Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-08 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 8, 2015 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 March 25, 2015 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 — Andrew & Megan Wirth, 4230 Scott Terrace, Edina, MN B. Variance. Kelly Hayes, 6205 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN. C. Subdivision. Frank Berman. 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane, and 5320 and 5324 Blake Road VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. GRANDVIEW PRESENTATION —Three Preliminary Concepts under Consideration B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Lot Division procedure, Rezoning procedure, Side Yard Setback regulations, R-2 District regulations. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance 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 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission April 22 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kristine Aaker April 8, 2015 B-15-07 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 7.65 foot variance from the required 39.65 foot front yard setback requirement for the addition of a front room and porch on the main floor with basement area below to be located 32 feet from the front property line for the property located at 4230 Scott Terrace. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a 7.65 foot variance to the required 39.65 foot front yard setback to construct a front room with porch that will be approximately 3.8 feet closer to the street than the existing front of the home on the lot located at 4230 Scott Terrace, owned by Andrew and Megan Wirth. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 45 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property Ione) and is 8,940 square feet in area. There are two existing single-family homes on the north and south lots, both facing the Scott Terrace. The north lot has a front setback of 35 feet and the home to the south of the subject property is set back 44.3 feet from the front property line. The property owner is requesting to add living space, to the front of the home, and build a basement area below. The plan also includes a conforming mudroom addition to the north side of the home. The proposed front porch addition will not meet the front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the average setback of the two adjacent homes, or 39.65 feet for this lot. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the west side of Scott Terrace surrounded by single-family homes within the Morningside Neighborhood . Existing Site Features The subject lot is 8,940 square feet in area. It is a rather narrow, but deep lot with a single dwelling unit and a detached two car garage. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build two additions to the existing home. The proposal is to add a conforming mudroom along the north wall and a front room and porch on the east side closer to the front property line than currently allowed by city code, therefore requiring a variance. Engineering The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. The Engineering memo is attached. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent (39.65) 32 feet* Side- 5+ height, (living) 9.2 and 11.4 feet Rear- 25 feet Over 107 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 30 Ft 2 story 26.5 feet from existing grade Lot Area 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 8,940 sq. ft Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 45 feet Lot coverage 2,250 Sq. Ft. Max. 1,850.5 Sq. Ft. * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 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 yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The proposed improvements will still be 4.3 feet farther back from the front lot line than the closest home to Scott Terrace. 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 minimize impact on the adjacent properties and the streetscape. The proposed improvements will be a little over 3 feet closer to the front lot line than the existing structure but will still be farther from the street than the one other home along the west side of Scott Terrace.. 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 for this narrow 45 foot wide lot is that the proposed improvements will be the least impacting solution on the neighbors to the north and south. Side yard setbacks will be the same as existing and will not alter spacing between structures which is difficult to achieve given narrow lot width. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes. 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 front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 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 an imposed front yard setback from adjacent properties. 4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed setback is still over 4 feet farther back from the front lot line than a neighboring home down the block. 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 March 9, 2015 Building plans and elevations date stamped; March 9, 2015 2) Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo. 2 Deadline for a City Decision: May 8, 2015 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE To: Edina Planning Commission From: Andrew and Megan Wirth, 4230 Scott Terrace Edina, MN 55416 Date: March 9, 2015 We respectfully requests variance from Edina setback requirements In order to improve the functionality, while maintaining the character, of an original Edina Morningside neighborhood home. Hardship:. our home was built in 1909. our home boasts original quartersawn baseboards, built-in cabinets and ornamental plasterwork. What is does not offer is an informal family room space, which is considered to be a standard element in modern day construction. We have done our best to repurpose what was intended as a formal greeting room, but the small existing space does not allow for a full sized sofa or a play area for our children, let alone a Christmas tree during the holidays. Since our kitchen is the largest room of the house, It has become the default gym/ playroom. The mixed kitchen and play space creates both aesthetic and safety concerns. We are able to solve for this concern by converting the existing front porch to a reading room and digging out additional basement space for a family room. Recommended pian: Front porch conversion; in the proposed plans, our front porch would be removed to allow for construction of a basement and be rebuilt into year round living space. Incorporating the porch with the main house creates more efficient use of seating between the two rooms. Further, the new room would become a place for where our family could connect for reading books, completing homework, and imaginative play activities. Basement extension: Considerable planning and research of alternative options has gone into our proposed recommendation to extend the existing basement foundation. We have consulted with multiple professionals to understand what would be required to lift the house and dig down the existing foundation floor or potentially reconfigure placement of heating and water systems to make better use of existing foot print. Both options were cost prohibitive, The basement extension will offer an open space for our children to run, throw balls, and play with other toys. It will also make room for extra storage, freeing up floor space on the main levet so the original woodwork can be seen and appreciated. (Neighborhood Impact and Support: ��� Aesthetically, there are minimal changes to the front view of the ho e.Y T ieicatio�vl enhance the existing property and maintain the diverse character of neighbbrho �l ea attached for our inspiration photo (view elevations for exact specifications) as well as a photo of the two neighboring properties. The requested setback of 33 feet is 3.7 feet closer to the street than our existing structure (code for a new home is more stringent than our current home structure). The modified setback will not materially impact the sightline on our side of the street and maintains ample green space between the sidewalk and proposed front of house. Please see attached for photos taken from the south side of our home, these photos demonstrates the sight line set by a property two lots over from ours. The proposed remodel is reasonable in size and scale for the Morningside neighborhood. Our current surface footprint is 1,700 square feet with lot coverage of 19%. The remodel surface footprint would expand to 1,825 square feet with lot coverage of 20%. Please see attached aerial view of the neighborhood to illustrate comparable lot coverage. Finally, and very important to us, our neighbors are supportive of this project. We have spoken with and obtained signed letters of support from neighbors within two houses, on each side, and across from us. As stated by in the individual letters, our neighbors have been fully apprised of construction plans and remain immensely supportive of a renovation. Thank you for your consideration. :ure, oes ative the 4230 Scott Terrace January 27, 2015 Re; 4230 SoottTerrace Construction Project Dear Loraine — (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you and your family well as we head into our colder months It has been such an interesting winter thus far ... let's hope the nice weather continuesl As you know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home„ We kindly request your support to accomplish this as we have fallen in love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhood I Our proposed change Is behind the scenes, Our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room. In order to accomplish this, we need approximately 3' of additional space in which our front, main level, would extend toward the street by 3'S", With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we file for a variance with the City of Edina, if, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and support! Respectfully & Nappy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Mari Wirth (Print Name) (Address) January 19, 2019 Re: 4230 Scott Terrace Construction Project Dear Caroline & Bob — (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you and your family well as we head into our colder months it has been such an Interesting winter thus far ... let's hope the nice weather continues As you know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home. We kindly request your support to accomplish this as we have fallen in love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhoodl Our proposed change is behind the scenes. Our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room. In order to accomplish this, we need approximately 3' of additional space in which our front, main level, would extend toward the street by 3'8", With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we file for a variance with the City of Edina. If, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and supportl Respectfully & Happy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Mari Wirth I CC )Qt' i SC—WAh txC �U, r (Print Name) (Signature) Il �zI2 Sco re.tr`e,( (Address) March 8, 2015 RE; 4230 Scott Terrace construction project City of Edina Variance Committee, We are writing today in support of the Wirth's renovation project. We have been Impressed with the care and consideration Andy and Megan have taken in developing theirpian, which will create a more family friendly space and improve the value of their property. They have shown sensitivity to how this renovation will impact their neighbors and the neighborhood, While sharing their renovation plans with us, we've discussed how the renovation may impact us as their next-door neighbor. Megan and Andy are great neighbors and active in the neighborhood. We are excited that their planned renovation will create a more comfortable home for their family and allow them to continue as our neighbor, Sincerely, Robert & Carolyn Sc 4232 Scott Terrace January 27, 2015 Re: 4230 Scott Terrace Construction Project Dear Mark & Sandra — (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you well as we head Into our colder months it has been such an Interesting winter thus far .. let's hope the nice weather continues I As you may know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home, We kindly request your support to accomplish this as we have fallen in love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhood our proposed change is behind the scenes. Our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room, In order to accomplish this, we need approximately 3' of additional space in which our front, main level, would extend toward the street by 3' 811. With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we file for a variance with the City of Edina. If, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and support! Respectfully & Happy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Marl Wirth (Print Name)_, —p (Signature) (Address), Andrew Wirth From: M C Kennedy <mckmollie@gmail.com> Sent; Friday, February 27, 201511:53 AM To: Andrew Wirth Subject: Your Proposed Variance Andy -- Thank you and Megan so much for keeping me in the loop regarding your hopes and plans for remodeling your home at 4230 Scott Terrace. As someone who has undertaken several extensive remodels of my nearly 100 -year old home two doors down from you during the past 30 years, I have a vested interest in the many layers that make our neighborhood successful. In my experience, remodeling on our small lots poses many challenges, and your plans for your home offer practical and excellent solutions. I am so happy that, after getting to know you and your family during these past several years, you have found a way to keep your home in our neighborhood by making your existing house more functional to meet the needs of your family and improving it in a way that is cohesive with the style of the neighborhood. I am delighted to support you in your request for the very minor (3 foot) variance that would make your project feasible. If I can be of any help, please let me know. Mollie Kennedy (Mary Catherine Kennedy, homeowner at 4234 Scott Terrace, Edina, MN 55416; 952.240.9709) January 27, 2015 Re: 4230 Scott Terrace Construction Project Dear JIII — 0 (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you well as we head Into our colder months[ it has been such an interesting winter thus far... let's hope the nice weather continuesi As you may know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home. We kindly request your support to accomplish this as we have fallen in love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhood Our proposed change is behind the scenes, Our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room. In order to accomplish this, we need approximately 3' of additional space In which our front, main level, would extend toward the street by 3'8". With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we file for a variance with the City of Edina. If, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and supportl Respectfully & Happy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Mari Wirth U-1 1 f M SPT ti -1 LrAtetts H (Print Name) (Signi t re) (Address) 4 Andrew Wirth From: Mark Hubbard <mahubbard68@gmail,com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 1:54 PM To: Andrew Wirth Subject: Support for Construction Variance at 4230 Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Planning Commission, My wife and I have had the privilege of living in the Morningside neighborhood for the past two and half years. We discover every day more reasons why this area is unequaled in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area, and likely the country. Following this, we would like to provide our unwavering support for the Wirths construction plan at 4230 Scott Terrace. Every day when we are out walking around the neighborhood we discover or realize something new that we hadn't noticed before. From new construction that is crafted in the spirit of blending old and new to finding something new about some of the more established homes and their historical significance, Morningside boasts a wide spectrum of residences. The Wirth's are keenly aware of their home's place in the Momingside tore and are willing to invest the money and time to preserve this as well as make the home more functional for their growing family. We fully support the Wirttfs significant financial investment with this reconstruction project as a signal of strengthening their roots in Morningside and striking the balance between the need for updating an older home's function and preserving the neighborhood character. The proposed change in front set -back will be hardly noticeable, especial ty considering the wide range of existing set backs on the west side of Scott Terrace today. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Mark and LeeAnn Hubbard 4229 Scott Terrace 952-484-63571. January 27, 2015 Re; 4230 Scott Terrace Construction Project Dear Mark & LeeAnn — (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you well as we head into our colder months! It has been such an interesting winter thus far ... let's hope the nice weather continues) As you may know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home. We kindly request your supportto accomplish this as we have fallen In love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhood Our proposed change is behind the scenes. Our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room. In order to accomplish this, we need approximately 3' of additional space in which our front, main level, would extend toward the street by 3' 8". With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we fife for a variance with the City of Edina. If, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and support! Respectfully & Happy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Mari Wirth (Print Name) ,,,;7 (Signature) K (Address) January 27, 2015 Re: 4230 Scott Terrace Construction Project DearStephany & Jason (Proposed Front View) Hoping this finds you well as we head into our colder months] It has been such an Interesting winter thus far... let's hope the nice weather continues] As you may know it is our hope to begin renovations to create more family friendly spaces within our home. We kindly request your support to accomplish this as we have fallen in love with our neighbors, our street, and Morningside Neighborhood our proposed change is behind the scenes. our plans include a fully finished basement and expanded main level family room. In order to accomplish this, we need approximately Y of additional space In which our front, maln level, would extend toward the street by 3' 8', With your signature below, you can demonstrate your support of the additional 3' as we file fora variance with the City of Edina. If, alternatively, you would prefer to compose your own letter of support, we would be most grateful. Thank you for your consideration, help, and support! Respectfully & Happy Holidays - Andrew, Megan, Augie and Mari Wirth (Print Name) (Signature) (Address) Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hnnepin.usIPropertylpriatldefault.aspx?C=473838.8129612657,4974674.151822... 3/25/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIProperty1printldefault.aspx?C=473858.33925031824,4974650.57740... 3/25/2015 3 2 Wsr Wo GARAGC --. a A +►° a �• i y A* ONtAGE M3 WAL ,A Yo@o AUT £AST w cq a 3 •?,� `, av A RFS. •A. �A• .,,w .gip �" � A G7diI.GE f0.3 AEA£— S YOQo AUT £AST fpltSE u; � N 1s$Ss x 0 0 fw �i p Hill Q ;% GR 9 Z € Wsr Wo GARAGC --. a A +►° a �• i y A* ONtAGE M3 WAL ,A Yo@o AUT £AST w cq a 3 •?,� `, av A RFS. •A. �A• .,,w .gip �" � A G7diI.GE f0.3 AEA£— S YOQo AUT £AST fpltSE u; � N 1s$Ss x 0 0 • riiiiiiilllii it i ( "On"ISNM aa� o) . ,', av 3 c rays i 'I, C- �. . !Te' ri 1 ar, •� N7K i UTI � F3: all I L W 4 C 1 t i 4 44 m At 'Men 11, i 11, q�4 ED] 41 IR r �-7-77I k � i �� ' 7� I i IT! 1— PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kristine Aaker April 8, 2015 B-15-08 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 6.4 foot variance to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to allow for a 23.6 foot front yard setback, a 10.3 foot south and a .3 foot north side yard setback variance for a second floor addition to an existing nonconforming 1 Y2 story home. Project Description: The applicant is requesting variances to the required front yard and side yard setbacks to construct a second floor addition and garage expansion on the lot located at 6205 Wooddale Ave. (subject property), owned by Kelly Hayes. The existing home is currently nonconforming regarding south side yard setback. IN FORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 75 feet in width and is 12,206 square feet (.25 acres) in area. Approximately .20 acres of the lot is beyond the right of way and is considered lot area for zoning purposes. The property backs up to Garrison Ponds. There is one existing single-family home located south of the subject lot, facing west and fronting Wooddale Ave. and Garrison Lane. The adjacent property to the north is an office use and is zoned Commercial with their parking lot against the subject property. The property owner is requesting to add a full second floor onto the existing 1 '/ story single-family home, a new two car garage with living space above and a porch. The home currently does not meet the required 10 foot side yard setback from the south side yard. The existing home is located 5.1 feet from the south lot line. The minimum side yard setback is 10 feet plus 6 inches for each one foot of average height above 15 feet. The home is a walk -out in back so adding a full 2nd story requires a side yard setback of 15.4 feet, (25.8 foot height measured from average grade to the mid -point of the gable). The proposal includes a front porch with a master bedroom above. Porches are allowed to encroach into the required 30 foot front yard setback by 80 square feet as long as it is limited to an overhang with columns. The proposed porch will overlap the required front yard setback by 6.4 feet and by 118 square feet. The porch will also have bedroom area above so all of the structure is subjected to the required 30 foot front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the adjacent home to the south, (or 30 feet for this lot). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the east side of Wooddale Ave., backs up to Garrison Ponds, is adjacent to a parking lot to the north and single family homes to the south. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 12, 206 square feet, of which 9,256 square feet is beyond the right of way. It is a 75 foot wide lot and is adjacent to a pond. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning; Engineering Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. The Engineering memo is attached. Building Design The proposal is to add a full second floor with a new two car garage to a 1 Y2 story home that currently has a detached one stall garage. 2 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the south) and side yard setback due to existing nonconforming setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to a parking lot across the street from a pond and is located 63 feet from the neighbor to the south. 4. The improvements, as proposed, protect the pond and existing views by maintaining the existing rear wall setback and complying, (well within), the rear yard and far from the OWH setback of 50 feet. • Is the proposed variance justified? City Standard Proposed Front - Match adjacent/30 Ft 23.6 feet* Side- 10+ height, (living) 5.1 and 15.2 Ft OWH- 50 feet 91.7 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 30 Ft 2 stories, 26 feet from existing grade Lot Area 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 12,206 Sq Ft Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 75 feet Lot coverage 25% 19.26% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the south) and side yard setback due to existing nonconforming setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to a parking lot across the street from a pond and is located 63 feet from the neighbor to the south. 4. The improvements, as proposed, protect the pond and existing views by maintaining the existing rear wall setback and complying, (well within), the rear yard and far from the OWH setback of 50 feet. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: 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 variances are reasonable given that existing home is nonconforming, is limited in design options because of proximity to the south lot line and given its relative isolation from directly impacting another structure. The home immediately to the south of the subject lot is nearly 58 feet from the shared lot line and approximately 63 feet away from the south side wall of the subject home. The property to the north has a parking lot adjacent to the subject house and proposed improvements. There is a pond and back yard area across the street from the front of the subject property so impact from the porch/2nd floor addition will be minimal. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing home is nonconforming, was built prior to many around it with the adjacent home to the south built later than the subject home with platting causing setback nonconformities. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed home will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard and side yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to a pond, with all improvements directed away from the pond in the back yard. All additions are kept in-line with the existing back wall of the home keeping the backyard adjacent to the pond open and unobstructed. 4. There are practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to the front yard setback constraint and existing nonconforming southside yard setback due to original placement of the home. 5. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It will enhance 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, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: September 23, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped: March 16, 2015. Deadline for a City Decision: May 15, 2015. 5 INVOICE Bertelson One Source 6645 James Avenue N Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone:763-595-5300 Fax: 763-546-5633 Sold To: CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MN 55424 Page 1 of 1 Invoice: OE-389021-1be 1 Date: 03/25/15If'_Y) (Q) j One Source bteconfident. bedone. behappy. Ship To: CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 50TH ST. EDINA, MN 55424 Attn: JACKIE HOOGENAKKER PLANNING DIVISION Special Instructions: Cost Center/Department: 0 CITY OF EDINA Customer ID Customer PO Payment Terms Route Code 161900 JACKIE HOOGENAKKER NET 30 DAYS G1 Salesperson Order Number Ship Date Due Date Ordered By John Priyatel OE -389021 03/25/15 04/24/15 Item Description UM Chrg Qty Qty Qty Unit Extension Freight: Code Ord Ship B/O Price AVE05795 Color Coding Labels, 1/4 in., Dia., PK 1 1 6.44 6.44 Removable, 768/PK, Assorted 26.32 PAP8430152 Point Guard Flair Porous Point Stick Pen, DZ 1 1 19.88 19.88 Black ink, Medium, Dozen Subtotal: 26.32 Sales Tax: 0.00 Freight: 0.00 "Other Charges: 0.00 Total Invoice Amount: 26.32 If you are interested in receiving your invoice or month end reports electronically, please e-mail Deposit: 0.00 AR@be1source.com. For prompt returns, contact 763-595-5300 within 10 days of your order. Total Amount Due: 26.32 ------------------------------------------------ To ensure proper credit, Include your Customer Number and Invoice number on your check, otherwise please detach this portion and return with your payment. 