The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-07-24 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 24, 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 July 10, 2013 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT 9 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. Subdivision. Preliminary Plat. Shainght Addition, 5612 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN B. Final Rezoning, Final Plat and Final Development. Edina Fifty Five, I.I.C. 5109-5125 49th Street West, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review – Frauenshuh Commercial Restate Group – 5801 Edina Ind. Blvd, Edina, MN B. Residential Redevelopment Ordinance – Recap from City Council meeting C. Living Streets Working Group — Appoint Planning Commission reps to working group VIII CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance 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 Wednesday August 14, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 24, 2013 VLA. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Rodney Helm on behalf of Tom and Gretchen Shanight is proposing to subdivide the property at 5612 Tracy Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages Al A3.) The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A4 A16.) To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; and 2. Lot width variances from 80.7 feet to 80 feet for each lot; lot depth variances from 157 feet to 122 feet; and lot area variances from 17,651 square feet to 9,820 square feet. Both lots would gain access off Tracy Avenue by a shared driveway, utilizing the existing driveway to the site. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 17,651 square feet, median lot depth is 157 feet, and the median lot width is 80.7. (See attached median calculations on pages A7—A10.) This is a neighborhood with varrying lot sizes. Larger lots to the north across Vernon and to the east across Tracy Avenue have established the large minimum lot sizes for this property. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in the same manner as the existing lots on the west side of Tracy Avenue . (See pages A2— A3 & A17—Al 9.) A subdivision with similar circumstances was recently approved in this area at 5633 Tracy Avenue by the applicant. (See attached plans and minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on pages A20—A26.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are single-family homes, zoned and guided low-density residential. (See page A3.) Existing Site Features The existing site is a corner lot, contains a single-family home and attached garage. The lot is oversized compared to surround lots, contains mature trees, and relatively steep slopes along Hawkes Terrace. (See page A3.) Access to site is from Tracy Avenue. The single-family home would be removed. Planning Guide Ilan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them generally acceptable. Adequate drainage and utility easements are proposed along all the lot lines. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. The grading plan shows the buildable area for Lot 1 with a 15 foot setback off of Tracy Avenue. (See page A15.) The required setback is 35 feet, to match the setback of the home to the north. If this subdivision is approved, it would not approve a building pad for a 15 -foot setback. However, as indicated on page A15, there still would be adequate building area for a new home. There would be a building pad of 39 feet by 65 feet or 2,535 square feet. Park Dedication As with all subdivision proposals, park dedication is required. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5,000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $5,000 would be required. 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 17,651 s.f. 80.7 feet 157 feet Lot 1 9,820 s.f. * 80 feet* 122 feet* Lot 2 9,820 s.f. * 80 feet* 122 feet* * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them generally acceptable. Adequate drainage and utility easements are proposed along all the lot lines. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. The grading plan shows the buildable area for Lot 1 with a 15 foot setback off of Tracy Avenue. (See page A15.) The required setback is 35 feet, to match the setback of the home to the north. If this subdivision is approved, it would not approve a building pad for a 15 -foot setback. However, as indicated on page A15, there still would be adequate building area for a new home. There would be a building pad of 39 feet by 65 feet or 2,535 square feet. Park Dedication As with all subdivision proposals, park dedication is required. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5,000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $5,000 would be required. 2 Primary Issue • Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the zoning ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the fact that the subject property is double the size of all lots on this block. This block was originally plated with lots similar in size to those proposed with this subdivision, with the exception of the subject property. (See page A2.) The lot width and depth requirements are due to wider and deeper lots further away from the subject property, and primarily east of Tracy Avenue. The requested variances to split this lot are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than other properties in the immediate area. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood and original plat. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a subdivision of his property of which the lots would be the same as existing lots in the area. (See pages Al7—A19, which show lots area, lot width and lot depths in that immediate neighborhood.) The applicant is proposing to preserve the slopes and vegetation along Hawkes Terrace, which includes Black Walnut trees, by using the existing driveway off of Tracy Avenue to gain access to both lots; rather than cut in two new driveways off of Hawkes Terrace. Access off of a local street and not Tracy Avenue, which is a much busier roadway, would typically be required, as it would normally be a safer entrance to the properties. However, in this instance, given the benefit of preserving the slopes, vegetation and mature trees, staff would recommend the shared driveway. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed access and would be agreeable. (See page A20.) 3 An easement must be established over Lot 1 granting an access easement for Lot 2. b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The condition of this oversized lot is unique to the west side of Tracy Avenue on this block. All the lots on the west side of Tracy Avenue, north of Hawkes Drive are similar in size to the two proposed lots. The circumstance of the oversized lot was not created by the applicant. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood includes a vast majority of single-family homes on similar sized lots as proposed. The applicant proposes not to disturb the character along Hawkes Terrace, by utilizing the existing driveway off of Tracy Avenue to access both lots. (See page Al 5.) Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision of 5612 Tracy Avenue; lot width variances from 80.7 feet to 80 feet for each lot; lot depth variances from 157 feet to 122 feet for each lot; and lot area variances from 17,651 square feet to 9,820 square feet. Approval is based on the following findings: Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The proposal is consistent with the lots on this block on the west side of Tracy Avenue north of Hawkes Drive. 3. The 80 -foot wide lot is wider than the general standard required width of 75 feet. 4. The 9,820 square foot lots are larger than the general standard minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet. 5. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: 4 a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is roughly two times the size of every lot on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in the area, including every lot on the blocks north of Hawkes Drive and west of Tracy Avenue. C. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. d. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. e. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property, an 80 -foot wide, 9,000+ square foot lot, which is common to the area. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Park dedication fee of $5,000 must be paid prior to release of the final plat. 3. Vehicle access to these lots shall be off of Tracy Avenue. 4. Compliance with the conditions required by the director of engineering in his memo dated July 18, 2013. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. C. A grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. d. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. e. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. A private driveway easement established over Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 must be filed with Hennepin County. Deadline for a City Decision: October 1, 2013 City of Edina Alt i90O a" ANO foO1 A10 pA0, 371277A _ Ali 3000 �11d fN61Y� A01 6SN 3600 AOA 1>A sm m10040AO/ 5000 Alr AA Alt Lobel, /MtRNOt soft0901 =001 1100 AA APO Alt NN SIN N "06011MrLodll Ate 1111 Al2 S0Q Ati df At2 Al2 off >TOI 3J01 AA OWN Pim" Ubok $sit W, Ari Sol/ s311 JIMdsH 11th? » sm N Oleo cow U ft if, r' Cmks sm ym sm 'fit sm iSTI Six Amsm '�' 1 W1OM4ailt f. L1�li HNIN/ '1071 0071..- AN 11912 Ari 3904 LdtN H71 n#2 3SH tA! AN Ai! 119E 1 11 Q P3fkf AP9 �tO. Mir AA lJJ7 9070 A21 Art 9 sllr AA Sol, sill Art A9r 0 P11tur/ Ait lfS2 Orn onI f� /oR Aii A7s !0# Ar/ Sul SM AOt 8997 9910 1391 AM OOWAABR p90Y i .0100 �j N AOI #W d/Ot LR 33N 1100 /A/ s6M O1M ss1O 5001 1600 A06 $ ull 7 1 7101 1101 &W 3013 ow NN 0012 19 A01 AA AA 1001 op/ OfsW A11 N 1113 I N Alt sm ort f Is !N2 P is 11111 w" ph N Arr, an * M/AMOM OtOO 9Ao r N Wi`H, RA N12 SM AA fi ' AAA nth tJ JIM AN OOM lltt dO7/ qtO AIS Ai Ao7 �HA/q i WitAiO i7 %• 9671 AUS tail All IA/ AM t7 am Ai! N 3112 sm s7O1 iAN MIM ifO6 9w9 A11 !!10 JIM SIX Aa . Ap HN sof? 67A ri 11DtA t/r N Ewalt s7tl1 li i u sm ?t 371? 1p6 pri. 1i 0612. 1001 8771 sm IWY AN Nri 11NA A IAf 1111 Al2 YA ri sm A71 slidNit AA AM N0/sm n 9100 1110 S/ri 1012 DIN 1111 AO1 Ari NO! Ap ►2f/N 01st Not Al2 AI17 oMI s1O1 //01 Ary LYIEf0/ Aq Mae+tl�t.Ydp I.OGt{iM>•1 AA YMl PIP: 3211721130060�eq • '�- S612 Tracy Ave Q EdhU, MN SS436 � ..f �.,�UP+6 mai • J� g5537 5524 5509 5521 5308 q¢ 5513 5525 5528 5512 sc 5517 5529 5532 5516 5533 $536 5525 5520 t DWCASTER WAY 5725 5721 5629 5701 5708 Af:pcamfui7hcN13. C.q�r, jEfC�LO3lSGG2U5 VE OM AYES 5600 5600 5600 5601 5604 5717 5713 5608 5608 5721 5608 5615 5605 5612 5617 5609 5616 ��/5612 24 6710 5708 / 5624 5613 5725 5721 5629 5701 5708 Af:pcamfui7hcN13. C.q�r, jEfC�LO3lSGG2U5 VE OM AYES 5600 5600 5600 6604 5604 ti 5604 5608 5608 n A 5608 5615 m 5612 5617 5616 ��/5612 6710 5708 / 5624 5629 HA MRS TER 5712 5705 5701 5633 5708 5632 5636 5704 5700 5612 HAl44FS DR 5640 5713 ____ 5705 5701 5704 1 5700 5509 5513 5517 5521 WARDEN AVE 0 26si 5508 5512 5516 5532 5601 5605 5609 5516 WGEPARKRO Tl5513 56f3 5617 b 5621 5528 5532 5601 5600 5605 5604 5609 5608 5615 5612 5617 5616 5621 5620 5625 5624 5629 5628 5633 5632 5636 5616 5612 5608 5604 5640 WARDEN AVE 0 26si 5508 5512 5516 5532 5601 5605 5609 5516 WGEPARKRO Tl5513 56f3 5617 b 5621 5528 5532 A -S 5612 Tracy Subdivision; Explanation of Request 5612 Tracy Avenue is an oversized parcel that appears to be better suited as two parcels facing Hawkes Terrace. There currently is a single family dwelling on the site and a detached garage. The dwelling Is in need of major renovation. Given the condition of the home, the break-up of value of the site has a much greater economic value than the single home/single site current configuration. The proposed sites do not match the current zoning requirements for individual sites in lot median width and depth. Review of the plat and 500' radius surrounding neighborhood plats, it appears that original plat was meant to be two sites. Detailed answers to the variance questions are provided later in this application. 5612 Tracy Subdivision: Explanation of Request 5612 Tracy Avenue represents a double parcel on the corner of Hawkes Terrace and Tracy Avenue. The remaining housing on Hawkes Terrace front Hawkes Terrace. There currently is a single family dwelling on the site and a detached garage. The dwelling is in need of major renovation. Given the condition of the home, the break-up of value of the site has a much greater economic value than the single home/single site current configuration. Also, the subject property is somewhat of an outlier, sitting back on its site and facing Tracy. This subdivision requests separating the 160.1 by 122.75 foot lot, currently fronting Tracy on the 122.75 dimension, into two lots fronting Hawkes with 80 and 80.1 frontage. The south side of the site, which would be the Hawkes frontage, does have a rise and trees. The sites could either have (1) south side driveway egress to Hawkes with tuck under gararge for the westerly site and optional egress to either Hawkes or Tracy at current curb cut for the easterly site or (2) create an easement access across east site from Tracy to the west site allowing rise and trees to be kept and retaining only one curb cut on Tracy. Plats were drawn as #1 option. We can have redrawn to #2 option, but that might be best left to the building permit process later. Attachment A: 5612 Tracy Variance Responses: The proposed Variance will: 1) Relievepractical dffilculties in conrplying N,ith the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable: YES. The 500' neighborhood creates two practical difficulties, one relating to the lot width and the other to the lot depth. First, with regards to the lot width of the proposed sites, the proposed sites will be just under the median, which for ordinance purposes, requires variance. Of the 63 sites in the neighborhood, 21 sites lie within 6 inches of width of the proposed sites (reference attachment B). Due to the original platting, a number of sites are pie -shaped. Width is determined with a 50' setback into the sites. The result is that these pie -shaped create a greater width value than measured at the street, as would be the case for a standard rectangular platted neighborhood where lot width is lot width. This has skewed the median upwards some, pushing a number of conforming width lots (over 75' width), 31 of 32 that fall below the median, into non- conformance. With regards to depth, the 500' neighborhood really consists of two property types, those with more of a standard lot depth of 120-140', and those with excessive lot depths, 200; and over. These groups represent 20 and 27 of the properties in the 62 property set respectively. See attachment C. Because of these two separate groups of properties, and their relative distribution of property, the median for this particular neighborhood has been skewed upwards forcing a number of the more standardized lots to be in nonconformance with the median rule. Further, when looking at Hawkes Terrance specifically, the lot depth of the proposed sites match up directly with the remaining sites on the northside of street. 