Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-13 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 2013 6:00 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 October 23, 2013 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. Sketch Plan A. Pentagon Office Park VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. John Adams/Ted Warner 5 Merilane, Edina, MN B. Variance. Beth Malmberg. 2 Bridge Lane, Edina, MN C. Variance. Brady Priest. 4401 Country Club Road, Edina, MN D. Preliminary Plat. Gretchen Shanight. 5612 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN E. Preliminary and Final Plat. Frank Holdings LLC. 3909 49'/: Street and 4936 France Avenue, Edina, MN F. Site Plan with Variances. HGT Architects/Think Mutual Bank. 3655 Hazelton Road, Edina, MN VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 0 A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Considerations — Residential Redevelopment B. 2014 Work Plan IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS XI. STAFF COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT 0 The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please can 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, December 11, 2014 *Note time change. Tonight's Open House isan importantstep in the potential redevelopmentof Pentagon Park. Yourcomments will inform the planning process and help us to unlock the full potential of this tremendous site! Tonight's Schedule: Station 1 Station 3 6:30pm - 7:00pm, Open House Monitor displaying. interior and exterior images of Redevelopment Issues and Opportunities - Key 7:00pm - 7:30pm, Presentation the existing buildings within the Pentagon Park Project Goals. 7:30pm - 8:00pm, Open House property. Station 4 There are five key stations around the room to Station 2 Models of alternative redevelopment concepts. orient you to the site and the effort that has Existing Conditions & Context - Aerial images been accomplished to -date. of site and views of Pentagon Park from the Station 5 neighborhood to the North of the site. Comment Station. PPARK ENTAGON REVITALIZATION - Unlocking the Full Potential DAMONFAiBERASSOCIATES O El 4 1 A 691 _ EXISTING CONDITIONS D ENTAGON PARK DAMONFAMERASSOCIATES EDINA,MN SEPTEMBER 2013 va ZN 0 c w Z d w Q Q Z W X W I 7 LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 3 LOOKING SW TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE, FAR EAST SIDE OF PROPERTY IMAGE LOCATIONS _�' EXISTING CONDITIONS DAMONFAR13ERASSOCIATES Sa- EDINA, MN -SEPTEMBER 2013 IF ENTAG"'N PAr""" WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SPACE EXISTING SEAM - NE CORNER OF PROPERTY 77TH STREET LOOKING EASTTOWARD PENTAGON PARK EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SEAM - NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY a DAMONPARBERASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK f 0# ISSUESENTAGON DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 I PARK. REIM, PRINCIPLES DAMONFARSERASSOCIATES M EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK DOCKSIDE GREEN CONCEPT A continuous linear stormwater amenity connects the development parcels A two-way parkway with parking bays provides a loop around the development, connecting from W 77th St 'Natural vegetation' is planted adjacent to stormwater ponds and buildings A regional trail is located north of the site, with three connections from trail to W 77th St DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES :` CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN — SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGO'N PARK W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, ► �, I. stormwater management, and improved sidewalks r ✓•`y.�.-�t ❑=g., is Multiple parking strategies below -grade, •� ,� '.- w - on street and architecturally integrated with ;17_ w�ifli# ;�� buildings DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES :` CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN — SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGO'N PARK �THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market-driven) "wi111MBT- A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with 4 buildings REGIONALTRAR. ] PAN" `. EJNSMKvtot rm P6DESRIYINflKN y rTNST r 0 ROAD STORMWA7ERPONDS . PMMdOMIANSETAWN — POP"TRUNPATN -9MNWr— PARKING enunen STOMMWATERSFAES •--+-. p&opEI 9oIjNDAW STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN THE UPPER LANDING AND TRAILS ROADWAY ADJACENT TO THE UPPER LANDING LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH STORMWATER FEATURES PATTIWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS CONCEPT DIAGRAMS D X11 X11 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES etc EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 1 E 1"NTA G 0 1" N' PA R K a us zsa AERIAL OFTHE UPPER LANdNG IN ST PAUL. MN wrmr�i'` ER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market-driven) • A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple oarkinci strategies - below -grade, DAMON FARSER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAG%-._-j'N PARK 1 1. t i 1 1 e E 8 ♦,` X a us zsa AERIAL OFTHE UPPER LANdNG IN ST PAUL. MN wrmr�i'` ER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market-driven) • A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple oarkinci strategies - below -grade, DAMON FARSER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAG%-._-j'N PARK r,....�,, CHAIN OF LAKES CONCEPT Multiple shared amenities A parkway is located north of site, increasing connectivity Multiple water bodies are located north of the site, separating the neighborhood from the development Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development and manage water in concert with larger ponds to the north Flexibility in block size (market-driven) A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development • W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally Integrated with buildings STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN PATHS CONCEPT DIAGRAMS DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 11DEIN'TAGO'N PARK or W 125' 2SW AERIAL OF LAKE NOKOW CENTENNIAL LAKES CONCEPT A central water feature is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development ROAD STOIIMWATMMNDS PRDP'OSEOL2f.ETA1KRJ ••�• PEOESTMRFM .fin FArWW nxHBnt STTMMWATERSWALES POOPOWMAK) RY (It"AY LOOP WrrH PARKING MAYS NATURAL VEGETAT ON CENTENNIAL LAKES STORMWATER LINKS TD DEVELOPMENr CONCEPT DIAGRAMS DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES go:EDINA, MN -SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK Stormwater ponds are natural amenities within the development A parkway provides public access and bay parking to the park A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with ROAD STOIIMWATMMNDS PRDP'OSEOL2f.ETA1KRJ ••�• PEOESTMRFM .fin FArWW nxHBnt STTMMWATERSWALES POOPOWMAK) RY (It"AY LOOP WrrH PARKING MAYS NATURAL VEGETAT ON CENTENNIAL LAKES STORMWATER LINKS TD DEVELOPMENr CONCEPT DIAGRAMS DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES go:EDINA, MN -SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK MINNEHAHA CREEK CONCEPT • A naturalized corridor with vegetation and a spine of water is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings A parkway with parking bays is located between the naturalized corridor and new development A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings PATH ADJACENT TO PARKWAY CONCEPT DIAGRAMSP E I` 'TAG 0 PA R DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES EDINA,MN-SEPTEMBER 2013 0 STREET PARKING- DIAGONAL. STREET PARKING -DIAGONAL. THREE PRONGED APPROACH TO PARKING: r. 1. Below -grade (1 level) STREET PARKING - PARALLEL 2. "Embedded" deck (maintain great addresses at perimeter) 3. Street Parking • Parallel Diagonal Parking Bays TUCK UNDER PARKING TUCK UNDER PARKING STREET PARKING - PARALLEL STREET PARKING- PARKING BAYS AT FRED RICHARDS STREET PARKING - PARALLEL - PARKING STRATEGIES DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES = " EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 13, 2013 VII.D 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—A13.) 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. This subdivision request was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2013. (See attached minutes on pages A22 -A25.) The City Council reviewed the request on August 20th and September 3`d and refered the matter back to the Planning Commission to include an alternative driveway alignment. (See City Council minutes on pages Al 8-A21.) The City Council had concern that a shared driveway arrangement was not consistent with this neighborhood. They also believed that the subdivision was not comparable to the approved Kiser Subdivision on the east side of Tracy Avenue, and in general believed that a single home on the lot was more consistent with the neighborhood. (See page Al 9.) Based on the direction of the City Council, the applicant has revised the site plan proposed for the two lots to include one driveway off Tracy Avenue (the existing driveway); and a new driveway off proposed Lot 2 to access off Hawkes Terrace. (See page A10 -A13.) There are no changes proposed to the proposed lots. 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 A5—A8.) This is a neighborhood with varying 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 & A14—A16.) 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 Plan designation Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them 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 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 2 management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. 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. 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 A14—A16, 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 for Lot 1, and locating the new driveway for Lot 2 on the west half of the lot. (See page A10) 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 to maintain the existing vegetation and slope along Hawkes Terrace near the intersection of Tracy Avenue. (See page Al 0.) 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: 1. 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: 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 per the plans date stamped October 17, 2013. 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. 5 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. Deadline for a City Decision: December 17, 2013 City of Edina 6501 si00 5301 5500 SSOt 7500 blot MIS 0709 !!13 9308 2'".'�T Hi06110hhd hs6a1 ��: •�� me5 35w 630! 5506 9301 530t }}},,, 350! 5300 3411 5312 mtH110 HongNum61t � d.YO! bSant� sibs si Label laMl Labels 6503 6509 5112 F J sirJ �9 1305 aipg SM M21 0316 Hent. Num61t 116.15 5513 1916 $ft $513 $Sli 5313 3515 $Sol Sul SATO find Nam. Labels $517 sial 2516 $517 sees CRY L'a s $ato u2r rile sir) 5550 use rt / Crooke sits suo 5523 Sszr "20 siw 5521 502. 35000960 °.roM P.M O We Kernel;silt 0525 asTt SM 3�D D Lakes as" 5529 $t! 0511 0125 5628 5511 DS13 uIS sil6 SS01 0 Parks b5H si29 Ds)t 5528$521 3510 3012 0512 site 55ir 5512 $ SsfT A'fs 5516 Parcels dlJJ SS72 SSU - 3S7t 3521 55)7 6532 557) 35)6 'Sn um 5321 Sul 3001 ow 5535 $ler 2535 4w oO.PA M31 WAY u00 A 24 OUYfb66MD :t if01 Am" 3 sew sato seao Beef 5601 0600 suo uel woa $iN Sr21 17 71am 5601 saw bass Sana 29 loot 0613 SONfWe no S50f SN9 ic0l 0609 sm2 390/ tt u13 mot 56u:% Sats 5412 N is 1213w ,� sits off� sSOr k '6719 ,. wq ONe MO SMAKAD am 4 NDS .} 2filMet i 17 L1 k1 . eels mos I 001 siT0 $7w u23 Sett $ll 11-10 sila u13 sill 55" f! 5771 si20 usesear itI9021 )w silo IS?r $125 dliF 0623 ,%snr� U12 Sell $320 5021 .'M Soo 0at1 sea5020 S1041 usec* � ifs 709 5553) l' z Sae $a�: 1 Jai: 1701 wo alba 3610 3612 atOt.3601.1se0532 rw na sim 5561 050015 mo/ era at1 003 Use Sw$ i 3011 aro! Ism S7IS uta Sewsisi 6x00 21 24 $821 moa 5 an: $705 >. !!ot U2! elft arts urs$BitaseD3wt 5000 SM P.e$dfi 1151/ T um 5770 uIf m/1 5Mt t/ Sr p13 7M saw fees 1712 S7ae /J o9 $Dol 1521 is SS" — Tia)) 2S5tt1, r) 5503 lut otos U" lsws 131'0 5000 i St00 Da09 pN Wag7me St OD ul1 Jt09 STil5m"sl011 Saw uw N /Ml Na,"J NtR PID:3211721130060 ° 5612 Tracy Ave p y d,i; Edina, MN 55436 Aa 5520 5521 5524 5509 5508 5509 5525 5508 q 5513 5513 �¢ SS2d 5525 5528 5512 5529 5512 K 5517 5517 5528 5529 5532 5516 5533 5516 A 5537 5532 5533 5536 5525 5520 5521 5532 DONCASTER WAY VERNON AVE S 5601 5601 5600 5600 5601 5600 5605 5721 5717 5713 5605 5604 5604 y 5605 5604 5609 5608 5608 T 5609 5608 5609 24 5708 r�5612 j/ 5615 5612 5516 5613 5710 �X - ;,, 2'2, 5617 5616 NA WKESTFR fWGE PARKAD 24 Hawkes "kd 5729 5621 5620 5712 57055513 5701 5725 5625 5624 .' 5708 5613 5721 5704 5700 5629 5628 5617 HAWKESDR 5632 t 5717 ' 5633 b 5621 $6295636 t 5713 5705 5701 5708 5528 5701 s 5616 5612 5608 5604 5640 5532 5708 5704 5700 WARDEN AVE al:ycaldu+:�A-c1115 C�pxjd(CilOGiSGU"2A5 0 265t1 Aa P) P 41v Attachment A: 5612 Tracy Variance Responses: The proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical ditculties in complying with 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 extraordinary circimrstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the yiCinrty or zonnlg 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 ivith 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 neighborhood: 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. �t 5612 Tracy Avenue: Additional commentary Additional sunnortina comments for the median discussion: Enclosed is the 500' perimeter map showing all sites that lie below the median area highlighted yellow. To reaffirm the argument of uneven distribution in lots based upon lot size east of Tracy Avenue and west of Tracy Avenue, here are some supporting statistics A) Sites located west of Tracy and south of Vernon, 22 of the 32 were below the median (69% were below) B) Sites located east of Tracy and south of Vernon, 6 of the 22 were below the median (27% were below). This includes one of the two median lots being treated as below median. C) Sites located north of Vernon, 2 out of the 8 were below the median (25% were below). D) Sites located between Hawkes Drive and Tracy, 14 out of 14 were below the median (100% were below). E) 20 out of the 62 sites lie between 9000 and 12500 sf representing a large percentage of'smaller sites' (roughly 1/3 of all the sites). Consistency of corner lot points: Enclosed is the 500' perimeter map showing all corner lots on Tracy within the defined area. Observations: A) All corners sites on Tracy front the their associated east -west street except for the corner of Vernon B) All corner sites fall below the median and are consistent with the 'smaller sites' category referenced above. Consistency with block: Enclosed is a diagram showing that the proposed sites are very consistent with the block. Finding a hybrid solution and addressing concerns: 1) Concern: that somehow this site division represents a trend towards small sites. Comment: only two sites had adequate street frontage to even be considered under these arguments, the subject and 5633 Tracy. 5633 has already been divided. 2) Concern: complete removal of the green space/hill. Comment: the new design has only one tuck under garage fronting Hawkes Terrace minimizing impact on the hill. Further, the new driveway will be on the far west end of the west site providing for maximum continuos green space. ��N 3) Concern: traffic safety at corner. Comment: 1) propose working with the City to determine if terracing the corner would be option, 2) there is not a Hawkes Terrace driveway access for the east site providing for approximately 120' of distance from the corner to the first driveway. 4) Council concern: shared driveway concerns and easement inconsistencies with other sites: Comment: new solution uses existing Tracy curb cut for the east site and will have only one tuck under garage on the west end of the western site. Al t } i 3 j7= m ii i c f y 3 � C7 all ifill J;! } N i7� N 11� N d k '� Np kLZ3tiHCrf d3t N o j7= m ii i c f C7 all ifill Q N mayy}} N i7� N 11� N d k '� Np kLZ3tiHCrf d3t A c f N mayy}} t; n L� e < 0 3 f i a A,Mmfh@ ]?Nilo A § A57� m � |a !% I,| | | . Off til!| !! | hH |2 � | z 0 |� ! ! .. •� : # � | ! | | •| !i ! ) ( �|!I � ��� �• � q ! § A57� m � |a !% I,| | | . Off til!| !! | hH |2 � | z 0 |� ! _ P } .. •� : # � | § m ! § A57� m � |a !% I,| | | . Off til!| !! | hH |2 ISY i | | $ . .. ® ° • « . < n | � _ MY F n ~_, a/ { ( »j .. AKY AW .... � t � % � . � §_ ■ . .. . � • ƒ \� \ § \� �\| § @ !�§ ■ \��, °}� §/\ ■.� 4M` q ■ i | | $ | � 0 A l�c N Y+ + 3f ' ' tl0J30511txlr h w Ps. ML '. 3.3i11nY3 Li Y+p .VA%:1Q 911319 0 gg 4g O h fl A l�c jj is Hill 6) A t - Ir qr ID r as 'o A Ml t 14 4 ke- w w tA x V 03 14- Wl *j RS , ' , i•i � i ke- w w tA x V 03 14- Wl *j RS Attachment B, Shanight Addition: Sorted By width, Raw date collected from Surveyors numbers Lot No Len h 39 0 32 68.5 121.1 ` 9 75 247 12 73 224 19 75 3110 2#1 ?3 3011 21 7S 300 22 75 230 23 7$ 157 31 75 1$5 33 75 121.8 34 73 133 30 ?6 155 49 76 140 24 137 z? 126 28 217.5 29 217 5 35 7110 35 200 37 295 38 295 42 24? 5 43 51 13S S2 217.5 53 247.5 62 332.5 63 232.5 41 232 5 40 232.5 44 232,5 45 232.3 46 232.5 42 10 82 217.5 50 83 165 58 83 248 11 84 155 18 85 125 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 3 120 150 5 120 153 8 120 150 48 125 224 6 135 148 4 150 190 median 80.7 157 ave a 87.04127 183.96508 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 39 o V 32 68,5 33 75 14 103 16 100 17 90 18 V 60 85 t5 90 57 98 59 93 61 93 34 75 51 80 25 85 26 85 27 80 24 g0 49 76 35 86 56 86 6 135 148'. 2 112 150 3 120 150 7 112 1$0 8 120 t50 5 120 153 11 84 1SS 30 76 155 31 75 155 1 120 157 23 75 157 54 93 161 50 83 165 4 150 190 35 80 36 80 10 82 28 80 29 80 52 80 12 75 48 125 22 75 40 80.7 41 80.6 44 80.7 45 80.7 46 80.7 47 80.7 62 80.5 63 80.5 13 110 9 75 42 80 43 80 53 80 58 83 37 80 38 80 19 75 20 75 median 80.7 157 averaee 87.04127 183.96508 NOTE: Sites are 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. 4 Attachment A, Shanight Addition: Raw date collected from Surveyors numbers Lot No Width Length 1 120 157 2 112 150 3 120 150 4 150 190 5 120 153 6 135 148 7 112 150 8 120 150 9 75 247 t0 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 80 247.3 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 80 217.5 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 80.5 232.5 63 80.5 232.5 median 80.7 157 rs a 87.04127 183.96508 t �\ I I I rl I r, �, r- t r, r\ l 1 �\ • ►I r, A r, r, 1 t K t tt tt frit tt.t- it r et tnt �ttt t ire tt tt\r . I \ ♦! 1 1 L- I 1 1 LI ♦I L- I I L/ LJ / � • t- t r L! I-1 L! GJ t •. U �..---32'0 ` Res,dence� ' ti I w NO. S 708 � West llrte of the El*!;t / 60 feet of Lot 7 4 6 ? 0002_24'_E 122.75 kA i,1 � � -• i - _ _ 23 07 04 f � —'•ill a I � 1 �' ► 11' I' 11 � - / o,� n 1 I ' 11 :t 11pp1 111 I I w rNu to 25 co s 1 ;II I,^coml /�r�N '�I Di 1! 1 1 1 1 If N In Onveway i( ;'' wo I I cID I) N rt q I i�jl cpii l l II _-__-____--•----------- ---------------------------- ------ --- .--J I'0 1 i ' L- , - --t ------ N 00°02'24" E 122.75 I co --L -- �-------------------- _ _-_----------- f I � � r I� • 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 .�� lilt i j /1� SII 1 1 _ ► 1 /51 I I F 1 ll N I ' 2s a I 1 �1 g v I I a 1 It' 1 I TOW w ll �� ala vh 5.0 JIM low � -fi 15i I/ YI-A� --W--W -- w OVCri -wrrGS �—iV—W --Nt '• X919:9 ►7 _ _ 92f.N 00° 4 _E_122. 5 onCt'GtC ' - yM l AA . -60 concrete ^ 921.44 922.01 9" VCP Saratity Sewer s s—s—s—s—�s—sl—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—s—sC—s—s—s ��- TRACY A VENUE I Iir III ♦II���r ♦iJ IA r ir.�r irr rr.r.. t� rMA, 'I �ak56Q6 lit$d I 945.4 9M.5 Ras/dencc No.5606 -amp 924:9 9Yz5 I S 891,2729" E 160.01- -------- 1—_______ - - fJ ✓+AnaofLoGC 13 " 1 ( 8214 924.1 924. i ; C 4. ! . �..� �•�.'`�' -� Isere 1 ' � � 1 1 _` 9�v %� U ' Ina (FFE = 925.7) �� �(FFE = 9261,7) sa+s r ; 921.4 a+w 1 I 1 t ...9t5 —M1—M —s—i—i—l—i—i—s 7t - �' tam `---• 923 � ..�'.� 1 . J�7� pN�9Ri.39 HA WKE5 TERRACE ----------------------------------------, ' I AP I I Ico . { 1 o � « —M1—M —s—i—i—l—i—i—s 7t - �' tam `---• 923 � ..�'.� 1 . J�7� pN�9Ri.39 HA WKE5 TERRACE ----------------------------------------, ' I AP I I 7 Ico . { 1 o � « Iet i 1 � I 1 ' 7 0 Ala 124 5713 5725 ^� 5601 5605 ►017 5609 ia1 oG s613 , �_ 5721 i.. Hawkes lako 5713 t A1+7aurnlxit+MW9tg9*W�KitP3�4G1:3745 VERNQYAV46 S Soo ,y 5600�y 5601 5604 5604 5605 5608 5608 $609 r,.r iiiarr r 5615 rrr rr r; � 5710 5108 /r/.r.., i;�� fir,•- iii'' iiii:i�j•ii;;• , 7 JCC; �..v... r 5617 MAMES TIM 7 yblV�.f1 8621 s712 5705 5701 3625 5708 5704 15700 HA MCESDR 5705$701 5709 le 5620 5631 Lo I 4 Fj- LOT w i bT1+ VSW(W AVP S 5601 5600 5600 $601 8717 5712 5604 5604 i 5605 $605 "iii 00 i* *� I 5608 5608 5609 5609 ri �i� r�ir rr i r r r Yrrr ri �.y 5615 24 � r r 5108 i r/ r, i 361P 6613 $710 iriir it%i i r. \ MA MMS TER 5729 _ 5621 5712 5705 5701 ST25 5625 5708 `{. 5121 5704 5700 5620 i ' -.''• HAWKESDR w 5117 Hawkoa take 5623 �� 6712 i 5705 5701 j - 5709 11.ucxalaA•nnhcWS>CW,r:ytiC�E03;.51',SSdt]3 a LOT w i bT1+ LCT 6 E PTll AK VOWONAVE S 5601 5600 5600 5601 ` 5717 5713 5604 5804 5605 5605 ii 5608 5608 A m 5609 5609 y i ��/1111 / / -;• ii% 5615 24 5708 5613 5710 / . /_<....,,.,_� i...... _.w..,........,w..__...:: 5617 HA MWS TER 3\ 5621 5712 5705 5701 sns 5625 5708 i 5721 5704 5700 5620 HA VW" DR 5717 6673 _Hawkes lako - 5713 ' s7o5 s7ol 1 % 5709 L:nue.�iala+:+A ril9=CaJ'4ctGFW�Sf,ISNd G - LCT 6 E PTll AK 1116546 SfOf Sf00 Inas sN1 NJB u2o 5542 �— Nf7 S6f6 6y H 5729 N AatfPA. 1t+YAta Lektl "' 5412 ST03 701 4821 5620 f) Si 5700 z;5727 5621 N/J 701 OQ 002$ NN Zi 0017 662d 37fNow 8725 71 d0J7 /672 5170 8701 -rte 1/ 1 5�' e(1 3007 e�.�aaMuo.Ogl'/ttsl�aC®GBYet 67)0 0001 1 5113 5766 0020 PID:3211721130060 5612 Tracy Ave Edina, MN 55436 AP Legend City of Edina I sN1 - 5100 " not 5113 3700 5413 5712 sS03 as" � a, ss$e $501 55"54i7 mid sf6$ awe 6009 e312 5141 3173 0612 5517 5515 am SNf NI, ON 6517 0020 BN7 5501 24 sur $320 3321 ON 5100 Ease 330$ 5525 $321 8525 5318 511, esu 6S1) asoa ss2$ ssrz 5625 1 3523 1 5572 Q Ntl 5516 5517 65.17 5310 N7t 33)2 6577 5378 0523 0020 5521 357! NOf a01VCAJTt1! WAY 5602 5805 S60t 5000 5600 8800 c,>• 17571) __.. 5681 360A SNS iN1 �— Nf7 S6f6 6y H 5729 N AatfPA. 1t+YAta Lektl "' 5412 ST03 701 4821 5620 f) Si 5700 z;5727 5621 N/J 701 OQ 002$ NN Zi 0017 662d 37fNow 8725 71 d0J7 /672 5170 8701 -rte 1/ 1 5�' e(1 3007 e�.�aaMuo.Ogl'/ttsl�aC®GBYet 67)0 0001 1 5113 5766 0020 PID:3211721130060 5612 Tracy Ave Edina, MN 55436 AP $377 It 24 24 24 1a$e p"Adetl' 37 '' 11''5001 542 1 Legend {^r� 1.5:1 HISMiyhpd PNtlrre ks! 5712 Surro"fill House Umber Labels mid Hausa Ntlmb r labels am Shed Ns"Lebsh CNV Lkalts Creeks 21 rul i] Laka ma-s"a,fa,e 0 Lakes 270e safe Parks Parcels $377 It 24 24 24 1a$e p"Adetl' 37 '' 11''5001 542 1 IV.M. Request fo/low Emergency Repair Well No. 13, 6721 Second Street, awarding the bid to the recommenE.H. Renner & Sons, at $ 75,000.00 (estimate). Rollcail:Ayes: Bennett, Br, Swen , Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IV.L RESOLUTION NO. 2013-69, DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES, RON HELM ON BEHALF OF TOM AND GRETCHEN SHANIGHT, 5612 TRACY AVENUE — REFERRED The Council discussed whether or not to table the preliminary plat allowing the applicant to propose an alternate driveway alignment. City Attorney Knutson provided information stating procedurally, the action taken at the August 20, 2013 City Council meeting had been to direct staff to prepare findings denying the requested preliminary plat. He stated the City Council's options for action included: to refer the preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission, to act on the findings that were prepared, or to table the preliminary plat to a date specific. Mr. Knutson recommended the applicant be requested to sign a waiver from the statutory deadline for action, if the preliminary plat were to be referred to the Planning Commission. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, referring the preliminary plat with lot width and lot area variances requested by Ron Heim on behalf of Tom and Gretchen Shanight, 5612 Tracy Avenue, to the Planning Commission, conditioned on a waiver being signed by the applicant extending the required date for action to December 17, 2013, and directing staff to re -notify the neighbors. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AN RESENTATIONS Manager Neal and the Council recog ed Fire Chief Sc/he serve to the City, noting his upcoming retirement. Mr. Scheerer stated his a reciatian for t City Council, staff, and community during his employment. V.A. CONSTITUTION WEEK— PROCLAI D Mayor Hovland read in full the Constitute Week Proclaring the week of September 17-23 as Constitution Week. Member Bennett m e a motby Member Sprague, approving the proclamation declaring the week of Septem r 17-23 aWeek in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, H land Motion carried. Sarah Patzloff accepted the Constitution Weekylamation on behalf of the Monument Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. V.B. IMAGES OF EDINA PHOTO CONTEST ESEN TION —PRESENTED Communications Coordinator Gilgenbach RIFented tphotographs and winners of the 2013 Images of Edina Contest, with awards presented by Mayor ovland. V.C. SEPTEMBER 2013 SPINAL CO INJURY A WARE SS MONTH —PROCLAIMED Mayor Hovland read in full the Sp Cord Injury Aware ss Month Proclamation, declaring September 2013 as Spinal Cord Injury Awareness onth. Motion made nd seconded unanimously by the City Council adopting the proclamation decl mg September 2013 as nal Cord Injury Awareness Month in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Spr e, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Rebecca Panser than kecj a Council for acknowledging September as disability awareness month. IPage 2 AR Mincites i Ina°9M 0MACII/Amaust 20, ZW Nays: Bennett Motion carried. VI.B. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL WITH LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES, RODNEY HELM ON BEHALF 6F TOM AND GRETCHEN SHANIGHT, 5612 TRACY AVENUE, RESOLUTION NO. 20,,13-65 — NOT ADOPTED Assistant Planner Presentation Ms. Aaker presented the request of Rodney Helm on behalf of Tom and Gretchen Shanight for preliminary plat with lot width and lot area variances for the property located at 5612 Tracy Avenue. It was proposed to subdivide the property into two lots. The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. 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 was 17,651 square feet, median lot depth was 157 feet, and the median lot width was 80.7. This was a neighborhood with varying lot sizes. Larger lots to the north across Vernon Avenue and to the east across Tracy Avenue have established the large minimum lot sizes for this property. Ms. Aaker stated the applicant was proposing to subdivide the property in the same manner as the existing lots on the west side of Tracy Avenue. A subdivision with similar circumstances was recently approved in this area at 5633 Tracy Avenue. Ms. Aaker presented the findings of fact and conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Aaker reported that on July 24, 2013, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat with lot width and lot area variances, according to the conditions included in the staff report. There was discussion by the Council relating to the shared driveway with concern expressed that it would not be consistent with the immediate neighborhood. There was also discussion relating to the topography of the property, noting extreme steepness of the slope. Proponent Presentation Rod Helm, representing the proponent, stated the discussion of the shared driveway was brought forward early on, and Community Development Director Teague felt comfortable with the shared driveway aspect due to the interest In the front green space, foliage, and hill. From the very onset, driveway accesses were proposed in both directions and it seemed that the neighbors cared about the foliage and the layout. Mr. Helm stated median requirements work well for some neighborhoods in Edina. However, in an attempt to define what was typical in a neighborhood, this neighborhood was divided Into two types of property: very deep sites on the east side and standardized sizes on the west side of Tracy Avenue. The layout with the proposed subdivision would match the characteristics on this side of the street. With regard to the width, 21 properties out of the property data are within 7 inches of the width proposed for the subdivision, with roughly 20 properties falling under the median. Mr. Helm stated there are only two sites in this neighborhood that set themselves up as two -lot subdivisions: the Kiser subdivision approved by the Council last spring and this property. There was discussion by the Council on the width and depth of the Kiser Addition subdivision lot that was approved at 5,633 Tracy Avenue as not betrig comparable to the subject property. There was also discussion on the lot dimensions of the subject property not being an anomaly to this neighborhood,' concern with the shared driveway loading onto Tracy Avenue, and a single house on the Tot as beingmore consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Helm commented on the potential for the rebuild of a large home that was not consistent with the neighborhood should the lot split not be approved. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing. Public Testimony No one appeared to comment. Page 5 ( (A Minutes/Edina City Council/August 20, 2013 Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. There was additional discussion and concern expressed relating to the shared driveway, as well as the resulting side-by-side garages and inadequate guest parking. Following discussion on yard space, it was noted this was a lot that did not lend itself well to subdivision. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-65, Approving a Preliminary Plat with Lot Width and Lot Area Variances at 5612 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. S. 