Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-04_WORK SESSIONAGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY ROOM SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 5:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT (PENTEGON PARK PLANS) IV. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION TOPICS A. Consideration of Subdivisions That Result In Lots Less Than 9,000 Sq. Ft. In Area And 75 Feet In Width (R- I /PUD) B. Building Height /Grading C. 2013 Work Plan D. Sketch Plan Process— Howls It Working? E. Grandview —What next? V. 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. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING. MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Sept 4 Joint Meeting With Planning Commission Sept 4 Regular Meeting Sept 19 Work Session — Board & Commissions Work Plan Proposals Sept 19 Regular Meeting Oct 2 Work Session — CIP Workshop Oct 2 Regular Meeting Oct 16 Work Session — Art Center Study /Business Meeting Oct 16 Regular Meeting Nov 5 Work Session — Human Services Funding /Liquor Ordinance Nov 5 Regular Meeting Nov 6 ELECTION DAY — Polls Open 7:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. Nov 9 Canvass of Election Returns Nov 12 VETERANS DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Nov 20 Work Session — Finalize 2013 Work Plans Nov 20 Regular Meeting Dec 4 Work Session — Name Your Neighborhood Dec 4 Regular Meeting Dec 18 Work Session —TBD Dec 18 Regular Meeting 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1 1 ITEM IV.A —Consideration of Subdivisions that result in lots less than 9,000 s.f. in area and 75 feet in width. (R- 1 /PUD) City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952- 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: September 4, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, "Community Development Director MEMO 49S�, A O e �t., U) �O Re: Consideration of Subdivisions that result in lots less ='than 9,000 s.f. in area and 75 feet in width. (R- I /PUD) Over the past several months the Planning Commission has been considering a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding subdivision of smaller lots in the R- I Zoning District. Attached are staff memos, minutes highlighting the Planning Commission discussions, and the latest draft Ordinance. The Planning Commission would like to have a discussion with the City Council in regard to the Ordinance prior to submitting a formal Ordinance Amendment for the City Council to consider. There are three options to consider: . Continue to review these subdivisions on a case by case basis, using the variance criteria. 2. Amend the Ordinance to establish a city -wide minimum lot size by using the median lot area, width and, depth of lots within 500 feet. (Current minimum lot area is 9,000 s.f.; 75 feet in width; and 125 feet in depth. In areas of lots greater in area, width and depth, the median within 500 establishes the minimum lot size.) 3. Amend the Ordinance wallow a PUD in the R -1 District. (See attached-draft Ordinance.) Small lot subdivisions could be considered on a case by case basis using PUD rezoning. Specific site conditions could be placed on the PUD, such as regulating house size, height, tree protection and site grading. City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 C 0 k:�EVT- kA f Draft 8 -27 -2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PUD ELIGIBILITY IN THE. R -1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4:D is amended as follows: D. Procedure for Rezoning 'to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD, District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan .design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. 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; Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. In the case of a PUD in a low density residential area, the structural design of the housing must be compatible and complimentary with surrounding housing. 'In order to be compatible with the surrounding housing, the new home(s) must have a floor area ratio, and height to the ridge line that is no more than 10% more than the largest and tallest home within 100 feet of the proposed house, and within 1,000 feet of the proposed house on the same street.. e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. 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. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Pry eFty GUrren , zoned D 9 D 2 and PRID 1 shall not he eligible fgr a PUD. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 5. Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 9,000 square feet provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot area greater than 9,0.00 square feet, then -the minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in the neighborhood. B. Minimum Lot Width. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 75 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood. C. Minimum Lot Depth. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 120 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Existing text - XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — X Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot depth greater than 120 feet, then the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 2012. 4 coos SAAlV-V5tD_h A)) / Edina Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Introduction. The City of Edina initiated a study of its subdivision regulations in response to comments about the appropriateness of some newer single - family residential subdivisions. The purposes of the study were to: . • Objectively analyze the subdivision regulations, • Evaluate the subdivisions that result from the regulations, . • Compare Edina's subdivision regulations to other cities regulations, • Determine if changes are needed to the City subdivisions regulations, and • If changes are needed, prepare recommendations for ordinance amendments. The fundamental question of the study is: Do City. subdivision codes promote or inhibit good development? In order to assure an objective study, the City hired Ingraham & Associates, a land planning consulting firm to conduct the study and used a citizen task force to independently review a cross section of city subdivisions and to evaluate the city subdivision regulations. A list of study participants is attached on page 4. Edina Subdivision Regulations The City of Edina uses a unique method for regulating lot size, width, etc. in single - family residential subdivisions. Most cities use a fixed minimum lot size (i.e. 12,000 square feet), lot . width, etc. for a given residential zoning district. Those cities typically have multiple residential zones with varying minimum lot sizes, widths, etc. Edina has one single- family residential zoning district. The single - family zoning district regulations specify a minimum lot size, width and depth. City regulations also require the lot size, lot width, lot depth and width -to -lot perimeter ratio of new subdivisions must be equal to or greater than the median lot size, lot width, lot depth and width to perimeter ratio of the surrounding neighborhood (properties within 500 feet -of the proposed subdivision). For example, if the median lot size in the neighborhood is 20,000 square. feet,, a landowner must have at least 40,000 square feet of land in order'to subdivide the property. They would also have to meet the minimum dimensional and median lot width,' depth, and ratio They to qualify for a potential. subdivision. These Code provisions have been in place since 1990. A. summary of the Edina single - family residential subdivision. code is attached as Appendix A. The Edina code results in lot sizes that are similar to the surrounding neighborhood and the transitions between adjacent lot sizes are fairly uniform. The more typical multiple zoning district method (use of fixed minimum lot sizes only within a given zoning district) results in uniform lot sizes within a given zone and fairly distinct differences in lot size and house type between zones and along zoning boundaries. Edina's code in general results in larger lot sizes than required by most cities of a similar nature. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study January. 15, 2005 Study Process Ingraham & Associates visited and evaluated all of the subdivisions that occurred in the City since 1990 and reviewed existing City subdivision regulations. A meeting was held with the five Task Force members to review the regulations and issues. Task Force members were asked to visit seven subdivisions located throughout the City. The seven subdivisions represent a cross section of the subdivisions approved in the City since 1990. See the attached map of subdivision locations, Figure 1. Ingraham & Associates reviewed other cities ordinances to determine if there were subdivision regulations that would be applicable to Edina. A summary of that research is attached as Appendix B. Task Force members visited and evaluated each subdivision. A summary of their evaluations is attached as Appendix C. A meeting was held with the Task Force to review their subdivision analysis and to discuss the need for any code revisions. The Task Force members, consultant and city planner discussed the quality of the subdivisions and their fit with the neighborhood and community. The Task Force members reached a consensus that the existing regulations worked well and the subdivisions were appropriate and of high quality. No changes to the existing regulations were recommended. Their findings and recommendations are noted below. I Task Force Findings and Recommendations Summary of the Task Force evaluations of the subdivisions and subdivision regulations. 1. Some new subdivisions are "islands" within older or slightly different housing, but this is OK, particularly when the subdivision is large enough or is designed to act as'its own neighborhood (i.e. using a new cul -de -sac street). 2. Setbacks seem tight (too small) in some subdivisions, but in general, larger houses on smaller lots are OK. 3. The quality of the new subdivisions and new homes is high and matches or exceeds the values and quality of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. In general, Task Force members felt that the subdivisions they examined were appropriate for the neighborhood and the city. Opinions vary and beauty (and what is a good subdivision) is in the eye of the beholder. 5. The city should maintain setbacks and lot coverage limits that are similar to the surrounding area and city. Continue to monitor variance requests and consider code adjustments if needed (current City practice). 6. The existing subdivision code promotes good development and is appropriate and no changes in the subdivisions code are recommended. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 2 January 15, 2005 Consultant Comments and Recommendations Neighborhood, median lot size The Edina requirement that new subdivisions meet the average lot size, width, etc. of the surrounding neighborhood assures that new lots will "fit" into the generally scale and context of the neighborhood. That alone is not a guarantee of a successful and well- received subdivision, but it does prevent major differences in lot ize within neighborhoods (i.e. a new subdivision of five 10,000 square foot lots within an exisung neighborhood of 50,000 square foot lots). Cities that use the more traditional approach of multiple single - family residential zoning district (i.e..Rl zone - 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, R2 - 12,000 square foot minimumaot size, R3- 8,000 square foot minimum lot size), have issues when larger remnant parcels are subdivided into smaller lots. Subdivision quality The subdivisions created since 1990 are of a uniformly high quality and few issues were apparent. The existing code provisions and process seem to work well and result in high quality subdivisions. Housing size The real estate trend has been toward larger homes. As a result the homes in new subdivisions tend to be larger than the older homes surrounding the new development. This is does not appear to have a negative affect upon the property values or livability of the neighborhoods. Larger lots Requiring new lots to meet the median lot size of the neighborhood results in larger lots than typically found in cities using traditional minimum lot area zoning requirements only. The larger lots contribute toward higher housing costs. However, Edina's higher value real estate market is the biggest influence on housing price and affordable detached single - family homes are difficult to achieve in most parts of the Twin Cites. Estate lots The City regulations requiring new lots to meet the median lot size of the neighborhood protect areas or groups of large "estate" size lots by requiring any new subdivision to meet the median lot size of the veighborhood. The result of a new sribdivision in an area of existing large lots is that any new lots would be substantially similar to the typical lot size in the surrounding area. L-Iowever, the City regulations do not prevent ail existing isolated. large estate lot from bein`, subdivided into smaller lots if the large lot is .located fia a neighborhood of's.i.na.11er lots. if the neighborhood median lot size is substantially smaller than the isolated estate lot, the estate lot ti��ould be able to be subdivided into lots similar. to the typical lot size in t.lie: area Infill subdivisions By their very nature, new subdivisions in Edina create change in a neighborhood. Change can be controversial. Controversy and change are inevitable and are best managed through an open and informative process with clear guidelines and standards. The median lot size requirement minimizes the extent of the change by assuring that new lots will be similar in size to the existing neighborhood lots. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 3 January 15, 2005 Required 1,afflnos Edina City Code Section 810 requires all proposed subdivisions to meet a set of considerations or findings. '.Those findings ensure confarmdnce of new subdivisions to city goals and policies and regulations. compatibility with the surrounding area, protection of health safety and welfare; provision of adequate street and emergency sernrice and protection of natural resources: 'These findings serve as an additional review mechanism to ensure 'Well- designed and compatible subdivisions. Recommendation The neighborhood median lot size, width, etc. provision is an appropriate subdivision regulation that assures that there is no abrupt lot size differences within neighborhoods. The subdivisions created under the current regulations are high quality and in general, blend in well with the neighborhood. The existing code promotes good development. The City Code finding =s assure additic,nal r:.v:iew and cornpatibili.ty of new uhdivisions. No change in subdivision regulations is recommended. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 4 January 1.5, 2005 Edina Subdivision Study Participants Study Task Force Members: Rod: Hardy N. Craig Johnson Robert Johnson Meg Mannix Mary Vasaly City Staff: Craig Larsen, City Planner Consultant: Greg Ingraham, AICP Ingraham & Associates Inc. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study January 15, 2005. 5 Figure One - Map of Subdivisions Occurring Since 1990 Insert map showing all subdivisions created since 1990 and highlight the seven subdivisions studied by the Task Force. The map shows the subdivisions that were built since 1990 (date the current city residential subdivision code was adopted) and the seven representative subdivisions evaluated by the Task Force. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 6 January 15, 2005 Appendix A Selections from Sections 810 (Subdivisions) and 850 (Zoning) of the Edina City Code - Single Family Residential Subdivisions Definitions: Neighborhood. All lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by Section 850 of this Code which are wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, except: A. Lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities and golf courses; B. Lots used for conditional uses as established by Section 850 of this Code; or C. Lots separated from the proposed plat or subdivision by the right of way of either T. H. 100 or T. H. 62. If the neighborhood includes only apart of a lot, then the whole of that lot shall be included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Neighborhood Analysis Required Subd. 5 Additional Requirements for Platting or Subdivision of Property in the Single Dwelling Unit District. In addition to the requirements of Subd. 4 of this Subsection, the applicant for a proposed plat or subdivision of land wholly or partially within the Single Dwelling Unit District as then determined by Section 850 of this Code, shall also deliver to the Planner the following information from a source acceptable to the Planner: A. A complete list of all lots which. are within the neighborhood of the property proposed to be platted or subdivided with the following information 1. The lot area for each lot .2. The mean_and:median lot area (in square feet) of all lots; 3. The lot width, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, for each lot; 4. The mamand median lot width, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, of all lots; 5. The lot depth, as defined by the Section 850 of this Code, for each lot; 6. The mean and median lot depth, as defined by Section 850 of this Code, of all lots; and 7. The name and address of each lot. B. The location of the proposed building pad for each lot in the proposed plat or subdivision. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study January 15, 2005 7 C. The lot width to perimeter ratio (as defined in Section 850 of this Code) for each lot in the proposed plat or subdivision. Subdivision Criteria/Findings Subd. 1 Considerations. The Commission in reviewing proposed plats and subdivisions and in determining its recommendation to the Council, and the Council in determining whether to approve or disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other matters, the following: A. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters: -1. The suitability to the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and 2. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. B: The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. C. The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. D. The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of Section 850 of this Code including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the Floodplain Overlay District provisions of Section 850 of this Code. E. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. F. The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with any easements of record or on the ground. G. The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets. H. The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 8 January 15, 2005 I. The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's ,water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. J. The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other, life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision. K. Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery:.and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type�of development or use proposed. L. Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision.will cause the. disturbance of more than -25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. M. Whether the' proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Subd. 3 Additional Considerations. In addition to the foregoing matters, the Commission, in connection with its recommendation to the Council, and the Council in determining whether to approve or disapprove a proposed plat or subdivision, shall specifically and especially consider the following matters: A. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives, goals and. requirements of Section 850 of this Code, including, without limitation, the lot size and dimension requirements of Section 850 of this Code, and the Flood Plain Overlay District and Heritage Preservation Overlay District of Section 850 of this Code, as varied by variances therefrom, if any, granted pursuant to this Section or Section 850 of this Code. C. Whether the design of•the proposed plat or subdivision, or the design or type of improvements proposed to be placed thereon, may be detrimental to the health, safety, or general.welfare of the public. D. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision conforms to, and complies with the requirements of, applicable State Law. E. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of this Section, as varied by variances therefrom, if any. Single Family Lot Requirements Subd. 2 Lot Dimensions. If: the proposed plat is wholly or partially within the Single Dwelling Unit District, then the minimum lot area; lot width, lot depth and lot width to perimeter ratio shall be as follows: Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study g January 15, 2005 A. The minimum lot area, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 9,000 square feet, or the median lot area of lots in the neighborhood. B. The minimum lot width, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 75 feet, or the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood. C. The minimum lot depth, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, shall be the greater of 120 feet, or the median lot depth of lots in the neighborhood. The lot width to perimeter ratio, as defined in Section 850 of this Code, for any lot in the proposed plat or subdivision shall not be less than 0.1. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 10 January 15, 2005 Appendix B Comparative Subdivision Regulation Analysis The City of Edina uses a unique method for regulating lot size, width, etc. in single - family residential subdivisions. City regulations require the lot size, lot width, lot depth and width-to -lot perimeter ratio of new subdivisions must be equal to or greater than the median lot size, lot width, lot depth and width to perimeter ratio of the surrounding neighborhood. Most cities use.a fixed minimum lot size, lot width etc. for a given residential zoning district. Those cities typically have between multiple residential zones with varying minimum lot sizes, widths, etc. The Edina code results in lot sizes that are similar to the surrounding neighborhood and the transitions between adjacent lot sizes are fairly uniform. The more typical "Euclidean_ ".zoning method results in uniform lot sizes within a given zone and fairly distinct differences in lot size and house type between zones and along zoning boundaries. Edina's code in general results in larger lot sizes than required by most cities of a similar nature. Ingraham & Associates evaluated zoning and subdivision codes from 20 cities to see how they treated subdivision of lots and to determine if any of their codes contained regulations that would be helpful and applicable to the City of Edina. The 20 cities were ones that were selected previously as part of an evaluation of newly updated city codes for organization and clarity. All 20 cities used the traditional Euclidean method of zoning (separate districts and standards based on intensity). All cities have a fixed minimum lot size for each residential zoning district. Almost all of them had methods for imparting flexibility through use of a Planned Development or other flexible zoning tool. Many cities had codes to vary setback requirements. Two cities had lot size /subdivision regulations that may be helpful to Edina. The City of Minneapolis requires lot area to not be less than the greater of (1) the minimum requirements set forth by the zoning ordinance or (2) the average of the single. - family and two - family zoning lots located in whole or in part within three hundred fifty (3 50) feet or the average of the single - family and two - family zoning lots located in whole or in part within the same zoning district within three hundred fifty (3 50) feet, whichever. is greater, where such average lot area exceeds the minimum zoning requirement by fifty (50) percent or more. In residential infill /estate lot split situations, Boulder, Colorado requires the smaller of the two lots be at least forty percent of the square footage of the original lot. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 11 January 15, 2005 Appendix C Summary of Task Force Responses 4 written responses) November 23, 2004 Subdivision: #1 Arrowhead Pointe Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive to neutral. 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood. Neighborhood unto itself. Well done. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. Big houses on small lots are OK. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (3) - Some adjacent houses are less value than new homes. That is ok. No (1) - OK on cul -de -sac. Road too wide for the area. 6. Other comments: Subdivision contributes nicely to Edina. Question impact of new neighborhood pockets like this? Subdivision: #2 Brendan Glen 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood. Houses a bit close, but OK. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes 6. Other comments: Nice houses. Well done subdivision. , Upgrade in relation to surrounding neighborhood. Hwy' 169 noise. Lots next to 169 are undeveloped. Subdivision: #3 Ratelle Hill 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable(2), unknown (1), Negative (1) God retention of woods and additional landscaping. Tree loss seems significant. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (2), Neutral (1), Negative (1) Similar to those across the street, but not too the side or rear. Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 12 January 15, 2005 3. House spacing? Fits with neighborhood (2), Does not fit with neighborhood (2). Not similar to surrounding homes, but OK. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes. 6. Other comments: Good use of hilly terrain. Very large homes on the east side. Close on the west. Subdivision: #4 Jyland Whitney 1. Impact-upon natural resources? Acceptable to unknown. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive 3. House spacing ? Acceptable. Except for #42 is too crowded and close to the street. OK, as it is its own cul -de -sac. 4. Lot size? Appropriate. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Fits well,with the neighborhood. 6. Other comments: Subdivision is carved out of large natural and private area - a favorite area of the Edina. Subdivision: 45 Waterman Addition 1. .Impact. upon natural resources? Acceptable (3), Negative (1). Looks like a.large impact. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (2), Neutral (2) 3. House spacing? Not a good fit - larger -than typical. Somewhat close. Too close for, their size. 4. Lot size? Appropriate (3), Not appropriate (1). Home elevations dominate the lots. Only within the subdivision. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (2), No (2) New homes stuck into an older neighborhood. 6. Other comments: New homes an "island" on their own. Would townhouses been better? Edina, MN Single Family Residential Subdivision Study 13 January 15, 2005 Subdivision: #6 Mark Dahlquist Addition 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Positive (3), Positive to neutral (1). Comparable values. 3. House spacing? Acceptable (2), Not appropriate (2). Too close to street. 4. Lot size? Appropriate (2), Not appropriate (2). Lots should be deeper. Seem too small. OK, clustered as these are. 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes 6. Other comments: Lots too shallow. Maximum buildings on wooded or sloped sites. Least desirable subdivision. Subdivision: #7 Granger Addition 1. Impact upon natural resources? Acceptable. Nice tree saving. Older development - maximum mature trees. 2. Influence upon surrounding properties? Neutral - Same as surrounding. Comparable style and value. Two houses are out of character- would not be so apparent if homes were not two stories. 3. House spacing? Acceptable (3), Does not fit (1). 4. Lot size? Appropriate 5. Fit with neighborhood? Yes (3), No (1). 6. Other comments: Would better with more newer homes, but not likely in this neighborhood. Good fit. Fits with the rest of the area. I Edina, MN Single Family Reside ' ,'divisiork Study 14 January 15, 2005 1 J, 7 Planner Teague added that for every change to the ordinance there are consequences. Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Teague reminded the Commissioner they directed staff to draft an Ordinance. amendment that would allow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots that are less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Continuing, Teague said that recently the City Council has expressed interest in considering a uniform median lot area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot size requirement in the R -1 district. If established the median of ail lots within 500 -feet becomes the minimum lot size. requirement. This approach is what is.currently done: Commissioner Platteter said the last time this was discussed it did appear that PUD "may be the way to go" but now without specific guidelines the 500 -foot neighborhood approach the City has been utilizing may be best and fairest. Commissioner Carpenter agreed. He pointed out if a PUD would be developed for residential subdivisions of smaller lots he foresees residents applying for "a lot of PUD's'. Carpenter said as previously mentioned by Commissioner Platteter that specific guidelines would need to be established for lots under 75 -feet in width or else there would be no regulator. Carpenter stated in his opinion the 500 -foot rule has value. It's across the board. Commissioner Staunton commented if some form of guidelines need to be developed for allowing a PUD in an R -1 zoning district adding the present "500 -foot rule" may be best because it establishes guidelines. Staunton suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the present subdivision code using the 500 -foot standard to establish neighborhood maybe in the smaller lots neighborhoods the radius could be lessened. A discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that they should proceed with caution in developing a PUD for R -1 lots that require variances. It was also noted there needs to be fairness with the City's approach to this topic. It was suggested that a simple way to approach this on the PUD level may be "what's in it for the City ". It was acknowledged that could be considered subjective. Planner Teague suggested that the Commission could develop a low density PUD or something to the effect of subdivision requiring variances. That could be done in ordinance form. Continuing, Teague added that a number of City's have policies; not ordinances that regulate neighborhood character, etc. Teague told the Commission he would draft something reflecting those sentiments. The discussion continued with Commissioners requesting that Planner Teague do an informal survey of how other City's deal with subdivisions of non- conforming lots. Commissioners suggested that staff first tackle this from a policy position not ordinance. Page 8 of 11 Building Height Planner Teague informed the Commission there has been some concern expressed on building height for new construction especially in the small lot neighborhoods. A request has been made by builders to relax the present standard of increasing the setback 6- inches for each foot the average building height exceeds 15 -feet. Teague referred to an ordinance he drafted that would amend the existing ordinance exempting the second story setback requirement if the ridge line of a house is reduced to 30 -feet. Teague explained that builders have indicated to him that this amended provision would allow more creativity for building design by giving incentives to builders to reduce the ridge line in order to achieve more square footage on the second story. This could also impact grading and retaining wall issues. Commissioner Staunton asked the purpose of this amendment. Planner Teague further explained that the way the ordinance is now written makes it very difficult for builders to construct a colonial two story home on these smaller lots. To achieve the adequate upstairs ceiling height builders now create pitches to gain that living space; however it gives the appearance of greater roof height and building mass. Relaxing the present requirement would allow a builder to achieve more living space on the 2nd floor without pitching the roof. Commissioner Platteter stated he likes this approach. Commissioners agreed, adding if in reality the ordinance is driving the steep pitched roof it would be good to modify the ordinance. A discussion ensued with Commissioners wondering if there would be a "down side" to this change. The consensus was that this approach was simple and would work. Commissioners suggested letting this percolate; noting the ordinance changes to address height and mass are relatively new. It was further noted that building height and the previously mentioned grading have similar components. Work Plan Planner Teague said the City Council has requested that each Board and Commission create a yearly work plan. The purpose of the plans are to ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Commissions are aligned, and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support the work. Teague said over the next few months, the Commission is asked to develop their plan for the next year. Teague suggested that the Commission think about their goals for 2013 and at the September work session with the City Council. Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Scherer said that she feels this is a good idea and suggested that the Commission "pick a few topics" and commit. Commissioner Staunton agreed with Scherer and added that the Commission should also prioritize our goals. Staunton said he is interested in the next steps for the Grandview Development Framework and noted that he heard the City of Edina was hiring an Economic Development Director. Planner Teague informed Commissioners he sat in on the interviews for the new Economic and Development Director and that it has been narrowed down to three very good candidates. Teague said he would let the Commission know who was hired. Commissioner Platteter said he believes a work plan is a great idea and agreed with Commissioners Staunton and Scherer that the Commission needs to prioritize our goals. Platteter suggested identifying our top five goals. Planner-Teague told the Commission that he has continually added topics to the Commissions "bucket list ". Teague said the Commission could go through that list and develop our work plan using that list and add other issues we believe are pertinent. Planner Teague also informed Commissioners that the City has submitted a grant to offset the cost of tearing down old municipal buildings. Teague said that the old public works building would be an excellent candidate for these monies. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged back of packet materials. Chair Grabiel congratulated Platteter and Forrest on their 100% attendance record. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Chair.Grabiel asked Planner Teague if he would give a brief account on what's happening with "The Waters", "Southdale Apartments" and Byerly's. Commissioner Scherer. also asked what was occurring with the France Avenue corridor roadway study. Planner Teague responded that "The. Waters ":.was almost ready to pull their building. permit. He stated he believes it will be pulled next week. Continuing, Teague told the Commission that he just met with Byerly s and they informed him-they have retained a housing developer. More information should be coming from them. With regard to the "Southdale Apartments" WSB is initiating the parking study. Concluding, Teague reported that an estimate on the improvements along France Avenue came back and the estimates on those improvements are many many many times over budget. IX. STAFF COMMENTS None Page 10 of 11 It 2a 1 a I . Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner Teague if the City's noise ordinance w s sufficient to ad ess these new systems or should the EEC take a look at noise. Plann Teague said the Hea h Department enforces the noise ordinance and Edina has adopt State requirem nts. Commission Staunton said he observed that the Ordinance uses ferent terms to define energy system adding in his opinion it should be uniform; eithe nergy Generation Systems or Ener \setb�ac n Systems. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner F for clarification on setbacks," `'•,iiiting out corner lots and large commercial lots ficult. Teague explained thh ; , he energy systems must maintain the saas are required for print ''' 1bu lding or structures in the underlying zonieague also noted that rgy syms can t be located in the front yard. Rapig 'eld don't want:t&: too restrictiv e Commissioner Platteter said front and may `ed to be defined or clar'fied more. He said �. the City needs to encourage sustain ility it remain ngxeasonable. < ` Commissioner Carpenter said it appear\` o him that -Vs necessary that the City have some control. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Schroeder expres ed concern th b7isite consumption, and questioned if any excess energy could be so to the neighbo\ \ ;:or backto the'utility company. Schroeder wondered if this was:a conc nand somethiiig;th needs,further discussion and clarification. The discuss' n ensued with Co'mmissi ers acknowledging that potential; however, Commissione' s :didn't Believe the Ord"anc hould encourage it. It was also noted that excess en wauld \'robably % o back into t grid. The discussion c ntinued °with Cdinmissioner uggesting th the City refer to other communities,, see how they regulate energy systems. It was No noted that energy systems are ontinually changing and the: City needs to keep pac with these changes. Chair abiel said t appears tUi EEC should take another look at the roposed Ordinance and arify certain aspects. he :Commission also expressed interest i eeting again with th EC. �" Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. Teague said the general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the Page 7 of 9 minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across the R -1 Zoning District. Chair Grabiel informed the Commission he read a recent article in the Star & Tribune on "in- fill" housing. Grabiel said that the article referred to "in -fill" housing as a way to prevent blight in older neighborhoods. Grabiel said he thinks the City needs to take a more positive approach to encourage in -fill development. Commissioner Carpenter noted there are a fair amount of 50 -foot lots in Edina, adding there is no way the City can prevent development or redevelopment of these lots. Commissioners agreed if a new house meets setbacks tear.down and rebuild can occur. Commissioner Scherer said with regard to subdivision'the. Ordinance has stipulated the lot width and lot depth standards for decades. She added she doesn't know how successful it would be to change the minimum lot size at this point. Commissioner Forrest said in -fill housing is hard to compare. She added she supports density; however it needs to be appropriate for the lot size. Continuing Forrest acknowledged there is a trend to tear down and rebuild; However, there are arguments on both sides on what's right and what's wrong. Forrest suggested that instead of focusing on lot size maybe one should consider building size; what can be built etc., noting in many areas the "pocket neighborhood" would work but may not work so much in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Staunton note that 500 -feet,is used asthe�tool to establish neighborhood I. standards for lots in excess of 75 -feet in width. S.taunton'asked if there was a better way to do this, adding 500 -feet could be:considered arbitrary. He noted at times people say the "neighborhood" is smaller..thanthe 500 4eet and `other times the "neighborhood" needs to be expanded. Chair Grabiel agreed, adding he's not sure of a median width, depth or area formula. Commissioner Schroeder said if the outcome of these discussions is to achieve the proper control mechanism for the City it may be of benefit to allow PUD's in the R -1 Zoning District as a way to , "subdivide ". This way the applicant needs to prove to the City there's a real benefit in granting the subdivision. The discussion focused ;on combining lots. Planner Teague said it has been his experience that combining lots to build an overly large house happens rarely. However, Teague said he can understand concerns that this could occur. Commissioner Staunton said it appears to be a solution in search of a problem when trying to be consistent with subdivision standards. The Ordinance appears to exempt large lots from the minimum lot requirements, adding one would think that same exemption would also hold true for the smaller lots. Continuing, Staunton said the Commission needs to be mindful that we can't rezone every lot in the City. Concluding Staunton said he agrees with the comment from Commissioner Schroeder that there needs to be some form of articulation on how subdivision benefits the City. Staunton said the City needs to find its Page 8 of 9 voice on this issue so people can get a sense of what to expect Commissioner Fischer said he doesn't know how he feels about opening this up for PUD. He asked if a PUD could only be allowed in specific instances and not generally. Chair Grabiel said the next step would be to have staff retool the ordinance and develop a ordinance that could use PUD as a subdivision method. Planner Teague said from the discussion tonight it doesn't appear there's much support for the median adding that staff would look at addressing subdivision through the PUD process. Continuing, Teague noted that if the Commission .takes this route the PUD option would be open to all R -1 zoned properties. Teague said the, Commission should keep that in mind as they move forward. VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection and Attendance. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS None. X. STAFF COMMENTS \ Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9 J a v►. �� , ao 1 a tc Kim Mon'IBQmery, 5300 Evanswood Lane said she had questions on si walks and the purchase of private Ian-dkr public civic use. Jessica Cook said the ds could be used for basic public provements but not the extra "niceties" such as brick p ers for sidewalks or lands $FVing. TIF money cannot be used for residential street improveme ts, public /Urchase munity buildings or to facilitate private redevelopment. TIF money can used fater road improvements in support of a redevelopment within the Project ea a for the purposes of providing affordable housing. Commissioner Carpenter stated tthe Com ission:s role is to determine if the expanded Plan Area is consistent.with the Carpenter stated in his opinion that it is. Motion Commissio/Stau n moved to recommend adoption \noill tion. Commissioner Fischer secotion; noting the funds can be spent e spent. Fischer also noted the ommission on this subject is limited ae Resolution is in keeping wrehensive Plan. All voted aye; motio Discussion — Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lots smaller than 9,000 square feet and 75 -feet in width. Planner.. Presentation Planner Teague reported that as a result of recent subdivision requests on Brookview and Oaklawn Avenues, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern in regard to approving subdivisions that require variances. Teague noted.that in the last- five years the, City has received five (5) requests to subdivide .properties into lots.that were less than 9,000.square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Teague acknowledged that all of the requests were made in the area around Pamela Park. Three of those requests were approved; one is pending review by the City Council, and one was .withdrawn by the applicant before action was. taken. Teague said:th.ere are options on how to address the issue and suggested that a goal should be established up front as to what the City wishes to accomplish in changing the ordinance. Page 7 of 10 Discussion Chair Grabiel asked the Commission for their comments, adding in his opinion the City should encourage redevelopment; noting there is a catch on how that can it be correctly accomplished. Grabiel said he believes, at this point, if the City allows subdivisions to expand up meeting 500 -foot neighborhood requirements for lot width, depth and area; shouldn't the same be true if one wants to expand down. Commissioner Schroeder said he likes the idea of allowing a PUD for residentially zoned parcels. He noted other cities permit PUD's in their residential districts, adding that some cities like St. Louis Park are more like Edina. Schroeder added the reason he likes this option is that PUD is project specific. He pointed out in this instance a PUD process would answer many of the neighbors questions; like trees, house placement etc. Concluding, Schroeder said PUD could be another "subdivision" tool. Planner Teague pointed out that the City's ordinance precludes PUD in R -1 zoning districts; however that doesn't mean PUD in an R -1 zoning district shouldn't be reconsidered. Commissioner Fischer pointed out that it wasn't that long ago that the Commission was considering amending the ordinance to allow PUD ; however, during the discussion on allowing PUD zoning many residents expressed concern" with allowing PUD in the City's R -1 zoning district. Continuing, Fischer noted since those discussions the Commission has come across a couple of instances where a PUD zoning would be a benefit in an R -1 zoning district and would make sense. Concluding, Fischer said permitting PUD in an R -1 zoning district may be something the Commission should reconsider. Commissioner Potts agreed and added if the City's goal was to protect the character of all neighborhoods using PUD as another tool besides lot width, depth, area, etc. may not be a bad idea. Commissioner Carpenter said in reviewing the most recent request for subdivision in a small lot neighborhood; including past similar requests that he was struck by the fact on how few people contested these subdivisions; if at all. Carpenter noted there have been five subdivision requests in small lot neighborhoods in five years, questioning if that's really a lot. He said he also wonders if the Commission really needs to do anything to "fix " the ordinance if in reality it works and wasn't broken. Commissioner Scherer said her concern is that residents feel undercut on how the Commission addresses subdivisions, adding some residents don't agree with the original plat theory. Scherer said to her it's about reliance on the code. Continuing, Scherer said she doesn't believe it is unreasonable to clarify the code so the Commission has a reliance factor. Concluding Scherer stated she likes the idea of a PUD and also likes option 3 presented by staff, acknowledging that each request becomes unique and emotional. Page 8of10 Commissioner Potts said he understands about reliance on the code and asked Planner Teague if he knows "how many more of these combined small lots" are out there that may come up for subdivision ". Planner Teague responded that staff would look into that. Commissioner Carpenter observed there are many 50 -foot wide lots in Edina with both new and older homes on them, pointing out the vast majority of these homes can be torn down and rebuilt without Commission or Council comment. Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion the Commission needs to revisit this issue. She noted that part of the problem is our current code that allows generous buildings to be built on these small lots. Forrest agreed that the one size fits all may not work. Chair Grabiel commented that in the Comprehensive and Land Use Plan the goal is to preserve the character of the neighborhoods and maintain Edina's housing stock. Grabiel said he doesn't see how in an area of predominately 50 -foot wide one can to argue that maintaining those 50- foot lots doesn't make sense. Concluding, Grabiel also said the opinion that ordinances "never change" isn't true, pointing out ordinances do change. Commissioner Forrest said in theory she agrees but the Commission also needs to consider how these subdivisions affect neighborhoods. She added the Commission needs some form of individual approach or a creatively crafted ordinance to address these issues. Commissioner Platteter pointed out if someone wants to buy three 50 -foot wide lots and conjoin them there is no review process; questioning if the code should work the same both ways. Platteter said in his opinion maintaining the original plat is important. He said the plats in reality defined Edina's neighborhoods, adding in his opinion these small lot neighborhoods also need protection. Concluding Platter reiterated there are no limits on combining lots; which to him is a concern and more out of character than going the other direction and honoring the original plat. Commissioner Staunton said the discussion was good, adding he agrees with Commissioners Scherer and Schroeder that there shouldn't be just one way, adding having a city wide lot width requirement may not be the best approach. Staunton pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes character districts, adding that number 3 also makes sense to him. He pointed out currently code requires that all applicants identify the 500 -foot neighborhood standards, and even if the lots within that 500 -foot neighborhood don't meet current code variances are required for the "new" lot(s). Staunton concluded he was also intrigued by allowing PUD in the R -1 zoning district. Chair Grabiel said this discussion needs to be continued and requested that staff look at the calendar and see if time was available for the Commission and Council to meet jointly. Grabiel added that more research also needs to be done on how a PUD would "work" in the R -1 zoning district and on how many "lots" are out there that were combined plat that now could be "subdivided ". Page 9of10 CITY OF,EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 -826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com ei !, , vi U) �yo Date: July 25, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width At the July 11, 2012 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a draft of a potential policy that would limit the size of homes built on newly created lots through a PUD rezoning. Below is a beginning draft of such a policy. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss at the July 25`f' Work Session following the regular meeting. Low Density PUD or New Lots Requiring Variances Purpose. This policy applies to homes being built in established neighborhoods on newly created lots that require variances or PUD, Planned Unit Development rezoning. The purpose is to require new homes built on these lots to be consistent with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Policy. The City may require that new homes built on lots requiring variances or PUD rezoning be consistent with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood character, for the purpose of this policy means the following: The new home must have a floor area ratio, and height to the ridge line that is no more than 10% more than the largest or tallest home within 100 feet of the proposed house, and within 1,000 feet of the proposed house on the same street. The City may disallow any existing lot(s) that the City determines are not visually part of the applicant's neighborhood. The City may also add any existing lot(s) that the City determines is visually part of the applicant's neighborhood. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Cary Teague From: Kevin Staunton <kevin @stauntonlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:26 PM To: Cary Teague; Grabiel, Floyd Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments I can't attend tonight's meeting but wanted to pass along a couple of thoughts on the issues on our work session agenda. Please pass this along to the rest of the Commission. 1. Subdivision of Lots of less the 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. First, I think we are mis- labeling this item. I don't think we are contemplating subdivisions of lots less than 75 feet wide but are, instead, contemplating permitting subdivisions that would result in lots less than 75 feet wide (and presumably result in lots less than 9,000 square feet in area). Assuming my understanding is correct, we should make that clear. We may also want to consider setting minimum width and area thresholds so that there could not be subdivision.of lots smaller than certain dimensions (I certainly don't think we want to create lots narrower than 40 -50 feet in any area). I also think we need additional thinking on the criteria we use to determine whether the proposed structures on such lots are "compatible and complimentary" with the neighborhood (more on that in the process section below). Finally, I am uncomfortable with promulgating those criteria in a policy; I think they ought to be part of the ordinance so that people can easily find them when contemplating such proposals. 2. Building Wall Heights /Grading. I think we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve before we solve it. Having watched a number of rebuilds on small lots come before us (and hear about a number that don't have to), it does not seem to me that the problem is a lack of mass. To the contrary, we are constantly hearing about too much house on too small a lot. In that context, it seems to me that we ought to — at a minimum — proceed with, caution when contemplating ordinance changes that will permit greater mass (albeit in exchange for reduced height). In addition, the:proposed ordinance change does nothing to address two other problems we are hearing about — drainage and retaining walls. Rather than take a piecemeal approach to the code on these issues, I'd like to see us be comprehensive. On retaining walls, there are a number of things we could consider — adopting a fence -type "good side /bad side" rule that would require the property owner creating the retaining wall situation to have the "bad" side (i.e .', the side with the shear face) facing their property. In the example we heard about at our last meeting, that would .have required the builder to dig down on the other side of the property rather than build up on the side he did. We could also consider retaining wall setbacks after so many. feet of height or some kind of average grade requirement. On drainage, it seems unacceptable to me that a builder has no restrictions on the amount he may increase the rate of runoff associated with a new house so long as the runoff follows the same path it did. before construction;. Why can't we require the builder to engineer solutions (such as.downspouts to underground stormwater pipes that,go directly.to the city's stormwater system) that don't make the neighbor suffer the consequences of the new construction. On both of these issues, I am sure there are other good ideas that could address the problems while still permitting reasonable redevelopment of residential properties. 3. Process. The more I think about these issues, the more I understand how much, I don't know. To date, we have dealt with this dynamic by staff visiting with some selected local developers toget their suggestions about how to proceed. I'm fine with that being part of our information gathering process (although I'd like to hear from them directly, too) but think we're missing some other experts. People who live in the neighborhoods that have had these issues also know a lot about the how the problems develop and, I'm betting, will have some good ideas about potential solutions. I think we should be working to reach out to folks like those before we go to a public hearing (we have, after all, done such outreach with the developers). Such an effort would give us some suggestions to consider on the PUD issues (what is it that makes a new structure "compatible" with a neighborhood ?) as well as the mass, scale, drainage, and retaining wall issues. I think it is critical, though, that we do more than merely put out a blanket notice that we want to hear from people. We know people who have had first hand experiences with these issues. We should be reaching out directly to them and asking them to help us figure out the right answers. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Sorry I can't be there tonight. kevin 2 City Hall - Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 - www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO Re: Subdivision of lots less, than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width At the May 91h meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft an Ordinance amendment that would allow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots that are less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Attached is an Ordinance amendment that would allow PUD in the R- I Zoning District. Current City Code regulations do not allow PUD zoning in the R- I areas of the City. The City Council has generally expressed interest in considering a uniform median lot area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot size requirement in the R -I District. Currently the minimum lot size in Edina is 9,000 square feet in area; 75 feet in width; and 120 feet in depth; unless located in an area where lots are larger than this, then the median of all lots within 500 feet becomes the minimum lot size requirement. Therefore, that language is still within the Ordinance amendment for final consideration. The general consensus of the Planning Commission at the May 9th meeting was that the PUD Ordinance would allow the City more discretion in its review of Subdivisions to ensure that the new lots better fit the neighborhood. Having the median established by lots within 500 feet does not necessarily create a lot size that is consistent with the immediate neighborhood. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss the attached ordinance, and make a recommendation that we bring to the City Council at our September work session. For background, attached is the history of this topic including minutes from our past discussions. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Draft 7 -2 -2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND PUD ELIGIBILITY IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4.D is amended as follows: D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be. possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. 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. In the case of a PUD in a low density residential area, the Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX iral design of the housing must be compatible an imentary with surroundina housinaT e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. 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 L ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted. accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. PFepeFty ^UrFently zei;ed —R1, P 2 and ARD 1 shall not be eligible fnr a RI Irl b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD, is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; ii. any PUD which' involves a single .land use type .or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities. may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 5. Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 9,0000 square feet Pro„Tided ho.ey , .. the lot is in neighhorhead as defin °rl mc-rvc -r -m- u- i�cn�'rn•v�rrry o � ................ in SeGtinn 8 10 of this Code, whinh has Into+ with a median In+ ar °a nr °atef ' lets y ....... �.... than 9,000 sgT1are feet-,then—The minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in the neighborhood as defined in . Section 810 of this Code. B. Minimum Lot Width. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 75 feet provided howev er if the in a neighborhood as defined in SeGtiGR 810 ef this e Whioh has Io+ with a m d lot w% gr ateF than 75 feet-the4i the minimum lot width shall . be not less than the median lot width of lots in the neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code. C. Minimum Lot Depth. 1. Single Dwelling Unit. 120 feet, pFevided however, if the Iot_:� in a rkeighhoFheAd as deefinned -ins which has l t wi vrrth- a-rmrr° depth greater thou 120 feet +h °n the minimum lot depth - shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk . CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I,,the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the;Minutes,of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my:hand and seal of said City this day of , 2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner Teague if the City's noise ordinance was sufficient to address these new systems or should the EEC take a look at noise. Planner Teague said the Health Department enforces the noise ordinance and Edina has adopted State requirements. Commissioner Staunton said he observed that the Ordinance uses different terms to define energy systems; adding in his opinion it should be uniform; either Energy Generation Systems or Energy Collection Systems. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Forrest asked for clarification on setbacks pointing out corner lots and large commercial lots could be difficult. Teague explained that the energy systems must maintain the same setbacks as are required for principal building or structures in the underlying zoning district. Teague also noted that energy systems can't be located in the front yard. Rapidly changing field don't want to be too restrictive. Commissioner Platteter said front yard may need to be defined or clarified more. He said the City needs to encourage sustainability while remaining reasonable. Commissioner Carpenter said it appears to him that it's necessary that the City have some control. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Schroeder expressed concern with on -site consumption, and questioned if any excess energy could be sold to the neighborg or back to the utility company. Schroeder wondered if this was a concern and something that needs further discussion and clarification. The discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that potential; however, Commissioners didn't believe the Ordinance should encourage it. It was also noted that excess energy would probably go back into the grid. The discussion continued with Commissioner suggesting that the City refer to other communities to see how they regulate energy systems. It was also noted that energy systems are continually changing and the City needs to keep pace with these changes. Chair Grabiel said it appears the EEC should take another look at the proposed Ordinance and clarify certain aspects. The Commission also expressed interest in meeting again with the EEC. Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. Teague said the general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the Page 7 of 9 minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across.the R -1 Zoning District. Chair Grabiel informed the Commission he read a recent article in the Star & Tribune on "in -fill" housing. Grabiel said that the article referred to "in- fill" housing as'a way to prevent blight in older neighborhoods. Grabiel said he thinks the City needs to take a more positive approach to encourage in -fill development. Commissioner Carpenter noted there are a fair amount of 50 -foot lots in Edina, adding there is no way the City can prevent development or redevelopment of these lots. Commissioners agreed if a new. house meets setbacks-tear down and rebuild can occur. Commissioner Scherer -said with regard to subdivision the Ordinance;has stipulated the lot width and lot depth standards for decades.. She added she doesn't know how`successful it would be to change the minimum lot size at this point. Commissioner Forrest said in -fill housing is hard to compare. She added she supports density; however it needs to be appropriate for the lot size. Continuing Forrest acknowledged there is a trend to tear down and rebuild; .however, there are arguments on both sides on what's right and what's wrong. Forrest suggested that instead of focusing on lot'size maybe one should consider building size; what can be built etc., noting in many areas the "pocket neighborhood" would work but may not work so much in other neighborhoods. Commissioner Staunton noted that 500 -feet is used as the tool to establish neighborhood standards for lots in excess of 75 -feet in width. Staunton asked if there was a better way to do this, adding 500 -feet could be considered arbitrary. He noted at times people say the "neighborhood" is smaller than the 500 -feet and other times the "neighborhood" needs to be expanded. Chair Grabiel agreed, adding he's not sure of a median width, depth or area formula. Commissioner Schroeder said if the outcome of these discussions is to achieve the.proper control mechanism for the City it may be of benefit to allow PUD's in the R -1 Zoning District as a way to "subdivide ". This way the applicant needs to prove to the City there's a real benefit in granting the subdivision. The discussion focused on combining lots. Planner Teague said it has been his experience that combining lots to build an overly large house happens rarely. However, Teague said he can understand concerns that this could occur. Commissioner Staunton said it appears to be a solution in search of a problem when trying to be consistent with subdivision standards. The Ordinance appears to exempt large lots from the minimum lot requirements, adding one would think that same exemption would also hold true for the smaller lots. Continuing, Staunton said the Commission needs to be mindful that we can't rezone every lot in the City. Concluding Staunton said he agrees with the comment from Commissioner Schroeder that there needs to be some form of articulation on how subdivision benefits the City. Staunton said the City needs to find its Page 8 of 9 voice on this issue so people can get a sense of what to expect Commissioner Fischer said he doesn't know how he feels about opening this up for PUD. He asked if a PUD could only be allowed in specific instances and not generally. Chair Grabiel said the next step would be to have staff retool the ordinance and develop a ordinance that could use PUD as a subdivision method. Planner Teague said from the discussion tonight it doesn't appear there's much support for the median adding that staff would look at addressing subdivision through the PUD process. Continuing, Teague noted that if the Commission takes this route the PUD option would be open to all R -1 zoned properties. Teague said the Commission should keep that in mind as they move forward. VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection.and Attendance. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION'COMMENTS None. X. STAFF COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Scherer moved meeting adjournment at 9:00 pm. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. �Ta cU& it G�GPX Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9 .c op, City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: May 9, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO w91�1r� O �O Re: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width This topic was discussed by the Planning Commission last on January 25, 2012. The general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was to consider an Ordinance Amendment that established the minimum lot size in Edina to be consistent across the R-1-Zoning District. To accomplish that, the median lot width, depth and area of all properties within 500 feet would establish the minimum lot size requirement. This would be consistent with the current regulations for lots over 9,000 square feet in size. Additionally, the Commission suggested offering the PUD Zoning District to all properties within the R -1 or low density zoning districts, in an effort to provide an additional tool for the City to encourage more creative development when considering new redevelopment projects. Attached is an Ordinance amendment that would establish both of these items. Staff was also asked to investigate the number of 100 -foot lots in the 50 -foot lot platted area. The attached maps demonstrate that there are about 26 100 -foots in tfie Morningside area; there is about 20 100 -foot lots in the middle section, of Edina, south of 52' 'Street. north of the Crosstown; and about 20 more in the north west corner of,'Edlna.,. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2012-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS IN THE R -1 DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 5. is amended to add the following definitions: Subd. 5 Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit B. Minimum Lot Width. Single dwelling unit building Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 9,000 squaFe feet pFeveded , Of the !at me, On a neighbWheed as defined ,n SeGfien 810 of this Code, a.[eater than 9,000 square fee+ +hen The minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in such neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code.. 75 feet, nreyided heweyer if the let is in a neighbGFheed as defined-in SeGtOOR 810 of this Gode, whnGh has let with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then The minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in such neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code. C. Minimum Lot Depth. Single dwelling unit building 120 feet, nre„ided ho weyeF if +he I.,+ ic• in neinhherheed as definer: in Servfinm 810 of this Code, WIhiGh has In +c Wath A median 'at depth gFeater +hen -0 feet, +heR The minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of the neighborhood as defined in Section ,810 of this Code. For reference, below is the regulation in Section 810: Section 810 Median. The value (being; in this Section, lot area, lot depth or lot width, as the case may be) in an ordered set of such values below which and above which there is an equal number of such values, or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one such middle value. Neighborhood. All lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by Section 850 of this Code which are wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, except. A. Lots used. for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities and golf courses, B. Lots used for conditional uses as established by Section 850 of this Code, or C. Lots separated from the. proposed plat or subdivision. by the right of way of either T. H. 100 or T. H. 62. If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, then the whole of-that lot shall. be included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the. proposed plat or subdivision, the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Section 2. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 4.D.2.a is amended to add the following definitions: D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. PFGpeFtY nU FFen +ly zoned R 4 R 2 and PRI) 1 shall not be eligible feF a PL )D. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 7,>P S 5 T i T f}r(q +-t')lP. ct City of Edina JCO Si :'.107.: 401 701 403 407 307 300 Labels 30 ?Lp .:i !! 403 405 404 406 405 404 Lake Names ?U2 ..._ ... 304 404 204 473 dUT 305 305 704 305 405 408 40' JL'I ao9 3rib 307 307 306 309 �.1 Av i 411 309 308 311 306 x A 709 30a 414 711 308 4}3 r, 415 414 < A 4f2 a10 .i;.i 714 311 416 tl, 412 416 417 717 315 411 419 317 312 41C 420 314 419 427 J15 317 31G 423 714 317 .7f7 316 311 J19 31G 412 31f )1g 318 71A 319 d7d 319 424 120 J1f 425 4Gt ,0 FY AVf 323 311 323 ;?13 312 323 320 321 315 cci .qpF 1 A 199 301 703 303 309 311 J15 RE Fm 401 400 4(1f 400 401 400 407 aan aof PID:3011721220070 301 -03 Washington Ave S Edina, MN 55343 `• ' 1 't. }` kj ; 401 403 407 Surrounding House Nuinlvr Labels 403 407 403 405 404 406 405 404 Lake Names Lakes 405 404 473 dUT 409 405 408 40' 4011 ao9 4aa 411 A 413 �.1 Av i 411 410 4 Y Q11 41') x A 417 411 414 414 41S 4}3 r, 415 414 < A 4f2 a10 yo { 415 416 tl, 412 416 417 410 414 411 419 41C 420 419 427 410 423 421 423 412 413 412 415 d7d 425 424 425 424 425 4Gt ,0 FY AVf PID:3011721220070 301 -03 Washington Ave S Edina, MN 55343 `• ' 1 't. }` kj ; Legend Highlighted Feature Surrounding House Nuinlvr Labels House Number Labels Street N.— Labels .f City Unfits C—ks Lake Names Lakes n Parks Parcels till 6721 7Uf liOen P:r\ 67sn City of Edina JOJ .102 304 3U5 3U6 309 308 146 145 30 ,49 Legend T74 716 J1a ]10 727 Highlighted Feature 1Nn 5T Surrounding Houso Number GG55 14 Labels 2NP ST S 6v.: House Number Labels _ � xp3 30' 301 7�0 107 Street Name Labels 'J 302 303 A302 / � City Limits 305 305 C raaks 307 306 306 307 ❑ Lake Names J09 309 309 - Lakes 311 311 f—1 Parks '�I 311 r Ji0 Parcels 513 115 314 313 315 312 1(5 31i 3I7 318 313 11, J7 i 3,0 321 J23 2o 322 6 d'2 401 B&A04: to 4f,0 401 4W 401 400 66 15 400 437 A07 403 402 401 404 403 404 40,51 405 00! 