Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-12-12 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 12, 2012 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission November 28, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lot Division. Matt and Mike Knodt. 3928 491h Street West, Edina, MN B. Variance. Nicole Sunberg. 5801 Crescent Terrace, Edina, MN C. Variance. Doug and Pat Vayda. 5201 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN D. Preliminary Plat. Franklin and Carol Sidell. 4232 Oakdale Avenue & 4412 Morningside Road, Edina, MN VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • Miscellaneous 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 call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission January 9. 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague December 12, 2012 VI.D. Director of Planning File # 2012.014.12a INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Peter Knaeble on behalf of Frank Sidell is proposing to subdivide the Sidell family-owned property located in between Littel Street and Momingside Road into eight lots. Currently the site consists of six lots. (See property location on pages Al A5.) The existing home on the south side of the property and various accessory buildings would be torn down and a cul-de-sac street would be built along the east lot line to serve six of the new home sites. The existing home at 4232 Oakdale would remain and one new lot created on Little Street. (See applicant narrative and dans on pages A6—A31.) To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 131 feet for Lot 4 to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 9,606 square feet, median lot depth is 161 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A11—A'l3.) The applicant has developed a plat that would meet all of the minimum lot size requirements; therefore, this site is entitled to develop with eight lots. (See code compliant plat on page A16 & A25.) However, the applicant would rather not develop the site with that pian. There are some steep slopes on this property as well as very mature trees. By developing the site in that configuration with a through street to connect Morningside Road to Littel Street would require extensive tree removal and slop disturbance. Therefore, the applicant is proposing the cul-de-sac configuration to avoid the slope; and is proposing a permanent conservation easement over some of the mature trees to ensure they are protected. (See pages A2.3—A24.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low- density residential. (See pages M -M.) Existing Site Features The existing site contains two single-family homes and number of accessory buildings. (Sete pages A4 & A15.) The southernmost home and accessory buildings would be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable. (See the specific comments the city engineer on page A50.) Storm water would be directed off the homes and driveways toward the new 2 Area Lot Width REQUIRED 9.606 81 76 feet61 Lot 1 12,512 s.L 75 feet 161 Beet Lot 2 12,111 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet; Lot 3 12,113 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet Lot 4 10,342 s.f. 80 feet 131 feet* Lot 5 18,169 s.f. 83 feet 179 feet Lot 6 14,533 s.f. 94 feet 140 feet* Lot 7 23,289 s.f. 122 feet 179 feet Lot 8 12,170 s.f. 90 feet 135 feet* Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable. (See the specific comments the city engineer on page A50.) Storm water would be directed off the homes and driveways toward the new 2 cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac would then drain to the north into a catch basin that would direct drainage by pipe to a ponding that would be located on proposed Lot 8. Overflow from this pond would drain primarily to the west into St. Louis Park and to a lesser amount to Littel Street and the City -owned parcel to the east. (See grading plan on page A18.) As the City's regulatory authority on the drainage pians, they shall be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The grading plan demonstrates encroachment on the City -owned property adjacent to Lot 7. Use of this property will require compensation to the City of Edina, and a restoration plan subject to review and approval by the City Council. The detailed grading plans for each new home would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new hones. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. Tree Preservation/Strest Construction - Through Street vs. Cul -De -Sac The applicant considered developing the site with a through street that would connect Morningside to Littel Street (See page A16 & A25.) This is the configuration of eight lots that meet all minimum City Code requirements; therefore, the appNcant is entitled to a subdivision of this property into eight lots. As mentioned, this site contains steep slopes along the west and north side of the site, and contains many mature trees. The Code compliant plat would require a significant amount of grading to make the slopes work to connect the streets and the majority of the mature trees would be removed. By developing this site with a cul-de-sac, grading would be significantly reduced, and mature trees could be saved. To ensure that the trees be permanently preserved, the applicant is proposing a conservation easement over the slope and mature trees. (See conservation easement on pages A23—A24.) A total of 82 trees would be protected within the easement area. The through street configuration would only save 42 trees on the site; (See page A25.) The City would not be in position to require a conservation easement over the trees in a code compliant plat. As demonstrated on page A31, there are several cul-de-sacs in area. There are eight shown to the gest in St. Louis Park, and six shown to the south in the City of Edina; the closest cul-de-sac is just over 800 feet to the south On Oakdale Avenue; therefore a cul-de-sac would not be completely out of character in this area. 3 Traffic/Safety Concern was raised in regard to traffic safety in the area with the increase of six new single-family homes in the area; therefore, WSB was asked to do a traffic study to determine impacts. As demonstrated in the attached report, the level of service on the existing streets would not change as a result of the proposal (See pages A41A49.) There would be sufficient sight lines for traffic exiting or entering the proposed new street intersection: on Momingside Road. A stop sign is recommended for the new street approaching Morningside Road and providing a clear sight line from the Intersection. (See page A46,) As proposed the existing driveway for the adjacent home at 4408 Momingside Road would be located only 22 feet from the new intersection, therefore, it is recommended that a new driveway be configured to gain access off the new street. If constructed to lead straight in to the existing garage at 4408, the driveway would be located over 50 feet from the intersection, This shall be made a condition of approval. The proposed new street right-of-way would also be located 15 feet from the adjacent home at 4408 Morningside Road. A 15 -foot side street setback Is required by City Code. An 8.7 foot wide Qutlot is proposed on the east side of the proposed right -of way, which would be planted with a raw of evergreen trees to minimum impact to the home. The applicant Is proposing to deed this Qutlot to the adjacent property. (4408 Momingside Road.) This shall be made a condition of any approval. Previous Vacation of Right -of -Way (Wiest side of the Sidell Property) As demonstrated on Exhibit A32, there was a 20 -foot wide strip of right-of- way along the west side of the Sidell property. Another 20 -foot wide strip of right-of-way had existed in St. Louis Park as well. Booth of these right-of-ways have been vacated. Most recently, the City of St. Louis Park vacated its 20 - foot easement. Many years ago, believed to be in the 1950's, the City of Edina vacated the 20 -foot right-of-way on the Sidell property. (See page A32, A36 & A37.) When this area was originally platted, Natchez Avenue was to continue to the north to Littel, which was to extend to the west into St. Louis Park. However, over time this right-of-way has been vacated both in Edina and St. Louis Park, including the extension of Littel to the west.. Given the steep slopes in this area it was determined that the road would not be constructed In that location. There would still be adequate room to construct the cul-de-sac along the west property line, even with the vacation of right-of-way that has already taken place. Using a west side street configuration, 68 trees would be preserved 4 compared to 82 in the east side street configuration. Also, a smaller amount of steep slope would be preserved with a road on the west of the property. Sidewalk The applicant is proposing a sidewalk that would be located within the right- of-way on the west side of the new street. This would tie into the existing sidewalk on Morningside Road. (See page A20.) Park Dedication The property exists as six lots originally platted in the Crocker & Crowell's First Addition plat. Therefore, park dedication has already been paid for six lots. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5.000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $10,000 would be required. Primary Issues a Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land Cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the steep slopes and mature trees on the site. By re -configuring the shape of the lots and building a cul-de-sac, an additional 40 mature trees would be saved and permanently protected by a conservation easement; a total of 82 within the easement, A majority of the severe slopes would also be maintained. (See page A24.) The result of the cul-de-sac design is the need for three tot depth variances; Lot 4, 6 and 7. 5 The variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood and for the subdivision. It does not create any additional lots. The Code compliant flat results in eight lots.. as does the proposed subdivision. To deny the variances would not prevent the property from developing with eight lots. Denial of the variances would however, result in the significant disturbance of the slopes and the removal of all but 40 mature trees on the site. (See page A25.) b) There are cimumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances of a large, mostly vacant, parcel with mature trees and steep slopes are unique to this property. There are no other parcels of this size and shape in the City of Edina. While the family has held these properties for many years, they did not plant the vast majority of the trees and did not create the steep slopes. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighbodux d? No. There are many lots in the area that have lot depths that do not meet the median of 161 feet. There are 26 lots within 500 feet that do not have a lot depth of greater than 131 feet, which is the shallowest of the lots in the subdivision. (See pages A11 --A13.) Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed eight lot subdivision of the Sidell property and the lot depth variances from 161 feet to 131 feet for Lot 4 to 140 feet for Lot 6; and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Approval Is based on the following findings; 1. The applicant has submitted a subdivision of the property that would meet all minimum zoning district requirements with eight lots and new through street that would connect Morningside Road and Littel Street. 2. Rather than develop the site per all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements, the applicant has submitted a proposed subdivision of the property with a cul-de-sac, which requires lot depth variances for Lots 4, 6 and 7. 3. The proposed subdivision with the three lot depth variances would preserve the steep slopes on the site, and permanently preserves 62 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement. M 4. The proposed subdivision still has eight lots, 6. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 6. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique hardship to the prolerty caused by the existing steep slopes and mature trees on the property. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots larger in size than the median, and there are 26 lots within 500 feet of the property that do not have lot depths greater than 131 feet, which is the shallowest of the three lots that require lot depth variances. C. The variance request is reasonable, as subdivision still contains eight lots, which would be allowed with the Code compliant subdivision; however, it permanently protects steep slopes and 82 mature trees. d. if the variances were denied, the applicant could still subdivide the property into eight lots, however the steep slopes would be disturbed an additional 42 mature trees would be removed. Approval Is subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. C. Pay the park dedication fee of $10,000 d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading pian for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance 7 with the overall grading pian subject to review and approval of the city engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated December 7, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall! development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. h. Establishment of a permanent tree preservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. Qutlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the director of engineering. k. A stop sign Is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. Deadline for a City Decision: March 5, 2013 E.3 City of Edina 177s 4iii 1i77 tlri >r 4771 t!M 117�N uw + es -p Fr,�. 4lyllld tu�rnnlWipNsuA6No0 r Lebsb � slFa AN 17If It11 q 40 IN6 1lr3 (Ili $ IM 10 to 7, 41� l ... 041hu"Now"Ubb NM AM N10 420 1744 f 41 @� 113t 417 41 '... SWN naso Lsbsh *1 71, !" aw um. FaA7778/ #dldl4w� ^Wls4 130f All Atf NAF dit p3! :1400 o,w,ewwa 233# .171 II 477i ®�n�g tT7� fie" Mils L bomams 1ri7 K+177t F��%j�ywV15 alai \+7W y 1'" 134! 11 +:7F N • 1300 1 37 a® 1_l PaMs Q Hrcils 241360 4lat ! 170a. 776 ¢ 4131 s+aA as � 110 4 0000 000 0 . 4tR 1714 M3! NSP 24 3w A3l tt4t 17H 441C47 1377 't" 31 1 N+. Wln t ON ....1743 1 AIA Old IAAF Mod i f717 762 ! in. 17M17 0:370 7 1A! 7o6s`Ad711drJp 4O11 4301. t Fi rspope Y +7A iit7°3 ! 7f �F 4716 Ia71 ! 'it' 4 40" 1106 Ar 17a 1 ss 7 4RR 1131 T+ 413r 1M I 3131, iw RA i1 f t N 1744 Moro 4" ! Y 1774 go It7Irr wT 4F3l1�7Y7 4132 17r'' Au If 0000. it, S.t1 rA a_ Ies 7300 4770 430 N4 „F 13QAifir W. p7D 43a f3i1 17s3 'Y 'W. f X11. +117 NJ an 41" 41i7 � Ir6041 f>Y 4367 till ,1773 4707 1351 � t am3AT3 +! im FH � atlL fl (Dirt 1779 it 4 t7Fl 1 a 4a+�wlawiWf-4cr1�<I444b-06iNr 13+1 i rs3 l PID:070282442OO94 'tr�/1. W 4412 Morningside Rd � Edina, MN 55416 I OGISMap Output Page IIIf�II1111I1 11{F:tlll{11! nano tial ■c .. �' 111111(1111/_, 71 .r. ■c � �!"�1 i'1 e1e11 tii lfl ' urnlllllt_.? a'���l�iw-1411Ci1�� -. 11111 e u��■■■■��� �Ilfsr 4,. ' Ottlm" .. �! limit limit ssf#i1�ilIg = Zl ont l\\�/�eifti1111 Ilt`ttill .!r V rleu L }�neil iuueee ue4141111 utnn1111111t1fill 1umuu t1Y1�,1rlllll` II�IIRIF 1""••11 =1�ulunnr . r =� _ :� unitnulmu`lumulutn _ # •;� e— neo — � ttlluwll VA= 11111111111 Ill tilt I1 u1111111t11. �y`= ��� wtr■ tt11117.. 1Wim �liltlf lir m �f>r W +Ittrinii m rut a ntiunu111 -�. y = 11i1111111111111U;' 111I41xtcurullnt ,.. '= 1�ti�11 uuluuunw ur nn fcutrinn1111 __ c! � _ ullir�lflllllllfl�_ �iuumul = . _ Vt121rE1 I{t111171NI111 'lE Ilq 1 fllfllllgllrr '- t �; — ���Flllltllll! 11u1u1 unnu■ tunnn It till t nlunnuur = t!=_ .11lIIIIEI1111NIIIII_` iuni'liiun!w urllin lilnnu4imuli rtultll�uuaatullr l: nl�ii -'■#l�ir111�11I11illlc,-teeuu>rluu{e1 �a�tp nuuuuueruuut _I���� attl ttIII11�11[ii11111111111 ..e111 `. til _titiultpII11P � ,<<>M► �l F\ ••�� " "Ittl ' .Hili - uuull...�,+��� 111[; ;11�Y�ti—t, It11111111ti11lllllilll� Terra November 7, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 West 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: PROJECT NARRATIVE Acres DuBois 4232 Oakdale Ave., Edina 4412 Morningside Rd., Edina TE 412-109 Dear Cary: A.R►teuT 041141146 Based on input fi-om City staff and neighbors, we have prepared our Preliminary Plans for the Acres DuBois development (Sheets 1-9, dated 1115/12) and this Project Narrative for your review and appxoval. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located at 4232 Oakdale Ave. and 4412 Morningside Rd. in the Morningside neighborhood of Edina. The 3.14 acre site has a home on the south side of the property that will be removed, and a home on the north side of the property that will remain, The owners of the property are longtime Morningside residents (50 years). They have made the decision not to sell to a developer and to stay involved with this project t1wough the approval process in an attempt to keep it as neighborhood friendly as possible. The property is currently :one R- I Residential and is surrounded by existing homes that are also zoned R-1 Residential. The western boundary of the property abuts the city of St. Louis Park, and is also adjacent to existing homes in St. Louis Park. A6 6401 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763-593-9325 Terra F09ftee l6g, hW— Gait rrf UM Flatting • Cq -Ift The existing homes on the site are currently connected to City sewer and water, and front on City streets that have existing public sanitary sewer and watermains. Per City requirements, we have had a tree survey prepared by a certified forester and located all trees on the property per City zoning standards. We have also hired a wetland consultant to review the site and he has determined that there are no wetlands on the property. We have also hired a soil testing company to provide soil borings and a soil. report for the site. The soil report indicates that the site is suitable for a residential development. The site is relatively level on the south part of the property with some steep slope areas in the northern part of the property. The slopes areas over 18% have been identified, per City requirements, on the plans. The northern portion of the site is a low area that is currently landlocked with a ground overflow elevation of approximately 881. Due to the porous/granular nature of the existing soils, stor>:ttwater that is currently directed to this low area is rapidly infiltrated. The land owner estimates that the flood elevation for the July 87 super storm was only about 874, or two feet above the bottom elevation. 1 PROPOSED PROJECT: As shown in the plans (Sheet 9; Conforming Concept flan), this site could accommodate an eight lot conforming plat, utilizing a through street connecting Morningside Road and Littel Street. This conforming plat would meet all City ;coning and subdivision requirements, including lot size, setbacks, lot depths and lot widths. But this eight lot conforming plat would also require significantly more site grading (including additional grading in the steep slope area) and tree removal. The conforming plat would also increase the site's imperious coverage. Given the additional grading and tree removal requirements, we are proposing a cul -de -sae street option that would also accommodate eight lots. Our development proposal is to subdivide the property into eight single fancily lots that would be served by a new public cul-de-sac and existing streets. All eight lots would exceed the R-1 Residential Zoning standards for lot size (minimum 9606 st) and lot width (minimum 75'). Three of the lots will require a variance for the 161.5' minimum lot depth (Lot 4 is 127', Lot 6 is 140', and Lot 7 is 135'). All lots would be large enough to accommodate standard sized one level and two story detached single family homes. This project would require less grading, less tree removal, and less impervious coverage than the conformitng eight lot plat option. The developer of the site will construct the public utilities and streets as shown on the plan. Other than grading for the streets and utility areas, all other tree removal and house pad grading will be done on a custom graded basis to maximize tree savings. Homes will be custom designed to the individual lot topography to minimize site grading, erosion and tree removal. 0 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763-593-9325 We are also proposing aTree Conservation Area Easement to maximize the long term stability of the existing significant trees on the property designated to be saved. Trees within the conservation area will not be allowed to be removed unless damaged or diseased. This Tree Conservation Area Easement will be recorded against all of the abutting lots. Public water to serve the cul-de-sac lots will be provided by extending the existing watermain in Morningside Road. Public sanitary sewer service will be provided by anew public gravity sanitary sewer flowing north to the existing sewer in Littel Street. Stormwater will be collected from the new public street with a storm sewer system and directed to a proposed rain garde ' n/infiltration basin to be constructed as shown on the preliminary plans, The project soil borings indicate that this area is aptly suited for an infiltration area due to the, existing porous sand and gravel subsoils. The infiltration basin will be appropriately sized to meet City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards, In case of emexgency or flooding conditions in the infiltration area, a backup stormwater lift station and forcemain system is proposed. This system would -Utilize temporary purnps as required to handle any excess storm water. Based on OUT recent neighborhood meetings, we have added a concrete sidewalk to the west side of the proposed street. This sidewalk would allow residents of the six new homes to safely access the existing neighborhood sidewalk system on Morningside Road and beyond. VARIANCE REOUEST: As discussed above, our proposed project is requesting lot depth variances for three of the proposed eight lots. The proposed eight lots exceed the other zoning standards for lot area and lot width. The zoning ordinance requires new subdivided lots to have a minimum lot depth of 120', or the median lot depth of the existing lots within 500' of the property, whichever is greater. Per the suii,eyor's calculations, the median lot depth of the existing lots within 500' of this property is 161.5'. The proposed lot width for Lot 4 is 126, Lot 6 is 140', and Lot 7 is 135'. These three lot depths exceed the zoning ordinance standard of 1202, but not the neighborhood standard of 161.5'. These proposed reduced lot widths will not adversely impact any existing neighborhood homes. As discussed above, the "Conforming Plat" for eight lots does not require any zoning variances (including lot depth variances), but would require the construction of the through street. At 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 76:3-593-9:325 Terra En�nsw9n�, Vie. aw Eronftft L W Prawdrig . Cox+suftryg Minnesota statues and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively, The proposed variances will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed era mere inconvenience: Yes. Due to the unique shape of the existing property, and the unusually deep lots in the immediate neighborhood, the minimum lot depth standard of 161.5' is difficult to achieve with the cul-de-sac design plan. The through street option would not require variances, but would be more detrimental to the environment and the neighborhood.. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Yes. Again due to the unique shape of the existing property, the variances are required. This proposed variance is not applicable to other properties in the vicinity because they cannot be subdivided (in a conforming way) such as this property can be. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. Yes. Since the property can be subdivided into eight conforming lots utilizing the through street option, approving this variance will continue to preserve tine property rights of the surrounding neighbors. Based on our neighborhood meetings, a large number of neighbors support the cul-de-sac option (and variance) vs. the through street option, Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Yes, As discussed above, by granting the proposed variances, there will be substantially less site grading, tree removal, and impervious area coverage. The through street option (without variances) would be more detrimental to the public welfare and the neighborhood in general. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 753-593-9325 Al Lrl= Based on the above information, we believe that this project will be an asset to not only the immediate neighborhood, but also to the entire City of Edina. It will provide the opportunity for seven new families to call Edina their home. We respectfully request review and approval of this single family residential development by the City staff, Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at 763-593-9325, or email me at PeterKnaeble@gmail.com. Sincerely, pee" f, Peter J. Knaeble, PE Terra Engineering, Inc. 6001 Glems/ood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763-593-9325 Alb S00 FT STUDY (excl. tots in St. Loin Park) 4232 LITTLE ST., EDINA 4412 MORNINGSIDE RD., EDINA SIDELL PROPERTY: "ACRES DuBOIS" STREET ADDRESS NAME 1013012012 By: Joshua Schneider, Acre Land Surveying, Inc. RLS#44655 LOT LOT LOT WIDTH (FTI AREA ISF) DEPTH (FT! Oakdale Ave. 4204 Ballard 73.5 9,541 130 Oakdale Ave. 4208 Eberle 74 9,606 130 Oakdale Ave. 4212 Anderson 74 9,606 130 Oakdale Ave. 4216 Bergstedt 74 9,606 130 Oakdale Ave. 4220 Goan 74 9,606 130 Oakdale Ave. 4224 Stevens 74 9,607 130 Oakdale Ave. 4228 Youel 74 9,607 130 Oakdale Ave. 4205 Oakdale LLC 73.5 7,363 100 Oakdale Ave. 4211 Johnson 74 9,248 125 Oakdale Ave. 4215 Graves 74 9,253 125 Oakdale Ave. 4219 5tromberg 74 9,259 125 Oakdale Ave. 4223 Knutson 74 9,265 125 Oakdale Ave. 4227 Mollderm 74 9,270 125 Oakdale Ave. 4231 Sehwert 74 9,276 125 42nd St. W. 4407 Sax 60 8,808 142 Lynn Ave. 4200 Benyas 132 11,900 BO Lynn Ave. 4212 Fisch a4 10,567 125 Lynn Ave. 4216 Chambers 74 9,254 125 Lynn Ave. 4220 Bracken 74 9,259 125 Lynn Ave. 4224 Rudmicki 74 9,265 125 Lynn Ave. 4228 Hansen 74 9,270 125 Lynn Ave. 4232 Greeley 74 9.276 125 Lynn Ave. 4234 Gabler 100 19.946 200 Lynn Ave. 4236 Nelson 100 19,946 200 Lynn Ave. 4238 Hunt 50 9,970 200 Lynn Ave. 4240 Norberg 50 9,970 200 Lynn Ave. 4242 Ohm 50 9,969 200 Lynn Ave. 4244 Szymczak 50 7,483 150 Lynn Ave. 4246 Cavanaugh 60 7,483 150 Lynn Ave. 4213 Finer 66.7 13,31.0 200 Lynn Ave. 4215 Horan 66.7 13.308 200 Lynn Ave. 4217 Carl 66.7 13,307 200 Lynn Ave. 4219 Parrish 66.7 13,305 200 Lynn Ave. 4221 Sidell 66.7 13,304 200 Lynn Ave. 4223 Obert 50 9,877 200 Lynn Ave. 4225 Chapman 50 9,976 200 Lynn Ave. 4227 Logelin 50 9.975 200 Lynn Ave. 4231 Veit 50 9,975 200 Lynn Ave. 4233 Harris 90 17,952 200 Lynn Ave. 4235 Mitchell 50 9,972 200 Lynn Ave. 4237 Badenoch 50 9,971 200 Lynn Ave. 42:39 Devine 110 21,934 200 Lynn Ave, 4243 Brinkman 50 9,969 200 Lynn Ave. 4245 Hackett 50 7,474 150 Lynn Ave. 4247 Pearson 50 7,456 150 Crocker Ave. 4224 Landrud 67.3 13,439 200 Crocker Ave. 4226 Gorman 66 13,171 200 Cracker Ave. 4228 Crocker LLC 50 9,977 200 Crocker Ave. 4230 Sky Tined LLC 50 9,976 200 Cracker Ave. 4232 Buenz 67 13.367 200 Crocker Ave. 4234 Carlson 66 13,166 200 Crocker Ave. 4236 Potts 67 13,364 200 Crocker Ave. 4238 Kaiser 100 19.944 200 Crocker Ave. 4240 Thomas 100 19,840 204 Crocker Ave. 4242 Ellingson 50 9,969 200 Crocker Ave. 4244 Thompson 50 91866 200 Crocker Ave. 4246 Warren 50 61735 135 Crocker Ave. 4248 Siftar 50 6,735 135 Morningside Rd, 4408 Hardy S0 7,463 150 Momingside Rd. 4400 Berman 50 7,483 150 Morningside Rd. 4350 Plant 50 7,489 150 Momingside Rd. 4310 Cooper 50 7,483 150 Momingside Rd, 4306 Ratner 65 6;484 too Momingside Rd. 4307 McGill 50 7,999 160 Momingside Rd. 4309 Toth 50 8,998 180 Momingside Rd, 4311 Murphy 50 8,598 180 Momingside Rd. 4313 Hartley 50 9,223 184 Momingside Rd. 4315 Yang 50 10,498 210 Morningside Rd. 4317 Hobbs 50 11,336 227 Momingside Rd. 4401 Flemming 50 11,336 227 Morningside Rd. 4403 Hyrnanson 50 10,740 215 Morningside Rd. 4405 Partin 50 10,740 215 Morningside Rd. 4409 Monchamp 100 20,982 210 Morningside Rd. 4411 Lawrence 47 6,877 142.2 Morningside Rd. 4413 Wilde 47 8,685 142.2 Morningside Rd. 4415 Sowell 60 4,743 94.8 Morningside Rd. 4417 Goodwin 120 6,381 94.8 Momingside Rd. 4501 Tallakson 140 12,372 Be Oakdale Ave. 4306 Sundberg 53.6 8,926 140 Oakdale Ave. 4312 Ross 60 8,421 140 Oakdale Ave. 4318 Hoffman 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4324 Milano 50 71018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4330 Jahns 5o 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4334 Pepin 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4338 Anschel 50 6,981 140 Oakdale Ave. 4342 Joyce 50 6,981 140 Oakdale Ave. 4303 Carlson 47A 5,233 108 Oakdale Ave. 4305 Pfteiderer 47A 8,953 986 Oakdale Ave. 4307 Hannula 47A 8,207 171 Oakdale Ave. 4309 Grotte 47A 7,456 US Oakdale Ave. 4315 Valgernae 47A 6.708 140 Branson St. 4410 Aby 117 11,856 102 Branson St. 4408 Falidin 60 11,091 222 Branson St. 4409 Cap 50 11,030 2.22 Branson St. 4404 Bennett 50 10,719 214 Branson St. 4402 Klatt 50 10,658 213 Branson St. 4400 Vanko 60 9,964 200 Branson St. 4316 Smeby 50 9,290 185 Branson St. 4314 Schwartz 50 9,301 185 Branson St. 4312 Colbum 50 9,707 194 Branson St. 4310 Retinded, LLC 50 9,065 179 Branson St; 4308 Mills 50 8,197 163 MEAN 63.2 10140.0 165.1 102 Total MEDIAN 50.0 9606.0 161.6 A I D' 000 FOOT OWREKP SKETCH FOR: FRANK SIDELL q ,� i r!r Pr'" 11 1 tach 350 tL *SEE A00111ONAL SHEETS F40R Lor TAM LAION• , k1f11 w14 '� 5 ,Mie 4 ^� �'#. • .a.. � . I 4 ::.:n ,.L , 'it 1 I ' I A. . a l4r i wuw 1siC9tIB 1 1f '' 1 j j 1 w 1 Tial , , ! , 6 ! a01 dq {111 43y1 434! ; 1M1 _�F 1y 111"8 uy f j N a0y 447?! rfr ul Nl wl Iw 1471 Irry = "s 1 • ltnwl j_..*.+"y• . 4 47 a 016 Ia4S --- 41 AIMS 4M alw R 4st 7M w Py d _ wtF' 1 —A ��► ..Nle Nn 1tM trA I a� ' tW a Iwo A. i 4RIft'4W �0 1H 7..... Nw �ti na l+•Mi hw v~. # '"'- •n 4. -" 4017 .i UtQ wa Fi4 /fw ,C. f pjl 4° �4a99p a /"•� ; HIe} ]4 .. Nuc, r .r 4979 my • r1lH M f w ,A • i �, IN R+1 4771 k _ -- . • 1 1�: _ �. AIwtT]i aR71=7n1 nn.. + •UM F 4214 4771 Nw 11IN w t I a MN 1 ted P N an 4= i 1931 •ti._l q.,,-.1. �ieN tI. Si • � 1'- � n0 ` ` }; tAb Ilwl �,` 15%1 r4� Aq � � � �19Ri •_ .gp w 4 .ct ,swY." a $ - 1 r 11iTEk BF '�%F °^ ow aal _ 4 A tut ; e ,rlui �i Iw11k f l ; • ` n"•a 1�^I s �'__Ar 4 ,.�. art w am ( _- M1 � 11 i 1 •r s O PP ___ ------ Op __+" :i 1" Q „ 1 / %. .- I a 9 NR V 1 4 `� Err. R s _I . V J 1771 -- •-r.••=-a• �N 1 •. V t o INw f411U1p nw 4 !• a 47+1 a, Iry. tali" 1 at/ 0r M 1936 ' 4234 L ti •_..7i�''"- j n� �+!__ ` 1. - t" � 4331 • '_"' � a70 IMI !. � ver 1147 �uTp: - � xrw �• • --- an 4246 N, a -•_. ,,, am 4242 0631%1 a4 41Q s Ow.. � 42" 4245M INI 4245M. ew 4144 1 . lea I�?V +.{ 4400' 4746 cob 42471A1 aw l it lu• ; wki ; i ` " • 7 HIR �° 3 N i ,--_.^r..... t a_.__ •r ^'"• e' ti; ` '1 { a ' d NN a -.' 4400 AM Kiii` v 4310 4]20 i 4947,12 a ° • ''' 4711 4304 .: .. SI nq oAI nll�stwe Iw. wu+to4 ` +` 13+7 a OW eat 1t :.•.1' NIRA r^'''^' `a 4'.• 4310 a All Wi' ' ''ai.G.�� •' , p^°''44 ti14iM+ {1 �a ( 'F' ] aw W1 •r. 43.2 Por 1 d}4�1t� 1'6 lid •`Vy- iF f~ W1 s1~ •� T oil ��A3,�Z..�ti"�. �1 , �11 _ ...ate... _ .•w.�' q•. �� 11 U + X I hereby certiry that We plan, tk" or sport was prowled by La or away* rely direct faws tof t and that t am a duly ticanaa± jr7W ! LANDtaa+d 5n,r.,eysr under the lows a( the StMe at 1lt+neiela EMS. � ' bearre�andrurlleySiplrlattcan A P. Sdt4EIDER Oate! 11-15-12 R41e. Na :44656 Ia N u n r 11 � 1� IE r it n ro rA n ri s. n+ x In w ! Ilw ��jlvyl 4U�1 i i v , , 4i1f 441! 11a1A; UR! ,nom ? " i 49 a,oa;t,au 4N1luu ala; ..,�L � w m,^ s>f I win 1 " 4 � ax6 tvm 1 4101 i1mt '� `» 'y.,, •• r` 4406 14101 44m a� `� ani � Y 401;4r � Pq Ah i rAle ilw a + PfUr'- 71 L I M I N A R Y PLAT FOR: ACRES DUBOIS EDINA, MINNESOTA wo sr 14M LOT SIZE (5v marm--mm 37 PER "veyon - AemxwffAmm F*� - M' NTH- LOT WIWU CAT M' rg" SETBACK) 0W WM0.4-!hLG* PER SUIRVET3R) S 'W rRJ3H MINT LOT LthE AT RJ AlvuLt 10 LUI 9EW7W M-60-tm Im NX t TIT TrPTw Ow mrol"r16W PER SURVEVOR) - Pmsiz-oca-sms 'AM Or Or FRONT LOt LM TO ;41D PT OF REAR LOT LbW-* xmmm Avc tAw vArAl"K PC n rqoNr SMACK m "Arch AD -L MOSES) IM40 zcmat St WL Pw W SIDE SETBACK i -W raR EVERY TT. IN ITT, OVER 151 m T SIDE SMACK rGR AN ATTACHED GARAGE SCHWA. Rs 25* SIX SETBACK FOR STREET SIDE CORNER LOT 404 30' TP STE ADDRESS; 4232 OAKDALE AVE. & twar- IS AN -Aq.MtNPV INTfRIUW LIJI ON TW SM STREET) 4412 MORMPICSWE RD, MA. UN as, REAR SETBACK 9AX, F'RONt W� IS W TO RWr HID PT, OT SITE AREA: 136A2A Sr- (1141 AC) 35, To Raw PEAK 02 -307 -me LOT VIDTH TO PERIMETER RAUD > U MAX. RUILDIM COVERAGE 237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE SURVEY w mm STWEV rimmAGE - OR 0EMAN Of LOTS WITHIN 3W AWHICKVIA 33 "LATER) FAM" 0 lei 0- - o 0 -M�a v SHM poxx SHEET DESCIRPTION "L7,11 3. 04wko. tl( PtAn ,%k PREUW SITE *ENDM40 4, PREUM, UTA. Y PLAX & pr&t! CRAD04 4 tPOS" OQNTROL W.AN 5. PREUUM:TWE PRESERVATION7- PRELIM. PLAT a "OVON cm -not WTAR-11 WtAlftc NOTES & syppf. 9. CONFCPWW CCNCtPt PLAN M %WW MA� AemxwffAmm F*� - 1W. OLvollm mf- COLINX VNIM "m 554024= som GA12" AVE M-60-tm G.� w 6"n Pmsiz-oca-sms xmmm Avc tAw vArAl"K PC ULJ� IM40 zcmat St WL Pw "Le m SCHWA. Rs 5d2-At7- WILAND WMRLna COMMIM KAMENN K"nmw cum -go --own' 04WA plum 4.W 02 -307 -me mm% vp bwo E Ci z UJ tti A Ila 1-ii/s/12 I 12-109 trm tss t4: ;wJ ats taa tw f'" !"•' Kxl —�nwcr .�a MM 44N103 oc iilt44ugtl,P/'+n/1f+tl+lM 'N +11v e� h tlrr1v1, 1f+rva,le serf i '« � s51081140 pc�� )0� N NK N. K. 111th t" SNOW= ONUSIX3 -- —T W L f ■� s oil r `: r •� W'SI4TW 1]�.'N1A � �i1..,...ur....."__._.... I � '" 42 1,-2 Si,fliiE„ STREET 117 t s.7 �.,�are�' � f�-, ii � .1�"SNR ,. .'.•' f.-4� yM �.�-.. � iµi/1 L y ! 11fu'r N3111t > �s aoG ti�1, ^` �f "•'' . r•tc oucN i..✓'A '' �."Y`rs-'M w,.�' .-. 1� d� wce�x+3..«-. Y1 t --_ 0� b � r�i� A- -------------- 'r .- '' ,. s•' / ter. Y!�'in p1ar� , ,,,,...-F� I1 r'•' r qa / 7 _ f'8 �`f A r+f�t/'. q.Mv-,M•w ..% ! a rYi5 Ai5- InI ,7 r OTTAWA AYE. S. o f aen.a .0mI cam was I mea>Mt waE R 5 I I I � �rxn+c rwryt p I Rel,• � , I �''.,�` � i � LLL��� R R t ILI t 1 --_j---_—_-F_- �R mff raa no t nc 75LO4DMt >aa t 750 t to P_ 4, 1 Ln L 14 We I3 t - to I t 14 CIA rs0 ( *so I Mr t 7&W ( � 750 E rso' t 904 '-_ PROPOSED OA1iDAL AVENUE I I 1 I l I 1 i i - i I R I B Qj 9-5 EtlAt6i % t AilR45 141 —ava iU am" tow cmftm lrJ1C1ES"Wom mm aw" s ft" SEOM —r t— DOM wic"m .x.41. town CRY" .wrj It 19l4a Man a+e0lesto 31-W 1 Es.a�te�n aaoo fnatu�k� ovW t1Mt 107.9' I its 1t OAKDALE AVENUE CL I I CL I I -----I--_-- ca CO I � � I Iv44 a 12-109 etwzssne>v 3;P44.,.uwNvgotrunN ,:.. D• +•mss r..w NW 'VNI03� Nf O ag4+rstM.1 lo� 0 woo ag)) .�n»r 94 ew �t i, w� rr wren tr., g ;�YNIWI`1�ad lYld Ai t � .zs. w I 1JAW I ... I a f � m �` s4 I if1 4 -no .D` my .lN 42 1/2 ST. W. ` LITTEL STREET ima JkT �I 181 uu eJ*•+: Sr �i}y I I� � I � esn rrsrerw ,�q3i id0 ear aI I --__ / d R R _— — — — — — ——-i ! � h 1?3P I ! al 1 — — —.1 .dbt ( I I UID t7 y l .D.« _--- -- __ 1 H 5fON fli �.r 01 I 91 su�sr $0RotorSt. WS EAEK I ! EWA � 1/CR E40SIDE ROAD 4 I I I I i I i I RY # OTTAWA AW_ .104 t IF "� 1� 1 ��.-Y..--• �'f f - I^`- t � 5 tl� �`,y."'"... �•,—. "" '� y"^-.-•^-{�..�....dqI. _^� "�•-.. �` i'ti 1t �a iti �. iI'`• �^ �^S, '+ ,I -'p�--- ..".w.y-•.sem--i +„ _ZT=ti ......--`'µ+ c'�..+...�,..-1.+r_"".`—Mr' .y `_'*,,., �L � i �,eJ�---.... _'.= �,.,'"+�.......^--•-.,�,,. ",—�.�.�^-v,,.-�_-.....�..w''� � ^w�.`'w`i'`\�l, `x �' 1v .,` �l �j � .m less /q Mll s 1 I ..� ,' �. --� It � ` n {' P � �, ,:° ,f ..A �,•, 91 I Ll cm 46 — �, � l+. � '�{... n .itl I ,6�m^� � `" •�' til �'i ;�S tt f k IV .. i s $ "'"� — o .• y 5 i� l f;'t I ,•' i I � '� r tR• �� S I r` I i f � � � .. • E 66�OAS LW.NRY 5EMC5 oft t+e r 9PK%% iffiHIM S I VA- u •%1�'JLO-141F45s DGRO K Y4t C1t cu �i`NOOA.O eaens nfaacet wob-aa.a! kaMl- ru -14 QAXCALE AVERS i A 1 I =00 GN m 4. �G iW� .1 11f5%12 x s ao. mMOM 12-149 � vtakvsiuc ��rl � r NOVI 914 m1 1916133 cW •+ ••,•' •, ,,•- - nR+'.-." NN 'VNIQ3 a Z9KStl.teralrt'etKfitpvll w.r r ql 11wWYMauItlJ Tlp6 � --_ � � � ��=�j{j/y���� SI09f1a SUM � o W }I.IYdq Wl M 1N1 i NIM ,.FtMr Wld Aimn AWNI"MSd � r __ � .h9 � #m jrr 1111. �.• w r ' V � m� r7� � }/ikl me ,1f'A 42 1/7 ST. .5f L. Si-Pmm EVE .o ow _ — WRA r f nnt, UTTEL STREET t.am/a7altmt ucaua a» WOW &A. hw.�, la1§ 661.0 a73.55 73.5 I id At jy".��r ,1111—�'/ 71 a VlcHt � vow MYW,rp, f f ®Ik 67.SH VIM M.' W 18 711rcnam+tl. f r fl5�I9AX ,,. WY. Ai1W � r ,,t ale i60/{IHY Il�rul M M.>wi` � I .R75 t f _ �„ ! a R 3513 L' '" _ _ _ _ ..- — _. -- W4 ..,W4 �. e.o.. B61.0/074.11/074.01 f \� I v� I t IQRgY f \� N1Y 3 1113r kill r P f r A l( 153'619.3976 6� T1111- 1331 1 1 W ----------------- v � 1 Nm I 1ma v� I t IQRgY � f I I � I -__-----_--- or � I I r W -. ---_---_ f1 I I 1 r N1Y 3 1113r kill r P f r A l( 153'619.3976 6� T1111- 1331 1 1 W ----------------- v � 1 Nm I 1ma _F._LM PARK EDINA WMV. SI ROM iHT Iv Wrt /iii I b.l � uqp I � nea:ca eot uta eseaceorse �.r° y i -+ e�.e-�� timaa.w°w.My`alxlnuW sn:uy xarur� iCtf stoo Q Y sg JNUMN3H 3115- "VN11 UMJ ; N �6 i` r. aa�rs-> E r'r t tia:Jh r• yti .-. • 't°1ei,�, �� Q• ` r w 4 C: r7 p•.x� LU is t " °a, As,., . � }* ,� " ki.• y� 5, stoo Q Y sg JNUMN3H 3115- "VN11 UMJ ; N �6 i` r. aa�rs-> E r'r t tia:Jh r• yti .-. it P, i r'� ayr�1.{ e y, �� ♦ � 1. �` ^"4 .^� ' ��j'� iii .t �wr �� fr. � �: i�r� r� x ° ar•� "t hr -'� �:� °Z.;+� - ryf t * �t� + 5 � �-� 1,, t-` At p'+ C A '* 1 'S a $ a yt? 77, a �° ; • j :..�..i a tik"�' t.,- r ,• ` Mo'R 'IN'Gs#o>, R0Ao ' r "`• '` " Aad • 't°1ei,�, �� Q• ` r w 4 C: r7 p•.x� LU yyq V > it P, i r'� ayr�1.{ e y, �� ♦ � 1. �` ^"4 .^� ' ��j'� iii .t �wr �� fr. � �: i�r� r� x ° ar•� "t hr -'� �:� °Z.;+� - ryf t * �t� + 5 � �-� 1,, t-` At p'+ C A '* 1 'S a $ a yt? 77, a �° ; • j :..�..i a tik"�' t.,- r ,• ` Mo'R 'IN'Gs#o>, R0Ao ' r "`• '` " Aad YSYTFFi F'i�t:PPY :Ffi f%3 fat ��rt tti44nauur�g4AadaasfH � I 4 � � a•s. 'T �-�, i MINA AaYw.ip Toga , �AjgL /� •-� 4A� q � i t f r ' 1 1 � ( A� 't- ANA 41" J I � n6i.Al iaJit o ad mod 42 t/2 51. Il -v WA MT i®"t �rl NIN NVld NMU.Vl59M10d 338L ).HVNMn3kla I "" _ LiTrtL 57REET ,i�4°iA I j a{Qy , � i Piz � q i Kira • a, (i9a Alt.) r ' tJ � ( 't- — — �t - _----__gip .�a 'mA 77 P ant A ,i�4°iA I j a{Qy , � i \ � q i tJ � ( 't- — — �t - _----__gip .�a 'mA iw ant +SIS � rs, e i � � •P i&;t +: � iip i2u ECINA MORNINMIDE ROAD M1Y ! 1 f cm" A01--il I I j a{Qy , � Awt == 42 1/2 ST. 42W J* asmi A#0.15770r �I frI51lY[t Hplf[ t-71 AIS.? dA061 j +ro Asl!r s7s.re •� � Q 9f.2 ft000 Elf«, t .il, ro' IASL:". I . M Airs oily II i% Ace:;� z t7 w F UITEL STREET N OS 7 � 4 Yo .to , i M�L INC tn. vi off rl '�A r.5 "yam \� I N 00 I x=.17 — '•` 1 v 4M1 .s9� Mr16 .-• ,,. ,tw u are ' w 6 Now I .wt I 1 w� Iafll 1 iho rdl: ,li+ .70 I YL A41 I �y�c ��rou� !es�ppyy 176 scrum. — ST. LOMLS PARK —-- — .... .. __..., .,........ ..,.... Aa3 27' R SA' AC a" ,v ✓ ; f7�f ._ ! J' I 1 Am 42 1/2 51,°jtiTTEL. STREET .3„+s.� ��' 9 ,r ._ ,.-.t7i •.. L 4 'fes••.......- xi » s2SR9+q44t AK. fpr + � ' !A _ `� ai - .✓ 7/#� {tllEO kUY.r 7 WMItfOUT 2.0 Pte_ L. " ,,• ' s y,r • 'ITYY. iT !@ 1" BE'�.Q I Fd%FY mPt�p1Y ..LIZ w «ap� - j--l- 4 IN A 30 -------- ....... lilt f v tr a * IW�7eraa@4 � F' �,�r '"�.*� ar¢ 2rx^osi,i •-r�T9.3112�.,,..*�^.T ,s� aj+ `? ti91At b7b ,9 ti i r A , 1 ' }` Me •- f a - 4 1 1 ACJ'tbUT ��� i f �� 8 .• x ��`: 3 fit) ells+' ,,y{>r. _ � �@{.= .-''. y • 5 'fid d fj N3 x�'r1'' %f" tr r i A7�0 s A ` Ih6� I ( e� t �l �� Hall f I/ € # .. p e i 1 $ j e 8sn+ 201.0 ` ` x MIKE I 1fNf 1 E3111? WIN c:5 L OUT I 1+3 9121 { , ti .a�rr 1 _ a %eta;4244 } j t ��A{ry {j •,,.�IN111 112, v f jf 1 10A419.. +!� to ...�_+ .•' ...�t,,�f �t+� f It S1 r � 1300 /IL It I t" St. LMI MDvIvINGSIDE ROAD - Wd .__._• 1 ,f� f lS1bE[I ill pU X6600 ift W=M++w wM. ♦e v—��m—+ro MR IM63 �y tam pMwa y aWwu.;w� SI0811Q swv ��Qrr N11�rkpimi Yl NYU tdWN0* ;HVaY"C* N STREEr el .rH ax Ogg �� —7 �. qll O{ a� � Mid . •� O ,� _ �� � ��� ro \ ~ ;14 -- ------ — ! am o --- r + `° 2,51 f. .r fa eal Itts :r j — GE ROM • ._� -_ d i I iWf- ED1 �., Tree inventory Sldell Property, Acres Debuts Terra Engineering Inc. Revised: 11/5/12 PER PLAN DATED 1115112 Noma tram dm kwerurtry by Kyigroen€ t Irtventoty perIc"ed on SalWrdey, My 21, 24012 by Ksworrn Kyicrten ISA Certigod Maorlat 44237A, numbered Yaps viers set frr iho boos.and On sprsedsheet tmbw is a summaq dike data collected. 2 For uee slumbers 2014209, ribbons were (md for thaee gratpe of naNfortK the nurnber Was wrtlenm "rlbbor% we IrW to put the Abbas In them3dda d ft=W grow. S fv 6, of lht indignigcsnt understory tress ebnsisl crcommort bucklhom, at ton -mile ^waslo free A Oak elft may be p levad in flee n9M pact of #0 Ffepety (wtK* some dead fed cake were mied below►, 5 seine dYtm brpa tau raffia av rotanptderayt,p ens i+erve aig� orMeaa damage h ate mart.. a AM oartftm gime are B toot or "Mer 11*0 A Save Sawa Sane Save sonic" Rouen Ratrove Ramona Remove Reprove Remme Remmre Remora Remove Ralmom Sava Sava Save Save Sarva Remove Sete Sava save Sae Save $ewe Sana DON'iCOM tvtreoear of Trac 6 speciew DEIH OFL) Mems Caromon Was I boxmilder 25.6 good yaetiet 2 bowaHter 100 good kanver 3 boreldrr 71.5 good 1earw 4 bode ii good learwr 5 bo wow 128 goes? term 6 bftMda' 10 tai„ 1"rw 7 boxaidar 9,1A,10 4 goad leaner a leaaddar 13 goad 8 AawrlcanOn 14 good 10 le"Okw 14 pond 11 pram anti 12 fo r 12 great 11 fair 13 blackwaksd C6 gow 14 Weds wekwt a gold 15 green ase 8,6 exceileril 16 track wolrsn g,8 gtxid 17 groan ser 11,11,12.6 3 fair 1a blockwalml 6 good Yp bir awf. 26 felt 20 b=Wor 7 fair 21 bee wdr tiL good 22 bcxgme 76 goof 23 Amar+alatn ICA goat 24 bommor 75 good 25 btr ask 36 fat 26 Ga ardlot a fat 27 booldor as ow' s erlt 26 lxrsaic ii dead A Save Sawa Sane Save sonic" Rouen Ratrove Ramona Remove Reprove Remme Remmre Remora Remove Ralmom Sava Sava Save Save Sarva Remove Sete Sava save Sae Save $ewe Sana DON'iCOM 29 boxelder 18 poor leaner Save DON'TCOUNT 30 red elm 7.5 fair Save 31 American eln 15 good Save 32 bur oak 26 dead Save DON'T COUNT 33 bur oak 26 good Save 34 boxelder 6 good Save 35 boxelder 6 fair Save 36 boxekler 6 good Save 37 haddserry 7 fair Save 38 boulder 6 good Save 39 boxekler 9 fair kosher Save 40 bur oak 16.5 dead Remove DON'T COUNT 41 boxelder 6 good Save 42 bur oak 25 good Save 43 boxelder 6 fair Save 44 hemlock 4 good Save 45 bocekler 7 good Save 46 American elm 9 good Remove 47 boxeklor 13 good leaner Save 48 boxekler 17.5 good teener Save 49 grams ash 7.5 good Remove 50 basswood 9,13 2 good Remove H buroak 16 excellent Remove 92 bt roa k 24.5 exoallast Remove 53 bur oak 17 fair Remove !i4 white spruce 6 good Remove 66 buroak 9,11,1$13,14 5 good Remove 56 bur oak 22 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 57 super maps 6 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 58 red elm a good Remove 59 American elm 11.5 good Remove 60 bur oak 27.5 fair Remove 61 bcaelder 7 fair leaner Remove 62 m L4berry 6 good Remrnre 63 boxekier 7 fair Remove 64 burook 14,22 2 fair leaner Remove 65 Americas elm 26 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 66 boxelder 7.5 fair Remove 67 Americas elm 10.5 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 68 boxekler 6 fair Remove 69 bcxekfa 7 good Remove 70 black wolves 9 good Remove 71 haddserry 6 good Remove 72 buroak 21.5 good Save 73 boxelder 9 good leaner Remove 74 boxelder 9 good Remove 75 sherrgple i1 bar Remove 78 mUterey 7.6 good Rom" 77 6lueapnrce 17 fat Remove 79 red maple 11 ler Remove T9 FTA rk Ms foe Rormva 80 g86appb 5,5 Z rat Rentmva DCNTCOUNT 61 We gxuce 14 fa4 Rerlova 92 bblaspnice 13 fait Sava 93 hkeaap" 11.5 poor Save DON'TOOUNT 94 tikes apneae 13 derid Save DON'TCOUNT 95 kkw Renew 15 good Sava 96 flue 11 Calf Save 97 due jPnsoe 9.5 poor Save DWTCOUNT ft bila opium GS rak Save 01 s1war moor 15 5 good Sava g0 bkeeapnM 95 poor Save OOATCOUNT 91 burook 33 goad Remove 92 MApf" AS. fat Sae 93 tikes fpr" 12 fat Bove 94 blueapnmm 12 pear Save VOIN'TCOUNT 9b bladewrfrwt 21 eeac&Rml Save 98 blad(wWnut 23 4xcekenl gave 97 Work 30 Rood R"eows 99 buroak 32 Wad RamOve 9g red ask 39 goad Rww" 100 blue v"We 12 pear Ramage DONT COUNT 101 bluaappce 1.6 poor Remove DONTCOUNT 102 Mwspuca as poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 103 bur mak 30 Need Rexow 104 M Spu e 6 Wt Saye 105 bkee apaece 12 peer Soya DON'TCOUNT 146 bfuv spur* 12 fair Remove 107 Weapnce 12 ink Renown 100 Mus Apece 11 poor Savo OWTCOUNT 104 blue spurs 19 iak Save 114 burask 29 ak Remown 111 buroek 22 pear Remove DOM Ir 112 bur ask 27 fes- Ramat'+ 113 buroak 43 emeftanl Remove 114 bkro spruce 11 poor Saw& PWTCOU#T 116 bureak 298 gond Save 1i9 oluoapnn:e 15 poor Rewe DON'TCOUNT W " wiwe 14.5 Coir Save I ie 9kn epuea 11 pear Remove OOM'T COUNT Ito 41uewmm 11 poor Save DON'TCOUNT loll b ask 20 goad Savo A at 121 blue spruce 12 Save fair 122 blue spruce 10.5 fair 123 saver maple 7 Remove good 124 blue spruce 12 good 125 blue spruce 7 fair 126 blue spruce 12 Remove fair 127 blue spruce 10.5 fair 128 blue spruce 12 fair 129 blue spruce 15.5 Remove Remove Remove good 130 bur oak 22 Save good 131 bur oak 7,15 2 poor 132 bur osk 21.5 fair 133 white spruce 12 Save fair 134 bur oak 25.5 DON'T COUNT good 135 bur oak 23 good 136 blue spruce 7 Save good 137 bur oak 22.5 fair 138 buroak 24 fair 139 buroak 20,22.5 2 good 140 bur oak 22 fair 141 bur oak 14.5 far 142 Amedcan elm 33 Save pow 143 blue spruce 12 DON'T COUNT pow 144 blue spruce 11.5 Remove far 145 blue spruce 11.5 Save fair 146 blue spruce 11.5 pow 147 blue spruce 14 good 148 blue spruce 12 fair 149 blue spruce 16 good 150 blue spruce 14.5 pow 151 Siberian elm 28 fair 152 bur oak 16 pow 153 bur oak 12 far 154 buroak 18 good 155 Siberian ern 20 fair 156 buroak 16. good 157 bur oak 5,6 2 fair 158 red elm 11.5 far 159 bur oak 14 dead 160 buckthorn 6 fair 161 buckthorn 7 fair 162 bur oak 23 far 163 silver maple 12 good 164 green ash 8 far 165 red maple 6 excellent 166 black cherry 11,12 2 far leaner Invasive Invasive Save Save Remove Save Remove Remove Remove Save Save Remove Remove DON'TCOUNT Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Save Remove Save Save Save DON'TCOUNT Save DON'TCOUNT Save Save Save DON'T COUNT Save Save Save Save DON'TCOUNT Save Save DON'TCOUNT Save Save Save Save Save Save Save DON'T COUNT Save DON'TCOUNT Save DON'T COUNT Save Remove Remove Save Save 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 M 1'78 179 IRD 181 182 183 184 185 185 187 ISO 103 19D 191 201 tar 2'03 234 236 209 207 2€19 20T bur oak 24 black chow 7.5 bao�er ft bureak 20 bmwidar 7.5 red ask 11 Amerfanelm 286 green aah 6 !