The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-06-10 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA , REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 10, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2015 A V. COMMUNITY COMMENT I During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the Interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Great Neighborhood Homes/Scott Busyn. 5115 Wooddale Glen, Edina, MN B. Rezoning with Variances. M. Mortenson. 3923 West 49th Street, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Consideration of Development Principles for the Southdale France Avenue Area s VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance and Council Report IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT s 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 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission June 24, 2015 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker June 10,2015 B-15-10 Assistant City Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 34 foot variance from Wooddale Ave. to the required front yard/side street setback of 59 feet to allow for a 25 foot front yard/side street setback. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a 34 foot variance to the required 59 foot front yard/side street setback to construct a new home on the lot located at 5115 Wooddale Glen (subject property) at a front/side street setback of 25 feet from Wooddale Ave. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 98 feet in width and is 11,931 square feet in area. The property is a corner lot with frontage along both Wooddale Ave. and Wooddale Glen. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks along both street frontages. The property owner is requesting to demolish the existing single-family home with a single stall garage, which currently does not meet the setback required from Wooddale Ave. of 59 feet or the required interior side yard setback to the east of 10 feet for the purposes of building a new home on the site. The applicant has stated that the current home is in disrepair, is unlivable at this time and is functionally obsolete. The existing one car garage is only 8 feet wide and is quite close to the east side yard at 4 feet, (6 feet closer than allowed by ordinance). The zoning ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit with a minimum, (east), side yard setback of 10 feet. The existing home is nonconforming to current code requirements regarding setback from Woodale Ave., the interior side yard setback to the east and providing a minimum two car garage. The proposed new home will conform to all zoning requirements with the exception of setback from Wooddale Ave., which the current home also does conform to. The propsed home will be two stories with an attached three car garage, (one stall to be tandem behindthe other). Garage width from the front fagade will be 23 feet and present as a two car garage from Wooddale Glen. The new home will be upgraded to meet modern needs and conform to the minimum two car garage requirement. The applicant has indicated that the home will be a "cottage style" home with highly articulated facades on all sides to include multiple windows, layered roof lines, box outs, brackets, shutters and a stone chimney. A design concern with a conforming solution given the deep setback from Wooddale is the narrow building width opportunity along Wooddale Glen, which pushes a front loading garage into prominance with the potential to create what is known as a "snout house" design. The proposal is to avoid a garage prominent design by locating it on the west side of the house which also buffers living areas from traffic along Wooddale Ave. The intent is to also work with neighboring property owners on clearing up mismatched fencing, buckthorn, wood piles etc. while implimenting a mutually beneficial landscape plan for all on site. The applicant has indicated that he has approached adjacent property owners and that they have been supportive of his ideas for the site There are existing single-family homes on the adjacent north and west lots, facing both on Wooddale Ave. and Wooddale Glen. The north lot has a front setback of 59 feet. The lot to the west of the subject property fronting Wooddale Glen is set back 43 feet from the front property line. The existing home to be torn down is located 42.9 feet from Wooddale Ave. and is nonconforming to the required 59 foot street setback. The existing and proposed new homes conform to the 43 foot front yard setback required from the lot line adjacent to Wooddale Glen, but neither the existing or proposed homes conform to the required setback from Wooddale Ave. The required setback from Wooddale Ave. cuts the lot in half with buildable area of the lot reduced even farther given the 25 foot rear yard setback, 10 foot side yard setback requirement and 43 foot setback required from Wooddale Glen. The lot area of 11, 931 square feet should allow for building coverage of 2,982 square feet, (25% of the lot), however, given setback requirements, the buildable area of the lot is approximately 1,400 square feet or roughly less than 12% of the lot area. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the adjacent home to the north, or 59 feet for this lot. The street setback required for typical corner lots that do not have homes facing a side street is 15 feet. The proposed home will be 25 feet from the lot line adjacent to Wooddale Ave. It should be noted that the two nearest corner lots on the cul-de-sacs of Wooddale Glen and Wooddale Lane are also closer to Woodale at 15.7 feet and 33.1 feet instead of 59 feet as required for the subject lot. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the corner of Wooddale Ave. and Wooddale Glen and is within the Arden Park neighborhood. The property is 2 surrounded by single dwelling units with the exception of Edina Country Club parking lot across Wooddale Ave. to the west. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 11,931 square feet in area. The existing home is located 42.9 feet from Wooddale Ave. and is nonconforming to the required setback of 59 feet from Wooddale Ave., 10 foot setback from the east lot line and does not provide the minimum required two car garage. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build a new two story single family residence and a three car attached garage with a footprint of 2,337 square feet. 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 westerly front/side street setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the City Standard Proposed Front/Side Street- Match adjacent 59 feet 25 feet* Side- 10 feet 14,3 feet Front/Wooddale Glen 43 feet 43 feet Rear 25 feet 25 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 36.9 Ft 2 stories, 32 feet from Lot Area 9,000 Sq. Ft or avg of nbad 11,932 square feet Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 98 feet Lot coverage 25% 22.5% * 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 westerly front/side street setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the north). The variance allows for a two car garage fronting Wooddale Lane beside the home, (to the west), instead of creating a fagade that is all garage front facing Wooddale Glen in order to fit within the required buildable area. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. The building coverage will be less than the 25% allowed by ordinance and the over-all height is 4.9 feet lower than the maximum allowed. The new home will increase spacing from 4.2 feet to 11.3 feet between the subject home and the home to the east. 3. The property is subject to a setback from Wooddale Ave. that cuts the lot in half regarding building opportunity. The existing home doesn't conform to the required street setback, so historically there has always been encroachment towards Wooddale. There are two other homes facing cul-de-sacs along Wooddale Ave. that also do not conform to the deeper setbacks required. 4. The proposed new home will improve upon existing nonconforming conditions that are currently on-site and will comply with the zoning ordinance more than the existing conditions. • 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 variance is reasonable given that the existing home immediately to the north of the lot is set back much farther than the 4 existing home's setback and farther back than neighboring homes to the north along Wooddale. Lots along Wooddale north of the subject property are much deeper and back up to Minnehaha Creek which afford more opportunity to build farther back to take advantage of creek views. The setback required From Wooddale is a practical difficulty when trying to design within thel,400 square.feet of buildable area left after all setback requirements are imposed. A practical difficulty is trying to provide a two car garage within the footprint area that isn't dominant towards Wooddale Glen. 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 the impact that the required front setback along Wooddale has on just the subject property and no others. Properties to the north fronting Wooddale are much deeper than a typical lot, so much so that locating farther back from Wooddale than a typical 30 foot front yard setback isn't a challenge. The deep setback imposed by the neighbor's home is not a self-created condition of the property owner. 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. There is Edina Country Club's parking lot across Wooddale from the proposed improvements, so there should be no impact on property across the street. 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/side street setback (as determined by the adjacent home). 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is subject to an unreasonably deep street setback that severely diminishes the building opportunity for the lot. 4. The proposed home will be more conforming than the existing home by providing for more than the minimum two car garage requirement and increasing the east side yard setback to be greater than the minimum 10 feet required. 5. 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 the adjacent home that shrinks building footprint options to less than 12% of the lot area. 6. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new home will be well articulated and will enhance the character of the neighborhood. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: May 11, 2015 Building plans and elevations date stamped: May 11, 2015. Deadline for a City Decision: July 10, 2015. 0 DATE: June 3, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 51 15 Wooddale Glen - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The proposed plans are for the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new home. The proposed plans show a grading design that properly controls run-off from the home and lot. The public storm water utility on Wooddale Glen has sufficient capacity to handle the additional volume. The applicant will need to obtain a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit prior to the start of construction. If the applicant proposes relocation of the driveway, a curb cut permit will need to be applied for. Grading and Drainage The proposed plans show a grading design that properly controls run-off from the home and lot. The run-off from the home will be collected and directed on site VIA graded swales, these swales keep the run-off on site until it eventually discharges to Wooddale Glen. Once discharged to the street the water will run east to a catch basin on Wooddale Glen and discharge into Minnehaha Creek. The public storm water utility on Wooddale Glen has sufficient capacity to handle the additional volume. Erosion and Sediment Control Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will be required prior to the start of construction. Street and Curb Cart Applicant will need to apply for a curb cut permit through the engineering department if driveway is to be relocated. Water and Sanitary utilities No comments ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • FAina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 &, r,A— av http://gis.hennepin.us/Propertylpi inttdefault. aspx?C=473 3 72.10014574613,4973 028.112287... 6/4/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 Lp"44041 http://gis.hennepin.us/Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473249.2274000007,4972996.9178500... 6/4/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.im Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473232.71736698044,4972974.692805.. 6/4/2015 DATE: June 3, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 51 15 Wooddale Glen Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The proposed plans are for the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new home. The proposed plans show a grading design that properly controls run-off from the home and lot. The public storm water utility on Wooddale Glen has sufficient capacity to handle the additional volume. The applicant will need to obtain a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit prior to the start of construction. If the applicant proposes relocation of the driveway, a curb cut permit will need to be applied for. Grading and Drainage The proposed plans show a grading design that properly controls run-off from the home and lot. The run-off from the home will be collected and directed on site VIA graded swales, these swales keep the run-off on site until it eventually discharges to Wooddale Glen. Once discharged to the street the water will run east to a catch basin on Wooddale Glen and discharge into Minnehaha Creek. The public storm water utility on Wooddale Glen has sufficient capacity to handle the additional volume. Erosion and Sediment Control Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will be required prior to the start of construction. Street and Curb Cut Applicant will need to apply for a curb cut permit through the engineering department if driveway is to be relocated. Water and Sanitary Utilities No comments ENGiiNEERTNG DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdlnaMN.gov - 952-826-0371 *Fax 952-826-0392 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=473372.10014574613,4973028.112287... 