2) Correct extraordinafcirczrmstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district: YES. Of the 63 property set in the defined neighborhood, the only other parcel that is double sized in nature is 5633 Tracy, which just received subdivision approval this past spring. No other sites are situated in such a way that would allow two 80' frontage lots. Further, by review of the 500' neighborhood platting, the subject site appears to have belonged to Hawkes Terrace from a livability standpoint, since it represents approximately two times the site directly to the west. 3) Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance: YES. The proposed sites meet minimum lot width of the zoning area (75'). The depth of the lot matches the site directly to the west. With regards to the intent or spirit of the ordinance, the proposed sites offer approximately the same site offering as a number of the neighboring sites. As referenced above, in the general field of properties in the 500' radius, the sites are really grouped in two categories, excessively deep lots and standard lots. I have highlighted this fact on attachment C. Note that of the 63 defined neighborhood homes, 20 of them range from 120-140' creating a more standard category, while there is another grouping of much larger property, 27 in count, that have depth in excess of 200' Again, this really creates two groups of property. The Hawkes Terrace properties tend to be more standard sized and match more directly against the proposed sites. 4) Not alter the essential Character of the neighboa•hood.• YES. Looking directly at the Hawkes sites, the new proposed sites more directly reflect those sites. Also, by changing the frontage of the subject into two frontages on Hawkes, the neighborhood character of that street will only be enhanced, feeling more consistent with itself. This subject, in its current state, is somewhat disconnected with both Tracy Avenue and Hawkes Terrace. Subdivision of this site will provide greater consistency for Hawkes Terrace. AL s 4A k4fNNAt M � t �Np jjj N V�b iii ': f# YAy/�yryt )MMl dY fHki in « n, !� t s Attachment B, Shanight Addition: Sorted By width, Raw da a collected from Surveyors numbers L.ot No Length 39 0 0 32 60 121,s 9 73 247 t9 75 306 "r 20 115 300 21 7 3q0_ 22 75 2" :23 7S 13'1 ' 31 75 155 : 33 75 121,8 34 75 135 30 46 49 76 10 24 137 27 136 28 217,5 '- 29 2t7,5 " 35 200 36 "0 '- 37 295 38 295 42 24U 43 247.5 '' $1 135 o- 52 217.5 # 53 62 732:5 63 2� 41 40 44 0 ?3;► S 46 232.5 41 2#2 5 t0 82 217.5 SO 83 165 58 83 248 11 84 155 18 95 125 25 85 135.7 26 85 136 60 85 125 55 86 140 56 86 140 15 90 130 17 90 125 54 93 161 59 93 130 61 93 130 57 98 130 16 100 125 14 103 125 13 110 235 2 112 150 7 112 150 1 120 157 3 120 ISO 5 120 153 8 120 150 48 125 224 6 135 148 4 150 190 median 80.7 157 averse 87.04127 18396508 NOTE: 21 sites out of 63 are within 0.7 Ft width of proposed sites Attachment C, Shanight Addition: Sorted by lot depth Raw date collected from Surveyors numbers NOTE: Sites arc primary in two groups, small sites, 120-140 lengths, and large sites 200+. General data set becomes very diverse because of this causing a very high median and average. This has forced a lot of the sites to be quite a bit under median. 41 Attachment A, Shanight Addition: Raw date collected liom Surveyors numbers Lot No Width Length 1 120 157 2 112 150 3 120 150 4 I50 190 5 120 153 6 135 148 7 112 I50 a 120 150 9 75 247 10 82 217.5 11 84 155 12 75 224 13 110 235 14 103 125 15 90 130 16 100 125 17 90 125 18 85 125 19 75 300 20 75 300 21 75 300 22 75 230 23 75 157 24 80 137 25 85 135:7 26 85 136 27 80 136 28 80 217.5 29 80 217.5 30 76 155 31 75 155 32 68.5 121.8 33 75 121:8 34 75 135 35 80 200 36 80 200 37 80 295 38 80 295 39 0 0 40 80.7 232.5 41 80.6 232.5 42 80 247.5 43 80 247.5 44 80.7 232.5 45 80.7 232.5 46 80.7 232.5 47 80.7 232.5 48 125 224 49 76 140 50 83 165 51 80 135 52 80 2175 53 80 247.5 54 93 161 55 86 140 56 86 140 57 98 130 58 83 248 59 93 130 60 85 125 61 93 130 62 80.5 232,3 80.5 232:5 263 median 80.7 157 avers a 87.04127 183.96508 no + EXISTING CONDTIONS SURVEY FOR Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5812 T2cy Ave. Edina, MN 5%76 11 NOTES: ewawmms mwwN..», lew 0..rw, ue Drat ...,m.. a++•s crarsa,-a+aw�w. s..a., um owa �r'�tleac �"" nswwm.awww sb awK vMnv.M eul W p n.qw lta i.w naLm.q .rmaroa MwN•,w, qn p,,faaul 11 Legal Description n<s.a I rw,.rw �a Ico rm.rl<,a mau: e.a las rw xa. n.wtwr ena 1, rAwu+nca61, Nennyw c.w.a. en�.ee> EXISTING CONDITIONS SHANIGHT ADDITION For. Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5612 Trery Ave, EdW..MN S5436 CERMFICAMN >w. rw w.�u.e... n ea aw a � r wenaen www w mn Maaorw.,a. wo..rwa�+mow. e. I--� LOT SURVEY COMPANY. INC. Lor SW1VL1tORS 1e>SBo, on� n aNs Sheet 1 0( 5 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 S 86'2T29' E 160 D1_ #I S,W 59; % `1 2 T I �� HAWKE5 TERRACE ---------------------------------------- SCALE INSCALE IN i4T 0 20 W a0F. EXISTING CONDTIONS SURVEY FOR Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5812 T2cy Ave. Edina, MN 5%76 11 NOTES: ewawmms mwwN..», lew 0..rw, ue Drat ...,m.. a++•s crarsa,-a+aw�w. s..a., um owa �r'�tleac �"" nswwm.awww sb awK vMnv.M eul W p n.qw lta i.w naLm.q .rmaroa MwN•,w, qn p,,faaul 11 Legal Description n<s.a I rw,.rw �a Ico rm.rl<,a mau: e.a las rw xa. n.wtwr ena 1, rAwu+nca61, Nennyw c.w.a. en�.ee> EXISTING CONDITIONS SHANIGHT ADDITION For. Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5612 Trery Ave, EdW..MN S5436 CERMFICAMN >w. rw w.�u.e... n ea aw a � r wenaen www w mn Maaorw.,a. wo..rwa�+mow. e. I--� LOT SURVEY COMPANY. INC. Lor SW1VL1tORS 1e>SBo, on� n aNs Sheet 1 0( 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: M Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5512 -Ave, T Edln...N 55436 11 NOTES: 11 Legal Description PRELIMINARY PLAT SHANIGHT ADDITION For. Tqrn & Gretchen Shanight "127myAW. MN 65436 CERTFICATION LOT SURVEYS COMPANY. INC. SN•2T2S^ E 160.01 ------- -------- uj 44 L 0 T 2 L 0 'T 1 lie ----------- S 89'2729"E 163.01 t J HAWKE5 TERRACE til ---------------------------------------- CASEWW5 ARE 5HOOW rHU5: SME IN FEET 0 20 a 60 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: M Tom & Gretchen Shanight 5512 -Ave, T Edln...N 55436 11 NOTES: 11 Legal Description PRELIMINARY PLAT SHANIGHT ADDITION For. Tqrn & Gretchen Shanight "127myAW. MN 65436 CERTFICATION LOT SURVEYS COMPANY. INC. 4 w ------------------------------ NAWKE3 t£RRACC �..r.r.Q.rr.w 04tM0 w! s� c�trrr�rrrrwr« atY. rt..r w w r..wt r .'�"wrrir Yawray.. [.aWYtR.;raml 2 r..Ml>LTfyr.trO.bew.riptY. E 'IIIf�II.if�i51�tlK6tlnetlt�Gp��r oopbasmoonocdl f. Af rrrttlr.twr.r.trrY ...Mwf[M� I..r1erK lT..�w��:=.11w� W IM�1r 11Iw E I..YIrt..wY1Y0.OM®M�Y.IwM IItnW iYrprrJ4rN re cr.rn �M+wYreie! bM d Efil.' 6 TVMm ate. �".l.J rrw�n+w..�sv.rrnn.v Tom & Gretchen Shanot edh%AN sun • W wtrrtY W ,,..r L.r ti,Nrtl.. Mt.MEM.'/CrMYM..Mryf�.tiwitWO.MI rr�..r.r�. rA�Mi►M1M.p WMMvf tM.YI. by !/.!Y lrtlWl.�/.014r.lImN SY(NnYMrb�NMIM.MSi'A grrrA.tY..rw. W �2 YY-.�WMr .r;•=r04. tlrirY.MUYAI.rr.rilP.:1 W iMY*+�yrwlYq.WrrY N.�Yr.tlT.tiMf 11 L"W oes�P u 1w�NAlItlM/�.KL;NueT.11..tl..iwrr G.YYY1PoMMt ALTERNATE 6gADIN1;, MW4AM UMM ANO TPM PLAN SHANIGHT ADDITION -r. a 8haW* as" ism Iwnme"non iwFYMMwwYOtNlWtwwN M �� w ►t.rw l.lY ws»ntouis.er trmawtwrcwara Sn..t S al S H ti z 0 E ii Bit of yy nil H ti ------ -------------------- z 0 E ii Bit nil All, ------ -------------------- A ( t nil A ( t gnN-JA di ADV�11 a —s --s —s —s .—s —s —s —s —a —a —s —'° —s —s --•Is —s l --a —s —s —s -y ��--1s s —s —s --� AMP J�°�SeC/ei�utSd7/1e6 w ft lowe Wles M 9�7J7tl07 °� a3 va — • • — ` =AlmZLPPOIZX IMT.00 r4'tas - jf f;,•s,f� \ • _ —�—�R - M--fe—>—f�—,N—ati — e _Nr-,i►—as--rr—j i - - f 40 1 ,�� Ise � ��•" ----- � �� M` � 1 �` \ w 'i '" ,�,�r+► 1111 off. o ,, I` i I' I I I i \' m7 T a' I � �`o o I •, 3 �r N "� �� I I + t'a) 1 mom N w m o OEM CO �oNi ' 1 1 N `�` W 11 I r � • �, I g IL-- -----=---- -=-=---------------- W c �' � 1 I sc'zz 3 "vz,zoeaa N ' ► r 1 1, Is I I f I It CN loI J. N 1 + III I ' 1 CO �.. � I i a • �'r I • � _ _ 1 t* l 1 t �� I ; - '�� II _...--- N Imo♦ 1� lob ( ��+�.. u.l + m 929 ' I t 1 t 1 1 0 Q t 01 MAW nn ?i yy,,U Qf �ttmP4"10.9 ISVJ m 10 aw W> " ,gCJLS'�N I I •�� a�uaplsa,� o zs---+-1 � 1l I I • � 1 i7 r7 ISI I7 l / -7 ' � I t7 �� -� -'! i♦ r1 f � f •9 I � I♦ � r f1f! If i !I I (tilt f\fl !1 t t1 -fe fl 11 J� It -If ! N 7 ! �J ♦J f �J! y �� t 9 %J %J f 6Z Ii h �••_ I A 1w D» t>9 sg I --- —ter 917U13. 00 was _ __ I 4 7 , r— �aM` T w 1 r 10,1 w� OVJ cs P �`. tj t-� I 19 1 --,r_1141 r - �r ere n ! t t r► r 1 I N t �r r � I � � iii Ilk, QI 1 { Ie.1 1 -x_ (a1 j t _ i �l! .�1 1 10 r� 1 IgI 1 923 - �. _ 1 { {. I it 14 N 1 ! X11 �`...__s _...��.._.___ •,�_._��_,. ( ` 1 I , t t m JO *PaJ 0-114907 ow ro pq r1om x� +/ r 1 �T 1 I r7 A i -7 • M i r7 r 9 1�, I "•7 i /' 1 t i' T I ► i a �re� r�ei Ii r w7 r ir�ri �►re re r i� •-r�rr rr�d Ira.! r � v ♦J �..! r �J 1 � ii � t 4J ♦J P —1 ti/ ♦J � tJ � � f +.J � � f� 5601 3,30- yl� 57t3 ssas t 21 Sdr3 5720 5125 t " sra! 11' f,•' sit? Hawkes Lake t Srl3 1i .U: XaNaHlsl/wU119. Cik8"�i{!l6`Js3GL'ii046 Yl3tNQNAYE S 5600 b600 SSOd 5861 Seo# 5608 r ICti1�" tr,4t9 , l'//tI f,?Iff She Ma rtn rrr%g6r2 :,; r />Y/tltf/ s /s,,,iill 11 !/t f• #AOWSIM 4 ` � RM7 16,41.1 $712 8705 Slot Sr06 SF04 1 woo ffAMMOR f 3705 I 57o1 5700 +I 0esv Aci s80! 58(5 56t7 5625 3629 8633 LOT A R EI� LET wi3OTlf 0 VEWOONAVES 5801 5600 3800 301 5717 5713 $bat d5605 $605 1 9 +y !JL` 5888 5808 �� A � 5509 5609 rf///1,/ r/fir ✓/% f/ ! 24 5708 ssrr r r f ri>x rif«f.8/,f8!f �ff/;fi.f i! 5813 ,✓.b,y ^7 ! 4 ... HAMM TER 5817 572? 9021 5112 3705 $701 6725 5625 $706 5721 5701 700 5820 -''..• rrAwxesna ' ' r $711 Hawkos tAko 5817 ,. $713 > 3195 57x1 x �' $709 u:�gmm,n,�-sysrwryr�ctwas�aas d LET wi3OTlf 0 3723 t t 91YI + f'~ sill Hawkes tike $711 i un®ami.:nAxW4� CwrwCCtM9MMA YEAVONAYE3 5600 silo 1103 is %ae;c HAW)if:'B lm aeon �+ 16, 5604 s 5a08 � rry ��ir?rrrsi'jr/ slits . .r. S7o9 HA W "AF 5705 Ic Slot AM Seat coos 1615 5617 $625 5471 Ltd` 6E PTIJ sear 3711 5711 so$ 5609 24 5611 3723 t t 91YI + f'~ sill Hawkes tike $711 i un®ami.:nAxW4� CwrwCCtM9MMA YEAVONAYE3 5600 silo 1103 is %ae;c HAW)if:'B lm aeon �+ 16, 5604 s 5a08 � rry ��ir?rrrsi'jr/ slits . .r. S7o9 HA W "AF 5705 Ic Slot AM Seat coos 1615 5617 $625 5471 Ltd` 6E PTIJ m City of Edina 4744 4343 mi eats soot ssoe ;ar aln $74 Stn aaa La nd � Hlppllytpd fins. ase5 plea am ssa riot tsa7arot pa Stir 634 SN2 Mor"O map"me Nowmt s� !io! Sl12 Q Sol JIM wo 0312 Sal MIS 4a4Ms Hausa iura0et5a BUT4514 �N saes p12 pr! .ata 3576 poi 1501 ISOSIne3 Name 40Mft 7744 �T p!/ 5137 - SS16 aSiT �� Sm alw N � ov p70 "If4521 /• 4724 std Sm pit DdF.t Ada adoR 554! 4707 sal Fad LaoNamas 0 m . pb SSS 4325 a n s72a rite . Asn bn pts woo pia 0316 pa ® 0 Parks pis p2! MAS Sort sar2 Q taf7 p!/ 4314 an 55" 0 Pare•it aaaa nrrper Stu Xf# asK �pta sur - ro2T pax San aux tus asm Asti - am pet son at1 /Sae sarvrAXIMtmr $A Das M !yo 24 pPo 3660 5384 stir #00 no ear Beau sor taa at2e.57i7 t... p0+.. Nst. aha Sas sNa $ail 4346 song sea xoa pao aeoe Sep IS r t x s♦ r 5704'4414Bars 5112 un s/rt ser/ sns rs sit Sasr asrt awl MIS asurrwstaa � ssr a taA < stn /r apo aan� Asn s4s / t ssf r � � STts OraAIT alta 4634 � an Asn 1st sr t1/ ib r pft saa sas aro 55r6 It roil snr�ana wl aro sat se» 24 °R 00 $»1 s Asa sroa tea sst I to "if all fttl4 no aril 7710 OM Ti/ 5/n 01746 pts N 7i $121 5ra 5712 Sm w ! Sill sal/ NO 16 -14 6600 am •MeA ate STK $ 41/1 �t Sd2 d10t /rob t0 STIr Sm 13 trot Sur stts ' i 35ro root !a! mot roee 420 se00 i aro0 pro 0 0 wig �. MIS !a! 5604 H stt s1 3ad4 �. H 4NJ +arena. Nae seoe ewac3v .ilt7 art 111 ua•es sMdta.4+r'Y'� tiaOtlaa3 � 416 PID: 3211721130060 ep 3>r r 5612 Tracy Ave Edina, MN 55436 rkv I*; wry m I Lill I 601 0 m 691.36W,5 • m 900.04N I •S TERRACE - - - - - - - bo der s i - - - - 909.G \ i aon cre tc l ` 1 1 �11- i S 89°51'45" E 232.50 _ 2 i a PROPGSm SERU/r.ES-� - ---- --'�' -- =�'------'j -Y_ I •Zi I Itva905..111111B 911 63 1 Lw I, - I -r- I — to — Ra -- � — � -- �-t•-•� —s—s—s—s—ss HA (1l ,5 manhole— 1311I .-911.50 1 .1lke 0 m 691.36W,5 • m 900.04N I •S TERRACE - - - - - - - bo der s i - - - - 909.G \ i aon cre tc l ` 1 1 �11- i S 89°51'45" E 232.50 11 2 PROPGSm SERU/r.ES-� - ---- --'�' -- =�'------'j � t \ I 1 Lw I, - I I r^J L� L ' I , / I 1 I / f Fatclr bash I I ntm�905.931 I , m�903.07® 1909.2 `Y• I I I a i� Go _ _! I Iii r II H _--L-`------------� -'•`-----_-----------------------I� - l � sla.o " � t I I ,-` i L O' t " / I JlG 1 1 `N I I I 1 � i � � � UtdJiy Easemen>� rC Ste= ----------------�-r----- s --a•-1-- ----------J----1--i S RZ3 51 47 H 23_ 195% �I N O ` 9�S I , ! I I � I ` I/ I roof peak 930.0 I I 1-5tory Frame No.5629 9114.7 -= - - - - - - - bo der s i - - - - 909.G \ i aon cre tc l ` 1 1 �11- i S 89°51'45" E 232.50 _--L-`------------� -'•`-----_-----------------------I� - l � sla.o " � t I I ,-` i L O' t " / I JlG 1 1 `N I I I 1 � i � � � UtdJiy Easemen>� rC Ste= ----------------�-r----- s --a•-1-- ----------J----1--i S RZ3 51 47 H 23_ 195% �I N O ` 9�S I , ! I I � I ` I/ ----------r---7---! i / � 1 / 1 1 f booty poll , - f x{arlchar Ir over /lrKi2'-'•�OJ`��// //� / DhG44'� = S.G. "t. _ _ ._ _=JfB.`- - ,�'��" 2.�2Q - -'lutea wm�s } s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 4 1 910.2- _ +: Nota Addiaorla/ block Rolls m arw _ �•• �' 9°�9e Frame / - - -• - - •�\� • I `9iOr1� Garage 2•/ j -VaG y� • 1-F/ B.5 I Frame Garage / 9/0.3 / I I I„of�ea SRT FENCE btc rasa n. -,n• tai. w I.>a r,.ae ar wY. are rmr�991 411� ! t C/ /(. x l4.9 L__ O T-/ 2 - ---- --'�' -- =�'------'j ----------r---7---! i / � 1 / 1 1 f booty poll , - f x{arlchar Ir over /lrKi2'-'•�OJ`��// //� / DhG44'� = S.G. "t. _ _ ._ _=JfB.`- - ,�'��" 2.�2Q - -'lutea wm�s } s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 4 1 910.2- _ +: Nota Addiaorla/ block Rolls m arw _ �•• �' 9°�9e Frame / - - -• - - •�\� • I `9iOr1� Garage 2•/ j -VaG y� • 1-F/ B.5 I Frame Garage / 9/0.3 / I I I„of�ea SRT FENCE btc rasa n. -,n• tai. w I.>a r,.ae ar wY. are rmr�991 411� -Woodhead wr. - \ / t • 909.3x 910.2 aJ o nda II /W �jk so9s 923-5 I f Story Frame I �P low daaon l-Sto Frame �P raa�rwn No.56 / 2. slo,s ry I 91 ° e (house faces south) I J - tory Frame 9.-5?e No.5616 I I No.5606 (house faces south) _ _ _ _ ,� " (house faces south) ♦I ! 1 l- L_ I Y L- L_ I-1 ! I I I-1 I Y �/ I t INLET PROTECTION STD. 2'X3' STORM SM=RE ROCK D RMCE TO CONSTRIafION SITE Ea5m MRx--.- Gcn nlur GI ne, !/+r rev CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL EXCAVATION. (DIAL S11) 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONT 3. PROTECT ANY EXISTING STREET CA VATH INLET PROTECION DEVICES. 4. AFTER EXISTING DRIVEWAY REMOV/ ROCK CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FOR CALLSffIX@YW OIGI Gopher State -( ,WNayAMk 9514s4oao; TOWNES 140a=1163 GOVERNING SPECIFIC 1. The 2005 edition of the Minnesota Dept Transportation ^Standard, Specificaflon and the City of Edina'° Specifications. 2. The latest edition ofth. Minnesota Man Traffic control deviom 3. The fates edition of the City Erlgineena / Minnesata Standard Specifications. rn LEGEND allow P., -.d D D ob.L-M—.16f • Waw &-Ad .. 1 f.Y ro-pbfa 0 a—;- sx.cllrs�w• --=-x- 146- 5h-50- -7 mmise- -rte �Talll�ng Tac ,a, a.oe.F'or—d4bh ��- Wroreswva,wm•d `�+-• x 'S � Drna�ea W"!5 Tree k .MEET atloEx SMelt S" i 7-Pn shael a -R - .Mel 4. Sr 1 / t / r � t \ I 1 Lw I, - I 10 I� ' op I ♦ ' I , / I 1 / f Fatclr bash I I ntm�905.931 I , m�903.07® 1909.2 -Woodhead wr. - \ / t • 909.3x 910.2 aJ o nda II /W �jk so9s 923-5 I f Story Frame I �P low daaon l-Sto Frame �P raa�rwn No.56 / 2. slo,s ry I 91 ° e (house faces south) I J - tory Frame 9.-5?e No.5616 I I No.5606 (house faces south) _ _ _ _ ,� " (house faces south) ♦I ! 1 l- L_ I Y L- L_ I-1 ! I I I-1 I Y �/ I t INLET PROTECTION STD. 2'X3' STORM SM=RE ROCK D RMCE TO CONSTRIafION SITE Ea5m MRx--.- Gcn nlur GI ne, !/+r rev CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL EXCAVATION. (DIAL S11) 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONT 3. PROTECT ANY EXISTING STREET CA VATH INLET PROTECION DEVICES. 