Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-08-26 Planning Commission Packets
I. CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL III. IV. Im VI. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 26, 2015 7:00 PM APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new Issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the Interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING A. Variance. Anne Bishop. 5732 France Avenue, Edina, MN B. Variance. David and Lisa Ramsay. 5425 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review. Titus/Eberhardt. 66`h Street at York Avenue, Edina, MN B. 2016 Work Plan VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission September 9 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker August 26, 2015 B-1-15 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 1.75 foot front yard setback variance as requested for property located at 5732 France Ave. So., for owner Anne Bishop. Project Description A 1.75 foot front yard setback variance is requested to add a bay window to the front of the home located on the west side of France Ave. So. The owner is requesting a variance to allow a small bay window to her home in the dining room by approximately 2 feet. (See property location, aerial photos, photos of the subject and neighboring homes). The project is a remodel to the interior to include a small bay window towards the front to add front fagade interest and a small extension of floor area. All of the improvements will match the existing fagade and will mirror a dormer on the second floor. The required setback from France Ave. is established by the average front yard setback of the home to the north located at 5724 France Ave. and to the south at 5740 France Ave. The home to the north is setback 69.1 feet from France'Ave. and the home to the south is located 63 feet from France Ave. The average front yard setback between the properties is 66 feet. The bay window will be located 64.3 feet to the front lot line. The proposed bay window will be farther from the street than the front yard setback of the home to the south at 63 feet. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the west side France Ave. The lot is 12,764 square feet in area. The owner is proposing the bay window improvement to be setback from the front, (east),lot line approximately 64.3 feet, which is a greater distance than provided by the home to the south. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Easterly/Westerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Southerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is a 12,764 square foot lot with a story and one half home that has a two attached car garage built in 19. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Building Design The finish on the home will be the same as existing conditions. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from France Ave. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvement will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a rather compact dining room. 2 City Standard Proposed Front - 66 feet *64.3 feet Side- 10 12.6/6.9 feet Rear- 25 feet 35 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 1 1/2 story, 30 feet to the ridge, 19 feet Lot coverage 25% 14.4% * Variance Required Primary Issue: • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of setback from France Ave. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvement will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a rather compact dining room. 2 4. The bay window is a minor intrusion into the front yard area and will be farther from the street than the front yard setback of the home to the south. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable and very minor. The lot is large, with generous spacing between the subject home and the adjacent homes. The purpose behind the ordinance is to maintain an established front yard sight line and street scape. The ordinance is meant to prevent a continual erosion of the established front yard setback pattern in an existing neighborhood by holding all new construction to the existing neighborhood standard and to avoid new structure build -out beyond existing conditions. The bay window will not compromise the intent of the ordinance. The addition to the existing home will maintain the existing pattern of setback on the block and will not be the closest front yard setback. . 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing lot is subjected to a front yard setback that is deeper than the location of an adjacent home that is 3 feet closer to the street. The required setback reduces the buildable area preventing a small bay window improvement. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed additions will be consistent with the location of the existing homes on the block and will not change the streetscape along France Ave. The character of the neighborhood consists of a variety of housing styles. The applicant is asking to preserve a setback pattern along the block that has included a closer setback of the neighboring property. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the home to the north. b) The encroachment into the setback continues a setback pattern and will not affect neighboring properties or the street scape. c) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home and existing floor plan. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped August 9, 2015. Deadline for a City decision: October 5, 2015 4 6cf,,,k 6 Vm,� wy qo,rka^Le, 5Pr1'bcwk G`s, ok Metes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD http://www16.co.hemepin.m.us/pim/adctffestdt.jsp Metes and Bounds The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording PID: 19-028-24-14-0095 Municipality: EDINA Addition Name: UNPLA=D 19 028 24 Lot: Block: THE NORTH 9 FEET OF THE SOUTH 119 FEET OF THE WEST 165 FEET OF THE EAST 198 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28, RANGE 24; AND THAT PART OF THE EAST 216 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28, RANGE 24, LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 145 FEET THEREOF; AND THE NORTH 46 FEET OF THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF THE EAST 198 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28, RANGE 24, EXCEPT ROAD. 1 of 1 8/5/2015 8:40 AM Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical -difficulties in complying F] with the zoning ordinance andtra_t th use Cf n Is reasonable _ h's �r -W& P �,` �` ��fca^�. , WAt 0AW �t d -j Correct extraordinary circumstances orr ry applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning d"strict ��_,� s�(�� ;s wA bey - - ® 11�� -jve-� Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance 0L."7 Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood —f ke,, ry pose. vwttc , N Pi V'j N. v� prw�-c9 I ri m h,Pii �4e�'�fl� 0 ISI 2 August 3 2015 5732 France Ave S Bay Window Seat Anne Bishop John Crist To the Edina Building Dept.: We moved into our home Sept. 30 of 2014. We previously lived at 5324 Halifax for 28yrs. Our home at 5732 France Ave S does not have a dining room. We are turning a current bedroom into a dining room rather than add a large addition to the house. Our remodeler, Sylvestre Remodeling, was told that the bay window seat we want to add to our house is not in compliance with the Edina building code. We want to add a bay window seat to the small window on the right side of our house. The Bay window would protrude 20" from the front wall of our home. The eaves of our house protrude 40" from the front of our house. 5724 France Ave north side is set back 69.1' with an additional 8' entry roof with footings, protruding from the front of their house for a total of a 61.1' set back 5732 France Ave Our house setback is 65.2. 5740 France Ave south side 5740 is set back 63'. We are grateful for any assistance you can give us. Thank you very much. Anne Bishop John Crist John cell,- August 5, 2015 City of Edina Building Department To whom it may concern: I understand that my new neighbors that 5732 France Avenue S. are requesting a variance to add a Bay window which is 90 inches wide X 64 inches height X 20 inches deep. The window would face France Avenue on the east side. 1 have no objection to this addition. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that my new neighbors, Anne Bishop and John Crist are not razing the house to build a HUGE mansion. My residence is at 5740 France Ave. S. I don't believe that this bay window would affect my personal enjoyment of my property. Should there be questions about this situation, please feel free to contact me at My email address is Very truly yours, Elin N. Ohlsson BUT ` tp e �g�+� TAY 144k� � gtt� As S I . AMY my t f s August 5, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: I am a homeowner and Ann's next door neighbor at 5724 France Ave S., Edina. I give Ann my approval for the proposed addition of a bay window that will protrude 20 inches from the wall at the front of the house. Sincerely, Carol Killen 01 AVRAr b # K I L L E N M r�d-MN'9g Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 https://gis.hennepin.usIPropeity/printldefault.aspx?C=473 878.75433664035,4971601.1014... 8/12/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 https://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473953.6844865006,4971741.91295... 8/12/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 https://gis.hennepin.us/Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473985.4345500008,4971724.84730... 8/12/2015 SK AGOR65: 5733 FRANCE AVE, 5 Moak YN 55410 EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY FOR: ANNE BISHOP w z `AJ Q LLJ U z Q b fO�1 IM W J IM1wf�y�y n OrYr r Yw�lYrllMin r fO1 S10 ICY IN It.rN MSM M M -T.1i r IM = I Wrw r W Swlwtl fNr r wr Iwirr pxM r 9RIYn 11, Tr,tl; M f�M N, I� �wlli r N� Mwl� TIS Nr XvwR wl Y. IY4 M M r Ny BJ lq /M r IV r..l Nos rw r w ww,wi a.w, r srp.n ra r.�wr M w.w z•....r .a imc w. s.... w. +..... e.r s....... NOR: M YrNn, r • rOb Orn w �nw, rrrwC ri4 ar�.rn w w �Nw� . U�IiM � 1r �r1�.�e � r1As Ir. wM YnYs Mw tiaw(r. ql� r�wM l�W 1prne 0�iy. ' We T✓w� �M pw Yw r On fNt� sI R !Rl'IN IA110 9RN.VIM MC. R�i3]0 W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. orm asrar,,a us.r am Woo amKv m2fou CC" 1$102 Hid' dw doNsm ow n •A,�LI.S�1'I�S era i°'° arar �i�AQ15� 16RY�/dOHSIB ava vb AlEli Y 4 �� lip, } R g-Y dd i i ]] f1 Hn RC1 ^ J n FAY y eN71 E7673 *w av am= MW 'y - LLS�t1�I1�s •.` �° _ism, a r 37N�tG1� 151/dOF16iA � � � gpKNW o�Ya onlartaY �'y 6� �i ---------- � I �i i i oke PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker August 26, 2015 VI.B. Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 3.6 -foot side yard setback variance from the required 10 -foot side yard setback to build a second story addition 6.4 feet from the south property line at property located at 5425 Woodcrest Drive for Lisa and David Ramsay. (See property location on pages Al -A2, and the applicant narrative and plans on pages A3 -A17.) Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition above a garage addition. Only the second story addition requires the variance. The first floor addition continues the existing non -conforming setback and therefore is allowed by City Code. (See the requested area of the variance on pages A8-Al2.) INFORMATIONIBACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 75 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property line) and is 14,355 square feet (.29 acres) in area. The property backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The home is two stories with an attached two car garage built in 1940. The property owner is hoping to convert a portion of the existing garage space into livable space, (mud room), and build an addition to the front of the garage to provide more space to menuvere and store cars. The addition would include a dormer above the garage addition. The roofline slopes towards the south side yard with one continuous roofline above the bedroom dormer over to the new garage area below, (see highlighted plans). The attached garage with living space above was expanded southward in 1995 at a time when the side yard setback for garage area was required to be 5 feet. The garage is located 6.4 feet from the side lot line and is therefore legally nonconforming. The living space expansion above the garage received a variance to match the 6.4 foot setback instead of the requirement at the time, (10 feet plus additional setback for height). The garage may be expanded at the same setback given the alternate setback standard that allows expansions of legal nonconforming structures at the same setback, (current setback required for the garage is 10 feet). The living space/dormer area must be 10 feet from the side lot line because it is not an expansion of a legal nonconforming setback. The living space expansion receieved a variance in 1995, so any expansion to the second floor within the 10 foot setback also requires a variance. The proposed garage addition with dormer above will maintain the alternate setback requirement to allow expansion of a nonconforming setback of the garage side wall on the main floor, however, will not conform to the 10 foot side yard setback for living space on the second floor given the roofline. The interior living space addition/dormer will be approximately 10.9 feet from the south side lot line which is conforming to the required 10 foot setback, however, the roof line attached to the dormer extends over the garage below and will be setback 6.4 feet to the side lot line, (same setback as the existing garage with living space above). The side yard setback variance request addresses roof structure area that extends from the 2nd floor dormer addition over and down to the garage extension below. The roof area in question is lower than 5 feet in height and is non -habitable space. It is the sloped roof area above the garage, (see highlighted plan), that overlaps the setback. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located along Woodcrest Drive amongst other single-family homes in the Minnehaha Woods subdivision. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 14,355 square feet in area. It is a lot with a down sloping grade change in the rear yard towards Minnehaha Creek. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single -Family District Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District 2 Building Design The proposal is to build an addition to the existing front of the garage and add a dormer above. 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 side yard setback due to structural roof area. 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvements would enhance the property. The variance is minimal to tie-in the second floor dormer roof with the garage extension below. 3. The design is unique to this property and allows a modest expansion to an existing nonconforming home making compliance with the ordinance a practical difficultly, due to the location of the home. 4. The proposed addition will preserve and maintain the character of the neighborhood. The proposal is a modest addition and remodel that allows practical utilization of an existing home built in 1940. 3 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of the block: 28.6 feet 29 feet Side- 10 feet *6.4 Feet Rear- 25 feet Over 130 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 2 stories from existing grade Lot Area 9,000 Sq. Ft or avge of nbad 14,355 sq. ft Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 75 feet Lot coverage 25% 21.1% * 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 side yard setback due to structural roof area. 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvements would enhance the property. The variance is minimal to tie-in the second floor dormer roof with the garage extension below. 3. The design is unique to this property and allows a modest expansion to an existing nonconforming home making compliance with the ordinance a practical difficultly, due to the location of the home. 4. The proposed addition will preserve and maintain the character of the neighborhood. The proposal is a modest addition and remodel that allows practical utilization of an existing home built in 1940. 3 • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that the applicant is seeking a design that ties -in the dormer with garage below with a continuous sloping roofline that is structural and not habitable. The proposed habitable living space above the garage will be 10.9 feet from the side lot line and farther from the lot line than the minimum 10 -foot side yard setback requirement. Second floor living space already exists at the proposed 6.4 -foot setback which was deemed appropriate by the City with the granting of a side yard setback variance. The current request to allow the same setback is less intrusive to the side yard than the variance previously granted. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home. The first level is nonconforming and the second story received a variance. The addition is consistent with the approved variance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the garage was built under a previous ordinance and conformed. The living space above the garage received a variance to allow a nonconforming side yard setback. At the time it was deemed appropriate by the City given variance approval to allow living space closer than the minimum required side yard setback of 10 feet. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition would complement the existing 0 neighborhood homes and the addition and would not be any closer to the side lot line than the existing garage with living space above. The addition would be less impacting given that the roofline adjacent to the side yard slopes away from the side yard, unlike the gable side wall of the existing north wall. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the side yard setback of the non -habitable roof area. 2. 'The proposed additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home. The first level is nonconforming and the second story received a variance. The addition is consistent with the approved variance. 4. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to an imposed side yard setback and the existence of existing living space at the proposed nonconforming side yard setback. 5. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition will blend well with the existing architecture. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans: Survey dated June 29, 2015 Building plans and elevations date stamped; June 16, 2015 2) Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo. Deadline for a City Decision: October 11, 2015. 5 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 41;� Law� q NafI�,�t(J� EXPLANATION OF REQUEST - A 3.6 foot side yard setback variance for a second -story addition within the required 10 foot setback. We are respectfully requesting that the necessary variance be granted in order for our family to improve our house and property by reworking and adding on to our garage area to include a mudroom. Our 1941 -built house and small garage lack the general storage and transition space that is part of the standard mudroom/garage entry in most houses today. In order for this improvement project to happen on our lot, we need to extend our garage forward and create a mudroom space in the back of the existing garage. Our architect has created a plan for this addition to the front of our garage that incorporates a second story as part of the addition to achieve the most pleasing appearance from the street and maintain harmony with the rest of the existing house. The issue that leads to this variance request lies with the second story portion of the addition. The first floor addition meets the requirements of the city ordinance for all setbacks - including the side yard setback because of the non -conforming nature of the existing garage. Due to work done on the second story by previous owners In 1995, the upper level is considered conforming and any second story encroachment into the required 10 foot setback would require a variance. Our plans include a 9 foot deep, gable roof element for the second story over the addition to the first floor gara$e area. As viewed from the street, the far right, bottom portion (3.6 feet) of the triangular roofline would thus be considered encroaching on the required side yard setback (please see plans for visual). This area in question is not living space and is, instead, roof structure. The livable space above the garage starts 4'-6" inside of the first -floor garage wall and thus will measure about 11' from the property line. The area requiring a variance is simply dead space under the outer edge of the second story sloping roof where It descends to meet the first floor bearing wall. However, this space is essential to the overall design, symmetry, and aesthetic of the entire addition. Our ultimate goal is to remedy a significant need of our property while also improving the appearance of our house. Our addition is designed so that our house will continue to be in harmony with existing neighborhood street views. The small scale of our project will not unnecessarily infringe on our neighbors and will keep the construction disruption to a minimum. No trees will be removed as part of this project. The request for a 3.6 foot side setback variance addresses a small space of structural members that completes an essential part of the design for a much-needed addition to our family home. We have overwhelming support of our neighbors on this issue. We all hope that the common sense and unobtrusive nature of this requested variance will be taken into consideration and that the Commission will vote to approve. Thank you — The Ramsays MI. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be In harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a YES NO m,-' ❑ M/ R InSAIWE7 neighborhood 0a (2 4 Lt FA YES—The proposed variance will relive practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance: Because the second story area in question is part of the whole design of a 2 story -addition, it is essential to the design that it be built as planned. It is not practical to omit a portion of a symmetrical roofline because the newer setback requirement renders the second story of our house subject to different rules than the first story. We feel that our situation is a perfect example of why the variance process was created, and that allowing a 3.6 foot side yard setback variance for our second story addition just makes good sense. This is a very reasonable request that will allow for our whole addition to comply with the zoning ordinance without compromising design, symmetry, aesthetics, or the character of the neighborhood. YES — the proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to only this property: Because the first story of our garage is non -conforming, we are allowed to add on at the current side yard setback to maintain that space as a usable double garage. Above the proposed first story addition, we have an unusual case of a conforming second storythat requires a variance to continue the same addition at the same side setback. Most properties in our vicinity have multiple options when adding on to their homes — we do not. Our architect and contractor have determined that our proposed plan Is our only viable option. YES—The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance: With our addition, we only wish to follow the current side setback of our existing garage in order to retain its use as a functional double garage with a mudroom space added. The element of a gable on the second story is part of this addition - designed to make the entire addition appealing from the street and to further harmonize the addition with the existing house. We are requesting a variance to complete the full design of the second story gable — and thus, the full design of the addition — in order to improve our house without unduly infringing on our neighbors. We believe that the intent of the zoning ordinance fully supports this route of action. YES — The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: Our requested 3.6 foot side yard setback variance is a small, but essential, piece of the puzzle to complete a small-scale, much-needed, and well-designed addition to our family home. Our project is striving to keep the original character of the neighborhood intact, while also Improving the appearance of our house significantly. Our proposed addition is meant to be "in harmony with the essential character of the neighborhood given existing street views". We have purposefully chosen this route over a "tear -down" for these very reasons. We have lived in our house for over 15 years and want nothing more than to continue raising our family In our neighborhood, surrounded by many fine people who share our perspective on the importance of preserving the character of our neighborhood. As- N MAL DAMCffiP7M Lot & sad the Westerly M00 left of Lot 7. Rook t. 111MMEM >•00D6 6t0 86`03'19 78.29 EXISTING HARDCOVER Q*a9 2.160 SQ.R. Pefts X Docks 873 Sq.F6 Tow MardCover 3.036 Sq.FL Lot Ano 14,35$ Sq.Ft. X Of llordfO-W : 21.1 X Meas ��j NOTE. There is no grading associated with proposed improvement_ t til fir? Silt fence may be altered slightly to accommodate details of topography. L Proposed garage floor addition to match existing A1.4W .bee ""IS — mbe —*&w � 8eaetea hnn mmnmmt A'v.$q +Y+N 2A 2p+6 - wrdr roaa4mc NNaN ala a .V- a 2016 - .4. W—WW' #— ap AM J"W St. rt. 'r.4 V I" AR Nis - fOe.Zk.r 0►.,br0 014 M. 2014 7 kerrk/ b m./ tab errnrR, p u Wg.t=Pz: r W !0. N& �1W rev DtiGRb-.GALtltOlL q. a6we areroreas ..e m.e e AMY � R$0 N m. W+M N a aid "'� PAUL SORENSON PAM IIA$IeNOtpy AVE $0. A. wqN 4 .. mar _!m at. M hanv� ,sou ; �A SlA7E IOD M°' �3 N >< £ ,� CONSTRUCTION rA . (VW) 6020-0006 ( ) anr. sw Mid lsr6' PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www odffactorygom o � � ti. ti 1 81'0. �ad71on EXISTING HARDCOVER 130deng 1,952,7Sq.F1. Patios & Decks 875 Sq -Ft Total Hardcover 2,827.7 Sq.Ft- Lot Area 14.355 S Z of Hardcover = (19.7 9� 16' curb cut was provided when ,street was redone. 20%+ 4A lu Uot-S4B-69L MIMS d NW'SIIOdV3NNIW �N HIUON 3nN3AV H14E 9118 NMNxof•a dmiNd MOVON loallHOdtl rudas+maursaxn x mun xmrwruruan arswaans waa NOSNHOI"4 dllllHd w"rnY30ani'mesn'u""'nviiva"nA mwi d 0 16$ NW'VN143 d 3AIt10IS3NJ000M �N 30N3aIS321 A3SWtlb 3AV(3 a CoQ NOliDnIISNOD3N3DVNVD .�j OUO 30VNVD DNIISIX3 NOIIIOOV .9-161 .b-.6 m b33N3A Z' I JIDIN8.4 0OZ 0 F- J 1— f- _ Z J U� } m Z 'D z Z o ig a N N �I Z= LU p Lu u II I �a 00 3wSW ��3 Ma Acca 2U vN� .�j OUO 1IlVM301S DNIISIX3 hi "NIP, 0 a zQ r m� © I—�— � c U j ~� m m t� w u � oceZm m p O "5 z I ce m + �' w to oo r -I R- o 3>: I:`•i'' 1IlVM301S DNIISIX3 hi 01y o TiI ..............i m GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION D p ? DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE WOODCREST DRIVE A EDINA, MN 1 1 «wmmrnV3119q'IYamnun MIPCI i3PBnq 4O➢13f U111 to m 4 F-4"3'-6" N cW b C ....... ................................... R " o TiI ..............i m GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION D p ? DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE WOODCREST DRIVE A EDINA, MN 1 1 «wmmrnV3119q'IYamnun MIPCI i3PBnq 4O➢13f U111 to � � 1 N ,s b 9: y ....... ................................... �'4 2 G a V, PSS PHILLIP D. JOHNSON «wmmrnV3119q'IYamnun MIPCI i3PBnq 4O➢13f U111 to ARCHITECT $ N ,s b 55247 7W546.1072 ....... ................................... 