161900, CITY OF EDINA OE -389021-1 Please Remit Payment To: Bertelson One Source 6645 James Avenue N Minneapolis, MN 55430 INVOICE: OE -389021-1 AMOUNT DUE: $26.32 Payment Due Date: 04/24/15 V[Ei �aea VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID. City of Edina Planning Department* www. EdinaMNxiov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 ` fax (952) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT:11 :'1 NAME\�A`\I _ 0, i' �-_>(Signature required o�o'-s-v back page) I ADDRESS: UJQ � C3 �` � - PHONE: -IS-I 1 A-7 EMAI PROPERTY OWNER. NAME: tee.►\E\I(Signature required on -back page) ADDRESS:LQZ J�PHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): A **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: CN— PRESENT ZONING&—Q- i:)`�'a-•" P.I.D.# 3 �i EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) qs2_ ARCHITECT: NAME: PHONE: EMAIL: t ��-`:i . , , W -I l� D� u--Nao SURVEYOR: NAME: %l �lV �' A PHONE:( t9�E;', EMAIL: `PrAV oL- c- J e5l Variance Application 6205 Wooddale Ave Edina, MN There are three different variances that I am requesting for my home renovation. They are all small setback adjustments. When I first purchased my home in Edina, MN -in October of 2015, 1 was very excited for a new start for my son and me. Edina is a perfect place with great schools. I came across this listing and decided right away that it was a place we could call home. It was home, but It definitely needed work. At the closing, I showed Violet, the previous.owner, my ideas for the new home. The home had been in her family since 1941 and she is very attached to it. She loved my ideas and was especially sentimental that I was not just tearing it down. These changes are not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. My new elevation is in harmony with the general purposes and the intent of the zoning ordinance. Since it was important to me to keep some of the historical structure, I sought out a plan that would modernize the floor plan, but keep the architecture in line with the neighborhood. By granting me the side and front setback variance, I am able to use the existing structure which will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. My use on this is reasonable. It also creates less waste in materials since I am using the existing structure. Lastly, the current ceiling height in my upstairs does not meet code to be considered living space. I do not have enough surface ceiling area at 8' to constitute my current second floor as living space. In order to correct this, I will need to increase the roof height of my entire house which requires a variance. This will correct extraordinary circumstance applicable to my property, but not applicable to other property in my neighborhood. As you can see from plans and the picture of the proposed elevation, my renovated house will be a wonderful addition to the street scape as well as liveable square footage for my home. I thank you for your time and consideration. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying ❑ with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood( !� ❑ Detailed Application Requirements: Unless waived by the Planning Department, you must complete all of the following items with this application. An incomplete application will not be accepted. Completed and signed application form. Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." ✓ One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. u Seventeen (17) 11x17 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the application. Copies must be collated. V/ A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." Grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management plan. Grading plan 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. V Variance requests require scale drawings to explain and document the proposal. The drawings are not required to be prepared by a professional, but must be neat, accurate and drawn to an acceptable scale. The drawings may vary with the proposal, but should include a site plan, floor plans and elevations of the sides of the building which are affected by the variance. 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 The City of Edina Planning Department encourages healthy development within the city of Edina. Although this document is meant to serve as a guide for the application process for development through the Planning Department it is by no means comprehensive. The Planning Staff recommend that you schedule a meeting to answer any questions or to discuss issues that may accompany your project. It is much easier to tackle problems early on in the process. The office number for the Planning Staff is (952) 826-0465. Variance Information The Edina Planning Commission has been established to consider exceptions (variances) from the Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36), the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 34), the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 36) and the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment 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 2. That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 3. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. "Practical Difficulties" means that: 1. The property in question cannot put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance 2. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances -unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application: Applications are submitted to the Planning Department. Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 4:30 PM. Deadlines for Applications: Applications need to be submitted at least thirty days before the meeting. This allows the City of Edina time to notify surrounding property owners of the date of the hearing and details of the varianoe. It is helpful to submit the application as soon as possible to secure an early hearing position. Notice of Public Hearing: Notice is mailed to all property owners (of record at City Hall) that are located within 200 feet of the site. Notice is mailed ten (10) days prior to the hearing. You are encouraged to contact adjacent or close owners and advise them of your proposal prior to the notice of the hearing. You may wish to provide statements of "no objection to the variance" from the nearby property owners. Meetings and Public Hearings: Meetings of the Planning Commission are scheduled on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. The meetings are held at 7:00 pm in the Edina City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 West 5dh Street. Each meeting is limited to five variance cases on a first come, first serve basis. Additional requests are delayed until subsequent meetings. Meetings are formal public hearings with a staff report, comments from the proponent and comments from the audience. It is important the owner or a representative attend the meeting to answer questions. Staff Report: After'review of the drawings submitted and a visit to the site staff prepares a report. This report, along with any supporting drawings and materials, are sent to the Zoning Board in advance of the meetings. Board members may visit the site before the meeting. All plans, emails and written information are public information, and may be used in the staff report and distributed to the public. Board Membership: The Planning Commission serves as the Zoning Board. Five members are required for a quorum. Decisions by the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may approve, deny or amend the variance request and establish conditions to ensure compliance or protect surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission generally makes a decision at the scheduled hearing. Occasionally, however, a continuance to another meeting may be necessary. Appeals: Decisions of the Planning Commissionare final unless appealed to the City Council in writing within 10 days. The proponents, any owner receiving notice of the hearing or the staff may appeal decisions. Appeals are rare and they can be tune consuming because a new hearing is required before the full City Council. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk. Legal Fee: It is the policy of the City to charge applicants for the actual cost billed by our attorneys for all legal work associated with the application. An itemized bill will be provided which is due and payable within thirty (30) days. ** Filing an Approved Variance: The applicant is required to file an approved variance resolution with the County. Documents necessary for filing will be provided by the Planning Department. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I haves�c ted all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the dements an information I have submitted are true and correct. re S- I vg- k-5 Date OWNER'S TATEMENT I am t a4ae `,downer of the above described property, and I agree to this application. a co oration or p rtnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this ication gp behA of the board of directors or partnership.) Date Note. Boki signatu es are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can proce pplication, otherwise it is considered incomplete. Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page I of I -5/3 honns-n;" nqnx-?C==4719.RI.R9()367.i4R5.4c)7ORi1.7R16R6... 3/2.512015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIProperty/print/default.aspx?C=473252.61655000085,4970845.82855... 3/25/2015 L— ----------- x. JA a 2 LA.1 rc fe is j Sitawn I r ij zb! 60si— M.9cco.00N 4/j3N .40 3Nn ISIJA' 9 liz HJDOG -4-hGA V1 zn VOOOOM — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — gig su g C4 40 _zip F) ag r. RIX Nix :go:E Mai ��:Z i Ep E 0. .0 gul WE 'go Er 1E, w IL toz 9 9 9 I 00* 511 N 'Cc, er %��o I o (n cn tj Ed 72 Ill in E 0 m rfal crj C, I?E 0 LL -0 0 !:. L- . tnt� O 0 0- 1 X43,911 co V cc 0 I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY _ _ .-N1/4 CORNER DF sEc3o-i2tst-Ra4wi,a9'S3_t,-E -for- KELLY M. HAYES 1 -NORTH UNE OF NEI/4 6205 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH SEC.3O-T2ew-R24W i EDINA. MN 55424 CPM USCRmn®N 1 per Title Commirrsent no No. 14-12735 LEGEND SOmlol rl, i prapsmd by Title Resources Guaranty i Company by Agent, Burnet Title) i • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SOUND AS LABELEDDRuS' I i O DENOTES fRON MONUMENT SET. MARKED RLS/SO14421 1 ^I The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet of the West MAW DENOTES HENNEPN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT 7$2.73 feet of the Northeast 1/4. Section 30. Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government -x- DENOTES FENCE ( I Sunray thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota p' DENOTES GUY YAR€ �g _ raoeracn _ _t nit ))N TH -am" 'CL DENOTES POWER POLE I Ell ;� _ x eszse DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS .�.DEN07ES PAVER SURFACE 30 34 j ""LCIS r•r,er*MIAr�„ All J�lw C " i s �'� . , t < s anar Y "maw sc.�ss f .�_.. .�_..,... .ass:. ID DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE t s",r ' ' i ,5 res ary err ora DENOTES BITUMINOUS .SURFACE t_-- ------ 11 j �a DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION3 n 1 r a • e� (>.� avass.�•»„ -+� ria rz t �e�r IMPERit100S SURFACE I — 30.00 �. _ . -a. ,�7$n�. 187 FOOT SfTeAp( BAlm Ail 'roposED NlJOIT- , 'r p .Sins k".._ cuCKAnONS , , 11 -.rb. �r - :,_ °r I "�,,°° t ^ �tA TOTAL AREA INCLUDING R/W - 12,2D6 S.F. mat TOTAL ARES EXCLUDING R/W - 9.95$ S.F. j W74W PRa>DSD ii pQ EXl NG. t PERIMOUS CACULA71ONS O v n, `4' yGARAGE EXISTING HOUSE 832 S.F. UYBNT I b EXISTING CONCRETE 808 &F. >\ �/� SPACE ABOVE < Cagym,SIAg EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 1,18$ S.F, x t sum 4 TO K RENOVFA I TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 2&X S.F. /� nim pzH � lm. (EXCLUDING RICHT OF WAY) 2&2X ' _11 W �j, q t t a t�1 ` r( aJ 3 t w' ♦ s m x as r a xixas �mn` y vim PROPOSED K OUS CALCULATIONS SE AND GARAGE = 1.399 S,F, ..0 ♦'2 nim ___---___= d I "__ u '1. » •ax..ai CONCRETE WALK AND PATIO • 469 S.F." 1 W --«- ------yd- ---$� f 162.73 -- ------ 729 : r �q, DRIVEWAY f f�s?jYpy'j TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 2.797 S F, O L ,/J �Q � +g ' N Mg ave t 4 RW SMACK ON PROPOSED HEIM T �O O PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 28.IX '( )Vol' (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) L �) V P - �` •�„ M1 waa rww. U. as tme' ny6T w is � et l"Pery tH. �m F �S ( 130.00 �ia, +t ' t anm ls7ail i � Y f9E1nP19�8t's f NId survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons Inc.an nisi rs. ri s •. i 2.75 09119/14 and 3102/15. ( ♦ Bn Wer*- ssea .,sok amus ,. ) aTsa - Bearings shown are Hennepin County Coordinate System. ul nrL elgy - This survey is based upon a Title Commitment Fite Na I nzw nos 14-12733 Supplemental in. prepared by Title Resources nim -r .. r. •. w { Guaranty Company by Agent. Burnet Title, dated July 28th, 2014. The aids yard setback. are based on Proposed building I 30 I hdghta s won ,�s+xs\Issnws weswx .s 3/9/♦a5 ixs2:1 ave COT o Denotes Iron Set Bearings shown are on / hereby certify thot thrs p/ surae r t repored by me or under my e Denotes Iron Found an assumed datum. direct superalslon and that / a duly egistered Land Surveyor under the laws ilei BTI® i, SONS. Im of the Stote of Minnesota: Doted this _2jrd day of �S=tamkerl, 2014. ' ?Wesgonal Land St aycn Scale 1 20' Drown By. JEN / f� he»♦wa a-a-rs oav d reaa a a rray. ,,,,,,, AWWd *M 6776 Lake Oil" NF, SuRb 110 Project Manager: BLR License No. 19421 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Job No-: 15i06i15 ! 9 Tettest)U141100 rox(W)36114M LEGENDI 1 1 SUFplemmtat A prepared by To. N."WE.. —1.1y POST 7'-7. O.C. Cby A9mt. Bt TI11eJ { • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED I FIELD FENCE WN. 3C' MGR MAX 0 hm git a1 III- Weet { eat . P1 i Ore North 150 le fie 5auth 75 EntiJrl°A,rin I 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET. MARKED RLS/ 19421 I 16275 feet of the Narthemt 1/4, Seetlan 71L TaWnahtp vuaN{ DENOTES XEMNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MCNIHNENT I C 28, Range 24, eeearding ILC Rha U104 Stat. Caps -t y ihM.4 end .duet. W HED PM Counts Ml -4. z -• DENOTES FEHC DENOTES GUY WILE— I -¢ I NORTH •W d �' •O. DOCTES ROVER POLE SPOT EDF- ..>y I w�•{� t X aavn DENOS EXISTING ELEVATION TE EXISTING CONTOURS i _ DENOTES _•....`•••-" I awe ' \� DENOTES PAVER SURFACE I pS ZI , 1 , . ., .0 •'nn ' X1..1 .i. : t 1, ` un DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE .. i \\U1aeN.n I .; DENOTES SIVAINOUS SURFACE yam.-' 'X�.,. N,/ 'y'w' (MP DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION I - anNraul N59•$3 11",F..-...... 132,.75 N:T1P1.1aWy `` IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3DIOD 5.7 FDDT SEOAG%B,9D CALCULATIONS w 1RFPXSPD Ima(r,..—""` , TDTAL AREA INCLUOING RA : 12806S, TOTAL ARES EXCLUDING R/W = 9,956 S.F. . _. -'O �+a_ ° •� - PROPT- wAr� \•"" ' A i°1'� .A \\•ww Nf. IIAPFRMMrC CA(XN •nous EXISTING HGBSE 832 Sr. I (n, h N �•'� DPrrcwAY. ^Arm „A4 WA1a R-.�+--a - , sA¢'A/D4Y+" yyAA8B r'T -1�O 1Y sus\. EXISTING DONGREIE 806 Sr. EXISTING DRNEWAY i, p69 5r. "ms, w i iOALT- 4 .' • RE11DW9 i FXIa^nNG BNPERWOUS (EXCLUCING RIGHT OF WAY) 28.27. I pROPDean INP VMrC A C. A-IONa I • M � • r • vu,. zeti, . >ewa \ rru° Ik PROPOSED HOUSE AND GARAGE _ 7.599 S.F. CONCRETE WALT( AND PATO �9 S.F. I Q 'qpL• O __---o _ 16275 3 �, ��� nu. / EXblb9 +� � t v� -1 l�-_-__-non•` FmT SE,9AIX9ASLv q O TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERWOUS ZT9T S.F. PROPOSEDPERCENT IMPERVIOUS- 2&15 I X 3 yy qe i E • (y.,X XPuse .. sa'•°tyrl� I 2� yni4 r ON pROP03D HDOHT a?p 1 I 'O y z•m. (EXCLUDING RIGHT of WAY) Q..O n'� 1'.i�a•' `\ X` V O �----L2S6rw s SPKE ABOrE pWAp A[C AB9VE�L1��'DN0=9Y 3n.1j i "X '�[p NOTES I ��..:.: ( .�: Te .A>+,.: - aOLOlDvrua �G¢ICAEIE.STaaP 'w 131. L,n>a—• '¢ �. �,.,. ee1.1.�1•'n' as3b --- Sltaa ntS,Ye NNlvra_m. b5pnl yTr F1Gi4eudba-rcN I.'��� 52.75 B9.5S'>>"fs.Harn y_..,jO 159.75 "ra' Dmea�nnt.l eII .m B9ryDa w .notjene1d paA a/a<n0vP tydeRmuCbdm•yy elaMTrndtldmm aYhyan5alwwedT b HY1pu.aI ThCamY2A9a -sew `a' ei:EplinyaGr.Ceva 1wn2angu7warn35 adhmnpRmwe "^'°• 4 Sdmet TUe, dated Uuly 28th. I 30 I DD e- •• • • ` ` 4 2014. - The CIM• Yard °etb° W. bm.d an pmpaaed buY6ng h.15h W. xAna\a`pVM_ T{d4HaVN9Wr.Hid e•. btlReld IDaN:W ,N CIT o Denotes Iron Set BearingS shown ore on ! hereby Gertlfy that this plan, survey w repGrt w¢s pr4oared by maw under my E �I. m C�IiIS. nl • Denotes Iron Found an assumed datum. IL .- direct superafslM and that I am a duly Regetred Land so—)"Or un I- the lows \/`IT•s 6 Of the Slate 1 Minncsol¢ Dated the �Z7uLday of Sent��mher 2014 Professlond Lund Surveyors Scale 1 "= 20' Q. Orawn By. JEN t/L t7i"-- a.p:.a:.T-s-ts am d i" sA r. edwh_ „ , 6776 Lake Dd" N SMHe 710 11no Lakes, MN 5514 .Inh MO.e 151 Project Manager. BLR j g .1r?fb 1• _ _ L'cuTse _N¢ _ 19421 to (4d1)uN4ma F-(W),I,b.1 LEGEND —M— PROPOSED CONTOUR X92.91 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION (miT9tlaN[ NTAM,1 USI W VA2 m OMNIA —a UI11284 Ol1EA'LL1O PAIGim) ' 9 PROPOSED SILT ENCE 4- PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE 10. Know. what's below. Call before you dig. N 1YJTECpt_2= SILT FENCE N.T•5. MIN. 1) %R 1) WILE MSX IS NOT REWIRED. 2) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOREMOVAL ALL EROSION CP MATERIALS OFFOLLOWINGTURF O17ROL ESTABLISHMENT. COMMERCIAL TURF MNDOT MOX 25 -IM (220 LR RESIDENTIAL NRF MNOOT MIX 25-131 (120 LL TEMPORARY GALL COVER =OT MIX 21-112 (10D LB' SPRING/SVMMERt MNDOT MIX 21-111 (100 L8: SOIL -BULLDOG COVER "DOT MX M-113 (110 LSI I-2 TEARS COVER MNOOTMIX 22-111 (30.5 L5 2-5 YEARS COVER MNODT LOX 22-112 (40 LBe • MOW A MINIMUM OF ONCE PER 2 WEEKS ^ SEEDED AREAS SHALL RE EITHER MULCHED DR COVERED BY FLBLANKEED TS TD PROTECT SES AND LIMIT EROSION. • ALL EXPOSED SOLS MUST HAVE TEMPORARY ERmmN CONTROL MOTE DAYS. • "HE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION 70 ALL ANACENT I CONTROL PRACTICES INPLACE IN THOSE AREAS PRLYFNT WGRAMEW 0 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SILT FENCE INCLUDING THE REMM • OF BEALdNG CONS'TRUCTDN. SILT FENCE 70 BE REMOVED ONLY AM STABLISHMEN7 OF VEGETATION. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROWOE WOOD FIBER BLANKET FOR ALL ARE OR GREATER • PROTECT ALL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FROM CDNSTRU( CONSTRUCT SAID FACILITIES ONCE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED. • F ANY SIXTIES APPEAR TO BE FAILING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRL CONTROL BLANKET AS NEEDED. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FINAL GRADE SWALE AREAS UPON STABIU21 • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SOD ALL 11MR1E0 CRAINAOE AREAS. INCL • UPON GRACING COMPLETION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NAIIM EATH A STRAIGHT SET DISC WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING • MSS SCIL SHOULD BE TREATED LME DIM EXPOSED SOIL AND S TD HAVE SILT FENCE PLACED ON DOWN9TREAM SECS • CAUSE SOCK SONNC OREUTiSING 7tl EE CLEANED UP BT SWEEP NSM PLACE SHOULD E WHICH SUCH SOIUND DR LITTERWC SHALL. HAVE OCCURRED DR, BEEN OTHER POLLUTION CONTROL MUSURES CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS - ALL WASTE MATERIALS GENERATE COLLECTEO AND REMOYED ACCORDING TO ALL LOCAL AND/OR STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR WALL ENSURE THA' PRACTICES HAZARDOUS WASTES - ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE WHEN NECESSARY. HAZARDOUS WASTES WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN TAE RECULATON OR BY THE MANUFACTURER SANITARY WASTE - ALL SANITARY WASTE WILL BE COLLECTED FROM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL REGULATION. OFFSITE VEHICLE TRAMONO - A ROCK CONSTRUCTINN ENTRANCE HAS A SEDIMENTS. IF A STREET. LEY, SIDEWALK OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE DANT N WWGH SUCAUSE CH SDIUdNG OR UTTERING SHALL HBOILING DR LITTERING TO BE AVE N OCCURRED C MATERIALS ($AND, TOPSOIL, ETC.) TO AND/OR FROM THE SITE SHALL VEHICLE MEANING - ND ENGINE DECREASING IS ALLOWED ON-SITE DEFINED AREA CRONE YARD') ON-SITE, CDNIRACTDR 70 PROVWE 1 SIGNAGE WASHOUT AREA IS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50' FROM DITCNL LIQUID AND -SOLID WASTE GENERATED BY WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUS FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE UNER (EO COMPACTED CLAY LINER DRE SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL - ALL VENICLES WILL BE CHECKED FLURDS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON -ATE. SPILL KITS TALL BE STOW IMMEDIATELY DISCDVERY. SPENT ABSORBENT MATERIALS AND RAGS IS CLEANED UP AND PROPERTY OMPOSED OF. SPILL PREVENTION Al CONSTRUCTION BEGINS TLE COWIRAGTDR MUST DISCHARGE TURBID OR SEDIMENT-LADDN WA OSCIIARGES, TRFNCM/b1TCH CUTS FOR.-ERA TOA TEMPOWTY SITE UNlE55 MFFASIBIL THE CONTRACTOR NAY DISCHARGE FROM T SURFACE WATERS IF 7HE BASIN WATER HAS BEEN VISUALLY GNECKE IN THE BASIN AND THAT NUISANCE CONDITIONS (SEE MINN. R 7056 EF THE WATER CANNOT Be DISCNARGEO TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN TREADOWTED WITH TITHE APP S.�ATE BMPS SUCH THAT ME DISCHARGE CONTRACTOR T.B.D. (ADD CDNTAC7 INFO HERE WHEN DETERMINED) STORM WATER & ER 6205 WOODDALE 2' X 2' WOW DR STEEL POST 7'-7. O.C. WERE MESH REINFORCEMENT, SRI. FIELD FENCE WN. 3C' MGR MAX MESH SPACING of G' AND MIN. 14-1/2' GAUGE WINE B DPTIRUL CEOIFXIILE FILTER FABRIC _ C OVERLAP S' AND FASTEN AT 7 z INTERVALS. LAY FABRIC M TRENCH. b 3 FABRIO ANCHORAGE TRENCH IRACKFILL NATURAL SACH WITH TAMPEO 1YJTECpt_2= SILT FENCE N.T•5. MIN. 1) %R 1) WILE MSX IS NOT REWIRED. 2) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOREMOVAL ALL EROSION CP MATERIALS OFFOLLOWINGTURF O17ROL ESTABLISHMENT. COMMERCIAL TURF MNDOT MOX 25 -IM (220 LR RESIDENTIAL NRF MNOOT MIX 25-131 (120 LL TEMPORARY GALL COVER =OT MIX 21-112 (10D LB' SPRING/SVMMERt MNDOT MIX 21-111 (100 L8: SOIL -BULLDOG COVER "DOT MX M-113 (110 LSI I-2 TEARS COVER MNOOTMIX 22-111 (30.5 L5 2-5 YEARS COVER MNODT LOX 22-112 (40 LBe • MOW A MINIMUM OF ONCE PER 2 WEEKS ^ SEEDED AREAS SHALL RE EITHER MULCHED DR COVERED BY FLBLANKEED TS TD PROTECT SES AND LIMIT EROSION. • ALL EXPOSED SOLS MUST HAVE TEMPORARY ERmmN CONTROL MOTE DAYS. • "HE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION 70 ALL ANACENT I CONTROL PRACTICES INPLACE IN THOSE AREAS PRLYFNT WGRAMEW 0 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SILT FENCE INCLUDING THE REMM • OF BEALdNG CONS'TRUCTDN. SILT FENCE 70 BE REMOVED ONLY AM STABLISHMEN7 OF VEGETATION. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROWOE WOOD FIBER BLANKET FOR ALL ARE OR GREATER • PROTECT ALL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FROM CDNSTRU( CONSTRUCT SAID FACILITIES ONCE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED. • F ANY SIXTIES APPEAR TO BE FAILING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRL CONTROL BLANKET AS NEEDED. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FINAL GRADE SWALE AREAS UPON STABIU21 • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SOD ALL 11MR1E0 CRAINAOE AREAS. INCL • UPON GRACING COMPLETION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NAIIM EATH A STRAIGHT SET DISC WITHIN 48 HOURS OF FINAL GRADING • MSS SCIL SHOULD BE TREATED LME DIM EXPOSED SOIL AND S TD HAVE SILT FENCE PLACED ON DOWN9TREAM SECS • CAUSE SOCK SONNC OREUTiSING 7tl EE CLEANED UP BT SWEEP NSM PLACE SHOULD E WHICH SUCH SOIUND DR LITTERWC SHALL. HAVE OCCURRED DR, BEEN OTHER POLLUTION CONTROL MUSURES CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS - ALL WASTE MATERIALS GENERATE COLLECTEO AND REMOYED ACCORDING TO ALL LOCAL AND/OR STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR WALL ENSURE THA' PRACTICES HAZARDOUS WASTES - ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE WHEN NECESSARY. HAZARDOUS WASTES WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN TAE RECULATON OR BY THE MANUFACTURER SANITARY WASTE - ALL SANITARY WASTE WILL BE COLLECTED FROM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL REGULATION. OFFSITE VEHICLE TRAMONO - A ROCK CONSTRUCTINN ENTRANCE HAS A SEDIMENTS. IF A STREET. LEY, SIDEWALK OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE DANT N WWGH SUCAUSE CH SDIUdNG OR UTTERING SHALL HBOILING DR LITTERING TO BE AVE N OCCURRED C MATERIALS ($AND, TOPSOIL, ETC.) TO AND/OR FROM THE SITE SHALL VEHICLE MEANING - ND ENGINE DECREASING IS ALLOWED ON-SITE DEFINED AREA CRONE YARD') ON-SITE, CDNIRACTDR 70 PROVWE 1 SIGNAGE WASHOUT AREA IS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50' FROM DITCNL LIQUID AND -SOLID WASTE GENERATED BY WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUS FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE UNER (EO COMPACTED CLAY LINER DRE SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL - ALL VENICLES WILL BE CHECKED FLURDS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON -ATE. SPILL KITS TALL BE STOW IMMEDIATELY DISCDVERY. SPENT ABSORBENT MATERIALS AND RAGS IS CLEANED UP AND PROPERTY OMPOSED OF. SPILL PREVENTION Al CONSTRUCTION BEGINS TLE COWIRAGTDR MUST DISCHARGE TURBID OR SEDIMENT-LADDN WA OSCIIARGES, TRFNCM/b1TCH CUTS FOR.-ERA TOA TEMPOWTY SITE UNlE55 MFFASIBIL THE CONTRACTOR NAY DISCHARGE FROM T SURFACE WATERS IF 7HE BASIN WATER HAS BEEN VISUALLY GNECKE IN THE BASIN AND THAT NUISANCE CONDITIONS (SEE MINN. R 7056 EF THE WATER CANNOT Be DISCNARGEO TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN TREADOWTED WITH TITHE APP S.�ATE BMPS SUCH THAT ME DISCHARGE CONTRACTOR T.B.D. (ADD CDNTAC7 INFO HERE WHEN DETERMINED) STORM WATER & ER 6205 WOODDALE PHONES 722.023S Sec, 30'—j zie, R 24 + i DONALD H. DEUTSCH � -»wu•d ' • +••««+ � LAND SURVEYOR 4158 - 24TH AVENUE SOUTH + MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE60TA 55406 WNN6APOU6 LIOLNM= N f/`F 3a' - I !. 2 1 e d41y T V N �w_ I Q (L U3 II rJ o� A 4z t< Sc�uE t = 3ti 10 IU N fj% bd�� �! A yN x m o LGNOTes Tlec t �` 0 W ,� . i a eoNtxYhENT W 1� j N t] Io g N ' a z{ I d V k j r 00 3 S a h k W60 a 1•Eu.B IL '^ Q o as w 0 � ., 2 K til ' 'Doe i M 7� _ .. 6 ,70 ..... �g7s' BUIL '----._ 4 VILLAGE 0E- EDINA ' � ' � f'+RR ► So N h� �... _ cif �hlE c M' _ ISO9 N 71.2,3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION'. .N Beginning at a poinb on the West line of the Northeast 1A of Section 30, Township 28, Range 24, 150 feet South of the Northwest 60,ner thereof! thence East and parallel with the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 98.5 feet; thence South and parallel with the West line thereof to the venter line of Garrison Lane; thence Northwesterly along said center line to the Weser line of said Northwest 1/41 thence North 151.6 feet along said best line to the point of beginning. Subject to all Easements of record.(for Wooddale Avenue over the Westerly 30 feet thereof and for Garrison Lane over the Southerly 25 feet thereof.) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above. Surveyed by me this lot da of May, 1971. As resurveyed by ice this 2nd day of August, 1971• As revised and updated by me this 1 ..h day of Jantarv. 1972. °"� {w,� w4� �`�ll� ��� _�l t d .dy." % M (p°(01 aoo2wFlLL, 3°;eRJlce 'K TGs C-t,4,fueeRt+.l FC -0 7"kS PIPYZ `. �� �NbIufEEeO Q,U1wa.ti5 Ano SGees • a �hnf�y (Lvl, 3 V2 OONC m SCA -8 ON & A L . VAPU P 09fen oN Rs7• coMpacr�o Fitt. of UIR�,N SOIL .�— I a53° pp�� 0 6,3� XS A�u.�4Y yoxvo" 3.2-3440 3Q 8 keo cc ..-_ QbR SciD/N �1lU/ S7yC:E"" OWI (Tp,ckt)T41of DoT/N(I quo b" plocKLD�P'rN haD SALE C .� To Mier oR E)cC�e0 L GAvu I Fo e2 y ysgfPal� (0 3 xIVa3 � � ITC N-'-a fi 15T fLoo2 = ?05-S •f+ JNa Ff-W = I i . To7A(_ = a,aao sb�f. _oa r'k LvL 6eAM iOT St. f+' Ex Imam (yWAt LeveL j-RcoL PLAN( tu0$AJ& R/A, I PA—Ry I -?Osn 6.Vn(d�GUL C ( .. fA&.uffa` To EXf3TiNG M,1,i @oycReTE pdee sizes —.... 1 ` TG•T Ft,r-/NF f1e6 F&OP 7A,51-5 ?Pk . I' EN6�NEE�°eri Okw,"r FNd J�cS i °s"w,u0w �_xr I 8 3°a°wmn°w 3 EVISS ,Cad , • I'e0. wow, It fio�aR � h (Z�S� S�OING is 3°Kb° B/iTI}'tZL -- j �o rsr,Ntr S LM2N JYl14 Tek bl iffEl - ur, CLoser I: 2n1d (�/� laox I6u _ t. a 3a(° SL,ilwc DoaGS 3' W ftLK JN � i. $NilV4(x s µA_ LUwP�y :13MLE 3lidwep. a$ 6 LPX i3= POO + d Do./L L1N�F/ - �rnL ,3oaa 3oW° 3° o °do flccesS � _.. - ui�.ro°w w ao°✓ a � I w�om.r wwo°w wnSlwt LnuuiA�y� 3 ° -- ....