4. AFTER EXISTING DRIVEWAY REMOV/ ROCK CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FOR CALLSffIX@YW OIGI Gopher State -( ,WNayAMk 9514s4oao; TOWNES 140a=1163 GOVERNING SPECIFIC 1. The 2005 edition of the Minnesota Dept Transportation ^Standard, Specificaflon and the City of Edina'° Specifications. 2. The latest edition ofth. Minnesota Man Traffic control deviom 3. The fates edition of the City Erlgineena / Minnesata Standard Specifications. rn LEGEND allow P., -.d D D ob.L-M—.16f • Waw &-Ad .. 1 f.Y ro-pbfa 0 a—;- sx.cllrs�w• --=-x- 146- 5h-50- -7 mmise- -rte �Talll�ng Tac ,a, a.oe.F'or—d4bh ��- Wroreswva,wm•d `�+-• x 'S � Drna�ea W"!5 Tree k .MEET atloEx SMelt S" i 7-Pn shael a -R - .Mel 4. Sr %(�)' aJ\oa0D\2§' E. Subdivision. Kiser. 5633 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Rodney Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser is proposing to subdivide the property at 5633 Tracy Avenue into two lots. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; and 2. Lot width variances from 85 feet to 80 feet for each lot. Teague explained that both lots would gain access off Tracy Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 12,090 square feet, median lot depth is 136 feet, and. the median lot width is 85 feet. The new lots would meet the median area and depth, but would be just short of the median width. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in the same manner as the adjacent property to the east. Teague noted the condition of this oversized lot is generally unique to the Tracy Avenue area. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision of 5633 Tracy Avenue and the lot width variances from 85 feet to 80 feet for each lot. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot area and depth, and nearly meet the median width. 3. The proposal is consistent with the lots on this block of Tracy Avenue. 4. The 80 -foot wide lot is wider than the general standard required width of 75 feet. 5. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is two times the size of every lot on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in the area, including nearly every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. C. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property, an 80 -foot wide lot, which is common to the area. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. C. A grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. d. All storm water from the proposed homes, driveways, and westerly half of the lots shall drain to Tracy Avenue. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb -to - curb and from saw -cut to saw -cut. f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Appearing for the Applicant Rodney Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser and Miriam Kiser, property owner. Discussion Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify how lot sizes are determined; by the average or median. Planner Teague responded it's the median. Commissioner Scherer commented that if she read the plans correctly the requested subdivision would mirror exactly the lots to its east. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation Mr. Helm addressed the Commission and introduced property owner and longtime Edina resident Miriam Kiser. Mr. Helm noted that within the 500 -foot neighborhood there are 77 data sets. 22 of the lots range between 80 — 81 feet in width and eleven are at 80 feet. Mr. Helm pointed out while lot width variances are required for each lot the lots will exceed the minimum lot width requirement of 75 -feet. Mr. Helm informed Commissioners that Tracy is a Aa� 10 State road and the State indicated they have no issues with the subdivision as proposed. Helm also noted both lots are stubbed for water. Concluding, Mr. Helm asked the Commission for their support. Mrs. Kiser echoed that statement. Chair Staunton asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this issues; being none Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Forrest said she doesn't agree with staff that one of the practical difficulties is the oversized lot. She added in her opinion practical difficulties exist because the median lot width gets skewed by the adjoining properties; however she pointed out lot area and depth exceed the median. Motion Commissioner Forrest moved to recommend preliminary plat approval with variances based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VIII. REPORT8i AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordina`j 'ce Update — Residential Deve ment— Ken Potts, Arlene Forrest and MikkPlatteter i. Commissioner Platteter introduc (at the request of the Commission; small "working group/subcommitte as it relates to Code issues and would be to provide suggest io /R City Council. Com- issioners Potts and Forrest reporting the three y916nteered late October early November to create a o tackle the issues of residential redevelopment ist uction management. Platteter said their final goal ;om6ndations to the Planning Commission and Commissioners Platteter, orrest and Potts 6 _ ve a brief overview and with the aid of graphics indicated wher "we" were and where "we" are going. The following points were highlighted: • Held two pu iic information gathering forums and evaluated input results. • Presented o the Commission current zoning comparisons between Cities; noting that Edi "fell into" the more restrictive category. • As motioned at the last Planning Commission meeting the themes of "concern" app4ar to fall into two categories; new/remodel, home size and lot modification A J \ 11 Ayes; Bennett, Brindle,fqrague, Swenson, Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGN177ONS ESENTATIONS V.A. FRANCEAVENUE PEDES HANCEMENT PROTECT — UPDATE PROVIDED Engineer Houle provided an ate on a France Avenue Pedestrian Enhancement Project that was scheduled for construction m June to Sep ber of 2013. Mr. Houle answered questions of the Council related to right of wa cquisition, ongoing rk on urban design, and tying in to the existing bike Infrastructure. W. PUSUCI t:ARINGSHELD—Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VGA., PRELIMINARY PLAT' WITH VARIANCES, RODNEY HELM ON BEHALF OF MIRIAM KISER, 5633 TRACY AVENUE—RLSOLUTION NO. 2013-26 ADOPTED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Rodney Helm, on behalf of Miriam Kiser, to subdivide the property at 5633 Tracy Avenue into two lots. The existing home would be torn down and two new homes bulk on the new lots. To accommodate this request, a Preliminary Plat and Lot Width Variances from 85 feet to 80 Beet for each lot would be required. Mr. Teague indicated in this neighborhood, median lot area was 12,090 square feet, median lot depth was 136 feet, and median lot width was 85 feet.. The new lots would meet the median area and depth but would be just short of the median width. Mr. Teague stated both staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval as the findings for variance approval had been met. The Council asked questions of Mr. Teague relating to accommodation of storm water drainage, which would be addressed at the time of permit application. With regard to practical difficulty being tied to lot size, Mr. Teague noted if denied, this property owner would be denied a use that every other lot, including the lot to the east that was previously subdivided, had been granted. Proponent Presentation Miriam Kiser, proponent, stated she had lived at 5633 Tracy Avenue for 60 years. Rodney Heim, Burnet Realty and listing agent for Ms. Kiser, Indicated staff had well summarized the request and neighbors had provided only positive responses. He noted the new lots would meet 155% of the median square footage and 171% of the median length. The Council encouraged Ms. Kiser to contact staff so an interview with the Historical Society could be scheduled to preserve the history of this property and the Kisers' original mid-century modern home. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7;36 p.m. Public Testimony No one appeared to comment. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Bennett Introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-26, approving a Preliminary Plat with lot Width Variances at 5633 Tracy Avenue based on the following findings: 1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot area and depth, and nearly meet the median width. Page 2 ^^y �a 1 Minutes/Edina City Coupell/March S. 2053 S. The proposal is consistent with the lots on this block of Tracy Avenue. 4. The 80 -foot wide lot is wider than the general standard required width of 75 feet. S. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance because: a. There Is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is two times the size of every lot on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable In the context of the immediate neighborhood. the existing lot Is both larger and wider than most properties In the area, including nearly every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result In two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. c. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others In the neighborhood. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of this property, :an 804foot wide lot, which is common to the area. And subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to Issuance of a building permit, the following Items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the District's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. c, A grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. d. Al I storm water from the proposed homes, driveways, and westerly half of the lots shall drain to Tracy Avenue e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement froth curb -to -curb and from saw -cut to saw=cut. C A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the City Engineer. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. il1.8. RfSOLUTlON 0 2 -25 ADOPTED —APPROVING THE ISSO OF LILYDALE, M/NN TA 'TO FINANCE A PROJECT BY MINNEAPOLIS Finance director Presentation Finance director Wallin indicate\testify. 01A, Calvin Christian exempt bonding to fund a projr, that proposal v�V obtained taxable funding and westing a public)ea exempt conduit bank qualified the City of, ilyd have no responsibility for the desed, if ap roved, to provide opportunity for residify. hos commen Lllydale. �SLIGATIONS BY THE CiTY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OF nhool had requested the City issue tax s turned down. As a result, the School ring to convert that taxable debt into tax ale. It was noted the City of Edina would and the purpose of the public hearing was is would then be forwarded to the City of Proponent Presentation Steve Fenlon, 2042 Chariton Ridge, West S Paul, M\tlender. lthcare Capital and the Galvin Christian School's consultant, indicated if approved�, Ere bond wed through the City of LWdale to have access to bank qualification. A commer�eiai bank woubender. The project scope was a building. addition Including a media center/11 ary, computerence room, administrative office with health station, improvement to th ront entry, a sp, extensive landscaping, and hallway with restrooms. That project cost as $2.5 million witn nanced through a taxable note. Page 3 4 Q� MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 1NA• Ayr Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com w�l1l Date: July 18, 2013 . To: Cary Teague - Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle - Director of Engineering Re: Preliminary Plat for Shanight Addition Dated June 25, 2013 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plat and offer the following comments: C•) A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MPCA, curb cut permits from City of Edina Engineering Department, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department. 0 SAC and REC fees will be required for this project. Sheet 4 of 4 Grading„ Drainage Utility and Tree Plan: • Change background on plan to show improved Tracy Ave; the current plan does not show the concrete curb and gutter bike lane. • Provide a swale from the southwest corner of the building pad of Lot 2 to Hawkes Terrace. • To minimize the disturbance of the vegetative buffer along Hawkes Terrace, i would recommend that the applicant look at utilizing the current driveway apron on Tracy Ave for both driveways. typically recommend removing driveways from collector streets to minimize access to busier roadways. I also recommend that the driveways be designed to have turn -around spaces so the exiting vehicles can drive into traffic versus backing into traffic. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project, is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. �a7 Engineering Department - 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 0 e • rNro9�rac8° PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague July 24, 2013 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description & Background Hunt Associates are requesting final review of the redevelopment of three lots located at 5109-5125 West 49t Street. (See property location on pages Al A6.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units total) and build a new 16 -unit attached housing development. (See narrative and plans on pages A22 A45.) The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 11 units per acre. The applicant received preliminary rezoning and plan approval of this project on April 16, 2013. (See approved plans, Planning Commission and City Council minutes on pages A7 A21.) The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant is seeking final rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. On April 16th, the City Council 'also approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide the site MDR, Medium Density Residential to allow a density of 5-12 units per acre. In order to obtain to approvals for the project, the following is the final step required for approval: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to PUD. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. The proposed plans are consistent with the plans that were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council; including reducing the density by eliminating one unit and reducing the height from four stories to three. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single- family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Easterly: Single- family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Southerly: Vernon Avenue. Westerly: Railroad tracks and the Holiday gas station; Zoned and guided for Commercial use. Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.43 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a single-family home and two townhome buildings containing nine dwelling units between the two. (See pages A3 A6.) Planning Guide Plan designation: MDR, Medium Density Residential (4-12 units per acre) Zoning: PRD -2, Planned Residential'District-2 Access/Site Circulation Access to the site would be from 49th Street West on the north side of the site. This neighborhood is relatively isolated; there is only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. That access is from Brookside Avenue, up to Interlachen Boulevard. (See pages Al A2.) A public pedestrian connection would be made from the sidewalk on 49th Street through the site on the west lot line to Vernon Avenue, which would provide a pedestrian connection from this neighborhood to the Grandview area. (See pages A31—A33.) The fire marshal has reviewed the proposed plans and is recommending that the interior drive aisles be widened to 20 feet. (See page A48.) Traffic Study As part of the Preliminary Approval and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study, which concludes that the surrounding roadways could support the additional seven units that are proposed to be added, and no improvements are needed at adjacent 0A intersections to accommodate the proposed project. (See the study conclusions on page A46.