6/4/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIPropei tylprintldefault.aspx?C=473249.2274000007,4972996.91.78500... 6/4/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprintldefault. aspx?C=473232.7173 6698044,4972974.692805... 6/4/2015 City of Edina Planning 4801 West Fiftieth Stre fax (952) 826-0389 VARIANCE APPLICATION NO CASE NUMBER W -DATE- FEE PAID L Co Department * www.citvofedina.com et * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 FEE: RES - $450.00 NON -RES - $700.00 APPLICANT: rd NAME: uAke'rt &o" �t O (Signature required tack page) ADDRESS:393'2 W. S`pM St. PHONE: `S -Z- ?07- ?'76s - EMAIL: 5c --b f7/C& Cf PCWJ' h e &,0- `► 000/ /70 Ob t!.!-. Cc A-5 PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ( gSO f'�i� l Cbc4%+ SO - uhs (Signature required on back page) -16 J3 7 ADDRESS: 470$ 6rco-h f,/c %r For+ WW t k 7-4HONE: goo Aje'D olo e- Sec.7Yvi, "You must provide a fud legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5'115- WO d d U le h PRESENT ZONING: 2 d I P.LD.# / B -0 Z 8- 7,c l-Llz - O o TION OF REQUEST: v r� wt Wy0,161"le ,eve er "eq (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: 04e A �L /Yoh PHONE: 763 - 7 Ca 4?U 7 EMAIL: A/ A SURVEYOR: NAME: W06 /?I-CJvv k PHONE: 9'$7&-4-4V �d'r`r EMAIL: u7h I latidOL a/. Lc, .. tif. 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 F9"' Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 7m� APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. s-/.///- - Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) `•.1 tr��i,./1 ��i. .�.�,. ,fit t�.�i �.i i as Attorney in Fact Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner Is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. p SAVO Gjs NRT REOExperts LLC .!assistant Secretary's Certificate I, Seth 1. Truwit, am a duly elected, qualified and acting Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary of NRT REOExperts LLC, a limited liability company formed and existing in good standing under the laws of the State of•Delaware (the "Company"). I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached Exhibit A is a true and complete copy of the resolutions adopted by the unanimous written consent of the Board of Managers of the Company on January 30, 2015. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Assistant Secretary's Certificate the 5th day of February, 2015. Seth 1. Truwit, Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary 0 EXHIBIT A RESOLVED, that Jay Baker and Ximena Wolf are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to manage, market, sell and convey 1-4 family residential real estate properties that have been acquired by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ("Residential Credit Solutions") pursuant to foreclosure, power of sale, deed -in -lieu of foreclosure or similar process to the extent such properties are identified in a letter or electronic communication from Residential Credit Solutions directing that such set -vices be provided by the Company; and to perform those acts necessary and appropriate to carry out the powers granted to the Company pursuant to the Limited Power of Attorney dated November 11, 201; ("POA") by Residential Credit Solutions, including but not limited to executing and delivering deeds, certificates of title or other title documents to vest title to real or personal property in the purchase of any REO Properties, as defined in the POA between Residential Credit Solutions and the Company; and be it FUR'rHER RESOLVED, that Ximena Wolf, Edwina Vaca, John Curtis, Ronald Semich, Lynn Pimenta, Kadija Dunn, Robert Letourneau, Scott Brady, Lisa Dicarlantonio, Lynn Cappuecilli, Makala. Mullen, Claudia Lee are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to sign listing agreements and sales contracts and HUDI Statements with regard to the REO Properties as defined in, and to the extent permitted under the POA. NRT REOEXPERTS LLC UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS IN LIEU OF MEETING The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Managers of NRT REOEXPERTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company'), hereby adopt the following actions with the same force and effect as if such resolutions were approved and adopted at a duly constituted ineeting of the Board of Managers of the Company; RESOLVED, that Jay Baker and Ximena Wolf are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to manage, market, sell and convey 1-4 family residential real estate properties that have been acquired by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ("Residential Credit Solutions") pursuant to foreclosure, power of sale, deed -in -lieu of foreclosure or similar process to the extent such properties are identified in a letter or electronic communication from Residential Credit Solutions directing that such services be provided by the Company; and to perform those acts necessary and appropriate to carry out the powers granted to the Company pursuant to the Limited Power of Attorney dated November 11, 2013 ("POA") by Residential Credit Solutions, including but not limited to executing and delivering deeds, certificates of title or other title documents to vest title to real or personal property in the purchase of any REO Properties, as defined in the POA between Residential Credit Solutions and the Company; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ximena Wolf, Edwina Vaca, John Curtis, Ronald Semich, Lynn Pimenta, Kadija Dunn, Robert Letourneau, Scott Brady, Lisa Dicarlantonio and Lynn Cappuccilli, Makala Mullen, Claudia Lee are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to sign listing agreements and sales contracts and HUDI Statements with regard to the REO Properties as defined in, and to the extent permitted under the POA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, he undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Managers of the Company, hav executed this written consent as of the 30th day of January, 2015. Manager Clark W. Toole III, Manager Bruce: G. Zipf, Manager NRT REOEXPERTS LLC UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS IN LIEU OF MEETING The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Managers of NRT REOFXPER'l'S LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company"), hereby adopt the following actions with the same farce and effect as if such resolutions were approved and adopted at a duly constituted meeting of the Board of Managers of the Company: RESOLVED, that Jay Baker and Xirnena Wolf are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to manage, market, sell and convey 1-4 family residential real estate properties that have been acquired by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ('-Residential Credit Solutions') pursuant to foreclosure, power of sale, deed -in -lieu of foreclosure or similar process to the extent such properties are identified in a letter or electronic communication from Residential Credit Solutions directing that such services be provided by the Company; and to perform those acts necessary and appropriate to carry out the powers granted to the Company pursuant to the Limited Power of'Attonicy dated November 11, 2013 C'POA") by Residential Credit Solations, including but not limited to executing and delivering deeds, certificates of title or other title documents to vest title to real or personal property in the purchase of any REO Properties, as defined in the POA between Residential Credit Solutions and the Company; and be it , FURTHER RESOLVED, that Xintena Wolf, Edwina Vaca, John Curtis, Ronald Semich, Lynn Pimenta, Kadija Dunn, Robert Letoumeau, Scott Brady, Lisa Dicarlantonio and Lynn Cappuccilli, Makala Mullen, Claudia Lee are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to sign listing agreements and sales contracts and HUDI Statements with regard to the REO Properties as defined in, and to the extent permitted under the POA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the members of the Beard of Managers of the Company, have execrated this written consent as of the 30th day of January, 2015. Bruce G. Zipf, Manager I° RT Irip e. EXPERTS LLC UNANfR40US WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD CO_MARAGERS IIN LIEU .O MEETING The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Managers of` Iv RT REOEXPERTS LIX, a Delaware limited liabilit}' company (the "Company"), hereby adopt the foliffiVing actions with the same force and effect as if such resolutions were approved and adopted at a duly constituted meeting of the Board of Managers of the Company: RESOLVED, that Jay Baker and Ximetta Wolf are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to manage, market, sell and convey 1-4 family residential real estate properties that have been acquired by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ("Residential Credit Solutions") pursuant to foreclosure, power of sale, deed -in -lieu of 'foreclosure or similar process to the extent such properties are identified in a letter or electronic communication from Residential Credit Solutions directing that such services be provided by the Company; and to perforin those acts necessary and appropriate to carry out the powers granted to the Company pursuant to the Limited Power of Attorney dated November 11, 2013 ("POA") by Residential Credit Solutions, including but not limited to executing and delivering deeds, certificates of title or other title documents to vest title to real or personal property in the purchase of any REO Properties, as defined in the POA between Residential Credit Solutions and the Company; and be it FURT14ER RESOLVED, that Ximena Wolf, Edwina Vaca, John Curtis, Ronald Semich, Lynn Pimenta, Kadija Dunn, Robert Letourneau, Scott Brady, Lisa Dicarlantonio and Lysin Cappuccilli, fvlakala Mullen, Claudia Lee are hereby appointed and authorized by the Company to sign listing agreements and sales contracts and HUDI Statements with regard to the REO Properties as defined in, and to the extent permitted under the POA, IN WI-rNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Managers of the Company, have executed this written consent as of the 30th day of January', 2015, Marilyn J. Wasser, Manager Clar•kAV� Toole III, Manager Bruce G. Residential Credit SOltrtiUn.S, Irre. OiNeinaher csifed "Seivicr^r") lttmby appoints WRT [Ul O Experts LLC (I'Ve-neor"), as its tries *ad 18wIttl to rage in &a ursine, blare atld stcaxi of Serviczr for the: purposes set Comb, below. Tds Ur i"- Power of Atto -my is given in connection widt r3 certain Mostar Asset MAnsgerworit, AUcernent by wid bates&m Crtalyst Asset Itiamgeu ni LLC and Vendor cbted Septembay 3 201S, (th;s "Apt- nreni") to saNclr refcrcac, is mad:.- f -hi the defttrition of ail caplWima terom herein. i�cjw, t.I)erefore, Servrrt:r dges hereby constitute and rippoint W;ndot' the tmL- and lawfrsl ettornsy-in-fact of Servicer and in Servicer's name, place., a.nd stead velth respect to caeb Nop-,M, for the folloruing, and only the folloyAng, prr;poses: 1. To ene'r rte, aclwowl a, seal and deliver dcods, bilis of side, and other irioramcnts of stns,, conveyance:, and transfer, appropriaicly completed, with ell ordinary or rrtMs'lly endorsements, ecl;nowledgnnents, affidavits, and suppoednS doouffwsts as way be nerxsmy or appropriate to etfr l its exeatrtion, delivery, corrvcyarrce, retordmiort or fillog. 2. To execrate; and deliver in the n of arta erre W-talf of Sarvictr listive agrWients, contracts for sale and any othflr docuinartts ne sery far the mmtcttng and We of any Property on behalf of Servicer. Scm4cer iwetids that this Limited Power of Attomy be coupled with an ingest, This Limited Powei of Attomey shall erpim upon expiration of #tti Agmemmi. wdess ealier espressiy wrtainatod by 5ervierx. servicer further grants to its atmmey-in-fav full r=uthorityr to act in any neanw both proper tend necessary to exmise the foregoing powers, and ratifies evory act that Vendzr may lawfully perfonn in exercising those powers by virtue hereof. Vendor shall inalemt';Ify, defend aW hold harmless Bervicer anus its suocxssoss and assigns from and sgainst any and alf losses, costs, egresses (including, without limitation, actual attorneys, fees), damgt-, liabilities, demods or claims of any kind wbetsoever, ("airs") arising out of, related to, ter in connection with (i) any sot Idam by Vendor pmaasrt to this Limited Powei of Attomey, which act mults hi a Claim solely by virtue of the unlawful use of (Iris Limited Powcf of Attorney (and riot ns a result of a Claim related to the underlying instrument with respect to which this Limited Power of Attomvy has been used), or (!i) any use or misuse of this UmitcO rower of Attorney in any mannez or by grey p&mon not expressly eautborizod hereby. Variance Application for 5115 Wooddale Glen - Supplement Great Neighborhood Homes has purchased the property at 5115 Wooddale Glen (see photo 1) with the intent of demolishing the existing home and building a new home on the site, 5115 Wooddale Glen is a corner lot with the existing one car garage facing Wooddale Glen. The existing home is in very poor -condition with much deferred maintenance and is unlivable as is. The existing garage is only 8 feet wide and was shoehorned into the right side of the house leaving only a 4' setback from the lot line. The garage will not hold a standard SUV (see photo 2) . Several unsuccessful attempts were made to widen this garage. The previous owner requested and was denied a variance to widen the garage, and subsequently made an unsuccessful attempt to purchase additional land form the owner of 5117 Wooddale Glen to try and add more buildable area for the garage. Being so close to the east lot line also creates a treacherous driveway with a 2' drop off on the east side (see photo 3). The property is also overgrown with buckthorn on the corner of Wooddale Glen and Wooddale Avenue (see photo 4). The plan for the new home will include removing the buckthorn to make the cornersafer for cars, the active bike line, and sidewalk pedestrians while creating a more pleasing and better -kept entrance for the homeowners on Wooddale Glen. I am also working with the adjacent homeowners at 5117 Wooddale Avenue and 5117 Wooddale Glen to develop a joint landscaping