2 G a 19'-6" O.A. PHILLIP D. JOHNSON «wmmrnV3119q'IYamnun MIPCI i3PBnq 4O➢13f U111 to ARCHITECT 911594TH AVENUE NOATH ND.30833 FKWPU.30HNm MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55247 7W546.1072 N GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE WOODCREST DRIVE EDINA, MN PHILLIP D. JOHNSON M&T S W 3.Y W a Y13 MR �1Y. P1{P ARCHITECT 3saxsa ulaartm Hma ra um o m mnawnwn3 911834TH AVENUE NORTH OU3 PHIWPD,)MK N MINNEAPOUS.MN 55247 783.545.1072 e GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION uiam+wmn lwFL%W fWAW pHILLIP D. JOHNSON "e DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE =Wwnmmmwwl 4iw10e1n w ARCHITECT WOODCREST DRIVE« rAmmumw7m 817634TH AVENUE NORTH EDINA, MN '10u' "°""4j01° ON MINNEAPOl19, MN 65247 763.545.1072 i L MATCH EXISTING CEILING ELEV( " 'MATCH EXISTING FLOOR ELEVATION _ ADJUST FLOOR ELEVATION AND WALL HEIGHT TO BOTTOM CHORD OF ATTIC TRUSS. BEDROOM / I 5'-0STING" OPENIWALL NG IN EXI STEEL BEAM. I GARAGE —4X4 ST. POST ON 8X8 CMU PIER FROM TOP OF EXISTING FTG. FILL CORES. "- WRAP POST AND BEAM W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. EXISTING GAR. FLR. ELEV. /PROPOSED GAR. FLR. ELEV. EXISTING CMU FOUNDATION & CONC. FTC. i UNDERPIN EXISTING FTG W/ 30" X 30" X 8" CON.0 PAD, 3 #5 REBAR EACH WAY 12" CMU FOUNDATION 8"X 20" CONC_ FTG. 1 SECTION THRU GAR BDRM A5 1/4" = 1'-0" Zommo (01--uj ,=I W EXISTING HOUSE BEYOND 2= Z °' �> r oir Q Z Da v i a J `* CABLE LOUVER-_- _ in a METALVENTED EXISTING ROOF TRUSSES sT9�gg z SOFFIT PANELS Ws 8 ."_ = ' 1'-0" 4� CRICKET BETWEEN NEW ROOFu 8� 3:�� i AND EXISTING HOUSE V o = m/3EN / MATCH EXISTING FLOOR ELEVATION ADJUST FLOOR ELEVATION AND 88= �o5d '0 u ' WALL HEIGHT TO BOTTOM CHORD / z _ OF ATTIC TRUSS. >m REMO EEXISTINGEXTERIOR - _ " - _ WALL. PPORT AS NECESSARY. — 14 STEEL BEAM. FliCONNECTION DETAIL BY STEEL SUPPLIER 'SHORE ST. BM. AND REMOVE STEEL POST ' 4X4 ST. POST ON 8X8 - 't;AMGE CMU PIER FROM TOP OF EXISTING FTG. FILL CORES. WRAP POST AND BEAM W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. -- �. U w-� ! EXISTING GAR. FLR. ELEV. Z Z w ' PROPOSED GAR. FLR. ELEV. ...................i.. -. _. . /EXISTING CMU FOUNDATION ....EXISTING w p F- w L& CONC. FTG. VERIFY ELEVATION Z w 12" CMU FOUNDATION B" X 20" CONC. FTG. UNDERPIN EXISTING FTG K u0 U Z `�` Q o ' W/ 30" X 30" X 8" CON.0 u O <I PAD, 3 #5 REBAR EACH WAY d j Zt Z 0 V p STEP FTG TO FTC NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING BUILDING MAR. 10-14 SECTION THRU GARBDRM HSE SECT. As 1/4„ _ 1•_Q.. A5 101 m o GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION D n DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE G o WOODCREST DRIVE a EDINA, MN �D`D D,r.Cn c iO Ni n {AZ :^Omn OI>O O 0 ax A 3zm =g< 00; O O z �IwBElY eEEnnnuttew nuc aEancmox PHILLIPD. JOHNSON aevwrwu reEeEEEo erMEOE uxouur ARCHITECT OWECfcwuwsaxum 714LIW� Wt7 IKEENc® MGNEtf YlElwl HE 4Nc Di TXE 00.1o°Faz u0L1 nnwvo. wsoN 011634TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55247 763-545.1072 31v DZp rOv ZZ Onz O �ZO ocIn Z 8 0 m a 4- BRICK " . 3'-0" n w LEDGE ( VERIFY m Ft t..� .�..� r ad r• �.__._.... S9 0 z Zm 8Z8X t W t. ebn , Non r r ZTv -04' Z001 mcZ�y?a AAo E r`� �z t t G) -� "-+- D A"�o�z '-q r r vett �co F — i ct 2 �jro. D ro�z r W� >D� Z�o1� zsml' r r w g (A� I I Amo czQAA 1 it, wC� l t � mQeea c � t- -1 A w m A{ OOm : n� t ro 1 Ai� Ti- a + r r r r r bei a ` 'r na F 4' BRICK LEDGE 9'-4' ADDITION 3 GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION OZ I �'� DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE Z o WOODCREST DRIVE A EDINA, MN PHILLIP D. JOHNSON 06"FPObTYLLf P"EIMgbT.¢wVWlq/(/ DMgf ARCHITECT WMCHnEpIWuiW"MTTHeuws ELA U oF =Effie .Quu ge 911634TH AVENUE NORTH W. 10873 WUP0.1OHNS04 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55247 763-545.1072 ledge 0 i ROOF FRAMING PLAN \,U2114%'= 1'-0" 00 CC cW =f° n ==za� o0WWO pari a � a w V O Z w 522 o Z w w ar 2 , Z Ix < 0 W'o ?i Z 00 wo MAR. 10-14 ROOFFRMG $Z i ra• S�S --� a 4 � ili EXISTING W,4 ST SM ��� Of (7" flange) i , j� �i VE RI FY DIMENSION o !i 7 ST. CONNECTION DET. O� e°� VERIFY EXISTING )sts BY ST. SUPPLIER FTG DEPTH t T 4.v 7 9 T.p.� •-- ------REMOVE ST -.POST ---------- --- 001 �Y R2" BELOW FSLRNG AB ; , 27(4 FRP LING ON 4X4 ST POST ON EMS CLG @ BRICK GE CONC. FTG &FOUNDATION 8 WALL FILL CORES. ZX4 ATTIC TRUSSES @ 16" O.0 R 7 O. DR. _Hs-._ _ 11- I'd 11— O.A.WIDTH n u u _ I'- ledge 0 i ROOF FRAMING PLAN \,U2114%'= 1'-0" 00 CC cW =f° n ==za� o0WWO pari a � a w V O Z w 522 o Z w w ar 2 , Z Ix < 0 W'o ?i Z 00 wo MAR. 10-14 ROOFFRMG $Z 5434 24.,,4200 5408 5404 5412 5412 5412 5413 < _ 4113 4015 _. i 5416 5417 5416 5417 r " t f5416 5420 5421 5420 i 5425 / 5427 5420 5424 5425 424 pad 33� 5428 5429 5428 # f 5429r�kl�C 437 ' 5428 ( -,: 5432 ; 5433 5432 5432 5436 5437 5436 5437 V' 5428 r �' _5440 5440 , D DfVER t7RIVF _ - I w, __. 5501 5500` 5560 5 5500 € 5501 5500 ! i x 5501 t f 5504 ,Uj . 5505 5504 5904 5505 !t 5504 i �r 5504 5508 p 5509 i 5508 5509 E (� r_ _ 5508 59D5 s 5508 _. Co 5512 ' 5513 t 5512 s 1 5508 5513 t 5513 5516 5517 551 ------ _ .- ``` 5512 � � � 5509 �. 5520 5520 5521 5520 __� �' S i �' 5517 ' 516 a� —� - - 8 a 5523 i, f 5515 c 5524 i 5525 5524 , 15521 _ 70 5528 s ! 4 5529 5528 (f ! 5527 An. � 5520 �F 5517 � � 1 - 5532 5533 5532 5533 I ��.. 5524 ,�' 241° 72 5521 1,� �65 5536 5537 5536 5537 5528 `- �. �4� 74 �`; �.. +u X 81 Parcel 19-028-24-11-0067 A-T-B: Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. /NN ID: Print Date: 8/13/2015Ownew Name:D C Ramsay/L Jackman Ramsay Market Parcel 5425 Woodcrest Dr Tax /11�f`���✓a2 �a Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: J 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: Homestead Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.33 acres Sale COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: 14,194 sq ft Code: A ThkrkGrretsnl All i v� a LA NIP- ° 5 5� �} tp Oc R s N o IR o^cD 9-1 c,CIL 5 r�- ¢5LA N (� LP LD, 1 v Maenner 5432 Woo crest n dina m herb.maennerOwmailxom 612-386-0090 July 13, 2015 City of Edina Planning Commission 4801 West 50`b Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Variance Request for Ramsay Home Via Email 5425 Woodcrest Drive Dear Planning Commission: We write to support the Ramsay Family's request for front -yard and side -yard setback variances to accommodate their proposed construction project. We support their request for the following reasons: 1. We believe the preservation of existing homes is as vitally important to our community as -the construction of replacement stock. The Ramsay home project preserves an existing and highly functional home; 2. We understand that the project is not possible without these variances. We support capital reinvestment in all property and wish to encourage their additional investment; 3. As across -the -street neighbors, we believe their project will continue a series of upgrades to the home, which have occurred over the past twenty years, all of which have improved its exterior appearance. In short, our view will be enhanced; 4. We believe the approval of their requests is an equitable solution to an evolving neighborhood. The new home to the east of the Ramsay's virtually doubled the size of the previous building footprint, while obscuring the Ramsay's view and enjoyment of the adjacent Minnehaha Creek. This expansion extended the home approximately 43 feet further than the previous home to accommodate new living space, which logically takes advantage of the view of the creek (to the detriment of the Ramsays; see attached exhibits.) The Ramsay's variance requests would allow for the addition of a mudroom and second floor addition, neither of which will detract from the neighbor's use, enjoyment or appeal of the home. The Ramsays have been good stewards of their property and its location along Minnehaha Creek. We support their desire to accommodate their growing family, and urge the Commission to approve their request. Sincerely, Paul and Sally Maenner Maenner Q O O U �Y a p^.f la a rG L v Fi R' June 30, 2015 T0; Planning Commission Edina City Council City of Edina Dear Members of the City Planning Commission: My wife and I, Jane, would like you to strongly consider the variance requested by Dave and Lisa Ramsay. The Ramsay's have lived in their present home for over 16 years. They have raised two exceptional children here and have always been the family who "shows up" — block parties, fundraisers, bar-b-q's, OTHER kids' hockey games, Memorial Day Celebrations — you name it, and the Ramsay family are there. We personally will never forget Dave and Cy walking house to house on the Minnehaha Creek last summer, sandbagging for each and every family who needed their help -- and this from a neighbor who's home wasn't affected by the heavy flooding. it is rare In a small neighborhood like ours to have such great people who consistently give to their friends in the neighborhood. So when the Ramsays request a variance to make their home more livable, you can be certain of one thing: Dave and Lisa have thought through the Impact of their request on their neighbors and have carefully and considerately put their ideas in front of people, and the reason for their decisions. They are responsible and caring citizens in a neighborhood where we value each other. Please know their variance request is a minor imposition on their neighbors and if you were to walk up and down our street, there would be nearly unanimous support for anything the Ramsays needed to improve the quality of their home. Please feel free to call me with any questions you might have. Sirpgrely, i Bob and Ja Murney WN� Edina q7too�dcarestDriv Ed, June 30, 2015 Members of the Planning Commission City of Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50'' Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Planning Commission Members, As a neighbor of the David Ramsey family at 5425 Woodcrest Drive in Edina, I am writing to express my very definite and enthusiastic support for the small addition of a mudroom to their existing home.. The Ramsey family has lived in this quiet, older residential neighborhood for many years. The small but needed mudroom addition they are hoping to build can, in my view, do nothing but enhance this neighborhood by bringing more architectural interest while honoring the classic style of their attractive older home. Unlike so many McMansions finding their way into our neighborhood, their plan simply adds very modestly to an existing structure without affecting site lines, views, light or privacy of adjacent neighbors on either side and/or across the street from_them. No trees would need to be removed; no huge boulders or unsightly fences would be installed. Nothing would change for anyone except that the four members of the Ramsey family would now have a little more elbow room. Their set -back from the street would be very much in keeping with the overall average set -back of houses along the street on either side. In all ways, I say YES! I heartily approve this simple, unobtrusive addition to Woodcrest Drive. I only wish more residents of Edina would simply consider enhancements to existing homes rather than destroying them for structures that do not assimilate, but rather serve only to create a far larger carbon footprint and impose sometimes heartbreaking privacy intrusions on close -by neighbors, all the while destroying the character of Edina's picturesque established neighborhoods. Good for the RamseysI Sincerely, Brenda B. Becker rA O N MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION CASE FILE: TO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PURPOSE: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: B-1643 Properties Within 200 -Feet Lisa and David Ramsay 5425 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN Lot 6, and the westerly 25.00 -feet of Lot 7, Block 1, Minnehaha Woods / A 5.6 -foot front yard garage and 2nd floor Wednesday, July 7:00 P.M. PLACE OF HEARING -council Chambers Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street variance for a 11� . HOW TO PARTICIPATE: *Submit a letter expressing your views, *Attend the hearing and give testimony, *Fax your views/952/826-0389 or, *E -Mail to lhoogenakker(&edinamn.nov FURTHER INFORMATION: Write City Hall Planning Department at 4801 West 50"' Street, Edina, MN 55424 or call (952) 826-0369 DATE OF NOTICE: :July 10, 2016 Larry Lomax �`7N! ;5!4 dC�^na,24 City of Edina Building/Zoning Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN RE: Ramsay Addition/Variance (5425 Woodcrest) To Whom it May Concern: I understand that our neighbors, the Ramsays, are attempting to obtain a small variance to allow for an improvement to their home at 5425 Woodcrest and I would like to voice my support for their plan. It pains me that so many houses are being torn down in our neighborhood to make way for giant houses, so I wholeheartedly support their plan to make small alterations to modernize their house. Granting a small variance to improve the flow and function of an existing house not only makes tremendous sense, but is also a more environmentally -friendly solution compared to tearing down the structure and starting over. Sadly, nearly every house sale in our neighborhood in recent years has resulted in the house being torn down and being replaced with a much larger structure. I would very much Like to see the City encourage and Incent more homeowners to rehab and retrofit their existing houses — by granting this variance, the City can take a step in that direction without any negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or any surrounding properties. Please look favorably on the Ramsays' request for a variance and approve their project —the neighborhood and our environment will thank you. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my thoughts on this matter. Regards, Ramsay's Variance Project To Whom it may Concern, July 1st, 2015 We are writing in support of the request for a variance for Lisa and Dave Ramsay in their building project on Woodcrest Drive. We live just down the road from their home and gone through several changes in the neighborhood that have been improvement to either rebuild or remodel the cureent homes on the block. Honestly, when we were house hunting back in 20og Lisa and Dave Ramsay told us how terrific the neighbors and neighborhood were based on their recommendation we purchesed the house and thank you to Ramsay. We are happy im Edina we also have a Business on 5oth and France. We feel that this variance and project that the Ramsay's are requesting would also be an improvement to the neighborhood as well as needed up date to their much beloved home. Any proposed inconvenience to this project would be very minimal and dealt with in the utmost respect as this family has lived in the community for many years and would like to keep The Intergrity that we all appreciate in Edina. This family helps a lot with diff -rent non profit organizationa as well as Edina Schools. Please consider this while you are making your decision and know we are not the only neighbors in support of their plan we appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. If you have a any quetions regarding this matter please fell free to contact us. You can always reach us on Jim & Deepali Roth o1 Woodvrest Drroe na, 55 Page i July 1, 2015 Planning Commission City of Edina 4801 West 50"' Street Edina, MN 55424-1394 Re: 5425 Woodcrest Drive Edina, MN 55424 Dear Sir/Madam, The purpose of this letter is to support the request for variances by Chris (Dave) and Lisa Ramsey. We are the husband and wife owners501 Par Place. In a neighborhood where most homes are being demolished in avor of new (bigger) construction, we support the Ramseys' desire to renovate their existing home for future use. We believe that the Ramsey's request is a modest and reasonable one and urge the planning commission to grant this variance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, #g.'z �,_, Mark R. Birchard a L. Clark Barb Wendt 516 Par Pace Edina, MN 5524" City of Edina Building Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN RE: Ramsay Addition and Variance request for 5425 Woodcrest To Whom it May Concern: 1 would like to register my support for the variance being requested by the Ramsays for their house at 5425 Woodcrest. I have seen their plans and understand that they only need a small variance on the side and front to enable them to make a much-needed mud room and garage addition. I know they want to stay in the neighborhood and they have been great friends and neighbors for many years. Unfortunately, the pattern in the neighborhood has lately been for people to sell their houses so that they can be torn down to put in giant houses that don't really fit in the existing housing mix. It would be so sad if the Ramsays had to leave because they were unable to make a small addition to their house while attempting to maintain the current character of their structure and the neighborhood. Please grant them the variance so that they can modernize their house and make it more livable, which would in turn allow them to remain in that house in this neighborhood. Compared to the many giant houses which have replaced the existing housing stock (including the house just next door to us which, although legal, has now blocked all of the southern/winter sunshine which previously made our dining and living rooms quite pleasant), the Ramsays small addition and variance seems a completely positive result with negligible impact on the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood. Please call or email me if you want to hear more of my thoughts on this matter — but I strongly support the Ramsays' request for a variance. Sincerely, ,(�4 W' Amy Scott 5609 Dever Driv Edina, MN 56444 Phone: 614-760-0 4 • - a► : yraescott(a�gmail.com Date: 6/29/2016 City Council of Edina Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter in support of the request for a city variance for the Ramsay addition on Woodcrest Drive. We have seen the plans and feel this proposal helps maintain the integrity of the neighborhood by preventing a tear-down/rebuild, which tends to disrupt the neighborhood and eliminate a lot of mature trees. This proposal is a small addition to the home to allow for a mudroom and updated garage on a lot that cannot support building in the backyard because of the hill and the creek. We hope that you will approve this variance to allow updating our current housing stock in the neighborhood and preventing more unnecessary and disruptive teardowns. Sincerely, Amy Scott Neighbor to the amsay family June 30, 2015 Members of the Planning Commission City of Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We're writing In support of two variances requested by the Ramsay family at 5425 Woodcrest Dr. After seeing the plans, we believe that the exceptions involved are reasonable, will enhance the street scene, and serve to retain these long time Edina residents. It seems that this project is a perfect example of why the variance process exists. The majority of the housing in our neighborhood dates from an earlier time. lifestyles and expectations have changed and housing should be able to change along with it. The alternative to granting minor variance requests like these would seem to be controversial replacement with new housing and new owners. We strongly support approval of these variance requests. Sincerely, Kim and Russ Strong 12 Park Place Edina, MN 55424 I Lisa & Chris, Mark sent this message tris )).ion° irag to the planning commission. I hope this helps. You have a lot of support from the neighbors who are also your friends. Marcy Begin forwarded message: From: Mark Swenson � � }r �c� fc1 e.�at,iEz> Subject: Ramsey residence variances Date: izxi �3(), F.',0V5, at 3:07:13 PM CDT To: 'Marcy Swenson' «;l z,+_ r Ui ;_� :f,!tz ..:ti-fli _...i:. it'- > Edina Planning Commission: I live a 501 Dever Driv few houses away from Lisa Ramsey. This is a letter of support for the variances that the amseys are requesting. These variances are very minor and do not take away light and view from the neighbor to the east. The new architectural expression is actually more consistent with the house to the east. i am speaking both as a neighbor and as an architect. I was the principal architect on the Westin Edina Galleria Hotel and am currently working the Edina's Grandview project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark G. 5,werisor. FA11f'-., 1 EED IAF' Principal and President Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. p: 612.3;'3.4625 e. C.tti.30,zo Jeremiah J. Kearney Pamela E. Kearney <--VVro'orcr—es7VW na, 424 July 1, 2015 Members of the Planning Commission City of Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: David and Lisa Ramsay Variance Request 5425 Woodcrest Drive Case No. B-15-13 Ladies and Gentlemen: Pamela Kearney and I have resided at 5420 Woodcrest Drive since 1988. Our home is directly across the street from David and Lisa Ramsay's home at 5425 Woodcrest Drive (the "Property"). We are writing to support the Ramsay's variance request, particularly the request for a minor variance for the front yard set -back. We believe that the Ramsay's proposed garage forward design is consistent with the designs of many of the new homes that have been built in our neighborhood, including the immediately adjacent property at 5427 Woodcrest (the Variance Application includes a picture of that adjacent property) and will therefore modernize the curb appeal of the Property. Completion of the proposed improvements will improve the streetscape from our "out the front door" perspective because the Ramsay's home will create eye appealing transition from the 3 bungalows immediately west of the Property to many rebuilds lying east of the Property. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the variance application because the proposed improvements are entirely consistent with, and do not alter, the essential character of the 5400 block of the Woodcrest neighborhood as it is evolving from bungalows to larger two stories homes. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Jeremiah J. Kearney Fwd: retaining wall Fwd: retaining wall Page 1 of 2 Delaie Reply Reply all Forward Mark as unread LR Wed 7/15/2015 12:18 PM Inbox To: Dave Ramsay; PIs print letter Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Mark Bretheim Date: July 14, 2015 at 7:35:27 AM CDT To: Cc: Subject: retaining wall Hi Lisa & David, Sorry we are out of town to deliver this in person. Jenny tried to reach you by phone yesterday but you were out. We thought we would send this mail so you can have a letter from us in support of your remodeling plans. I'm sure you will enjoy the modifications and I'm sure they will be in keeping with the character of our wonderful neighborhood. We find it incredible that the only negative feedback you are getting from the neighbors seems to be from the one house that was most egregious in its use of retaining walls. We were subjected to a wall on our lot line that goes from four feet to nearly 10 feet and filled it with dozens of dump truck loads of clay. (in fact the wall went over the lot line we discovered when we had a survey done after the work was done) (and the clay spilled over into our yard coating our backyard gardens) How could she possibly object to work six feet back from the lot line? You are welcome to take photos from our side of their property to show how it is odd for the "pot to call the kettle black" https://outlook.office365.com/owa/ 7/15/2015 Fwd: retaining wall Page 2 of 2 We can write a letter to the city - but we won't be back in town until next week. If you would like a letter we can draft one to attach to you that you can bring to the city -- otherwise we thought you could just print this mail out as a letter in support of the project. Good luck in the project. Jenn & retheim 29 Woodcrest Drive https://outlook.office365.com/owa/ 7/15/2015 .� .�� --� �L k a ry _� ,�.! '�!i, � ,�� w � �� �� rte,` + � �`.- � TO: The City of Edina Planning Department RE: Variance Request for 5425 Woodcrest Drive — Ramsay To the Planning Council - I am in full support of the Ramsay's proposed house project. They are trying to improve the home that they have lived in for 16 years with as little disruption as possible to the neighborhood. I believe that the addition they are proposing will not hurt the neighborhood in any way- it will make it more beautiful! Thank you for your consideration. Patrice Holton rest Dr Sent from my Whone Kristine Donatelle 5427 Woodcrest Drive Edina, MN 55424 August 21, 2015 Re: Opposition to Variance: 5425 Woodcrest Drive Dear members of the city of Edina Planning Commission: My name is Kristine Donatelle and I live at 5427 Woodcrest Dr. I am the east side - abutting neighbor and ask the Planning Commission to reject the variance for the proposed two-story front yard garage addition at 5425 Woodcrest Drive. Of all the neighbors, the Ramsays' proposed 23 -foot tall garage addition would most directly impact me and negatively impact my views, light, use and enjoyment of my property. My home is already tucked 14 -feet behind the face of the Ramsays' existing two-story garage structure and there is a grade change between our two properties supported by a 4 -1/2 -foot tall boulder retaining wall. This variance would bring the Ramsays' two-story garage forward an additional 9 feet on their steeply graded driveway, creating a massive 27 -foot tall wall of solid structure visible from the east side. (See attached photos with staked property line). This massive front yard garage addition will block light and views I enjoy up the street from the southwest side of my house. My home would effectively be backed into a tunnel and I would view at least 23 -feet of continuous building mass, including a steeply pitched 23 -foot tall gable roof, situated just six feet off my property line. The addition will cast a large shadow on my front yard, young trees, and mulch bed plantings. I have consulted with real estate appraisers who say this addition would significantly affect the use and enjoyment of my home and devalue it. My house was built in 2012 entirely in compliance with city zoning code requirements and my builder met with neighbors including the Ramsays to discuss our plans before construction. Though my home is new, it is just one story so it is built in proportion with the neighborhood. My lot is the deepest on this south side of the creek so it made sense to build further back somewhat, but my abutting neighbors also have deck structures that extend back even further than the back of my house. I designed my home within the zoning code requirements, not anticipating the code would be circumvented by an abutting property owner. This property owner has displayed no consideration for my concerns in their variance application. Nor have they considered reducing the scale of the roofline and height to try to accommodate my concerns. 1 Stormwater Concerns The design, height and steep pitch of their proposed roof just six -feet off my property line creates potentially significant storm water runoff and erosion issues for my property. Attached photos depict how close the existing garage stands to the staked property line. In a hard rainfall, water and debris would easily cascade off that roof and pour down into my property and landscaped mulch beds. The Ramsays have not presented any plan demonstrating how storm water would be safely directed away from my property and down to the curb. Their plans merely depict an above -ground drain spout on the east side within just a few feet of the lot line. Other Viable Options The Ramsays have other viable options such as building their mudroom addition on the backside of their garage where there is at least 8 feet of level grade (see Ramsays' East side elevation A4b), and at least 12.5 feet of access via the west side of their home. This would not obstruct views and light because it would be connected to the back of their home. The Ramsays even had an opportunity in the fall of 2011 to replace or upgrade their flagstone foundation to support a back exterior mudroom addition with the help of my building contractor, but they elected not to do so. Alternatively, the proposed roof design and second story addition is NOT an essential design element for the Ramsays' mudroom addition and it creates too many negative impacts. In fact, at a height of 23 feet and depth of 9 feet, the second story portion should be eliminated and the mass and scale of the roofline reduced. As designed, the addition's gabled roof is steeply pitched because it spans two garage stalls. It could be redesigned to lessen the impacts. Furthermore, the Ramsays have not attempted to include any design features, windows and landscaping to break up that continuous building mass visible on the east side. Expanding the Scope of Encroachment City Planning Commission members may not be aware that this variance would effectively expand the scope of a prior side yard setback variance approved for this garage in 1995. In 1983, the original one -car attached garage was expanded to two -stalls resulting in a 6.4 -foot sideyard setback. In 1995, the 5425 Woodcrest Drive property owner requested a side yard setback variance to build a second story addition above the garage. Meeting records show that city zoning board members expressed concerns then, which are just as relevant today: • "if the addition is approved it will create an imposing presence for the adjoining property. " • "after the addition is constructed it will tower over the adjacent home" • "the board must be careful not to allow additions to get out of hand and become invasive to our streetscape" • "the roof pitch, and its presence from the street, is extreme." 