Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-12-10 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS December 10, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission October 22, 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 some 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. JMS Homes. 5036 Hankerson Ave, Edina, MN B. Variance. Andrea Swan/Charles and Rhonda bland. 7000 Kerry Rd., Edina, MN C. Variance. Schmidt. 4301 Branson Street Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan — 4500 Valley View Road, Edina, MN (Restaurant) B. Tree Preservation Ordinance VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance & Council Update IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 9S2-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Plannine Commission January 14, 2015 ow e , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker December 10, 2014 B-14-23 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Deny a 3%, (206 square foot), lot coverage variance to the required 30% lot coverage to allow for a teardown-rebuild of a new home with an attached garage to be located at 5036 Hankerson Ave. Project Description: JMS Custom Homes, LLC/Homestead Partners, LLC, (the applicants) are requesting a 3% lot coverage variance to build a new two story home on a 6,796 square foot lot. The project is a teardown/rebuild in the Grandview neighborhood. The neighborhood consists mostly of original ramblers with a number of two story teardown/rebuilds and major additions to existing homes that have recently occurred. The applicant's client, Richard and Karen Westin, require a handicap accessible home. They chose the Hankerson location for roll -in accessibility and proximity to shopping. The applicant has designed a home with accessibility and a future elevator in mind. The applicant has stated that to accommodate the accessible design, a 3% coverage variance is warranted. The proponent states that a hardship is created by their client's mobility situation. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 50 feet in width, is 6,796 square feet in area and is located on the west side of Hankerson Ave. There is an existing single-family home on the property that will be demolished, and the applicant is requesting to rebuild on the lot with a noncompliant overage of the maximum coverage of 30% of the lot area. The ordinance Allows for a maximum of 2,038.8 square feet of coverage on the 6,796 square foot lot. The new home is proposed to be 2,244 square feet which is 3% over the 30% maximum. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the west side of Hankerson Ave. and is surrounded on all four sides by single-family residential homes. There are mix of homes styles and dates of construction. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 6,796 square feet in area and has a 50 foot lot width. The existing house on site has been removed and all trees have been removed with the exception of one tree located along the back lot line. Landscape Plans There has been no landscape plan submitted as part of the variance application. All trees have been removed onsite with one exception as part of the house demolition. No tree replacement plan has been proposed at this time. Engineering Review Engineering has no concerns with the proposed plans as submitted. The proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Stormwater & Erosion Control Plan" dated 09/29/2014, does not affect nearby private property negatively and will not negatively impact public infrastructure. The proposed plans also reduce the amount of impervious surface that drain to the neighboring private properties by roughly 464 SF, this reduction in impervious space should result in a significant reduction in surface run off from the existing conditions. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story home facing Hankerson with an over- sized attached two car garage. 2 r.v Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? There have been teardown and whole home remodels in the area that comply with the ordinance and that consist of similar lot widths, depths and areas. Furthermore, there are alternatives in design that would allow a reduction in coverage. Variances are based on the characteristics of the lot. There are no unique circumstances or characteristics that would support over -building on the lot. • Is the proposed variance justified? 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 not meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance 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. City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent 31 feet Side Yard 5 feet + height 5/6.87 feet Rear- 25 feet 41 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 30 Ft 30 feet from existing Lot Area grade Lot Width 9,000 Sq. Ft or age of nbad 6,796 square feet 75 feet or avg of nbad 50 feet Lot coverage 30%/2,038 sq ft *33%/2,244 sq ft * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? There have been teardown and whole home remodels in the area that comply with the ordinance and that consist of similar lot widths, depths and areas. Furthermore, there are alternatives in design that would allow a reduction in coverage. Variances are based on the characteristics of the lot. There are no unique circumstances or characteristics that would support over -building on the lot. • Is the proposed variance justified? 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 not meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance 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. The only factor preventing compliance with the lot coverage requirement is the proposed size of the home. Staff has not identified a practical difficulty preventing compliance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? No. There are no confounding factors preventing compliance with the ordinance. A complete tear -down re -build of the property allows opportunity for compliance with current codes. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The rebuilt homes in the neighborhood currently meet the ordinance requirements and there have been additions to existing homes in the area that also comply. Many of the lots nearby are of similar size with no differences with the subject lot that would support a larger home. A larger home would alter the character of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission deny the variance. Denial is based on the following findings: The property with a new home can comply and is therefore a reasonable use, and the request to deviate from the coverage requirement is not necessary to make reasonable use of the property. 1. The home is not appropriate in size and scale with regard to the subject lot area and nearby similar lots. 2. There is not a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements due to the ability to design a home that conforms. 3. The variance is self-created by the applicant. Variance must be based on the unique characteristics of a lot and not on a potential owner's use of the property. 4. There are no circumstances unique to the property that necessitates a variance to make reasonable use of the property. The property is a 11 vacant 6,796 square foot lot in a neighborhood of other similar lots with many that have been rebuilt within the ordinance requirements. A new home with a garage can be designed to conform. Deadline for a City Decision: January 18, 2014 DATE: December 4, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 5036 Hankerson Road - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the proposed plans as submitted. The proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Stormwater & Erosion Control Plan" dated 09/29/2014, does not affect nearby private property negatively and will not negatively impact public infrastructure. The proposed plans also reduce the amount of impervious surface that drain to the neighboring private properties by roughly 464 SF, this reduction in impervious space should result in a significant reduction in surface run off from the existing conditions. Grading and Drainage Grading is proposed, existing and proposed drainage does not negatively affect nearby private property. Existing Site Conditions The existing grading allows for drainage away from the home on all sides. The drainage from the west side of the home is currently directed to the rear of the yard and neighboring private property. The drainage from the east side of the home is directed through the front yard to Hankerson Avenue and collected in the public stormwater system. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed grading changes the existing drainage path minimally and will closely mimic existing site conditions. However, the amount of proposed impervious surface draining to the surrounding private properties has been significantly reduced from. 3,102 SF to 2,638 SF, this was accomplished by removing the driveway and garage from the rear yard. This reduction in impervious space should result in a significant reduction in surface run off from the existing conditions. Street and Curb Cut Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut; Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf . Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns Erosion and Sediment Control No concerns ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 VARIANCE APPLICATION Le vip 119� jq • ICO 1R�8 '�9 • I\� CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAI — 00 City of Edina Planning Department* www.EdinaMN.gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: /��+ '' L+ NAME: J M5 ni" 1-toYyll SQL L C (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 6Z5/S4Ave,,-5- ,A?*k; r, WS 'qS PHONE: ?)W f- 3630 EMAIL: rvMa�}�► RJ JIMSCyS-�Iw, hafa�6S. com PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: r1-tta1 w4r484 Par l o.* , LLC (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: SZS /5�'� A& W, s3� PHONE: ft? N �i **You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match records. This may delay your project.; t- . - (\A J PROPERTY ADDRESS: D,3 pn kerso^ AutKule PRESENT ZONING: 45'- P.I.D.# TION OF REQUEST: +vr (Use reve'I'$e side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: W WJen JSSoc tate% PHONE: 646147147-0771 D EMAIL:•KS .Cores SURVEYOR: NAME: ISOvf Mc l-Q1r1 PHONE: 7"-SqM- 7 to EMAIL: + u CQn Sb►�MCC41r►. CpIA� 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 [�j 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. JJ Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT 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.) ie4 Owner's Signature 511e)w;Wq 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. JMS Custom Homes Memorandum To: City of Edina From: Matt Hanish Re: 5036 Hankerson Ave. Variance Request Date: 10/28/2014 Richard and Karen Westin currently reside at 5712 Wycliffe Rd in Edina. They have loved their community for 34 years and wish to remain Edina residents. In 2012, Richard was diagnosed with a tumor of the lower spine: It was successfully treated in Boston over 43 days of proton radiation therapy. This left him with the walking deficit. The condition of Richard's health has rendered their current home impractical for their situation. It is anticipated that, as Richard's condition progresses, he will become dependent upon a wheelchair or mobility scooter. In 2014, they decided that the only option moving forward was to build a home with two major criteria in mind; a location close to shopping, and roll -in accessibility. The Westin's have contracted the JMS Custom Homes to design and construct a new home at 5036 Hankerson Ave. that will be accessible and adapt to Richard's changing needs, while allowing them to remain in the community that they call home. JMS contracted architect Tim Whitten of Whitten Associates to design an accessible home to meet the Westin's needs, both now and in the future. The home has been designed to meet all height and setback requirements of the current Edina ordinances. It is designed with a Master Bedroom on the Main Floor to reduce the travel required from level to level. It also has extra wide doorways, hallways, expanded room dimensions, and additional depth on the garage to accommodate the movement and turn radius of a scooter or wheelchair. A shaft has been designated for a future elevator to provide access to all levels of the home. To accommodate these required additions to the design, JMS is seeking a variance to allow an additional 3% building coverage on the site. We feel that the hardship created by the Westin's situvoloand needs e• X:. warrants approval of our request. Please feel free to contact me with any questiort8 uests for additional information. Sincerely, Matt Hanish, Vice President 525-15 th Avenue South - Hopkins, MN 55343 - 952-949-3630 MN Builder License #BC392462 Page 1 of 1 , Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 5016 ? { 5021 5020 5021 5024 ' 5025 - 5024 5025 5010 5029 5]28 i 5029 5028 5032 5033 5032 I 5033 5036 5036 l 5037 _. 