plan to cleanup the jumble of different fence styles, wood piles, and an old shed in the area that is our shared view of Minnehaha Creek. The zoning code requires a new home on 5115 Wooddale Glen to meet both the 43' front setback of the home to the east (5117 Wooddale Glen, see photo 5) and the 59' front setback of the home to the north (5113 Wooddale Avenue, see photo 6). Both of these setbacks are greater than the minimum setback of 30' on standard lots. These adjacent properties also have deep back yards., affording them the luxury of deep front setbacks. In addition, zoningfor 5115 Wooddale Glen requires a 25' rear yard setback on the north lot line and a 12' side yard setback on the east lot line. The lot area of 11,931 square feet should allow building lot coverage of 2982 (25%). However, the zoning setbacks only allow approximately half of the allowable lot coverage or about 1400 square feet, The remaining buildable area is too small to build a new home (see photo 7) with the character and stateliness of nearby homes (nor would it allow the existing home to be rebuilt, see photo 8). In addition, the 59' setback from Wooddale Avenue zoning limits the design possibilities of a new home on the site. An attached two -car garage would take up almost 100% of the frontage of the house. This would create a garage -dominant "snout house" (see photo 9) look that would not be in character with the understated garages on the cul-de-sac.f` G� The proposed home will have a front loading, understated garage faveO). ooddale %\13 Glen - in character with all other homes on the cul-de-sac (see ph o is>a�i,r character with the corner lot at 5131 Wooddale Glen (see photo 11), and th*rner lot at 5029 Wooddale Lane (see photo 12). The proposed garage is articulated ant�MOP� Grp` attractive, in character with the vintage charm of the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and the use is reasonable. This setback requirement creates the following practical difficulties: 1) It limits the buildable area of the lot significantly. Allowable lot coverage for a similar sized lot in Edina R-1 district is 2982 square feet, The front setback requirement from Wooddale Avenue limits the lot coverage to approximately 1400 sf. While we are not proposing a home at the maximum 2982 square feet of lot coverage, our proposed home does require 2337 square feet of lot coverage. (house lot coverage 1432 sf, garage footprint 905 so. We are not trying to max out the lot, but build a home adequate in size for a growing family. 2) The setback requirement from Wooddale Avenue limits design options for a new home on the site. Since we end up with a very small frontage on Wooddale Glen, a new home would either have to be designed to have mostly garage facing Wooddale Glen, or have a side load garage creating a new curb cut through the decorative stone wall and sidewalk on Wooddale Avenue (see photo 13). A garage -dominant design, often referred to as a "snout house" (see photo 9), would be out of character for the cul de sac. Then we are left with the other alternative, a side load,garage facing Wooddale Avenue. This would require a new curb cut on Wooddale Avenue, deteriorating the character of the stone wall on that stretch of road as well as create a safety hazard for the heavily used sidewalk and bike lane on Wooddale. In addition, the proposed plan was designed to protect large mature trees on the property west side of the property (see photo 14). The Wooddale side has a majestic white pure that we- don't want for get near -the root structure as part of our tree protection plan. The plight of 5115 Wooddale Glen is due to the zoning requirements for corner lots combined with the deep setback of 5113 Wooddale Avenue (59'). These circumstances were not created by the us. Our proposed home will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. The home across the street at 5131 Wooddale Glen has a similar design to our proposal with a setback from Wooddale Avenue of 15.7' (see photo 11). 5115 Wooddale Glen was also platted as a smaller lot than adjacent lots and lacks the creek lot depth of the two neighbors. The proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other properties in the vicinity. The two nearest corner lots on the cul-de-sacs of Wooddale Glen and Wooddale Lane have an 00 average setback of 24.4' from Wooddale Avenue. 5131 Wooddale Glen (see p 11) is at 15.7' and 5029 Wooddale Lane (see photo 12) is at 33.1' Botho1k, ots have garages setback from Wooddale Avenue with a driveway on s'" " "spective 08 cul-de-sacs (similar to our proposal). P CIM A a The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The intent of the front street setback rule is to prevent obtrusive structures impairing the sightlines of the neighboring homes. The new 10' setback will be further way from the home to the east than the existing setback of an improvement over the existing 4.2' setback. The neighbor at the home -to the east also had such ongoing issues with the close setback and garbage being left out that -he built a -fence to blockthe View-fsee-photo :15). After meeting. -math the homeowner, he is excited about getting rid of the fence and creating more open space between the properties. The view of the home to the north will not be obstructed as the existing home already has a 42.9' setback from Wooddale Avenue. In addition, there is an existing deck and bench structure 10' from their property, 6' fence between the properties, and heavy buckthorn and pine trees between the properties (see photo 16). As part of our project we will mediate the buckthorn and remove the fence to create better views and light for the homeowner in the home to the north. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. All of the garages -an Wooddale Glen face the street {see photo 10): -We have designed a storybook cottage home with four-sided architectural detail. Not only will the front fagade be highly detailed, the other four sides are designed to be highly articulated with minimal flat fagade. Features such as a stone chimney, multiple windows, layered roof lines, box outs, brackets and charming shutter details will make the facades pleasing to the eye and,a welcome addition to the corner of Wooddale Glen and Wooddale Avenue. In addition, we will maintain the flow of the stone detail along Wooddale Avenue that exists today from Wooddale Lane to 52nd Street. The look is a graceful rhythm of stone walls that come down to manicured corners at each intersection (see photos. The variance will allow us to maintain the character of this -landmark,stretch-of'Wooddale Avenue. 5115 Wooddale Glen new home proposed building materials: • Stucco and stone siding • Asphalt roof • Detailed soffit and eves • Period shutters • Divided light windows • Coach arch panel garage doors • Window planter boxes x1001 p }j aop i .a +1 �� i $� y �� ,4 � �' � +Ili`.• '�� 1 r { / T ti .. jj 0 in n 109 � . �'&. '� }; ,eta �. 7�aJ'9•,i f _ .,.� ��'�$,�`F��K:i� �4� � � �9�G..- ,� �...,. m5e [J.00 t1wXw iaESpV ,+J®ID OwMw w rvM[ ren 1MNON COMMI wL wauR 11um aMrc Duna[ I nllrar.r Raaf lmlwntt rAl [LDOMaMM ............. F6 O aee.valr I tFt MO . IUM >F � W. Cm ww IOS t00 BF A109MVICE .410 SF CONCRUE WU AND&CO► 141 9' Vol M 4.= F . 2 ER PROPOSED SITEPLAN FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES fOM�IIOrM 0..9M11 ie[ wow t a .emw[ ,x . nr rtct NN SCALE: 1 INCH - 10 FEET �5 Tn 9Dfmmu. we is�Mw655nt atm — ur sx rML o5v9a .e.. LJ wro . It,9]1 ¢ M6[RD101A 9UgrILC M.01r .1.517 9i Orf[ lwe ILO 5115n.Onfa . NS 5r' CNe1J+ Po9e . lb ST 1Jt1 � ].1H Y �StY�M "W 1% =G 1r000kWE eEC'IMIM. 50JmYt�9 FM Im mt. W L.e i 'On OaM tav MY FarwOroly. MOR: lIr w.fY.n J d eI/Yae 0esx. m from amorvN MweD1 Y M0 Sfa M /rfn rlOn b+NaJ nnuIf NN nJIME 1a�eu[I�beellae� bWw MY9 aq wcawlls.. 11 � / I MMD' [nMr 1401 tlf0 +v'nY� Dd4 x Mtn wa[ � Mh nNM+nf IaeO siny0t Wr tlw bw J IM L]ab M DOnMeea g, II..MFM lwle SwYLNMG, MC. I T I � � M+aeea. A IMO11+. R.LS. uN FE16 16210 Sf44 95-0t�1e15 _. 9R nM 91-IaA 0!-9fala M `` � r0111911W AMaT SM ADDREM 5115 "IM'°«� `" i01NA, 4 EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES L•g�a e� ,Iaw 9wr sp09. C.9,., ------��------ ----..--ei I 'a T w 7 O r- ��. L. V r 1 , • �e.. Po. nn n. nN.�a,. xNVoaee. �'. '-'�xr � =;. .�;yT t1.9•M+ weNlw9 rvw ,�'�`^' basare Tm a an o.•.,,w rnomro ra a w.e O9wea. 1: C9tilbro Ceel9.r Y.,r� 11200 MEAS. 1 r90rt� • ows,w Ne. Navneef taro " 0 Ow.lw 5•,, /��fe' kan 9p .J Il.Nle Cm lappa RL4 193A. I �� t i � W .r.e•: w SCALE 1 INCH'— 10 FEET ..n '..:. W .... � .... ' ms`s ,.nil ,�$ � �« i • .exact m.•emnue ar. Fsu,.wm+ac alcll - rsr me taro snntLx I ._ � ' • i. v r hl waw++,..r s.,roN. Y ° ------- -- pa, Law ,00 � •p..wp..M'.,9 �n G,n.t• ratio . ,e0 9" 1 j � fPM 011Rrtm42 O 0 Try, IL +� IN f N010 11. Saes iNn Nal. Fa .q C..•nsit4 - P o. ae aN NewNew Nwi •mW9 br 1`. 1 i .ew0o9 o a NOM Mee la � IxslknUlWl Nfar. n.xp ap •wsnlwe + _• f f ern ,. +`•ry- � 8071 w f t f '.'..... "' ° � .. O O �� •y .. . � W j / 1 Mr.W wr1p1^ .w1 MA Nen, s roar •x Fwt wwMAw aM Mtt � °`moi enl=ww.a L�oN"un.p. U � Y �� E f w. Bronx urlo fm�cm4 wc. VIP qWRW r .mm�vc.x - af,m W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING. INC. em day. nwew sa sm am l6,RSIQ: . e 1-1013 1. S9-1 100 15 141/34 Ia .+ •�.,.;,Fr`+'i�—. a$a; �' .mJ� s -.'*- r ai6 t fP��. <t -c '_Y s5 _ h ,�.,a"✓R� x ,,y".,..'e '�'�4 d `� �i -•' +tea- , z � �'� - s`� d �� r �_ � � ,� �-�' � -=,_ ��' i �� ail c P1 �w j r gyp. , - �n R a _ c n q•.. e si, b Yet - - r �A?! 3 F v �r w F ' �,IlIg sE i%';�71, t`•+21•»"' Wi£S� ,.d d 3 + a" d�.' 3A 0 M r 4k e17' r,. _- 4 ..: `fit i+,f',,,,-. � : � s '.�c�,,v d'r!k ''S tk ti�x �•� � �+.,�t rt .�, ,w a ,,•�i3°'r: rl tom'', a ` _ � �' '^�' •.�� j�p _ . 4!►,r �t r.rE .; r '4 ak`�, fin''i Eto#sSsv< ty .J ter. '�#.'y�"b�yy-� .1^ � �� 51,114' 81F4�'!:•`w =`M .K.::: 7�v.5 ' � 3+ ti� v, ° X • E -;. It _ 1 x, A i+ � t e ✓" s" 4 Z r_. x e� fi I r � � + 'lr , �• a ate' A r , f �','� -ir i++n�}5. e ;ea 1 Tr^ ..?.i: • � °: ',� ,.,w. _{, rm.; .�., t+.t. � . 'N-. 'K; . ks . , >, � r, o �r .. r ra I I s 1 1 • i ! 1 I "4.11 AL •1� j II 1 i ► J � is I s 1 1 • i ! 1 I "4.11 AL •1� [P;IajLF Rolt s° olk\ trC Tq C. li II ,n z OT IFN K_ Tq li II 7KKr - Oa ft T I— • 711-4L Q> 7KKr - Oa ft T I— • 711-4L c5 I r -I MN rs I -A AL -A Lal NJ .Ni x it -Z I LL U r2 -Z I LL Ok PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague June 10, 2015 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Mathias Mortenson is requesting a rezoning from R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District to tear down the existing single- family home and construct a new double dwelling unit at 3923 49th Street. (See property location on pages Al A5, and the applicant's plans and narrative on pages A6 -A33.) The property is located adjacent to the 50th and France retail area; just north of the former Edina Realty Building site, now owned by the City of Edina, and east of a four-story apartment building. To accommodate the request the applicant is requesting the following: ➢ Rezoning from R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District; ➢ Lot Area Variance from 15,000 s.f. to 8,816 s.f.; ➢ Lot Width Variance from 90 feet to 65 feet; The applicant made a similar request in 2014 that was denied by the City Council. The denial of that rezoning centered on the variances associated with the size of the structure proposed. (See attached minutes on pages A36 -A42.) The planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning of the property from R-1 to R-2. (See pages A36 -A40.) The previous request included variances for building coverage and side yard setback requirements. The building coverage variance was from 25% to 32%, and the side yard setback variance from 10 feet to 5 feet 10 inches on the east side. There also were retaining wall setback variances proposed. The applicant has revised the plans so that there are no variances associated with the proposed structure; the request is now only for the rezoning of property and the lot area and width requirements. The applicant has hired a professional engineer do the grading, stormwater management and erosion control plan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: A single family home; zoned R-1 Single -Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Attached Residential. Easterly: Apartment building; zoned PRD -4, Planned Residential District and guided High Density Residential. Southerly: Vacant property (formerly Edina Realty); zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and Guided Mixed Use, MXC. Westerly: A single story double dwelling unit; zoned R-2 Double -Dwelling Unit District and guided Low Density Attached Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is 8,816 square feet in size, and contains a two-story single family home. The site is elevated above the two-family dwelling to the west. (See pages A3 and A31.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Grading/Drainage/Utilities Low Density Attached Residential R-2, Double -Dwelling District The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans, and does have some concern in regard to drainage in the driveway and window well. (See condition #3 on page A35 of the engineering memo.) These areas should include either positive grade away from the foundation or be connect to drainage system that drains away. Approval of this request would be conditioned on meeting the conditions in the engineering memo. This is also a building code requirement to be addressed at the time of building permit. (See page A43.) Proposed Floor Plans The plans show a lower level studio within each unit that could easily be designed as additional units within the structure. These two "studios" are separated from the rest of the living units. To access the upper units from these lower studios, a person would have to walk outside or through the garage. (See page A20.) Should the applications be approved, a condition should be included that these not become separate dwelling units. 