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 0 1. Single Dwelling Unit 2. Elementary School 3. Junior high schools, senior high schools, seminaries, monasteries, nunneries, and community centers 4. Religious institutions 9,000 square feet provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot area greater than 9,000 square feet, then the minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in such neighborhood. 5 acres 10 acres, plus 1 acre for each 150 pupils of planned maximum enrollment. 3 acres. 5. Day care facilities, pre- 2 acres schools and nursery schools B. Minimum Lot Width. 850-59 Supplement 2011-01 ■ The width of front -loaded garages is limited so that they occupy no more than a defined percentage of the front fagade; ■ Driveway width at the curb is limited; ■ Front -loaded garages may be required to meet the same setback as the rest of the front fagade. These and similar techniques could be considered as part of a 'conservation overlay' option within the zoning code. 3. Integration of multi -unit housing into transitional areas. As mentioned under "Character Districts, Postwar Contemporary Housing," duplexes were located along many major thoroughfares in Edina as a kind of buffer or transition to the adjacent single-family housing. Today this housing type is in need of updating or replacement in many locations, and high land and redevelopment costs create pressure for higher -density housing types. Townhouse complexes have been constructed in locations such as north France Avenue. The challenge is that in many locations the duplexes are only one lot deep, which makes it difficult to provide an adequate transition to single-family scale. The following guidelines broadly address the issue of integrating multi -unit housing into lower -density, primarily single-family neighborhood transitional areas. Single-family characteristics. Attached and multifamily housing should emulate single-family housing in its basic architectural elements — pitched roofs, articulated facades, visible entrances, porches or balconies. Taller buildings should step down to provide a height transition to existing adjacent residential buildings. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 t Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design `� 4-43 Guidelines: Low- Density Design (Residential) 1. Control the scale and massing of infill housing to make it reasonably compatible with established residences. Recent zoning changes have addressed this issue. Future zoning changes should refer to and consider the Recent zoning changes to address the massing issue: • Measuring building heights from existing grade, rather than proposed grade; • Creation of a sliding scale of setback requirements based on lot width to increase the separation between houses on narrow lots; ■ The elimination of bay windows as an exception into the required setback; ■ The first floor elevation of a new home may not increase the first floor elevation from the previous home on the lot by more than one foot. Character Districts described earlier in this chapter. Other techniques that may be considered include: ■ a graduated scale, or floor area ratio that relates building size to lot size; ■ an impervious surface maximum to ensure that a reasonable percentage of each lot remains as green space, for aesthetics and stormwater management; ■ design standards that guide the stepping back of building mass and height from adjacent residential buildings and parks. 2. Building and garage placement. Many neighborhoods and individual blocks have an established pattern of building placement, spacing, landscape treatments, front yard setbacks and garage placement that combine to convey a particular neighborhood character. For example, most garages in the City's older traditional neighborhoods are detached and located within the rear yard. While new construction is likely to vary from this pattern, some limits on the degree of variation may be appropriate in areas such as historic districts. For example, the following guidelines should be considered: Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-42 visually prominent, signage is designed to be legible at driving speeds, landscaping remains limited, and connectivity to surrounding uses is inconvenient or even dangerous for non -driving customers. Although in some cases, zoning requirements may have guided the placement of buildings within large expanses of parking, site plans are often lacking in landscaping and pedestrian amenities that could mitigate environmental and transportation -related impacts. When buildings are set within wide expanses of parking, customers and workers are discouraged from walking to nearby destinations, so travel for short trips is predominantly by car, further adding to traffic congestion. Superblocks and Lack of Connectivity. The development of large parcels as signature planned developments, such as Southdale Shopping Center, Edinborough and Centennial Lakes, has contributed significantly to Edina's identity and differentiation from comparable Metro area communities. However, one consequence of this type of development is an absence of street connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and through the development itself. Instead, vehicular traffic is funneled onto a few local streets where capacity is often not adequate to meet the need. For instance, France and York avenues bear a local traffic burden that could be better accommodated through a more diffuse street network. The "superblocks" created in the southeast quadrant of the city reshape traffic patterns and travel modes to discourage non -motorized transportation within the district and fracture linkages to surrounding residential neighborhoods. 4.4 GOALS AND POLICIES: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Land Use Goals 1. Protect and preserve the essential character of existing residential neighborhoods. 2. Preserve and maintain housing that serves a range of age groups and economic situations. 3. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging City residents. 4. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-21 4.3 TRENDS AND CHALLENGES The city of Edina, as a "developed" municipality, has a host of land use issues that it shares with other similarly -designated municipalities, as well as some challenges that are unique to the community. As the City continues to mature, redevelopment of existing land uses becomes a priority in order to adapt to changing conditions and future challenges, and to retain Edina's high degree of livability and commercial success as a regional retail and office center. Current land use issues include the following: ■ Redevelopment. The city currently, has very little undeveloped land that has the potential for development. Therefore, it is redevelopment that will meet the needs posed by changing demographics and private market conditions.. Redevelopment projects should dynamically respond to the rigors of the marketplace, provide excellence in design and offer clear community benefits. What guidance can the city provide developers regarding acceptable design elements and project intensity? ■ Development review and approval process. The current zoning and land development review system provides limited scope and discretion to adequately address building, site, and community design issues. ■ Transportation choices. How can the land use plan foster transportation options for residents and workers who desire an alternative to the private automobile? A transportation network that allows for additional transit and non -motorized travel options increases the movement capacity of the existing public right-of-way and capitalizes on resident needs for more active lifestyles. ■ Teardowns and infill development. High land prices and scarcity of available land within the city have resulted in a sharp increase in single- family home redevelopment. New housing is often significantly larger than existing adjacent housing, particularly in small -lot neighborhoods, and can appear to visually overwhelm these homes, block views or cast shadows on them. There has been considerable public discussion about the appropriate massing, height and proportions of architectural elements in established neighborhoods. How can the City balance the desire of some residents for larger homes with state-of-the-art features and developers seeking to offer housing units that appeal to today's market, with the interests of neighbors who object to the size and scale of some new construction? Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 AA Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-19 MdusbioMce Msed Use Corridor open Space Neighborhood Commercial Node j Wed Use CsMer 0City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design Figave 4.2 Character Districts e0� OS Miles 4-18 Postwar Garden Revival is a term used to describe one specific district: the Indian Hills neighborhood and vicinity north of the Braemar Park golf course in the city's hilly southwest quadrant. This area is similar to the earlier Interlachen area in that streets wind around the steep contours, lots are large, and a high proportion of trees have been retained. Multifamily Concentrations. Multifamily housing, including townhouse condominium, and apartment complexes, tends to be clustered in specific districts or enclaves close to major thoroughfares and often in proximity to parks and shopping districts. Building size, scale, style and materials vary greatly among these developments. Landscaping is frequently used to define entries or as a buffer from adjoining roads or surrounding development. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-13 "By the 1950s, the influence of Frank Lloyd Wrighes prairie style horizontal roofs and functional "Usonian" houses had filtered down to the developers' vernacular.... Many Edina houses of this era are well -crafted with stone exterior elements, hardwood floors and plaster walls." Edina Massing Study Postwar Contemporary housing includes a more diverse and eclectic mix of architectural styles, collectively termed "Pastoral Modern" in the Edina Massing Study. Homes are oriented with the long axis parallel to the street (like the earlier rambler style), and lots tend to be wider than in older neighborhoods. Garages tend to be attached and front -loaded. Mature vegetation gives these neighborhoods a settled character. Duplexes were located along more heavily - traveled streets (France Avenue, West 70`h Street) as a transitional element, apparently in order to buffer adjacent single-family housing from traffic while perhaps providing more affordable housing options. Edina Camp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design rq 4-12 Common characteristics: mature trees, regular building setbacks and massing, similar historical revival architectural styles (i.e., American Colonial, English Tudor, French Colonial). Interconnected and gently curved street pattern is punctuated by landscaped triangles and islands at intersections. The Country Club District has sidewalks and generous boulevards; the other areas do not. The Interlachen area is characterized by larger lots, larger homes and proportionally more green space. Postwar Housing makes up the largest component of the City's housing stock, with about 85% of all units built after 1950. Street patterns in postwar neighborhoods vary widely, from a loosely rectilinear or contoured grid (one that often predated the housing) to an almost circular grouping focused on an internal park (i.e., Brookview Heights). Postwar Traditional housing is typified by the Cape Cod, Rambler, and split-level styles. Garages, where present, may be detached or attached but recessed behind the primary facade. These districts are located primarily in the northern half of the city. Street patterns are generally a loosely organized grid, but become more curvilinear in areas west of Hanson Road. Sidewalks are uncommon. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-11 Garden Suburb Planned communities designed to provide high standards of services, amenities and maintenance for upper-class residents. The County Club District is a nationally recognized example of this type, developed by realtor Samuel Thorpe beginning in 1924 on 300 acres in the old Edina Mills community. The district was designed by landscape architects Morell and Nichols with contoured streets, shade trees, parks and landscaped open space, north of the Edina Country Club golf course. Building restrictions covered all aspects of architectural style, siting and property maintenance, as well as racial and ethnic restrictions. While the Country Club District is a historic district with defined boundaries, two nearby areas share similar characteristics: the Sunnyslope area west of Minnehaha Creek and the Interlachen area (Rolling Green and Hilldale), built adjacent to that country club. Both areas have larger lots than the Country Club District but similar street layouts. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 t Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-10 Character Districts In order to establish principles for community design in the future, it is important to understand the City's historical development patterns and existing character. Historical development is discussed in Chapter 6. The manner in which the City evolved from rural village to streetcar suburb to postwar planned community allows us to define a series of character districts: neighborhoods, commercial nodes and districts or corridors that share a distinctive identity based on their built form, street design, landscape elements and other features, sometimes including prevalent architectural styles. Character districts are broadly delineated in Figure 4.2 and described below. It should be recognized that the 'boundaries' between these districts are often quite indistinct and that many districts share common features or elements. Principles and guidelines for character districts are described in the next section of this chapter. This section also includes specific guidance for a few geographically defined areas where redevelopment is most likely to occur. Residential Character Districts Traditional Neighborhood The oldest areas of suburban development, built in the early 201h century in what was then a largely agricultural village, served by streetcar lines to Hopkins and Lake Harriet - Minneapolis. ureas are centered in and around the formerly independent village of Morningside, the 50`h and France commercial district, and the West Minneapolis Heights and Mendelssohn subdivisions bordering the streetcar line in northwest Edina. Characteristics: straight streets, smaller blocks and relatively smaller lots than in later development. Most streets have sidewalks. Bungalow styles are common in the Morningside area. West Minneapolis Heights contains a variety of vernacular Midwest styles, combined with significant numbers of postwar homes. Garages, where present, are usually detached and served by side yard drives or (rarely) alleys. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-9 3 The mall was constructed with two stories to shorten walking distances and an open garden court to facilitate a pleasant walking experience. Southdale is now over fifty years old. Victor Gruen's vision of mixing uses on a single property has been refined to include the vertical mix of uses. The significance of mixed use development lies in its ability to create synergies between different land uses, similar to Southdale's inclusion of two large stores. The benefits are many: different land uses can reinforce one another, have the potential to reduce vehicle trips, and inject more community life into commercial areas. When residential is in close proximity to certain types of retail, there is a "built-in" market that provides a market for the retail. In this manner the Future Land Use Plan seeks to provide a greater flexibility to allow mixed use in areas where it is appropriate. Existing Land Use Categories Figure 4.1 illustrates the pattern of existing land use as of 2005. The categories on the map are described as follows: .$ingle-Family Residential Single -Family Detached. Residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the city, and single-family housing is the dominant housing type. Neighborhood character varies based on era of construction, scale of development, and landscape influences, as described in the Community Design section of this chapter. The most common residential type consists of post-war contemporary single-family homes on wooded lots along curvilinear streets. About 53 percent of the city's land area is occupied by single-family detached Multi -Family Residential Single -Family Attached. This land use consists of residential units with common walls, where each unit has direct exterior access. In Edina the most common building types are townhouses and duplexes (two-family dwellings). Townhouses tend to be clustered close to highway or major road corridors, while duplexes are often found in narrow strips along major thoroughfares such as Vernon and France avenues as a kind of buffer for adjacent single-family detached housing. Multi -Family. This land use is defined by the multiple -unit building type where each individual unit does not have direct ground floor access to the outside. Multiple family developments are concentrated primarily along the main traffic arteries and are generally located toward the edges of the city, often in proximity to retail business establishments. Concentrations of multi -family development are found along York and France avenues, Vernon Avenue, Lincoln Drive and Cahill Road. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 AD, Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-3 RiT ON - ZE E S, 40'.a., q OVO ;;t. �L 7T -y .T ELM u qvid A -r LAIIIIIAMINNIi F-7, N4 ........... 1..:, 1110t �:tl +{ clitlll I.I VL t�■.� it , 1 ,I ,� >!r iz zz Z� 1.t2 OH11111 411 tw ri UmlirwAkIRMIM: over them? If it is the size of the homes that are being built on these lots that is the concern, than do we need to tighten up our setback and lot coverage standards. As Planning Commission is aware, we spent over a year considering changes to address the massing issue. When compared to other similar cities we have some of the toughest regulations on development on smaller lots. Some options that may be considered: 1. Leave the requirement as it is today. This would enable the City discretion in approving these types of subdivisions on a case by case basis. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow 50 -foot lots in the Pamela Park area. This would require a rezoning of the area, so to separate it from the current R-1 standards in other residential areas of the City. 3. Amend the Ordinance to establish the minimum lot size to the median of all lots with 500 feet, similar to the minimum lot size in neighborhoods where lots exceed 9,000 square feet in size and 75 feet in width. That would establish ,a consistent minimum lot size all across Edina. 4. Create an overlay district. Again, there may be several other options to consider? For Discussion: The City Council has expressed interest in having a work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the issue further. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the issue and frame up a potential work session agenda with the City Council on how to address the issue. Attached for consideration is a map that shows where these subdivision requests have occurred; (Exhibit Al.) sections from the Comprehensive Plan regarding residential districts; (Exhibit A2—Al2.) and the current zoning ordinance requirements. (Exhibit A13—A17.) Topic: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width Date Introduced: January 25, 2012 Date of Discussion: January 25, 2012 Why on the list: As a result of the recent subdivision requests on Brookview and Oaklawn, members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern in regard to approving subdivisions that require lot width and area variances. History: In the last five years the city has received five (5) requests (listed below) to subdivide properties into lots that were less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. (See the locations on the attached Exhibit Al.) Please note that all of these requests were made in the area around Pamela Park. Three of these requests were approved; one is pending review by the City Council, and one was withdrawn by the applicant before action was taken. Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview (a 100 -foot wide lot) was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. 3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to divide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. Decision Point: Should the City amend its ordinances regarding the city's minimum lot size requirements in the R-1 Zoning District. Options: There are many options on how to address the issue. Before deciding on any one option, a goal should be established up front as to what the City wishes to accomplish in changing the ordinance. As an example, do we wish to prohibit this type of subdivision, or do wish put greater control or review authority T1 4001 100 4007 4Nr 4M 0 04 loot 4C.X 4aW 4CAa toll 1010 407 .all Oafs $a14 Ault r e lois Idl1t SCNe�' 6141_ 4010 4ha: E3 of Edina 0101 ;1W 4,64 410} 4100 a 10Y PID:3211721240025 5709 Olinger Rd Edina, MN 55436 460/ 1000 4073 4+014 41x'3 4GJa 4011 4COu Own 4012 41AIJ C7r 4013 40,6 4306 4Ia 4017 4d.v lair 4x•6 ton 4021 .00h 4,10: Ej 1011 4011, t011 4011 4611 4M lure 1D1J aura 1070, 4071 Y Aor1 0101 ;1W 4,64 410} 4100 a 10Y PID:3211721240025 5709 Olinger Rd Edina, MN 55436 460/ 1000 4073 4+014 41x'3 4GJa 4N, 4.110 Own 4012 W11 1011 4013 40,6 46 rs 4ala 4017 4d.v 1015 1671 ton 4021 Legend !, Highlighted Feature Surrounding House Number Lahsls House Number UMI. Sbeel Hama UMIS N City Umils Creeks DLake Names lake. l i Parks lJ Parcels City of Edina Legend 41111 s7 m Highlighted Feature ^ Swounding Houss Humber 1280 11111 4201 Labels (SLS +sei JJOJ 11(01 4i 11 Ot7 AlQ fl?J 4703 1391 _4 House Humber Labels 1201 12us ams Street Hama Labels 4,111 �/ city Unfits 1111 1106 +219 4211 ., C—k. 1205 4211 4212 Lake Hames 4213 4212 4119 4214 Lakes 4217 4215 421E 1115 4720 n Park. 4214 4 D Parcels 411E 4219 4115 4125 4215 4217 4210 1273 4274 411/ 4220 4177 41.16 4241 4120 L'23 A271 1119 4211 4224 4211 426 474:: 4716 4T if 4x49 4210 4251 4224 4211 426 4r71 4272 4111 4214 I Rlt F.V7 4115 17 W V 4712 121 If 4212 WSJ 4111 d105 rypa-.� Sl�'.<.. 4 4171 AI! M 24 Q 1755 12)6 4154 4131 Q 4273 1260 415/ 42)5 24 Q 4261 4164 4976 4231 4921 p 4761 4763 ............ 4236 4179 4269 WO 24 42(6 4240 4► W) 4114 4241 4 4 }1 4244 1745 1242 a214 (/]j\] X 4281 4500 4409 4246 4241 4710 urz c ?m3 +1A6 `. PID:0702824130100 rO r r ' t • 4024 Grimes Ave Edina, MN 55416 e f City of Edina —3TFP?'ITr'— Legend Highlighted Feet-. Surrounding Nouse Number 11?H3 Labels J31T J)7) 17.• /3C1 Illi 11f+ 1115 Jtid 7103 1171 J1Df Jfri Irfl JIU'J Ifd: 170! House Number "bets Street Name Label$ JTUJ N City Limns Creeks AT03 !i"v+: Lake Name. Lakn flit ifUD 420 42UJY 17 M ee. J1u .. aiz 1174 411.' A[it _ 420 124 124.)J: A31b Q G E - r Parks Parcels O Jlle i1t4 and Jtrr I?fl 1224 16 ' J216 � • Edina, MN 55416 {T>i Alli � < d 1177 AIII � = 4713 7720 4 1714 -- 4222 4170 4W1711 ITIS p� V C 41R , A1. -e uIe u10 u; r 4I7/ ITJ1142Usees 47.11 :424, 4224 u1s IM J7To 1136 J}ll Ac1CJINAI)5117a A1A0a77d1117J7JY7171 171) INe a}a> J?111}10wJtIJ 1744 d1A4 PID: 0702$24130100 p ?, •�� i 4024 Grimes Ave Q) ' •-'' � • Edina, MN 55416 � r-- -- --- - City of Edina E /;p.�Y'tKr 6f979011 605 6GJ8 6110) 6 017 6111 Gf09 60}4 5611 $ %413 6+.r?3 6M.0 3516 O tidlta) C Y / S`2f1 V Legend HiphllphMd F. lure : . 9Yrtoundinq Houfo Numtter Label% 6fU0 6r0! 5671 %183 ivl1 5ai8 i/ 3ffi71. }S18 \ t % %�SStUj` ,�/ NoYfe Number Labels 5717 61065819 0 6111 CO16 �+-f (J ll N yt7d'� 3815 Street Name, Labels '40f City Limits // 38ti s .3627 S: of '617I' '58_3` �—__!lam 24 Creeks � Lake Names 9p is60126 0 RRC'S9 Lakes YYlVA}' � 6A10 W5700 6 S9f7 5'708 S9Ar 590•) f'-1 1..._J Parka 0 Parch% GOti �p6 4'3X1 +3 6021 0 50td 69775'916 tiFe 5111 5901 3995 5961 �r. Cl 6912 to" 6.120 5/71 $520 5924 b 6174 ptOIE CN S113 6ofG }4t 3918 5901 S90(/ z 5976 0 6131 6075 5010 .014 5$01 S6Cu 597E 5971 24 0 5960 5905 SWI33 f 977 6118 6130 t+i'J✓E 5T 560,0 6}20 8117 E/16 SD}J 5806% SJf6 S9IT 59JD S'MJ 3470 6112 �§rA• 5812 6115 51,07Ca .(KIP[ 6119 6108 5916 S911i —... 8117 6109 5971 $911 3117 3999 5503 6104 6}01 ydt! .. _...,. __. ,.. 5:92 6819 6100 59066401 F-1,10 5904 ,J5998 NaJatan Ya:v 3917 5917 S9f6 $9}6 5905 5910(7 5909 2J }910 A t'th PID: 3211721240024 1A O 5717 Olinger Rd #� , hn i' Edina, MN 55436 PHBBfi" LA 4428 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4404 4400 4328 4314 1 4320 4316 4312 4308 4304 4207 58TH ST W 5801 5801 5800 5801 5800 5801 5800 6 5805 5805 5804 5805 5804 5805 $809 5808 $808 5809 5808 5809 "� 5809 5813 5812 5812 5813 5811 5817 Sall 5816 5816 58f7 5816 m ♦ 5817 A 5821^ 5820 5827 a g 5820 5821 5820 0 5875 5825 5875 5824 p " 5829 5828 ^ 5828 5829 5828 _ n; 5629 58?9 5033 5832 5832 5833 5832 $831 $836 5831 5816 5837 5836 5871 5847 5840 5840 5840 5841 5845 O 5841 5845 5844 5844 5844 5845 59TH ST W 59TH 3T W 5901 5901 5900 5901 5900 $905 5904 5905 5904 5905 ?4 5909 5908 5909 5908 24 5911 5912 5913 5912 5917 5916 5917 5916 5921 5910 5921 5920 Patnob Park 5925 5914 5925 5924 5919 5928 5929 5928 5937 5972 5933 5932 5937 5976 5937 5936 5941 5940 5941 5940 U..ucuwax nk�ntsCwrar,.c;_osc:r; axrs 5945 5944 ❑ 2•tah i City of Edina 51 r1 { \ 0 St IG '` 4q Legend Surrounding House, Number Labels t, Hous. Number Labels 5h71 52Jr - 57 A3 Street Nam. Labels City 1.1.11./i 5109 520.7 `` 11 \V \. ,t Cts.ks Lako Namas O 52t; $211 $211 5716 \ \ a\ Lakes Parks 4711 S7rp' 52 17 5273 ' Parcels Wt 52" 5221 5251 •``4,+ 527? 52N 5718 }77 1 �` 12ft 5774 $212 5223 $2?3 3737 5771 5118 5212 s5241 $245 5115 5131 3740 63AO ST N' 5776 0 �, S�Na.�n Dart \ 1 \ A`rt \V 5361 5100 5301 5703530 5;03 ,5-vt5 SIDI 3:105 SIW SIDS .51" 310 St05 5131 }!OF sift 5305 - 5t t; 5312 5313 57'3 51119 5112 33M 5.773 5370 i 5115 SI l6 % 5311 71 ' F 5325 > 571} 5728 n 5371 3t70 r' c a 5113 K 5129 s17+ $324 5!!1 5341 53;2 5376 5371 5314 3718 5317 3332 WO }346 $351 33;7 5136 5751 5346 5332 3316 Sa:i7 y7W sono s4o1 s4Dn 4,y ?� J r,,,. PID:180282443003710 v�r1Ar �xlrl, 5201 Wooddale Ave o, Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina M?r S4CW 5901 MOP 3801 SJtJ i g H.1 SurroumfirlHouse Number 5634 5803 M04 5595 3644 UtNif 5603 5508 5807 Mle 58P7 5616 House Number Labels Name L.W. 53;MStreet 5811 Mfl 1811 5913 5611'41 41 City Ltmift 561r $816 5817 5316 3911 5616 Creeks _ Lake Nampa 3971 M70 5671 5b10 582,WeUkea p5673 M14 5824 5815 3674 LJ Perk* $823 58F3 3225 56tH 5678 5477 3.471 5817 5819 5476 531l Ml? Parcels ❑ 5831 Salo 1471 N18 5440 354! 5440 5671 Sale SbiV SbaO :] $841 5%> 5844 5813 5311 39 TO 3T 6Y 5815 MN 5901 59053664 5999 S90O S90I 3900 5905 5904 3906 3909 5919 590/ 37tO $905 $904 SYC5 5517 fE10 5911 3911 5921 5912 5911 5310 5916 5911 $910 397f_ 5970 5917 $911 S916 5770 N SY'lh1aY � 39]5 % 5974 i 1 39M ly 5975 5771 .% 5916 5928 i u5 5979 5928 3915 4/17 4309 4105, 5917 5917 5951 5911 FI 5976 �6: .u�+r.'r Pa•i 5971 5'!71 SY 76 5940 I!}7 4:06 4701 5945 5414 5}11 .5949 5745 591+ 5940 5945 5911 Cellist W 41x9 arcs Brat 6007 Elms tow fOOI M)O 6004 6005 R E001 6001 6-5 6014 `��t;� PID: 1902824310098 ° r -5x'0 5928 Ashcroft Ave Edina, MN 55424 � 1�I?,1,TLyrtAt�� City of Edina 5110 3111 33.3 5331— .. 5115 S72d 3777 5131 5337 5711 SM 537a 5311 9336 5341 S 6 3726 Sil3 5311 SSJ4 5344 S1N �. Sfll 5306 S.t51 3318 3351 6336 � n x4 ;H 91 4Y 4� Si`)1 51W 5701 $400 N41 5400 5403 Val 5705 s10/ 5475 5<:d 54 a'ckF T� S401 5406 540) 540a 5409 5406 5410 5711 $41,7 SJ12 541! 5717 4541 5111 5116 SJ11 5/14 gg $411 3416 5121 5110 $471 54:0 y 5411 5714 1500 ry 5415 5474 _ W, 5475 W, y,pJT3 S424 3176 �' SJTa 5422 3716 54)) 5412 Ni) 5472 5443 $431 4501 5127 $136 541.` 4)6 401 37!6 13TH Fr 5:' 45N 5.`41 5504 6501 $540 $301 5StN7 $505 5301 M5 1501 5305 5504 nett Dn "M 5506 5,19 6506 3304 5303 7501 $513 5511 551) $512 5511 5312 5317 5516 551) 5516 5517 5516 5521 SS20 5511 5510 5571 5370 $575 552J 5575 SS24 5515 5514 Al24310100 „ 5940 Ashcroft Ave �'+;a t,� Edina, MN 55424 4 4 a. Cr,p 51` 4 a 7 14 i 1 � 14 �� ; it4a 5001 411 410 5411 5414 5411 410 425 474 342e $422 51)7 54)J 54)1 476 5504 55k, 5535 x503 i 5500 $300 550 5511 $517 5516 3311 x310 5525 5514 Lewd Hiyheehted Feature SuttoundinS Hoesa Nlanbor Labels Hous. Number Labels Seen Nam Lab.ls . f City Umits Creaks EJtake Hames Lak.s F-1 Parks Parcels City of Edina Legend 603N s: e.• SufrounalJq House Number MIS Labels _ (Mt 6006 6Cl1 60,10 )719 Jt05 )701 )rJJ 1111 1105 G000 Hausa Number labels E003 9Ueet NaJns Ubals E005 600! 6564 6005 614)9 6011 City Limits I' 6071 0020 E021 6012 WIS Creeks coo 60,13 E�9 6608 El Lske Nam6s 6025 6024 6075 60th W.It Lakes Parks 6070 5017 6412 6017 G0f1 -- f; 6011 i E015 U Parcels 6077 6016 "cif 6075 6'179 6026 6011 EO20 sD 5 a )c IC GP79 C-0J7 60W 6021 bOM 01' 6626 6071 6UJ) 80 J7 crou 6.715 60)1 6711 6025 6014 CO24 CL376076 607E 6077 6619 "o � 6013 6101 607d 6028 'Fr t � 4141 ERIO 6011 .. 6103 61W) 6761 6101 a � T 6Io1 6100 6101 6100 410! 6105 6105 610 6104 650! 6103 6107 6105 6104 6/09 6117 6169 6115 6117 6lUd 6107 6109 6106 6140 6113 6706 6t18� E111 6113 61126111 6111 6112 E111 6117 6t)1 6774 6171 6125 6529 6116 6116 'I'll VII 6111 6125 6170 6120 6121 6126 6111 612M1 8171 8111 6'79 6124 6115 61I1 6777 E 1)5 6125 6lSd 617d 611) 19 p "06) �' t ;)�%ts' J1ea.9 f o W.61R 162 62ND n W _ S 0 /xem'6r67 6 PID: 2002824340121 U-1 5 6116 Xerxes Ave S Edina, MN 55410 City of Edina t4 370> 5.12 5117 5715 5717 3116 9"1Legend 3799 510 570) SP41 Swrou idirl4 House Number SrI) YliJ I 571/ 574 3111 Utis5411 5170 5715 5124 5115 House Number Labels x779 S7i7 __ Sr1t 6129 Street Name Labels 5774 5f71 5120 5-121 5720 54x3 5118 5129 SP78 Sr,i7 Srrr C .l ity I.I.H.Slxt /� 3:t5 5r14 St13 5>F4 .__. 5125 5174 5'33 3171 5M 3)32 St(t Creeks $745 E] Lake Nimes 5771 572.9 51ST 5727 5128 SPl9 .577) 5737 5734 5137 57J5 5104 Lakes Sr78 — 5771 3136 5133 S1J1 5733 5734 5741 5411 5141 5140 5157 f"'l Parks LJ s9rn sl rr 5757 5'x"7 187( 5301 58Ci SeP/ $505 68114 5864 5801 58115 584 550( 56111 55'.?5 3800 5303 5301 Se h 5805 11 53871 X99 Wil CC64 S80S5309 51-08 5909 1865 5309 5508 S9P0 505 5309 5b08 gaf5 5517 35W 5817 .5312 SatJ 581E 5813 5817 5847 5515 5817 5817 M16-- 415"'-' 587t 3816 5820 5317 5621 5a1b -- 5320 'u81r W .._ ;� 5971 5816 _ 5370 531: Sala 5871 5427 5941 5821 S8t9 5875 5815 48)1 5825 $914 SSIS 384 5827 5E 7J .574 58.5 337( 5838 SDN 5523 5829 59.8 S8T9 5379 5271 5826 _ 55.9 5326 —5f 5311 S3,i7 5871 5877 9837 ---- 5337 5672 - 5241 3:°.15 KJ2 58]5 55717 58.17 58t1 `1 51.'15 SSJff 5444 .1844 Sill 1341 5845 Sdt6 55411 554 5371 Sb41 5At5 5SJ6 5510 '-_ �+4t ;317 5314 591! S34! 5845 524A 5853 5854 5900 581/ 5934 5:// 51170 5501 591.0 Shpt 5'v70 s1 SFW .r " -ai 59A7 597/ 59-7 5904 S fri 5'.4}4 5905 5914 5994 5494 $ 03 5904 5755 $904 5505 59-8 S:YA 5908 57119 54Gb 5909 5909 5943 59118 5700 3908 5409 5517 5917 3913 SW 5917 5417 59712 S9 J6 S91:1 8917 5912 5916 5917 Sill 54/2 5916 5917 5912 5'711 5315 3'v'17 5771 5916 5.411 5916 5911 < 5920 $911 34)9 592f 5420 g 5 5931 19T0— 59t5 5929 5919 5971 $970 5925 39 I q 5925 5919 1224 5423 3914 5927 ? 591A 5flti 59)4 5979 3978 5371 5971 3974 - 5915 5971 59aJ 8028 ♦ 5977 547? 597! 5977 1111 .. 59!7 5937 $341 }976 594 5928 5972 .016 742.7444 MW '7110 7317 T77 Ii $1" 3794 3J00 1)21477121 3' W )7114.31/171 5743 7191) 5917 5936 � I I,lil37L71I1 :71018 -! 501,/ 8cg0 N)0I 5W0 Faro Sr W 1•x11 3015 _ e J. '` PID: 2002824310184 o r 5928 Abbott Ave S Edina, MN 55410 <_4 1111 f' it ` Vit✓{ City of Edina Ill LeperW Ila NiehiigWd Fast.. 109 I77 24 Ila If/ 416 Surtoundmy Nous. Number Ill 4 Label, a LSI6 6512 61:1 E120 W16 6112 IM N.1na Number Lebel, Ila 421 421 Street Nam. Labels City units N4L.OA5Y A YF _ Cre.k. Y1 500 W76 F-1Late Name66605 5a) 6l7f SOI Lek., Park, 24 510W21 U6429 500 Parcels $13 516 6,M512 Ca W5 571 O 6477 529 W17 517 r 6409 la 6d01 E100 !16 520 C 2 677 573 19:W)19s 337 6419 . sawu 611 6620 G6Ib 6316 6fI SUI 541 6111 b 13 WP9 6W3 6401 } WAIERWNAYF !f3 24 66/7 b6i1 6557 ' Q:IA b 1916 6501 ` 2, 44211 6413 b 24 60I \ —T'--ptror Lake 6525 6511 653$ 4011 4M •24 / 4:Of 1970 1925 $ 4121 i 6516 4070 1501 1403 E449 6100 0 In, q 1915 74 J 0 6310 2 4021 6SN 491, � 1909 W ifi 1979 6121 g ' rrrFreAc�:si+ra.w A� `► PID:3011721130027 �O p r k t1� ° 524 Arthur St �''4, byy Edina, MN 55343 11I file ASaA.�f f- City of Edina Legend Su4rouMIN House Number m1 Y0' rot rye Labels au House Number Labels 105 2b9 211 Su1rN Nartw Labels 2f1 210 azt ./ City Limits 121 745 STU 270 Creeks ' 115 131 214 Lake Names 124 173Lakes 731 23U 131 30 PJ.3 736 143 248 C j Patka � Patceia YSS 1}I ;� 257 751 74 301 L 24 7'^1 700 701 24 16} 161 7U 2F} 161 SJ 3a)1 3f4 3, 5 I 7TiA lot lAl JCJQ .7 ~ 3J<ei�tT JAY d 7UU 701 30£ O:.AF9(Y14 <3 _1t,,x 705 " 305 3A9 304 705 ]Lai l 311 710 lOF )f5 31t 30:J^ 1:5 33 Sa 7f2 i5 )f=e 269 J11 9I1 !Lail 304 34 > }1t 711 313 2/ 711 314 113 3Y9 U520 431il � 61}t 6G08�bE•YJ :1#' E112 sT 4303 I, 3)x y17 316 321 FJ IA 314 71T F6t1 ilikaY " 401 !AS 64U1 40I 467 4U5 0511 6511 6h9031 406 401 401 401 43AI 6233 u3; 104 4571 401 405 40x fi 405 4U4 l4 .WS 4,14 6129 4G3 410 6525 4A6 aUs xA9 4Ua y 4n4 dos 1 » 409 400 $12 til 111 412 _. 24 1I 413 412 413 4f5 419 411 414 415 4tl J(b af9 412 411 4f1 24 Ill 411 116 If/ 412 413 411 11, t1/ #2> 612d a24 471 4K 1.(WfYaY'1' V 501 43f7 StM & 411 Y 64 24 E42tlF/16 �N f1� 41U xt: 4T0 iTf 622d p ;6 h00 66AS 5AA 1 652f '3 t1 )05 5U4 ,5(11 6lSI 6419 � Sbf yU0 (,,6d 13 E900 11 21 51A }ti9 E4N +`3 cut iuU SAi 67,,5 SAI GJ01 SCF SL"3 5}] fi!1 516 117 321 fi7 CHIS i 64.10 } SU9 5U5 ?< YIh s1Y4 PID: 3011721120030 5;l4 304 Griffit St s Edina, MN SS343 �� \ • / "+.,.` �._ � i�314 X51. f /•/ City of Edina fIG x45 145 3G Legend ' IggMlpMed Filature Surrounang House Number 6111 If L.W. T9.1 194 16655 6651 xMx S.'S �_- 74 Nane NYmbsr Lsbfls JOA 301 ;X 301 700 )Of sliest Name Labels 303 3D3 J07 7UJ : .: )DY 705 cit) Units, JO4 creeks 301 ) 46 h13 J06 05 700 7117 Ute Names a Jcb 309 3DB Lakes 309 )01,.�. 309 Nw150 311 ]Ir 1� l Parks )11 171 710 8750 710 O Paruls )1J 115 714 315 312 314 )I) 3f3 312 30 314 317 317 319 716 3x6 i Jib 3Id 31f !19 718 )19 J70 J71 J17 322 .117 )10 777 7?3 .6606 )77 6017 x 61AME to 401 407 IOU 1P2 ADl 407 100 401 400 40f 6615 402 v 407 400 N1 4M 405 405 404 403 A06 104 4of 196 40 406 J07 401 40, 406 Jog 406 pl 409 JOB 400 109 Ifo 1 Ilr 110 < J11 R 411 411 410 III 4fI 1() 4x4 IIi 414 i Y 415 414 n 4x3 m JI7 415 415 416 417 HIS 411 4f6 416 4r9 419 416 A/9 47U 419 A15 IfB 421 iI8 171 427 477 41J IN 411 421 413 110 425 415 414 475 414 425 IN t75 4tA dit LCVily AVE C fb 15 6609 6605 306 `4 PID: 3011721220080 r ° ,'+ 422 Adams Ave Edina, MN 55343 City of Edina Legend r. } Hiehbeheed Feature , "p �T +: 192 Surrounding House Number Labels House Number Labels 70J 3co lot 300 301 74o703 3X1 Skeet Name Latebs JOt ICJ aJ JOz 307 City limits 305 105 304 305 Creeks tl""! 7fG 305 101 4;9 10.7 706 505 Lake Names O 30JLakes 309 JIM JOS log tDA 311 3fM 3a4 n Parks -)it _ 717 Parcel..i 1.i P437A !IS 313 tri 311 J14 315 311 316 t77 714 IIF 315 31J 716 3" 310 714 7 318 122 316 319 tM 319 311 3f! 314 312 713 � 1 710 313 375 ]1] 31, 313 g{i44.R.51.A 400 407 400 401 460 401 a 401 40.a JOI NU 41i dc3r 405 40x 402 $04 4141 401 102 d65 10J 403 a05 403 dal 403 d0a J0/ JOJ Jag 409 drr Jit 411 atl 404 f1P u6 Jae 417 Jta 414 407 411 aae 409 a10 911 414 41$ 415 416 413 414 4/6 4J5 M 6 41l 410 � 475 rAi 416 411 417 Y 410 410 413 411 418 47I 410 —�— 410 4t0 It JT1... 421 420 dT3 411 J23 472 413 / a71N 4 f75 111 alt 475 dN !TS J11 475 44C LrJ,E1'A Vi \ `CY C A PID: 3011721220070 e 301-03 Washington Ave S � <r z Edina, MN 55343 tori iSY�Nr nib✓ifi. Section 2. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4.D.2.a is amended to add the following definitions: D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. PwpeFty GU zoned R 1, R 2 and PRD 1 shall not be eligible fOF a PUD. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. Existing text - XXXX 3 Stricken text —XIX Added text —)=X C. Minimum Lot Depth. Single dwelling unit building 120 feet, PFOvided, hGWeVeF if the !Gt SeGfien 810 of th*r, Code, WhiGh ha than 120 feet, then-- The minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of the neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code. For reference, below is the regulation in Section 810: Section 810 Median. The value (being, in this Section, lot area, lot depth or lot width, as the case may be) in an ordered set of such values below which and above which there is an equal number of such values, or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one such middle value. Neighborhood. All lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by Section 850 of this Code which are wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, except: A. Lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities and golf courses, B. Lots used for conditional uses as established by Section 850 of this Code, or C. Lots separated from the proposed plat or subdivision by the right of way of either T. H. 100 or T. H. 62. If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, then the whole of that lot shall be included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX ORDINANCE NO. 2012- AN 012= AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is amended to add the following definitions: Subd. 5 Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit B. Minimum Lot Width. Single dwelling unit building Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XIX Added text — X)M ... The minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in such neighborhood ;,as dfinei in Section 810 of this Code. .75 feet, provided heweveF, of the 10t. Se6tion 810 of this Gede, WhiGh has lot w*th a median lot width gFea than 76 feet, then The minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in such neighborhood as def d in Section WOW this Cade. CITY OF EDINA MEMO INS City Hall • Phone 952-927-88619,.--��t,� Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com y Date: May 9, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width This topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. The general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across the R-1 Zoning District. To accomplish that, the median lot width, depth and area of all properties within 500 feet would establish the minimum lot size requirement. This would be consistent with the current regulations for lots over 9,000 square feet in size. Additionally, the Commission suggested offering the PUD Zoning District to all properties within the R-1 or low density zoning districts, in an effort to provide an additional tool for the City to encourage more creative development when considering new redevelopment projects. Attached is an Ordinance amendment that would establish both of these items. Staff was also asked to investigate the number of 100 -foot lots in the 50 -foot lot platted area. The attached maps demonstrate that there are about 26 100 -foots in the Morningside area; there is about 20 100 -foot lots in the middle section of Edina, south of 52nd Street, north of the Crosstown; and about 20 more in the north west corner of Edina. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 voice on this issue so people can get a sense of what to expect Commissioner Fischer said he doesn't know how he feels about opening this up for PUD. He asked if a PUD could only be allowed in specific instances and not generally. Chair Grabiel said the next step would be to have staff retool the ordinance and develop a ordinance that could use PUD as a subdivision method. Planner Teague said from the discussion tonight it doesn't appear there's much support for the median adding that staff would look at addressing subdivision through the PUD process. Continuing, Teague noted that if the Commission takes this route the PUD option would be open to all R-1 zoned properties. Teague said the Commission should keep that in mind as they move forward. VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection and Attendance. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS None. X. STAFF COMMENTS None. Commissioner Scherer moved meeting adjournment at 9:00 pm. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. jac;�c%pi }�do�FP•v�,a�I�ke�'' Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9 minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across.the R-1 Zoning District. Chair Grabiel informed the Commission he read a recent article in the Star & Tribune on "in -fill" housing. Grabiel said that the article referred to "in -fill" housing as a way to prevent blight in older neighborhoods. Grabiel said he thinks the City needs to take a more positive approach to encourage in -fill development. Commissioner Carpenter noted there are a fair amount of 50 -foot lots in Edina, adding there is no way the City can prevent development or redevelopment of these lots. Commissioners agreed if a new house meets setbacks tear down and rebuild can occur. Commissioner Scherer said with regard to subdivision the Ordinance has stipulated the lot width and lot depth standards for decades. She added she doesn't know how successful it would be to change the minimum lot size at this point. Commissioner Forrest said in -fill housing is hard to compare. She added she supports density; however it needs to be appropriate for the lot size. Continuing Forrest acknowledged there is a trend to tear down and rebuild; however, there are arguments on both sides on what's right and what's wrong. Forrest suggested that instead of focusing on lot'size maybe one should consider building size; what can be built etc., noting in many areas the "pocket neighborhood" would work but may not work so much in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Staunton noted that 500 -feet is used as the tool to establish neighborhood standards for lots in excess of 75 -feet in width. Staunton asked if there was a better way to do this, adding 500 -feet could be considered arbitrary. He noted at times people say the "neighborhood" is smaller than the 500 -feet and other times the "neighborhood" needs to be expanded. Chair Grabiel agreed, adding he's not sure of a median width, depth or area formula. Commissioner Schroeder said if the outcome of these discussions is to achieve the proper control mechanism for the City it may be of benefit to allow PUD's in the R-1 Zoning District as a way to "subdivide". This way the applicant needs to prove to the City there's a real benefit in granting the subdivision. The discussion focused on combining lots. Planner Teague said it has been his experience that combining lots to build an overly large house happens rarely. However, Teague said he can understand concerns that this could occur. Commissioner Staunton said it appears to be a solution in search of a problem when trying to be consistent with subdivision standards. The Ordinance appears to exempt large lots from the minimum lot requirements, adding one would think that same exemption would also hold true for the smaller lots. Continuing, Staunton said the Commission needs to be mindful that we can't rezone every lot in the City. Concluding Staunton said he agrees with the comment from Commissioner Schroeder that there needs to be some form of articulation on how subdivision benefits the City. Staunton said the City needs to find its Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner Teague if the City's noise ordinance was sufficient to address these new systems or should the EEC take a look at noise. Planner Teague said the Health Department enforces the noise ordinance and Edina has adopted State requirements. Commissioner Staunton said he observed that the Ordinance uses different terms to define energy systems; adding in his opinion it should be uniform; either Energy Generation Systems or Energy Collection Systems. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Forrest asked for clarification on setbacks pointing out corner lots and large commercial lots could be difficult. Teague explained that the energy systems must maintain the same setbacks as are required for principal building or structures in the underlying zoning district. Teague also noted thdt energy systems can't be located in the front yard. Rapidly changing field don't want to be too restrictive. Commissioner Platteter said front yard may need to be defined or clarified more. He said the City needs to encourage sustainability while remaining reasonable. Commissioner Carpenter said it appears to him that it's necessary that the City have some control. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Schroeder expressed concern with on-site consumption, and questioned if any excess energy could be sold to the neighbors or back to the utility company. Schroeder wondered if this was a concern and something that needs further discussion and clarification. The discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that potential; however, Commissioners didn't believe the Ordinance should encourage it. It was also noted that excess energy would probably go back into the grid. The discussion continued with Commissioner suggesting that the City refer to other communities to see how they regulate energy systems. It was also noted that energy systems are continually changing and the City needs to keep pace with these changes. Chair Grabiel said it appears the EEC should take another look at the proposed Ordinance and clarify certain aspects. The Commission also expressed interest in meeting again with the EEC. Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. Teague said the general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the Page 7 of 9 Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 5. Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. B. Minimum Lot Width. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. C. Minimum Lot Depth. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX ;n 2pntonn 810 of this Code, WhiGh ha6 )a gFeateF than 0,000 The minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in the neighborhood as d0fined iir Section. 814 of this Code.; %-7.1 = foot4hen-the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood asc fined in, Section 810 of this Code. 120 feet, pomaded however with -amedian In+ clan+h n+or +ham 120 foo+ +hon the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code. structural design of the housing must be compatible and complimentary with .surrounding housing. e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; preserve . and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. P-reperty-surreA"ned " 1, Q 2 and b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided -that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX Draft 7-2-2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - AN -ORDINANCE 012 AN-ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PUD ELIGIBILITY IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4.1) is amended as follows: D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be. possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; C. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. in the .case of a PUD in a low density residenttsl area, the Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XYM Added text — XXXX City Nall - Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com Date:, July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width At the May 9`h meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft an Ordinance amendment that would allow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots that are less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Attached is an Ordinance amendment that would allow PUD in the R -I Zoning District. Current City Code regulations do not allow PUD zoning in the R- I areas of the City. The City Council has generally expressed interest in considering a uniform median lot area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot size requirement in the R -I District. Currently the minimum lot size in Edina is 9,000 square feet in area; 75 feet in width; and 120 feet in depth; unless located in an area where lots are larger than this, then the median of all lots within 500 feet becomes the minimum lot size requirement. Therefore, that language is still within the Ordinance amendment for final consideration. The general consensus of the Planning Commission at the May 9`h meeting was that the PUD Ordinance would allow the City more discretion in its review of Subdivisions to ensure that the new lots better fit the neighborhood. Having the median established by lots within 500 feet does not necessarily create a lot size that is consistent with the immediate neighborhood. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss the attached ordinance, and make a recommendation that we bring to the City Council at our September work session. For background, attached is the history of this topic including minutes from our past discussions. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 had first hand experiences with these issues. We should be reaching out directly to them and asking them to help us figure out the right answers. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Sorry I can't be there tonight. kevin Cary Teague From: Kevin Staunton <kevin@stauntonlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:26 PM To: Cary Teague; Grabiel, Floyd Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments I can't attend tonight's meeting but wanted to pass along a couple of thoughts on the issues on our work session agenda. Please pass this along to the rest of the Commission. 1. Subdivision of Lots of less the 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. First, I think we are mis-labeling this item. I don't think we are contemplating subdivisions of lots less than 75 feet wide but are, instead, contemplating permitting subdivisions that would result in lots less than 75 feet wide (and presumably result in lots less than 9,000 square feet in area). Assuming my understanding is correct, we should make that clear. We may also want to consider setting minimum width and area thresholds so that there could not be subdivision of lots smaller than certain dimensions (I certainly don't think we want to create lots narrower than 40-50 feet in any area). I also think we need additional thinking on the criteria we use to determine whether the proposed structures on such lots are "compatible and complimentary" with the neighborhood (more on that in the process section below). Finally, I am uncomfortable with promulgating those criteria in a policy; I think they ought to be part of the ordinance so that people can easily find them when contemplating such proposals. 2. Building Wall Heights/Grading. I think we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve before we solve it. Having watched a number of rebuilds on small lots come before us (and hear about a number that don't have to), it does not seem to me that the problem is a lack of mass. To the contrary, we are constantly hearing about too much house on too small a lot. In that context, it seems to me that we ought to — at a minimum — proceed with caution when contemplating ordinance changes that will permit greater mass (albeit in exchange for reduced height). In addition, the proposed ordinance change does nothing to address two other problems we are hearing about — drainage and retaining walls. Rather than take a piecemeal approach to the code on these issues, I'd like to see us be comprehensive. On retaining walls, there are a number of things we could consider — adopting a fence -type "good side/bad side" rule that would require the property owner creating the retaining wall situation to have the "bad" side (i.e., the side with the shear face) facing their property. In the example we heard about at our last meeting, that would have required the builder to dig down on the other side of the property rather than build up on the side he did. We could also consider retaining wall setbacks after so many feet of height or some kind of average grade requirement. On drainage, it seems unacceptable to me that a builder has no restrictions on the amount he may increase the rate of runoff associated with a new house so long as the runoff follows the same path it did before construction. Why can't we require the builder to engineer solutions (such as downspouts to underground stormwater pipes that go directly to the city's stormwater system) that don't make the neighbor suffer the consequences of the new construction. On both of these issues, I am sure there are other good ideas that could address the problems while still permitting reasonable redevelopment of residential properties. 3. Process. The more I think about these issues, the more I understand how much I don't know. To date, we have dealt with this dynamic by staff visiting with some selected local developers to get their suggestions about how to proceed. I'm fine with that being part of our information gathering process (although I'd like to hear from them directly, too) but think we're missing some other experts. People who live in the neighborhoods that have had these issues also know a lot about the how the problems develop and, I'm betting, will have some good ideas about potential solutions. I think we should be working to reach out to folks like those before we go to a public hearing (we have, after all, done such outreach with the developers). Such an effort would give us some suggestions to consider on the PUD issues (what is it that makes a new structure "compatible" with a neighborhood?) as well as the mass, scale, drainage, and retaining wall issues. I think it is critical, though, that we do more than merely put out a blanket notice that we want to hear from people. We know people who have CITY Of�EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 cy9SN/ 1f Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com C� ' j", 71 O Date: July 25, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width At the July 11, 2012 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a draft of a potential policy that would limit the size of homes built on newly created lots through a PUD rezoning. Below is a beginning draft of such a policy. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss at the July 25'' Work Session following the regular meeting. Low Density PUD or New Lots Requiring Variances Purpose. This policy applies to homes being built in established neighborhoods on newly created lots that require variances or PUD, Planned Unit Development rezoning. The purpose is to require new homes built on these lots to be consistent with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Policy. The City may require that new homes built on lots requiring variances or PUD rezoning be consistent with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood character, for the purpose of this policy means the following: The new home must have a floor area ratio, and height to the ridge line that is no more than 10% more than the largest or tallest home within 100 feet of the proposed house, and within 1,000 feet of the proposed house on the same street. The City may disallow any existing lot(s) that the City determines are not visually part of the applicant's neighborhood. The City may also add any existing lot(s) that the City determines is visually part of the applicant's neighborhood. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina. MN 55424 Commissioner Potts said he understands about reliance on the code and asked Planner Teague if he knows "how many more of these combined small lots" are out there that may come up for subdivision". Planner Teague responded that staff would look into that. Commissioner Carpenter observed there are many 50 -foot wide lots in Edina with both new and older homes on them, pointing out the vast majority of these homes can be torn down and rebuilt without Commission or Council comment. Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion the Commission needs to revisit this issue. She noted that part of the problem is our current code that allows generous buildings to be built on these small lots. Forrest agreed that the one size fits all may not work. Chair Grabiel commented that in the Comprehensive and Land Use Plan the goal is to preserve the character of the neighborhoods and maintain Edina's housing stock. Grabiel said he doesn't see how in an area of predominately 50 -foot wide one can to argue that maintaining those 50 - foot lots doesn't make sense. Concluding, Grabiel also said the opinion that ordinances "never change" isn't true, pointing out ordinances do change. Commissioner Forrest said in theory she agrees but the Commission also needs to consider how these subdivisions affect neighborhoods. She added the Commission needs some form of individual approach or a creatively crafted ordinance to address these issues. Commissioner Platteter pointed out if someone wants to buy three 50 -foot wide lots and conjoin them there is no review process; questioning if the code should work the same both ways. Platteter said in his opinion maintaining the original plat is important. He said the plats in reality defined Edina's neighborhoods, adding in his opinion these small lot neighborhoods also need protection. Concluding Platter reiterated there are no limits on combining lots; which to him is a concern and more out of character than going the other direction and honoring the original plat, Commissioner Staunton said the discussion was good, adding he agrees with Commissioners Scherer and Schroeder that there shouldn't be just one way, adding having a city wide lot width requirement may not be the best approach. Staunton pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes character districts, adding that number 3 also makes sense to him. He pointed out currently code requires that all applicants identify the 500 -foot neighborhood standards, and even if the lots within that 500 -foot neighborhood don't meet current code variances are required for the "new" lot(s). Staunton concluded he was also intrigued by allowing PUD in the R-1 zoning district. Chair Grabiel said this discussion needs to be continued and requested that staff look at the, calendar and see if time was available for the Commission and Council to meet jointly. Grabiel added that more research also needs to be done on how a PUD would "work" in the R-1 zoning district and on how many "lots" are out there that were combined plat that now could be "subdivided". Page 9 of 10 Discussion Chair Grabiel asked the Commission for their comments, adding in his opinion the City should encourage redevelopment; noting there is a catch on how that can it be correctly accomplished. Grabiel said he believes, at this point, if the City allows subdivisions to expand up meeting 500 -foot neighborhood requirements for lot width, depth and area; shouldn't the same be true if one wants to expand down. Commissioner Schroeder said he likes the idea of allowing a PUD for residentially zoned parcels. He noted other cities permit PUD's in their residential districts, adding that some cities like St. Louis Park are more like Edina. Schroeder added the reason he likes this option is that PUD is project specific. He pointed out in this instance a PUD process would answer many of the neighbors questions; like trees, house placement etc. Concluding, Schroeder said PUD could be another "subdivision" tool. Planner Teague pointed out that the City's ordinance precludes PUD in R-1 zoning districts; however that doesn't mean PUD in an R-1 zoning district shouldn't be reconsidered. Commissioner Fischer pointed out that it wasn't that long ago that the Commission was considering amending the ordinance to allow PUD; however, during the discussion on allowing PUD zoning many residents expressed concern" with allowing PUD in the City's R-1 zoning district. Continuing, Fischer noted since those discussions the Commission has come across a couple of instances where a PUD zoning would be a benefit in an R-1 zoning district and would make sense. Concluding, Fischer said permitting PUD in an R-1 zoning district may be something the Commission should reconsider. Commissioner Potts agreed and added if the City's goal was to protect the character of all neighborhoods using PUD as another tool besides lot width, depth, area, etc. may not be a bad idea. Commissioner Carpenter said in reviewing the most recent request for subdivision in a small lot neighborhood; including past similar requests that he was struck by the fact on how few people contested these subdivisions; if at all. Carpenter noted there have been five subdivision requests in small lot neighborhoods in five years, questioning if that's really a lot. He said he also wonders if the Commission really needs to do anything to "fix " the ordinance if in reality it works and wasn't broken. Commissioner Scherer said her concern is that residents feel undercut on how the Commission addresses subdivisions, adding some residents don't agree with the original plat theory. Scherer said to her it's about reliance on the code. Continuing, Scherer said she doesn't believe it is unreasonable to clarify the code so the Commission has a reliance factor. Concluding Scherer stated she likes the idea of a PUD and also likes option 3 presented by staff, acknowledging that each request becomes unique and emotional. Page 8 of 10 Kim Mon mery, 5300 Evanswood Lane said she had questions on of private la -f r public civic use. Iks and the purchase Jessica Cook said the f ds could be used for basic public�,irfiprovements but not the extra "niceties" such as brick ers for sidewalks or, landscpi ng. TIF money cannot be used for residential street improvements, public civic or copl'munity buildings or to facilitate private redevelopment. TIF money can b used for sever water road improvements in support of a redevelopment within the Projec6kr,,ea and purchase for the purposes of providing affordable housing. Commissioner Carpenter stated th t"the Coni ission's role is to determine if the expanded Plan Area is consistent with the,L�omprehensivve Nn. Carpenter stated in his opinion that it is. Motion Commissioner Stau ton moved to recommend adoption bti a Resolution. Commissioner Fischer secondectx a motion; noting the funds can be spent n�& will be spent. Fischer also noted the rope df the Commission on this subject is limited and th the Resolution is in keeping w�h the Comprehensive Plan. All voted aye; motion carrie Discussion — Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lots smaller than 9,000 square feet and 75 -feet in width. Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that as a result of recent subdivision requests on Brookview and Oaklawn Avenues, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern in regard to approving subdivisions that require variances. Teague noted that in the last five years the City has received five (5) requests to subdivide properties into lots that were less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Teague acknowledged that all of the requests were made in the area around Pamela Park. Three of those requests were approved; one is pending review by the City Council, and one was withdrawn by the applicant before action was taken. Teague said there are options on how to address the issue and suggested that a goal should be established up front as to what the City wishes to accomplish in changing the ordinance. Page 7 of 10 voice on this issue so people can get a sense of what to expect Commissioner Fischer said he doesn't know how he feels about opening this up for PUD. He asked if a PUD could only be allowed in specific instances and not generally. Chair Grabiel said the next step would be to have staff retool the ordinance and develop a ordinance that could use PUD as a subdivision method. Planner Teague said from the discussion tonight it doesn't appear there's much support for the median adding that staff would look at addressing subdivision through the PUD process. Continuing, Teague noted that if the Commission takes this route the PUD option would be open to all R-1 zoned properties. Teague said the Commission should keep that in mind as they move forward. VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection and Attendance. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS None. X. STAFF COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Scherer moved meeting adjournment at 9:00 pm. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Tack (& Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9 minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across the R-1 Zoning District. Chair Grabiel informed the Commission he read a recent article in the Star & Tribune on "in -fill" housing. Grabiel said that the article referred to "in -fill" housing as a way to prevent blight in older neighborhoods. Grabiel said he thinks the City needs to take a more positive approach to encourage in -fill development. Commissioner Carpenter noted there are a fair amount of 50 -foot lots in Edina, adding there is no way the City can prevent development or redevelopment of these lots. Commissioners agreed if a new house meets setbacks tear down and rebuild can occur. Commissioner Scherer said with regard to subdivision the,Ordinance has stipulated the lot width and lot depth standards for decades. She added she doesn't know how successful it would be to change the minimum lot size at this point. Commissioner Forrest said in -fill housing is hard to compare. She added she supports density; however it needs to be appropriate for the lot size. Continuing Forrest acknowledged there is a trend to tear down and rebuild; however, there are arguments on both sides on what's right and what's wrong. Forrest suggested that instead of focusing on lot size maybe one should consider building size; what can be built etc., noting in many areas the "pocket neighborhood" would work but may not work so much in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Staunton noted that 500 -feet is used as the tool to establish neighborhood standards for lots in excess of 751feet in width. Staunton asked if there was a better way to do this, adding 500 feet could be.considered arbitrary. He noted at times people say the "neighborhood" is smaller than the 500 -feet and other times the "neighborhood" needs to be expanded. Char Grabiel agreed, adding he's not sure of a median width, depth or area formula. Commissioner Schroeder said if the outcome of these discussions is to achieve the proper control mechanism for the City it may beof benefit to allow PUD's in the R-1 Zoning District as a wayto "subdivide'.'. This way the applicant needs to prove to the City there's a real benefit in granting the subdivision. The discussion focused ori combining lots. Planner Teague said it has been his experience that combining lots to build an overly large house happens rarely. However, Teague said he can understand concerns that this could occur. Commissioner Staunton said it appears to be a solution in search of a problem when trying to be consistent with subdivision standards. The Ordinance appears to exempt large lots from the minimum lot requirements, adding one would think that same exemption would also hold true for the smaller lots. Continuing, Staunton said the Commission needs to be mindful that we can't rezone every lot in the City. Concluding Staunton said he agrees with the comment from Commissioner Schroeder that there needs to be some form of articulation on how subdivision benefits the City. Staunton said the City needs to find its Page 8 of 9 P C ,,,,nv45 Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner Teague if the City's noise ordinance wsufficient to adss these new systems or should the EEC take a look at noise. Plann Teague said the Het th Department enforces the noise ordinance and Edina has adopt State requirements. Commission Staunton said he observed that the Ordinance uses Vferent terms to define energy system • adding in his opinion it should be uniform; eithepItnergy Generation Systems or Ener Collection Systems. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Forre asked for clarification on setbacks inting out corner lots and large commercial lots could be, difficult. Teague explained tha he energy systems must maintain the same setbacks as are required for princi I building or structures in the underlying zoning district. Teague also noted that e ergy systems can't be located in the front yard. Rapidly changing 'eld don't want to b too restrictive. Commissioner Platteter said front the City needs to encourage sustai Commissioner Carpenter said it appea control. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Schro any excess energy co wondered if this was clarification. The dis however, Commissi noted that -ex -cess en The discussion c/nth co ility the ne some I with r' ed to be defined or clarified more. He said i 1 remaining reasonable. him that it's necessary that the City have some \'th'on ite consumption, and questioned if ack to the utility company. Schroeder eds further discussion and ers acknowledging that potential; ones didn't believe the Ord,manc hould encourage it. It was also gy would probably go back into t %thrit d. Hued with Commissioner suggesting the City refer to other communitios.0 see how they regulate energy systems. It waslso noted that energy on systems are tinually changing and the City needs to keep pac with these changes. Ch4arify iel said it appears the EEC should take another look at the proposed Ordinance ancertain aspects. The Commission also expressed interest i neeting again with th Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. Teague said the general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Scherer said that she feels this is a good idea and suggested that the Commission "pick a few topics" and commit. Commissioner Staunton agreed with Scherer and added that the Commission should also prioritize our goals. Staunton said he is interested in the next steps for the Grandview Development Framework and noted that he heard the City of Edina was hiring an Economic Development Director. Planner Teague informed Commissioners he sat in on the interviews for the new Economic and Development Director and that it has been narrowed down to three very good candidates. Teague said he would let the Commission know who was hired. Commissioner Platteter said he believes a work plan is a great idea and agreed with Commissioners Staunton and Scherer that the Commission needs to prioritize our goals. Platteter suggested identifying our top five goals. Planner Teague told the Commission that he has continually added topics to the Commissions "bucket list". Teague said the Commission could go through that list and develop our work plan using that list and add other issues we believe are pertinent. Planner Teague also informed Commissioners that the City has submitted a grant to offset the cost of tearing down old municipal buildings. Teague said that the old public works building would be an excellent candidate for these monies. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged back of packet materials. Chair Grabiel congratulated Platteter and Forrest on their 100% attendance record. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Grabiel asked Planner Teague if he would give a brief account on what's happening with "The Waters", "Southdale Apartments" and Byerly's. Commissioner Scherer also asked what was occurring with the France Avenue corridor roadway study. Planner Teague responded that "The Waters" was almost ready to pull their building permit. He stated he believes it will be pulled next week. Continuing, Teague told the Commission that he just met with Byerly's and they informed him they have retained a housing developer. More information should be coming from them. With regard to the "Southdale Apartments" WSB is initiating the parking study. Concluding, Teague reported that an estimate on the improvements along France Avenue came back and the estimates on those improvements are many many many times over budget. IX. STAFF COMMENTS None Page 10 of 11 Building Height Planner Teague informed the Commission there has been some concern expressed on building height for new construction especially in the small lot neighborhoods. A request has been made by builders to relax the present standard of increasing the setback 6 -inches for each foot the average building height exceeds 15 -feet. Teague referred to an ordinance he drafted that would amend the existing ordinance exempting the second story setback requirement if the ridge line of a house is reduced to 30 -feet. Teague explained that builders have indicated to him that this amended provision would allow more creativity for building design by giving incentives to builders to reduce the ridge line in order to achieve more square footage on the second story. This could also impact grading and retaining wall issues. Commissioner Staunton asked the purpose of this amendment. Planner Teague further explained that the way the ordinance is now written makes it very difficult for builders to construct a colonial two story home on these smaller lots. To achieve the adequate upstairs ceiling height builders now create pitches to gain that living space; however it gives the appearance of greater roof height and building mass. Relaxing the present requirement would allow a builder to achieve more living space on the 2nd floor without pitching the roof. Commissioner Platteter stated he likes this approach. Commissioners agreed, adding if in reality the ordinance is driving the steep pitched roof it would be good to modify the ordinance. A discussion ensued with Commissioners wondering if there would be a "down side" to this change. The consensus was that this approach was simple and would work. Commissioners suggested letting this percolate; noting the ordinance changes to address height and mass are relatively new. It was further noted that building height and the previously mentioned grading have similar components. Work Plan Planner Teague said the City Council has requested that each Board and Commission create a yearly work plan. The purpose of the plans are to ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Commissions are aligned, and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support the work. Teague said over the next few months, the Commission is asked to develop their plan for the next year. Teague suggested that the Commission think about their goals for 2013 and at the September work session with the City Council. Page 9 of 11 �.� 7 (1 o � �,C.. Mtn Planner Teague added that for every change to the ordinance there are consequences. Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Teague reminded the Commissioner they directed staff to draft an Ordinance amendment that would allow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots that are less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Continuing, Teague said that recently the City Council has expressed interest in considering a uniform median lot area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot size requirement in the R-1 district. If established the median of all lots within 500 -feet becomes the minimum lot size requirement. This approach is what is currently done. Commissioner Platteter said the last time this was discussed it did appear that PUD "may be the way to go" but now without specific guidelines the 500 -foot neighborhood approach the City has been utilizing may be best and fairest. Commissioner Carpenter agreed. He pointed out if a PUD would be developed for residential subdivisions of smaller lots he foresees residents applying for "a lot of PUD's". Carpenter said as previously mentioned by Commissioner Platteter that specific guidelines would need to be established for lots under 75 -feet in width or else there would be no regulator. Carpenter stated in his opinion the 500 -foot rule has value. It's across the board. Commissioner Staunton commented if some form of guidelines need to be developed for allowing a PUD in an R-1 zoning district adding the present "500 -foot rule" may be best because it establishes guidelines. Staunton suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the present subdivision code using the 500 -foot standard to establish neighborhood maybe in the smaller lots neighborhoods the radius could be lessened. A discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that they should proceed with caution in developing a PUD for R-1 lots that require variances. It was also noted there needs to be fairness with the City's approach to this topic. It was suggested that a simple way to approach this on the PUD level may be "what's in it for the City". It was acknowledged that could be considered subjective. Planner Teague suggested that the Commission could develop a low density PUD or something to the effect of subdivision requiring variances. That could be done in ordinance form. Continuing, Teague added that a number of City's have policies; not ordinances that regulate neighborhood character, etc. Teague told the Commission he would draft something reflecting those sentiments. The discussion continued with Commissioners requesting that Planner Teague do an informal survey of how other City's deal with subdivisions of non -conforming lots. Commissioners suggested that staff first tackle this from a policy position not ordinance. Page 8 of 11 Subdivision: #6 Mark Dahlquist Addition 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (3), Positive to neutral (1). Comparable values. 3. House spacing? Acceptable (2), Not appropriate (2). Too close to street. 4. Lot size? Appropriate (2), Not appropriate (2). Lots should be deeper. Seem too small. OK, clustered as these are. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes 6. Other comments: Lots too shallow. Maximum buildings on wooded or sloped sites. Least desirable subdivision. Subdivision: #7 Granger Addition 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable. Nice tree saving. Older development - maximum mature trees. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Neutral - Same as surrounding. Comparable style and value. Two houses are out of character- would not be so apparent if homes were not two stories. 3. House spacing? Acceptable (3), Does not fit (1). 4. Lot size? Appropriate 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (3), No (1). 6. Other comments: Would better with more newer homes, but not likely in this neighborhood. Good fit. Fits with the rest of the area. 1-I Edina, MN Single Family Residential-Sdivision, Study 14 January 15, 2005 1` 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood (2), Does not fit with neighborhood (2). Not similar to surrounding homes, but OK. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes. 6. Other comments: Good use of hilly terrain. Very large homes on the east side. Close on the west. Subdivision: #4 Jyland Whitney 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive 3. House spacing? Acceptable. Except for #42 is too crowded and close to the street. OK, as it is its own cul-de-sac. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Fits well with the neighborhood. 6. Other comments: Subdivision is carved out of large natural and private area - a favorite area of the Edina. Subdivision: #5 Waterman Addition 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable (3), Negative (1). Looks like a large impact. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (2), Neutral (2) 3. House spacing? Not a good fit - larger than typical. Somewhat close. Too close for their size. 4. Lot size? Appropriate (3), Not appropriate (1). Home elevations dominate the lots. Only within the subdivision. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (2), No (2) - New homes stuck into an older neighborhood. 6. Other comments: New homes an "island" on their own. Would townhouses been better? Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 13 January 15, 2005 Appendix C Summary of Task Force Responses 4 written responses) November 23, 2004 Subdivision: #1 Arrowhead Pointe 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive to neutral. 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood. Neighborhood unto itself. Well done. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. Big houses on small lots are OK. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (3) - Some adjacent houses are less value than new homes. That is ok. No (1) - OK on cul-de-sac. Road too wide for the area. 6. Other comments: Subdivision contributes nicely to Edina. Question impact of new neighborhood pockets like this? Subdivision: #2 Brendan Glen 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood. Houses a bit close, but OK. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes 6. Other comments: Nice houses. Well done subdivision. , Upgrade in .relation to surrounding neighborhood. Hwy 169 noise. Lots next to 169 are undeveloped. Subdivision: #3 Ratelle Hill 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable(2), unknown (1), Negative (1) God retention of woods and additional landscaping. Tree loss seems significant. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (2), Neutral (1), Negative (1) Similar to those across the street, but not too the side or rear. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 12 January 15, 2005 Appendix B Comparative Subdivision Regulation Analysis The City of Edina uses a unique method for regulating lot size, width, etc. in single-family residential subdivisions. City regulations require the lot size, lot width, lot depth and width -to -lot perimeter ratio of new subdivisions must be equal to or greater than the median lot size, lot width, lot depth and width to perimeter ratio of the surrounding neighborhood. Most cities use a fixed minimum lot size, lot width etc. for a given residential zoning district. Those cities typically have between multiple residential zones with varying minimum lot sizes, widths, etc. The Edina code results in lot sizes that are similar to the surrounding neighborhood and the transitions between adjacent lot sizes are fairly uniform. The more typical "Euclidean" zoning method results in uniform lot sizes within a given zone and fairly distinct differences in lot size and house type between zones and along zoning boundaries. Edina's code in general results in larger lot sizes than required by most cities of a similar nature. Ingraham & Associates evaluated zoning and subdivision codes from 20 cities to see how they treated subdivision of lots and to determine if any of their codes contained regulations that would be helpful and applicable to the City of Edina. The 20 cities were ones that were selected previously as part of an evaluation of newly updated city codes for organization and clarity. All 20 cities used the traditional Euclidean method of zoning (separate districts and standards based on intensity). All cities have a fixed minimum lot size for each residential zoning district. Almost all of them had methods for imparting flexibility through use of a Planned Development or other flexible zoning tool. Many cities had codes to vary setback requirements. Two cities had lot size/subdivision regulations that may be helpful to Edina. The City of Minneapolis requires lot area to not be less than the greater of (1) the minimum requirements set forth by the zoning ordinance or (2) the average of the single-family and two-family zoning lots located in whole or in part within three hundred fifty (350) feet or the average of the single-family and two-family zoning lots located in whole or in part within the same zoning district within three hundred fifty (350) feet, whichever is greater, where such average lot area exceeds the minimum zoning requirement by fifty (50) percent or more. In residential infill/estate lot split situations, Boulder, Colorado requires the smaller of the two lots be at least forty percent of the square footage of the original lot. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 11 January 15, 2005 A. The minimum lot area, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 9,000 square feet, or the median lot area of lots in the neighborhood. B. The minimum lot width, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 75 feet, or the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood. C. The minimum lot depth, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 120 feet, or the median lot depth of lots in the neighborhood. The lot width to perimeter ratio, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, for any lot in the proposed plat or subdivision shall not be less than 0.1. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 10 January 15, 2005 I. The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. J. The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision. K. Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. L. Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. M. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Subd. 3 Additional Considerations. In addition to the foregoing matters, the Commission, in connection with its recommendation to the Council, and the Council in determining whether to approve or disapprove a proposed plat or subdivision, shall specifically and especially consider the following matters: A. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of Section 850 of this Code, including, without limitation, the lot size and dimension requirements of Section 850 of this Code, and the Flood Plain Overlay District and Heritage Preservation Overlay District of Section 850 of this Code, as varied by variances therefrom, if any, granted pursuant to this Section or Section 850 of this Code. C. Whether the design of the proposed plat or subdivision, or the design or type of improvements proposed to be placed thereon, may be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. D. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision conforms to, and complies with the requirements of, applicable State Law. E. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of this Section, as varied by variances therefrom, if any. Single Family Lot Requirements Subd. 2 Lot Dimensions. If the proposed plat is wholly or partially within the Single Dwelling Unit District, then the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth and lot width to perimeter ratio shall be as follows: Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study g January 15, 2005 C. The lot width to perimeter ratio (as defined in Section 850 of this Code) for each lot in the proposed plat or subdivision. Subdivision Criteria/Findings Subd. 1 Considerations. The Commission in reviewing proposed plats and subdivisions and in determining its recommendation to the Council, and the Council in determining whether to approve or disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other matters, the following: A. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters: 1. The suitability to the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and 2. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. B. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. C. The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. D. The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of Section 850 of this Code including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the Floodplain Overlay District provisions of Section 850 of this Code. E. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. F. The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with any easements of record or on the ground. G. The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets. H. The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 8 January 15, 2005 Appendix A Definitions: Selections from Sections 810 (Subdivisions) and 850 (Zoning) of the Edina City Code - Single Family Residential Subdivisions Neighborhood. All lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by Section 850 of this Code which are wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, except: A. Lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities and golf courses; B. Lots used for conditional uses as established by Section 850 of this Code; or C. Lots separated from the proposed plat or subdivision by the right of way of either T. H. 100 or T. H. 62. If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, then the whole of that lot shall be included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Neighborhood Analysis Required Subd. 5 Additional Requirements for Platting or Subdivision of Property in the Single Dwelling Unit District. In addition to the requirements of Subd. 4 of this Subsection, the applicant for a proposed plat or subdivision of land wholly or partially within the Single Dwelling Unit District as then determined by Section 850 of this Code, shall also deliver to the Planner the following information from a source acceptable to the Planner. A. A complete list of all lots which are within the neighborhood of the property proposed to be platted or subdivided with the following Information: 1. The lot area for each lot 2. The mean and median lot area (in square feet) of all lots; 3. The lot width, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, for each lot; 4. The man and median lot width, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, of all lots; 5. The lot depth, as defined by the Section 850 of this Code, for each lot; 6. The mean and median lot depth, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, of all lots; and 7. The name and address of each lot. B. The location of the proposed building pad for each lot in the proposed plat or subdivision. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 7 January 15, 2005 Figure One - Map of Subdivisions Occurring Since 1990 Insert map showing all subdivisions created since 1990 and highlight the seven subdivisions studied by the Task Force. The map shows the subdivisions that were built since 1990 (date the current city residential subdivision code was adopted) and the seven representative subdivisions evaluated by the Task Force. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 6 January 15, 2005 Edina Subdivision Study Participants Study Task Force Members: Rod Hardy N. Craig Johnson Robert Johnson Meg Mannix Mary Vasaly City Staff: Craig Larsen, City Planner Consultant: Greg Ingraham, AICP Ingraham & Associates Inc. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 5 January 15, 2005 ;r'zdirlirerf i:rtcts S Edina C.'ity Code' et -tion 10 requires all i7roposeci subdivisions to meet a set ofconsider-ations i11 - til dings. 'Those findings ensure conformance olnew subdiv isions toeit}° ,Onk •and policies and regulations, compatibility witi1 the surrounding <trca, protection of health safetyand Welfare, provision of adcduatc street and emergency seg -vice and I.votcetion of natural resources. 't -hese findings serve as in additional review mechanism to ensure well --deli, ned and compatible subdi\lslons. Recommendation The neighborhood median lot size, width, etc. provision is an appropriate subdivision regulation that assures that there is no abrupt lot size differences within neighborhoods. The subdivisions created under the current regulations are high quality and in general, blend in well with the neighborhood. The existing code promotes good development. The City Code findings assure a°Mition rl recicw and c: mhatibility of new :,nbetivisi:ms. No change in subdivision regulations is recommended. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 4 January 15, 2005 Consultant Comments and Recommendations Neighborhood median lot size The Edina requirement that new subdivisions meet the average lot size, width, etc. of the surrounding neighborhood assures that new lots will "fit" into the generally scale and context of the neighborhood. That alone is not a guarantee of a successful and well-received subdivision, but it does prevent major differences in lot ize within neighborhoods (i.e. a new subdivision of five 10,000 square foot lots within an existQ6 neighborhood of 50.000 square foot lots). . Cities that use the more traditional approach of multiple single-family residential zoning distridW (i.e. RI zone -20,000 square foot minimum lot size, R2 -12,000 square foot minimum lot size, R3 - 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) have issues when larger remnant parcels are subdivided into smaller lots. Subdivision quality The subdivisions created since 1990 are of a uniformly high quality and few issues were apparent. The existing code provisions and process seem to work well and result in high quality subdivisions. Housing size The real estate trend has been toward larger homes. As a result the homes in new subdivisions tend to be larger than the older homes surrounding the new development. This is does not appear to have a negative affect upon the property values or livability of the neighborhoods. Larger lots Requiring new lots to meet the median lot size of the neighborhood results in larger lots than typically found in cities using traditional minimum lot area zoning requirements only. The larger lots contribute toward higher housing costs. However, Edina's higher value real estate market is the biggest influence on housing price and affordable detached single-family homes are difficult to achieve in most parts of the Twin Cites. 'state lots `file City regulations requiring nc!%v lets to meet the median lot size;- of ilre neighborhood pra2ct areas or groups of large "estate" size- lots by requiring any new subdivision to meet the median lot size ofillcrrei�ghborbood. The result ofa neW subdivision in an area ot'existing large lots is iliat any new lots Wnuld be Aibstantially similar to the typical lot ,;izc in the sr.ttTOLIndin'. area. however. the City regulation :dig not pre --vent: an existing isolated laroc estate lot from bein" s.i.rl?divided inter smaller lots if the large lett is loca[co in a neighborhood of smaller lots. if the neighborhoocl median lot sine is substantially smaller than the isolated estate lot, the estate lot lvonld be able to be subdivided into lots similar to the typical lot size in Clic area. Infill subdivisions By their very nature, new subdivisions in Edina create change in a neighborhood. Change can be controversial. Controversy and change are inevitable and are best managed through an open and informative process with clear guidelines and standards. The median lot size requirement minimizes the extent of the change by assuring that new lots will be similar in size to the existing neighborhood lots. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 3 January 15, 2005 Study Process Ingraham & Associates visited and evaluated all of the subdivisions that occurred in the City since 1990 and reviewed existing City subdivision regulations. A meeting was held with the five Task Force members to review the regulations and issues. Task Force members were asked to visit seven subdivisions located throughout the City. The seven subdivisions represent a cross section of the subdivisions approved in the City since 1990. See the attached map of subdivision locations, Figure 1. Ingraham & Associates reviewed other cities ordinances to determine if there were subdivision regulations that would be applicable to Edina. A summary of that research is attached as Appendix B. Task Force members visited and evaluated each subdivision. A summary of their evaluations is attached as Appendix C. A meeting was held with the Task Force to review their subdivision analysis and to discuss the need for any code revisions. The Task Force members, consultant and city planner discussed the quality of the subdivisions and their fit with the neighborhood and community. The Task Force members reached a consensus that the existing regulations worked well and the subdivisions were appropriate and of high quality. No changes to the existing regulations were recommended. Their findings and recommendations are noted below. I Task Force Findings and Recommendations Summary of the Task Force evaluations of the subdivisions and subdivision regulations. 1. Some new subdivisions are "islands" within older or slightly different housing, but this is OK, particularly when the subdivision is large enough or is designed to act as its own neighborhood (i.e. using a new cul-de-sac street). 2. Setbacks seem tight (too small) in some subdivisions, but in general, larger houses on smaller lots are OK. 3. The quality of the new subdivisions and new homes is high and matches or exceeds the values and quality of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. In general, Task Force members felt that the subdivisions they examined were appropriate for the neighborhood and the city. Opinions vary and beauty (and what is a good subdivision) is in the eye of the beholder. 5. The city should maintain setbacks and lot coverage limits that are similar to the surrounding area and city. Continue to monitor variance requests and consider code adjustments if needed (current City practice). 6. The existing subdivision code promotes good development and is appropriate and no changes in the subdivisions code are recommended. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 2 January 15, 2005 Edina Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Introduction The City of Edina initiated a study of its subdivision regulations in response to comments about the appropriateness of some newer single-family residential subdivisions. The purposes of the study were to: • Objectively analyze the subdivision regulations, • Evaluate the subdivisions that result from the regulations, • Compare Edina's subdivision regulations to other cities regulations, • Determine if changes are needed to the City subdivisions regulations, and • If changes are needed, prepare recommendations for ordinance amendments. The fundamental question of the study is: Do City subdivision codes promote or inhibit good development? In order to assure an objective study, the City hired Ingraham & Associates, a land planning consulting firm to conduct the study and used a citizen task force to independently review a cross section of citysubdivisions and to evaluate the city subdivision regulations. A list of study participants is attached on page 4. Edina Subdivision Regulations The City of Edina uses a unique method for regulating lot size, width, etc. in single-family residential subdivisions. Most cities use a fixed minimum lot size (i.e. 12,000 square feet), lot width, etc. for a given residential zoning district. Those cities typically have multiple residential zones with varying minimum lot sizes, widths, etc. Edina has one single-family residential zoning district. The single-family zoning district regulations specify a minimum lot size, width and depth. City regulations also require the lot size, lot width, lot depth and width -to -lot perimeter ratio of new subdivisions must be equal to or greater than the median lot size, lot width, lot depth and width to perimeter ratio of the surrounding neighborhood (properties within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision). For example, if the median lot size in the neighborhood is 20,000 square feet, a landowner must have at least 40,000 square feet of land in order to subdivide the property. They would also have to meet the minimum dimensional and median lot width, depth and ratio requirements to qualify for a potential subdivision. These Code provisions have been in place since 1990. A summary of the Edina single-family residential subdivision code is attached as Appendix A. The Edina code results in lot sizes that are similar to the surrounding neighborhood and the transitions between adjacent lot sizes are fairly uniform. The more typical multiple zoning district method (use of fixed minimum lot sizes only within a given zoning district) results in uniform lot sizes within a given zone and fairly distinct differences in lot size and house type between zones and along zoning boundaries. Edina's code in general results in larger lot sizes than required by most cities of a similar nature. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study January 15, 2005 Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a.median lot depth greater than 120 feet, then the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 5. Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 9,000 square feet provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot area greater than 9,000 square feet, then the minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in the neighborhood. B. Minimum Lot Width. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 75 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood. C. Minimum Lot Depth. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 120 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. In the case of a PUD in a tow density resider}tial area, the structural design of the housing must be compatible and complimentary with surrounding housing. In order to be compatible with the surrounding housing, the new home(s) must Have a floor area ratio, and height to the ridge line that is no more than 10% more than the largest and tallest home within 100 feet of the proposed house, And within 1,00.0 feet of the proposed house on the same street. e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. PFOpeFty GUFFently zoned R 1, PRD 7 shall not be eligible for a PUD-. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Existing text - XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Draft 8-27-2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PUD ELIGIBILITY IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4.D is amended as follows: D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; C. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX OF MEMO City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861 4,95/x""li Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CitvofEdina.com X Pi =_a V4 fa .S �fyc�'<� f9• gid Date: September 4, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Consideration of Subdivisions that result in lots less than 9,000 s.f. in area and 75 feet in width. (R- I /PUD) Over the past several months the Planning Commission has been considering a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding subdivision of smaller lots in the R- I Zoning District. Attached are staff memos, minutes highlighting the Planning Commission discussions, and the latest draft Ordinance. The Planning Commission would like to have a discussion with the City Council in regard to the Ordinance prior to submitting a formal Ordinance Amendment for the City Council to consider. There are three options to consider: 1. Continue to review these subdivisions on a case by case basis, using the variance criteria. 2. Amend the Ordinance to establish a city-wide minimum lot size by using the median lot area, width and depth of lots within 500 feet. (Current minimum lot area is 9,000 s.f.; 75 feet in width; and 125 feet in depth. In areas of lots greater in area, width and depth, the median within 500 establishes the minimum lot size.) 3. Amend the Ordinance to allow a PUD in the R -I District. (See attached draft Ordinance.) Small lot subdivisions could be considered on a case by case basis using PUD rezoning. Specific site conditions could be placed on the PUD, such as regulating house size, height, tree protection and site grading. City of Edina - 4801 W. S0th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Minutes - Work Session/Edina City Council/September 4. 2012 The Council and Commission briefly discussed the Grandview Framework's next steps. Discussion included need to develop a vision for the public realm, how to move forward with so many individual property owners, was there a need for a master developer, and public involvement in the next phase. It was suggested some long term discussion with the community regarding the public space realm was needed. Further, all parties should be at the table including the City, the School District and the land owners. Manager Neal suggested that the City's new Economic Development Manager, Bill Neuendorf be allowed to begin his work. One possible outcome might include a Small Area Plan. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, September 19, 2012. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL AND EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Bennett entered the meeting at 5:07 p.m. Edina Planning Commissioners attending were: Michael Fischer, Arlene Forrest, Floyd Grabiel, Chair, Michael Platteter, Ken Potts, Nancy Nyrop Scherer, and Kevin Stanton. Edina City Staff attending the meeting: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner; Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Technology Services Director; Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering; Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Long, Police Chief; Debra Mangen, City Clerk; Scott Neal, City Manager; Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager; Brian Olson, Public Works Director; Shelagh Stoerzinger, Appraiser; Cary Teague, Director of Community Development; Bob Wilson, City Assessor. HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT (PENTAGON PARK PLANS) James Nelson, Adviser to Hillcrest Development introduced Scott Tankenoff and Charlie Nestor of Hillcrest Development. Mr. Tankenoff gave an overview of Hillcrest's plan for the potential renovation and redevelopment of Pentagon Park. The Mayor thanked the men for their presentation and suggested the Planning Commission and City Council begin their portion of the work session. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION The City Council and Planning Commission discussed the consideration of subdivisions resulting in lots less than 9,000 square feet and 75 feet in width and Building Height/Grading concurrently. Concerns included: impact of redevelopment when larger homes are built, how to regulate the maximum size homes allowed on the smaller (50 foot) lots, desire to not quell redevelopment in balance with neighborhood concerns, height and impact on neighborhood character, grading and drainage. Generally the Council did not indicate any desire to use PUD for residential areas, and suggested further work continue on the issues surrounding height and subdivisions. Public meetings were suggested if changes are contemplated to minimum lot size. The Commission's ongoing work on the City's Zoning Code was acknowledged to be an important part of the 2013 Work Plan. The Council indicated they liked the outcome of the projects that have utilized the Sketch Plan review process and encouraged its continued use. CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX D. Minimum Lot Width to Perimeter Ratio. Each lot shall have a lot width to perimeter ratio of not less than 0.1. E. Subdivisions of Previously -Platted 50 --foot wide lots. The, City will consider exceptions to the above requirements for subdivision of property within areas t4,at were previously platted, with 50 -foot wide lots. The following -shall be considered where reviewing variance requests: 1. The proposed new lots shall not be less than 50 -feet in width or narrower than the width of the underlying plat, 2. The structural design of the new housing must be compatible and complimentary with surrounding housing. 3. In order to be compatible with the surrounding housing, the new home(s) must have a floor area ratio, and height to the ridge line that is no more than 10% more than the largest and tallest home within 100 feet, of the proposed house;, and within '1,000 feet of the proposed house on the same street. Section Z. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —XXXX XXXX Added text — XXXX Draft 10-18-2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 5. Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 9,000 square feet provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot area greater than 9,000 square feet, then the minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in the neighborhood. B. Minimum Lot Width. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 75 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood. C. Minimum Lot Depth. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 120 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot depth greater than 120 feet, then the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Draft 10-18-2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING GRADING, DRAINAGE AND RETAINING WALLS IN THE R-1 & R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.07. Subd. 7. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 7. Drainage, Retain Walls & Site Access. 1. Drainage. Existing drainage patterns shalt not be altered to redirect water to adjacent properties. Surface water runoff shall be properly channeled into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. All provisions for drainage, including storm sewers, sheet drainage and swales, shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer prior to construction or installation. 2. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls must be shown on a grading plan as ;part of a building permit application. Plans must demonstrate materials to. be used for the retaining wall. construction. Retaining wafts taller than 4 feet require a building permit, and must meet a three-foot setback. 3.. Site Access. Retaining walls shill not be constructed tor prevent pedestrian access from front yards into rear yards. _ Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XIX Added text — XXXX CITY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com >+ 4yj3 O Date: October 24, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration: Subdivisions that result in lots less than 9,000 s.f. in area and 75 feet width. • Grading, drainage & retaining walls As a following up to the September 4', 2012 Work Session with the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to again discuss the above two topics, and determine a path on how to move forward getting public input on these topics. Attached are the minutes from the Council Work Session. The City Council indicated that it was not interested in pursuing an Ordinance that would allow a PUD in the R- I District. They agreed with the Planning Commission that public meetings should be held to get input from residents if changes are contemplated. Public input was also suggested on the issue of grading, drainage and retaining wall usage. Attached are draft Ordinances for each topic, based on direction from previous discussions, to help facilitate conversation on two topics. Also attached are the minutes, staff memos and draft Ordinances from our previous discussions. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424