5037 2 W 5040' t— - - 5040 5041 5100 � Z.; ;_—__� ._._. _—� W 5041 iQ ^�+ 5045 5044 5224 Oi I ..Ln! - - W :Y f WEST` _-_._ __ _ ¢, 5049 it 5100 I 5101 5105 } 5104 i 5105 5104 5108 5109 _ 5108 i 5116 I� A 5112 5113 5112 1 Parcel I Map Scale: 1" = 100 ft. N ID: 28-117-21-32-0025 A -T -B: Abstract Print Date: 12/3/2014 Owner i Market Name: Homestead Partners Llc Total: !� Parcel 5036 Hankerson Ave Taxy�,, s j Address: Edina, MN 55436 Total: Property Sale Residential Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Homestead Date: implied, including fitness of any particular stead: j purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.16 acres Sale Area: 6,832 SCI ft Code: COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A :TWnk Green' httn•//cric hPnnenin n./Pronerty/nrint/clefaiilt.asnN?C.=471933.641126199.4973206.9052949... 12/3/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of l http://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprintldefault. aspx?C=471833.641126188,4973206.9052848... 12/312014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default. aspx?C=471858.2474254006,4973211.905919... 12/3/2014 • k k a— — — a � 1 �s- 5 a 970.0 i/ )'McCain Carlson ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING 248 Apollo Dr, Suite 100, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Phone: 763-489-7900 Fax: 763-489-7959 462 13753. P/7TT/TT/7T/7F) EXISTING HOUSE- ,.�� 5032 HANKERSaN — V Certificate ®f Spey for: JMS CUSTOM DOMES, LLC ,I 0 V�House Address: A 5036 Hankerson Avenue, Edina, MN fLEGEND ACA 111) PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Lowest Floor Elevation: 963.6 Top of Foundation Elevation: 972.8 Garage Slab Elevation (at door). 972,5. First Floor Elevation: 973.23 (P—i .. Existing Haus. FFE - 9724) y970.6 Ta 970.5 970.4 SIJ Tc Lil 1C J / 970.2 tJ� ITC 9701 � 'ed in the SW 1/4 of 28, Two. 117, Rge. 21 Z Denotes Existing Power Pole ^ Denotes Existing Overhead Utility Line(s) lr ---•-•- Denotes Existing Fence Denotes Existing Bituminous Surface Denotes Existing Concrete Surface Denotes Existing Landscaped Surface 000.o Denotes Existing Elevation x 000.o Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Direction of Drainage Denotes Utility Easement, per Final Plat + Denotes Found Iron Monument, as noted --D.- Denotes Set Iron Monument or PK Nail _JDenotes Existing Contour ,,'920,_JDenotes Proposed Contour Denotes Existing Tree, as noted Denotes Existing Tree, to be removed PARCEL DESCRIPTION (PER HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX RECORDS): 19707 Lot 12, Block 2, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, together with that part of the East { one-half of the Alley adjoining the subject premises in Document No. 3030654 dated September 10, 1956, Hennepin County, Minnesota. �L I 0 SMH Subject to all easements of record, if any. NOTES: e 1. Only VISIBLE Improvements were located as part of this survey. Surveyed property contains ±6,796 sq. ft. 3. Surveyed property Is zoned R-1, per the City of Edina Zoning Map. �,����' 4. BENCHMARK: Top Nut of Hydrant located at NE corner of .� - Hankerson Ave. and 51st Street W. Elevation=972.31 (NGVD 29) - 0� - ` per the City of Edina. 5. House to be field staked at a later date. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 - 20 40 (IN FEET) I hereby certify to JMS Custom Homes, LLC. that this survey, 'plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2014. Signed: Carlson McCain, Inc. Thomas R. Balluff, LS. Reg. No. 40361 G // 14` / r`. V /I L/LL�1�/11U1�/�LLU� / U �1 NOTE: STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAINFALL OF 0.5 INCHES OR GREATER. ERIC DOTY ((952) 294-2120) OR DESIGNEE WILL BE CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CLEANLINESS AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS MAINTENANCE O n •w''laPadYL. Denotes Existing Power Pole LP Denotes Existing Light Pole o- Denotes Existing Flag Pole 00 Denotes Existing Electric/Gas Meter — ohe — Denotes Existing Overhead Utility Line(&) —•—•—•— Denotes Existing Fence ® Denotes Existing Bituminous Surface Denotes Existing Concrete Surface • 000.o Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Direction of Drainage Denotes Utility Easement, per Final Plat �- Denotes Found Iron Monument / /Denotes Existing Contour �* Denotes Existing Tree, as noted z w J z a W J Z Q o hOC rOy zo, O Q J F E u i Y Z Lu h 0 0 z w O Cd m W O N .L 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET z w J z a W J Z Q o hOC rOy zo, O Q J F E u i Y Z Lu h 0 0 z w O Cd m W O N REMOV SILT I'FENCE AFTER ROI*,OGIPLACEMENT /^ -f v DeROCK LO CA: AFiERI AYI0 CCINSTRUCTJON NOTE: STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAINFALL OF 0.5 INCHES OR GREATER. ERIC DOTY ((952) 294-2120) OR DESIGNEE WILL BE CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CLEANLINESS AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS MAINTENANCE Lir A ' f1U1G/11G/1/�t1U�* DROP GARAGE 1.0 FT. DOWN, AS SHOWN ► PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVA77ONS Lowest Floor Elevation: 903.5 Walkout Elevation: 904.5 Top of Foundation Elevation: 911.5 Garage Stab Elevation .(at door): 910.1 First Floor Elevation: 913.2 (Previous FF.E.: 912.4) N 0 10 20 qp MMMMMO C IN FEET ) 2 3 °+m -Denotes Existing Well ^ ' Denotes Existing Electric Meter Oe= v Denotes Existing Power Pole Denotes Existing Overhead Utility Llne(s) yM = LL Denotes Existing Fence a f� Denotes Existing Bituminous Surface [ v Denotes Existing Concrete Surface V a X 000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation \—, �I o x 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation = Denotes Direction of Drainage t Denotes Found Iron Monument, as noted' v -0- Denotes Set Iron Monument /�.. Denotes Existing Contour Denotes Proposed Contour zHW ^ Denotes Existing Hydrant g Z w re p Denotes Existing Telephone Box -4 1.- z Denotes Existing Trees as noted F0 U H a N� av Denotes Existing Tree to be Removed C u f U Z v gg + • • - Denotes Proposed Silt Fence G z V O h a u, Denotes Proposed Rock Entrance p �. Denotes Proposed Retaining Wall N v W In U J Lu o a O� S�z o.� �.1a u� UIn , \ ' E MMNS ~' \` 1 J�O�N^ n f OA 2 3 EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. Silt fence, bio roils and/or catch basin inlet protection devices shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity. 2. Rock construction entrances shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity or after existing driveway is removed. 3. Any sediment or refuse that reaches the existing street or adjacent property shall be removed immediately and measures shall be taken to prevent further sedimentation offsite. 4. All silt fences, bio rolls and catch basin inlet protection devises must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches Ya of the height of the device. Repairs shall be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow. 5. Rock construction entrance must be repaired or replaced when the rock becomes inundated with sediment and/or excessive sediment Is being tracked from the site. Repairs shall be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow. 6. Contractor shall stabilize areas outside of the building foundation within 14 days of backfilling using one of the following methods or an approved alternative: 1. Temporary seeding with hydraulic mulch 2. Temporary seeding with erosion control blanket 3. Temporary seeding with anchored mulch 7. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste shall be stored in appropriate sealed containers at all times while not in use. Hazardous wastes generated at the site must .be managed and disposed of in compliance with MPCA rules. S. Contractors must provide a lined containment area for all liquid and solid wastes generated by washout operations on the site. The liquid and solid washout wastes must not contact the ground and the washout area must not allow runoff. Liquid and solid wastes must be disposed of in compliance with MPCA rules. Contractors may remove soiled _equipment from the site for washing. 9. All refuse generated by the work must be placed in a dumpster or other container designated for refuse. Refuse containers must be serviced on a regular basis, as needed. Contractors. much pick up all refuse that is blown or placed onto *adjacent properties. Dumpsters must be removed within 10 days of completion of work. 10. Contractor shall temporarily stabilize disturbed areas within 14 days of compietion.of demolition work if new home construction is not to start immediately using one of the following methods, or an approved alternative: 1. Temporary seeding with hydraulic mulch. 2. Temporary seeding with erosion control blanket 3. Temporary seeding with anchored mulch 4, Cover with plastic sheeting N{n 212 Pm NOTES: 11 OI0 A SIS"IRENCH ALONG THE INTN0E0 ALT FENCE NNE 2 DWVE ALL ANCHOR POSTS INTO THE GROUND AT THE DOWNHILL BIDE OF THE TRENCH. S PDS15 — BE SPACED A MAKiMUM OF a FEET APART. 0. LAY OUT SILT FEFTCE ALONG TRE UPHII. SIDE OF TRE ANCHOR POSTS AND BASK nLL E'%6' TRENCH. RELY ATTAgI SRT FENCE TO ... POSTS W/ NIMMUM OF 1HPFE ATTACHMENTS PER PORT. B. SEE MN00T SPECIFlOATONS RST] Y S..R INFRASAFE — 2'u3' DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE AS MANUFACTURED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS CyFpFk/J:A. ."F PE MSERT eAsxETs GG W.. FlLTR BAGS REGm IRRI_ BASHER 2'x3' NOPE EMERGENCY OVERROW PORTS 61EEI5 MN/00T BPEaFlOARON ]BBI.' "STORY ORNN — PROT:COON - FlLTER BAC WSERI' REEIGNED FOR NEENAH 1-067 OR 11-3290 SERIES NM 1. TREE FENCWG SHALL BE PIACED A MINMUM OF 1 FOOT PER CAUPER INCH OF TREE 01AMERR FROM TREE(5) THAT IS/APE TO BE S— Z ANCNgt POST MAY BE SPACED UP TO 10 FEET APART. 1. SEa1RELY ATTAai TREE FENCE TO ANCHOR POSTS W/ MMOMM OF TWO ATTACHMENTS PER POST. 4. SEE MNDOT SPEOR—ON 2572 FC! 1x2' WOODEN STAKE 1\ li0' EAIBEOMFM DEPTH NOTES: 1. — OF BIORQL SHALL BE A MWIMUN OF 6' HIGHER TfAN BOTTOM OF ROW PAM 2 BTAKES SHALL BE GGIVEN 1HROUG14 THE BACK HALF OF THE eOBOM. ]. SEE MNOOT SPECS RST] k 3.SS. INFRASAFE — 27" DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE AS MANUFACTURED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES YM. .v. HOPE INSERT BASKETS GO W/WT FlL1FR SACS 400 MICRON FlLTER BAGS PEWIREG INSIDE BASKETS om 2Y] HOPE FRAME INSERT OVFRFW W PORTS MEETS MNSPECIFlCATON J881.F 'STORK RAN WLET PROTEOIIGN - O R BAC INW ONECOSFOROHEENAH ftROR R R-1250-1 WO B01) 3• V46 ON - II � I as I .