>d w:w 12 red oak 17 rod oak 10 red oak 1B black.vmfnu/ 24 bcsNder 14 red hoopla 10 burank 2s iugarmaple 10 vaXMdar $ omen ash 13'a greeaash ig blockash 7 weep ash 7 b"toak WS groan Sato 19 red maple 7 hemlodr 2,22 hemlock 20 boUrll fir 2:4r b41aMn fir vAtopine 4 arbarNma 2'-S' arbarvl w 2 W vN+slaapnaa 6 halsem fir 6 10a hese wrvoyed 4341roetcounted (eed, pear; dead, vans o1c) 3 2 18 qi 25 13 aln7allarrt ax gaud geod ia'r dend oneNara Ow poor dead dud dud ekamiord poor exceirard 9-d 0-d good fak Good Good W irk 9-d tat fak toy good 8&0 flow QW 9-d pow carr kta w Wrier leaner C3 0 Save Faerrmve Saw Saw Save Sa,NS save Sava VON TC011NT Sava RereoYa Save Saw DORTCOUNT Saw DDN'TCOl1NT Saw tiOWTCOLWT Save DON'T COUNT Save Remove Sane DOOPTCOUNT gave DON'TCCUNT $15" Remove Sane Save Ramavo save Save Sava so 6A 66.9x5 44.2% Saved Removed Faerrmve Saw Sava Remove DCN'TCOUNT RereoYa DON'TCOUNT Remove DWTCOUHT Save DON'TCOUNT Sone Remove DOMTCOUNT Raaiays DON'TCCUNT Remove VON'TCCUNT Save so 6A 66.9x5 44.2% Saved Removed I vi f .,T 42ND ST. w 71 v 17 +. .+ a 42 t/2 5 TTEL IQ Z 4 j v' c ox SITE Af{r):..,,.'•1''Ii< '".�' ICK \x ,__,,,) i r `'ra �4J �•' .A. ii V Eye n , O�.€l y� Fir, `J TOWNES C+R. a A <' WHITE OAKS RC. ,ut U&AllQN P NO SCALE f4geA SWEET ab _EE INDEX. 1. COVER SHEET i SHEET INDEX 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 3. PRELIM. SITE FLAN 3A, PRELIM. SITE RENDERING 4, PkELIM. UTILITY PLAN 5, PRELIM. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 61 PRELIM. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ?, S. PRELIM. PLAT EROSION CONTROL DETAILS, GRADING NOTES e & SWPPP r{ 1 Q CONFORMING CONCEPT PLAN IM ton n t�1A40 I N.LaSE-IMSEC 111is is riot a legally recorded reap. It, represents StNWY7 a compilation of information mid data ift-opm citY, - -her sources. NJ Sw 17 cowity and other . . 400 Fee Print Date: Thu Jul 11 13:22:33 20 "Now �jt (GA n I V.M,�� 1 4 c,4 Ate.% f M0,0,50) 'I'j Le C. of L—Eig �thQUal VT* 112 SE. 114 SEC, Mw ( (l"i,, Ell" can 44 1 '� w ST to w�M 1� I 1 114 j IV 00ry f.) Ps,, AM lt, toll 1126 MI 14TI Vt} m4 taw! flip$ (1121 — ----- --- ON . ......... PIS 11 1• 1 V1 Yr 93) M ;01 31 :'%I • pal I Ov r Pon 4 Ov l5, log A IL fill • Inv; pit A 014 MI 01) nrr AL_ I 014 toy) , till I too 04 fat MOWN IM ton n t�1A40 I N.LaSE-IMSEC 111is is riot a legally recorded reap. It, represents StNWY7 a compilation of information mid data ift-opm citY, - -her sources. NJ Sw 17 cowity and other . . 400 Fee Print Date: Thu Jul 11 13:22:33 20 "Now �jt (GA n I V.M,�� 1 4 c,4 Ate.% f M0,0,50) 'I'j Le C. of L—Eig �thQUal Y _ @` y `r'ttej�gSi Abby e i laS-. VV,y r t � fa L h f r,4 �R k Awl g Y°- � a r� Yy44RR 19 µ of t1 i. c �a d'4 cefii"i4. lL��s..r f'' ti i w tit j k ' pyre q�, n o i . t t i t zr z y- a ti h ,r ��w�r4 int. a" ,° s" �+ip 1 %�,5";� �.�f �, tT cj' �"f�u x'a ; ���0. �'4 E:��r € � sY�. , ,� 17"• �J --^ X,k .".�"�� ti � L � ,,�. 47, .ilAX f:.s.s'7'W, 4t:sT �' / F it i ,i S•_ {� � t;If 4Jr L y s t v z ��i� 4 �' ", a ,d �4 , 4 4� � �! s �t � ���r �:� �� 44 r t1 'F• t ia s'�i S b t a;_Or, � 4 + r m r oy kp, h � » , f,� d't �� �? a 1 � F x 3 � i*t ��,✓ �`, a'�' y ay g �. � . t ; � `� . t3 i ,AIf Taj,-bray ��,. x lit ,+tl J i�f+ ur'6 t ye40 t ka aryl%y» j/' e s°tip �1 w, 1 UUUFFF t ; ti r. j ykm .c� 'M C,'" Et F,• trtl�. i� 1 } �r r AF f e a,.,;,,t .ra-"JtM`Tld>.»r °�y�P .� y14 Y- it e ll V. { 1 12 f Y f b 17 { y`s Rq- 1 s 4 , atT d � !�k 4"` i`� ..; S � r ••I ;.: _ .... "�a'1 ,t' I�Ilf11 1��, Tt 1 `raMAilYli ��i �•� �alit, a iV l ..h M.!*,�"'"Y...+t{. iw. a,p.x 2.�at}K'"�°*`�• 6, yF„� � �"��a J e'Y'' � S ,ti'a,` 3 R. r { � ' '+" :r � �� 1. r, ., t4 ��4x "°"`fir ,'4. ' f i 9x� � t �? 4 i *+'i".<' , r' � �.gh�5'� �:+ 1. •tt�� � �� � �+yY ` A Q'r\�Y F��txo b t b • �, S"� !/` r r y r „k .r,*t ', t tir+` ` rye y' r �{ 'AXIf: 11r {+!1 !t tib ! ) ✓p l 'i 9 � C' � �.� `R li ll ? "� s1: + 3 ,, �"a t �; e � t s>yy t r,,,r, `q 4 a � ! :�•i r ��r _� tt � e�` clay' F ! �1 7r }f ��'�� K+If'hy�Y i� +�' 4 � ,.�. 'S• 9 i. �X a:� SwM T 'ri�j, a7i,� +j�,'r"R.f rp}�•1ij�t'r*{rr�Ai - . �.�ta� F 1101.t zr ,fir #:� )>A�ir '�`.wrx / \ rµ� �t�,,r. r1� s"t J� .. C"� • it „YS ����ti / y" � 1 1 �" W N�, y � � ' rf^ � ib 11 1�/ I�ICJw• � ' I � 4 � � P o 0� ,•Ik 4 i . 4 ! armor 5 i d � �r �1 �q� '�r �•+ 3,y.{fir ylb a t_ `'M" �'a'N1"'+.,., hyr "�*g JtY t ~C.«i �x �ka."�#A•>R ��°i�- " 4 r , "� va 't M E + � r r q �� �$��� ,E�( ..�rq� S �e�� �' .t... ,.-.--'�a t � •r (�it� r b r ;: F� 77r V 0. a �.�.,�. „_y.�!'JY �%,y .. VMCt�3�Tt Sti, tib�t"%err., .,rf` At,:a .�'ft .x_ L''• tiw tri=� �., � A..� �a« +Rs i' ' 1 12 f Y f b 17 { y`s Rq- 1 s 4 , atT d � !�k 4"` i`� ..; S � r ••I ;.: _ .... "�a'1 ,t' I�Ilf11 1��, Tt 1 `raMAilYli ��i �•� �alit, a iV l ..h M.!*,�"'"Y...+t{. iw. a,p.x 2.�at}K'"�°*`�• 6, yF„� � �"��a J e'Y'' � S ,ti'a,` 3 R. r { � ' '+" :r � �� 1. r, ., t4 ��4x "°"`fir ,'4. ' f i 9x� � t �? 4 i *+'i".<' , r' � �.gh�5'� �:+ 1. •tt�� � �� � �+yY ` A Q'r\�Y F��txo b t b • �, S"� !/` r r y r „k .r,*t ', t tir+` ` rye y' r �{ 'AXIf: 11r {+!1 !t tib ! ) ✓p l 'i 9 � C' � �.� `R li ll ? "� s1: + 3 ,, �"a t �; e � t s>yy t r,,,r, `q 4 a � ! :�•i r ��r _� tt � e�` clay' F ! �1 7r }f ��'�� K+If'hy�Y i� +�' 4 � ,.�. 'S• 9 i. �X a:� SwM T 'ri�j, a7i,� +j�,'r"R.f rp}�•1ij�t'r*{rr�Ai - . �.�ta� F 1101.t zr ,fir #:� )>A�ir '�`.wrx / \ rµ� �t�,,r. r1� s"t J� .. C"� • it „YS ����ti / y" � 1 1 �" W N�, y � � ' rf^ � ib 11 1�/ I�ICJw• � ' I � 4 � � P o 0� ,•Ik 4 i . 4 ! armor 5 i d � �r �1 �q� '�r �•+ 3,y.{fir ylb a t_ `'M" �'a'N1"'+.,., hyr "�*g JtY t ~C.«i �x �ka."�#A•>R ��°i�- " 4 r , "� va 't M E + � r r q �� �$��� ,E�( ..�rq� S �e�� �' .t... ,.-.--'�a t � •r (�it� r b r ;: F� 77r V 0. a �.�.,�. „_y.�!'JY �%,y .. VMCt�3�Tt Sti, tib�t"%err., .,rf` At,:a .�'ft .x_ L''• tiw tri=� �., � A..� �a« +Rs i' ' 1 s 4 , atT d � !�k 4"` i`� ..; S � r ••I ;.: _ .... "�a'1 ,t' I�Ilf11 1��, Tt 1 `raMAilYli ��i �•� �alit, a iV l ..h M.!*,�"'"Y...+t{. iw. a,p.x 2.�at}K'"�°*`�• 6, yF„� � �"��a J e'Y'' � S ,ti'a,` 3 R. r { � ' '+" :r � �� 1. r, ., t4 ��4x "°"`fir ,'4. ' f i 9x� � t �? 4 i *+'i".<' , r' � �.gh�5'� �:+ 1. •tt�� � �� � �+yY ` A Q'r\�Y F��txo b t b • �, S"� !/` r r y r „k .r,*t ', t tir+` ` rye y' r �{ 'AXIf: 11r {+!1 !t tib ! ) ✓p l 'i 9 � C' � �.� `R li ll ? "� s1: + 3 ,, �"a t �; e � t s>yy t r,,,r, `q 4 a � ! :�•i r ��r _� tt � e�` clay' F ! �1 7r }f ��'�� K+If'hy�Y i� +�' 4 � ,.�. 'S• 9 i. �X a:� SwM T 'ri�j, a7i,� +j�,'r"R.f rp}�•1ij�t'r*{rr�Ai - . �.�ta� F 1101.t zr ,fir #:� )>A�ir '�`.wrx / \ rµ� �t�,,r. r1� s"t J� .. C"� • it „YS ����ti / y" � 1 1 �" W N�, y � � ' rf^ � ib 11 1�/ I�ICJw• � ' I � 4 � � P o 0� ,•Ik 4 i . 4 ! armor 5 i d � �r �1 �q� '�r �•+ 3,y.{fir ylb a t_ `'M" �'a'N1"'+.,., hyr "�*g JtY t ~C.«i �x �ka."�#A•>R ��°i�- " 4 r , "� va 't M E + � r r q �� �$��� ,E�( ..�rq� S �e�� �' .t... ,.-.--'�a t � •r (�it� r b r ;: F� 77r V 0. a �.�.,�. „_y.�!'JY �%,y .. VMCt�3�Tt Sti, tib�t"%err., .,rf` At,:a .�'ft .x_ L''• tiw tri=� �., � A..� �a« +Rs i' ' } �r0, vx'�i�'{✓�� ` r'Pi, tarry f ,r f '� if a .° ' •tr i s �1ky 4 s w 4ti' A,It -.r,-tu' t!yu { L? y iy {Vf°i�{f it, {� + V ►Y # lrt f{! 'eisr a ,r' # �`/" �{ ,�`.�� l•�t,. .«x n! �,�� ,.,Wy*„�,,, .y •-* �3fr} a R I i . Y ✓ t I` ii �EF� r �yy� .j� i`v � 5. �y � ` a �� r r i' t � a� �, :d}�ev �(' or� y� � Y+ � s"� �✓'; � �: �,, `„r �� i +ill i -, mat '� �+'� i # ,�✓}?z F n{t' �$ , 'r�, ,, � �c �A°4 �r##! F x t ,. � s . '^1 � • • i :, SY '' � f i� �i' ',�it ^4 y�7� �� i s: d '�'�f �, I,: , �T' � r Imo✓"i �e :{�,� �Sd�"a,✓, r5``'� »fl � x tiSCY � +i � 4ja$�� yy � t� `1, )��++ 7�ty Ij^f'� y�.� ° rci}�"�� Ir '. `i y r-"'"`*^;"`• "� °'^�a�i ' '^ k'"'� �r't i 5 �i d �` r �� to e� ep\t� et ,� .tt �� � trt..' i r `... U/)rt5> �5{(Fi11 � {DP�r'2"V}: .a �... a�qr �`�'1 i., \ ^i.. x i # Yn Rh9�(• L } 1 a vtali t ♦i SYR"1�5 �� 1 it rf t i }1b ` p M ' Pit * l '''t �� � a i✓�Im r t f a��� � - .LL�.4 � 17 *S dr°' - � b^ ` S} � � .���"� `�. '� �`}t',>�"•a l ZI`'. 1� �`` ai _�• ;*�i� .f E r �$� R � 1 ' � F r �i> �, J#° -s r...rt �. � '':♦ vt� "a• �� � � �. .. y,Y #1��y� ' i ' _ � � " •w f t. � s '�rti� r -rt 0 3 3 i<�' /5 7�� �'. t r " �f C � f / - �Ct��; �,r.�..,:..., ,�`.,r r i;�t...:/� A r�C,r,�j r r r �p �' �#� Y�4< # � � � ,•li 1 W� IL- Iry G' a t 3'i a"t u rr �r �4 �:✓ v v� .���„�, 5 �� �t�t i} �", t�' � "'t- � rt# rii � / s.r UP 5"� 4 ✓" s' f ai$ '�^' "�, ,# �� �l r'r' er r �,a# �>, 6� J� l �, }_r �tT.! ! r� R`. � � � - yiy kAct ' ', ;_. - 1 rye ♦ 't; :�' i �a'So '� w � '.✓,trl , �Jm vfl � t�.,i Kaw i�. t �Tp �nrt'i r� h k re 0r11 i t x ,,O WAS �0 tr <'^ Lt •, �m �• �� �.,R, I .�, r Yf �� i � ! rti 1 i (• "f� T l r;; y t ✓ y f i� i +� it t7 ! Y k dqa°t { LN �(i # 4,a' aft � 9 } � N �1.. # `� �a :'k '�f 7i i''.+# 1' '# •� '� r1^ r r 4w to ,i► 6 ani . t f �r J j�,, •,l� ,'°S �� l �1 Y f�f 4\ow' V��a,1 AI NA Yy3�"4 y'�yfjtlF����QeLatlF�' .. � s .'�y�"4'Jl"�.ti.� 4 ♦ r9'Rr r �.. � fy�IRC* .k `'� IN �y f rev. 1/.�. ;% •'!'/�I2'`�.�°�. f � k . i�t ' p • .' 1 e p, •' t c� P ' i , , 21 77 l s a " � a t 1 1 Y Y� P + r t a t $ ,.. o P',,°j �'ti '.+°' 1P G �' '`, s t � t t i t^l•�ti. i 4(` � >, ` r � a t WIT ' �'?�"'' n p ss' Y . �r Fa1,rPtiY,. � ( t} � n '. � 9 A +' v r l { t• , A 'do LIh w: Y +� w _ - d _ I n« r s yrs , ` � � " ' i 1r •a�pq� M1 rs �, 9 a ,qr. A Englaaering • Plannlns a Constructlon Mfr tructuro • WSB 701 Xonta Mom* South Sulle #k300 16innoapoft MN 66416 t fM; Tel: 763 641-41000 For, 768 641-1700 Mentorandum DArP-: December 6, 2012 To Mr. Cary Teaglse, Community Development Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering City of Edina FROM. Charles Rickart, F.E., P.T,O.E. RP Acres Dubois Residential Development Trak Review City of Edina, MN WSD Project No. 1686.36 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and safety impacts the proposed development of the Acres Dubois residential development plan has on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located north of Morningside Road and west of Lynn Avenue on the border between the City of Edina and the City of St Louts Park. The existing site includes two single family residential units. One has access on the south side oPthe site directly to Morningside Road and the other has, access on the north side of the site to Oakdale Avenue/Little Street, The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan includes development of eight (8) single family residential homes including maintaining one of the existing homes and the construction of seven (7) new homes: Access to six (6) of the homes will be via a new cul-de-sac street connection from Morningside Road, The one remaining existing home and one new home will have access on Oakdale Avenue/Little Street on the north end of the site. The proposed site plant is shown on Figure 2. An alternative site plan was also considered which extends a new through street from Morningside Road to Little Street. All driveway access would be provided on this street. Figure 3 shows this alternative site layout; The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated traffic and safety impacts the proposed development will have on the adjacent roadway system. Aq I Acres Dubois Tragic Revimv City of Edina December 6, 2012 Pap 2 of 6 Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed development is shown below in ToWe I. The trip generation rates used to estimate the site traffic are based on extensive surveys for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr7 GenerWlon Manual, 9h Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed eight (8) signal family homes. To analyze a worst case condition, it was assumed that all eight (8) lots were new homes and would generate new trips to the roadway system. rable 1- Estimated Site Trip Generation Use size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total 11 In Out Total In Out Total In out Single Family Residential s 8 Unit:]:; 39 39 3 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Traffic Operations Analysis In order to determine a base line condition, existing traffic counts were conducted on Morningside Road and Lynn Avenue December 3 — December 5th 2012. Based on these counts the following traffic conditions currently exist on these streets. Morningside Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1,350 AM Peak Hour 138 PM Peak Hour III Lynn AyM!jg Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 360 AM Peak Hour 41 PM Peak Hour 31 Morningside Road is an cast/west street providing local access to France Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. 'Phis type of higher functioning street will carry slightly larger traffic than a typical local City street such as Lynn Averive.'rapical local City streets will have traffic volumes ranging from 200 to 2000 vehicles per day (vpd) depending on the density of the area and its connection to other higher functioning streets (i.e. collectors or arterials), Acres Dubois Traffic Review City of Edina Deectnber 6, 20 t 2 Page 3 of6 The traffic operations analysis was conducted established methodologies documented in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. The analysis techniques defined in the HCM are different for roadway segments and intersections. Roadway segment analysis focuses on the average daily volume to capacity ratio, while intersection analysis focuses on delay caused by the AM or PM peak hour critical movements, It is therefore possible to have an efficient intersection located along a poorly operating roadway segment, or a poorly operating intersection along an othcrwisc free-flowing roadway. Roadway segments or intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" as defined in the HCM. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay along a roadway segment or at an intersection LOS, E represents the condition where the roadway segment or intersection is at capacity, LCIS F° represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the roadway segment or intersection. At a stop sign - controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through - street intersection. For purposes of this review, the roadway segment analysis was conducted at a planning level. The analysis consists of comparing the average daily flow rates on a roadway segments to the ADT roadway segment traffic capacity threshold volumes. A two-lane urban street with driveway and street access has a capacity threshold of 2000 vpd at LOS A and 4000 vpd at LOS Elft. The existing and anticipated (with the development) roadway segment traffic operations are displayed on Fable 2. As shown on the table, both roadway segments are operating at LOS A as they exist today and with the proposed development traffic included. Table 2 — Roadway Segment Traffle Analysis Street existing Projected Location )GUS LCIS AADT AADT Morningside Road West of Lynn Ave 1350 A 1410 A Lynn Avenue North of Morningside Rd 360 A 370 A The IDS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the ntirnber of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Acres Dubois Traffic Review City of Edina December 6, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Table 3 - Intersection Level o fService Measures Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM pear hours. Synchro/SitnTraffic microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4 - Ta b Je . Table 4 — Intersection Traffic Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un Signalized A 510 <-14 B 10-20 10-15 C D 20--35 35-55 15-25 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F > 80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM pear hours. Synchro/SitnTraffic microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4 - Ta b Je . Table 4 — Intersection Traffic Delay and UDS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Traffic Safety Review In addition to the haffic operations analysis a traffic safety review was also conducted. This included reviewing the crash history in the area, reviewing the sight distance rewired at the new street intersection to Morningsidc Road and reviewing the site plan for safety issues or concerns, AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Projected Existing Projected Intersection Delay LOS belay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec) (sec) Se) {sccj Morningside Rd at 4.2 A 4.6 A 3.8 A 4.0 A Lynn Ave Morningside Rd at lr'A NA l.'1 A NA NA 1.6 " A. Site Access Morningside Rd at 11.4 B 11.5 B 10.6 l3 10.7 B Oakdale Ave Lynn Ave at 2.2 A, 2.2 A 2.1 A 2.1 A j Little St Delay and UDS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Traffic Safety Review In addition to the haffic operations analysis a traffic safety review was also conducted. This included reviewing the crash history in the area, reviewing the sight distance rewired at the new street intersection to Morningsidc Road and reviewing the site plan for safety issues or concerns, Acres Dubois Traffic Review City of Edina December 6, 2ti12 Page 5 of Crash History — Crash data provided from Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) records from the past 10 years was reviewed for the area. Based on that review no reported crashes have occurred on Morningside Road at Lynn Ave or Oakdale Ave or between the intersections. However, just west at Ottawa Ave, an eastbound minivan sideswiped a parked vehicle in 2002. Further west, the intersection of Morningside Rd and Wooddale Ave has had 5 crashes since 2005 (3 right angles, 1 sideswipe opposing, I ran of road). To the east, there have been 5 crashes in the Grimes Ave area. since 2002 (3 right angles, 1 head-on, l ran off road). Sight Distance Analysis — As -built plans for Morningside Road were reviewed to determine if sight distance would be a concern with the construction of a new intersection on Morningside [toad between Lynn Avenue and Oakdale Avenue. The analysis included review both the horizontal and vertical profile of the existing roadway in relationship to the new intersection location and the speed of traffic on Morningside Road. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines were used for the analysis. Two primary conditions were analyzed: • The sight distance required for a stopped vehicle at the new street intersection to safely pull out onto Morningside Road Based on the requirements a sight line of 440 feet from the intersection looking cast or west on Morningside Road would be required. Looking east there is sufficient sight lines to see any oncoming vehicle. Looking west there is a crest of a hill located approximately 475 feet from the intersection. Based on this distance there is also a sufficient sight line looking this direction to make a decision to pull out from the intersection. The sight distance required to stop for a vehicle in the street turning from Morningside Road onto the new street — Based on the requirements a sight distance of 200 feet would be required to see a vehicle or other object in the street to safely stop traveling at 30mph. Traveling westbound on Morningside Road there is sufficient distance to safely stop. Traveling eastbound, a vehicle would be able to see another vehicle or object in the road at the crest of the hill approximate 475 feet from the intersection. This also is sufficient distance to safety stop prior to the intersection. Site Plan Review — The site plan was reviewed including both roadway alignment alternatives. The following should be considered: 1. With either roadway alignment alternative a stop signs should be placed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. 