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. f. A private driveway easement established over Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 must be filed with Hennepin County. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Roll call: Ayes: Brindle Nays: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion failed. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, directing staff to prepare findings of fact for Council consideration at the September 3, 2013, City Council meeting. Page 6 Aa Minutes/Edina City Council/August 20, 2013 Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Vll. COMMUN Y 6MENT Steven Ward, 421 B ke Road South, stated his concern relating to the notification received from the City Engineering Depart nt requiring removal of a small paved area next to his driveway and requested the City classify this area an existing non -conformity and allow it to remain. It was indicated the Cit Council would receive a report from staff relating to this request a Mr. Ward would be notified of the eeting date that the topic would be addressed. Raymond O'Connell, 4612 alley View Road, stated he supported the use of Brae Memorial funds, some of which he had con ibuted, to help pay for improvement to the Braem Golf Course Driving Range. He was concerned t t some of those on the Memorial Fund Board w d not support use of Memorial funds for that purpo e. Michael Lang, 6100 Block of Xe es Avenue, stated his concern relating to ety due to traffic and traffic patterns allowed by Hennepin unty along Xerxes Avenue from 60`h eet to 62nd Street. Mr. Lang indicated property owners along t is two -block area were seeking the pport of the City to pursue the matter further with Hennepin Count Scott Chestnut, 6100 Block of Xerxes A enue, stated his concern r ting to safety due to traffic and traffic patterns allowed by Hennepin County al ng Xerxes Avenue from Street to 62nd Street. Mayor Hovland reported he had met wi the residents in a 6100 block of Xerxes Avenue area and forwarded the resident's PowerPoint prese tation to City st ,the Hennepin County Engineer, and County Commissioners. Mr. Houle reported it had been requested tha the St , Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, and City of Richfield participate in a study of lane shifts th ridge in relation to the traffic plan. The intent was to begin a public engagement process and reside ould be notified of meeting dates. There was discussion on working withthe Coun to Implement interim safety measures prior to the 2014 timeline for construction completion. it was ted t t safety measures proposed by the residents were Included in the PowerPoint presentation tha ad been rwarded to the County. Vlll. REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS V111.A. APPROVE LIVING STREETS POLI —APPROVED Assistant City Manager Kurt and Tran ortation Committe Member Nelson provided a presentation and answered questions of the Council o he proposed Living St et Policy. it was discussed whether to clude a Bike Task Force ember on the Advisory Group. It was acknowledged there were diff ent opinions on neighborhood haracter and a suggestion was made that the fourth bullet point under Context Sensitivity" be revised as follows: "Be mindful of existing land uses and nelghb9Fh '. There was discussion on the importance of an active streetscape in crime prevention. Ms. Kurt su ested the fourth bullet point under "Living Streets Vision" be revised as follows: "Streets are safe, invit' g places that encourage human interaction and physical activity." Member Sprague made a mot n, seconded by Member Bennett, approving the Living Streets Policy, with the addition of Includi a Bike Task Force Member on the Advisory Group and the following revision: Fourth bullet under "Living Streets Vision" be revised as follows: "Streets are safe, Inviting places that enco a human Interaction and physical activity." Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Page 7 A,; V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Subdivision. Preliminary Plat. Shanight Addition. 5612 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported Rodney Heim on behalf of Tom and Gretchen Shanight is proposing to subdivide the property at 5612 Tracy Avenue into two lots. The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. To accommodate the request the following is required:A subdivision; and 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. Planner Aaker stated 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. 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. Aaker reported that a subdivision with similar circumstances was recently approved in this area at 5633 Tracy Avenue by the applicant. Aaker concluded that staff recommends 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 based on the following findings: 1. 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: 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. Page 2 of 15 Aa,0-1- 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 also 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. 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. f. A private driveway easement established over Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 must be filed with Hennepin County. Appearing for the Applicant Rodney Helm Discussion Commissioner Forrest asked procedurally if the City Council hears this request twice. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Council hears the request for preliminary and final. Commissioner Carr questioned if the project were approved would the applicant be able to build houses on the lots without variances. Planner Aaker said the applicant indicated houses could be built without variances from the zoning ordinance. Chair Staunton asked Planner Aaker if the statistics were driven by the 500 -foot neighborhood, adding it seems like a large lot area variance is needed. Aaker agreed the lot area variance appears large; adding variances from the subdivision ordinance would be required. Commissioner Platteter asked for clarification on if the new houses would meet the zoning ordinance. Aaker reiterated the applicant did not indicate further variances would be needed. Page 3 of 15 1A d, ADDlicant Presentation Rodney Helm addressed the Commission informing them he is representing the Shanight's, property owners. Helm reported he was the agent that presented the Kiser Addition subdivision at 5633 Tracy, adding he is familiar with this neighborhood. Heim said if one looks at the 500 -foot neighborhood it appears to be two separate neighborhoods -west of Tracy and east of Tracy. Helm explained the reasons for the variances to the subdivision ordinance result from the fact when calculating the 500 -foot neighborhood both "neighborhoods" were included. Continuing, Helm said in his opinion this division would help create a strong corner for Hawkes Terrace. He said the existing home is an outdated four level home without much architectural value. Helm further stated that he believes retaining the driveway access off Tracy Avenue for both properties makes the most sense with less disruption to the site and neighbors. He also added close attention was and will be paid to the existing conditions on the site, including the grade and vegetation and of course vehicle access. Concluding, Helm acknowledged that the subdivision misses all three median requirements; width, area and depth; however, he believes the attention paid to the redevelopment of this site (topography, vegetation) will be a benefit to the neighborhood and Edina. Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Helm where the driveway access is for the homes directly across the street. Helm responded that he believes both properties access Hawkes. Helm said the proposed access off Tracy for the new lots really help "set up" the site for a good redevelopment. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Hearings Tim Laughlin, 5705 Hawkes Terrace informed the Commission he lives directly across the street from the subject site. Laughlin stated he has lived in this neighborhood for many years, adding this corner worked for him all these years; however he can be agreeable to the proposed subdivision as submitted especially since the lots would be accessed off Tracy Avenue, not Hawkes Terrace. Terry Rocheford, 5604 Hawkes Terrace, told the Commission she doesn't have an issue with the subdivision; however wants assurances the access will be off Tracy Avenue. Rocheford said she has additional concerns about parking on the street and clear view when leaving Hawkes Terrace onto Tracy. Concluding, Rocheford asked the applicant to police the site and keep the tall grass mowed. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Commissioner Potts stated in his opinion this is a reasonable request adding he appreciates that the applicant paid close attention to the topography and vegetation when designing the plat. Page 4 of 15 AaT Commissioner Carpenter stated he too feels the proposed subdivision is sensitive to the environment; however, he is somewhat concerned with the sight lines at the corner as expressed by Ms. Rocheford. Carpenter stated he wants assurances that house placement and topography are carefully assessed to ensure clear view in maintained. Commissioner Platteter commented that he likes how the developer is working with the land, adding in his opinion the shared driveway is a great option. If done as depicted it should create a good plat. Commissioner Carr stated she has no additional comments. Commissioner Forrest commented that it may be possible this site is one lot because of the terrain. She also expressed concern that any redevelopment of this lot would impact the urban canopy. Forrest encouraged the builder to be in contact with the neighbors during the construction process. Chair Staunton said he had an initial concern with the request because of the magnitude of the lot area variance; however, understands differing neighborhoods can play a role in "skewing" the numbers. Staunton stated he also has a strong preference for the driveway access to remain off Tracy Avenue as Indicated on the plans. He further suggested the possibility of limiting parking to one side of the street to ensure greater visibility. Motion Commissioner Potts moved to recommend preliminary plat approval with variances based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 7-0. B. Final Rezoning, Final Plat and Final Development. Edina fifty Five, LLC. 5109-5125 49" Street West. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission Hunt Associates are requesting final review of the redevelopment of three lots located at 5109-5125 West 491h Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site) and build a new 16 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 11 units per acre. Continuing, Aaker noted the applicant received preliminary rezoning and plan approval of this project on April 16, 2013. Aaker reported in order to obtain to approvals for the project, the following is the final step required for approval; Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to PUD and Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. Page 5 of 15 h a O A Nine Mile Creels 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, O SAC and REC fees will tie -required for this project. Sheet 4 of—4 w ±Grading, Drainage, Utility and Tree Plan; • Change background on pian to show improved Tracy Ave; the current plan does not show the concrete curb and gutter bike lane. • Provide a swale from the southwest coiner of the building pad of Lot 2 to Hawkes Terrace. • To minimize the disturbance of the vegetative buffer along Hawkes Terrace, .1 would recor'nmend that the applicant look at utilizing the current driveway apron on Tracy Ave for both driveways. I typically recommend removing driveways from collector streets to minimize access to busier roadways. I also recommbnd 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. A� G;�pW1AbMIN1C0l 1MtFXTERMAL1GEr�ERAL CORK BY STREETSIT StreetAS612 Tray Agd20130718 VJH-EJina Review 5612 Trac A°ve�doc Engineering Department , 7450 Metro 84vd • Edina, MN 55439 .EXHIBIT C MEMO MEMO Engineering Departmaat "Phone 95.2-826.0371 Fax 952.826-4392 , www.Cilyo(Edina.com- . 1;0✓��1�, Date: July 18, 2013 t» U To: Cary Teague w Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle » Director of Engineering Re: Preliminary Plat for 5hanight Addition Dated June 25, 2013 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plat and offer the following comments: O A Nine Mile Creels 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, O SAC and REC fees will tie -required for this project. Sheet 4 of—4 w ±Grading, Drainage, Utility and Tree Plan; • Change background on pian to show improved Tracy Ave; the current plan does not show the concrete curb and gutter bike lane. • Provide a swale from the southwest coiner of the building pad of Lot 2 to Hawkes Terrace. • To minimize the disturbance of the vegetative buffer along Hawkes Terrace, .1 would recor'nmend that the applicant look at utilizing the current driveway apron on Tracy Ave for both driveways. I typically recommend removing driveways from collector streets to minimize access to busier roadways. I also recommbnd 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. A� G;�pW1AbMIN1C0l 1MtFXTERMAL1GEr�ERAL CORK BY STREETSIT StreetAS612 Tray Agd20130718 VJH-EJina Review 5612 Trac A°ve�doc Engineering Department , 7450 Metro 84vd • Edina, MN 55439 .EXHIBIT C BRUCE L. MCLELLAN 5709 HAWKEs DRIVE I EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436 612.327.0484 CELL 1952.929.8464 HOME BLMCYCLEGAOL.COM October 30, 2013 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA Re: Application for variances to subdivide 5612 Tracy Avenue, Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda November 13, 2013 This submission addresses the application for variances needed to subdivide 5612 Tracy Avenue in Edina. I live with within 500 feet of 5612 Tracy Avenue. For the reasons set forth below, the application for variances should be denied, and 5612 Tracy Avenue should remain as a single lot with one single family residence. I request that this submission and exhibits be made part of the record in these proceedings Edina Code Section 810 must be strictly applied In considering the variances that have been requested, the City must take into account the "median" lot size in the "neighborhood" as defined in section 810.02. "Neighborhood" must include all lots that are partially or completely within 500 feet of the subject property. "Median" lot size is arrived at by listing all the lots in the "neighborhood" in an ordered set of values below and above which there are an equal number of such values. See section 810.02. A registered surveyor on behalf of the applicant prepared a blueprint document filed with the City July 18, 2013 showing all lots partially or completely within 500 feet of 5612 Tracy Avenue The area, depth, and width for each lot is provided. I prepared a chart attached as Exhibit A ranking each lot from largest to smallest. The resulting median area for lots in the neighborhood as defined in the Code is 17,842 square feet. There is nothing in section 810 that allows the City the discretion to simply disregard certain lots that fall within the 500 foot radius in determining median lot size when evaluating an application for subdivision. Here, however, Rod Helm on behalf of the applicant has previously argued before the Planning Commission and the City Council that the median lot size analysis mandated by section 810 of the City code should not be applied to his application for variances. He argues the City should disregard the lots on the east side of Tracy Avenue and on the south and west side of Hawkes Drive. But these areas are not different neighborhoods, as Mr. Helm would have the City believe, but part of the same neighborhood mandated by section 810.02. 5612 Tracy Avenue as it currently exists is 19,589 square feet. The applicant wants to subdivide that lot in two equal lots of 9,820 square feet each. This would yield two s (m(all(er (l}}oyt� each about �d CCT 0 2013 45% smaller than the median lot size in the neighborhood as defined in section 810.02. Also, 5612 Tracy Avenue as it now exists is only 1,747 square feet larger than the median lot size. Granting a variance of this magnitude will create an unfortunate precedent. If the City agrees with Mr. Helm and does not apply the median lot size test for the neighborhood required by the Code, applicants in the future will surely make the same argument. Also, granting an area variance of about 45% will serve as an additional argument in future requests for extreme variances. Moreover, granting the variances requested here will require the City to depart from the plain language of the City code. Section 810.11 subd. 2 dictates that when a subdivision is being considered, the resulting minimum lot size must be at least the median lot size in the neighborhood. The critical language reads: Lot Dimensions. If the proposed plat is wholly or partially within the Single Dwelling Unit District, then the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth and lot width to perimeter ratio shall be as follows: A. The minimum lot area, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 9,000 square feet, or the median lot area of lots in the neighborhood. (emphasis added). The proposed subdivision would yield two lots of 9,820 square feet each, 45% smaller than the median lot area of 17,842 square feet in the neighborhood as defined in the Code. The applicant's presentations are misleadins. At an October 23, 2013 neighborhood meeting at 5612 Tracy Avenue, Mr. Helm distributed a handout that summarizes his positions but contains a number of misleading conclusions. (See Exhibit B attached. The handwritten notes in the document are those of Mr. Rod Helm.) On the first page of his handout, Mr. Helm states that "non[e] of the immediate homes meet the area requirement." He provides no information on what "area requirement" he is referencing or which "homes" do not meet this requirement. The "area" he is referring is his selection of 14 of the 63 lots within 500 feet of 5612 Tracy Avenue as shown on page 2 of his handout. The memo goes on to state that only two lots in the 500 foot neighborhood were "set up for 2 -site sub -division." He provides no historical basis for asserting that 5612 Tracy Avenue was intended to be subdivided when the original plat was drawn many decades ago. On page two of his handout, Mr. Helm indicates on the drawing his choice of lots the City should consider in evaluating this subdivision. This small selection of 14 lots from the 63 included in the 500 foot radius are only those north and east of Hawkes Drive, west of Tracy Avenue, and south of Vernon. In making this selection, the handwritten note claims that "all sites withine it 0 yellow boundary would not meet the City -median requirement." There is no "City -median requirement,." The notes on page 3 of exhibit B are confusing and inaccurate. On this page Mr. Helm highlighted the areas of a very few lots that support his application. He labeled 5608 Hawkes Drive as having an area of 9,127 square feet, but the table that he included shows this lot as being 16,771 square feet. The Hennepin County property site lists this lot as 76 x 140 feet - or about 10,640 square feet. The original blueprint of the lot sizes filed by Mr. Helm with the City in July shows an area for this lot of 10,630 square feet, Mr. Helm fails to highlight the areas of the lots at 5600, 5604, and 5608 Tracy, that are 12,929, 11,776, and 11,619 square feet respectively - according to the blu print on file with the City. If the request for subdivision is granted, the resulting lots will be 9,820 square feet each - smaller than several of the lots close by, and unacceptably smaller then the median lot size within 500 feet of the subject property. The areas of certain lots near 5612 Tracy Avenue are different on the chart provided by Mr. Helm at the neighborhood meeting than they appear on the blueprint version on file with the City. On the chart provided October 23 at the meeting these areas were altered: 5604 Tracy was changed to 6,622 from 11,776; 5608 Tracy was changed to 6,708 from 11,619; 5710 Hawkes Terrace (incorrectly labeled Hawkes Avenue) was changed to 6,708 from 9,068; and 5708 Hawkes Terrace was changed to 6,619 from 9,127. Less critical is the change for the area of 5729 Tracy Avenue (incorrectly labeled Hawkes Avenue on the chart) to 11,776 from 16,000 square feet. Oddly enough, while these square footage areas were altered, the width and depth measurements were not. Location of the driveway is only one of many issues. The first page of the October 23 meeting handout also contains other misleading statements. While the location of the driveway was debated by the City Council on August 20, a review of the video indicates that the driveway location was only one of several reasons for the 4 -1 vote to deny the requested variances. Here is a summary of the various issues raised in the August 20 Council hearing. Mayor Hovland: • 5612 Tracy Avenue is a "great site for a single family home." • Having a single house on 5612 Tracy Avenue is more consistent with the neighborhood. • Houses closer to Hawkes Lake, just a few houses away, are on larger lots. • Because of the topography of 5612 Tracy, it would not be right to load the lots from Hawkes Terrace. Member Sprague: • "Some lots don't lend themselves to subdivision well, and this might be one of them." Member Bennett: There is no hardship to the lot due to its size. Due to the steep bank, there are topography and water management issues. In his August 20 presentation to the Council, Mr. Helm advocated a shared driveway on Tracy to service both lots. He argued against a driveway on Hawkes Terrace for the western most lot - a position he now advocates. On August 20 Mr. Helm noted that Cory Teague, City engineer Wayne Houle, and the developer all favored a shared driveway on Tracy Avenue In a July 18, 2013 memo Mr. Houle recommended the shared drive off Tracy. Exhibit C. Mr. Helm acknowledged the neighborhood concern with losing green space by disrupting the bank to dig a driveway and tuck under garage, and he agreed a driveway on Hawkes Terrace would require destruction of a portion of the bank. He will now return to the Planning Commission and the Council advocating the exact opposite. His new proposed plat is the same but for the driveway leading off Hawkes Terrace to a tuck - under garage. Yet the problems he acknowledged with this plan on August 20 still remain. Mandatory variance standards have not been `net. The Edina Code section 810.05 subd. 1 sets forth standards the City must follow in granting the variances requested in this application. These mandatory standards have not been met in this case, and the variances must be denied. No hardship exists as to the lot at 5612 Tracy Avenue The best use for this lot is for one single family home, as it is currently used. There is no hardship to the land caused by its physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition. The requested variances will not result in an improved plat or subdivision. The size and shape of the current lot at 5612 Tracy Avenue are not unique. There are similar size lots within 500 feet of the subject lot, and there are lots in this defined area that are substantially larger. Indeed, almost all of the lots within 500 feet of 5612 Tracy are larger than the two lots of 9,820 square feet the applicant wishes to create by subdividing the current lot. Finally, the single obvious purpose for the variances requested is the financial gain of the current owners, their real estate agent, and the developer. For all the reasons set forth in this letter, the variances requested to subdivide 5612 Tracy Avenue must be denied. Re c lly submitted,, ruce L. McLellan Data obtained from the original blue print document prepared for the applicant by registered surveyor Gregory R. Prasch filed with the City of Edina July 18, 2013. 14 ADDRESS SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 5708 Warden 44,392 2 5729 Hawkes Dr. 38,218 3 5717 Hawkes Dr. 37,518 4 5521 Doncaster 34,863 5 5722 Hawkes Dr. 30,613 6 5721 Vernon Ave. 26,544 7 5725 Hawkes Dr. 22,393 8 5628 Johnson Dr. 21,301 9 5624 Johnson Dr. 21,150 10 5713 Hawkes Dr. 20,971 11 5601 Tracy Ave. 20,320 12 5525 Merritt Cir. 19,969 13 5605 Tracy Ave. 19,792 14 5609 Tracy Ave. 19,792 15 5612 Tracy Ave. 19 589 16 5613 Hawkes Dr. 19,070 17 5615 Tracy Ave. 18,896 18 5632 Johnson Dr. 18,751 19 5617 Johnson Dr. 18,751 20 5616 Johnson Dr. 18,751 21 5636 Johnson Dr. 18,749 22 5620 Johnson Dr. 18,749 23 5621 Johnson Dr. 18,749 24 5520 Doncaster 18,741 25 Kiser #1 18,716 26 Kiser #2 18,716 27 5532 Glengarry 18,549 28 5709 Hawkes Dr. 18,521 29 5612 Johnson Dr. 18,282 30 5713 Vernon Ave. 18,062 31 5533 Glengarry 17,928 32 5536 Merritt Cir. 17,842 MEDIAN 33 5600 Johnson Dr. 17,651 34 5608 Johnson Dr. 17,651 35 5604 Johnson Dr. 17,387 36 5717 Vernon Ave. 17,137 37 5529 Glengarry 16,813 38 5532 Merritt Cir. 16,649 39 5625 Trac Ave. 16,034 40 5629 Tracy Ave. 16,000 41 5712 Hawkes Dr. 13,518 14 42 5601 Hawkes Dr. 13,305 43 5600 Tracy Ave. 12,929 44 5600 Hawkes Dr. 12,197 45 5616 Warden Ave. 12,090 46 5612 Warden Ave. 12,090 47 5708 Hawkes Dr. 12,021 48 5609 Hawkes Dr. 12,006 49 5704 Hawkes Dr. 11,937 50 5604 Tracy Ave. 11,776 51 5608 Tracy Ave. 11,619 52 5700 Warden Ave. 11,543 53 5701 Hawkes Dr. 11,471 54 5605 Hawkes Dr. 11,277 55 5705 Hawkes Teff. 10,997 56 5704 Warden Ave. 10,863 57 5705 Hawkes Dr. 10,778 58 5608 Hawkes Dr. 10,630 59 15710 Hawkes Teff. 10,612 60 5700 Hawkes Dr. 10,586 61 5604 Hawkes Dr. 9,668 62 5710 Hawkes Teff. 9,068 63 5708 Hawkes Teff. 9,127 October 23, 2013 5612 Tracy Neighborhood Meeting Introductions City Subdivision Criteria Minimum lot size (9000) and width (75) NOTE: Proposed sites meet these requirements 500' perimeter defined neighborhood medians NOTE: Variance requested Background • Met and worked with Edina staff on proposal • Initial proposal was to have shared driveway off of Tracy • Received staff recommendation • Approved 7-0 planning commission • Denied at council, primary due to site access (easement driveway) • Sent back to planning Variance discussion: • 500' neighborhood has very different properties east and west of Tracy • Non of the immediate homes meet the area requirement Proposed sites are very comparable to neighboring homes Only two sites in the 500' neighborhood set up for 2 -site sub -division, 5633 Tracy approved (only other one) All corner sites, with the exception of Vernon, front the E -W streets Finding a hybrid solution • Neighborhood concern: Hillside: Solution: Have only on driveway off of Hawkes on the far west side of the west lot; Provides minimum disturbance to hillside • Neighborhood concern: Traffic safety at corner; Solution to 1) work with City on options, i.e. terracing corner and 2) no driveway access on east site on Hawkes (first driveway would be approximately 120' from corner) • Neighborhood concern: Trend of smaller lots: Only two sites in the 500' neighborhood provided for the minimum frontage required, one is completed. Proposed sites are very consistent with block. • Council concern: Did not like easement driveway: Solution uses existing driveway cut for east home and only one cut on Hawkes EXHIBIT I if 0 i 1 Y {d#! o oll Q ��f�ii , IT, - '•1'.�'�.L�51414�' S 3 1 �} B 0 i 1 Y {d#! o oll Q ��f�ii , IT, - '•1'.�'�.L�51414�' S 3 71, yL ndVrlr,t 4� Z C c^ kr ((Y L t iC4tLZLsAq k -C mkt -,aa, 1) -(,vcox a- t, ,**— r Mt LOTS WITt1tN 500 FEET OF PROPOSED DSOtYTaq Ma . 11 NOTES. Legal Destxkitbn SHANIGHT ADDITION Tom & Gretch" Shwogw SM2 TAW kw. Ea- um sun or AT. Sh-t 3 of 5 t ., L . w4 S.1': I .t4•;.r "isz, S6 FAIS rol r704 —,N1 iC4tLZLsAq k -C mkt -,aa, 1) -(,vcox a- t, ,**— r Mt LOTS WITt1tN 500 FEET OF PROPOSED DSOtYTaq Ma . 11 NOTES. Legal Destxkitbn SHANIGHT ADDITION Tom & Gretch" Shwogw SM2 TAW kw. Ea- um sun or AT. Sh-t 3 of 5 W i ��R • { �i � � ti t is fill U1,11i 9 ���99���99�����9�9»999»�k31�19j9�39�991�9�»9�»����91111111111111111 �I � r 0 P 1 y I i I ••^s Is..-�__ . f _ � _+:•exrt�� .—'_�_ a ... � _ TV C: �' __—• M-925.71 i ( `�92y�f, 71 --.------------ - — - -- -_.— .--.C4a—.-_�._._.�y HAWKES TERRACE _______________________________________1 1 1 � 1 1 I :u Nit .r flelfe'flNr flNYTN[ 1NN[ (lCllrlfl YO CNCrR.ilpl NIC „ 4 1 1 •�T.R'?��=2A .ice +r«w MK .rfrn r0l p� Nw Awq�a •�C=y�7�.«'�.�'!i•A�73ai r aw` '�.uw.a.:aaii+w wrwrrr.>I + OCT 3 0 200 I I1.. I q 1 3. I � r nAN for Ker lrvwr.r IS �N+eynrr. fWr . 11 11 N w a rrsv. mr.Nff w•.eveauNofmNN >. rrtrtwrmin:lwamarmrcnrt i NIEI[RNN[NNM INlLTCNOINrM nr;crwlDftm.otNcl. ...rfNlesNworwewrfrtrww rrru .aaealmraleello..eeewfw NR rCtlL 221-. .apher State ow can �grr•r asrw.� '�� nl J 0T>o5 P_Z> %LT"A S ALTERNATE GRADING. ORNNAGE, UTa.rTV AND TREE PIAN Tom &Gretchen Shanight 6E,2 Tlsy A». Ei4r. AA, SSgE 11 NOTES: asrfror.W rssrrr.ww..x •Mar,rO«wre."Rf M4«0..rr W rrW Pwrw brq bwraaf-wl Irw rwra an Gnw9 rrrrt vwr.r,airrarp Nar.r«r.f wr.r r«r arrrfaa..W t+fCr+r+lfrwwraa, rMN«rfw..rr• trn rr Nnml mrrrrfrrr.rtr..: wi"rM'wr' a sr.r.,r.a«.Irrrr..mr.. i.a•K 4Y�ra«rirNl.sN Legal Detltaip6on 1MrIMf MMNre.r W IY«MMIwIbMtKMrNrnwglW rft« 1. WM101NACIIeIMnmwCe„Nr.Mxea+ar LTERNATE GRADING. DRAINAGE, 1Jnury AND TREE PLAN SHANIGHT ADDITION 111* tom a Gretchen &o*fit Earl. MN LMN r1oN rw..wrrrwsw.rrr.rrr«..+a.a. �rr,.+w��r.Irrarw.M aMf` Lor 9UREra ca~r: NK:. cuv arNsrwo �f•3 Nr rYrrrtrrN MCMlYM: MYI.WtMM 1BfYilC)rl[.r raemawr �.....�,.� raw 1014r fr.lw IIMt Sheet 5 NI 5 o � oIA C ' IN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 13, 2013 VII.A. Director of Planning INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description John Adams on behalf of Ted Warner is requesting front yard setback variances to 130 feet for each of the three lots within the Warner Estates Subdivision as approved by the City Council on October 1, 2013. One of the conditions of the subdivision approval was that the applicant make application for the front yard setback variances. (See Council minutes on pages A11 -A15.) The subject properties are located at 5 Merilane (See property location on pages Al—A4.) The existing home is located in the middle of the property, and would remain as proposed. However, the variances requested would apply to that lot as well. Once new homes are built in the north and south lots, the required setback for the middle lot would become 130 feet anyway. Driveways have been located to preserve as many existing trees as possible. Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are single-family homes, zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing site is located on the curved portion of Merilane. The site is 3.48 acres in size, and contains a single family home. The site contains some gradual slopes and mature trees. On October 1, 2013, the City Council approved a subdivision to divide the property into three parcels that all conform to the City's minimum ordinance standards. (See minutes on pages A11 -A15.) Guide Plan designation Zoning: Primary Issue Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district • Are the proposed Front Yard Setback Variances reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes that the proposed front yard setback variances for each of the three lots are reasonable for the site for the following reasons: 1. The proposed setback of 130 feet is the average front yard setback on the block. This was the required front yard setback requirement up until it was changed to the average of the home on either side in 2010. (See setback average calculation on page A7.) 2. The applicant is proposing to establish a preservation easement in the rear yards to preserve existing trees, plant new trees and establish a no build zone. Screening of residential homes from residential homes is not a typical zoning requirement; however, given the circumstances here, in an effort to minimize impacts on the existing homes at 6 and 7 Merilane the applicant is willing to provide the screening. (See proposed easement and plantings on the attached 11 x 17 plans and page A10-A10a&b.) 3. Building pads would be located further away from the adjacent homes at 6 and 7 Merilane, due to the proposed preservation easement. The preservation easement would ensure a minimum 72-75 foot distance between these homes. (See page Al 0.) 4. The findings for the variances would be met. 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 2 with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the existing homes on 5, 6 and 7 Merilane. All three of these homes are set way back on their lots; 5 Merilane is setback 190 feet; 6 Merilane has a front yard setback of 175 feet; and 7 Merilane is setback 191 feet. These setbacks establish the requirements for the two new lots. By building homes to meet the required setback, the new and existing homes would be much closer together, potentially as close as 50 feet. If these lots were developed prior to 2010, the required front yard setback would be 130 feet, as the required setback was determined by the average of the block. (See average of the block calculation on page A7-A7b.) Homes built with 130 -foot front yard setbacks on each of the three lots would be reasonable for the neighborhood. There are many homes on Merilane with closer front yard setbacks including the homes directly across the street, which range from 25-75 foot front yard setbacks. (See page A3.) b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The circumstances of the mature trees, proximity and large front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes at 6 and 7 Merilane are not created by the applicant and are generally unique in the R-1 District. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed building locations with 130 -foot front yard setbacks would not alter the character of the neighborhood. (See the attached 11x17 renderings and pages A10c-A10f.) The new lots are code compliant and 130 foot front yard setback is the average of the block on the east side of Merilane. A 130 -foot setback would be greater than the homes adjacent on the west side of Merilane. The applicant is also agreeable to establishing a preservation easement in the rear and side yards. (See page A10.) This preservation easement was a condition of the subdivision approval and would be established at the time of Final Plat approval. Staff Recommendation Approve the proposed front yard setback variances to allow 130 foot setbacks for all three lots within the Warner Estates Subdivision. Approval is based on the following findings: The approved Preliminary Plat meets all required standards and ordinances for a subdivision. 2. If these lots were developed prior to 2010, the required front yard setback would be 130 feet, as the required setback was determined by the average of the block. 3. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the existing homes on 5, 6 and 7 Merilane. All three of these homes are set far back on their lots; 5 Merilane is setback 190 feet; 6 Merilane has a front yard setback of 175 feet; and 7 Merilane is setback 191 feet. These setbacks establish the requirements for the two new lots. The location of these homes is not caused by the applicant. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. There are many homes on Merilane with closer front yard setbacks including the homes directly across the street, which range from 25-75 foot front yard setbacks. d. The variance results in the increase separation between existing and proposed houses. e. A preservation easement would permanently maintain building separation. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the Final Plat within one year of preliminary plat 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. If required, submit evidence of Nine Mile Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the Preliminary Plat to meet the district's requirements. 4 b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina Engineering department. C. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. d. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit, and shall be subject to review and approval of the city engineer. 3. Establishment of the preservation easement as proposed in the plans presented date stamped November 7, 2013. Deadline for a City Decision: January 1, 2013 T I t wi� K.l_ r Property Map .00 MALT Lk i i r ti,, {i tAl i�ihtnds �, tea 'p •. a ��� g -o: a Parcel 29-117-21-12-0009 Map Scale: 1" - 800 ft. N ID: Print Date: 9/5/2013 Owner H David Warner Etal Name: �x✓x {'' .tt't�� �''� ti R t , e 8�.!,r � � PER 0:171 y s �.. � Address: Edina, MN 55436 _ � 3 y r Residential Type: NTkLACHEN BLVD i � e � N Bif V sources and is furnished "AS IV' with no Home- i I s stead Homestead ".. m� r ti,, {i tAl i�ihtnds �, tea 'p •. a ��� g -o: a Parcel 29-117-21-12-0009 Map Scale: 1" - 800 ft. N ID: Print Date: 9/5/2013 Owner H David Warner Etal Name: Parcel 5 Merilane Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IV' with no Home- representation or warranty expressed or stead Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 3.48 acres Area: 151,680 sq ft COPYRIGHT ®HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 TdtTr►k Green! A( I 4603 4602 4612 1 '} 4603 4601 i 4608 J I 4616 4604 4b02 4604 4605 - - - - 5804 5800 - f a4 4600 purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and 5808 completeness of the information shown. Parcel 3.48 acres 4700 ' fr1AIT 4A _ - 6 4 _ COPYRIGHT ®HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 5 2 _ 4701 5805 4700 _.. _.— 4708 24 7 _ ! 4705 4712 4704 24 �`11 241 � __1 4715 ,�` 8 `- " 4708 4724 . 4721 } 4725. 4729 1 _ 4733 4800 AWAY 0 Property Map 27 29 25 f_ !t 23 -� ,20 24�� 21 19 \- 17 9 O 4800 ti < 6 48084801 4801 ' , 20 � �, � - 24 7 4801 , �, 1 13 ,� 4 4812 4805 tAd 4877 1, 19f 5 zCip -"4811 4820 °i 10 1C! 48101,,., �<'"° 18 Parcel 29-117-21-12-0009 Map Scale: V - 400 ft. N ID' Print Date: 9/5/2013 Owner H David Warner Etal Name: Parcel 5 Merilane Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Homestead representation or warranty expressed or stead' implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 3.48 acres Area: 151,680 Sq ft ( COPYRIGHT ®HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 Mink Green! LL A+ APPIIC414 Mlpro k VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBERDATE \0�-19 V200 FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * Mtw.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 66424 (952) 826-0369 fax (962) 826-0389 ---------------- . .... . ...... . ...... . .. . . .. . .. . ............. . . FEE: RES - $360-00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: John F. Adams (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 201 East Lake Street, Wayzata PHONE: 612.720.4827 EMAIL- JAdams@CBBurnet.com PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Ted E. Warner (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 5 Merilane, Edina PHONE: 612,201.0538 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): Lot 5, Rolling Green, Hennepin County, Minnesota **You must provide a full legal description. If more space Is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5 Merilane, Edina PRESENT ZONING* Residential P.I.D.# 29.117,21.12.0009 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: This application for front yard setback variances was a condition placed upon our preliminary plat approval by the City Council at the 10/1/13 meeting, (Use reverse side or additional pages If necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: John Kraemer & Sons EMAIL. Gary@JKandSonscorn SURVEYOR: NAME: EMAIL: Gronberg & Associates MarkG@GronbergAssoc.com r) PHONE: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying � F]with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Moving the building envelopes ('pads) forward towards the street alleviates the clustering of homes on top of the hill. The resulting building envelopes (pads) arc a reasonable use of the property, Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district ® ❑ The clustering on top of the hill is a pre-existing, extraordinary condition caused by the decision of the builders of the 2 homes abutting this property to build on the very back of those lots. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance 0 N By moving to a 130" front yard setback; the new homes will be placed back from the street the same as the average front yard setback on the same side of Merilane between the cul-de-sac and hnterlachen Blvd. landscaping in the proposed preservation easement area around the perimeter of the three Warner Estates lots will provide an effective and attractive means to ensure the compatibility of homes oil those lots with the immediately adjacent homes (Le. the Pohlad home and the Genau home). In addition, this specially landscaped area will enhance the overall beauty of the neighborhood. fly bringing the homes away from the backs of the lots. the variance, coupled with the landscaped easement area, will preserve, and in fact enhance, the high quality, appealing character of the neighborhood. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 'file variance will provide at least 80' between the 2 new proposed homes and the 2 existing abutting homes - which is the same distance between the 2 abutting, homes now. The variance setback will also preserve large, wooded front yards, maintaining a substantial separa ion from both the street (130') and from the: homes directly across the street (over 2110'), Accordingly, the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood but, rather, is compatible with it. t` IND hC_ GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYING, ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 54356 553.473-4141 FAX: 551-473-4435 5 MERILANE AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK OF DWELLING UNITS ON THE SAME SIDE OF STREET FROM INTERLACHEN BLVD TO MERILANE CUL-DE-SAC JULY 17, 2013, rev. October 34, 2013 ADDRESS 17 Merilane 16 Paddock Road 12 Merilane 11 Merilane 10 Merilane 9 Merilane 8 Merilane 7 Merilane 6 Merilane 4 Merilane 2 Merilane 4600 Merilane FRONT SETBACK (FT.) 79.9 67.4 70.6 88.6 91.0 150.7 235.8 191.3 175.0 91.6 209.7 112.2 1563.8/12 A� = 130.3 �� rr Inter ai a Property nna Map 28/ 4603 i 4601 4612 4608 4604 # 4602 2 If- - .._. 25 4604 i' 4605 _ - ------ ` _.. 4500 5604 15800 1 `! 22 5808 MA(T LA 4 20 4700 f 2 i' 4701 5805 24 21 4700 4708 -...____m 1 ` 19 24 j °, 7 , 4705 y_ 4712 Ik__ 7 4704 1 4715 24 8 XI � � ' 7 4 4708 4724 `- "•4721 4725 4729 4 10 _ _� t _.., 1, i .,.., '�: t 4733 48049 8 4800� -�.. �o � t 4808����'�` 20 24 6 ._ 1 11301 ' 9 7 480113 ' t 4812 /� t 4805 `�4 4877 19 10�✓ 2 4820.E � ,..�` 4811.•_ ��,°�" � , _ o _ � •ty� 4817 !{ 5804 'k t \ 18 l 11 j<j, I. 4812 ` ' 5808 �S� Ni 4901 �O 14 2 L3 1215 j t _._ __ r"� COT,R CIR - 3 `580 4904 4905- :t 4904 `' 27 33' i 12 ; f .. 4820 • ,r`` _ 1 T VO r ,4, ._ _ � � r ,,= 15 291 3 9 4900 R . 4908 4909 ". 4904 `rl,' 4909 ' I 7 # I 16 l 4912 M 4913 4912 24 - 4908 ", 4915 Parcel 29-117-21-12-0009 Map Scale: 1" = 400 ft. N ID: Print Date: 11/6/2013 Owner H David Warner Etal w Parcel 5 Merilane Address: Edina, MN 55436 Property Residential Type: This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home -representation or warranty expressed or stead: Homestead implied, Including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 3.48 acres Area: 151,680 Sq ft COPYRIGHT ®HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 Whk Green! �7 � • PIM EiluMi1.76 wN ►—►•�-- --� • ecm.. �� i • INN BUMM mN WV f1Ew '16B ' VVCP wveEwewem wN E EWOODAM :+ FEB / Ile 1 x.91 wv ar ansae s,.� M+MwiE / / / %. S.F. LOT 1 I i rw , / / 1.17+ ACRES I i LOT WIDTH-281 LOT DEPTH-M I I LOT PERIMETER=1004 ^�� \ LOT WIDTH TO PERIMETER RAMO.028 i - / t3 -ter- `tib :�� ��'!•► i•►__.re.. I I �I Icl THIS LN I AHA- pi OT 2 il So S.F.AMI i I r I LOT RmI181 y \N I I 1 LOT WIDTHTOPERI 1 \Amp I t01 1 g \ I \ 1 I ' .,;--- Asa— — _ _ _ n• \ i I LEV-woo PROPOSED AND IA�BB.At I 1 101 I,nutr des 'u��rs crr� LOT 3 \ \ t 1.15+-ACRES +� LOT Mm6p1 \ ` LOT WroTH�288 h / EBBE wv 1 \ \� LOT PERIMETER=9s8 N//,/ 800K1 D�D&NP \ I \ \ 1 LOT WIDTH TO PERIMETER RA .28 i �/ / AND BOOK 110 bF DE© ss 1w FAHM NOK OHM X21 ST mosmar ' n/�\ \\ w \\• ,/ ,/ �9��SE� BACK ON Lw 41 \ / es>B , •:/ wv ElEwerfsen �\\ii", •\ ,p_�' � � / Al •3i +' V �\ as, " N IN 0 30 60 120 WARNER ESTATES SETBACK EXHIBIT FOR THE H. D. WARNER ESTATE OF LOT 5, ROLLING GREEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 'M \\�\�� \\ Jay ,`* \\ ,'S, \ 141 30 60 120 SCALE N1 FEET Lot contains 3.48+. acres LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 5, ROLLING GREEN 'r TNs survey shows the bounderles and topography of the above desuibed property, end the location of an =he= r - and drWewey. it doasnol purport to show any other OWNERS JOAN A. WARNER, DAVID A. WARNER AND TE E. WARNER improvamen(sorencroactnttents. N TO E: The land surveyed covers the andre parcel and there are no gaps or overlaps CIO JOHN ADAMS, AGENT COLOWELL BANKER BURNET 201 E. LAKE STREET vAlh adjoining parcels. • :1raa.me er found g, WAYZATA, tdN 56391 G [ran marker set • Existing Edina datum) ,0 812-7201827 jadems&bbumel oom ��• contour (City of ` - datum �� Boarings shovm am based upon an assumed Tree. shovm are fn the areas of the proposed drives and houses and 8° diameter and larger. P I D: 29.117-21-12.0009 CURRENT NO: R-1 DAM REVI6 NSW.0 L..-' '"" a`" °"'���+y'" ° ""` GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. N morouooww�wemx�mm MwsYM M�e.eCIVIL *+ �� +n sE*re evsrmrcIii,51AW ��" "ins ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLAiINBRa 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, FAN 55366 non,w,wc • i R PHONE, 952-473.4141 FAX: 952.4734439 C wa �\ C1J N0'[ 0 COi1S i UCLIOi"1- F ( tt-i 101- 61 F, IJ 11 QUi:D0SE5 0nIjr N V " Ma FAA, rg Af sc al OAK , I ) FRAMP � N V ] I Z 9 I/V rAl -- 1 1 — b C1 , J L �a 'tits�� FR _ID 5 r 70 i r 41 C 4 i _ K".raw 5 � 6 1, us 4 4 ws lag+3 c - l� t - •o — i rried. Interim Fire ief Todd accepted the proclamation,lescOxed the educational programs offered, and thanked the Co cil for its continued support of the Fir epartment. V.C. 2013 MNAPA XCELLENCE IN COMM U ENGAGEMENT AWARD — PRESENTED Member Brindle announc the City of Edina ad received the 2013 Minnesota Chapter American Planning Association's (MNAPA's) Exc lence in C munity Engagement Award acknowledging the City's do.town Initiative, and its vision and core alu or quality of life for its residents. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HEL A avits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. PRELIMINARY PLAT 609 BLA OOT PASS; GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF DOUGLAS JO SON — RESU N NO. 2013-82 — POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 14, 2013 Mayor Hovland an nced that the propo nt had requested postponement to October 14, 2013. Member 5pragu made a motion, seconded Member Brindle, postponing consideration of the Preliminary P , 6609 Blackfoot Pass; Great Neig orhood Homes, Inc. on behalf of Douglas Johnson on No. 2013-82, to October 14, 2013. and Res4 Ayes; ennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland hadlon carried. VI. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT AT S MERILANE FOR JOHN ADAMS ON BEHALF OF TED WARNER —APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2013-84 —ADOPTED Community Develooment Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Ted Warner for a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 5 Merilane into three lots. He stated the median lot area in this neighborhood was 48,249 square feet, median lot depth was 277 feet, and median lot width was 192 feet. The proposed new lots would meet all minimum lot size requirements. If approved, the existing house would remain on Lot 2 and a new driveway constructed to serve the existing house as the current driveway would be located on proposed Lot 3. Mr. Teague reviewed the consideration of the Planning Commission and advised that a motion to approve the request based on the findings and conditions as contained in the Planning Commission staff report failed for lack of a second. A motion to deny the request based on the finding that the subdivision as proposed would change the character and symmetry of the Rolling Green neighborhood, as a result of new house placement In close proximity to existing homes failed on a vote of 3-5. Mr. Teague stated staff recommended approval, as it meets the ordinance's subjective standards, subject to the findings and conditions as detailed in the staff report. City Attorney Knutson advised that when considering a plat approval, the Council was acting In a quasi- judicial capacity in applying City ordinances and Statute to the facts as presented to determine whether it met the requirements of the ordinance. It was not a consideration of establishing policy. City Attorney Knutson stated if the subdivision met ordinance standards, the City lacked discretion to deny. He explained that courts construed the City's ordinances in the least restrictive manner to allow property owners to do what they wished with their property. The purpose of tonight's public hearing was to gather information on whether the facts as presented met the ordinance requirements. Denial could not be based on neighborhood comment but had to be based on the objective standards within the ordinance. He explained that conditions could be imposed that were ordinance based to assure compliance with ordinance standards. Proaonent Presentation Charlie Carpenter, attorney representing the Warner family, thanked the Council for visiting the site and discussing the proponent's plans to become familiar with the proposed plat. Mr. Carpenter stated the Page 3 ji' Minutes/Edina Citv Council/October 1. 2013 subjective statements/conditions set forth in the subdivision ordinance (protecting character/symmetry of the community) distinguished from the standards relating to lot size and width. He read three statements from Minnesota Courts relating to consideration by local authorities of subdivisions and stated it was the proponent's position that statements within the City's ordinance lacked in providing a clear and objective standard. Mr. Carpenter stated the proponent believed the subdivision request did comply with the City's objective standards as contained in its ordinances and that "neighborhood" goes beyond the adjacent lots. Mr. Carpenter addressed the drawing presented by John Adams last week based on comments by the Planning Commission relating to aesthetics of placing houses at the back of the three lots and suggestion to seek a variance to bring the house location forward. He displayed a new plan prepared by the proponent's surveyor to bring the houses forward to the 130 -foot setback line and to add a buffer zone/conservation easement to provide screening to the Pohlad and Genau houses as well as between the three lots as viewed from the street. Mr. Carpenter stated based on this new plan, the proponent would agree to the following: to request variances to the front yard setback to the 130 -foot line conditioned upon creating a permanent conservation easement to be recorded against each of the three lots; to be obligated to plant vegetation and trees according with a landscaping plan approved by the City; to construct no buildings in the conservation zone; to agree with a restrictive covenant that vegetation and trees within the conservation easement would remain in place; and, that it would be a perpetual conservation easement and binding on future owners of the three lots. Mr. Carpenter requested Council approve the preliminary plat as submitted and provide guidance whether the neighborhood would be better served with the new plan that would require variances to the front yard setback of the three lots. If so, the proponent would petition the City for variances, work with the City Attorney to draft the conservation easement, and work with staff to develop the landscape plan. Mr. Teague explained the process to consider approval of the preliminary plat and a subsequent variance application that would be considered by the Planning Commission. He indicated those considerations could occur separately, or together. The Council asked questions of Mr. Carpenter relating to the genesis of the new plan that would require three front lot setback variances. Mr. Carpenter stated it was developed at the suggestion of the Planning Commission and he believed the conservation easement should be linked with the variance requests. John Adams, realtor with Coldwell Banker Burnet representing the Warner family, stated he also received an e-mail from a resident suggesting the houses be moved forward to create more space in between. He explained the 130 -foot setback was the average front yard setback along that side of the street. This method of calculating an average front yard setback had been used in Edina until three years ago. He described how the area of the conservation easement was customized and stated they were willing to run the 25 -foot conservation easement along the property lines to the street. The Council asked how the proponent could be legally bound to return with variance requests and conservation easement should the Preliminary Plat be approved tonight. Mr. Adams suggested a condition of approval to require the proponent to make variance application. City Attorney Knutson stated if the proponent agreed to that requirement, it would be legally binding. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Public Testimony Tom Owens, real estate lawyer representing Mary Pohlad of 7 Merilane and Michael and Sandra Genau of 6 Merilane, addressed the Council and requested a five-minute recess to consider the information just received. The Council agreed to briefly recess the meeting following Public Testimony. Gerald Hulbert, 4616 Merilane, addressed the Council. Page 4 M07_� Minutes/Edina City Council/October 1, 2013 James Ganley, 4704 Merilane, addressed the Council. Donna Roback,18 Merilane, addressed the Council. Suzanne Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway, addressed the Council. Michael Genau, 6 Merilane„ addressed the Council. David Evinger, 4 Merilane, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to recess the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to reconvene the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Tom Owens, real estate lawyer representing Mary Pohlad of 7 Merilane, and Mike and Sandy Genau of 6 Merilane, addressed the Council. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council confirmed that houses could be constructed on each of the three lots without front yard setback variances or conservation easements. The Council asked staff to respond to questions relating to the accuracy of the median lot data as presented in the staff report, from the proponent's surveyor. Mr. Teague stated the Council could table consideration to allow time for staff to verify the numbers or a condition could be added that approval was subject to re -verification and that the new lots must meet all median lot size requirements. City Attorney Knutson recommended the proponent submit survey information for review by staff and if needed, the City would hire an outside consultant for verification. In addition, staff could review data provided by other surveyors to verify accuracy. The Council acknowledged that a number of variances, at least seven, had been issued in this general area. With regard to area of notification and definition of "neighborhood," the Council considered whether an ordinance should be created that was neighborhood specific or included properties within the same plat. It was noted that Statute required notification to properties within 350 feet of the subject site; however, the City provided notice to properties within 500 feet of the subject site. The Council discussed the difference in ordinance guideline language between Sections 810 and 850. City Attorney Knutson pointed out that regardless of the Section, the ordinance language related to "guidelines." The Council reviewed ordinance Section 810.11 subd. 1. C. relating to guidelines as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Knutson stated the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to provide guidance in drafting ordinances. The Council asked whether shape of lot was a consideration. City Attorney Knutson stated it was the Council's judgment whether the lot shape was objective. Mr. Teague stated he had generally looked at the issue of shape, finding other pie -shaped lots, but had not measured angles. The Council acknowledged the City had a single zoning code that applied to lots throughout the City even though there was great Page 5 � t 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/October 1, 2013 variation (lot sizes/topography) between and within neighborhoods, which raised the question of whether the code was adequate. The issue was raised whether a professional planning consultant should be considered to review and standardize the code. The Council found the essence of the issue was that while the lot qualified for a legal subdivision under the objective standards of the code, subdivision would cause impact on surrounding properties by clustering three houses on the back of the lots at the top of the hill. In addition, the supplemental information asked if there was some objectivity in using the old methodology to measure front yard setbacks and proffering a variance request to separate houses from each other and neighboring houses along with conservation easements to protect woodlands. The Council found a conservation easement would be an enhancement and align interests of the developer and adjacent neighbors. The Council asked how staff would proceed to verify the numbers to assure the Council based its decision on accurate objective information. Mr. Teague stated the calculations were difficult, time intensive, and if directed, the City could engage a new consultant but it might take one month to complete that analysis. He stated the proponent had one year from the date of preliminary plat approval to submit the final plat. The City Attorney stated if the Council considered the preliminary plat tonight, resolution language could be included that the applicant shall apply for front yard setback variances for the three proposed lots and provide conservation easements over areas indicated at tonight's meeting in conjunction with the variance. He stated the conservation easement would result in adjusting the location of building pads to protect privacy of adjacent and existing houses. Mr. Carpenter stated the resulting building area on Lot 1 would be within the setbacks and further constricted by the easement. The Council supported consideration of a setback from the conservation easement to create maximum privacy for abutting and neighboring houses. Mr. Carpenter assured the Council that would be accomplished by the conservation easement and he believed the market was a positive force because buyers want privacy. The Council acknowledged the genesis of the new plan was in response to the suggestion by the Planning Commission for variances and conservation easements and letter from a resident encouraging relocating the houses on the lot. The Council agreed that a solution to address clustering would be to separate the houses, move the houses toward the street, and off the bluff. City Attorney Knutson stated staff would verify ownership of the outlot, lake area, and impact to the median calculation. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-54, Approving a Preliminary Plat at 5 Merilane, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Plat meets all required standards and ordinances for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and area. 3. The applicant has located the driveways and home to minimize tree and slope disturbance. 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. Park dedication fee of $10,000 must be paid prior to release of the Final Plat. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the Preliminary Plat to meet the District's requirements. b. Curb -cut permits must be obtained from the Edina Engineering Department. Driveway plans must be consistent with the proposed grading plan to preserve as many trees as possible. 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. Page 6 hl� Minutes/Edina City Council/October 1, 2013 (4. ` The applicant must apply for a variance for front yard setbacks for all three lots, consistent with the plan map presented at the October 1, 2013, Council meeting. The plan map Included 130 -foot front yard setbacks and conservation easements along the outer side lot lines in the rear yard to ensure house separation and tree preservation. S. The 500 -foot median calculations must be verified to ensure compliance with all minimum lot standards. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Vll. COMMUNITYC%1MME No one appeared to com ent. Vlll. REPORTS / RECOM ENDATIONS Vlll.A. RESOLUTION N0.20 -85 ADOPTED —ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained tha in order to comply with State Statutes; all dona ons to the City must be adopted by Resolution and ap roved by four favorable votes of the Counc' accepting the donations. Member Bennett introduced d moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013-85 accepting various donations. Member Brindle secon ed the motion. Rolicall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Sw nson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-77 AD PTED — SILVER PROPERTY, SITE PLAN REVIEW W H A PARKING R. AT 6525-45 FRANCE AVENUE — APAROVED Mr. Teague reviewed that this item had been address issues that had been raised. Proponent Presentation James O'Shea, Collaborative Design Group, pres medical office building expansion and new pa building. He noted the plans included taller tree Street and Drew Avenue, new locations for mord the drive entrance from West 66`s Street, per `i central plaza. He stated the proponent's ei driveway width. ed at DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF ►RET eTBACK AND PARKING STALL VARIANCE meeting to allow time for the proponent to )led revised plans for a four-story, 60,000 square foot I g ramp expansion to the Southdale Medical Office ar and the parking ramp, intensive plantings along 66`n icy a racks, addition of a sidewalk into the site west of bie ver drive per City standard, and public art in the er w Id work with City staff to address appropriate Reid Schulz, Civil Engineer with Landform Professional Servid s, described the redesigned two-way, 24 -foot wide, delivery access to the loading area. He also describe the minimized apron and drive aisle within the paved setback, remaining truck apron to accommodate tr ck movements, and how a box truck would maneuver to back into the loading .area. Mr. Schulz then pr ented details of the landscaping, noting incorporation of a retaining wall, with the backside of the five- of berm planted with mature trees and incorporation of a plaza area and tWo sidewalks. f The Council voiced support fothe alternate design as it separated truck and car traffic and slowed the speed of vehicles. ,' Mr. O'Shea displayed plct res of the existing garage and stated they now proposed to remove the ramp, return the north setback o the City, and address the street with landscaping. He then displayed a picture of the new proposed r mp, noting the location of the plaza to better engage citizens and the street in a Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-84 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 5 MERILANE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 John Adams, on behalf of property owner Ted Warner is proposing to subdivide the property at 5 Merilane into three lots. 1.02 The existing home is located in the middle of the property, and would remain as proposed. A new driveway would be constructed to serve the existing home, as the current driveway would be located on proposed Lot 3. The existing driveway would be used for access to a new home on Lot 3. 1.03 Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 48,249 square feet, median lot depth is 277 feet, and the median lot width is 192. All three meet the above medians. 1.04 The following described tract of land is requested to be divided: Lot 5 Rolling Green, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.05 The owner of the described land desires to subdivide said tract in to the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "parcels") described as follows: Lots 1, 2 and 3 Warner Estates 1.06 The proposed subdivision meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. 1.07 On July 24, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the request for subdivision. The following motions failed: 1. A motion to approve the request failed for a lack of a second. Motion to approve was based on the findings and conditions in the Planning Commission staff report. 2. A motion to deny the request failed on a vote of 3-5. Motion to deny was based on the finding that the subdivision as proposed would change the character and symmetry of the Rolling Green neighborhood, and in particular based on changes to the character and symmetry that would occur as the result of new house placement in close proximity to existing homes. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-927-8861 • Fax 952-826-0390 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-84 Page Two Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: The proposed Plat meets all required standards and ordinances for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and area. 3. The applicant has located the driveways and home to minimize tree and slope disturbance. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision of 5 Merilane. Approval is 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. Park dedication fee of $10,000 must be paid prior to release of the final plat. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: Submit evidence of a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Curb -cut permits must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. Driveway plans must be consistent with the proposed grading plan to preserve as many trees as possible. 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. 4. The applicant must apply for a variance for front yard setbacks for all three lots, consistent with the plan map presented at the October 1, 2013 Council meeting. The plan map included 130 -foot front yard setbacks and conservation easements in the rear yard to ensure house separation and tree preservation. 5. The 500 -foot median calculations must be verified to ensure compliance with all minimum lot standards. 41-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 13, 2013 B-13-20 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 47 foot front yard setback variance as requested for property located at 2 Bridge Lane, for Erin and Chris Newkirk. Project Description A 47 foot front yard setback variance for an addition to match the same nonconforming front yard/side street setback as the existing home, (See property location, aerial photos, photos of the subject and neighboring homes, letter from the applicant on pages A.1—A.8). The project consists of an addition to living space to the back of the home to include a new attached two car garage and a patio in the side yard. All improvements will match the existing nonconforming setback along Townes Road. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot located in the north west corner of Bridge Lane and Townes Road consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached garage built in 1937. The lot is 14,676 square feet in area. The owners are hoping to add onto the back of the home to include an expanded kitchen, family room mudroom and attached two car garage on the main floor and a master bedroom with bath on the second floor. The owners would also like to locate a patio in the side yard at the same setback as the existing house from Townes Road. The current home is located approximately 15 feet from the east lot line. The zoning ordinance requires that any improvement maintain the front yard setback of the home to the north of the subject property. The home to the north is located 62 feet from Townes Road right-of-way. The addition to the new home will be at the existing nonconforming front yard/side street setback, (see A.9 — A.20, surveys and house plans). The home is proposed to continue to be a one and one half story home with a two car garage. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Easterly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Southerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is a 14, 676 square foot lot with a one and one half story home with a two car garage built in 1937. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Building Design The proposed home will be a one and one half story with a stone and cedar shake finish as indicated on elevations. (See pictures on pages A. 19—A. 20). Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 City Standard Proposed Front - 62 feet *15 feet Side- 10 + height, (living) 14 feet Rear- 25 feet 54 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 1 1/2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to the 20 feet to midpoint, feet ridge, 28 to the ridge Lot coverage 25% 22% * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from Townes Road. 2. The addition to the home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a lot that is unbuildable given the current front yard/side street setback requirement. 4. The addition simply matches an existing nonconforming front yard/side street setback that has been in place since 1937. The required front yard/side street setback is unworkable on the lot. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The addition will match the existing nonconforming setback of the existing home on the property which has been located on the property since 1937. The practical difficulty in complying with the ordinances is created by the required front yard setback that is dictated by the adjacent property. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that the required front yard setback renders the lot unbuildable. The practical difficulty is therefore, caused by the existing location of the adjacent home to the north. The practical difficulty is the front yard setback requirement that takes into account the setback of the home to the north that is located 62 feet from Townes Road. The lot is deep, with generous spacing between the addition and adjacent home to the north. The purpose behind the ordinance is to maintain an established front yard sight line and street scape. The ordinance is meant to prevent a continual erosion of an established front yard setback pattern in an existing neighborhood by holding all new construction to the existing neighborhood standard and to avoid new structure build -out beyond existing conditions. Duplicating the front yard/side street setback of the existing home will not compromise the intent of the ordinance. The new addition will maintain the existing pattern of setback on the block and will be no closer to the street. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing lot is subjected to a front yard setback that is deeper than the location of the existing home. The required setback reduces buildable area creating an unbuildable lot. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition to the home will be consistent with the location of the existing home and will not change the streetscape along Valley View. The character of the neighborhood consists of a variety of housing styles. The applicant is asking to preserve a setback pattern along the block that has included the nonconforming setback of the subject property. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: 4 a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the home to the north that is actually located west of the subject property's side lot line. b) The encroachment into the setback continues an existing nonconforming setback that was established when the original home was built in 1937. The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped, October 25, 2013. Deadline for a city decision: December 25, 2013 me VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: +al M f '(Sigl nature required on back page)) S: ADDRESOtt o�!►Ch . ��ScZrK SiHT1 PHONE: 1�2..D -2_2D EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER:v v I NAME: LC IA ne_Q� (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: d YIOLae L-QAe—. .I"IN PHONE: E.GAL DESCRIPTION Of -PROPERTY (written and electronic for **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needEld, please use a separatd sHeet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: PRESENT ZONING:, P.I.D.# I �OZ-$Z--LI �� 0L49 TION Qfl REQ (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAMAr1\(Ol �C1� �1 PHONE: bQ 2_- (,, EMAI L•, G�A�C�.COw\ SURVEYOR: NAME: PHONE: CIJZ"7n� - - i� EMAIL: e of ll��(� VbNI'1Sb(1 jL9.,C• 1 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional -sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Xn Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood Detailed Application Requirements: Unless waived by the Planning Department, you must complete all of the following items with this application. An incomplete application will not be - accepted.. ----- ----- -- -- - -- - -- --- -- - ICompleted and signed application form. 7Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." -"/— One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. V Seventeen (17) 11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs / and other information to explain and support the application. V A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." V Variance requests require scale drawings to explain and document the proposal. The drawings are not required to be prepared by a professional, but must be neat, accurate and drawn to an acceptable scale. The drawings may vary with the proposal, but should include a site plan, floor plans and elevations of the sides of the building which are affected by the variance. VARIANCE GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION INFORMATION The City of Edina Planning Department encourages healthy development within the city of Edina. Although this document is meant to serve as a guide for the application process for development through the Planning Department it is by no means comprehensive. The Planning Staff recommend that you schedule a meeting to answer any questions or to discuss issues that may accompany your project. It is much easier to tackle problems early on in the process. The office number for the Planning Staff is (952) 826-0465. Variance Information The Edina Planning Commission has been established to consider exceptions (variances) from the Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinance (Number 850), the Antenna Ordinance (Number 815), the Sign Ordinance (Number 460) and the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment Ordinance (Number 1046). The variance procedure is a "safety valve" to handle the unusual circumstances that could not be anticipated by these ordinances. The Commission is charged to only grant a petition for a variance if it finds: 1. That strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property 2. That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 3. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. "Practical Difficulties" means that: 1. The property in question cannot put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance 2. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application: Applications are submitted to the Planning Department. Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 4:30 PM. Deadlines for Applications: Applications need to be submitted at least fifteen days before the meeting. This allows the City of Edina time to notify surrounding property owners of the date of the hearing and details of the variance. It is helpful to submit the application as soon as possible to secure an early hearing position. Notice of Public Hearing: Notice is mailed to all property.owners (of record at City Hall) that are located within 200 feet of the site. Notice is mailed ten (10) days prior to the hearing. You are encouraged to contact adjacent or close owners and advise them of your proposal prior to the notice of the hearing. You may wish to provide statements of "no objection to the variance" from the nearby property owners. Meetings and Public Hearings: Meetings of the Planning Commission are scheduled on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. The meetings are held at 7:00 pm in the Edina City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 West 50th Street. Each meeting is limited to five variance cases on a first come, first serve basis. Additional requests are delayed until subsequent meetings. Meetings are formal public hearings with a staff report, comments from the proponent and comments from the audience. It is important the owner ora representative attend the meeting to answer questions. Staff Report: After review of the drawings submitted and a visit to the site staff prepares a report. This report, along with any supporting drawings and materials, are sent to the Zoning Board in advance of the meetings. Board members may visit the site before the meeting. All plans, emails and written information are public information, and may be used in the staff report and distributed to the public. Board Membership: The Planning Commission serves as the Zoning Board. Five members are required for a quorum. Decisions by the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may approve, deny or amend the variance request and establish conditions to ensure compliance or protect surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission generally makes a decision at the scheduled hearing. Occasionally, however, a continuance to another meeting may be necessary. Appeals: Decisions of the Planning Commissionare final unless appealed to the City Council in writing within 10 days. The proponents, any owner receiving notice of the hearing or the staff may appeal decisions. Appeals are rare and they can be time consuming because a new hearing is required before the full City Council. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk. Legal Fee: It is the policy of the City to charge applicants for the actual cost billed by our attorneys for all legal work associated with the application. An itemized bill will be provided which is due and payable within thirty (30) days. ** Filing an Approved Variance: The applicant is required to file an approved variance resolution with the County. Documents necessary for filing will be provided by the Planning Department. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. Ap'plicant's Signature / 1 Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) �10I)--15'►1"� s Signature Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. VUJOVICH RE: Variance Application 2 Bridge Lane, Edina, MN, 55424 Extraordinary circumstances The proposed variance request for 2 Bridge Lane in Edina is to treat the East property setback as a side yard setback instead of a front yard setback (15'). Being that the property is a corner lot and the adjacent property to the North faces the street, the code requires the East setback match the existing house setback of the adjacent North property which is 62'. This requirement is extreme and does not allow for any expansion of the home. The current structure on the lot is set back 15.2' from the property line. This variance request would simply match what is currently in place for the proposed addition. Practical difficulties/reasonable use The existing lot layout was clearly intended to have the front yard face the South which is similar to the other homes on Bridge Lane. The widest part of the lot is the South property line which is the side that the front door faces and is officially the front yard. The structure is well within the front yard setback of 63.2'. Being that the East side yard setback is currently 15', it was intended to be a side yard. The triangular-shaped corner lot ranges in width from just under 100' at the widest part to around 32.5' at the narrowest. If the East side is to be treated as a front yard, it would render the entire lot as unbuildable, which is unreasonable. The current building coverage is 2460 square feet or 17%. Since the maximum requirement for building coverage is 25%, the size of the lot keeping with the overall style of the home. Also included is a new attached mudroom and garage. The rooflines of these areas match the original home very closely. The existing screened porch will be renovated into living space thereby reducing the need to add more new living space. Though the lot is similar in square footage of some of the adjacent properties, the unusual shape renders the widest portion of the lot to be unusable—the corner. The proposed design will not compromise the corner in anyway. It will remain as it is, maintaining the openness and view of the intersection. Also, the proposed design intends to maintain as many of the large trees as possible. These trees provide a visual buffer to the street and to the adjacent North property. Further, the North property is on a higher elevation than this property which causes a natural separation from one block to the next. The garage addition will be setback from the rear property line 54' which does not impede the North adjacent property's views. Finally, the proposed improvements will elevate this property to what would be more expected in a neighborhood of this kind. These improvements will likely improve the neighboring property values as well as provide aesthetically pleasing views. In summary, our proposed design will do the following: ■ Streamline what is currently a jumbled arrangement of rooflines ■ Maintain the use of existing materials, roof pitch, and detailing ■ Stay within hardcover requirements ■ Match the current structure's setback on the East side as well as all other setbacks ■ Provide improvements that match the style and scale of the home's character Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Find a PID or an address on the map PID:1802824110049 2 Bridge La Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer E M Newkirk & C D Owner: Newkirk ERIN M NEWKIRK CHRISTOPHER D Taxpayer: NEWKIRK 2 BRIDGE LA EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.34 acres 14,671 sq it Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: White Oaks Lot: 004 I Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2013) Market Value: Total Tax:Q Legend Measure Pai Page 1 of 1 1 a i 1 { TOYVNES CIR i` ...... # �� .L. ._.. F t .r .m,...».;. s, Gt t BRIDGE LA http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.uslproperty/neap/default.aspx?pid=1802824110049,4.1 11/6/2013 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Results Links Tax Intormatign View oblioue imagery (Bing mans) � Survey Documents PID: 1802824110049 2 Bridge La Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: E M Newkirk & C D Newkirk ERIN M NEWKIRK CHRISTOPHER D Taxpayer: NEWKIRK B` 2 BRIDGE LA EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 { P Parcel Area: arcel 0.34 acres 14,671 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: White Oaks Lot: 004 Block: Metes &Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2013) Market Value: maw Total Tax Legend Measure Page 1 of 1 http://gis.co.lieiwcpin.iml.uslproperty/mapldefault.aspx'?pid=1802824110049 4, 'e. 11/6/2013 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Page 1 of 1 Inter,-,,aG ° q Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Results Links ii Tax Information } View oblique impge y ((ding maps) Survey Documents , `a PID: 1802824110049 2 Bridge La Edina, MN 55424 i Owner/Taxpayer Owner: E M Newkirk & C D Newkirk ERIN M NEWKIRK CHRISTOPHER D Taxpayer: NEWKIRK 2 BRIDGE LA EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 P Parcel Area: arcel 0.34 acres 14,671 sq it Torrens/Abstract: i Abstract Addition: I White Oaks Lot: 004 Block: Motes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2013) Market Value: 1=00W Legend Measure http://gis.co.hemiepin.mn.us/propei-ty/map/default.aspx?pid=1802824110049 �� 11/6/2013 a � �A e � . oodk w u s t !, x yt� a. ii � � 8"�w.^� o`f:.�""u .. A•"w'•-'.was ♦w.. "^ w.v111Yc._. ,��� « UML 1' .ice_ jw - ,o .7 �` .� 1 9 , w nµ f Y .+^,lfi S .* "t ■t iii ^ � - r i W. 1, Jf ff .it ' ti• it _; u at. S� t�•"1 4. r 7 MEN 4/," N k v ' rt ^ VIEW OF FRONT YARD TO REMAIN AS IS 11/04/13 H! Neighbor, We are so, so, so very excited to move to White Oaks. A neighborhood steeped in rich heritage, welcoming families — and of course gorgeous homes and land! First of all, we want you to know that we absolutely love the home we are moving Into. In fact, we weren't even actively looking for a new home as we already live in the area, but couldn't resist the good bones, the proportion, the charm, the character, the overall set -back from the front and side streets. Our plans to remodel is limited to modernizing the existing space, cleaning up the exterior with some new landscaping, and adding on a family living space downstairs and a master suite upstairs where the garage currently sits. The new garage would be tucked in back of the new family room. The total added sq footage is 750sgft and will work within the existing roof line, so no adding any overall height. The reason we are applying for the variance is because of the way our house sits on the corner. Technically, we have 2 front lawns instead of 1 front and 1 side and so even though we are just adding sq footage in our backyard, it needs approval. That all being said, we want to start off on the right foot, show our respect for the neighborhood, and talk through any questions you might have. So, if you have any questions or need more info, just send us an email at ecnewkirk@gmail.com and we will get back to you! Thank you again. We can't wait to be your new neighbor! Erin, Chris, Will + Sam {the dog} Newkirk �v woo*woAa\ansfsLj*mmm :qaM VIOS3NNIW `VNICM XD woo'sjoAQAjnsfstpwo} :potu3 3NV -1 BOGUS 3:311S lO G -1O «£9-t99 (Z96) amnI0311HOW ROWS 311HM ZE9 MeGOZ OZ444 'Uri •uo}6ulwo°18 :10; ginoS anu-v alopLK�90 £6 AI-Idb�CJOd01 HIM�� }� v� i S1NVIInSNOO V SHOA3ANnS ONV') 89 W9L98-E--{ 'DNI '00 NOSNHOV 'S kHMVH PAs:iflS NOI1WOI-gIIU3O 101 �I E uF c o fis u o E Em Iz ,. 6 vu U QGCjC C a C °° U U Oi O F•yU• 0 t Z �p ,o°� y aO U:2 /moi. Zo° inz,n °otto»3 CDCnOwo°=cncicia v v vmiinlb Sa' W / s• o P 77 W IIIIIII // M J LL� 3 3 1 5 S � V /�c/ m o � '�i� �� d' !•M 0 C4 tjdo m I I9$¢•t9®®®�'®0oa�om m °eb �88g`I X &I '�i �I�9 x x J a� e A OSr / \Z6 i �q �`L'\ .•b0•.`°::::.�� 91 �_ ,C .?/� \ S. oo• ''��: 1891' _ f7 O �°d \°k P� �1. ^ 6 2s o °9,v" ,. . •� S\. �o s • �{' a,1 ao 6� - -d X -6i moo. � %� m t •'l'•• .•09 o°p ag6 •:•89?as t6 __� \ \ \ °\ — G� /�°" ' ' eg9 fv '$g �y Z �•�r�,�.� ^ nm 6 j$ 0O.i'//621/.'6/ 2 =70IOf.2Y4H1.1'�'Sr•l 1' C\ \ o 0 \ o \ \\\9_0'FT.' x3 (AREA £ �----- /aP tr �^ \\ �So a N.::•.•:: d:: •.�.'•;. '� a�'4.'• 08 '� - co s 41 34 ocxYO, °04 --- ------ to o Z 0\4 X0z 1 r`l' U)\\ I O E: Ld �gU�aNc\ r--�=---------------� LiJ I rc F= I n C] \z w 0 L'8S �g y> w w c+ T° % +mo •F j h0 ° 0 1• `N N I pLp m N GGZUO M � '° � O �? O � 0_p � o=wF n „`o, ,•°r y � m wmm� (] �Ny z O T Ld E E =g�o94 12 .0 06 ' a�E Z:; E \1 Oz Lum }Q E 00 W V LLEeZ � ^= O. nOv m �F"t`^tPmBa _l O Krn CO vooo ro o �m•o 'of>sv fc na m v OW -UN v+m•o u�N O` y° aP,4 ON QI` UQ�orEW -jH O~ja m Q F3�,ON^ 03 OC T9Tm -oS cr OTZO T jmy V�Om°d 1 F G U� 0 0 d � C O C y O z II 1� m � �� E v U ID m O E Q W� �'�_� o H 'EOc W'LEo3o�. O l� om a, pa> o /^� L3 o �',o ^'c T or vY� �" d,6N r W OOiEj NL Nom' W /�� F� aN Vl Z� V V UW Gfnv (� Ea OSOn.041 wtm�V +m+ J O� NL�v M t In 600 tOmvQ F~ D_ woo •sjoAOAjnsfsq-mmm :qDM dl0S3NNIW'`dNla3 10 G A0 I, m woo•sjoAansfsy®wo) :pow3 3Nbfl 3tJditlB Z 3lIS «1 l xoj tKS-488 (aS6) -1 fbes—rea (ass) amn10311HOW 30bdS SAHM Z£9 9Ztluoz oayw 55 •u•uo)6u+woole :JOj yanos anUaAV a+pf ns aS:906b SN0111aad'dOdd V AHdVU00dOl A siNvlinsNo3 v saoAanans NVi 99 W9L98-E-1 'ON[ •03 NOSNHOP 'S kddVH wuns NOIld01d1IM3010-1 •�•. .� � c s E° 5 c c C - °c o0 E p EC M - 'c •p> T S O �•1 ° ° °' d• O V W d Epp a pK� p° TVI�d,•. O>>00'° g p p as rnoma €.`•�°�t°u..«Ecce o Zp L� pp pp >C pp UO�.Oyp V pp T O« p lo NvU V40:SH. 0nw11,mo �a 0 V AV1W WWa / � eB =O s 0 Z W / 10, S' P �JJoI I I //ter �kyv p A ' N ,3 `\ "'BX 'i�tti \� C� as.0 � �¢ ex sea_ _ �, m 90. � :,�I of e / 0 A 'B _r'a•-1-��,0 �:-»: , ,: •. 'f.7: �1 \ C ] Od, GG N � 'C'S.°off °s xx . .•y wow\ \ P" N �C ] I W x� N W n\d fig) t' � wm K p =w °' w � ll Apr o m Off, 69�¢°1 �� �9�" s ,:' �.• • O Z g m 4 ] b M1pG� f� X ,f•. 2 f,I J 0 ►� u ! eu+E can �•..v �,upm° — ,3 `\ "'BX 'i�tti \� C� as.0 � �¢ ex sea_ _ �, m 90. � :,�I of e / 0 A 'B _r'a•-1-��,0 �:-»: , ,: •. 'f.7: �1 \ C ] Od, GG N � 'C'S.°off °s <C ° =Z .•y wow\ \ P" N �C ] I W x� N W n\d fig) t' � wm K p =w °' w � ll • � -u O Z g v s \ --1 f,I J 0 ►� u eu+E �•..v �,upm° — ilJ - W � $ 'rnE cz o U 0= o ° i°a~° u o p 3u°� 0 oF° c2 tL � C 9 _ u ��',> i rc h I 0 uZm d 0 oF' t-a n v n GG N O J z `m �o ° =Z U 5z c W P N4Z n v�woa �c v V o Z g v =aZ 7 o 0 o a c m u �•..v �,upm° �o a a o W °m'!z o $ 'rnE cz o U 0= o ° i°a~° u o p 3u°� 0 oF° c2 (n = Z 9 W s V W z $ = p U -3p O i rc uZm UC z W `v u v' 'Lo !SI 3 Z�■'sP W€ .c��1 m ua � LLm Z°O� u o E=o uNo .Z`n j W +, J FdQN 41 n� cizgfO.. ri I- gip". c ori a.°. `p W �ri m...w n VE ;e A : m m - rn m� m m^^u U Om u4 VJ O_.;��r9�=SS mQ IF E WiL m oNEm'n°� C u°4'b •c xo p !