Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-14 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 14, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER I1. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission April 23, 2014 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Thomas Raih. 5528 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment— PUD Applicability in an R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 District VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Attendance Council Update VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927- 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission May 28, 2014. The Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow senior housing in the RM District adjacent to the Fairview Southdale Hospital, as part of the 6500 France project. If the project is found to be acceptable, this definition could be expanded for "specialty housing" as deemed appropriate by the City Council, when specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan are achieved. Consideration for housing in the RM District and at higher densities includes: proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Concluding, Teague stated a case could be made for allowing specialty housing in this location as it would reuse an existing building (sustainability); provide a 100% affordable housing development; be in close proximity to Metro Transit; be located on a high visibility arterial roadway; and be completely separated from low density residential. Traffic impacts, further consideration of sustainable design and public art would be considered with a formal application. Appearing for the Applicant Lee Blons, Beacon Interfaith Discussion Commissioner Carr asked Planner Teague where the concept of "specialty housing" derived from. Planner Teague responded it's a term he suggested to allow flexibility and "use" limits. Continuing, Carr also observed parking is at odds with the ordinance; however, she believes it can be resolved. Commissioner Forrest questioned if the zoning classification and comprehensive guide plan are at odds in this location. Planner Teague responded yes and no. He explained that the zoning classification for this property is POD -I; Planned Office District and it is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Regional Medical. Office use and senior housing is permitted in Regional Medical; however, housing is not permitted in the POD -I, Planned Office District. Acting Chair Potts commented that for the applicant to achieve this proposal the land use needs modification. Teague responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen asked Planner Teague if the Comprehensive Plan references affordable housing. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. He explained the Met Council has established for Edina an "affordable housing" goal of adding 212 affordable housing units by 2020. Page 3 of 11 AK)Dlicant Presentation Ms. Blons addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of their mission statement and their effort in securing affordable housing for homeless teens. Blons explained that they believe the 66`h Street location is excellent and they are using the concept model from their Nicollet Square, development for this project. Blons reported that the site is .9 acres and will incorporate the entire existing 18,179 square foot building to include an 11,888 square foot addition to accommodate the 39 proposed housing units. Blons told the Commission non -profits tend to work backwards they secure the approvals first and then the funding. Continuing, Blons said their emphasis is on providing safe living accommodations so teens can focus on their education and employment. Blons pointed out the 66 West location is excellent; it's located near multiple employment opportunities and is directly across from mass transit. Concluding, Blons introduced Bart Nelson, Urban Works to speak on the architectural components of the project. Bart Nelson gave a power point presentation highlighting aspects of the project to include parking and proposed landscaping and screening features. Continued Discussion Commissioner Carr told the Commission she thinks the building renovations and new addition are well done. She further asked Mr. Nelson if bike racks are proposed for the site. Mr. Nelson responded in the affirmative. Continuing, Carr asked if materials for the proposed fence have been chosen. Mr. Nelson said the materials for the fence haven't been finalized; however, he believes they may go with a cedar fence. Commissioner Forrest stated she has a concern with regard to the proposed fence on the buildings south side. Forrest explained that a redevelopment goal of the Planning Commission (where appropriate) is to provide a pedestrian experience by engaging the building and street. She observed if a tall fence is placed in this area the site would be "cut off' from the streetscape. Acting Chair Potts said in his opinion this redevelopment proposal 'is intriguing not only for its proposed land use but for reuse of the building instead of teardown rebuild. Potts added if the project proceeds as proposed he would suggest that the applicant consider other sustainable strategies with regard to the building. Concluding, Potts further suggested that the applicant work with City staff on finding the "right" parking number and if appropriate develop a proof of parking agreement to ensure adequate greenspace. Commissioner Schroeder commented that he agrees a proof of parking agreement would work well for this site, adding he believes if a proof of parking agreement were drafted and the need arose for more parking the site could yield more parking spaces. Schroeder further stated in his opinion the two access points on Barrie Road are not needed; one is Page 4 of 11 adequate. Continuing, Schroeder agreed with the comments from Commissioner Forrest on engaging the street. He said the Commission has been working hard on the relationship between building to street and in this situation he believes more work could be done to accomplish that interaction. He further suggested that simple changes be made to the facade along West 66`h Street to make it more inviting. Schroeder said he appreciates the desire for a fence, but suggested redesign of the front outdoor area to ensure street engagement while affording a buffer area. This would achieve the Commission's work on living streets. Concluding Schroeder said he likes this proposal but stated he's not sure if this request brings the site to its highest potential. He noted no one knows how far the RMD zoning district may expand and if this site is eliminated from that potential some things are lost and some gained; whichever way the redevelopment precedes that point should be kept in mind. Commissioner Lee asked Mr. Nelson if there are windows proposed for the basement level. Mr. Nelson responded in the affirmative. He pointed out each studio apartment would have a window and there would be a window in the common area for a total of four. Continuing, Commissioner Lee said she agrees with past comments that the south elevation needs more attention; either through landscaping or architectural features. Concluding, Lee asked how many outdoor gathering areas are proposed. Nelson responded "outdoor gathering" areas are proposed on the north and south side of the building. Nelson indicated the development team would re -review landscaping and screening to soften the site and engage the streetscape on the south elevation. Commissioner Kilberg asked if Beacon contacted neighboring property owners. Ms. Larson responded Beacon has outreached to neighboring business owners and those conversations will continue as the project proceeds. She also noted Fairview Southdale Hospital is supportive. Acting Chair Potts asked Ms. Blons to explain the "moving in and moving out" process the teens go through. Ms. Larson explained that the goal of Beacon is to "catch" the teens as early as possible. When a teen moves in a rent is established and each year the rent goes up until the teen(s) is ready to move out. Throughout their stay the teens are provided with services that counsel them on work skills, school and independence after they leave Beacon. Acting Chair Potts thanked the applicants for their presentation and stated in summary the City needs to be mindful of the master planning of the area in their decision making process; however, the project as presented is intriguing, adding density without an increase in traffic and providing affordable safe housing for teens. Both are goals of Edina's Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 11 B. Sketch Plan Review — 7151 York Avenue (Senior Housing) Planner Presentation Planner Teague explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan request to build a 100 unit assisted living building, west of the existing Yorktown Continental Senior Living apartments at 7151 York Avenue. The housing would include 70 units of senior housing with services