405 40, 406 404 407 4U6 d .. ana sd7 da 408 d13 !OS 408 ao 4!i. 408 S j5 Jlf d10 409 JUe' d,!i F; 411 S A1! i 411 415 414 z A 417 4f4 4t1 412 tit 414 415 ,4 ¢ 415 $ Qf5 41G u 11 416 417 41G 416 417 429 419 d1a s1s 41a 4,9 410 4fa 419 121 121 423 412 473 410 423 412 411 420 425 415 425 114 425 424 475 474 425 WL1 kYAVF ( GG09 GG05 fG15 FaN9 Caalur:C, .: %+[1:15404 il:%I SOS PID:3011721220080 Q Q �+, •�, r c y 422 Adams Ave j j� Q - "'a �• Edina, MN 55343 �V at ,a1 1 -711 I E,�tf --5` till 6721 7Uf liOen P:r\ 67sn JOJ .102 304 3U5 3U6 309 308 71r 3to 7r7 315 y317 77.? T74 716 J1a ]10 727 MAR City of Edina Legend Surrounding House Number 101 2 0? T31 10U labels 704 House Number Labels 106 209 209 212 Street Name Labels 21, 210 111 C4 Limits 121 123 223 2217 220 / Creeks fn 23r 234 ED Lake Names 337 23.3 230 " "11 Lakes 137 30 743 2.7a 745 248 tj Parks 345 1:3 Par-Is 257 734 253 254 24 21 11 Y55 162 30 263 262 90 301 302 700 301 305 304 303 300 301 � !OI �� 701 Y J00 301 3b7 39d DEARSOAN CT 309 J00 705 36iM 305 .304 04 305 313 .310 \ J03 its r+ 306 )Qy 30 �; 3Ua 313 Jf2- 711 309 717 24 ,34 312 308 s 311 312 �. -- 377 '� PA 313 )f1 315 719 6520 7 6632 �� 660D 6318 ='-1112 � 630a bd14 217 316 311 6224 6310 Jfa 317 401 X01 SF1.3>< E7 AOd 6517 651} 6509 6301 401 107 401 6Mi 103 101 b23J 407 104 6521 404 A05 404 405 401 24 405 4M 6129 406 6325 449 e11 117 v Of ]415 Apa 409 408 409 408 24 409 106 409 432 Ass 111 j. 41T sf3 s31 A17 112 f13 Al2 e13 Its 17a 414 Of 422 63f1 1f7 �' 31' H6 41; 116 417 416 r17 � 125 121 421 6124 6420 6416 :N12' 420 /2t 420 471 X228 6609 66DS 500 KSlO'iEYA VY 391 300 501 6433 6416 ul 500 ISIS S05 6521 504 6717 BJOa 21 .3� 14 509 530 509 6429y b4P4 300 7SS 505 6203 304 :6301 313 516 517 6423 ; 6410 N35 24 vnhW9 C IN t�s:X6 ]6L% 521 509 � 509 PID: 3011721120030v e °S[` t 304 Griffit St O -' tia �• Edina, MN 55343 „ I,y,.,f,,,t.. City of Edina - 412 — -- _ Legend 418 Highlighted Feature W 419 417 �244, J ?7 416 Surrounding House Number 122 :r t'i Labels 6526 65!2 474 421 4 ?1 6424 6420 r'j 6416 64 t2 4'10 House N Labels — L Street Name Labels NA f. C*. AYE — V �/ City Llmits / 5 1 f,605 SOU S 501 6433 ,„tlg Creeks � Lake Names 500 6511 504 � Lakes 6419 Parks 14 510 4i 10' 4411 500 Parcels 506 509 C 513 516 ` 6425 64M 52 �1 6421 a 6C5 517 Sf6 609 524 ` 529 6471 EaOtl ld 64P4 CJUO 510 511 533 53, 6419 J'tMllfi_S'SC,&y,` 611 6610 6615 ?, 6516 IL39' 617 SW 541 8477 6417 6409 6405 6401 545 x INA 4 "eRWIN AVE 14 5519 6501 24 6d11' 6411 't 66fI 6611 f� 4916 24 604 1 ?— 'yltrror Lake i 6543 652" 6535 4011 j 4900 .24 401 4925 1920 4!:21 6316 4419 u q ((CC JryO.f 491`5 4924 49':. ° °. 24 Qll' U I• 5408 6400 0 ESUO 65.0 4009 64}6 E72+ n 4nli 4978 4925 6424 / r1 ( Z NTF.N.A CMC,Y S-M � z PID: 3011721130027 a (n "a 524 Arthur St -' 4• Edina, MN 55343 c�'1 tvti'�S City of Edina :a- sTd9 s7re Vol sob Srd9 5;12 r�n ='!6 srn bTlB 57sia Legend Surrounding House Number Lnewa Ftr K77I 9717 5713 3713 5776 S71t 3770 5711 STPO 5721 Labels 3717 STtb 5717 99 }b $717 3710 3713 8714 BTYS 3754 3715 5719 House Number Labels 710 $717 Stroel Name Labels $7N $72: s7M 57If s711 6119 s7?B 37?9 s728 $777 .J City Limlts 47N 3775 $%18 5735 97N 3)?5 37I8 5731 3771 3773 873Y $137 5701 ��„/ Creeks S7T8 S7A9 E] Lake Namo6 771 5729 S7J2 9719 5728 5729 873? 3777 3736 3777 3778 3779 ,._....I Was -T7t: 3773 3736 $737 5731 5773 $778 $70} 3700 370} 5710 3737 pParka 3757 p Pam*)$ se m s7 ri mm- 5801 5N70 3801 3800 SBOT 5800 5801 3800 SBOT 3807 04 SdM $803 5604 5803 .5804 8809 SOD, 3800 5803 3803 5808 5803 5808 380.9 ......... 3808 8809 . _. 5808 9809 5808 9909 $808 .186.9 5615 5871 581Y 3817 ... _.. _ 587? 58/,3 9012 5813 5811 5812 SAfI SA 17 Sd /7 3416 5817 S816 SB}7 SBTb 8817 d $877 5d }b 3821 5820 5821 5810 � 5811 3870 "21 9818 S823 30 5811 5870 $815 5820 3415 58 ?( s: 8823 5871 $815 5824 5837 5033 5927 5825 38 24 Sd1B 5829 5824 3819 _ 3878 5829 3828 5877 5879 Sd31 $837 3873 b873 Sd72 9837 5832 5801 5828 5879 38I8 3837 3876 9837 5878 5877 3870 383> 3878 5875 31 3877 58.72 5871 SSW 5841 .940 8841 3840 3847 38;7 949 5853 18 � 8837 K838 5843 584E 5885 66" 3803 9804 5905 3448 3857 9:r0} 58011 3901 5908 5901 5600 S9TN 9TW 8901 9900 5901 3900 5907 900 5905 5804 3905 5986 5905 SSOS 9903 $9d4 3905 3901 $903 1908 5.9d9 5908 58A3 5908 5909 SSOB 3909 $Bf1D 5909 3908 SR f3 3913 59fY 58/3 8973 5R 0 601? 3817 3912 5917 5912 5977 3812 „ 8917 5914 ' 9917 SOtb 5977 5916 5977 5978 3921 1916 $917 5816 � 8D21 $9M $931 5920 Q 39Y1 X10 5929 5920 5917 � $920 592 � 5914 5y2! 5013 si 3924 59 25 39N 5939 � � 3933 9920 �� 3979 39)0 5939 3978 5937 5377 8913 3973 592b , $928 8933 9977 9433 5932 5073 5972 $971 'i918 $919 5972 5945 ''.,7418 3417 3408 340(7000 ;]71b 3771770E J70Q 3300 3116 2 2Y 7208 3300 3700 '71 t6 7}/100 '971 9937 5976 I I I I �L�LJ I I I I I I I J � I�LJ .rJtft fRaS Gan:m.� m met 600D 6001 fi7i�o BDTH Sf W tat! 7075 ,�Ir ��1r1,e17 T. PID: 2002824310184 A r ° 5928 Abbott Ave S „ •- "�''a f.. �.• Edina, MN 55410 ��V „�•,� ° 5928 Abbott Ave S „ •- "�''a f.. �.• Edina, MN 55410 ��V „�•,� 1!lln City of Edina $320 5331 5310 5731 $326 i / ' ; . Legend Highlighted Feature SJ25 / + ., Surroundmg Houso Numlmr 5724 93:17 5332 5377 5324 ,i I5! / 4 Anton PUe � Labels 4 S4 i 5329 5318 S741 $736 53430 _ t �: � 5 s_\� :5 House Number Labels Street Name Latx•Is 5333 $332 5339 5346 5351 city Limits \ l �i 5337 5:136 5151 5748 575' i37E ` If� �.;' Crocks a __- \ � Lake Names Lakes O Parks JSOU 5471 5407 5400 5404 5408 5405 5400 $401 5401 5401 $405 541) '5400 - 24 4200 Parcels 0 &JLF TER 5400 5408 5409 5468 5409 5468 54" \ 5413 5412 $413 .5411 540 5411 5412 5417 M? g i 1411 5416 S1i7 5476 5417 5116 F 5417 5416 5421 5420 n 5421 5420 5421 6420 i $411 5420 M M 500 5415 W24 5414 5425 3424 $425 5124 +y425 5429 6128 $428 $429 5428 $419 5418 5433 5432 5433 5431 5473 5432 5433 5472 4501 5437 5436 547? 5436 544% 3434 5437 547E 4506 5501 Me 5501 55'Y ST Y.' 5.'.00 5501 5500 5501 5570 5505 5504 5505 5504 5505 5304 5505 5504 on sa z s509 1190 $u3:1 5503 557e s505 1179 151,5 4501 5513 5512 5513 SST2 5513 5312 5513 5512 5517 5515 5517 5516 5517 5316 SSY7 5:116 5521 $310 5511 5520 5521 6520 5521 5520 SS- 5526 .1.14 :ary:m ;fl �: %•C:!k4SW 5525 5514 3915 5524 C 5525 5524 bl.l!1 A - / _ PID: 1902824310100 1 ° 5940 Ashcroft Ave t� ' Edina, MN 55424 Al A`f( Ia \\ A1 f 1 City of Edina 5800 Legend Surrounding House Number $605 56114 5805 $804 58!15 5804 Labels 5809 5809 5808 5899 5808 House Numtxr Labels 5809 Street Name Labels 50T2 5813 5812 5913 58f2 -J City Llmlts 5817 581E 58ft 5856 5617 5816 Creeks EJ Lake Namos S82f ISM $821 5820 5821 5820 I i Lk.. b.5A25 5820 SBXJ 5825 5874 i"1 parks R' 5829 5825 1828 5828 5829 5829 parcels 5873 5837 58:12 5833 5832 5836 5831 5836 5833 5812 5877 58.76 5841 SA40 584f 5840 5844 $845 594f 5841 5840 5845 5845 5901 59 -N 57 Y: 5900 5901 5000 5901 5900 5905 5904 5905 5905 $464 5905 5909 5908 5909 590. 5908 01 tI 5913 59,7 5912 5013 5916 5918 5917 5913 5952 5316 5921 >, 5920 S921 5920 5W S 5910 h .5915 X. 5Y4hx1 R9 5925 5424 5919 5974 x 5528 4113 4109 4105 5972 5929 5933 51920 59.73 5928 593.1 5?40 4112 4708 4104 5914 $93? ,yV 24 36 SL Park $941 1 5940 i 5945 i 5937 5936 594, 5940 5945 5944 6071157W 4rp9 erns eror m C fiOUt ,.. 6000 6001 6006 6UJ4 6i05 cool 6000 L1e: 60U5 60J4 j r _ PID: 1902824310098 O', 5928 Ashcroft Ave Edina, MN 55424 Q u+ �tttffi~iyd:�./� 1 City of Edina 5137 \ o. Legend Surrounding House Number 0 MD 31W \ iS House Number Labels � P�, Street Name Labels RII�3211 5201\ ,•, 32M szen 24 City Llmits 1 �� Lake Namns 5211 i� \.0 �` 5719 `l �\ •f1 ~'� 1 '\ ,` � Lak U Parks 5717 5715 5117 51'20 , \�• ! Parcels 3221 5120 5171 5224 S27T 5221 3120 3727 \� t 5275 3224 \ 4 52d1 527N 5232 \' 5228 ! 5232 3233 5236 5732 52d5 57;16 5137 5241 \ i 5240 5735 N1an Park \\ 1 �� S3ND .ST 'W 5301 5300 5301 \ $300 5301 5300 $MS 53C4 5305 5304 S:ibS 6714 $309 3309 5307 5308 5.1if 5308 ! 3313 5312 5373 5719 5319 5377 3311 S.tff, 5.175 5.774 jt 5315 S.71R a a, 5320 n $331 3318 5331 5320 i �• 5325 `n 5311 5331 5732 $377 5324 a / 1 m g 2 24 $319 5378 5341 5336 5343 5728 ,t 5131 5332 5749 3716 5751 �1 •� � 3737 5336 5751 3748 3737 5.7,72, , -- ` I 5477/57 Vl - m:Cl_x.n;iK.u,t Sion SS07 54tlV ?.N: Y ad PID:1802824430037 o Fe , r� 5201 Wooddale Ave �� Q Edina, MN 55424 PHI-HR" IA E28 4424 4420 4416 4412 4408 4404 4400 4318 4324 4320 4316 4312 4308 4304 4201 56TH ST W ,1801 58.01 (518116 5801 5800 SEOt 5800 s 5805 5805 5805 5804 5805 5809 5808 5809 58!78 a 5809 5609 • 5813 581E 5813 .5812 5817 5816 5816 5817 58 }7 �n5817 5821 5820 58 ?1 5821 5820 5875 5825 5825 5829 rrA 5829 5828 58 9 5828 5829 5833 5832 5832 5833 5832 5837 5837 5836 5836 5837 5836 5837 5841 5840 + 5840 5840 5841 5845 p $841 5845 5844 5844 5844 5845 59TH ST W 59TH ST Y1 5001 5901 5900 5901 5900 5905 5904 5905 5904 LJ 5909 5908 5909 5908 24 5913 $912 5913 5912 5911 5916 5917 5916 5921 5920 5921 5920 Pamela Park 5925 5124 5925 5924 5929 5928 5929 5928 5933 5932 5933 5932 5937 5936 5437 5936 5941 5940 5941 5940 '12 ca2J Carr,ge(•_; _63�S GIS iU)5 59.15 5944 c 2+V1 City of Edina NyyfxaA LA 607: ci 5673 SG�3 Legend 6101 Highlighted Feature 6004 1-x70 z 6185 6011 1'x'36 6000 5016 Sd14 Surrouridmg Houso Number 6111 Cf00 6075 814 Labels Y, 6100 SS33 3816 3, 822, 3 , SA\ \ House Number Labels 6 fOd 5707 5A71 !` J/ , BuZ�I v 5717 Gb16 dtLo, Street Name Labels fi7R8 G 5701 F 5 az� J� N cry omits 6111 5836 5821\ Craeks 6116 w4 5623 ;'98, 21'�� D 80f2800A 5705 18UU�7II BLJSSi V �4 Lake Names ¢DFveF 6fi (6 _. �E1 0 n Lakes 6016 4`knE •'.r` -! :709 5012 5908 SOOa 5900 n Parks ECf7 Parcels 6071 8036 U 6011 6028 6031 W.�57f7 .. 5916 0:� SO09 5905 5901 5910 G, e614 COOd 5720 s ?zr ri�� �'�m91 5511 6130 tait7lE Udt 5713 3908 '5004 591%1 6O16 6141 5918 0 6014 3801 0010 6132 501 5937 S6W 50.36 1J C 5905 59013817 3969 6116 R2t7VF ST 6124 5803 6120 5013 8133 E116 SAf6 59}6 5912 5968 SGGt 590G 6112 581Y SAf7 •"\ 6125 •,� 6119 6108 -.916 3927 6117 6109 59N '`D.�„ 59T7 5011 5909 5305 61O4 Sfl 24 ,�•:`• 610! _ �•.•�• 5:02 4BLyQ .� Gf00 5820 14 5010 �/ S ^s06 5904 $& 5908 +�L, 3911 � 3911 5917 Brv0eren YaiY 5.916 5903 509 11 3016 5926 010 � � 50 � PID:3211721240024 5717 Olinger Rd ti,''4 0 Edina, MN 55436AA�,J Jl City of Edina Legend Highlighted Feature Surrounding Houso Numtwr La hek House Number Labels Street Name Labels N City omits Creaks Lake Names Lakas Parks O Parcels j�lL"I:Er..' 0.L' �uY_ .............._................ 1: 9ztrn sr w 4700 770} 47U0 4807 a 199 4IC7 7101 A005 41X'7 7719 7975 170.7 11Cb f1U> lloa 4231 alas dlos a1Ua 0206 O d71G 0115 4297 azat J: a o 4737 J10k 1111 a?1( 0177 d2fU JT;i • Vo 1717 0175 g 7211 d77N �. 4711 I217 2 7219 4112 12tJ 4214 I IIJJ 0119 1216 42,F 47]7 - d 1119 4270 4Y11 0 01 0 MIS w atxa Y 1177 7721 P 1777 4221 4275 111a � 1175 425U dY7d 4121 4726 4171 7700 )AJ7 0116 072E 1224 4229 7708 4170 4271 0170 1271 4212 1177 1272 4773 0.317 4309 0711 427t 0715 4170 4775 5370 0 IJiS 4776 0177 4136 117: Q 1719 4239 4770 1138 4779 1774 0717 4140 1141 4140 4241 4J78 0717 411t 1177 4712 4247 1 t7.7 11Ji 7745 4741 0145 4733 40'0 4730 Aid4 Jlt' 4116 +:eJ1� nL::.:RSI J%+avt PID: 0702824130100 �• /;\ �.. §J3 4024 Grimes Ave � �-' ^�+''� �• Edina, MN 55416 City of Edina Legend _ .. 1,1 Fl»l.1 Fare ................_.............. Hig plighted Feature Surrounding H.— Number Labels /1[q 4717 4309 IJOS 4301 dT11 1117 4.13 1277 8205 <NY 4201 Ii73 4111 4176 41or House Number Labels 4202 Street Name Labels �/ City Umits 4244 4166 4106 140 4200 42003 0 Y 4T04 C � lake Names t..akes 4208'. 42 ;1 47,3 4172 a V 4117 n Parcels 4110 4116 4213 d 4111 4217 4T10 1116 4217 �l 4210 4210 9 4124 4211 4214 J'P 4210 c 4216 4216 4227 O 4216 4121 4223 4222 117a 4723 422 ` 4 4236 4225 4124 4223 _ 4718 0.32 122T 4226 4217 4774 4229 1170 4129 4226 4231 4230 4271 0 427.; 42713 4237 4235 4132 t - •. 4271 ; -...• - 42;6 4771 4.77 1134 4237 4239 4176 4140 ,0 4239 4238 4141 474.7 4740 4141 4717 n 3., • 4243 �` 4147 4142 / 4710 4244 4245 8240 4244 424f> 4246 4141 4208 4140 0702824130100 EPID: 4024 Grimes Ave t''t, 4 pl ya 4• Edina, MN 55416 4201 4205 4825 45 4211 4215 4212 4279 4216 4225 4220 4224 4229 4228 4233 4234 4237 42.38 4241 4245 4718 4714 4249 4251 4200 4204 4208 4212 c W 4216 4120 4224 4228 City of Edina 42ND 5T W t3 ?7 d3}7 4313 4309 4305 1 4307 r4221 4201 4253 42.12 4611 4805 4407 Surlaunding Fi.,— N—IL, t 4205 4255 24 4254 4215 4216 4279 4251 4223 4260 4227 4226 42.31 4232 24 Parks 4261 4264 4266 4268 24 4269 $2 7r 4273 24 l` J y 4281 4412 City of Edina 42ND 5T W t3 ?7 d3}7 4313 4309 4305 1 4307 r4221 4201 Le ger,d 4200 4407 Surlaunding Fi.,— N—IL, t 4205 Labels 4211 4212 4215 4216 4279 4220 4223 4224 4227 4226 42.31 4232 ,rn.e.sr 24 op.. 9p444 e Q 4434 0 4236 4238 4249 4242 42" 4408 4246 4111 4213 Y' Q 4215 4212 4218 4221 4223 4225 4227 O 4231 N3 4233 4233 4237 r 4239 O 4245 4247 4370 PID:0702824130100 4024 Grimes Ave Edina, MN 55416 4206 42TY 4216 4220 4224 4226 4228 42.10 4232 4234 4236 4238 O 4240 � 4242 4244 4246 166 1 \A t ''�dtn15o1� *S`' f Le ger,d H uhliuhtcd F—W- Surlaunding Fi.,— N—IL, t Labels House Number Label, Street Name Lair Is /" City Llm its Creeks Lake Na—: Lakes F1 Parks City of Edina Legend Surrounding House Number Labels 4007 4000 'r 4000 d00f 4000 4001 4000 Hause Number Labels 400'2 1003 4004 4003 400 0002 {{{111555 Street Nana Labels •l City Llmlts 4M4 4004 0005 4000 6009 4005 4004 100/ 4008 1! 6011 40 f7 4016 4020 f Creeks U Lake Names Lakes LJ Parks Parcels 4005 400? 40111 4011 4006 4009 4009 401`2 4017 6008 4010 4011 4014 4015 4c10 eolz acts 0016 Icn 4014 4015 4JT8 acre 4016 4016 4012 4a2G Io2e 4021 4018 4010 4022 4022 4020 4021 4024 4027 } 1012 4071 1024 ce 2, Y 4024 4100 24 4iei 4100 4a2� - -- .._.- ....___ _.... aa4 4103 4102 s WaLrr n,i,d Pui: 4106 4112 4112 j 411) 4116 14 4115 ! I I i 4}}S 111/ 4120 4120 6111` 4126 M:A!9 t -.c �.:iw't'siau4 4001 4700 4223 I j 012} JT12 ='XI- PID: 0702824130036 �c. D 4023 Lynn Ave Edina, MN 55416 MI 2 1007 40W 4003 4002 4005 4004 4 IV r 4000 4000 40Ce 40" 4010 4013 4011 4015 40,14 4017 4.)ta 401& 4021 I S _ c6. • c .{t 4010 4022 M City of Edina j 4001 4000 4 e i � 4007 4WO 4003 4002 4001 4004 4005 4004 4006 4003 4007 4005 4007 4010 4000 400$ 4009 4012 4011 401.) 4011 4014 4013 4012 4013 4910 4015 4014 400 40+' 4016 4017 4UN 4010 4021 4019 4020 4919 401' 4021 .0074 4026 $022 4027 4191 I 41.30 4rn4 4105 area 1 I -' -- - tE PID:3211721240025 5709 Olinger Rd Edina, MN 55436 i !� ^ � E u Legend Highlighted Feature Surrourrdirtg House Numb- Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels ./ City Limits /' I Creeks Ejlake Names l Lobes Parks Parcels Topic: Subdivision of lots less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width Date Introduced: January 25, 2012 Date of Discussion: January 25, 2012 Why on the list: As a result of the recent subdivision requests on Brookview and Oaklawn, members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern in regard to approving subdivisions that require lot width and area variances. History: In the last five years the city has received five (5) requests (listed below) to subdivide properties into lots that were less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. (See the locations on the attached Exhibit Al.) Please note that all of these requests were made in the area around Pamela Park. Three of these requests were approved; one is pending review by the City Council, and one was withdrawn by the applicant before action was taken. Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview (a 100 -foot wide lot) was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. 3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn received a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to divide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. Decision Point: Should the City amend its ordinances regarding the city's minimum lot size requirements in the R -1 Zoning District. Options: There are many options on how to address the issue. Before deciding on any one option, a goal should be established up front as to what the City wishes to accomplish in changing the ordinance. As an example, do we wish to prohibit this type of subdivision, or do wish put greater control or review authority over them? If it is the size of the homes that are being built on these lots that is the concern, than do we need to tighten up our setback and lot coverage standards. As Planning Commission is aware, we spent over a year considering changes to address the massing issue. When compared to other similar cities we have some of the toughest regulations on development on smaller lots. Some options that may be considered: Leave the requirement as it is today. This would enable the City discretion in approving these types of subdivisions on a case by case basis. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow 50 -foot lots in the Pamela Park area. This would require a rezoning of the area, so to separate it from the current R -1 standards in other residential areas of the City. 3. Amend the Ordinance to establish the minimum lot size to the median of all lots with 500 feet, similar to the minimum lot size in neighborhoods where lots exceed 9,000 square feet in size and 75 feet in width. That would establish a consistent minimum lot size all across Edina. 4. Create an overlay district. Again, there may be several other options to consider? For Discussion: The City Council has expressed interest in having a work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the issue further. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the issue and frame up a potential work session agenda with the City Council on how to address the issue. Attached for consideration is a map that shows where these subdivision requests have occurred; (Exhibit Al.) sections from the Comprehensive Plan regarding residential districts; (Exhibit A2 —Al2.) and the current zoning ordinance requirements. (Exhibit A13 —A17.) 4 COIJ forlrving „lear,�ning raising +families &,iloing;liusiness` 2008�Compr�ehen The mall was constructed with two stories to shorten walking distances and an open garden court to facilitate a pleasant walking experience. Southdale is now over fifty years old. Victor Gruen's vision of mixing uses on a single property has been refined to include the vertical mix of uses. The significance of mixed use development lies in its ability to create synergies between different land uses, similar to Southdale's inclusion of two large stores. The benefits are many: different land uses can reinforce one another, have the potential to reduce vehicle trips, and inject more community life into commercial areas. When residential is in close proximity to certain types of retail, there is a "built -in” market that provides a market for the retail. In this manner the Future Land Use Plan seeks to provide a greater flexibility to allow mixed use in areas where it is appropriate. Existing Land Use Categories Figure 4.1 illustrates the pattern of existing land use as of 2005. The categories on the map are described as follows: Ingle- Family Residential Single - Family Detached. Residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the city, and single - family housing is the dominant housing type. Neighborhood character varies based on era of construction, scale of development, and landscape influences, as described in the Community Design section of this chapter. The most common residential type consists of post -war contemporary single - family homes on wooded lots along curvilinear streets. About 53 percent of the city's land area is occupied by single - family detached housing. Multi - Family Residential Single- Family Attached. This land use consists of residential units with common walls, where each unit has direct exterior access. In Edina the most common building types are townhouses and duplexes (two- family dwellings). Townhouses tend to be clustered close to highway or major road corridors, while duplexes are often found in narrow strips along major thoroughfares such as Vernon and France avenues as a kind of buffer for adjacent single - family detached housing. Multi - Family. This land use is defined by the multiple -unit building type where each individual unit does not have direct ground floor access to the outside. Multiple family developments are concentrated primarily along the main traffic arteries and are generally located toward the edges of the city, often in proximity to retail business establishments. Concentrations of multi - family development are found along York and France avenues, Vernon Avenue, Lincoln Drive and Cahill Road. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 A;, Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -3 l � f ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business ;, ' -i'' �� 2008 Comprehensive Plan Character Districts In order to establish principles for community design in the future, it is important to understand the City's historical development patterns and existing character. Historical development is discussed in Chapter 6. The manner in which the City evolved from rural village to streetcar suburb to postwar planned community allows us to define a series of character districts: neighborhoods, commercial nodes and districts or corridors that share a distinctive identity based on their built form, street design, landscape elements and other features, sometimes including prevalent architectural styles. Character districts are broadly delineated in Figure 4.2 and described below. It should be recognized that the 'boundaries' between these districts are often quite indistinct and that many districts share common features or elements. Principles and guidelines for character districts are described in the next section of this chapter. This section also includes specific guidance for a few geographically defined areas where redevelopment is most likely to occur. Residential Character Districts Traditional Neighborhood The oldest areas of suburban development, built in the early 20'h century in what was then a largely agricultural village, served by streetcar lines to Hopkins and Lake Harriet - Minneapolis. Areas are centered in and around the formerly independent village of Morningside, the 50`'' and France commercial district, and the West Minneapolis Heights and Mendelssohn subdivisions bordering the streetcar line in northwest Edina. Characteristics: straight streets, smaller blocks and relatively smaller lots than in later development. Most streets have sidewalks. Bungalow styles are common in the Morningside area. West Minneapolis Heights contains a variety of vernacular Midwest styles, combined with significant numbers of postwar homes. Garages, where present, are usually detached and served by side yard drives or (rarely) alleys. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 11V1 �ru►. o{ — — - —_ ...for- living, learning, raising families & doing business 2008 Comprehensive Plan) Garden Suburb Planned communities designed to provide high standards of services, amenities and maintenance for upper -class residents. The County Club District is a nationally recognized example of this type, developed by realtor Samuel Thorpe beginning in 1924 on 300 acres in the old Edina Mills community. The district was designed by landscape architects Morell and Nichols with contoured streets, shade trees, parks and landscaped open space, north of the Edina Country Club golf course. Building restrictions covered all aspects of architectural style, siting and property maintenance, as well as racial and ethnic restrictions. While the Country Club District is a historic district with defined boundaries, two nearby areas share similar characteristics: the Sunnyslope area west of Minnehaha Creek and the Interlachen area (Rolling Green and Hilldale), built adjacent to that country club. Both areas have larger lots than the Country Club District but similar street layouts. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Act, Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 11Mto] . r,- j ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business ``: �/ :'' 2008 Comprehensive Plan Common characteristics: mature trees, regular building setbacks and massing, similar historical revival architectural styles (i.e., American Colonial, English Tudor, French Colonial). Interconnected and gently curved street pattern is punctuated by landscaped triangles and islands at intersections. The Country Club District has sidewalks and generous boulevards; the other areas do not. The Interlachen area is characterized by larger lots, larger homes and proportionally more green space. Postwar Housing makes up the largest component of the City's housing stock, with about 85% of all units built after 1950. Street patterns in postwar neighborhoods vary widely, from a loosely rectilinear or contoured grid (one that often predated the housing) to an almost circular grouping focused on an internal park (i.e., Brookview Heights). Postwar Traditional housing is typified by the Cape Cod, Rambler, and split -level styles. Garages, where present, may be detached or attached but recessed behind the primary facade. These districts are located primarily in the northern half of the city. Street patterns are generally a loosely organized grid, but become more curvilinear in areas west of Hanson Road. Sidewalks are uncommon. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -11 A. of ...for- living, learning, raising families & doing business a 2008 Comprehensive Plan "By the 1950s, the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie style horizontal roofs and functional "Usonian" houses had filtered down to the developers' vernacular.... Many Edina houses of this era are well- crafted with stone exterior elements, hardwood floors and plaster walls." Edina Massing Study Postwar Contemporary housing includes a more diverse and eclectic mix of architectural styles, collectively termed "Pastoral Modern" in the Edina Massing Study. Homes are oriented with the long axis parallel to the street (like the earlier rambler style), and lots tend to be wider than in older neighborhoods. Garages tend to be attached and front- loaded. Mature vegetation gives these neighborhoods a settled character. Duplexes were located along more heavily - traveled streets (France Avenue, West 7& Street) as a transitional element, apparently in order to buffer adjacent single - family housing from traffic while perhaps providing more affordable housing options. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -12 ...for- living, learning, raising families & doing business Postwar Garden Revival is a term used to describe one specific district: the Indian Hills neighborhood and vicinity north of the Braemar Park golf course in the city's hilly southwest quadrant. This area is similar to the earlier Interlachen area in that streets wind around the steep contours, lots are large, and a high proportion of trees have been retained. Multifamily Concentrations. Multifamily housing, including townhouse condominium, and apartment complexes, tends to be clustered in specific districts or enclaves close to major thoroughfares and often in proximity to parks and shopping districts. Building size, scale, style and materials vary greatly among these developments. Landscaping is frequently used to define entries or as a buffer from adjoining roads or surrounding development. V- 2008 Comprehensive Plan Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 V1 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -13 ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business,' =`' �. 2008 Comprehensive Plan City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.2 Character Districts Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -18 921for'Irvmg,,fearning, raisipg:,families &doing,, gmness ` a ,2008'Comprehensrvell 4.3 TRENDS AND CHALLENGES The city of Edina, as a "developed" municipality, has a host of land use issues that it shares with other similarly- designated municipalities, as well as some challenges that are unique to the community. As the City continues to mature, redevelopment of existing land uses becomes a priority in order to adapt to changing conditions and future challenges, and to retain Edina's high degree of livability and commercial success as a regional retail and office center. Current land use issues include the following: • Redevelopment. The city currently has very little undeveloped land that has the potential for development. Therefore, it is redevelopment that will meet the needs posed by changing demographics and private market conditions.. Redevelopment projects should dynamically respond to the rigors of the marketplace, provide excellence in design and offer clear community benefits. What guidance can the city provide developers regarding acceptable design elements and project intensity? • Development review and approval process. The current zoning and land development review system provides limited scope and discretion to adequately address building, site, and community design issues. • Transportation choices. How can the land use plan foster transportation options for residents and workers who desire an alternative to the private automobile? A transportation network that allows for additional transit and non - motorized travel options increases the movement capacity of the existing public right -of -way and capitalizes on resident needs for more active lifestyles. ■ Teardowns and infill development. High land prices and scarcity of available land within the city have resulted in a sharp increase in single - family home redevelopment. New housing is often significantly larger than existing adjacent housing, particularly in small -lot neighborhoods, and can appear to visually overwhelm these homes, block views or cast shadows on them. There has been considerable public discussion about the appropriate massing, height and proportions of architectural elements in established neighborhoods. How can the City balance the desire of some residents for larger homes with state -of- the -art features and developers seeking to offer housing units that appeal to today's market, with the interests of neighbors who object to the size and scale of some new construction? Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 q ` Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -19 .for'living,Aearning raising families &doingibysiness `''- ',F' -2008' visually prominent, signage is designed to be legible at driving speeds, landscaping remains limited, and connectivity to surrounding uses is inconvenient or even dangerous for non - driving customers. Although in some cases, zoning requirements may have guided the placement of buildings within large expanses of parking, site plans are often lacking in landscaping and pedestrian amenities that could mitigate environmental and transportation - related impacts. When buildings are set within wide expanses of parking, customers and workers are discouraged from walking to nearby destinations, so travel for short trips is predominantly by car, further adding to traffic congestion. Superblocks and Lack of Connectivity. The development of large parcels as signature planned developments, such as Southdale Shopping Center, Edinborough and Centennial Lakes, has contributed significantly to Edina's identity and differentiation from comparable Metro area communities. However, one consequence of this type of development is an absence of street connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and through the development itself. Instead, vehicular traffic is funneled onto a few local streets where capacity is often not adequate to meet the need. For instance, France and York avenues bear a local traffic burden that could be better accommodated through a more diffuse street network. The "superblocks" created in the southeast quadrant of the city reshape traffic patterns and travel modes to discourage non - motorized transportation within the district and fracture linkages to surrounding residential neighborhoods. 4.4 GOALS AND POLICIES: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Land Use Goals 1. Protect and preserve the essential character of existing residential neighborhoods. 2. Preserve and maintain housing that serves a range of age groups and economic situations. 3. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging City residents. 4. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 (� Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design V ' �� 4 -21 for_ilrving,,learning, raising' famil er &doing business j' '20;08'(C -6 - r0h'!PI ive Guidelines: Low- Density Design (Residential) 1. Control the scale and massing of infill housing to make it reasonably compatible with established residences. Recent zoning changes have addressed this issue. Future zoning changes should refer to and consider the Recent zoning changes to address the massing issue: • Measuring building heights from existing grade, rather than proposed grade; • Creation of a sliding scale of setback requirements based on lot width to increase the separation between houses on narrow lots; • The elimination of bay windows as an exception into the required setback; • The first floor elevation of a new home may not increase the first floor elevation from the previous home on the lot by more than one foot. Character Districts described earlier in this chapter. Other techniques that may be considered include: ■ a graduated scale, or floor area ratio that relates building size to lot size; ■ an impervious surface maximum to ensure that a reasonable percentage of each lot remains as green space, for aesthetics and stormwater management; ■ design standards that guide the stepping back of building mass and height from adjacent residential buildings;and parks. 2. Building and garage placement. Many neighborhoods and individual blocks have an established pattern of building placement, spacing, landscape treatments, front yard setbacks and garage placement that combine to convey a particular neighborhood character. For example, most garages in the City's older traditional neighborhoods are detached and located within the rear yard. While new construction is likely to vary from this pattern, some limits on the degree of variation may be appropriate in areas such as historic districts. For example, the following guidelines should be considered: Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 l Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -42 ..for living, learning, raising families & doing business K 2008 Comprehensive Plan ■ The width of front - loaded garages is limited so that they occupy no more than a defined percentage of the front fagade; ■ Driveway width at the curb is limited,- ■ Front - loaded garages may be required to meet the same setback as the rest of the front fagade. These and similar techniques could be considered as part of a 'conservation overlay' option within the zoning code. 3. Integration of multi -unit housing into transitional areas. As mentioned under "Character Districts, Postwar Contemporary Housing," duplexes were located along many major thoroughfares in Edina as a kind of buffer or transition to the adjacent single - family housing. �,.. Today this housing type is in need of updating or replacement in many locations, and high land and redevelopment costs create pressure for higher- density housing I types. Townhouse complexes have been constructed in locations such as north France Avenue. The challenge is that in many locations the duplexes are only one lot deep, which makes it difficult to provide an adequate transition to single - family scale. The following guidelines broadly address the issue of integrating multi -unit housing into lower- density, primarily single - family neighborhood transitional areas. Single- family characteristics. Attached and multifamily housing should emulate single - family housing in its basic architectural elements — pitched roofs, articulated facades, visible entrances, porches or balconies. Taller buildings should step down to provide a height transition to existing adjacent residential buildings. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -43 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 uses shall cease and the building and land shall then be used for only principal uses, and accessory uses permitted in the zoning district in which the land is situated, or allowed conditional uses pursuant to the grant of a conditional use permit. D. Conditional Interim Uses. 1. Only the following interim uses are allowed subject to the grant of a conditional use permit: a. administrative offices and meeting rooms for private non - profit organizations, and counseling services, which, together with the other such offices and meeting rooms in the same public school building will, in the Aggregate, occupy 35 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building; and b. administrative offices and meeting rooms for private non- profit organizations, and counseling services and schools for teaching music, arts, dance or business vocations which are open for operations between 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on three or more days per week. 2. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the Council finds that the hours of operation of the proposed use(s) will be complementary to other uses in the building or on the property and will not adversely impact the residential character of surrounding properties. Subd. 5Requirements for Lot Areas and Dimensions. A. Minimum Lot Area. 1. Single Dwelling Unit ka 9,000 square feet provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot area greater than 9,000 square feet, then the minimum lot area shall be not less than the median lot area of the lots in such. neighborhood. 2. Elementary School 5 acres 3. Junior high schools, senior 10 acres, plus 1 acre for each 150 pupils of high schools, seminaries, planned maximum enrollment. monasteries, nunneries, and community centers 4. Religious institutions 3 acres. -5. Day care facilities, pre- 2 acres schools and nursery schools B. Minimum Lot Width. X13 850 .- 59 Supplement 2011 -01 City of Edina Single dwelling unit building C. Minimum Lot Depth. Single dwelling unit building Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 75 feet, provided however, if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lot with a median lot width greater than 75 feet, then the minimum lot width shall be not less than the median lot width of lots in such neighborhood 120 feet, provided, however if the lot is in a neighborhood as defined in Section 810 of this Code, which has lots with a median lot depth greater than 120 feet, then the minimum lot depth shall be not less than the median lot depth of lots in such neighborhood. D. Minimum Lot Width to Perimeter Ratio. Each lot shall have a lot width to perimeter ratio of not less than 0.1. Subd. 6Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks and Height. A. Building Coverage. 1. Lots 9,000 Square Feet or Greater in Area. Building coverage shall be not more than 25 percent for all buildings and structures. On lots with an existing conditional use, if the combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages, is 1,000 square feet or greater, a conditional use permit is required. 2. Lots Less Than 9,000 Square Feet in Area. Building coverage shall be not more than 30 percent for all buildings and structures, - provided, however, that the area occupied by all buildings and structures shall not exceed 2,250 square feet. 3. The combined total area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages, shall not exceed 1,000 square feet for lots used for single dwelling unit buildings. B. Minimum Setbacks (subject to the requirements of paragraph A. of Subd. 7 of this Subsection 850.11). Front Street Side Interior Side Yard Rear Street Yard 1. Single dwelling 30' ** 15' 10' 25' unit buildings on Lots 75 feet or more in width. A(4 850-60 Supplement 2011 -01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 2. .Single dwelling 30' ** 15' The required 25' unit buildings on interior yard lots more than 60 setback of 5 feet feet in width, but shall increase by less than 75 feet in 1/3 foot (4.inches) width. for each foot that the lot width exceeds 60 feet.' 3. Single dwelling 30' ** 15' 5' 25' unit buildings on.60 feet or less in width. 4. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. detached garages, -- 15' 3' 3' tool sheds, greenhouses and garden, houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. attached 30' 15' 5' 25' garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses. c. detached garages, -- 15' 5' 5' tool sheds, greenhouses and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard. d.unenclosed decks 30' 15' 5' 5' and patios. e. swimming pools, 30' 15' 10' 10' including appurtenant equipment and required decking. f. tennis courts, 30' 15' 5' 5' basketball courts, sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant fencing and lighting. g. all other 30' 15' 5' 5' accessory buildings and structures. 5. Other Uses: 850-61 A(f Supplement 2011 -01 City'of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 a. All conditional 50' 50' 50' 50' use buildings or structures including . accessory buildings Tess than 1,000 square feet; . except parking lots, day care facilities, pre- schools and nursery schools b.- All conditional 95' 95' 95' 95' use accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or larger. c. Driving ranges,, 50' 50' 50' 50' tennis courts, maintenance buildings and swimming pools accessory to a golf course. . d: Daycare facilities, 3.0' 35' 35' 35' pre- schools and nursery schools. ** See Subd. '7.A.1. below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one street of a street that ends in a cul -de -sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units C. Height 1. Single dwelling units buildings and 2 % stories or 30 feet structures accessory thereto. whichever is less 2. Buildings and structures accessory to 1 '/2 stories or 18 feet single dwelling unit buildings, but not whichever is less attached thereto. 3.. All other buildings and structures 3 stories or 40 feet whichever is less 4. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Subd. 7Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply. A. Special Setback Requirements for Single Dwelling Unit Lots. 850-62 N Supplement 2011 -01 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.11 Established Front Street Setback. When more than 25 percent of the.lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul -de -sac, or on one side of a dead end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: a. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. b. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. c. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. 2. Side Street Setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. Interior Side Yard Setback. The required interior side yard setback shall be increased by 6 inches for each foot the building height exceeds 15 feet. For purposes of this subparagraph, building height shall be the height of that side of the building adjoining the side lot line and shall be measured from the average proposed elevation of the ground along and on the side of the building adjoining the side lot line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck _ line of a Mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch -type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof, or to the top of a cornice of a hip roof. 4. Rear Yard Setback - Interior Lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then for setback purposes the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. 5. Rear Yard Setback - Corner Lots Required to Maintain Two Fronti Street .Setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks. may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as. the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight. line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. 6. Through Lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. 850-63 �� Supplement 2011 -01 ITEM IV.B — Building Height /Grading QTW alp MM City Hall • Phone 952- 927 -8861 Fax 952- 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com' Date: September 4, 2012 To: Honorable :Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Building Height/Grading ME0 o e q �CrI Over the past several months the Planning Commission has been considering the issue of site grading and regulations on building height. Attached are minutes, staff memos and a draft Ordinance from those discussions. The Planning Commission would like to create some regulations on site grading; but we need to know the specifics on what we can regulate. The city engineer will provide some guidance with this issue. In regard to building height, the Commission was close to recommending the attached Ordinance, but are somewhat reluctant to recommend and Ordinance that potentially could allow greater building mass in the R- I District. The Planning Commission would like to have a discussion with the City Council in regard to these issues. City of Edina 4801 W. 51 Oth St. Edina, MN 55424 JJI i�, as is y Site Grading n 50- footlots Planner Teague informed the Commission there has been discussion throughout the City on grading that's been occurring on City lots; especially for new construction. Teague said City Engineer Wayne Houle is present to explain the process the Engineering Department follows when reviewing building permit applications. Engineer Houle addressed the Commission and informed them the Engineering Department reviews all building permit applications for grading. Houle explained that every applicant is required to submit a detailed survey, drawn to scale with other required elevations. Houle explained a typical review of the application contains the following to ensure proper drainage and erosion control: • Surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow ensuring that surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. • Analyze the known conditions and if these conditions can be easily remedied (if appropriate). • Verify if a retaining wall needs to be designed by a structural engineer due to the height of the retaining wall. • Check for easement encroachments. • Check for new curb cuts. • Check number and location of driveways • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevations. Engineer Houle presented copies of surveys to help Commissioners see all the details found on a survey to aid in plan review. Commissioner Platteter asked Engineer Houle if downspouts are indicated on the survey or are they indicated somewhere else. Engineer Houle responded that downspouts and the direction of their flow are not required to be indicated on the survey; however that review (if applicable) occurs at the building department level. Platteter also questioned if neighbors are notified when a remodeling or rebuilding occurs. Houle said there is no notification requirement (except for the applicant) unless a variance was required. Platteter questioned if there should be notification pointing out everyone appears to be building a larger house than what previously existed; thereby creating more water run -off. Houle agreed, adding in Edina that appears to be the case on every lot, pointing out the majority of new construction is to the maximum. Commissioner Staunton commented if he understands the permit process for new construction correctly that "new" water flow pathways can't be created that didn't exist before. Engineer Houle responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Staunton asked if the water continues to flow along its natural path can the rate or volume of the flow be increased. Engineer Houle acknowledged that the rate of flow does increase; adding it's very difficult to control and monitor. Houle reiterated run -off is required to continue to follow its natural path, adding rates fluctuate depending on the "size" of the rain storm and Page 5 of 11 spring run -off. Houle acknowledged that creating a larger building mass also contributes to an increase in water run -off; however, he reiterated storm water. run -off on residential lots is something that is extremely difficult to monitor or control, adding this has been an ongoing issue. Continuing, Houle pointed out that measures can be implemented to mitigate storm water run -off impact such as lot coverage requirements, placement of gutters /downspouts, use of pervious materials for driveways and sidewalks, rain barrels etc. Concluding, Houle stated if a house meets all code requirements a building permit is issued. A discussion ensued on the question of notification responsibility, is it the responsibility of the applicant, the City, or the neighbor(s) when new construction occurs. It was also noted that building plans are available for viewing at City Hall. In response to the discussion Engineer Houle said he wasn't aware of any storm water management control measures for single family lots. He noted the City and Watershed Districts require grading permits and erosion control measures; however they don't review surface water management for single family lots. Both Nine Mile and Minnehaha watershed districts only require storm water management measures to be implemented for commercial properties. Commissioner Carpenter questioned how difficult it would be to monitor or regulate this. Engineer Houle said in his opinion it would be very difficult. Houle reiterated to mitigate water run -off issues different measures can be implemented. Commissioner Scherer asked if there was a review process for retaining walls. Engineer Houle responded if retaining walls are indicated on a survey it is reviewed. If a retaining wall is higher than 4 -feet the retaining wall is required to be designed by a structural engineer and reviewed by engineering staff. Continuing, Houle said another reason for an increase in retaining walls could be to accommodate basement ceiling height. Houle explained if a property owner wants higher ceilings they need to dig deeper. Planner Teague informed the Commission he has been in discussions with area builders that told him that the City's current way to determine the side yard setback for building height results in builders building up the grade and potentially constructing retaining walls to achieve desired building height. Teague referred Commissioners to a handout placed before them amending the way side yard setbacks are determined. Teague said this change would require the builder to use the existing grade and not the "proposed" grade to determine building height. Teague asked Commissioners for their opinion on the handout. A discussion ensued with Commissioners indicating that manipulating the grade along the side to achieve building height as currently done may be the reason retaining walls are popping up all over the City. Commissioners indicated it may just be easier to either include the retaining walls) in the calculation or measure from the existing grade, not proposed. Page 6 of 11 Planner Teague responded that is an idea; however, he expressed concern that running the calculations from averaging the existing grade may