2. Provide a clear sight line from the intersection in both directions, keep it clear of trees or other landscaping that would be in the line of vision. 3. With either roadway alignment alternative the driveway adjacent to the new street for the existing property at 4408 Morningside Road should be realigned from Morningside Road to the new street to eliminate turning conflicts. p — Acres Dubois Tmffic Review City of Nina December 6. 2012 Page 6 orb 4. The roadway alignment for the cul-de-sac option has the Mowing advantages/disadvantages: Advantages • Traffic will not be able to cut -through to the neighborhood to the north. • Only six of the eight lots will access Morningside Road directly. • Less opportunity for increased conflicts at the new Morningside Road intersection. Disadvantay,cs * Only one access to the proposed six lots for emergency vehicles. S. The roadway alignment for the through street option has the following advantages/disadvantages: Adyontayes a Two ways to access the street for emergency vehicles. 115advaniaQes a Traffic wilt be able to cut4hrougb this now street to the neighborhood to the north. * All the new lots and potentially cut -through traffic would access Morningsidc Road at the new intersection increasing the potential for additional conflicts and crashes. Conclusions lRecommendadon Based on the traffic review documented in this memorandurri, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed development will generate 78 daily trips, six (6) AM peak hour trips and eight (8) PM peak hour trips. • Based on the traffic operations analysis the intersections and roadway segments on both Morningside, Road and Lynn Avenue will operate at satisfactory (LOS A or B) with the proposed site developed. • No crashes have occurred in the area adjacent to the site in the past 10 years. • Sufficient sight lines exist for traffic exiting or entering the, proposed new street intel=tion on Morningside Road. • Witb,both roadway alignment alternatives safety would be improved by relocating the driveway adjacent to the now street installation of a stop sign for the new street approacting Morningside Road and providing a clear sight line from the intersection. • Although both roadway alignment alternatives would operate at satisfactory LOS, the cul-de- sac option would provide less opportunity for cut -through traffic therefore less opportunity for possible conflicts and crashes at the Morningside intersection. AqI N A z U W. 40th z� a 5T.�u , a Ica ft 140D et C- 2 Z Li It! Y J 7 x,lj'g +1217d 5� UJ Project Location LI IT x, lo211 3�,5 H T. �p.. �� °E4c1• 1�. % 4 {.,., - i.�,t t ° F1 CIA. 4J tot "� `",. N r d. - �,1I `�' x "J W• 47th 5T J • � ;,� jjj ti IilYi5lOF1 ��� ST.. x 2 p' i3R�o'c 51.� 1t1",E p�S cy I �w ee m 11E 9, ;�. 1�� 9, LA.- � t i ENS K a + 71, �11it1 i .tl ui u /u ? rS u1 ii c� a P•JLL WGt1Gl a `ht1. c 1 ' bQ t ,r + o a 1.t-JYl�,A9Fhr . "51 CL 3ag ; .; 4 'a �JJ a wr 49'A5 :. rr {i�!7•ult w AL � l S,7 l7 J1��1?Ir 7,z W'OGirDAI<E' LA. ,aCE w c 51 st Y1. n c11VIA A WOGLI I74CO3 P_;ii�LF .. ci 7. 52nd F. LINK 11 �4 EA GLI L�. S' y �, 4 W. sz-d ST. W'. p {� 53rd a 57. t �I y . ~ J Z IV a z— 3 X4.5; rd ST CrCIENO — Jl�l W. S41t, �.. ryr531GNMori E� flaru�J' Got TER. y _ p INJ OR NOwST�I(� 4 r41wt15R V LTc� pSE.l.11,P V� .�it 1 � i j GAIL C ��. SV a5 t h 51. �- cs r' W St th+�t SI tr -z L � + � _.. ext r R• M1 � V �' � 1 ��x'1� n� t- �ia� ,p� ,, 4v YV�(IMN TEP nr' +6V 3 IIS t.r ,W t +ri 1`f o ST. J `I� t I v{ rW TwEI� �- ; Q )� �Irt���l�T�� -��" `� 41�i�1 ! _ .. ..,....._: � vmnn�l '� � r-�;, �� vi, 5 Traffic Review Figure 1 Acres Dubois :'~ City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map Ir`rr.=itnrri.`.a®werw.a�ie+,►��.♦ � +E'+r! } �f f � � d 4 x' Traffic Review Figure 2 Acres Dubois .� City of Edina, Minnesota Development Site Flan �� 0 *M*A AW S 44 71 L---., J A MP I I f im-0 ME 42-1 ft" 11=21 Traffic Review Figure 3 Acres Dubois City of Edina, Minnesola Alternative She Plan A41 CITY OF EDINA DEMO Engineering Department Phone 952-826-0371 A,�� Fax 952-026.0392 - www.Clty*fEdina.com � Date; December 7, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From- Wayne Houle — Director of Engineering Re: Preliminary Plat for Acres Dubois Dated November S, 2012 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plat and offer the following comments: 0 A Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPGA, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department, Q SAC fees will be required for this project; REC fees will not be required due to the developer Installing the water main and sanitary sewer system. A developer's agreement will be required for constructing the public utilities, roadway, sidewalk and street lights. The developer will be responsible for funding the cost of construction administration as performed by City Staff. Construction administration Includes construction staking, inspection, material inspection, pay requests to the contractor, and record drawings. The developer's agreement will also Include a three year minimum maintenance period for maintaining the proposed rain garden and also include the temporary use of the westerly edge of the City of Edina property located at Lynn Avenue and Littel Street. Sett � �- Prelimina�x SlLe.falaitl; + Dedicate Outlot A to adjacent properties to provide maintained boulevards. Kthe outlot is not dedicated then staffrecommends utilizing the area to create bio-swales, which requires the creation of a homeowners association to maintain the bio-swales after the three year maintenance period. • Provide a minimum of three decorative street lights adjacent to the sidewalk. Sheet 4 — Preliminary utility Plan; • Loop I connect water main from Morningside Read to Littel Street. • Provide additional easement for access to maintain proposed rain garden I infiltration basin located at Lot 8. • Provide storm water calculations for the project. Per the City of Edina's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, verify that the proposed rain garden located at proposed Lot 8 can provide a two foot clearance to surrounding structures by providing storage for a concurrent 100 - year single rainfall event or a 100 -year 10 -day snowmelt, whichever is greater. Sheet 5 Preliminary railing Plan: • Use of City property adjacent to proposed Lot 7 will require compensation to the City, along with a restoration plan approved by the City Council. Compensation will be calculated as a temporary construction easement. Staff does not support the placement of a retaining wall at this location due to long term maintenance adjacent to proposed sanitary sewer and water main. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans If this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. Engineering Department 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN $5439 A-08 October 2$, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 West 50 Street Edina, MN 55424 Re. Acres DuBois Development Dear Mr. "Teague We are writing today to express our viewpoint concerning the development being planned for the 5idell property in Morningside. It is our understanding that two potential pians are being considered. One includes a cul-de-sac with six new lots originating from Morningside Road and a seventh standalone parcel accessed off Littel St. The other proposed plan would add a through street connecting lower Oakdale Ave. with Morningside Road and have seven new lots adjoining the west side of this new street, We would like to go on record as being deeply opposed to the through street option and in favor of the cul-de-sac option for the following reasons: 1. Traffic a. A historical traiffia flow through the neighborhood already exists and we feel adding a through street within 200 feet of Lynn Ave is unnecessary. b. The connecting through street will run along the backyard boundaries of the houses on the west side of Lynn Ave creating additional unwanted noise and increased tragic activity. c, The number of vehicles using the six house cul-de-sac will minimize the traffic impact on the surrounding neighbors and the community as a whole, d. A through street will dramatically increase the number of vehicles using tower Oakdale and completely change the feel of our neighborhood. 2. Safety — a. Vehicles using the cul-de-sac will be fewer and slower moving than those using the through strut, b. The hill that would exist an the through street creates added safety concerns due to limited visibility, excessive vehicular speeds and winter ice and snow issues. The existing, steep condition on Lynn Avenue makes it very unsafe—especially during the winter months, This hazardous condition should not be replicated.! c. There are many young children on lower Oakdale that play in their front yards near the strect. The increased vehicle traffic of a through street increases the risk of an accident. 3. Trees and Vegetation — a. The cul-de-sac option would allow many of the mature trees on this property to be sexed. b. The though street would create the need to remove almost all of the mature trees in order to build the now roadway and develop the property into suitable lots. c. The cul-de-sac design provides significantly more total landscaping area (bath new and saved existing) than the through street option. 4. Natural use of the land — a, The cul-de-sac option allows for better use of the natural contour of this property by creating two beautiful walk -out lots that utilize the natural slope of the hillside and save many of the trees. b. The through street option requires the lots to be situated across the hillside creating the need for excessive grading, tons of additional fill and the installation of large retaining walls. c. The connecting through street option adds approximately 7,000 square feet more asphalt pavement and 3,5001 square feet more concrete pavement than the cul-dersac option. These added hardscapes will necessitate additional roadway maintenance due to both the added paved surface area as well as the increased overall traffic usage on the through street d, The overall layout and stoop slope of the connecting through street would also produce exponentially more storm water runoff which could adversely impact the existing stoma sewer system and downstream bodies ofwater. 5. Neighborhood Serenity a. The property as it exists today is a quiet oasis in the neighborhood. The cul-de-sac option offers the most viable solution to maintaining this sense for the immediate neighbors and Morningside community as a whole. 6. Sidewalks and walkability-- a. We are aware that some of the neighbors on the south Side of this property feel the through street is necessary to create a sidewalk connection from Morningside Road to the open space city lot on the corner of Lynn and Littel and to V4 Street. An existing sidewalk located roughly 200 feet east of the proposed Acres DuBois development on Lynn Ave, already provides pedestrian sidewalk access to both of these areas, b. Approximately one third of the Morningside neighborhood does not have sidewalks (42°d Street, Monterey, north Lynn, Kipling and north Grimes). Forcing a through street option to maintain, the neighborhood.feel of streets with sidewalks does not have precedence in Morningside, For the reasons stated above, we must adamantly oppose the site development plan that includes the addition of the through streot. The applicant has provided a development option that is much less intrusive to the existing properly, the environment, future safety concerns, and the current "feel" of the neighborhood. We trust that the City staff, the Plaming Commission, and the -City Council would appreciate this touch more thoughtful approach to the redevelopment of this unique property. We respectfully ask the City of Edina to work with the applicant toward the development option that utilizes the preferred cul-de-sac option, Sincerely, Morningside Neighbors (Signature pages attached) cc Frank Sidell Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering Inc. Signature 41biKw a..kyr� Jfitd"4i Address � � N V ,P'.r %x Er Z 1 g:� k 44*t* 4"G � � N V ,P'.r %x Er Address goo (ti 44 V 64Z I I ga&46, Ave. f �'t 4 �Z l� L YNR✓ /� � ��/' �.. Owe Ec� �! ✓ 4�Y1 rf 6 SYs, 5 r L -D" 4211 LI NN :J t= it 4A, O1 w y� GyNN ,aye. 5 r L -D" 4211 LI NN :J t= it 4A, O1 James and Connie Wilde 4413 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 December 3, 2012 City of Edina Mayor City of Edina Council Members City of Edina Planning Commission 4801 W. 50'h Street Edina, IVIN 55424 Subject: Acres DuBois Dear Esteemed City Leader, We are writing today to express our opposition to the proposed cul-de-sac subdivision, Acres DuBois. Morningside neighborhood has a rich history and is a unique and vibrant urban community. Morningside is not a neighborhood of suburban cul-de-sacs: Our community Is platted on a grid system between 40'h Street 144'h Street! France Ave I Wooddele Ave. The first page of the preliminary plat for Acres DuBois shows a location map with circles around fourteen "cul-de-sacse'in the area, most of which are In St. Louis Park. It is misleading to point to these as precedent for the construction of a cul-de-sac In Morningside. On this map only two sites are even M Momingside, neither of which are cul-d"acs but rather dead end streets. One site on the reap is a dead end at 45'h Street that gives the community street perking and sidewalk access to Koleiln Park. This Is nothing like what Is proposed in Aures DuBois. Connecting streets with sidewalks benefit all community members. We, like many Morningside residents, bought our home here In part because of the sidewalks. Our family loves walking the streets of our community. The preliminary plat for Acres Dubois shows no sidewalk an Littet Street. It does include a partial sidewalk on the west side of the cul-de-sac but this ends In the middle of the circle. Ending the sidewalk creates one-way pedestrian traffic, benefiting only the residents of the cul-de-sac. We urge the Planning Commission to require continuous sidewalks along all roads in the project. We understand that development is Important and inevitable, but as proposed this project displaces a great deal of cost to residents on Momingside Road only to benefit the developer. We will see increased traffic, years of construction and wear and tear on our roads, the lost of which current residents will bear. Our property value and quality of life Is being robbed. This proposal seeks variance exception because three of the new lots do not meet minimum size requirements. The Conforming Concept Plan is reasonable and flits consistently in the grid pattern of the neighborhood. There is no "undue hardship"to the developer. If the developer Is unhappy with the Conforming Concept Plan we implore the city of Edina to work with the developer In creating a proposal that respects the character and culture of Morningside. Could part of this land be incorporated into an expanded park utilizing the city lot on the comer of Littel and Lynn? Using 4e Street or Bridge Street in Country Club as a model, could there be a sidewalk connecting a continuous sidewalk on the proposed cul-de-sac to a new sidewalk on Littel, thus giving all residents greater access to the city lot? There is a tremendous opportunity to create a "legacy" that the developer purports to value while respecting and enhancing the quality of life for all Morningside residents. Please do not approve this plan as submitted. Sincerely, �nd James Wilde cc: Cary Teague, City of Edina 2111ol v e0l Jackie Hooclenakker From: Angela Keen <angeladeen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:57 ANA TO: Edina Mail Cr: jonibennettl2@comcast.netY Mary Brindle, joshsprague@edinarealty,com; swensonannl @gmaii.com; Cary Teague; Edina Mail, Jackie Hoogenakker; David Deen subj"t Letter of Concern - Morningside Development Attachments: Letter of Concem - Morningside Deveiopment.pdf Dear Mayor Hovland, We are writing to express our concern over the rampant uncontrolled development of Morningside, which similarly plagues other areas of Edina. At the end of 2010, we bought a 1931 house on the corner of Eton Place and Morningside Rd because we were attracted to the neighborhood's charm and the friendly village that it is. However, in our first year here, we have witnessed firsthand 8 teardown/rebuilds on Morningside Rd and Scott Terrace alone. We are nothing short of appalled at the number of teardowns and newly constructed behemoths arising at an alarming rate. We cannot Imagine what the long-term residents must be experiencing as streets are becoming unrecognizable (especially 45`h Street). Out of this growing concern, we were amongst the large crowd that gathered at Morningside Church last Thursday, November 29th. We listened to you discuss the record-breaking rankings of how Edina residents rated their quality of life. The survey firm must not have surveyed residents In Morningside. Of course the school system Is terrific, and the community of people Is wonderful, but the quality of life in our neighborhood is slipping. There is an overwhelming feeling of dissatisfaction amongst our community about the BUILDER- DRiVEN construction going on, You were presented with numerous issues at this meeting about how this type of development Is negatively Impacting our quality of life - Including: New construction reduces the value of existing adjacent homes due to lost views, poor aesthetic, etc. Sidewalks and roads are being degraded by builder traffic (yet homeowners are expected to pay for new roads themselvesi ) • Construction workers are urinating in adjacent yards, and outhouses nearly block sidewalks • Volume of traffic and the speed of contractor vehicles down our roads has Increased • Construction noise, often beginning before lam Storm water drainage off of these massive homes Is problematic, concern of basement flooding (huge loss of Impervious surface area with 5,000 sq ft homes replacing 1,500 sq ft bungalows) • Loss of decades -old trees (The 7 lot Sldell development, "Acres Dubois," threatens to remove almost 50% of the 200 trees on the 3 acres, but that's likely a low estimate) • Loss of sunlight through existing home's windows due to towering new construction. • Loss of historic homes (e.g., 4400 Branson, original Morningside Police Chief residence, 4115 Morningside, airplane bungalow) • Loss of aesthetic ("Acres Dubole proposes bringing suburbia to Morningside, complete with a cul-de- sac) e New houses are "detached" from the outside community with front facing garages instead of porches, few windows, and backend living areas. Builders push zoning to the max - building tall structures, with barely 5 feet to spare on the sides of So foot lots, and bulldozing mature trees, even if they are in the backyard. • in some instances, approved plans have not looked like the final product built. We understand that change Is Imminent In any community - but this letter Is directed at the builder -driven, uncontrolled, negative change. There are examples of new construction that evokes positive change - we encourage you to drive past 4307 Eton Place where the house was carefully designed by the homeowner and crafted to "fit -In" to the historic charm of the neighborhood without dwarfing and damaging its neighbors. What is the difference here? This house and others were purchased by a single family, and coordinated with a builder, in that order. Too many other houses in this neighborhood are purchased by the builder first, and then controlled by that builder to be a large size thereby maximizing the builder's profit (typically these houses sell in excess of $1.M). If we wanted to move into this neighborhood today, we simply could not afford to; houses are purchased with the intent of being torn down at a whopping $400K Just for the land they are sitting on. Suddenly, it's a neighborhood dominated by just a handful of builders, namely, REFINED, DAVID ALLEN, and BELLA, These houses are: - Nearly identical (can you tell the difference between 4242 and 4744 Scott Terrace?), - oversized (see all new construction by these builders), and - Crowded - a lawnmower cannot pass between without having to use the neighbor's yard I (Drive by BELLA constructed houses 411.3 or 4213 Morningside). We fear that the proposed "Acres Dubois" Subdivision (3.1 acres on 4412 Morningside) would be a similar loss of Morningside's aesthetic. It was such a heated topic at the meeting that the pile of submitted questions could not be addressed. Thank you for volunteering to make copies of these concerns to share with City Council members. If such a hugely devastating leveling of property Is allowed, how could new construction be controlled elsewhere? For example, we live next door to the original Morningside Church built In 1912. As our elderly neighbor discusses "selling out," this small historic home surely would be leveled and replaced by a wall of new housing blocking our morning sunrise. You see, while the pockets of the builders are being lined with profits, the actual residents of Morningside are the big losers - all the reasons listed above are undermining our quality of life. if this is indeed the direction we're headed, where builders will simply elbow out and outbid single family buyers to take hold of this area, then we need your protection to put more comprehensive policies in place.. The current state of development is threatening to forever change the face of Morningside, and the reason so many of us moved here in the first place. We advocate for controlled development that preserves the character of our neighborhood, protects our trees and waters, and promotes our quality of life. We know that you believe these values are important, and so we ask you to work with us to save Morningside. Sincerely, Dr. David and Angela Deen 4301 Eton Place Morningside Cary Teague From: jshf <jshf@oomcasLnet> Sent: Thursdays, December 06, 2012 9,49 AM To: jhovland@krousehovland.com floyd.grablel@tsi.com, Gary Teague Subject: sub division Regarding the subdivision on Morningside. High hopes that you, our elected officials and planners will not allow a cul-de-sac in our urban neighborhood --- A cul-de-sac (with all new homes) will look and feel like a fish out of water ---or some weird SET on a bad Desperate Housewives drama. If that lot must be subdivided- we are counting on the city to make certain that it is a through street. Having ? more houses—average 2 cars each -14 cars—basically come out of that ONE ENTRANCE/EXIT "driveway- aka cul-de-sac" Is not a good idea. We already have safety Issues with that bllpd sgg„t coming; over the hill—to Oakdale --and now another? We also hope that some sort of guidelines will be drawn up (As for as aesthetic) —so the development blends with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you lilene Framke Ps—what is with the name of the subdivision? Heaven forbid is its own NAME like some strange little Plymouth/ Woodbury stand alone community... December 6, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50' Street Edina, MN 55424 (952)826-0460 Dear Cary, We are Rick and Sarah Hardy. We moved with our two school -aged daughters to Edina 21/2 years ago from the city of Portland, Oregon where we lived in a turn of the (20'`) century neighborhood called Laurelhurst. Prior to moving to Oregon, we owned a home built in 1908 in the St. Paul's Macalester Groveland neighborhood. In 2010, we chose Edina because of its excellent public schools and services, its close proximity to Rick's job and to our church, and for its unique proximity to urban and suburban amenities. We are "city" people who love established neighborhoods, sidewalks, older homes; urban wildlife and an eclectic community that is organized and engaged. In Edina, Morningside is, no doubt, the right pocket for us. In January of 2011, our builder purchased a lot on our behalf from the Sidell family at 4408 Morningside Road. Throughout 2011, we planned and built our "new old" home and were delighted to take occupancy in December of 2011. In our choice of builder and in many subsequent design decisions, we made it a priority to design a home that fit the character of Morningside. Recent developments with the Sidell Family, our neighbor at 4412 Morningside Road, have commanded our attention. The Sidells have proposed a new subdivision of 7 homes including a cul de sac on the east side of their property. The proposed cul de sac runs 8.7 feet from our property, 15 feet from our home and less than one foot from and parallel to our driveway. Frank Sidell knows that we have concerns with their plan and we have asked him to reconsider a west side cul de sac. A summary timeline of our experience and good faith efforts to work with the Sidell Family is attached as Appendix A. We are compelled to take action to protect our home's safety, value, compliance with city code, and our quality of life. To that end, we respectfully express our concerns regarding the proposal for Acres Dubois at 4412 Morningside Road, Edina. 