2 Compliance Table *Variance Required Rezoning Per Section 36-216 of the City Code, the commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this site for low density attached residential which is described as "two-family and attached dwellings of low densities and moderate heights. This category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional districts between single-family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts." The proposed rezoning precisely fits this category. (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract. The proposed use is consistent with the duplexes that exist on this block. (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use. Again, this use is allowed in the Comprehensive Plan, and exists on adjacent property. (4) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. The increase of one housing unit would not result in traffic congestion or traffic hazards. 3 City Standard (R-2) Proposed Building Setbacks 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet 35 feet 35 feet structure 30 feet patio 13 feet 12 feet 36 feet Front Side Side Rear Lot Width 90 feet 65 feet* Lot Area 15,000 square feet 8,816 square feet* Building Height 30 feet 27 feet Building Coverage 25% 25% *Variance Required Rezoning Per Section 36-216 of the City Code, the commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this site for low density attached residential which is described as "two-family and attached dwellings of low densities and moderate heights. This category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional districts between single-family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts." The proposed rezoning precisely fits this category. (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract. The proposed use is consistent with the duplexes that exist on this block. (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use. Again, this use is allowed in the Comprehensive Plan, and exists on adjacent property. (4) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. The increase of one housing unit would not result in traffic congestion or traffic hazards. 3 (5) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code. Any new structure would conform to the minimum zoning ordinance standards of the R-2 Zoning Districts. The provisions that to not meet code, are the existing lot area and width. (6) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. The site provides a proper transition in land use from the commercial district to the south to the single family homes to the north. There are no open spaces or natural features in the immediate area. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 is reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Rezoning is reasonable for the following reasons: As highlighted above, the criteria per Section 36-216 of the City Code, when considering a rezoning, is found to be met. 2. The proposed use would fit in to the neighborhood. This neighborhood consists of both single-family and two-family dwellings. (See pages A4 and A23 -A33.) Two dwelling units are the predominant uses on this block. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is guided for Low Density Attached Residential. The proposed duplex would fit that category. Duplexes serve as a transitional land use area between the commercial properties to the south and the single-family residential area to the north. 4. The Planning Commission and City Council found that the rezoning of the site was reasonable during the review of a similar request for this site in 2014. (See minutes on pages A36 -A40.) • Are the proposed lot size variances reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes that the proposed Variances are reasonable for the site for the following reasons: 4 1. Duplexes are common on this block. The majority of the block consists of property zoned R-2. (See page A4.) The adjacent property to the west is a duplex zoned R-2, and the property to east is an apartment building zoned PRD -4, Multi -Family Residential. 2. While the lot is small, so are all the other lots that are zoned R-2. There is not one lot on 49th that meets the minimum 15,000 square foot lot size. 3. The variance criteria are met. Per state law and the Edina Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does not meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the existing home adjacent to a duplex to the west, and apartment building to the east, and commercial property to the south. This is site is better fitted as a transitional zone (duplex) between commercial property to the south and single family homes to the north. It is reasonable for this site to function as that transitional area. b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstance of the undersized lot is not unique to this neighborhood. There are several undersized R-2 lots on this block. (See page 34.) These circumstances however are unique in regard to other R-2 property in Edina. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed structure meets the zoning regulations of the R-2 District, and duplexes are common on the south side of the street. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Rezoning and lot area and width variances at 3923 49th Street. Approval is based on the following findings: Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan guides this site for low density attached residential which is described as "two- family and attached dwellings of low densities and moderate heights. This category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional districts between single-family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts." The proposed rezoning precisely fits this category. 2. As highlighted on pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report, the rezoning criteria per Section 36-216 of the City Code is found to be met. 3. The proposed use would fit in to the neighborhood. This neighborhood consists of both single-family and two-family dwellings; however, two dwelling units are the predominant uses on this block. 4. The findings for variance regarding the lot area and width are found to be met as follows: a. The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the existing home adjacent to a duplex to the west, and apartment building to the east, and commercial property to the south. This is site is better fitted as a transitional zone (duplex) between commercial property to the south and single family homes to the north. It is reasonable for this site to function as a transitional area. b. The circumstance of the undersized lot is not unique to this neighborhood. There are several undersized R-2 lots on this block. These circumstances however are unique in regard to other R-2 property in Edina. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Any new structure on this property shall conform to the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements of R-2 Zoning District. 2. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated June 3, 2015. 3. Any new duplex structure would be required to be installed with a fire sprinkler system, per the state building code. Deadline for a city decision: September 1, 2015 7 18-028-24-14-0027 3 Owner Baker Bean Uc t i 3923 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 µ iw . z tuj « 0. stead: Parcel 0.21 acres Area: 9,086 sq ft _ c7 j i r 50TH ST W E f � 1 l y pp j 51ST ST W, i a 7 Parcel 18-028-24-14-0027 ID: Owner Baker Bean Uc Name: Parcel 3923 49Th St W Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- stead: Parcel 0.21 acres Area: 9,086 sq ft Herin�ep�n Interactive Property Maps Map 4809 4813 48134812 4800 i 4817 i 4821 4817 _ 4800 4825 4821 4824 _ 4829 4825 4830 4833 4832 4833 4837 4836 4837 4829 4846 4841 48`0 4841 4833 � 4850 4845 4844 4845 3940 ' .. _.._.. # 3938 3932 ' 922 ____._ 4848 4849 4837 s ( j o3918i 4854 4853 4852 49TH 5T W i 4901 4900 4801 4005 #3949 3945 3941 3937 39273923 3901 4905 4904 4905 4909 4908 4909 i t 4912 1 4915 24 3948 ;3944 3936 3930 3918 49164917 4916 4917 .� - 4921 4920 4921 _..,, 49 112 ST W I f 4925 I 4924 1 4928 4929 24 24 24 24 i 24 149301 4932 4933 ` 3925 4936 4937 L 4999 .�_ 4941 24 4100 3930 z 3924 `3922 3906 4948 ' `" � _4945 � 3808 I a. !39023 3724 i s i *N OTHIST,W .. Parcel ID: 18-028-24-14-0027 A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" - 200 ft. N Print Date:1/14/2014 Owner Market 1L' Name: Total: Parcel 3923 49Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: Property Residential Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.21 acres Sale Area: 9,086 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 li fink Green! A3 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1 . V— V— V_ V— V_ V__ Y— V-1► V-- Vim_ w_ V—® Ir NICIN E Nan PIPE WATONAN 49ITH STR£E NV � w87.d0 —y—y x> y�� y4—>_t_>--->_ Y x111-3 a NPE PREPARED FOR* MATHIAS MO RTENSON 2439 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405 !} 6I >\ >->--> X >—>—y_ A. 45— LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF LOT 32, AVDffOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 172, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTHERLY 177.5 FEET THEREOF I crcuD, w f�pMD�� MONOMER PDWER PORE OWI GUY MCIAV 0 COMIs1MCATI Ns PEDESTAL /^® SARAN 30DWHOLE 0( • ) DeIYOUCNS -rm (sat N WCNES) ti jf k W /aARNEA) unury uNil « ,SNWAM gem LWE NAIRRUE. Qu 09 C UNDERGROUND COMMUTACAI N qNE �Y(OCM IEIG[ MIICItEiE SURFACE NOTES: ( THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE .,r, TTTIE INSURANCE COMMRMENf. 2 ADDRESS Or THE SUBJECT PROPEW: 3923 4 .ADDRESS WEST, EON% NN 55410 P.MD.:18-028-24-14-0027 3) PARCEL AREA- 8,618 SQ. FT. 4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED. 5) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 2-11-2013 6) BENCHMARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT AT SW CORNER OF FRANCE AVE AND 49TH STREET WEST. ELEVATON - 657.72 (NM) HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: HoRAE: 642�. FT CARACE: 456 S0. FT. CONCRETE: 1,704 SQ. FT. TOTAL HARDCOVER 2,802 SQ. FT OR 31.BR CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that thissurvey, pian, or report was go arfed Dy mer under my direct superviaon and a 1 am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Mianesolo, • • •H•M•M• design collaborative 3923 491' STREET - DOUBLE DWELLING 612.655.3745 Rezoning Application 2429 Sheridan Ave. S Edina, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55405 May 8, 2015 www.hmmarch.com PROJECT INTRODUCTION The proposed project is a new 2 -story double dwelling unit on 49th Street. The location is one block north of 50th and France on a street that predominantly consists of double dwelling units. The lot is currently zoned 11- 1, thus requiring a re -zoning to R-2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property at 3923 49`h Street is highly unusual. First, it is a single-family lot situated on a street that is predominantly double dwellings. More critically, it is adjacent to a high-density 4 -story apartment building, two commercial properties, and one double dwelling unit. This sets it apart from any other lot on 491h Street and, indeed, from most other lots throughout the city. In addition, it is cradled by a Height Overlay District that allows adjacent properties to build up to 48' high. A thorough survey of the city and its Height Overlay Districts (See Attachment A), reveals that there are only eight other residential properties in this situation and that, of those eight, only two adjoin HOD's of 48 feet or greater. While those final two are both zoned R-1, neither sits on a street that is predominantly comprised of R-2 lots. In other words, for a variety of reasons, this lot is an anomaly, completely unique in the city. For these reasons, and others, it is our hope that the City shares our view that our project's proposed re -zoning and associated variances are justified by the unusual conditions of the site. Finally, we submit two of our primary project goals which we believe align well with the City's housing goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan: PROJECT GOAL #1: ACCESSIBILITY The owner is seeking to provide a housing type largely absent from the city's housing stock, one that accommodates the particular needs of an aging population. Although, the owner is driven by an interest in homesteading in one of the units, the design also coincides perfectly with the city's own interests. According to the Comprehensive Plan "The challenge for the city is to adapt itself as a lifecycle community to conform to the needs of a changing population" (p.40), and that change is principally happening to the +65 demographic where growth is expected to exceed 100% by 2030 (CP, p. 24). The proposed development would ad exactly this challenge through a number of means: 1. All necessities (kitchen, bath, laundry, etc.) would be provided for on a single level 2. An elevator would connect the below grade parking to the upper two floors p4' 3. The main bathroom would include ADA accessible fixtures *VA 4. ADA turning radii and clearances provided where necessary p<< 5. A basement studio that could serve as living quarters for in-home care. G PROJECT GOAL #2: SUSTAINABILITY The project aims to achieve the highest standard of sustainability. It will incorporate rooftop solar panels that are expected to supply the entire electrical needs for both units. The building will also employ advanced framing techniques to achieve a 25% reduction in lumber consumption and 5% increase in energy efficiency. Other more conventional sustainability measures will include high efficiency glazing, permeable pavers, materials with recycled content and low -flow fixtures, among others. K •••H•M•M'!