prohibit two story homes. Commissioners indicated if this were problematic in certain instances a variance could be requested. Planner Teague suggested that staff run different scenario's on measuring from the existing grade and bring those findings back to the Commission for comments. Commissioners agreed and directed staff to "run" scenario's and return with them. Furthering the discussion Commissioner Potts questioned if the City has a code requiring outside access to the rear yard. Planner Teague responded that he doesn't believe there is an ordinance requiring rear yard access from outside the house. Engineer Houle agreed. He said there are a number of homes in Edina that access the rear yard through the house, even on flat lots. A discussion ensued on if the City should require outside rear yard access. It was observed that the City requires minimum side yard setbacks; however, retaining walls and egress . windows could prevent easy access to rear yards. Staff noted that many of these issues are between neighbors. It was further explained that when construction erosion control fences are erected and if there is trespass; again that's between neighbors. Commissioner Potts says he worries that most of the discussion occurs between the City and builder, not the homeowner. He wondered if communication should be "opened up" between the City and homeowner. Engineer Houle pointed out that a number of new homes "do not have an owner ", adding in his experience there will always be common lot line issues. Planner Teague said one tool City staff is working on is a Construction Management Guide Plan. Teague said at this time City Staff is reviewing implementing a plan for monitoring compliance during the construction phase. One requirement is posting a sign on the site informing neighbors of what would occur. The City could also add a line item referring neighbors to City Hall if they want to view the complete set of building plans. Chair Grabiel suggested that if the Commission establishes a different way to regulate building height there would probably be those odd lots that would need a variance to comply. Commissioner Staunton agreed, adding topography is a classic hardship for granting a variance. Planner Teague noted that the variance process would also engage the neighbors. Planner Teague clarified the following for future topics of discussion: • Draft different scenario's measuring building height that would eliminate the need for retaining walls alongside property lines. (measure from existing grade, not proposed as required) • Consider establishing setbacks for retaining walls • Discuss requiring access to the rear yard from the outside of the house. Maybe require offsetting side yard setbacks. Page 7 of 11 Planner Teague added that for every change to the ordinance there are consequences. Subdivision of lot k less than 9,000 square feet in area and 75 -feet in width Planner Teague remi ed the Commissioner they directed staff to draft an dinance amendment that woul allow PUD rezoning as a tool to subdivide lots tha are less than 9,000 square feet in are and 75 feet in width. Continuing, Teague said at recently the City Council has expresse interest in considering a uniform median area, lot width and depth as the minimum lot i e requirement in the R -1 district. If es blished the median of all lots within 500 -feet beco es the minimum lot size requireme . This approach is what is currently done. Commissioner Platteter said the ast time this was discusse it did appear that PUD "may be the way to go" but now withou specific guidelines the 00 -foot neighborhood approach the City has been utilizing may be st and fairest. Commissioner Carpenter agreed. He ointed out if UD would be developed for residential subdivisions of smaller lots a foresee esidents applying for "a lot of PUD's ". Carpenter said as previously mentione by Com issioner Platteter that specific guidelines would need to be established for lots un r 75 eet in width or else there would be no regulator. Carpenter stated in his opinion h 00 -foot rule has value. It's across the board. Commissioner Staunton commented ifs me f m allowing a PUD in an R -1 zoning distri adding b because it establishes guidelines. /ud nton sugg uncomfortable with the present sision code neighborhood maybe in the smal s neighbor of guidelines need to be developed for e present "500 -foot rule" may be best ;ted that if the Commission was using the 500 -foot standard to establish hoods the radius could be lessened. A discussion ensued with Co issioners agreeing t at they should proceed with caution in developing a PUD for R-11ot that require variances. t was also noted there needs to be fairness with the City's app oach to this topic. It was s ggested that a simple way to approach this on the PUD evel may be "what's in it for e City ". It was acknowledged that could be considered su ective. Planner Teague sug sted that the Commission could deve op a low density PUD or something to the a ect of subdivision requiring variances. hat could be done in ordinance form. Continuin eague added that a number of City's hav policies; not ordinances that regulate neighb hood character, etc. Teague told the Commission he would draft something refl cting those sentiments. The discussion continued with Commissioners requesting that Planner Teague do an informal s rvey of how other City's deal with subdivisions of non - conforming lots. Commissioners suggested that staff first tackle this from a policy position not ordinance. Page 8 of 11 Jackie Hoogenakker rom: Kevin Staunton <kevin @stauntonlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:26 PM To: Cary Teague; Grabiel, Floyd Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments I can't attend tonight's meeting but wanted to pass along a couple of thoughts on the issues on our work session agenda. Please pass this along to the rest of the Commission. 1. Subdivision of Lots of less the 9,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. First, I think we are mis- labeling this item. I don't think we are contemplating subdivisions of lots less than 75 feet wide but are, instead, contemplating permitting subdivisions that would result in lots less than 75 feet wide (and presumably result in lots less than 9,000 square feet in area). Assuming my understanding is correct, we should make that clear. We may also want to consider setting minimum width and area thresholds so that there could not be subdivision of lots smaller than certain dimensions (I certainly don't think we want to create lots narrower than 40 -50 feet in any area). I also think we need additional thinking on the criteria we use to determine whether the proposed structures on such lots are "compatible and complimentary" with the neighborhood (more on that in the process section below). Finally, I am uncomfortable with promulgating those criteria in a policy; I think they ought to be part of the ordinance so that people can easily find them when contemplating such proposals. 2. Building Wall Heights /Grading. I think we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve before we solve it. Having watched a number of rebuilds on small lots come before us (and hear about a number that don't have to), it does not seem to me that the problem is a lack of mass. To the contrary, we are constantly hearing about too much house on too small a lot. In that context, it seems to me that we ought to — at a minimum — proceed with caution when contemplating ordinance changes that will permit greater mass (albeit in exchange for reduced height). In addition, the proposed ordinance change does nothing to address two other problems we are hearing about — drainage and retaining walls. Rather than .take a piecemeal approach to the code on these issues, I'd like to see us be comprehensive. On retaining walls, there are a number of things we could consider — adopting a fence -type "good side /bad side" rule that would require the property owner creating the retaining wall situation to have the "bad" side (i.e., the side with the shear face) facing their property. In the example we heard about at our last meeting, that would have required the builder to dig down on the other side of the property rather than build up on the side he did. We could also consider retaining wall setbacks after so many feet of height or some kind of average grade requirement. On drainage, it seems unacceptable to me that a builder has no restrictions on the amount_ he may increase the rate of runoff associated with a new house so long as the runoff follows the same path it did before construction. Why can't we require the builder to engineer solutions (such as downspouts to underground stormwater pipes that go directly to the city's stormwater system) that don't make the neighbor suffer the consequences of the new construction. On both of these issues, I am sure there are other good ideas that could address the problems while still permitting reasonable redevelopment of residential properties. 3. Process. The more I think about these issues, the more I understand how much I don't know. To date, we have dealt with this dynamic by staff visiting with some selected local developers to get their suggestions about how to proceed. I'm fine with that being part of our information gathering process (although I'd like to hear from them directly, too) but think we're missing some other experts. People who live in the neighborhoods that have had these issues also know a lot about the how the problems develop and, I'm betting, will have some good ideas about potential solutions. I think we should be working to reach out to folks like those before we go to a public hearing (we have, after all, done such outreach with the developers). Such an effort would give us some suggestions to consider on the PUD issues (what is it that makes a new structure "compatible" with a neighborhood ?) as well as the mass, scale, drainage, and retaining wall issues. I think it is critical, though, that we do more than merely put out a blanket notice that we want to hear from people. We know people who have had first hand experiences with these issues. We should be reaching out directly to them and asking them to help us figure out the right answers. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Sorry I can't be there tonight. kevin City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 25, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Re: Building wall heights /grading MEMO A. Cn .o At the request of Planning Commission city staff has reviewed side yard setback based on side wall height and grade measurements and. how potential changes to measurements affect setback and building opportunity. The issue mostly relates to narrow lots of 50 -60 feet in width, however, can affect wider lots as well. Currently side wall height is measured from average proposed grade along the new side wall. This allows opportunity for grade alteration along side yards given the new house plans. Typically if a new home is replacing an older home, the new home is larger in width and depth. If there are grade changes, if the lot slopes down towards the back yard, or if it is an existing walk -out, grade affects how a 1 Y2- 2 story structure can fit on a lot. In general the homes that have been rebuilt on narrower lots are designed to be at the minimum side yard setback so as to maximize building width. Building width given the added setback required for height above 15 feet becomes a challenge on narrow lots. The base side yard setback may be 5 feet, however, depending upon the design of the second floor and grade along the side wall, the width of a second floor may be in the range of 30 -35 feet. Designers /builders have indicated that the narrowing of the second floor is complicated by area that's required for stair access to the second floor and needed hallway width. A solution to some of the height /side yard setback challenges in maximizing second floor width has been to alter the existing grade along the side yard to bring down the height measurement and reduce the required setback. It usually doesn't prevent the need to "tuck -in" the second floor because side wall height in most cases, even with retaining walls to flatten grade, will exceed 15 feet and will require some added setback, (but perhaps just not as much if no retaining walls are put in place). Side wall height issues become magnified if the property is an existing walk -out with the full basement exposed. In some instances, the only way to rebuild on a narrow walk -out lot and replace the existing house with a two story home is to flatten the grade along the side wall; )therwise the required setback for a second floor is unworkable. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO wq�A, o e Attached is an example of a home plan proposed for an existing walk -out lot. The existing home is a 1 '/ story walk -out at minimum side yard setbacks. Given that this lot is a walk -out, it's doubtful that the existing home is conforming regarding side yard setback based on side wall height. The new home is larger and will extend farther into the rear yard and with the walk -out, wall height becomes 2 Y2 stories. In order to address the height, retaining walls are proposed, however, the height will still require 7.5 foot side yard setbacks from each side lot line for a maximum 2nd floor house width of 35 feet on a 50 foot wide lot. Maintaining the existing grade, or measuring height from existing grade would require side yard setbacks of 9.5 feet providing for a second floor width of 31 feet. In this instance and in other instances like this, the question becomes: Is it more imposing on the neighboring property to have retaining walls next door,( walls that can be up to the lot lines), or is it more imposing to allow the full exposed wall height along the side yard with more natural grade changes? The zoning ordinance does not require a setback for retaining walls, which allows for egress window wells in side yards for homes that are at the minimum 5 foot side yard setback and also allows for walls, steps, etc. around narrow side yards. Grade can be altered for new home construction or it can be altered, (with a permit if required), at any time on a homeowner's property. Retaining walls are often times put in place as part of a landscaping project to level off a yard area, sometimes for a pool, sport court, patio, etc.; projects that may or may not relate to new home construction. While retaining walls have been used to bring down the height measured for setback purposes, they are also implemented on properties for a variety of other reasons and can be necessary to be located up against a lot line. Many properties with grade changes, especially those backing up to creeks and water bodies currently have retaining walls along narrow side yards. It may be suggested that the Planning Commission consider requirements that an "access way" from a front to back yard be delineated on a new home site plan so that grade alterations won't prohibit access along a side yard. Staff has requested opinions from builders that are familiar with Edina's ordinances regarding these matters. Attached are comments received so far from local builders contacted relating to sidewall height /setback, grading and retaining walls that were received. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 bop d 411 CONT.2 VERIFY MATERLAL ry WITH iYPIOAL SOLID BLKG. 6 PLANS ROOF 24' O.G. CONSTRUCTION 6•ALUMMUM FASCIA A LMMUM SOFFi TRUSSE5 GABLE END TRU55 OR 5TUD A ALL RAKE DETAIL R-44 INSULATION POLY V. BARB 5 /5' GYP. BD. - POLY V. BARS- 1/2' GYP. BD. - 'PLC CERTAMTEEJ LANDMARK SERIES 30 TEAR ARCK!"EGTIMAL SHMGLFS �- TRUS555 AS PER MANUFACTURER O5B SHTG. CONT. METAL DRIP EDGE 6' ALUMINUM FASCIA SEE ROUE VENTED ALUMNUM PLAN 90PFIT - LP SMARTSM 5VM 1.7 OSB SHTG. DWCNT TYVEK HOUSE YV AP R- 141NSULATLON U1{� �f All'� 10 t7 poi /,tog, d /G All slid Al lit"� I 4 DAM 51iEI.D O') 5HING 6 TOP L 51!,, BD. 2x4 5LCCJQ" ' I-A M T PICAL FLOOR CON9TRULT )M - SEE �Dl16 ST HANGL-RS SEGT10N9 SIDE OF GER 3 TYPICAL DECK LEDGER DETAIL Kris Aaker From: Scott Busyn <scottbusyn @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:20 AM To: Kris Aaker Cc: 'Margaret' Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R -1 Zoning District Hi Kris: Most lots in Edina have some type of existing grade drop off from front to back. Urban, grid - layout neighborhoods such as Country Club, South Harriet Park, Morningside, etc will have small grade dropoffs of 2 -5'. Neighborhoods with more natural, varied topography and street layouts with homes built on hills, abutting creeks, lakes, or wetlands will have more dramatic grade drop offs from front to back. In all cases, the grade drop off is there for drainage of the property to the adjacent low grades and subsequent larger drainage areas whether it's a swale at the rear lot line, a creek, storm drain, or lake /creek. There really are very few "flat" lots. Therefore, this ordinance change would impact almost every lot in Edina. The impacts to building if the sideyard heights were measured from existing grade would be: 1. New homes or additions to new homes would have to be staggered down as the grade dropped going back. The main level, lower level, and upper level would all need to add step down or stairs down inside the home. We have designed sunken living rooms and lower level media rooms, but I would have tough time selling sunken master bedrooms. Many of the new homes we are building along the creek are for aging empty nesters. I feel these step down designs would be a safety hazard for this aging demographic. I 2. New homes or additions would have to narrow as they went back to meet the sideyard height requirement. This would create a telescope type design (wide in the front, narrow in the back). This type of zoning is in direct conflict with today's home trend towards wide and open floor plans in the rear of the home. Almost every new home or addition we build today has an open kitchen /great room design in the rear of the home which requires a wider building footprint in the rear of the home. 3. The combination of these two issues would make any lot that had a lookout or walkout type grade unbuildable or unsuitable for an addition. I also think it would unfairly impact lots with small grade drop offs as well. feel Edina's current set of zoning rules are working well overall. As a builder, the current rules encourage builders to design homes that maintain the streetscape of Edina's neighborhoods. I understand the Planning Commission is hearing complaints about retaining walls being built. It sounds like these complaints are due to a new retaining wall being built that prevents the homeowner from getting into their backyard without going on a neighbors property. I would rather see this issue dealt with by requiring a minimum 36" access to the backyard on at least one side of the property. This is a simple fix that will allow the.homeowners to design a solution without the City getting into the design business. appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this issue. Please let me know if can be of additional assistance. Thanks, Scott Busyn Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Ph: 952 - 807 -8765 Fx: 952 - 926 -1168 www.greatneighborhoodhomes.com From: Kris Aaker [mailto:KAaker @EdinaMN.gov] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:22 AM To: 'Scott Busyn' Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R -1 Zoning District Scott, Cary wanted me to contact builders to get their opinions on discussion that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting. The question that came up was: What is the impact on rebuilding on a narrow lot if the height /setback rules 2main the same and side wall height is now measured from the average existing grade along the new side building wall, instead of average proposed grade. Your comments would be appreciated. The Planning Commission will be discussing possible ordinance changes at a work session after their July 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Thanks, Kris Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner '�� 952-826-04611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 .. 4;, KAakerCa EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov /Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families Si. Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Scott Busyn [ mailto:scottbusynCcbcomcast.netl Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:20 AM To: Cary Teague Cc: Kris Aaker Subject: RE: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R -1 Zoning District Hi Cary, I took a look at how this ordinance change would impact any of the houses we have built recently. Since the 15' side yard height was measured to the midpoint of the gable, the side yard ridge heights are already higher than 15' in most cases. 'Ierefore, on a house lower than 30', removing the side yard requirement won't impact the look too much other than .owing a more classic side yard ridge that you would find on 1940's capes and colonials. For example, we could eliminate the clipped roofs on the following house we are building at 5337 Oaklawn: The payback on this amendment would be that you would promote building houses below 30'. 1 also like removing the midpoint height measurement as well. Thanks for working on this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scott Busyn Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc.. ^1;15 Wooddale Avenue 1 ia, MN 55424 952- 807 -8765 Fx: 952 - 926 -1168 www.greatneighborhoodhomes.com From: Cary Teague rmailto:cteague @EdinaMN.gov1 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:00 AM To: 'Scott Busyn' Cc: Kris Aaker Subject: Ordinance amendment regarding maximum height requirements in the R -1 Zoning District Hi Scott, Attached is a potential ordinance amendment to deal with the height requirements that we discussed'a couple weeks ago. I brought the idea up with the Planning Commission at our last meeting, and they seemed to be ok with the concept. The Ordinance would simply exempt homes with a ridge height of no more than 30 from the increase in side yard setback if the structure is taller than 15 feet. We are also suggesting the elimination of the mid -point height requirement since we are regulating height to the ridge line now for single - family homes. Please let me know if you have any thoughts, comments or suggestions. Thanks! Cary tr Cary Teague, Community Development Director P E lry 952 - 826 -0460 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 1 Cell 952 - 826 -0236 �� �'- cteagueAEdinaMN.gov l www.EdinaMN.gov /Planning ' ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus /Spyware Database: 6.20090) http://www.pctools-com Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus /Spyware Database: 6.20160) http://www.pctools-com City Hall - Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 - www.CtyofEdina.com Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Building Height MEMO �g1pSA, O e �t=1 o9u As we briefly discussed at our last Planning Commission meeting, some concern has been raised to the City Council in regard to the setback requirements of the second story of single - family homes being built on narrow lots. Request has been made to relax this standard if the ridge line height of the home is below the maximum height requirement. Therefore, if the overall height of the home is reduced, extra area on the second story could be added toward the side lot line. Attached is a draft ordinance that would exempt the second story setback requirement if the ridge line of a house is reduced to 30 feet. The current maximum height to the ridge line is 35 -40 feet. The required structure setback on the ground would not be impacted by the proposed ordinance. Builders have indicated to staff that this provision would create more creativity for building design. The attached homes have been cited as examples that could have benefited from the suggested Ordinance amendment. The examples include a home built to the 35 -foot ridge line maximum, and a home built to the 30 -foot ridge line. These homes are located in the 5900 block of Fairfax. When driving down this block, the home with the 35 -foot ridge line appears much taller than all others in the neighborhood. The home at 30 feet seems to fit in better with the older homes. The proposed Ordinance would incent builders to reduce the ridge line in order to achieve more square footage on the second story. Additionally, because we now regulate height to the ridge line, staff is recommending that we eliminate the requirement for a maximum height to the midpoint of pitched roof. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. < Edina, MN 55424 Draft 7 -2 -2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2012- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 7.A.3. is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 7. Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply. 3. Interior Side Yard Setback. The required interior side yard setback for all structures ridge height exceeding 30 feet shall be increased by 6 inches for each foot the building height exceeds 15 feet. For purposes of this subparagraph, building height shall be the height of that side of the building adjoining the side lot line and shall be measured from the average proposed elevation of the ground along and on the side of the building adjoining the side lot line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a Mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof, or to the top of a cornice of a hip roof. Section 2. Subsection 850.11. Subd. 6.C.is hereby amended as follows: C. Height 1. Single dwelling unit buildings and 2 Y2 stories r�, -w feet structures accessory thereto. whfficheveF ic'°s° 2. Buildings and structures 1 'h stories or 18 feet accessory to single dwelling unit whichever is less buildings, but not attached thereto. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX 3. All other buildings and structures 3 stories or 40 feet whichever is less 4. The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Section 3. Subsection 850.12. Subd. 5.C.is hereby amended as follows: C. Height: 2 -1/2 stories er 30 feet whichever is less- e maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a single orL tlouble dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75� feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet Section 4. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of )2012. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX ZZ L Aml 77� a -gs 11 Wr t -Nr- Or 141,11" Ab v't;ri.�..�" a n. rY•- �_�t r i � •. '� k <:�y{?y.�� \14(: � }��y�{ -,� � �(',.:y y -�S d� �) _ • ,o �j 7{�� 1. ''N. I .S � 1 w.� .if ��,�: .'sue.. ar�''i; �i�. •� _ 4 � �,S "Yg�`_' "r�, :T X1!1 , irk .X.-f .�tnW •v�ip; .` e � 'T ' ..may '' < �:` : y t. y'�� { � ' I �r `� '� ��•'' /., J _ '+t _ till` �..t ' -�.' 'M ^�w•�ci�i�,� ,f ti •f \�{ - :. • . ..r•+.. -ate ik � � "4 '.�"'^ - y � .� '�'' `. ` a - . i .a[f .a • 'r , - M y4a� a r1 ��_''!! ... Y rl all Ar 1 KK Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityotFdina.com Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Grading on 50 -foot lots �g1r1A, O e O • IY�R �g0 IBB� Based on the concern raised by the resident on 54`h and Woodcrest, and by Councilmember Bennett in regard to grading for the new home built at 4213 Morningside; Wayne Houle, director of engineering will attend the Planning Commission meeting on July I`' to discuss this issue. (See the attached memo from director Houle.) When our engineering department reviews grading plans, they ensure that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto adjacent property. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss whether or not the City should further regulate grading and drainage on property. Additionally, consider requiring access from front yards to rear yards, which was the problem at 4213 Morningside. In general single - family home lots in Edina can access rear yards from the front, however, there are instances when a lot has been graded or landscaped to prevent outdoor access. For background, attached is the information that was presented to the Planning Commission at your last meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952 -826 -0371 Fax 952 - 826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com J., 1� S Date: July 6, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle, PE — Director of Engineering Re: Single Family Home Site Reviews by Engineering Department The engineering department currently reviews site plans for single family home reconstruction projects. The engineering department reviews the following: • Survey elements such as proper lot survey, drawing scale, and other required elevations. • Proper drainage and erosion control. Drainage plans are reviewed such that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. Staff also analyzes if known conditions exist and if these can be corrected easily, such as putting a downspout into an underground system and connects to a public sump drain system if available. • Verify if a retaining wall needs to be designed by a structural engineer due to the height. • Checks for easement encroachments — most easements are noted on the City mapping system. However, Hennepin County is the agency that is responsible for recording and maintaining records of all easements. • Check for new curb cuts (number of driveways and location) to conform with City Code. • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevation compared to the proposed elevation of the new home (lower level — so home can drain by gravity). Let me know if you need more information on what we look at during a typical review. Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 Date: June 14, 2012 To: Planning Commission/ Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Kris Aaker Assistant Planner Re: 5427 Woodcrest At the request of the Planning Commission, city staff has reviewed the construction plans for the above mentioned property at 5427 Woodcrest. A new home permit was issued March 1, 2012, for a one story walk -out with an attached two car garage. The home looks like a 1 Y2 story, however, the windows in the roof are vaulted from the first floor or are false dormers. The property slopes downward from west to east and from south towards Minnehaha Creek. The existing first floor elevation of the old house was at 887.0. The new first floor elevation is 887.30, (less than one foot above the old first floor). The over- all height of the home as measured from average existing grade along the new front building wall is 26.5 feet, (includes a I foot increase due to fill above existing grade). Maximum height allowed is 35 feet to roof ridge. The property sloped downward from front to the back of the home along the east side yard next to the neighbor. The proposed survey and retaining wall plans show a leveling of the east side and rear yard creating a walkway along the side of the house to a patio area in the back yard over - looking the creek. It looks like the goal was to level off the slope to access the back yard and flatten out area for a more usable back yard and patio. The grading and drainage plans were reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. The neighbor is correct in that there are no setbacks required for retaining walls. The retaining walls are adjacent/right up against the side lot line. Conditions and grades have changed on the property, however, within the allowable limits. Attached are a photo of the old home, house elevations, survey /site plans and retaining wall plan. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 of Edina tip, -WF' ?413•� PID:1902824110068 5427 Woodcrest Dr Edina, MN 55424 Property Assessing M Legend Surrounding Howe Number Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels N City Limits ^/ Creeks Lake Names Lakes Parks Parcels 20109 Aerial Photo http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName= ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE &ClientV... 6/14/2012 a:aei }mot, 4 PID:1902824110068 5427 Woodcrest Dr Edina, MN 55424 Property Assessing M Legend Surrounding Howe Number Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels N City Limits ^/ Creeks Lake Names Lakes Parks Parcels 20109 Aerial Photo http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName= ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE &ClientV... 6/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 file:// ed- ntl /citywide/PDSImages/Photos /1902824110068001 jpg 6/14/2012 ■.11 \ �� �' "i11.� ill. ■l� Wm 1. s ■1 1111 NOUN Mimi in ■1■ Mimi win Nis I INEW .u■�� �� i �iMEMO i ■■ �. .11� 1•i I t ■� ■1 -I -�- �; ■E% -- - - - - -- --�- .11.E � �'. ..� r- li : I �: �� � -�:� �.�. ■1.� _�� � 111 ■ �����+ � ����� �� ���� �: �� � � �'� H■.' ■�■■ ■ ■ ■.. • ■ 11��� ■ �. � �f�li+ii � MEN M i ai . �5F •"••F�� 1 ■1� ■� I ' �.1® No EEBI Effil FF LINE � FRONT RADIUS DETAIL 5GALE- 1 /8"4-0" US FIBF �M%JW �PPRO�D E� Is- NON FUNGT. WOOD LOUVER W/ CONT. RIDGE VENT /4" TOP TRIM 4"62" BOTTOM TRIM RIGHT ELEVATION 7 "83" BOTTOM i ON .oBEQ�ANINSP °�` bow STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECT01 Doug Twund 612 866 5895, M -F, 7:00 -8:30 AM SEPARATE PERMIT REQU]RED :Separate; additlorwl approves, permits and inapeetions required for piumbin8. MVAC, 91&.-tri al eprO on and .. Provide asbuilt survey indicating top of foundation prior to backfill inspection 1�'1c _ .aye ♦ Y H MA I" 3 ' yN Ito Is ll/ly, is000so ..00 Ar7 e YN103jO U 0FRC E 1102 6 1 730 CIS- Co INNUM300MM c_. _ ni- V_ PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES SCALE: 1" R €5427 WOODCREST DRIVE) J oe K: Cary Teague From: Joni Bennett <jonibennett12 @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:49 PM To: Scott Neal Cc: Cary Teague Subject: Fwd: teardown /rebuild - new owners accessing their backyard via neighbors' driveway Hello, Scott - I would appreciate very much any information that can help this homeowner. See you about 3:30 - Joni Begin forwarded message: From: "Janet Ingram" <jringram _engunl.com> Date: June 14, 2012 7:52:22 AM CDT To: <'onibennett12na.comcast.net> Subject: Edina City Council Good Morning Joni, I live at 4215 Morningside Rd. and spoke with you last year about my concerns with the house being built at 4213 Morningside. We thought it was too big for the lot and asked you to check on it. You spent a lot of time with me on the phone and checking with the city planner and emailed me the results. In the end, it was decided that the house met the criteria and it went ahead as planned. Now the house is finished and they are just about done with the retaining walls. As far as I can see, there is no access to their backyard without going through their house or using our drive way. We allowed them to use our driveway during construction because there was obviously no way to get a bobcat in and we wanted to be good neighbors. The previous owner's access was on the other side of the house. However, the current owners chose to build as close as possible to that property line, then, yesterday built a wall blocking access there. It never occurred to us that they would expect us to share our driveway as permanent access to their backyard. This is unacceptable. Once again, I think that Morningside's 50 foot wide lots were never meant for these large houses. Where is the cities responsibility here? They apparently gave the go ahead and certainly did not ask us if we were willing to share our property so the people at 4213 Morningside could have a house too big for the lot they purchased. We are not!!! Their children are very young now, but I am sure that in the future we will have to worry about children in our driveway because they certainly will not think twice about using the convenient route beside their house rather than walking back through their house. How will they get a lawn mower from their ;arage in front to their backyard? They are now landscaping and of course they are using our driveway. Please check with the city to find a solution to the problem they helped create. Our driveway is not public property. I thank you for all your help in the past and look forward to hearing from you. Thank You, Janet Ingram 4215 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 Work email: jrin rg am@engunl.com Home email: isingram@comcast.net Cell phone: 952- 686 -1225 1' tl h MW k 19 +. it Y � City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 11, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Grading on 50 -foot lots MEMO 'w91�11� �O � �.Y� IBOUNt�O Based on the concern raised by the resident on 54`h and Woodcrest, and by Councilmember Bennett in, regard to grading for the new home built at 4213 Morningside; Wayne Houle, director of engineering will attend the Planning Commission meeting on July I I th to discuss this issue. (See the attached memo from director Houle.) When our engineering department reviews grading plans, they ensure that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto adjacent property. The Planning Commission is asked to consider and discuss whether or not the City should further regulate grading and drainage on property. Additionally, consider requiring access from front yards to rear yards, which was the problem at 4213 Morningside. In general single - family home lots in Edina can access rear yards from the front, however, there are instances when a lot has been graded or landscaped to prevent outdoor access. For background, attached is the information that was presented to the Planning Commission. at your last meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 �I CITY OF EDINA '� Engineering Department • Phone 952 - 826 -0371 Fax 952 -826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 6, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle, PE — Director of Engineering Re: Single Family Home Site Reviews by Engineering Department MEMO U) O The engineering department currently reviews site plans for single family home reconstruction projects. The engineering department reviews the following: • Survey elements such as proper lot survey, drawing scale, and other required elevations. • Proper drainage and erosion control. Drainage plans are reviewed such that surface water maintains or reduces the same direction of flow. Surface water cannot be redirected onto an adjoining private property. Staff also analyzes if known conditions exist and if these can be corrected easily, such as putting a downspout into an underground system and connects to a public sump drain system if available. • Verify if a retaining wall needs to be designed by a structural engineer due to the height. • Checks for easement encroachments — most easements are noted on the City mapping system. However, Hennepin County is the agency that is responsible for recording and maintaining records of all easements. • Check for new curb cuts (number of driveways and location) to conform with City Code. • Verify the sanitary sewer service invert elevation compared to the proposed elevation of the new home (lower level — so home can drain by gravity). Let me know if you need more information on what we look at during a typical review. Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: June 14, 2012 MEMO o Pi �t4 m • `��APOAIM�� IBdO To: Planning Commission/ Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: Kris Aaker Assistant Planner Re: 5427 Woodcrest At the request of the Planning Commission, city staff has reviewed the construction plans for the above mentioned property at 5427 Woodcrest. A new home permit was issued March 1, 2012, for a one story walk -out with an attached two car garage. The home looks like a 1 % story, however, the windows in the roof are vaulted from the first floor or are false dormers. The property slopes downward from west to east and from south towards Minnehaha Creek. The existing first floor elevation of the old house was at 887.0. The new first floor elevation is 887.30, (less than one foot above the old first floor). The over- all height of the home as measured from average existing grade along the new front building wall is 26.5 feet, (includes a I foot increase due to fill above existing grade). Maximum height allowed is 35 feet to roof ridge. The property sloped downward from front to the back of the home along the east side yard next to the neighbor. The proposed survey and retaining wall plans show a leveling of the east side and rear yard creating a walkway along the side of the house to a patio area in the back yard over - looking the creek. It looks like the goal was to level off the slope to access the back yard and flatten out area for a more usable back yard and patio. The grading and drainage plans were reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. The neighbor is correct in that there are no setbacks required for retaining walls. The retaining walls are adjacent/right up against the side lot line. Conditions and grades have changed on the property, however, within the allowable limits. Attached are a photo of the old home, house elevations, survey /site plans and retaining wall plan. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 2 Property Assessing httD: / /ais.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientV... 6/14/2012 f JA 17i • le t�. 4:4 Ad rr- V*j .. .... d\ Nil .M..� ;. ■. ■G■ a�i■ sons. ■■■■����.��i■. ■I■ ■I■ ■I■ ■I■ ■I■ �.■■■■■>r■.�■u■■■■■■■■■Ili� USE w■■■■►. ■y��.� �����. a . -. �i iii � , ■1 ■la ■ ■ ■tl. ®� gin" 1111. ■I� ■0 iii ■■■■■■�■�■■■>f■.■►. ME ■lam �11 L ■GI „ ■, ■1fG.■G �■ _ — -- I ■i■i■ ■i■i■ s�; :, ■i■i■ ■iii■ ..E.� �. -� ■��■ ■:� �� 111 �� s ■■■■■Ll■ 1■1���J1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ == � ■ "� —,INN i Fl■■■ ■ L;iZ =Gt�i;F� =�� —�i. ��!?; i .. s . ■GI■ INN .� . fr7l I , :, RIGHT ELEVATION' &3IID BOTTOM P 19'-6" To WQUnr AN INSF NUIMER ©® m F9 FL01FER STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECT01 Doug Tomcod EIM 0 � � 612 866 5995, M F, 7:00 -8:30 AM SEPARATEPERMIT REQUIRED 10 --U I FF LINE I ® • . • • • • •eCd4e, /addiflOflal aP %319, Sep and I f FRONT R AD U5 D E T A I L W11LLW Co peni qulred for plumbing, M � , ° ec, pi A r SCALE I/8 -I 0 p - APP °e o ............. 1 z_ 1 Provide __built survey indicating foundation prior to back ll �� top of NON FUNLT. WOOD LOUVER W/ inspection CONT. RIDGE VENT 4" TOP TRIM 4" &2" BOTTOM TRIM a 12 —j4.75 CONT. RIDGE VENT 12 I'-0" 7� 12`��,�'13/IZ BEYOND �__ 7�–GA5 F.P. , CONT. RIDGE VENT W,';,, �24 12 o �12 �_1ylVENT _ _ _ 1' -2" HARDI SHAKES 3/12 BEYONDti �.., : �A �� - - _ - -- ---- -- - --- RIGHT ELEVATION' &3IID BOTTOM P %I 7 6 60 dr 4— V — 1. c 60 4 92. lopqTl:x 60 y' SIT EX 60 PjAriOT", JT r.!,r c �m 60 JpqOTEX I.AUOTP OTIA - Jim 60 -�O L .60 -A dr 4— V — rw .01 :27,4 "fr, l. • � vey,,#�h .. , - J :, � � /fir , ! �� -.k. NX ar - sl ixf 60 poTf ~ Ci�� - � : . -. _ .. _ x 'rte - ♦ !� C 117, � _ _ ti_ ,t=om -� -� � ':�� ` � ,,� •,� - � � '"c. •. „ '' , -� .A. ''�i��� � _may -, • _ � {1\,� ,:..,1� I - ;. Ymaaeauia OFFM im 51 730 .UMM 9aoNme G g— Co ...... _ Al.,., a— PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES SCALE: 1 €5427 WOODCREST DRIVE) )e Cary Teague From: Joni Bennett <jonibennett12 @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:49 PM To: Scott Neal Cc: Cary Teague Subject: Fwd: teardown /rebuild - new owners accessing their backyard via neighbors' driveway Hello, Scott - I would appreciate very much any information that can help this homeowner. See you about 3:30 - Joni Begin forwarded message: From: "Janet Ingram" <jringram _engunl.com> Date: June 14, 2012 7:52:22 AM CDT To: cast.net> Subject: Edina City Council Good Morning Joni, I live at 4215 Morningside Rd. and spoke with you last year about my concerns with the house being built at 4213 Morningside. We thought it was too big for the lot and asked you to check on it. You spent a lot of time with me on the phone and checking with the city planner and emailed me the results. In the end, it was decided that the house met the criteria and it went ahead as planned. Now the house is finished and they are just about done with the retaining walls. As far as I can see, there is no access to their backyard without going through their house or using our drive way. We allowed them to use our driveway during construction because there was obviously no way to get a bobcat in and we wanted to be good neighbors. The previous owner's access was on the other side of the house. However, the current owners chose to build as close as possible to that property line, then, yesterday built a wall blocking access there. It never occurred to us that they would expect us to share our driveway as permanent access to their backyard. This is unacceptable. Once again, I think that Morningside's 50 foot wide lots were never meant for these large houses. Where is the cities responsibility here? They apparently gave the go ahead and certainly did not ask us if we were willing to share our property so the people at 4213 Morningside could have a house too big for the lot they purchased. We are not! !! Their children are very young now, but I am sure that in the future we will have to worry about children in our driveway because they certainly will not think twice about using the convenient route beside their house rather than walking back through their house. How will they get a lawn mower from their garage in front to their backyard? They are now landscaping and of course they are using our driveway. Please check with the city to find a solution to the problem they helped create. Our driveway is not public property. I thank you for all your help in the past and look forward, to hearing from you. Thank You, Janet Ingram 4215 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 Work email: irinuam@engunl.com Home email: isingram@comeast.net Cell phone: 952- 686 -1225 �[; �{ �• I - 1• ' fir, -�9 r 1��• , �4��. � �O- � .y) [ �r., :.. i t \! 1 ,•- ;tip; w. n •,� •, -`;� ! �� Q , ",�� � � �• •, .•�: •_may oo - - -- - A • M I w w: Aft e.„Ij''Cj• is 1' u� Ilk l l RK• J ♦ .( �y�F;�, .f ri1 ���r `t �� �i� , ISQI � Ali - - ^�'�. "'•w: �'J'!w.M .. ;i I �� i ■Sir 1 r� i1 ' f• � } _'ti �, - '� r�wrww...�.... � • -- �', rl 1 .•� jj� _` , '_'��d�s't i `� r ' : l 1` i; 'Y '� � • ' � `..- Y � . - :. ne "fir t "., r9y;i. J� "• . Y T O 4+ � lob a t. �~ f S -•' �� yy ... I ' ..•�a '. t f • �� .:3� -1 No ITEM IV.0 — 2013 Work Plan City Hall • Phone 952- 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com MEMO w9S�1 A o Pr , ,i 71 v � �O • �ti Date: September 4, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: 2013 Planning Commission Work Plan Attached is a working draft of the 2013 Planning Commission,Work Plan. The Planning Commission seeks some general direction from the City Council in regard to. which items the Council sees as important for the Planning Commission to work on in 2013. City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Planning Commission 2013 Annual Work Plan Complete each section with a white background. Add or delete tables as needed. Return to the Assistant City Manager by September 7. c�uc�� uVl7lU uu+ns+:.tivV�7 c _ • 0. ` ` -• 0 1 �� 0 0 0 pC 0 0 0 . Progress Report: L.Gll9.� I Zoning Ordinance Amendments (See . On -going No:additional Yes, staff support is -Council approval. is required attached Zoning Ordinance Work Plan budget requested required for each Zoning Ordinance Tracker.)The Planning Commission "would at this time amendment like to.complete the following from the list in 2013: 1. Sign Plan Sign Ordinance 2013 2. Parking regulations /Proof -of- parking 2013 3. Landscaping Requirements 2013 4. Max. /min.size for Apts. & Senior Housing 2013 5. Lighting /Noise Regulations 2013 Progress Report: gob Progress Report: The Planning Commission is responsible to review all Land Use applications submitted to the City of Edina. Land Use applications include: Variances; Site Plan Review; Sketch Plan Review; Conditional Use Permits; Subdivision; Lot Line Adjustments; Rezoning; and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. To accomplish this responsibility the Planning Commission meets twice per month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month. The Planning Commission typically reviews 3 -4 of the above requests each agenda. Other Work Plan Ideas Considered for Current Year or Future Years Consideration of Ordinance Amendment regarding the Grandview District (PUD vs. Form Based Code ?) Small Area Plans — Areas from the Comprehensive Plan that suggest are "Potential Areas of Change" Other Items mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Impervious surface ordinance; design standards; building and garage placement consideration (limit the size of a front - loaded garage); integration of multi -unit housing in transitional areas; provisions for urban forest protection; mixed use development standards; and subdivision ordinance. IProposed Month for Joint Work Session: Staff Comments: Council Comments: i Edina Zoning Ordinance Work Plan- Process Tracker Last Updated: July 2, 2012 Topic Date Introduced Prelim. Draft Final Draft Council Approval Building Heights 2 - Ridge Height vs. Side yard 7/11/2012 Site Grading 7/11/2012 Sustainable Design 1/13/2010 In Discussion Tree Preservation 2/10/2010 In Discussion ** Lighting/Noise Landscape Requirements Impervious Surface Wetland Setbacks 2/10/2010 In Discussion ** Parking regulations/Proof of Parking Pedestrian Connectivity Sign plan/sign ordinance Maximum/minimum size forapartments Group homes Outdoor Fireplaces Side yard setbacks /attached garage setbacks Single =stall garages Home placement regulation Front yard gardens Wind turbines /Solar 3/23/2011 .5/,10/2012 Drive - through windows 12/14/2011 5/10/2012 Subdivision rules 1/25/2012 5/10/2011 ** In review by the Energy and Environment Commission * Council prohibited rooftop dining * ** Council did not approve changes ITEM IV.D. — Sketch Plan Process. How is it working? ITEM IV.E. — GrandView. What next? No background information on these items. Scott Neal, City Manager 952 - 826 -0401 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0390 sneal(ZDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ` ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Mark Brinkman [ mailto: MBrinkmanC abconstructionmaterialsinc.com1 Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:24 PM To: jhoviand(ftrausehovland.com; Scott Neal; ionibennettl2@comcast.net Cc: pasidel Wcomcast. net Subject: Landscaping on city lot adjacent to 4234 Lynn Ave Mayor Hovland, Mr. Neal and Ms. Bennett, My name is Mark Brinkman, I live at 4243 Lynn Avenue. I am writing you to express my concern with the decision making process on Landscaping the City Owned lot adjacent to the home being built at 4343 Lynn. A few of my thoughts, observations and understanding of the project are: 1. It is pretty obvious that the grading and work involved with construction of the new home required encroachment and some minor temporary damage to the adjacent city lot. 2. It is also known that Lynn Avenue residents, Mr.'s Rudnicki and Parrish have voiced their displeasure about this encroachment and damage on the City lot with the City as well as other neighbors. 