� Iql I Ie seQQeg' 'o$� _ 0 � WES,TIN RESIDENCE f A 5036HANKERSON AVE 1O�. EDINA, MN g Ira n1lip!.1 is MW 4VU103 IEll do, ft I I l[H I 3AV NOSH3MNVH OCOS. �IIa -33NMISM Hus3m It? I �M i r M P we 11111111111� NN IVNIG3 is 3AV MOSM33iNVH SEDS ER ''30NAGIsm-Nugaim Mil ` N■■■ 3" NOSH�H MB■ | :3oNeD s■a N ls2M ■ ( ! � w2$ ; § ) / . _ eL I 15'PISEAS O). 3 ' ) PISFAS O).5R ; j �" a z .. • Far 15 I I I I $a$ I $ I aw gD HEL d 3'-+'� .ti .s,� -53 e• -,d• '=_fit:. 's �s. Y WESTIN RESIDENCE F° 5036 HANKERSON AVE EDINA, MNI 1� i Ia d I _ eL I 15'PISEAS O). 3 ' ) PISFAS O).5R ; j �" a z .. • Far 15 I I I I $a$ I $ I aw gD HEL d 3'-+'� .ti .s,� -53 e• -,d• '=_fit:. 's �s. Y WESTIN RESIDENCE F° 5036 HANKERSON AVE EDINA, MNI f Originator Kris Aaker Assistant Planner PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting DateI Agenda # December 10, 2014 B-14-24 Recommended Actionpba k variant street setback variance ce from 25 feet to 18 feet fore the 75 feet to 47 feet and a rear yard se construction of additions to the basement /Rhonda andthe home Cha les Bland, at 7000 Kerry Road for Andrea Swan, (Architect ) (property owners). Project Description: The subject property is an irregular shaped lot and is bordered by two roads. The property is north of the intersection of Kerry Road and Dublin Road. The site is 26,827 Square Feet in area and is located in the Prospect Knolls neighborhood. The proposed additions consist of an addition to the north within the required rear yard setback of 25 feet for an enlarged kitchen, butler's pantry, powder room, laundry an addition to the west encroaching level with storage at basement level the 72.75 foot front yard setback consisting of a porch and deck on the main level with a study and walkout access on the basement level. A new entrance stoop is also proposed as part of the project. All of the additions overlap the required setback because the existing home is nonconforming, with only a portion of the back part of the home that maintains the required setbacks. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is mostly street r both street along the frontages. The proposalsection of Bis for and Dublin Road. The lot is elevated from both a front and rear yard setback variance. There are two existing single-family homes on the north and western lots, one facing Kerry Road that is set far back from the street and one home facing Dublin Road. The home fronting Kerry Road is located approximately 64.5 feet from the front property line and the home facing Dublin Road is located 80.7 feet from the front property line and establishes the subject property's average front yard setback. The property owner is requesting to add onto the existing home in a location that does not meet the front yard and rear yard setback. A site plan is attached illustrating the required setbacks for the lot in "blue" and the proposed setbacks for the project in "yellow". The site plan demostrates the limited abilty for expansion of the existing home. Most of the existing home is nonconforming and already over -laps required setback. Landscaping A landscape project with grading, new driveway, side walk, retaining walls, tree removal and tree replacement is part of the over-all plan for site improvement. None of the site alterations require a variance. A tree replacement and landscaping plan will replace 85 caliper inches of protected, (non -construction impacted trees to be removed), with 165 caliper inches of trees including a mixture of 48, 10-14 foot tall pines and 18, 3 inch caliper birch trees. There will be a row of pine trees planted along the edges of the lot lines that will buffer the project from neighboring properties. The landscape plan exceeds the tree replacement ordinance that is currently under Planning Commission consideration. Engineering Review The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. Engineering has only minor comments with the plans as submitted. The applicant will need to remove their proposed sidewalk from the public right-of-way, they will also need to maintain a minimum setback of five -feet for their proposed retaining walls from the edge of roadway. The proposed retaining walls that remain in the public right-of-way will need to have a signed private maintenance agreement. The proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan" dated 11/25/2014, does not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded on all sides by existing single-family homes located in the Prospect Knolls neighborhood. Existing Site Features 2 The subject lot is 26,827 square feet. The home is elevated on the lot. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to add onto the existing home on the basement and main levels. The building footprint is 3,270 square feet in area. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Below are factors to weigh in considering this request: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front street setback and rear yard setback. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3 City Standard Proposed Front 72.7 feet *47 feet Side- 10+ height, (living) 108.4 feet Rear- 25 feet *18 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 37.5 Ft 29 feet (existing) Lot Area 9,000 safe or avg. of nbad 26,827 sq. ft. Lot Width 75 feet or avg. of nbad 105 feet Lot coverage 25% 16.2% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Below are factors to weigh in considering this request: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front street setback and rear yard setback. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3 3. The proposed home, is located far back from the neighboring property to the west and is proposed to be landscaped with a pine tree buffer from the neighbors to the north. 4. The additions as proposed cannot be constructed to conform or relocated in a conforming area on the lot. The variance is requested to allow limited improvements to an existing structure on a relatively large lot that is severely constricted due to required setback. 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. Given the fact that the home can be constructed as proposed in a conforming location, staff does not believe the variance is justified. There are no conditions unique to the property that poses a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance 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 that the proposed additions are reasonable. The applicant cannot locate the additions on the lot to meet all setback requirements. The practical difficulty in this instance is the lot configuration, large front street setback and original placement of the home limiting expansion opportunity. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The unique circumstances include the abutting homes with large front street setbacks setting up the deep front yard setback requirement. The lots are large in the neighborhood with homes placed on property given specific lot characteristics including sight lines, topography etc. This 4 3. The proposed home, is located far back from the neighboring property to the west and is proposed to be landscaped with a pine tree buffer from the neighbors to the north. 4. The additions as proposed cannot be constructed to conform or relocated in a conforming area on the lot. The variance is requested to allow limited improvements to an existing structure on a relatively large lot that is severely constricted due to required setback. 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. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance 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 that the proposed additions are reasonable. The applicant cannot locate the additions on the lot to meet all setback requirements. The practical difficulty in this instance is the lot configuration, large front street setback and original placement of the home limiting expansion opportunity. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? The unique circumstances include the abutting homes with large front street setbacks setting up the deep front yard setback requirement. The lots are large in the neighborhood with homes placed on property given specific lot characteristics including sight lines, topography etc. This neighborhood is not a standard lot and block neighborhood that typically have all homes with matching front yard setbacks. The lot configuration with applied setbacks is unique circumstances limiting potential on the lot. 4 neighborhood is not a standard lot and block neighborhood that typically have all homes with matching front yard setbacks. The lot configuration with applied setbacks is unique circumstances limiting potential on the lot. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed additions will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed additions and enhancements will complement the existing neighborhood homes and will be appropriate for the site. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested Variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposed location of the additions are reasonable given the lack of opportunity to build on the lot. Any expansion or addition to the home would require a variance. 2. The applicant cannot locate the additions on the lot to meet all setback requirements. 3. The practical difficulty in this instance is the configuration of the lot, original house placement, combined with the large front street setbacks. 4. The proposed additions will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed additions will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped November 25, 2014 • Building Plans date stamped November 25, 2014 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated, December 3, 2014 3. Submission of evidence of Watershed approval. Deadline for a City Decision: January 24, 2014 DATE: December 3, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 7000 Kerry Road - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has only minor comments with the plans as submitted. The applicant will need to remove their proposed sidewalk from the public right-of-way, they will also need to maintain a minimum setback of five -feet for their proposed retaining walls from the edge of roadway. The proposed retaining walls that remain in the public right-of-way will need to have a signed private maintenance agreement. The proposed drainage plan, as detailed on the "Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan" dated 11/25/2014, does not affect nearby private property and will not negatively impact city infrastructure. Grading and Drainage Grading is proposed, existing and proposed drainage plan does not affect nearby private property. Existing Site Conditions The existing grading allows for drainage away from the home on all sides. The majority of the drainage from the west side and south side of the home is directed to Kerry Road. While the drainage from the north side and east side of the home is directed to Dublin Road. Proposed Site Conditions The proposed grading changes the existing drainage path minimally and will closely mimic existing site conditions. There is no increase in volume or rate to neighboring private property. Street and Curb Cut Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut; Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.gov/edinaflies/files/City—Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf . There are two retaining walls proposed in the public right-of-way, both of these walls will require a private maintenance agreement and will need to be a minimum of five -feet from the edge of pavement. There is a proposed sidewalk in the public right-of-way, this portion of the sidewalk will need to be removed from the proposed plans. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns Erosion and Sediment Control No concerns ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard + Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdhiaMN.gov • 952-82+6-0371 • Fax 952-825-0392 �iA,� VARIANCE APPLICATION o e v 2-1 �y • I`�coRese '��9 • �Z�1 CASE NUMBER 'R)� 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: Andrea Swan (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 275 Market St, Minneapolis, MN 55405 PHONE: 612-338-5976 EMAIL: andrea ,swanarchitecture.com PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Rhonda & Charles Bland (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 7000 Kerry Road, Edina, MN 55439 PHONE: 612-860-3474 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): Lot 2. Block 1. WILSON PROSPECT HILL DIVISION, 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: 7000 Kerry Road, Edina, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: R-1 Single Dwelling P.I.D.# 08-116-21-22-0036 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: See attached explanation. (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: Andrea Swan EMAIL: andrea(aDswanarchitecture.com PHONE: 612-338-5976 SURVEYOR: NAME: Daniel L. Thurmes PHONE: 651-275-8969 EMAIL: dan(& ssurvev.net 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 FRI❑ Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance 0 ❑ Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 0 ❑ a 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. X Completed and signed application form. X Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." X One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. X Seventeen (17) 11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the application. X A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." X Grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management plan. Grading pian must include existing and proposed two -foot contours, and location and size of pipes and water storage areas. The grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan must be signed by a licensed professional engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. X 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. X Elevation drawings of all new buildings or additions and enlargements to existing buildings including a description of existing and proposed exterior building materials. For single-family home projects, elevations drawings must include a rendering of the proposed home AND the existing homes on either side as seen from the street. 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 (varia�from N, �N the Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36), the Antenna Ordinance (Chapt 34), the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 36) and the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Egi'i ni Ordinance (Chapter 26). 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 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. W, Applicant's Signature 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 nnnkation on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) , 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. 1.1 SWANARCHITECTURE Page 1 of 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION EXPLANATION November 26, 2014 Project: Bland Residence 1410.00 Location: 7000 Kerry Road, Edina, Minnesota 55439 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST In order to continue living in their home of over 35 years, the owners would like to make a number of improvements that will (1) make the home more accessible and (2) enhance the overall value of the property. One of the owners currently uses as walker and is in need of an elevator to continue living in the house. The current chair lift between first and second floors is not ideal and does not allow access to the basement. It is also more dangerous than the elevator that they would like to install. Other improvements include additions to the north and west. The north addition includes an enlarged Kitchen, Butler's Pantry and Powder room, Laundry and Mud Hall with a Storage room in the basement below. The west addition includes a new 4 -season Porch and Deck (connecting to the north exterior space and addition) with a Study and walk -out access on the basement level. A new 8'4" deep X 16'-0" wide (134sf) entrance stoop is also proposed on the south (front) side of the house. The reason for this variance request is that applying R-1 zoning setbacks to this irregular shaped lot results in a buildable area that does not allow for the existing home or the proposed additions. The resulting narrow arc shaped area is not conducive to development without a variance. The width of the buildable area as measured from the arc is approximately 20' maximum. Only 27% of the existing house footprint exists within the current buildable area. This variance request involves the current front and rear building setbacks. The current front setback is the average front setback of the neighboring homes, calculated to be 72.75 feet. This request is for a 47.00 foot setback (a reduction of 25.75 feet) to accommodate the proposed front entrance stoop and west addition. The requested setback is 17 feet more than the standard 30 foot front setback requirement. Furthermore, the relationship between the existing setbacks in context is difficult to see due to the unique neighborhood design, curving streets, topography, vegetation and the neighboring house locations relative to the property. The current rear setback is 25 feet. This request is for an 18 foot setback (a reduction of 7 feet). As an irregular corner lot bordered by two roads (Kerry and Dublin), the north side of the property is characteristic of an interior side yard, which requires a 10 foot setback. The requested setback is 8 feet more than this requirement. A variance request for the proposed north addition would not be needed if the interior side yard condition were applicable under current zoning standards. Furthermore, the path that a visitor takes to the house entrance begins at the driveway on Dublin Road. From the viewpoint of entry and approach, the north yard can be understood as both a rear and interior side yard condition. The requested setback is a balance of these zoning standards. Granting of this variance request will not alter the established and essential character of the neighborhood and will improve the health, safety and welfare of the owners, who intend to remain in their home as long as possible. 275 Market Street Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612.338.5976 andrea@swonarchitecture.com SWANARCHITECTURE Page 2 of 2 MINNESOTA STATUES AND EDINA ORDINANCES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: When applied to this property, the current zoning setbacks create practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance on this property. The setbacks exist within the existing house, are very close to the north wall or intersect the west house wall. Additions to the existing structure, of reasonable size and scale are not possible with the required setbacks in these locations. EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES: This property is irregularly shaped, bordered by two roads and with a sweeping curve along the south, east and southwest sides. This curve, primarily along Kerry Road, is the front yard and is required to have a 72.75' setback as the calculated average setback of the neighboring properties. When applied to this unique lot shape, both side yard setbacks disappear and a narrow arc shaped buildable area remains. We are not aware of other properties in the vicinity with this unique combination of curves resulting in such a restrictive buildable area, making this lot shape an extraordinary circumstance within the neighborhood context. The buildable area is only 6% of the total lot. HARMONY AND INTENT: The proposed project is designed to improve the home, inside and out. The project will make the home more practical for the current owners. The property will be improved though design that is contextually appropriate to the existing house, in the spirit and character of its neighborhood. Construction will be in keeping with the quality of the original home and modern building best practices. The proposed project will exist in harmony with its neighbors, and the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: The character of the neighborhood is well established and includes many houses of quality design and construction with details similar to the original home and the proposed additions. The design of the proposed project will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This project will add value to the neighborhood through the Owner's thoughtful and well considered investment. 275 Market Street Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612.338.5976 andrea@swanarchitecture.com Hennepin Lounty U16 - rrinwie map 6986 7012 ragG1Ut1 f - 7024 ,r ,Ca E 7019 i t Parcel 08-116-21-22-0036 ID: Owner C & R Bland Name: Parcel 7000 Kerry Rd Address: Edina, MN 55439 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.61 acres Area: 26,782 sq ft Sale Map Scale: 1" = 100 ft. N A -T -B: Torrens This map is a compilation of data from various Print Date: 12/4/2014 Market Total: „r.._ - Tax implied, including fitness of any particular Total:' " Sale Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Code: Think GreiF3t! http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=47025 8.225 5422896,4969199.957076... 12/4/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map rage i or i http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=470274.4180746747,4969158.364493... 12/4/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=47025 8.0667919721 A969177.811407... 12/4/2014 4r � �x} s�b��r,i `�'.. -�r d'. S, r "-. x�' r' � • �O a �i'�F ` t .� ._ , �4�TarIIC.', � � '� 1 W f _ _ _ _ i Alk �►5''• '� �, � _ _a.Y ,t. _ — .�� x zJ rs c •'. �' �_ `. �..r '- Y'" r a °�y, a ' r - - �'r - - .� � - •-- :, ,.� �` y � a �,, -. c,- `,', f, c ., � r � � _. � �, ` i �.:-" ,` _ -- ; _ _ _ 'tip; � -� � � F � � , .� -�Ra' �� -�.- i� � _ _a.Y ,t. _ — .�� x zJ rs c •'. �' �_ `. �..r '- Y'" r a °�y, a ' OwjrAwl rull�_ � {•}tom+ _ r- , ' •''_ ..�... - 1 - t- s W u� 0 4 Q a �� Z 0 a N a -4 o Q 2 `F ���H Z� z F 1Ld Ln %3� o �- _ a W rc z G U -N c LL lr5, �= 0 Jw W���� a L(j w= 'ax�;�gl A �dt 6pQK. m °u u=�ti T b%Y$ ?ill adl 9 es Oz ♦ ¢ b u5 1N S Tr •' \ PUBLIC AE 8 j• •11 Y R 0 " . E p�$> s era ����yy 5� 8 gy� g '• t %,'V`;-t{�t�?-.,r�.,::71''�' g•,="—M* -- ................ ' �.._ -., 77 R I'S �� i7 .,j}.,huh � it � t tr•�� €tx# #_Y 3R �r N G r: � of �I • �� � /,,+ ar +� tr tJ � z > Slc<J< — �G 9.5 �.� i � • 1 zME € gym:'%°$ fij $ e 6k o Gr= w9•,+ �' l / 1 / r rpt•. YJ a 52 ti i i (75 f/ �v j!� / f52/ a f�•E' •/ f �,,•.- - -f % i ,tt�� 1t}ti /•� `� \- o/ ' / � WAN ` J a sfnHilus €1 L> 1— 3 5�;= m 5 m €So U r HN sw$W.-U HIN8E33 -. ... _ II f,a 4. ip s C0 m 8 n1 os o n o �bmsn'n�\ 's9E g 111, 1 J/ / 64FRT17, / 4-,ItA V9 IDXJ '00C /1 _ F— -I L I. v� NM gr Oyo A3, 5�;= m 5 m r €,� c a;=•g•s z i gg 3Ef35xz D II f,a 4. s C0 m 8 n1 BE 9 '-- _ a , gr Oyo Q w� s C0 �' SWANARICH TECTURI t Eil� Bland Residen�¢+612.743.9650 r � su.pvrvntswN.0 - e Ih. MN SSdDf 3� €I€ , �g9 SWAN_°s, Bland Residence 3slq �Eg33y ` yy�pjg35 . g355 j. 5 fi b )099 Eu•y 0.o d, Edis, Mione,et•33939 C$`Y ,9'g� ga +612.743.9650 3 • � 5 l � c 14l ly ill PROPOSEDTREEMLnGAnON LEGEND GENERAL NOTES: u.ti mErnmnt ow.