• design collaborative 3923 49'h STREET - DOUBLE DWELLING - 612.655.3745 Rezoning Application 2429 Sheridan Ave. S Edina, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55405 May$, 2015 www.hmmarch.com ZONING NARRATIVE: 'The proposed development seeks rezoning from R-1 to R-2 Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The City of Edina, per its Comprehensive Plan, regards this type of use to be both reasonable and favorable. It specifically encourages it in a variety of ways, promoting a building that: 1. Is consistent with the character of the district: • The block is considered a 'Traditional Neighborhood' where the 'relatively smaller lots' have not historically prohibited use as double -dwellings (CP, ch. 4, 4-9) • The project would continue the pattern of 'integration of multi -unit housing at the edge of a commercial district' (CP, ch. 4, 4-27 + 4-43) 2. Serves as a transitional use between 50th and France and single-family zones: • Duplexes have historically served "as a kind of buffer or transition to the adjacent single-family housing." (CP, ch. 4,4-43) • "...Historical role ... as transitional districts between single-family residential areas and major thoroughfares or commercial districts." (CP, ch. 4, 4-27) 3. Supports plans for future growth: • The property is included in an LDAR district (CP, see 4-27 + Fig. 4.6A) 4. Provide appropriate and desired level of density: • "As Edina plans for current and future residents, it should focus on .... developing transition strategies to increase density and encourage infill development" (CP, ch. 3, 3.2) • Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract The property adheres to all setbacks and height restrictions and otherwise maintains or improves upon existing conditions as they relate to shading, drainage, landscaping, etc. Increased occupant parking needs related to the double dwelling are provided for on-site, below grade. e Will not result in an overly -intensive land use The proposed building footprint is complies with the required minimum lot coverage of 25%. Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards a. The property is on a side street with low traffic levels. • Conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code a. The property adheres to all setbacks and height restrictions. Variances are sought for non- conforming conditions triggered by the re -zoning (see variance application) • Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, o ace and natural features. + a. The proposed structure will be lower and smaller than the structures to teat4OC,,,, and a , it Is comparable in scale and mass to similar recent developments on the st,3924/3930 as well as to the double dwelling directly across the street at 3900 (see pictures} tO_ R G\s.k 2 0 0 • • •H•M•M• design collaborative 3923 49'h STREET - DOUBLE DWELLING 612.655.3745 Rezoning Application 2429 Sheridan Ave. S Edina, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55405 May8, 2015 www.hmmorch.com VARIANCE NARRATIVE: The proposed development seeks variances for two non -conforming conditions triggered by the re -zoning: lot width and lot area. 1. Minimum Lot Width — current = 65.5'; required= 90' 2. Minimum Lot Area —current= 8,816 SF; required =15,000 SF • Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance that the use is reasonable 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance: The most reasonable use for the property in question is as a double dwelling unit. • The predominant use of properties in the neighborhood are as double dwellings. The lot at 3923 is one of only four lots fronting the street that are zoned R-1. The remaining eleven lots are zoned R-2, constituting almost three-quarters of the block. Additionally, one corner lot at France Ave. serves as a twelfth R-2 lot, while the other corner lot is zoned PRD -4 and hosts a four-story, x -unit apartment building. Thus, the block is substantially comprised of properties that support higher densities than a single-family dwelling unit. 2. The plight of the petitioner, is due to circumstances unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner: • The 3923 property is unique as one of the few remaining single-family lots in the neighborhood. And although it would technically be non -conforming as an R-2 property (it would not meet the minimum lot width or the minimum lot area requirements and the maximum building coverage), it would not be unique as a non -conforming R-2 parcel. All the existing double dwelling units on the block are also non -conforming in one way or another. Of the 11 R-2 lots, all have areas less than the required 15,000 SF, and six have lot widths less than 90 feet. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or it's surroundings.: The property will still consist of a two-story hip -roofed structure with massing similar to neighboring double dwelling units. Additionally, it will adhere to the guidelines stipulated In the Comprehensive Pian for Low Density Design, ch. 4,4-42 to 4-46. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district 1. There are two properties in the area that are zoned R-1 but would be similarly non -conforming were they to be re -zoned R-2. These two properties are directly across the street from 3923 (Addresses 3922 and 3918). However, these two properties are fundamentally different than 3923: • Whereas 3923 is surrounded by one high density apartment building, two commercial properties, and one double dwelling unit, these two properties are adjacent�Wther single- family lots and to a wetlands to the rear. • These lots are considerably smaller than 3923, calculated at ap at 2/3 the area. Given setback requirements, the buildable area of the lot bee i y small for double dwelling use, resulting in individual units of widths that wo �{{ elow the required 18'. 00 3(' 0 * • • • H•M•M• design collaborative 3923 49'b STREET - DOUBLE DWELLING 612.655.3745 Rezoning Application 2429 Sheridan Ave. S Edina, Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55405 May 8, 2015 www.hmmorch.com • Because they are on the opposite side of the street, they could not claim they act as a transitional buffer from the commercial district. • Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. 1. The City of Edina, per its Comprehensive Plan, regards this type of use to be both reasonable and favorable. • Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood. 1. All setback and height requirements will be maintained. See 1.c. above. The basic site plan is similar to most other double dwellings on the street in that there is a single structure with a cohesive fagade and a single drive accessing parking that is shielded from view. 0 OR W skid .t 1hsl Rom wli ■ �# � ■ +rte: :{ � a , . �. 1 � '� 11111111111'111\11\1 ' y I�' _.. �� 1 ��,�� ■ � ■ ram � ;t= r �: u.c r��;� � �� i S�1fK��t�1��111��1• (lll/ll/'� 49 T H STREET \WES T It Ii 65.51 ltl FLAT) N�92�!30'E RAIN3m. r., -�Mf �llr� L GARDEN"-�, P ACCESSIBLE ----qN- 7 DRIVE TO ENTRY WALK ___--.BELOW GRADE PARKING Vw REAR PATIO --�RAIN GARDEN 1015 N88'49'39 -W /65 78 / '46 " I " - - !IA .111, 211 T't PRFF Fl)�t k 0 TEVIXt. `1 rricli, Am - I 1 (p nPM - PROPOSED SURVEY ADDITION SURVEYS OWNER: PROJECT ADDRESS- z EXISTING QATIVE RAM BEM LLC m392349th STREETPROPOSED M 1" 11114 NA 5 ic X KEYNOTES SURVEYS 01 u CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 49 i T H STREET I \WEST -mv E .14 f LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 114M FAFI CF I'll 41404—� N82*28'3WE �p I , , 'EIVIEM I I�N.1171, tilt JEWIN LOV7� lin I51�1. -!: —1111. r r rl I r" - IE ' 99TI U, 1,T!:. rELT n +�2' F I to I MEMO EM, t.Fl4 --.JLF -wl A' C-1-1 1' I L'� W98' -49—'39'W 65.70 6 o-on,.Ir w (9) ;URr Atk LEOMD, f 7,iff" 1 -4 r ra,rl fj h OiE 0'wft7J[ !tr-a 1) Ti s '--Llf,.%Ef V'AfE iurtilfEt `lT1PlJf [117 FEfmt rf A TIT'E 1.7i-FAVE rrV"IItI'.V 'iALIEWS f R -E VWOZRTr 3Z23 - s �m kT• P4 I)Aa-Q',f. 14 1- WI) M—F FEI tali 51) ;1 41 41,41W IC -4 11A Ai Cr -=OFF --F FRAIKE Ar Y R ', 5tTh 7;rFEEI ','VT r.Cjik)% . 2577 IIAROCOYM CALCUIAMIS, 6,,2 V, FT 1.7�4 CERMCATKIN VAN NESTE SURVEYING MOMSKRAL SURVFYW, SERACES t, h,LZft.F11 Ll:�'---f Vito v s 'LL la -fl -C 11, 1,00 REVISIONS PROJECT TEAM 1505.08 RE -ZONING SURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCH; CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITE VANNEMSURVEY94G ME, mc,, Or :i CIMLSfTEGFIDUP HMDESIGI TRAVIS VAN NESTE TIMPANCHUr MATT PAVEK 2429 SHEAID 85 WLDHUR5T ROAD 321YEAST371,I)ST. 4931 WEST 35th ST, SUITE 200 AMNNEAPOL ExaLston, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 SUOLASPAWMN55416 612-655-314 .l �•1 � 1 I MEMO EM, t.Fl4 --.JLF -wl A' C-1-1 1' I L'� W98' -49—'39'W 65.70 6 o-on,.Ir w (9) ;URr Atk LEOMD, f 7,iff" 1 -4 r ra,rl fj h OiE 0'wft7J[ !tr-a 1) Ti s '--Llf,.%Ef V'AfE iurtilfEt `lT1PlJf [117 FEfmt rf A TIT'E 1.7i-FAVE rrV"IItI'.V 'iALIEWS f R -E VWOZRTr 3Z23 - s �m kT• P4 I)Aa-Q',f. 14 1- WI) M—F FEI tali 51) ;1 41 41,41W IC -4 11A Ai Cr -=OFF --F FRAIKE Ar Y R ', 5tTh 7;rFEEI ','VT r.Cjik)% . 2577 IIAROCOYM CALCUIAMIS, 6,,2 V, FT 1.7�4 CERMCATKIN VAN NESTE SURVEYING MOMSKRAL SURVFYW, SERACES t, h,LZft.F11 Ll:�'---f Vito v s 'LL la -fl -C 11, 1,00 REVISIONS PROJECT TEAM 1505.08 RE -ZONING SURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCH; CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITE VANNEMSURVEY94G LILY PAD LANDSCAPE CIMLSfTEGFIDUP HMDESIGI TRAVIS VAN NESTE TIMPANCHUr MATT PAVEK 2429 SHEAID 85 WLDHUR5T ROAD 321YEAST371,I)ST. 4931 WEST 35th ST, SUITE 200 AMNNEAPOL ExaLston, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 SUOLASPAWMN55416 612-655-314 KEYNOTES ADDITION LANDSCAPE PLAN OWNER: PROJECT ADDRESS: L 1 tRATRIE BAKER BEAN LLC 39234smEET Q 9t EOINA MN 55424 .7 O /� s� Y I INFILTRATION UMN I SEE DErAJv VOLUME BETWEEN ELEY. 8955.696.5=150 CF 55-696.5=150CF BDT- 8955 OEEOF=89&5 OE,EOFTONORTH ass.00 L NO Fc W E S T y2 3'30" E 65 51 (06 PLAT) r --BT4.B2--T0p 15.62 5 BOT- 6 E. - 994.57 ME 694 WE *88r5O 'BW 488.40 LP TRENCH ORAIN WE ME solo ME is& I � WE BASIN 2 ��INFILTRATM SEE GETAJL VOLUME BETWEEN ELEV. I Wft!M(697.0-411CF BOT= 89515 OEEOr- 097.0 ri OEJEOFTOEAST .:j �.'S 1'L% AT 896.L L 0 1 3 897.0 597.. 97.W ME 69600 1 898.80 ..B:E -7 - ------------ 441 ME ------------- - -- 1 -O 1.5ao bw 7 SO IT,, WE ME solo ME is& I � WE BASIN 2 ��INFILTRATM SEE GETAJL VOLUME BETWEEN ELEV. I Wft!M(697.0-411CF BOT= 89515 OEEOr- 097.0 ri OEJEOFTOEAST .:j �.'S 1'L% AT 896.L At4 GD 1. SEE SEE 2. THE SK: COT MAI ERE ENT WE THE RE( HI& PRE En AFI ALL t. RF-' .:j �.'S 1'L% AT 897.0 597.. 97.W ME UE '—so+ Iq ..B:E -7 - ------------ 441 ME ------------- - -- 1 SO IT,, EE7 L-li ',S At4 GD 1. SEE SEE 2. THE SK: COT MAI ERE ENT WE THE RE( HI& PRE En AFI ALL t. RF-' CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING �I 1. INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE OR SK _ 3. CLEARANOGRUB%ISn TRIO TU 4. CONSTRUCT NEW STRUCTURE I �.. 5.TVHFOIALI CONSTRUCTIONACTMTY SITE IS 3TABLIZEO BY EITHER SEEO OR SO SILT FENCEANO RESEED ANY AREAS DISTL - \: ',' (,". 3_ \ .: EROSION PREVENTION --- ---- __,-. -, ,' -, ,. T _ , J_'-_' \ __, , ,-.-,.__'- , RESPONSIBLE FORS -. THECONTRACTOTR" -}--`INLET RO CnONAT \ IA'PLEA!ENFWO APPROPRIAT E c91 I VEGETATIVEBUFFER STRIPS, HOWDNTAL NEAREST STREAM '"\ CONSTRUCTION CATCNBASIN(1) a OTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT ETTRAvCE,TYR• J F E V4 E ALL EXPOSED SOL AREAS MUSTSE STABIL 1! _ d'Oi JIJ t 65 51 1 (GTI PLA I) \ . - POSSIBLETOLBAR SOIL EROSION BUD INN OAYSAFTERTHECONSTRUCTIONACTNfDY SREFUSTEMPORARLYORPERLZANINRLY 194:82 TOF`-T- THE NORAALWERED PERIMETEROFANY' rl _I_I _T 6i[r ,TB9O ME _e 89{67 ME 89 30 G[ IN- 893_6Mj PER.ANEMOR7JNAGE DITCH ORSIYALE TI 4 8 T'a. _. 9;_ - --'� •r oma`"== a94.10jt PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE -_LMEAROUND TNESFTE, MUST BESTPBLIZED VA s_ INFILTRATION BASIN I,'r - I 6 t \ - FROMTHEPROPERTYEDGE,IXIFROAITHE -i ' ( INTO ANY SURFACE WATER STABLQA11% SEE DETAIL' FEET MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOU VOLUMEBET4BENELEy IO ASURFACEWATFR 8955.8985-150 CF BOT=8955�] ,' STABLIZATKIN OF THE REMAINING PORTI01 OEIEOF=8985 gg2. np q `I OR PERMANENT ORCHES OR SWALESMU5 OEIEOFTONORTH I:' ,I'` !495.50 4 e97.0{15 i C BOT e9�4o 9 I M DAYSCONNECTINGTHATPORTION 9 89.8 TAE CONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION Of THE! i Ln; 81711 B", 0TW I I I OTPERAANENTLYCEASED. q)8�9{1{.75 B96.00 111[89]Op a 7. 7 598505 o TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR! O'S USED AS ASEWEM MCONTAINMENTSYSTE e e !IN DESIONEO ROCK DITCH CHECKS, BIO ROLU 06 / 7'87 B9a0 �!° II NOTIEEOTOBESTABIUZED. THESEAREA t5 89.8 8e9.5 - 819768 YATIiM 24 FIOURS AFTER NO LONGER REIN( NAI ,c II• CDNTAENT SYSTEM. 8894 89772 899D 715. 897.90 NR ! �� PIP EOUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WI TN TE 89].90 8885 m PERMANEMENELGYDISSIPATIONIWTHIN: CDNNECDON TO ASURFACEWATER .00 <898.00 8911 7 697 _ • 89 888.50 BW 89L5 ,TW 9817 �L I 8AMIE 2 SEDIMENT CONTROL 77/I 896:39M 5z IBP88TRDICH -- -' SEDIMENTCDNTROLPRACTICESMUSTMIN ,� I ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING 898. 4fi SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. SIL�.j�EA'CE/ i RIOgOI1,T/P. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BEI DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE AM DLSNRBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESEPRA / RACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS SEE ALL STORAORAIN"LETS TRUST BE PROTEI BTAPSDURNGCONSTRIICTWNUITLALLS tiFOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BE_ N 89764 i'I SLT FENCE m�897.64 I J 81OROtL 7YP, .: ,.I TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE e D NE FFFECTIV SURFACEWATERS, INCLUDING STORfiYATI /SCURBANDGUTTERSYSTEISORCOTW I I t L O 'f 3 2 89.64 UNLESS THERE IS A BYPASS W PLACE FOR ^Bd7s{ I '' I VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM TH MUSTBEM"IIJZEDBYAROCKCONSTRUC I� z 89609 ME SNEEPWG MUST BE USED IF THE ROCK EN 896.26 IAD 66flm 89L002 I ADEOUATETOPREVENTSEDIMENTFROME STREET. 8960 ME \'I +z) msi4c ME TEMPORARYDE-WATERING -DEWATERING m PUMPED Of8 HIUKIES. TRENCHDITCH TUT' INFILTRATION BASIN 2 I SEE DETAIL THE SEDIMENT CONSTRUCTIONDCHARGE WATERIF 'SII m A ATEMPORARYOR PERMANENT SEDIMENTA TJ I VOLUME BETWEEN PROJECT SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF TH Sr,L B%6;891D-4BCF Bol' 696.6 DISCHARGED TO ASEDIMENTATION BASINS '` I I - OFhOF=8970 SURFACE WATER, R MUST BE TREATED WIT {' 9B9fl00 t. OFEEOF TO EAST MAPS SUCHTHATTHE DISCHARGE DOES 11 THE RECEIVING WATER. DOWNSTREAM LAA 'V 89800 TW ti 89150 BW ..1 A`!..En ME CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THATOIS 8BI60 ME M\�� 89150 BW; ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION. 891.0 ` 89250' i'� DISCHARGE IAUSTBE�PERSED OVER NA - B9fl00 uE SANDBAGS. PLASTICSHEATHPK9 OTROME _ DISSIPATION MEASURES.ADEOUAIE SEDIM 697,60 897.80 897.80 897.3 ` 9 8 I O SLIS mEE� abS_ REQUIRED FOR OISCHARGI ' 897 50 MFS .