Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-01-09 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 9, 2013 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 December 12, 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. Variance. Cooke. 6844 Point Drive, Edina, MN. B. Variance. Cragg. 5024 Bruce Avenue, Edina, MN. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Update - Residential Development VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • Miscellaneous IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. 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 23 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 8, 2013 B-13-01 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 46 foot front yard setback variance as requested. Project Description A 46 foot front yard setback variance to match the existing nonconforming setback for a garage atoll and hail on the main floor and to add a second story addition to a home located at 6844 Point Drive for Matt Cooke. INFORMATIOWBACKGROUND The subject property Is a comer lot located north of Dunberry Lane and west of Point Drive consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage, (see attached pages: A.1 -A.5, site location, aerial photographs, and photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner Is hoping to add a garage stall to the west, a small addition to the back of the home and a second story addition above the first floor, (see attached pages: A.6 — A.13, building plans and surveys). The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks because there are adjacent homes fronting both Dunberry Lane, (south), and Point Drive, (east). The subject home Is "lined up" with the home to the north along Point Drive, however, is much farther south towards Dunberry Lane than the home to the west. The ordinance allows 200 square feet of additional encroachment per built floor at the existing nonconforming setback. The ordinance requires that additions In excess of 200 square feet must maintain the required setbacks. The home conforms to all of the setback requirements with the exception of the required setback from Dunberry Lane. The first floor requires a variance to allow 231 square feet of additional encroachment beyond the 200 square feet allowed by ordinance, however, all of the second floor Is required to comply with setback since there is no 2"a floor currently. The front yard setback of the home to the west is 77.5 feet from Dunberry Lane. The subject home provides 31.5 foot setback from Dunberry Lane. Any improvement on the subject property to within the existing nonconforming 31.5 foot setback from Dunberry requires a 46 foot setback variance. The property is 13, 007.7 square feet in area with the home and proposed additions occupying less than 19% of the lot area. The required setback from Dunberry Lane unreasonably Limits the building area of the lot given the existing nonconforming setback provided by the original home built in 1957. Staff believes it is reasonable for the owner to duplicate the nonconforming setback from Dunberry of the existing home to allow additions inexcess of 200 square feet on the main level and to allow the expasion to include a second story. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 13,007.7 square feet in area; is a corner lot required to respect two front yard setbacks. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to add a second floor to the home to include an attached garage stall and hallway connection. 2 Compliance Table vanance 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 front yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The improvements will provide the same setback from the street as the existing home. 4. The home will be a two story with an attached three car garage and should complement the character of the neighborhood. The home is well within the coverage requirements. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As 3 City Standard Proposed Front - 77.5/35.9 feet *31.6 feet Side- 10+ height, (living) 12.4 feet Rear - 25 feet 25feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 40 feet to 20 feet to midpoint, ride 26.5feet to the ridge Lot coverage 25% 18.2% vanance 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 front yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The improvements will provide the same setback from the street as the existing home. 4. The home will be a two story with an attached three car garage and should complement the character of the neighborhood. The home is well within the coverage requirements. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As 3 demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that historically the existing home has provided the nonconforming setback since built in 1957. The practical difficulty for the subject property is that the adjacent home was built with a deeper setback from the street. The lot is unbuildable without the benefit of a variance, (see the buildable area of the lot on figure A.14 ). 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing home has maintained setback from both streets since 1957. The location of the other two homes affecting setback from the streets is not self-created. The applicant is asking to maintain an existing nonconforming setback from the south lot line. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setback will mimic the front yard setback of the existing home. Requiring the additions to maintain the south street setback would push them unreasonably farther back from the street frontage given that the existing home is already much closer to Dunberry Lane. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District.. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property Is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions and matches the nonconforming setback of the existing home. 3) The imposed setbacks severely limit design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing from the street. The proposed home will match the setback of the existing home that has been located on the lot since 1957. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: December 17, 2012 Building plans and elevations date stamped: December 11, 2012. Deadline for a City Decision: February 12, 2013. 5 A•� LOCATION MAP elr�low ui1 t oaf * f/fi HOf efraAovlro o ; �kr4eiM� IFsme i/.11lAiiF lebole fWd ffW fla an stirgo" ikwtfllunYfiLlkrki Iwt 1199 fkeellfsiml lekdu asra Nei Wo ofd Clyt met flit ditt f#i i1M at/ En4iks all 4416 aft �OROm O Lake U s L ss Nrt a2Y ft20 A,LM tris ,uet Eiji Net p wuk. >l ala an afar elr, Mei tiai fur iMt an on on sw fat Otic 4442 f4W till W1i es" an alt Mit fq2 4017 4ide44 f�ri N7s ltll 46 � N2i im2► No ml u1t 4424 4m If14 4474 t#4 ftif a01 flee itis ■■ Mei tttr! 7102 410! 4444/6 4:1 Nit 7114 MN Nil M00 as #90 #W tf/Y amt 4100 as NN Asm Off Mfg #W Hod N90 430 43" 4444 Nil 7'/19YRM tWl tlft 4 tai 7tN 7titl on Mei Mit Mf�2 lila ,4" 7474 all ISN MM IHi NM 4764 �IkM4t'w?I �aesww nMNi-QmPRICFKrYiO�l77M ANEOWM s Tele 8-13.01 Front Yard m* Vadance As ,... pyo: 3002874430088 �► 6844 Point Or r13, Edina, f�4M 55435 A•� £IOZIVI "'aAt �i��8'3QSAtJ d�NiSIrJ<?'I pa_awn�aocnxa IsnrtISNIolVi SIIDO- wsi8ol•si fj;djjq j� 13o i osud ogvd Indino deNgSI-DO7 TOZXZlT lldf'I008800£t tZ8ZOOCIsologdlsggvwlSQdlop!mAl!oIIju-pokN/:oj 'JV I jo I ogled ,�. .. ,y t � . ,r , 'R r .. � J. � � :: � .� � y, f 1-y� �" 4v� � � ' � �'-Y'i � � � ,,�' �t}�`M�► � i'1 ` t _ ,� ' ` �` Vit" . '""!' q . ._ jj� �. . � �,/. � , � M •., 1 _ r" � i �! 9� �ti P{ � Sr �' f r . �. . c'�.. � � 1 '� Qui � r �,,_y 1�..�=n „.. �'„� j , 5 =,� s r w . ; ,, w"rcr” ' y ' „r �A;� � � + "� ,;,���Lfi '�+ �+-f ��-iF A JST�_!L �-L" � (�: "41 :;�, � ra �: f.+,. 7 �'. -�S 1 d . � � 5' {•.{�� ♦.1. �.+�` r�r�t' e +-r - '(l"t tom` `-� �`"��', Jr _� `sl` , r � i s y. +L r ;�e� r' J 'wa' � is. . �►' . yy�yy . ��, � �' `� �� w. , �, �� y '4i - � _ + I, f,.. �.� ti ��� ��� f � � I ,� .. �,. - -- _-�_—� _ � - � _. �. _. __.. _ _ _a.. _ �_ _ _� ._. .� �. . _. �. __ �_ _ .�� --- -- i�:, ,...-,.. --. - � .. �11�y1t{w--- �,..�— �, ��� a �. ���� ���� _ �' .�.» ~"� �..� . a ,�.. . . w-:� � . _ -_ �` r _. w. �. r-,,.�-� S' syf.. �„Fs.� ',jA � .. Page 1 of 1 ,,01.. file://ed-ntl/citywidelPDSImages/Photost3OO2824430087001 jpg 11312013 9tTi NiIMESs: essaMarr pWt Id sa w.. r crr o.r.,r .—Y.— p..rbaa �4� sRi.yswp beer. prep! �--. ars— �- AM►eM u�-W 9Y# A 4r • e.n aw d urg p pw e edtater O a.:w. MM NM s pea pep r.K Q wry a.e ares. se�wa or ww ea abs nprperIm w ,�.rs Mrps e,.rr .bs9� vrr s mw e�.ppe. -OWXwro..pr. roam rur r.r+ervner e�appA, +oda? x-06— .-aMa-� wrrr arr w.+ eprrr. mwna ore■. woe ee.es ���x'�� rrs R w+�TR A MI AOrlrR; AQ61t � ZG1 X 7ePetr� �.aw v a ©UNBERRY LANE E! W f of aureer eue.rue .'siaAix-irrernS e0eaeewac m �„f+, rw re rwr..,nr Z �. rr►..q`.r pc. � regia ar •w++ -., wwN b f w sww►ww`e"s".' r ww:.a 'M°Mw° .: +ser w r,aerrc wc. •.o`s.f— R4 t Stan z 0 a4 0 P., 3AW0 AlOd — --- — -------- --- ------------ 11 ----------------- ell ®I�7�IhlpVNVR� Y_ 1*19*1 01111 W j �t r �o •d �r i f >auKnul��! I, CUNI �LIi rte. I weal P LLtt� E61 le8 G Sic i # O if f t mum f f For Revievy 2/0 O12 4:47:27 it Pm P ox 4 i d5iP51. i cuum bw 05 iI d MOTION PLU KIK IF2771 I p Nd LZ:LiYti ZLOZI90 GIA J'®' ' I �,.� mm a ��--------- t I r ✓� i 1 m t t 3 Jig i - .i _._ f O t ?S. + :. 5 � € F 7R t� +F7YdM F a �ykw rrsr.�p. NFA83017 woleie>ut"MSa'reua`nam TWORNM ISM plSp ; awd iillY 3 1+1,y it a L LL ----'tea--�-�-, --— --------— --- 1 i i� t s ® mt t 1 71 �' v - r t � 1.--------.------"----->- � i t t 1 0 1 e t 1 i i I I 1 I 1 1 i I t 1 - t �-_---._..a._--_-.----.--- t 1 t 1 1 1 1 ( 1 � 1 1 .----------------__-,i Z- A A5 e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 9, 2013 B-13-02 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Deny the variance as requested. Project Description: A 15.96 foot setback variance from Minnehaha Creek for a new home to be built on property located at 5024 Bruce Place for Andrew and Kristen Cragg, INFORMATIONIBACKGROUND The subject property, is located at the end of Bruce Place Cul-de-sac and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The existing home on the property was built In 1840, consists of two story home with an attached two car garage, (see attachments: A.1— A.14, site location, aerial photos, surveys and building plans). The existing home is nonconforming regarding the required 50 foot setback from Minnehaha Creek. The existing home Is located 40.38 feet from the edge of Minnehaha Creek or 9.62 feet closer than allowed by ordinance. At the time the home was built there were different setback requirements in place allowing structures to be closer to water bodies than current city code allows. The zoning ordinance was amended in the early 1990's changing the setback requirement from Minnehaha Creek, (previously a 25 foot setback was allowed), it has since been changed to a 50 foot minimum setback. The change was required so the City of Edina would be consistent with the MN Department of Natural Resource's requirements. The ordinance change caused the current home, as well as many others along the Creek and other water bodies, to become nonconforming. The change doubled the setback previously required from Minnehaha Creek. The applicant Is planning to tear: down the existing nonconforming home and replace it with a new two story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant has indicated that the new home will conform to all of the ordinance requirements with the exception of the required setback from Minnehaha Creek. The new home Is proposed to be closer to the creek than the existing home. The new home is proposed to be 34.04 feet from Minnehaha Creek or 6.34 feet closer to the creek than the existing home. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Minnehaha Creek Easterly: Single-family homes Southerly: Single-family homes Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 28,965 square feet in area. The existing home is two stories and was built in 1940. 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— A14. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 Cl Standard Proposed Front - Match adjacent homes: 33.79 feet Side- 10 feet + height 11.73/5.10 feet Rear- 50 feet from Creek *34.04 feet Building Height 2'/s stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to feet to midpoint, feet to ridge, ridge Lot coverage 25% 10% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 No. Staff believes the proposal is not reasonable: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and would comply with all requirements with the exception of setback from Minnehaha Creek. The proposed setback from the Creek is closer than the existing home. 2. The home while appropriate in size and scale for the lot will bring the building mass closer to a natural resource. 3. The improvements will provide for a new home to be closer to Minnehaha Creek than allowed by code and currently provided on site. 4. The new home erodes an already nonconforming setback from a natural resource that should be protected as much as possible. • Is the proposed variance justified? No. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is not reasonable. The new home is less conforming to the current city code than the existing home. Staff finds it reasonable to rebuild the home no closer to the creek than the existing home, (would still require a variance, but only to match existing setback). 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? elfcreated? No. The required setbacks are meant to protect a natural resource. The proposed setback will be more impacting along the creek than the existing nonconforming setback of the current home. The proposed setback from the creek is a self-imposed condition. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The proposed home will be closer to the creek than the existing home. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission deny the variance. Denial is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet. the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 1t would appear however, that a new home could be designed to match the existing nonconforming setback of the home which would be a more reasonable variance to consider. 2) The proposal would not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is not reasonable; as it will increase encroachment into the setback required and currently provided from Minnehaha Creek. b. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are the narrow building pad allowed by current standards and required setback from the Creek. Staff could perhaps support a request to maintain the existing nonconforming setback of the home from the Creek with new construction. Staff cannot supporta request or identify difficulties with not matching the existing nonconforming creek setback. 4 Deadline for a City decision: February 22, 2013 VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBEFGJ-P FEE PAID'. City of Edina Planning Department * www.citvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 t (952) 826-Q369 fax (962) 828.0369 FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: t NAME: i 14 j A M Rkwi core s {signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 5'At� /'vtiL NAM PHt?NE: •Look PROPERTY OWNER: aArtrJ NAfiAE: �iy� ♦ /� CY`Giq (Signature required on back pays} ADDRESS. -.1-6-11f 8144 left T PHONE: b I I• Z11 r LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): "You must provide a lull legal deseVion. If mote space is needed, pleass use a separate sheet Note: The Gowty may not accept this readutlon approving your project M the legal desc colon does not match their racaarft This may daisy your prMsct. PROPERTY ADDRESS; It PRESENT ZONING: P"I.D.# % ,%' 82 �' t • �iL • as EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: tegr V44 SO 644th tlNifi +4ifL (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAMEAsk–ki A464 PHONE: Sj'� ►`�� EMAIL >tta , �iES!!# SURVEYOR: NAME: T60A 6&114 PHONE: EMAIL:10101 ur f 6 1. C41 ouw f ?1 Minnesota Statin and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will Relieve practical difficulties in complying 1 ❑ with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district D Be in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood � ❑ 5 et 4tAruAcl .�a To: City of Edina Planning Commission From: Andrew and Kristen Cragg 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 RE: Variance Request We have been residents of Edina for 20 years and have raised 5 children in this amazing community. Our previous homes were located on Code Avenue and Edina Boulevard. Our current home was purchased in 2003 with the Intent to restore it. During that process we came to the realization that we had several major structural Issues due to poor construction quality of two old additions as well as severe damage from Ice dams and carpenter ants. We sought the opinions and guidance of four separate builders and three architects. All returned with the news that our home would require such significant repair that we should seriously consider a complete teardown of the structure. We decided that we love Edina, the neighborhood and especially our neighbors. Building here and investing further In the community is our first choice. Once we started the design process we qulcldy became aware of how unique our lot Is. We found that we would need to seek a rear yard setback variance even N we were to build the exact same home we have now. Our lot Is Irregularly shaped within a cul-de- sac, thus building within the current setbacks — both to the front and rear — led to significant, yet not Insurmountable, design challenges. We sought feedback from our neighbors to see what was important to them as well. Views and sight lines to creek? Scale and access? Exterior design? What didn't they like about other construction in the neighborhood? We Incorporated that information as we met with our architects to coma up with a plan that would suit not only our lot, but respect our neighbor's current views and rear yard access. If you were to visit our site, you would see that the placement of our now home would not adversely affect any of our neighbor's views. They have seen the plans and ars in support" of our project. " Please view attached lett Our goal Is not to build a giant, too -tall, l-can't-believe-wo-have-to-Live-by-that house. Our goal is to build a high quality home that Is befitting of ft landscape as well as the scale and architectural style of our neighborhood*. Please view attached elevations of all four sides We believe that we have taken great care in the process of designing a home that will fit In nicely to our site, will have mater accessibility and will be much more energy efficient. While we are aware that constructing a new home will increase our taxes to the City, we choose to live In Edina for a reason and we are happy to make that additional investment In this incredible community. Thank you, Andrew and Kristen Cragg Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be $atisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of pepper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: Reileve practical difficulties to complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable: Yes The practical difficulty, in this case, is the unique lot shape and Minnehaha Creek In the rear. As you can see from Exhibit 1, a large portion of our lot Is within the Minnehaha Creek flood plane atxt is unsuitable for construction. Due to the flood plane there is very few options available for the placement of our home. The placement chosen has the least Impact on all surrounding homes. Reasonable, as defined by city coda, is consistent with surrounding properties, see exhibit 2, and we are not hindering the sight lines to the creek for the rear neighbors. To build a home that Is in keeping with the neighborhood we ask the rear yard setback be granted. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to'this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district: Yes As you can sea from Exlbit 3, this property Is very unique in shape due to the bend in the creek. Most all other lots allow the homeowner to shift the location of the structure far enough to the rear of the lot to accommodate an adequate width of structure. Our property is also unique because our lot Is the only lot that will allow emergency vehicles, lawn equipment, or Use removal equipment. We have deliberately maintained a large side yard set back to ensure the use of our property in the event there would be a need for access to the adjoining properties. Be In harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zaning ordinance: Yrs We believe the Spirit of this ordinance is to ensure structures are not built to laser to bodies of water, so everyone on these bodies can equally enjoy the view. As you can aee from Exhibit 2 structure t and structure 2 are both closer to the Creek than what we are asking in our variance request. Due to the unique qualities of our lot and the adjoining Iota, we have taken great care to make sure there will be no intrusion on the raw or the igts adjoining ours. Not miter the essential character of the neighborhood: Yea We have been working closely with Kuhl Design Build to design and construct our home. Kuhl Design Build has worked in Edina for many years and is the only residential Design Build firm that has Won the Edina Historic Preservation Award. You can see from the site plan, survey and elevations, Kuhl has paid a close attention to massing, height and scale, to design a home that fits beautifully Into our neighborhood. It is of upmost Importance to us that our neighbor's site lines, sunlight exposure or values where not compromised. We intentionally designed a (house that will not only fit into the neighborhood, but will increase the values of our neighbor's property as well be a taV , benefit W the City. m t. u : � � � 11vi 4 .,�� <� a �fr.�; �' � •���, � � 4t in. i / ?e i A � e �. 'I r� �, ��� ��� ^.�'3 � Bee„ , ��� � Y i ���: � a I��' 3 ii ">1 r , e .. ., v � �.. .,�� <� a �fr.�; �' � •���, � � 4t in. i t= u �, ��� �4 � a I��' 3 ii ">1 M�� :_ �I�I �= �' "' w✓` �� �' X M� �.°4: � v� � � �� � E �. Ya�au � ����Y��� '�';�� ��i rt K e;. �c .. I K � `ij l6'. i ,%"', ,9� p W � =�F, ,� ., w �_ �' �. <�� ,� i ks �a �'�°��� 11. � ik �ga � �. � � � p. xx Pix"? v � t a '6, r, man` '� . k � � ?� f; w °F t c A � �� � :� �� 4 # h P�`i �� � �-, e� p{M�'��I �..< i}u}�0 II 1 { S f I iy t a f r tY � ��� x fl+ °dcx � � �.. 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 lees, 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 1 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 arra true and oorrect. OW'NER'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.) NOO. Both signatures are rraqufrod (W Me ownw Is difilfemt then the applicano before we can process the app/lcatlan, atlrerwlse N Is considerred Inc+r►rrwho. 5 x To: City of Edina Planning Commission From: Andrew and Kristen Cragg 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 RE Variance Request We are requesting a 15.96 foot variance from the 5Q' rear yard setback requirement. As you can sas from the calculations below our current home and dock are already 15.57 feet (including desk) within the 50 foot setback. Existing; 28,965 Sq/ft Site area (.