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 25 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 87 over story trees. They would include a mixture of Maple, Juniper, Spruce, Oak and Linden. (See pages A32—A34.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. The Landscape Plan is consistent with the preliminary plans. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A47. A Developer's Agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks, utilities and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. Building/Building Material The applicant is proposing the townhomes to be made of painted fiber cement, architectural cast stone and stained wood panels. (See pages A26— A29a.) The buildings would have flat roofs with patios on the top that would contain a rectangular deck. Density The proposal is to develop 16 units on this 1.43 acre parcel. The project was originally proposed for 17 units; however, based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant eliminated one unit. The proposed density of 11 units per acre would be on the high end of the medium density residential range. However, there are already 10 units on this site, which is located on a minor arterial roadway (Vernon Avenue). Higher densities are often located on arterial roadways. Medium Density residential is often used to buffer low density residential development from commercial areas or major roadways. The proposed land use arrangement would accomplish that. Final Plat The applicant is also requesting a Final Plat, called O'Brien Kimmel, to create separate lots for each of the proposed units. The Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat, with the exception of the elimination of one lot. (See the Preliminary & Final Plat on pages A30—A30a.) Park Dedication Per Minnesota State Statute 462.353, Subd. 4(a) and Section 810.13 of the City Code, the applicant is required to dedicate land for public use as parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, or public open space. Per Section 810.13. Subd. 5 of the City Code, the fee in lieu of land dedication is $5,000 per dwelling unit. The development would create 6 new dwelling units; therefore $30,000 would be required for park dedication at the time of release of the final plat. The fee would be paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars or subdivision approval for recording with Hennepin County. Future Project Expansion The proposed plans have been designed so that the proposed project could be extended to east. The internal driveway could be extended if needed. (See page A31.) Signage Required signage for the site would be regulated in the PUD Ordinance. As proposed, the signage required would be that of the underlying PRD, Planned Residential District. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: 4 a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d, ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f, preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing, and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. As determined as part of the Preliminary Development Plan review, the proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story townhomes. (See page A28.) The plan also provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. The transition of land uses is appropriate. Medium density residential is often used to buffer low density residential development from commercial areas or major roadways. The proposed land use arrangement with the proposed development on Vernon Avenue, would buffer the low density residential area to the north from Vernon Avenue and the Commercial development to the south. Proposed parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and would not be not visible from 49t street or Vernon Avenue. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The proposed use, townhomes containing six or fewer uses, is a permitted use in the existing zoning PRD -2 Zoning District. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Medium Density Residential - MDR," which allows 5-12 units per acre. The proposed plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the current zoning, a maximum of 11 units would be allowed on the site; 10 exist today. A any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; This project would be for a single land use; however, as stated above is consistent with some of the objectives of the PUD Ordinance. W. permitted densities maybe specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As mentioned the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PRD -2 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout would be improved by engaging Vernon Avenue and providing a public pedestrian connection to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView District. The design of the buildings would be of painted fiber cement, architectural cast stone and stained wood panels (See pages A26— A29a.) 7 Compliance Table Building Height 2-1/2 stories or 2.5 stories & 35,6 feet* 30 feet, whichever is less Building Coverage 25% 25.5%* Density 8 units per acre (11 11 units per acre (16 units) units) Parking Stalls 2 enclosed spaces 2 enclosed spaces per unit per unit *Variances would be reaulred Under the PRD -2 Reaulations PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site. As highlighted above on pages 4-7, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: 1. Create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today Vernon is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story townhomes. (See page A28.) 2. The transition of land uses is appropriate. The townhome proposal would provide a nice transition of land uses between the single-family homes to the north, to Vernon Avenue and the Grandview commercial district to the south. The proposed townhome development would serve as a buffer; with a row of six townhomes facing 49th Street. 3. The proposal would be a vast improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single-family home on the site. 8 City Standard Proposed (PRD -2) Front — 49th Street 30 feet 35 feet structure* 18 feet (stairs/deck/patio) Front — Vernon 30 feet 7 feet* Side — East 30 feet 15 feet* & 42 feet Side — West 30 feet 15 feet* Building Height 2-1/2 stories or 2.5 stories & 35,6 feet* 30 feet, whichever is less Building Coverage 25% 25.5%* Density 8 units per acre (11 11 units per acre (16 units) units) Parking Stalls 2 enclosed spaces 2 enclosed spaces per unit per unit *Variances would be reaulred Under the PRD -2 Reaulations PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site. As highlighted above on pages 4-7, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: 1. Create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today Vernon is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story townhomes. (See page A28.) 2. The transition of land uses is appropriate. The townhome proposal would provide a nice transition of land uses between the single-family homes to the north, to Vernon Avenue and the Grandview commercial district to the south. The proposed townhome development would serve as a buffer; with a row of six townhomes facing 49th Street. 3. The proposal would be a vast improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single-family home on the site. 8 4. The proposed two/three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 5. Provide internal parking. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 6. Enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the Grandview District. 7. Enhance landscaping. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. 9. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. (See page A46.) 10. Ensure that the buildings proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4 Staff Recommendation Final Rezoning to PUD, Final Development Plan & Final Plat Recommend that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning from PRD -2, Planned Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Final Development and Final Plat to plat and build 16 new townhomes on the subject 1.43 acre parcel. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development Plan for the site. 2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which contemplates medium density housing for the site. 3. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. 4. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story townhomes. 5. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 6. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. 7. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. Approval 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: • Site plan date stamped June 24, 2013. • Grading plan date stamped June 24, 2013. 10 • Utility plan date stamped June 24, 2013. • Landscaping plan date stamped June 24, 2013. • Building elevations date stamped June 24, 2013. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of -credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. The Final Plat must be filed at the County within one-year after City Council approval. If the plat is not filed it shall be deemed null and void. 6. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plata 7. A park dedication fee of $5,000 per dwelling unit is required. The park dedication fees are due prior to release of the final plat. 8. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated July 19, 2013. 9. Compliance with the fire marshal recommendation in his email dated July 12, 2013. Deadline for a city decision: October 1, 2013 11 Draft ORDINANCE NO. 2013 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 5109-5126 WEST 49th STREET (Vernon Townhomes) The City Of Edina Ordains: Suction 1. Subsection 850 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development (PUD) District: I'�ii5elp� t D. ;A oa E n"o+rr I Existing text — XXXX Stricken text XXXX — Added text — LE C7:J.-7 k11177 77L Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —XXXX Added text — Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of_, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2013. City Clerk Existing text —XXXX 3 Stricken text —XXM Added text— hi City of Edina 4M SM eros Baal la7xs4n 4!Mhear. tapond pweber Ulele M» stfaai7MIIw, Ulab 4109 ant III t a I7Qa urs At �l Cllr i(mh !T lf0a 4011 ✓ Cagleleer �"7lalep.a,ea all",to„7e Slit uti allun Is n7 14a Star! '� 1 44aD 4 i Uma p Perla .816 41:r p P.Iaeb 47NJ1YAD,�k • � !, ma ! slal 3111 I stn 4w JMS 4137!axuH 4WI !ka !em a17o n7d10a uN N N 4M 9 - 4113ldTW f� Of .” i-` > � I0a "40 d11I GYPa�� 4111 t! No 3 +a � an saga ul ds y 4r4y Mf SWB YO WAA aa7 sE arae raid INM E 74 $ srar dtea star � dna law 1w1, rrl ° PID: 2811721310040 511549thStW, O -• "• Edina, MN 55436 �J �- •,�• C4N�Ic}1knT (il 11 hi w 43 .r, r. s I R . "y u. .z a y�y !f( RECEIVED VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING EAST RECEfV D ab F a t s. « c x Vemon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections B K Y 04-Mis G R O U P Commissioner Carr asked to amend the motion. to include the addition of architectural features along the north building wall. Commissioners Grabiel and Forrest accepted that amendment. Ayes; Scherer, Carr, Forrest, Grabiel. Nays; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter and Staunton. Motion failed. B. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Edina Fifty - Five LLC. 5125 49th Street West and 5118-5109 49th Street West Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109-5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units' total) and build anew 17 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density ofthe project would be 12 units per acre. The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The'existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD; Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4-8 units per acre),therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5-12 units per acre. The applicant narrative indicate s`why they believe that a PUD rezoning is justified for this proposed development. Planner Teague stated that staff recornmends,that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Arhendment from LDAR, ILow.Density Attached Residential to MDR, Medium' Density Residential. (5-12 units per acre for the subject property based on the following findings: 1. The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single-family homes to the north to Vernon Avenue and the Grandview Commercial area to the south. 2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single-family home (10 Units) on the site. Seven town homes would face 49th Street and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site. The proposed two/three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. Page 6 of 13 An The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service,areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surround. ing properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. Teague added that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2, Planned Residential District to PUD; Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to build 17 new townhomes on the subject 1.43 acre parcel based on the following findings; 1. The proposal would.create amore efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site pla i turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story _townhomes. 2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49t" to Vernon, that would connect; not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. 4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. Page 7 of 13 Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated February 13, 2013 and the final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013. 3. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Concluding, Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to. create a new 17 -lot townhome plat for the subject property based on the following findings: 1. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. And subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The Final Plat must be considered within one-year after. approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed nulland void:: 3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 4. The Park Dedication, fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Appearing for the Applicant David Motzenbecker, Chris Palkowitsch, BKV Group, Ed Terhaar, Wenck Applicant Presentation Mr. Motzenbecker delivered a power point presentation. He further informed the Commission BKV adjusted the development to better fit the site and meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Motzenbecker further explained the topography of the property played a large role in building design. Motzenbecker explained that they are putting in a plinth to minimize stairs, adding the plinth moves along the property line and raises it about two feet. Continuing, along the front the development team wanted to open the units up to the street. Small patios will be added on the top of the plinth. With graphics Motzenbecker explained the internal circulation, parking and guest parking. He pointed out there will be bike and pedestrian access and the site would be open creating a more welcoming space; this also creates a space that is public; not private. Motzenbecker introduced Chris Palkowitsch, project architect. Page 8 of 13 Chris Palkowitsch told Commissioners that each unit would have their own entry and the exterior building materials have been chosen and will be cast stone, fiber -cement panels, and stained wood to warm the exterior palate. Palkowitsch said the project would promote energy efficiency and the conservation of natural resources. Continuing, Palkowitsch said general sustainability principles forthe buildings and the site will be applied as follows: • It is possible the existing buildings will be relocated. • If the buildings are demolished many of the materials will,be recycled. • Use of low VOC paints. • Energy Star appliance. • High —efficiency HVAC will be standard. • Stone- and cement board with recycled contents will be incorporated • Skylights will add additional daylight to each unit reducing energy consumption; and • Storm water infiltration and a variety of native plants. Motzenbecker also asked the Commission to note that along Vernon Avenue the units are two-story with a gathering space in the front. Motzenbecker also pointed out that the front doors'are "sunken", providing each unit with privacy from Vernon Avenue and passersby. Discussion Commissioner Forrest questioned accessibility and asked if any units are without stairs. Forrest also stated parking concerns her; especially' guest parking or lack thereof.- Mr. P responded any unit could be retro -fitted for an elevator. Commissioner.Carr commented that she observed that some garages have windows and questioned this reasoning: Mr. Palkowitsch explained that the windows proposed for the garages are frosted; letting light in and providing a degree, of privacy. Commissioner Forrest asked how building height is measured. Planner Teague explained that building height is measured from the existing grade. Chair Staunton stated the roofs of the proposed townhouses are flat and pointed out Edina's Comprehensive Plan suggests; pitched roofs; not flat as proposed. Mr. Motzenbecker explained that the reason they went with the flat roof was to ensure that the buildings "tie" into the neighborhood. He noted that the majority of the roofs (single family homes) in the neighborhood are hip; adding the proposed flat roof "ties" in better while minimizing the impact of building height. Ed Terhaar addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of traffic highlighting the following: • Proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday peak period, 2 net trips during the weekday pm and 29 weekday daily trips. • Intersections have adequate capacity; no improvements would be required. Page 9 of 13 • it should be noted that the entire neighborhood area has only one access point and if a train was stopped on the tracks for an extended period of time, additional steps would be needed to access this neighborhood; however, this exists with or without the proposed townhomes. Terhaar told the Commission townhouses tend to generate fewer trips than single family homes. He also acknowledged that the intersection of Vernon and Interlachen Boulevard can pose problems. Commissioners agreed with that statement. A discussion ensured on the ramifications of this development on neighborhood traffic, acknowledging the unique one way In and out and railroad tracks. Chair Staunton acknowledged that this proposal is located in a unique setting with a one way in and out, agreeing if you go up the hill and try to turn left onto Interlachen Boulevard one can "sit" there for some time before there is an opening to turn. Mr. Terhaar agreed, adding he believes that movement Is at service level D which isn't good; however, is acceptable in an urban setting. Commissioner Forrest questioned how often the figures used for the traffic analysis report are updated. Mr. Terhaar responded they are updated on a regular basis, adding it was recently updated and the most current information was used in this analysis. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. The following spoke to the proposal: Michelle Anderson, 5112 49a' Street West Steve Russ, 5040 Hankerson Avenue Tony Wagner, 5120 West 49a' Street Leslie Losey,{ 5105 West 49`s Street Gail Helbereot, 5116 West 491' Street Mrs. Wagner,.5120 West 49a' Street Chair. Staunton'asked if anyone else would like to speak to this issue; being none Commissioner Potts moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton questioned how storm water and snow removal would be handled. Mr. Motzenbecker said they have a civil engineer on board that between now and final will work out the storm water management issues, adding he believes at this time runoff storage will be underground. Continuing, Motzenbecker said with regard to snow removal the excess snow will be moved off site. Chair Staunton said he observed on the schematics there are units with roof top decks and asked if that is an option. He pointed out neighbors privacy would be comprgmised. Mr. Motzenbecker said there is an interest in roof top decks, adding they would be an amenity on some of the units. Page 10 of 13 IN Commissioner Carr discussed density and setbacks and asked the developers if they ever considered removing the last townhouse unit on the east. She pointed out this unit directly abuts a residential home and if that unit were removed that area could be used for guest parking. Mr. Motzenbecker responded they hadn't considered that option. Chair Staunton directed the discussion back to the Comprehensive Plan and the requested amendment to increase density and have a flat roof. Commissioner Carpenter said he doesn't have a problem in increasing'density in this location. Commissioner Forrest said she struggles with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan noting the Comprehensive Plan is the City's development guide. Commissioner Schroeder commented that his struggle would be leaving the site low density, adding the step from low density to medium density may actually encourage redevelopment; and in this instance seems reasonable. Schroeder said this project could be considered one of the first steps in the Grandview Plan, noting the increase in density. isn't at the upper end of what's permitted in medium density. Chair Staunton stated he agrees w'ith'Commissioner Schroeder. Continuing, Schroeder said in his opinion( from a site plan perspective) that he doesn't mind the intensity, and in fact, would slide the entire development over; closer to Vernon Avenue, narrow the driveway and squeeze the site together from all sides. Schroedersaid if this is done the impact of the building height from 49th street would be minimized. Commissioner Forrest said she wasn'tadverse tolhe project; however has a concern. She said she doesn't what this site to appear claustrophobic and negatively impact the neighbors. The neighbors do have legitimate concerns. Chair Staunton said, he agrees the neighbors have legitimate issues; however change in this location makes sense. Continuing, Staunton said he really likes the look of the project from Vernon Avenue, adding he also believes the use of PUD in this instance is correct. Staunton said he also likes that the site provides a pathway to Vernon Avenue for not only residents of the townhouses but area residents as well. He also stated he things the bike curb is another plus. Continuing, Staunton said the trick of this project is to make the transition from residential to the commercial area off Vernon Avenue friendly. Concluding, Staunton said he does have a concern with the overall building height and the flat roof (especially from West 49th Street). Commissioner Forrest questioned who would maintain the Vernon Avenue access. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that the association for the townhomes would maintain the access. Page 11 of 13 Ot Minutes/Edina City Council/April 15, 2013 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application fora time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the District's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. c. Pay the park dedication fee of $10,000. d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the Director of Engineering's memo dated March 22, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the City Engineer. h. Establishment of a tree and slope conservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. Approval of a conservation easement with the final plat. i. Outlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. j. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the Director of Engineering. k. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. 1. Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. m. The new road shall be built to the City standards, including a 27 -foot width. n. Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road. o. Installation of fire hydrant(s) near end of cul-de-sac, and possibly at intersection of Morningside. Fire hydrant location is subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. p. Submittal of a landscape plan showing trees in the right-of-way. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Vll. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. Vlll. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY REZONING TO PUD, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, HUNT ASSOCIATES 5109 — 5125 WEST 49T" STREET —RESOLUTION NO. 2013-33 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2013-37 ADOPTED Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague advised the proponent had submitted revised plans based on the Council's comments at the April 2, 2013, meeting. The revised plans removed one unit, increased the northeast setback from 15 feet to 42 feet, increased the setback on 49`h Street to 36 feet, added sidewalk on 49`h Street, provided additional greenspace, implemented a one-way drive with additional drive and curb cut (trash truck access) and added three guest parking spaces. Proponent Presentation Page 5 Minutes/Edina Citv Council/April 16. 2013 Chris Palkowitsch, BKV Group, provided an overview of the revised plans. He presented the preliminary materials board and visual renderings of the proposed plan. The Council discussed the revised plans, noting its similar density with the proposed five townhomes along 49th Street facing five existing single-family homes. It was suggested that a right turn lane onto Brookside Avenue be considered for improved traffic flow. City Engineer Houle advised there would need to be consideration of an additional emergency access into the neighborhood. He informed the Council that the infiltration system was sufficient to handle the drainage forthe development. Dan Hunt, Developer, answered questions raised by the Council. He indicated that the stairway down from Vernon Avenue would be lit and the trash pickup would not require backing up the vehicle to access the end two units. A smaller truck would service the development with the driver walking to pick up the cans for the two end units. Member Bennett verified with staff that the Urban Land Institute had conducted its workshop for Council, Planning Commission members, and staff on "The New Normal" in development as a free service. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-33, approving a Guide Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4-8 units per acre) to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5-12 Units per acre) at 5109-5125 West 49th Street for Hunt Associates based on the following findings: 1. The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single-family homes to the north to Vernon Avenue and the Grand View Commercial area to the south. 2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single-family home (10 units) on the site. Five townhomes would face 49th Street and three townhomes would face west, and eight townhomes would face Vernon .Avenue; the garages and drive aisle are internal to the site. 3. The proposed two / three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and / or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas, and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent / surrounding properties without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regular scale, massing and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill / redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and / or corridor context and character. And subject to the following condition: 1. Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Development Plan approval for the project. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. Page 6 tj c . Minutes/Edina City Council/April 15, 2013 Member Bennett recalled that Council members had asked ULI panelists how Edina could best facilitate redevelopment, and that the panelists had replied that the Council should develop clear rules and then follow them. She quoted one of the panelists, who had stated "the Comprehensive Plan is not the Dead Sea Scrolls, but neither should it be changed cavalierly for every development that comes along." Member Bennett continued that medium to high density development was not appropriate next to single family homes, and approving that development was not consistent with the city's stated goal of protecting residential neighborhoods. The Council discussed the benefits of the subject development, including the similar density with the proposed five townhomes along 49th Street facing five existing single-family homes and addition of the sidewalk on 49`h Street. It was stressed that the proposed development would improve the neighborhood, not adversely impact it. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-37, approving Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2, Planned Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development Preliminary Development Plan & Preliminary Plat at 5109-5125 West 49`h Street for Hunt Associates based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story townhomes. 2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49`h Street or Vernon Avenue. 3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49`h to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. 4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. 5. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. And subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans date stamped April 9, 2013. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013. 4. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 5. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 6. The Final Plat must be considered within one year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 7. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 8. The Park Dedication fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. 9. There shall be no rooftop decks. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. VIII.B. PLANNING COMMISSION 2013 WORK PLAN AMENDMENT— APPROVED Mr. Teague presented the 2013 Work Plan Amendment for the Planning Commission to conduct a Small Area Plan for the Valley View and Wooddale areas, which had been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a potential area of change. The anticipated cost would be $25,000 to $75,000 depending on the scope of work to be done by a consultant. Mr. Teague stated TIF monies were available from this development district that could be applied to pay for the cost of this study. Page 7 4J\ BKV MEMORANDUM G R o u P PROJECT: Vernon Avenue Housing Architecture inter;or Devin TO: Cary Teague 4andsc" Architecture E*wering FROM: Chris Paikowitsch Boarman Kroos ftei CLIENT! FIRM NAME: Edina f=ifty Five, LLC COMM. No.: 1874.01 cry Inc` DATE: 06.24,13 222 North Second Street Telephone- 12. 