_ EF�oa n GG N O J z `m �o ° =Z U 5z d UN O `tel W P y ` m p v U$E°0 a T O ° rL— p- m 6s W s V W z $ = p U -3p O i rc //. Pe i The City of Edina corner lot code \ requires the Townes Road side of this r \ property to conform to a 62' "Front \1\ 'Pard" setback. This requirement makes the entire lot unbuildable, rendering the \\ existing home Itself entirely outside a / 1r buildable area. \\ The request is to foliose the current \ home's 15' setback from Tosrnes Road in —_ '______ __________ - order to create acomplementary addition t and restore the charm and character of thh.existing fleshy home. I The proposed changes do not encroach on 6, previously established lines. I 1 1 \ I �� \ I — \ I � od a4iP014" OF Y rt•aaac rr I auL 1r I \ I > ! r I., ec" I £ I �y I 4M I � I I I I DRWEMAY lLa tris 4 DFWW LAE Mv, ``'Itlos TO a I 1 k i i I z. 1 � ! G I MA I i I 1 u BRIDGE LANE NORTH 1. SITE / ROOF PLAN - SCALE: Yj --V-0" NEWKIRK ADDITION @ RENOVATION tj 2 DIUD E LANE t EMMAMN 55424 SCHEMATIC DESIGN t p -,#C:) 91 OCT 2013 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 All N O v O rn rn p�� -S pA O Z O rn N i -I I rn zzz- pO�lh Z cmGZO nwd �r OD -1 z O m N fFTi Src 4-0 E N Z r tea= 0�8 ! A � I s 1 ��u Mi i ■ ^_�{_ • Wit- r Ma All A_ r r r NEWKIRK ADDITION a RENOVATION WHITE SPACE n2 BRIDGE LANE ARCHITECTURE 4 EDINAMN55424 6-12-642-1620 65 Z O 30 OCT 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWING 0C"MT M WOE SPAM ARWOM UC PROJECTINFO: ABREVIATIONS: INDEX j� y REMODELIADDITION OF KITCHEN, FAMILY ROOM, PANTRY, OFFICE, MUDROOM, GARAGE, & MASTER SUITE T1 TITLE SHEET & PROJECT INFO OR N U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AO SITEIROOF PLAN 0 TRTD TREATED X1 EXISTING & DEMO PLANS & ELEVATIONS _ APPLICABLE CODES: Al LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN w GYP. BD. GYPSUM WALL BOARD Z0 A2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 2006 IRC BUILDING CODEA4 CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT A3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS H C 2007 MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ZONED: Rl SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CODE REQUIREMENTS: N W S2 o O SETBACKS: WALLS: R-19 m m FNDNIRIM: R-10 FRONT YARD: 63'-2" 1WZ ROOF: R-44 SIDE STREET: 15' (PROPOSED BY VARIANCE) J REAR YARD: 25' Q INTERIOR SIDE: 10'+4'=14' (23' BUILDING HEIGHT) SIDE GARAGE: 5' m LOT COVERAGE= 25% ALLOWED tA LOTAREA: 14,676 SF W BUILDINGIPATIO AREA: 2636 SF + 637 SF = 3273 SF TOTAL = 22% PROPOSED Z Q BLDG HGT. 30' OR 2.5 ALLOWED 2 STORIES, 23' EXISTING TO REMAIN MCWD: EROSION CONTROL IF 5000SF OR 50 CU YARDS OF SOIL ARE DISTURBED ADDITION FOOTPRINT AREA: 882 SF = X5000 SF SOIL DISTURBED BY FNDN: 155LF X T WIDE X 4' DEEP = 46 CU. YDS. SOME RE -GRADING FOR GARAGE & DRIVEWAY, SOIL TO BE RE -USED ONSITE AS FILL FOR RAISED PATIO ABREVIATIONS: Z0 AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR N U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE EXST EXISTING 0 TRTD TREATED W TYP TYPICAL Ix PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE CU GYP. BD. GYPSUM WALL BOARD Z0 CLG CEILING 0 CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT G `ENERGY \T CODE REQUIREMENTS: N W S2 o O W WALLS: R-19 m m FNDNIRIM: R-10 Z N w a- 1WZ ROOF: R-44 CANTILEVER FLOOR: 30 U -FACTOR: 0.35 0. ;o y / 61 �4T08 TW]�5 120AD _________________ _ � � C I I AREA I 15' I I SEia I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ REMOVE \\ RETANW. \ UALL TW19 \ SIDE O \ \DRIVEWAY \ BRIDGE LANE ®� NORTH 1. SITE / ROOF PLAN SCALE: Yj '=1'-0" ADDITION Et RENOVATION WHITE SPACE DNEWKIRK 2 BRIDGE LANE ARCHITECTURE O EDINA MN 55424 VARIANCE SUBMITTAL M-642-1620 15 OCT 2013 o cromxi i =.. Brett ..lEl. ue ------------ , I o ° rA I ! I Z O 5 I j j 00 m I i I m w tA I ► I I fA SI I I N m 1 i e Lam_, 1 I A � S. 6� F- l ii I I I I I I I I A I I I )L I 1 I I I ------L r----L-1l======='1 i---- ------ I I I I I I O m NEWKIRK ADDITION ft RENOVATION WHITE SPACE X2BRIDGE LANE ARCHITECTURE —, EDINA MN 55424 VARIANCE SUBMITTAL 612-642-1620 15 OCT 2013 6M1MT 2013 marc SPACE ARCWTECW UC 4/ly LEGEND: — — — LINE OF ROOFAUALL BELOW — — — LINE OF FOOTING BELOW 7{T EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL — — — WALL ABOVE, CASED/ARCHED OMMG DNEWKIRK EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW DOOR t HARDWARE 14,14 ®►1 N NORTH 1. LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN It FOOTING/FNDN PLAN SCALE: ADDITION Ft RENOVATION WHITE SPACE DNEWKIRK 2 BRIDGE LANE ARCHITECTURE �� EDINA MN 55424 VARIANCE SUBMITTAL G12 -G42-1620 15 OCT 2013 o mrmiGHr 2013 VOTE SPACE AUVECTME UC 14,14 tpy LEGEND: A4 LINE CF ROOFAWALL BELOW — — — LINE OF FOOTING BELOW y 25'-2° l'-10" s=ra cx '.. EXISTING, WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL WALL ABOVE, CASED/ARCHED OPENING EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW DOOR t HARDWARE GARAGE ;n I5'4 i'-11• r MUDROOM II---n------------IT--- i v it II II I 1 II II 1 I ? II II II I 1 11 II 11 1 —tl 11 I I 1 I ------------ 1 n iiI�Y ii 1 — 2 A5 --- L----- ------- --- LL J I I I I i 1 I I I i._. i IITK CHEN ED 1 # 1 T PININGI I 1 I 11 1 UP I _ LL II OFFICE I II STAIR44ALL ENTRY i f 11 LIVING COVERED PORCH I Ad NORTH 1, MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: Y"=1'-0" D NEWKIRKADDITION £tRENOVATION 2 WHITE SPACE BRIDGE LANE EDINA MN 55424 VARIANCE SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURE N 612-642-1620 15 OCT 2013 ocormoff 2013 *w 3vue MOOTECRK ac tg/,bl If, 16 LEGEND: — — — LINE OF ROOF/UTALL BELOW LINE OP FOOTING BELOW A4 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN 2 '� NEW WALL I- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -I — — — — — WALL ABOVE, cASED/ARcHED OPENING I I I I EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN I I I I I i I I I I I I NEW DOOR 4 HARDWARE i I I I I L---- -- ------ I I I I I —� I I 24'-4° [ I 1 .. I I 1 � — =_=1-= — -- --ii ii i i ii lu I I � I U li iI I n II II 'Q i3'i B li it 2El r c — CL LNDRY I I I ___ I I I i j GUEST BDRM/ ! � I - .n I I DES TH t 0 I -------------------- J I & I DN � UL HALLWAY/ STAIR BEDROOM 2 z 1 ' I I z i 4 I J I I 1 1 GUEST BDW I I [ 1 1 I I y i L I A4 /IN 1® NORTH 1. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: Ys"=1'-0" NEWKIRK ADDITION ft RENOVATION WHITE SPACE D 2 BRIDGE LANE ARCHITECTURE w EDINA MN 55424 VARIANCE SUBMITTAL 612-642-1620 15 OCT 2013 oaPYWff H17 aw>E SPAa ARQMRK uc If, 16 Wly PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker November 13, 2013 B-13-21 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 5.5 foot front yard setback variance from the north property line to extend the existing garage 5 feet closer to the side lot line of property located at 4401 Country Club Road for Brady Priest INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is a located south of Country Club Road consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached one and one half car garage built in 1939. The home was recently purchased with the new owner proposing to widen the garage to accommodate two cars and extend a second floor dormer above the garage to accommodate a new bathroom. All portions of the plans conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the garage extension. The zoning ordinance requires that additions to existing homes maintain the average front yard setback of the homes located on either side of a subject property. In this instance the average front yard setback for the property is 34.1 feet. The exiting home is located 29.7 feet from the front lot line and is currently nonconforming regarding the average front yard setback. The front lot line is curved so an extension of the front wall of the garage towards the side yard, places the corner of the garage closer to the street at 28.6 feet from the front lot line. (See attachments AAA—AA.11, site location, ariel photos, site plans, survey, and building elevations). The ordinance would allow an extension of the garage at the existing nonconforming setback as long as the extension does not reduce setback to the street. Unfortunately because of the curvature of the street, the new garage corner reduces the front yard setback, so the nonconforming alternate setback standard does not apply. The property was recently for sale with the new property owner intending to preserve the existing home and to add on in order to update spaces to modern standards and expectations. The home was built in 1939 and is very nearly original in construction. The owner will be adding onto the east side of the home to include a garage extension and a second floor dormer. All portions of the expansion will conform to the setback, height and coverage requirements with the exception of the garage front that is at an angle to the front lot line and will get closer to the street. The addition to the garage will provide enough garage width to park two cars. Currently the garage is no wider than one and one half parking stalls. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The improvement will allow conformance with the minimum two car garage requirement. The property is located in the Historic Country Club District and received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Heritage Preservation Board on October 8, 2013, for the proposed improvements (see attachment AA. 12). The Board supported the request and acknowledged that the 330 square foot garage is substandard for a two car garage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -dwelling homes. Easterly: Single -dwelling homes. Southerly: Park property. Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property consists of 10,164 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1939, pre -dates setback requirements and is closer to the north lot line than currently allowed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -dwelling detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to extend the garage by an additional 5 feet. Finish materials will match the existing materials on the home. 2 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed additions are permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and will comply with all requirements with the exception of north (street), setback. Setbacks will not affect existing street sight lines and will allow for the garage to accommodate storage of two cars as required by ordinance for new construction. 2. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The addition to the garage will be less than 98 square feet, but will allow for the storage of two cars and installation of a standard garage door. 3. The modest improvements will provide additional garage space and functionality without drastically changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced garage and conforming addition to the second floor. The property has had little if any improvement since original construction. 5. The owners wanted the home to look nearly the same as existing with improvements seamlessly blending with the existing home. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties City Standard Proposed Front - 34.1 feet *28.6 feet Side- 10/5+ height, (living/garage) 9.5 feet Rear- 25 feet 87 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 1 1/2 stories, 35 feet to ride 22 feet to the ridge Lot coverage 25% 16% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed additions are permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and will comply with all requirements with the exception of north (street), setback. Setbacks will not affect existing street sight lines and will allow for the garage to accommodate storage of two cars as required by ordinance for new construction. 2. The improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the neighborhood. The addition to the garage will be less than 98 square feet, but will allow for the storage of two cars and installation of a standard garage door. 3. The modest improvements will provide additional garage space and functionality without drastically changing conditions on the property. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced garage and conforming addition to the second floor. The property has had little if any improvement since original construction. 5. The owners wanted the home to look nearly the same as existing with improvements seamlessly blending with the existing home. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The setback of the existing garage will be reduced by approximately 1.1 feet with sight lines along the street remaining virtually the same. Practical difficulties present on the property include the existing nonconforming street setback and limited design opportunity given the location of the existing home and garage to the street. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are the nonconforming status of the home and garage given its location which limits design opportunities. The curvature of the street and orientation of homes along the block all at differing front yard setbacks are unique to the block and to the property. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setback will be reduced; however, will not be perceivable from the street.. The variance will allow the home to be modernized without changing the look or character of the 1939 house. The new owner wants to preserve the home, although would like to make 4 some minor modifications to the garage in order to accommodate two cars and allow for a standard garage door. Staff Recommendation Recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it alters conditions on the property only slightly and keeps the garage addition within a reasonable distance from the street. 3) The practical difficulty imposed by the setback and the nonconforming garage location limits design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between garage openings and the street. Spacing to the street will be adequately maintained. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped October 28, 2013. Building plans and elevations date stamped October 28, 2013. Deadline for a City decision: December 27, 2013. AA VARIANCE APPLICATION MY 0 Eve 039 CASE NUMBERDATE� FEE PAID_ City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (952) 826- 0389 -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES 350.Q NON -RES - $600 . 00 APPLICANT: NAME: ADDRESS: EMAIL: bc, required on back page) w / \ __ PROPERTY OWNER: I {� NAME: V►'�'^ ! nig (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: w101 Club Q >ro W "PHONE:(6;111 1 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): "You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: qlA 0 I Gvn{ mi ((A PA GA,^A ,MN 5'3`4 !? y PRESENT ZONING: Res; J 04 _ P.I.D.# I 90@7P 14 a 9 010 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Se QRG.deA RAAWum (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: waw Qe, 11�� t PHONE: (Gil EMAIL:W0.�i1�(�i}t�oyS!'C(�t(L'N1��2�in9.GoN1 SURVEYOR: NAME: Gri t -L PHONE: 65! � EMAIL: CyC,ta P r�e�e�C_._;� Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood YES NO 4p" 2 Addendum Variance Am ication for 4401 _Country Club Road Description of Property: Lot 4, and that part of Lot 3, described as follows, to wit: Begin IOAANost Northerly corner of Lot 3; thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot, 15 feet measalong the Northeasterly line thereof; thence Southwesterly in a straight line to a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot, which point is 10 feet Southeasterly from the most Westerly corner thereof; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot to the most Westerly corner thereof; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot to the point of beginning, Country Club District, Brown Section: Rearrangement of North part of Block Sixteen, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Explanation of Request: Request for approval of 1.1 foot variance from front -yard setback requirements for 4401 Country Club in order to accommodate expansion of existing garage, which expansion received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Edina Heritage Preservation Board on October 8, 2013. Narrative: The City of Edina front -yard setback rules require a home to maintain setback equal to the average front -yard setback of the homes on either side of it. In the case of 4401 Country Club, which was constructed in 1939, the existing front -yard setback (measured at the Northeast front corner of the house) is 29.7 feet. The average setback of the homes on either side is 34.1 feet (as shown in the attached property survey (Attachment A), the front -yard setback at (i) 4403 Country Club 35.2 feet and (ii) 4305 Country Club is 33 feet). The home at 4401 Country Club is one of seven properties on the south side of Country Club Road, West of Wooddale Avenue. Each of the seven homes faces Country Club Road and has access to a private alley in the back—on the other side of the alley is Wooddale Park (see Attachment A-1). Each of these homes is built on a unique lot and sits at a different distance from its front lot line, although all share the characteristic of being much wider in the front than in the back (i.e., akin to pieces of a non -symmetrical pie). Presumably, because of the unique shape of the particular lot at 4401 Country Club, the home was built closer to the front of the lot than the homes of its immediately adjacent neighbors. The front of the lot at 4401 Country Club also follows the curve of Country Club Road. Brady and Sarah Priest (the "Owners") purchased the home at 4401 Country Club on September 30, 2013. The prior owner received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Edina Heritage Preservation Board on August 13, 2013, for an expansion of the attached garage facing Country Club Road (see Attachment B for the accompanying Staff Report), The Owners, after purchasing the home, made minor changes to the approved plan (with regard to the garage, the only change was from two separate garage doors to a single door for ease of access) and received a Certificate of Appropriateness for the revised plan on October 8, 2013 (see Attachment Q. A complete set of the plans that were submitted and approved are attached (see Attachment D)—these plans describe the complete scope of the renovations planned for 4401 Country Club. The Owners' neighbors on either side are also supportive of the garage expansion. The Owners proposal to expand the width of the existing garage by 5 feet would increase the total square footage of the garage by approximately 90 square feet. As noted in the attached Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report (Attachment B), this expansion will "provide room to maneuver around parked cars, as well as allow for some additional storage space" and will remedy a functional issue with the home as the existing garage, at 330 square feet, "would be considered sub -standard." Because of the unique nature of the lot at 4401 Country Club, expanding the garage by 5 feet on the same plane as the existing home would result in the front -yard setback being reduced from 29.7 feet to 28.6 feet (see Attachment A), and thus, requires a 1.1 foot variance based on the average setback of the homes on either side. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve such variance, as we believe such variance will (i) relieve the practical difficulties of complying with the ordinance as applied specifically to 4401 Country Club in that the lot follows the curve of Country Club Road, and thus, the front of the home cannot be expanded without reducing the front -yard setback; (ii) correct an extraordinary circumstance of this property, which was originally built closer to the road than its neighbors, and allow it to retain the character of the attached garage (described in Attachment B as "a historic character defining feature" of this style of home) while modernizing it to comfortably fit two cats; and (iii) be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as found by the Edina Heritage Preservation Board. 12 " I&A h01EST A-PPI_1 c,A" Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Interactive Maps P A, �to-Q a CKMQ Pagf 1 m 4 44ril Wooddale Park Wooddale Park Parcel 18-028-24-24-0100 A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: I" ID: Print Date: 10/ A. o HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # VI. A. Joyce Repya August 13, 2013 Senior Planner H-13-5 APPLICANT: Susan Bennett LOCATION: 4401 Country Club Road PROPOSAL: Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to attached garage facing Country Club Road RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of the 4400 block of Country Club Road. The home, constructed in 1939 is a Colonial Revival/Neocolonial* style with a small attached 2 -car garage and living space above accessed by a driveway from z. Country Club Road on the east side of the property. (*see page 489 in A Field Guide to American Houses) PRIMARY ISSUES: The proposed plans involve expanding the 2 car attached garage from 16'6" in width to 22', thus adding 110 square feet which will increase the total area from 330 to 440 square feet in area. The increased space will provide room to maneuver around parked cars, as well as allow for some additional storage space. The minimum size of a typical 2 -car garage is 400 square feet in area - the existing garage at 330 square feet would be considered sub -standard. The plans also include a master bath renovation over the garage. A small gable window is shown to be replaced with two double hung windows set into a shed dormer. Shutters are proposed on either side of the windows, replicating those found on the second story windows above the front entry. A narrative provided by the applicant points out that the existing window on the east wall of the garage will be re -installed on the east wall of the expanded garage space. H-13-5 4401 country Club Rd. They add that the intent of the proposed design is to enhance the functionality of the home while respecting the existing original design. PRESERVATION CONSULTLANT ROBERT VOGEL'S COMMENTS: Preservation Consultant Vogel reviewed the proposal and provided his evaluation in a memorandum providing the following information: Built in 1939, the subject property contributes to the historic significance and integrity of the Country Club District but it is not considered individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. Although it was identified as a "colonial" in the original 1980 Country Club National Register nomination, most architectural historians today would probably classify it as an example of the Neocolonial style—it could also be categorized as Minimal Traditional or Contractor Modern, which are Midcentury Modern house forms. It reflects the architectural design standards imposed by Thorpe Bros. on new homes built in the district before 1944; more importantly, this house shows the influence of the guidelines for suburban housing issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) during the late 1930s. This type of house is not uncommon in Edina's postwar subdivisions and often occurs as infill housing in the older developed neighborhoods. In my professional opinion, the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment NQ significant architectural features or details will be destroyed and the designer has done a good job making the additions architecturally compatible in size, scale and texture with the rest of the house. As built, approximately one-third of the houses in the district were constructed with attached garages and front -loading attached garages are regarded as'a historic character -defining feature of Neocolonial style houses. With respect to the proposed addition of a shed -type roof dormer on the principal elevation, these structures are occasionally seen on Period Revival houses in the district; they are somewhat more common on bungalow cottages built in the late 1920s, but would be considered appropriate for Neocolonial houses constructed in the late 1930s. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Staff concurs with Mr. Vogel's evaluation and also recommends approval of the COA request. The recommendation is subject to the plans presented. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: • No significant historic architectural features or fabric of the home will be destroyed. • The proposed alterations are compatible with the historic character of the house. • The plans provided with the subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. H-13-5' 4401 Country Club Rd. The existing garage measuring 330 square feet in area is considered sub -standard for a 2 -stall garage, thus the plan to increase the size by 110 square feet is reasonable and advantageous for the property. The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. AGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM TUESDAY, AUGUST 13,2013,7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL M. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 9, 2013 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment' the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board 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 tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Certificate of Appropriateness 1" H 13, S +1,4401 Country Club Road:, Garage AddltfokiEChange'to StreeFacii FaSade B. Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Properties VII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. 2013 Work Plan Review B. 2014 WORK PLAN PROPOSAL: Begin Evaluation C. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION: September 17'h D. West Minneapolis Heights Tour: Reflections VM. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 10, 2013 XII. ADJOURNMENT 'IThe 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- 927-8861, 72 hours in advance of the meeting. WoAww\+. OC EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the requirements of Subsection 850.20 of the City Code of the City of Edina, no owner or contractor shall demolish any building in whole or in part; move a building or structure to another location; excavate archeological features, grade or move earth in areas believed to contain significant buried heritage resources, or commence new construction on any property designated as an Edina Heritage Landmark without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Heritage Preservation Board reviews applications for City permits in relation to designated heritage landmarks. Criteria and guidelines used in reviewing applications for Certificate of Appropriateness are contained in Subsection 850.20, subd.10 of the City Code. Issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the plans approved. Any change in the scope of work will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness. A final inspection by the City Planner is required when the work is completed. File #: H-13-05 Historic Property: 4401 Country Club Road Property Owner: Brady Priest Proposed Work: Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the attached garage facing Country Club Road Decision: Approved Conditions: Subject to the plans presented dated 9-13-13 Date: October 8, 2013 Joyce Repya Senior Planner 3 C a O yo Bennett } Renovation and Addition 4401 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD EOINA, MN 55424 ,9 , l �.: I t?Pa L'• O +I J o r: O x p. 4 •r4 , 1 J expBj t • i t 3 C a O yo Bennett } Renovation and Addition 4401 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD EOINA, MN 55424 y H y S N m - N o eZ w Bennett Renovation and Addition 4401 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD EDINA, MN 55424 iF g j.N u m Bennett � � �ƒƒ ■,,®■ -R 2£NE° ! w\•\ Remvlamnand Addition g4401 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD _!m 55424 §/ \q ---- | |�■; i § | )$� � � .. � ! \® _ )|§ ! Bennett � � �ƒƒ ■,,®■ -R 2£NE° ! w\•\ Remvlamnand Addition g4401 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD _!m 55424 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and inform tion I have submitted are true and correct. i%57/13 Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (if a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Owner's Knature Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise It is considered incomplete. Hennepin County Property Interactive Map e Find a PID or an address on the map Page 1 of 1 Welcome Lot 4 And That Part - Parcel I Results Owner/Taxpayer Of A Line Running Links From A Pt In The Nely Neighb%rhood Tax Information SUSAN M BENNETT , View oblique imagery (Bing maps) �, , `` W Survey Documents 1 Street ) Taxpayer: CLUB RD EDINAMN 55424 Ff PID: 1802824240100 Ficlty\ x 0 100 200ft 4401 Country Club Rd �` , Edina MN 554241 http://gis.co.heiinepin.nm.us/property/inap/default.aspx?pid=1802824240100 AW 1.1/6/2013 Lot 4 And That Part Of Lot 3 Lying Nwl Owner/Taxpayer Of A Line Running Owner: Susan Marie Bennett, From A Pt In The Nely SUSAN M BENNETT Line Of Lot 3 Dis 15 Metes & Bounds: 4401 COUNTRY Ft Sely Along Said s Taxpayer: CLUB RD EDINAMN 55424 Ff Tax District x 0 100 200ft School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: t 3 Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0.23 acres Parcel Area: 10,101 sq it Vi Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Country Club Dist Addition: Brown Sec Rgt Bik Lot: Block: ... `,.,..,, http://gis.co.heiinepin.nm.us/property/inap/default.aspx?pid=1802824240100 AW 1.1/6/2013 Lot 4 And That Part Of Lot 3 Lying Nwl Of A Line Running From A Pt In The Nely Line Of Lot 3 Dis 15 Metes & Bounds: Ft Sely Along Said T j Legend Measure 0 100 200ft http://gis.co.heiinepin.nm.us/property/inap/default.aspx?pid=1802824240100 AW 1.1/6/2013 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Results A Links 7 Tax Information View oblioue imagery !Bing maps Survey Documents PID:1802824240100 4401 Country Club Rd Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: Susan Marie Bennett SUSAN M BENNETT Taxpayer: 4401 COUNTRY CLUB RD EDINA MN 55424 Tax District School Dist: 273 i Sewer Dist: F Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel Parcel Area: 0.23 acres10,101 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Addition: Country Club Dist Brown Sec Rgt Blk Lot: Block: Lot 4 And That Part Of Lot 3 Lying Nwly Of A Line Running From A Pt In The Nely Metes & Bounds: Line Of Lot 3 Dis 15 Ft Sely Along Said Legend Measure Page 1 of 1 http://gis.co.hemiepin.mn.us/propeity/map/default.aspx?pid=1802824240100 4�,1i 11/6/2013 Hennepin County Property Interactive Map Find a PID or an address on the map Welcome Results Links Tax Information View oblique imagery (Bina mans) Survey Documents PID: 1802824240100 4401 Country Club Rd Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer Owner: Susan Marie Bennett SUSAN M BENNETT 4401 COUNTRY Taxpayer: CLUB RD EDINA MN 55424 IRE Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0.23 acres Parcel Area: 10,101 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Abstract Country Club Dist Addition: Brown Sec Rgt Bik � Lot: Block: Lot 4 And That Part Of Lot 3 Lying Nwiy Of A Line Running From A Pt In The Nety Line Of Lot 3 Dis 15 Metes & Bounds: Ft Sely Along Said ..... Legend Measure Page i of 1 littp:Hgis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=1802824240100 IfIl, -3 11/6/2013 Survey for: BRADY PRIEST COUNTRY 4401 Country Club Road — Edina, Minnesota G'L/ice LEGEND • 1.1Monumentfa Af o Tmn Monument set YPORe— fblo '0 tlpht M. 43 AI, Condllbna =Q— S.6— =—. — uneaps{mmb•m sone« ®stau smmee ®snot,averwneee xam b ieol \ Aroa - S0'1" agmen het (aM aero) NOTE: Tm a faunaetbn b tot xmnlbk an ep Maauaa PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT NO. 7696257 tot4,wamm,aeala3,dewIl,epafeaese,m tleptnhenp athe mmt NnMedycamp a[73: Nene SmtM.mmNytlerp the NadneaaMY IYte a ald bt, IS rat manurtW." the Nwlnca,.W pnv NeraaF Nvnm Svutltwmrody Ino etrolpht IMe ro a,vlid In tic SwthNe2My 3,w aravb Inc vA,kn pant b 10 fva SvutlaeatalY Iraitt the mm[ Wexedy eenmrtherevF Nana NeNhwexmly abrq Na Sauttnrastwly am of then lot m too max let te the ca ea thaavl; ttm,a NvrN•attady tlanp th• NWmMMy prq of atle plmel bapbhehel, Canby O..ub olamq ptewn Satlla: Rartenpement or Nmth pert a&ak Shben, etattpnq ro tho rtmNod plat Nerea, ane aWaN In MMnapb Caa,ty, Mnneawe. I h—ay arbry Nat thea an*y w prelamd by me 11 ental my dlrvcdvn end Nat I am a duly LIa,uM Land Speyer undw The 1— atne Sam eTMl.eeata. Otlaa the, ]and dM a3ely, =3 ALM B ASSOCIATES, ,N4 4th Thema ). Ad m, lan� ervvyar Mnnmaa Yana ft. feevbad OCvbar II, 2013 te a — djOe Mg hate, eddldan AmNaa oembw IS, zb13 m s�ar,.e(aanp name bmeam Rehder and Associates, Inc an eNwul3xe AYD LAND xnc�anps • aw. •wa. • re.a then m -DAT R-H&d- en 9 It e b e :1f �.e a ��•' I.a by �vr .