2 • "...very concerned with the mass of the addition" Those same concerns apply here. This front yard addition would intrusively project out an additional 5.6 feet closer toward the street than the 34.2 -foot average front street setback for abutting properties. It also creates 23 -feet of uninterrupted building mass visible along the east side. This is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Some neighbors have sought to compare the Ramsays' proposed garage design with my garage. Theirs is not comparable because my garage complies with the 10 -foot side yard setback. The additional 4 feet of side setback makes a significant difference for storm water control and my garage sits no further forward than the abutting garage. I have 9 -inch wide gutters to capture the runoff and an underground drainage system to the curb. Furthermore, my assymetrical garage roofline only spans one garage stall — it's not as tall or severely pitched as the Ramsays'. My driveway is not as steep as the Ramsays'. Lastly, this variance is not necessary to preserve existing housing stock and avert the "tear down trend." The Ramsays can still make exterior improvements to their driveway and build their mudroom addition on the back of their home without need for a variance. Improvements can viably be made that comply with the zoning code and do not block light and views and encroach upon abutting properties. I would welcome those improvements as well! Sincerely, Kristine Donatelle 5427 Woodcrest Drive � ` ` � ��.r � ��� � �r � �� � � ti� �, . Y t{` � � y ,, s .� � x y.. r t7i EAST ELEVATION 4 I / 8" 1'-0" -------- D, ;O( ZF OF Y( ICE AND W ON ROOF l EXTERIOR 1 GUTTER AND DOWNSPC MASONRY VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSI ENTRY STEP BEYOND BITUMINUS DRIVE 12" CMU FOUNDATION 8" X 20" CONC FTG .... - ,,,� , rte' '�jjj•�t::.:�:'.::•:.'.'.':.�. ui•r Z '�Ir9 FRr'J ,tl: IL,l a.In� xo. _ �rMiw:Ff f, tf,•:1 :ii'i`ii; . • r ".� :• •• I. '.. Cl C .t,• acssi�G.aOFL�a: ".......1...ice ___-=i• Cl a0 N nD �r z nn r- o;a x —-- °v, Or Clrn C) N Ln ' 1f• -J .n NrntlS rrr»»rr.nn a'w"LFJ»».moi °o 1 a liid�:Ftl�1�F r 1 •i ii.vr ri eia i ivin cir .iY.. n....' • rw•f»r' •� iJ Lliai:ii •WY,JI a -JJ �t r��i +h'4w iLa�Me{you r YbYt �'ia.J µ:'yr{�i� b/4�:et �arn ilo�iin'-iMA. �l 4t Jr"i S` i i� lid_. s • ti � rveJ°1.fi.iee ' !Y•� u���i»f:u: li'�i%.ru�J eu,•u.J •— 1 lir-nrtl; •s'u i're,J»r.�lai�-=? Lr: -F .In nl"Yn» i or:vi p.`�usY.'. +nJ-•i � rn'ae i �l''�n."9999 rn D GARAGE RECONSTRUCTION DAVE RAMSEY RESIDENCE -p o WOODCREST DRIVE m < EDINA, MN r- o;a x —-- °v, Or Clrn C) N Ln °o n OWs or IId ` Yhg�Tl 1 H Rp pia ni 1 1 ' 1 HEREBY CERTIFYTHATTHIS PLAN, SPECIRCATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TBAT I AN A DULY LISCENSED ARCHFiECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WiNESOTA NO. 10823 PHILLIP D. JOHNSON PHILLIP D. JOHNSON ARCHITECT 9116 34TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 65247 763-545-1072 Larkin n Hoffman ATTORNEYS August 21, 2015 Edina Planning Commissioners Attn: Cary Teague City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Opposition to Variance: 5425 Wooderest Drive Our File #38,589-00 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Larkin Hoffman 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060 GENERAL: 952-835-3800 rnx: 952-896-3333 Wra: www.larkinhoffinan.com Via Email and US Mail This firm represents Kristine Donatelle, the owner of 5427 Wooderest Drive, in the City of Edina (the "City") with regard to the variance application (the "Variance") by David and Lisa Ramsay (together, the "Applicant") to construct a second story addition (the "Addition") in the required interior side yard at 5425 Wooderest Drive (the "Property"). Approval of the Variance will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of Ms. Donatelle's property, which immediately abuts the Property. Based on the inability of the Applicants to meet the variance findings required under Minnesota law and the City ordinance, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the Variance. Introduction and Background The proposed Addition would extend the Applicant's two-story, two -car garage an additional 9.4 feet towards the front property line. The existing structure consists of a two -car garage with a full second story of living space above the garage. In 1983, the garage was expanded to two stalls resulting in the current 6.4 -foot side yard setback from the property line. In 1995, the owner of the Property applied for a side yard variance to construct the existing second floor within the required interior side yard at the same 6.4 -foot setback. The 1995 variance was initially proposed at the Zoning Board of Appeals in September 1995, but failed to gain approval due to concerns about the massing and height impacts of the addition on the adjacent property. The application was continued until October 1995 and, despite the concerns of multiple commissioners, the variance was approved subject to the condition that required "two casement windows installed in the garage wall." .See attached Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes, dated Sept. 21, 1995, and Oct. 5, 1995. It should be noted that the current garage does not have any windows and therefore does not comply with the 1995 variance condition. The resulting addition was a twenty-five (25) -foot tall building wall that now looms over Ms. Donatelle's property. Given the City's flexible calculation of the front yard setback ordinance, the proposed Addition will project approximately 5.6 feet further beyond the average setback of the two immediately adjacent properties, and approximately twenty-three (23) feet beyond the fi-ont building wall of the habitable Edina Planning Commission August 21, 2015 Page 2 portion of Ms. Donatelle's home. The proposed second story would again be constructed within the required side yard and create additional massing at a height of approximately twenty-three (23) feet, on top of a four (4) -foot retaining wall. However, with the proposed additional four (4) -inch brick fagade the one (I) -foot eave projection, the Variance would even further decrease the existing 6.4 - foot setback. If approved, the Addition will be only approximately six (6) feet from the property line on the first floor and 5.4 feet from the property line on the second floor. Variance Standard and Findings Under both Minnesota Statutes section 462.357, subd. 6(2) and Edina Code of Ordinance (the "City Code") section 36-98, a variance request must be predicated on "practical difficulties" in meeting the municipality's ordinance standards. This must be demonstrated by meeting the required findings under the City Code. Minnesota courts will reverse a zoning authority's decision, including a variance, if the decision is arbitrary and capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious where it is based on insufficient evidence or arises from a failure of the zoning authority to apply relevant provisions of the zoning ordinance. In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008). As is described below, the Applicant has not satisfied the conditions necessary to approve the Variance under state law or the City ordinance. Therefore, we respectfully request that this Variance be denied. 1. The Variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code Chapter 36. The purpose of Chapter 36 of the City Code is to "establish minimum requirements for [zoning] districts as to the location, height, parking, landscaping, bulk, mass, building coverage, density and setbacks of buildings and structures." City Code § 36-4 (emphasis added). As proposed, the Variance would contradict the intent and purpose of the City Code and further reduce the ten (10) foot "minimum" side yard setback and establish additional height and massing at a distance that is even less that the existing 6.4 feet setback from Ms. Donatelle's front yard. Side yard setbacks are established to create minimum separations between properties and to preserve access to light and air between adjacent uses. By approving the Variance, the Planning Commission would directly contravene this intent by allowing the construction of a structure that would rise approximately twenty-seven (27) feet above the first floor and project approximately twenty-three (23) feet beyond the habitable portion of Ms. Donatelle's home. Granting the Variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code. 2. If granled, the Variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, the Variance would be inconsistent with policies and guidelines established in the Comprehensive Plan (the "Comp Plan"), including guidelines for low-density residential design that call for "design standards that guide the stepping back of building mass and height from adjacent residential buildings." Comp Plan 4-42. As proposed, the Addition would not step back building mass and height, but increase building mass and height at a setback that is even less than the -current 6.4 -foot setback. The Variance would also conflict with Comp Plan policy 4.4(2), to "protect and preserve the essential character of existing residential neighborhoods." Comp Plan 4-21. As Edina Planning Commission August 21, 2015 Page 3 proposed, the Variance would alter the character of the immediate neighborhood by dramatically towering over Ms. Donatelle's front yard and further reduce the existing setback. Practical difficulties, as described under Minnesota law and City Code Section 36-98 do not exist based on the following required findings: a. The Property owner proposes to use the Property in a manner that is unreasonable given the reasonable alternatives. The Variance would effectively expand the scope of the original 1995 variance by adding a substantial amount of additional height and massing to the structure in the required interior side yard. The existing massing and height in the side yard is detrimental to the use and enjoyment of Ms. Donatelle's property, and the Applicant proposes to further expand the structure into the required setback, despite the minimum setback requirements. 'The request for yet another variance to increase the building mass in the required yard is not a reasonable request given the impacts on the adjacent property. The Addition dramatically expands the building mass in the front and side yard despite reasonable alternatives. The Property can and is being put to reasonable use without the Variance. Viable and reasonable alternatives exist for building additional habitable space on the rear of the house behind the garage that would not obstruct views. Despite the Applicant's contentions, the slope and creek do not prevent the Applicant from building towards the rear, as the grade is level enough directly behind the garage for the proposed mudroom addition that the Applicant asserts necessitates the Variance. An existing 800 -square foot deck extends towards the rear of the Property on the same slope. Additionally, the Property provides at least 12.5 feet of access along the west property line, which is enough room to get building equipment to the back of the lot. In light of the alternatives, the proposed Addition is unreasonable. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the landowner and not unique to the Property, The circumstances requiring the Variance are directly related to the aesthetic desire of the Applicant, and not the Property itself. These are not circumstances that are unique to the Property, but unique to the Applicant's aesthetic tastes, as reasonable alternatives not requiring the Variance exist. The Applicant is seeking the Variance to expand further into the required side yard, beyond the existing 1995 variance, predicated on the location of the existing structure. However, to contend that the approval of the 1995 variance somehow justifies the approval of yet another variance is nonsensical. To follow such logic would result in a cycle of unfettered and arbitrary granting of variances with no regard to the current City Code. The variance, if'granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. If approved, the proposed Addition will substantially alter the essential character of the immediate vicinity and be detrimental and injurious to Ms. Donatelle's use and enjoyment of her property. The proposed twenty-three (23) -foot tall Addition would be constructed above the existing four (4) -foot tall retaining wall and will therefore rise approximately twenty-seven (27) feet above Ms. Edina Planning Commission August 21, 2015 Page 4 Donatelle's front yard, spanning twenty-three (23) feet beyond her front window. The result is a massive blank building wall and steeply pitched roof with zero windows or building openings that is even closer than the existing 6.4 -foot setback from the property line. The massing will substantially alter the essential character of Ms. Donatelle's property and of properties in the vicinity. Additional Issues The proposed Addition raises many concerns for Ms. Donatelle that should be addressed through conditions before any permit approval moves forward. The extreme gable height and proposed 12/14 roof pitch should be lowered and any building addition should include underground stormwater controls to the curb to reduce the likelihood of runoff or erosion damage. The stormwater issue is a major concern in light of the substantial elevation of the Addition over Ms. Donatelle's property; the proposed one (I) -foot eave projection, which terminates at only 5.4 feet from the property line; and the severe 12/14 roof pitch. These factors will combine to dramatically increase stormwater runoff that will adversely affect Ms. Donatelle's property and increase the likelihood of runoff or erosion damage. At a minimum, design elements like windows and landscaping should also be required to increase aesthetics and break up the building mass on the east side of the structure. As it exists today, the house is noncompliant with the 1995 variance conditions, which required the installation of "two casement windows installed in the garage wall." The only windows provided are located on the second floor. Any addition, whether one or two stories should be conditioned on compliance with the original approvals and the proposed massing should be softened with additional windows, architectural features, or landscaping. In light of the inability of the Applicant to meet the required findings and the structure's . noncompliance with the existing 1995 variance conditions of approval, we strongly encourage the Planning Commission to deny the Variance. Please contact me with any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Jacob W. Steen, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3239 Direct Fax: 952-842-1738 Email: jsteen@larkinhoffman.com cc: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Plainer Kristine Donatelle Enclosures 4845-1147-8567, v. 4 City of Edina October 5, 1995 Marcia Winnick 5425 Woodcrest Drive Edina, MN 55424 Re, B-95-41, A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for building height for Lot 6, and the west 25 feet of Lot and Block 1 , Minnehaha Woods Dear Ms. Winnick: This letter is to inform you your request for the above referenced variance has been heard and approved. The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Thursday, October 5, 1.995, and issued the enclosed Order. Your next step is to apply for a building permit. Please feel free to contact the Building Department if you have questions on the permitting process. If you have any questions regarding the variance process feel free to call Kris Aaker or me at 927-8861. Sincerely, Jackie Hoogenakker Zoning Board of Appeals 1 City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927-7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 927-5461 CITY OF EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PLANNING # B-95-41 IN RE PETITION OF: Marda Winnick, A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for 5425 Woodcrest Dr. For a variance under Ordinance No.'s 850, R$9*XxmdxA)6i The above entitled Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Edina at a regular (V4WZ) meeting thereof has duly considered the above Petition and after hearing, and examining all of the evidence and the file herein does hereby: FIND AS FACT: 1. Petition filed September 6 iy�ti 2. Fee paid $100'.00 on Spnite Pr 6 14A� 3. Notice Mailed September ?S, 1995 4. The proposed variance would: A. Relieve an undue hardship X B. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to the other property in X the vicinity of zoning district. — C. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. X D. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning X district. — CONCLUSIONS: 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The variance should �" be granted as requested. PLANNING # B-95-41 3. Conditions to the granting of said variance Subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials and the installation of casement windows(2) in the garage (side elevation) 4. This order shall be effective October 4, 1994 r however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall have commenced within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. ZONG BOARD OF AP EALS By: G r DATED: October 4, 1995 Order Mailed to Petitioner O(::tober ' , 1995 Time to appeal expires October 14 , 1995 . (Notice of Appeal shall prevent the issuance of a building permit until said Appeal has been determined.) MINUTES OF THE, REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5,1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson, Nan Faust, Ann Swenson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the August 3, 1995, meeting were filed as submitted H. OLD BUSINESS: B-95-41 Marda Winnick 5325 Woodcrest Drive Request: A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker explained at their September 21, 1995, meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the above mentioned request. A board member moved for variance approval, the motion failed on a split 2-2 vote (two in favor and two opposed). The board allowed the applicant to continue the request to another hearing. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the variance request subject to the use of matching materials and subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Winnick was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Utne said she visited the area and found that very similar conditions exist for some property owners in the vicinity. Mrs. Faust added she also visited the site, and in her opinion the proposed addition would tower over the house next door as mentioned by the previous board. Ms. Winnick explained the most impacted neighbor has indicated their support for the addition, adding a majority of the neighbors have indicated to her that they never liked the flat roof. Concluding, Ms. Winnick said the proposed addition changes the roof line to match the house, and is in keeping with the character of the house. Mrs. Clemetson, 5427 Woodcrest Drive told the board she is the most impacted neighbor and Minutes of the Zoning Board Page 2 December 5, 1995 reiterated that she supports the proposal, and has never liked the existing flat roof. Mrs. Faust said her. concern is with the building mass, and wall length, and asked if it would be a problem to install windows in the garage to break up the mass. Ms. Winnick said it would not be a problem to add windows to the garage wall. Mrs. Faust interjected that she would like to see good casement windows added with grid work to match the existing house. Mrs. Utne acknowledged that the addition will be higher than what is existing, but in her opinion altering the flat roo£is an aesthetic improvement. Mrs. Swenson interjected that she believes she addition will visually impact the neighborhood. Neighbors will notice the change. Mrs. Faust moved variance approval subject to the plans presented with the following conditions; 1) addition of two casement windows installed in the garage wall, and 2)the use of matching materials, both roof and siding. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. MEMO To: Members of the Zoning Board From: Kris Aaker Subject: 5425 Woodcrest Drive/B-95-41 Date: September 29, 1995 . At their September 21, 1995, meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the above mentioned request. A board member moved for variance approval, the motion failed on a split 2- 2 vote (two in favor and two opposed). The board allowed the applicant to continue the request to another hearing. Attached for reference are the following: Staff Report Plans and drawings Draft meeting minutes ofthe September 21, 1995 Zoning Board meeting Draft minutes zoning board meeting September 21, 1995 B-95-41 Marda Winnick 5425 Wooderest Drive Lot 6, and the West 25 feet of Lot &, Block 1, Minnehaha Woods Zoning: R-1 Request: A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located North of Woodcrest Drive and South of west 54th Street. The property backs up to Minnehaha Creek and consists of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The home originally had a one car attached garage with a sideyard setback of 14.4 feet. In 1983 the addition of a second stall was attached to the garage to accomplish a two car garage. The addition resulted in a 6.4 foot sideyard setback. Ms. Aaker explained the property owner hopes to remove an existing porch above a portion of the existing garage and replace it with a master bedroom that includes a bath and porch. The required setback for the addition is 13.2 feet due to the height of the side building wall of 21.25 feet. Ms. Aaker pointed out the neighborhood in which the property is located is a mixture of housing styles and lot configurations. The home is located on a lot that backs up to Minnehaha Creek with the lot sloping quite dramatically from front to rear, which makes an addition to the rear of the home difficult. Ms. Aaker concluded given the steep slopes in the rearyard area and support of the neighbors, staff supports the request. The proponent, Ms. Winnick and Mr. Erickson, her architect were present to respond to questions. Mr. Johnson questioned Ms. Aaker about the windows, adding they appear to be similar to the existing windows. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct, the existing windows will be re- used. Ms. McClelland asked if the same elevation is being implemented for the roof. Ms. Winnick explained the pitch of the roof will generally be the same, but will be slightly lower. Mr. Erickson explained to members of the board one reason for the addition being located in this location is due to the number of trees located in the rear yard. Continuing, Mr. Erickson said if the addition were constructed toward the rear of the lot, a large number of trees would be lost. Ms. McClelland explained her concern is focused on the roof line, and the mass it presents, and questioned if anything can be done to soften the mass of the roof. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion the design of the roof blends well with the existing roof. Mr. Workinger said in reviewing the proposal he observed he has concerns with the elevation contrast between adjoining homes. He pointed out the property next door (south east side) to the addition will be compromised because of the mass of the addition. Continuing, Mr. Workinger said after the addition is constructed it will impose on the entire neighborhood. Ms. Winnick explained the house was originally constructed across the lot to maintain the character of the rearyard area. Ms. Winnick added the house is not large, and the porch that is being converted into living area is already existing. Ms. Winnick pointed out in her opinion as you travel down the street there are homes that have been added to, and are as imposing, as indicated, this house will be. Continuing, Ms. Winnick said it is her desire to add an office, and a functional bathroom constructed to meet her needs. Ms. Winnick concluded explained another issue she considered when redesigning an addition was for her safety. She explained it is her desire to have her sleeping area on the 2nd floor for safety reasons. Mr. Johnson explained to Ms. Winnick if she is going to work out of her home, she needs to be aware to the home occupation portion of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lewis said he does not have a problem with the proposal. He stated he believes the roof line matches the existing house, the placement of the addition makes sense because it retains the character of the rearyard area, and does not negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of like materials. Mr. Workinger said he is very concerned with the impact this propoerty will have on the adjoining property. He reiterated there is a grade change which will create an imposing present to the neighboring property. Continuing, Mr. Workinger said while he believes expansion opportunities should be allowed to residents, he cannot the support the request as proposed. Ms. McClelland stated she agrees with Mr. Workinger, adding she is very concerned with the mass of the addition, commenting in her opinion we must be careful we do not allow additions to get out of hand and become invasive to our streetscape. Ms. McClelland added the architect should look into the possibility of redesign. Mr. Johnson pointed out as he views the plan the only adjustment that can be made would be to shorten the size of the room, which may or may not be a viable solution. Ms. McClelland reiterated the roof pitch, and its presence from the street, in her opinion is extreme. She asked if the roof really needs to be that high. a AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IIELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS SCHEDULED TO ATTEND: I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 3, 1995 H. OLD BUSINESS: Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Len Olson, Nan Faust B-95-41 Marda Winnick 5425 Woodcrest Drive Request: A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for building height III. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-35 Lee S. Chapman 7032 Wexford Request: A 2.16 foot sideyard setback variance B-95-45 . Chris and Barb Hayhoe 4211 Morningside Road Request: An 8.8 foot sideyard setback variance B-95-46 Kelsey and Patricia Smith 4801 West 44th Street Request: A 7.81 foot rearyard setback variance B-95-47 G. Charles Hann 5615 Woodcrest Drive Request: A 398 square foot lot coverage variance October 19, 1995 CITY OF EDINA MEMO; City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861 w91��1•�, Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com a $� Date: August 26, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review — NW Corner of 66th Street and Xerxes The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 5.6 acre parcel at 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street West. (See property location on pages A1— A3.