554013RE: relepnone: 612.339.3753 Narrative for Vernon Avenue Housing Development Final Application g p pp Facsimile. 612.339.6212 www.bkvgrcup.com EOG Through meetings with the city council and planning commission during the course of the preliminary design application process, the Vernon Avenue Housing development has been reconfigured to be a 16 -unit townhome development. The units wit( be 3 levels each with their own tuck -under 2 -car garage and 2 guest spaces behind their garage. They will range in gross floor area from 2780 to 3364 square feet. The development is located an three parcels of land adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp from Hwy, 100 southbound, The parcels are between Vernon Avenue on the south and 49th Street on the north. The development is envisioned to meet the demands of empty -nesters and those who want to stay in Edina and downsize their homes. However, life -cycle housing is currently in short supply. We see this development ensuring a high quality of design that Is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as fitting in nicely with the current GrandView Heights Small Area Plan and many of Its suggestions. Taking the Planning Commission's and Staffs previous comments into consideration, we've reduced the density and scale to something we feel better fits within the neighborhood context. Sixteen units currently equates to approximately 11.42 units/acre, The building has been reduced in height from the previous scheme from 4 stories to 3 stories, fitting within the zoning requirements for height, Adding a townhome development at this location is appropriate and will bring public value to the city and neighborhood. The creation of life -cycle housing with a high-level of amenities is an excellent public value. With its location near Hwy, 0\1N 109, the development allows easy vehicular access for those who have cars. We believe that by locating the development here that we are eliminating additional traffic that will filter into the heart of the neighborhood One of the key elements of our site plan is how we are connecting the development to greater Edina. We are still Manning to add a public walkway to our site that connects 49th Street and the neighborhood beyond directly to Vernon 4a m l i i �z 0 z m 0 0 w Z G J.. CJ 0 E m Cl) i m .. T C m co ig rt s p p (Pg R4 "46i6 4 � 4 �i a. P py _ 14 3 �`1H l 1 _ tv'> i ! I 5 t ig rt 4 � 4 C m f t 9w I \ y, s 1p PAINTED FIBER CEMENT W/ BATTERNS STAINED WOOD PANELS ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE FIBER CEMENT TRIM 6KV G 1 0 8 f I I I I t, I 1 I I L_________________�._________________a i r: ::::!;::{y r::+P: i;;ailiz,fag; si;a rauu!} 436 Kinneapas :4arthtiaid and Southern Railroad fi Blot �r :,� " 4 xv A►ttl LD, .� � a i Ww ( I ` C1 ( np I { I m I i I I SVOR •' d s' I I I I c:: — — — �____—. I �- v I wc�lctr nau.. I � ( { � 1 I M 1 � Jppl�xjyi t'i tl� ) 4 47 ( Cis ( 5C. I I ----------------- fi xv Yt � a I { I m I I A d s' I I I I c:: I �- I I rc' { � 1 I M 1 { 1� { K'ast2{raaSr J Lara I , r 8C9 o0 151. k„e I J UJ U -J L ARA F AVEAYE KEYNOTES �� m.ou.a..m a......n Q wmw mos c�+nm u.n p .rte �a ra em u.0 p �a ee.am as BKV G R 0 U P a7Irunior Drsp7, 13- K-- V-SPI oatmenKmmVogl Group Inc 222 N.,tl, Sm -d S4oet Munnap.r. MN 55401 Telephone 612-339-3752 fac4mk 612-339-6212 www. b kv g r o u P. com NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Penal Development Plan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes SffE :AN :' L100 e can ennga`+Ktt KEY NOTES Qrmooew Q` r"'r.xe wma wa a '0' """axuac v..a.. u.x a�w vm+ac 0 � +� fm.dwk ra. wwr no+m O u® row m, na v[m.on 'Q' .b wa aim, mann LEGEND: mmrawo aoa+ormca � nAN DEfAt� 1 �9 BKV G R O U P Mchbctu c Wew Dastgn landscape MNmcWre Engnamg Swrmm �-1 vejm Group Ne 722 North S...W Sheet PGnne*2 NN 55901 Tdeph— 612-339-3752 Fa 1i 612-339-6212 ww.v.bkvgroup.oan NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Final Development Plan Subm'Mal Vemon Avenue Townhomes Ownmins—n ruyq —�. PLIAN DET;4 I L102 P N DFTAII, 2 KEY NOTES Q------."�`w"m�p9uw :mwa au.cw 01�.—mn. s�w�""10rxr wx .awwe iaxo,�c�� n. wuo me...nr n.en m ,�, u�m mx m. as ams. u.n Q .w .s ww, mnw.n LEGEND: wwoumor nwaavn on.uuaavcx 3KV 3 R O U P wvL-u re sMtior Desgn (NM /Oget stoup !22 Nath Se d Street 4'vnrspo&MN $5401 fdepl— 612-339-3752 aa4n3c 612-339-6212 —bkvgroup— NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Anal Development Plan Submittal Vemon Avenue Townhomes arnu,� pP+n®us nrq o.. t+ne. PLAN DETAIL2 L103 STONEACCENT WALLS AT STAIR RAISED PLANTERS BUILDING C (C -UNITS) I BUILDING Al (A -UNITS) — jh:;tn_ 101 BKV G R. 0 U P X_ V.& Group 222 Nth S=nd Street Ps .1 Ir --1 r r---1 r Td�pho- 2-339-3752 612-339-6212 k I 'r, --I `r' --'I g i H =jb o,p*", BUILDING B O (B - UNITS) NOTE: SEE A200 SHEETS FOR BI UNIT PLAN LAYOUTS 4 IIS Vemon Avenue Townhomes BUILDING A2 (A - U_NITS)- J-8 ---H--4 _4� - L --- i L____ L --- i I--- i - -------- ----- ----- liT 51 — - — - — - — - — - — - 114 4,01 5,64EEMCNP"' �l PLAN Al 00 3 BUILDING Al (A -UNITS) NOTE: SEE A200 SHEETS FOR UNIT PLAN LAYOUTS 0 WE —_—_ •} _— _— Ai BUILDING B O (B - UNITS) t i O I I I BUILDING A2 (A -UNITS) _ I ro ri ED 03 --- -----Tom='-- � ---0 t 3KVR tdni-Desigt . Asmpe Ardd.W �,*e.ire i400s Vogd Stoup 722 North Second SVc "W.V6is tM7 55401 idcphonc 612-339-3752 Fndc 612-339-6212 w bkVgroup. maurcas K Vernon Avenue Townhomes FIRST FLOOR PIAN — IIjj .�I ISI ""■� ISI II•I r BUILDING Al (A -UNITS) NOTE: SEE A200 SHEETS FOR UNIT PLAN LAYOUTS 0 WE —_—_ •} _— _— Ai BUILDING B O (B - UNITS) t i O I I I BUILDING A2 (A -UNITS) _ I ro ri ED 03 --- -----Tom='-- � ---0 t 3KVR tdni-Desigt . Asmpe Ardd.W �,*e.ire i400s Vogd Stoup 722 North Second SVc "W.V6is tM7 55401 idcphonc 612-339-3752 Fndc 612-339-6212 w bkVgroup. maurcas K Vernon Avenue Townhomes FIRST FLOOR PIAN i "o o-- JILDING C ; - UNITS) NOTE: SEE A200 SHEETS FOR UNIT PLAN LAYOUTS BKV G R O U P Archbc ft kroeaer Deg* tatdsa oAmhitemoe 6�gineaing Beaman Krona Vogel Gmup Inc 722 North Scroll Street MimeapolsMN S54DI Telephone 612-339-3752 Faainh: 612-339-6212 _ b k,group.oan r>�urams Vernon Avenue Townhomes vniri r�nR� tmpmwmw� u Wrvb�.•aCN54bofM1Y�pila l�6lrilaRlT-- SECONDFLOOR - PLAN � ■eq-� ■i,', --r—, _tom -, �e(�i rh�l �� is Ili I-I`i • ��r� - �•�w., � � ■`.� L .SII.. BKV G R O U P Archbc ft kroeaer Deg* tatdsa oAmhitemoe 6�gineaing Beaman Krona Vogel Gmup Inc 722 North Scroll Street MimeapolsMN S54DI Telephone 612-339-3752 Faainh: 612-339-6212 _ b k,group.oan r>�urams Vernon Avenue Townhomes vniri r�nR� tmpmwmw� u Wrvb�.•aCN54bofM1Y�pila l�6lrilaRlT-- SECONDFLOOR - PLAN mg I i\ uga O Y Ag 8 Mil --- i mg 4 .) I i\ i Mil --- i 4 .) (il Nh Ekwtlm - Caurfwb S,1Idhm A @w1d Ekw6on • 8,111111 A BKV G R O U P I11e�arDctign landscape Archa�rn,m eaamoo Vogel Gmup Inc 212 Nath Sand Str Mmneapor. MN 55401 Tdephonc 612-339-3752 Fi-W. 612-339-6212 oa�siu w+ tw 11¢roup.mm uss Vernon Avenue Townhomes wwrourav vNvlebmtlro5eeff j EXTER7QR"' ELEVATIONS A401 OSB SN(inpYcEaE ||ma§ • CD �} ! ' O •� ON § , « . u d . . � 3 yn _ '�>; ` jr§\\ : d d d - v,: -� S�` < - a ? � : . 4�� ui NZ CD Z� Nw li) G�+11910M [tI P E \ Lp-j k" �, 2 INN ®m w M o §b ! !4 • §§ b � | B \` k� 0\ k� rn/ §t § I Co 0 U N BKV G R O U P Inwier Design Un&cipe Ae Ntedu Pngne Mng Vogd G+P I� 222 Nortemn h Sd Street Mnne 14 MJ 55401 TeIwh— 612-334-3752 FazvmOe 612-339-6212 —bkvgroup.wm PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES NOTFOR CONSTRUCnON Final Development Flan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes mueswiu+ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C400 I -------------------------------- °o I r------ � � I� L------ %49T}ft tre r West l -' --. .�_ "^•�.,�_ � w -----------___ 1 • __ .t - � i rl y „� r?•r I� I.� ,.,. r .-. I I t Ting ? b 0 r I 1 B(O 14 �� /'�,� a• �I �5 to r 1 I i 50tH Street West. - � I ti.. - -----1---r- -J-----.-5.----------'--_- _ -� AYenue I �'�efPoO r 11 A s QGRADING AND DRA NAGE PLAN BKV G R O U P Inwier Design Un&cipe Ae Ntedu Pngne Mng Vogd G+P I� 222 Nortemn h Sd Street Mnne 14 MJ 55401 TeIwh— 612-334-3752 FazvmOe 612-339-6212 —bkvgroup.wm PIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES NOTFOR CONSTRUCnON Final Development Flan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes mueswiu+ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C400 71 v 2� O � I I I I I I I{I I I i I _ j �Ft�� a,Lo —7. i-€FaLiF� _ NoojglsaM '� I I -- — ! a ---- { — I — N ---- _ j ��~ dgY�g8�d33 g5g� I .1 �3 0 1 ........ I I $69 mp I iF t lit 1 4�&$� '•{ IIA r� ---- °' \ �� I I 17� 1 I - I Poo 11.8 w 11M s Puo Plaf47�o silodoauui/y �° i y i + a a a� �.vcmaownamuov o Z2 d5S pi [t y w ZO�.x; O LO0 5g La rn 1 kff 71 v 2� O � I I I I I I I{I I I i I _ j �Ft�� a,Lo —7. i-€FaLiF� _ NoojglsaM '� I I -- — ! a ---- { — I — N ---- _ j ��~ dgY�g8�d33 g5g� I .1 �3 0 1 ........ I I $69 mp I iF t lit 1 4�&$� '•{ IIA r� ---- °' \ �� I I 17� 1 I - I Poo 11.8 w 11M s Puo Plaf47�o silodoauui/y �° i y i + a a a� �.vcmaownamuov Sd�ti� 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: + The proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 2 net trips during the weekday p.m, peak hour, and 29 net weekday daily trips. # All of the analyzed intersections have adequate capacity with existing geometries and control to accommodate the proposed development. No improvements are needed at these intersections to accommodate the proposed project. • The maximum southbound vehicle queue lengths at the Vernon. Avenue/Interlachen Boulevard intersection do not interfere with operations at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection under 2015 Build conditions. • The maximum westbound queue at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection does not result in any operational issues. • The proposed project is located in a neighborhood that has only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. The neighborhood is bound by the creek on the north, T.H. 100 on the east, and. Vernon Avenue on the south. In addition, railroad tracks are located immediately east of Brookside Avenue. A review of the entire neighborhood area did not reveal an obvious location for a secondary access. 1f a train was stopped on the tracks for an excessive amount of time, additional steps would be needed to access the neighborhood. 6-1 DRAFT A4 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: • A Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPGA, MCES. O A developers agreement will be required for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and for any other public improvements. • Reconstruct sidewalk along Vernon Avenue to be a boulevard style sidewalk; i.e. 5 -foot grass area between roadway and sidewalk. Sheet 200: • Remove all individual sewer and water services from the respective mains along 49"' St W. Due to the extent of patching required the roadway will need to be repaved from curb to curb along the entire development. Sheet 500: • Provide all documentation that was required by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit, including the maintenance agreement for the Underground Chamber Storage System. • Provide a looped watermain by extending the watermain along the easterly side of development to 40 St W. • Add fire hydrant to westerly side of entry to development. • Redesign sanitary sewer that exits the site to not have as steep of grade. • Minimum size of sanitary sewer main should be 8 -inches. • The water and sanitary sewer systems should be indicated that they are public. Sheet L 100: • Show potential future roadway as shown in the Grandview plan. • Address noise along Vernon Avenue and if development should also include noise mitigation, such as a noise wall, specialized windows, heating and cooling systems, etc. • Maybe include more bio -retention areas to infiltrate the surface water. This could also be done with reuse of roof water, cisterns such as rain -barrels, etc, • Use permeable pavers for the driveways. • Where will the snow that is removed from the drive isle and driveways be stored? Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. G kPw1ADMINICOMM\EXTERNAL1GENERAL CORR BY STREE17S140 - 49 StreetslS 125-5109 49th St W (Vernon Tawnhomes)Weram TownhomeslSaff Engineering Department - 7450 Metro Blvd - Edina, MN 55439 A4 7 MEMO Engineering Department - Phone 952-826-0371 - A. Fax 952-826-0392 www.CkyofEdina.com O �' t4 En N Date: July 18, 2013`o, To: Cary Teague - Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle - Director of Engineering Re: Vernon Townhomes Dated June 24, 2013 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: • A Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPGA, MCES. O A developers agreement will be required for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and for any other public improvements. • Reconstruct sidewalk along Vernon Avenue to be a boulevard style sidewalk; i.e. 5 -foot grass area between roadway and sidewalk. Sheet 200: • Remove all individual sewer and water services from the respective mains along 49"' St W. Due to the extent of patching required the roadway will need to be repaved from curb to curb along the entire development. Sheet 500: • Provide all documentation that was required by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit, including the maintenance agreement for the Underground Chamber Storage System. • Provide a looped watermain by extending the watermain along the easterly side of development to 40 St W. • Add fire hydrant to westerly side of entry to development. • Redesign sanitary sewer that exits the site to not have as steep of grade. • Minimum size of sanitary sewer main should be 8 -inches. • The water and sanitary sewer systems should be indicated that they are public. Sheet L 100: • Show potential future roadway as shown in the Grandview plan. • Address noise along Vernon Avenue and if development should also include noise mitigation, such as a noise wall, specialized windows, heating and cooling systems, etc. • Maybe include more bio -retention areas to infiltrate the surface water. This could also be done with reuse of roof water, cisterns such as rain -barrels, etc, • Use permeable pavers for the driveways. • Where will the snow that is removed from the drive isle and driveways be stored? Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. G kPw1ADMINICOMM\EXTERNAL1GENERAL CORR BY STREE17S140 - 49 StreetslS 125-5109 49th St W (Vernon Tawnhomes)Weram TownhomeslSaff Engineering Department - 7450 Metro Blvd - Edina, MN 55439 A4 7 Cary Teague From: Jeff Siems Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 3:40 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: Wayne Houle; Steve Kirchman, Brian Olson; Andy Medzis, Marty Scheerer Subject: Vernon Avenue townhomes Fire Department PC comments Attachments: Truck 12205 Turning Performance Analysis Report.pdf Cary, Following our PC meeting this morning, here are some initial comments regarding the proposed Vernon Avenue Townhome project from the fire department: 1. It appears that the private roadway is shown as being 18`. Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) 503.1.1 exception 1 requires fire sprinkler protection of the structure(s). 