> r I .� �.' fi::" ,� •:{'.:�..' B�'P'�3l1u�.d �ssi .Iiy �• v'=fir:., a .r; yi.,''`� .;a .: 1.✓ y LLf z°'ss, I c ' I vw tease ^ m "n �!8 3Snpy 9N[(S 3 •u.lrC PRo'¢cr — DESIGN PLANS ARE PROVIDED FDR THE FAIR USE H O LI S C C R A FT WAYNE PETRIE A PRIEST - 4401 COUNTRY CLUB RD EDINA BT THE T AS OR FEB AGENTINCOMPLETING THE O PROJECT A5 USTED WTFM THE &G!•MD CONTRACT. R E IA 0 0 E L I N G GI T.22I.66�J' S 'f1 DEtGN PLANS REM" THE PROPERTY OF WOU9EORAFT SITE PLAN J REMODELING INC, AND CAN NOT BE "SED OR A -y REUSED WTHMT PERMB51oN. Ta sswa3d u onim a3srt3a m ao w-sn 3a ioN r+v� aro nw�Nn3aoM r N011b nS13 1NO2id M a 9 N 11 3 0 0 W 3 tl i+va�3snon ao ua3aoad ani wvu3sNVid N�a LL = 8590'IZZ'Z 19 i�vawo� a3N�K ani Nrum a3in sv io3road '^ 3N1 'JNLL3'IdM'OO w w3�v sn w u+3n� ani Aa VNIO3 (3 9f1ID 1.blNfloO 10H,- 1531?!d ,m 31N13d 3N.lV'fi1 1 J tl 2J 0 7 S I10 FI s 3sN mwi sm aO! CIWLAOad 3WV GNVld NVISaa N YO3'�Dad ------------——-- < ol 04® Z O W I W ~ IN Q l7 ~ F� 0 V y H x Lo W Z I-- U 0 ~ X E W O = U F- Ld J l7 13 • � Z S Vi J 3 0 w z z = ti 3 W z L- Ally t y~U- n m a r � m a m r < i a o —I y..T O Z Tr PROJECT VI DESIGN PLANS ARE PP"DED FOR THE FAIR USE UlA7NE PETRIE WREST - a491 calNtRr cLUB RD EOINA PROJECT AS LISTED13Y THE CLIENT UTHIN T14ENTE VGrG REP BRACT. IiOUSECRAFT o m REMODELING bI1.Y2I.6FJ58 REMODELING M AND CAN NOT OF USED SEGRAFT _ SIDE ELEVATION J R84EDUUH=PERM891ON. v' 9.15.13 EPP HOM WE NMI z. NMI �a 4 OF 1 w 0 . 3 Ug LEE zL � o m o w a a L LL L CGSC515684 _W L Z � ry V F-- U W u� 0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALES 1/4'= V-0' M Nosss+a3alroNlma3sn3a t�0 a3UY1 30 ioN WV cw `ONI 9Nf13aOW3N r Nb id c1001� QNOO�S m VN 1130 O VI 3 tl gSge��ZZ�t �g ^'4 ldy?JO34'ION 20 A1T73dRld 8N1 NNW3xi sNGld N'7is3a '1VVNIM" ClAtMIs 3M1 N911Yn a31sn sV 173rOW i � Q �. �/ m 31�13d 3N�.V01 1 J tl?J � 7 S I10 FI VN1M apt amo LNINnoo ieatr - lsawd W VN. —W i�0a IN3-IV . 31v lKSM. SKI 1 1a bllVd3FUVNVW:103!021, ,n — 0 M Q w rq 0 ra LA co 0 Cl � w � oLoa w = N ¢F L,0 w O p i< w w z Z w z i F- ¢ o K-01 Or d xmC3 LJ waa O ih o J N, w )tE6 W v� 3 W 0 Cl p -i Z L 3 ca w� ra �. zEl x awAF vip XWQM�L-,�: %D zrrw raw W¢ U 3 � w3ra oa NOZ H Z 7) O wpq� OF -0 ° w L Q w O F- wss3Ja3d 1110N1M a3sn3a 1 r 1^ ao a3sn 3a 1"",w �ry 7w yrs 3aou3a Nb ld 3 �b 2ib i7 idVa7351f0tt io Maw 3M1 NPoW3a bNVld N01 LL --� 8690'IZZ'Z19 O N 113 O O V/ 3 tl +- UW61NOO carMs 3"1 NN1Vn em,;n 5V 173fOad u 3�b711arod 3 i1 aOd G3�ONOaa 3a�V s�NV1�d Nh s3a �q �3 a?! 9f1�7 l2{1N(107 106tr - 1S3121d m �1�13d aN� vm 1 J V N 3 ] S I10 FI as�road z Q J a m 0 O J W y N, w L3 Q Q U 3 w �I II 30<Q II ili z — I I —z�vai — _ I I � I� - � FE- N a ON 0 I .-1 tl' W J Q U N ,4-1.101r II II NJ A II W3WJ II xaaLo" II J�w1 II II (z II o �wou> z II II �w 3a Qo OU WZ0a_!xl r-1 Q W� II II II II II II z Q J a m 0 O J W y N, w L3 Q Q U 3 w �I II 30<Q II ili z — I I —z�vai — _ I I � I� - � FE- N a ON 0 I .-1 tl' W J Q U N ,4-1.101r misewi wa isonlm aaslt3a Mo oasN 39 los wN caw '-" wr000N3M 1itl2103S170s dO.0 1A.MW 3Nl NNW2H GNrW WM30 *Ivvw1No7 Q3NolS SM Win omen ov i7arowd 3r vmmauoo w it aov sn w Dam sHi AQ r LL NOI1O3S 19-26) ZZ'Z I9 M!113d SN WM DN 113 Go W 3 tl 1 J V M 3 7 S I10 H VNla3 43N GrnO AN IMOD 10" - 193Nd 3Sf1 aroi 3HL ?i6.1 o3oN01id 321V 6NVld N'JW3o t— 'Mroa'd _ a� Q Z J -1 U0� Z ca cm W 30 wp N U N, S u asF ¢ owll r w = w ti~ JQ C3 3 L�wW= ¢QW WQU q H Q A L7 �D Wa :3 M: EU O D X" Z R ¢mi ocu Q @l N Z Z N N1-, J Too WW~oWn F- OFA ~ ° �� Cl)� w¢ PA3 Z�H HQ =QN cno QRW' ZZ —M: W>R¢0 F- LD La. 1-O WO H F. a- Cl) O��g F J 0 L- Q X J Wo W= QU O O I WHZ�LD R' L, E- = —W Z-1 �N. z LO Qw OZ Xf- 2pw ¢¢ Lz QZ LO L`H -J v,W ALO a< MLD �� Q� NEI- Nom 3x (V¢<IZ-119-� ��' co OI�-1 i N3F SON COQ or �3Wv=iw cxi13 �,c0i U (U LD cxuw QQ In _j as cu. Q x� , m om cu 3 xw co rn �x E W z 0 U W N � O I 1 H Q w II w 4:1 , V- J Ld J ti D U Q U a cuI H y z LO L O� Cl w 0 O(l 1Z-1 �H ~O Q�J W LLI O =O v'va w<D a ow w3 �L,_. z V) 0 0- C3 A L1 H lnV) � N Z O O 0' U L- EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the requirements of Subsection 850.20 of the City Code of the City of Edina, no owner or contractor shall demolish any building in whole or in part; move a building or structure to another location; excavate archeological features, grade or move earth in areas believed to contain significant buried heritage resources, or commence new construction on any property designated as an Edina Heritage Landmark without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Heritage Preservation Board reviews applications for City permits in relation to designated heritage landmarks. Criteria and guidelines used in reviewing applications for Certificate of Appropriateness are contained in Subsection 850.20, subd.10 of the City Code. Issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the plans approved. Any change in the scope of work will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness. A final inspection by the City Planner is required when the work is completed. File M H-13-05 Historic Property: 4401 Country Club Road Property Owner: Brady Priest Proposed Worlu Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the attached garage facing Country Club Road Decision: Approved Conditions: Subject to the plans presented dated 9-13-13 Date: October 8, 2013 Joyce Repya Senior Planner le�w iZ� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 13, 2013 MIX Community Development Director INFORMATION/BAC KG ROUND Project Description Spalon Montage is requesting to divide their property at 4936 France Avenue and 3909 West 49-1/2 Street into two lots for the purpose of dividing the Split Fashion Avenue store from the Spalon Montage store. No new building is proposed at this time. (See property location on pages Al—A3.) The existing property and buildings would remain the same. (See pages A2— A3.) The specific request is for a Preliminary and Final Plat to divide the property. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Existing retail building; zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and guided Neighborhood Commercial. Easterly: Retail space located in the City of Minneapolis. Southerly: Retail space on France Avenue; zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and guided Neighborhood Commercial. Westerly: The 50th & France Municipal Parking ramp. Existing Site Features The subject property is 13,587 square feet in size and contains the Spalon Montage salon and Split Fashion Avenue store. (See pages A2—A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2 Utilities/Easements The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be acceptable. No additional easements or right-of-way would be needed. Preliminary Plat There are no minimum lot size or dimension requirements in the PCD Zoning District. The proposed lots are generally consistent with lots on the block The proposed subdivision simply establishes a lot line between the two stores. There would be no change to the existing uses or buildings on the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the Subdivision for Spalon Montage to divide their property at 4936 France Avenue back into two lots. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The lots are generally consistent with existing lots on the block. 2. There are no immediate requests for changes in use of the property or existing buildings. Deadline for a city decision: January 1, 2014 2 Inte 4 t I 491/2 ST W Parcel 0.36 acres ( Sale Area: 15,523 sq ft Code: 3 Property Map Map Scale: V - 200 ft. N Print Date: 10/30/2013 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, Including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantatAity, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 A Think Green! Parcel 18-028-24-14-0129 A -T -B: Abstract ID: Owner Frank Holdings Llc Name: Parcel 4936 France Ave S Address: Edina, MN 55410 Property Commercial -Preferred Type: Price: Non -Homestead Sale stead: Parcel 0.36 acres ( Sale Area: 15,523 sq ft Code: 3 Property Map Map Scale: V - 200 ft. N Print Date: 10/30/2013 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, Including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantatAity, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 A Think Green! F� mirvi A3 Lot Division Survey for. SPALON MONTAGE — — — — — _- NOTES �—wn�­ N 7 bvpN els x. 13,4818qmf� DZ1 —IdWo WEST 49112 .STREET •-1, aC62 (ftInetl .-0 OWil. - 2). -1 prop" 11 �� 11 x (I= Z.Il I— x]p53CO3exE seas K, d Mamhw em Mt eMeal. wo EXISTING BUILDING .0 .0 k er36 ' T w�. s� 00.ft ft— W— LU DCIS NG BUILDING DETAIL JW9 WEST 49 112 STREET EXISTING 0. BUILDING LLI CL ejF4930 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH sw* LU PARCEL A DESCRIPTION awev —1. -25.bkh 1. —IV a. —1— NII. N­ma raM 9ne O.M S 13 mm PARCEL B _DESCRIPNON U_ EXISTING BUILDING a z 4936 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH -T:L- .......... 4.1-1-11—.1111.11-1 l.'. .'I— ­14 SEE N89*54'38 W EXISTING WILDING Rehder and Associates, Inc. EXISTING BUILDING PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague November 13, 2013 VI 1. F. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description HTG Architects on behalf of the Think Mutual Bank are proposing to tear down the existing vacant restaurant, build a two-story 8,441 square foot bank/office at 3655 Hazelton Road. (See location on pages Al—A2.) The first level would be 5,108 square feet and consist of the banking space. The upper level would be 3,333 square feet and include a community/training room, storage, employee lounge and a rooftop patio. (See applicant narrative on pages A3—A5 and the proposed plans on pages A6—A25.) To accommodate the proposed addition, the following is requested: 1. Site Plan Review. 2. Building setback Variances from 50 feet to 15 and 40 feet. 3. Parking Stall Variance from 42 stalls to 30 stalls (proof of parking to 42 provided.) Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Rue De France retail center; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Mixed Use. Easterly: Promenade. Southerly: Byerly's Mixed Use retail & residential development; zoned PUD - 4, Planned Unit Development District and guided Mixed Use. Westerly: Byerly's Mixed Use retail & residential development; zoned PUD - 4, Planned Unit Development District and guided Mixed Use. Existing Site Features The subject property is 60,990 square feet in size, is relatively flat and contains a vacant restaurant building. (See page A2.) Planning Guide Plan designation: MXC — Mixed Use Center. Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District Compliance Table Buildinq Front — Hazelton Road 50 feet Side — Promenade 50 feet Side — West 50 feet Rear — South 50 feet *40 feet *95 feet 95 feet 100+ feet Building Height 8 stories, and 96 feet 2 stories, and 35 feet Floor Area Ratio 50% 14% Parking lot and drive aisle 20 feet (street) 20 feet setback 10 feet (side 15 & 20 Parking Stalls 42 stalls *30 stalls proposed (42 stalls with the proof -of - parking) Over -story Trees 25 required 25 proposed (number is based on the perimeter of the site) Drive Aisle Width 24 feet — two way 24 feet 12 feet — one way 20 feet Stacking Spaces L 3 3+ * Variance required Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed utilities and grading and drainage plans and found them to be generally acceptable. (See the City Engineer's comments on pages A31—A32.) A condition of approval should 2 include meeting all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo. A permit would also be required from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Parking Based on the square footage of the building, 42 parking stalls are required. The site plan demonstrates 30 built parking stalls. (See page A19.) The applicant is agreeable to a proof -of -parking agreement for the 12 extra stalls. The applicant does not believe that these stalls will be needed, but have agreed to construct them if parking becomes a problem. A condition of any approval should be that if parking becomes a problem, the additional stalls must be provided. WSB & Associates conducted a parking study, which concludes that the proposed use should provide 34 on-site stalls. (See page A44 of the Parking Study.) The applicant is recommending that two additional stalls be added as shown on page Al 8a. To add four stalls would require cutting into the large green area south of the drive-through. Site Access & Traffic Access would be provided to the site off the drive entrance into the new Byerly's development. (See page Al 8a.) A portion of that driveway will be built on the subject property. WSB and Associates also completed a traffic study to analyze impacts on the adjacent roadways. (See study on pages A33—A62.) The study concludes that the existing adjacent roadways would support the Think Mutual Bank proposal. Sidewalk Connections The applicant is proposing multiple sidewalks and connections to the Promenade. (See page A20.) First, a pedestrian connection would be made from the Byerly's development along the south lot line to the Promenade and to the north side of the building; second, sidewalks would be provided along the new drive aisle on the west Ione line and along Hazelton Road; third, a north/south sidewalk would be provided through the middle the site from the Byerly's connection along the south lot line. This sidewalk would be stamped into the concrete across the drive-through. (See page A20.) Lastly, there would be two connections made to the Promenade at the north and south side of the site, in addition to the boulevard sidewalk connection on Hazelton Road. Building Design The new building would be constructed with clay the and prefinished composite panels. (See building elevations on page A24a and the building renderings on page A6 -A18.) Drive Through Financial intuitions with a drive-through facility are a permitted use in the PCD -3 zoning district. Each vehicle bay is required three stacking space in addition to the vehicle being served. The site plan shows three stacking spaces for each bay. There would be four total bays. (See page Al 8a.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site 25, overstory trees would be required. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that meets the city code requirement. (See page A20.) Extra landscaping is provided along the Promenade and the front patio area in front of the building. Bike Racks Bike racks are proposed at the north entrance of the building. Minimum code requirement for the number of bicycle spaces within the rack would be two. Garbage Area Garbage would be collected with the building at the southeast corner. Garbage trucks would load the trash during off hours and would travel in the one-way portion of the drive-through area. Variance — Building Setback Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. 4 Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. The building could be located on the site to meet the required setback. However, the City Code Section 850.16. Subd. 12. C. states that the City Council will consider exceptions to the setback requirements if the use creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. The applicant is proposing multiple sidewalks and connections to the Promenade. (See page A20.) First, a pedestrian connection would be made from the Byerly's development along the south lot line to the Promenade and up to the north side of the building; second, sidewalks would be provided along the new drive aisle on the west Ione line and along Hazelton Road; third, a north/south sidewalk would be provided through the middle the site from the Byerly's connection. This sidewalk would be stamped into the concrete across the drive-through. (See page A20.) Lastly, there would be two connections made to the Promenade at the north and south side of the site. The variances are reasonable, as the make for a more efficient use of the site. The building is moved closer to the Promenade and parking field further away. From Hazelton Road and the Promenade, the site will not appear to have as much hard surface as it would with parking fields and drive aisle adjacent to them. (See code compliant plan on page A25.) 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned properly, and that are not self- created? Yes. The site is unique in the PCD -3 zoning district given its proximity to the Promenade, being adjacent to a new round -a -bout and drive entrance into the Byerly's new development. The City also encourages buildings to be brought up to the street, rather than having large parking lots in front of the building. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed building would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The new apartment building to the south will have a similar setback on the Promenade, at 11 and 22 feet. The proposed two-story building would add to the character to the area. Variance — Parking Stalls Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed parking stall variance is reasonable. A parking study was conducted by WSB Associates that concludes that the City Code required parking is not necessary for the site. The study concludes that the bank use could function adequately with 34 spaces. A proof -of -parking plan has been provided, that shows additional spaces could be added to meet the city code. (See page Al 8a.) The applicant does not believe that these stalls will be needed, but have agreed to construct them if parking becomes a problem. The applicant is recommending 32 stalls be constructed at this time as shown on Al 8a. A condition of any approval should be that if parking becomes a problem, the additional stalls must be provided. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the site's location on the Promenade. Preserving as much green space along the promenade is more important than providing parking that are not needed for the site. It has been the City's general policy with previous similar requests, to not build parking stalls when they are not needed. IJ 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The alternative to the variance would be to require the applicant to construct a larger parking lot. Based on the parking study done by WSB, this parking would not be needed. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed addition and associated Variances reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District. 2. With the exception of the proposed setback and parking stall variance, the proposal would meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The proposed new use would be supported by the existing roadway system and parking lot, based on the traffic and parking study done by WSB and Associates. (See pages A33— A62.) 4. The variances are reasonable. As mentioned, the applicant could develop the site to meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. In granting to the requested variances, the overall site plan would be improved and provide more green space. A code compliant plan would have parking or drive -aisles on three of the four sides of the building. The proposed plan would have the parking and drive aisles on two of the four sides, and the green space would be towards the Promenade and Hazelton Road. Traditionally, the City of Edina has not required parking stalls, when they are not needed. Additional parking could be provided by adding levels to the existing parking ramps if needed. 5. Multiple pedestrian connections and sidewalks are proposed on the site plan to make connections to the Promenade and surrounding uses. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for the Think Mutual Bank at 3655 Hazelton Road. 7 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Site Plan with the exception of the setback and parking space variances. 2. WSB conducted a parking and traffic impact study. The study concluded that the existing roadway system would support the proposed project. 3. The variances are reasonable. The applicant could develop the site to meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. In granting to the requested variances, the overall site plan would be improved and provide more green space. Traditionally, the City of Edina has not required parking stalls, when they are not needed. Additional parking spaces could be added if needed. Approval of the Site Plan 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 November 7, 2013. • Grading plan date stamped November 7, 2013. • Landscaping plan date stamped November 7, 2013. • Building elevations date stamped November 7, 2013. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. A total of thirty-two (32) parking stalls shall initially be constructed on the site as shown on Exhibit Al 8a. 3. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Landscape plan must meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 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. 4. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 5. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 6. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated November 4, 2013. 7. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 8. The applicant must enter into a proof of parking agreement with the City to ensure the necessary parking space will be provided if needed. Should parking become a significant problem, staff will require the proof of parking stalls constructed by adding the addition to the parking ramp. 9. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 10. Garbage collection areas must occur within the building. Deadline for a city decision: February 1, 2014 z t, . �. ao � � r t Q iBERitY LA 1 I a 70TH ST"" 5 J q�__ SOUL MWELI r+DR " _, � _r i—nq.k Hik7EttUM 72ND TW X s i t i 4 t { ! I + PARKt riW t i Parcel 32-028-2422-0008 ID: Owner Fremajane Wolfson Et At Name: Parcel 3655 Hazelton Rd Address: Edina, MN 55435 Property Cornmerciai-Preferred Type: Home- Non -Homestead stead: Parcel 1.4 acres Area: 60,974 sq It i Sale Code: l Property Map le 1.1braVotAIM ate SeroweCenter d_€ I 4 I f Map Scale: V - 800 ft Print Date: 9/17/2013 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or Implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Parcel 32-028-24-22-0008 ID: Owner Fremajane Wolfson Et Al Name: Parcel 3655 Hazelton Rd Address: Edina, MN 55435 Property Commercial -Preferred Type: Home- Non -Homestead stead: Parcel 1.4 acres Area: 60,974 sq ft Page 1 of 1 Property Map Map Scale: 1" - 200 ft. N Print Date: 9/18/2013 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale COPYRIGHT HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 Code: 0 06 November 2013 City of Edina Community Development Attn.: Cary Teague- Community Development Director 4801 West 5011' Street Edina, MN 55424 Ph. (952) 826-0389 Re: Think Mutual Bank Proposed Edina Branch Facility 3655 Hazelton Road Edina, Minnesota Subject: Site Plan Review Submittal Variance Application Submittal Legal Lot 1, Block 7, Yorktown Description: PID#: 32-028-2422-0008 Below is a brief summary of the proposed building design, image, and material selection. REVISED NARRATIVE architects ,. Summary of Changes Below is a list of changes that have freer: made based on comments from the City Council Sketch Plan Review: 1. East Exterior Elevation- We have pushed & pulled the east wall so the wall is not simply a straight wall. There is now some dimension to the east wall. We have also extended a 5'-0" overhang to help break up the height along the Promenade. 2. Transformer location- We have moved the transformer closer to the building 3. give -up Exit Road- We have reduced the width to 18ft rather than the original 25€t. This provides additional green space along the south propertyline and along the Promenade. 4. Trash Enclosure -the enclosure has been deleted. Trash will be kept inside the building. 5. Pylon Sign- The sign does not block the view of people using the street crosswalk. 6. Green Roof- Due to cost implications, the green roof has been deleted. 7. Promenade Link- Concrete paver sidewalks have been added. One at the north end and one at the south end of the site. 8. Bike Rack- A bike rack has been noted on the site plan. 9. Light Poles -The light poles will be a down light type. 10. Landscape Plan- Additional trees have been provided to meet the City count requirements. General. Think Mutual hank is proposing to construct a new partial two-story facility located at 3655 Hazelton Road. The existing property is currently zoned PCD -3 Planned Commercial District 3. A financial institution is allowed under this zoning. The existing property is currently contains the vacant Szechuan Star restaurant building, which will be demolished. The proposed 8,441 square foot building will consist of an approximately 5,108 square feet main level and an approximately 3,333 square foot upper level. The main level will contain the Bank's retail banking space (which HTG ARCHITECTS 9340 Hennepin Town Road. Minneapolis MN 55347 (952) 278-8880 hig-architecis.corn MINNEAPOLIS PHOENIX TAMPA %.5, includes offices, teller areas, conference room, waiting, etc.). The partial upper level will contain a community room/training room, storage, restrooms, employee lounge and a rooftop patio. Both site ingress/egress is from one curb cut onto an Access Road (via Hazelton Road), This access road currently does not exist, but will be constructed as the result of the new Bylery's Development ongoing to the west of this property. Site Plan The proposed building is located in the northeast corner on the site with customer parking on the west side of the building. The main building entry is in the northwest corner of the proposed building (faces west). Think Mutual Bank is proposing a four -lane drive -up; located on the south side of the building. Each drive -up lane provides the required 3-carstacking. Employee parking is located in the southwest parking lot. The building does not meet building setback requirements at the north & west property lines. However, this option pushes the building as close to Hazelton as possible. A total of 30 parking stalls are shown on the site. Based on the size of the building; 42 parking stalls are required. However, our site plan does show proof -of -parking that could ultimately achieve the required 42 parking stalls. Signage. A proposed pylon sign is shown in the northeast corner of the site (see site plan). The pylon sign design is meant to compliment the proposed building design. The sign structure is, at this time, clad in the same metal materials as the building, The Think Mutual Bank logo sign is individually backlit letters applied to blue composite metal panels. The size of the sign is yet to be determined- but will be sized to meet City Code. A two-sided monument sign is shown in the southwest comer of the site. Two backlit signs are are proposed to be installed on the building; one on each side of Think's blue slab wall. One sign shall be on the east side of the wall; the second sign will be on the west side of the wall. A third wall sign shall be located on the west side of the building (in the southwest corner). Sizes shall meet City Code. Sign permits will be applied for by the Owner's signage vendor at a later date. !mage. The design of the proposed building provides an image that is consumer friendly, warm, and elegant. The exterior materials reflect Think Mutual Bank's corporate branding standards and are similar to their established prototype. The main entry is marked by the blue accent walls, The exteriordesign uses three materials: prefinished composite metal wall panels, glass/spandrel glass, and clay tile. The colors used are: blue composite panels, silver metallic composite panels, and a salmon color clay tile. Aluminum frames are clear anodized (silver) with the glass having a slight gray tint. The mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and be screened by the building parapet. Materials" Building Entry Walls Prefinisned composite metal panels (blue) Building Fa4ade Glass curtain wall and terra-cotta / clay the Roof/canopy overhangs Preftnished composite metal panels (silver) Roof EPDM Roofing Roof Structure Steel decking on bar joists Floor Structure Concrete slab -on -grade Wall Structure Metallsteel stud framing with steel columns/beams Variance. Think Mutual Bank is seeking a variance to allow the proposed building to be placed within the 50 foot building setback from both the north & east property lines. The proposed building is currently drawn with a 15 foot HTG ARCHITECTS 9300 Hennepin Town Road Minneapolis MN 55347 (952) 278-8880 www.htg-architects.com MINNEAPOLIS PHOENIX A � TAMPA setback from the east property line. The proposed building is currently drawn with a 35 foot setback from the north property line to the'blue' accent wall at the main entry tower. The proposed building otherwise has a 45- 48 foot setback from the north property line. Think Mutual Bank is also seeking a variance to allow fewer parking stalls rather than provide the number that would be required by Code. The proposed building requires 42 -parking stalls. The current site plan shows 30 - parking stalls. However, we do show proof -of -parking to meet the 42 -required stalls. Think Mutual Bank is requesting these variances due to previous Planning Commission comments from our Sketch Plan Review Submittal. At the Planning Commission hearing, the majority of the Commission commented that the preference would be to locate the building closer to Hazelton Road (in the northeast comer of the site); to locate the parking along the west or along the future Access Road, and to reduce the overall number of parking stalls. The request for variance is also based on the future/current Byerly's redevelopment project to the east. As part of Byerly's development, a future phase will have a six -story apartment building constructed in the northeast corner of their property. This future building will greatly reduce the overall visibility into this property. The Variances will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. The existing 50 foot setback is a hardship with a site this small. By reducing the setback, the building can be placed closer to the street which creates a more pedestrian friendly environment. Reducing the required number of parking stalls will improve the site development by providing additional green space. The Variances will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but applicable to other properties in the vicinity or zoning district. The current site is one of the smaller sites in the area which makes redevelopment challenging. The Variances allow a more practical development to occur, The Variances will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. A reduction in parking stalls and a reduction in the building setback will not affect the harmony of the area. It is believed that the Variances will help improve and add to the local harmony. The Variances will not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood. This project will not be underparked by reducing the number of parking spaces, nor will the reduced building setback affect the local character. (The Byerly's redevelopment also has buildings that do not meet the 50 foot setback.) The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the other properties. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding properties. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, etc. will be provided for this proposed building. The commercial use of this building is not in conflict with the city's comprehensive plan of this site, The preliminary schedule is for construction to begin in April of 2014 with an anticipated completion date in the December of 2014. We feel the proposed Think Mutual Bank project will be and remain a tremendous asset to the neighborhood. Enclosed you will find the architectural site plan, preliminary exterior 3d renderings, and photos of Th nws past prototype building projects. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, n'Schramm Project Manager HTG ARCHITECTS 9300 Hennepin Town Road Minneapolis MN 55347 (952) 278-8680 www,htg-architects.com MINNEAPOLIS PHOENIX AT TAMPA Fv Tt A� ki 11 Alb 2 A § m Ai§ Li� �)Ar Q �)j1p (/ F % / .■! | � �� � k j Q�■ , �|||!�� .������ / ¥ I|]IIS} � a a €�` | ] !||•`�� , / | � ■� (� � ■|! |■ . \IQ Q | .■! r RUN %) o k� k� / k§ qI §HHHHH;© \IQ t,AtrdscAPt PLAN -------------------- aw .._._. a� ------------I-, RONNE � it qq� Lqg U 2mrq 4, o911II1999f9a! 5a� iii Uu *79 C i - 1 OFFICE RCCM Lba°� 3iL it -I \-�h-✓ 7-1 III I � PRELIMINARY MAIN LEVEL PLAN - • - I AZ.I 118 =I'-0 5J08 SF. 00 � >AREA 1 •� f7J CMEWE f3J 1 „ ' _- -- OP1------------ ROOM iO EAS t[r. GgI �� 'mem. i � I 1 l 1 1 'l� -�•'1 -�� *79 C i - 1 OFFICE RCCM Lba°� 3iL it -I \-�h-✓ 7-1 III I � PRELIMINARY MAIN LEVEL PLAN - • - I AZ.I 118 =I'-0 5J08 SF. PRELIMINARY UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/03'=1'-0' 333 5F. 'y CT`$ ev 4 9 SNOILVAM NO%W3 AHYNmad *� v1v-lldNnllw vrviud 9N1O7ins MON 3.7/-490 MICH a.l•.a N011VA313 ?J01?J31X3 15N3 NOIIVA313 NOIb31X3 153M XAfV9 7vn-LnW —'..A/2;",al••vn -/N/Hl NOIIYA313 WIN31X3 H1f105 N011YA311 WI?J31X3 HLzN --�N ONFB[CEf6 t^1 [YFff NYf'fllOdew,NW P+eVw�1N��0^H 00[6 b f %+++VI /.V+✓'+.larµ SITE PLAN NOTE5: TOTAL WLDIN6 50. FT., MAIN LEVEL: 5,900 S.F. UPPER LEVELS 3b00 5P. TOTAL: AA00 S.F. PARKING= 1:200 REQUIRED: 47 STALLS 5H": 41 STALLS TOTAL LOT AREA , 60,990 S.F. MLDiN& FOOTPRINT: 5,900 S.F. ------------ i ------ I- -EEE=HAZELTO --------- ------ HAZELTON ROAD SIM MINKMUTUAL BANK 9300 HennepinTown Road FG PROJECT #: 131145 Minneapolis, MN. 55347 1 �' AI•6 DATE: 9-13-13 PROPOSEDNEWMLD/NG Tel: 952.27848880 L�u: EDIN4 MINNESOTA I Fax. 952.278.8822 Commission Fischer stated he recalls that the Commission heard a number of subdivision re sts in this area; some ere approved, some were denied, adding the reasons for approval or de ' was mostly based on immediate neighborhood and if the block contained lots in exces 50 -feet or didn't. Planner Tea a said he agrees with that observation. Teague reported the were six subdivision requests in a area; three were approved and three were denied. ague explained the reasons for denial had to \condition on the block, adding the subdivisi requests that were denied tended to be on blocks cole lots in excess of 50 -feet in h. Motion Commissioner Fischer moend Preliminar [at approval with variances based on staff findings and subject to staCommissio Grabiel seconded the motion. Commissioner Grabiel said it was interestingv,m to hear positive comments from neighbors on the proposed subdivision and the addition of n mes to the neighborhood. Commissioner Forrest said that whil -she understan the issue; and is not averse to subdividing the property she has difficulty supp ng the variances be use in her opinion the variance requirements were not met. Forrest adde a would like the Zoning dinance to better address the City's preference in the smaller neighborhoods. Chair Staunton com ented the Commission has experience o requests to subdivide the larger lots into two lots in the s ler lot neighborhoods, noting to some on th Commission a two lot subdivision is better than r ning the one large lot because it ensures that th rea remains consistent and the houses co ructed are smaller than what could be constructed if it remained one lot. p9taunton called the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Fischer, Platteter, Carr, Grabiel, nton. Nay, Forrest. Motion carried 8-1. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan — 3655 Hazelton Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the property at 3655 Hazelton Road. The proposal is to tear Page 4 of 10 AD down the existing vacant restaurant and construct a two-story bank on the site. The applicant would seek a Site Plan review and potentially a variance to develop the site. Continuing, Teague reported the applicant is proposing three alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider and provide feedback prior to an official application. Option B would not require any variances as proposed. Options A and C would both require building setback variances. A traffic study would be required to determine the impacts on adjacent roadways. Access would be obtained from the access road provided as part of the adjacent redevelopment of the Byerly's site. Concluding, Teague noted that Staff has encouraged the applicant to design the site with emphasis on pedestrian connections to Hazelton Road, the Promenade and the new Byerly's site development. While sidewalk connection would be provided to each; however, connections to the north, south and east to the Promenade, would require crossing an automobile drive -aisle or parking lot. Appearing for the Applicant Jeff Pflipsen Discussion Commissioner Platteter questioned the reason the Commission is reviewing this as a Sketch Plan since what's submitted as option B meets ordinance requirements. Planner Teague responded that the applicant indicated they wanted feedback from the Commission on differing options with the understanding that in this area the City is looking for specific things. Commissioner Potts referred to the three options presented by the applicant and asked if all three are two stories and if the signs presented are part of the package. Planner Teague responded that all three are two stories, adding signage would need to comply with the sign ordinance. Commissioner Carr questioned if the Commission has a preference for less parking along the promenade. Applicant Presentation Jeff Pflipsen addressed the Commission and explained the development team talked long and hard on how to relate to the Promenade, adding they like Option B, it works for them. Continuing, Pflipsen said the reason the development team provided three scenarios' was to offer the Commission and Council different options to choose from. With regard to locating parking along the Promenade it was their intent to provide vehicle parking so people could easily access the Promenade during non -business hours (evenings, weekends). Page 5 of 10 PI With graphics Mr. Pflipsen indicated to the Commission the three options -highlighting the patio on the second floor that in his opinion interfaces well with the Promenade. Pflipsen also noted sustainable materials would be used, and as previously mentioned by Planner Teague signage would meet ordinance requirements. Discussion Commissioner Grabiel asked Mr. Pflipsen for clarification on the reason buildings A & C are similarly located. Mr. Pflipsen indicated they brainstormed building placement and located the buildings on options A & C closer to Hazelton and the access road between the subject site and Byerly's per discussions with City staff. Continuing, Pflipsen stated these two scenarios provides the Commission and Council with building placement options; either (A&C) buildings located farther from the Promenade and closer to the street (Hazelton) or option B, a building more centrally located. Continuing, Pflipsen said one component that drives building placement is the drive through for the bank; a counterclockwise movement is required. Commissioner Potts referred to the site plans and asked if all the parking spots delineated are really needed. Mr. Pflipsen said in his opinion; they aren't needed. He added the site plan reflects ordinance requirements for parking. Potts commented if manageable that some spaces could be removed to provide more green space. Commissioner Scherer said her concern is with what's up against the Promenade. She added she prefers less parking and would like to see additional green space and landscaping added along the Promenade. Commissioner Schroeder said in his opinion in viewing Option C he would prefer to see the parking oriented west and the building positioned closer to the street and Promenade to the east. He pointed out if built as depicted the building would be hidden by the Byerly's building (from Hazelton), reiterating moving it north and east would allow the building to be seen. Schroeder also noted that this reorientation allows left and right turns. Schroeder said he agrees with previous Commissioner comments that the "space" nearest the Promenade shouldn't be for parking. Schroeder also said he finds the building interesting and to the proper scale. Concluding, Schroeder said he supports less parking and more landscaping. Mr. Pflipsen stated Option C is the least preferred because it creates a "head on" traffic flow which reduces parking spaces closer to the building and creates difficulty for night deposits. Continuing, Pflipsen said moving the building up and farther east on the site would also eliminate more parking stalls. Concluding, Pflipsen said it can be done; reiterating it's not a banks preference. Commissioner Platteter stated he agrees with comments from Commissioner Schroeder, adding some variation of Option C may better suit the site and area. Platteter also observed if the building is oriented closer to Hazelton the building would have more exposure, as previously mentioned by Commissioner Page 6of10 Schroeder. Continuing, Platteter said close attention should also be paid to the south access, adding he viewed Byerly's customers using this area to go back to their homes/ apartments. Platteter also stated he doesn't want to see signage oriented toward the Promenade. He further stated enough can't be said about the importance of landscaping. Concluding, Platteter commented he is disappointed this wasn't part of the Byerly's redevelopment. Mr. Pflipsen In response to the discussion explained that the rationale for offering options A & C was at the suggestion of City Staff, reiterating B works for them. Pflipsen explained that staff shared with them the importance of the Promenade and pedestrian flow, etc. Commissioner Fischer said that he believes the use of the site for a bank is fine for a bank development; however, he believes the City missed an opportunity to have this parcel folded into the redevelopment of the Byerly's site. He added the plans presented appear out of context, adding it may be helpful if their presentation to the Council places this site more in context with the area. Continuing, Fischer noted the greater Southdale area is being redeveloped as a system for pedestrian movement and in his opinion the site plans presented indicate a bank with parking lot, adding a sidewalk crossing a parking lot wasn't his vision. Fischer stated he favors a Proof of Parking Agreement or variance approval to allow less parking, adding the City shouldn't force parking where it's not needed. Concluding, Fischer stated parking should be located to the west of the building so the site appears welcoming from the Promenade. Also make the pedestrian connection without crossing parking. Commissioner Carr stated she agrees with Commissioner Fischer's suggestion that when the Sketch Plan Review goes before Council that they place the site in context with the immediate area. She said it would be beneficial to view sketches that included different views and streetscapes and how the properties interface with each other. Commissioner Grabiel stated he echoes Commissioner Fischer's comments, adding he is disappointed at the missed opportunities that have occurred in this area, including the one before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Carr stated she is satisfied with the layout presented in Option B with revisions, adding in her opinion this doesn't have to be a disappointment if redeveloped with the suggestions from staff, the Commission and further suggestions from the City Council. Carr said if some parking spaces were eliminated and the site was well screened from the Promenade to include a connection to the Promenade this use may work well. Carr said she agrees with the suggestion of lining up the proposed building with the Byerly's building to establish continuity. Concluding, Carr said she is a member of the Living Streets Committee and asked the applicant to also consider adding bike racks. Commissioner Forrest stated shifting the building to the northeast could work along with increased landscaping. Continuing, Forrest said with more thought Option B could be rearranged and depicted more in context with the surrounding area, adding she believes it could also work. Forrest said this Page 7 of 10 fl shouldn't become a missed opportunity, adding any revisions should keep in mind the goal of continuity and walkability in the area. Commissioner Kilberg stated if revisions are made to the site plan in his opinion the sidewalk should continue to be located along the south property line, parking spaces should be reduced and additional landscaping should be planted in place of parking spaces. Continuing, Kilberg said he likes the design of the 2"d floor and questioned if the applicant ever considered adding another use with the bank to maximize the use of the property. Commissioner Platteter asked Mr. Pflipsen how many parking stalls are on site and if there was an "end" number they would be comfortable with. Mr. Pflipsen responded that originally the site was designed with a larger building and more parking (48); however, since the original plan the square footage of the building was reduced to 8,400 square feet and the parking stalls were reduced to accommodate the new square footage which now provides 42 spaces. Pflipsen stated in his opinion they would be comfortable with 33 spaces. Pflipsen said if they proceed with a variation of Option B they could eliminate the parking stalls on the south. Commissioner Grabiel agreed those spaces could be eliminated however, he pointed out those aren't the stalls the Commission was concerned with. The Commission is concerned with parking along the Promenade. Mr. Pflipsen agreed, adding he was only suggesting removal of those spaces to create more green space. Chair Staunton thanked the applicant for his presentation and added from the discussion this evening the Commission feels if the project proceeds that any revisions should include the relocation of the building toward Hazelton Road, elimination of parking stalls, an increase in landscaping and develop a way to better address the site's presence and connection to the Promenade. B. WORK PLAN Chair Staunton complemented Planner Teague on his final draft of the 2014 Work Plan. Staunton asked the Commission to note the Zoning Ordinance topics that the work plan includes for further discussion: • Sign Plan • Should apartment building size for senior buildings be regulated to a specific size; • Lighting • Noise regulation Staunton said that these four items would be handled through City staff. Staff would research these topics and bring their findings back to the Commission for review. Page 8 of 10 436 CITY OF , MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com v 0 • !cVAFepd� FN Date: November 4, 2013 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Chad Millner — Interim City Engineer Re: Review of Planning Submittal for Think Mutual Bank 3655 Hazelton Road Engineering has reviewed the preliminary plans dated October 22, 2013 for the above stated project and offer the following comments: o Show the current proposed roundabout at Hazelton Road and the access road into the site; contact WSB & Associates for updated layout. o Provide sidewalk, roadway, drainage, and utility easements as shown on the attached sketch. o Provide access to the promenade in the southeast corner of the property for the Phase 4 Promenade construction project scheduled for 2014 if corresponding construction schedules allow. o A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MDH, MPCA, and MCES. Staff will require a more detailed review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this first review. G.\Rw\ADMIN\COMM\EXTERNAL\GENERAL CORR BY STREETS\H Streets\3655 Hazelton Rd (old Sechauan site(\20131105 CM -Edina Review 3655 Hozeltan Rd.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 A3 rJ • - ✓ v O 43.09 (F17110i 0. F' Ppl�a`ly'10g j f i'i 4TV t ti S89°27 46 56.49 4, 24,64 e ON i i?.e_' 11,i f E F' F, A l N` ,d\ N c0 � .- Z BLOCK 7 z, N �! i 17.22 0 25 50 N89°4B'6"E PROPOSED PERMANENT E+OADWAY, SIDEWALK AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AREA =1,947 sq ft PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA =.5,995 sq It N ----fi• 741 Xenia Av ue SouOI, SuOe 300 France Avenue Improvements %t1A, 1 O1 -�M�1 W68ft 1 10400 DUE: 8=13 Q Meapohs, MN W416 ��1 sul JQ 1.wN Easement Parcel Sketchy y oe �KI-F,�7a+�,Too City of Edina, Minnesota o �..� Parcel No. 16 WIMTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1(MANNING - CONSIVVION • - ✓ v A Infrastructure r Engineering a Planning a Construction WSW` 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite#300 = Minneapolis, MN 63416 & AasodaW !m. Tel: 763 6444600 Fax: 763 641-1700 Memorandum DATE: November 7, 2013 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina Frrom. Clurrles Rickart, P.E,, PTQE Re: Think Bark — 3655 Hazelton Road Truffic and Parking Study} City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-49 Background The purpose of the study is to document the impact the proposed redevelopment of the Szechuan Star site at 3655 Hazelton Road adjacent to the Byerly's site has on; the area traffic operations;. site access, and; parking demand for the site. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. A detailed Traffic Impact study was completed in conjunction with the Byerly's site redevelopment in February 2013. This study was used as a basis for the analysis found in this report. The proposed development is anticipated to include an 5,441 sf bank building with a four lane drive thru. Access to the site will be from the Byerly's site access road to the proposed new roundabout on Hazelton Road. The proposed site plan is shown in the attached Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed site development were evaluated at the following locations. • France Ave at Hazelton Road • Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue de France west entrance + Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue de France/Guitar Center east entrance • Hazelton Road at York Avenue The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts ofthe proposed redevelopment. Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: France Avenue (CSAH 17) is north/south a 6 -lane divided Arterial roadway from 1-494 to TH 62, Primary access to France Avenue is by local streets and major development driveways. The posted speed limit on France Avenue in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph, Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 2 of 13 Hazelton Road is an east/west 4 -lane undivided collector Street from France Avenue to York Avenue. Street access and access to adjacent developments including the existing Szechuan Star site, Rue de France, Guitar Center and Byerly's is provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on Hazelton Road is 30 mph. The existing lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: France Avenue at Hazelton Road — Traffic Signal Control SB France Ave approaching Hazelton Road — one right/through, two through, one left NB France Ave approaching Hazelton Road — one right, three through, one left EB Hazelton Road approaching France Ave — one right/through/left WB Hazelton Road approaching France Ave—one right, one through, two left Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue de France west entrance — Side Street Stop SB Rue de France entrance approaching Hazelton Rd — one right/through/left NB Byerly's entrance approaching Hazelton Rd — one right, one through/left EB Hazelton Rd approaching West Entrance —one right/through, one through/left WB Hazelton Rd approaching West Entrance — one right/through, one through/left Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue de France/Guitar Center east entrance — Side Street Stop SB Rue de France/Guitar Center entrance approaching Hazelton Rd — one right/through/left NB Byerly's entrance approaching Hazelton Rd — one right/through/left EB Hazelton Rd approaching east Entrance — one right/through, one through/left WB Hazelton Rd approaching east Entrance — one right/through, one through/left Hazelton Road at York Avenue - Side Street Stop SB York Ave approaching Hazelton Rd — one right, two through, one left NB York Ave approaching Hazelton Rd — one right/through, one through, one left EB Hazelton Rd approaching York Ave — one right, one through/left WB Driveway approaching York Ave — one right/-through/left PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in early November 2012 in conjunction with the Byerly's redevelopment Traffic Impact Study. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. The attached Figure 3 shows the existing intersections and driveways along the corridor that were analyzed 4spart of this traffic study, with the existing 2012 PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. Future Roadway Clzaracteristics In conjunction with the redevelopment of the Byerly's site the City is reconstructing Hazelton Road fi•om France Avenue to the Edina pedestrian Promenade to include the following improvements. • Addition of a raised concrete median west of France Avenue • Modification to the Byerly's/Rue de France west access to a 3/ access, eliminating the driveway access left turn out movements and the left turn in form westbound Hazelton Road. n3 Think Bank City of Win& November 7, 2013 Wage 3 of 13 • Combining the Byerly's/Rue de France east entrance and the Guitar Center/Szechuan Star entrance with the construction of roundabout. • Sidewalk connections to the Fdina Pedestrian Promenade • Addition of a Right-in/Right-out from France Avenue to the Byerly's site south of Hazelton Road. It was assumed that these improvements will be completed for both the no -build and build analysis. The planned typical section for Hazelton Road is shown below as Figure 4. ra 51' Secttort if Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. However, in order to account for some background growth in traffic the Hennepin County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic to the 2015 and 2030 analysis years. In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These prcjpcts iautuded: ' Byerly's Redevelopment - The City has been working with Lund Food Holdings for the reconstruction of the existing Byerty"s grocery store site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road to include: a new 47,119 square foot Byerly's store; a six/seven-story 109 -unit apartment building; a six/seven-story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,711 square foot retail area, and; a six -story, 48 -unit apartment building with 11,162 square feet of retail space on the first level. This project is currently under construction and will be partially completed in 2014 and assumed to be fully completed for the 2030 analysis. A3 Think Hank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 4 of 13 Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion consists of a 77,500 sf (gross area), two-story building located on the north side of the existing hospital building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014.and included in the background traffic for the 2015 and 2030 analysis. :Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) — The City recently approved the redevelopment of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65b Street. The proposed site included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65th Avenue site with a five story 96,500 sf medical office building. However, recently the City was presented a revised site plan changing the use on the site to a 209 unit senior housing and skilled care facility. This proposal is currently being reviewed by the City Council. With this change, it is assumed that this ptbject will not be open and will not be included with 2015 analysis but, will be frilly developed and included in the 2030 background traffic. Southdale Residential - The City recently approved the addition of 232 apartment units with associated parking in the existing Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of 69`i' Street and York Avenue. This project is currently under construction. It is assumed that the project will be open and is included as part of the 2015 and 2030 background traffic. Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This figure includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all leasable space will be occupied and included in the background traffic for the 2015 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development— A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 69th Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2015 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the Saturday peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses. 'rhink Bwi City of Edina November "i, 2013 Page 5 of 13 Table I - Estirrtcrted Adr/itiortrrl BackRrourid Trip Generation Use Size Saturda Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In I Out Total In Out B er1 's Rcdevelo merit 73,450 sf and 234 units 556 282 274 411 231 180 Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 30 12 18 24 10 14 Senior Housing 209 units 48 22 26 40 18 22 Southdale Apartments 232 units 118 59 59 144 94 50 Shopping Center 1.43,880 sf 693 333 360 533 256 1 277 Restaurant Total New Tris 8000 sf 112 1557 67 775 45 782 79 1231 47 656 32 575 :source_ Insulate of D-ansportalion Engineers Trip Generation Alanual, 91h Edition Site Expansion Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed site expansion is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip -generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Oh Edition. The table shows the total daily, Saturday peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed site. Table 2 - Estimated Expansion Trip Generation — ITE Rates Use Size (KSF) ADT Satu day Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total 11 Oat Total In Out Drive U Bank 8.441 1251 626 625 182 91 91 206 103 103 Source: Institute of 7ransporlation Engineers Trip Generation Alannol. 91h Edition Traffic Distribution Background and site -generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AAD7), the travel sheds for the major routes that serve the area and data provided with the Byerly's Traffic Impact Study. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed: • 27% to the north 32% to the south • 25% to the east 16% to the west T7 Think Bank City of Bdina November 7, 2013 Mage 6 of 13 The generated trips for the proposed Think Bank development were assumed to arrive or exit using the access to Hazelton Road at the new roundabout. These trips were assigned based on the ratio of existing traffic patterns on each respective roadway. Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2015 which is the year after the proposed development would be completed and assumed to be fully occupied and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. 'Three improvement alternatives were evaluated. 1. Existing Conditions —Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control. 2. No -Build — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control without the proposed Think Band development. 3. Build —Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control with the proposed Think Bank development. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non -development background traffic growth to the existing 2012 traffic counts to determine the "No -Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated Think Bank traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the `Build" traffic conditions. The attached Figures S-8 shows the projected 2015 and 2030 No -Build and Build Saturday and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the impacted intersections and access driveway adjacent to the development. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing 2012 Conditions 2. Projected 2015 No Build 3. Projected 2015 Build 4. Projected 2030 No Build 5. Projected 2030 Build This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Aualvsis Metliodolomt The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highii,a)y Capacily Manual 2000 (RCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 7 of 13 Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to maize it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and tin -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 3 - Imersection Level of Service Rairres Source; Highivgv Capacin, Manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volurne legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an alt -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might he prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. 55 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -signalized A <-10 f- 10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55. 25-35 E 55-80 35 — 50 F >80 1 >501 Source; Highivgv Capacin, Manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volurne legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an alt -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might he prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. 55 Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 8 of 13 Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. f=unding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Ea:istinr Level of Service Sunnnanr Table 4, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appenriix. Table 4 - Existing Level Qf Serpice C = Over»ll LOS, (D) = Itforst movement LOS Source: fifSB & Associates, [tic. A Saturday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Overall Overall LOS Delay LOS Delay— see/veh see/veh France Ave at Hazelton Road B (D) 14.8 13 (E) 18.6 Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue De France West Entrance A (E) 7.5 A (G) 3.6 Hazelton Road at Byerly's/Rue De France A (B) 1.1 A (A) 0.8 /Guitar Center/ Szechuan Star Entrance Hazelton Road at York Avenue C (E) 25.5 B (D) 17.5 C = Over»ll LOS, (D) = Itforst movement LOS Source: fifSB & Associates, [tic. A Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 9 of 13 Forecast Trafc Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was also completed for the study area intersections for 2015 which is the year after the proposed Think Rank development would be completed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables S and 6. Detailed tables showing the LOS and delays by approach are included in the Appendix. Table S—Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2015 and 2030 daring both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the major intersections; France Avenue at Hazelton Road and Hazelton Road at York Avenue. Table 5 —Forecasted No Build Level of Service C = OveraltLOS, (D) = ll'orsi moitement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build spith Mink Band Development, shows that al l intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2015 and 2030 during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours with some movements at LOS E. Similar to the Forecasted No -Build conditions the intersections of France Avenue at l4azelton Road and l4azelton Road at York will have potential delay issues although they do not indicate a need for potential mitigation. M-1 2015 2030 Saturday Peak PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak PM Peak Hoar Intersection Hour Hour Overall Overall Overall Overall LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay see/ve6 secJveh see/veh ser/veh France Ave at Hazelton Rd C (D) 21.8 B (D) 17.4 D (E) 39.5 C (E) 23.2 Hazelton Road atByerly's A (A) 2.4 A (A) 1.6 B (E) 14.8 A (A) l.9 /Rue De France W. Entrance Hazelton Road at Byerly's /Rue De France/Guitar A (A) 5.2 A (A) 4.0 A (C) 9.2 A (A) 4.3 Center/Think Bank Entrance Hazelton Rd at York Ave I C (E) 1 27.4 1 B (D) 17.6 D (E) 48.0 C (D) 22.9 C = OveraltLOS, (D) = ll'orsi moitement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build spith Mink Band Development, shows that al l intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2015 and 2030 during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours with some movements at LOS E. Similar to the Forecasted No -Build conditions the intersections of France Avenue at l4azelton Road and l4azelton Road at York will have potential delay issues although they do not indicate a need for potential mitigation. M-1 Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2413 Page 10 of 13 Table 6 — Forecast Buil! with Thlnk Band Develonnrenf C = Overall LUS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: 61,'Sd & Associates, Inc. Vehicle OueuineAnalysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2015 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at the intersections in the study area. The analysis was conducted using the SimTrafiic simulation software. The results found that during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no -build and build 2015 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridors do not exceed any of the available turn. lane storage. In some cases however, for the 2030 no -build and build conditions, the maximum queues were exceeded, specifically at Hazelton Road approaching France Avenue and Hazelton Road approaching York Avenue. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were typically identified one or two times during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 4 to 6 seconds. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement sued approach are included in the Appeodlx. Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of 42 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 30 spaces. Table 7 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 7— PA kink Required per City Code Use 2015 2030 Bank Saturday Peak PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak PM Peak Hour Intersection Hour Hour Overall Overall Overall Overall LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh see/veh France Ave at Hazelton Rd C (D) 23.9 B (D) 19.4 D (E) 40.7 C (E) 27.3 Hazelton Road at Byerly's /Rue De France W. Entrance A (B) 2.8 A (A) 2.0 B (E) 15.6 A (A) 2.5 Hazelton Road at Byerly's /Rue De France/Guitar A (A) 6.2 A (A) 4.3 C (D) 16.2 A (A) 4.8 Center/Think Bank Entrance Hazelton Rd at York Ave I C (E) 29.5 1 B (D) 1 19.1 D (C) 52.8 C (E) 1 25.6 C = Overall LUS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: 61,'Sd & Associates, Inc. Vehicle OueuineAnalysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2015 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at the intersections in the study area. The analysis was conducted using the SimTrafiic simulation software. The results found that during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no -build and build 2015 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridors do not exceed any of the available turn. lane storage. In some cases however, for the 2030 no -build and build conditions, the maximum queues were exceeded, specifically at Hazelton Road approaching France Avenue and Hazelton Road approaching York Avenue. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were typically identified one or two times during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 4 to 6 seconds. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement sued approach are included in the Appeodlx. Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of 42 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 30 spaces. Table 7 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 7— PA kink Required per City Code Use Rate Parking R aired Bank 1 / 200sf 42 Source: 00, of Edina Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 11 of 13 In addition to the parking proposed on the site plan, the developer has identified a "proof of parking" for an additional 12 parking spaces. With this additional parking, the site would meet City Code and would not need any parking variances. The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4i1' Edition. Table 8 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical Saturday and a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking on the site assuming the proposed drive in bank use. Table 8 — Site Parking Demand per ITE Source: Inslittrte of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 41h Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would not be adequate for the proposed drive in bank use. It would be recommended that a portion of the identified "proof of parking" be constructed at this time to bring the total parking stall available to 34 or more. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed Think Bank project includes the construction of an 8,441sf drive in bank. The site is anticipated to generate an additional 182 trips on a Saturday peak hour and 206 trips on a weekday PM peak hour. • Additional trips will be generated from other approved or anticipated development in the surrounding area. These uses will generate an additional 1557 trips on a Saturday peak hour and 1231 trips in the PM peak hour. Only a portion of these trips will affect the critical intersections adjacent to the proposed Think Bank development. • Existing traffic operations at the intersections and driveways in the study area on Hazelton Road are all operating at overall LOS D or better for the both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours. • The City of Edina as part of the Byerly's redevelopment project is planning the reconstruction of Hazelton Road to include modifications to the Byerly's/Rue de France west access and combining the Byerly's/Rue de France east entrance and the Guitar Center/Szechwan Star entrance with the construction of a roundabout. These improvements are planned for 2014. (TT Saturday Weekday Use' Rate Parking Rate Parking Required Required, Drive in Bank 3.7 / 1000sf 32 4.0 ! 1 000s 34 Source: Inslittrte of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 41h Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would not be adequate for the proposed drive in bank use. It would be recommended that a portion of the identified "proof of parking" be constructed at this time to bring the total parking stall available to 34 or more. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed Think Bank project includes the construction of an 8,441sf drive in bank. The site is anticipated to generate an additional 182 trips on a Saturday peak hour and 206 trips on a weekday PM peak hour. • Additional trips will be generated from other approved or anticipated development in the surrounding area. These uses will generate an additional 1557 trips on a Saturday peak hour and 1231 trips in the PM peak hour. Only a portion of these trips will affect the critical intersections adjacent to the proposed Think Bank development. • Existing traffic operations at the intersections and driveways in the study area on Hazelton Road are all operating at overall LOS D or better for the both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours. • The City of Edina as part of the Byerly's redevelopment project is planning the reconstruction of Hazelton Road to include modifications to the Byerly's/Rue de France west access and combining the Byerly's/Rue de France east entrance and the Guitar Center/Szechwan Star entrance with the construction of a roundabout. These improvements are planned for 2014. (TT Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 20I3 Page 12 of 13 • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2015 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the Saturday peak and PM peak hours. However, some movements, specifically at the major intersections; France Avenue at Hazelton Road and Hazelton Road at York Avenue will be operating at LOS E. • Intersection traffic operations for the Forecasted Build alternative (with the Think Bank development traffic) in 2015 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better during the Saturday peak and PM peak hours. Similar to the Forecasted No -Build conditions the intersections of France Avenue at Hazelcon Road and Hazelton Road at York will have potential delay issues although they do not indicate a need for potential mitigation. • The results of the queuing analysis found that during both the Saturday peak and PM peak hours, for the existing, and future no -build and build 2015 and 2030 conditions, the average queues in the corridors do not exceed any of the available turn lane storage. • The parking shown on the current site plan does not the City's Code for a bank use. The current plan provides for 30 parking spaces with 42 required by City Code. The proposed plan does include "prof of parking" for 12 parking spaces on the site, which would bring the site into compliance and would not require a variance. • Based on the ITE parking generation estimates the total parking needed for the Think ` Bank site would range between 32 and 34 spaces. With these estimates, some additional parking would be required on the site. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide the proposed site access and circulation improvements as shown on the proposed site plan (Figure 2). 2, Construct an additional 4 (or more) parking spaces based on the "prof of parking" shown on the current site plan. 3. No additional roadway improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed Think Bank project. k Think Bank City of Edina November 7, 2013 Page 13 of 13 APPENDIX Traffic and Parking Study Figure 1 r �Y Think Bank - 3655 Hazelton Road City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map j— — v SITE PLAN NOTES: Tota. MUM W, FT., m"Lm. 5,108 SF. UPPER LEVEL, 9_ 'i TOTAL, 8,4415F. PAWNS 1,300 fmamREb, 42 STALLS 910m 30 STALLS (12 stalls shWU PROOF OF PAWNr2s 12 STALLS TOTAL LOT AREA bO;WO SF. eulLoul� �oorPRlNr, syoe sJ:. - - - - - - - - - - _!._-----_.1_ t ))--EE����IIAZELTON ROAD Lu MgNMq MAL 8ANK 9300 Hennep{n Town Road AWPROJECTh. 131145 I pROPCJSEONEwBU/LD/NG Mln�eapoOs,MN.5S347 DATE: 10-14-13 Tel. 95227$.9880 •'ud1= I MNq.4f/Aa AM04 I Fax 952278.8822 Traffic and Parking Study Figure 2 n a Think Bank - 3655 Hazelton Road .Y City of Edina, Minnesota Al Proposed Site Pian It � MA "I 4'��p xx e'i ;Ii"•.� LEGEND Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 Think Bank Development City of Edina, Minnesota 2015 No Build Peak Hour Turning Movements Thm•Slop Intersection tQ5 SignaSzed Intersection 0 Roundaboutlnlarsection Signalized Intersection Outside Study Area '1tf Intersection Lane Geomd(y +�1 1 Saturday Midday Pock (Weekday IM Peak) Tum ng Movement Volumes N Drawing not to scale A Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 Think Bank Development City of Edina, Minnesota 2015 No Build Peak Hour Turning Movements Fo A�( f iwTrale� 6tsiMiar S�rmpnary flW�t RaaR •lNWig SaMaayPxt Naar BUM MIMMM iLtlICJi�� rsr�®mcm -' m®' .,. a�a Mt�aaaaia aMMI a:wr~:�oA�mor�mnrr��..®�®��aaala�!aaaa rme�rcro®l�lm� *E.A® n®®_ c���rr�or*r�r nnnr�rr�r7n®l��n��E�®RI�S�1h7f1l� ee—rrr�r���®® ne�r� nnnn n�i� dm nnRm9m, r lmm= �m rna A mmrrr�rr�smmms nemc� .. a ®e7nm©MIMMrramMMM me mums n...®m,mmu� MMENMn ©� m®nom®ae�mr�nmRan Imm ® o®mmm®rr■ n4 � nen nnn®nne©� ®anon® ever,e�iere�n®oan�®®min®e�eiMai41 " r�r�e"■Mimm�®�n "rrn MMMMM en�i�sM..+w�' �A Im lnnEBnL f®mIgmC"lgm®u�f®0gm©mei! _ Is1mE�II ®� •.n mm�et nnn■a��memec�mrinn®1l'!mmmm"mmmm !�!!7I7fE"1117R7®n�'fn 0tl�fEfnmmnmmnn MEN IMCIRMn�R�fe /� mmlmmEImWN • r.n 7mmm I®dmmRmmmnmnnnmrmmnmt!lnf�/,t�n AE7�f!?fl�fn• nn nnnnmminrl emmninnwo rl MMIM wi�nnmmm nnmW rm"-lmnmmme�nnmm��t�mmm� �a rinrInnn� mnnn® r-smmmnnnmm r��m�nimm�m rl nnnnnisn®nonnt omnm©c Homo �orsa�m��mm mumnoeononmmNimmmmnnnnm" ©mm�mn�mm mmmnn© non®ndc�0®rnnnnmm"= mmm�®ei�iiw�a®nnno� a®e�mnnmm� mme*�mnrnnr�HHHHn "mmc� m nnnms ©m r� ®mmm r!frm nem®anwmwmmmmmnnne t® �m%i�e m©rim �A 1NnR Ilan! -N it Na Yn9d-faa.ey haU tfautlnr lYlY4bq MF�ti`tiWik pi [9 mil f4�onmm ® Rlfmm�R!® R c�mor��lm®�r■■i mm onta�m mmm®moamm o©eep�©mA emmionn ren©emm e�mmm�memi no m me ranee r ei®m® immmme mnmm� . �©reaarrrne r mrraerr■■{ ©mei r�e�eeeer�mmmm mrr� a e�et�rm■■emmenir mnInn . REl�'lIR�®�!eeee®f7®eaf� R ARE e"�m_mAerMnrME rnmmnmommm�nn® .� mn . n mmmren - e mrmeatem®®® onamo®mme�ninr®®RRmm0'r" nnmm rlmmm m wxmmm mnm®®mr moerme�ree®me rnm®onm® o.�w■mrm mmm " mmmemmH mrmmm _ nnmre■ me�rr,�m mre■ m ®non . ren . mmmmmim mm � mmc�mr �i m� unree®mnn�imn�+tnm® a ®���-, emm ern e�A"mmm" mm ®�ne�ree�ece®m®ssnrn®c�rraan®nne�es ee��rrnr■�r■rri■emrmer>,®m pi ww�« A L ®vvm000mo ®® nun o=10=0 eeaoom ®� ® nim m©a©o � er�amoe�ine�� eimmraon � i"mmmnomm ���®�®tom®natio®me�naceee®a��e■ r.�®mAom��w� r.�©mmae�®me®e®n�ne�rm®engin. ��■��ear�nrrn� 0nn0eeneeen®®�ecann®neue®e e����■�®ems MOM nr!�� Eery c�e!�®nefan� ©mss m�imm�mr�ana® e�mmiai�raue�s■r�r r.!���■��m��� nn a c+� a aar�aarntn�mnanr�®� mmmmmemmm amnnoA�aamaoa©mmo®©e®nn.©�'oa.i■■��■s�nr��� � c�no®o©omo®men©e�m®r��rrrnm�■ o���mo��� ��� r.��nnr.�©ontnannnm mmnna©gin. mm[eeem��� tin®mes�rmn©none®�mmmm©r�®int"©���me��� r�mc.�e�®mr-aoema®nn�c�mme�ne�nerr��r� r±��msnc-�mc�er:�e n�antr�om�ne�©noon©t*�tatme�ter�trst®tts t�t�t�ttntt�tett-t.tte�tn A L 1NrABaht. NMNa�WIi.=MurY+I Yr# •asWne �1lalf�ItHpNq �51 Illoolummummgmiggg"g"mg co ���jj� ©0�®©mnamminom ®®y� p dnnodnMOnt�urr mnnm ®i�ei�® mmm�rnwollm m rfl ��i � nm nem n®®®� en.®Mm�* ME= rinnm n e , ' ee� nn n rimmmmmm�M mmmtan o m Mmrlmmm nn I onnmmnmmm t Damn m�nR rm, m®rTlmmnRnn�R °° "e�mm®©eoe� e■■t� MEM m ®mm MM! RIMM o iemt�eim�rn®o���no�ir�c�mmmAnam� ��rn�wrsm■�nrr� � rac��n�e�mn - nor!®�e�n®®nnm .: �meee®■�®® an nnn nen nnm nnm®�en� ■ mmmmmmmmmm mnc me nr��r mm� t�i"MEN mmm""n � min nr��aemir o -®mermr�®nmmren®ndmmnfm nmm� mmmmmmnmm �51 `V u �o.��ua.��u ....mmm, =MMLJ1"Uj"uLmuu2Ll2uMo®oLXUujw a ooMNAu , MouuGAUw . MMLA�LA�LAL;jLAU®MN ®UWA"UUu ==MLMo===LJ .�®000u®®©000®��®000®uoo MMMooMMMu ®�raoa�c��w 000 ouc�rra�oo�®®ow ®�Mn ii i i� i�u � � ooc ®said ©u � bio CW ®M NIM"Po"oo ��©oma 000Uov�a000©omaLj =� ..�.o....MMu �MMLJ u o KAaouLAoo noo u low Ao����000 ®uj��o©000®���o coo©opo©omo©® �'� 6YnTLkcfiMYYiap sueieiry ThY�F 0a W . N/! luTd • irNrr4y ierY Nar N+sd�u H A IMEMPIS-la low= UUMMMEM OU Ban m��© m����® �:tI['�"�MR isumiiimUUMOR imo® i �emnflnon � ARL�lE�E�:.."MM®M mnnnnnnnn �rnmrmr mMnnnnma mMMMM"MMM �en�eonn en n® ann�ieees m 1MMMM�rnnw " �rr■■ri�fUmmm nrr"IrmeelrR . Pt ®�eMRWR/!R!�®!�! " MW MMM oe�L'IMtRfE7i�l"l�l�ElIl�L:lmrx�eniii�ma n®'f®mtm,MM® 0m®m�mMM . M nerrr� mQl �er�■���E�fo�■■� PRI—RARmpnc�annnn®r+i�iri nFEWIMM MMAREVEM® e®—®����� MMM deimmiredmmm®oe�®02 n®MM®n r�nmme�omcyc�rQn©®mmennm®® m® nca m�0mnmernm® c RHO nenim® �� r�ennn nnnn � ®r:�nnc�e©nm� ®Aa®®�®�w■� mnomtmm�i vM"Mm�EMMEMM s -, Anmm��IneUmVN�MEM"M mmnme�mntr�meneemec� FIM mm� ■i■MMMM"M= A i4Tt�pICLMINOWbiimnry 1lirilNnt-101iwIN•tA1NA NaN E � nun=nnn=nuu=© na©0u®©mmm gg g l"" C!."= mHHHH ennmreHHHHimrsnmmnnnon rn_____nn._ nn� RWnrmnwggHRpnnmMg�ii o i mmnntMmm nnn i"MMM MM �r�e�mc.�nne�®�em��mnnnm© nrinrir m- nnrmnnnmmmmmronnn��■ r���■�nti■��■� ear��amm� nm®mnnmrtimmmnnn�■s 11MMMMEMMMMM Mmmmlmmm ■m mo®nooieinwane®n®mmm®nn©®e ©mmm"Immm merdememee�nemnt®r��mm�nn"®®n FfRrmnr�mimnmHMnn®rjrmmnnnne�s�n ® "nmammm ��QC1�if®n®®r�t�F�il�nnn■"i7tf r7t!flf77E'f!!!fAt:f�E' monmo®nom nn®ntinrimnn®nmm" MMMMMM""M E INA% *-2m 4gbuiwq 1441 BwM 3470lWl.bia'd/ bt/kNN PiHIF- IMirvnsNl�iAY1kMls A � mmmm �mrddm e�c� o m ®cams no®�m�omo me�mc��mEam mm©®cpm®mio�no®�c�m®� - ,gin® mo®n ®rsrmpp nn�rseas �c�rrass�ss�rs���s•sss� m SOME on ®[�s�Q m®Amm®w in mnn- nermm . n�C®dn�®neo r�smssc��■■nrs�nsn n �n ne m n s� s�rss■sssr IRSHUX"mn . r esm�emiem ��eiWER nn © e�mul"Emmm ■m mmnmmmnmm "nns r� mrn�icsrr�r�ur sr� Msrommmm■is e unmr-I m mss s�rniris r�mm mmumm mmmnnmm IM d�i ®m mmioowmo mei immmmtim ME mnfm .H mn WIM" mmm �mm n rNr�en s�rnirm , s :r�■assnssf osannnnnHonnnns gar nm®e�nsee " m"mMr-olMMMMM ©m®®rmm�o nss ee e�me�n _ nnsn lr!lvlw-mls mss _ -mmnmoo®mon®n®e��nmemsa,Am etsss■m—errvevin. A � ,bTntlkRitlpMnfumis� 7Rbhf�M-W:0w.A=d ,RN 4xfix W., ®© mE®®cm© nnuuuul=®©M M© eMMMIMnMmome�®es®m®�® ®nye c�e�mmmomoo D m®I�RAE'3�®�SIJE�Gww"! HHHHndMpnln`�E7f!"�[� �"Imm ..■m_-_ e®eme�m©moa�ndr�me�e��nne�e�n �mmmmr�mmm mnNSIMnn®on ®a�N W.Wnnn■Mm. tnmmmmmrmrmm .. pnnn nnnnnn nn� n�e®�nnnnn� rlm mmw.mm . re�immmmm M nnmmmnme�c3® n amnmmnQe�o�A nmr lmmemmm tnnnnneemm®imm©ero� ennnnn�m�neo ni®en+��®e©nmr mnmmnn mlrsm=mwmmmmmoemmmmm■mmmemnm®msmmmmm mc m mmmnmmmnpnnee®oemnnnnwxm reaen�©nrte* HomnHn�dn®nnm©NHmnn ®e®m��m®r�nasmrrr�rcrtmna�w'ee�reim■e� . �oemrrsmmmme e�ii�m�om�m ®mn©nmamr�mnnrn®e�rrr�monreireemmmmmmnm W., �ATY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861�,4�N/"�,1, o e�, Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com y. Date: November 13, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration — Residential Redevelopment Attached is a draft ordinance, that clarifies and cleans up language from the recent City Council approved Ordinance regarding residential redevelopment. To summarize the Ordinance clarifies the following: ➢ Page 1. Clarkes the Ordinance that attached garages are part of a principal dwelling unit. The recently approved ordinance now requires an attached garage to maintain the same setback as the principle dwelling unit. Revising the definitions help clarify the ordinance. Page 2. Adds language to help clarify that there are two options in the required side yard setback for lots more than 60 feet in width, but less than 75 feet in width. D Page 3. Adds #4. This provision was inadvertently not included in the approving Ordinance to regulate setbacks on lots less than 50 feet in width. ➢ Page 4-5. Clarifies the front yard setbacks to be the same for all buildings and structures. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2013 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE R-1, SINGLE - DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT, AND R-2, DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING COVERAGE, SETBACK, HEIGHT & GENERAL REGULATIONS The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.03. Subd.3. is hereby amended to amend the following definitions: Accessory Building. A separate building or structure of a-yeFtieR-ef fM a principal building. Dwelling Unit. One or more rooms connected together, but which is or are separated from all other rooms in the same building, which room constitutes, or rooms constitute, a separate, independent unit with facilities for cooking, sleeping and eating, and used for residential occupancy. A room or rooms shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit if it contains or they contain facilities for cooking, sleeping and eating, if it or they can be separated from all other rooms in the same building, if access can be gained without entering or passing through any living space of another dwelling unit, and if it is or they are used for residential occupancy. A ill n >unit shall Include an a advd • . Principal Building. A building which is used for principal uses including enclosed seasonal living areas such as porches, aril breezeways, afi garages which are attached to the principal building. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 1.A. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Principal Uses. A. Buildings containing not more than one dwelling unit, I . garages; Section 3. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 3.A.1. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3 Accessory Uses. A. The following accessory uses are permitted on the same lot as a single dwelling unit building: 1. Accessory deitached garages. Section 4. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 6.13. is hereby amended as follows: B. Minimum Setbacks (subject to the requirements of paragraph A. of Subd. 7 of this Subsection 850.11). Front Street 1. Single dwelling 30'** unit buildings on Lots 75 feet or more in width. 2. Single 30'** dwelling unit buildings on lots more than 60 feet in width, but less than 75 feet in width. Side Interior Side Rear Street Yard Yard 15' 10' 25' 15' The required interior 25' yard setback of 5 feet shall increase by 1/3 foot (4 inches) for each foot that the lot width exceeds 60 feet and SuWslm ?A3. s 1*0 .' OR shall meet the table ie #5 below: Lot Width Total Side Yard Setbacks from both Interior Side Lot Lines 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 than 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 Existing text— XXXX Stricken text —XXXX ............ Added text — XMI 2 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 If this option is utilized for the required interior side yard setback, Subdivision 7.A.3. shall not apply. 3. Single dwelling unit 30'** 15' 5' and Subdivision 25' buildings on lots between 7.A.3, shall apply; 50 and 60 feet in width. OR 12' total, with no less than 5' on one side and Subdivision 7.A.3. shall not apply. 4. Single dwelling 30""' 15' S` reit b-001d%gs nrs lefts less than 50 feet in width. 4.5 Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. detached 30`0 15' 3' 3' garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses 30'*' 15' S' 5' and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard. C. unenclosed decks 3r* 15' 5' 5' and patios. d. swimming pools, 34'** 15' 10' 10' including appurtenant equipment and required decking. e. tennis courts, 39** 15' 5' 5' basketball courts, sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other similar recreational accessory uses including Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXM Added text —�0t appurtenant fencing and lighting. f. all other accessory 30— 15' 5' buildings and structures. g. egress window wells. NA NA *3' * Egress window wells may encroach in the side yard setback on one side. b:: Other Uses: a. All conditional use 50' 50' 50' buildings or structures including accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet; except parking lots, day care facilities, pre-schools and nursery schools b. All conditional use 95' 95' 95' accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or larger. c. Driving ranges, tennis 50' 50' 50' courts, maintenance buildings and swimming pools accessory to a golf course. d. Daycare facilities, pre- 30' 35' 35' schools and nursery schools. See Subd. 7.A.1. below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one street of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units Section 5. Subsection 850.11. Height shall be amended as follows: C. Height 1. Single dwelling units buildings and structures accessory thereto. 5' NA 50' *M 35' 2 % stories. For maximum height see #4 below. Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text —XXXX Added text—#W 2. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings, but not attached thereto. 3. All other buildings and structures 1 '/2 stories or 18 feet whichever is less 3 stories or 40 feet whichever is less 4. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 30 feet. For lots that exceed 75 feet in width, the maximum height to the ridge line shall be 35 feet, and the maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Section 6. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 7.H. is hereby amended to add Subsection H as follows: H. Sidewall Articulation for a Principal Structure. in order to avoid the monotonous appearance of long, unbroken building facades from abutting properties, the length of an exterior side wall shall not exceed thirty (30) feet without a) a minimum of at least a one (1) foot deep by ten (10) foot wide offset (projecting or recessed) or b) a combination of at least two (2) of the following architectural or utilitarian features within every thirty (30) feet or less: 1. Structural windows, doors, awnings or canopies 2. Projecting bay or box windows. 3. Stoops 4. Porches 5. Chimneys (minimum depth of one (1) foot) 6. Balconies 7. Pilasters 8. Second story roof overhang (at least twenty percent (20%) of the facade length) 9. Port-cocheres (a roofed structure extending from the building over an adjacent driveway that vehicles drive through, typically sheltering those getting out of vehicles or as a passageway to a garage) Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text — XXXX ....._....... Added text—XXXX Section 7. This Ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2014. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 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 6 Stricken text —X Added text — XJ