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings and redevelop the site with the following two phase development: Phase 1 (3250 66th Street West): A 6-7 story, 230 -unit apartment building. Six floors of housing above the parking and amenities area. Phase 2 (6650 Xerxes Avenue): ➢ A 5-6 story, 145 -unit apartment building. Five and four floors of housing above the parking and amenities area. See plans and narrative on pages A6 -A24. The primary entrance to the site would be off Xerxes Avenue. There is a secondary access available off of York. Both of these access points exist today. There is a shared access arrangement with the adjacent property owner at 3316 66th Street west. That shared access would also remain. To accommodate the request, the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: ➢ Re -guiding of the site from RM, Regional Medical to CAC, Community Activity Center. The proposed height (7 stories) and density (66 units per acre) would meet the standards of the CAC. A rezoning of all the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development is requested. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO This property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. (See page A15.) The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a Small Area Plan rests with the City Council." The City Council is therefore requested to determine if a Small Area Plan is necessary. A study is currently underway in this area as part of the Planning Commission's work plan. The France Avenue Southdale Area Development Principles have been shared with the applicant. They have been asked to address each of the principles with any formal application. (See principles on pages A25 -A27.) This corner is seen as a Gateway into the Southdale Area from the north and east. (See the Southdale and the corresponding CAC area on page A5.) Therefore, re -guiding the corner to the same land use designation as all the uses south of 66th Street would seem appropriate. Staff would also recommend re -guiding the three small adjacent sites at 6444, 6500 and 6525 Xerxes to CAC as part of this request. (See page A3.) The compliance table below demonstrates how the proposed new building would comply with the current zoning of POD -3, Planned Office District: * Variance or would reaulre chance to PUD *` Council may approve subject to proximity to utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and Impact on adjacent roads. Other desired Items to allow greater density or density on the high end of the residential housing range above, would Include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, provision of public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height— 2008 Comprehensive Plan City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Gity Standard Pob Propos$d Building Setbacks Front — 66 75+ feet 20-30 feet* Street/Xerxes 75+ feet 30+1- feet* Side — West 65+ feet 5+/ --feet* Side - East 65-75+ feet 80 —15+/ --feet* Rear — North Building Height 12 stories 6-7 stories Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.5% 1.8%** FAR) Density 80 units per acre for senior 66 housing (Regional Medical designation) Parking Stalls 375 enclosed (residential) 575 enclosed stalls proposed 38 surface (1 stall per bedroom) Parking Stall Size 8.5'x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance or would reaulre chance to PUD *` Council may approve subject to proximity to utilities capacity, level of transit service available, and Impact on adjacent roads. Other desired Items to allow greater density or density on the high end of the residential housing range above, would Include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, sustainable design principles, provision of public art, pedestrian circulation, and podium height— 2008 Comprehensive Plan City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO The proposed uses would be a significant upgrade to the current buildings on the sites. TRAFFIC/SITE ACCESS A traffic study would be required to determine the impacts on adjacent roadways. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The applicant is not proposing any affordable housing as part of this project. Given housing policy under consideration by the City Council; this project should be required to provide affordable housing consistent with the policy or 20% of the units designated for affordable housing. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN As part of any formal application sustainable design should be included. PUD The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO w91�,1� Cn e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposed project would incorporate some of the items noted above. Affordable housing and sustainable design should be addressed. Elements that are included would be high quality building design; pedestrian oriented design; underground parking, close proximity of housing to transit, retail area and jobs, which could result in less dependence of the automobile for residents; housing within a mixed use area; mixture of podium height at the street; activity along the street. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 X .� i 3 r � tit nn i - r 1 Y r 1 • li # ! = ; iU1lI 'a "ti` '>•` 0 rglHfrlRF T\VE51 �' fi S �r ' tt,1t1�.� .Lift' J _ r S t rC2NuSrREET v.ET,rf1rr rf nt hP1<. „ (r7irEHliHlvarpz _ r< t f HEP.i"R rAi r r kw' T- _�� C3RG TPEETI Fol S 3w f I-- i7 _.z.. tt i Tf t T Zi ' CAiH fp F.ET>, r5l Z' 4 3 Gho 5t cETLVES't � T ( o' tE#t{ f i z P*k ro J�___. z ` - , f-'��...'<� �, ti4 'b�TM _ REE � �l -i i q ' JQ� T rsT tvrsY .' : ! i, r It '• t �Q`Mi..r i f A ,. �''°4.. 11 yr �Z� 4'- S ^.8 � �� �. �TNEECY7E5t FOREST ORI F VYE•�1 C... t ;i` TT ; b81H.57 EE7 % ESf _ Zf D9tH STREEt OVE 9. Z k {f 77 E " I{, z F t trl STREET'r51 2 wr: ¢ Q } r�r�Tre tareir: sr t� i N t, � �TSTisT�rF`t � a H�zEErksrtr.�ar ti�ai'i # 1'I { i STREETVlf ST > --- _ i c. t Tri ETV FS7. X _ 1 !� O�41 —14 > > I r r,E r�,��...1�� 73RP SI RL C1fl FST ?''r� Kly E "r�Er j s F � fir. 1 .: j :. Z d ! ` 1 3 JI, 4 I., 3', ki�taji#f'iZ«��1ii''3 U., slxi # �I --- 3�.G it1 W tI Parcel 29-028-24-24-0005 A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" - 1600 ft. N ID: Print Date: 8/19/2015 ONawner 3250 West 66Th Street Uc Martkaelt $ w Parcel 3250 66Th St W Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: ProTpyp Commercial -Non Preferred Price This map Is a compilation of data from various sources and is fumished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Non -Homestead Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 2.46 acres Sale COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: 107,352 sq ft Code: A Think Green! 4a A3 AVA Figaro 4A e City of Edina Conceptual Land Use Framework: . 2008 Comprehensive Pian Update potential Areas of Change Date of Aeda/ Photography: August 2006 r -L -n -i -I ® 0 0.5 Maes Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design G 4-33 tIf- Future Land Use Plan with City of Edina Building Heights 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Southeast Quadrant Figure 4.6B Data Source: URS e 0 05 AN" Developer: Prepared by: A P P I I (A'Ai Residential Redevelopment at 66th & YORK Edina, MN Sketch Plan Review August 12, 2015 Project Narrative DLC Residential, LLC 21500 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, FL 33180 Local Minnesota Office: 5245 Wayzata Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Rich Kauffman, 612.325.9767 Elness Swenson Graham Architects (ESG) Dennis Sutliff, AIA, AICP, 612.373.4624 Kimley-Horn Luke Payne, 507.21(6.6210 A Nrd'(dIlJ t A. DEVELOPER Since 2004, DLC Residential has been developing and constructing income properties in the strongest emerging markets across the United States with over 4,000 completed units. By focusing on integrity, cost controls and careful market research, DLC Residential has created tangible assets and real cash flow resulting in viable investments and industry-leading returns. B. REQUESTED ACTIONS While this is a Sketch Plan review and no formal action is being requested at this time, as this project moves through the Entitlement Process, we anticipate the following actions will be required: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Site Plan Approval Others TBD The development applications for 661h & York Residential Redevelopment Plan will follow the following proposed approval schedule: Introductory Meeting with City Staff August 4, 2015 Completed Sketch Plan Review— Planning Commission August 26, 2015 Concept Plan Review— City Council September 1, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting TBD EQ Kick -Off Meeting with City Staff TBD GO Additional Staff meetings TBD��� Formal Application TBD included in this submittal are the following: • Twenty copies of this Project Narrative. G • Twenty copies of Preliminary Plans and 3-1) images. C. PROJECT LOCATION The project site lies in the north-west quadrant of the intersection of York Avenue and West 661 Street. As such, it is a "Gateway Site" to the France Avenue, Southdale Area and responds to many of the Working Principles that have been put forward as goals for future development for that area. D. PROPERTY The project site is currently platted as three lots totaling 264,250 square feet or 5.65 acres in total E. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Residential Redevelopment at 661 & York will be accomplished in two Phases. Phase I will occur on Parcel 2 and 3 and will consist of a 230 unit rental apartment building and two levels of underground parking. The existing Titus Building will remain in place on Parcel 1 until Phase 11 is commenced. Phase 11 will include the demolition of the Titus Building and the construction of a second rental apartment building containing 145 units and two levels of underground parking. Phase II will complete the composition of two buildings on the combined sites. In doing so, it will transform the current auto -centric office development characterized by surface parking lots one, fully integrating site with well-defined open spaces, pedestrian features and on site amenities. The majority of the apartment units will be one, one -plus and two bedrooms. There will be a small number of Studio/Alcove apartments and a small number of three bedroom apartments. 661' & York Page 2August 12, 2015 Sketch Pian Review Two levels of underground parking will be reserved for the residents. Surface parking will serve their guests. The preliminary metrics for this development, broken out by phase are contained in the table at the end of this narrative. As this Sketch Plan submittal is preliminary in nature, the floor areas, unit mix and the parking counts may change as the result of future design refinements. F. VISION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE DLC Residential is proposing to produce exactly the kind of vital, transformative and precedent - setting, redevelopment at the corner of 66" and York that is envisioned by City's Working Principles for the France Avenue, Southdale Area District. The vision for 660, & York is to begin the transformation of this site by bringing 24/7 life and vitality to what is currently a traditional, auto - oriented, single use, office environment. 66th & York will strive to upgrade the pedestrian environment of its site surrounding public realm in a manner which can be emulated throughout the remainder of the district in the future. It will provide new options for the emerging residential markets and 2111 century lifestyles that are needed by Edina to remain an attractive home for the community's next generation of citizens. It will create a one -of -a -kind, luxury residential community that is short supply today. This is a unique opportunity that many municipalities actively seek when soliciting redevelopment proposals. This redevelopment will address the objectives of the France Avenue, Southdale Area District and benefit the residents and visitors of Edina, adjacent property owners and tenants in the following ways: • Land Use. City staff delivered a strong message. They believe this redevelopment project should be a "precedent setter" in the Southdale area. It should point the way to how this entire district can be redeveloped as a new, walkable neighborhood of higher density uses, high quality architecture and attractive pedestrian features. • Artful Building Design. 66th and York is a "foreground" site within the District. As such, the design of the improvements on this site demands a presence and creativity that is commensurate with Its prominent position in the District. While the buildings must function efficiently, they will fulfill their role as Foreground buildings with creatively sculpted profiles and massing and with high quality materials. The primary street frontages are animated with dramatic by step -backs, terraces and greened roof edges. Indoor and outdoor spaces containing "human Activity" are located on exterior and interior street fronts. Linear elements of the building facades are punctuated with projecting masses that alternate back and forth across the landscaped Interior streetscape. Inviting Public Realm. A creative approach to the shaping the spaces between buildings is a key element of successful residential communities. This is especially true at 66th & York which cannot be characterized today as being "pedestrian -friendly." When complete, 661h & ,l�,yk will a great variety of outdoor rooms and spaces. The very busy and energetic York Q venue street front capped by activity spaces at each end will be defined by 3-dimensional ' �V pedestrian improvements along is length. This will create a pedestrian friendliness that O does not exist today and will define the site's outer edge. It will also help to calm the interior of the site. Once inside, residents and guests will experience no fewer than five distinct outdoor spaces — including the paver -rich, parking court. These spaces are shaped by the building masses, each with its own unique scale and character. The interior street with its parallel parking, benches and pedestrian -scaled light fixtures will create calm and Inviting central spine with a true residential character. • Land Use: Live -able Precincts. Positioned within France Avenue, Southdale Area District, 661h & York will provide a dramatic example of how the Area can be redeveloped into a more walkable, pedestrian friendly and interconnected neighborhood with greater levels of the live -work amenities our emerging, 21St century lifestyles demand. it will be transformative