2. The roadway minimum width shall be 20" (and include sprinklers noted above) per MSFC 503.2.1, 3. The roadway angle of approach/departure, turning radius and weight capacity shall meet the fire departments largest vehicle per MSFC 503.2.3, 503.2A, 503.2.7 (see attached) 4. Private fire hydrants shall be located per MSFC 508.5 (Confer with City of Edina Engineering for number and location). S. Portions of the roadways may require signage of "fire lane, no parking" (MSFC 503.3). ifJeff Sienns, Fire Marshal 952-826-03371 Fax 952-826-0393 tstemsAEdtaat Kgav I www F_dinai4lN m1Flre To read mews about what matters most, road the EFO Pulse ;b122. to 4(� Turning Performance Analysis Additional Bumper Depth Overhang ------------------- ------------- Axle Track Wheel Offset Cramp Angle Tread Width ra c�A6r �arrr o , 0 o,,rh9,P �daros Inside Turning Radius Parameters: 5/1/2013 Inside Cramp Angle: 45.000 Axle Track: 81.92 in. Wheel Offset: 5.25 in. Tread Width: 16.60 in. Chassis Overhang: 65.99 in. Additional Bumper Depth: 19.00 in. Front Overhang 84.99 in. Wheelbase: 258.00 in. Calculated Turning Radii: Inside Turn: 20 ft. 4 in. Curb to Curb: 36 ft. 8 in. Wall to Wall: 41 ft. 1 in, Comments: Truck 12205 Components PRIDE # Description Front Tires 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 425/65822.50 20 ply XZY 3 tread Chassis 0070220 Dash -2000, Chassis, PAP/SkyArm/Midmount Front Bumper 0123625 Bumper, 19" extended, Imp/Vel Aerial Device 0006900 xxxAerial, 100' Pierce Platform Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page 1 of 2 Jackie Hoogenakker From: theabels2@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:51 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: ianhabel@aol.com Re: Development plan for 5109-5125 491h St. W. and the Planning Commission meeting July 24: We have lived at 5104 Millpond PI., one block north, for 21 years and are very much in favor of the proposed rezoning and planned unit development. 49th St. W. is the gateway to our entire neighborhood, as this is a no -outlet area. The existing apartment buildings and vacant single-family home and properties are extremely unsightly, and becoming more so. Some realtors have stated that the properties in this area are less desirable because the neighborhood entrance looks so shabby. This proposed development seems to us a significant improvement! We are confident that the proposed development will be pleasing and appealing to the neighborhood and potential buyers as wel I. This is a great location, and probably will appeal to many who, like ourselves, are at the stage in life where less property maintenance and upkeep is desirable. We personally know others that would consider moving into the proposed development! Some places in Edina are undeserving of being torn down, but these 3 properties surely need to be redeveloped. Sincerely, Ian and Julia Abel ,—A Hennepin April 2, 2013 Hennepin County Public Works Transportation Department Public Works Facility 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Mr. Wayne Houle, P.E. Director of Engineering City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Phone: 612-596-0300 Web: www.co.hennepin.mn.us n ��a SPR 4 2013 Re: Preliminary Development Plan Review – Vernon Avenue Townhomes Northwest Quadrant of Vernon Ave (CSAH 15 8) and TH 100 Hennepin County Plat Review No. 3271 Dear Mr. Houle: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. The preliminary development plan for the Vernon Avenue Townhomes was received by Hennepin County on March 5, 2013. Based on our review, the following comments are provided: Access – Based on the preliminary development plan (dated 2/13/13), access for the Vernon Avenue Townhomes will be provided on 49th Street. No direct access will be provided to CSAH 158 (Vernon Avenue). Right -of -Way – Based on our understanding, Mn/DOT currently controls all of the right-of-way in the northwest quadrant of Vernon Avenue and TH 100. It appears that all of the parcels in this quadrant have restricted access designated in their deeds to these roadways. No additional right- of-way is being requested by the county as part of this proposed development. Permits – Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Permit questions can be directed to Steve Groen at (612) 596-0337 or steve.mroen a-ko.hennepin.mn. us. Please contact Bob Byers (612) 596-0354 or roberzbyersQco.hennepimmn.us for any further discussion of these items. Sincerely, James N. Grube, P.E. Director of Transportation and County Engineer JNG/cj s cc: Plat Review Committee Mark Larson, Hennepin County Survey Office An Equal Opportunity Employer MEMO City Halt • Phone 952-927-$861 �OjA�ty Fax 952-826-0389 • w•C!WofEd na com � e y � Date: July 24, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review - 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to re -develop 5801 Edina Industrial Boulevard from office uses to retail uses including a drive-through. (See location on pages Al A4.) Currently the building on the site contains a real estate office, a hair loss treatment center, a telecommunication switching site and a small vacancy formerly occupied by a builder office/showroom. The applicant, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group, would like to repurpose and remodel the existing building with neighborhood retail services. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages Asa A10.) To accommodate the request, the following would be required: 1. A Rezoning from POD, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2. 2. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The property is located just west of Highway 100 and is located across the street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Uses include a gas station, Burger King, and a small retail strip center. North and east of the site are office/light industrial uses. (See the Zoning for the area on page A2, and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the area on pages A11 -A13.) The proposed use of the property would be consistent with the existing land uses to the south. This property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a'"Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. (See page A13.) The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan rests with the City Council." Therefore, the decision to require a Small Area Plan can be made by the City Council at the Sketch Plan review. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO o e .�" The following is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the POD -1 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Compliance Table * Variance Required (Site would become short parked) Comprehensive Flan Inconsistency The site is guided for Office Uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The above mentioned Commercial sites located south of the subject property, are guided for Industrial use, therefore, they are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Page A11.) If the applicant pursues a Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff would also recommend that these Commercial sites also be included for consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial to bring the existing uses into compliance. Additional Identified Issues Staff would highlight the following issues for discussion: Drive-through in front of the building. Consider moving it to the back of the building. City of Edina * 4801 W. 501h St • Edina, MN 55424 CliyStandardPG1U=1) P1rojsei "011 , Building Setbacks (Existinsa Suildinall Front — Edina Ind. Blvd 35 feet 56 feet Front— Metro Boulevard 35 feet 35 feet Rear — East 20 feet 58 feet Side — North 20 feet 62 feet Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Coverage 30% 22% Maximum Floor Area .5% 22% Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls (Site) (Office Use) 58 57 (Retail Use) 71 57* Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance Required (Site would become short parked) Comprehensive Flan Inconsistency The site is guided for Office Uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The above mentioned Commercial sites located south of the subject property, are guided for Industrial use, therefore, they are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Page A11.) If the applicant pursues a Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff would also recommend that these Commercial sites also be included for consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial to bring the existing uses into compliance. Additional Identified Issues Staff would highlight the following issues for discussion: Drive-through in front of the building. Consider moving it to the back of the building. City of Edina * 4801 W. 501h St • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO ➢ Elimination of the existing western access to Edina Industrial Boulevard. This access is too close to the intersection. ➢ Concern over a lack of parking space for conversion into retail spaces. The shortage could further increase, if a restaurant use were to go into the site. Circulation. If drive-through is moved to the back, there may not be adequate area for two way circulation. Office land uses to the north and west. Traffic/Parking A traffic and parking study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways, and if there would be adequate parking provided. City of Edina - 4801 W. 5" St. - Edina, MN 55424 k� City of Edina J�Q i313 is SJ00 Ut iJdO rtJOGJ- I1 J� Jti► �IfIOS t NOY.I�J Euraa1te14pHoulatMaYlr Roolabels N r lnhs 7775 Wot 1M0 7JW J WNN9LL7� of t4+5MI1 akrY1G11 731a iY7at ka1lu Lafda $0611513 1150H SISo .18iaM �sllla stat t37o 00a 2 l�' Crnu � Lake !wase 700 ukn pZ31 0 Parks 7SM 7 Iof too w S73t 7150 Tot D ps"S H < Mtl 7S7S J um on Sf1J Sol I182 7103 4013� S9M S NOS 7615 76IS tt i 1 a ti00h �7sYd� Jdis �. 7St5 ISIS 7505 f JM 71 430 a5 0f06t-: � IlOP N I "YR371r 770 7071 rrrf, 1/I577J f 7x00 IMs SOP star SrtS H T Sseaii uiu rm ra �0f 410 7?" 55" ISIS sm Skil Iuf stN list lisp frm s1Js TI riff .. V +msr, IlW IS00 ms Fjoliffs"I Sm JS 12 amf �� 6M1 tOo 1401 ld0s I1ts SI007173 7411 1131 .rat PON ssOP sJii 7701 4trA tdtt 4� stat 01x5 SSOf 051 (� wesrnt02 Ilor rept Sffs `N uyeawMnbats Cyrge..ct ae:aN #015 SIM 5t1t SM5212 ,arts St00 1rtsom ?a $120 o 10a r T �'e a I • Ilia k� p01 _. sots aro Not sm stis to 5120 Aa City of Edina l) L*Wfw 44es uea* sier -:'i70f tau ata Nsuss lksrMrWsb IJW West W"w Ls4sk aqU ft 74#1 T107 ' tra3 3240 4708 73N 101 laks N.sNO pl t1N � Rrks H - 7100 1401 OYSf 7430 rmr zolkY H .,. 0 RrsN�..t.Mw00r'rl 4 ;: -. 8 IPoOg11r.0wtu0..Jtlyde) filD ?w .jigs 11124/u 61u 8167 7305 roR$fW-d- W I" -. t/DMtRs.I Rwr.O��I Dom" :.• ra t v=-lp1.�wow..."WAm1 S 4w 1 aw-0Pr.ro....a+srerl ,NYS :Im l �•SIM�.MOr..eYlfitri0i 7000 � 4230 rotra.r�ro.ruR ��> r+Ys;►► >ar = 77N 3700 "Msrsr rVotob—ou"Dom i i N /M77i +ot, 0124 Y roalar.�«soo..m rr.. YMTr2a OUCdjll.w�tgluR.blq nro. A ;.`• p4f\ara sw•alae..aR.rt.rrs+rres ss44t'so-0Pi.wR.r.ure..rl stss jq0 a7s1 mtr sirs . stet nes n>o 4618 . TI 7Tit - NIUJtRwM R�iNNilR-b* . _. u wto�irinr rr.l.wrrewrl n aty stem 780 reu Nstu115241 !1!1 711RalOr..iall�.r..irei4ist f!0( YAW700Y N74ts auk" ant 0]tlr$ R'riMuOUW Fm Nrl 7001 last R-0lu.s�YO..YysW IQi NOt 422! RROIIpOr•.IWO�.rtMrtRl = N21 $�� O Pstpis 'tYI_ "'�j•,tb StdO sm 4701 mt p01 _. sots aro Not sm stis to 5120 Aa m FRAUEI'wTSHUH Commercial Real Estate Group July 10, 2013 Mr. Cary Teague Planning Director City of Edina. 4801 Nest 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard - Rezoning and Repositioning Plan Dear Mr. Teague: In connection with our recent discussions, this letter describes the schematic land use plan and repositioning initiative Frauenshuh Inc. is undertaking for property at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard C Property") Overview Frauenshuh is in the process of acquiring the Property with the intent of making significant improvements and enhancements that will position the site to better serve neighborhood commercial service demand and economic viability of the Property. The Property consists of an approximately 1.3 acre parcel with an existing approximately 12,916 square foot one-story multi -tenant commercial building. The building at one time was operated as a bank branch facility with drive-through (on the westerly portion of the site) and eventually expanded easterly into its existing configuration (see attached existing site plan). Current building tenants include a real estate brokerage office, hair loss treatment center, a telecommunication switching site and a small vacancy formerly occupied by a builder office/showroom. The property is presently zoned PODI (Planned Office District) which permits office uses various types of commercial uses, but limits certain types of retail uses such as those allowed in the PCD (planned commercial district) zone, including restaurants, retail shops and other types of neighborhood commercial services that are valued services in this area. The potential to revitalize the property while bringing additional high quality neighborhood retail services to the area, and Frauenshuh is requesting to rezone the property to the PCD2 designation to allow a wider range of neighborhood commercial uses that would add to the mix and vitality of the property and neighborhood commercial services. 7101 West 78th Street, Suite 100 0 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ■ Telephone: 952.829.3480 ■ FramnshuhCommercial,com Cary Teague July 10, 2013 Page 2 Reaositionine Plan Highlights The enclosed schematic plan set shows future potential and current property conditions. Aged and outdated landscape treatments and general exterior building and parking deferred maintenance issues are evident. The intent of the repositioning plan is to invest and bring new life and character to the property through a physical improvement and dynamic leasing strategy. The PCD rezoning will Billow implementation of a repositioning plan that would allow existing building tenants to remain while providing the ability to attract new and vibrant neighborhood commercial tenants that are attracted to the convenience, visibility and. character of the property. Some of the repositioning highlights will include: • implement an updated landscape plan: for the Property; • Improvements and repair of exterior building elements, to potentially include: architectural treatments, awnings, accent lighting and materials replacement; • Installation of pedestrian enhancements, including walkways, outdoor seating areas, etc. per future tenant plans, • Future drive-through on the westerly portion of the building per future tenant plans; • Reconfiguration of parking layout, while maintaining a parking ratio in excess of 4:1000 for the overall site; • Improved internal vehicle access and site circulation. Timine and Next Stens Frauenshuh is prepared to proceed with the submittal of the formal site plan and rezoning application. Prior to this application, we look forward to additional feedback from the City on the sketch plan and project concept, if you have questions in the meantime, please contact nae at (952) 829-3484. Sincerely, Davi erson Senior Vice President Enclosures: Schematic Plan Set cc: Nick Sperides, SRa Dean Williamson, Frauenshuh m N zat 22 N fl OWNER. PARKLAWN PROPERTIES LLC S 8931'30" E 318.01 _ ► i Ate^ r I� wx%a m 1 1 ry � � k MOI 8 '� w J 0r :3 -SfORV:OM MUM a fta m w AT TM Parc_ _ _ ^ f 34W; ." � a o Lu A 1 G k O PAW NNamk anUNNOta } ' MRSA 71k �O77, • .. I® MWA k .ow k uUmmus N 89'31'30" W 31&01 _ EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD SRa. I 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD SITE PLAN OPTION 1 OFAVAM Is FRAUENSHUH OWNER: PARKLAWN PROPERTIES LLC S 8931'30" E 31&01 111,„INllillll�lhlliIIlllflilll I�I I 1 I AREA i W W _1118 CD I—$MY MUM 5� TOMPAW AKA iZ976 30. R. r {p} � auum D 17A rw M T AT Im PMT— ---� y LLLLMLLJJJ Q \ I � Z � 3 rK AM aA AIIE1 I � t II AWA I I AW 1 FA% AOCOi N 8991'30” W 31&01 —� — �,,,� EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD 5108 EDINA INDUSTRIAL. BLVD SRa. -SITE EXISTING FRAUENSHUH aft" Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development . Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories MXC Established or emerging mixed Maintain existing, or Mixed -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, Floor to Area Current examples: than one neighborhood (and pedestrian and Ratio -per • 5& and France beyond city boundaries), streetscape current primary uses: Retail, office, amenities; encourage Zoning Code: Grandview service, multifamily residential, or require structured maximum of Institutional uses, parks and parking. Buildings 1.5 open s . ace p p "step down" in height 1 -2 Vertical mixed use should be from intersections. 4 stories at 50th £t units/acre encouraged, and may be required on larger sites. France; 3-6 stories at Grandview CAC The most intense district in Form -based design" Community Activity terms of uses, height and standards for building Floor to Area Center coverage. placement, massing Ratio -Per Example: Greater Primary uses: Retail, office, and street -level current Southdate area (not lodging, entertainment and treatment. Zoning Code: Including large multi- residential uses, combined or in Buildings should be maximum of family residential separate buildings. placed in appropriate 0.5 to 1.0* neighborhoods such Secondary uses: institutional, proximity to streets to 2.3 as Centennial Lakes) recreational uses. create pedestrian units/acre Mixed use should be encouraged, scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries and may be required on larger with tower -density sites. districts and upper stories "step back" from street. More stringent design standards for buildings > 5 stories. Emphasize pedestrian circulation, re- introduce finer - grained circulation patterns where feasible. I Applies to existing predominantly Performance Industrial industrial areas within the City. standards to ensure Floor to Area Primary uses: industrial, compatibility with Ratio: Per manufacturing. Secondary uses: adjacent uses; Zoning Code: limited retail and service uses. screening of outdoor 0.5! activities. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 4-29 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design ME =L1 1 1 C'2 y�cy �3 f. r ^J z r..il 4 A, - T. -a 1aZ v' 1 d ,!4` Fftwe 4A City of Edina Conceptual Land Use Framework: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update potential Arens of Change We ofAadel Rwtogmphr: AtVat 2008 -- or-Lj- j d ANO Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4-33 MEMO City Hall * Phone 952-927-8861 o e Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofE(rina.com Date: July 24, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Residential Redevelopment Zoning Ordinance Amendment At its July 16 meeting, the City Council considered the zoning ordinance amendments the Planning Commission recommended at the June 26, 2013 meeting. Commission members Potts and Forrest, along with Chair Staunton, attended the meeting, provided some background and answered questions as the Council considered the amendments. After considerable discussion and receipt of public comment, the Council — on a 4-1 vote — authorized first reading and directed staff to revise the proposed ordinance language and place it on the agenda for August 5d', for second reading and adoption. The Council acted as follows on the Commission's recommendations: I. Drainage, retaining walls, egress windows and site access. (Approved as written; with the exception that the setback for egress windows was reduced from 5 to 3 feet. The Council believed that a five foot setback was too restrictive.) 2, Building Lot Coverage. (Agreed with the Planning Commission – No changes to the existing Ordinance.) 3. Side yard setback including second story setback requirement. (Took out the side yard setback increase for lots under 75 feet in width; approved the three-foot maintenance access; approved the elimination of the second story setback requirement; and approved the elimination of the five foot setback allowance for an attached garage.) 4. Building Height. (Approved as written – Height reduced from 35 to 30 feet to ridge line.) 5. Side wall articulation. (Approved as written.) 6. Front facing garage. (Eliminated the regulations on front facing garages. The Council did however request additional information on nine -foot tall garage doors.) 7. Nonconforming front yard setbacks. (Eliminated the proposed language.) City of Edina - 4801 W. 50d% St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO 8. Garage stall requirements (Eliminated the allowance of a one -stall garage.) 9. Miscellaneous Code Revision "clean up." (Approved as written. The flood plain regulations require DNR approval.) Chair Staunton has asked that l place this item on the agenda to have the Commission consider a statement to be provided to the Council in advance of their second reading on the proposed ordinance revisions. He is drafting a statement — which relates to the unbundling of side yard setbacks, second story setbacks, and building height reduction — and will circulate it to you next week before your July 24 meeting. City of Edina 4801 W. 5P St - Edina, MN 55424 Draft 7-16-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 2013-7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE R-1, SINGLE - DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT, AND R-2, DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING COVERAGE, SETBACK, HEIGHT S GENERAL REGULATIONS The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.03. Subd. 3. Definitions is hereby amended as follows: Building Height or Structure Height. (Commercial, Industrial and High Density Residentlal)The distance measured from the average existing ground elevation adjoining the building at the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch -type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. References in this Section to building height shall include and mean structure height, and if the structure is other than a building, the height shall be measured from said average existing ground elevation to the highest point of the structure. "Existing ground elevation" means the lowest of the following elevations: (1) the grade approved at the time of the subdivision creating the lot, (2) the grade at the time the last demolition permit was issued for a principal structure that was on the lot, (3) the grade at the time the building permit for a principal structure on the lot is applied for. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text XXM — Added text — Section 2. Subsection 850.07. Subd. 7. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 7. DrainagelRotaintAg WAS & Sft,C66tW. EN Surface water runoff shall be properly Ghanneled , :` into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text— XXM Added text — Section 3. Subsection 850.08. Subd. 1 is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 1 Minimum Number of Spaces Required. A. Single Dwelling Units, Double Dwelling Units and Residential Townhouses. Two fully enclosed spaces per dwelling unit ` El Section 4. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 6. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 6 Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. Building Coverage. 1. Lots 9,000 Square Feet or Greater in Area. Building coverage shall be not more than 25 percent for all buildings and structures. On lots with an existing conditional use, if the combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages, is 1,000 square feet or greater, a conditional use permit is required. 2. Lots Less Than 9,000 Square Feet in Area. Building coverage shall be not more than 30 percent for all buildings and structures, provided, however, that the area occupied by all buildings and structures shall not exceed 2,250 square feet. 3. The combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages, shall not exceed 1,000 square feet for lots used for single dwelling unit buildings. 3 f F A u f 7.. LI IIIt'bt Y 13 Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken —XXM Added text — IN m a 3 e• � :+ a a> M B. Minimum Setbacks (subject to the requirements of paragraph A. of Subd. 7 of this Subsection 850.11). Front Street Side Street 1. Single dwelling 30'** 15' unit buildings on Lots 75 feet or more in width. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — InteriorSide Rear Yard Yard 10' 25' 4 2. Single dwelling 30'** unit buildings on lots more than 60 feet In width, but less than 75 feet in width. 3. Single dwelling 30'** unit buildings on MR bomoso 9OW 60 feet of We in width. 15' 6'-- V ` m , � , 25' 010 T 5. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. detached -- 15' 3' 3' garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses entirely within the rear yard, Including the eaves. 6: abashed 34' 46' 6' 26' gaffes; feel steeds, greeAhouses and gaFden lyses Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text —)d4 Added text —._ c. detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard. d. unenclosed decks and patios. 30' e. swimming pools, including 30, appurtenant equipment and required decking. f. tennis courts, basketball courts, 30' sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant fencing and lighting. g. all other 30' accessory buildings and structures. h. . NA ** R 15' 5' 15' 5' 15' 10' 15' 5' 15' 5' NA 5' Ri 10' 58 5' Existing text —XXXX 6 Stricken text —XXXX Added text C. Height 1. Single dwelling units buildings and structures accessory thereto. 2. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings, but not attached thereto. 3. All other buildings and structures 2 % stories. OF 30 feet 1 % stories or 18 feet whichever is less 3 stories or 40 feet whichever Is less 4. The maximum height to the highestint on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 36 $00 feet. maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Section 5. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 7.A. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 7 Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply. A. Special Setback Requirements for Single Dwelling Unit Lots. 1. Established Front Street Setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: a. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. b. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. Existing text - XXXX 7 Stricken text -YG Added text —XXX* c. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. 2. Side Street Setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the aide street. height shall be the height of that side of the building aGqe'AiR@ the side let One and shall be measuFed ftem the aveFage pFepe highest gable on a pitGhed , Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text —X Added text — .4 -Rear Yard Setback Interior Lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there Is no rear lot line, then for setback purposes the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. 4. Rear Yard Setback - Corner Lots Required to Maintain Two Front Street Setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required. to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a comer lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. 5. Through Lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. Existing text — XXXX 9 Stricken teat —XMX Added text Mill MR Existing text — XXXX 9 Stricken teat —XMX Added text 6. Interior Side Yard Setbacks for lots 60-74 feet in width shall be as follows: Lot Width Required Interior Side Yard Setback 74 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 73 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 72 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 71 19'4" with no less than 9 feet on one side 70 18'8" with no less then 9 feet on one side 69 18' with no less than 9 feet on one side 68 17'4" with no less than 8 feet on one side 67 16'8" with no less than 8 feet on one side 66 16' with no less than 8 feet on one side 65 15'4" with no less than 7 feet on one side 64 14'8" With no less than 7 feet on one side 63 14' with no less than 7 feet on one side 62 13'4" with no less than 6 feet on one side 61 12' 8 " total with no less than 6 feet on one side B. One Dwelling Unit Per Single Dwelling Unit Lot. No more than one dwelling unit shall be erected, placed or used on any lot unless the lot is subdivided into two or more lots pursuant to Section 810 of this Code. Mtg�! 11 M I I'M V-71 Existing text— XXXX 10 Stricken text — XXXX Added text— C. Basements. All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. The floor area of accessory uses shall not be included for purposes of this paragraph. D. Minimum Building Width. No more than 30 percent of the length, in the aggregate, of a single dwelling unit building shall measure less than 18 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. E. Parking Ramps Prohibited. No parking ramp shall be constructed In the R 1 District. F. Temporary retail sales of evergreen products from Conditional Use properties The Manager may grant a permit for temporary retail sales of evergreen products, if, a. the owner of the property or other non-profit group approved by the owner conducts the sale. b. the duration of the sale does not exceed 45 consecutive days and does not start before November 15 in any year. c. the sale area is located in a suitable off-street location that does not interfere with traffic circulation on the site or obstruct parking spaces needed by the principal use on the site. d. the sale area is not located within 200 feet of a property zoned and used for residential occupancy. e. the hours of operation do not extend beyond 10:00 p.m. f. signage is limited to one sign per street frontage with an aggregate sign area not exceeding 100 square feet. G. Additions to or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the new first floor or entry level elevation may not be more than one foot above the front entry elevation of the home that was torn down. Subject to Section Existing text — XXXX 1 I Stricken text—i'4)= Added text—** 850.11 Subd. 2. I. the first floor elevation may be increased more than one (1) foot. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units including units in the flood plain overlay district. Any deviation from the requirements of this paragraph shall require a variance. 8 M Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text —I 12 Section S. Subsection 850.21 Subd. 11.C. is hereby amended as follows-- Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XYM Added text "W-oe heFdship , Arminatim I;;:.!- uw— 13 heFdship , Arminatim 13 Existing text XXXX Stricken text -4 Added text — • NO 14 14 E -Ir. MIM" X I _r ■ •WO ow 0000.aloo71 3, ■ 01 -all ow"S"t Existing text — XXXX 15 Stricken text —XMX Added text — , Existing text - XXXX Stricken text - Added text - i _� .._.., ....,...... ..-- PFOpesed StFUstufes, fill .4--- flee , pFeefing , matefials, ,._ ,- Iging,gFading, ohamol of watef Supply and rrte�w. ,',`,,�.,�.,,,�^ a in OF ageney vAefe ,. flood heights aAd , the sedeusoees of flood damage , and othe ... , 1-..,=.-,=s-i..,Qa=o i disease,b. The danger that mateow- "- SWept GAW QlheF lands the ability of these s"tems eentaminatlenr 16 Existing text — XXXX Stricken text -4X Added text— V. , eoeupamy, and eperatieR. FeatOeOew. , swWes, and deed , oompensoWy , dikes, Measwes. levees, 17 Section 7. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second. Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 1, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2013. Existing text— XXXX 18 Stricken text — XXX€ Added text —)00 City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 19 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — 00