(165 acres) 2261 sq/ft Existing house footprint 2695 sq/ft Exisitng house footprint wtdeck 3820 Sqfft Buildable area of Lot (based on 871' high watermark and city setbacks) 9.62 feet House distance within the 50' set back 16.57 feet muse wfdeck within 50'sat back 904 sq/ft House square footage of non-compliant area 614 $q/ft Total square footage of roan -compliant area (house and deck) Proposed: 26,965 Sq/ft Site area (.665 acres) 2891 Sq/ft Proposed Crouse foot print 3820sq/tt Buildable area of Lot (based on 871' high water maria and city setbacks) 15.96 fleet Howse distance within the 501 set back 69980 House square footage of non-compliant area LOCA71ON MAP a a a an earn 1a b1r Alm 49x1 U od wM�+M�raFsaae 0f 4114 4000 Oso 4101 JMraa Melilla MOVMf a 1 4w ;ftIaa E4om Oar 4404 Labels t H � a r �i 4010 4101 M01 4 x wa 1190 Ntwo Nwbst utata `eel leear Labefti #1mww fI a►W LkesOe Oat 7009 Not no sat OU 4200 Ora ❑ uta tatrws 4044 err teat MOT asaf Lakaa sm Alla aeo4 Aso! 4mt sold soft hft 0 Perasle Nta sow OM SON 24 wall W"ff alisml m sm swat an }+ am 4004 fm soft raw Ml am Mt>OBdtlEAm aa4dam feta aM2 rata sora rota Mm SON Ano wr out ate seta stra wt4 AN we rfa? idra aura - as Derr riot arm star ryat4 sate tots off a>+ am Was am , dr AM lam rat an risrarw Mdi retrs r`✓r'`, 4001 alfd ares baa fill rr on Dason SM3 mw illi at# rrfa cam am wn amrex SWamala atos sin stn out rots 4414 sm�uafa too uta � a10t off* on era ails na 1R8 a}al ata N1a errs Star It" of" star !Iri orr4 rota naf rfaa —;n- a:t 4010 sq1 Oras a(tr 91" 4 \y WIS aZ! NTi atad sawar r rraoap na goal sell am :400 silo osx uaF call sm N a not a eID Wo.�.lKdiO, 6CIwa0edr1f01 fel 8.13-d2 Suck Vulmn= From Creek Ab As PID1802824420015 5024 Bruce Ave Edina, MN 55424 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 14• http://gis.logis.org/L.OGIS—Arel S/ims?ServiceName-ed I,,OGISMan OVSDE&Cl entVe... 1/3/2013 Page 1 of 1 X. // file:l/ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/1802824420015041 jpg 1/312013 l r.... ��. r" r � ' ♦ �— f:�'� � � �' �� � ��a ,till ! f? �1 f ''1 f � �' "` f t� t r,�, j J( S At ( 9 >•„ �' f' � xf � � ♦�� lK � d fir 1 { 1 � fA j p (r a4 - �i .'f �'� Yf ' K"�.� �=K V" ' t i"= • .��r tw !"}''f� e � � [4 i. �K'kt' f X a !•l f,.' f 4 y pati z J •,, R r`Ar , rag 0 ! iZ ;I � 111411 iilia %.*. myµ. ti { s4� ------------- A foe a 0 *rwNow now +\ Frrrr ww -.... \ land rwr :#www; wow foe a 0 �,-__--_--_ 0 24.97 .WAIF-- UNE IRON PIPE CRdrA VNg OL eR ,y �.,,�'�''G �` �`¢ voNDQW �r �. i f`, I ,o �, �,�p�4 ;fid, r - WELL g r oo ATEA Xt Ne SKI �. r ,FND IRON PIPE ; . La 4.10 *0AWF—aaA-l:Awp.41� vatrGs PM1VNH03 Baa arm snap ury I WA wr 'Pape ,gWAWPldw9*W uina9oMvgla4AA*v- BAV3ondeVMS L;D Wepbl pile Am m uep ki p- 'Pro +GWowMIUZOOvfullueaavpAudiOm— DOWD A©Nb *9 NgiSIE "04 U4 A LMUNU " IAak trop"" aW "0*4 eq Iractaarx W A WM 11 ,gyp# imull is"i Moll I CIllrlQ N9183O lHn) 1H9ldAdO0 La 4.10 srw mpaq _ - IN MAN wonr �rr�iJi', ar■ Olson ■� ,.rrrrl tip. , r V's 141 tom• i'4t'1 / wT" A h4 C ^� � AW P 'L A'N� f� ti ss $. «t f ...�' i moo- ♦ _ P6 City Hall • Phone 952-927-6861 Fax 452.626.0369 - www,Cityo"na.com Date: January 9, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Residential Development (History of "Massing" Issue since 2046) Over the past six years the City of Edina has studied and attempted to address the issue of smaller single-family homes be replaced my much larger single-family homes. Edina has referred to the issue as the "Massing" of single family homes; other communities have called it McMansions replacing smaller homes. The following is a summary and history of what the City has done to address this issue over the past six years. Also attached is a comparison of Edina's Zoning Ordinance regulations to surrounding cities; and examples of recent homes built on 40 -foot, 50 -foot and 75+ foot wide lots that have been maxed to the City's Zoning Ordinance regulations. August 2006 — A Massing Study was completed. The complete study can be found on the city's website ac http:llwww dins mn u 1pepagments/L4 MassingTaskforcehrm A Citizen Massing Task Force was created to assist with the study. The study concluded that the new large homes being constructed generally fit Into their neighborhoods. There may be a few exceptions. Minor changes to the Zoning Ordinance were recommended. November 2006 — The Planning Commission considered the Massing study. (See attached minutes.) January 2007 — Council work session on Massing. Three changes are considered by the City Council to address the massing issue: 1- Measure height from existing grade, rather than proposed grade. A noted problem was new homes being built on fill that seem to tower over adjacent homes. 2. Increase side yard setbacks on lots 60-75 feet wide. This would reduce building mass from the street. The problem of big homes tended to be on smaller lots. City of Edina - 4801 W. S" St. - Edina, MN 65424 3. No more bay window setback exceptions, The City was experiencing two level bay windows being created to extend into required setbacks. March 2007 — Planning Commission review of three (3) Zoning Ordinance changes recommended by the City Council at the January work session. (See attached minutes.) June 2007 — City Council considered and approved the three changes. I . No more bay window setback exceptions. 2. The increase in side yard setbacks. (implementing a sliding sole based on lot width increasing the separation between houses on lots that are between 61-75 feet in width). The required interior yard setback of S feet shall increase by 113 foot (4 inches) for each foot that the lot width exceeds 60 feet. 3. Restriction of the first floor elevation for new homes. (The lowest floor elevation of the new home may not be more than one -foot above the lowest floor elevation of the home that was tarn dawn). The height issue was continued for further discussion. The Council asked that the Massing Task Force meet to consider the height issue. July — Sept. 2007 — the Massing Task Force re -convenes to look at the height issue. The following recommendations are made: I . Building height should be measured from existing rather than proposed grad:. 2. The first floor elevation of a new home should not exceed the first floor elevation of the previous home by more than one-footfi This is to ensure street level consistency of homes. October 2007 -- The City Council supports the recommendation of the Massing Task Force. October 2007 - The City Council refers the Massing Task Force recommendation to the Planning Commission. November 2007 — The City Council approves the Ordinance changes as recommended by the Massing Task Force and Planning Commission. As a result of a tear down and rebuild on Oaklawn in the South Harriet Park Neighborhood the City Council directed staff to further consider creating regulations to be more restrictive, and directed staff to prepare a moratorium ordinance that would prohibit the demolition of single-family dwellings in Edina. December 2007 — The City Council does not adopt a moratorium to prevent homes from being torn down. The Council directs staff to draft an ordinance that further restricts the size of large new homes. city of Edina 4801 W. 501h St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO January 2008 — Staff hired the Collaborative Design Group to assist In preparing some 3D modeling to visually demonstrate proposed Ordinance Changes. February 2008 — Staff drafted an Ordinance for the City Council to consider that established a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) based on lot width. The maximum proposed was between 40 -SO% depending on the width of the lot. Examples of enforcement of the Ordinance were run in several Edina Neighborhoods. Council referred the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review. March/April 2008 -- The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Ordinance regarding FAR, and approval of a maximum height to the highest point of a roof of 35- 40 feet depending on the width of a lot. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Code change on FAR, and recommended, further study of the use of FAR in a vicinity manner and/or the use of FAR as part of character districts in a future rezoning of all homes In Edina. (See attached minutes.) June 2008 — The City Council denied the proposed use of FAR, but approved the maximum height to the top of a home (35-40 feet maximum). There was not maximum height to the top ora home previously. (See attached minutes.) City of Edina - 4801 W. SO St. • Edina, MN $5424 Surrounding City vs. Edina Zoning Ordinance Comparison Ordinance Prow cion Edina Minneapolis St. Louis r * HoPkInE Bloomington Wayzata Richfield tieigiht 30 feet (midpoint 30 feet (midpoint 30 fleet (midpoint 35 feet (midpoint 19-40 feet 30 feet (midpoint 35 feePt (midpoint of pitched roof) of pitched roof) of pitched roof) of pitched roof) depending on of pitched roof) of pitched roof) setback Front Setback Avg. front 25 feet 25-30 feet or 30 feet 34 feet or 20 feet 30 feet setback of homes closest wall to prevailing setback on either side street whichever of neighborhood greater 5-10 feet depending on lot 5 feet (R-1) 7 feet on one side 8 feet 10 feet (5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Side Setback width. Setback 6 feet (R -1A) and 5 feet on the detached garage) must be no matter the other 12 feet increased based height detached garage) on hei ht 25% - lot over Building 9.000 SJ. 50% 35% 35% None•. 30% 35% Coverage 30%- lot under 9,000 s.f. Impervious Surface None 65% None None 35% 35% 45% Floor Area Ratio None 50% (with some None None None gone None Minimum Lot 9,000 s f (or 5,004 s.f (R -1A) 7,200 s.f. 6,000 & 8,000 s.f. 11AW s.f. 9,000 s:f. 6,740 s f. Size median lot size of 6,000 s f. (R-1) neighborhood) Minimum Lott 75 feet 50 feet 60 feet 50 & 60 feet 80 feet 60 feet 50 feet Width *A single-family home which legally exists ars or before the date of the ordinance maybe expanded by an addition or dormer, provided the addition does.not extend into the existing side yard. Survey of Cities Single-family residential home & lot standards A 1 Valle VF e Y Zoning R-5 R-2 R-3 Min. lot area 15,000 18,000 11,000 Min. front setback 30' 30' 30' Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) 10' (20' detached garage) 10' (10' detached garage) Min. rear setback 30' (10' detached garage) 30' (10' detached garage) 30' (10' detached garage) Max. building height* *35' *35' *30' FAR None None None one Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface None I None None * Measured from the first above -grade, habitable floor to the highest point of a fiat root, or the nignest gaoie of a pi«nCu roof. (Top of pitched roof) DI LJ CIJ " Zoning R-1 IR -IA —R -IAA .Min. lot area 10,000 12,150 10,800 Min. front setback 30' 35' 30' Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) 10' (5' detached garage) 10' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 30' (S' detached garage) 35' (5' detached garage) 30' (5' detached garage) Max. building height* *30' *35' *30' FAR None None None Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface I None I None None * Measured from the grade of the building to the cornice of a flat roof and the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid point of pitched roof) Bloomin ton g Zoning R-1 RS -1 Min. lot area 11,000 33,000 Min. front setback* *30' *25' Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) 10' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 30' (10' detached garage) 30' (10' detached garage) Max. building height** **19-40 feet depending on setback (2- story limit) **19-40 feet depending on setback (2 - story limit) FAR None None Max. building coverage None None Max. impervious surface 1 35% 35% * Or the prevailing setback of the neighborhood as determined by staff. ** Measured from the lowest existing ground elevation prior to construction that is immediately adjacent to the structure to the highest point on any part of the structure, including rooftop equipment. (Top of pitched roof) 2 Burnsville Zoning R-1 Min. lot area 10,000 Min. front setback 30' Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 30' (8' detached garage) Max. building height* 30'* FAR None Max. building coverage None Max. impervious surface None * Measured from the average elevation of the adjoining ground level to the top of a flat roof and the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof) Eagan Zoning R-1 R -IS Min. lot area 12,000 8,000 Min. front setback 30' 30' Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) 6' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 15' (5' detached garage) 15' (5' detached garage) Max. height* 35'* 35'* FAR None None Max. building coverage 20% 25% Max. impervious surface None None * Measured from the average elevation of the highest and lowest points within a five foot horizontal distance from the exterior building foundation to the highest point of a flat roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.) Eden Prairie Zoning R1-22 111-13.5 111-9.5 Min. lot area 22,000 13,500 9,500 Min. front setback 30' 30' 30' Min. side setback 15' (10' detached garage) 10' (10' detached garage) 5' (5' detached garage) Max. building height* *40' (10' detached garage) *40' (10' detached garage) *40' (5' detached garage) FAR None None None Max. building coverage None None None Max. Impervious surface None I None I None * Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10 feet is added to the 40 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof) Edina Zoning R-1 Min. lot area 9,000 Min. front setback Avg. Distance of homes on either side Min. side setback 10' (3' detached garage) 5' if lot is less than 75' wide Min. rear setback 25' (3' detached garage Max. building height* 30'* FAR None Max. building coverage 25% 30% if lot is less than 9,000 square feet Max. Impervious surface None * Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the front or street elevation. 3 Hopkins Zoning R -IA R-16 R -1c Min. lot area 6,000 8,000 12,000 Min. front setback 25' 30' 30' Min. side setback 1 story = 8 feet 2 story = 8 feet 3 story = 10 feet 1 story = 8 feet 2 story = 8 feet 3 story = 10 feet 1 story =10 feet 2 story = 12 feet 3 story = 14 feet Min. rear setback 25' 30' 35' Max. building height* 35'* 35'* 35'* FAR None None None Max. building coverage 35% 35% 35% Max. Impervious surface None I None None * Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the average front or street elevation. I nkpuillP Zoning RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -4 Min. lot area 20,000 15,000 11,000 8,400 Min. front setback 30' 30' 30' 20' Min. side setback 15' 15' 10' 7' Min. rear setback 30' 30' 30' 30' Max. building height* 35'* 35'* 35'* 25'* FAR None None None None Max. building coverage None None None None Max. impervious surface None None None None * Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof) Manle Grove Zoning R-1 R-2 R-213 Min, lot area 20,000 10,000 10,000 Min. front setback 35' 25' 25' Min. side setback 5' (30' aggregate) 5' (15' aggregate) 5' (15' aggregate) Min. rear setback 30' 30' 30' Max. building height* 35'* 35'* 35'* FAR None None None Max. building coverage None None None Max. impervious surface None None None * Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable of a pitched or nip roor, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the uppermost point on all other roof types. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.) 2 Minnetonka Zoning R-1 R-2 Min. lot area 22,000 15,000 Min. front setback 35' 35' Min. side setback 15' (15' detached garage) 15' (15' detached garage) Min. rear setback 40' (15' detached garage) 40' (15' detached garage) Max. building height* 35'* 35'* FAR None None Max. building coverage None None Max. Impervious surface None None * Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10 feet is added to the 35 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof.) New Brighton Zoning R-1 Min. lot area 10,000 Min. front setback 30' Min. side setback 5' Min. rear setback 5' Max. building height* 30'* FAR None Max. building coverage 30% Max. Impervious surface 50% * Measured from grade to the highest point of a flat roof, or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid- point of pitched roof.) Plymouth Zoning RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 Min. lot area 18,500 12,500 7,000 Min. side setback 15' (6' detached garage) 10' (6' detached garage) 8' (6' detached garage) Min. rear setback 25' (6' detached garage) 25' (6' detached garage) 25' (6' detached garage) Max. building height* 35'* 35'* 351* FAR None None None Max. building coverage 30% 30% 35% Max. impervious surface None None None * Measured from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of a flat roof and the mean height between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip and gambrel roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.) Richfield Zoning R R-1 Min. lot area 6,700 10,000 s.f. Min. front setback 30' 30' Min. side setback 5' 10' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 25' 25' Max. height *35' *35' FAR None None Max. building coverage 35% 35% Max. impervious surface 45% 45% * Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10 feet is added to the 40 -foot requirement. 5 St_ 1 nuis Park* Zoning- R-1 R-2 Min. lot area 9,500 7,200 Min. front setback** 30'* 25'* Min. side setback 9' one side and 6' on the other (2' detached garage) 7' one side and 5' on the other (2' detched garage) Min. rear setback 25' (2' detached garage) 25' (6' detached garage) Max. building height*** 30'** 30'** FAR None None Max. building coverage 35% 35% Max. impervious surface None None * A single-family home which legally exists on or before the date of the ordinance may be expanded by an addition or dormer, provided the addition does not extend into the existing side yard. ** or to the closest wall on the street whichever greater. *** Measured from the highest elevation between the building and the curb to mid point of a pitched roof. WaWata Zoning R -3A R -2A R-2 Min. lot area 9,000 25,000 15,000 Min. front setback* 20'* 30'* 25'* Min. side setback 10' (5' detached garage) 15' (15' detached garage) 10' (5' detached garage) Min. rear setback 20' (5' detached garage) 20.' (5' detached garage) 20' (5' detached garage) Max. building height** 30'** 40'** 30'* FAR None None None Max. building coverage 30% 20% 20% Max. impervious surface _T 35% 30% 30% * Or the average of the block ** Measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five foot distance from the exterior wall to the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof.) Minneaoolis Zoning R-1 Min. lot area 6,000 Min. front setback 25' Min. side setback 5' Max. height 30' FAR 50% or 2,500 s.f. whichever greater Max. building coverage T 50% Max. impervious surface 1 65% I !I TA00 I�/ Existing Brick ChurCh JJ/J I II h ,..r...... .gym. / 4�01 d i I �w1�°Sr F.r.F-.*t3 L7 at West S7da Q012 0M" Denotes Existing Manhole ,U, Denotes Existing Power Pole -- e - Denotes Existing Overhead UtOfty Une(s) • -•-, Denotse Existing Fence rv., •,.� Denotes Existing Concrete Surface ^� Denotes Existing Contour Denotes Proposed Contour x owo Denotes Existing Elevation -}- Denotes Set Iran Monument ooaa Denotes Existing Elevation xti j Demotes Proposed Elevation LOT, babli — STEP aArznt.E DOW As sHawrl PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Lowest Floor Devotlon: RZ, Top of Foundation Elevation: .11 Barrage Blob Elevation (at door).- 812,F F First Floor Elevatlo (Provisos Exlalfng �t38 PARCEL OESCAIP110N (PER kNN" Cot The North 40 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, STE �� ��� MINNEAPOLIS, Includsng half of the ocjace PAMEW Henneplr, County, Minnesota. FEB 2 2 2612 subject to ail easements of record, If an / NOTES: lC1TV OF FhiNA T G,ir....w1 to —A R-1 tsar N -4�-------- SECOND FLOOR TOP OF °.A1 nR FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SLIMIA ---- i I Existing Church .� <) T Approved Q�adfng r� required prior altering any grad rainag- S"T m i J 1 rYJG1 V�aJ r Ig f Existing liousa" r0 Orth tine of the y5o�itJt 40 ft. of Lot 6, Block" * i • N8J951 e I b I` --Pr o"d Sit renot nj W t� t� +a. T. d s i Ygwd Ramp (� Dock .y w r � , .a l a �,:ffiwdm'.� 7 of w�,a� ) ! �` 5cwt6 line of the N th.w�Q ft. of Lots i CV � ON` n"t''rv�i lv�"+%. Exist. Garnge / frock 5. atEMVtEw ,4oDrTl 1t9 tt�jNq' LEGEND r "' 1887.6 l , O Denotes Existing Monhole AC' „ A Denotes Existing Power Pole Denotes Existing Owhood Utility t.tne(s) -.—.—.— Denotes Existing Fence ,% Exist. G". Donates Existing Concrete Surface 1 / s�oa=tse�.� /� " boo,o Denotes Extsti»g t'tevotlo�n PPOPO� denotes Existing Contour Denotes ,Proposed Elevation Lowe Denotes Proposed Contour --•— Denotes Dlmction of Drainage %p of Fa. " oaa.a Denotes Exlsffng Elevation Garage Slob Er -`-�— Denotes Found iron Monument, as ,noted f7r. 3216.004-004(Pre �_/ Jp Q e ■ A 1-1 . /C 911 .4/I I-,6 I I I lru w of �• / .=■GC=mac LE Ililllllllill ■■ ..��_ - ems., , — •.t. =mow II' �_ _�- iG� �w= G�.� t Lo 000 PS Q`w4-A fAM 6 �Q. A T EMT GARAGE��h4 ��14.3i-'i�4S.,�a,,. kit h a , ,E#£AI@. YrQ tip, 1.2 COH 7. LE •1 )YQ� - ¢. zZ AZI6 ...' , 2.0 C�QH ,��, :.. �,F..4FE� f t.8 .� A �' �,. ARAGE -WALK- 44.6 ADJ FRONT SOL 1 t a t 4 `Ib - LEGAL DES THAT PARI OF WEST HEIPIN C ... �.. ... .S•.t).9'.�1�1!r. �c,......', .�.d�! "`"' • ,.:..$�a:� `� .. •; � ADDRESS — PID#32--11 i CONG CURB LOT AREA + X 25X k 3 19000.9 nt� — o 3 19000.9 nt� — MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Bennett approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exceptions of Item I. Minutes of June 3, 2008, Regular Meeting; Item IV. B. Adventure Peak Remodel Improvement— Edinborough Park; Item V. E. Traffic Safety Report of June 4, 2008. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Motion by Member Masica, seconded by Member Housh to also remove from the Consent Agenda Item V. H. Set Hearing Date (07/01/08) Public Works Relocation. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. MARCH 9, 2009 PROCLAIMED EDINA UNPLUGGED NIGHT Mayor Hovland read a proclamation that proclaimed March 9, 2009 as "Edina Unplugged Night" in Edina. Member Swenson made a motion that was seconded by Member Bennett adopting a proclamation proclaiming March 9, 2009, as Edina Unplugged Night in Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mayor Hovland presented the "Edina Unplugged Night' proclamation to Marcia Friedman, who spent a few minutes explaining the program and encouraging all citizens to participate in an Edina Unplugged Night with their families. MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3 2008 APPROVED Member Swenson made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2008, Regular Meeting as corrected. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES - WORK SESSION OF JUNE 3 2008 AND STUDY SESSION OF MAY 27 2008 APPROVED Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Bennett approving the minutes of the Work Session of June 3, 2008, and the Study Session of May 27, 2008. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. SECOND READING GRANTED: ORDINANCE NO. 2008-04 AMENDING SECTION 850 REGARDING HEIGHTS Planner Teague explained the Council had granted first reading to the proposed ordinance at their meeting June 3, 2008. He noted the Council requested background information on the height of existing homes on large lots for consideration of allowing taller homes on large lots with large front yard setbacks. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Teague displayed examples of ten recently built homes noting two homes had been built exceeding forty feet to the ridge line. He said both of the homes had front yard setbacks of 30 feet, and were located on relatively small lots. The two homes would not have met the proposed ordinance; one would have had to reduce the height to the ridge line by six feet nine inches and the other by seven feet. Mr. Teague said the other eight homes on larger lots with greater setbacks all would have met the forty foot to the ridge line requirement. He noted the measurements Page 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/June 17, 2008 were taken from the proposed grade, and not the existing grade, per the recent ordinance amendment. Public Comment No one appeared to comment. Member of Member Swenson, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Member Swenson made a motion to grant second reading to Ordinance No. 2008-04 amending Section 850 regarding heights. Member Housh seconded the motion. Council discussed the proposed ordinance and questioned whether additional language allowing taller homes on estates lots should be considered. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Hughes stated that based upon his understanding of the Council's direction the staff will not be conducting any further analysis of floor area ratio (FAR) or other single family residential standards until directed to do so by the City Council. Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. Mr. Teague stated the applicant was proposing to tear down two existing office buildings on 3201 and 3101 West 69th Street and replace them with two buildings containing 18,000 square feet of retail space and a 114 -unit four-story apartment building located along the east side of the site adjacent to single family homes in Richfield. He said the applicant had revised their plans since receiving preliminary approval in 2007 by reducing the retail space from 40,000 square feet and increasing the number of apartments from 85 to 114. Mr. Teague said the current request would require: 1. A revised Conditional Use Permit for the apartments. 2. A revised Final Development Plan with retail building setback variances from thirty-five feet to twenty feet from York Avenue and 69th Street; apartment building setback variances from fifty-four feet to thirty-five feet; parking lot setback variance from twenty feet to five feet; and a building height variance from fifty feet to fifty-four feet for the apartments. 3. A Lot Division. Mr. Teague reported the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the requested Final Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Split at their May 28, 2008, meeting based upon staff findings and with eleven conditions; and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the four requested variances at their June 5, 2008 meeting adding two conditions to their approval. He noted he had appealed the variance approvals to allow the City Council to take action on the entire project. Mr. Teague said the developer had updated their landscape plan and removed two parking spaces. Proponent Presentation Dean Dovolis, 5009 Ridge Road, representing TE Miller, and Robb Miller, 6921 York Avenue, owner introduced their development team: Michael Stoddard, DJR Architecture, Inc., Ben Erickson, Close Landscape Architecture, Michala Whelan, Sunde Engineering, PLLC, and Jim Benshoof and Mike Klobucar, Wenk Associates, Inc. They presented their proposed plans for the retail building and apartment using a PowerPoint presentation, plus sample boards of building materials and answered questions of the Council: signage, location of trash pick-up, potential retail clients, expected apartment tenant demographics, price points for apartments, explanation of green roof, sustainable features of the proposed development, green space of the development, traffic, parking, storm water management, proposed landscaping, and whether the project would be built exactly as per the plans submitted. Page 2 MINUTE SUMMARY Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair John Lonsbury, Julie Risser, Nancy Scherer, Kevin Staunton, Steve Brown, Floyd Grabiel and Arlene Forrest MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Schroeder, Mike Fischer and Katie Sierks STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF MINUTE SUMMARY: The minutes of the March 26, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion on Massing/Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Cary Teague, Planning Director Staff Presentation Planner Teague addressed the Commission and gave a power point presentation on "Massing". Planner Teague focused his presentation on establishing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum height to the ridge line or top of a roof. Continuing, Planner Teague explained staff proposes FAR to be calculated on a sliding scale on only the front 150 feet of lot depth and FAR shall include only finished floor area above the basement, including garage space. Planner Teague said staff also proposes maximum building height of 35 feet to be measured to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width, and in no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Planner Teague further explained that any lot 135 feet or wider could have a house 40 feet tall to the top of the roof. Continuing with his presentation Planner Teague highlighted newly constructed houses within the City and how the proposed FAR and height requirement would impact their construction. Concluding, Planner Teague at the direction of the Commission depicted examples of "neighborhoods/districts" as another tool to use to control massing. Comments and Questions from the Commission Commissioner Brown asked Planner Teague to clarify how FAR would be handled if the City were to establish individual "neighborhoods/districts" as an approach to control "massing". Planner Teague responded that each "neighborhood/district" could have its own FAR; adding if the City identifies "19 neighborhoods or districts" there could possibly be a different FAR for each. Planner Teague pointed out at this time City Code designates all residential lots as R-1 and all R-1 lots are guided by the same requirements except for variations for lot width and lot coverage. Concluding, Planner Teague further explained if the Commission supports establishing neighborhoods/districts each identified neighborhood/district would need to be rezoned. Chair Lonsbury asked Planner Teague if the City were to identify and rezone individual neighborhoods or follows the character districts established in the Comprehensive Plan would the City need to reestablish standards for each neighborhood/district. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Grabiel observed with regard to massing there is the possibility that residents/neighbors the Commission has heard from may be wrong. Commissioner Grabiel stated in his opinion the Commission needs to be careful in restricting redevelopment and new development. Property owners reinvesting in their neighborhoods increase property values, and for the most part that is a good thing. Concluding Commissioner Grabiel noted if changes to Code are too restrictive residents may find difficulty in selling their homes when the time comes. A discussion ensued with Commissioners focusing on height as an important tool in controlling massing, and agreeing the suggested change in height is a good tool to implement immediately. Commissioners also noted how the loss of sunlight as a result of construction of overly tall homes can impact neighborhood character and enjoyment. Chair Lonsbury suggested when voting that the proposed Code changes be separated. 2 Chair Lonsbury opened the hearing for public comment. Public Comment Mr. Bill Grist, Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, 5750 Lincoln Drive, addressed the Commission and explained what is important to realtors is to have the correct information available for clients. Mr. Grist pointed out it's been difficult to keep up with current and proposed changes to Edina's Code. He noted someone can purchase a home under one set of rules, only to have them change by closing. Mr. Grist asked the Commission to give the current Code changes time to work before changing them again, reiterating it's been very difficult for the public to keep up with the changes. Commissioner Brown moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Commission Action Commissioner Scherer moved to recommend an amendment to City Code 850 regarding building height. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lots exceeds 75 feet in with. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commission Comment Further discussion ensued with Commissioners stating they truly believe a one - size -fit all approach doesn't work. Commissioners also stressed they have no desire to prevent growth in the City, and acknowledged the difficulty in developing and implementing new guidelines. Commissioners however stated that something needs to be done, and new technology could be used as an aid in development and implementation of new rules. Commissioners reiterated that in their opinion developing neighborhood districts is the approach that should be implemented to control massing and maintain neighborhood character. Commissioners also acknowledged that reconstruction and new construction will occur during this review process, questioning if FAR should be immediately established; however, Commissioners reiterated their opinion that if FAR is established it should be calculated based on individual neighborhood standards. Continuing, Commissioners further indicated FAR should either be tied to a "vicinity or neighborhood character districts" as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan or separate districts should be established and designated. Concluding, Commissioners stated they believe the recommended Code change this evening 3 regarding building height and other recent Code changes will help control massing until separate neighborhoods are defined and/or rezoned. Commission Action Commissioner Staunton moved that the Commission recommend to Council that they not adopt the proposed Code change on FAR as laid out in the staff report and that the Commission further study the use of FAR in a vicinity manner and/or the use of FAR as part of character districts in a future rezoning of Code. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Ill. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion on Tree Ordinance — Cary Teague, City Planner Chair Lonsbury suggested that the discussion scheduled on developing a tree ordinance be held over for the benefit of absent Commissioners. Continuing, Chair Lonsbury said he would like to receive input on the "potential" tree ordinance from Commissioner Schroeder who is very knowledgeable on this subject. Commissioners agreed with the suggestion from the Chair. Commissioner Scherer moved to table the discussion on a tree ordinance. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Chair Lonsbury told the Commission Nancy Scherer will no longer serve as Commission liaison to the Heritage Preservation Board, adding Arlene Forrest has graciously volunteered to serve as HPB liaison. Chair Lonsbury moved to elect Arlene Forrest as Commission Liaison to the Heritage Preservation Board. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Lonsbury congratulated Commissioner Forrest. Chair Lonsbury acknowledged back of packet materials, especially the training materials prepared by Campbell Knutson. Commissioner Grabiel told the Commission he experienced a fascinating zoning board meeting last Thursday and suggested if zoning items are appealed to Council that the Commission is kept abreast of what occurs at the Council level. Commissioner Grabiel suggested that the monthly zoning board summary indicate if an item was appealed. Planner Teague said to date the City has not received any variance appeals in the month of April; stating Commissioner 4 front property line, pointing out building placement created the need for a variance. Commission Action: Commissioner Brown moved to recommend Final Development Plan Approval including variance based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Update on Massing — Cary Teague Staff Presentation Planner Teague addressed the Commission explaining the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider ordinance amendments regarding a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and building height to the ridge line for single- family homes. Planner Teague introduced Mr. Brian Lubben of Collaborative Design, adding Mr. Lubben was hired to work closely with staff on "massing". Planner Teague told the Commission Mr. Lubben has prepared a power point presentation with computer modeling of three existing neighborhoods to assist in illustrating how the proposed changes to the Code impact homes in these neighborhoods. Mr. Lubben delivered his presentation. Commission Comments Commissioners acknowledged that the computer modeling presented by Mr. Lubben really helps clear-up issues, adding the program used to create the visual models is incredible and would benefit the City if purchased. Commissioners pointed out Edina is a completely developed community and visual aids would be of great value. Continuing, Commissioners stated that at this time the Commission doesn't just want to just "patch up" the ordinance to "control" massing, it wants to do more. Planner Teague reiterated the City Council asked the Commission to consider ordinance amendments regarding floor area ratio (FAR) and building height to ridge line for single family homes. Planner Teague pointed out the current 0 zoning ordinance has some good tools that already address massing; however, despite current regulations there is still a concern that Edina's ordinance doesn't go far enough. Commissioner Brown asked Planner Teague if there is a time -line on this review process. Planner Teague stated he doesn't believe there's a time -line. Commissioners stressed they want to "get it right", adding they don't want to prevent growth, but harness it. Chair Lonsbury opened the public testimony, adding at this time his intent is to keep it open. Public Comment Dan Carlson, 6229 Parkwood Road. Mr. Carlson stated he is concerned with the proposed changes to Code, adding in his opinion if these changes are adopted they will be taking away his rights as a property owner. Mr. Carlson said if passed the proposed changes would be dictating that he can't build or rebuild to the size/square footage enjoyed by his neighbors. Mr. Carlson said in his opinion the City Council is discriminating against square footage, adding square footage is what people live in. Concluding, Mr. Carlson stressed that he doesn't want the proposed changes to the existing Code adopted that take away his rights as a property owner. Sandy Carlson, 5304 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission she lives in an area of change and as a result of recent development she has lost her sunlight and privacy. Ms. Carlson encouraged the Commission to make decisions that take the neighboring properties into account. Ms. Carlson stated for her it's not really about house size, it's about lot size and what is appropriate. Richard Whitbeck, 6128 Brookview Avenue suggested that the Commission look at Minnetonka's ordinance as it relates to massing. He said he believes their Code ties remodeling/rebuilds to a radius (400 feet) or what's present on the same block. This would help all neighborhoods, not just the smaller lot areas. Turk Miroslava, 6141 Brookview Avenue pointed out the Commission should also consider if the remodeling or rebuild "fits" the neighborhood. Mr. Miroslava said on his street there are two homes that haven't sold because they are out of character with the neighborhood. Jackie Whitbeck, 6128 Brookview, told the Commission to also consider the "carbon footprint" of these large homes. Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue, thanked the Commission for their interest in addressing the issue of massing. ;t� Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue, told the Commission she agrees with the steps taken thus far to amend the Ordinance to help reduce the impact of new construction or remodeling, adding in her opinion implementing a FAR is a step in the right direction. Ms. Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, stated she believes more research is needed on energy and sunlight issues, adding in her opinion "do homes really need to be as large as they are being built". Ms. Westin stated loss of sunlight can be very detrimental to many people. Ms. Westin pointed out the Schaefer Road/Parkwood Road area is a completely different neighborhood than the Brookview neighborhood and maybe the massing focus should be on neighborhoods. Jay Carlson, 5304 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission he believes adopting a FAR is a great tool in reducing massing; however, Mr. Carlson added he also believes looking at each neighborhood individually makes the most sense and is the best solution to the issues facing Edina. A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that "massing" and changes to the Code are very important and further discussion and input from staff, Council, Commissioners and the public is necessary. Chair Lonsbury suggested that the pubic testimony be held open until the next Commission meeting on April 30tH Commissioner Grabiel moved to suspend the public testimony until the next meeting of the Planning Commission on April 30, 2008. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commission Comments Chair Lonsbury thanked members of the audience for their input and directed a question to Planner Teague regarding Minnetonka's ordinance, adding if his memory serves him correctly the Commission considered something similar in the past. Planner Teague responded Chair Lonsbury is correct; however, basing house size on street or radius is difficult, adding that at this time Edina doesn't have information available on the exact size of every house in the City. Chair Lonsbury asked if that is the reason the proposed change is based on lot width. Planner Teague responded that is correct. A discussion ensued with Commissioners pointing out changing Code to include a FAR in their opinion may not be the only tool to control massing. Commissioners pointed out at this time zoning regulations are already in place and amending the Code may not be enough. Commissioners stated Mr. Carlson's point is well taken; that at least in his neighborhood large houses aren't a problem. Expanding on that point it was noted that a conclusion shouldn't be drawn that large houses on small lots are inappropriate; noting the houses in the 10 Country Club District are large, the lots are small, but in that area those homes "fit"; however, they wouldn't "fit" in other "small lot" neighborhoods. Commissioners also acknowledged the concern with property values and the assumption that the changes occurring within Edina are only increasing those values, adding that can only go so far. Commissioners stated managing appropriate house size in each neighborhood may be the key. Commissioners stressed that maintaining neighborhood character is the goal; noting in the Comprehensive Plan Character districts were defined. Commissioners acknowledged how the City gets there is the challenge. Continuing, in was also noted that detached garages, teardowns, vs. extensive remodeling, minimal remodeling, grading etc. are also important issues that should be discussed further. Planner Teague noted if the Commission is serious about developing neighborhood districts to regulate massing individual neighborhoods would need to be identified and rezoned. Planner Teague said in his opinion it would be challenging to "draw" neighborhood lines. Commissioner Brown pointed out character districts were already identified in the Comprehensive Plan and that could be a starting point. Commissioner Grabiel suggested that the City solicit help from realtors in defining neighborhoods - if that's the way the City is heading. Chair Lonsbury stated at this time the Commission isn't ready to act on the proposed Code amendments. Chair Lonsbury said in his opinion it would be beneficial if the Commission and Council had a workshop on this issue. Concluding, Chair Lonsbury said the message this evening is that the Commission needs more input before we act. III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Chair Lonsbury acknowledged receipt of back of the packet materials. IV. ADJOURNMENT AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM Submitted by 11 MINUTE SUMMARY City of Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Lonsbury, Julie Risser, Nancy Scherer, Michael Schroeder, Mike Fischer, Steve Brown, Arlene Forrest, Kevin Staunton, Katie Sierks MEMBERS ABSENT: Floyd Grabiel STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF MINUTE SUMMARY: The Minutes of the February 28, 2007, meeting were filed with a correction. Il. NEW BUSINESS: MASSING STUDY REPORT - Cary Teague STAFF PRESENTATION: Mr. Teague addressed the Commission and explained the City Council recently held a study session on the "Massing" issue. They considered the Massing Report by Hay Dobbs; comments from staff; and comments from the Planning Commission discussion held in November. The City Council recommended changes be made to the zoning ordinance to address the issue. Mr. Teague informed the Commission at this time the Commission is asked to consider and recommend amendments to the zoning ordinance, and the Commissions recommendations would then be brought to the City Council and be discussed at a joint work session. Mr. Teague referred the Commission to the following staff report, findings and suggestions as listed below: The following report provides information and background for the Planning Edina's current zoning ordinance does have some good tools that already address the massing issue. The city's 25-30% building coverage requirement, and increased setback of 6 inches for every foot over 15 feet in height, does limit building size. Additionally, the city's median lot width and size requirement also keep new subdivisions in areas with lots that are larger than 9,000 square feet and wider than 75 feet these areas consistent with the existing neighborhoods. In fact, the City of Bloomington recently amended their ordinance, to include similar median requirements, to address an issue they had with smaller