to this section of the District. The current auto -oriented land use dominated 66th & York Page 3Q August 12, 2015 Sketch Plan Review U by surface parking will become a greened oasis with the automobiles relegated to underground status. Only the bare minimum of guest parking and street -side parking will remain on the surface. G. MARKET POSITION DLC Residential is proposing 375 apartment units in two buildings. This new community will be positioned at the upper end of the rental market, complete with high-end interior finishes, 30 foot ceilings and extensive indoor and outdoor amenities. The majority of the apartments will be one and two bedroom homes but approximately 15 to 20% will have additional alcove, den or other "bonus" rooms. And there will be handful of smaller, studio style apartments. In addition, the top floors of both buildings may house a few larger penthouse style units for folks who wish to live in more spacious and luxurious quarters. As a new and "modern" rental community, residents of 66th & York will enjoy amenities, conveniences and vistas currently not widely available in this community. Unobstructed views, elevated amenity terraces, rooftop gardens are all features that currently rare in existing rental communities. As is true in other communities developed by DLC Residential, residents will have large windows and generous balconies. Those in some upper level units will enjoy larger, walk -out terraces, some wrapping the corners of their apartments. Residential amenities will include heated and secure parking, elevated outdoor pools and spas, terraces furnished with grills, lounge areas, and a fire pit. indoor club rooms and a fitness centers, all of which open onto the terraces will be available for socializing with other residents, for parties with family and friends or for quiet individual use. On- site professional management will be provided to all residents and their guests. H. LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING _&belt they are not designed yet, the landscape and streetscape improvements for this site will 06hance the dynamic architectural character of this residential redevelopment. Further, they will respond to the Working Principles of the France Avenue, Southdale Area objectives. They will O p�vide and promote an attractive, safe and welcoming environment through the use of traditional 'anting materials, green wall and roof features, paving materials and site amenities appropriate to theeinclude sidential use. The landscape and streetscape design will reflect the following goals: ' • Sustainable Design features. Create a pedestrian friendly, public streetfront and interior environment that does not exist today. • Convey a Sense of Security and Welcome. I. PARKING This redevelopment proposes to provide 575 reserved, enclosed and secure parking stalls in Its two underground garages. This equates to one parking space for bedroom within the development plus 50 extra stalls which may be reserved for residents who may wish to have addition parking available. Thirty eight surface parking spaces in the landscaped auto court and parallel spaces on the internal street will serve the residents' guests and visitors to the leasing office. J. SITE CIRCULATION and TRAFFIC Access to the site occurs at three locations, a right in -right out movement at mid -block at the York/66th confluence, at the existing York Avenue driveway on the north, and by way of a cross - 66* & York Page 4 August 12, 2015 Sketch Plan Review easement agreement through the parking lot on the property to the west. That same cross - easement agreement results in a driveway over Parcels 2 and 3 allowing access to/from the adjacent site to the west. City staff has raised the possibility of closing the free -right turn lane from York to 66"' Street. If this were to occur, the pedestrian environment along York could be enhanced further. K. STORM WATER This development is located within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. As such, .it will ultimately comply with their requirements for rate, volume and water quality. Presumably, this site will incorporate an underground storm water vault or cellular system. It is our Intention to provide a visual clue to this sustainable and common sense storm water solution at the landscaped "cistern -garden" in the auto court. hof 66°i & York Page 5 August 12, 2015 Sketch Plan Review Revised August 12, 2015 einess swenson graham architects inc. MEMORANDUM RE: 66th & YORK Residential Redevelopment PHASE I PHASE II TOTAL Site Area Parcels 2 and 3 Parcel 1 3.07 ac. 2.58 ac. 5.65 ac. 133,676 sf 112,574 sf 246,250 sf New Residential Development Building Area 243,800 gsf 153,700 397,500 sf Residential FAR 1.82 1.37 1.61 Number of Units 230 145 375 Number of Bedrooms 320 205 525 Residential Density (Units/acre) 74.9 56.2 66.4 Building Height 6 floors over parking 5/4 floors over parking Steps at 4 and 2 floors Steps at 4 and 2 floors 68 feet 56 feet Surface Parking, Residential 29 cars 9 cars 38 cars Secure Parking 350 cars 225 cars 575 cars Total Residential Parking 379 cars 234 cars 613 cars Parking Ratio 1/bedroom + 59 1/bedroom + 29 1/bedroom + 88 cars Existing Office Building 10 Building Area 62,079 sf na. na. 0111 Surface Parking -Parcel 1 150 cars na. na. ��� T - Surface Parking -Parcel 3 72 cars A"$ Secure Parking 28 cars (est.) Total parking 250 cars Parking Ratio 4.03 cars/1,000 sf na. na. G (A) Was! IifI(Ito II avenIIe soutII !!ile It)t`s0 lt")lir„ ri7n `:Y1 P) • I>- 61 13'1.5508 • (: 61?.339. 3V - titinM�r�.z.sy,irchiteC�s.ct�itl 10 oIqu a i�f:poriwllty omplm, =r All l �,� . w . �. � " ,� u ._r -_ Ata Ll ( I �� # � �� �� =i t I �� •t•t� X111 i�� _� l�± i t� its jig �y# ��3 ���� � �3y $ j; ii tpiiQ j# ►' ; �l 3 ;��� ;;:� '=�Ig �� �$� � �'¢ 13 AR- NO .F I i � F reloy ai< 3L1 Y l'T — — -L - 1 ! I �` I �TTII IIII113111111 fili, l i '1 1 ";i. t'-}- } m i • � iiia lit S �tN I Ti - T. i attol C I •- - �� I i ,1 ISI -' BIfIIrf$k�l.±� 3# 1i H�ffQfll1l I 11O�NI t I 'rli L AR- NO yes PHASE 1 PARKING GARAGE ACCESS ] x r Pf%V PAp* PHASE 1 PARKING GARAGE PHASE 2 PARKING GARAGE PHASE 2 LOBBY/ENTRANCE LEASING OFFICE FITNESS PHASE 2 PARKING GARAGE ACCESS RAIN GARDERN / STORM WATER CISTERN PEDESTRIAN ARCADE PHASE 1 LOBBY/ENTRANCE LEASING OFFICE FITNESS ISketch Plan Review r RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT PARKING LEVEL 20,SAugusti2th DLC RES D _ N T A L 66TH &voRK Edina, MN asp ROOF TERRACE/SET- BACKS AT LEVELS 1, 2 & 4 ROOF TERRACE/SET. BACKS AT LEVELS 1, 2 & 4 O� Sketch Pim Rev y D p\ J r n RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT CIP 201S August 12th I D C Ii A L 66TH & YORK Edina, MN I LEVEL 2-s sxMLlAR � <., r 4 6 X to T't r,cr r �____ PA 3 0 e f �-r.%o rt -4 PApI'-a-r ON GRADE PARKING PHASE 1 - EXISTING PARKING AND OFFICE BUILDING ON EAST PARCLE TO REMAIN 411, \\s I m PHASE 1 LOBBYI ENTRANCE II -•. -_ - LEASING OFFICE FITNESS ,rc s ISketch PtahReview D L C RES I D E NI T ( A L RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT I LEVEL 201S Amt lith 66TH & YORK Efta MN PHASE 1 a —_. _ — e y ! ti r. MW of U J Aa) VS Sketch Plan Review ® L C R r CS D j_ J T r A (» RESiDMAL REDEVELOPMENT AT I SrM METRICS 201s August 12th •r 66TH & YORK Edina, MN f RE: 66th & YORK Residential Redevelopment PHASE PHASE TOTAL Site Area Parcels 2 and 3 Parcel 1 3.07 ac 2.58 ac 5.65 ac 133,676 sf 112,574 sf 246,250 sf New Residential Development Building Area 243,800 gsf 153,700 397,500 sf Residential FAR 1.82 1.37 1.61 NumberofUnits 230 145 375 Number of Bedrooms 320 205 525 Residential Density (Units/acre) 74.9 56.2 66.4 Building Height 6 floors over parking 5/4 floors over parking Steps at 4 and 2 floors Steps at 4 and 2 floors 68 feet 56 feet Surface Parking, Residential 29 cars 9 cars 38 cars Secure Parking 350 cars 225 cars 575 cars Total Residential Parking 379 cars 234 cars 613 cars Parking Ratio 1/bedroom + 59 1/bedroom + 29 1/bedroom + 88 cars ij Existing Office Building Building Area 62,079 .- sf na. na. Surface Parking -Parcel 1 150 cars na. na. R� Surface Parking -Parcel 3 72 cars O �s Secure Parking 2E cars (est.) Total a� parking 250 cars Parking Ratio 4.03 cars/1,000 sf na, na. Q Sketch Plan Review ® L C R r CS D j_ J T r A (» RESiDMAL REDEVELOPMENT AT I SrM METRICS 201s August 12th •r 66TH & YORK Edina, MN f France Avenue Southdale Area Working Principles and Supporting Questions (June 16, 2015) Element Working Principle and Supporting Questions 77-71 Give -to -Get; Plan & - Allow latitude to gain tangible and intangible outcomes aligned with Process the district principles. 1 How does the proposal contribute to the realization of the principles for the district? 2 How can the proposal move beyond the principles for the district? 3 What tangible and intangible outcomes might be offered by the proposal but cannot be achieved by the project on its own? 4 What does the proposal offer as a way of balancing those outcomes provided by others? 5 What alternatives were explored to arrive at a proposal that is best aligned with the principles and the opportunities of the district? Edina 'Cultural Preferences; Advance quality through thoughtful and artful design of buildings Identity and publicly accessible spaces, highlighted human activity, and enhanced economic vibrancy. 1 Discuss the materials and construction techniques intended for the building and the site with attention directed to ensuring an enduring quality is achieved, especially considering whether the proposal is a background or foreground element of the district. 2 What qualities of the proposal will be most valued by the community in 50 years? 3 Describe the ways in which the proposal highlights human activity in the building and on the site, especially when viewed from adjacent or nearby public ways? 4 In what ways does the proposal enhance the economic vibrancy of the district? 5 How does the proposal adapt itself to changing economic opportunities of the community and the district? cDistrict Function Look beyond baseline utilitarian functions of a single site to create mutually supportive and forward-looking infrastructure sustaining the district. 1 Describe the ways in which the proposal is self-supporting related to on- and off-site infrastructure and resources. 2 What impacts does the proposal pose on existing on- and off-site infrastructure? 3 What elements of the proposal support infrastructure needs of adjacent or nearby sites? p- 4 Describe the infrastructure features of the proposal that are truly extraordinary by relating the performance of those features to current standards, requirements, or best practices. 5 How the proposal relies on infrastructure of the district for baseline performance? Comprehensive Foster a logical, safe, inviting and expansive public realm facilitating Connections; Movement movement of people within and to the district. 1 What features and amenities does the proposal lend to the public realm of the district? 2 What features and amenities does the proposal introduce to extend the sense of an expansive and engaging public realm to its site? 3 Demonstrate the ways in which the proposal supports pedestrians and bicyclists movement and identify those nearby district features that are important destinations. 4 What features does the proposal employ to ensure a safe and inviting pedestrian experience on the site? 5 ... Site Design;'Transitions Encourage parcel -appropriate Intensities promoting harmonious and Interactive relationships without "leftover" spaces on sites. 1 How does the proposal relate in terms of scale to it neighbors? 2 How does the proposal make full use of the available site, especially those portions of the site not occupied by parking and buildings? 3 How does the proposal interact with its neighbors? 4 Describe the zones of activity created by the proposal and compare those areas to zones of activity on adjacent and nearby sites. 5 ... Health Advance human and environmental health as the public and private realms evolves. 1 How does this proposal enhance key elements of environmental health (air, water, noise, habitat)? 2 How does proposal mitigate any negative impacts on environmental health on its own site? 3 How does proposal provide for a healthful environment beyond the current condition? 4 Describe ways in which human health needs are advanced by the proposal. 5 ... Innovation Embrace purposeful innovation aimed at identified and anticipated problems. 1 Identify the problems posed by the proposal or the district requiring innovative solutions and describe the ways in which the proposal responds? 2 Describe the metrics to be used to compare the innovations posed by the proposal. 3 For those solutions posed by the proposal as innovative, describe how they might become "best practices" for the district. 4 Describe innovations in systems and aesthetics and the ways in which systems and aesthetics for integrated solutions. 5 Describe other projects where innovations similar to those included in the proposal have been employed. Land Use; Live -able Promote well-balanced aggregations of "come to" and "stay at" Precincts places focused on human activity and linked to an engaging public realm. 1 How does the proposal complement the mix of uses in the district? 2 Describe the proposal in terms of "come to" and/or "stay at" places. 3 What adjacent or nearby "come to" or "stay at" places does the proposal rely on for vitality? 4 Demonstrate the flows of activity generated by the site during a typical weekday and weekend day. 5 In what ways does the proposal interact with surrounding sites to encourage an engaging public realm? Economic Vitality Ensure every component contributes to the sustained economic vitality of the district and the community. 1 Describe the proposal in terms of its economic contributions to the district. 2 How does the proposal enhance development on adjacent or nearby sites? 3 What features of the site or district limit the potential of the proposal from being fully realized? 4 Why is the proposal best situated on its proposed site from the perspective of economic vitality? 5 How does the proposal make the district and the community a better place?