� - _ RETURNED TO THE BEGINNING OF THETRF INCORPORATE INTOTHESTTE N AMANNER , "-7 ^ EROSION. DISCHARGELLOWEDWITHTHEBACION SH OF ASEWER UTHORS ALLOWED IYRTIPERAlISS1IX40F' AUTHORITY SOIL COMPACTION PRECAUTIONS TMEPEtMITEEMUSTMINIMIZESGIL MP; 5 697.0 - y INFEASIBLE PRESERVE TOPSOIL IAINIMIZO ✓f NOT REQUIREDWHERE THE FUNCTION CF' Ta 897 {O \C.�k,meg-L897.00ME -'e96 eo ME - THESIZINGTE DICTATESTHATRCLUDETE BE US[ 894.40 ME EQ MINIMIZING CONPACDONG OFF O THE AS' ----- EWIP6EN7, AND STAYING OFF OF MEAS' P`�. nes SLT F�NCEI - --�p.ROU,TYP. .. __- - 1 IBFCPPINGA EO.METHODBTOPRSOIL PR' tq..,I c ! IEXCAVWOAHDSTOCI09LMD TOPSOIL PRI - - flCCAVATIONOPERATIONS DEzi I 1 � 1 GAAQPWi1FAl,MNF � W OF YN FAST) BRfOUNVATONMMMWNL W hiCN TAM OWaVJNL W w i W i i W M i i W i �• 'Y W W ♦ W W i W w i W W i ♦ i W ♦ i i i W ♦ W 4 ♦ W W W V i W W W w W OVID W W i W W W W W i i ♦ i W ♦ i W W i i W W ((••• i W i W w i i i W i i DW i w i i ,. �• W W W w W IS i W i i W ♦ W i E..` W ♦ W W i i W i W W W W W i W W '.51 W i i i W ♦ W W w i W W W i i ♦ W W W W ♦ i i i i i i V W ♦ W W i W W i ♦ i W i W W ♦ W W ♦ W W i i i W i i i i i ♦ i i W i V w• W ♦ W W i W ♦ ♦ W W i W W W W W W W W W W i i i i i W W i TYPICAL PLAN VIEW TYPICAL SECTION VIEW CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 1. NSTALLBUFENCEAMMOROTNFRAPPMPMTETUPOMMER0810NtGNINp,DE MTD PREVSTTBFDA�ITFROMLFAVURLOREMERSRTTHEPMCRCE g1RWSCOtN1ROCt10f1, •ALL DQOIIGRAEMPBOLMERSEDMtfrCONM&IP'SMUSTEEIIRACEBBIMWYIWGMDEW IS, PLAMAMMULCH SIORETEMIONDME. 11. REMOYETENPORARYERWMCOWRMOEYMAFMRnECONTFUMAM,OFMWEAWAIS LMMUMMMMACINRYOMM ADEWA74YVWUATM • PERMWCWOAMIN&'+ZMOFMMCOWMPR4,CnM. !. LS71E5ENWI SANIFMYSEYlE1LELECiRIC, PNIN&, FSFAOPiiC,ETG) PRIDRTOSETiSRd FBNL GENERALNOM 6MM O GRADEOFBRYAEIEMIMI DEVICE 1. NirAVATNf TRATSEORM7TSi1NTRCSMDWFRMTMMACTTORRRREgACONMMDWBIO E7(GVA7IML TitB MAIERW. SUIT BERFJAOVEDFRdIiIEPPACTICEPRIORTOCONRtAANl � i ROUGHMMETNESM KBgREfE4MARMAREMMUSMASTEMPORARYSEOSEMUM CDS1TRIICTI&L. LEAVEAfS NMOFS FEEFOFCOVEROVM TKPRMCTTOETOPROTECTTHEtMMYSBT SORB FROM CLOGOM 2 OFBMRETEMIMIOEAMUIM1RACCOMMI! OUSWGLD"COLPACTIONFARiNMOVWG EOUPMFMTTOPRE4Fl1TDMIPACTMOFUNDEAI.YM SOM • PERFORMALLOTNS WEOPROMEMEM3. O ALLSUOVAMRYLSBRMO ESPEOMBORETEMIONOEPTHfMATWOOMBEIINMSiMM. 1 T. OANOMIAGfALLAREASAFI6IOSiMdVA;E. UMMOTl6NASEUMM L COSTRUCFWAXW IONDEY10EIPMSTABRMKMJOFCONnOOLO 60RARUGEAIEA. S. NPIFA RAWOMRYMIDPEPNFMIEUMMCOWMXPINCnM. BIO -RETENTION, INFILTRATION, FILTRATION (RAIN GARDEN - TYP.) 1 NTS Nk 6 R O U mow, xmat auffE SL LOUISPAIK W, tS CK.si 'V— WtPmk ml*t ml =-1 IHEREtYCENTVY71NTm MfARCAOMLOAROwT M16PAMMSYIABOMMI tIPEANRO, ANDDATIN UCEEAKO PROPtetI0I1LL O UrDFA l/it IAWAOP mat ¢13L ulTn3 uaaaer� MSUEWd6tTAL8LM, C4 n 2 FLOOR PUN • LEVEL 1. �{ n G.r. w . jt(yL�l', a ADDITION LANDSCAPE ARCH: CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITECT: OWNER: PROJECT ADDRESS: LILY PAD LANDSCAPE GIVK.SITEGROUP HMM DESIGN COLLABORATIVE BAKER BEAN LLC Y m 392349Fh5TREET Z TIMPANCHOT MATTPAVEK 24295HERIDANAVE. EDINA MN 55424 3217 EAST 37th 5T. 49314VE5T35th ST.,SUITE200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 ST, LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 612-655-3745 p$ W 1 ROCiRPIM.mvELO AA F—L X REVISIONS PROJECT TEAM 15.05.08 RE -ZONING SURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCH: CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITI VANNESTESURVEYING LILY PAD LANDSCAPE CIVILSITEGROUP HMMDESIG TRAVISVANNESTE TIM PANCHOT MATE PAVEK 2429SHER11 85 VALOHURSTROAD 3217 EAST 37th ST. 4931 V/E5T35thSt. SUiT£ 200 MINNEAPOI ' EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 612b55-37, 2 ROOF PlA11 ma ADDITION FLOOR PLAN: SECOND FLO( ARCH: CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITECT: OWNER: PROJECT ADDRESS: WE LIVILSREGROUP HMM DESIGN COLLABORATIVE BAKER BEAN LLC -Y m 392349th STREET Q ROOF MATTPAVEK 24295HERIDANAVE. EDINA MN 55424 J 4931 WEST JStW, SUITE 200 HNNEAPOLISMNSS405 55406 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 612355-3745 C Y gfL !NP;N-UML2 A)- u -2n REVISIONS PROIECTTEAM 15.,05.08 RE -TONING SURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCH: CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITE VANNESTESURM94G LILY PAD LANDSCAPE CMLSITEGROUP HMMDE51G TRAVIS VAN NESTE TIM PANCHOT MATTPAVEK 2429SHERIC 85%MLOHURSTROAD 3217 EAST 37th ST. 4931 WEST 35th ST, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOL EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554W ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 612655-374 -- Clb-- S3NMOI- alm -01 CN -A �� :f. ¥ . 0. ■ I a I Wpin Property Maps Map r L— s . s i T 49TF1 STREET WEST _ i � S �. o � I 491/2_STREET WEST t j ._._i Parcel 18-028-24-14-0027 AT -B: Map Scale: 1" - 200 ft. N ID: Print Date: 6/3/2015 canner Baker Bean Uc Market w Parcel 3923 4gTh St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: Property Residential Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and Is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Non -Homestead Sale Implied, Ind ding fitness tation or of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.21 acres Sale Area: 9,086 SQ ft Code: COPYRIGHT ®HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A Thktk'Green! http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=473966.04254508513,4973498.592456.,. 6/3/2015 DATE: June 3, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner— City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 3923 4V' Street West — Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the attached documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. 1. A separate permit may be required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: www.minnehahacreek.orgl Street and Curb Cut 2. If application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http:///edinamnsgov/edinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf Sanitary and Water Utilities 3. Underground parking ramp and large graded walk out "egress well," are very atypical for this land use. Both excavations lack positive surface drainage. This situation creates undue risk to sanitary infiltration and inflow. These areas should include either positive grade away from the foundation or be connect to drainage system that drains away. Storm Water Utility 4. The subject site front yard drains to 49' Street and is part of subwatershed MHN _71. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. The downstream system also includes a runoff volume sensitive landlocked basin prone to flooding. 5. The subject site rear and side yard also drains to subwatershed MHN _58. This drainage path is through 1/2city property to the south and then to 49 � Street West public system. 6. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water 7. A storm water management plan signed by a Professional Engineer is provided to meet the following condition. a. Mitigate volume increase to MHS -71. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 8. Grading and erosion control plan meets standards. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826.0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 25, 2014 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call: Scherer,Schro er, Lee, Kilberg, Olsen,rr, Platteter, Forrest Members absent from roll: Halva 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Schroeder moved approval of th e Carr seconded the motion. All voted /aye;mn caqChair Staunton informed the Commiss iter West 49th Street have been continuednning IV. 25, 2014 meeting agenda. Commissioner . A. 6500 France Avenue and C. 3932/34 Imission meeting of July 9, 2014. A. Minutes of the Regula,#14eeting of the Edina PlanninlkCommission June 11, 2014 Commissioner Lee mov approval of the June 11, 2014, meeting INtes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion All voted aye; motion carried. V. Jim and Lori Groti, 5913 Park Place, addressed the Commission VI. PUBLIC HEARING B. Preliminary Rezoning and Variances. Mathias Mortenson. 3923 West 49th Street, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Appearing for the An lip cant Mathias Mortenson Page 1 of 11 Discussion Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify the process. Planner Teague responded that the rezoning request is a two-step process; variance is one. ntation Mr. Mortenson addressed the Commission and explained since the meetings before both the Commission and Council he revised the plans to the greatest extent possible. Mortenson explained the subject site is unique; pointing out it is located next to a 4 -story apartment complex with parking lot, abuts commercial properties to the south and the block the subject site is located on contains mostly R-2 zoned properties (15); not R-1(4) as the subject site is currently zoned. Continuing, Mortenson also noted the subject site is narrow, and is "cradled by a Height Overlay District", reiterating the subject lot is one of the few in the City with such unusual conditions. Mr. Mortenson further reported that he has two goals which in his opinion align well with the City's housing goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal #I is accessibility and Goal #2 is sustainability. Mortenson expanded on those goals. In conclusion Mortensen thanked the Commission for their time reiterating in his opinion this project is a plus for the City. Commissioner Carr indicated that she has concerns about safety as it relates to the retaining wall. She stated that wall is very high and would be dangerous; especially for children if not adequately secured. Mr. Mortenson responded that his intent would be too screen the wall with a strip of landscaping. Carr stated she believes a fence is also warranted. Mortenson responded he would be receptive to installing a fence as well as landscaping. Commissioner Scherer stated she agrees with Commissioner Carr's comments on the retaining wall and suggested adding a wrought iron fence for safety, adding she believes it would blend well with the landscaping elements. Continuing, Scherer said she wasn't concerned with the lot coverage issue. She stated in her opinion this is a transitional neighborhood and the use of the lot provides buffer to the R-1 zoned properties. Scherer asked for clarification on the lower level of the proposed double. Mr. Mortenson explained that the lower level space accommodates the needs of an aging population. He explained that the potential owner is not only interested in living in one of the units because the design lends itself well to "one level" living with multiple levels, it also meets a need not easily found in Edina. Mortenson said all necessities (kitchen, bath, laundry, etc.) would be provided on the ground level and an elevator would connect the below grade parking to the upper two floors. All features on the "main" level would meet ADA requirements with the basement level serving as quarters for in-home care. Commissioners expressed some concern over the internal makeup of the units because there is the potential for "multiple dwellings" because of the interior configuration. Mortenson said his intent and the intent of the owner is to rezone the property to R-2, double dwelling unit district. The intent is not to exceed that; it's not a request for a PRD. Mortenson further stressed the intent is two dwelling units period. Mortenson said the configuration relates well to one level living with the property owner able to have guests and a live-in care giver. Concluding, Mortenson said a neighbor in the area has expressed interest in one of the units. Page 2 of 11 v I Public Hearing Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Mary Quinlivan, 3922 West 49th Street addressed the Commission and explained that she really likes the aesthetics of the building; especially the front. Quinlivan said in her opinion the two recently constructed doubles are way out of scale for the neighborhood. She acknowledged they are beautiful buildings; however, they are too large with overly exposed garage doors. Concluding, Quinlivan reiterated her support. She likes the look of the building and is impressed with the property owners of sustainability goals. Chair Staunton acknowledged e-mails received on the project. Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the subject; being none, Commissioner Scherer moved to closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. Discussion Commissioner Platteter stated he wasn't opposed to rezoning this site from R- I to R-2, adding to him it makes sense. Platteter said what he struggles with is the lot coverage. Platteter said he just thinks the building as proposed is too large. Commissioner Olsen agreed with the comment from Commissioner Platteter on lot coverage. She further added that she believes the project is honorable, the sustainability element of the project is good; however, she believes it's too large. Commissioner Carr commented she isn't troubled by the lot coverage adding this lot is difficult to work with and she supports the rezoning; it makes sense. Commissioner Scherer reiterated she too is less concerned with lot coverage and is swayed by the unique location of this lot (parking lots on two sides of the lot). Continuing, Scherer said she likes the "look of the home(s) from the front street; it blends well, especially without the introduction of large garage doors. Commissioner Lee stated she agrees,the applicant has great design and sustainability ideas; however, is concerned with the mass of the proposed structure on a lot this size. Lee said she is concerned with drainage; suggesting that the applicant retain a civil engineer to review the drainage. She also said in her opinion the roof pitch is too high, adding there may be other solutions to pursue. Continuing, Lee said she appreciates the unique use of the home(s) and that it responds to the life cycle living as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Concluding, Lee stated she continues to believe if constructed as proposed there is too much "building" on this R- I lot. In response to Commission comments Mr. Mortenson said he would retain both a civil engineer and landscaping architect if the rezoning was approved. He said he worked very hard to keep the lot coverage at a minimum. With respect to building height a certain height is needed to provide the optimum angle for the solar panels. Commissioner Forrest said she has a concern