__ . FGResS FGQe �r� SLID,Nb WflLK 1� 3°5° l S�CIDe 3NQu 5�'JLE CLo„e'r S'311' —ATTU SPRUE— ju.�R 1�ooPS it S9 X 103 I � c(� • h SLopl S'8" �e,wNtr I � srt5 I _ N�fl��13D2M F,a� i Tk('SkS a404- Pek fNGWFE2e0 DBAuIUIGS M-b Specs ' I E6 28Z WeZ iWeSS Ne`w' w� ¢ 7 I ♦' i - \ `_F7: 2-o.a, e�-c do.P lr L oL X g LL W Z Leff 5406 EfevATl&W r 1 I I � \�paAt_ 611,PgKe I R sPcc. I � i AO9aznrr8L SIOIMt- I / i f _ � N a� 1'8 SND FCR, s• PLAX hejelt F Q ] � SII,' li Q Rol h6r, 0 r bmcaerr- Pwk I hXlsriNG FwKfOXnQg ¢16k+ SIDE Eow,+T/w 0 _ " r�0a r Kris Aaker From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:18 AM To: 'Christopher Malooly' Subject: RE: 5425 Halifax Chris, The survey has the proposed garage floor at 868 with that elevation extending along the new front wall to the south front corner where it is at 869 ... so I don't see how the front elevation drawing that is attached can be accurate with the 868 elevation well up above the garage floor ... unless the survey is wrong and all elevations should be lower on the survey. +. v# Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner x, 952-826-04611 Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAakerCcD-EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Christopher Malooly[mailto:chris(a)cityhomesllc.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:10 PM To: Kris Aaker; Erich Hastreiter Subject: 5425 Halifax Kris Aaker From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:20 AM To: 'Christopher Malooly' Subject: RE: 5425 Halifax Building height is measured from the average existing grade along the new front building wall to the highest point of the roof. Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner F 952-826-0461 1 Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAaker(ccDEdinaMN.gov I www. EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:18 AM To: 'Christopher Malooly' Subject: RE: 5425 Halifax Chris, The survey has the proposed garage floor at 868 with that elevation extending along the new front wall to the south front corner where it is at 869 ... so I don't see how the front elevation drawing that is attached can be accurate with the 868 elevation well up above the garage floor ... unless the survey is wrong and all elevations should be lower on the survey. Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0461 1 Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 KAaker(cDEdinaMN.gov I www. EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Christopher Malooly[mai Ito: chris(a>cityhomesllc.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:10 PM To: Kris Aaker; Erich Hastreiter Subject: 5425 Halifax PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague April 8, 2015 VI.C. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Frank Berman is proposing to combine and subdivide his four properties at 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane, and 5320 and 5324 Blake Road into seven lots. (See property location on pages Al A3.) The existing home at 5331 Evanswood Lane would remain, and the home at 5324 Blake Road would be removed. The other two parcels are vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 -foot wide cul-de-sac off Blake Road within a 40 -foot right-of-way. Two lots would access off Evanswood Lane, and the remaining five off the new road. The applicant has attempted to minimize tree loss and address drainage issues in the area by locating the roadway along the north lot line, and the stormwater retension areas along the street. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A4—A22a and the revised plans on A51 -A71.) This item was continued from the last Planning Commission for the applicant to revise the grading and drainage plan to address concerns raised by the city engineering department. The applicant has revised the plans to address those concerns. (See pages A51 -A71.) The engineering department and Barr Engineering, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed the plans and have offered comments with recommendations on pages A35 -A50. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. Preliminary Plat. All seven of the proposed lots meet the City's minimum lot size requirements. Minimum lot size, width and depth is determined by the median of all lots within 500 feet of the subject property. Based on the surveyors calculation of the medians, the minimum lot size is 21,842 s.f. in size; 166.4 feet in depth; and 120.8 feet in width. (See attached median calculations on pages A22—A22a) The engineering department has reviewed the calculations and lot sizes provided by the applicant's surveyor and does find them to be accurate. Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are single-family homes, zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The site is 4.31 acres in size, and contains two single-family homes. The site contains some gradual slopes and mature trees. (See pages A2 -A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district The proposed subdivision meets all lot dimension requirements. (See median calculations done by a licensed surveyor on pages A22-A22a.) Grading/Drainage and Utilities Rather than constructing a traditional stormwater pond within the subdivision, in an effort to save additional trees on the site, the applicant is proposing to 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 21,842 s.f. 120.8 feet 166.4 feet Lot 1 21,842 s.f. 126.89 feet 169.31 feet Lot 2 21,910 s.f. 129.00 feet 169.86 feet Lot 3 21,842 s.f. 124.70 feet 170.72 feet Lot 4 22,328 s.f. 120.88 feet 166.64 feet Lot 5 24,822 s.f. 121.83 feet 166.80 feet Lot 6 30,033 s.f. 191.4 feet 190 feet Lot 7 21,901 s.f. 128.16 feet 184.18 feet The proposed subdivision meets all lot dimension requirements. (See median calculations done by a licensed surveyor on pages A22-A22a.) Grading/Drainage and Utilities Rather than constructing a traditional stormwater pond within the subdivision, in an effort to save additional trees on the site, the applicant is proposing to 2 manage stormwater through rain gardens on each lot. (See the revised grading plans on page A60.) The plans are not significantly changed from the original submittal. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does have some concern given the existing drainage issues in this neighborhood. (See the engineering memo on pages A35 -A38, and Barr Engineering's review on pages A39 -A50.) The stormwater system downstream to the west is over capacity. The applicant will be required to rneet all minimum Nine Mile Creek Watershed district standards. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. Adequate drainage and utility easements are proposed along all the lot lines. A general building pad would be graded at the time the roadway is constructed. Each lot would be custom graded at the time of building permit. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of building permit application for each lot. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Any approval of the proposed plat would be subject to meeting all the conditions required by engineering in their review memo dated March 30, 2015. (See pages A35 - A38.) When considering the requirements in the engineering memo, the following City Code sections are used: Sec. 32-106. - Public hearing by council; preliminary approval. (1) Grant preliminary approval, with or without modification, and without conditions, or with such conditions reasonably related to the purpose and objectives of this chapter, as the council may deem necessary or desirable; Sec. 32-130. - Considerations. The planning commission, in reviewing proposed plats and subdivisions and in determining its recommendation to the council, and the council in determining whether to approve or disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other matters, the following: (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. (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. (11) 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 stormwater, 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. (13) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Sec. 32-131. - Additional considerations. In addition to the foregoing matters, the commission, in connection with its recommendation to the council, and the council in determining whether to approve or disapprove a proposed plat or subdivision, shall specifically and especially consider the following matters: (1) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. (2) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with chapter 36. (3) Whether the design of the proposed plat or subdivision, or the design or type of improvements proposed to be placed thereon, may be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. 4 (4) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision conforms to, and complies with, the requirements of applicable state law. Sec. 32-161. - Developer's agreement. After preliminary approval has been given to a plat or subdivision, the applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement (herein called the "agreement") with the city, on terms and conditions determined by the city, and shall cause all street, water and sewer improvements required by the planner or engineer, or by the resolution granting preliminary or final approval, to be completed, pursuant to the agreement and to the city's then standards and specifications for such improvements. Sec. 36-1257. - Drainage, retaining walls and site access. (a) Drainage. No person shall obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to harm the public health, safety or general welfare. Surface water runoff shall be properly conveyed into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. As part of the building permit, the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan that is 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. The plans must be approved by the city engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. Street Construction/Sidewalk — Traffic & Safety The applicant is proposing to construct a cul-de-sac off Blake Road. Five of the proposed lots would access off the cul-de-sac, and two off of Evanswood Lane. (See page A8.) The street would be located generally in the same location as the two existing curb cuts for two homes that are removed. (See page A9.) The cul-de-sac would have a center island that would serve as a rain garden. Both the fire marshal and public works director believe that the center island would be acceptable, as fire trucks and snow plows will be able to adequately access the street and homes on the street. WSB conducted a traffic study and concluded that the proposed street and additional homes in the area would not have a negative impact on the existing streets in the area. The level of service on the existing streets would not change as a result of the proposal. (See traffic study on pages A23 -A31.) WSB examined the existing intersections and spacing along Blake Road, and found that while not ideal, the proposed spacing of the intersections is not a safety concern. The proposed development would generate 58 additional daily trips, 5 in the peak am, and 6 in the peak pm hours. (See page A28.) With the reduction in the width of the roadway to 24 feet, the applicant shall be required to post one side of the street and the entire cul-de-sac for no parking for a fire lane; additionally residential fire sprinkler protection shall be required for each home subject to approval of the fire marshal. (See memo from the fire marshal dated February 18, 2015 on page A32.) Per the city's living streets policy, the engineering department is also recommending a 5 -foot sidewalk with a 5 -foot boulevard to be located within the right-of-way on the south side of the street. (See engineering memo on pages A33 -A34, and the living streets sidewalk map and policy on pages A75 -A80.) This sidewalk would connect to the existing sidewalk across the street on the east side of Blake Road. (See page A35.) Tree Removal With the layout of the subdivision there would be 38 trees removed to accommodate the public street and stormwater retention areas. (See page A13.) The generic building pads and drainage areas would result in an additional 87 trees removed. (See page Al2.) Based on the new tree ordinance adopted by the City Council, 80 of these trees would not have to be replaced. Any tree outside of these areas would be required for replacement per the new ordinance. Each lot would be reviewed individually at the time of building permit application to determine compliance with the city's new tree ordinance. Park Dedication As with all subdivision proposals, park dedication is required. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5,000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $15,000 would be required for the three additional lots. Primary Issue • Is the proposed subdivision reasonable for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed subdivision meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. As such, the applicant is entitled to subdivide the property, similar to how other large properties in this area were able to subdivide in the past. 2. The applicant has designed a grading and drainage plan in an attempt to save more trees on the site. 0 3. The applicant has designed a 24 -foot wide street, rather than the traditional 27 -foot wide street, to reduce impervious surface. 4. Upon compliance with all city and watershed district requirements for grading and drainage, the proposed subdivision would not have a negative impact on adjacent property. Staff Recommendation Because the proposed subdivision meets all of Edina's Zoning Ordinance requirements, recommend that the City Council approve the proposed seven lot subdivision. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets all the required standards and ordinances for a subdivision. 2. The applicant has reduced the width of the road, and minimized the stormwater ponding on the site in an attempt to minimize tree loss. 3. In meeting all city and watershed district requirements for drainage the proposed subdivision would not have a negative impact on adjacent property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. Final plat shall include a complete grading and drainage plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. 2. At the time of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the street as proposed, and a sidewalk on the south side of the street as recommended in the engineering memo dated March 30, 2015. The agreement shall also include all the conditions of approval. 3. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Park dedication fee of $15,000 must be paid prior to release of the final plat. 7 b. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site. C. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Curb -cut permits must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. Driveway plans must be consistent with the proposed grading plan to preserve as many trees as possible. b. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. C. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. d. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. e. All homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d or IRC 2904. Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road, and within the cul-de-sac. 5. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated March 30, 2015, 6. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the fire marshal's memo dated February 18, 2015. 7. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Blake Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. 8. Compliance with the city's newly adopted tree ordinance. 9. Compliance with the city's living streets policy. Deadline for a City Decision: May 20, 2015 5152 5125 512A j 5137 5123 5200 { 1, 1 5151 5200 5201 6232 6220 j� 6212 5204 P 5209 t 16200' 12 6231 FbR MEADOW LANE 6000 f.J " 5224 _ _ � �� 6229,' _ t• �_ " /6225 ! 5216 2A ; 521 5220 `24r 24 0, 5225 a224# ' 5221 5224 itis 24 ;" t 42ALL ._ .. E _,A'24''2A� � z 5300 '0 �,l, 6300 6304 6308 ^ 52281 5225. 5304,v5225 5228 5232 52361 440 � •,5300 � ,` � ... � . �640a 6�t00�.r w. ! 5301 S �_ _� J i 6312 53041, ' 5308 an.i 5307 5300 5301 ` 6303 6305 �5 •_ NSL4t10D LANE - — 5231- �' ' 5239 5235 _ 5309 5304 ! r-` 5305 ;�:..6008i Fr401 5331 532 311 5316 531 r , 6313 6309 6316 , 5315 5308 w.._.5601 r 5309 601 J� 531ZNt5'�GYdf3D COURT •�, �'` _ _ � ` 5317 � 5312 � � I 5316 6328 1 6324 ' 6320 5320 5324 21115-31-6 15313+60246020 INS CiOtiE #it?AO l # 1 l t I1 6208 6204 6200 5401 5400 60291602 602116ID171 " "+ 1 r a 622Q 62161 �60i3,6009, 6400 1522$ 622a I i P�,RYtiVOOD'ROAD5405 "` -- _ � � SAOa �,5A05'5e109r5415�541715421�Sd23 6209 6205 6201 5409 a _ > 6213 w1 54i3 5408 f` ._ .._...., _. - � 6217 5412 15420 24;5428116221y 620862046200 F�r i5432 _ 6401 622916225 6212 6216 —� 6228�6224k�20� p'�t!'� „� ,6112 6108 6104 610016020 6016 60126000 5 04 6232 0.,. 620516201, 5 ii1162091\6213k I IDY16100D DRIVE 6217 t k • �._. 161136109; 6021 590$ 6221 6228't6224 6224 � _ E 5513 623316229 6225 +;_6236 6232ti _ f J j• i �.� 1 6112 6020'601260086004 QO'- ParcelA -g. Map Scale: 1" = 400 ft. N ID: Print Date: 2/11/2015 Owner- Market Name, Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is fumished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead Date: including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and purpose, completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: Code: A 7"kGreW 4 Us 43 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION Edina, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT January 23, 2014_ 7-301C L A N D F 0 R M From Site to Finish 0 '10 A % INTRODUCTION On behalf of Frank Berman, Landform is pleased to submit this preliminary plat application to create seven residential lots from four existing lots at Blake Road and Evanswood Lane. We are excited about this environmentally sensitive design and anticipate that it will be a great addtion to the neighborhood. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Frank Berman is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide four lots (PID #30-11-72-144- 0053, #3011721440052, #30-11-72-144-0008, #30-11-72-144-0009) to create seven lots. Mr. Berman plans to sell the lots for future construction of single-family detached residential dwelling units. There were three homes on these four parcels. One home was removed and two homes—including Mr. Berman's home—remain. The proposed subdivision is located in the R-1 Zoning District and is guided low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The design team has worked to ensure that plans are consistent with City's zoning standards. The proposed subdivision will help the city achieve its goals of supporting redevelopment opportunities that complement the neighborhood and optimize use of the City's infrastructure. Lot standards: Section 36-438 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet in the R-1 District, but requires that the minimum lot area be calculated by averaging the median lot area, lot width and lot depth of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The average median parcel area for surrounding lots is 21,842 sq. ft., the average median lot width is 120.8 ft and the average median lot depth is 166.4 ft. Lot standards for the proposed subdivision comply with the lot standards as defined in Chapter 36 and referenced in Section 32-73. Transportation: We are proposing a 24 foot road in a 40 foot wide right-of-way that will provide access to the proposed lots, connect with existing infrastructure, and minimize tree loss. This new road will replace the two existing curb cuts (one for the existing home and one for the driveway easement for the home that IKS removed). It is anticipated that the additional seven lots will generate minimal traffic on surroundipoads. The subdivision application requires that a traffic analysis be performed. We request that the sia. y be l�k.. initiated to fulfill this requirement. A0°rA ZZZ14317 L A N D F O R M �ianuary 23, 2015 Project Narrative 2 AT Tree preservation: The landowners plan to remain in their home, so preserving trees is a priority for them. The proposed lots have been designed to maximize the preservation of trees on the site. The tree survey shows that 82.6% of trees have been saved. The proposed street was aligned along the north edge of proposed Lots 1-5, where the fewest number of trees would be removed. This is the location of the existing driveway easement that served the previous home on the site. Building area and driveway placement are sited to meet setback standards and to remove the fewest number of trees. Trees coverage will remain largely intact along the southern edge of proposed Lots 1-5. Stormwater management: Stormwater management is a critical part of the proposed design. In order to preserve as many trees as possible, stormwater will be managed using rain gardens on each lot. Each lot will provide easement access to the rain garden and homeowners will be required to maintain the rain gardens using appropriate plantings and best management strategies. SUMMARY We respectfully request approval of a preliminary plat application for the creation of seven lots and associated infrastructure at Blake Road and Evanswood Lane in Edina, MN. We look forward to receiving feedback on the proposed design from the neighborhood on February 3, 2015 and presenting plans to both the Planning Commission on February 25, 2015 and to the City Council on March 17, 2015. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Mary Maize, Planner Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55330 fg Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Reid Schulz at rschulz(a)-landform.net or 612.638.0245. ZZZ14317 Project Narrative L A N D F O R M AG, January 23, 2015 3 em.w Ih -0 BLAKE WOODS EDINA, MN ,,a �. mmwlaw 11.1era.se moo./ �-aa.r' eaeeo+ Oat le.il Otto ws. �es1. avernm.luP .--ef.! �Pln arsaneae are eR Nlb aIPP nr MtlMI��Or �K� Yom" GL' WIK m Y'Pt P1 J aae f rwlow � a.s.�Irews 9ele9BFgeIwM alwaeal.tellewl �. eellep �,) Ileee1110 wwsele � aaol�el r.... e.laos r•� Prvar � .ew.I..la 1"°0O"1P 6� er.w a. � waoeaelc carr wia 1l7r� Mal1a1141 ® uasawerr• •.e.r Q oelelen le+r "rll. BOP �1 nn.re apreaea IwOM-MWeq YMA w4 � atif4weall O ee aaautelrar Ml aemoe sf LWLL MOfp 114 e1P 0lMj tlN 11111 CS.Ci 1p an.la ".s'" ele+il ealle .. ar IIHI/IJ - +� ..�- aPaw aeaa. Up11e1111YaaC'Al' � esn aePao .�e�— +nlw 1®I>tw araewr M1MC�L�tltIYMMgI�KrP1¢Po Neaaw aw Mlle IlMellrr'r I�.IL COr aY r V � 1iNi1i a 4{r IBM 141f1a CAMI M=Mh Yk TA4/9W.1F W lIe O'/slP 1uT �� 111/lIA' 11114 9a. arse p a!f Vl i111141a1a � IIKt111Y !M�■amrar.��ee e.w 4r m. ''aey • olewlwelalf �IPYY-� avw.arnw Gari m pw wvlw � wnaw fes—sem fw WlaW1A0 m e' 1�Yw alr+1�1W11 awwTa4 �-IINr�� --asr-- wec>wlrauwaea ml�elwaaseae t+ �� +" 'LO to •l /VY1 lee u1 %C5 s uw Iewr o aa4 w.ar � luaolw arl4 wllar O /In.41 HtIVNC�ItliMN aaew4awwa rapllewn�lgs M M��pC�1 aRal4eVl11N1 Baer 4lYY'� a��Re�OmYrIIIr eOPW[ eL YiON—Ire RNI�IMV u°K.Irene oar. �" s u"°06i �P+3k1V1 alt Wap -P91 aaen �. �alw w/P..u.ar gnw.we a e.s tiaw au tsaA~or FRANK BERMAN s ataewo BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION �G�1NA� M!V oeovooto- 1�0 PMUMINARY PLAT 07Q3 s L A N D F O R M awAenlO n - o ,mum plow Al mmlwl $&w we IomrP a111y.w w1 flet 111Y1" emr elloelw wa ar«lear m 1eel+elnnr ai a„sa m war�illlleown+c P1 � p PIlPMRlpeewpY U.1 t1t 9ele9BFgeIwM alwaeal.tellewl ui urwec�Imn M M��pC�1 aRal4eVl11N1 Baer 4lYY'� a��Re�OmYrIIIr eOPW[ eL YiON—Ire RNI�IMV u°K.Irene oar. �" s u"°06i �P+3k1V1 alt Wap -P91 aaen �. �alw w/P..u.ar gnw.we a e.s tiaw au tsaA~or FRANK BERMAN s ataewo BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION �G�1NA� M!V oeovooto- 1�0 PMUMINARY PLAT 07Q3 s L A N D F O R M awAenlO n - o ,mum plow Al mmlwl $&w we IomrP a111y.w w1 flet 111Y1" a Dt — gi t .. n --_----.-----..--..( --_ I ------------- t w' I i 1 x i i i f { EVAd NDUD LATE xerwar'c��sac�i > 1 �E 1 — t i SLAM i ( 11 �1 i1 ADDITION + � mrr^aatt`i( MPJ ! � i I FRANK BERN WW Wn4wt�u gyp,: PRSUMINARY PLAT DYE r ° L A N O f o k M rrplrAY ° ¢ ° ef1,eA11rn ac MM /1° pLi.W WIYpW.MOM 'Kt 1MaMt CO.2 -Xi M,sw i iP[N -Ntll, 1M1 H, ,:U MH I z 9.IOd. HiY Y °� f!H°Yd +YfINMC M M 1WM:NN l" _� i j ( Ili 30 i MgP41ff°AfY.R4144Y MCW HAtl °wsnb�e rwta`1Ri 'tl1.a+nino� a�a.�c� MfHq IM!!. i{M?fi ur.sr namtasz 1j( FRANK BERN WW Wn4wt�u gyp,: PRSUMINARY PLAT DYE r ° L A N O f o k M rrplrAY ° ¢ ° ef1,eA11rn ac MM /1° pLi.W WIYpW.MOM 'Kt 1MaMt CO.2 -Xi M,sw iP[N -Ntll, 1M1 H, ,:U MH I z 9.IOd. HiY Y °� f!H°Yd +YfINMC M M 1WM:NN l" _� wwus iuw.a.°ssa:mn�:.w m��rarne mo. a�wo wo;www orsr,nww� a�rra°°°ma+m�aw�e°ems rw°� s _ °wsnb�e rwta`1Ri 'tl1.a+nino� a�a.�c� FRANK BERN WW Wn4wt�u gyp,: PRSUMINARY PLAT DYE r ° L A N O f o k M rrplrAY ° ¢ ° ef1,eA11rn ac MM /1° pLi.W WIYpW.MOM 'Kt 1MaMt CO.2 I z 6HOVH R6Ai1� ! NGRT41 fd � �6MawDwOpc D FRANK BERN WW Wn4wt�u gyp,: PRSUMINARY PLAT DYE r ° L A N O f o k M rrplrAY ° ¢ ° ef1,eA11rn ac MM /1° pLi.W WIYpW.MOM 'Kt 1MaMt CO.2 I I I I � I I I I I I i I I to a I G — — — — — — � I '• 1I I I I I f I I I I I 1 I I I I it .. �I I� I, I ° b"°"•� m� FRANK BERMAN ,i°vb m@v[Wtl°wPOPtl¢ NI°�awa�c�°�mlCl° gl bc@.t IDII ft. VNP aKM�°m44Cq, pt 46lWf N%W@@!X°1@WMtff°miN GCWR EpWIWl45°0 I � tl i I I I JPS „ ��=i �•� 0 NORTH KmwwllaYi 861OW. COIIWPonyWdlo. 0 40 80 � . gavn�,. m T� PROJECT i PRELIMINARY PLA -r L A N D F O R M �oe°auema�.awe Tac amas.@m fel 1 ' 111 a MIR ! >'*. "o i o. fig .T ILima Fz„ lob i pupil F %sooNOW at i �1 �f fir E j d 7 i F MCAa) „ mc I < z PM. I i I I I I r --------------- -- -- Ii I I I I Ii i I � ' I I I ' � I S 7 II I II i I � I I z w,�w+er rmA. wm rswr uw A• ,(Dewe Arvpxr awmrc r,¢ +poi.oRc.wf .v.. r pxa, aw,m m A.cw •(aa mf o xA• <P•rw(PorL oYw f0 R•L 4 Awl Cf.l �ralaGwM (efmc wv 9uLL wsY A• wlwN. N m(NC MD . fd [6w<llpt Hn sHFKI•x AO wap Kw:P: w9[Wf M a� q, i0 WiIM wf� �1rA(a�W�Wt�na V(. IW f-0t�( f�0 W 4�tlA1Y NCAt PLL WMaIYG Yf p wS(.wl'w ro 50. ��A,f.Lfro b'awt�fCNff N• IDM.(0. If@ N A,ur(a WPI�W'L lw, Mne.CfOR JWu. M1•® q„Iw4Mm puisrraa M iAaf •v, fnm�rsivii ra[,c b MIOwu,nwl (w ,6s a wwcmnr w+crc(s Anm ws ,M n.,n wffefrmr. wr.�. ub rwrtw+ ��( �° , • f (Arw � fes; w�,r ,mr c n .w waww+r ,uvl ro wofv.a urna((,x. FRANK BERMAN muAWu ssm r.,tInICIPRLRY PROJECT c■ • R f E22 -2/Z71 w. Offwa w.x .p & PAD DETAIL .( PRELIMINARY PLAT 092Y2015 L A N D F O R M )P ,,'- - ,uafmrnroM.p ,d wxffaaf(s �,.. �� Apsn ra f,zaszffr( r- ® wm�,w. un s>,w wm: nnaww.sm � - wewAE ciban,r NORTH GRADING DRAINAGE s Know wnm'a BOIOW. CCU bmarayou mp. 0 Q I m 1e c®eo seam .eY.r srw sae»eYerr+we 1MeOMe se p{ryp Imgeeaae at rwoem.es w a o 4 a N v i lY7d l.2lVNtWY'137:id NW "d'Nide_! NOIsin10ens SOOOM 3NY 18 m NHWHSO NNVU:i HIM I* f J)i aeesea nu c+rrrwwmw�n.cunc raeoareenwi .x w ____�._..�1 weer y�oreee..w�r�~i�i5�ecce n ��relMlMUM W.MmJY ean. DNwwtq.lA aJYw �e �.r�iiwrmawe rm. wrw.sa rwtrs ee iaer a wsr..e»aw Pi.neYr w �. Ysa,r firer» r.». s.r>r. eeeele xe r D.co iee.YMler rfl PeN erVn.ObNr11IlY OLCP6T�. Y YYnY M<nOM1MrA lIC/i11W.R�r 7eM YY�1• wwrer�a+ree ..see wwf.0 vrruaw.aeamr a w.es:weivr.n.mc»swa ror sr�.�.cO°a�we°�w Y Oe411Y/ �91W YIOIq' LlY1ef M NaN WM lb�W Y W�:YO YYYrrywee.. ep i°t ewwiewu v�reiiw�r°0 e scar seam esx nes wues+ercu� o Y �ic�e�ic��Ys�Mr�r�ypr�r�r� s�.nry�+lnt�„uur�pi � NV MnN.�W nM1 R IRY A elrwrM W t i 1 a- VX1 191.97.41 h1 %t+k 197.72M P1t Wp P" �,W 41 GTO=t�T r A .4 /tEM.., lom 1004" 0040 b1.00 w6m M." wo" 10a." Mm" 104-20 .104830 MO -00 .molm i was mew >�n •ar>w.a>u>-n a.lwl.t �o>wnua ulxe m. �sss rfw FRANK BERN" �e 1041.10 Ns nowowd mlq>w �000�VK �a.w wo mranq zc oN/l> r n1 MWw �m�rt � w+n aw+s wm uuar r w wer. BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION r 44 IpfFt: Mh 19M71.78 � MFk K ETES; 'NNS �'61QYY.OT. � RN Tt91+.7J9 � l9n> R CIES! N142 t — -�_ • - � g IWf R. 9t1k 19N95.M � NO19t 131:7 MA12 I< q• a� # 1 . PRELIMINARY PLA? t � 9iEa7/Ni5 • s L A.N O P O R M 0 f tt neap10> *All*ru aama ft 9usaed10 lan.l+-wxu1. w-� rye. •. a[ielx mann '. f 1NOY.r9n CiOm7 i i S t ` XS =i i lom 1004" 0040 b1.00 w6m M." wo" 10a." Mm" 104-20 .104830 MO -00 .molm i was mew >�n •ar>w.a>u>-n a.lwl.t �o>wnua ulxe m. �sss rfw FRANK BERN" �e 1041.10 Ns nowowd mlq>w �000�VK �a.w wo mranq zc oN/l> r n1 MWw �m�rt � w+n aw+s wm uuar r w wer. BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION r 44 . PRELIMINARY PLA? t � 9iEa7/Ni5 • s L A.N O P O R M 0 tt neap10> *All*ru aama ft 9usaed10 lan.l+-wxu1. w-� rye. •. a[ielx mann '. 