lots being created in areas with large lots. They also made some height and setback adjustments. Further amendments would "beef up" Edina's ordinance, such as further restricting the building height in residential districts, the building/hard surface coverage requirement, and/or adding a floor area ratio requirement. Staff conducted a survey of 15 cities to compare how other communities regulate single-family homes to address the massing issue. Building height. Edina's current height maximum is 30 feet. The measurement is taken from the ground elevation at street side of a home to the mid point of a pitched roof. Edina's height maximum is generally the same and at times more restrictive than other cities. Nine of the 15 cities allow up to 35 feet in height, though half of those measure from the average elevation at the ground. The remaining cities are at 30 feet. Consideration could be given to lowering the height requirement and/or changing how height is measured. Where to start the height measurement? There have been instances where grades have been altered by bringing in fill and building retaining walls, which has resulted in making a house appear taller even though it meets the height requirement. A way to address the issue would be to measure from the lowest or average original grade or elevation prior to construction. The City of Bloomington measures from the lowest existing ground elevation. The cities' of Eagan, Maple Grove and Plymouth measure from the average grade or elevation of the highest and lowest points at or within 5 feet from the foundation. (However each of these cities' maximum height is 35 feet. There may be times however, that would require possible exceptions to this rule. Those instances would be to correct an existing drainage problem, or to get the house above an existing sewer or water table. In those instances, a variance may be justified. Where to end the measurement? Another consideration would be to measure height to the ridge line or top of the roof, rather than to the mid -point. Of the 13 cities surveyed only Apple Valley and Bloomington measure building height to 2 the top of any roof. Apple Valley's height requirement is 35 feet. Houses in Bloomington can be up to 40 feet tall, but may not be more than 2 stories. All other cities measure height the same way as Edina, to the mid point of a pitched roof. Building/hard surface coverage. Edina's maximum building coverage of 25- 30% is generally in line with those cities' that regulate lot coverage. Of the 15 cities surveyed, 8 do not regulate lot coverage in the low-density residential districts. The more restrictive communities include Bloomington, which has an impervious surface maximum of 35%, and Eagan, which has a building coverage maximum of 20-25%. The City of Minneapolis was not formally surveyed, but they require a maximum building coverage of 60% and are proposing an amendment to 50%. Minneapolis has a hardcover maximum of 75% and is considering an amendment to 65% to address the issue of massing. Floor area ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) may be the most direct tool for dealing with this issue, since it regulates house mass based on lot size. FAR's are defined in the zoning code as "the gross floor area divided by the lot area." A maximum FAR, depending on lot size could be considered, along with a median FAR, and/or a not to exceed the largest FAR in the neighborhood. Establishing a FAR for single-family homes would limit the maximum size of a house based on the lot area -- the larger the lot area, the larger the house. As an example, the maximum floor area of a house on a 9,000 -square -foot lot with a FAR of 0.50 would be 4,500 square feet. Current use of FAR. Edina has a maximum FAR requirement for all zoning districts, except R-1, R-2, and PRD 1-4 zones. The current requirements are as follows: PRD -5, rest homes convalescent homes and nursing homes: 1.2 PSR -4, multi -family primarily senior housing: 1.2 MDD, mixed development: non-residential 0.5; mixed non-residential and residential aggregate 1.0 POD, office: 0.5 PCD -1, commercial: 1.0 PCD -2, commercial: 1..5 PCD -3, commercial: 0.5-1.0 depending on location PID, industrial: 0.5-0.6 RMD, medical: 1.0 Practices in other cities. Staff surveyed several suburban cities in the Twin Cities area to determine FAR practices. None of the cities had a FAR requirement for single-family homes, although, FAR's are common for multi -family, commercial and industrial uses. 3 The City of Minneapolis is considering an FAR of .5 to address the massing issue. Minneapolis has many areas with lots that are 5,000 square feet in size, that are being redeveloped with homes that are approaching 5,000 finished square feet. Staff also researched several national cities and found several that use FAR requirements for single-family homes. Cities that have a FAR requirement for single-family homes usually exclude detached buildings, such as sheds and detached garages. Graduated FAR. Some cities use a graduated FAR requirement -- the maximum allowed FAR increases inversely with lot size. In other words, the house size may increase as the lot size decreases. Given the city's existing ordinance has a different regulation for lots greater than and less than 9,000 square feet could be established. Conditional Use Permit. In surveying other cities, staff found that some use a conditional use permit to give their city councils some discretion in allowing homes that exceed the FAR, but would be consistent with the character of an established neighborhood. One approach would be to allow a conditional use permit where the majority of homes on the same street are at least as large as the proposed home. Advantages of FAR include: • Floor area ratios are the most direct tool for restricting building mass, based on lot area. • FAR's are an objective standard that avoids inconsistent, subjective decisions on neighborhood character or building design with each application. Disadvantages of FAR include: • With the variety of lot sizes and neighborhoods in the City, it may be difficult to find a FAR that works city-wide. Council would have more difficulty denying a specific proposal that met the allowed FAR. • FAR limits do not necessarily address setbacks and building height concerns. The use of the conditional use permit and/or graduated floor area options mentioned above may help mitigate these disadvantages. Mr. Teague presented the recommended changes: 4 Height. Building height would be measured from the existing grade, to prevent builders from filling in around a foundation to meet the height requirement. Additionally, the average elevation would be used, rather than just the front elevation to take into account sloping lots. Side yard setback. The Council recommended a sliding scale of setback requirements based on lot width. This would slightly increase the separation between houses. Exceptions. The Council recommended eliminating bay windows that don't extend to the ground level. This would combat the issue of allowing three feet of building into the setback if the wall is brought in at ground level. Mr. Teague concluded at this time the planning commission is asked to add to and/or revise the proposed ordinance as necessary. The finalized ordinance would be brought to the City Council to discuss in a joint work session. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Scherer thanked Mr. Teague for his thorough report, and proposed Code changes adding one issue that is of major concern to her is raising the existing grade to "accommodate" a new structure. She said in her opinion something must be implemented to prevent a drastic grade change that impacts neighboring properties. Commissioner Scherer noted in one instance a one level house was removed from a site and was replaced by a much taller two story structure, pointing out this type of change really impacts neighboring properties. Commissioner Scherer commented the City could look at averaging grade and/or building height of properties on either side of the proposed rebuild or renovation. Commissioner Fischer commented at least in his opinion it is difficult to create general rules that apply to the whole City. A discussion ensued with Commissioners noting there is a difference between averaging the existing grade of adjoining properties and averaging the height of adjoining buildings. It was also observed if one were to average the height of adjoining structures that type of Code change could create a "ramblers forever" scenario in certain areas. Commissioners agreed the staff did a good job recognizing the areas in the Code that could be changed to aide in future developments and redevelopments. Continuing discussion focused on the suggestion of using Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Commissioners agreed that establishing an area within 300-500 feet of a property proposing a tear -down rebuild and/or major renovation makes sense; however one has to be careful with language. If Code were to read a new home (or major renovation) can't be any larger than the largest home within a certain number of feet, Code would clearly have to define what is included in that FAR calculation. How basements, attics, and dormers would be calibrated, etc 5 would have to be succinctly spelled out. The Commission also noted when calculating FAR planning staff would have to rely on the Assessing Departments ability to provide individual property information. SPEAKING FROM THE PUBLIC: Andrew Brown, property owner of home(s) on the 5700 block of Zenith Avenue, 5500 block of Park Place and Lexington Street. Mr. Brown said he is against the "massing" that has been occurring in his neighborhoods. He said in his opinion massing creates environmental and economic issues, and can negatively impact the standard of living. Mr. Brown asked the Commission to create a Code that establishes standards that are applicable to each neighborhood. Ms. Lois Meish, 5528 York Avenue, addressed the Commissioner and told them her concern is with building height. She explained she is worried about property owners or developers raising the grade of a property and building an overly large home. Ms. Meish said there are already overly large homes in her neighborhood that have been on the market for quite some time. Ms. Meish stated in her opinion massing impacts the quality of life. Sunlight, privacy and views can be forever altered when new construction or extreme re -modeling occurs. Ms. Meish concluded she would like the City to draft a reasonable ordinance, adding she isn't against change she just would like to see more respectful developments and redevelopments occur. Ms. JoEllen Dever, 7405 Oaklawn Avenue, told the Commission one of her issues is the sprawl of townhouse and condominium developments as they relate to building height. Mr. Teague informed Ms. Dever, at this time the proposed Code changes would only relate to R-1 residential properties, multifamily developments would be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dever said height is also an issue for her in the R-1 neighborhoods. Mr. Lon Oberpriller, 4517 Rutledge Avenue, told the Commission as a land developer he has observed that the price of land impacts the size of the house that will be built or remodeled. Mr. Oberpriller said usually land price is 30% of the equation, pointing out in Edina land prices are very high. Mr. Oberpriller said if a builder does their job properly a quality project can be achieved. Mr. Oberpriller said structures can be manipulated to visually bring down roof lines - lessening