that the height of the building to the east and the potential for height to the south of the subject site may compromise the solar panels. Forrest also Page 3 of 11 A31 stated in her opinion that the size of the proposed building is too much for this R -I lot. Concluding, Forrest stated rezoning the lot to R-2 isn't a problem; the size of the structure is. Chair Staunton asked Mortenson to clarify his reasoning for a two-story structure with basement. Mr. Mortenson explained the proposed layout of the doubles is to provide one level living space with flexibility; achieving life cycle housing. The "main" level provides complete one level living and the flexibility of have guests visit and/or stay and to provide an area for a live-in care provider. Mortenson also reported that square footage is important in providing this flexibility. Commissioner Carr stated this request in any other location would give her pause; however, this lot is unique, reiterating rezoning the lot to R-2 makes good sense. Commissioner Scherer agreed with Carr, adding square footage is important in providing the right balance in living space, adding potential owners do desire space. Commissioner Schroeder questioned why 25% is the magic number. He pointed out no one can really perceive the difference. Schroeder said this proposal could have runoff issues; however, if a Civil Engineer "signs off' on the project as presented he has no issue with the lot coverage variance. Commissioner Lee reiterated it the size of the structure on the lot that's an issue for her. Her concern regards drainage and changing an R- I Lot to an R-2 Lot would impact drainage patterns. Commissioner Staunton reiterated in his opinion the R-2 rezoning is appropriate. He said it appears Mr. Mortenson has responded to the Commission and Council suggestions, adding if drainage issues are satisfied by a Civil Engineer he could support the request as submitted. Motion Commissioner Carr moved variance approval subject to submittal of a fence and landscaping plan that provides safety and minimizes the impact of the retaining wall. Approval is also subject to a civil engineer reviewing and approving a storm water and erosion control management plan and subject to permitting from the Watershed District. Carr further suggested that Mr. Mortenson ensure (in writing) that the lower level space of each unit is considered part of the structure and not an approved separate unit. Carr further moved that variance approval is contingent on final rezoning. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion: Planner Teague clarified that this request is a two-step process that would be heard again by both the Commission and Council for final approvals. Ayes Scherer, Schroeder, Carr and Staunton. Nay, Lee, Olson, Platteter and Forrest. Motion failed 4-4. Commissioner Carr moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval contingent on approval of the variances. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Olson, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton. Nay, Lee. Motion to rezone approved 7-1. Page 4 of 11 gl ? f A discussion ensued on what would happen if the site was approval and the double wasn't built; would the single family home be nonconforming. Planner Teague explained it would be nonconforming; however, if rebuilt as a single family home it would have to be built exactly as is today. VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan — 7200 France Avenue PlannerTeag informed the Commission a request to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop th .51 acre parcel at 7200 France Avenue has been made. Teague s 'd the applicant is re esting consideration of a proposal to tear down the existin ce building on the site, d redevelop it with a six and four-story mixed use de pment project that would in de the following: ➢ 17p unit artment (6 stories) (20% affordable) ➢ 25 units o ow housing. (4 stories) ➢ 45,500 squa feet of retail space including two taurants. ➢ A two-level u\area d parking ramp. Teague noted the retail spalocated on the nce side of the project. Access to the residential podevelopmen ould be from 72nd Street. Access to the retail portionff of Franc venue. The existing vegetation and trees on the f the sit ould remain to provide screening from the residenthe w To accommodate the request, three required: to the Comprehensive Plan would be ➢ Building Height — frjfi . 4 stor to 6 stories. ➢ Housing Density rom 30 uni per acre to 50. Floor Area Rat — from .5 to I . A rezoning of all the prop ty would then be requ d Development. Appgaring for the plicant Dean Dovolis DJR Architects and Laurie Boisclair, Boisclair to PUD, Planned Unit Commissioner Lee asked what the zoning of the subject site is and if the existing building was non -conforming. Planner Teague responded the subject site is zoned POD, Planned Office District and the building is non -conforming. Teague said the site is proposed to incorporate elements of the mixed use zoning district. Page 5 of 11 Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNIT/ AN RESENTATIONS V.A. BRAEMAR GOLF C SE UPDA — RECEIVED Joe Abood, Braemar Course General ager, introduced himself, described his professional background, and stat a sees great potential with Braemar Golf Course. The Council welcomed Mr. Abood. V.B. &W7 SPEAK UP EDINA REPORT PRESENTED — TCkQ CONSERVATION INCENTIVES Coications Coordinator Gilgenbach presented a summary ofbWnions, both pros and cons, collected ugh Speak Up, Edina relating to conservation incentives. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordbed placed on file. VI.A. PRELIMINARY REZONING, LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES, BUILDING COVERAGE VARIANCE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 3923 49TH STREET, MATHIAS MORTENSON — RESOLUTION NO. 2014-79 ADOPTED TO DENY Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Mathias Mortenson regarding 3923 49th Street, for preliminary rezoning from R -I Single Dwelling Unit District to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District; a lot area variance from 15,000 sq. ft. to 8,816 sq. ft.; lot width variance from 90 feet to 65 feet; building coverage variance from 25% to 32%; and, side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 5 feet 10 inches on the east side. Mr. Mortenson was proposing to tear down a single-family house and construct a new double dwelling unit. Mr. Teague reviewed the Council's past sketch plan consideration and the proponent's attempt to address some of the expressed concerns. It was noted the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the requested rezoning contingent upon approval of the variances. The motion of the Planning Commission related to the requested variances failed on a 4-4 vote. Staff recommended denial based on the rationale that the combination of variances was too much for this particular site; the building would exceed lot coverage; and, a reasonable use existed. Mr. Teague answered questions of the Council relating to the impact of approving the requested rezoning and denying the requested variances, and lot dimensions within this block. The Council acknowledged written public comment received. Proponent Presentation Mathias Mortenson, architect representing the proponent, 2429 Sheridan Avenue, Minneapolis, described design revisions that he believed created an improved project, better fit the neighborhood, and uniqueness of this site. He stated the proposed design accommodated age -in-place housing and asked the Council to approve the request, as revised. The Council asked questions of Engineer Millner relating to site drainage and stormwater storage capacity and of Attorney Knutson relating to variance conditions to restrict the use to a duplex. Mr. Mortenson defined the revised ridge height and stated a preliminary grading and drainage plan had been developed by his civil engineer and submitted to the Council committing to handling 90% of all drainage and runoff on site. Mr. Mortenson stated the hard surface exterior spaces could be constructed of permeable pavers but the proposed rain gardens would meet the sustainability goal. He indicated the solar panels on a south - facing gable would accommodate electrical needs to reduce consumption of resources. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Public Testimony Nancy Thorvilson, 7221 Oaklawn Avenue, addressed the Council. Jon Andresen, 4804 Maple Road, addressed the Council. Page 2 A � [0 i ' t' y • =7J Ben Hackel, 7105 Glouchester Avenue, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Teague addressed issues raised during public testimony on types of variances that had been considered In this area. Mr. Mortenson indicated his building footprint included all uses on the block but even when considering only the residential -type uses; his proposal remained in line with the average structure. The Council discussed the proposal and asked questions of Mr. Mortenson and Mr. Teague relating to use of the lower level and site drainage. Support was expressed for the improved design, sustainability aspects, and redevelopment of a site bordered on either side by a parking lot. Council Discussion & Action Council concern was expressed related to the requested lot coverage variance, lack of hardship required for variance consideration, storm water drainage, ineffective location of two rain gardens at the rear of the property, and potential risk of sanitary infiltration and inflow due to proposed excavations that lacked positive surface drainage. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014.79, Denying Preliminary Rezoning from R -I to R-2; Lot Area and Width Variances; Building Coverage Variances; and, Side Yard Setback Variances, based on the following findings: 2.01 The variance criteria are not met. 2.02 The current zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.03 The multiple variances requested demonstrate the property is not suitable for R-2 zoning. 2.04 There are no practical difficulties In complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. It is not reasonable to deviate from the ordinance requirements when there is nothing unique about the property that justifies the variances. The need for variances is caused by the applicant's desire to build such a large two-family dwelling on the site. 2.05 Reasonable use of the property exists with the two-story single family currently located on the property. 2.06 The size of the proposed structure creates the need for the lot coverage variance, and the side yard setback variance. 2.07 The City has traditionally not granted variances for building lot coverage when tearing down a home (single-family home or duplex) and building a new one. 2.08 Proposed building coverage would be nearly triple the building coverage that exists today with the single family home. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Brindle Motion carried. _ VII. COMMUNITY No one appeared to coi Vlll. REPORTS I RECO E TIONS VIII.D. SKETCH PLAN _ 7 0 FRA%E AVENUE — REVIEWED Mayor Hovland explained purpose o sketch plan review, which did not include a public hearing, noting the application process that followed included four opportunities for public testimony. Page 3 CHAPTER FOUNDATIONS SECTION R401 TABLE 8401.4.1 GENERAL PRESUMPTIVE LOAD-BEARING VALUES OF FOUNDATION MATERIALS• cation. The provisions of this chapter shall sign and construction of the foundation and ces for all buildings. Wood foundations shall d installed in accordance with AF&PA PWF. The provisions of this chapter shall be permit - ed for wood foundations only in the following that have no more than two floors and a for basement and foundation walls are at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 s in Seismic Design Category Do, DI or in accordance with accepted engineering Its. Foundation construction shall be caps- ig all loads according to Section R301 and esulting loads to the supporting soil. Fill stings and foundations shall be designed, in accordance with accepted engineering se_d as footings for wood and precast con - Ill comply with Section R403. Surface drainage shall be diverted to a artce or other approved point of collet- .reate a hazard. Lots shall be graded to away from foundation walls. The grade I of 6 inches (152 mm) within the first 10 e.lol lines, walls, slopes or other physical 6 inches (152 mm) of fall within 10 feet 4 or wales shall be constructed to ensure rota, the structure, Impervious surfaces 348 pini) of the building foundation shad hu*n,of 2 percent away from the building. Where, quantifiable data created by t tztgthodologies indicate expansive, com- at?th¢r.iQuestionable soil characteristics 'iiding official shall determine determine the soil's character - This test shall be done by an roved method. luation. In lieu of a complete load-bearing values in Table Pot• Si: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa. a. When soil tests are required by Section R401.4, the allowable bearing capacities of the soil shall be part of the recommendations. b. Where the building official determines that in-place soils with an allowable bearing capacity of less than 1,500 Mare likely to be present at the site, the allowable bearing capacity shall be deterrrtined by a soils investigation. SECTION R402 MATERIALS R402.1 Wood foundations, Wood foundation systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of this code. R402.1.1 Fasteners, Fasteners used below grade to attach plywood to the exterior side of exterior basement or crawl - space wall studs, or fasteners used in knee wall construc- tion, shall be of Type 304 or 316 stainless steel. Fasteners used above grade to attach plywood and all lumber -to - lumber fasteners except those used in knee wall construc- tion shall be of Type 304 or 316 stainless steel, silicon bronze, copper, hot -dipped galvanized (zinc coated) steel nails, or hot -tumbled galvanized (zinc coated) steel nails. Electro -galvanized steel nails and galvanized (zinc coated) steel staples shall not be permitted. R402.1.2 Wood treatment. All lumber and plywood shall be pressure -preservative treated and dried after treatment in accordance with AWPA UI (Commodity Specification A, Use Category 4B and Section 5.2), and shall bear