1NOY.r9n CiOm7 IbR11i N Moron WXNE it " I t. f I� � P«.tom t•:�lr. �. WXNE it " I .•""".o ��Y+i.'M..�i.r'�`rio .moi www�w '.�'.•�.n� ��Y� llww•wrrr�ar/r�/ wiw�MPoirrY.�� l0•/Yflll.sl�vYllY �. f ��rA r!i/N/�P��sswls Ywwlww�Yw�'Mr�l.!• �M•s�s+ss/YtN/�W s Y�/lYyFl/Ysf[MAa eY•Ol•R �wN1Yldl Ylv\ ///Mlns��YY�fYs M Y��s.Ms/YlMrtlrtlssNsssY�Ys/IYa r�lw't� wF�s{/Yell/ lP�. •,�a,ZIM •M�II�rsY.slslls®IIMSSYssls iYwYY /ewrwW M77MMANDGAUVAWH Notou /. ww Yew/lwr/r.l.Y 11AL= ..rY •./ a r� r YY �� "Dow FRANK BERMAN 0 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E1�IIVA. MIV esaliv&o vg, 4 PREUMiNARY PLAT n�mtats • L AN Q0 O R M N-M.MA b A • N39MN/sY•q L bill A "So K Itiibl0tt 141mwRtWMC1 M• f1WlIl1.1 C7.1 t. f I� � P«.tom t•:�lr. �. :• L I r •' —zw4cRvL Gum a t!� 1ii01.O 13M �' 1 1 I .•""".o ��Y+i.'M..�i.r'�`rio .moi www�w '.�'.•�.n� ��Y� llww•wrrr�ar/r�/ wiw�MPoirrY.�� l0•/Yflll.sl�vYllY �. f ��rA r!i/N/�P��sswls Ywwlww�Yw�'Mr�l.!• �M•s�s+ss/YtN/�W s Y�/lYyFl/Ysf[MAa eY•Ol•R �wN1Yldl Ylv\ ///Mlns��YY�fYs M Y��s.Ms/YlMrtlrtlssNsssY�Ys/IYa r�lw't� wF�s{/Yell/ lP�. •,�a,ZIM •M�II�rsY.slslls®IIMSSYssls iYwYY /ewrwW M77MMANDGAUVAWH Notou /. ww Yew/lwr/r.l.Y 11AL= ..rY •./ a r� r YY �� "Dow FRANK BERMAN 0 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E1�IIVA. MIV esaliv&o vg, 4 PREUMiNARY PLAT n�mtats • L AN Q0 O R M N-M.MA b A • N39MN/sY•q L bill A "So K Itiibl0tt 141mwRtWMC1 M• f1WlIl1.1 C7.1 a ,, g�*HIM R ° za oz�� °. • 11 u IWOW AA �4 4 S� WI lit i ul iia ZLD :i E 11 0 WQ. k Eeea53� • 5 7 9d1 � Z aY E iyi=i i i e W ms! eC j''Qf Ed�e�Eiaiddddi6�� � �O� �. ��gE � • Q � � +¢g � � LL m U) 4 e"aoa`aidicc�333e E ! d x x x xxxxx x x x x x x x ............... xxxxxxxxxxx " s s611 A s z b a z z 8 g 1131 s s s a A c a E a 9" s JI A'.^° R A^ .. m A.^. '4 A R 7 R m A R A 9 p A A 9 9 Z A A m . ^ m A A s 9 ., ... A A• m xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xxxxx x �6 el6 66 66b66S6E666 � 6 By66 es m. . A. m m. A m^ A m .. m A w m m R^ .. m R A R A m. �3 A m 7 m A A A R S• .. m A ti R m 9 A A A A igm5ma��a��m5:�m�mm� x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx...xxx...x...xxx. rr � ���8xshg"s�^�^��"saro sus esba" 6�� 6 666essa666 d a R a 9 A R A A 9 A 6 9 A A A A A S S R99 G R& as s3s ssss s333m3a 3a"a i i i s3s 3�a ssasa:mm9m:124.... xxxxxxxx......xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxIxxxxxxxxxxxxx �xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx f a 3 8 � sy � 8 e � 4 xZl A a� ;as S"a����fzi� 5rf3E�rEar�E ����Ss.�F `sa�33z€<si��3g�€€€€€g3£amgm=a"z€a<�eam<€€;a 9 9 y A A A A A p. m 9 R A A A R R A A m A 9 A A R% :: A m x�.r® 1 oil OZ, 002 Hill CD Wo 114. ��� ocy as 9 _W____. - - - _: _— t 0. .' ! of1211 ray a+e ENLARGED PLAN• RAIN GARDEN'E' aDscuE ENLARGED PLAN- RAIN GARDEN'C' NDSGYE ENLARGED PLAN- RAIN GARDEN T' NDSCJLLE ENLARGED PLAN. RAIN GARDEN'S' WSLIIE ENLARGED PLAN- RAIN GARDEN 'A' aoscAlE (x[ ana/Ic..tlae) mor Mu rax rrA scr uJl Y a DrrJ Iw n.10 Nei w�Na J rw GnP PUesexruar R,URP UPU t0pr 0.1Pt tWt U11N moa �i� �PWc �tt Mr et ��MMN�i� Mrn p�.cK! I.4 APraN n�.v.acC uNK M.G tart ry a we eumi N tlPV TW Iry�P• VJ PSV M� �Fov ua. `r"xia"".I�P :raP.mel w Se«e�,nae� m l�''ftClMrtlm) T c Y x z.• vaoP i.VP Ssr AT UaP PmrR ro M1/+Iu1C ? Nxc -e'O flux eruea nea NO SGYE w InPJ (4PM FW wni rj Mw ov�Ox�eY°"aboi v nrr m eow��en�6i m"m uuJr rw.r u Kroro rP MNn« ®oo rwwJ w v.m �I a uro°PIPw. .aa Isa n.,n ,�"o. a• xncve� oPxr. l2t vocw.rnPl _.. �YxYxW UPGDTxrt Sf.r UC�t l2e rRt Y�ttAtl) RP•m NNIRP,WOgPrrfuPUL SHRUB PLANTING NosraE PERENNULL PLANTING NoseuE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING HOSME �r ruxle+� °1A1x'r •m (l��,:• n..a an wr un �r imc°iva. nroroe�ISe ararAmel EDGING AT PLANTING BED „M FRANK BERMAN 911 EVJtl9'AIIDLIVE FNNICIPALIiY NO P0.0J�CT i � • • r :r • Ns�v� PRELIMINARY PLAT oirmis L A N D F O R M r.. smmRow: ' P o 1W SouN RMAmU. Tot OridSiTt NYSN F¢ PIt3SStOn t4ni•rprm,rPllSrq N@ YP® PtEWl2 win LAWSCAPc DETAILS X7.1 311 V65 f Ofa90001D@lfs�j]Kq ®s8gs#t+D �t� �„w"' i144JJ��SS tib ,,, 1�. I In i I I k I E I f Jt Sf • , V S J �I i' I i I �iill'iBC etOM F I •- � rv� I � I ---297.'!- LOT SUN11PARY 11 Pmta16 PMVIAM L4t1VW WOW No Noise No. Sheet Name awi ffN Addid"Name lot MNes&'Mds L L 2t. acral "1102 .156,1 31"Milmul PAAKW00DKNOLLS ADON owl 001. 2is-filmw& 0:4 aeas 1365 1 145:4 31 0M7 6216 AWOONA DAV10PMCCARM ►A 07OtA ODS a GAAms 3453 JM 111771117 6212 IDYLVMWtA DANNL&KIOMINORMAN PARKWOODKNOU507MADDN am 091 4 2 1 ft oslams 146.3.. 456.. 311171111 6205 :. ICALWOMA TIMOTIR'JKOEPPL PMCMWKNOLLS AM 001 5 h agmes 144.9 145.9 3sulaluom B10N. 101T.WOODU RMWEA721EI2YAJWEAYNERLY PAMWOOO 07MADOR. 076.005.. 6 7 71.257 R CLASIscm fc 0. acro 143.4 160.1 14&1 141,9 3117711110M7. 3111711IWM MOD .. 6101 IGVLWDWLA- PAMKMRDOORD .GWRGETNOLDEN WJ&JE30NNION PAMMOD 0701 01AUMPOMOUPOMADW ON.M 6 .R. SAWWOS 174A taS 111172UMM OW PARKVMWRD JP&MCANOMM PAftVMD 9 It. 0.avers MI MI 3111721IM4 6101 PARKWDODRD W&NWNNELLT : PAMMOODIWOlLSOWA00N Wo 002 30 Z&6 .h. Migms Mol M4 =172111000 Q13 tlmv_im_ no RWCARNOMMOMAMD-. 31 272 h D. 1Cm MA. 1K.6 3171711110012 6217. PARKWOODAD RP&ALNAMS' P.. O1LSONDAWN. W4 .002 '31 21, .fl; aSISMI 1416 1464 3=4110001. GM PARMODAD5&N MEiM MER OKN f3. ff. 1.17Saes 18911 3392 3111721110000 RM PARKWOOORD JASON&786VAVOOT. PARKWOOOKNOUS03RDA" =1 001:.. 34 uOL 1,05imesi LW 297:1 Suva0003OZZO PARKVMD AO VALLIAMASERML PARKWOOV40MMDADON 0031001 . L.. 23 h CAMOM41 7601. 101.2. 3311721110001 6216 PARKWOODNO ES&15EAmi m PAPAWODOOMMOMAODN : out ou 26 4 1 '1NS' 321171/110005 6212 FA W D P6& M PARKWOOOKNOILSOOA00N :.. :001.40. 17 6D& " 0.61.- 139.1 4 }131721 � PAWNWDRD C &ILW N P 03OM is .... D SalaI mc 152.0 311imiu007 am '.. PARKWOODRO PNILUP M SWrM" FAMMOMOUSOMAOM. 001'+ 19 2431 1 :ft. 0. areasI uza 1547 Immunt 6200 PAWVMD$O CARUIROM PARKWOOOIWOUSOMAODN 0118 001 10 6&.IL wee SAO 174.0 '3211771220011 5417 ERD MJWNOMBL&DPCONOM€R 10YL. SINADON .. 001' 21. h.. 4 4ata1 940 171.0 3211721120aW 5413 BLAKE D MATMEW)URNIS 1 SMAOON ON 001 22 65 h.56 suers. 0, 940 I lika 3211721110019 sm SUKEAD EJMUM&REMM i WOM AOOM 000 23 r6 016 #mMl PAO 1 27"0 3112711I100ii 5406 BUKERD MUMAIn"o, WA30OST21.AOW on .001.' 0 I 771.0 32 f22m37 S401 - RO 1MSN9T0A42I0MEs11C fQnWOQO5MAOPN,007 21 7611 JL. OA 4cmsl UST 1 1329 321171122C0! 5400 AGWAAmt4w L&MMNSON. JOYMNOODSOMAOM 0211 Got I 1s fl h: 11 1064 ISL4 3211722220079 s404 THISIX&POOM WKWO03RDAVLM 27 122151MOLX& OL I IDA 2042 3221712120030 NI W SUNNYSIRKOWMATEE N)YUNO003ROADON 001 002 IS I 132.6 13LG 3 1 11 11112 0 7 2 7 Sim ORW )Mx EDYWOOD3RDA 29 '.h. s =A 366 2. 9212711270047 an PINEORQWERD UARMWWOAMANNEW000 9MWOMOMADON 406.007 30 247mmft IM 153.9 $1 13 ORW SAROUSU&SDEMOM WAVOO D62NA Q]7 31 27AS h 0, aeel 2113 247.2 2911711330M 5109 M6NW0000OW LADDUW&TJOOUIN KIYLWOOO ADON 009 900 97.6 nU7WXCW 5105 WGWMDODDR.W JONNCUSKOI IDYLWW04THADON Dw 001 33 1L 0.Q :1147 W.4 UnWIMI 5300 MWMDODRW 1 t& ITE ftLW_0004YHAVON an om I EKRO4O.:.... 34 171 s 302.1 JAL4 2911721330017 .5304 H*fWOODOKW '.I RANAYMMUM&LOAYMAKER REP T 4TNdOT5llGlkK.l 007 Tm S �r 17. IL 013 Oka JL 0. leas9LS 916 177.2 161.0 2911711330018 29=330M 3106 S511 J GWMDDRW . TB LURW CIIEMPINROJONWAR PATTROAMBOOSAUS REPLATbYLWOWaWU"S3TO58L91 OM CM RePIATOMWOOMWOMOSM91 001.MI 1 37 MS WIL OL32 at Auts 2911 3316 NI SLEANJIV, 38 IA14 0. - s :867 1590 241172t2mm 1 MAIEAD R2NOALMASICA W W OM3f1DAWN 00L as it JIL 4 sloop 0 31U2L390006 53y BUKERO PJMMIEL& A 003 40 114064it 100.0 1550 1911771130005 5325 PAURD :: JKURSON&AMLARION . AMN oce 003 41 3L s 1100 171:0 .=17AUM SM IAKIIM ROOTAORALN&OLLYNANCK IOI MAM MADOM on 00s N 43JL LI3 saes 103 MA 2911771MM S21S I NAKE RD ALVWE&SONAMCQLMNN emaNDWOODS " .UMIAX02 45 4 I JW 0 3811 1 $36 $" so DMSAWAS&KGIAUTAS PK ADDN 00L. 46 szoptivi.. 0.51 s 219A 30117134MOW kII1 kYANAMbODU OARLBSJ&timWom n"KON0002NDAWN on, 47 amho a 1 40.0.. EVANSWOODU. AC A MM EV W00D 008 002 .. 49 .R QZAMM 110.0 14&0 X11711140014 ww EVANSWOODLA TWONIVOOMMETAL ANSWOOD 002 002 49 1AWASOAL 0.49KPO :204A 14oO 3001721440016 WARSWOW LA AMCAMMMJkAJOARfM SO j&Gftji4JI. 0,39kws 120.8 IW X1 11 sm EVANW*MU MOBAMCOLSON AOM 009 si 7 O.Almam 1Xt 1540 3NOW210440M 5221 EVANSMWIA CARMUA1NIUNN BROWNSWOWA00N 0011 $2 2?,4IjlsqfL 463 u ts 12L9 I 21L7 301172194W11 SMS EVANAVOODLAOUFABNSE AMYWM WANSW00D: 53 3 JT x . 0.71 s' MA 2M6 3WI21440077 SMtVANSWOODLA RW 1MMIC-WA az r4mswoOD ODS 001' so IMAM&& &49KM 22A 6MMVAQM5306 AN U 'PAULA ftUMSJAAIE'S A 00 2H on SSit 4 0 1110 34117HOW5" 5304 MAKE 80 Ml&LAWADVOCK on OR 56 �1- - 21. A m sores 0" U&I 393 14 53M gg-top MG&UNDSAYEMMEY 5 001 57 31904wX &PIlwa; 1167 :1362 3011721440011 5224. BAKE RO GAAMDEAM&IANDVOW OD oat 001 so nomma 0. 3W 2110 BOUIZA40M SM MOM JLLCIM" EVANSWOOOMAWN 4O.00I. S9 27 .. .1..1000 148.0 X317214C048 6210 FOKMEADJIWIA LSOMWELO&PSMENFSD OAK/ONOSOF IWMACNEN OM G0 JIL2Qhu#L Odscas tOLO IM MM144MOI 6215 FOXMMCOWLA ATSULUVANTR I AISUUWAM OAKPONDI 1 001 70 EET 61 7 ,h. 0 "Ll 14LS 3011771110016. 6217 FoxmEAVOWUWT000EMlOW&SWO 2MM OAKPONOSOFI .002. .STREET 62 JY. 48 1111 273.6 3021712440015 6221 FOKMFADDWLA Es ESKIM&SACAMS PDN OPl 000 .401. 63 W95114A 0,73 ewes I 106.5 13&9 3017711 s2z5IEN& aTIRMM YER DAK oT 001 64 24} 1. ,fL Oss 97.5 7915 30117214W9J7 6113 fQYMU00YJLA JSSAVAGE&JMSAVAGE OAK PONDS OFINIERIACNEN WOMON 00 OK 63 M487fick .151 saes 163.1 A14.1 107171149fp49 17 5 i C OAK A K 1 aaes Ins �i.1 3181711440001 5126 SCNAEFER RD ROINVA ETALTRE AtRMTMSSW iil 011 67 656 155.4 WESTWOODCf C&LIAWWR ODIAI MAOL 68... .,h« 0. Km 1766 7 . 3011711140024 61-01 WEV%VQODCT fRANCISDAMELNUSSMIN , WE57WOODCOIAIT 002 ODI. :� S O.h. L 397.9 175.8 2011723A10016 on W CT MNIOENNEV NNE AT 003 ODI 70 s .f 0. 2668 :111.1 30117114400? 6312 WEs11N00DLT R BOMakO&1MBON WEITWOOD T OL4.001 71 : .. 303 Jt. 47 Seas S 154.9. IOU721 &176 WESIWOOD TW &AWXM WBTWQW : 72 50 2t. ]AE . . a 1646 IM3 MVM 6710 4YEa7W00DCT TWMiSA&DNLRECMIZ WELTWaw T ODE 73 7X . 0.74 aeras B"1 M6 s011725 6724 2Vp5YW000CF 11ONAT IFLVNN LIT AL wesrw000COLm7 007 001 74 'JL 0.E a1m ITD.9 M6 307 ww"OOQOCIF TsiormR&KsARX CQWT .. 008on 75 3-xfL 4 ftms 2L0,0 M 38/17211/0005 6311 WESTWODOCT DAWOEPAUR WESIWODO COURT 084 002 s 071 was 211.9 207.6 3011721410014 8309 waft04ii1CT JWWLD&RERICCAUSPMN WESMOWCOUR1'.. 005 ODi. _. 77 2% 1t saes .133-0 .708.4 30fiTi14p03i VVLS Ct KWATARAUnO FSTVJOODCOUBT 001..002 79 70t ,fl. 4 2144 153:9 301I72940002 X01.. WF371VOOOLT CNRIMMINIKI6 WE5TWOODCOURT 001 002` Me>o _ . A 5"VARY SURVEY. itvMAP 5 FOR LOT AMNLY-93 MMMS OILY, OF MASLAff 2479 O.NP C CLA.ATKN45 LM Wxt26 COTM+LKIV PLATS AN17 ALITOCAP SOFTWARE. FR4+4AW 53;1 E' Tl E L.s V 1I.1M WKS i Aaeiy saA.C)r Nal cher aw+ ww%rpr aa�aspe.4Swr araxltkLHn+a:tAa sLNue A SB Mtrastructure • Engineering • Planning a Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South f / Suite llm Minneapolis„ MN SUi6 eE AuodWr. hay. Tel: 763 541.4NO Fax: ?63 6414760 Memorandum DATE: February 18, 2015 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Contnttntlty Develop»tent .Director My ofEdlna FROM: Charles Rickert, RE., AT.O.E RE: Blake Wands Residential Subdivision Traffic Review My ofEdina, MN WSBPmject No. 1686 63 Background . The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and safety impacts the proposed development of the Blake Woods residential subdivision plan has on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located north of Vernon Avenue, between Pine Grove Road and Evanswood Lane off of Blake Road The existing site includes one single family residential unit with access to Evanswood Lane. The project location is shown on Figure 1. , The proposed subdivision site plan includes development of seven (7) single family residential homes including maintaining the existing home and the construction of six (6) new homes. Access to five (S) of the homes will be via a new cul-de-sac street connection from Blake Road. The one existing home and one new home will have access on Evanswood Lane. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated traffic and safety impacts the proposed development will have on the adjacent roadway system. Site Trip Generaden The estimated trip generation from the proposed development is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the site traffic is based on extensive surveys for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 0 Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed six (6) new signal family homes. Blake Woods Subdivision Traffic Review City of Edina February 18, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Table 1- Estimated Site Trip Generation Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Feaak Total In I Out Total In Out Total In Out Single Family Residential 6 Units 58 29 29 5 1 4 6 4 2 Source: histitute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Stn Edition Traffic Operations Analysis In order to determine a base line condition, existing traffic counts were conducted on the adjacent streets the week of February S0, 2015. Based on these counts the following traffic conditions currently exist on these streets. BI& Road south of Parkwood Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2,600 AM Peak Hour 208 PM Peak Hour 211 Blake Road north of Pine Grove Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2050 AM Peak Hour 186 PM Peak Hour 208 plake Road north of Evanswood Lane Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1950 AM Peak Hour 176 PM Peak Hour 199 Evanswood Lane west of Blake Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 280 AM Peak Hour 34 PM Peak Hour 39 Pine Grove Road east of Blake Road Average Daily Trak (ADT) 440 AM Peak Hour 34 PM Peak Hour 36 Packwood Rsad west of Blake Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 340 AM Peak Hour 33 PM Peak Hour 36 Blake Woods Subdivision Tragic Review City of Edina February 18, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Blake Road is a north/south street providing local access to Vernon Avenue and Interlachen Boulevard. This type of higher functioning street will carry slightly larger traffic than a typical local City street such as Evanswood Lane, Pine Grove Road or Parkwood Road. Typical local City streets will have traffic volumes ranging from 200 to 2000 vehicles per day (vpd) depending on the density of the area and its connection to other higher functioning streets (i.e. collectors or arterials). The traffic operations analysis was conducted using established methodologies documented in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. The analysis techniques defined in the HCM are different for roadway segments and intersections. Roadway segment analysis focuses on the average daily volume to capacity ratio, while intersection analysis focuses on delay caused by the AM or PM peak hour critical movements. It is therefore possible to have an efficient intersection located along a poorly operating roadway segment, or a poorly operating intersection along an otherwise free-flowing roadway. Roadway segments or intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" as defined in the HCM. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay along a roadway segment or at an intersection LOS. E represents the condition where the roadway segment or intersection is at capacity. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the roadway segment or intersection. At a stop sign - controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through - street intersection. For purposes of this review, the roadway segment analysis was conducted at a planning level. The analysis consists of comparing the average daily flow rates on a roadway segments to the ADT roadway segment traffic capacity threshold volumes. A two-lane urban street with driveway and street access has a capacity threshold of 2000 vpd at LOS A and 40W vpd at LOS ET. The existing and anticipated (with the development) roadway segment traffic operations are displayed on Table 2. As shown on the table, all roadway segments are operating at LOS A or B as they exist today and with the proposed development traffic included. Table 2 —Roadway Seegmenl T raf is Analysis Street Location Exfstin AADT LOS P ro ec AADTted Los Blake Road South ofParkwood Road 2600 B 2650 B Blake Road North.. of Pine Grove Road 2050 B 2100 B Blake Road North of Evanswood Lane 1950 A 1970 A Evanswood Lane West of Blake Road 280 A 290 A Pine Grove Road East of Blake Road 440 A 450 A Parkwood Road West of Blake Road 340 A 350 A Blake Woods Subdivision Traffic Review City of Edina February 18, 2015 Page 4 of 6 The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Measures Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro/ShTraff is microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4. Table 4—Intersection Trafflc A nalysis Control Dewy (Seconds) Signalized 11"iguar" A :510 :510 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >801 > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro/ShTraff is microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4. Table 4—Intersection Trafflc A nalysis Delay and LOS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Projected Existing Projected intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS' (Sec) (sec) (Sec) (APO Blake Road at 47 A 4.9 A 5.2 A 5.4 A Evanswood Lane Blake Road at NA NA 2.3 A NA NA 2.7 A New Street A Blake Road at 7.6 A 7.8 A 8.4 A 8.7 A Pine Grove Road Blake Road at 8.5 A 8.7 A 9.2 A 9.4 A Parkwood Road Delay and LOS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Blake Woods Subdivision Traffic Review City of Edina February 18, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Tragic Safety Review In addition to the traffic operations analysis a traffic safety review was also conducted. This included reviewing the crash history in the area, reviewing the sight distance required at the new street intersection to Blake Road and reviewing the site plan for safety issues or concerns. Crash History: Crash data provided from Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) records from the past 10 years was reviewed for the area. Based on that review two (2) crashes have occurred on Blake Road between Evanswood Lane and Parkwood Road, One (1) rear end property damage crash with a parked car northbound around the Evanswood Lane intersection in 2005 and, one (1) right angle personnel injury crash, just north of the Pine Grove Road intersection (at a driveway) in 2007. Sight Distance Analysis: As -built plans for Blake Road were reviewed to determine if sight distance would be a concern with the construction of a new intersection from the proposed Blake Woods Subdivisions between Pine Grove Road and Evanswood Lane. The analysis included review both the horizontal and vertical profile of the existing roadway in relationship to the new intersection location and the speed of traffic on Blake Road. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines were used for the analysis. Two primary conditions were analyzed; 1. The sight distance required for a stopped vehicle at the new street intersection to safely pull out onto Blake Road, For most practical purposes, providing a 10 -second decision time, from the initial detection point to the location of the critical feature, based on design speed, is adequate. Based on these criteria a sight line of approximately 440 feet from the intersection looking north or south on Blake Road should be provided where possible. The new intersection is located between Evanswood Lane and Pine Grove Road. The intersection of Evanswood Lane is approximately 200 feet north of the new street intersection. The intersections of Pine Grove Road and Parkwood Road are approximately 200 feet and 400 feet south of the new street intersection, respectively. Based on the review of the horizontal and vertical conditions and assuming that no trees or vegetation are restricting views, there would be sufficient sight lines to see any oncoming vehicle including vehicles turning from the adjacent intersections. 2. The sight distance required to stop for a vehicle in the street turning from Blake Road onto the new street. Based on the guideline a sight distance of 200 feet should be provided to see a vehicle or other object in the street to safely stop traveling at 30mph. Based on the review of the roadway conditions, a vehicle traveling either northbound or southbound on Blake Road would have sufficient distance to safely stop for a vehicle turning into the new street intersection. Ail Make Woods Subdivision Traffic Review City of Edina February l x, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Site Plan Review —The site plan was reviewed with respect to the street alignment and configuration. No issues were identified however, the following should be considered: 1, A stop sign should be placed on the new street approaching Blake Road. 2. Provide a clear sight line from the intersection in both directions; keep it clear of trees or other landscaping that would be in the line of vision. 3. Clear the trees and vegetation in the right of way to provide a clear sight line at the Evanswood Lane intersection looking south. Conclusions l Recommendlall6n Based on the traffic review documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following. • The proposed development will generate 58 daily trips, five (5) AM peak hour trips and six (6) PM peak hour trips. • Based on the traffic operations analysis the intersections and roadway segments on Blake Road will operate at satisfactory (LOS A or B) with the proposed site developed. • Only two crashes have occurred in the area adjacent to the site in the past 10 years. • Sufficient sight lines exist for traffic exiting or entering the proposed new street intersection on Blake Road. • Safety would be improved with the installation of stop sign for the new street approaching Blake Road and providing a clear sight line from the intersection, • At the intersection of Evanwood Lane the safety would be improved with clearing the sight line looking south from the intersection. 00"'R•fils* Y/N/2pS BSB.fAa�oeB�a.RrtIXB��7Dt8oQltXn�raVB869f-TrolsetlototfoA.O1M ���� � ST RMPLACHENu �w 8! VD� �_ V MTERLA�N'n-, M N J G1 p S �'. Q�y" �i" si. l�J ifi�r 4i .. SIPIZ p. y� / f ..� ��V y, ,� WOO A. a PLake N �.., X 0 ¢ r 2 CHA Cg A LE ' �d Qi. T. LA.Z FO Ap pR• W 52nd T UNk 0 Bao rr troo st F[gFr c " a La. v �i ; Q REN FARMS ,'� � � «y11D0EN ,. �- - .� CT. '� LA 69 ELEMARK TR. � Lomition m� W m ti �� �� � � �4E ST. r RSCHMOND %larvey C ¢i'... x LW LA. ..""4" yp. Wit' < 4,�~ t �p,J4'• 0 �! ; �P WO � r I• W DY O � � � � 1- U � wDVO A "��l aV �� Ilse I T. I '' FIELD. w Y �"" 4• " � LA. � � ES RI A�t YY � NNE 7 W V � i1 CL a DCF ui r pDOYRE 0!i (A' c`� < Cody 24. i� a' '< W 5T. z3. SO Y Ew &t D �o PARKWOOD LA. r v BERME Q�� o-b +++ k > LD GROVE ST v +o oe �� 9l. GROV Bre o �ST. ,c LONDONDE t W. 58 s 4kCm AMT Dq LYLE TON ` > ASPEN a Re ¢ N AYE. W. 59th ST.< N.59th ST. z LANGFORO DR. > !y W Q TSIDE� 60th ST. `Y a CHOUL �'t ARg� 'Z,1 FOR ','%z '� O►'ER W. 8 R10G VAI JEFF SPL. p z BIRCH CR u �A O ERR BLVD. a VERNON GLEASON MOLE CR J " ®9 L �s ST ft pr "OLONIAL NAY '� R < < z FALCON GS RED FOXR CT, �• v w w T. �� WNITI a[A.- 1410 4 SS P OWc Getk ON ,/\ w. rinr,.ann { 1! ..1!' ., S�� tJ �o.ii r�� f .•.t ws �l� w �' a �,34 Traffic Review Figure 1 Blake`Woods Subdivision %- City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map I 1 1 v--------- � i 1 f-------------_----- 1 a i 1 r 1 P p 1 f 1 I f t + T - 1 1 MAW BERMAN ..M fMIR Y,r,. A01+Yf+N FAM. NOR SLAKEWOODS SUBQMSION �®�:rMa.. wwtrrr F:...- r �nn�+d3.Cir w,ru+w.,r...rw ME'^'e5yi .w..-.w.r.. �m TVPC l~_ ,asm hsni�. tICRTN W ►Rl3pJlMAtiV Pi.AF emsm 4 OIL �rrrr w. �w .ew aimmaa.+.me +rcr m!w �III� %VIA Traffic Review Figure z Q Blake Woods Subdivision City of Edina, Minnesota Site Plan \COO\FiIMWt8V606�31'f7Q'03 cxrsroy Irar"G601M c N F �� ,M� ,^ ,7 l7�R�`�, o Ln rn 2XxA}. 1 z $ C 80 r� QJ Ln 440 Pine Grave Rd a,nr Grove F d 340 N¢r,MvptC D"% Parew'Cod Rd m 2 „ryd�•� N �11,�� l91'r 5 V _ IdyIWW or _. _.. Y �v Traffic Review Figure 3 Blake Woods Subdivision Existing (2015) `�4 City of Edina, Minnesota Daily Traffic Volumes Cary Teague From: Jeff Siems Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 201512;40 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: Brian Olson Subject: Blake woods housing project Hello Cary, Per our discussion today regarding the Blake Woods housing project the fire department recommends the following: 1) Road width of 24' Is below fire code minimums. Residential fire sprinkler system (13D or IRC 2904) required for any building regardless of square footage. 2) Fire hydrants should be located In two areas, at the corner of Blake road and Blake woods and at the beginning of the turn -a -round along the North side. 3) No Parking Fire Lane signage to be installed along the North side of Slake Woods road and around the turn -a=round on the outside radius. Jeff Slems, Fire Marshal Edina Fire Department 952-826-0337 ) JSlems@EdinaMN.eov DATE: February 19, 2014 TO; Cary Teague — Community Development Director CC: Chad Miliner PE — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner PE — Environmental Engineer Charlie Gerk EIT-- Engineering Technician RE: Berman Subdivision -- Preliminary Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. General Comments 1. All rain gardens will need to be on private property and covered by a private maintenance agreement In favor of the local Watershed District. Provide an inspection and maintenance plan that ensures future functionality. 2. A development agreement will be required for the creation of public road and utilities. 3. All maintenance for the landscaping, retaining walls and other related Items located within the proposed public right-of-ways and easements will be the responsibility of the subdivisions home owners association or individual property owners. Surveyf Plat 4. Datum for any future surveys will need to be NAVD 1929. 5. Recorded easements will be required for all public infrastructures not already in platted drainage and utility easement. Traffic and Street 6. A traffic study will need to be completed for the impact of an entrance at Blake Rd vs. Evanswood Ln. 7. B618 curb and gutter only and standard residential driveway entrances as described in city standard plate 411 and found at the following link: hap:Uedinamn.mdlndex.phpisectionFconstruction standards 8. Provide 5400t wide ADA compliant sidewalks with 5 -foot boulevards. 9. 244bot wide streets will be allowed only if. a. The City of Edina's largest fire truck is able to navigate the road and cul-de-sac. b. Parking Is limited to one side only. Sanitary and Water Utilities 10. Describe sewer and water services and proposed abandonments of existing utilities. 11. A looped 6" DIP from Blake Rd through to the southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Ln. 12. Copper lines must be used to the curb stop. 13. Wet tap will need to be completed at night, with an approved closure plan by public works for Blake Rd. 14. Water main to cross northeast at Blake Rd ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 9450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826.0392 Storm Water Utility 15. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: Vis://maps.barr.corrdedlna/ and thtto:Jte� dinamn.go_v/index.pbptsection=engine.eri ater resource 16. A complete stormwater management plan will need to be completed for the site. a. Stormwater system downstream of sub -watershed MD_29 is over capacity. On site extended detention will be required to control peak rate to the downstream storm system. Provide downstream analysis. b. No increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. 17. Describe and show downstream connection to public storm sewer system. Connection must remain In public drainage and utility easement on Parkwood Knolls 3' Addition or public right of way on Shafer Road. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide Information for grading staging between the land development and individual building permits. 19. A State construction site permit and SWPPP will be required: Other Agency Coordination 20. A Nine Mile Creek. Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPGA, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 wnvw.F.dinaMN.Sov « 952-8x6-0371: Fax 952426-0392 DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Community Development Director CC: Chad Millner PE — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner PE — Environmental Engineer RE: Berman Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. This review summarizes issues remaining from the February 19 review and March 3 drainage review memo. The reviewed plan is dated 3/18/2015. General Comments 1. A development agreement will be required for the creation of public road, utilities and stormwater system ownership and maintenance. Survey/ Plat 2. Recorded easements will be required for all public infrastructures not already in platted right of way. a. Drainage to the west is proposed in a flow concentration onto private property then into a private pond. Applicant must negotiate future public easement for: the flow path, any drainage Infrastructure, or any increase in pond bounce with any affected private parties. Describe precautions against erosion and provide proof of easement on private property. Traffic and Street. 3. Use 8618 curb and gutter and standard residential driveway entrances as described in city standard plate 411 and found at the following link: h lledinamn.govlindex.pbp?section=construction standards 4. Provide 5 -foot wide ADA compliant sidewalks with 5 -foot boulevards on south side of proposed road consistent with Living Streets Policy. 5. Demonstrate fire access turning movement for attached design vehicle. 6. Limited parking to one side of street. Sanitary and Water Utilities 7. Provide a looped 6" DIP from Blake Rd through to the southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Ln. Storm Water Utility 8. Submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan that meets the following performance standard. Design to these restrictions will ensure that either east or west flow path meet level of service and level of protection for 100 year events, and risk in downstream water body MD 25 is not increased. 9. No increase in stormwater peak rate, volume or flood stage elevation to neighboring private properties, which will be demonstrated by the following criteria: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371• Fax 952-826-0392 AK' a. No Increases in stormwater volumes to MD -29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 - year 24 —hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. b. No increases in peak stormwater rates to MD, 29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. c. No limitations to total volume runoff (to east) aside from meeting Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site. 10. Limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event, not per sub watershed (a sub watershed basis increase to the Blake Road system is allowed, as that direction has capacity to direct stormwater) 11. Achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. Hydrology The Engineering Department contracted with Barr Engineering to review the hydrology calculations for this design. The Barr review Is attached to this memo. 12. Provide justification for pre and post curve numbers and following guidance provided in attached Barr memorandum (Performance standard comment 2) 13. Provide revised survey or adjust model to describe existing on-site storage consistent with Barr memorandum (Performance standard comment 3, Other comment 4) 14. Future building sites can be limited by impervious surface assumptions though developers agreement. Previous submittal claimed 5,450 sf impervious per lot. Recommend more conservative impervious assumptions to provide flexibility to allow for future expansion. 15. Correct modeling error In rain garden performance (Volume control, Other comment 3) 16. Provide time of concentration justification (Other comment 1) 17. Provide infiltration rate justification (Other comment 2) Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 18. Provide a State construction site permit and SWPPP at time of Final Plat. General Comments 19. Provide a private maintenance agreement in favor of the local Watershed District for all rain gardens at time of final Plat. 20. Provide an Inspection and maintenance plan that ensures future functionality at time of Final Plat. Other Agency Coordination 21. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPCA SWPPP, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department at time of final Plat ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gove 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Z <e�wmTurning Performance Analysis S2013 N Parameters: Inside Cramp Angle: 45.000 Axle Track: 81.92 in. Wheel Offset: 5.25 in. Tread Width: 16.60 in. Chassis Overhang: 65.99 in. Additional Bumper Depth: 19.00 in. Front Overhang 84.99 in. Wheelbase: 258.00 in. Calculated Turning Radii: Inside Tum: 20 ft. 4 in. Curb to Curb: 36 ft. 8 in. Wan to Wall: 41 ft. I is Comments: Truck 12205 Components PRIDE # D eserlpdon Front Tires 0078244 Tires, Michelin, 425/65822.50 20 ply XZY 3 tread Chassis 0070220 Dash -2000, Chassis, PAP/SkyAmdMidmount Front Bumper 0123625 Bumper, 19" extended, ImpNel Aerial Device 0006900 xxxAeriai, IW Pierce Platform Notes: Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Page I of 2 A ►` / 4(� Turning Performance Analysis 5/1/20/3 Definitions: Inside Cramp Angle Maximum turning angle of the front inside tire. Axle Track King -pin to ting -pin distance of the front axle. Wheel Offset Offset from the center -line of the wheel to the king -pin. Tread Width Width of the tire tread. Chassis Overhang Distance from the center -tine of the front axle to the front edge of the cab. This does not include the bumper depth. Additional Bumper Depth Depth that the bumper assembly adds to the front overhang. Wheelbase Distance between the center lines of the vehicle's front and rear axles. Inside Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle around which the vehicle can turn. Curb to curb Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the vehicles tires can turn. This measurement assumes a curb height of 9 inches. Wall to Wall Turning Radius Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the entire vehicle can tum. This measurement takes into account any front overhang due to the chassis, bumper extensions and/or aerial devices. Page 2 of 2 FVV resourceful. naturally.►ri.i engineering and environmental consultants Memorandum To: Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Janna Kieffer Subject: Review of Blake Woods March 18, 2015 Stormwater Management Submittal Date: March 30, 2015 This memo serves as a summary of Bares review of the Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed Blake Woods subdivision, as submitted on March 18, 2015 by Landform. Barr reviewed the Stormwater Management Pian for compliance with the performance standards identified in the March 3, 2015 drainage review memo from Ross Bintner, City of Edina Engineering Department, to Cary Teague, City of Edina Community Development Director. Performance Standard Regarding Neighboring Private Properties Standard- No increases in stormwater volumes to MD 29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 year 24 —hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. Bares review comments, 1. The stormwater modeling submittal indicates that under existing conditions, 172,408 ft2 within the proposed development area drains west to the MD 29 pond, with 19,741 W of impervious surface (11.4%). Under proposed conditions,167,669 ft2 of the proposed development drains west to the MD 29 pond, with 46,664 ft2 of impervious surface (27.8%). Based on this information, summarized in Table 1, the total area draining to the MD 29 pond has been reduced under proposed conditions. However, the amount of impervious surface draining to the MD 29 pond under proposed conditions is 24 times that of existing conditions. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com 0 Date: March 30, 2015 Paae: 2 Table 1. Summary of subcatchment areas draining to the MD -29 pond under existing and oronosed conditions Subcatchment Area (ft2) Impervious % Impervious area Proposed Difference in Runoff Subwatershed 4S: To Pond MD -29 95,550 16.05 15,336 Raingarden S (Pond 15S) 9,748 3533 3,483 Raingarden C (Pond 14S) 22,318 53.92 12,034 Raingarden D (Pond 12S) 6,167 83.49 5,149 Raingarden E (Pond 11S) 14,352 36.32 5,213 Raingarden F (Pond 17S) 9,847 32.24 3,175 Raingarden G (Pond 18S) 9,687 23.49 2,275 Total 167,669 28 46,664 Existing 1,742 Subwatershed 4S: To Pond MD -29 172,408 11.45 19,741 2. Table 2 summarizes the runoff generated under existing and proposed conditions in the subcatchment(s) draining to pond MD_29, per the March 18, 2015 submittal. Note that the runoff generation summarized in Table 1 does not reflect volume reduction achieved by routing runoff through the rainwater gardens. Table 2. Summary of runoff generated per March 18, 2015 submittal Event Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Difference in Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Volume (ft3) Depth per Volume (ft3) Depth per Generated acre (in) acre (in) (ft') 2 -year 20,258 1.41 22,237 1.60 1,979 10 -year 37,762 2.63 39,906 2.87 2,144 100 -year 80,280 5.59 82,022 5.88 1,742 Given the significant increase in impervious surfaces draining to MD -29 pond, the increases in runoff generated under proposed conditions seem low. We recommend the following revisions to the modeling approach to ensure that the increase in impervious surface are being properly reflected in the modeling analysis: - Use a pervious curve number for proposed conditions that is the same as or higher than existing conditions to reflect likelihood of compacted soil conditions resulting from construction. When using a pervious curve number of 82 for proposed conditions (consistent with existing conditions), the volume to MD -29 increases under the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events, and the performance standard for the 2 -year and 10 -year events are no longer met. as Date: March 30, 2015 Page: 3 - Use the distributed curve number method, which calculates runoff separately for impervious and pervious areas. 3. Under existing site conditions, there is a low, depression area located south of the existing driveway on the Berman property. Based on the MnDNR's 2011 WAR, it appears that stormwater from an area of approximately 30,000 ftz drains to this low area, where runoff pools to a depth of approximately one foot before reaching the surface overflow and flowing southward and eventually west to the MD_29 pond. Based on the MnDNR's 2011 LiDAR elevation data, there is approximately 4,000 cubic feet of storage in this low area. Rough estimates indicate that during the 2 -year, 24-hour event, all runoff from the direct tributary area would be stored in this low area without a surface overflow to MD 29. This low depression area south of the existing driveway is not included in the current existing conditions model. Including the existing low area in the modeling analysis would result in lower runoff volumes to MD_29 under the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. The low area should be included in the modeling analysis for comparison of existing and proposed runoff volumes to the MD -29 pond if field survey verifies the presence and characteristics of the low area. Standard- No increases in peak stormwater rates to MD_29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events), as compared with existing conditions. Table 3 summarizes the peak runoff rates to the MD_29 pond, as identified in the March 18, 2015 stormwater management plan. Based on the modeling, the proposed rainwater garden storage and infiltration/filtration results in peak flows to the MD -29 pond that are lower than peak runoff rates from existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. Table 3. Summary of peak runoff rates to MD -29 pond Event Existing Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Runoff Rate (cfs) 2 -yr, 24 -hr (2.87") 8.46 6.08 10 -yr, 24 -hr (4.29") 15.61 10.9 100 -yr, 24 -hr (7.47") 32.11 25.08 Performance Standard(s) for Overall Site Standard- limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour Atlas 14 events. Table 4 summarizes the peak runoff rates from the overall site, as identified in the March 18, 2015 stormwater management plan. Based on the modeling, the proposed rainwater garden storage and Date: March 30, 2015 Page: 4 infiltration/filtration results in peak runoff rates from the overall site that are lower than peak runoff rates from existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year events. Table 4. Summary of peak runoff rates from overall site Event Existing Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Runoff Rate (cfs) 2 -yr, 24 -hr (2.87") 9.08 6.66 10 -yr, 24 -hr (4.29") 16.82 11.9 100 -yr, 24 -hr (7.47") 34.72 27.9 Standard- Applicant must meet the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District's (NMCWD's) stormwater management rule requires retention onsite of one inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces of the parcel. The proposed site has a total of 54,638 ft2 of impervious surface. One inch of runoff from 54,638 ftz of impervious surface is 4,553 ft3 of runoff. Soils on the proposed site have been identified as Hydrologic Soil Group D, indicating poor infiltration capacity. As such, the proposed rainwater garden designs include installation of a drain tile to collect runoff that infiltrates through the approximately two feet of planting soil. The proposed rainwater gardens include a gravel bed below the drain tile to store and infiltrate runoff. Based on the combined area of the gravel beds, an infiltration rate for the native soils of 0.03 in/hr, and a 48-hour drawdown time, the volume of runoff retained and infiltrated from the proposed rainwater gardens, collectively, is 979 ft3. While compliance with the NMCWD's volume control requirement will ultimately need to be assessed by the NMCWD, it does not appear that the volume retention achieved by the proposed rainwater gardens will meet the NMCWD volume retention requirement. Standard- Applicant must achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. The NMCWD's stormwater management rule requires that runoff from the parcel be treated to provide at least sixty percent (607o) annual removal efficiency for phosphorus, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids. Compliance with the NMCWD's water quality treatment requirements was not assessed as part of this review, and will need to be evaluated by NMCWD. Other Review Notes 1. The time of concentration values for the Existing Conditions Subcatchment 4S (10 minutes) and Proposed Conditions Subcatchment 4S (10 minutes) are low when considering the flow length, site topography and ground cover. pate: March 30, 20)5 Page: 5 2. An Infiltration rate of 1.6 in/hr was used in the model to reflect infiltration through the planting media of the rainwater gardens. Based on the 5096 sand soil mixture identified in the plan set, we recommend using a lower infiltration rate of 0.8 in/hr to provide a more conservative estimate of filtration rates. 3. It appears that the method used to account for infiltration through the planting media and infiltration through native soils below the gravel bed is calculating filtration/infiltration using a surface area larger than appropriate. o The enfiltration rate through the planting soil should be assigned an invert elevation slightly below the bottom of the rainwater garden's surface storage area. The infiltrated volume will then be calculated based on the surface area of the ponded water, rather than the combined areas of both the surface storage and the underground gravel bed. a The exfiltration rate out of the system (through the native soil below the gravel bed) should be assigned both an invert elevation slightly below the bottom of the gravel bed and a maximum elevation slightly below the bottom of the surface storage area. The infiltrated volume will then be calculated based on the surface area of the gravel bed rather than the combined surface areas of both the gravel bed and surface storage. 4. There is a low depression area on the south side of the property at 5311 Evanswood Lane, which is located just north of the proposed roadway of Berman property. The MnDNR UDAR elevation data indicates that under existing conditions, stormwater runoff will pool in this low area until an elevation of 946A feet MSI, then flow west via surface overflow. Review of the grading plan included with the March 16, 2015 submittal (sheet C3.1) Indicates that the proposed site design includes a surface overflow between 5311 Evanswood Lane and the Berman property to the west at elevation 945.9 feet MSL, lower than the existing surface overflow (based on MnDNR LIDAR). 44,3 resourceful. naturally. onrglneofiriq and onrrirownenlal consultants BARR Memorandum To: MIDS Work Group From: Harr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics — Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Ender 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Project. 23/62 1050 MIDS Standard engineering practice during design of stormwater systems usually employs Curve Number methodology. Curve Number methodology is often required by municipal stormwater ordinance due to its wide and historic acceptance as an appropriate rural and urban hydrologic method. Curve Numbers are determined according to the ground cover and soil type, and are used to approximate the varying infiltration, interception and storage capacities of different land covers. A high Curve Number (such as 98 for impervious pavement) indicates low infiltration/abstraction and high runoff, while a lower Curve Number (such as 30 for certain wooded areas) indicates high infiltration/abstraction and low runoff. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual defines Curve Number as "an index combining hydrologic soil group, land use factors, treatment, and hydrologic condition. Used in a method developed by the SCS to determine the approximate amount ofrunofi from a rainfall event in a particular area." (MPCA 2005). History of Curve Number Method Curve Number methodology as it is now used was developed beginning in the 1950s and updated in the decades since. It is an event -based empirical model developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly SCS) based on outflow data collected from relatively uniform agricultural landscapes at a watershed -wide scale, using larger precipitation events and larger flood flows. It was originally developed to estimate stream flow based on calendar day stoms/rainf di data. Curve Number methodology forms the theoretical basis for MRCS (formerly SCS) TR 20 and TR -55, where various regions of the nation are assigned varying intensities of design storms and varying recurrence event precipitation totals. The method was originally developed to calculate the anticipated runoff volume from a watershed and was later adapted to estimate runoff discharge rate. The typical application is to apply a constant, dimensionless Curve Number to calculate runoff volume from rainfall volume. An assumed typical hydrograph (flow as a function of time) and calculated time -of -concentration (the time of flow from the farthest point on the watershed to the outlet) are used to calculate runoff rates. Curve Numbers generally vary from 30 to 98; the higher the Curve Number, the greater the volume of runoff is generated. Table 1 lists Curve Numbers for common Minnesota land covers (MRCS 19866). Botr Engineering Co 4700 West 771h S1toei, Suite 2010, Minneontslis, MN 55435 952,832 2600 www,is mcom �r To: MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 2 Project: 23611050 MIDS Table 1. Curve Numbers for Selected Land Covers' Land Cover Hydrologic Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil Groups Condition A B C D Predevelopment2 Woods Good 303 55 70 77 Prairies, no grazing Good 30 58 71 78 Developed Impervious Surfaces . NA 98 98 98 98 Turfgrass, cover < 50% Poor 68 79 86 89 Turfgrass, cover < 50 to 75% Fair 49 69 79 84 Turfgrass, cover > 75% Good 39 61 74 80 Agricultural Fallow, bare soil NA 77 86 91 94 Fallow, crop residue Good 74 83 88 90 Row crops, straight row Good 67 78 85 89 Small grain, straight row Good 63 75 83 87 Pasture, grazing Good 39 61 74 80 'These Curve Numbers supplied by TR -55 are for Antecedent Runoff Condition 11(ARC 11). 2The Curve Numbers listed for Predevelopment are considered appropriate for native soil and vegetation conditions. 3TR-55 specifies a Curve Number for Woods A"Soils as 30 for runoff calculations, while acknowledging that the actual Curve Number for this condition is lower (unspecified). Minnesota StormwaterManual lists a presettlement Curve Number of 20 (Table 8.3)_ Application of Curve Number Method The Curve Number for each soil type and land cover dictates the expected maximum storage of the soil, S, where S is in inches. P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDSRVorkFiles\PcrfonnanceGoals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.doex r "7 To: MIDS Werk Group From Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Melrics -Curve Numbers lllem 6, Work Order 1) Date: December 14, 2010 Page. 3 Project: 23611050 MDS 5=1000--10 CN Abstractions,ta, (interception, depression storage and evaporation) are generally considered to be 20% of the soil storage. to=0.2*S Runoff volume is then calculated using the following equation: (p /a)2 (P+0.8 *S) The runoff' calculated in the above equation is then applied to a rainfall frequency distribution to determine the runoff: hydrograph. The NRCS method dictates a Type 1124 -hour frequency distribution for Minnesota, however, the runoff volum generated can be applied to other storm durations and intensities. Curve Number methodology is even used in conjunction with continuous rainfall data to determine runoff on an annual basis, but as will be discussed later, the applicability of the Curve Number method for small storms is suspect. Curve Number Method Advantages The primary reason that Curve Number methodology is popular today is the ease of use (Lamont 2008). It is used in TR -20 and various software models for hydrology estimates, including water quality models (such as P8) to attempt to estimate pollutant loadings and sediment yield, and flood hydrology models (such as HydroCAD). Curve Number methodology is frequently used to estimate peak runoff flow, runoff volume and runoffhydrographs for precipitation events of all sizes. Only limited site data, such as location, soil type, land use and slope are required to complete calculations. The method is believed to be relatively accurate for larger scale planning efforts, such as regional flood storage ponds and other flood control facility sizing Other common hydrologic methods, including Green-Ampt and Horton infiltration methods, do not share the advantage of ease of use, and thus are not used as often as Curve Number methodology in stormwater regulation or by developers in sizing storm sewer systems and rate and volume control stormwater best management practices (BMPs). Curve Number Mefhod Deficiencies Despite its advantages and widespread acceptance, the Curve Number method presents certain disadvantages for some modeling and estimating applications. In general, these deficiencies are the result P.1Mp1s\23 lu W2\23621050 MlDS\W ekFdes\PerfomM"1G0R1%\CNa1CN Mew - Finel.doox To: MIDS Work Group From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (Item 6, Work Order I ) Date: December 14, 2010 Page: 4 Project: 23611050 MIDS of the nature of the method's empirical development in large non -urbanized watersheds, in contrast to the differing conditions encountered in urbanized areas. Put simply, the Curve Number method was not originally developed for the urbanized land uses where the method is now most -frequently employed. Developed for Agricultural, Not Urban Watersheds Classification of variable urban soils under specific Curve Numbers remains in question. The Curve Number method was developed on uniform agricultural watersheds and later adapted for urban watersheds (Peters 2010). The model performs well on rural landscapes, but was not developed to consider the complexity of a small urban site with many different land covers and BMPs (Reese 2006). Abstractions The Curve Number method poorly estimates initial abstraction/losses, as the method was developed focusing on the long-term conditions for daily rainfall. Initial abstraction is calculated as a function of the Curve Number, as 0.2*S. This does not often account for variation and complexity of smaller, flatter sites and soils within stormwater BMPs. Recent research has suggested that a value of 0.05 or 0.1 may be more appropriate than 0.2 (Reese 2006, Lamont 2008, Eli 2010) and most modeling packages allow the user to adjust this value; however, changing the abstraction value from the standard 0.2 requires the creation of new Curve Numbers for all land cover types and antecedent runoff conditions (Lamont 2008). The most common application of the method uses a constant Curve Number and antecedent runoff condition (ARC) for an entire precipitation event, although some modeling packages allow the Curve Number to vary with time and ARC. The possible inaccuracy concerning the lack of early -event variation of Curve Number (initial losses, infiltration, etc.) and the inability of the method to account for varying antecedent moisture content are deficiencies of the method (especially for small precipitation and first flush water -quality scale events). Small Precipitation Events and Continuous Modeling Curve Number methodology has difficulty accurately determining runoff for small precipitation events (less than 3"), and especially for events less than r/2 inch (Peters 2010). In the Twin Cities, storms less than 'h inch account for 65% of all precipitation events greater than 0.1 inches (MPCA 2005 — Appendix B). The method is believed to be more accurate for larger precipitation events. The method was not originally developed to model snowmelt or continuous rainfall/runoff simulations, nor was it developed to describe the hydrologic communication between rainfall, soil, soil moisture, subsurface flow and stream flow, therefore has severe limitations in being used for these purposes. Even though it is sometimes used as such, it was not developed to be used for non -point source water quality modeling calculations, such as variable infiltration rates, making a distinction between P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621050 MIDS\workFiles\PcrformanccCmals\CNs\CN Memo - Final.docx To: MDS Work Group From. Barr "needne Company Subject: Reglonai Hydrologic Metrics -Curve Numbers 11tem 6, Work order l ) Oats: December 14, 2010 Paye: 5 Project: 236611050 MIDS disconnected impervious surfaces and pervious surfaces, etc. Modelers have observed inaccurate prediction of runoff volume for small precipitation events, and corresponding inaccurate estimation of pollutant/sediment delivery using this method. Inaccuracy is heightened when only a portion of the real watershed is actually contributing runoff. Composite Curve Number Deficiencies r A composite Curve Number is the areal -weighted average Curve Number of multiple area with different Curve Numbers, aggregated into a single area with a single curve number. A distributed method differs from a composite Curve Number in that it separates pervious and impervious areas, calculating their runoff independently to avoid undesired approximations that occur in composite Curve Number calculations. Results differ if a composite Curve Number is used in the calculations or if a distributed approach is used. Peters calculated that for a theoretical 20 -acre, 30% impervious site, and a 1.34ncb rainfall event, using the composite Curve Number approach generated only 30% of the runoff volume that a distributed Curve Number approach would generate (0.17 acre -.feet versus 0.55 acre-feet). The distributed Curve Number method is generally more accurate because each land cover type is considered, enhancing the resolution of the analysis (Peters 2010). Employing the composite Curve Number method can lead to inadequate sizing of water quality and rate control stormwater BMPs. Composite and distributed Curve Number methods generate more similar results for larger storms (5 year, 100 -year, etc.); however, when evaluating small storms, composite Curve Numbers for Commercial, Industrial, and varying impervious densities Residential Sites are not recommended for use even though they are listed by the NRCS, in various models, and in Table 8.4 of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. References Eli, Robert N. and Samuel J. Lamont. Curve Nainbers and Urban RunoffModeling—Application Limitations. Proceedings from Low -Impact Development 2010: Redefining Water in the City; 2010 ASCE. Garen, David C. and Danial S. Moore. On -pe Number Hydrology in Water Qiialily Modeling. Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. April 2005. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010; htty://www.wsi.nres.usda pov/products/w2O/li&H/does/H&Hgapers/curve number /garen moore C N abuses"f Lamont, S. J.; Eli, R. N.; and Fletcher, L J., 2008. "Continuous Hydrologic Models and Curve Numbers: A Path Forward," Journal of Hydmlogic Engineering. July 2008. PWpW3 MNW\736210SO Mlb3lwo VYdeslPcd mrameaoah Ns\CN Meme - Fiml.dom To: M1DS Work Croup From: Barr Engineering Company Subject Regional Hydrologic Metrics - Curve Numbers (item 6, Work Order 1 ) DOW December 14, 2010 Page. 6 Project: 23611050 NDS Minnesota Pollution Control. Agency, 2005. Minnesota Stormwater Manual, v2. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR -55. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydraulics and Hydrology —Technical Information. Leave NlnmberArclllve. Accessedon20-Sep-2010: httv://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov-/oroducts/w2O/H&-H/tech infb/tot)ics/CNarchive.html Peters, Erik G. Improving the Pmclice ofModeling Urban Hydrology. Stormwatcr. March -April 2010. Accessed an 20 -Sep -2010: httn:!/www.storrnh2o.com/march-april-2010/improving_practice- modeling 3.aspx Reese, Andrew J. Voodoo Hydrology, Stofmwater. July -August 2006. Accessed on 20 -Sep -2010: htty.J/www stormh2a comtiuly-august-20061urban hdrology-methods aspx PWpIA23 MN%M3621050 MMS\WorkFiles\PerfommceGoabWWs\C N Memo - Finsl.do" NZ L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish • 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252-9070 Sub 513 Fax: 612-252-9D77 Knneeois, MN 55401 www.landform.net March 17, 2015 City of Edina Attn: Ross Bintner Environmental Engineer 4801 W. 5& Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Response to City Drainage Review Comments Dear Mr. Bintner: We have received and reviewed the City of Edina drainage comments dated March 3, 2015. We have revised our plans, drainage report and calculation based upon those comments and below are a list of our responses address your comments. It is our intent that the changes made to the documents have addressed the City's concerns and we ask for the staff support at the March 25's planning commission meeting. Storm Water Utility 1. Submit a reeked Stormwater Management Plan, and development plan that meets the following performance standard. Design to these restrictions will ensure that either east or west flow path meet level of service and level of protection for 100 year events, and risk in downstream water body MD 25 is not increased. We have revised our plans and calculations based upon your comments below. We do not have the capacity or data to analyze downstream catchment areas outside of our property. Our development shows both a decrease in offsite storm water rate and a decrease In offsite storm water volume. 2. Applicant must not increase stormwater peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties, which will be demonstrated by the following criteria: a. No Increases in stormwater volumes to MD 29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 year, and 100 - year 24 —hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. The hydrocad analysis of the existing and proposed conditions shows a decrease in storm water volume to the MD 29 pond in the proposed conditions. b. No increases in peak stormwater rates to MD 29 pond (to west) for the 2 -year, 10 year, and 100 -year 24-hour Atlas 14 events, as compared with existing conditions. The hydrocad analysis of the existing and proposed conditions show a decrease in stormwater rate to the MD -29 pond in the proposed conditions c. Summarize direct offsite drainage to the south property line separately. The revised plans indicate a swale on the south property line. This drainage will be routed to the existing MD 29 pond, tandfomt aiWyRrwl'andtsnawoM+mlan�paW wMo��oa tiedNtlaW SnNon, WC. A51 M 0 0 si • d. No limitations to total volume runoff (to east) aside from meeting Nine Mile Creek Watershed District volume control requirements for the entire site, The hydrocad analysis shows a reduction in storm water volume to the east in the proposed conditions for the 2 -year, i 0 -yr and 100 -yr, 24-hour storm. 3. Limit peak stormwater rates from the overall site to peak rates from existing conditions for the 2 - year, 10 -year, and 100 -year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event, not per sub watershed (a sub watershed basis increase to the Blake Road system is allowed, as that direction has capacity to direct stormwater) The hydrocad analysis shows a reduction in storm water rate to the pond in the proposed conditions for the 2 -year, 10 -yr and 1 tit} -yr, 24-hour storm. 4. Achieve compliance with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District water quality treatment requirements. a. The submittal indicates that the site is primarily comprised of D soils and the rain gardens will primarily serve as stormwater filtration. Given the limited Infiltration and presence of drain the in the bottom of the rain gardens, the TP removals sited in the submittal seems high. Our initial calculations were based on Hennepin County Soils data which indicated Silty Sandy soils. We have since completed a geotechnical report that shows Clay (D) soils and our models have since been updated to reflect those. Our project will meettexceed the watershed requirements for water quality as we will be required to obtain a permit through the watershed prior to final plat recording. S. Recorded easements will be required for all public Infrastructures not already in platted drainage and utility easement. a. Drainage to the west is proposed in a flow concentration onto private property then onto a private pond. Applicant must negotiate future public easement for. the flow path, any drainage infrastructure. or any increase in pond bounce with any affected private parties. The applicant and Landform have been in contact with the two property owners through the design process. Both owners have indicated support for continual storm water drainage to the pond. We will continue to work with the owners to establish any required easements during the final platting process. 6. Road grade blocks drainage from proposed lot and private property to the north. Provide positive drainage to low area to north. Summarize any flow through areas separately In hydrology calculations. After further analysis, the low point in the neighboring property Is 13 feet outside of our property. We think it Is unreasonable for the City to require the applicant to fix this existing off site condition. The proposed road is set at the elevations in the existing condition and the roadway elevations are not higher in the proposed elevation so the outlet elevation is not changing in the proposed condition. Our plans have been modified to swale our eastern drainage to a rain garden on our site which is then directed to the offsite pond. 7. Use NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation frequency The hydrocad models use the Atlas 14 rainfall data for this local. Ross Birfter March 17.2015 8. Provide justification for pre and post curve numbers. Previous submittal claimed curve number reductions In post development condition. Curve and drainage numbers should make conservative assumptions about activity that will occur to develop custom graded lots. a. The curve numbers used for the pervious areas in the existing conditions model (Woods, and Woods/grass combination) reflect "poor" conditions, whereas the curve numbers used for the pervious areas in the proposed conditions models (Woods/grass combination, >75% grass cover) reflect "good" or "fair" conditions. The selection of "poor" conditions in the existing conditions model results in generation of higher stormwater volumes under existing conditions than likely appropriate. The inconsistency in curve number selection for pervious areas should be corrected in future submittals to ensure an appropriate comparison between existing and proposed runoff volumes. The original curve numbers were selected based on the existing site conditions and anticipated future conditions. The existing site has very little established vegetated ground cover and the curve number of "Poor" was selected. We anticipate the future homes to have established grass in the full build -out so "Good" and "Fair" conditions were selected. However we have revised the existing model to show similar "Fair" conditions similar to that in the proposed model. This will give conservative assumptions for the future condition. 9. Future building sites can be limited by impervious surface assumptions though developers agreement. Previous submittal claimed 5,450 sf impervious per lot. Recommend conservative impervious assumptions provide flexibility to allow for future expansion. The applicant feels comfortable that 5,450 SF of impervious surface per lot is sufficient for the development. Reducing impervious area will help protect trees and other natural topographic features which has been a priority of the applicant and land owner. 10. Model results contain a significant continuity error. Correct this error. a. This may be a result of the model duration, time step or improper routing Model duration has been extended to show equal volumes. The net changes were very minimal and still below the existing conditions. We hope this letter answers the outstanding concerns. Additionally, we have a few items that have been discussed previously in our memo to you that are pretty Important to us for the development. We would like to have the City staff weigh in on these Items as they greatly impact our development. • Item 7 requests 8618 curb and gutter only. Our plans propose to use 8618 curb and gutter in most locations throughout the development including the north side of the new road and the cul-de-sac, however, we are proposing a flush ribbon curb on the south side of the street as part of our overall storm water management plan. The storm water from the new road will sheet drain north to south over this ribbon curb and will be pre-treated through a grass filter strip prior to entering the proposed rain gardens. Pretreatment is required for the rain gardens and we feel strongly that non -concentrated storm water, pretreated by grass filter Ross Bintner March 17.2015 MW . e • e strips is the best choice for this application. We strongly request the City to consider our proposed ribbon curb and grass filter strips on the south side of the road for the best long term function and performance of the rain gardens. We ask that the ribbon curb on the south side of the new road be allowed as shown on the plans and incorporated in the conditions. Item 8 requests a 5 -foot sidewalk be installed with a 5 -foot boulevard. While we can revise our plans to provide this sidewalk on the north side of the street, the Planning Commission noted a number of concerns about this item. Commissioners noted that the living streets policy would not necessarily require the sidewalk on a cul de sac such as this, that the drainage issues and tree preservation should take precedent over the sidewalk and that alternative designs be considered. We would like to discuss the need, location and design of the sidewalk with you or receive written feedback so that we can prepare a plan that responds to the Commissions noted concerns. Item 11 requests a looped 6" DIP from Blake Road through to the Southeast corner of lot 6 north along the property line to Evanswood Lane. It is very common to have a water main dead-end in cul-de-sacs in subdivisions. We understand this was approved by the City Council in the Morningside/Acres Dubois development in 2013. Installing a looped main between lots 6 and 7 would cause the unnecessary removal of at least 13 mature trees that all parties wish to preserve. We believe that we can show that the required water pressure can be provided as designed and request that this condition be removed. Our hope is that this letter, the revised plans and reports have addressed the outstanding Engineering comments as outlined in your memo. We ask for your support at the March 25' Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Landform Reid Schulz Project Lead COPY: Frank Berman Cary Teague, City Planner Chad Millner, City Engineer Ross Bintner March 17, 2015 ¢nxnw BLAKE WOODS aenaa w �ari/ nwioa tanaut ee iCa tea_/ sw aavnm. 'Jbr aWntrx �I enrwr / oa•ne u m.ar /oww.c ... A. ..d„. •...,... eauweae — — a•a•m = J m.m amenia mr.a. � vwn .•xa-.»-, 27 nu.m au rent aan � mrma meraaae reu avmr anv w � uaaue areae reu •maan6 �t..,.n — c — awe`• � /v.�. xr i/r .rn rw rn—evw—r— .an t8 rm rewrxrr �^^s, raw ow xaren wre•.ur • row w ns aerr. eoraaw.w m ^ a.... a vrva — --- � 4u BLAKE WOODS aenaa qa �ari/ nwioa tanaut h vpna tea_/ sw aavnm. 'Jbr aWntrx �I enrwr / oa•ne u m.ar /oww.c ... A. ..d„. •...,... eauweae — — a•a•m = J m.m amenia mr.a. � vwn .•xa-.»-, 27 nu.m au rent aan � mrma meraaae reu avmr anv w � uaaue areae reu •maan6 — c — w am O-■ orw sr xr i/r .rn rw rn—evw—r— .an ^ + rm rewrxrr �^^s, raw ow xaren wre•.ur • ^r ur awwm w ns aerr. eoraaw.w � w ^m a vrva — --- � 4u uorr .at �raa.��. var ar•oae axaa rYY1 © rasaanr wroa axa.N L A N D F O R M • ® reran ru.rc ...ao ew aamr a.w•nr +m••ea�v..w n •naoamo (N) nrwm onr,vm (P) a•rnua m aaeaem nun as amt EDINA, MN aura Ou � rove xeL coon Ocaamrnrrrwrµ uww..erwu caenT, neuor. w. aa. nccmae ac Tw armae nor orro r�•n .nr. u mreea aw. am r.ur roan aaunr FRANK BERMAN m,err•.�x�ra t" e BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION ECINA. MN FWK BO MM rxa � ana•ni ¢r rnaamarwT Caa WYaanfMT Ca•ia•q cai aeraanex aamwo.aeawaeaasmm tarmoa ¢i uauaxn•aamsrana^a caa uamo•aa•w �r srxeraxrnaonvaa .a atcoxaaurq+mw m atmxaaueraamaeaa ox attnanncmrrama aramorwerioxorteae ... A. ..d„. •...,... n. wacarmxTaxmw iu r.� aasrrrmwraana.ar ^eeauerdelpt^Y[ u uweeuenvaa uvmareoerw •maan6 aaamrxr aacr> REMSION 12 -CITY COMMENM KIM— ..weiq rq µ'.um Tetemort rnmir✓an, m OLf8QM5 axa.N L A N D F O R M a.w•nr +m••ea�v..w n •naoamo a0°^.a+a.an,n •re•p h rvmem aa.n rmsrawaew »a rnn•ainnr nearie cw�vam rwscraa mrrn sin xn ane Z o Z Z8 LD a W111 M 3d, i!$EPS°S"Y°y fQZL Y m �1i11�1?assss�tlg . a IL CO (n W i ttZecii3ii2ii3:ii IM C l�y� • _, St a 1 7 (e1<rer (aNN rac n�raz - rd I a L rirlaox �—�'�•—'� B� =2 aaaaa..e . a � �4 qM o 1 p 9 yo § s 4ffl- S 6 7477^$7^ 4� Egp�egp$ ju F9 6 9 44 ZR j,Qfi8il8 9 • Y�&�$tB •� Mf}}f� I MIN (e1<rer (aNN rac n�raz - rd I a L rirlaox �—�'�•—'� B� =2 FRANK BERMAN ------------ ------------------ - ----------------- 4 -' i 6 I ------------------- BLAKE WOODS ---------- qI SUBDIVISION L----------- LANE 2, ----------- ---------- ---------- 7 --— --------- is AU:• I -------- t. VIA PINE ROAD REMM12-CrrYCOM119M maws A N D F 0 R M NORTH Ccdlb*mvwdftWg. I r-------------- ------------- I a I 0 o FRANK BERMAN ��—°° _._�' NN !'S6 a8a8 It 6 9i - ©.,. i 7 _ •F o R { 1 II I I 1p3Ml,m/ea� Tt CnmOWO 1 Bron rc enam�mr u II I I r..e+.,mwm, we vaasu. { — J CAII trI you ft o 40 80 ! w� , •„� m,m • BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION o, wz = ., ,w a, — — — — G _ REVISION$2-Cf1YCOMMENTS �... OLMI2O15 ��—°° _._�' NN !'S6 a8a8 It 6 9i - ©.,. i 7 _ •F o R { 1 II I I 1p3Ml,m/ea� Tt CnmOWO 1 Bron rc enam�mr u II I I r..e+.,mwm, we vaasu. { — J CAII trI you ft o 40 80 I ' I ------------------ ( I ------------------ 1 FRANK BERMAN BLAKE WOODS K SUBDIVISION EOLNA• MN � xeraa•ce'sa erlAa(M) I � I �� — I 1 as.aXo) I — I 111 1111 �I z I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I ( TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT 0 NO "m 0 NORTH 0 40 Be co�S REVISION# •CRYCOL$mxm • F O R M Slalaee - wwaro... n eameao area re eamotln ernpr.w aia tl.mnn,r neKaa ao�n m:an a1EQ N6 17tl lilt s r °aid _ I , Cal AN lie • li A 33� I 1 k36� 4- I I 44 3 is I .x I I I �i:3 j •n I I /. I .. I —j I I 4 1 I I I I ,. I I ., . •:.. I ,. i .''; .:.: -1 ..... -- �, .. ,-. is MI5 . A�� &;€ 9S` A fi ••fj p 10 1 a a.1 11 xkfill, � s o S p' 33 6 gp3 s Qa • fds f=�ce3?3.?Fi?�ggEs j M (n c 0�. g iit A 35 v C ,� fa39YYY" 3.a a 4 . • @ l� Ny°moi Jill i z v m . sg� W �` r�9 �°"9 i t�i8te1i D� m g 00 Q \ I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I FRANK BERMAN ------------------- I I ------------------- ---- i IP ' I I -- — az ------ - ''— � vxe.os ii Gin. �----.--1 4-- : i?i48 UFJ4E RMAD ------------------ __ BLOGQ I a s Kwi, ocr- Below. CC.,wd,. 0 NORTH aI~� vaaecr •eeiiNees • wol Qegpx�p-pSON REV ISION /2 • CRY COMMENTS mneao1s n;. F O R M r...a.arm. .. . +ameR•ww rc m�acn aweu he ouamamr �www.waw, wr; rean.r ntwuE amort SANITARY SEYEa AN'J YJAiERVxIN C4.1 - ------------ --------------------- ------------------- ------------- ------ ------ ------------- --------- - - — — — — — — — — — — — -- -------------------- ;M9 9 --- ------------- oil pal egjj .e22?E?- V2EI M (1) ca W Zm 11q 'nig yon 'a, A Nlll! IE U) fig 950 z z FRANK BERMAN 1 BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION ECINA, MN �i M� -410e `^49.50 u5.uo as.00 we oo 119.15 100400 Im." 101.00 10140 107.00 10740 105.00 10540 104.00 10440 105.00 M/SQS s NORTH Callexa•yuao, o ao w sxe�rxa a+e STANDARD SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Home 3 TRU V DROP MANHOLE mN 1,2-0.5 SANrrARY DROP MANHOLE xostyu "IN �A, THRUST BLOCK nal CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK$ M PF wscriF YDRAN-rANo GATE VALVE PF wscriF FLARED END SECTION -....--L 2coj mzz� FRANK BERMAN BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA, MN LA go REMSION 42 -CITY COMMENTS Banvals L A N D F 0 R M em semw"..N. to nzasame 17vlz= Q - Sc�v t ROADWAYSIMAGE ROADWAY SIGNAGE nosrAte Hac I mos IQ,. Q ---------- RESIDENTIAL DEWAY ENTRANCE0 "FUV40,ME INLET PROTECTION wscve FRANK BERMAN .- M OPAOPA�� UN OPA� UN LPHOJLR �KuM� lowl REVISION 42-MYCOMMENTS F 0 R M 2 --------- ETA� PIPE BEDDING A TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX C7.2 WWAL!gBWF I mos IQ,. Q ---------- RESIDENTIAL DEWAY ENTRANCE0 "FUV40,ME INLET PROTECTION wscve FRANK BERMAN .- M OPAOPA�� UN OPA� UN LPHOJLR �KuM� lowl REVISION 42-MYCOMMENTS F 0 R M 2 --------- ETA� PIPE BEDDING A TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX C7.2 WWAL!gBWF e SILT FENCE 1ASG1E A CLEAN-OUT STRUCTURE u03CNE A A L J CL4d ..r .wu w..� an.m a oxs '.»es a exso ewnen an SECTION A -A STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN MANHOLE 0 w A ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRANSITION xoscaa NOSEOOWNCURB rkv�. A 24• CONCRETE RIBBON CURB Kna, NOSCNE FRANK BERMAN �rmuwsa� BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA. MN Ry coNS� MOM - REVISION 02 -CITY COMMENTS 00/1BR015 F O R M Nm5ln M - n¢ruaNaan. T! awm•mo arms ree •IiaTmn 1r�µr, W mq1 1X6 anarmnr ncNwc <:mTmv .wxs.w. anon SI�ET NQ 1V�8 A RAIN GARDEN NosrLe aim io ni avt rw •.wren �� xcmf uo urAei �EGTIGN •did' .coram aai.s. men d n p A VEHICLE TRACKING PAD CONCRETEAPRON NOAAIE NOSGIf A BOULDER RETAINING WALL NO SCALE p�ma ,.em.. rw..e.w.•om.... w TREE PROTECTION No srxe FRANK GERMAN m�L�Nm«ob� �wm,z e BLAKE WOODS SUBDIVISION E�INA. MN REVISION t2 - Cf tt COMMENTS (mmAmmfmlN 1mM�anm Tt e1tP.Um10 WO. (c Om�ffi001) 1`nneab,WIW1 W!' ru: wr rain CI\':L NNSTR LITIDN DETAILS C7.4 ■ 90Z r $vj 2 HSI Y S 5WZbZ ff '•J< i 1' • at i #J F % �4�g4 (L trI'M �7 `ttt 9t f Nl yyA- � � x T` � r• a Y l x � !fit f�4i1 S a typy s .. I j s� ' � sit}f•" t ail,,. ff '•J< i 1' • at i #J F % �4�g4 (L trI'M �7 udk N OatnG `ttt 9t f } a typy s .. I j �;sis"s 1a$ udk N OatnG / /-r------------� / . . ` | � � / | r--------_--_-. . / ./ . | | / | | / � . / | | � | ' | / } \ =�p�,�m CO Z z °o m§s>Q" �.�sag"3� d$°�� .LLQ Y 0 Z 7�¢isil Milgggiilill �3.���8�F�f5 tt. m fA W I""sa2ccs"s3iiifE:??: a�+: F � ................. ...... ............... oo1:ego o�:e°oo�;;Eoosro�000aoo�a ��¢�Eo°o: €v''€FF$'�;3ssi AA AA em.+RAn RRA^ n n .. .. .. .. .. .. a pE.. .. {: :5 .. .. .. .,..-- m. ........ ...... ................................. ............ a � a BEVY ES�BY��gJi �`a"sa� �$'aFylF$•$m"6aFes$9msa�£ mi gm�n��9 AEmsg�uaanmmcb��gmm�€m��� . ..................... ....................................... YI w- .,.. AM tiJ3 aAn .. m .. ..eR1L V c.... .. 9.. m .. ....A AAaARBR An a s "a$"a 55aas"a ss Sas 3a3 ia3 33a3a 3a3®�3 �f as"s Sia s$ � m m"nm ia^<13Qar m y......................... ........................ S .................... ... . � 388 8 gi9F a �u3Ae� � �p a F zW S� 8 ��Y�33 $� a gg E c @sg�an F yL2pB�t &.SFS 'y L'r ``€ a �$� esEEEie� s Eg E 3 3 5. 3 3 3 k o A A F 3 3€ 3 � W W Z g S it g 2 G G 0 8 0 6 GE 0 G m C m 9 0 9 6 0 8 8 a 9 C "d 8 Eb^ 8 6 2 8$ 8 2 6 2 0 C m 8 6 gz 6 e g 2 9 6 9 8 R B a F 3 a�q � azwvrms A discussion ensued on the merits of the proposal including ceiling height. Questions were raised on if the figures represented in the plans were correct, and if the variance was approved to ensure that all figures are the same. It was further pointed out that engineering supports the request subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. Public Comment Chair Platteter asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Olsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Scherer stated she supports the project as presented. Commissioner Forrest said she agrees adding this is the time to "fix" the flood plain issue. Forrest also commented in this day and age an 8 -foot ceiling height is not unreasonable or excessive; adding the Commission has viewed and approved projects with higher ceilings. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Forrest offered an amendment to the motion stipulating that all figures match. Commissioner Schroeder commented that an easy way to ensure compliance is to stipulate that the first floor building elevation be met as established by staff. Commissioners Olsen and Scherer accepted those amendments. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Olsen, Carr, Forrest Platteter. Nays; Lee and Hobbs. Motion carried. C. Subdivision. Frank Berman. 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane and 5320 & 5324 Blake Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Frank Berman is proposing to combine and subdivide his properties at 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane, and 5320 and 5324 Blake Road seven lots. The existing home at 5331 Evanswood Lane would remain, and the home at 5324 Blake Road would be removed. The other two parcels are vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 -foot wide cul-de-sac off Blake Road within a 40 -foot right-of- way. Two lots would access of Evanswood Lane, and the remaining five off the new road. The applicant has attempted to minimize tree loss and address drainage issues in the area by locating the roadway along the north lot line, and the stormwater retension areas along the street. Planner Teague noted that to accommodate the request preliminary plan approval isis required. r 5 R`7 � Continuing, Teague explained that all seven of the proposed lots meet the City's minimum lot size requirements. Minimum lot size, width and depth is determined by the median of all lots within 500 feet of the subject property. Based on the surveyors calculation of the medians, the minimum lot size is 21,842 s.f. in size; 166.4 feet in depth; and 120.8 feet in width. Concluding, Teague stated that the city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does have some concern given the existing drainage issues in this neighborhood. The stormwater system downstream is over capacity. The applicant will be required to meet all minimum Minnehaha Creek Watershed district standards, as they are the regulatory authority in Edina in regard to grading and drainage. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. Teague further stated that at the time of this report, the issues raised by engineering have not been met. If the applicant has not addressed by the time of the meeting, staff would recommend continuing action on this request to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ross Bintner, from the engineering department will be at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss any revised plan that is submitted, and the issues regarding the proposal. Teague also stated since interested residents may be present to address the proposed subdivision that the public hearing be opened this evening to allow testimony and left open so that testimony could continue to the tabled meeting date per engineering recommendation. Appearing for the Applicant Kendra Lyndahl Discussion Commissioners acknowledged the recommendation from the engineering department to table the request until drainage issues are resolved; however offered the following: Commissioner Carr asked Planner Teague if the recently approved Tree Preservation Ordinance would apply to this subdivision. Planner Teague responded that he believes so, adding the Tree Preservation Ordinance goes into effect on July 1, 2015. Teague further noted that the applicant is very mindful of the trees on the site. Commissioner Scherer stated that while she understands the significance of Edina promoting "Living Streets" in this instance drainage concerns have been identified and in her opinion a sidewalk just adds more hard surface; reiterating engineering has requested that this request be tabled until all parties reach an agreement. Chair Platteter said he agrees with that comment, adding he's a huge proponent of sidewalks, however, when drainage issues are identified additional hard surface could exacerbate the issue. Applicant Comments Ms. Lyndahl told the Commission the property owner generally supports the conditions of approval. Continuing Ms. Lyndahl said that their first priority was tree preservation and second; creating a project f6 '] 6 3 that complies with city ordinances. Concluding, Lyndahl stated they would work with engineering on resolving the drainage issues prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Carr pointed out that the sidewalk was considered in the engineers review, adding if engineering finds that drainage can be managed (with sidewalk) she would be in favor of the sidewalk. Concluding, Carr stated she encourages sidewalks for Edina. A brief discussion ensued on the proposed location of the sidewalk with Commissioners suggesting that the sidewalk may work better on the north side; not south as proposed. Commissioners asked Mr. Bintner if he believes the drainage issues can be resolved. Mr. Bintner responded he believes so; however, at this time the issues are still unresolved. Commissioner Forrest asked when the subdivision project goes before the Watershed District. Mr. Bintner responded the Watershed District hears the request between preliminary and final review. Commissioner Hobbs suggested if the project moves forward with a sidewalk that the sidewalk could be constructed with pervious materials, reducing drainage impact. Public Comment Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. The following spoke expressing reservations on the 7 -lot subdivision proposal: Rebecca Wallin, 6208 Parkwood Road. Charles Gits, 5311 Evanswood Lane. Olaf Minge, 5225 Evanswood Lane. Amy Minge, 5225 Evanswood lane Chris Johnson, 5308 West Highwood Drive. Chair Platteter commented that since the recommendation is to table the subdivision request until the next meeting of the Planning Commission the public hearing will remain open. Motion Commissioner Carr moved to table the request for preliminary plat for Frank Berman 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane and 5320 & 5324 Blake Road to the March 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Legend EadaUng • • • • Future .... Future .... Futuro .... Futuro &idevrolk State -Ail Sidewalk Active Routes City Sidewalk tdtne Hie Creek To School Sidewalk Regional Trail N + w City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Sidewalk Facilities Uving Streets Policy Introduction Living streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainabi€ty, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better heap. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina`s vision for LMngStreets and the principles and pians that willguide Implementation. The Living Street Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined In the City's 2048 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals Include safe walking, bicycling and driving, reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City Initiatives such as the "do.town" effort related to community health, and the Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Street Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. For example, the Living Streets Policy will support the C Ity's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which addresses mandates established under the Clean Water Act. The Living Streets Policy provides the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Plan will address how the Policy will be implemented by providing more detailed information on street desIM traffic calming, bike facilities, landscaping and lighting, as well as best practices for community engagement during the design process. Lastly, existing and future supporting plans such as the Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to Schools, Sidewalk Priority Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan will help to Identify which projects are priorities with respect to this Policy. Uving Streets% tslon Edina is a place where... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; Streets enhance neighborhood character and community Identity; Streets are safe, Inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; Public policy strives to promote sustainablilty through balanced Infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and + Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Uving Streets Prindptes The following principles will guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. 6I1 Users and All Modes The City will plan, design, and build high quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users (pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly, and disabled) while enhancing safety and convenience for all users, and providing access and mobility for all modes. Comectivity • The City will design, operate, and maintain a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel. • The City will seek opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation. This Includes preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way, and adding new rights -of -xray to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. • The City will prioritize non -motorized improvements to key destinations such as public facilitiess, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas. t• The City will require new developments to provide Interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development, • Projects will Include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, In order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Molication • The City will apply this living Streets Policy to all street projects Including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving,, rehabilitation, or changes In the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • The City will act as an advocate for Living Street principles when a local transportation or land use decision Is under the jurisdiction of another agency. • living Streets may be achieved through single projects or Incrementally through a series of smaller Improvements or maintenance activities over time. • The City will draw on all sources of transportation funding to implement this Policy and actively pursue grants, cost sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • All City departments will support the vision and principles outlined in the Policy In their work. Emotions Living Streets principles will be Included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving, and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of the project proposal. 0 Exceptions: • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway, or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands, or other critical areas. Design The City will develop and adopt guidelines as part of the Living Streets Plan to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines will allow for context -sensitive designs. The City's design guidelines will: • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared -use pathways on all arterial and collector streets and on local connector streets as determined by context. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid -block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The design guidelines in the Living Streets Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update the Living Streets Plan. Context Sensitivity Although many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its neighborhood, adjacent land uses, natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate these differences, the City will: • Seek input from stakeholders; • Design streets with a strong sense of place; • Be mindful of preserving and protecting natural features, such as waterways, trees, slopes, and ravines; • Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character; and A7 • Coordinate with business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts. Benchmarks and Performance Measures The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this Policy. Benchmarks demonstrating success include: • Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling; • Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely; • Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably; • An active way of life is available to all; • There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries; • No unfiltered street water flows into local waterways; storm water volume is reduced; and • Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. The City will draw on the following data to measure performance. Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. • Number of crashes or transportation -related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post -project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Speed statistics of vehicles on local streets. Implementation The goal of this Policy is to define and guide the implementation of Living Streets principles. Several steps still need to be taken to reach this goal. The first step will be to develop a Living Streets Plan to guide the implementation of the Policy. The Plan will: • Identify and implement standards or guidelines for street and intersection design, universal pedestrian access, transit accommodations, and pedestrian crossings; • Identify and implement standards or guidelines for streetscape ecosystems, including street water management, urban forestry, street furniture, and utilities; • Identify regulatory demands and their relationship to this Policy (ADA/PROWAG, MPCA, MNMUTCD, MnDOT state aid, watershed districts); • Define the process by which residents participate in street design and request Living Streets improvements; and • Define standards for bicycle and pedestrian connectivityto ensure access to key public, private and regional destinations. A'7_I 4 Additional Implementation steps Include: • Communicate this Policy to residents and other stakeholders; educate and engage on an ongoing basis; • Update City ordinances, engineering standards, policies and guidelines to agree with this Policy; • Inventory building and zoning codes to bring these Into agreement with Living Streets principles as established by this Policy; • Update and document maintenance policies and practices to support Policy goals; • Update and document enforcement policies and practices to ensure safe streets for all modes; • incorporate Living Streets concepts In the next circulation of the City's general plans (Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to School Plan, etc,); • Incorporate Living Streets as a criteria when evaluating transportation priorities in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); • Review and update funding policies to ensure funding sources for Living Streets projects; and * Coordinate with partner jurisdictions to achieve goals in this Policy, 5 Cary Teague From: Joan Bonello <joanbonello@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:30 AM To: Cary Teague; Edina Mail Subject: Blake Woods Subdivision Mr. Teague, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed Blake Woods Subdivision project. My husband and I live on Westwood Court (6312). Our backyard abuts the Berman property on the northwest corner. I am concerned about the effects of development on the water table in the neighborhood. We recently completed a fairly large and expensive landscaping project in our back yard which included removal of large mounts of buckthorn and replacement with more desirable species. During periods of ground saturation, as we saw last summer with large rainfalls, the south portion of our yard becomes flooded. Our neighbors south of us also experienced flooding and water in their basement last summer. The water table is very high already and building on seven new lots and the addition of a new street will create significant run off of storm water. I attended the meeting with Landform on February 3rd at Highlands Elementary School. Reid Schulz presented the project to neighbors and answered questions. I know there are some plans for water management put forth by Landform, however I would like to make sure the city is also looking at this issue and has done due diligence to ensure the plans for water management are adequate. I would like to know how the city is planning on ensuring that this new development will not create problems with flooding and groundwater issues for the existing neighbors. Will the neighbors have support from the city to resolve any water management issues that may arise post development? Please consider the existing ground water issues in our neighborhood and the effect this new development will have on existing water table levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joan and Robert Bonello 6312 Westwood Court Edina, MN 55436 952-926-9057 Cary Teaaue From: charlesj.gits@ubs.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:21 AM To: Ross Bintner Cc: Cary Teague; Charlie Gerk Subject: 5311 Evanswood Ln/ Blake Woods Subdivision —resending my 1/29 email here in better format Attachments: Legal Disclaimer.txt Ross Thanks again for spending the time answering some of my questions about the impact on our home at 5311 Evanswood Ln from the proposed sub division. I'm sending you this email and copying Mr. Gerk and Mr. Teague at your suggestion. I will briefly recall our conversation here. We built and moved into our house 15 yrs. ago in Aug 1999. At that time there was an existing water culvert next to the telephone pole running underneath the gravel road on the southeast part of our yard. In spring 2000 we laid sod and created a small rocky dry pond catch area in the south end of our yard and repaired our side of the culvert. Upon seeing the culvert Frank and Toby Berman plugged it up on their side and sent us a letter telling us we were diverting water onto their property. At that time I called and spoke with an Edina city engineer. He replied although there was an existing culvert before we built our home, there was nothing we/he could do and suggested we pump water up to Evanswood Ln. We then installed a sump pump in the dry pond with an underground hose that runs north and empties onto Evanswood Ln. (water then flows east, crosses street and runs south to Blake Rd sewer) I also have an active basement sump pump that Is drain tiled into the dry pond and then this water is also pumped north to street. Every Spring melt, and after heavy rains our backyard floods, often with 20'x 60' pools that stretch into Berman's lot. (Similar to your attached screen shot area) Idle water pools are also created on the other side of the gravel road. The water appears to run west from Blake road and east from Berman's house and south from Evanswood Ln. So in addition to the sump pump running, I also roll out a 200 ft 4" hose with an extra pump to clear the water from our yard and runoff from Berman's side lot at these times. Sometimes it takes days to empty with two pumps. I have done this for 15 years. The water on the south side of the back lane (Berman 5320 and 5324) sits idle till evaporated. (Last spring green algae formed on the Evanswood Ln curb because we moved a lot of water) Our lower level is completely furnished with hardwood floors. It has never flooded, and the grass and trees survive after we move the water. However, as I explained to you, I am very concerned about the existing proposal. The displaced water from any house built on 5321 (west lot) will be more than we can tolerate. I can show you photos and I have plenty of history. Please keep me involved and informed about possible solutions and the project. As I told you, the first time we had heard anything about the project was when we received a 1/21/15 letter from developer Landforms about an open house. Thanks, Charlie Gits 952-933-5845 h 952-921-7920 w Charlie Gits Senior Vice President -Wealth Management UBS Financial Services Inc. 8500 Normandale Lk Blvd. #210 Bloomington MN 55437 (952) 921-7920 (877) 894-2418 toll free direct (877) 540-0597 toll free fax charles.i.gits@ubs.com http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/team/gitsoldendorf/ TY OF EDINAMEMO imic Development 491 , 952-826-0407 • Fax 952-826-0390 • vwvw.EdinaMN.gov ow a Date: April 8, 2015 To: Edina Planning Commission C. Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager Re: Redevelopment Planning for Former Public Works Site — 5146 Eden Ave. Discovery Phase Update In collaboration with the Frauenshuh design team, the City continues to prepare preliminary concepts for redevelopment of the vacant City -owned property located at 5146 Eden Ave. This site was formerly used as the Edina Public Works facility. On March I Vh, the design team presented three preliminary concepts that reflect examples of how a combination of public and private uses could be arranged on the site. These concepts took into consideration hundreds of different comments and suggestions collected during the four month "Exploration Phase". These preliminary drafts were shared with the general public in an early, unrefined stage so that input could be solicited to help shape the design and programming of the site. All materials presented at this public meeting are posted online and can be viewed at: http://edinamn.goov/index.php?section=discove[y phase The public comments and suggestions collected at this meeting identified elements that people generally liked as well as elements that needed to be improved. Based on this preliminary feedback, the design team has prepared revised concepts. Copies are attached and will be shared for a review and discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. These concepts will continue to be refined based on public input and market feasibility. An Open House is scheduled on April 22"d to unveil the revised concepts to the public. Following the third public comment period, direction will then be requested by the City Council so that the design team can focus on one particular design scenario. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Former Public Works Site—sketch plan memo March 30, 2015 Page 2 After the design and general direction of the project is identified, the design team intends to meet again with the Plan Commission in a second sketch plan review so that your comments and suggestions can be incorporated into the final proposal Thank you for sharing your expertise to shape the future of the Grandview District! Attachments: Revised site planning concepts for discussion Four themes for community space l"d ���� � r�i � «� �' � r s�'� � � � � � 4 4. i v 4 , t� �[i � *'( I�, .� ' ` �� �� � �� r i �� � � , � . 1`�r� ���' " � 1 ���� - x �> - ��� $�� `.stiff , �� ` ; ., i ,t"�a � � d,T i ri:�^: � i �� T ll � '�.� . � � 5 `� y �. '�l}t � ; '!�y t � :� { 'Y � ` � � �' � ,�-��;��: ,,sem. J �r F � �✓ � - Si":� � � �' :M '� r �� �� �� i�� � c t 1 qq �, ,C � � �'�� � �% t i 1 �` r � t ,s � t �' � L, i'1 .,� ,���, �� r ��". .t ` � i� � ., � r � �e��id., ��� ,� � � •�w #fix .�..� '�'�, ,�t• t�3. t'+aYt�1. - 'di^..y4. Arts & Culture Center 4 - rr - hl� _ A i Performing Arts, Culture & History Center 15,000 to 30,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Size & Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios, Program Elements history exhibit, gallery space, poetry readings and small group lectures, Program Elements artists lockers, teen hangout multipurpose/flexible community meeting space, community oven, cafi, gift shop Competitive Low — Four similar facifides located within 14 miles are sponsored by Landscape communities with little competition from the private market Parking Demand Moderate — predictable usage with increases for special events and Landscape special programming Construction Costs Low / ?Moderate Operating Costs Low - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be retained; any increases in staffing to be determined Potential Long-term debt sale of public land, high potential for philanthropic Revenue Sources donations, registration fees, rental fees, retail sales Performing Arts, Culture & History Center 20,000 to 35,000 square feet Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios, Typical Size & history exhibit, history archives/library, gallery space, poetry readings Program Elements and small group lectures, artists lockers, teen hangout, 200-400 seat auditorium, black box/multipurpose/flexible community meeting space, community oven, cafe:, gift shop Low— Four similar facilities located within 14 miles are sponsored by Competitive communities with little competition from the private market Nearby Landscape auditoriums are 600-800 seats, with little competition for a smaller fixed -seat hall. Parking Demand Moderace / High — predictable usage with higher demands for special performances Construction Costs Moderate / High Operating Costs Low / M oderate - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be retained with some staff loses likely FPotenital Long-term debt saleof public land, high potential for philanthropic venue Sources donations, registration fees, rental fees; retail sales Multi Generation Community Center 7 Fitness/Wellness Center 10,000 to 20,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Size & Flexible space that can be used for a variety of community needs as Program Elements needed, gallery space, history exhibit, 10-20 person meeting rooms, multi-purpose room for 100-200 people, all -ages programming for Competitive fitness, education, teens. & seniors, cafe. Competitive Landscape Low — similar services scattered at multiple sites in Edith Parking Demand Marieratr_ — predictable usage with higher demands for special events Construction Costs Low I Moderate Operating Costs Moderate - Some existing staff an be retained with some new staff Potential likely Potential Long-term debt, sale of public land, philanthropic donations, user fees, Revenue Sources rental feet retail sales 7 Fitness/Wellness Center 20,000 to 60,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Size & Indoor muki-purpose court, cardio equipment, strength training, weight Program Elements room, multiple rooms for fitness classes, indoor walking loop, lap pool, locker rooms. Competitive High — Six existing full-service fitness centers within S-miles.An Landscape additional 10 smaller facilities also within S -miles. Parking Demand High — dramatically high peaks in the early evening and weekends Construction Costs Moder-ate / High Operating Costs High - New staff and enterprise budget wig be needed Potential Long-term debt, sale of public land, some philanthropic support possible, Revenue Sources monthly/daily user fees, rental fees Arts & Culture Center r ,. Performing Arts, Culture & History Center 15,000 to 30,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Site & Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios, Program Elements history exhibit, gallery space, poetry readings and small group lectures, Program Elements artists lockers, teen hangout, multipurpose/flexible community meeting space, community oven, cafe, gift shop Competitive Low - Four similar facilities located within 14 miles are sponsored by Landscape communities with t'rcde competition from the private market. Parking Demand Moderate — predictable usage with increases for special events and Landscape special programming Construction Costs Low! moderate Operating Costs Law - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be retained; any increases in staffing to be determined Potential Long-term debt, sale of public land, high potential for philanthropic Revenue Sources donations, registration fees, rental fees, retail sales Performing Arts, Culture & History Center 20,000 to 35,000 square feet Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios, Typical Size & history exhibit, history archives/ ibrary, gallery space, poetry readings Program Elements and small group lectures, artists lockers, teen hangout, 200-400 seat auditorium, black box/nwitipurpose/f exible community meeting space, community oven, cafe, gift shop Low — Four similar facilities located within 14 miles are sponsored by Competitive communities with little competition from the private market. Nearby Landscape auditoriums are 600-800 seats, with little competition for a smaller fixed -spat hall. Parking Demand Moderate / High — predictable usage with higher demands for special performances Construction Costs Moderate / High Operating Costs Low / Moderate - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be retained with some staff increases likely Potenital Long-term debt; sale of public land, high potential for philanthropic Revenue Sources donations, registration fees, rental fees; retail sales Multi Generation Community Center Fitness/Wellness Center 10,000 to 20,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Size & Flexible space that can be used for a variety of community needs as Program Elements needed, gallery space, history exhibit, 10-20 person meeting rooms, multi-purpose room for 100-200 people, all -ages programming for Competitive fitness, education, teens, & seniors, cafe. Competitive Landscape Low — similar services scattered at multiple sites in Edina Parking Demand Moderate — predictable usage with higher demands for special events Construction Costs Low/ Moderate Operating Costs Moderate - Some existing staff can be retained with some new staff Potential likely Potential Long-term debt, sale of public land, philanthropic donations, user fees, Revenue Sources rental fees; retail sales Fitness/Wellness Center 20,000 to 60,000 square feet on I or 2 levels. Typical Size & Indoor multi-purpose court, cardio equipment. strength training, weight Program Elements room, muldpie rooms for fitness classes, indoor walking loop, lap pool, locker rooms. Competitive High — Six existing full-service fitness centers within 5-miles.An Landscape additional 10 smaller facilities also within 5 -miles. Parking Demand High — dramatically high peaks in the early evening and weekends Construction Costs Moderate / High Operating Costs High - New staff and enterprise budget will be needed Potential Long-term debt, sale of public land, some philanthropic support possible, Revenue Sources monthly/daily user fees, rental fees City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www,CityofEdina.com Date: April 8, 2015 To: From: Re: Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO City Code Amendment Consideration — Lot Division, Rezoning Procedure, Side Yard Setback & R-2 District regulations. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has revised the attached Ordinance to include a definition of window well; eliminated the egress window reference; and added language regarding site plan modifications. The new text is highlighted in grey. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Ordinance at their April 21, 2015 meeting. The following is a summary of each of the "Sections" in the Ordinance: Section 1. Lot Division/Party Wali Division. This would allow a lot division (an adjustment to an existing lot line), and a party wall division of an existing duplex to be done administratively. The lot line adjustment cannot create a new lot, cannot make one lot large enough to be eligible for further subdivision and cannot create an unbuildable lot. The resulting parcels must meet 'applicable ordinances. If one lot is nonconforming, it must become more conforming. Currently, lot line adjustments (lot divisions) require review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. This can be time consuming for applicants wishing only adjust a lot line. Edina is unique in requiring this type of process. Most cities have their staff review and approve these requests. Section 2, Window Well. A definition has been added for a window well. This definition would include egress window wells. The setback regulation is now for all types of window wells. Section 3. Plan Modifications. Additional detail, including impervious surface, on-site circulation and access, and landscaping has been added in regard to plan modifications following city council approval. Sections 4 & S. Procedure for Rezoning, As discussed at the City Council work session, these two Sections amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a I -step process for standard rezoning requests; and a 2 -step process for PUD, Planned Unit Development rezoning requests. The second step of the PUD process would be a review by the City Council. This final review is to ensure that the final plans are consistent with the plans approved in the first step, and also that the plans include the conditions that were required in the first step. If changes are made to the plan following the I st step, beyond what is allowed in Section 36-30 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would be required to go back again to the Planning Commission for recommendation, the same as the I st step. (See Section 3 for the detail of plan modifications.) City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St - Edina, MN 55424 Sections 6 & 7 Building_ Coverage Side Yard Setback requirements Adds clarity to building coverage exemptions, and the side yard setback requirements. This section proposes an elimination of the side yard setback requirement to increase the side yard setback 6 inches for every I -foot that a single family home exceeds 15 feet in height. The side yard setbacks were recently increased by generally 2 feet total on lots 50-74 feet in width. (One foot on each side.) However, builders and homeowners could choose the option to maintain the previous setback requirements, as long as the second story setback was increased. However, since this ordinance went into effect, the vast majority of new homes are being built with the new increased setback rather than the old method. Homes that are less than 50 feet in width and over 75 feet in width are still required to meet the standard of having to increase the setback on the second story. Lots that exceed 75 feet in width are required a I0 -foot side yard setback. Spacing between these homes has not been an issue in the past. Lots less than 40 feet in width struggle to build 2 -story homes giving the added second story setback requirement. Staff experiences a lot of confusion by residents and builders when they try to interpret this section of the ordinance. By eliminating the second story increased setback rule, it also eliminates the confusion on measuring building height on the side yard from proposed grade. This is confusing to many, because the overall height of a home is measured from previously existing grade along the front building line. It also eliminates the confusion over where the height of the structure is measured to. (See Lc on page 10 of the proposed ordinance.) Section 8 R-2 District Regulations This Section suggests allowing single family homes in the R-2 Zoning District. Current code prohibits single family homes in the R-2 District. The City receives very few requests for this use in R-2 District. However, historically these requests have been granted. The last one was in 2011, at 5213 Malibu Drive, and it was approved. As requested by the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has included a Zoning Map highlighting the R-2 areas in the City. Additionally, staff took pictures of some of these existing duplexes. (provided in last month's planning packet.) There are a wide variety of duplexes ranging in size and value. These duplexes are typically located on very busy roadways, such as Vernon Avenue, France Avenue or the Crosstown Highway, or they are located adjacent from high density residential or commercial areas such as 50th and France or west of France in the greater Southdale Area. The numbers on the Zoning Map correspond to the areas where the pictures were taken. Many of these duplexes could be considered possible for redevelopment such as the areas highlighted in I, 4, S. 8 and 9. This Section also corrects a typo that restricts the maximum height of a duplex to be 35 feet. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St - Edina, MN 55424 -M --EMO Section 9. Building Height, Corrects an error on the table to refer to the height overlay map. Section 10. Nonconforming R-2 Lots. This Section allows duplexes on existing nonconforming R-2 lots to be torn down and rebuilt without the need for a variance. This would be consistent with existing R- I lots that are nonconforming. Currently, substandard R-2 lots are required lot area and width variances when structures are torn down and replaced. The text of the entire Nonconforming Lot Section has been added for context. Please note that the language suggested is the same as is used for nonconforming lots in the R-1 District. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St - Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -_ (Draft —April 8, 2015—Draft) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 32 AND 36 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Section 32 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 32-6. Plat not required. (a) Double dwelling units. s Oyided in eetien 32 !Q(a), No plat shall be required for subdivisions of lots in Double Dwelling Unit Districts but only a let divisien i rW, 4 pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall be required. (b) i glen Lot jive od„�ctstmpnt. No plat shall be required for any let d+visiGA 1pt ilh acjutrr�ent which adjusts or relocates a common lot line separating two lots and which does not create a new undeveloped parcel, tract or lot that complies, alone or in combination with one or more other parcels, tracts or lots, with the applicable minimum lot area and other requirements of this chapter and section. , before any let diyisleR shall be made 9F aRy eeRyeyanee same, and the ffeeedWe Shall be the same as f9F ffeliminary plat appFeyal as set eut iR aFtiele , (1) Lottine Adjusttoeot Conditions, M. C. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text-XXXX the new legal sies�ns for the propertles ati mete 'n_,a Utmft (2)'Party Wall Division Co aditions. 0. The now leo descriptions for the C. dL_� . ~Tmake _one _#�~env* _-___ft_-__- further' S"Wislon; requirements with tlw new lot llnei desigmtewhich Itemi must be recorded, a� ~ _ - �.^' 1, An a0plitation fee. 2. A full legal description of the existing pmpertle.%as docuMORW by Existing text -XXXX 3 Stricken text -XXXX title insurance. The city attorney,", require the app rrt a provide copies of recorded Instruments that are°referee ill t* submitted title evidence. b After recelpt of the application, the city planner will consider subdivision's consistency with this ordinance. Section 2. Sec. 36-10, Definitions is amended to add the following definition: Window well means the clear space created ba soil -retaining structure located immediately below a window whose sill height Is lower than the adjacent ground level. Section 3. Sec. 36-130, Plan Modifications is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-130. - Plan modifications. (a) Minor changes may be authorized by the planner only one time. Changes are considered minor if: (1) There is no increase to the proposed number of dwelling units; (2) Any proposed increase in the floor area of structures on site does not exceed five percent of the gross floor area; (3) All proposed revisions comply with Code requirements; (4) There is no change to any condition required in a site plan approval, including building materials and color; aiW (5) The property is not located in an Edina Heritage landmark District; (6) Impervious surface shall not increase by, more than five percent, unless,to add required parking stail's per a proof of parking plan, (7), There is no change to on-site circulationpatterns or access to the site; and (8) Trees to be planted may be relocated but not decreased in number. (b) All other plan modifications shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. Section 4. Chapter 36. Article IV. Subdivision II, procedure for rezoning in the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Subdivision Il. - Procedure for Rezoning Sec. 36-212. PFeliFnlnaFV Rezoning and site plan. The petition for rezoning shall include a pr-el*minaFy site plan with the required data and information in article ill of this chapter. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —W Sec. 36-213. Planning commission review and hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, fee and all other required information, in form and substance acceptable to the planner, the planner will review the petition, preliminaFy site plan and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the planning commission. The commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition and prel*rA*nary site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the council. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the commission to a specified future date. The commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use; (4) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; (5) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code; and (6) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. Sec. 36.214. Council hearings and decision; pffiliminaFy zoning approval. After review and recommendation by the planning commission, the city council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the*0104 petition and pKe4ffdffaPf-site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the council to a specified future date. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of all members of the council shall be required to grant preli+RiRary rezoning approval. Provided, however, a rezoning from any residential zoning district to any nonresidential zoning district shall require an affirmative vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. if preliminary ival is gFanted, petitieneF May pFepaFe a final site plan. In granting preliminary rezoning approval, the council may Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — X)M Added text — make modifications to the freliminaFyr site plan and may impose conditions on its . i Of site pian: The petitioner shall include the modifications, and comply with the conditions, iR the final site-plan at another time and by other documents, as the council may require or as shall be appropriate. Sec.. 36 216. Final site planr The final site plan shall lRelude all FeqUiFed WOFfflation and data delineated en the pFeliminaFy site . -Res. 36-2-1-6. - Final feaening and site plani Planning sommis-rien reviaw and heaFlng' (a) The plaRReF shall feFWaFd a FePeFt W the planning commission. Th . . ;hall eeRduet a publie heaFiRg FegaFding the final Fezening and site plan. A netle-e efthe date, time, plaee and pwpose ef the heaFIRg Shall be published in th - 'N i I ' apeF ef the eity at least teA days pr-io te the date ef the heaFlng. A SifflilaF nefiee aFiRg shall be mailed at least ten days befeFe the date of the heaFiAg te each ewneF 8f ff9peFty situated wholly OF panly within 1,900 feet ef the speelfied Ntffe date and send RS FeeemmeAdatien to the eouneil. No new natiee need be given fe heaFiRgS that aFe continued by the eemmlssieR to a specified fUtUFe date. The eeMffiissien May (1) is eensistent with the 68FRPFehens-ye PlaAjj eentains the eoune'! impesed eenditiens te the extent the eanditions can be complied with by the final site plan; (4) Will HOt Fesult in an evedy intensive land usej (6) Will not Fesult in undue tFaffk eengestioR OF tFaffie ; finding en each of the FnatteFS set feFth in subsection (a) of this seetlen, eyen if net speeifleally set out in the appFeyal reselutlen 8F the minutes ef the eepAmissien meeting. See. 36 217- Coune" hearing and deei-sien; final r-eaening, The eauneil shall eenduet a public: heaFiRg an the final FeZORiRg and site plaA In the saffie FnanneF itten views of all inteFested peFsens, the council may aeeept OF Fejeet the findings of eemmissien and thereby appFeye eF disappFeye the final Fezening and site plan. An affiFfflatlye Yete Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text —XXXX Added text—?tib Sec. 36-218. Filing. The approved 4na4 site plan shall be filed in the planning department. Sec. 36-219. Development. The development of the tract shall be done and accomplished in full compliance with the approved final -site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and in full compliance with this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Code. Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the planning department prior to issuance of such permits to determine if they conform to the provisions of this chapter, the approved final site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and other applicable provisions of this Code. Sec. 36-220. - Changes to approved &W site plan. Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings or other improvements may be authorized by the planner. Proposed changes to the approved #final site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the 6" site plan, except that a three-fifths favorable vote of the council shall be required to authorize the proposed change. Sec. 36-221. Lapse of approved final site plan by nonuser; extension of time. (a) If a building permit has not been obtained, and if erection or alteration of a building, as described in the application for €Enal site plan, has not begun within two years after final develeprnent $lie plan approval, the approval shall be null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvements has been granted. (b) A petition for extension shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk within such two- year period. The petition shall state reasons showing why a building permit has not been obtained, or why erection or alterations have not commenced, and shall state the additional time requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an original application. The council may grant an extension of up to one year upon finding that: (1) There is a reasonable expectation that the proposed work or improvement will commence during the extension; and (2) The facts which were the basis for approving the final development plan have not materially changed. No more than one extension shall be granted. Sec. 36-222. - Restriction on rezoning after denial of petition. After the council has denied a petition for rezoning, the owner of the tract to which the petition related may not file a new petition for a period of one year following the date of such denial for transferring the same tract, or any part, to the same district or subdistrict (if the district has been Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — divided into subdistricts) to which such transfer was previously denied. Provided, however, that such petition may be filed if so directed by the council on a three-fifths favorable vote of all members of the council after presentation to the council of evidence of a change of facts or circumstances affecting the tract. Section S. Section 36-255 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-255. - Procedures. (a) Preapplication conference. Prior to filing of an application for a PUD, the applicant must arrange for and attend a conference with city staff. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of the proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this chapter before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. (b) Preapplication sketch plan review. Prior to filing of a PUD, the applicant is encouraged to submit a sketch plan of the project to the city planner pursuant to section 36-126. The submittal should include a statement providing justification for the PUD, including, but not limited to, the intended utilization of the items listed in the purpose, intent and criteria in this subdivision. (c) Planning commission and city council review. The planner shall refer the sketch plan to the planning commission and city council for discussion, review and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the planner, planning commission and city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. There shall be no official application made for a sketch plan. It is an informal review and comment by planning commission and city council. (d) Preliminary development plan and preliminary rezoning. Preliminary development plan submissions may depict and outline the proposed implementation of the sketch plan for the PUD. The preliminary development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. Preliminary rezoning process is stipulated in section 36-95 212-214. Preli icy r""Ing shO ind0de first read ng.of art Ordlnance Afnendment creating a 001061ft;dl riot (e) Final development plan and final rezoning. After approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant may apply for a final development plan and final rezoning approval for all or a portion of the PUD. The final development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. FlAal Existing text — XXXX 7 Stricken text XXXX — Added text — (f) Final rezoning to PUD. Final rezoning to PUD becomes official upon adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property. Section 6. Section 36-438 of the Edina City Code Is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-438. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (1) Building coverage. e. The following improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: 1. Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios, subject to subsection (1)d.1 of this section. 2. Parking lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts. 4. Unenclosed a►d-unEevefed steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. S. Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. (2) Setbacks. Table is revised as follows: Minimum setbacks, (subject to he requirements of subsection Front Side Street Interior Side Street Rear 36-439(1). Street Yard 1. Single dwelling unit buildings ion lots 75 feet or more in width. 30'** 15' 10' 25' The required interior yard setback of 2. Single dwelling unit buildings -1; fleet Shall i., a by ene thiFd on lots more than 60 feet in (4 inehes) fGF eaeh feet that the width, but less than 75 feet in 30'** 15'feet 25' idth. shall meet the table below: Lot Width Total Side Yard Setbacks from both Interior Side Lot Lines 74 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 3 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 2 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 1 19'4" with no less than 9 feet on one side 0 18'8" with no less than 9 feet on one side 9 18' with no less than 9 feet on one side 68 _ 17'4" with no less than 8 feet on one side 67 16'8" with no less than 8 feet on one side 66 16' with no less than 8 feet on one side 65 15'4" with no less than 7 feet on one side Existing text —XXXX 8 Stricken text —E Added text—)0* (Minimum setbacks, (subject to Front the requirements of subsection Side Street Interior Side Street Rear Street Yard 36-439(1). 64 14'8" with no less than 7 feet on one side 63 1 14' with no less than 7 feet on one side 162 13'4" with no less than 6 feet on one side 61 12' 8" total with no less than 6 feet on one side Front Side Interior Side Rear Street Street Yard Yard Single dwelling unit buildings [�...+.J .,..M.... i.�l.... hG A2Al11.+ shall3. apply - -OF 12, total with no less than on lots between 50 and 60 feet 30'** 15' S' on one side and ..^seed. 46- 25' in width. 4N(I)e. shalt+atapply-. . Single dwelling unit buildings on lots less than 50 feet in width. 30'** 15' 5' 25' 5. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30'** >15' 3' 3' houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30,** 15' 5' S' houses not entirely within the rear yard. Unenclosed decks and 30'** 15' 5' 5' patios. d. Swimming pools, including appurtenant equipment and 30'** 15` 10' 10' required decking. e. Tennis courts, basketball courts, sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other 30'** 15' S' 5' similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant encing and lighting. All other accessory buildings 30'** 15' 5' 5' nd structures. 3' egress (window wells may eneFeaeh . JigFess window wells. NA NA ;tee ar+, a pt front the side yard NA setback requirement on one side.) Existing text— XXXX Stricken text —6 Added text—Xl Minimum setbacks, (subject to ,the requirements of subsection Front Side Street Interior Side Street Rear 36-439(1). Stet Yard 6. Other Uses: a. All conditional use buildings r structures including accessory buildings less than 50' S0' S0' S0' 1,000 square feet; except parking lots, day care facilities, pre-schools and nursery schools b. All conditional use accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or 95' 95' 95' 95' larger. c. Driving ranges, tennis courts, maintenance buildings and 50' 50' S0' 50' swimming pools accessory to a golf course. Daycare facilities, pre- 30' 35' 35' 35' chools and nursery schools. ** See subsection 36-439(1) below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one [side) of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units. Section 7. Section 36-439(1) of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: (1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. a. Established front street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de- sac, or on one side of a dead-end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: 1. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. 2. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. 3. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. b. Side street setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. Existing text — XXXX 10 Stricken text — XXXX Added text —)O= subseeVeR, buildiRg height shall be the height of that side of the building adjeiniing the eemi6e ef a flat reef-, te the deek line of a MaRsar-d FeGf-, to a peiAt 9R the reef d'Feetly abeve the highest wall ef a shed Mef; te the uppeFFABSt point eR a FeuAd e , c, d: Rear yard setback, interior lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then, for setback purposes, the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. d e. Rear yard setback, corner lots required to maintain two front street setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. e €:Through lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. Section 8. Sections 36-462, 36-466, and 36-467 of the Edina City Code are amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-462. Principal uses. The principal uses permitted in the Double Dwelling Unit District (R-2) are as fellows'* Via) buildings containing two dwelling units. (0) single dwe 'u um -i - Sec. 36-466. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (a) The requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height in the R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District are as follows: (1) Maximum building coverage: 25 percent. (2) Setbacks (subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section). a. Principal use buildings. Existing text — XXXX 11 Stricken text — SFX Added text— ! 1. Front street setback: 30 feet.** 2. Side street setback: 15 feet. 3. Interior side yard setback: ten feet. 4. Rear yard setback: 35 feet. b. Accessory buildings and structures. Setbacks for accessory buildings and structures shall be the same as those required by this chapter for building and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings in the R-1 district. **See section 36-439(1) for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul- de-sac, or on one side of a dead-end street are occupied by dwelling units. (3) Height: 2% stories or 30 M feet, whichever is less. (b) The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Sec. 36-467. Special requirements. (a) Generally. In addition to the general requirements described in article XII, division 2 of this chapter, the following special requirements shall apply: (1) Application of requirements. Requirements for lot area and dimensions, building coverage, setbacks and height shall be applied to the entire double dwelling unit building and the entire lot, and shall ignore any subdivision of building and lot which has been, or may be, made in order to convey each dweliing.unit separately. (2) Sewer and water connections. Each dwelling unit must be separately and independently connected to public sanitary sewer and water mains, or shall have been granted a waiver thereof in accordance with article X of chanter 10 (3) Subdivided R-2 lots. A double dwelling unit building and lot may be subdivided pursuant to chapter 32 along the common party walls between the dwelling units, provided that: a. A building permit has been issued and the building foundation is in place; b. Each parcel resulting from the subdivision must have frontage on a public street of not less than 25 feet; c. The parcels resulting from the subdivision shall each comprise approximately the same number of square feet, , sgUarefeet; and d. A rear yard not less than 25 feet in depth must be provided for each dwelling unit. Existing text — XXXX 12 Stricken text — XXM Added text — XM Section 9. Section 36-525 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Division 6. Planned Residence District (PRD). Sec. 36-525. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (c) Maximum building height. Section 10. Section 36-1270 of the Edina City Code is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-1270. - Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots. (a) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Alterations, additions and enlargements. a. A nonconforming building, other than a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building, or 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such nonconforming building, Including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three-year period. b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing structure, subject to the following limitations: 1. The addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming setback or 200 square feet, whichever is less; and 2. The addition may only be constructed on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. Existing text — XXXX 13 Stricken text —X Added text—)W—XX 2Y2 ster-Ges 9F 30 feet-, See article XI, divisi to4of this cl pter, b011tli PRD -1, 2 eight (verlay1Y1strlct and aper ix A o tite city"so al lohln M9 See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A �of PRD -3 the city's official zoning map See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A PRD -4,5 ' lof the city's official zoning map ere XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A JPSR-3 of the city's official zoning map FSPR ee article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A -4 ofthe city's official zoning map Section 10. Section 36-1270 of the Edina City Code is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-1270. - Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots. (a) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Alterations, additions and enlargements. a. A nonconforming building, other than a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building, or 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such nonconforming building, Including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three-year period. b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing structure, subject to the following limitations: 1. The addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming setback or 200 square feet, whichever is less; and 2. The addition may only be constructed on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. Existing text — XXXX 13 Stricken text —X Added text—)W—XX (2) Nonconformities. Except as provided in article X of this chapter, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically provided in this chapter, unless: a. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or b. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In these cases, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. (b) Nonconforming lots. A nonconforming lot in the R-1 district used or intended for a single dwelling unit building shall be exempt from the width, depth, area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this chapter, provided, that the lot: (1) Is not less than 50 feet in width; (2) Is not less than 100 feet in depth; (3) Has at least 30 feet frontage on a street; and (4) Has not been, at any time since October 22, 1951, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting lot or parcel which, together, complied with the minimum width, depth and area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements imposed by this chapter. If such lot and adjoining or abutting lot or parcel has been held in such common ownership, then the property so held in common ownership shall be subject to the following: a. if a nonconforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this chapter, then such nonconforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. b. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this Code. pxtiittft 094m inthe R-2 + i tir t usetor ih1t+ d for ball be exempt frwn the Width, depth,:amandiot With to Existing text — XXXX 14 Stricken text —XIX Added text—)lit perimeter ratio re uiIrements of thisThapter provided the lot, is at least 50 feet *Width has at least,30 feet of frontage on a street. Section 11. This ordinance is effective upon 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 , 2015, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text— XXXX Stricken text — XYF Added text —XUX day of .2015. City Clerk 15