3. 1 also understand that the City has hired a Landscape Architect to design a plan for the city lot and is going forward with the plan and Re- Landscaping the City owned lot. To each of these thoughts and observations I would answer: 1. Our new neighbors have decided to build a beautiful home and enhance our city and in particular our street and neighborhood. Obviously building a new home is going to result in some damage to the lot it is being built on and in this case some moderate but easily repairable damage to the neighboring city lot. It seems the new homeowner and builder have gone to great lengths to protect the property with silt fence and have re- graded the city lot to an improved condition. Hardly seems to me they have done anything wrong. 2. Mr. Rudnicki and Mr. Parrish have expressed their displeasure with the project — I don't happen to share their opinion, but they have the right to their opinion. 3. The City of Edina owns the adjacent lot— if the city desires to make enhancements or improvements to the lot— great, we all benefit as residents from the improvement. What troubles me on this is instead how this has been handled by the City of Edina. It seems to me that the homeowner and builder of the new home have done their best during reconstruction of their lot and appeared to have been well on their way to restoring the city lot to at least "as was" or possibly an even better condition — which should be at the very least what is required and more than satisfactory to the City of Edina. Then you have Rudnicki and Parrish complain and instead of telling them that you will make sure the City lot is restored to original condition you hire an architect and plan for re- landscaping and solicit for their opinion of the Architect's Plan. Once you decided to do this shouldn't you have opened the door for other neighbor's opinions or comments? Unless of course Rudnicki and Parrish are paying for this it would seem that this should have been a logical step in the process and the step that the city should have taken. Once again, I just wanted to express my opinion and be afforded the opportunity to point out where I feel the city has erred in the process — and would welcome your comments or rebuttal. Thank you, MARK BRINKMAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, INC. 6725 OXFORD STREET SAINT Louis PARK, MN 55426 800 -486 -8456 952 - 929 -0431 61 2- 802 -501 5(C E LL) 952 - 929 -0737(FAx) mbrinkman @constructionmaterialsinc.com www .constructionmaterialsinc.com Scott (Veal From: Mark Brinkman < MBrinkman @constructionmaterialsinc.com.> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:41 AM To: Scott Neal Subject: RE: Landscaping on city lot adjacent to 4234 Lynn Ave Thank you, MARK BRINKMAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, INC. 6725 OXFORD STREET SAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 55426 800- 486 -8456 952 - 929 -0431 612-802-501 5(CELL) 952-929-0737(FAX) _ mbrinkman (aD-constructionmaterialsinc.com www .constructionmaterialsinc.com From: Scott Neal [mailto:sneal(a)EdinaMN.gov1 Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:31 AM To: Mark Brinkman Subject: RE: Landscaping on city lot adjacent to 4234 Lynn Ave Mr. Brinkman — I think you've described this situation to a.tee. We (the City) have not handled this as well as we should have. The trees we removed earlier this week needed to be removed, but before we go any further with implementing the proposed restoration plan, we are going to figure out a way to solicit more neighborhood input. I will. be meeting with my staff tomorrow to put a little process together. We will be back in touch with you and your neighbors before any additional restoration activities take place. 1 Scott Neal From: Timothy J. Rudnicki <RudnickiLaw @q.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:19 AM To: James Hovland; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle; Josh Sprague; Ann Swenson; Scott Neal; Rob Parish Subject: Call For Restoration -- Littel & Lynn City Open Space Attachments: Call for restoration Littel & Lynn 08262012_0082.pdf Importance: High Mayor James Hovland; City Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Ann Swenson; and City Manager Scott Neal -- Late Friday afternoon, just a few days after more trees were removed on City property, the City Manager announced the suspension of the replanting project. Twenty -nine (29) local residents. express support for the attached replanting landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012). While one resident expressed concern regarding the "sliding hill," a simple realignment of one blaze maple tree can correct the situation. Residents are concerned about how the City property at Littel and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the builder and want a speedy restoration of the property according to the attached landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012) with the builder being held solely responsible for all associated restoration costs. We respectfully request the suspension on the replanting project be lifted and the landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012), or one substantially similar, be immediately implemented. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by Tim Rudnicki on behalf of the residents listed in the attached file. 952.915.1505 To: Mayor James_ Hovland; City' Council Members Joni, Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Ann Swenson; -and City Manager Scott Neal From: Residents .of the City. of Edina Morningside Neighborhood Date: . August 2012 z Re: Proposed Landscaping Plan for,the;City Property.at the corner of Littel and Lynn and adjacent to4234-Lynn Avenue I am concerned about how the •City- property at Littel- and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the-builder and want a.speedy,restoration of the property according to the attached landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012). The builder should be solely responsible for all associated restoration costs. Thank you. , Print Name Signature Address. /a 611 r' To: Mayor James Hovland; City Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Ann Swenson; and City Manager Scott Neal From: Residents of the City of Edina Momingside Neighborhood Date: August 2012 Re: Proposed Landscaping Plan for the City Property at the comer of Littel and Lynn and adjacent to 4234 Lynn Avenue I am concerned about how the City property at Lim] and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the builder and want a speedy restoration of the property according to the attached landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012). The builder should be solely responsible for all associated restoration costs. Thank you. Print Name Signature Address 5a ro( r r q, jt,— t 3 5 Z. r-,/;l t, ve, O'd r Lk -?,). AA 0 To: Mayor James Hovland; City Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Ann Swenson; and City Manager Scott Neal From: Residents of the City of Edina Morningside Neighborhood Date: August 2012 Re: Proposed Landscaping Plan for the City Property at the corner of Littel and Lynn and adjacent to 4234 Lynn Avenue 1 am concerned about how the City property at Littel and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the builder and want a speedy restoration of the property according to the attached landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012). The builder should be solely responsible for all associated restoration costs. Thank you. Print Name Signature Address • � `111 ..� � y rs� r ✓� ��`,�� ,...1 Y \ � r ♦ � . •\ Ire �e -`- l � ✓1 � :/i..�. j � .n •'1„ � � .ti i f ,1 frry / r f•�' � � "j -w- If G `; v� v � 7 G I� �Ft4L. 1,)f,Gp(c�.• .,fit ���-- ..._._ i r L. To: Mayor James Hovland; City Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Ann Swenson; and City Manager Scott Neal From: Residents of the City of Edina Momingside Neighborhood Date: August 2012 Re: Proposed Landscaping Plan for the City Property at the corner of Littel and Lynn and adjacent to 4234 Lynn Avenue I am concerned about how the City property at Littel and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the builder and want a speedy restoration of the property according to the attached landscape restoration plan (Rev. 8/16/2012). The builder should be solely responsible for all associated restoration costs. Thank you. Print Name Signature Address -Z N 4 kV, �So i rN ,; Y�±YVt4L---I To: Mayor James Hovland; City Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary .Brindle, Josh Sprague,. and -Ann Swenson; and City Manager Scott Neal From: Residents of the City of Edina Morningside Neighborhood Date: August 2012 Re: Proposed Landscaping Plan for- the-City Propertyat the corner of Littel and Lynn and adjacent_to 4234 Lynn Avenue I am concerned about how the City property atlittel and Lynn Avenue has been treated by the builder. and-want a speedy- restoration of the property , according.to the attached landscape restoration plan.(Rev. 8/16/2012). Thebuilder should be solely responsible for all associated-restoration costs. Thank you. Print Name Signature Address Nf4F,-T H hm, � 3 LITTEL STREET t ` —60' TREE TO REMAIN Sd' TREE TO REMAIN j I 76' TREE TO REMAIN 7}' MAPLE - 3 MAPLE q i ! 3 60" TREE TO REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED 4 78' TREE TO REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED� a � I 5 _ APPROXIMATE LIMITS i ± — -OF ExmTING GRADING - - - -- ,.I MAPLE FINE FINE GRADE, FERTILIZE, REMOVE 10' TREE \ \ I DOGWOOD SEED AND MULCH AREA 2}- MAPLE DISTURBED BY GRADING REMOVE 76" TREE i DOGW000 DOGWOOD DOGWOOD ' /�_APPROXWATE LIMITS / OF EXISTING GRADING 7 C� S j \��MWJJ) r 7 C.GS./EMOVE 14' TREE 7 C.B.S. REMOVE 6" TREE 2 - 7 C.G.S. 6 r ' 4 e BOULDER RETAINING WALL e (VARYING HEIGHT W TO 101 rs a li rW S LEGEND — — — - LIMITS OF GRADING h o Cf EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN I REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED /® PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE 1 1 PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE BOULDER RETAINING WALL (VARYING HEIGHT 4• TO 101 4234 LYNN AVE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. REMOVE EXISTING TREE AND STUMP WHERE INDICATED. 2. TRIM AND PRUNE EXISTING TREE WHERE INDICATED. J. PROTECT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. 4. FURNISH AND PLANT 12 (B' HIGH) CONIFEROUS TREES. 5. FURNISH AND PLANT 4 (2}" CALIPER) DECIDUOUS TREES. 6. FINE GRADE, FERTILIZE, SEED AND MULCH AREA DISTURBED BY GRADING (MULCH TO BE STRAW BLANKETS). PLANT LIST ^W J Z = W L z0 Z N J 0 10 20 COLORADO GREEN SPRUCE, B' HIGH, BALL AND BURLAP, 6 EACH COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE, 8' HIGH, BALL AND BURLAP, 6 EACH AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, 21" CALIPER, BALL AND BURLAP, 4 EACH CARDINAL RED DOGWOOD, X10 CONTAINER, 4 EACH CUTLEAF TIGER EYES SUMAC, 410 CONTAINER, 6 EACH H aga 0C Se's go RV i 2 � n C • O IW. i 1�1i ;t O �Y3 2 3. 'U LL rs& .0 U Z�O O~ z W aa� tia O W J 0 n z >> nu W �- N n RLIP a3 V a� cy a LITTEL STREET 3 ..off ' *�• % - -GO -TREE TO REMAIN \ I - SB" TREE TO REMAIN - -., r ,. S6" TREE TO REMAIN) - _ 2j- MAPLE. .. - • * MAPLE �~ ..'TREE TO REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED-1 J6" TREE TO REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED �1 .� I. APPROXIMATE LIMITS / —OF EXISTING GRADING MAP i� FINE GRADE. FERTILIZE, REMOVE 1O' TREE / DOGWOOD 9ETURBED MULCH AIN — REMOVE Jfi'TRF. F.. ��. MAPLE DISTURBED BY GRADING ( I ✓ I v ! C),,—DOGWOOD ("M7j II fiTrDOGWOOD APPROXIMATE LIMIT REMOVE 1d' TREE OF GRADtiG 7 C.B.S. 3CG.S. REMOVE 8'7AEE 3 C.BS. - I t 1 3 C.G.S. r-4 � X { BOULDER RETAINING WALL (VARYING HEIGHT 4' TO 101 ,z I :_LEGEND - — — — - LIMITS OF GRADING O EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN! REMAIN AND BE TRIMMED OPROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE BOULDER RETAINING WALL (VARYING HEIGHT 4• TO 101 4234 LYNN AVE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. REMOVE EXISTING TREE AND STUMP WHERE INDICATED. 2. TRIM AND PRUNE EXISTING TREE WHERE INDICATED. 3. PROTECT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. 4. FURNISH AND PLANT 12 (8' HIGH( CONIFEROUS TREES. 5. FURNISH AND PLANT 4 (2}" CALIPER) DECIDUOUS TREES. 6. FINE GRADE, FERTILIZE, SEED AND MULCH AREA DISTURBED BY GRADING (MULCH TO BE STRAW BLANKETS). PLANT LIST W M Z= W aE) Z 0) Z I 0 10 20 COLURADO GREEN SPRUCE, 8- HIGH, BALL AND BURLAP, G EACH COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE, 8- HIGH, BALL AND BURLAP. 6 EACH AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, 21- CALIPER, BALL AND BURLAP.4 EACH CARDINAL RED DOGWOOD, 010 CONTAINER, 4 EACH CUTLEAF TIGER EYES SUMAC, 010 CONTAINER, 6 EACH = a W g 6 m N Y. 3' �r y Q ? M1 Q ME W Z UL R P 03a bra U W 00 u Y Q W J � Q @4z =o> W . ou_-, ° LL� 5� a � T t'. n Scott Neal From: Tom & Judy Plant <jplantl @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:01 PM To: Ross Bintner Cc: Scott Neal Subject: City -owned Lot at Lynn Ave & Littel St Dear Mr. Bintner- We received the lovely restoration plan for the city lot at the corner of Lynn and Littel Saturday. The plan has my husband's and my approval and we're looking forward to seeing it put in place. Thank you for sending out the plan and asking for input. We truly appreciate Edina's responsiveness and concern for residents' opinions. Sincerely, Judy Plant SCOTT M.TANKENOFF MANAGING PARTNER DIRECT(612)623 -2480 CELL (612) 750 -5450 SCOTTT @HILLCRESTOEVELOPMENT.COM 2424 KENNEDY STREET NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 PHONE (612) 371 -0123 FAX (612) 378 -2424 W WW.HILLCRESTDEVELOPMENT.COM August 6, 2012 Pentagon Park General Site Information The Pentagon Park is a suburban office complex located in Edina, MN. The property is comprised of 11 buildings (constructed in the late 60's /early 70's) totaling approximately 680,000 gross square feet or 659,000 rentable square feet. The land area is divided in to two parcels, referred to as Pentagon North and Pentagon South. Pentagon Park in total has approximately 37 acres of land. Pentagon North: The Pentagon North property is comprised of nine (9) multi story office buildings totaling 455,000 rentable square feet. The land area is approximately 27 acres and is connected via internal drive - lanes, landscaping and sidewalks. Access to the property is excellent from the Hwy 100/77th Street West interchange (2 blocks from the site) and France Avenue (2 blocks from the site). 1494 is less than one mile from Pentagon North. There are multiple public transportation stops along Parklawn Avenue and 77th Street West. Currently, there are 2,452 stalls of parking with potential for more. Mid Quad Parcel: • Four (4) three story buildings totaling approximately 216,000 rentable square feet. Each building is approximately 54,000 square feet. • 775 parking stalls with potential for additional parking. • Buildings are currently connected via 1St floor hallway. • Approximately 466,800 square feet of land. East Quad Parcel: • Four (4) three story buildings totaling approximately 216,000 rentable square feet. Each building is approximately 54,000 square feet. • Buildings are connected via 1St floor hallway. • 889 parking stalls with potential for additional parking. • Existing 89 stall underground parking ramp. • Approximately 480,900 square feet of land. North Parcel: • One (1) four story building approximately 91,000 rentable square feet. • 639 parking stalls with potential for additional parking. • Existing 60 stall underground parking ramp. • Approximately 227,000 square feet of land. Pentagon Park General Site Information August 6, 2012 Page 2 Pentagon Park South: The Pentagon South property is comprised of one (1) six story office building and one (1) single story office building which together total approximately 136,000 rentable square feet. The land area is approximately 10 acres and is connected via internal drive - lanes, landscaping and sidewalks. Access to the property comes from the Hwy 100/77th Street West interchange (1/2 block from the site) and France Avenue (4 blocks from the site). There are multiple public transportation stops along Parklawn Avenue, 77th Street West, and 78th Street frontage road. The Pentagon park South property has extraordinary visibility from Hwy 100 and Interstate 494. South Parcel: • One (1) six story building approximately 121,000 rentable square feet. • One (1) one story building approximately 15,015 rentable square feet. • 1,250 parking stalls with potential for additional parking. • Existing 66 stall underground parking ramp. • Approximately 429,000 square feet of land. 16i- tilill, if 7-1 -wit 'e ���; '� a• _.. . > '.» � -� _ 4 ._ tJill 1 s .x n4 w y, � ,� .:tea. _ � s� • � ,. .s , I >n k.; nar. .,t wr&�.,yf`�• ,�} •tie . l 14Y ��•%. TjG J-MS �aW�" b t �' �k���y `y � L - � � .,f vc,,,�,`r•a Y.(l a�`yt�, Sy.!$r ✓n�'9i�`xx 9^�'iy�7 �tT yi ). F,, ,"�, Y•a a - t � Y � t 7i � kl �t yx1r d AIIIII Now N t� I� option �i lip jo CA option z t option Z o I� lit! \ ', �""�'�"��. f/` _, _ —,� _ _- mss►;.., ,.. , -. }, _s Zia.... � �" t� \\ .� .� "� � i � -tom' 1 ' VF ' tF f' ^�i`r _ f�•' t,.. _ � i �- % .- ` '�. F t _ 4-� ,Z�,.,�'�IPcs `2 _�•� .. _,+ �r._r��, •�! _'e Cte;- ,mac �" `_ , `� + .grey ~� ` - _ ''•.. .- _ _ � r +�',�... '�� �.�'., --t¢ - - .'`�. .fir`- �•i -. _ __ - iJ. •�' \ li. -..7 -', �:.'if '� '.�r2��. �A' l �• � - _ - -` �'7� t _ Jim — _ 14 �^ � • :�'�' ,ter V - ....r_ - - t �' ... Fi . Ors• - _ �. � . � � "< � � \ \ — X _• ` �"-t �1 \- r ' Wit- y, -y.T ♦ � � w_ a _ , uter ven �-�� Comp ~ INT[RSTATE \ IL 4 C9 4 `•v lPl t Y s r. • 0 •• • �• V ._rte: • -.e •J f n - .. ot it aL � � - J - ! f` � .F .� 'NFIr' °�' ►` ,► t �� • �as.� iLaaaa', 1 'l44rw+p lo ` ' N'it_.. F �. \�: Pw -R► 1 c sue_ y� X 1 Pentagon Park North North Parcel Pentagon Park North East Quad Pentagon Park North Mid Quad Pentagon Park South 10m N South Parcel • i z- r r AIL en ,,a, ►�, - _ ee'� - - - O 4 `e may` Pentagon Park North North Parcel Pentagon Park North East Quad c Pentagon Park North North Parcel Pentagon Park North East Quad �' Af. Pentagon Park North Mid Quad Pentagon Park South South Parcel AIR N~ } J r 47 ft i . rf *r ' l��L •. 4. ..... - AWL Pentagon Park North North Parcel Pentagon Park North East Quad 'a r•.: 1 _ v Im Pentagon Park North Mid Quad Pentagon Park South South Parcel .W.P - 4 l N 1 Pentagon Park North North Parcel One (1) multi -story building Approx. 91,000 SF Approx. 5 acres ►; `a IFti T_ _f I 1.- ? .A 1A 11 Pentagon Park North East Quad ' °:.;; ��:` toy ,.,.. 1 �, r• `' Four (4) multi -story buildings Approx. 216,000 SF Approx. 11 acres is r, rr rf . � 7 ,,� _.. ., .. - 111+ r� � �. ' ftl4�� � � f(1 �, ffAf 'Ul ff tiflfiN f � 1 1 �ff 1 Of { Pentagon Park North �• T`Y biltryii 1� � * ^hl`Y% i • - - , ► ,• , ��' 'n .. . •tiv , .. � `i�.' 7f od i . 1 i ,iuy,rl, - - _� _ ► rlr�' } f 1 { f Mid Quad :��4�� -story buildings a Four (4) multi '� , 1 ,y'1 nt�{1 , .,}..Kq. 44'4r ` • Approx. 216,000 SF Approx. 11 acres - , ., � �' �� �, � �r�rl /f� � r ��. ; � � �•,E I 1 f f fMr`I� 4-� N 1 tifln! L<< • ..1 `�\77t , / `�Iw NIA - �.�!. 1 rgn...f {rh ` ; \' 1 � ..�" • O Pentagon Park South ,r` � �,` - �� y ►* *r South Parcel One (1) multi -story building ilk a One (1) single story building - : •!�` � `,,,�, �Hr�,l'• Approx. 136,000 SF Approx. 10 acres TV 41 _ ,,,,,s;�flrVpr '' ' - . _ •- .— ".'�`rr�l. ii'...7FF'141 � •, ` � � lain ',� - �`� i f ... 1 ;�,• �- . �. � t r � '` �; ; , :�`,,�.f '� } s` tr 1 { � rIlAllQll1111� � Ih � (� � 'rt� �, �. � r 7t' � �. :� 1 , , , � � f , .' FAVTAGON + ` ,. jr I ; t � r .!� f f r 1'J '• .n. f y� I j _.. I r. f .' 1 n • 1 .._...' lu '.. I'-.` cir � I �i _rte Pentagon Park North North Parcel III iFFFTTTF..,,FMi 6 • , i!�ts V I 1 1 I - V • K.r LEYEL BRILX b /' BLYzw YYYYVRN7 ..w — Jr, ; :'fir• v / r7 we9 s W"W D : •.' rLry two c .. '•. . y. ,y >�S� � ...,•:.. "�,'ifi Si''. a Euw � aYr. e o-e+rr _ - — 111 Y Y Y — — — — � � I •{� PE \ I ' :Isl I .. 3 u ... o uai.,w'"O`ucsL.eYUm.Y.. V emE "' .... uc eL" c°" i•"SY« ` e 3 u ... e u s °`°�.® ru.cL '� A � a �� y • En n�'3 �' .d .e � - � b' i • ! OReYS • � / s LEM nrusr T A / T N D-1 wn 2➢ 0oY n. uorr, 2052 Ce.11:eE by _� f7 \.h7LOj ....... ____ Leonvc Y. Ca.am. P.L.S. 4nn. Lac. Na. eee90 ]0 Y m co smE EEEr WAM c- I I I I I IEWJ I I I I !7 IM Ill 1111*111111 HIIIIIIIIIII11*11 I I I I so W 'rot 110 00 III MIIMLI� I LLLIII Fr ....° tbtyy j g F� Q I y �,_ r F--F 77TH STREET 14- c- I I I I I IEWJ I I I I !7 IM Ill 1111*111111 HIIIIIIIIIII11*11 I I I I so W 'rot 110 00 III MIIMLI� I LLLIII Fr ....° tbtyy j g F� Q I y �,_ r F--F 77TH STREET MID BUILDING DETAIL Pentagon Park North East Quad -------------- ---------- x o 3 KET j r 77TH STREET BUILDING DETAIL Pentagon Park North East Quad -------------- ---------- x o 3 KET \ f -n /A /A )�)/I r_ /A Tf- /`f -A ITf -`/ `' \ \ � - L_LJ -1 /I V / vL -I V I L -I 1 J�' NiP 'Vrt i(XQ uao .i inY OSII INI � .w r(ra VA . •.fT+ ;, I .N»tltl. � � 1 .T.r � � •rYr»a� � I � I Y.aa.: t.„�rt r� .a .� © I I ^w N'wis�s® • r T tl Y r. tl Y 1 ■ i Y tl.. O Y f A�'�'� WE •• Yi,. I I� I � '� I � 1 � i I b ,, L I j l EE7t n CAST I ! RAJ Lfwl r cAsr I I I — i I.Km It arKr cow Artt ana I 1 I .o 0. w 1 1 s! s I I G .. „r .« tl E r• .� w Yrn 5r I i puq�q - N bn, l - - 'wj 74 i' I I Nr u.�w tlri YY rNOYf »a rtr'u'„ //1 v! L� I- :�• __ Y 11 1 N I I I I I _ I r a -- H 11711 S .tlN I•'` .I �I JIYKE /FYVSr r I �CpyGSC>i Mp i%r _ - C C B4rMG I BLRdMC tl I IMO w 11TH I' I- I I Ii00 w 17. . — _ L :ra. � me r f, ,� WE, o� .rTtltl tl.Yf I �= erxcYwYOUrv.wr �- I i I I / Tru I i C� � ► I� �% TL/A /�r � I ,.;vim I I I I I H I I I I I I - - 'a X14 • , 1 I ;:� .. .t„. , ...' , : ,. ,�„ ..... � : ,,.,, 2- Irwl- ,n t�ci TLI A /`T i" Y Y / W { 77TH STREET I BUILDING DETAIL ;I-Ow Pentagon Park North N Mid Quad t Ytl f'AE Crb,.e br : 0.!.1 � _E_p/Y„All _ I wr�oO r C.onrm. r'LS YM Lac Na ..D9G f 4 .Y_.... ; SE4F w ICE, SS SUNDE ° �wss IN.r4 - fw. IANLI.SURVEY/NG '� 1 rrmawr..r a olm/rwr �"' 2 d 3 ��s� V° ' .+ens ¢ . rio� Y / l , /-1 V / �' '' ter[ v • ' � s..7 /.. mK. s . , � �p � b 'y.4 s .o wso • 'r" Y M Pentagon Park South a9'.Sa 00Y 9Q OG A�•JIbO'L• -T-E) A / I T South Parcel [Ot[ n •rw+nu us 3 O� � � . • s...K f pp d` I I • �., * F xo Soso Wi u:. 2re4wr.1 /rcrr.-700-2 �k , �i'd��♦ I I .�.� rtisp 'S.� y. \ * .� ±° gam' c.,re.. es _ VJOIWK �'LI.Y�NSI —__ u...Y- W •• ` �� •+ \ - __ , srarrwk q9 t�pao $ ( 4 / / /� .i.s • 4 11.wrl ea _d •U t. w 77. / / i' �. ✓ snarr q �� . \ ^'•. ,6� ° ___ — :. /pP � h'ryb.L' 'fir - y \ :.,. ••.... ,, © \ �' .. `4i sks— ? , �',�`�° r - i '%+ w f•f.a,•.�` - _ / Sa R'c? fq4 —.. _ .•... s w.cr r.- �' .s/s w nnrL -�, am �\+�'*�� — - -- .. T Seam — �`,*, -'+•.ti 1, ..w..... _I reasa raomawr +•rt_ .�� '.� � � '(�`�•.� �— -- ...r � • ` .. I-L rxsr, sa FI _ .rw .r.- s.,a'vvr 1w T^ L! A / i T �\ '�"'` � csrar afcw +,`•sL. �R \ \ � \ \+ � ,.,•^'r „s•'n' -- °I,�,b 9 m.wc.ro. ro.r v .. � - - ,z :ss so r, — g,�` 4 q�m• sorts ca¢wwr oa .oOaO - � �r, —_ -- � , �'�! -�� •��,a J g� •J 1 ` '� I� ,�K. ' ••, \ � �"rre,S" • ixi r `r j e — — — --y -` w as.n s _.- , sFwr uwa• a� , r ___ �_ __ _ -- •m ••O°••• WT - 130 M. of _ ' :. -.•_ F,O� - -- I •I `, -- r scar wcw { s . Q MM • � l j 6uowC V �' s c.sann sa 71 � �^o. �l "' . , /.asn sa rr. _ �.' °a:. °a''z.'c, `� - - geowc FoarcwrF 1 -•..' 8a� k' �� _ I Q •sir \ + %, -_ __ - • - i E � 'i L: /.� I o �� E ,'7 lap cu. ..oaras v 8 e 9 .� t to a so r�- w �. ca.arr awf \ ...... 0• �• scar �. � - ..�.. SUNDE° ,_, .,....,. 1 } •- w-.n�- .. ,eri IAND SUlVEY /Nf. wnvF -, 1--2.1 4