the label of an accredited agency. Where lumber and/or ply- wood is cut or drilled after treatment, the treated surface shall be field treated with copper naphthenate, the concen- tration of which shall contain a minimum of 2 percent cop- per metal, by repeated brushing, dipping or soaking until the wood absorbs no more preservative. ng soil. Instead of a cam- LOAD-BEARING CLASS Of MATERIAL PRESSURE (pounds per removed to a depth and square foot) Crystalline bedrock 12,000 Sedimentary and foliated rock 4,000 Sandy gravel and/or gravel (GW and GP) 3,000 Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel and 2,000 clayey gravel (SW, SP, SNI. SC, GM and GC} Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt and 1,500" sandy silt (CL, ML, MH and CH) Pot• Si: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa. a. When soil tests are required by Section R401.4, the allowable bearing capacities of the soil shall be part of the recommendations. b. Where the building official determines that in-place soils with an allowable bearing capacity of less than 1,500 Mare likely to be present at the site, the allowable bearing capacity shall be deterrrtined by a soils investigation. SECTION R402 MATERIALS R402.1 Wood foundations, Wood foundation systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of this code. R402.1.1 Fasteners, Fasteners used below grade to attach plywood to the exterior side of exterior basement or crawl - space wall studs, or fasteners used in knee wall construc- tion, shall be of Type 304 or 316 stainless steel. Fasteners used above grade to attach plywood and all lumber -to - lumber fasteners except those used in knee wall construc- tion shall be of Type 304 or 316 stainless steel, silicon bronze, copper, hot -dipped galvanized (zinc coated) steel nails, or hot -tumbled galvanized (zinc coated) steel nails. Electro -galvanized steel nails and galvanized (zinc coated) steel staples shall not be permitted. R402.1.2 Wood treatment. All lumber and plywood shall be pressure -preservative treated and dried after treatment in accordance with AWPA UI (Commodity Specification A, Use Category 4B and Section 5.2), and shall bear the label of an accredited agency. Where lumber and/or ply- wood is cut or drilled after treatment, the treated surface shall be field treated with copper naphthenate, the concen- tration of which shall contain a minimum of 2 percent cop- per metal, by repeated brushing, dipping or soaking until the wood absorbs no more preservative. ng soil. Instead of a cam- R402.2 Concrete. Concrete shall have a minimum specified .n top or subsoils are cam -compressive strength off' I as shown in Table R402.2. Con-. removed to a depth and trete subject to moderate or severe weathering as indicated in moisture content in each Table R301.2(1) shall be air entrained as specified in Table as fill or stabilized within 8402.2. The maximum weight of fly ash, other pozzolans, latering or presaturation. silica fume, slag or blended cements that is included in con- The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has announced the following adoptions: • Chapter 1309 2012 International Residential Code with Minnesota amendments and Chapter 1300 Administrative Provisions will become effective January 24, 2016. This includes MN Rules 1309.0313 Fire Sprinkler Systems. While the state will be adopting the 2012 International Residential Code, it will be called the 2015 Minnesota Residential Code. Copies of the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) with the Minnesota amendments and including the radon and energy codes can be obtained from ICC at http:/tshor).k=afe,org/Codes/state-and-local- codes/minnesota.html?code cycle=916. Copies of the Minnesota amendments can be found on the Department of Labor and Industry website at http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/Codes.asr) Minnesota Rules state that aan/icat/ons received on or after the effective date of adoption must comply with the new code. So all applications received prior to the effective date will be processed in accordance with the 2007 Minnesota Residential Code. Those received on or after that date will be processed in accordance with the 2015 Minnesota Residential Code. 'r p9.Q313 Fire pNn�tlpX ,Syster s -This amendment will require fire sprinklers complyin wi P29b4 or NF'PA 13D for aitached dwellings meeting the deflnU n of "townhouse' VJ and all single family dwellings exceeding 4500 square feet in area. There are a number of sues consider here. If you have a dwelling with a "mother-in-law" or similar apartment, the building might need a sprinkler system regardless of area. It becomes an interpretation issue regarding whether a second dwelling unit exists. This applies retroactively when a second dwelling unit is installed in an existing dwelling. If you are building row type dwellings that do not meet the definition of "townhouse", you should contact the Building Department for assistance early in the planning phase so you do not experience any surprises. The 4500 square foot area trigger includes all floors and basements excluding garages. By definition this would include sunrooms and similar enclosed areas. The area does not include an open porch that only has a common wall with the dwelling. Any other floor area enclosed in any way contributes to the 4500 square foot area limit. Because additions can be made to existing homes that don't have sprinkler systems, you may wish to consider the timing of construction of sunrooms or other portions of the dwelling if that fits your plans or if the area of those structures places you above the limit. Again, the term "existing building", while blatantly clear, is subject to interpretation. Regarding the design of sprinkler systems, you will be guided by P2904 (if available) or NFPA 13D. DLI has put in place requirements exceeding those standards by amendment. They include requirements for at least one sprinkler head in attached garages and one head for every 20 lineal feet of common wall where attached covered patios, covered decks, and covered porches occur unless the area is 40 square feet or less, No definitions are provided for the terms "attached covered patios", "covered decks", and "covered porches". There is likely to be a lack of uniformity in the application of this section. It is Important to point out that P2904 and NFPA 13D do not require any exterior heads or heads in garages. Those documents were not amended by DLI. Obviously a conflict occurs. The rules of interpretation found in Chapter 1300 do not provide clear guidance other than to further confuse the matter. You will certainly see conflicting opinlons on this requirement. Detailed plans for residential sprinklers must be submitted for review and additional inspections will be required at various stages of construction. Service sizes must accommodate sprinkler systems. Because water conditioning systems may restrict flows to sprinkler systems, you would be doing your customers a favor by including the possibility of a water softener in your design calculations. Additional permits and fees may be applicable. AY 4 Jackie Hoogenakker From: David Cartwright <dcartwright@crplab.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:22 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 2015.006 3923 49th st To Edina Planning Commission, I am opposed to the request for the tearing down of a single family dwelling and replacing it with a duplex. There is already too much construction, traffic, congestion in our neighborhood, why make it worse. How about honoring the zoning ordinances that are in place without creating special exceptions for more development. The charm of the White Oaks neighborhood is rapidly dissipating, 49`h St is a morass of construction, an eye sore and foul. Respectfully submitted, David Cartwright West Side of France Avenue/Greater Southdale Area PLANNING FRAMEWORK Stage One Summary to Edina Planning Commission 5 June 2015 As charged by the Edina City Council, a Work Group was formed to address issues related to future land use and urban design for parcels along the west side of France Avenue and the greater Southdale Area (extending to TH 62 on the north and the city limits on the east and south—with the entire area referred to as the "district" in the efforts of the Work Group). The process approved by the City Council includes work in four stages, with each stage being completed and the results accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to moving to subsequent stages. The Work Group is concluding its Stage One work and is presenting working principles to the Planning Commission as its core deliverable for Stage One. The Work Group is composed of residents and commercial interests, some appointed by the City Council and some self-selected during a Kick-off Meeting, and has met nine times since the Kick-off Meeting. The Work Group is assisted by staff but is, at this point, a volunteer effort. Of note, there have been fewer than six absences during the nine meetings of the 12 -member Work Group. Each Work Group meeting has been open to the public with time allowed during each agenda for public comment. The process to date has included a Kick-off Meeting when more than 40 residents and commercial interests participated in a series of workshop exercises and then convened in separate groups to self-select half of the required composition of the Work Group. Information gathered during the Kick-off Meeting was used to inform the efforts of the Work Group as it formulated initial ideas and eventually defined a set of working principles. A key part of Stage One (and every stage of work proposed for this effort) was a Check-in Meeting when members of the public would have the opportunity to review the efforts of the Work Group while in progress. While attendance was limited, the information gained during this meeting remains prominent in the dialog of the Work Group. The deliverable of Stage One is a series of working principles intended as a guide for the public and private realms of the study area. The Work Group acknowledges that work remains in the process of offering definitive guidance, but is focused on more aspirational thoughts about the evolution of the greater Southdale area. As such, the principles may evolve as the Work Group continues through subsequent stages of its work, gaining more insights and a richer understanding of the conditions of the district. As presented to the Planning Commission, they stand as more than a draft and staff has acknowledge their utility even in their current form to assist in guiding proposals for change in the district. To enhance understanding of the working principles and offer a more robust tool for staff and proponents for change in the district, the Work Group augmented the working principles with a series of supporting questions—provocations encouraging more comprehensive and thoughtful proposals. The Work Group believes these tools are a key complement to other tools used in guiding development in the district, with these working principles being a higher order filter for acceptability than other more typical planning tools. The Work Group is seeking input on the working principles and the supporting questions. As it looks forward to a second stage of the work, the Work Group intends to use the working principles to craft a graphic vision for the district and more fully demonstrate the ways in which the working principles can be applied to create more vibrant, forward-looking, and human - focused patterns across the district. Members of the Work Group have agreed to continue their service, but have agreed that more aggressive outreach is needed to ensure interests across the district are recognized. In essence, the Work Group intends to maintain the current dialog with stakeholders through kick-off and check-in meetings and through its regular Work Group meetings, but will orchestrate a process of interactions where it reaches directly to stakeholder groups throughout the district. Assistance in identifying those key groups would be appreciated, but in particular, the Work Group recognizes the need to make contact with residential interests north of 66th Street and along the more southerly sections of York Avenue, as well as commercial interests throughout the district. In addition, the Work Group intends to initiate a series of roundtable discussions as a part of its work in Stage Two as a way of more fully understanding the complexity of the district and its physical and economic evolution. Questions supporting the working principles and an outline of Stage Two activities will be provided to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting. West Side of France Avenue/Greater Southdale Area PLANNING FRAMEWORK Working principles 27 May 2015 Element Proposed working principle Give -to -Get; Plan & Process Allow latitude to gain tangible and intangible outcomes aligned with the district vision. Edina Cultural Preferences; Identity'; Advance quality through thoughtful and artful design of buildings and publicly accessible spaces, highlighted human activity, and enhanced economic vibrancy. District Function Look beyond baseline utilitarian functions of a single site to create mutually supportive and forward-looking infrastructure sustaining the district. Comprehensive Connections; Foster a logical, safe, inviting and expansive public realm Movement facilitating movement of people within and to the district. Site Design; Transitions Encourage parcel -appropriate intensities promoting harmonious and interactive relationships without "leftover" spaces on sites. Health Advance human and environmental health as the public and private realms evolves. Innovation Embrace purposeful innovation aimed at identified and anticipated problems. Land Use; Live -able Precincts' Promote well-balanced aggregations of "come to" and "stay at" places focused on human activity and linked to an engaging public realm. Economic Vitality Ensure every component contributes to the sustained economic vitality of the district and the community. Macintosh HD:Users:michoelschroeder:Desktop:WestSide of France Avenue and Southdole Area planningfromework:Stage 1:4 Decision point meetings:Draft working principles, 2015052Zdocx