1. Adequate access to a subdivided Acres Dubois can be secured with a cul de sac running on the west side of the proposed sub -division. A number of points relating to history, safety, city code, fairness, due process under the law, and impact on residents' property values support this and are detailed in Appendix B. 2. An east side cul de sac, as proposed by the Sidell Family and under current review by the City of Edina Planning Commission, has a unique and profound impact on the Hardy Hardy Letter of Concern re: Acres Dubois residence and residents nearby, affecting our property value and quality of life. These impacts include: • Creating an unsay intersection by placing a road within 1 foot of our driveway • Pushing our home and driveway out of compliance with city code for set backs • Risking a significant negative impact to our property value for the fiscal benefit of the Sidell Family • Imposing a disproportionate and intimate amount of air, light, and noise pollution on the Hardy home A detailed discussion is outlined in Appendix C. 3. The entire neighborhood faces the prospect of imminent and long-term heavy construction of seven new houses where today only one stands. We have concerns regarding the impact of the increased density in our neighborhood, and these are detailed in Appendix D. 4. We object to a through -street plan included, but not recommended, in the Sidell submission and our objections are outlined in Appendix E. Above all, we ask the Edina Planning Commission and City Council to make a west side cul de sac a condition of any approval of a new sub -division on the property. Frank Sidell's August 12, 2012 letter to neighbors describes the family's desire to create a positive legacy and to keep their. plans "Morningside friendly." We trust his sincerity in this and our conversations with Frank and other family members to date have been open and masonable. Similarly, the }-lardy family picked Morningside for its neighborly feel.. We are doing our best to work with our neighbors and our City to navigate a path that best balances the rights of all involved. Naturally, we look forward to welcoming any new neighbors who will be building their homes on Acres Dubois, just as we have been welcomed so warmly into our wonderful pocket of Edina. Thank you foryour diligence in this matter. Sincerely, Rick and Sa H y 0 214DiI- 4406 Morningside Road !! Edina, MN 55416 (952) 486-7658 cc Scott Dahlke, PX Frank Sidell Hardy Letter of Concern re. Aches Dubois APPENDIX A: RECENT HISTORY OF 4408 AND 4412 MORNINGSIDE ROAD We Hardys live at 4408 Morningside Road, directly east and next to Acres Dubois at 4412 Morningside Road. We have lived in our house less than one year. The recent history of our property is relevant: January 2011: 4408 Morningside Road purchased from the Sidell Family by REFINED LLC with the express written commitment to construct a new, custom home on site for Rick and Sarah Hardy January - April 2011: Hardy home plan designed and finalized May 3,2011: Frank Sidell Sr. of 4412 Morningside Road passes away. Unbeknownst to the Hardy family, this event puts into motion the Sidell family plans to subdivide and develop Acres Dubois. June 27,2011: Ground is broken for Hardy home at 4408 Morningside Road. December 15,2011: Hardy family moves into 4408 Morningside Road. December 2011- August 2012: Frank, Tina (Rhode), Phil and Mrs. Iris Sidell welcome us personally to the neighborhood and we exchange contact information and pleasantries. August 11, 2012: Frank Sidell Jr. distributes a letter formally describing the Sidell family's intent to develop their property at 4412 Morningside Road. Despite summer -long rumors in the neighborhood, August 1 la' is the first direct word from the Sidell family to us regarding their plans. Had the timeline of events for either family shifted by six months, it is likely that either of our decisions regarding the property and project would have been radically impacted. October 9, 2012: The Sidell Family hosted a neighborhood meeting during which they revealed a drawing of their probable plan for Acres Dubois. This plan included a new east side cul de sac providing access to 6 new homes on the south end of Acres Dubois. The cul de sac is drawn directly next to and running parallel to the Hardy residence. The Hardy family was invited but not present at this meeting. October 11, 2012: Having seen the plans, Sarah Hardy called Frank Sidell to ask why the road was not planned on the west side of their lot, away from the Hardy home and where any new road intuitively belongs. A meeting between families is set for October 191'. October 19, 2012: Frank Sidell, Peter Knaeble (Terra Engineering), Sarah and Rick Hardy meet at the Hardy residence to discuss the Sidell's plan for Acres Dubois. An hour long discussion is held recapping the Sidell's reasons for the east -side access plan. Hardy Appendix A Together, we walked the Sidell property. Sarah and Rick made an appeal for a west side road citing the profound and unique impact of a road within 15 feet of their home. Frank and Peter agree to "take a second look" at a west side access option. October 23, 2012: A second, larger neighborhood meeting is hosted by the Sidell Family to describe the playas for Acres Dubois. The plan presented at this meeting is the "bast Side Cul De Sea" plan to which the Hardys objected. on October 19th. Sarah Hardy attended the meeting and again verbalized the Rudy's desire for a west side cul de sac accessing the new lots. October 27, 2012: Sarah .Hardy called Frank Sidell to request a direct response to their October 19* appeal for reconsideration of %lest side access. Frank reported that the Family will not be pursuing a west side access despite the impact of an east side road on the Hardy residence. The reason for this per Frank is "we lose a lot with a west side road." December 8, 2012: Planned meeting with Frank Sidell, hick and Sarah. Hardy, Hardy Appendix A APPENDIX R: IN SLIPPORT OF WEST -SIDE ACCESS To ACRES DUBOIS We feel that fair and adequate access to a subdivided Acres Dubois can be secured with a cul de sac running on the A= side of the proposed sub -division. A number of points support this: 1. History: The original survey and vision for the neighborhood shows lot subdivision of this property with road access on the west side. Until Monday, December 3, 2012, a portion of road right-of-way still existed on the St. Louis Park border for this purpose. "Natchez Avenue South" is shown on Hennepin County Section Map Nl/2 SEI/4 Sec.07 T.28 R.24. Attached (Attachment 1) is a copy of a partial print of the section map with the Hardy residence, Acres Dubois development, and existing Natchez Avenue South noted. It is clear that the original intent for subdivision of the Acres Dubois parcel incorporated access with a west side road. 2. Safety: An intersection that logically continues an existing road, where stopped traffic already pauses, is a safer place to put a new street connection to Morningside Road. A continued street coming in from the north to Morningside Road where Oakdale already enters from the south will not surprise drivers and will be no less safe than the existing Oakdale / Morningside Road intersection. 3. City Code: Section 850.08 Subd. 6 part A. "General Requirements. Vehicular traffic be channeled and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion and traffic hazards on the lot or tract or on adjacent streets. Traffic generated by the use shall be directed so as to avoid excessive traffic through residential areas." A west side cul de sac complies with this requirement, while an east side road presents potential hazards as described above and in Appendix C. 4, Shared Impart: The amount of light, noise and air pollution plus traffic congestion of a west side access into Acres Dubois is more fairly dispersed and shared by residents. St. Louis Park residents state in their recently granted petition to their City Council to vacate the right of way for Natchez Ave South that they would be buffered by a hillside between Hardy Appendix B them and any new prospective road on the west side of Acres Dubois. An east side road intimately and disproportionately impacts the Hardy residence and residences south of Acres Dubois on Morningside Road. 5. Property Values of affected west -side neighbors are already adjusted: Because the potential for "Natchez Avenue South" already existed (point 1, above), lots of record for residents of St. Louis Park whose homes backed up to this as -of -yet -unbuilt road had the existing road right-of-way, and the real possibility for a road, already factored into their property values. With the Right of Way vacated by the City of St. Louis Park on December 3, 2012, those property values could increase. St. Louis Park Residents' desire to have the right of way vacated supports our position that a right of way — not to mention an actual adjacent road — depletes a property's value. 6. Property Values of affected east -side neighbors are preserved: We assert that, if the City of Edina approves the plan as proposed for Acres Dubois, this is an illegal seizure of property value from the Hardy family and other neighbors to benefit a private party, the Sidell Family, without due process. A west side cul de sac avoids this unjust transfer of property value. 7. The Sidell's Plan is preserved, in mirror image: We assert that the Sidell Family does not "lose a lot" by placing the road on the west side as has been previously indicated. An overlay of a mirror-image cul de sac to the one they are proposing shows that the road and lots fit in either configuration, east or west, regardless of the challenging topography to the north end of the lot. See the attached (Attachment 2) of a West Side Street Layout drawing. Additionally, any "loss of a lot" or value for the benefactors of Acres Dubois, needs to be weighed against the loss of property value for other existing owners impacted. Hardy Appendix B APPENDIX C: EAST SIDE CUL DE SAC CONCERNS An east side cul de sac, as proposed by the Sidell Family, has a unique and profound impact on the Hardy residence, affecting our home's legality, propgrty value and our quality of life. These impacts include: 1. Home Setback Compliance: A new road west of the Hardy home creates ambiguity around the Front or Side Street Setback Requirements for City of Edina Single Family Dwellings. Front Street Setback is required to be 30 feet. Our home and garage are built facing our current west side lot line. Any future appraiser, future buyer, and/or future building permit official could interpret that the front of our house faces west (i.e. faces the proposed cul de sac) and therefore requires a front setback of 30 feet. OR, City Code Section 850.11 Subd. 7.A.2 and City of Edina Fact Sheet titled "Setback Requirements for City of Edina Single Family Dwellings" reads that Side Street Setback is 15 feet "but increases to front street setback if adjacent house faces side street" The Code's exception clause, and the exact interpretation of what is considered "adjacent," is somewhat ambiguous. Any future appraiser, future buyer, and/or future building permit official could interpret that our home meets the exception clause for Side Street Setbacks and therefore requires a front setback of 30 feet. This ambiguity impacts our home's compliance, value and desirability on the market, and complicates our deed and insurance requirements. 2. Driveway Setback Compliance: The east side cul de sac puts the Hardy residence driveway out of compliance with setback requirements for the City of Edina Single family Dwelling Driveways. Per city code 1205.02 Subd. 3 "Minimum Distance to Street Intersection. The minimum distance between the driveway and the nearest return of the intersection of two streets shall be 50 feet as measured at the curb line of the street." Our driveway would be within 20 feet of the curb of the new cul de sac, an undesirable and unsafe distance that is out of compliance with City Code. 3. Air, Light, and Noise Pollution: The east side cul de sac places disproportionate amounts of light, noise and air pollution on the Hardy family. Partly due to the fact that it runs parallel to our home, but mostly due to the fact that the proposed right -4 -way runs 15 feet from our.hQme where no road currently exists, we will experience a tremendous and intimate amount of new headlight, streetlight, vehicular noise, and air pollution as a result of this new cul de sac. 4. Property 'Value: The plan for an east side cul de sac has already disproportionately and substantially depleted the property value of our home at 4408 Morningside Road. We did not purchase a corner lot for our home. Our home and driveway were not designed with the expectation that a road would be running directly to the west of our property. Our house currently conforms to all city codes, however if we were to try and sell our home today we would be compelled to disclose the Acres Dubois plans and their impact on our home. Hardy Appendix C APPENDIX D'. DENSITY CONCERNS RELATING TO THE SuBwvISioN OF AcREs Dumms: While it is reasonable to expect the Sidell gamily to consider options for the Acres Dubois property, and Morningside is a neighborhood of higher density, the proposed plan will create an extreme challenge to the existing residents of this already developed neighborhood. The density of the sub -division creates the following concerns: 1. Construction Schedule; The demolition of one home and its outbuildings, property grading, and the construction of seven new homes, could result in years of construction nuisance to the nearby residents if not properly managed. We urge discussion of this topic upfront in the process, and accommodations be made to limit the impact to the neighborhood, Potential accommodations could include: • Reduce the number of new lots / homes • Coordinate construction on all new homes to happen simultaneously • If multiple builders are being used, require coordination among them in bringing equipment, building supplies, and high noise into the neighborhood • Limit and enforce hours of construction activity to 8:OOAM to 5:OOPM Monday -Friday with no construction on weekends or holidays. 2. Burden on Infrastructure, Streets and Sewer: More heavy machinery in Morningside takes a toll on our streets, which all residents will be assessed to upkeep. Also, will the burden of these net six new homes' plumbing and other infrastructure demands accelerate the need for repair or upgrade of Morningside's infrastructure? Will assessments be higher, and come sooner, as a result of this project? i. Urban Wildlife, Habitat, and Green Space: Aches Dubois is a unique property in Morningside, a high-density neighborhood. Developing the property to the maximum limits of City Code will unfortunately result in the loss of precious urban green space, wildlife habitat, and trees, many of which are over a hundred years old. Has any consideration been made toward formally preserving at least a portion of this land and its unique qualities as a park or designated open space? Could one or more lot be designated or donated as "Sidell Park?" 4. Impact to Edina Public Schools Enrollment and Cost: The proposed development will introduce six new households to the Edina Public School district.. From experience, we know that the currently districted public school for the Acres Dubois address is Highlands Elementary, which is experiencing several classrooms already beyond recommended capacity. How does the prospect of six net new households that could bring almost an entire new classroom of students to Highlands fit into the district's space and expense plans? Roes the City expect that property tax revenues will cover the cost of educating the new school-age residents? 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan., The proposed density will alter the character of a portion of Morningside that has been in place for decades. Inserting seven new residences into a space that has accommodated one residence for this long period arguably defies the City's Comprehensive Flan which states "Building on currant efforts, the City will seek options that allow for single-family redevelopment that is sensitive to the community character and context of existing neighborhoods." Hardy Appendix D APPENDIX E: CONCERNING A TttROUCH-STREET PLAN FOR ACRES DUBOIS The option of a through -street connecting Morningside Road to Upper Oakdale / Littel Street has been raised, and supported by some residents. We feel compelled to comment against this option:. We assert that the through -street plan adversely impacts us in all the same ways that an east -side cul de sac does as outlined in Appendix C, only to an amplified degree. Further, we believe that an approval of a through -street plan would be a detriment to the Morningside neighborhood and its residents given the following considerations: I. Traffic for Close Neighbors: The traffic impact, including noise, light, and air pollution for the 14ardys and neighbors on Morningside Road between Lynn and Upper Oakdale, is a major concern. Assuming ten trips per household per day, the traffic impact of six net new homes on a cul de sac entering onto Morningside road would be roughly 60 trips per day. The traffic impact of a through street would include traffic from 24 homes: the seven newly developed homesl�us traffic from the seventeen newly -connected -to -Morningside Road homes on lower Oakdale. Traffic from a through street would be minimum one half of 240 trips per day, or 120. Estimated Traffic Impact of a Through Street on Close Neighbors: • Cul De sac = 60 trips per day • Through Street = 120 trips per day minimum Further, each of these homes does or will provide housing for citizens of Edina, and therefore we assert that more than half of their trips out each day would take them south to Morningside Road and to their destinations in Edina including schools, work, kids' activities, churches, etc. We feel confident that a cul de sac would result in a milder traffic impact for close neighbors of Acres Dubois. 2. Cul de Sac does fit Morningside: A cul de sac is consistent with the eclectic nature of Morningside and its streets. There is precedent for dead-end and cul de sac streets in and near the Morningside neighborhood, when topography or other terrain challenges seem to have: necessitated a break from the grid structure. Examples in Edina Morningside: • West 45d street off of Grimes Upper Oakdale at Branson Street. There are additional dead ends and cul de sacs in Edina's nearby White Oaks neighborhood and even closer in neighboring pockets of St. Louis Park. 3. Urban Wildlife, Habitat and Water A through street necessitates the near complete obliteration of Acres Dubois for the sake of grading the landscape and paving the road, and near twice the impermeable road surface would result. A cul de sac holds promise for at least preserving some of the existing habitat for urban wildlife and water management. 