mass. Continuing, Mr. Oberpriller said changes to the Code that relate to building height can be a touchy issue and establishing a FAR can limit future redevelopment, adding limiting oneself could prevent neighborhoods from improving. Concluding, Mr. Oberpriller said he doesn't disagree with the discussion thus far; however, wants Commissioners to realize that because of the age of housing in Edina replacement housing is the future; and changes made to Code could inhibit development. Chair Lonsbury closed the hearing 0 COMMENTS AND ACTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioners acknowledged this issue is very emotional. Commissioners commented future discussions need to occur, and acknowledged changes to the Code will impact future development and redevelopment in Edina. Noting there may be some neighborhoods in the City that need some form of "protection". Commissioners agreed Edina's present Code is good; however, there are pieces of the Code that need to be reviewed and amended. Commissioners agreed that Mr. Teague has identified areas of concern with his suggested changes to Code. Commissioners directed Mr. Teague to find out if Edina presently has enough tools to implement some of the suggested changes. Commissioners noted a lot of information needs to be made available to staff especially if the Commission and Council consider implementing a FAR. Chair Lonsbury directed Mr. Teague to look at the technical aspects of implementing a FAR change to the Code and to also consider a more global look on amending the Code. Chair Lonsbury suggested that Mr. Teague not only meet with residents, but with developers, realtors and citizens from the Affordable Housing Committee and ask them how the proposed changes would impact them. Commissioner Risser said it would also be very helpful to provide the Commission with examples of an amendment using FAR to limit building size. In all instances the Commission said they realize change can also bring about unintended consequences. III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Chair Lonsbury noted the Commission received in their packet notice that Edina is a "Fit City". IV. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Risser moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 PM. By 7 P.C. 114.1�( single parents to be able to afford to live in Edina. It's a great place to live and raise children with a great school system. Commissioner Brown said he agrees this is a very complicated issue, adding he supports finding ways to provide affordable housing for people.: Commissioner Brown commented he just wants people to remember that Edina is very unique, and is not typical, Commissioner Brown pointed out Edina does not have an abundance of undeveloped land. It is fully developed which creates more challenges in providing affordable housing opportunities. Concluding Commissioner Brown said he is sensitive to this issue adding he appreciates all the work the task force has accomplished so far. Commissioner Brown stated at this time he just doesn't know the solution. He concluded the City Council has a big task ahead of them. Commissioner Grabiel stated he agrees this is an important issue, adding at this time for him there are still too many questions. Commissioner Grabiel agreed this issue is very complicated adding at this time for him it is too big and too complicated to support or not support to be against or for. A discussion ensued with Commissioners again thanking members of the Housing Task Force for their excellent work and with Commissioners In agreement the Housing Succession Report is important. Chair Lonsbury thanked Ms, Ming and Mr, Massie and all who served on the task farce, adding the Commission appreciates all their hard work. Discussion on the Massing Task Force - Cary Teague Planner Teague addressed the Commission and informed them the Massing Task Force has submitted their report for Commission comment, Planner Teague said Edina Code already has some good tools to direct development and redevelopment, adding the Task Force has also suggested additional tools. Commissioner Schroeder informed the Commission he was a member of the Massing Task Force, adding that serving on the task force was a challenge. Commissioner Schroeder said one question the task force strugglers with was "if there is a massing problem out there", and if there Is a problem -what is the problem, or do the few "bad examples" overshadow the high quality of work that is consistently found In Edina's residential neighborhoods. Continuing, Commissioner Schroeder said what the task force found was that marry residents are upset about the construction process (from start to finish) and In many neighborhoods the process continues to move up and dawn the street. 5 Commissioner Schroeder said the continued remodeling and tear downs/re- builds in many of Edina's neighborhoods goes directly to the issue of "livable neighborhood". Concluding, Commissioner Schroeder explained the task force didn't want to launch headlong into amending the Zoning Ordinance, but to find ways to lessen the impact of change and continued construction. Chair Lonsbury said at this point his intention is to assist the Council by focusing Commission comments on the five points recommended in the Massing Task Force Study. 1. Mandatory neighborhood notification prior to permit letting. Property owners would be required to notify neighboring property owners of their intent to rebuild. Notification would include a perspective drawing. The City would not issue a building permit until the notification has taken place. The City would post drawings on the web. Comments from Commissioners: Commissioner Brown said his observation is when it comes to notification the City should error on the side of "over communication". Commissioner Brown added every attempt should be made to ensure residents are involved in the process. Commissioner Fischer agreed that every opportunity should be taken to ensure communication; however, at present there is no "formal" notification when a project meets Code. Commissioner Fischer said the posting of a sign may be a good way to communicate to neighbors a house is undergoing renovation or tear -down/ re -build. Chair Lonsbury commented in his opinion neighbors could become frustrated if they are notified of a project, object to the project but since it meets Code there isn't anything they can do about it. Chair Lonsbury said in his opinion this needs further evaluation and public education. 2. Neighborhood design education. Creation and support of an ongoing outreach program for neighborhood education and project review. Staffed by the City, volunteers, and possibly outside consultants, this group could create "neighborhood handbooks" tao;pred to the scale, history, style and setbacks of each neighborhood. This handbook could identify character -defining features for each neighborhood and how to meet modern needs while protecting them. Comments from Commissioners: All Commissioners were in favor of implementing methods of educating residents on the City's Ordinances and processes. !.1 3. Neighborhood focus for comprehensive plan update. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood geographic definition could be addressed. Upon completion, the zoning and building codes could be adjusted to address issues such as height, bulk, driveway coverage, and setback. Guidelines would be customized by lot size and neighborhood context. No restriction would be put on style, material or color. Comments from Commissioners: Commissioner Staunton said in his experience residents express alarm when a dramatic change occurs in the neighborhood, adding change can be very emotional. Commissioner Staunton pointed out revisiting the Code in certain instances may be of benefit to the City. Continuing, Commissioner Staunton said one issue he has observed that can be very difficult and emotional is building height. He noted many things come into play when measuring building height. Grades can be manipulated with the end result a building dramatically higher than what previously existed. Concluding, Commissioner Staunton also noted increased building height and grade change are also issues that impact drainage. Commissioner Staunton said he supports really "digging into" this. Chair Lonsbury agreed, adding how building height is measured could be revisited, adding measuring and averaging building height (similar to how the City determines front yard setback) may be a remedy. Commissioner Scherer said it is also critical to her how these issues are folded into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scherer said in her experience many residents feel they don't they have the ability to "weigh in" on issues that concern them. 4. Voluntary neighborhood conservation districts. 5. Comments from Commissioners: Commissioners agreed the- City Attorney may need to render an opinion on legal issues associated with neighborhood conservation districts. 6. Proactive residential construction oversight and regulation. Comments from Commissioners: Commissioner Staunton agreed this is an issue for residents, adding it may be difficult to decipher if the issue is with an individual project or the fact that in certain neighborhoods it has become almost serial as projects and rebuilds continue to occur up and down the block. Commissioner Staunton noted many 7 residents may not have an issue with a specific project, but when neighborhoods are continually subjected to construction projects it becomes difficult to sort out what the real issue is. Commissioner Fischer agreed this is an important issue, adding to a neighborhood continued construction means more "people" coming and going with Edina's "fully developed" neighborhoods beginning to feel like brand new subdivisions. Continued discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement there are remedies that could be implemented to reduce the stress of " Massing". Commissioners acknowledged the "Massing" issue is not new to Edina and that the entire Country appears to be "suffering" from this issue. Audience comments: Mr. Tom Anderson, 4603 Drexel Avenue informed the Commission on his block alone there are a number of reconstruction projects occurring simultaneously. Continuing, Mr. Anderson said in his opinion notification is critical. Mr. Anderson said setbacks are important, but equally as important is lot coverage. Mr. Anderson said presently Code treats driveways as open space, adding they aren't considered when calculating lot coverage. Concluding, Mr. Anderson said the City should also look at maintaining neighborhood character, and better ways to inform residents of construction plans in their neighborhood. Chair Lonsbury thanked Commissioners and residents for their comments on the Massing Task Force Study. Comprehensive Plan Update — Dan Cornejo Mr. Cornejo addressed the Commission and informed them URS was chosen as consultant to aid in the updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cornejo said the City will also choose a consultant to help update the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, adding at this time a decision has not been made on that consultant. Continuing, Mr. Cornejo stated staff intends to have a Comprehensive Plan "kick off' meeting on December 4, 2006, 6:30 PM at Braemar. Mr. Cornejo said the updated Comprehensive Plan needs to be adopted and is considered a legal document. Mr. Cornejo told the Commission the Comprehensive Plan will define what type of community Edina wants to be, not only now but 5 to 15 years from now. E:3