and 30 memory care units. Ten percent (10%) of the units would be for residents below 50% median income level. Teague reported that the building would be four stories tall and would not be connected to the existing twelve (12) story 263 unit apartment building. The existing site is 5.85 acres in size; therefore, the density is 45 units per acre. With the proposed addition of 100 units; the density would increase to 64 units per acre. The property is zoned Planned Senior Residential District — 4, PSR -4 and guided High Density Residential. Teague noted the Planning Commission and City Council previously considered a sketch plan review for a 76 unit senior housing project back in 2013. The Comprehensive Plan describes High Density Residential as between 12- 30 units per acre. However, density for senior housing may be increased, based on proximity to hospitals, proximity to low density uses, utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and impact on adjacent roads. Other desired items to allow greater density for senior housing would include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, and provision of public art. Teague concluded that a case could be made for higher density in this instance: the building would be separated and screened from the single family homes to the east by the existing 12 -story building; there are adequate utilities to serve the site; transit service is available on York Avenue; below grade parking is proposed; and 10% of the units would be affordable. Traffic impacts, sustainable design and public art would be considered with a formal application. This is an area of the City that could potentially sustain higher densities. Appearing for the Applicant Della Kolpin, Mesaba Capital Page 6 of 11 Discussion Commissioner Olsen asked Planner Teague if the parking indicated on the plans is existing. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative, adding the proposed addition will also contain an underground parking element. Commissioner Lee asked if the applicant for this project was different from the previous applicant. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lee further asked Planner Teague what's the maximum unit count for the subject site. Planner Teague responded 182 units; however at the present time they are over their allowable units and would need a variance to add this addition. Commissioner Kilberg asked Planner Teague if the City of Richfield has any requirements that would impact this development. Planner Teague responded that the site is entirely in Edina, adding there are no code issues with Richfield that he was aware of. Planner Teague with graphics pointed out the abutting land uses to include the City of Richfield park property, high density residential, office and commercial. Applicant Presentation Ms. Kolpin addressed the Commission and explained that their intent is to construct a building that creates a senior living campus extension on the "front lot" of the Yorktown Continental Apartments. Kolpin explained that Yorktown Continental is a 12 -story, 263 -unit senior apartment building within walking distance to multiple amenities. Kolpin said the sketch plan they are proposing is for a 4- story 100 -unit continuum of aging building with underground parking. Kolpin said their plan calls for at least 10% of the total units be designated for residents below the 50% median income level. Continuing, Kolpin explained that the total square footage of the project is proposed at 120,000 +/-NSF. The parking for the parcel is planned at 50 enclosed below and 223 parking stalls on grade. The proposed 100 -units will consist of 70 -units of senior housing with full kitchen and laundry. These units will also be provided with support services for residents with more complex care needs with staff on- site 24 -hours -a -day. The other 30 units are memory care that will be secure and specially designed for those with mild to moderate memory loss from Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Kolpin said another of their goals is to engage York Avenue; noting they are petitioning the MTC for a bus stop location. Kolpin acknowledged that their renderings are very preliminary however; their intent is to "marry" the buildings to ensure compatibility. They also want to use a lot of windows and provide roof top terraces. Building materials will include cultured stone, modular brick veneer, prefinished metal sills and flashing, LP smart siding and more. Concluding, Kolpin said the proposed building will feature congregate dining, coffee shop/Bistro, lounge areas, library, computer room, craft, fitness and spa facilities. Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Schroeder said if an applicant requests a rezoning to PUD the site should be without risk and the rezoning to PUD benefits the City. He pointed out the conditions established for PUD rezoning approvals are very tight and controlled. Continuing, Schroeder said if a rezoning of a site to PUD is proven to be advantageous the rezoning is specifically tied to that development; no other changes/uses would be permitted without further Commission and Council review and approval. Schroeder said he isn't afraid of a PUD and reiterated if the proposed rezoning is reasonable and benefits the City he can support it. Concluding, Schroeder noted the City doesn't have to grant any property a PUD rezoning just because it's requested. Commissioners agreed with the comments thus far. Acting Chair Potts closed the topic. D. Tree Ordinance Commissioner Carr reported that the Tree Preservation Ordinance the Commission approved at their last meeting will be presented to the Council by her and Commissioner Platteter on May 6th. Carr explained she wanted Commissioners to note the comments received from a member of the Energy and Environment Commission (EEC). She further stated the recommended ordinance and comments from the EEC member would be forwarded to the City Council prior to their May 6`h meeting. Vll. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Acting Chair Potts acknowledged receipt of the council update and attendance. Vlll. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Forrest reported that she is a member of the Valley View Road Small Area Plan working group along with new member to the group Commissioner Lee. Forrest explained their goal is to keep to a specific timeline and to ensure residents have ample participation in the process. Commissioner Lee explained that the working group anticipates an eight to nine month timeline; ultimately the goal would be to establish a prototype for future use. Lee noted the working group is going to be deliberate about each step of the process. Commissioner Carr suggested that the Commission needs to keep in mind their work plan and have future discussions on "where we are" in the plan. Page 10 of 11 IX. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague apprised the Commission that the City Council recently approved the three -lot subdivision "Wyman Place" on Warren Avenue. Teague said the applicant will adhere to Commission and Council conditions and construction will commence sometime this summer. X. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Olsen moved meeting adjournment at 8:30 PM. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Respectfully submitted Page 11 of 11 o e, 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker May 14, 2014 B-14-09 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 2 foot fence height variance as requested for property located at 5528 Woodcrest Drive for Thomas Raih. Project Description The subject property is located inthe North West corner of Woodcrest Drive and West 56th Street, consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The Property has an in -ground pool in the back yard located approximately 5 feet from the rear lot line. The swimming pool is currently surrounded by a 5 foot tall fence enclosing the perimeter of the back yard. The owner would like to replace the 5 foot tall fence with a 6 — 8 foot tall fence. The fence is proposed to vary in height given adjacent grade elevations of neighboring properties. (See property location, aerial photos, photos of the subject, site survey, site photos, and fence product on pages A.1 A. 10). INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The homeowner has decided to replace the existing fence on the property that is required for protection given the in -ground pool in the rear yard. Most of the fence is proposed to be 6 feet in height, (conforming to the fence height code), with a section adjacent to the neighbor at 5537 Park Place, to the west, that will be 8 feet in height. The 8 foot tall section of the fence requires a 2 foot fence height variance. The property to the west is a recent tear -down re -build that received a Conditional Use Permit in 2012 to allow the new basement and 1St floor to be raised 3.75 feet above existing to bring the new basement floor elevation above the 100 year, (I%), flood elevation, (see pages A. 11 - 12., CUP Resolution) It was necessary to elevate the basement of the adjacent house to remove the structure from the flood zone. The elevated basement resulted in an elevated back yard with retaining walls along the proponent's westerly lot line. The neighbor's back yard is now 3 feet higher than it had been previously. Fence height near the pool on the neighbor's side is approximately 2 feet in places. The Edina Health Code requires a minimum 4 foot tall fence for protection around a pool. While fence height is measured from grade on the subject property, the existing height from the neighbor's yard is as low as 2 feet in some areas and perhaps an attractive nuisance with the pool only 5 feet from the lot line. Attached is a Memorandum from the City's Environmental Health Specialist in support of the requested variance for fence height. 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 17,097 square foot lot that includes a rambler with a two car garage built in 1958. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Fence Design The proposed fence will be Scalloped solid board fence. (See pictures on pages A—A.) Primary Issue: Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of a section of fence along the west lot line proposed to be 8 feet in height. 2. It is reasonable to increase the fence height given the grade difference between the subject property and the property to the west. 2 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use by allowing a conforming fence height as viewed and measured from the adjacent property. 4. The fence will provide adequate protection as needed given the Edina Health Code. • 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 fence will allow for minimum protection around the existing in ground pool as necessary by Edina Health Code. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given the altered grade on the adjacent neighbor's property. The practical difficulty is therefore, caused by the necessary elevation of the neighbor's basement to bring it above the flood elevation and the subsequent regarde of the property. The lot is large, with generous spacing between the new home next door and the subject home and pool. The purpose behind the ordinance is to prohibit an unnecessarily high fence between neighbors in a residential N setting. Eight foot fences were allowed by code prior to an amendment over 7 years ago. Fence height has since been reduced to a maximum of 6 feet. It should be noted that there are quite a number of 8 foot fences within the city erected at a time when the ordinance allowed higher fence heights. Those fences may remain and be maintained at 8 feet. Eight foot fences are not uncommon within the City. 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 include the altered grade on the neighboring property that has affected the required fence needed for protection and the close proximity of existing pool located on the subject property. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed fence will maintain the existing character and allow for conformance with and pool protection as needed in the health code. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the grade elevation changes of the adjacent property. b) The City Health Code requires adequate fence protection around an in ground pool. The proposal is reasonable in that it provides the pool protection as supported by the City Pool Inspector. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The fence must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped: May 15, 2014. Deadline for a city decision: July 14, 2014 11 OF I MEMO Health Division of the Edina Police Department wOZNA=l� Phone 952-826-0463 • Fax 952-826-0389 • www.EdinaMN.gov e • ��«nroiaK� eue To: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner cc: From: Solvei Wilmot, R.S Date: 5/7/14 Subject: Thomas Raih, 5528 Woodcrest Drive, Edina request for variance to height requirements for fencing around a swimming pool The Edina Health Division of the Edina Police Department is responsible for enforcement of Edina City Codes relating to swimming pools. In reviewing Mr. Raih's request for a variance to increase the height of the fencing on the west side of his property from 5 feet to 8 feet, the Health Division supports his proposal for the following reasons: • Mr. Raih effectively illustrates how the elevation of the adjoining property has resulted in his existing 5 foot tall fence to be a 2 foot tall fence on the neighbor's side of the fence. • Edina City Code Chapter 10, Article XI, Sec. 10-510 requires fencing around swimming pools to be a minimum of 4 feet tall, non climbable material. Although Mr. Raih's fence on his side of the property meets the height requirements of the code, the height requirement is not met on the neighbor's side of the fence due to the increased elevation. • Additionally, the Center For Disease (CDC) control report on Childhood Injury 2000-2006 lists drowning as the 2nd leading cause of death for children between I and 14 years of age (transportation related issues is I st). Proper fencing has been found to reduce the potential for accidental drowning. Therefore, Mr Raih's proposal to increase his fence height from 5 feet to 8 feet in order to limit the potential for entry to his pool and/or unintended injuries is in keeping with the intent of the Edina City Code and the recommendations of the CDC. City of Edina 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 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: ��G� (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:G��% Jl PHONE: ������•�� PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ,> ZYAI d (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:PHONE: T LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electro is 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: 57 416 � W ,, PRESENT ZONING: � P.I.D.# EXPLANATION OF RE0_1U Ono x-51 (Use reverse k /h 51 ARCHIT�IAME: EMAIL: side r aditip4al pages if necessary) PHON r�� , SURVEYOR: NAME: 9Ro;�iW�� �N O E: EMAIL: A15 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: All ",91� YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying ❑ with the zoning ordinance and th t the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances roe /A applicable to this property but not .i� applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district,,01 Ar 0�wYA r, S Y' Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordin + AX � � ❑ Ale .� Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood -- 7 el .6 I W�� �AIr C � � eel 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. Completed and signed application form. Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. Seventeen (17) 11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs F/ and other information to explain and support the application. V A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." 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 or a 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. Applicant's Signatu 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 Signature ` Date 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. Jackie Hoogenakker irom: Laura Hemler <laura@hemler.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:09 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker . Cc: mollie.5 Subject: Neighbor input for Case File B-14-09 (Raih property) To whom it may concern, I fully support allowing a variance for the fence on the Raih's property, especially considering that their western neighbors were allowed by the City of Edina to significantly build up the grade of their yard without consideration to the Raih's privacy. Laura Hemler 5601 Park Place laura@hemler.com 9 A V Hennepin County Property Interactive Map — r I nteractive Maps Welcome Results Links Tax information View oblique imagery (Bing maps) Survey documents About the data PID: 1902824110062 5528 Woodcrest Dr Edina, MN 55424 Owner/Taxpayer M A Raih & T, Owner: Trustees THOMAS RAIL528 5 WOODC Taxpayer: DR EDINA MN 55A Tax District School Dist: 273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 3 Parcel 0.39 acres Parcel Area: 17,097 sq ft Torrens/Abstract: Torrens Colonial Grove Addition: Addn Lot: 004 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: Legend Measure Find a PID or an address on the map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map default.aspx?pid=1902824110062 5/8/2014 I /\ -T- L - L_ Ll I ti 865.OTW� x 1 863.2 x SKET PRIVY TOM r \ 1 J �J -c i j DECK x 862.9 FIRST FLOOR=869.1, TOP OF BLOCK -867.87 865.OTW GARAGE FLOOR=867.04 863.1 863.1 0 MAW. (Jl L 0 T lee 861.2 x 862.4 x863. /� 140A..) x o �� / 863.1TW O T `A1�/`�`t.G� � � 860.9 � q ROOF PEAK HEIGHT=20.1 FT. x 861.8 (862.0)x \ ` �� x 63.1TW 861.9 s � J 00-1 ro ' 60.43 860.7 �. 862.8x --- � � .'.74.1 N \ M' x 860.7 k C) % M x 860.6 8 61.2 w X 860.49 w �� Hennepin County Property Map 44 AnoS'foeT rArrc�, dai�-yoasEN[��Ioprl'56�� /sTirr oewa�. vEv81o�►E.? /fyaL•r pl�fAr�slay i T4 doll ' p&vsE I! F•4yri�. wirj 7d RfE fg7AA`� aOt�Y• pv1R� of Foal 'At .o Frlvc7lo* wf - A v V*r A FA Pt X P1JrAlo4fP rtAA% 5637 N�r�' �Doo�f !r • �� k] i1 J Mw 9 1 ............. 9 1 J � Jfx�1� Ji . °4 a ° • a a s0. T-- a . 63 M P 0 0 L X863.1 x 862.8 ;7�0� /ef/ x 863.5 `:, x 863.0 865.OTW 865.OTW 863.2 x a d ROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE DECK 60-2- -_—`- �A a 1 0 #5537 PARK PLACE x 862.9 863.3" a FIRST FLOOR=869.1 865.OTW c 'OP OF BLOCK=867.87 ;ARAGE FLOOR=867.04 863.1 ° 865.2TW x a .•x; 863.2 ;:.....c 863.1 z rw*h 5528 woodcree drive 863.1TW �% edina, minnesota 55424 / 863.4 x Lo J 37_7 x 863.19TW�'�' 861.2 863.0 x 862.4 Cn / x / 863.1 TW A /N L / x 861.8 (862.0)x x 861.9 863.1 TW ro 860.43 860.7 / 862.8 x _ -14.1 co SNA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-84 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT o AT 5537 PARK PLACE FOR KATE SCHMITT y o I,oR Oi{LO o itoa BRIT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Ci Ly Of Edina Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to tear down and construct a new home at 5537 Park Place. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. Specifically the applicant would like to raise the first floor elevation the existing first floor elevation. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 8, COLONIAL GROVE THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.03 On June 13, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Vote: 7 Ayes and 0 Nays. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The homes in the area have a variety of height, mass and scale. 4. The proposed new home is in character with this neighborhood. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new home at 5537 Park Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped August 19, 2011 • Building plans and elevations date stamped May 23, 2012. 2. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.CityofEdina.com Z // 952-927-8861 FAX 952-826-0390 TTY 952-826-0379 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-84 Page Two 3. Final grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval of the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Drainage patterns may not be directed to adjacent properties. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on June 19, 2012. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDINA )SS James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 19, 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 12012. City Clerk Date: May 14, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration — R-I/PUD Regulations MEMO Current City Code regulations do not allow R- I properties to be considered for Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. When the PUD Ordinance was created, there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not R -I property should be eligible for PUD rezoning. The general purpose behind excluding R- I properties was to protect single family homes (the majority land use in Edina) from potential redevelopment within single family home neighborhoods. As a result of the Lennar project on York and Xerxes, the Planning Commission is asked to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would allow consideration of R- I property within a PUD if the R -I property constitutes less than fifty percent of the total property in the proposed PUD. This amendment would apply to any property that is located adjacent to commercial, industrial, or high density residential property. The attached pages AI—A9 show the properties that would be eligible for PUD rezoning under the proposed Ordinance. In general, it would apply to property that is located adjacent to commercial, industrial or high density residential property. As indicated on page AI, the vast majority of property zoned R -I would still not be eligible for PUD rezoning. In regard to the Lennar project, there is a single row of nine single-family homes on the west side of Xerxes Avenue, that are completely surrounded by commercial development all zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial -3 District. The Lennar project includes five of these single family homes. (See pages A I 0—A 13.) The overall project is 4.5 acres in size; the residential properties are 1.2 acres in size or 26% of the total area. The PUD zoning classification is appropriate for the Lennar project as it would enable the City of Edina to require a better project and achieve goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of those goals include: sustainability; mixed use pedestrian oriented development and podium height. It also ensures the city, that the building project that is approved is what is ultimately built. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO 1j'rl,, fl e ,F^t 10 • -%�CYIFV]'OtaP'�4� 1555 Attached is a draft Ordinance for Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission is asked to a public hearing on May 14th and make a recommendation for City Council to consider when they hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment on May 20th. Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Draft 5-14-2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICABILITY IN AN R-1, R-2 AND PRD -1 DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 36-254 of the Edina City Code. Applicability/criteria for considering PUD rezoning is amended as follows: Sec. 36-254. Applicability/criteria. (a) Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses and uses allowed by administrative permit, contained in the various zoning districts, as defined in this chapter, shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD, unless it constitutes less than fifty percent of the total property in the proposed PUD. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETAIL GRANDVIEW DETAIL 8 CAHILL RD & 7DTH DETAIL gam. Zoning Map City of Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota 50T14 & FRANCE DETAIL Legend Q„cw ...o...,...�. WE VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL TM PAC TO 5I TES �Lakc Edina MM TmPACTEJO SI TF -5 CityofEdina.com IMM inn PACTED S IF5 CityofEdina.com CITY OF EDINA ZZ.- 91- 2k'' \ (\\ \\« ■ a» #� \ � . \ «�� § ) . .� .... . . . . , .� �. VAN= CRlofEan.cm Mll .MO.RNING D a 44TH & FRANCE DETAIL S IES 0 KL CityofEdina.com 41�' mi ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business � �� � 2008. Comprehensive Plan a9 rr Figure 4.3 r e,-. )s City of Edina Future Land Use Plan ° `l 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Data Source: URS F- n n 0 0.5 Miles Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 tt,, Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design n �� 4-25 O SON RD & EDEN AVE DE GRANDVIEW DETAIL 1 CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL e Zoning Map @!' City of Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL n G ' e ��■ 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL r � qtr!-, ti . N � r 9, N,Aim 00,N 1PO 7NAS. N Nt'�J t NI �N _ !y 2A f 2(Sifljf� $� ` F Y a 5 a ♦' Y - } 4 • w ' e'er: - � t'•"`'��@ • :• - �, �& �` ,,A•• � .s 1�� .. lar `. � � �, < 7f •?i "Q t , N "'�qa*�i 4. "' f a �'. .i k i N' s rx�Aa. —Ai SAA TheCityof r e EDINA {'W lrvinj, twrr.�g, 7aiare)LirtL+�r 6 d�in7 F.ucrww http://www.edinamn.ov/wordpress/city-council-meeting- repo rt -for -may -6-2014/ City Council Meeting Report for May 6, 2014 Scott Neal, May 7, 2014 1 Posted in Scott Neal The Council began its evening with a work session. The first half of the work session was dedicated to a review of the upcoming improvement projects at 50th & France district, including the formulas the City will use to spread the costs of the improvements among the district's property owners. The second half of the work session was a review of the ongoing negotiations between the City and the developer who is planning a major redevelopment of Pentagon Park. Following the work session, the Council met in regular session and made the following decisions: • Approved a plan to temporarily move the polling places for precincts 5 and 10. • Approved the incorporation of the Bike Edina organization into the Transportation Commission as a new working group. • Received a feasibility report from the Engineering Department concerning proposed alley improvements. • Adopted a proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week. There was a good turnout of Public Works Department employees attending the meeting last night to receive the proclamation and get a photo taken with the Mayor. • Approved a settlement agreement with AECOM for the Water Treatment Plant project. • Approved a request to purchase traffic signal cabinets for the France Avenue project. • Approved a request to purchase of a 2015 Ford truck for Public Works. • Approved the purchase of a 16' Groundmaster Mower for Public Works. • Approved the purchase of outdoor lighting, outdoor dasher boards, outdoor ice rink glass, field turf, field turf markings, and field turf maintenance equipment for the new Sports Dome project. • Approved an amendment to City Code chapter 22 regarding the discharge of firearms within the City. Received a presentation from Bill Morris from Morris Leatherman Company regarding a citizen survey they did for the City regarding the future of redevelopment in the Grandview District. Conducted a public hearing on a proposal to establish a new tree preservation ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Council discussed the proposed ordinance and then referred the matter to a future Council work session for more discussion. Conducted a public hearing on the Lennar Company's proposal to redevelop the former Wickes Furniture site on York Avenue. Following the public hearing, Council discussed the proposed redevelopment and then granted a set of initial approvals to move the project forward. The project is a $65 million, six story, 242 unit apartment building. If final approvals are granted by the Council as expected in June, the demolition of the existing building will occur this summer with construction starting in the fall. • Conducted a public hearing and then approved a plan to replace the current Taco Bell restaurant on York Avenue with a new Taco Bell restaurant later this summer. • Considered a request from Schaefer Richardson, developer of the housing project that is part of the new Byerly's grocery store project on France Avenue, to allow them to change the exterior building materials they want to use on their project. The Council agreed to the request. After a short Housing & Redevelopment Authority board meeting immediately following the regular meeting, the Council wrapped up its night at 12:15 am this morning. Have a great day, Scott Planning Commission Residential Working Group Update: Proposed Tree Ordinance May 6th, 2014 Claudia Carr & Michael Platteter w9SNi'A,r� o e a ,, , D rrrr�E• CityofEdinaxom A brief refresher/history: ^O4I ll Cn O Planning Commission Residential Working Group —work to date • Reviewed and assessed residential rebuild situation (Oct 2012 -Mar 2013). • Held public input forums, including two public meetings and Speak Up Edina topic (Jan -Feb 2013). • Provided Planning Commission/City Council recommendations (Mar -July 2013). Planning Commission Residential Working Group -results • Updated Construction Management Plan &enforcement (Mar 2013). • Residential Redevelopment Coordinator position created (Mar 2013). • Updated city code to address residential heights, setbacks, stormwater and grading issues (July/Aug 2013). Item not addressed to date: Tree Ordinance CityofEd'� com Planning Commission Working Group Findings: • New/Remodel Home Size & Lot Modification Impacts: ❑ Mass ing/He igh t/Seib acks ❑ Grading and Stormwater Drainage ❑Reduction of Tree Canopy • New/Remodel Home Construction Project Impacts: ❑Site Debris/Trash Removal ❑Site Excavation LJ Work Hours/Noise ❑Parking/Trac ❑Material Staging O CityofEdina.com Tree Canopy: Issues Identified in Public Forums • Tree protection during construction • Concern on loss of tree canopy, quality of life issues • Environmental concerns for tree loss, including carbon sink loss, energy conservation shading effects, urban heat islands and erosion/stormwater control Tree Canopy: Approaches for Ordinance • Provide tree protection guidelines during construction • Provide tree ordinance for new construction/lot subdivisions • Address discretionary tree removal • Require tree inventory and define preservation plan for mature trees • Require equivalency planting plan for trees removed CityofEe* com Mature Tree Benefits in Edina • Property values: increases property values between 4-15%. • Energy: properly placed, can reduce cooling by 30% and save 20- 50% in heating costs. Reduced "urban heat island" effect. • Stormwater: a tree can absorb 100 gallons of water per day. For every 5% loss in tree cover, stormwater increases 2%. o e to A \��\N�t)RiiN�iLritY :' K1 Stormwater: filters stormwater and reduces site erosion. Carbon sequestration: a tree absorbs 48lbs CO2/year, one ton for a 40 year old tree. Lifespan is 100-150 years. Air quality: a tree absorbs 10 lbs. of air pollutants/year Oxygen: a tree produces oxygen for two people/year. Provides wildlife habitat and social/health benefits to society. (information source: americanforests. org) CityofEdina.com Edina Tree Loss 2008-2013 • There have been 350 +/- residential Teardowns in Edina plus numerous major remodeling projects. • Conservatively, at an estimated loss of two mature trees per Teardown, — Over 700 mature trees removed from Edina in the past six years — Stormwater increase of 66,000 gallons/day — Carbon increase of 33,600 lbs. CO2/year — Reduced oxygen production for 1,400 people — Added air pollution of 7,000 lbs./year in lost absorption rates • For every 5% in tree cover loss, stormwater is increased by 2%. (information source americanforests. org) CityofEd' com CITY OF EDINA XlW 'S#r CITY OF EDINA CITY OF EDINA 4-4 Summary • Tree loss in Edina is a detriment to the community, and a large loss of trees has already occurred in our residential neighborhoods. • The City Council is asked to implement the Tree Ordinance as proposed. Thanks for your consideration CityofEc'' com id A Draft 4-22-2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section L Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION' Sec. 10-82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to ail demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessorystructures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that fort an integre€ part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long-term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well-being of the city. The purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city. b. Protect and enhance property values byconser:ing and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's treepopulation. c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Improve the quality of life for aH stakeholders, including city residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO3; managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pol€ution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. f. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots_ (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, bfack walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemtoek, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (exceptsilver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. Exi-WriCthed—)DIM Svicken text 49991 Added text —XXXX Proposed Tree Ordinance k g111 d e Cn f\rL! NUJ y �4 b. Removable Tree_ Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, oras defined as an invasive species as defined by the Nlinnesota Department of Natural Resources. ' (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected trees are located and, their species, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees arepreserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removedand the location, species and size of all replacement treef,-,). (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as a lowed for in paragraph (7), it must be replaced with two [2) trees, subject to the folfowingcDnditions: a Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subjedto known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. c. Replacement trees must be at leasttvo and one-half inches (2.5') in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (T) tal€ for coniferous trees_ d. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation, e_ If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in it public area, subject to approval bythe City Forester. (S) Protected Trees may be removed, in the foil mving areas: a Including„ and within a ten -foot [1(Y} radius of, the building pad of a new or remodeled building. b. Within driveways and parking areas. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs a- through e. of paragraph 4above. EidWngte a—MIDIX Stricken text — WM Added tda—XXXX 2 CityofEcl' com (5) Removable Trees five inches (Y) or less in caliper maybe removed for any development or building permit, without replacement. If a Removable Tree greater than five inches (51) is removed, it must be replaced V ith one tree, and subject to the conditions is paragraph 4 above. if a Protected Tree is dead, diseased or hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal. (7) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for an projects with affected Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that al I such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during construction is subject to the city's Construction h'anagement Plan (CHIP). (8) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permilapplications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above_ Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication_ First Reading: Second Reading. Published: iHl Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Erdstingtext —)000( Stricken text—,X)m Added tlext—XXXX James B. Hovland, Mayor Proposed Tree Ordinance 0 Ce: A. h CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 1, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2014_ frdstingten —X)= Stricken text —40M Added trra—X)= m CityofEdinaxom NOTES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT FORUM SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 2013 10 PM —12 PM :EDiNA $ENJOWCENTER RED TEXT DENOTES TREE COMMENTS Farx'1"rtators: Mike Platteter. Ken Potts and Arlene Forrest' — Residential Redevelopment ming group Staff in Attendance: Camp Teague, Kris Aalker. Jackie HoogeftakkeT Others, in Attendance:. Council Member Swenson Pilary Dick Lon & Nancy Oberpriiller Molly Schomburg Ryan WL-ber ,len Colburn Chris and Bab Hayhoe John Peterson Brit Rodgers Jeff and Jannie Johnson Kevin Staunton Ellen Berner Edward Glickman Council Nlernber Bennett BobTho ipson Susan Wahman Liz Ge tarese Scott Smith Andrew Ramirez. Nora Davis Bob Westland Janey Westin Marlene Schleimer Pat Meyers Dene Persha Liz Genor+ese Hke Pladeter thanked everyone for attending the form and introduced Ken Potts and Ardene Fischer members of the Residential Redevelopment Werk Group. Pfau opened the forum with a power point presentation highfrFghting the goals of theWorking w- PLatteter said during this study of residential development and redevelopment cher g v* found that the issues" seemed to fall within iwco areas; construction maw and zoning (setbacks, massing). Pdadeter Wormed everyone aro keep in nand the foilowing dues January 31— 7-9 PM additional residential redevelopment public forum at the Senior Center — same agenda as todays. Fade l of? o lu f, r� cn Workshop Notes ��^yv, o January 31* — February 12" — Sunvrerim feedback period February 19 — present fnndsgs to Are Planning Commission March 5" — PC and City Counci m® meet to discuss next steps with the next steps based upon Council comments. Planner Teague addresser) the group and briefly explained acting code issues. Attendee Comments durintt Presentation The following corrwoents occurred during the presendation by Ptatteter and Teague: Concern was expressed on increased segregation betmeen the havethave non's that appears to be occurring as the result of large houses being built in place of smaller houses. More infonmab n from Unnetonka on their setback and other standards needs to be addend (on handoik). Horrified by the lack of respect builders show to neighbors. • Design regufafions? Design review in a more Awrnulized process. A Wretonka resident suggested that a study be date on how the "new house will "5t W — rn ybe side setbacks need to be readdressed. A Fulton (Knneapofis) resident informed the group dwir'n associatiod established construction guidelines; however, these guidelines are not enforceable. Corrsttucfion management issues,;, mordx3r bets Impervious surfaces —reconsider? Respect neighborhood dwacter. Suggest considering a Floor Area Ratio {FAR) per average in area: bW&? Rafteter explained the 'Forum Age ncW indicating the attendees would break into small grooms to discuss defaming issues and regroup to discuss proposed solutions Each small grouts would then report their issues and solutions to the entire group. Group One Issue: Challenge builders to come up vrith creative sc*Aons — bigger not always better. Solution: We need more refined regulations enlaced to preserve the neigtiborhood character and am niixecd income community. Issue: Respect neighborhood — new construction should conform to character of the neipborhood —AMEN SoDnflerent2wirig reWfremerusfor WWarent neighborhoods to preserve setback, height, mature trees, etc. issue: Restrict raining vials in side yard setback. Page 2ef7 CityofEdina.com 1-11 ---------- ------ Solufforr H & W Standards - Difieverit zoning feqL*enwntr. for dhTerent ineighbothcaft to preserve setback height, mature trees. etc. Solution: Ddkmt zoning requiremients for afferent neighborhoods to preserve setbacks Freight, mature trees. etc. Issue: Require that drainage and runoff be retained an the lot being remodeled. Soluffort: Zoring regulatims for impervious surfaces-mllect fines if violates ..G'"QS —'' be —th—'/-e1thQ*ar%tfm* of IM rAAM StMICUKQ- Sokiflon: Differerit=,ning requiremerits for different neighborhoods to preserve sediadt. height mature trees. etc . ......... . . ............ .. . ..... ... .. Issue: Rol back budding height to 3 more reasonable level so it is consistent with the neighboring structures. setback, height, mature bees. Me - Issue. Regulate where `storage' or loutbuildinge can be, placed on a lot so they aren't so dose (3) to the neighboring structures so as to block views. Isstw. New restrtdions for height and setback on garages. Group Issue:- General zoning. Soluflow- Design revikmv that evaluates proposed new oocisiruclion design and that fit into the exisft neighborhood. Ermlinate use of asphalt if possible. Issue: Affordable housing. Solutionc Preserve mixed hoome neighborhoods. Neighborhood speeft size restrictions based on average sizes of homes adjacent to new construction. For example not to exceed WA of exisft average square footage Issues: Base new construcbm size (square 1oot3ge)cn average horn sate on same Mock (above ground square botage)- Solutiorr Sizes will diange over time. Wig keep some neighborhoods with small homes with no charm of charqft ksueiz. Design review proom to evaluate aesft&-- size and stories based an a4aoent h"nWheighborhood- Solutionc Some" like Minneapolis site plan review Pale 3oV Io . 4 V� Workshop Notes >� Issues: Better and stitigententircernent of violations to code and zwft- Solufionc Better cornmurticate pmceswYeqL&emrd to neighbors Issues: Zorft based an neigtiborixiod versus one set of odes krthe whole City. Solutiom Redo zoning districts OmM Fou Issues: Roint loaded garage on 50400t lot. Sokrfiom Lam to see them barred. but at least prohibit from occupying more than 50'96 of front face. lssue:. Side Setbacks Is irmneasing setback as height increases working? Solufiorr It isn't Issue: No driveway to back takes away side setback. Solution: Great idea Issue: Mass of hornes1lot coverage Soludorr Require that FAR be consistent with average of neighborhood Issue: Macerrient of accessory structm (sheds) Satuldiorr Require larger sedmk and require neighborhood approval of siting storage or accessory stiudum. Issue- Height Solutiorr Roll back by 5 -feet at least Issue': Tm-h-e,s-- SohMorr Require that large trees be preserved — consistent vAlh character of the neighborhood Issue: Where does (diraiinage) go with more lot overage? Solution: Require that drainage not be directed to neWbDring lots_ Issue: Neighbors not a~ of budding plans Solution: Require nctKe3fdon of neighbors Issue: Loss of privacy in backyards, sight lines into harries. Sollurtioric Preserve better, setbacks, etc. Issue- Retaining walls6egress windows, too dose to lot Im Solution: Through setbacks preserve access to the back yards. Page 4 of? CityofEdinaxom Oro -up five Issue: Damaging neighborhood trees. Solution: Thee ordnance — require permits to remove trees larger than 10 indws, m diameter Issue: Losing affordaW stater harries- Solution? Issue- Could not get explanation for why City required changes to plate. Solution: Wntlen complaint requires written response of City_ Issue: New structure shading neoters back yard — killing gardens. Solution: Neighbors should be shom plans for new construction at least one morM prior to work starting. Issue: Side yard setbacks not sufficient — loo srml for small lots. Solution: Require minimum 16 total (Both sides combined) or require mininwrn 5-fDot setback on one side, V4 on other Issue: Not enough room to access the back yard_ Solution: require access ort one side of house to backyard (min. 31 Issue: DiffiNerent in size of new home when compared to original home. Solution: Add design guidelines around how new home lits with exis&* homes — See Park Ridge. V design guidelines, Issue: Drainage — does -the City require drainage plans? How erTbroed Solution: *jsttrain topA&drainage Kndy)orma(Tita'monsiL-. Committee mernbers thanked evenjone- fort input and reiterated the dates of the upcoming ResidenfW Redevelopment Fonar (January 31 "1 indicating that meeting be simi-sty conducted. Vffitten IndfMduA Comments: See below and attached to notes. Zcaningp * Inekda FAR • Preserve sighliner. • Take topography Into account • Diffi"ert more restrictive requirements lar 504cat properties. • Merent height in ft on narrow lots. * New construction should fit into, existing foo" # FAR has to be consistent by the average of the neighborhood , Rod back hording heights to be more consisterrt with the neighboring properties PaPSGE7 A, N 0 Workshop Notes 0 • Regulate wheire storage or outbulTings can be loczed so 9W aren't too neWitioring property lines and block views • Smart zoning laws are neighborhood specific • Base adjacent new construction on 'average' size of existing homes in the neighborhood • Have multiple zoning districis based on neighborhoods • Consider implementing a design review process • Reconsider hard surface • Reconsider egress windows — setback • Driveway widths • Stricter limits on build[ing h6g* • Restrict the size of garages and their location • On 50 -foot lots have 5 foot setback an one side and on the otw side 8 or 9 feet • ? - is increasing the setback by height really working Construction Manament • Require that the buildershould be required to bring new plumbing from the home to the street and not stop at the setback. • Contractors should face fines if they do not properly monitor their subs and vendom i e. blocking streets • Times for construction needs to be revaluated 7 AM is too early • City should monitor constivelim sites so residents don't have to keep calling the City of Edina w"i complaints • Street constantly bb*ed try bucks and other vehicles • Better enfamment of violations, Drainam. Ennineering • Better storm water managernard on the site • Restrict height and where retaining walls in are placed in the side yid setback • Ensure that drainage and runoff be retained an the W being developed or redeveloped • Respect ardttecture of other homes • Driveway VVidth • Light Privacy • Community review of proposed new constructim and remocleft Est3blish protective covenants Pap boil CityofEd; - corn Workshop Notes • Garages can't be mote than % of the *at face of the new stnxcre • Fmnt lading garages on 504M wide lots - if a5wied cant take up more than 5MI. andlor garage rnust stat behind the habitable area of the house • Rede attached garage to be in back iflot less &ann 75 -feet in vAdth • No short garages • Co oemed about "rwest W coning in and buykV a property— tearing dawn the house and building a huge house that does not At into the neighborhood and the price point is 2 to 3 tares that of the neViberhood • Styfe of house should fit with the houses on be street Momingside has big time Issues • Ca ki there be a period of time that a house can be on tone market before an investor" can buy up the property • I have no faith in the City that they wff do anyft ng with the residents feedback Forum was adjourned at 12 Noon_ SLdx nitted by Potts,. Platteter and Forrest are members of the Mina ('tanning Connmisston Page 7 Of7 w 9Ii�'`•r�� c, O AUC iiRlaOii!'hi�` Iff i1H CityofEdinaxom NOTES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT FORUM THURSDAY, JANUARY 3i, 2013 7 PM — 9 PM EDlNA SENIOR !CENTER RED TEXT DENOTES TREE COMMENTS Fac i ftators: Mike Platter, ten Potts and Arlene Forret — Residential Redevelopment "working group" Staff in Attendance: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker Others in Attendance: Council Member Swenson Mary Dick Lon and Nanny Oberpriller Liz Genoresae Janet Ingram And Sharpe Tim Crafln Andi Otciess; Scott Smith Lori and Jin Gratz Kevin Staunton Carol Engstrom Council Member Bennett Bob Thompson Susan !Wahman Janet Ingram Peter Kugilea Peggy Lawrence Mike Pearson Angela [Teen John Peterson Felt Meriwealher Helen Burke Fier_ Platteter welcomed everyone and htraduced Ken Potts acid Arlene Forrest. members of the Etfria Planning ComnissiDn and Residential Redevelopment'working wow Planiner Teague briefly explained to the group the histary of -massing' and change's tri the Code ihad ween=_ implemerited in the last few years to address it Mr. Pints aurid Ms. Forrest directed the group in an exercise of identifying issues and solutions to those issues The group broke down into small gnx* s to complete the exec . Each group presented their findings Results are as follows: Grouip One: Issue: Pedestrian Acorn Solution: Enhtwcement of point 7 on haridout. �v91N��r� Workshop NotesCn OR 181111 vS titin+ 7. The contract shall keep the sate; ag streets, all sidewalks. boulevard areas and adjacent properties dean fit m waste, materials or refuse rewiring from his operations on site. Equipment not usable on the work site shalt be promptly r+errired and the site shall be maintained in a newt and orderly condition at all Dries. AN empty cans paper, plastic, etc. that is not needed for construction shall be removed and cleaned t rom the site every evening prior to leaving the otanstrudiotn site. 'Where work on a pi ojectties within areas of pedestrian aocess =ft andfor vehicular traffic the project area wi be cleaned and swept and all materials related to the project will be stockpiled in appropriate areas. No n tbearials may be deposited or stockpiled on the public streets, bmAeuards or sidewalks. At the end of each working day, the Contramrshall remove any soil that washed "was deposited on any public sidewalk or street and shall remove any trash or debris that washed or was deposited on any pultift property. No dumpsters. porlabte toilets, briding mal ettals, or equipment may be stored on a public street, sidewalk or boulevard area. Issue: Damage to existing property including, trees, cracks, streets Solution: 1. Pre-oortsbvction soil testing and excavation plan pre-appniwed by Civ. 2. Set up escrow account equal to % of total remodel costs. assure: Elevation of house. Solution: Apply limits relative to neighborhood average, just as is done currently for front yard setbacks. issue: Dnge: Solution: Landscape architect submits drainage prevention plait prior to construction. Plat can incudeWdress forints due to topography. Issue- Amount of lot coverage for 513 -foot logs. No solution expressed. lssue: Egress windows should not be allyumed at lot line. Solution: Addressed by setback requirements in Code. k3o egress widows, allowed at lot fere. O+oua Two: Issure: N6ighborhoods over Awkned by construction in day to day Innes. Solution: Enforce ar d anpmve Constnucikon Maintenance Plan. Issue. Builders (forties) shouldn't be gmftg cuur chicken& Sollution: Require builders to stay within City Codes Imo: Front loading gavages are too big for the neighborhood (Momirtgside} SohAon: Give a peroentage limning garage "war. EstaWh side yad setbacks cF5- feetand &feet CityofEc'' , corn Issue: 'i ft is valuing our neighborhood context Into solution expressed. Issue: Loss of hv4 . Sohion: Create reasonable tree preservation ordinance Be responsiimie to ne~s trees that are located' near the property lure. AN tees ww9hin 3.5 -feet of the property line should have memwes impleimented. io protect them. Issue: Access Solution: Stagger setbacks - are side needs to be rarg+e for access; 54eet an non - egress side and ,8 -feet on egress side. Issue: Streets to match the exs ti g grid. No solution expressed - Group Twee: Issue: Sedoct6 on small lots. Solution: Stagger sed=ks Mfeet an one side fr°eet on the other side. All access must occur within setback Issue: Sh mt water nmr-off Solution: AD storm waiter nn3fFmust beL dealtrrith on site or directed to the street. Issue: Tree ordinaricE Solution: Give intend res for saving trees -tax break for number years. Requiretee permit fee Establish certain size tree civ+ wnvk me, to be saved or replaced- Payr arttention to trues and their drip b* and require location of trees an surveys. Erasure iu& safety so they anen t crushed- City enfiorce your nrlM. tvrotro frour __ Issue: ShadcNnng — Light and spaice c onsiderafions and loss of trees .Solution: The scale of new cartstivctiora needs to be makhed to the scale of the exisft neighborhood.._ Zoning mquirernents-should ,beiailoredtoeach nethborhood., Fssue: ©ravage issues — changes, in topography and rpof size and run-off No solution expressed. kssue: Vftations during construction causing structural darraage to neighboring home. mon: Construction Management Fiat enforcement — inspect homes aclfacent to new consinxtion. for mertrarricals, cosmeticbefore demolition and instruction and duerirrg construction and after construction. Have builderestablish escrow aecourrt or bond to cxawer damages if darnages ocxarr. WorkshopNotes M o `��` ` 'y v Group Eire: Group five concurred with A issues and solutions. Please nate the folfowrirtg wntten and vernal comments by Zoning "mance Changes: • Suggestion to "charge the ordinance for lots less than 59 -meet in width. Leave the rest alone • Can Itis ordinance do someMing about yards berg shadowed by these overly large homes (setback increase). (this could be building too if as part ofthe permit application a shadow study is required) • Access to the rear yard needs to be provided an each kat. Oarmance requiremeng?) • Reconsider building height d how would one n e. re a riot roof? • Are there requirements regandmg cultbitidings (sheds) in term of setback, size, height? • Side setbacks are too small for sural lots.. Pact enough room. • Address egress wind= with sedmKis. • Change ordnance forlots less than !D.000 square feet or lot width under 60 —feet • Need setbacks for sheds 2-sto:y sheds too dose to neighbor blocks sunlight • Tree preservation ordinance. • traeaseseAbacksael:4facac vketats: • Se*adcs — homes should fine up. Florae across the street was allowed to be Wftfurthher back on the IoL Street looks better when homes lane up as in the Countryr Crulx not a® over the ptaoe. • fee preserva tion, conservation —restrict sitting dewim trees— probb& trete on! property line —replace tree ifremamdand protect health ofexisfrrgbees. __.. ■ MWar& bsdtding Qractibes. Enfcroe existing codes. • Are comer lots treated Merently than lotss in the middle of the b1cct. ;one cornier Ior setbacks diffeferiL • Consider a Emit on height uFfences installed on trip of retaining walls- • Setitacks for egress windows for lets .50 -Beet of less —tire window well cannot impede neighbors access to Ibex awes backyard (?) • geed setback requirernents to address light and space impact on adjacent homes. • Sugfgest that a'FAR be set at no more than Z -trines the existing house Footprint' eridukting garage akwed on the lot A FAR like this would Emit the height of -Monster- sired houses. • 50400t lots need di(brernt specs that target lots. • City should follow rules in place • ldm*fy and define neighborhood characlarfor each nett orhood_ CityofEdina.com • Instead of changing the ordmaix a consider the "problern' of overly Large loiases that impact everyone in the Cky; ncit only Morningside {.e. water runoff require that water runoff be directed to the street). • Reo&+e sad testing (this could also beoatg in tte building pemtrt area or construction management) . Asphaft breaking up as time result ,of construction vehicles using read (Mils would also fag under the construc6on management plan) - Water runoff from all sides must go to dee street —this must be enforced. Sween wager drainage and eakomment by existrotg o - • Rainwater comets off the neighbor's r d and flaws into my yard. Errfaace water runoff requirements—its cutrerhlly not enforoerL • A reS concern for rhe problem — especiailly in South Hardiet Park where lots are 511 -feet wide Make sure water from new house drains into the street. Co nstruciboah Management Plan: dons frorn consmiction ma&knery — is damage to neighboring hiormes. No response from the e City after complaint Can hours of construction be re -reviewed. Should there be standards regarding vara Geothermal install. • Have builders take sol sates to know p (this could tall under building penry"engk Create dieWtive consequences for cantle v We paid for our new streets about "am vehicles are destroying there. Is there aM Redirect the exhaust lir rn construction: eq • Damage done to home next door due to n the City require that the builder place mon property- Require, Proof of inspection 1 demolition and after construmiorL • Currey no consequences when develop : Requite pros, during and post co nsImcfion Hire more stiff—too nstrny lea kmnsfor There should be a parift plan for each n people in move their vehicles so l can get ff a have owner inquires about eanstrxtie to tho:m, and not just send wrMen nope tr toe builder responsible for issues or s impact: an neighboring homes review) his for builders. Mw the new doronstrum m construction orirum demolition, can in escrow for repair to neighbors City) prior'tDconstruction, after irrerrt staff to keep up with. ter house bum 1 arra constantly asking rut of any drN away. r issues — can City respond in writing csordratdonkeme defer Med owner. Workshop NotesIV O ' • f �f � 1R 1'c)iu�Fl • 1lStlli • Require a damage deposit from developers.. • Rerprke sail testing for new construction. Aesthetics: • Front loaded garage N alle that are greyer than ; of the friont fagade are too much for our neighborhDod. . Novak* to the context of the neighborhood when buffdirog new homes. Trees; Loss of trees seems replacement plantings are often just shrubs and omarmental trees. Tree loss from construction occurs and on trap of the Dulchr elm and tree ions due to old age time majority of trees have life expectancy of 50 + years and many were, planted 50 t years ago. . Builder promised to build up ad around all tt trees on the lift and he ended up cutting damn. al fora trees on dee lot. He proceeded to bind a house that completely shades the south ode of my house. . Damage to neighbors, trees. Seen abuse of bees tat are left standing during ccnstn on; Sandy to dile a slow death. Can Edina create= a tree ordinance. In South Harriet Pak between W — W Kellogg and t?a[dawn trees have been lost because of teartimms. Vsoellanec us: • Mat impact does nmx change in a neighborhood have on incentives for existing homeowners to anintakm their �teardovrn' hoxuse? l�,r do we manage the dramatic scale differences between new and exrsft homes to preserve the character of the neiglthonccod? • our wrests area being protected. Me trust with the C �yrt - City seems, to favor builder& • Re -review the construction noise frmits. • Get professionals who work on the current home owners. behalf not the buklers (?) Need people who are skilled in oonft resolution(facifflatom • Urban planning dresignem Snow sides off the roof of the raw house onto my steps of my side decor on my Property • Are speculators buying up properties before prospective buyers haw a chance to buy into an affordable neighborhood. Could not get explanation for why City required changes to plans. Issue of dii Ammoe in size of neer home when compared to original home_ • Lo>sing affordable stater homes to burtdem Cityof d' com Workshop Notes * Mat is the historic square fraDbge and lot size in h&uningWe? t Neither sine of V* house is passable in the side yafd with a Cawxvrcmr. * New house neat doc€ that exceeds Coat: area ratio never appW fear a uarbnce. * Current home aumees interest isnot irritant to the My. They seern to coMe builders ,and Mey have favorites. l am not convinced that builder inspectors hold bulders to the Code. * .asking buildem to hells fir the problem is Ike asking the kx to guard ft hen house- * Can building materiais for rem walls be regulated to pirwent prenat re bow or disrepair * Need teeth fw code violabons. Education domanent — m2intam r&mcter" = more home wakr PossNyr in&rence neer construction wAh ecnrternics. Does Edina support existing homeoar *rs with low cost remodet loans Eke St Louis Park does to upgrade existing hones.. * Not want lenders Come Home to Edina Program for first time homeowners.(?) PtatDeterr, Potts and Forrest dwked everyone for their partiuipaborL The meeting was adowned at Q. -DO PM Submitted by CityofEdina.com (Previous) Approaching the Teardown/Rebuild Issues, T S, • Edina is fortunate to be an in -demand place to live, where people invest in the community and their homes • There is not a single or simple solution, many complicated issues • How do individual property rights and community rights intersect • One person's dream house can become another person's house nightmare • Do not create more issues than are solved • How do potential changes compare with surrounding communities • Need to keep city policies & ordinances adapting to contemporary needs CityofEdina.Com A`, CITY OF EDINA O e w�,, Y_ �1 D Cn 'O 77r7_7 v.� (Previous) PC topics for City Council Work Session Specific recommendations General recommendations • Enhance Construction Management Plan • Review single Residential Zoning district • More city staff enforcement on jobsites • For lots under city minimums, explore • Penalties for construction violations buildable area definition revisions • Implement Tree Ordinance — Increase side yard setback • Regulate soil import/export for projects dimension(s) • Improve storm water management — Decrease maximum building height standards and modify means of determining — Surface & sub -surface water control height Make lot coverage limits more - Infrastructure impact consistent within city code • No egress windows in side yard setback • Establish front -loaded garage standards • Rear yard access required via side yard (position relative to front -of -house) • Eliminate requirement for two car garage CityofEdinaxom (Previous) PC Residential Working Group Timeline Ptah � 14sio orVIV Feb 13th Grop 1ti+ c planain` missi n DiscussionMarch-April July -Aug I CityofEd;-^ com NAME TERM J F M A lPWN1l�G CV M J J A S 0111VW1r:, NEW O N D Work Session Work Session # of Mtgs. Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions '''>''' <<> < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. 8 Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. Forrest, Arlene 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Olsen, Jo Ann 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 4 100% Platteter, Michael 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Potts, Ken 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Lee, Susan 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 3 100% Scherer, Nancy Nyrop 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 5 63% Schroeder, Michael 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Staunton, Kevin 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 75% Carr, Claudia 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 75% Halva, Taylor Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 100% Kilberg, Benjamin Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 100% A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the planning commission. Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Regular Meeting w/Quorum Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is