\nms pvq glnvxx° niFOgtawx. TREES REMOVE (CONSTRUCTION) 58 CAL IN. -'''°- -UR i�qFlttT1Opp�°cr��RTOum�fuMgq�E�H� T V L S TREES REMOVED 88 CALIN, a°gegoeF°ns p.s�EVElnenwHsxNo NCO t✓EWxA Wuxs,ANO Wu19. (8)PROPPOSED WBIRCH TREES 'HT) ) 18CALIN. •w,m Fxismwspm9Evplwx gFFEB�%ox ur v m wp® vpRNy uxOsupeggcxnEcmgE � IsreNp° (xB) PROPOSED IORNA ENTA7 TRE 14MIN. I'rc'D6° W °EUE 10M NE8 WRRIENONIFJ191IX14ARETOeE u./• (1)PROPOSED NEW ORNAMENFALTREE SCALIN. I� • `A Es �'°O p°osga k•eN.w'[.. 10 T�TAL,CALIPER INCHESTOBEREMOVED=I57OALIN. �--- PPOiEC�xNOsnxe° sTMeMn OgoFN1Y °ufOixRaAHNGE4 °SCME a..cwFx.N exuwwxrs.msaw 1 5"�• C.1Los°EGPEi�mSng4TAs n>T°�gmlxE FIEOI°NIOAPPFOVmaY ���.,.n,GCALIPEft INCHESTO BE REPLACED CAL IN. /�••\ •°q+aaw :,X•" ExmxOrgeEsrosE aOU�EvnsnmEroc°Nlgncl°nwOxpmuegspOq °N�°�1Mw An &s°°o 0px OxrOFPwl.auuN1E �5' -j EwsnxargEEem Oel@MOVED MI,WIE GUEMiU1Uw°I�Np9uC CNPE N0F1%R °'"°•'°"xs�w�anid Dusnxsw°grcwpmm p�°pn,eN e•�,�,x M.N. CONDITIONSREMOVALS NOTES: ::°we:,s"• .` \ ✓ 1. mrMBACnxi%gEIASOY,LLALLE%Im2 9ucK11(O mNOlpgNamm NNA6NE _'°.,,° w°.�.°rya r `� q sPM oFF wciEs°u�`gRixP°sq°1xW°Mr1c sF.•CONY.soriawoam EP°x°�N yfOAmx '� `oma` " �'F• gO.Igm, uVpJNp male -_- 1R EPROlEC110N FENtMO PpnN6NER°�s¢I OM1PCEryTrppjiBllC WA16lWAY& pN� O1 �c^••w•'' V°ns,� � 1xm°�MmwgwxAumsnmemswPmsnEnsrxrr 1 > �r'p"pr roes Eurrweam°onmxsmucn°xuTMnEsro a>°a voe°J.ealtC All urorouLuw�slrurure�wosm°gvaEmq �- xvl'10EwfleFru'x'"i1aff,sri°gENamurouargraupuxlPn°xanEwnx I \ \� `�_�. ..n..a .w PSE nvrovsmmxcE«.m,1oG0R F� I iww xx°PmriwnRawo ro°iow00xsxxoNcmvwrosewE R TN-�2���`Ec` ��..T43'1�1'�.1io ^ � co'Cv G i 5' r iµ " i i ✓moi '••S.' � �� ��I�*- �C- Ai >� .. �T —�_y� / I's—,FB, d '• rr _ buo I 'AM \\\ \ '\ . "'"'^DRIP„\ ; _------- �_ 1•"09C•�° /Y �''-- �'' M"' ,,,•� R_T10.60 wig 'OD"\ KERRY --- ;\4 w (sRUM(NO-"usLtc °0 nPpxx"�'nDeoro a �EMPhIRDMOEb°mxs '�, STR No q:gn r �"kE SPLAN °u 10 NE •luyypEs °w r` V IXRORNFAgY N sE \ I' I / _ EPIAOEO I 9, ' I i i F NOTE =s A , -eNmxergeEs%� xuwxce:mrlsPn nv.0 WNMVAYAN06MW8 t00N� 1PEEmOlEs00N / s Bland Residence Existing Conditions - Removals Plan L010�� O MMDW BESPONBIBLE FOB THE CUMUMMS OF WE SNE ANO WE MAINfcWNCE OF WE EROSION IN SEDIMENT CONTROM BOB NM SIBEEIEN k A .Mm 18312 MINNE)ONKA BLVD. WAMTA. MN 45391 PHONE 952-440-9449 EMNL MMOSIKEE BIOMEB.COM i TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE epufieae-. Kn9wwhat's bBIOW. Call h0(Dre Du dl . Y 9 _m mmm aP•meeeaw°v aw a� :��•d�m P:I::61mpm p �":wwa mmwal �w.Imma CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1 Oa6neale ll —1 vl 111, ml b b. dl.lurwd 1..9. .Iowa .qn, am �m:ae, .ta.) cera. wm2 e.9m.. lah9eh ..—I canbal Pwc9ttv an a0 dawn 9wment Pefabn 2 berahall mmaln9N Place dn19`I_ WhBwtivtMilEwn)ertahrna°W°C°e ImlvO all aer{m lw nmmenl ...I dMcw E aIW vonabue4en wlrawm. s Umin9 of IM1e Inel°IWlbn al a.dlmmt eonlml praNeae may be 3 vented b ober b vwvmmvdvte vwx-le:m ael'MII®, bIt avMmenl e Iwl wOLw`n Il Ue eM1erhb"rm velb4nly bIM 'e°In�.pl lell°tbn erenl 4 vMnt IM1a City rm apprmal .r tNe --L mntrvl device. 5 RaugM1 grade Ills site. 6 InataO uIIlXlea. Inal,p p,remante. e IwWI bwn vna bnavcope. 9 Bntme all dbturh.d alwa to aeon ,9 alerm .awaa a^a mnvya^n .y.tbma 11 A(ler all dl, m a alpbUlzea. ob4aN approrol Inm Nv Clly "wd/ar W^WmM1vd DIe1rICL 12 nhal amlm.. --r— —p mnmm9 NAMrF NDw 9uEmI91l Howatt ftDw mIm.TK11 e—PNPoSID Nlllmlm (S)2.5) Nmrosm sora •f"^ 1 II I II I I i 1 1 1 i 11 7000 KERRY ROA EDINA, MN DmnwN m:Oi exsau9en ApsPNIM Vv: BHM M E M14 � .M�, .wrem w m:h °� p.x.r w.q^n mN .I.m: a,a~ � m ^a y (rtb m,h .;.^Iw Ira x•,]• w.x. wam Prme iap �(m, 2. a. bmmnn m mmwen! mmmen! oral F mnmvmm angNn! town op.wq rm rs)' Iwo m Nom Prob Tap mb xm.l a ) = ".— a°eh'np aM S-ra,t/Ib)N/e aunenabna) mvmmcWea b/ xnco. IwbV almmem.Im m amwwmba N.- .. eu m,p wb. anp d :,mew. wnu^o; e, nsupram (ass) xuNoss. p pl amu.l°o• w°ba ep .um:...n wu Nw :...n. n u ,m.n ! m mu b .,m. .wn Ib.p.o .a. n>. wa:w I. .w ' yin. n5M 9-1V&. mbwebr Aa.Wwmu iui4 • w _ mwMpa a n mwI rrvAmnN oeve w w v n e w n ..bemlwa. memlv6 qa.°3Ntl)O°1bdK.m ema Nam.iu, vie pinwmm�d (pq) n,e-a]ov. ar .Hama emmL 4e`p ua'AImWGnp Mw0°'°r eminue• aovY en Ne awlae er Na bemv u lm w4Nw d wl ImeaneVm el�ammml mnW up:velle�numq M vapavA eras b a I:.mm m N x. b W evmeler nem. uµ ex'm`3ta m'OVR¢6°•0.V!°vOe� ]obp2 Fa°n V.wwrv. on le• nevi pnapV nenm em Y WVeim �mmum'°Nbaati'mmmmw'.a swee`tlivaFlwiul (esi) m0mmp a ar z)pp.�c�w en�.�re.� x•n rami Jnr :m. r omni. arae �pq vw eHs ebl:eVonod `met«be � . CE°'nlnG eN mM oNenlmlm a )EYroNM NOCIt C01&1xVCIpN ro uwa � ewrl:vclbn vUa Un xe Nlm9r slvmvN 9peclrtcvUn Tu b ) W uU9VT mmaem nTllwlb' • (u2,'-2Nna T v mu• mb. a mbbo .a: n° a'w _b MM'roab r evl 152 _ n lel: m m Iee��V•n �i]layUpa A (2 wM1) •own er um vN °°°a "" MOU-sav �m weM1pmb •M1oq .a �mi Imi �; 't.eeox 'gaetimiUe i°I:Ie mplulel eewie y��° 0°m°bl111— or�n•O°m1. us 1, �w m•IwV.tsS V�p�t�vo�. '^OsunMq rM IeMn°1mawprevmet•rvpwa (5 n ova we Ne mix Imm b .. .1-1. P:m•q wWw ar Ilnbe m sammem nm pawn Nwlial seMu��auw,1�°P`evemMNmum^ln! _ pml.aee q WnPmn mmuwuvn en4mvw lP a0 nr m ywr aeMce GIe wum:., rvene N: mea w . ss mm o wm I= sD bra,. lam lml arab. bb n appmw.°aa ^"•„! Ira opNv r su.a .. roea am sp.mm6an ]1]) u -a u -z r c4-] Ga:.. pptlrpma r puvL nlDvehe; v�vlh I�rna °oL 4NWT SlvnmN spnelllralbn ])]I m°M eMi 6nnl "a �:o lemma �..m • .em•.2° �4"a r'mPe"t ..,mm,s p mb i ",am°tl owe :II"m : amw ^� e:H rt'"mm'.e y :lm��w` w .. ran ux9 m , n., 9w1 am waex qql raw rnwl m apm-.an a.r..l. �9 Inm . b9a am ,nr^m mea R m ItieMp'n�.. h:wL b'wokl >01Y lay. '.im' p°ne.i uN 'uulun° W(zs b.O r:wn Na tae dw :wae:neb:' m;n'.e M Mt N. w °C1. mmx e un'1 0 m w w°a.. 0•e ss mm It ueF) 1° h0 mm l2" N:tp^ IKlaemq ean.mwnm..mn�.rba Gen° bra) mQOm:n.I�.ma uxsm sb^awe byl�nxau �]ln a -l• �m MI u �ipua�Yy muklsp� ley �u �w.:n ��rVm1w]mmne. Vai""' I Nor Irvua ww lmnbi°m veY e�°lo ^^ naa e n m e mm ° nor ao vn °. t0. � ran,: b wrN.mw vax ux9Di sqm t� urn a e P anuni (w.vAv evOe m�). or appm'Oi^.rp Hud aW mnlrvl mein., u1Fs naN u °p ('a�"namablMNg b.le.(eibn °:up w^°ab°la"."aib'm. °e : °.n'm 1 2SMWem smpin nW as .rM1w .mw mwu uv`y`IUIbI'mD I U Obml ° mnap a `� iam) r Ina o pale u e m (x a••u n tax b°bmawx"a.nni°nm. a bwin'.°i rss9 ,°1°^m° jin wsmi a mmr. r b .m w r ab w°pAe:a .^ Imr m.71rm � w a Imm Iran mm�..e. ss ( ) awanw.mlep..w. n�•n o x pX6w2x)lox Amami . uvw1pea'uppb pm v.ntyb' a Iaene b°�aw'mYe°Lh onap In I°tp'^euraMR N bea E 5 :I V^ emu arab I �mlav�tsx�mmle�(0 N-_M1m) � b Ime1e N• I ° m l b b• °op`'a'agna aAI Ienaa Ne.) vo Ne paalsrcv� T- mµ V- alsei P �b"�)n°°p m•Immee `pOm iFW :n:"`9a °.^.I..°Gs "-p Yvmant ew boron nm m9ba Meo1 Imp Pml• aM M1vp a m�lw s°i G pi1Ml'Ivhb I. ma re")Iamalal Inn a liw iabnc a °k I N Inc 1 Ipm o m W i I ' a•"iouiNp ss xrwlw ipUmz cyWu'Iie�Imily TMII �Innnb�w.�'wep'p �mw m?� a°t`M1pmeuw vl mn1 9M U^Mme?r wim nlnpa lw°p"0mw'i:ul a lm•Ilm„ mm�biap'eNvbw• ma x m w1 mNa14piri uman. ^+^hmm i °-s°°� .n"`° u. o� my -1; y mi °blmmw <w �iw^`:fien•I oen. oaar. o av t. mi 'a� muba wib. n^ mm m:°a"I ban°.m: b' .m (n�e_eb.. b v pm eu° mala 'em ; a,"'w a:u^`w"e°:� -ae`.:.o: ina mr b wml. mdlup qulH Immuvm wI an a el mem un',P%.. "Y• wro tiw° u�.am^.bcl m a Gh fr' mw t ua A- d I>ImwVd. mmmp mPampI. m n.em Pmmm wpl.. m. !4. m ua..a..w r a 1e,ma orb 1.m ""m�"."Nm anm � a�.a • a rano naay�,�le wq� w. ««.N um ml.� mrr nr `u :ro=� m:.e pmw I mblw Ia: a°.:pwm,mw praea v.aimama ax9 uetx TExAxm2: ,w e n a :: �. 'Lunn y'f"„°er°,I'm'oiier u"a � �Ni yea n um �� a v"`°H vilm°1Onnv uamne a�w�°.r eae ma _ e . ^ . o na a ane v�ma^ rano e: n �.ert (..coin �vw.+nmrolNw] mm I u °r Vay""hOceemaa. enm, mmo. b .wmw m^w 9Nva umwu.n u w puma u.bw amy r � .n� eee mwn w ma�9a^u^.n'm"'m o r. Nnaw as :�m� rz E s T v[ x T I° x x e aw°R.n aM .pro Ua. °w .�^.° . bM a Np• n.. Ira. sNygy)p: Ne elnal ` --d Wna.ppamv'p ampie•NUV. Ivp mnhd rape In wd.r b p1tlCe^ymryal Meaney r.aW.n�e4 ala u^merla vm� .mp.°a'Ibi a wYloi rams � o e°U-Nnav! u'e° n qn' ani ine e:m`n�iT°°na .enln°.^t n�� ""n10 mart w iwcmpnonu w xfcr. ...m°`` °e'awn a�:mmna am arm.. I. . wlw, mghwlab nw bema ' w�h M iF-a mmp'vl°m:e.'rIN'a h�mbve, oµ rpp�emam ell eN e u """"o.mm a ^ xa m ••^^ ^" 4. nm.n All �.nanib w'G ,ora n .pn.ro ewnew �noulim° :`a'Inlv"b`:o.nww IAv�memo e w m w! a Iwp-'1 b.l ea q -II orb lw mmmebe/2aMb >Z nvO1Oan° o'r°vin�ean°wnnl°Ie°la°mnaumf°n'mi umemea LLMltl :melrM ora aav�an (M�tluM�ammpe menea orr rW.� m'�`^�nwd'pi°an d— nuq iuT lw�eampmmere b matea�dwv^•Aatl. s ems wmNalnl mNne G�n°mby xN ° Nbo iro abw•. el W4p 4qx. .luNai�a ppam o� aan' A maw un� pM1 �eib�tliwella�°ia ukn miioly, i e' wu°I`°` .m '1° p0C° ' w^ ). � w....� .. xn.: canlou ul Igme wa •augmwro�'a'° •mbeu! ammw:. w=Nawolnw^w ur °. Imvam.oex P. ao KKl N° o^a .ala .omr I° b m M _v�"n l"_m armsaw ;Z �ma "ora -e^am' "n::wl.` °em'bm^Pa��"aI .r"�mw..a° m, a w:'mW`rt arx01peva a alcor craw. hm leen nm oa°ej'ero+nNp or q v v1°�Jeryt b"OV b°pil aiWn 7n24 Ir wtlmpobelen nn. LO'^W i 1�0 `mIs'pua —2�0 adpmmrnt Yn)a mM n.ve,awy q w Cqr w waumeA Pwm! vW:ln x4 man m nolenmuva � Vve:ta011 l v� µamu enaon`en 'lq eenmbNnobin'n of welN SCME —C a O MMDW BESPONBIBLE FOB THE CUMUMMS OF WE SNE ANO WE MAINfcWNCE OF WE EROSION IN SEDIMENT CONTROM BOB NM SIBEEIEN k A .Mm 18312 MINNE)ONKA BLVD. WAMTA. MN 45391 PHONE 952-440-9449 EMNL MMOSIKEE BIOMEB.COM i TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE epufieae-. Kn9wwhat's bBIOW. Call h0(Dre Du dl . Y 9 _m mmm aP•meeeaw°v aw a� :��•d�m P:I::61mpm p �":wwa mmwal �w.Imma CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1 Oa6neale ll —1 vl 111, ml b b. dl.lurwd 1..9. .Iowa .qn, am �m:ae, .ta.) cera. wm2 e.9m.. lah9eh ..—I canbal Pwc9ttv an a0 dawn 9wment Pefabn 2 berahall mmaln9N Place dn19`I_ WhBwtivtMilEwn)ertahrna°W°C°e ImlvO all aer{m lw nmmenl ...I dMcw E aIW vonabue4en wlrawm. s Umin9 of IM1e Inel°IWlbn al a.dlmmt eonlml praNeae may be 3 vented b ober b vwvmmvdvte vwx-le:m ael'MII®, bIt avMmenl e Iwl wOLw`n Il Ue eM1erhb"rm velb4nly bIM 'e°In�.pl lell°tbn erenl 4 vMnt IM1a City rm apprmal .r tNe --L mntrvl device. 5 RaugM1 grade Ills site. 6 InataO uIIlXlea. Inal,p p,remante. e IwWI bwn vna bnavcope. 9 Bntme all dbturh.d alwa to aeon ,9 alerm .awaa a^a mnvya^n .y.tbma 11 A(ler all dl, m a alpbUlzea. ob4aN approrol Inm Nv Clly "wd/ar W^WmM1vd DIe1rICL 12 nhal amlm.. --r— —p mnmm9 NAMrF NDw 9uEmI91l Howatt ftDw mIm.TK11 e—PNPoSID Nlllmlm (S)2.5) Nmrosm sora •f"^ 1 II I II I I i 1 1 1 i 11 7000 KERRY ROA EDINA, MN DmnwN m:Oi exsau9en ApsPNIM Vv: BHM M E M14 :.� ,�. �� . i k � � �. ��� +�� � K � � � _ '" 3 e t: �. 1 s �� �k, i � �� � t ,^ � � �t � � ,= n . ,� "� „ �-. ..r _ t F: syd� _ - _ �A r �...1b n11� �� � L i � ,�,,.f ,� {t _ ,. �'� �� t,J t�? �.� Iii _= �i; � > Iil 1 �;;� ',� ` i i .� �q� � �.=_ e :�x I� _ I _�,��. ,,� ,y. ��, a �� ,. `-, a — � 3' •� ' � , F1 �' .� t�k 6�� J ' �' -- � 3�F.}'B�i�� �. i � � �9s. "�' i � i � � q K- �, �� � � �,', You .� ��, '� � ..:� `"''"�#'""�, ,' � .',� 1 .:` '- '.� � ¢�y yyy }� � 4 �+:� \� 2. The addition to the home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvement will enhance the property. 3. The addition, as proposed, keeps the new conservatory farther from the side yard than the existing porch. • 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. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that the applicant is seeking to replace a porch with a similar structure that is farther from the side yard than the existing structure. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the house is located closer to the east lot line and at an angle, posing a challenge for the small addition. 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 proposed addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes and the addition is not getting any closer to the side lot line than the current porch. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the side yard setback 2. The proposed additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to the location of the home closer to the east lot line and at an angle. 4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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: • Survey dated November 25, 2014 • Building plans and elevations date stamped November 25, 2014; Deadline for a City Decision: January 24, 2014 L! DATE: December 4, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher —Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 4301 Branson St - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. An existing and proposed site survey will be sufficient for review and construction purposes. The proposed plan appears to be the replacement of an existing addition. There is no proposed change to existing grades, curb cut or any public utility connection. Grading and Drainage No concerns Erasion and Sediment Control No concerns Street and Curb Cut No concerns Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metm Boulrvwd • Eduk%Minnesota 55439 wwwE&naW gov. 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-8264092 VARIANCE APPLICATION Le t_T� (0 0 • t�CORPOFA '9 • \ 1 �� 3868 v1\ �/ • CASE NUMBERDATE `\®, FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.gov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: y SGNM f 0 1 (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 4 3 y 17 F21*�n� Syn.i 6r -Ree -( PHONE: EMAIL: 'g`,'/Am5cami2Tg=:�VA1-lo-, e-em PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ��yn�s • Sc►a M` (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 430( PHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): 1—GT i , Mr i_VO6yz,MK�5 5„5D OF LvrS 9,CP 10 G r IMO -5 J4C,,JP_5 r6A0 **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: 4 3yl 0iZA>v ' A,1 �37Mt i PRESENT ZONING: EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: &a2,QE 7- VA f,( n/U r2!2!K —"&KN C' P- U to e-1 0 WSJ L P,/_A r vP_r Fifee r r©5 �YvN S,_ 'r-5Ae-K� • . '� (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) e� r� ARCHITECT: NAME:/ Af-,Ofi iLe-'?;!� PHONE: 32-c) -3 ;7-7 �� �� EMAIL: I)VAek XJQJ ” c�,�-� M iy . � SURVEYOR: NAME: PIC- PHONE: EMAIL: ?YJo4Ki�loti.1�5se.c�:^'t` 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 K71.. 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 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 heve submitted are true and correct. s Signature OWNER'S STATEMENT am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. ®ate (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of Hlb' of dire7A10i, rpartnership.) L2-G('j I Signature Note, Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete, Nov 24, 2014 Bryan and Darlene Schmidt 4301 Branson Edina, MN To: To Whom it May Concern: We currently have a screen porch on the side of our home at 4301 Branson. The porch needs to be replaced and is currently 4' 3" from our side lot line. We elected to have a conservatory built in its place and the structure, now in transit, from England will actually be 5'3" from the lot line. The setback requirement is 57' and we are requesting a variance for that 4". 00 The conservatory is a beautiful addition to the home and will be a terrific enhancement to the neighborhood, as well as our period home which we so love and wish to preserve. Please consider and accept our application for this minor variance. Sincerely, Bryan & Darlene Schmidt Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of I 4300 ; 4214 4212 4210 4301 \ 4215 4213 4211 http:llgis.hennepin.us/Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473483.4371500006,49343 56.326050... 1213/2014 A. l 4309?, �4 4140 ' A X4120 r 4150 4122 t. 4160 41.E+4 S. Parcel I Map Scale: V 50 ft. N 07-028-24-43-0083 A -T -B: Torrens ID: Print Date: 12/3/2014 Owner Name: B D Schmidt & D T Schmidt Market Total: --- Parcel 4301 Branson St Edina, MN 55424 Tax ` Total: Address: i Property Sale _ Type: Residential Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Homestead Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.19 acres Sale Area: 8,367 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A TilrnkGr+e l http:llgis.hennepin.us/Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473483.4371500006,49343 56.326050... 1213/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=473483.4371500006,49743 56.726050... 12/3/2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprint/default. aspx?C=473483.4371500006,4974356.726050... 12/3/2014 425 DWI) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR IN LOT 1, MELVIN GRIMES SUBD. OF LOTS $, 9 & 10, GRIMES HOMESTEAD % HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA IJ MOST LY C LOT 3 /{[ 0� /w •[d/1/�,rJ�. I l 405 8 "V/ j. :I 1 yrl o F� W Z (sola •. Qi > 'u MSS n Ot Q tW3 OFF LOTO 1 UE ,no m" NON (991$) �1 Z� LEVEL= ?4.2 i80gp� /�•� n .- .. .... 4 J �7 ,y H (9949) 72.4 y.+ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES e o g ilk _EXISTING `— �oo ' No That part of Lot 1, "Melvin Grimes Subdivision "N� = awe HOUSE Qs..�.s2 of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Grimes Homestead" lying PROPOSEDPROPOSEDsoutherly of a line described as commencing (� _ #4301 AWT1014m at the most westerly corner of Lot 3, said L Y 7fi-2 i90 1 Z42 B3 ,g5 `= addition; thence northeasterly along the north— •' w westerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 2 s sa°21'23" EMAS feet; thence easter) along a tangential curve N ss°2rzo^ E � ��Y 9 9 DEC 159 DECK To eE to the right having a radius of 189.5 feet, REMOVED a distance of 97.77 feet; thence easterly ,/ r9pp3J C7 tangent to said curve to an intersection %c7 with the northeasterly line of said Lot 1. tf) BLACKTOPDRIVEWAY 3 • : denotes iron marker found Q 0 202 (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, r mean sea level datum EXISTING a Z GARAGE" Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. �'-z.s 2u2 a01 j; .: `• This survey intends to show the boundaries ---- 897s) , ' (897'7) of the above described property, the 62.35 . `.`. f location of an existing house, garage, I driveway, porch, deck, to be removed, spot S 880441 57" W ( elevations a4�visible utilities, and the proposed JoW on of a proposed addition thereon./jV'&es not purport to show any other ,ifinRrovements or encroachments. ... ... ...'I'•. '1• ... .. i't+ ..'j- I _•� 'q ':','•S+'" ...� i`.�•}. tq V��..~ •w1, J•• •,.J. % :.! i.i ;� _t ,J»t ,'�`• .'Yr..���, 7. . 5 t....•:-•1' .•i, •r+ :S t: il 11-20-1*. PROPOSED AODTM �y 'p O N B E R (e AND D I hereby certify th 'this survey, plan, or report SCALE2 \.FiLlY1..1 4S t31�! 4.1 Was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, 1"=20' ASSOCIATES, i N C. and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DA CONSULTING ENGINEER, LAND 4-17-13 SURVEYORS, & 3ITE PLANNERS JOB NO. 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 14-440 952-473-4141 Mark S. Gronber Minnesota License Number 12755 14-440 Fs o A!t%\ f• Ak �o . 01.15' 03" W.r" �$ B 01°15'03" E mOXm A0y3 Dxz� Z� v D O Z >Ao> i N r � Z: – -----__--_--- SHARED DRIVEWAY ' \\'•. W0 AA A y < D O N \D \ m -(i m X \ � \ \�\\ — X7o .may r N x Dm NEW CONSERVATORY �'.• p '\ti�2a uo �"R�ye HArCh Clel t� N FOR THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE D—led I RIO I mIx,Md.!deNi9 I h,wmmb m 4301 BRANSON STREET =y' a -,� ' V� 2924w.SE G—in St g EDINA, MN %;,';oTA _..•'` Tc m'w SL Cloud, MN 56301 �q�P""�� noi, 320-237-7411 E—iL humgly®chert—[ PROPERTY LINE 15051 – -----__--_--- SHARED DRIVEWAY ' \\'•. \D \ -(i m X \ � \ \�\\ /OAD m n PROPERTY LINE 115.14' — X7o .may r N x Dm NEW CONSERVATORY �'.• p '\ti�2a uo �"R�ye HArCh Clel t� N FOR THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE D—led I RIO I mIx,Md.!deNi9 I h,wmmb m 4301 BRANSON STREET =y' a -,� ' V� 2924w.SE G—in St g EDINA, MN %;,';oTA _..•'` Tc m'w SL Cloud, MN 56301 �q�P""�� noi, 320-237-7411 E—iL humgly®chert—[ aa�'�4q®R7$�4�1!e�3 IIBL-LEZ�'LE TOM rmuzn, .� ��onn1 O"d,,, a u g .o,.o m'en-r) as ISnl-9�S'M bZ6L � , s p � LI z a queme,saHl le4vappxa n�Pr'w I pw u I pp ... 3 a vm _ Wg oma`-s�'ti;_ � = ,muSS NOSNVU9 IO£b � S}O��Il�9�� o J LL _O _ y'•.' `...5`r,`` HDNFlQISHU I(IIWHDS BH.I, WOJ XIIOJVA2I3SNOD M3N I ------- ------------ ow �9_� wb°°c`riw W ' . sHIRI i N noun I a u g 777 s p � LI z a LI a s � o J LL I ------- ------------ ow �9_� W ' . �3 i N m! W61 � 1§ - 7 f NEWCONSERVATORY; 2 ! f&rch6cts ;FOR Ta£� a DT RESIDENCE !, ! . mme_�E a em,�_ea � ` ' . # e_,a 56301!. _ _ , . . __ _:___t City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CiWofEdina.com Date: December 10, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO Re: Sketch Plan Review — Restaurant (4500 Valley View Road) The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to re -develop the northwest corner of Valley View and Wooddale at 4500 Valley View Road. (See the property location on pages Al -A4.) The proposal is to remodel the existing vacant gas station into a restaurant. The remodeling would include a 500 square foot addition for a new kitchen and trash enclosure, and a 640 square foot three -season porch/patio. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A5- Al 3.) The restaurant would be designed for 80-86 seats including the bar area. (See page Al 0.) The site is currently zoned PCD -4, Planned Commercial District 4, which only allows automobile service centers, car washes and gas stations. To accommodate the proposed use, the site would need to be rezoned to PCD -1, Planning Commercial District 1. PCD -1 would be consistent with the existing zoning of the adjacent shopping center to the north. (See page Ma.) The ,proposed plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides the site for neighborhood commercial uses. (See page A4b.) The table on the following page demonstrates how the project would conform to the PCD -1 Zoning Ordinance. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 UU3061 Compliance Table * Variance Required Traffic/Parking A traffic and parking study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways and if there would be adequate parking provided. Sidewalks/Street Setbacks/Landscaping The applicant is showing some green space and landscaping in the renderings along Valley View and Wooddale, and a sidewalk. (See page A8.)The Planning Commission is asked to consider the proposed proximity of the building to the street, given the setbacks that are required and providing the boulevard style sidewalk. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Standard (PCD -1) Proposed' Building Setbacks Front — Wooddale 35 feet 30 feet* Front — Valley View 35 feet 20 feet* Side — North 20 feet 100+ feet Side — West 20 feet 100+ feet Building Height 2 Stories or 24 feet whichever is One story 20 less feet tall Maximum Floor Area 1.0 of the tract .20 of the tract Ratio (FAR) Tract size = 2 acres or 87,120 s.f. (18,156 s. f.) Parking Stalls (Site) 80 required for retail 127 spaces 38 required for new restaurant existing and 26 required for snuffy's proposed* 144 total required Parking stall setback 20 feet 0 feet* (existing condition) * Variance Required Traffic/Parking A traffic and parking study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways and if there would be adequate parking provided. Sidewalks/Street Setbacks/Landscaping The applicant is showing some green space and landscaping in the renderings along Valley View and Wooddale, and a sidewalk. (See page A8.)The Planning Commission is asked to consider the proposed proximity of the building to the street, given the setbacks that are required and providing the boulevard style sidewalk. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 i - PHIL8R001KAhE 24 7' i �l l�T 1 X11 i ,;. ! ! 58TH STREET IV EST sial J: ate= ` � �tq } p'5900 — _ a W W LU 59TH STREET 4S'ELU 5T a -^ aU obi 4810 W 2 12 ff'Aft E)TH STR FT NEST Li >LU , a t 61zri t p �� 6isr stR FT WEST 610 ��j _L_ _, 1450 W i +4545 i.; _ ,� VE(T a 62 D'ST4JE3T, . -. i - a cc szND ' R EST z' I 6216 —.24 I m 622+8—� 4' Al 0;430 STRFET %'VEST—�' t I ? - I - _ .-._ ._. �• �- U. 24 0 _ .77 ,$ H 'T I ..._T I f-'�._' I ..... I^ 6302_ 64TH5TREETL4EST �� H 5?REET WEST ,n 64TH STREET 4'EST WL ._ 6400 24' 24 .f.• 24 ._ 4010 }, I � X24 4015 - Parcel 19-028-24-34-0091 A -T -B: Torrens Map Scale: 1" = 800 ft. N ID: Print Date: 12/4/2014 Owner F M Allis & J R Allis Market Name: Total: Parcel 4500 Valley View Rd Tax Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.25 acres Sale Area: 10,752 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Think Greed.. 4C ka �3 Sketch Plan Narrative Project: Gas Station to Restaurant Conversion Location: NW Corner of Wooddale Ave. and Valley View Rd., Edina Subject: Sketch Plan Narrative Proposed Conversion: This presentation for Sketch Review is a conceptual design for the conversion of the present gas station into a restaurant use. The proposal is to keep and renovate the present structure of approximately 2,000 SF, remove the tanks and gas station equipment, and construct a 500 SF addition for kitchen and trash enclosure. Exterior due diligence will include closing curb cuts, defining a parking lot for approximately 22 stalls, adding perimeter landscaping, removing the current lighting to install lighting appropriate for the use, repurposing the existing sign, adding a rain garden/water retainage area, and adding a 640 SF three -season porch/patio. r City and Neighborhood Betterment The proposed renovation will add a neighborhood -focused food use while removing the current gas station use. By utilizing the shopping center drive access, a number of the site curb cuts close to the intersection will be eliminated, improving safety and vehicular control on and off the site. The complete renovation of the exterior and interior of the building for the intended use will use quality materials and the latest environmentally friendly mechanical/sewer water systems. Furthermore, the perimeter green space, rain garden, controlled site lighting and defined parking spots will create a more attractive corner for the shopping center and the intersection. Zoning The proposed restaurant site is currently zoned PCD -4 and the balance of the site is zoned PCD -1. The project proposes to change the zoning of the site to a more applicable zone for the intended restaurant use. The zone type is to be determined by the City of Edina. Comprehensive Plan The current Comprehensive Plan defines the area as a neighborhood commercial zone, the proposed zoning change fits into the City's concept of a neighborhood center. We believe our plan to remove the present use will improve safety and bring an overall visual attraction and neighborhood amenity to Edina 0 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 1 2014 page 2 n D l C MC _ m o CD NN A •'«�rd"'n`' �- < z e m i �- Qo 0 m0 o 0- 3 3 m D D < 0 i — •'«�rd"'n`' �- e i Exterior Sketch 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 1 2014 page 7 Restaurant Plan ENTRANCE. �►yR® ■ 0 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 1 2014 page 5 Edina Site Development W 0 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 1 2014 page 3 Floor Plan Sketch 0 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 1 2014 page 6 Z. v .qt Current Mall Tenants 0 600.00 PROMO (a) PAUL DZUBNAR I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE AVE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 12014 page 4 h {Si by 1 fill_ Fry 3vth -..... Y 1: , p A a s ' 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL Legend HOD -2 Building height shall be determined by n but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, r HOD -3 Building height shall be determined by n but shall not exceed 3 stories or 36 feet, ::;:;: • : Building height shall be determined by n HOD -4 but shall not exceed 4 stories or 48 feet, HOD -8 Building height shall be determined by n but shall not exceed 8 stories or 96 feet, HOD -9 Building height shall be determined by n but shall not exceed 9 stories or 108 fee HOD -1 Q Building height shall be determined by r, but shall not exceed 10 stories or 120 fe HOD -12 Building height shall be determined by r but shall not exceed 12 stories or 144 fe I Church M City Buildings Private School I Public School S�� e VALLEY VIEW & WOOJMALE DETAIL ,. 2t LU :..:,... x..' 0..... i ... ,, . .... 11J1.SZN T Mq- City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: December 10, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Tree Preservation MEMO A. .w'91N��j'rl, o e �o 1948 Based on feedback from the October 21 st Work Session with the City Council, attached is a draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance that the Planning Commission has been working on over the past several months. The text highlighted in green is based on feeback from the City Council. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on the Ordinance to the City Council. The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: ➢ This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. ➢ All such permits are required to include a tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health, approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). ➢ Trees to be protected under this Ordinance include all deciduous trees at least 8 inches dbh, except box elder, elm, poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust, fruit tree, and mulberry; and coniferous trees at least 20 feet in height. ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a 10 foot radius of a building pad, deck or patio or within 5 feet of a driveway and parking area does not have to be replaced. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed as part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building pad, deck or patio area or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced I to 1. ➢ Protected Trees to remain must be protected during construction. ➢ Replacement trees that die within three years of planting would need to be replaced. ➢ The subdivision ordinance has been revised to reflect the new ordinance. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the tree inventory. The Ordinance would also require a longer building permit review time and additional staff time. Ordinance Enforcement While the proposed ordinance would not have the impact on staffing that the previous ordinance did, the amount of staff time required to enforce this ordinance will still increase. As mentioned previously, the city forester is currently a part time position (34 hours per week on average). The forester has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes that an additional staff person (possibly part time) would be required to adequately enforce the Ordinance or the city forester position become full time to still maintain the level of service that they currently provide. The primary focus of the forester is on the city's 600-800 acres of public land; although he does occasionally work with residents regarding tree issues on private property. The new ordinance would require the following additional staff review: • Review of the "tree plan" as part of the building permit. This is the review of the survey showing existing trees, those that would be removed, and those proposed to be planted. Given the last couple years of permit activity, this could be between 150-200 permits per year; this would include new home construction after a tear down and additions to existing homes. • Respond to complaints regarding trees that die during the three year new growth period. This would ultimately be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 DRAFT 12-3-14 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. 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 all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral 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 goal of this Section is to preserve as much as practical Edina's high valued trees, while allowing reasonable development to take place and not interfere with how existing property owners use their property. The purpose of the ordinance is to: Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city. b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population. C. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; prevent and reduce managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution 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. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX Maintain buffers between similar land uses and establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses. (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets one of the following: L a deciduous tree that is at least 8 33 inches dbh, except box elders, elm, poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust, fruit tree species, and mulberry. ii. a coniferous tree that is at least 20 feet in height. b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, and/or as defined as an invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. c. Critical Root Zone. The minimum area around a tree that must remain undisturbed. The critical root radius is calculated by measuring the tree's diameter at breast height. For each inch of tree diameter, 1.5 feet of root zone radius must be protected. For example, if a tree's dbh is 10 inches, then its critical root zone radius is 15 feet (10 x 1.5 —15). (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a EeFtified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health, aed approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (5), it must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the following conditions: a. Protected trees must be replaced with species of a similar type that are normally found growing in similar conditions and that are included on the list of acceptable replacement species on file with the city. Replacement trees must be varied by species. 10-sted- on (2) Definitiens. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX C. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. Replacement trees must be at least two and one-half inches (2.5") in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (T) tall for coniferous trees. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation. f. g. The city may allow larger balled and burlapped or spade moved trees if these trees are accompanied with a three year guarantee. Other size substitutions, based on site characteristics, may be allowed at the reasonable discretion of the city. Any replacement tree that dies within three years after planting must be replaced by the property owner. h. If the city determines in its reasonable discretion that there is no appropriate location for some or all the required replacement trees, those trees may not be required. The city also has the discretion to place the replacement trees on public property if there is no appropriate location. (5) Protected Trees may be removed without mitigation, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad, deck or patio of a new or remodeled building. b. Within a five-foot (5') radius of driveways and parking areas. (6) DUFiRg the d 1•+' d r building ae ...7+ pFecesses, the ..