4. Some have argued that "no variances whatsoever" should be the guiding principal as city planners review the options for Acnes Dubois. We disagree and feel this is a unique property, and situation, meriting special and careful consideration for the neighborhood, the habitat and landscape, and the family's legacy. Hardy Appendix E 2) DN DN 74 T_ t t.&SO - - - - - - - - - 5 C CT _20— (74) LITTEL ST- - R (72) 85) (73) US E)dsti ng Natchez Ave S Ad, R -Way (70) (159) Pfoposed (127) 17 G 26 Acres (160) Dubois 200 128 Development F. 129 - - - - - - - - 21 - - - -- - - - - (87) 128 Hardy Re.. idence 20 Hardy R, Si do q (162) 14 ------------ a --------- ,.- 12 (67) 13 ifia 20 (93) OP 14 - -------$ - - - - - - _.)°1_ (94)160 Is 19(164) 4 (92) (64) 4 2w )F ST LIS PARK SD NO 283 )F EDIINA SD NO 27 00010211 147.65. p "SA gw1100 loot 100 Iva (134) 35) (82)1 1 0 (133) (132) (70) 18.94 I (69)gg 4 t; (63) 1136) (58) F (61),, (63) (64) j (67) 94 fil Tvi PART OF HENNEPIN COUNTY SUAVEY "GRA DIVISION SECTION MAP (04) (137) N112 SE1/4 SecW T. R24 0381 Bc r6A riksima"rial all N V_Ay N bd4 N4 aliM Kl as Vitas 441 at i ."" " —" a i'R1 �IYI N p ttlliMNa'RIA��YI � O im Ira t ! 1 i 1 ----------- WON It qtl ♦2 1/2 Si. w _ — ....,.. ` , tlrtEt SiREEr lit �, !� seo sr313���ily -----.------)'ir. �-.� I •J?f' _. ----------._-1, r L an ,,41 sr wfsr -- j L* -----_..I ! _—_..--------� iW -------------- M.,, sr: +--^�---------------� -- 1 ----------- -- qa +� ! y w i (� 1IA a ur L — — — — — — — — — — — — L r_____I------- ----------- ! QUO _j eaaN s JAoRrouGSIOE ROAD i ais 1 N11 1 NH I �� i 1 I ! 7 dAIA*dAjw4e.A* z i Cary Teague From. Patrick Judge cjudge5920@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 201217.;37 AM Ta: floyd.grabiel@tsicom; Cary Teague; kevin@stauntonlaw.com Cc: jhovland@krausehhovland.com Subject; Regarding Edina Planning Commission and the 7-8 lot "Acres Dubois" Subdivision Dear Mayor Hovland and concerned parties, As a resident of Edina -Morningside, I am emailing the following to express my thoughts on the proposed 7-8 lot "Acres Dubois" Subdivision. Let me thank you in advance for considering my thoughts as you navigate the governance of this issue. I do appreciate the opportunity to provide insight on the matter in question as it directly impacts my neighborhooxl. My wife and I moved into Morningside a year and half ago with our two boys. Edina has a great quality of life and education to offer. Fortunately, here in the Twin Cities, there arc many options for a great quality of life and education. So why choose Morningside? We chose Morningside for the character of the neighborhood. We are concerned the proposed sub -division will detract from that character. Having said that, it is important to understand, we are of the strangest opinion that new construction has a place in our neighborhood.. We would never want to create a deterrent for some other couple's chance to move in to such a fine neighborhood. Our concern is centered on two things: 1) The laws or lack thereof regarding setbacks, heights, grandfathered in structures that can be taken advantage of by builders to expand the footprint of homes on narrow tots, and character preservation, and 2) The enforcement or lack there of regarding those laws. To be clear, we do not want to prevent or deter new horns construction. Rather, we want to welcome a dialogue with the building community. We feel strongly this dialogue can only be effective if the Planning Coammission. enacts and enforces a process that allows for the Builder's adherence to the concerns of the existing neighborhood.. Altemat vely, the City might consider turning the property in question in to a park, library or botanical garden of sorts, maybe even a community co-op farm. Perhaps the neighborhood with the city's help can issue a municipal bond to buy the property from the owner. Edina could get great publicity for this. There is no shortage of creativity regarding what can be done with this property, and l am somewhat disappointed there is no energy coming from our elected officials to promote an alternative solution that can be a win" win for everyone. Respectfully submitted, Patrick Judge 4307 Eton Place Edina, MN 55424 Chris McClain 4443 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 (952) 929-8582 December 5, 2012 Ms. !Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Mid 55424 lowmnl .. .. Dear Ms. Teague: I am writing to express concern regarding the planned development of the Sidell family property on Morningside Rd. I believe that the drawbacks of the current development plan outweigh the benefits and request that the city of Edina take special note of the negative impact of the Sidell development on safety and congestion In the Momingside neighborhood. Morningside is a wonderful, tight knit neighborhood that suffers from one major drawback. Its rads are used as traffic cut-throughs between Linden Hills/take Harriet and Highway 100/St. Louis Park. During rush hour In particular, cars race through the neighborhood, generating congestion, noise pollution, and, most importantly, safety concerns. i live on Sunnyside Rd., where we have already had two near misses (one with our dog and one with our five year old). The proposed development of the Sidell property adds to this problem In two ways: 1) The addition of new lots will add, In all likelihood, 12+ new cars to the neighborhood as well as new traffic from visitors, delivery vehicles, construction crews, etc. 2) Traffic from the newly developed homes will flow onto Morningside Rd. at the crest of a hill, where it will by nature be difficult to see oncoming traffic. I understand from conversations with residents who have lived in Edina longer than I have that the codes and regulations that govern development in the city may favor the developer. However, I cannot believe that those codes and regulations call for assessment of development plans solely through the lens of the developer, So, l ask that the city of Edina consider the Impact of the proposed Sidell development on the well-being of all the residents of the Morningside neighborhood and not just the well-beingof the Sidell family. Morningside I$ already plagued by traffic hazards,, and any evaluation of the Sidell develop►rnt plans must take this serious safety concern Into account. Thank you for your time and attention. Best regards, f ns cclain December 5, 20112 Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W 56* St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr, Teague; As adjoining property owners, we are writing to express our support for the proposed Acres DuSols subdivision. Although change is often difficult and our properties will be impacted by the proposed subdivision, we feel the proposed pian is the best option for the entire community for the following reasons: 1. The proposed cul-de-sac street has a much smaller environmental impact than a through street connecting Morningside Road to Littel Street. a. A through street would create approximately twice the impervious area as the proposed cul-de-sac, thus Increasing the amount of stormwater runoff Into the Minnehaha Creek watershed area. b. A through street would require many more trees to be removed, especially on the steep slope area on the north side of the property, c. A through street would require a much greater amount of land disturbance (cut and fill), especially in the low area where it would connect to tittel Street. targe retaining wags and/or steep slope embankments would be required to construct a road in this area. 2. The proposed location of the cul-de-sac cn the east side of the property is the best location for access to the proposed subdivision. a. The proposed location places the road at the crest of the hill, providing the best and safest sight distance lines for public safety of vehicles and pedestrians, b. The proposed cul-de-sac location is equal distance between the existing Morningside Road Intersections %vlth Lynn Avenue and Ottawa Avenue South. c. The proposed location places the road on high fiat ground which reduces the amount of grading and ground disturbance required to construct the road and associate infrastructure. Mr. Cary Teague December 5, 2012 Page 2 d. The east side cut -de -sac option allows the developer to preserve the substantial mature tree growth located along the west and north sides of the property, where the terrain is much steeper. e. The proposed plan allows the homes to have walk -out basements. 3. A west side cul-de-sac option is not In the best Interest of the entire community. a. A west side cul-de-sac location would not line up with the existing Oakdale Avenue and Morningside Road intersection. This would create a non- conforming Intersection with poor sight distance lines that would be worse for the public safety of cars and pedestrians. h. The topography on the west side of the property contains steep slopes that would require extensive tree removal, grading and potentially significant retaining walls in order to construct the road and associated infrastructure. c. Lots created by a west side cul-de-sac would be less desirable tuck -under lots compared with walk -out basements. We feel the reasons listed above demonstrate a significant weight of evidence that the proposed subdivision plan with a cul-de-sac on the east side of the property is a much better option for the entire community than either a through -street or west side cul-de-sac layout. We also would like to express our thanks to the Sidel€ family and Mr. Peter Knaeble, P.E., for their extraordinary efforts to communicate with all the neighbors affected by the proposed project. Thank you for your attention to our comments. Sincerely, Michael and Katrina McDonald 4257 Ottawa Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55416 Jena Bjorgen and lack Szczepek 4281 Ottawa Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55416 Jeff Ziegler and Linda Ingle 4273 Ottawa Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55416 Mr. Cary Teague December 5, 2012 Page 3 ,Aaron and Judi Nathenson 4253 Ottawa Ave S, St Louis Park, PAN 55416 Bonnie Berg and Rick Collins 4265 Ottawa Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55416 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague December 18, 2012 VLA Director of Planning File # 2012018.012a INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Matt & Mike Knodt are proposing to split their existing lot into two lots to create a lot line separation of a double -dwelling at 3928 4e Street West. (See property location on pages Al A6.) The double dwelling on this property is currently under construction, and has been built with a fire rated wall separating the two units. This would provide protection for each unit, should there be a fire on the other side. (See plans and bulding under construction on pages A7—A11.) Within the block of 491x' Street West, there are a mixture of duplexes and single- family homes, zoned both R-1, Single -Family Residential and R-2, Double - Dwelling Unit. (See pages A3—A5.) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses North: Wetland area; zoned and guided for single-family homes. South: Double -dwellings; zoned and guided for double -dwellings. East: Single-family dwellings; zoned and guided for single-family homes. West: Double -dwellings; zoned and guided for double -dwellings. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a duplex currently under construction. (See page A9.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Primary Issue Low-density attached residential R-2, Double -dwelling unit residential • is the proposed lot division reasonable? Yes. Staff believes the request is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The units are separated by a fire -wall; and have been verified by the City's building official. 2. Each unit has separate utility hook-ups. 3. A similar lot division was approved by the City on this block, to the west at 4001 and 4003 49th Street West. 4. There would be no change to the footprint or mass of the duplex currently under construction. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the city council approve the lot division as requested. Deadline for a city decision: February 15, 2013 2 IV M iS 4i61r OE-OME 710,00 PIKOZOST Mid �fptfY, wtc ►Nemu tut an a/f_._ iWt� fwR [/ittlt►Ix tart /ilii WwMttfl isi tll is t f Jtu i , I µ fi V/i nwt tNf 1►ti OfYl Ylf fYlf loN wl•ttltAtttli trll C►11 rr r t tw f IrulJ NJ it K wit ,MeRlt lttf •tJf J'tl@ ,} Ygot Kit wif Mf Iii sRN K tt w 1 !I l A wh tt slit l K Yt! tfNN)f Ki► rt/fttlf Ntf t�: i Kit tilt ttAt out got G N! 5, IN ilf l t J J lit NJ titfit iJKhttNKifli iIN,N, alit ,fir AiIN ilii t@1 til ti i /t l 14 Sol s< wx tt itl,ms fat Wf out flof ltlf l Itt ifJ Yat tIK iaf ►Mt AKt NYf-9atf •1f l RJJ ,m /eN Yat tat tai tat 1>Ot tNi•1 QJK allows, ll t@@f t�'n om Mw Rtw Nw an fill Mot a !@@ M K Wt "opt" smontrit/t, cmtm so, pit �t! tfaf is" tr I tffl� f►ftto /.at rldlrftlt,t,f fill __ lief AM it" �NwIda ► we► t tom► l fNwitw Pat Am wtttJarm mor • NN r tow Iles Nw tog SNt WN sm sett 1110 •t R iiN Mat OwItOf Ytet trot tin ftlR lM //M iIO l• 1 Uw t Iwt Nei tON I@►► top YAti ama" f f not "''"Paw tare gwtm a IJP Veit put t OK fA/R Ni t@K m N t� t) Drag m► 040 tm JIMY stn f "&fel up wff M t N eR. N k ► p�N no Mp uft i0M--1 Ni►Kf► ttl►Q,►ttM ttlrttl►tM ►J, ►NJU M►fttulP MY► •9N Joe Cost l/e►fN► 0.11.0 •J tet6 ►Nf fid[ N i Qgft ttfr Nutae► rNrppp re it ,rq an= t firs fat No mot too), ►ptr ►Ns .1 law 1 fttr Wt 0000 ND MUffN Np,fl lf. ilfY it rwr00lost no tttf Y Otlf •tw ftdt R. t to M 1 CtYC nottM 9i'tlRw Qµ'N teat It t N N@ @@iYret Off* go RM KN It KIt a ,�yy►►if CAN m6114,91 e Lltryfrttl►► N tlRNFi1 trfl '1►"an "� tN on /wt no rwY frR► Y7p fl flan oat► N tool J @11► tf► IM f7N•� ,►Nofat►- 10r► AND AM, SWe p ltl@ tilt ttlY Mi tood iJt Ka K #4 r t @ no t tµ ►hY 0#043001110 Nl►tk► Gko, lip 1 Oltr-►fit I a1QlttrfJJ►Mugrer lfJfµl► plop@!► A[l►Jf,J► RJJ tt t r"'t lite olp ettY 7JJ► flit Y ►-fIY 14'�.'.lii ilii@ Nlr tttetutllile atrr alt @AfNfti Ntr K►[µw� wit Igf► wr.ltt►ift► "to tr t ► ! f @ tit. ► lip fktfJ Vdtilit" glop lisp fli►at►a', +ff•i i iter rttrwae@nt► aarfaw ,u►t@J► ttttl•J tilt. rrt eu —JIFF- J wwl aN if •ftt•ll •�1•'f ❑ tar "Or �` tfJ► Nt► t a ► if pit tot► ttri! /fn afJt i/Jt 1�l1 lair !Qr► e/I► Nl R ap Wtsn „' KNEW ttrm► giap Lf► � n$4 lilt t to tqYt{{u hit list rrrt aft JtK►go of glWlt4n 111 aN►wr t»Mtw ttu !' gtvrrm pMAm It, a clrr Mt► it •1�1�Ni7••M ►JttYwrfiNilfY�Afft Y afY ._ ewt t N•kArlMkfnWMNtN tilt ffL tin "0 Oft fill ar►tr /ttt/YYtI ttf► tit � tvar� tYOJ Ilk f lopl�flM 11 tYGer%Yrtl"llrP apps fWL In of Nq*1 $info* tltt NtItK► " ►. ! @lot R! ♦NMwll moilm Jlf "Hwo to rot► Iter _mw la@t /pi► Nf► ► Itt► At, iM ,!`0 N t i 1► ► "Wei crtl oks" €��1 � 2tN � i►N►ttf► ttf JtlrNtt KiHa►t� 1110► � tJt�r 'J 'c 3llet► JR t " t lMt Ntt N►f„t►tef►ftf►ttp #gat left if eiR► liq ! 1Att eulpa jo All:) _ City of Edina #Mrm r O Noss 4001 aNr Li0N3 Haub ilYRhar Utm ,a/1R wrr Nit 9"04 no" ev ow. X71 4013 ;,»�;' Cfa as RAM fain air afla SOA} [Mu © Ta11H 402v �p3.... arr3 au as» an 40n parr # aue pt }W r3}f MP 4079,... fW nrrrsrw Ir+sr #00 aa3r afar No 347} aur mr x 1!R} MAr ra ara swa 7}N filo 7993 3lsp 7171 x nursrw H » N nr0 ra 4 M}U+I�IsMsY9e4Yy�'��CI lOJfiFli"MII PID:1802824140041 3928-30 49th St W „ Edina, CNN 55424 }.OIL - A { w `wry ryyy, it+r.e x CI Mme' / i D�y��izo X4::1 1.,.i.n'r s OD •CA ` r.'w. WAj &+1,,, a�°Z ¢J.' a�.a j7 .ru y-• ``, r�; tp n 4� City of { rrt o �JFt a i.1 t_ Al TIT'`�. J,r yT]t I'A Li �. -.'.f4 .' Tri rIM■7 tY � MM it '� iT%7 r -r. f.;Ll7 ( FSI m17 7 Ii MMM MMMMr MM/T^fir lir MrrirrrMr L' w�',r >:T7 rMrrr rrrrr■■ ■rrrrrrrr■r- ■ .. i MrMM MMr Mlfrr ■uuorrrr■ ': e .. �rswwirllrarr ............ pp q \�� �i�4.�tl1���lfF�rr ! a I 4•` m �'�tiMA t WYi[1'::/i til'! !1■� ■MMIrr MI■r■ frrc rr�rY+r■ -- t ` ;1. r, Manassas ■■annual ■M■Mr■H■ r�y� 1f M!*; r� f�11i pa711�t� i$/ir,��7.■ �'.i■1Ji177::i c el ■/iN iMll -'1' ■r rMrr MN.S.S. M■■■Omni ■r■■rr..�... I c...;rrr� �• '�i T _ L Z• MWN Im�,i lam. NIN is woo ti �1y� `1�' y{ ■ =Rown, !l � F iKlii• :. ■rrr■rP --- ` rrrur w3� L:lil rLlr`. FIE t JTid ,. _�___ t _ 1 i� k 1802824140041 • Edina, MN 55424 no" i yr ------------------- K" Certificate of Survey ;repand rte• Matt Knodt ww cwmer tat r. oro,* r, F11= 6WAW AM7#aW a Proposed Tract A (6.2.60 sa Ft).l Existing E 101.4'0 �1 Proposed 1 Tract B r Foundf{tiotr a .... rua 0; J, 1 lick 'l It �66,i SNA-AD-pf il. o q N 85173'43" E 101.50 1, tkaak 1. AWMM 49th Street W Ewstlny: DesrdDelm IAU= Lot t. Block 1. MOCH SHARD ADDJlN06Y NenrWin County, • Fa�.,ora+MaRw w? 140nnevoto. 0 set mnn 00?wnent (is 147Qa) anosad Tract A: That Fart of Lot 1, Block 1, ENOCM SWARD Af}M70M, ltennepO county. Minnesota, lyfng westerly of a Me drown from o point on The north line of said Lot 1, distant 50.76 feet easterly from the pips t6 c►M-ahta-oxt northwest came thereof, to a point an the south Yne of sola Lot 1, distant 51.35 feet easterly from the so vthwest corner r rX Aeo w" 3926 49th M. W .hereof and sold line there termkrotinq. Subject to any and oil £dna. raw easements of record °�� ,� �'latd Area - Q23 does (1;460 aq It)Pronosea trod d C. That Fort of lot 1. Block 1, £NOCH SWARD ADD07OA; Nennepin County. Minnesota, !*q easterlyy of a line drown from o pout 001 north tine of sold Lot 1, distant 50.76 toot easterry from t15d SC>IX .1orthwest comer thereof, to a point an the south Ala of said 40 Lot 1, crstani 5;.35 'facf erastedy from the southwest caner I q rP '' thereof, and said tine there fermktating. S.lbject to any and all easements of ra,-oed, h 7 Paah = 24 tIEL seark+ss amed an ca:limed aoftrm, (��) .Job 1+t477,br: 703 S4�f t�/LJV t herY�by E�erti(y friGf !hJ! t+ev'tFJdc�te or autveyy wGtx PrePsr� by me a Jnder m diect +u�xlarr and tfiw1r11'e94C 75/;30 Heat 1 ar a JRaOr3rt Laid SS,rwyw urtdar the LA D SERVICES 12Mo` the • s+ 1/lmn aerrta. SLYwy Dote: 7-0-12 INCAV .� Oirrmw� by AUB, sehatay Revsrauc s—ra—J$ 763-972-322f8"7 ca ,aa t3 � eta W. f.�pl� �,�#t�rr«� tf�. Js�oc IJ-va-rs (arae. rrMte A &e; a,v.rcScatcQoFytaridcnnt t74.+una UN 55M Certificate of Survey Prepared for. Mott Knodt --NW corner Lot 1, Mock 1, ENOW SWARD ADD17ION N 89*3726" 50.76 Proposed Tract A (6,280 Sq Ft)' IIA Existing C.N taa M 50.64 til Proposed Tract B 1 (6,186 Sq Ft) rn o. 7/- Foundg'tjion Lot 7, Block 1 11 S)MAR-0 ADDdr01V N 8973*43" E 101.50 I t --SW comer Lot 1, Stock 1. eNOCH SWARD ADDIMN 49th Street W 29am/aYmn: 9ck 1, ENOCH SWARD ADD1770AI, Hennepin County, 2. Al —Tra "t. Of Lot 1, Block 1, ENOCH SWARD ADD1770M. 14Pnn,*rvn "=a 0 found iron monument 0 SO 1r0n MOWMCnt (LS 1470v" � r --- ��'�, ' , �. � a d . �► � e w,� #.ry � ..; � ;.�,' � 'kms' ( t� yf'+� ' � \. A a f .. :.,� �. ' 1+ _.. , , \.. MhM'✓ �F �s 1 � °mnr � �' � � � n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker December 12, 2012 8-12-12 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description: A 25.85 foot front yard setback variance request to tear down an existing home and rebuild a new home In it's place at the same nonconforming 51.9 front yard setback from Crescent Terrace as the existing home located at 5801 Crescent Terrace for applicant Nicole Sunberg. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property Is located south of Crescent Terrace consisting of a one story rambler with an attached 2 car garage that was built in 1953. The applicant is planning to tear -down the existing home and replace it with a two story Mediterranean style home with an attached 4 car garage. The new home will conform to all of the ordinance requirements with the exception of the required front yard setback from Crescent Terrace. The ordinanoe requires that any new home or addition to an existing home maintain the average front yard setback of the adjacent homes on either side. The home adjacent to the west located at 33 Crescent Terrace is 82.3 feet from their front lot line. The adjacent home to the south located at 4904 Rolling Green Parkway provides a front yard setback of 73.2 feet. The required average front yard setback of the adjacent two homes establishing the front yard setback for the proposed home is 77.75 feet. The existing home is nonconforming and is located 51.9 from Crescent Terrace right-of-way. The new home is proposed to match the nonconforming 51.9 foot front yard setback of the existing home. See attachments: A.! —A. 13, site location, aerial photos, site plans, survey, building elevations and photos. The lot Is large, triangular in shape with much of the lot area part of the front yard. The purpose of the average front yard setback requirement is to maintain adequate spacing from the street and maintain continuity along a developed street scape. This rule is most important when the lots are narrow and set in a traditional lot and block pattern. The Rolling Green neighborhood is made up of angled streets and large estate lots and is not at all like a traditional street with rectangular lots within rectangular blocks. The character of the neighborhood includes large homes that are proportionate to the ample lot areas which are oriented towards views, topography and street presence. The proposed home has been designed to conform with all of the other zoning requirements including height setback and coverage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -dwelling homes. Easterly: Single -dwelling homes Southerly: Single -dwelling homes Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 42,083 square feet in area. The existing home is a one story rambler and was built in 1953. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to rebuild on the property with a two story single dwelling unit with an attached garage. See new home plans attachments: A.7 — A.B. Compliance Table 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Side- Rear- Average adjacent homes: 10 feet + height 25 feet *51.9 feet 12.3 feet/25 feet 40 feet Building Height 2'/ stories/40 feet 2 stories/40 feet, Lot coverage 25% 18.2% 2 * Variance Required Primary Issues is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from Crescent Terrace. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the nearly one acre lot. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. The most impacted neighbor to the west is approximately 66 feet from the side wall of the proposed home. The home to the south is approximately 75 feet from the proposed home. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the triangular shaped lot and allow for a new home to be built at the same distance from Crescent Terrace as the existing home. 4. The new home simply matches an existing nonconforming 51.9 foot front yard setback that has been In place since 1953. The required average front yard setback reduces the buildable area of the lot by 6,958 square feet. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfies! affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. 3 Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The new home will match the existing nonconforming setback of the existing home on the property which has been located on the property since 1953, pre -dating the new home to the south that was located farther back from Roiling Green at 73.2 feet from the front lot line. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are created by the required front yard setback that is dictated by adjacent properties which are located farther back on their respective lots, one of which was built after the subject home.. The lots are large, with generous spacing between structures. The purpose behind the ordinance is to maintain an established front yard sight line and street scape, The ordinance is meant to prevent a continual erosion of the established front yard setback back pattern in an existing neighborhood by holding all new construction to the existing neighborhood standard and to avoid new structure build -out beyond existing conditions. Duplicating the front yard setback of the existing, home will not compromise the intent of the ordinance. The new home will maintain the existing pattern of setback on the block and will be no closer to the street. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing lot is subjected to an average front yard setback that is deeper than the location of the existing home. The required setback reduces the buildable area dramatically, pushes a new home farther back on the lot and impacts the ability to provide a reasonable rear yard on such a large lot. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will be consistent with the location of the existing home and will not change the streetscape along Crescent Terrace. The character of the neighborhood consists of estate lots with homes located on properties based on topography, views and lot shape, unlike the traditional lot and block situation where homes are generally lined up with one another, The applicant is asking to preserve a setback pattern along 4 the block that has included the nonconforming setback of the subject property. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variances. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as the proposed home will uphold the established front setback pattern already existing on the block. b. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance include the triangular shape of the lot and resulting amount of front yard that must be maintained given the required setback and the imposition of a deeper front yard setback given that the lot has always had a home located closer to the street than neighboring properties. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance in terms of house location, mass and over-all height with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below. Survey date stamped: November 29, 2012 Building plans/ elevations date stamped: November 28, 2012. Deadline for a City decision: January 27, 2012 VARIANCE APPLICATION *1' '� CASE NUMBER DATE' FEE PA1D,+''� City of Edina Planning Department * www.citvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (962) 826- 0389 ...................---------__........ FEE: RES - $360.44 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: 1J is o L i= (Signature required on hack page) ADDRESS: y$21 Tou;wrlErS P-0", Sole- 5—r ftjd PHONE: 612-- -7-7p., 347'7 EMAIL:i r coni~ M+Aa-t� $31. colt PROPERTY OWNER: (tlttaaL F$ots�t,t�K.� us a+M�ik I�F'P�s�'�.c�rh-7'rY€'} No Hera J V S ,%W y NAME: (Signature required on back page) pa is *A b`I r q 7 t 16T. PAU1. j K" y ClNWL �� N� ADDRESS: � �`� PHONE. tiff- 4W -S536 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): 5ee ,4jtA44ft "You must proMe a fudl legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not aocepl the resolution approving your project if the legal description does rid match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS:_ 06% C PJC S 5&LJ'C"' TKTk*-AVLK PRESENT ZONING: P-' I P.I.D.# EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: SVE— A, -O C—* -p p�lr arm t P7tot`! _ �t t�v� Sir �� Ar hNw r lo" S Taft -L — vh(LoW ' -tv Co r o c-1 w int 0(t 6r"e- f Mi (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) Aa6 FL - s w ArlsJ ARCHITECT: NAME: �Swku wI't -'rtrl PHONE: EMAIL: ,pWO-ellr e- r►w" -°ITw'u" . t-om wooa!$ FB"PJN SURVEYOR: NAME: w- rwoLv w r -m%0 PHONE: -,r Z-- 9�rj 0-';r" EMAIL.* wbta+tid vw►y� Yd .Aar- c� Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: SIZE pr 4 "D M,kM ANL;—;: A-V64v Fs f-- YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the toning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity orzoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 2 APPLICANT'S sTATEmENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, t certify that all fees, charges, utility bilis, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct. Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and i agree to this application. (if a corporation or partnership Is the fee title holder, Attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) to wtk.. r. IflIN'at t�«,z >c ►-1 tJ011 =*, 1 4f Ic c c!4 "ilk( V ifII r4 Signature i- Vtrc Rv—..Ideld Date Note, Both signatures are required (if the owner Is different than the applicano before we can process the application, otherwise It is considered Incomplete. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ASSISTANT SECRETARY CERTIFICATE I, Melissa S. Larson, an Assistant Secretary of U.& Bank National Association, hereby certify that the fallowing is a true and exact extract from the Bylaws of U.S. Bank National Association; a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States. ARTICLE VI. CONVEYANCES, CONTRACTS, ETC. All transfers and conveyances of rest estate, mortgages, and transfers, endorsements or assignments of stock, bonds, notes, debentures or other negotiable instruments, securities or personal property shall be signed by any elected or appointed officer. All checks, drafts, certificates of deposit and all funds of the Association held in its own or in a fiduciary capacity may be paid out by an order, draft or check bearing the manual or facsimile signature of any elected or appointed officer of the Association. All mortgage satisfactions, releases, all types of loan agreements, all routine transactional documents of the Association, and all other instruments not specifically provided for, whether to be executed in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise, may be signed on behalf of the Association by any elected or appointed officer thereof: The Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the Association or other proper officer may execute and certify that required action or authority has been given or has taken place by resolution of the Board under this Bylaw without the necessity of further action by the Board. I further certify that Carol L. Fedorchak, Vice President, is a duly appointed and qualified officer of the Association authorized to act under Article VI of the Bylaws of the Association and that such authority is in full farce and effect as of the date hereof and has not been modified, amended or revoked. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 28t° day of November, 2012. (No corporate seat) Melissa S. lWon, Assistant Secretary Individual C.V. fllec..,.,,„_C.V, not rep,__,_X,.,_,_ No delinquent taxes Transfer Entered 9/2&201110:09,00 AM iiermeptn County, Minnesota Jill L Alverson . . County Auditor and Treasurer IaIIIIII�II�N�19111nDoc No MIDSOU Certified tiled and/or recorded on 9128M 110:09 Aid offioo of the County Recorder Hennepin County, MinneSota M1011991H. Cunnl0, Counly Recorder J111 L. Atveraon, Count y Atkd'4ar apd Treasurer Deputy 62 , Pkg ID 738896 Doc Narver t t tt Iatm need Doournept~4wrdhtg Fee $$46.00 StaI�14ed Tax (.0033 rate) $1.96 „ Conservation Fas $5.00 Environmental (8DT) Res nse Fund Document Total $62.70 This cover sheet Is now a permanent part of the recorded dooument. OWOLAIM DEED Mtrnresota Unirorm conveyanclm olow Im&1duol*V lndlyldaslW---- _ . -- ... _ . . . _ FornrlQ,3.ti2 O) DEED TAX DUE: S f r 20 FOR VALt1Am.E OMoeRATIaN, Woman 0. Mom a single parson DATE: Saplember20.2011 #POAW)W asreradarwad�drdiarosda�r�rd ('Grantor'), her* oowgi endsl sWi to Vsrafren V. Motes and U.S. sank Netfdnet Aea©clallon ae oe-trta"teee et the warren D. Moan ,auww900Q4*d LAM under AweementdotedSeg!ombor1,20ti (Trentool.fall property In Hennevin Cauay,fdinwots,lepailydmdhedes ; Aft lint part of Lot 26, "Rolling Green, Hennepin County, Minn."'1�yh� Northwesterly of a ria nt Ane comm ming from a vint on the iNaeterly Ibra of said t ot, Qt) feet detanl from the =11 maslerly corner of sold Lot and wdending in a Northeasterly direction to a point on the Northeasterly tine of said Lot, w h1ch point to 48.9 feet measured along said Northesolmly bw from the Southeasterly c ornax of sold Lot 20. V,7 -R S -1 - 00 S The sale price ofother conalderoilon gNen tar ihle property was $500.00 or less. OW h*VffdOrparf94110rErsadredreelprupe &R�ls,'lad(ia MVb tapeklarwilh d h3fa menls end eppurfsner m b*0041WMID, t:1 Tile SeUercerllAes that the Sailor does not trnew of any Mb on Iltp desarlbed real properly. a A well disdosum cat** ownpenies this dmilmot or has fwen eleokorkaly Iled, (If etecbbnlr * flied, Insed,WDC NOW .) a 1 ant feNllor vM Me properly described In thio Inetamord and csriliy that Are slelus sod mart or of wok on the domdbod rest pray* hexa not4hanged Was the last Rrotilar * Aced well �fbarreartliaelQ t3ranVor Wl "VJmren C. Moon Papa 2or 2 MIMOSA Norm comymffl o 94-ts Form 1041 Stoic of MltnotcIA uuniyof Hennepin This Instrum9>4 was ack®Wwladgad 6etoro ms on Se iembar 2D 2011 by Warren D. Moen, o single person. �d nrnat arrdrwcldAirar d rut Gaarad ICXN►r►NIArWWMA CHARLES F KELLY Notary Pilblto-minitesota Tlda {arid Renq Nolm Public tAyCAruumttrida Jan 81, S01b _ ..,. TIN INSTIoIENTWA8DIVWrEOBY: TAXSTAf"NTSFORTHERFAI.P"ERTYDES NUDlitTHIS (iuriwt"W INSTRIkti W8h UWSE$ENTT4. e4orles F: Kelly OWran"r�adr4a�dC+aMraat�areacr �s�fGo KailIyy Law Firm, Ltd. Warren D. Moen 39A Wont 60th Street 680i Cresaant Terrace Sohl G FArsa, MN 615436-1319 Edina, Mirtneaote 66424 I CERTIFICATC OF DSATH STA'T'E FILE NUMBER 2012-M Jk-410674 DECEDENT WARREN DALE MCF.N NAME PRIOR TO FIRST MARRIAGE ALSO KNOWN AS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER► SEDC MALE BORN JUNE 18, 1926 PLACE OF BIRTH MCVILLE " NORTH DAKOTA DATE OF DEATH MARCH 30, 2012 PLACE OF DEATH EDINA HEN.MEPW MINNESOTA (: Nq`NOT RENWFiWED) MARITALSTATUS W©OWED . ..� ,,. SPOUSE t -RESIDENCE EDINA ,AENNr=PIN - MINNESOTA' PARENT GG�IOA H0YI3 PARENT t ALJBO�T Mow , FUNERAL HOME w 1� t,'IIASH®URI;-MC RI:AVY EDINA k Pi!6 DISPOSITION SH CAUSE OF DEATH IMMEDIATE ' • ADVO: CEV; kgN Ce RdINt lAOrUN06WN PRIMARY' � UNDERLYING ter, . _. - �-, .� L f �` , • « , OTHER CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS oj.! MANNER MEDICAL EXAMIN911, OOICAW ovwsKE, M,oD .�y� 6e!CORONER OR PHYSICIAN 8000 A 414 o�.l,�'I''�I VD, GAIVT LOU18 PARK, MINNIESOTA, 56420 � is Ri—c B HAs Nor Now AmENBED • . r , : � a i• e THIS IS ATRUE AND CORRECT KcORD OF DEATH REGISTERED IN THE MINNESOTA OPef& OF THE STATE REGISTRAR. MR&C CoNcats tD 7618630 liq!. pill EIIED; APRfL Q3, 2012 27A-000843827 t. STEVE ELKINS Q�-,o STATE P MI8TRAR 1$61.11^0: APRIL 29,2012 HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVICE CE°NTOR-W THIS CERtIFICATIO" IS VALID ONLY VAIEN REPR06UOED 3N WATEAMARKED SECURITY PAPvR 1112711210:14 PIN Metes and Bounds The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording PID: 29-117-21-1-0029 Municipality: EDINA Addition Mame: ROLLING GREEN Lot: 026 Block:. THAT PART OF LOT 26 LYING NLY OF A LINE RUNNING FROM A PT IN WL'Y LINE OF SAIID LOT DIS 60 FT NLY FROM SW COR THEREOF TO A PT IN ELY LINE OF SAID LOT DIS 46 9/10 FT NLY FROM SE COR THEREOF Print this wlndov] Close this window Page 1 or 2 5801 Crescent Terrace Variance Request Explanation of Request: 5801 Crescent terrace is a functionally challenged 1953 rambler in the heart of the Rolling Green neighborhood (Rolling Green is noted for stately homes on picturesque tots with ample yard space and varying topography). The existing rambler is an anomaly for the neighborhood, which is tilled with classic architectural homes as well as many newly constructed homes, most of which are architecturally designed and substantive in nature. Like some other dated homes without architectural or historical merit In the neighborhood, the existing rambler structure is slated for removal and the property set up for redevelopment of a new single farnily home In character with the other homes In the neighborhood. However, the 58011 Crescent Terrace property has development challenges. Specifically, the property's triangular shape and City of Edina's Building Code front yard setback calculations inhibit the ability to practically develop the property with any meaningful back yard. In an effort to overcome the development challenges with 5801 Crescent Terrace's triangular property shape and adjacent homes front yard setbacks that directly inhibit the developable area of 5601 Crescent Terrace (and therefore its potential for a reasonable back yard), we're requesting a variance to change the required front yard setback from 77.75 feet to 51.9 feet, which is 5801 Crescent Terrace's existing front yard setback. 5801 Crescent Terrace has a unique set of property characteristics that make the property unduly difficult to re -develop without a variance and maintain a reasonable back yard. Given the triangular shape of the lot, the City of Edina Building Code provides the following setbacks for development on the property: 10' for living space (5' for garage space). Frit yard ofroD gertV: Average of the two adjacent homes front yard setbacks. Given the position of the two adjacent homes, this equates to a front yard setback of 77.75 for 5801 Crescent Terrace, or more than 25' further back from the property Una than the existing ramblers front yard setback. fg8r yard gf_propeM given the triangle shape of the lot and the backyard being the interior portion of the triangle, the rear yard setback is positioned at the 30' line. See Diagram 1 Indicating the setbacks required by the City of Edina code for development on the property and the resulting developable footprint of the property. Please note the existing rambler house footprint on the site and how it relates to the buildable area on the property. Also note that In placing a new house in the developable area would result in virtually no back yard since the new house would -be highly concentrated Into the interior rear corner of the property. From a slumbers parspocOve, without variance for a front yard setback to mimic the existing rambler front yard setback, the overall developable area of the property Is 12,6001 square foot or 30% of the total area of the property. By comparison, the three directly contiguous properties average 483E of their totsi area developable. Consequently, tyre triangular shape of the tot and the front yard setback calculation required by Code result In no reasonable back yard for the property. Seethe data below Indicating the development percentage of lots of adjacenthornes and how 3801 Crescent Terrace compares. Developable Area of Contiguous Properties: Subject Property: 5801 Crescent Terrace 42,093 Square Foot Property Buildable Area: 12,601 Square Feet Buildable Area as a Percentage of Lot Square Footage: 30% Buildable Area as a Percentage of Lot Square Footage With Front Yard Setback Variance, 46% 4804 Rolling Green Parkway (Property to the South): 37,216 Square Foot Property Buildable Area: 20,517 Square Feet Buildable Area as a Percentage of Lot Square Footage: 556A 33 Crescent Terrace (Property to the West): 56,483 Square Foot Property Buildable Area: 21,884 Square Feet Buildable Area as a Percentage of Lot Square Footage: 39% 4909 Bywood (Property to the Southwest): 61,023 Square Foot Property Buildable Area: 31,467 Square Feet Buildable area as a Percentage of Lot Square Footage. 52% Two other important items to note as part of these calculations:. 1. in the case of the comparable properties (but not with $801 Crescent Terrace), due to their rectangular shape, the zoning code provides a 25' rear yard setback along the back property line. In order to calculate the "developable area" of these sites, the 26 rear yard area (for the width of the lot) is removed from the developable area of each of the sites, which In turn towers the overall percentage of developable area on each site. Since 5841 Crescent Terrace Is a triangle and the setback from the back property line is calculated differently (again See Diagram 1), there is very little area for the rear yard subtracted from developable area of the property, making 15891's percentage of developable area unequitobty higher due to the shape. Even with this disadvantage not showing up in the calculations above, its developable area (and therefore back yard potential) is significantly below the contiguous properties. 2. When looking at all three of the comparables distance from the back of the house to their respective rear property lines, the shortest distance is 52.1'. In other worsts, the tightest point of the back yards to the rear property line Is over 50'. Without a variance, the 5801 Crescent Terrace would not come close to having a yard with a 50' distance to the property line. While developing 5801 Crescent Terrace exhibits practical difficulties In complying with the zoning ordinance as noted above, we also believe it doesn't promote the best integration onto the site or in relation to the other properties. By building a new home on the interior rear portion of the lot that is developable without a variance, a new structure would be closer to the adjacent properties and provide less privacy at the property line for adjacent neighbors and the new house, In looking at the character of the neighborhood, where large lots offer spacious, rolling buffers between properties and overall rear yard space for privacy, by developing a new structure under the front yard setback code, It would be out of character with the neighborhood. Additionally, the spirit of the ordinance and neighborhood pattern isn't like some of the other areas of Edina where a "lot 1, block 1" legal description and consistency In how each house lines up with the adjacent home Is Important. Rather, the character of the neighborhood and development pattern Is more oriented toward views, topography, yard space, and an estate feel. As noted in the request above, In an effort to overcome the practical difficulty posed by the triangular lot shape and adjacent home front yard setbacks that directly influence the developable area of 5601 Crescent Terrace (and resulting lack of back yard space), we're requesting the front yard setback of the new house be consistent with the front yard setback of the existing 1953 rambler home at 5801 Crescent Terrace, which Is 51.9 feet. 8y doing this, the developable area of the site changes from 30°/13 to 46%, which is more in line with the contiguous homes. In turn, this more appropriately allows the site to be developed for privacy for the neighbors by providing a greater amount of buffer at the property line in the interior of the rear yard of the property. And the applicant can have a reasonable space for a back yard. See Dlegmm 2 showing the developable footprint associated With moving the front yard setback to 51.9' feet, with the existing rambler house footprint still outlined on the diagram. As part of the overall variance request, we've been working diligently with Andrea Swan of Swan Architecture and Travis Van Liere, a landscape architect, to come up with an initial architectural concept of a home for the property along with how it would potentially be sited with the 51.9 ft. front yard setback associated with the variance. Please note that the drawings to date are conceptual and will likely change to some degree but the overall intent of mass, scale, height, and location of the house on the site is represented. See the following visual exhlbits to the variance request. House Elevations, She Plan and Survey, Stylistically, the applicant would like to build an architecturally designed Mediterranean style home with an ornate landscaped yard and pool. While still conceptual In nature, by siting the house as shown, the designers are working to capture the full essence of the property: providing detailed architecture on each face of the home as you transition all the way around the curved front yard of the property (over 400' of street frontage) while scaling the garage down on West side (for subtle transition from the neighbor to the West). Architecturally, the style of the home, mass, height, and scale are consistent with other homes In the neighborhood and would continue to build on the timeless legacy of the neighborhood. Also note that with the house placement, there is no detriment to the neighboring properties. Rather, we would work with the neighboring properties to preserve privacy through the landscaping while providing beautiful street presence with the new home. LOGISMap Output Page Wage I of 1 4x00 6 4 3 2 21 4x01 4700 4704 24 7 4i0tS s 4711 ° "� 4104 Orta � �q: 13 4700 a 4124 1f 4711 � 4725 4719 4191 4800 24,E 9 F44 4000 1101) 24 4809 4801 � g 7 LI 13 4711 4808 4arr f9 to 4010 4611 4818 1 Sof 11 4017 4 440' f8 iii to f9 2f 4612 *+S 11 2r is 31 40044901 k:4 fS 20 a} 4008 X09 4104 4090 10 SDrO 24 5914 4912 4011 4912 sum" 9904<' 4908 4913 4918 4011 !7 SSS g2a SA20 Mf7��lCNEfK8iY1i 580 5070 ae`e 3640 SdO� 6501 1itl00 x001 EA13 E812 6E01 E718 E002 E041 8016 Edit aw 5020 Solt 5i94�- Lo�� �o�v A / http:f!gis.Iogis.org li OGIS_ArelMS/ims?Service ame= eci I,OGISMap_PVSpE&Cl ent,V... 17J6/2012 LOGISMap Output Page /'y Page 1 of 1 http-Ilgis.logis.org/LOGIS ArclMSlims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientV... 1216/2012 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 Parcel 5901 Crescent Ter Address: Edina, MN 55436 Prop" Residential Type: Home- Honlesteac stead. Tax $15.509.14 Total: (Payable* 2012) Sale Price: sale Date: Parcel 0.91 acres Sale Area: 39,471 aq R Code: This mar is a completion of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or Implied, Including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the Information shown. COPYRIGHT* HENNEPIN COUNTY 7012 A ThAl Groortt 3 http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.tis/Propertyw/print/defauilt.aspx?C=470717.5226682499,4973548... 1128, 012 •4�..s��— _mss .�. � ---. I�4 SITE PLAN - EXISTING HOUSE [l Nostro Sogno SW.ANAkIC . L E. C 'J 1:30 SCALE 5801 Crescent Terrace Dare: He■.ober 2e. 2012 DIAGRAM I 16- f D i 11 ni. D { D a `teaVIVOIWO rAMWAI vMORT r *.f A qq f� a `� � ?`\2i2<\�a�� . � / �tv\/y g6� 2, ... �`ƒ/ �\\\ o e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Maker December 13, 2012 0-12-13 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 5 foot side street setback variance from the north property line to extend the existing garage front 4 feet - 2 inches closer to west 52nd Street for property located at 5201 Wooddale Ave. So. for Doug and Pat Vayda, IN FORMATIONIBACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot located south of west 52n4 Street and east of Wooddale Ave. and is owned by Doug and Pat Vayda. It consists of a one and one hag story home built in 1935 with an attached garage that loads from west 52"d Street. The home was built in the north east corner of the site with the garage and portions of the home within the 25 foot rear yard setback and the garage within the 20 foot setback required from the side street. (See attachments A.1 — A.15, site location, ariel photos, site plans, survey, and building elevations). The property was recently for sale with buyers interested in the potential to develop the property, (consisting of two 60 foot wide lots), with two new homes or one large home given the ample lot area. The Vaydas purchased the property intending to preserve the existing home and to add on in order to update spaces to modern standards and expectations. The home was built in 1935 and is nearly original in it's construction. The owners will be adding onto the south side of the home to include a new family room, master bedroom and bath on the main level and a guest bedroom on the second floor. All portions of the south expansion to the home will conform to the setback, height and coverage requirements. The addition proposed to the north side of the home includes a 4 foot extension to the front of the garage to provide enough garage depth to park two cars and to allow for a service door. The addition to the garage will also make it possible to raise the head height to allow for a new standard garage door. The existing garage can only permit a 6' -- 3" garage door height, which is too low for many vehicles on the market today. While the garage may look like a two car garage, the interior space measures 16'-10" x 17' —11 " and is not considered large enough to be a two car garage. The existing garage is located a little over 19 feet from the side street lot line and 6 inches from the rear lot line. No variance is required from the rear lot line because they will maintain the existing nonconforming rear setback and will not add more than 200 square feet into the setback area as allowed by the nonconforming addition section of the city code. The ordinance requires a minimum 20 foot setback for a garage opening facing the street, so the existing garage is currently nonconforming at a little over 19 feet from the lot Iine.The owners would like to decrease the setback from the north lot line to be approximately 15 feet from the north lot line. The adjacent home to the east has their garage front setback approximately 6'-- 8'from their the north lot line, or roughly 11-13 feet closer to the street than the subject's existing garage or 9 feet closer to the north lot line than the proposed garage extension. It should be noted that given the boulevard area, the new garage front will still be approximetiy 26'— 9" from the street edge of 52nd Street... SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -dwelling homes. Easterly: Single -dwelling homes. Southerly: Single -dwelling homes. Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property consists of two 60 foot wide platted lots and is 16,080 square feet In area. The existing home was built in 1935, pre -dates setback requirements and is closer to the north and east lot line than currently allowed. Planning Guide Flan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -dwelling detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to extend the garage by an additional 4 feet 2 inches. Finish materials will match the existing materials on the home, 0 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed additions are permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and will comply with all requirements with the exception of north (street), setback. Setbacks will not affect existing street sight tines and will allow for the garage to accommodate storage of two cars as required by ordinance for new construction. 2. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The addition to the garage will be less than 160 square feet, but will allow for the storage of two cars and installation of a standard height garage door. 3. The modest improvements will provide additional garage space and functionality without drastically changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced garage and conforming addition to the south side of the home. The property had been viewed as a teardown with the possibility of one or perhaps two new homes on the lots. The owners had considered a driveway from Wooddale accessing the lot for a new garage on the south side of the property; however, they felt it would have had a drastic Impact on the neighborhood, the Wooddale Ave. street scape and the neighboring property to the south. The owners wanted the home to look nearly the same as existing with improvements seamiessly blending with the existing home. 3 City Standard Proposed Front - 57.8 feet 61.3 Side- 10+ height, (living) 23 feet Rear- 25 feet 5 inches Side Street 20 feet (nonconforming) *15 feet Building Height 11/2 stories 1 1/2 stories, 35 feet to ridge 22 feet to the ridge Lot covers a 259 20% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed additions are permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and will comply with all requirements with the exception of north (street), setback. Setbacks will not affect existing street sight tines and will allow for the garage to accommodate storage of two cars as required by ordinance for new construction. 2. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The addition to the garage will be less than 160 square feet, but will allow for the storage of two cars and installation of a standard height garage door. 3. The modest improvements will provide additional garage space and functionality without drastically changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced garage and conforming addition to the south side of the home. The property had been viewed as a teardown with the possibility of one or perhaps two new homes on the lots. The owners had considered a driveway from Wooddale accessing the lot for a new garage on the south side of the property; however, they felt it would have had a drastic Impact on the neighborhood, the Wooddale Ave. street scape and the neighboring property to the south. The owners wanted the home to look nearly the same as existing with improvements seamiessly blending with the existing home. 3 • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the follovAng conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the lance cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable, "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The setback of the existing garage will be reduced by approximately 4 feet with sight lines along the street remaining virtually the same. Practical difficulties present on the property include the existing nonconforming street setback and rear yard setback and limited design opportunity given the location of the existing home and garage in the far north east comer of the lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are the nonconforming statue of the home and garage given Its location which limits design opportunities. The home to the east has their garage much closer to 52nd Street than the proposed garage location. 3) Will the variance after the essential character of the neighborhood? 4 No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setback along west 52nd Street will be reduced; however, will not encroach as much as the neighboring garage to the east encroaches. The variance will allow the home to be modernized without changing the look or character of the 1535 house. The home was considered by many as a teardown when it had recently been listed for sale. The new owners wanted to preserve the home, although would like to make some minor modifications to the garage in order to accommodate two cars and allow for a standard garage door. Complying with city code forces conforming solutions that would perhaps be more out of character to the existing neighborhood than the proposed solution requiring a variance. Staff Recommendation Recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it alters conditions on the property only slightly and keeps the garage addition farther from the street than the setback provided by the neighbors garage to the east. The conditions on the property are not self-imposed and are a challenge when trying to maintain and improve the existing structure. 3) The practical difficulty imposed by the setback and the nonconforming garage location limits design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between garage openings and the street. The proposed garage opening will be farther from west 52!d than the neighbor's garage and will still be 26'— 9" from the street edge. Approval of the variance Is subject to thelollowing conditions: 1 j Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Surrey date stamped January 4, 2011. Building plans and elevations date stamped November 28, 2012. Deadline for a City decision: January 28, 2013. VARIANCE APPLICATION N� CASE NUMBER DATEA„� FEE PAID,., City of Edina Planning Department * www.c1!yo1edina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424'' (952) 826.0369 * fax (952) 826- 0389 FEE: RES .$350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME:_: �_kkVamb 5 e!L_ (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: �Z 1wmskr�.,,1�'ip PWONE:_j ���"j EMAIL; ''C_ &► .r V a*vip PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: �--R— P V `a- -- ------(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:fir �G I b l wn ' ,r �' . Wij2q PHONE:44;� D DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): *You must provide a 14 legal description. It more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. ' Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS. �X ! u/06JJ01f, �V'�j'lt�t�G . U70k'i+'4; Syg2� PRESENT ZONING: Q..} P.I.D.# !$ d ?r $_ 1131 - 00.3 *4 - REQUEST: 3'4 - REQUEST: (Use reverse side or additional paged if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME:_,'3,.,��Yh I t' L S& -PHONE: EMAIL: .V�411j P I .G hkot t VyA.- • rww" - SURVEYOR: NAME: * _!S 141fiSgan.- PHONE: 1,5L q1 EMAIL: �I.1-�"1'tt+i—�. gd ..o1"S. top.-, Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied af#irmativeiy. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary'. '�-p P lig-�4"►�c.. moi. hnac. 11.2' i °�. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties In complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use IL(i F1 is reasonable ,� 4�xj�, Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district 044+,� R Be in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance Illy Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 2 December 3, 2012. Vayda Variance Application Property Address: 5201 Weoddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Submitted by Pat & Doug Vayda along with Rehkamp Larson Architects The following verbiage responds to a question on Page 1 of the attached Variance Application: "EXPLANATION OF REQUEST": We are requesting a variance for the side street setback (52!d street). We are proposing that the new garage addition encroach on the 20' setback designated for attached garages where the opening faces the side street. The proposed addition Will, however, meet the general 15' setback designated for attached garages. The homeowners strongly wish to park in their garage and preserve the unique and historic nature of the house's exterior, while reconfiguring the existing house to function efficiently for a family. After exploring many options, the proposed design maintains the integrity of the existing house and makes it functional for a family by updating It to meet the basic dimensions for a modern garage. The following verbiage responds to questions on Page 2 of the attached Variance Application: "THE PROPOSE© VARIANCE WILL.- RELIEVE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONiNG ORDINANCE AND THAT THE USE IS REASONABLE": The proposed variance will reconfigure the existing garage such that the new garage interior space and door opening will accommodate two modern cars. The existing garage door does not open fully due to the existing ceiling height of the garage. A new garage door in the existing garage would only permit a W-3" garage door height, which is insufficient for the passage of many cars. Similarly, the existing W-10 x 17'-11 interior space does not allow for the existing garage to function effectively as a two car garage. Also, because overnight street parking is not permitted for this lot from approximately November 1st to March 31', it is reasonable and appropriate that a house and lot of this scale accommodate a two car garage. All of the above existing conditions cause a practical difficulty that would be relieved by expanding the garage W-2" towards the street, and would allow the existing exterior character of the house to remain preserved. (see next page) Vayda Variance Application REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS "THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL... CORRECT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY BUT NOTAPPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OR ZONING DISTRICT": Not only does the existing garage not function properly as a two car garage, as outlined above, It also encroaches on both the side yard and rear yard setback. As a result, the garage cannot expand to the north or the east without an appropriate variance. An expansion towards the south (rear) of the garage, would not remedy the restricted garage opening head height on the north fa;ade. Based on street views and aerial photos on the Hennepin County website, most of the other properties in the vicinity and the R1 zoning district have either an adequately sized two car garage (or larger) or have more permissible room for expansion within the zoning setbacks. The proposed addition to the north side of the garage will correct existing extraordinary circumstances that do apply to all other properties in the vicinity. "THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL... BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE': The proposed addition will maintain the existing vehicular circulation. In other words, the proposed variance would not be an impediment to the traffic flow on 52i0 Street and/or Wooddale. A previously permitted alternate to this plan — a new driveway loading onto Wooddale — would affect the public traffic flow more directly. The proposed variance will also follow the general setback for attached garages (where openings do not face the side street), so the massing will not be an imposition, and the driveway length will permit a safe entrance and exit. This addition strives to be in harmony with the general Intent of the zoning ordinance. "THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL... NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OFA NEIGHBORHOOOI ; The proposed variance dues not affect the essential character of neighboring homes, as the addition Is modest In scale, separated from the fenestration and circulation of nearby properties, and aesthetically In -tune with the rest of the house. It will also not stand out as differing dramatically from neighboring properties. The immediate neighbor to the east (5200 Kellogg Ave) has an attached two car garage with the opening facing the side street that encroaches on both the 20' and 15' side yard setback. At this residence, the north face of the garage was site measured at approximately 6'-8' from the property line. The front of the proposed garage addition for 5201 Wooddale would stili be recessed back 15' from the property line and approximately 9' behind this neighboring garage. The proposed addition would therefore preserve a property right exercised by its closest neighbor. (See attached drawing sheet A70 for supporting images). The proposed variance Is, In fact, a benefit to the essential character of the neighborhood because it makes the historic house functional, assures that the existing house will be preserved, and, In doing so, prevents the double lot from being subdivided. Vaycla Variance Application REWKAMP L.ARSON ARCHITECTS APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and i am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) fa)u� vd'ob— It Ownees Signature Date Note. Both signatures are negulmd (it the owner Is different than the app/icanQ before we can process the aWleatlon, otherwise It is considered Incomplete. LOCATION MAP (� IIIyhIIphMO Nalun sill 8021 Sal Surfawfang Manan NUM156f Labels Nast *Ambef Labels sirs sill WAD Strad Name Labels CIV Umlbc ,.V Crooks srl9 % Lake Names Leet fill � „����,,.+'f ® Parks M. parcels We X6]1 'p1:9 f=ftd nail H Mfrs Pak+ Sf2S OAM $r w star am 5220 W113 Brix a2fr slra far $216 sari JIM 5, 9112! 5225 A 8121 Nx N12 5224 5225 � ears OM ern am 52.12 5!51 ores uea 52591 Sill s2+5 sena 5rw Variance PID:1802824430037 r 5201 Wooddale Ave Edina, MN 55424 y.,�.� Y i .. ♦b" h ri 4 C'r vl ItO r• TI 4 v {j - � 1 r ' ;� -�„,;-mss' � • R r-�+.. � 104 A. r i l LL • �� - R6 v t , LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I fl. e2 . S; http://gis.logis.orgILOGIS—Arc,IMS/ims?ServiceName--ed—1,,OGISMap_QVSDE&ClientV... 12/6/2012 ��p°I;���Illll�llli CI_' �f , 6- (Az - I L) 6 a z ivomunbISNOZ) HOCLON gg, Rq I (A 0 z I699 NVJ'I[dV4 is WE I. -M ate DIRPPOOIA 019 "c1')'rs4b1 613311H3bW NOSHVI clrMXH3bl N011VAON3W VOAVA ��p°I;���Illll�llli CI_' �f , 6- (Az - I L) 6 a z ivomunbISNOZ) HOCLON gg, Rq I (A 0 z .y w NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C YAP From Pe"MAN ewwv V*MWE VAYDA RENOVATION REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. 5201 wooddab 2732 Wean 43M Street, MPIS, HIM 55410 Edna, MN 55+124 Tel. 012.295-7275 Fox. 612-288-7274 ---------- tlizi-m-ZIG IWO9 SL MSG hb4,ew:-g Ut,gs Nw %4*#'wm PACP I -M auz =9 'ONI 210311HOSV NOSSVI dWV54H3H — ----- I NOIIVAON3kl VaAVA Nodon'u1swoo tiozi loN 4.7 h � � � ref •.a VAWDAIEIA{! `• p-`'�` t a�'•,C f ft l � f HIM If 11) el j di r CD ice` � L3 iyl.�� � (�� � �,. � . � 1• . �.A I r t /1,11 %; yry 4t1v` �fG ' f5/ r;7 O AI lip M fY q . r ! °+ _ L � 5 �+? � fir. � � `� �• 9.1 • _ ,a°. `.' :�' r � is , \",; � '� _- ; '� '�'` t`�'® Til,_. g� .,.� � �,. � � C°�s � . �, � �`�; , � f • �e �I Ur— 'y v s 4U `" 0 i L_ . "i 21L iri ��{- (� z NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �c y..ldI7,i I t VAYDA RENOVATION REHKAMP LARSOM ARCMTE= ING 5201 Wnaddele �) � � 2732 West 43rd slre8t h�k, MN 55410 CD 9 Enna, MN 55424 Tet, 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-286.7274 H OcSig Nn *VUMP9 4m NV4 'Sidn '18 OJIS NO WOM ZG LZ OlOppoom LGZI; yli raID311H=V NOSHVI dV1V)4H3H NOIIVAONBU VGAVA NOlion,dISNOD U041014 - ----- -------- Ir A-49 In �. ei!I��VIIIi �i�� N0113nWNOO 7SO:l LON 2 X, 1tq KM NY4 '@U P3 GIM NW'%dA'W-IS PITP FKA ZUZ alappoov. W& '3M SI0U140VV NOSHV1dW INIGHNOLLVAON3U - . m VuAVA �. ei!I��VIIIi �i�� N0113nWNOO 7SO:l LON 2 X, 1tq NOT FOR CON > 12 N) lk STRUCTION VAYDA RENOVATION REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. 6201 wooddale, 2732 Wer;l 43rd ftaal, Mp4, MN $5410 E91rso, M4 56424 Tel, 612-285-7715 Fm 012-285-7214 fgTE FCR YC'900R.+M'H1FORt -AA==N ALLCM FOR 04CMA5ED W -V MEWT FOR NFW GARAGE DOOR PROPOSED AD = FNI I 1 tOGTOtii WN /.1 GARAGE SEC1 tON -M-EAST WALL A31 . 71e. VLU-Soz-ag -Xlrj SLU-9w-Z ►9 101 Ktgg NW '"Pa qt� g U OS9 NGV 'GAN *Pms P-cv Isom au olapp" IOU X '3NIS13311H:)HVNOSHVI IVQVNH3'S NOILVAOMMI '#C3AVA NomonVISNOO HOA ION X,1'3 Ally N f� 4�M ull N P« 11 4m NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAYDA RENOVATION 6?At 4VaOddale RENICAMP tAR80N ARCHITECTS INC. r 2722 West Aird 81%K Mp*, PAN 55418 a r ( I Edina, h4N SS&N Td 012-206-7275 Fax 612-285.7274 p J4 .41 4 4 117,Yq ;° -� -M.YV