�.i+ h9!de Shall Rat to the Pretested Tree, on eenneetien with S..eh eeHStFUetien The suFye..must rl' + h the D + + d T -Fee weuld h r~..ete+ed dUFiAg enc+runtieR hi .en+ Before construction, grading or land clearing begins, city -approved tree protection fencing or other method must be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing must be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. The fencing must be inspected by city staff before site work begins. The fencing must remain in place until all demolition and construction is complete. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (7) No construction, compaction, construction access, stock piling of earth, storage of equipment or building materials, or grading may occur within the critical root zone areas of trees to be protected, unless there are no other on-site alternatives. if there are no other alternatives, this activity would need to be reviewed and approved by the city forester. A reasonable effort must be made when trenching utility lines to avoid the critical root zone. (8) When construction is complete all trees to remain must have the soil out to their drip line aerated and de -compacted. Aerating must include multiple concentric circles of 2-3° holes, 18" deep, or as recommended by an arborist. (9) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above. Section 2. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Subsection 32-7. (Subdivisions.) Variances are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 32-7. Variances. (a) Grant by Council. In connection with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision the Council may grant variances from the provisions of this Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual hardship exists as to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that: (2) The -haFdship-is--due to the-part+EaleF physical SUFFE)Undi+gs,shape eF (4) The h-,.-.dchip i caused by this Section and net by the applicant; (5) Thevariancey.f"nll re-SURin aid-HidPFeyed plat or subdivision; and Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (66) The YaFiance, if gFanted, will not alteF the essential ehaFaeteF of the within the plat E)F subdivision OF in the ne*ghbeFh (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant reasonable use of their land. (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. (3) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc. A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. (b) Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and objectives of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions may be made a part of any Development Contract required by article IV of this chapter. (c) Variances from Section 36. When Variances are requested from Section 36, requirements for lot areas and dimensions, the Planning Commission and City Council may consider the following criteria in addition to Section 36-98: (1) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters: a. The suitability of the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and b. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text—XXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (2) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. (3) The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (4) The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of chapter 36 including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the floodplain overlay district provisions of chapter 36. (5) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. (6) The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with any easements of record or on the ground. (7) The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets. (8) The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. (9) The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. Existing text — XXXX 6 Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (10) The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision. (11) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Section 4. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 32-130. Considerations. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text—SFX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX ?W'Rg PFOpased plats and subdivisions and in deteFffliniAg (1) Th impact f the ff9p sed plat e .hdi. sine and pFepesed deyel..pmen+ the chaFaeteF and symmetry of the neighbOFheed as evidenced and indeeated by, but not limited +.. the fellewing .~.neer' The suitability suladMsion A -f the lati e size to the size and and shape of shape the of lets lots in in the the neighbeFheed, PF9pesed plat ; and OF n~. STI^re cempa-tibilit-y-of the pFepesed USe f+h plat Site and the the U density size hdi..iSiOR shape and lecation with the u of n lets and - epesed in the density n ghberheed. nt of the lets and intended i () Th impaet 2r f the PFE)pesed plat .. ubdiyisien and nr.,n/)sed deyelnnn•ien+ > the eRViMnFnent, neluding but—r not limitedte-, tepeffaphy, steep slepes, SteFage needs e and fr.,FA the site , and—cempliance—by— the --preposed plat F subdivision, and the ed with the pelieies, objectives, and geals of the Ceffiffeliensive Plan.development, Existing text — XXXX Stricken text—SFX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX (4) The eemplianee of used --plat OF S bd;ViSiG,T-RAF the PFOPE)sed ine-Jud-ing,witheut limitation, the lot size-p A the flee piai^ ^ eFlay The orthe rrpi ep a sc a -p larei-subdivision, and PFeFrescaZrcyc�vprrrcn rvn + , with any easements ef FeGeFd OF eA r lira 1 UUX (1-1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. (-12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. Existing text - XXXX g Stricken text - XXX Added text-XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX lira 1 UUX (1-1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. (-12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. Existing text - XXXX g Stricken text - XXX Added text-XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 13) Comply with Section 10-82. 14aEed theFeen aFelikely to cause substantial tal damage. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX day of 12014. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text—XXXX Added text—XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 10 f- Ko R6FIRF-IJ : 1. The extensive "purpose" cited indeed seems to be well intentioned. Therefore, if this is such a high priority of the City then why is it not for all property in the City (existing homes, new homes, remodels, golf courses, commercial properties, etc...)? I know one of the local golf courses took down 90 trees last winter. I suggest if the City wants to "preserve the canopy" then let's take it seriously and include all trees, City wide. 2. The "Critical Root Zone"? What does a homeowner do on the narrow lot that has a 15" tree in the middle of their front yard? The "critical Root Zone" would prevent them from getting any workers and/or equipment to the home for remodel, rebuild, or other....right? Doesn't this immediately dramatically reduce the value of someone's property if they were to want to sell and the buyer might want to consider a new addition or other? 3. Paragraph 4g.....Who police's this? Doesn't this add a covenant to the property at sale? Do we have an issue in the City with trees being planted and them dying? Or is this a complication to title and other due to speculation on intent of the homeowner planting a tree? I don't understand the logic here ... is this a common occurrence, or are we creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? 4. Paragraph 5 should include the replacement of utilities. Many of the homes in Edina have old sewer/water lines from the street to the home. Unfortunately many of the trees that we desire to "protect" were planted right on top of these utilities. When a new sewer line is brought from the street to the home a 4' to 6' wide trench is dug to a depth of +/- 10'. Essentially you have a 10 foot deep trench 5 feet wide from the curb to the foundation. Obviously a problem for any tree or "Critical Root Zone" area in its path. 5. Paragraph 9 .... How is this going to work in reality? Who is going to police this? What is the intent here? Is this a common occurrence, or are we creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist again? If a buyer buys a property and then decides to do a remodel 6 months after moving in, how do they know what was there before they bought? Cary Teague From: Scott Busyn<scott@greatneighborhoodhomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 20141:42 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: 'Andy Porter' Subject: Re: Draft Tree Ordinance Hi Cary, Thanks for the draft. I am all for protecting trees for all the reasons in the draft plus they're expensive to remove! I don't know any builder that removes trees unless they are in the way of the building pad, or the client/neighbor wants to see them go. For what its worth, here are my thoughts: 1. Will this apply to commercial projects as well? 2. Include Ash in trees not protected as these are all susceptible to emerald ash borer and MPLS is removing all of their blvd ash. 3. The critical root zone is impractical on tighter building sites. This needs to be reworded to allow contractor discretion to reduce the protection radius for reasons of construction access and worker safety. A 24" diameter tree will require a 36' protection radius. This will completely cut off access to building site and force workers to intersect closer to each other, heavy equipment, etc. I think this needs to be reworded to give contractor discretion to adjust the recommended protection radius. For example, an addition in the Country Club district's tight lots would require protection perimeters that would completely eliminate use of front yards with the many large diameter trees in the yards (although most are elms and would be exempted I guess). 4. I don't like the idea of the city getting into the private matters of a homeowner's warranty on the tree they purchased. Requiring homeowners to only buy trees with three year warranties is a "nanny state" clause that should be eliminated. Now homeowner wants to pay for installing a new tree that is going to die. Requiring people to install replacement trees is a big enough win and should end at that. 5. Requiring aeration and compaction is another "nanny state" requirement that should be eliminated. What's next, someone's grass is brown so we force them to fertilize? 6. Requiring variances for exemptions is a excessive and would just burden our planning commission with busy work that detracts them from accomplishing bigger and better things. I think requiring the tree plan, protecting trees, and requiring replacement trees is a solid ordinance. However, contractor/owner should be allowed discretion based on site conditions whereby the would work with the city forester to show them issues with compliance without having to go through a burdensome variance process. This would also cut verbiage out of this excessively wordy ordinance. Thanks, SCOTT BUSYN Project Manager N,,H GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES