Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 Planning Commission Regular MeetingAg enda Planning Commission City Of E dina, Minnesota VIR TUAL MEE TING Wednesday, Febr uar y 9, 2022 7:00 PM Watch the m eeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeeting s or Facebook.com /EdinaMN. To participate in Public H ear ings: Call 800-374-0221. E nter Conference ID 2450717. Give the operator your nam e, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta: m em ber will introduce you when it is your tur n. I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approva l Of Meeting Min u tes A.Up d ated/Corrected June 9, 2021 Meetin g Minutes B.Draft Janua ry 26, 2022 Meeting Min u tes V.Pu b lic Hea rings A.B-22-03 4617 Lexin gton Ave. 20 foot va ria n ce req u est B.B-22-04 4716 Tow n es Road 5.02 foot 3rst 4oor eleva tion va ria n ce VI.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.Cahill Area District Pla n RFP B.Sketch Plan Review - 4620 77th Street W est VII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents VIII.Sta; Com m ents IX.Adjournm en t 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 ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Updated/C orrected June 9, 2021 Meeting Minutes Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the corrected J une 9, 2021 P lanning C ommission meeting minutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he approved J une 9th, 2021 P lanning C ommission meeting minutes included an incorrect motion for a variance request at 4241 Valley View D rive. T he original minutes had the motion approving the request as presented, but during the J une 9th meeting, the P lanning Commission added two conditions for approval. T he updated minutes reflect the updated conditions of approval. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Updated June 9th Minutes Previous ly Approved June 9th Minutes Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 1 of 4 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Strauss, Bennett, Olsen, Agnew, Bartling, Alkire and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, and Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Cullen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Chair Nemerov indicated he would like to add Planning Commission Guidelines for discussion. Commissioner Berube moved to approve the June 9, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Bennett arrived at 7:03 p.m. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, May 26, 2021 Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the May 26, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. Community Comment None. VI. Public Hearings A. Continue to June 23, 2021: B-21-17 Front Yard Setback Variance – 5404 Stauder Circle Director Teague indicated this item is to be continued to the June 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission continue this item to the June 23, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. B-21-15, Front Yard and Rear Yard Setback Variances – 4241 Valley View Road Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Assistant City Planner Bodeker presented the request for front yard and rear yard setback variances. Staff recommends approval of the front yard and rear yard setback variances at 4241 Valley View Road, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Paul Abdo, Owner and applicant, and Ms. Anna Devolis and Mr. Evan Hall addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing Ms. Jennifer Henneman, 6225 Brookview, introduced herself and indicated she was not in favor of the setback variances. Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission started deliberation and discussion. Staff and the applicants answered Commission questions. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved to approve the variance with the condition of moving the proposed building to the northeast, five feet closer to Valley View Road and shifting the proposed driveway to the south to avoid impacting trees shown on the proposed survey. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried 7 ayes, 2 nays (Agnew, Bartling). VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Planning Commission Guidelines Chair Nemerov indicated he would like to discuss this item. Member Berube indicated it was her understanding that these were drafts and staff had a plan for the Commission to submit comments via email with staff consolidating the edits for Commission to review at a later date. Chair Nemerov indicated the need to discuss this and would like to have a discussion on the issues raised. Chair Nemerov explained there was a question on whether the Commission needs to discuss anything more about the role of the Vice Chair. He indicated staff responded to this question raised by Commission Agnew. He asked if Commissioner Agnew was satisfied with the response. Commissioner Agnew thought staff’s response to her question was appropriate and made sense. There are other organizations and Boards that do scope it out a little more thoroughly, but she thought for the Planning Commission and staff’s response it made sense. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Berube thought this discussion was really awkward and something for a work session because the materials are not before the Commissioners and is totally off point. She indicated if the Commission knew this was going to be on the agenda there could be better preparation done. She thought it would be more helpful if people could be prepared and in front of them instead of being unprepared. Chair Nemerov asked if the Commission would be able to discuss this at the next work session. Director Teague indicated the guidelines could be discussed at the work session. Chair Nemerov indicated there is one item that came up in the comments that he wanted to discuss related to ex parte communications. Director Teague reviewed the ex parte communications with the Commission. Chair Nemerov asked the Commission to review this and the other guideline items for discussion at the next work session. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Bennett updated the Commission on Grandview Redevelopment of the Public Works site and infrastructure around it. Commissioner Bartling indicated regarding the last public hearing item a twin home could have been built more appropriately for the size of the lot. She asked if the Commission is going against some of the ideals being talked about and making this a neighborhood and community for all. She indicated setbacks and lot sizes are for a reason. This worried her because it was approved. Commissioner Berube appreciated the comment because the Commission has been brought up and taught that they are not to speak to the aesthetics. The Commission is to speak to whether it requires a variance or not and if it does require one, does it make sense. It is not about what it looks like because it is subjective, it is only a matter or if the logic says it deserves a variance or not. The Commission discussed the variance and the reasons for approval. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Chair Nemerov noted the Commission will be starting discussions on work plans. He asked Director Teague and the Commissioners to start getting information together for discussion. Chair Nemerov indicated there is an increasing National trend to disallow for new construction the use of gas. He thought this might be something for the Commission to look into. Chair Nemerov explained another thing he wanted to bring up is facial recognition technology. He discussed the biasness of this technology. IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported on the Office Industrial program and the City Council meeting items the Planning Commission reviewed. X. Adjournment Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Bartling moved to adjourn the June 9, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:57 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 1 of 4 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission VIRTUAL MEETING June 9, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Strauss, Bennett, Olsen, Agnew, Bartling, Alkire and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, and Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Cullen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Chair Nemerov indicated he would like to add Planning Commission Guidelines for discussion. Commissioner Berube moved to approve the June 9, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Bennett arrived at 7:03 p.m. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, May 26, 2021 Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the May 26, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. Community Comment None. VI. Public Hearings A. Continue to June 23, 2021: B-21-17 Front Yard Setback Variance – 5404 Stauder Circle Director Teague indicated this item is to be continued to the June 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission continue this item to the June 23, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. B-21-15, Front Yard and Rear Yard Setback Variances – 4241 Valley View Road Assistant City Planner Bodeker presented the request for front yard and rear yard setback variances. Staff recommends approval of the front yard and rear yard setback variances at 4241 Valley View Road, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Paul Abdo, Owner and applicant, and Ms. Anna Devolis and Mr. Evan Hall addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing Ms. Jennifer Henneman, 6225 Brookview, introduced herself and indicated she was not in favor of the setback variances. Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission started deliberation and discussion. Staff and the applicants answered Commission questions. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Front Yard and Rear Yard Setback Variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried 7 ayes, 2 nays (Agnew, Bartling). VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Planning Commission Guidelines Chair Nemerov indicated he would like to discuss this item. Member Berube indicated it was her understanding that these were drafts and staff had a plan for the Commission to submit comments via email with staff consolidating the edits for Commission to review at a later date. Chair Nemerov indicated the need to discuss this and would like to have a discussion on the issues raised. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Chair Nemerov explained there was a question on whether the Commission needs to discuss anything more about the role of the Vice Chair. He indicated staff responded to this question raised by Commission Agnew. He asked if Commissioner Agnew was satisfied with the response. Commissioner Agnew thought staff’s response to her question was appropriate and made sense. There are other organizations and Boards that do scope it out a little more thoroughly, but she thought for the Planning Commission and staff’s response it made sense. Commissioner Berube thought this discussion was really awkward and something for a work session because the materials are not before the Commissioners and is totally off point. She indicated if the Commission knew this was going to be on the agenda there could be better preparation done. She thought it would be more helpful if people could be prepared and in front of them instead of being unprepared. Chair Nemerov asked if the Commission would be able to discuss this at the next work session. Director Teague indicated the guidelines could be discussed at the work session. Chair Nemerov indicated there is one item that came up in the comments that he wanted to discuss related to ex parte communications. Director Teague reviewed the ex parte communications with the Commission. Chair Nemerov asked the Commission to review this and the other guideline items for discussion at the next work session. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Bennett updated the Commission on Grandview Redevelopment of the Public Works site and infrastructure around it. Commissioner Bartling indicated regarding the last public hearing item a twin home could have been built more appropriately for the size of the lot. She asked if the Commission is going against some of the ideals being talked about and making this a neighborhood and community for all. She indicated setbacks and lot sizes are for a reason. This worried her because it was approved. Commissioner Berube appreciated the comment because the Commission has been brought up and taught that they are not to speak to the aesthetics. The Commission is to speak to whether it requires a variance or not and if it does require one, does it make sense. It is not about what it looks like because it is subjective, it is only a matter or if the logic says it deserves a variance or not. The Commission discussed the variance and the reasons for approval. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Chair Nemerov noted the Commission will be starting discussions on work plans. He asked Director Teague and the Commissioners to start getting information together for discussion. Chair Nemerov indicated there is an increasing National trend to disallow for new construction the use of gas. He thought this might be something for the Commission to look into. Chair Nemerov explained another thing he wanted to bring up is facial recognition technology. He discussed the biasness of this technology. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: June 23, 2021 Page 4 of 4 IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported on the Office Industrial program and the City Council meeting items the Planning Commission reviewed. X. Adjournment Commissioner Bartling moved to adjourn the June 9, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:57 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: I V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Draft January 26, 2022 Meeting Minutes Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the J anuary 26, 2022 minutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Draft Minutes January 26, 2022 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2022 Page 1 of 3 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Virtual January 26, 2022 I. Call To Order Chair Agnew called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Berube, Strauss, Barberot, Olsen, Alkire, Bennett, and Chair Agnew. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager, Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager, and Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Miranda and Hayward. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Berube moved to approve the January 26, 2022, agenda. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, December 30, 2021 Commissioner Olsen moved to approve the December 30, 2021, special meeting minutes. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. Public Hearings A. B-22-01 – 4521 Garrison Lane Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 4521 Garrison Lane for a variance . Staff recommended approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Andy Campbell, architect addressed the Commission and answered questions. Mr. Marcus and Mrs. Abby Andrusko, applicants and owners addressed the Commission. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Public Hearing None. Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the variance proposal. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the setback variance at 4521 Garrison Lane as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Resolution B-22-02: Sale of 425 Jefferson Avenue Complies with Comprehensive Plan Affordable Housing Development Manager Hawkinson presented the request of Resolution B-22-02, sale of 425 Jefferson Avenue complies with Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. The Commission indicated their approval of the program. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Resolution B-22-02, Resolution Approving Proposed Conveyance of Property. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Sketch Plan Review – 5146 Eden Avenue (Former Public Works Site) Director Teague presented the request of 5146 Eden Avenue for a Sketch Plan review. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf, along with Dave Anderson, Frauenshuh; Terry Minarik, Confluence Design; Tom Swenson, Edina Park and Recreation Department; Brian Larson, Pope Associates; and Alex Hall, United Properties; made a presentation to the Commission and answered questions. The Commission asked questions of the applicant. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments:  Great plan with solid components  Some key components have not been addressed such as affordable housing, housing variety and indoor public space  Would like to see this more pedestrian focused  Would like to see more community focused centers explored and considered  Senior Coop makes sense with at least ten percent affordable but would like to see more affordable units  Needs more in the park to draw people in such as more education pieces or artwork  Consider having the parking in the coop available for the restaurant and public space  Would like to see full development on both sides of Acadia as the Grandview Framework suggests  Likes the addition of the destination restaurant to bring people to the area  More parking on Acadia will not improve pedestrian and biking traffic  Consider improving the east façade of the Jerry’s parking ramp  Likes the simplicity of the plan and fits the area  Missing community activities and indoor use such as a community commons  Consider decoupling the parking from the condo unit  Use the extra parking for the restaurant  Bring in more green space where the surface parking is located  Concerned with pedestrian safety along the street and ramp, needs more lighting  Adapt landscape trees to accommodate safety of pedestrians  Provide indoor uses that would bring the community together VII. Chair and Member Comments Received. VIII. Staff Comments Received. IX. Adjournment Commissioner Strauss moved to adjourn the January 26, 2022, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:41 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-22-03 4617 Lexington Ave. 20 foot variance request Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the variance as submitted I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he variance requested is for a 20-foot setback from the 50-foot setback required from a pond for a teardown/rebuild home with a setback 1 foot farther from the pond than the original home at 4617 Lexington Ave. T he existing home's nearest point to the water's edge is 29', the proposed new homes nearest point to the water's edge will be 30'. No other ordinance exceptions are being requested. T he new home will be a one- and one-half story structure with a walkout basement AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Engineering Memo Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report SWMP Site Location Narrative Survey Survey Buildable area of lot Plans Rendering February 9, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-22-03, Variance to allow a teardown/re-build at 4617 Lexington Ave. with a 20-foot setback variance request regarding the 50-foot setback from a pond to locate a new home 1 foot farther from the pond than the original home. Recommended Action: Approve the variance to allow a teardown re-build with a 30-foot setback from a pond to locate the new home 1 foot farther from the pond than the original home for property located at 4617 Lexington Ave. Project Description: The applicant is requesting to rebuild a home in approximately the same location from a pond as the existing home. This property is located at the east end of Lexington Ave. and backs up to a ponding area. The existing home is nonconforming and is within the minimum 50-foot setback from a pond. The existing home on the property is a one level rambler built in 1947. The home was built prior to the current 50-foot setback required from a water body. Before 1990, the setback required from the pond was 25 feet. The existing home provides a setback to the water of approximately 29 feet. The proposed new home will increase the nonconforming setback by 1 foot to the existing home's nearest point to the water's edge, with the nearest point to the water's edge 30'. Setting the new home (per ordinance requirements) 50' from the water's edge would require the new home to be long and narrow and could negatively impact neighboring properties to the west and south. Conforming to the required 50- foot setback from a pond provides for a rather impractical building depth with length of a structure up against the west/interior setback of 10 feet. The property owner is hoping to improve upon the existing nonconforming setback of the current home and allowing for greater spacing distance from neighboring property. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Information / Background: Standard setbacks, coverage and height apply to the lot with the proposed home within the ordinance requirements with exception of setback from the pond. In staff’s analysis, the proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood regarding height, scale, and massing. There have been several teardown/re-builds in this neighborhood with the proposed home in scale with other properties. The new home will have height below the maximum height restriction and will be well below the maximum coverage. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential/pond. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 18,484 square foot lot is located adjacent to single family homes, with a pond to the east. The existing home is to be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Engineering The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments in the attached memo. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front – North Side/Pond - East Side– West Rear - South 33.2 feet 50 feet 10 feet 25 feet 54.2 feet *30 feet 10 feet 38 feet Building Coverage 25% 16.6% Building Height 37 feet 34.75 feet *Variance required PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues  Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a variance to allow a 1-foot improvement to the existing nonconforming home’s setback to a pond for the following four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of setback from a pond. The practical difficulty is the required distance from the pond that has doubled since the existing home was constructed causing the home to be nonconforming. The existing condition is caused by an ordinance change and not by action of the property owner. 2. The variance allows the new home to maintain comfortable distances from the neighbors to the west and to the south. The required pond setback provides a limited opportunity for a STAFF REPORT Page 4 building footprint depth from the pond potentially causing more impact to other properties if within setback than the proposed design. 3. The proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 4. The new home could be taller from existing grade and cover more property area than designed reflecting conditions that are more normally occurring within the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:  Survey date stamped February 22, 2022.  Building plans and elevations date stamped January 7, 2022. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Deadline for a City decision: March 7, 2022. DATE: 1/12/2022 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4617 Lexington Ave - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included an existing and proposed survey and stormwater management plan stamped 1/7/22. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a teardown/rebuild. The variance request is to the ordinary high water level setback. Easements Locate the outlet in the NW corner of the pond and protect. Applicant to grant an easement for the stormwater outlet and pipe along the NW corner of pond. The easement would cover the area 10 feet south from the flared end of the outlet and 10 feet west starting from the east property line near the outlet. Show the outlet and easement on the plans. Grading and Drainage Most of the site drains to the wetland, St John’s, to the east, while a portion drains Harvey Lake. Eventually, both subwatersheds drain to Minnehaha Creek. The grading and drainage patterns are mostly preserved. A small portion of Lexington Ave flows toward this driveway entrance and is collected by two catch basins at the end of the street. Applicant should provide grading design that creates a small intervening high point between driveway connection and the property and pond, to reduce the potential for overflow through the property. Stormwater Mitigation The site drains to structural flooding issues and private property. Thus, volume control and rate control, respectively, are required. Rate control for the 10-year event was demonstrated by the existing and proposed hydrocad reports. Applicant to revise stormwater management plan to include volume control (i.e., reduction of volume equal to 1.1” x new contributing impervious surfaces). The hydrocad report shows an increase of 949 SF in impervious surface. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The property is within the local 1%-annual-chance floodplain with an elevation of 887.7’, which sets the lowest opening elevation requirement at no less than 889.7’. The outlet elevation of 884.5’ sets the lowest floor elevation requirement at no less than 886.5’. The proposed lowest floor elevation is 888.67’ The applicant must include the proposed lowest opening elevation on the survey. Engineer to provide net cut/fill calculations below 887.7’. Potential fill shown on the proposed survey. Any net fill must be mitigated or otherwise shown to not pose a net increase in risk. Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant to submit an erosion and sediment control plan consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to use the existing entrance. Pictures of existing condition shall be provided prior to construction mobilization. Damage or replacement will require the entrance to conform to standard plate 400. The street was reconstructed in 2016. Refer to standard plates 540 and 542 for patching requirements. Miscellaneous Water and sanitary is served from Lexington Ave. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. Watermain installed 1946. Structure built 1947. A well is not likely located onsite. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will not be required. Survey Responses Public Hearing Comments-4617 Lexington Ave Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 20-foot setback variance from the 50-foot setback requirement from a pond for a new house at 4617 Lexington Avenue VISITORS 4 CONTRIBUTORS 2 RESPONSES 2 0 Registered 0 Unverified 2 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 2 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jan 31, 2022 12:50:10 pm Last Seen:Jan 31, 2022 12:50:10 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Brett Wondra Q2.Address 4608 W 56TH ST Q3.Comment We are ok with the variance request. We can't wait for a new home added to the pond. The current situation (home) isn't in a good place. Please allow for the new home to be finalized. Thanks! Brett and Annie Wondra Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 10:48:54 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 10:48:54 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Annie Wondra Q2.Address 4608 W 56TH ST Q3.Comment We are more than ok with the variance! We would love to get some neighbors in with a new home to round out that street since it has been updated! It is a beautiful lot and we welcome the updates. Thank you! Dear City of Edina Planning Commission, We are writing in support of the proposed housing project at 4617 Lexington Avenue. We live across the pond from this house and our view is of their backyard. We moved into this house nearly nine years ago because of the family-friendly neighborhood and so that our kids could be raised skating on a pond. Since then, we have built amazing memories with kind, friendly, collaborative neighbors who work hard to keep the rink going for the neighborhood kids in the winter. We were thrilled to learn this summer that the Goudy family was interested in the across-the-pond property. We have gotten to know them through mutual friends and know that they will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Sean has served as a hockey coach in Edina, and we can’t wait to have another “pond dad” to help our crew. We appreciate the city of Edina is working to preserve green space and not over-build our neighborhoods. With that said, the dimensions of this particular lot are very unique, with multiple set- backs due the shape of the lot that create a challenge to fit between. We believe that even with the proposed variance, the Goudy home would still preserve an outsized amount of green space compared to most lots, and that this project would be a favorable addition to our neighborhood. Best Regards, Nick and Kelly Basgen 5540 St. Johns Name: Dennis Berkowitz Address: 4624 W 56th Street I am calling to give my okay for the applicant, Edward Noonan, to request a 20-foot setback from the 50- foot setback requirement. My wife Judy and I have no problem with that, and they can go ahead with their plans. We have no opposition for this application. -Transcribed by City Staff (voicemail was received on 2-1-22 11:54 AM) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this pion, specification, or report woe prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I are a duly Licensed Engineer under the taws of the State of Minnesota. SISU LAND SURVEYING 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 113/2022 JOB NO.: 1 653 Curtiss J. Kolllo, Lic. No. 26909 Date SHEET 3 OF 3 STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. All exposed soil areas including temporary stockpiles must be stabilzed as soon as possible but In no case later than 14 days after construction activity In that portion of the site has temporal or permanently ceased. Stabilize with temporary seed and straw mulch applied at 2 tons per acres. 2. Sift fence shall be Installed and at the locations shown on the plan and around any stockpiles. Silt fence shall be Inspected and maintained weekly (and within 24 hrs of a 0.5° rainfall) until final seeding and mulching (or sodding) of lot. 3. A rock construction entrance shall be Installed and maintained at the location shown on the plan. 4. Contractor or Permitee shall provide and maintain Inlet protection on all storm drain Inlets that will receive sediment laden flow as a result of construction. Inlet protection and maintenance she remain in place until all sources with potential for discharge Into the Inlet have been stabilized. Inlet protection may be removed from a particular Inlet If a specific safety concern (such as flooding) has been Identified. The permitee must receive written correspondence from the City of Edina verifying the need for removal. Permltee shall conduct a Visual Inspection to determine which Inlets need protection. (Inlet devices must be removed between Oct. 20th and Oct. 31st. Devises must be reinstalled by Mar. 15th weather permitting). 5. If down gradient sediment practices are overloaded. Additional up gradient erosion control practices will be installed to reduce loading. 6. Dust control is the responsibility of the permit holder. The permit holder must eliminate dust problems upon receiving notice from the Building Official that there is a dust problem. 7. Street cleaning shall occur daily or as needed. 8. Contact person for site cleanliness and maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls is Andy Porter at 612-991-9301. 9. No concrete washout allowed on site. Truck based self containment washout devises required. 10. All stains on city streets to be cleaned up with floor dry and disposed of as a hazardous waste material. 11. All hazardous waste to be stored cleaned up and disposed of per EPA standards. 12. Temporary pumped discharge pollution prevention techniques: "DANDY DEWATERING BAG from Brock White Co. www.brockwhIte.com 13. Permitee must minimize soil compaction and unless infeasible preserve topsoil. Methods of minimizing soil compaction include the use of tracked equipment and staying off of areas to be left LITTERING IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION - CITY CODE Sec. 10-341. - Precaution against littering required. No person, in the course of construction work, shall permit a vehicle to enter upon any public stone alley, sidewalk or other pubic place without first having: (1) Its tires and wheels cleaned so as not to litter or soil any street, alley, sidewalk or other pubic place; and (2) Any material removed from the interior or exterior of the vehicle body which might fall or be deposited upon any street, alley, sidewalk or public place by normal movement of the vehicle In travelini over such places. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 425.01) Sec. 10-342. - Maintenance at building site. (a) Public places. All streets, alleys, sidewalks or pubic places adjacent to any building or construction site shall be maintained free of soil or litter caused by erosion, landslides or general construction activities at such site. (b) Construction sites. All refuse generated by demolition or construction activities shall be prompt!) deposited and stored in dumpstem or containers for such purposes. Dumpsters and containers shall be periodically serviced to prevent refuse from blowing to other properties. Dumpsters and containers shall be removed within ten days of the cessation of work at the building site. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 425.02) Sec. 10-343. - Principal person responsible; joint responsibility. Whenever a person is engaged In any construction or maintenance activity as a general contractor or principal contractor, it shall be that person's responsibffity to see that none of the provisions of this article are violated by the agents, employees, subcontractors, or haulers of materials and supplies. If more than one general contractor or principal contractor is involved in work which contributes to the soiling or littering of streets, alleys, sidewalks or other public places in the same site or area, they shall t severally and jointly responsible for compliance with the provisions of this article and any penalties Imposed for violations of this article. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 425.03) Sec. 10-344. - Cleanup required, If a street, alley, sidewalk or other public place should become soiled or littered through any of the aforementioned means, the person responsible shall cause such soling or Uttering to be cleaned up not later than the end of the working day in which such soiling or littering shall have occurred or been observed. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 425.04) Sec. 10-345. - Enforcement by engineer. If the person or persons responsible for violation of this article fail to comply with any order of the engineer to clean up, or fail to take such precautions declared by the engineer to be necessary to preve foreign materials from being deposited on the street, alley, sidewalk or other pubic place, then the engineer may order in writing all ingress and egress to the site or area Involved to be stopped until compiance with the order is effected. EROSION CONTROL NOTES - CITY CODE Sec. 10.703. - Grading activities standards and guidelines. (a) The plan shall be fitted to the topography and soils so as to create the least erosion potential. (b) Permanent vegetation and improvements such as streets, storr sewers or other features of the development, capable of carrying surf& water runoff in a safe manner, shall be Installed to the extent possible before removing the vegetation cover from any area. (c) Wherever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained and protected. (d) Permanent vegetation shall be established as soon as possible after grading. (e) Not more than the smallest practical area of land shall be graded or exposed at any one time during development. (f) When vegetation Is removed during development, the exposed condition of land shall be kept to the shortest practical period of time, hi not longer than 60 days. (g) Critical erosion areas graded or exposed during construction shall be protected with temporary vegetation, mulching or by other means acceptable to the building official. (10 Sediment basins, debris basins, dealing basins or silt traps shall be installed and maintained to remove sediment from surface wall runoff from land subjected to grading. () Diversions shall be installed to divert surface water runoff from slopes of ten percent or steeper. (j) Provisions acceptable to the building official or engineer shall b made to accommodate the increased surface water runoff caused by changed soli and surface conditions during and after completion of grading. (k) Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical unless stabilized by a retaining wall, cribbing or rip- rap, or other means acceptable to the building official. (h During grading operations, measures acceptable to the buildinc official shell be taken for dust control. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 830.08(1); Ord. No. 817, 4-4-1974; Ord. No. 821; Ord. No. 822; Ord. No. 822-Al, 10-7-1971; Ord. No. 822-A2, 10-2. STORMWATER This Stormwater Management Plan (In narrative form) must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. 1. Permit holder shall Inspect and maintain sediment and erosion control devises he, slit fence and Inlet protection) weekly (or within 24 his of a 1/2" or more rainfall). Sediment must be removed when It is 16 the height of the sediment and erosion control device. 2. Final grading on the lot shall minimize concentrated flow and shall promote sheet flow to the pond to the east. Final drainage patterns CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT IMPERVIOUS AREAS Lot Area = 31,606 sq. ft Existing impervious Artia House & Garage = 1986 sq. ft. Driveway = 2114 sq. ft. Walk = 106 sq. ft. Front Stoop = 34 sq. ft. Rear stow = 28 so. ft Total Impervious = 4268 sq. ft. = 13.5X Proposed Impervious Arent House = 2192 sq. ft. Goroge = 816 sq. ft. Driveway = 2145 sq. ft. Front Stoop = 64 so. ft Total Impervious = 5217 sq. ft. = 16.5X STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR 4617 Lexington Ave. S. Edina, MN January 3, 2022 Prepared By: Sisu Land Surveying and Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 I hereby certify that this plan, report, or specification was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed eneineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License No. 26909 Curtiss J. Kallio CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING: DE r;CiE Below is a summary of the runoff volumes: 2-Year Storm (ac-ft) 10-Year Storm (ac-ft) 100-Year Storm (ac-ft) Pre Post Change Pre Post Change Pre Post Change 0.059 0.062 0.003 0.122 0.127 0.005 0.281 0.288 0.007 Even though the impervious area was increased, the peak discharges are slightly smaller due to the longer time of concentration in the proposed condition. The runoff volumes in the proposed condition are slightly greater due to the increase in impervious surface. Overall, since all of the runoff still drains to the pond, there are no anticipated downstream impacts as a result of the proposed improvements. Attachments 1. Soils Maps 2. 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr Pre-Development HydroCAD report 3. 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr Post-Development HydroCAD report 4. Pre and Post Development Drainage Area Maps CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3IPage Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota (Soils Map) Map Scale: 1:3,450 if printed on A portrait (8.5' x 11") sheet. Meters o 53 100 200 303 Feet o fa) 300 603 930 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UM Zone 15N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey dia Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey A 4/ /0 44° 54' 17' N 472753 472830 472910 472933 473)70 473150 44° 53' 54" N 472570 472750 472530 472910 472920 473070 47315) C 111 Lakeview Dr 8 O — W 44° 54' 1T N 8 F_ 44° 53'54" N 1 i Y T TD JAN 0 7 202? 1/2/2022 Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota Soils Map Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 L52C Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes 55.2 0.1 87.1% L54A Urban land-Dundas complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.1% U1A Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.3 6.8% U2A Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.9 2.9% U6B Urban land-Udorthents (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1.0 1.6% W Water 0.9 1.5% Totals for Area of Interest 63.5 100.0% CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT usi Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/2/2022 40•11 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 €1 n PRE-SITE CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Routing Diagram for 1653 Pre-Development Prepared by Kallio Engineering, Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Link N 1653 Pre-Development MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE Runoff 1.24 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 0.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 4,268 98 Impervious 27,338 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 31,606 77 Weighted Average 27,338 86.50% Pervious Area 4,268 13.50% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.5 127 0.1070 0.33 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE 1 Iyd mg Ea p h q Runoff 1.24 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.059 af Runoff Depth=0.98" Flow Length=127 1 Slope=0.1070 '/' Tc=6.5 min CN=77 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DrpAr:; 3 0 LL Tc Length (min) (feet) 6.5 127 Slope Velocity Capacity Description (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.1070 0.33 Sheet Flow, 2 (3 0 L1! 1653 Pre-Development MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE Runoff 2.59 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.122 af, Depth= 2.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,268 98 Impervious 27,338 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 31,606 77 Weighted Average 27,338 86.50% Pervious Area 4,268 13.50% Impervious Area Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE Hydrograph CI Runoff 2.59 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.122 af Runoff Depth=2.02" Flow Length=127' Slope=0.1070 '/' Tc=6.5 min CN=77 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) CITY OF EDINA JAN 07 2022 DrJ.PARTMENT 5.85 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff A rea=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.281 af Runoff Depth=4.65" Flow Length=127' Slope=0.1070 '/' Tc=6.5 min CN=77 z 1653 Pre-Development MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE Runoff 5.85 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.281 af, Depth= 4.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 4,268 27,338 31,606 27,338 4,268 Tc Length (min) (feet) 98 Impervious 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 77 Weighted Average 86.50% Pervious Area 13.50% Impervious Area Slope Velocity Capacity Description (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.5 127 0.1070 0.33 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 6- Subcatchment S1.1: PRE-SITE IlydrograpIi 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) Runoff Girt OF EDINP, 301 0 7 ZOZZ PLANNING DE.PP,B1 S1 POST-SITE CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Routing Diagram for 1653 Post-Development Prepared by Kallio Engineering, Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Link 8 10 12 14 . , . 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) 1653 Post-Development MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: POST-SITE Runoff 1.23 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 5,217 98 Impervious 26,389 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 31,606 78 Weighted Average 26,389 83.49% Pervious Area 5,217 16.51% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 53 0.0930 0.32 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Subcatchment S1.1: POST-SITE 1Iyrirograp~, 0 LL Runoff 1.23 cfs I MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Runoff Area=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.062 af Runoff Depth=1.03" Flow Length=153' Slope=0.0930 '/' Tc=8.0 min CN=78 JAN 0 7 2022 2.54 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.127 af Runoff Depth=2.10" Flow Length=153' Slope=0.0930 '/' Tc=8.0 min CN=78 2 0 1653 Post-Development MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: POST -SITE Runoff 2.54 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 5,217 98 Impervious 26,389 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 31,606 78 Weighted Average 26,389 83.49% Pervious Area 5,217 16.51% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.0 153 0.0930 0.32 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 7.) 0 LL Subcatchment S1.1: POST-SITE I lydrograph 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) Runoffi CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING fl 1653 Post-Development MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Prepared by Kallio Engineering Printed 1/2/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-15 s/n 02095 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment S1.1: POST-SITE Runoff = 5.66 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.288 af, Depth= 4.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 5,217 98 Impervious 26,389 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 31,606 78 Weighted Average 26,389 83.49% Pervious Area 5,217 16.51% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.0 153 0.0930 0.32 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Subcatchment S1.1: POST-SITE Hydrogra ph q Runoff 5.66 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=31,606 sf Runoff Volume=0.288 af Runoff Depth=4.77" Flow Length=153' Slope=0.0930 '/' Tc=8.0 min CN=78 4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Time (hours) CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 4617 Lexington/Existing January 27, 20 22 1 in = 94 f t / REFINED January 5, 2022 4617 Lexington Ave Variance Proposed variance will; 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable the existing home's nearest point to the water's edge is 29', the proposed new homes nearest point to the water's edge will be 30'. Setting the new home (per ordinance requirements) 50' from the water's edge would require the new home to be extremely long and narrow and would negatively impact neighboring properties to the west and south. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity (see #1 above). 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance No other ordinance exceptions are being requested, therefore the new home will blend well into the fabric of this evolving neighborhood of older and newer homes. 4. Not alter the essential character of the neighborhood (see #3 above). The 1 V2 story walkout nature of the new home design fits right into other new and older homes in the immediate and broader neighborhood. CITY OF EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WWW.REFINEDLLC.COM BENCHMARK LEGEND Refined LLCCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for : SHEET 2 REPRESENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS COVERAGE CERTIFICATION 1653 SISU LAND SURVEYING 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 SHEET 2 OF 3 REVISED 2/2/2022 COVERAGE CALCULATION Scale in Feet BASIS OF BEARING The west line of Lot 5 Is assumed to bear NO137'01"W raz.4:0 Denotes Rock Construction Entrance Coniferous Tree — Denotes Silt Fence z O WOOD FENCE It 82.71 S89°45.47"W — — — — 885.3 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: Refined LLC CITY of- ED SHEET 1 REPRESENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS. SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, EROSION CONTROL, AND COVERAGE SEE SHEET 3 FOR STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES NA JAN 0 7 222 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, "Subdkislon of Littel Pork, Hennepin County, Minnesota". Together with the South 30 feet of that port of Lexington Avenue, now vacated, adjoining the North line of sold Lots together with the North 20 feet of that part of Lexington Avenue, now vacated adjoining the South line of Lot 4, and That port of Lot 5, lying East of a line porollel with and distant 33 feet Westerly at right angles from the East line thereof, Block 4 'Golf Terrace Heights Second Addition.' 0 LEGEND " PAF TMENT iC)) Denotes Proposed Devotion XXX.X Denotes Existing Devotion Denotes Surface Drainage El Denotes Offset Hub or Sake Denotes Drain, and Utility Ease. • Denotes Monument Found O Denotes Monument Set --900-- Denotes Existing Contour C331 Denotes Proposed Contour 20 1111 Deciduous Tree PROPERTY INFORMATION Address 4617 Lexington Ave. S. Edina, MN PID 1902824210092 BENCHMARK TNH as shown. 99.91 N89°56'30"W / 67.00 -61? M 899.40 Q Co Z RIM 898.8 ro 1 Ci 1 /1 ( day I co. 03 O O = BENCHMARK ,_"-1 U TOF'EV NUT HYDRANT ..--900.9. 903.21 ILI O e 24dec ?) 32.91 \ ( 98.2 RIM 898.7 8 9 3 898.7 897.6' WO▪ O▪ D FENCE c•r\ I r — \.7 897.5 QS' 891.9 ( 7 ifi / '041 /W / WOOD FENCE \\ 897.2 1 1 I i (,-------- ...------ fitl/' .-"-- --4,- STREET VACATION -.---1::it___I___ 1 1 --- 897.5 24pin 9 '51 ---------------------------------------- 1 BOULDER WALL EDGE OF WATER O, O BLOCK TABLE RE IT BOULDER WALL .1 EDGE OF WATER Er W000 FEN E ewes,. 8 11 10" P INV. .9 x W000 FENCE? 15 CP Flash 4 *9spr 14spr _ D IT) A /1', r- I r 1/-s I I IT" "I-- -sr\ 1\ I ITh r-N I I L_ I \ 'An\ LT_ I IL_I\7I \-/INU /-‘UU1 I I\_/I‘1 A /////////36,4/////// //r‘ 8 0'6 \ / / 1/ CZ DOTING HOUSE 14617 LEXINGTON / 2 I 1 1 (4/82/7 __ It, / 29 1 4'il FFE 901.6 EIDGE--- /21,9'// /// ///,12.4//....--- f AIER / GARAGE % '69).2 / FEE 899.0 / UPPER & \ \ t / LOWER l' F / DECK / ry,1_// wiv: UPP \ \ \ / 3,,i77 5 / //18-11/ //- COW' g DECKE1 N891. POND (ST. JOHNS) WATER ELEV. 884.2 AWE 887.4 (FROM EDINA GIS MAP) 2 155pr 2pIn \ % 20mop „ 6'8.46.5 1394 180.66 S895'55" CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this pion, specification, or report woe prepared by me or under my dkect supervision and that I om a duly Lkensed Lond Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Irg140- 1/3/2022 Curtiss J. Kalb, Uc. No. 26909 Date SISU LAND SURVEYING 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 JOB NO.: 1653 SHEET 1 OF 3 Scale in Feet OASIS OF BEARING The west line of Lot 5 is assumed to bear N017'01"VI Coniferous Tree - Denotes Silt Fence Denotes Rock Construction Entrance ,iirtrat.74.) na:1010 "r-lNr\i\ r\ A rm IT I C_ L./ n\ L./L/1 I I \JI /-- z O WOOD FENCE 82.71 S89°45'47"W - 8.00 1EN'i NPP / WOOD FENCE PROPERTY INFORMATION COVERAGE Address Lot Area = 31,606 sq. ft. 4617 Lexington Ave. S. Edina, MN Proposed Coverage House = 2192 sq. ft. PID 1902824210092 Garage = 816 sq. ft. South deck = 58 sq. ft. BENCHMARK East deck = 160 sq. ft. TNH as shown. Deck allowance = (150) sa. ft, Totol Proposed Coverage = 3076 sq. ft. = 9.7% PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Garage Floor at drive = 899.5 Top of Foundation = 899.98 First Floor = 902.07 Lowest Floor Main = 891.0 Lowest Floor Sport = 888.67 rst-N I l- 17-1-- ID E) A /NI- LH-I f'• Um:: \.7 \J L_I I 111 \ I \/-\ •_, IL I!LI \ 7 i i I ...: ..." BENCHMARK,..) `I- TOP NUT 903.21 1 99.91 N 89°56 '30"W TOP NUT HYDRANT .4.1 b 24d. 32.9.1 , ( --i; 1 s/ 17/ 67.00 0 tl 98:z \ ' ',4 89E.9 "" 'M -6- il ‘ cS 899.4° I\ Z CB Si ‘ 0 (ii Z RIM 898.8 I \ \ Ili 71 LS \,, . 2 .. q63 i• i•-• ozrry or ,t, 'P -4 4., v, 4 1 ?,' .3 --------N RIM 898.7 898.7 - LEGEND Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.% Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage El Denotes Offset Hub or SpNe Denotes Drain. and Utilty Ease. • Denotes Monument Found O Denotes Monument Set --900-- Denotes Existing Contour Denotes Proposed Contour 0 20 • Deciduous Tree 885.3 --------- ------------- ----------- 7 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: Refined LLC SHEET 2 REPRESENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, 'Subdivlskm of Littel Pork, Hennepin County, Minnesota'. Together with the South 30 feet of that port of Lexington Avenue, now vacated, adjoining the North line of sold Lots together with the North 20 feet of that port of Lexington Avenue, now vacated adjoining the South line of Lot 4, and That port of Lot 5, lying East of a line parallel with and distant 33 feet Westerly at right angles from the East line thereof, Block 4 'Golf Terrace Heights Second Addition' CITY 01 I INA JAN 0 7 2022 l''''''`,$` 897.2 \$I'' -.4..- STREIT VACAIIN -4.- .--- ,t, BOULDER WALL EDGE OF WATER 18.00 8 it° 8.00 PROPOSED HOUSE (WO) FFE 902.07 1F 899.88 LFE 891.0 LFE SPORT 888.67 POND (ST. JOHNS) WATER ELEV. 884.2 ILK 887.4 (FROM EDINA GIS MAP) BLOCK TABLE '01 8 0 0 20.00 00 600J 8 FIRE PIT WOOD FENCE 14 °897.W '-WOOD FENCE .,\. ,( \ \ vsx '2\ \ \ 20mop \ \ ,- 80.00 Set'95'55";i4‘ 4 .3 896.5 '-' L'--8947)r-u--- OD FEN N 1 6 BOULDER WALL in EDGE OF WATER '50 6' 0 ') I - ---- ---- .1 S7 - :a. - 1 .. LI P VI INV. 8 3.9 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. 1/3/2022 Curtiss J. Keillo, Uc. No. 26909 Date SISU LAND SURVEYING 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 JOB KM 1653 SHEET 2 OF 3 GARA FFE B 1 _6-81/2"7-3'-611 17' 12' JAN 0 7 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7' IVO 6' N r- Bo ELEME (OPEN TO ABOVE) 42-5 1/2" FULL. WALL METAL RAILING A— BARREL VAULT OPENING go" CEILING HT. — — — —VAULTED — L J L J L Z." AR AA F FLOOR DONN 36" FI ITI PANTRY 34' -I WINS ROONI; CITY OF EDINA A-1 cn 2 m m —1 - 1-6 .--- 4 n - u) (-1 > ,— m .. .,.., N.I -- . 0 r'-, NJ o > —1 m •• PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Goudy Residence 4617 Lexington Ave SHEET TITLE: Main Floor Plan Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th ST Minneapolis, MN 55410 0 sii_ c3 Edina, MN 55424 ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES r II ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES V- .I I 2V-10" 13'-7 1/2" FXFROIAP BOOM 11'0" CEILING HT. SPORT COURT 11'0" CEILING HT. co 1 1 I I I I I I 20' r MFC14 STORAr,P Ea UP 8' 1" 40' JAN 0 7 2022 42' 7 n n 72' SHEET: I—, 4 1/7/2022 SCALE: DATE: -.1 PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: Goudy Residence SHEET TITLE: Basement Floor Plan Orfield Drafting Services A-3 IF i-L c5 4617 Lexington Ave Edina, MN 55424 3507 W 50th ST Minneapolis, MN 55410 o d s ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICESIr 0 4-SEASON PORCH L- 12' CEILING 141. (UNEXCAVATED) NOIIVA313 30%0 S'668 333 L0706 1,031A/I3S 9NI1dYNCI 013I430 s p o OTVSS NW 'silodeauum IS 4409 M LOSE saDwas Pla4J0 suo4enala 31111.L33HS tqt,SS NNI 'eu!Pa any uol6uixa1 aDuappai Apno9 :NOLLd1LDS30 133C011d N N 0 —J V/ 7-1 JI Eo W 17-Y NOLLVA313 3001H 8'826 ..N3lAl I Vc17C1 7.) N ZZOZ L 0 NVI' VNICI3 dO All0 CITY 0 EDINA JAN 0 7 2022 n ~~~~;.:,.;Vin^Rik n Wig: "I ill • no .111.111,0,' -'9 1111 1111 ly.... 11 ijIr'7711. 1)44 mitt II i III 1111 v imar ur E.,. L.10 A— 6 SHEET: SCALE: 1/7/2022 C m -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Goudy Residence 4617 Lexington Ave SHEET TITLE: Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th ST Minneapolis, MN 55410 o d sir Edina, MN 55424 ORFIELD DRAFTING SERVICES Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-22-04 4716 Townes R oad 5.02 foot first floor elevation variance Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Deny the variance as presented. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4617 Townes R oad is located at the intersections of Townes Road and B ridge L ane and Townes R oad and 48th S treet West. T he existing home on the subject property is a two-story home with a two- car attached garage that was built in 1939. T he existing home is oriented towards Townes Road and the garage is accessed off 48th Street West. T he applicant is requesting a 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance to allow for a new home to be built with a first floor 6.02 feet higher than the first floor of the existing house on site. T he proposed new home will be oriented towards Bridge Lane. With exception of the first-floor elevation, the proposed project meets all other zoning requirements. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Applicant Submittal Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Engineering Memo Memo from City Fores ter Site Location Map Site Photos The subject property, 4716 Townes Road is located at the intersections of Townes Road and Bridge Lane and Townes Road and 48th Street West. The existing home on the subject property is a two-story home with a two-car attached garage that was built in 1939. The existing home is oriented towards Townes Road and the garage is accessed off 48th Street West. The applicant is requesting a 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance to allow for a new home to be built with a first floor 6.02 feet higher than the first floor of the existing house on site. The proposed new home will be oriented towards Bridge Lane. With exception of the first-floor elevation, the proposed project meets all other zoning requirements. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The subject property, 4716 Townes Road, was built in 1939. The lot is 19,461 square feet and is located on west side of Townes Road, south of Bridge Lane and north of W 48th Street and has three street frontages. The existing house is oriented towards Townes Road and has a two- car attached garage that has access off 48th Street West. February 9, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-22-4, a 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance at 4716 Townes Road Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 The subject property has a number of large trees. The applicant included a tree preservation plan with their variance submittal. The city’s Forrester, Luther Overholt, provided initial comments in the memo included in the attached February 3, 2022 memorandum. A full review of the tree preservation plan would take place at the time of a building permit for a new home. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their January 24, 2022 memorandum. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – Front Yard West Side – Side Yard South Side – Rear Yard East Side – Side Street 51.6 feet 10 feet 25 feet 15 feet 51.6 feet 10.4 feet 39.7 feet 26.6 feet Building Height 38.813 feet 38.797 feet Building Coverage Lots greater than 9,000sf 25% 23.12% First Floor Elevation 884.7 889.72* *Requires a variance STAFF REPORT Page 3 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue  Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively to grant a variance. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the first-floor elevation. The reason for the first-floor elevation variance request is due to the proposed new home being oriented off Bridge Lane, which is at a higher elevation than Townes Road. The new home is not required to be reoriented towards Bridge Lane. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The property is unique in the fact that there are street frontages on three sides of the lot. The existing house is oriented towards Townes Road. There is an elevation difference between Townes Road and Bridge Lane. The applicant would like to orient the new home towards Bridge Lane to match the exiting house to the west which was built in 2010. The property owner cannot raise the house so it can be oriented towards Bridge Lane without a variance. The new home is required to meet today’s zoning requirements, including the 1-foot first floor elevation requirement. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance may alter the character of the neighborhood. Although there are other two-story homes with attached garages in the neighborhood, the proposed new home will be reoriented towards Bridge Lane and will sit 6 feet higher than the existing house on the subject property. Optional Actions A case can be made for approval and denial of this project. Below provides options for the planning commission to consider: STAFF REPORT Page 4 Denial Deny the request for a 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance for a new home at 4716 Townes Road. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal does not meet the standards for variance. 2. Due to the size of the lot and multiple street frontages, a home could be constructed on the property that is oriented a different way that could meet the required setbacks and zoning requirements. 3. There is not a practical difficultly preventing construction of a new home. A new home could be oriented differently and may not require a variance. A new home is not required to be reoriented towards Bridge Lane. Approval Approve the request for a 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance for a new house at 4716 Townes Road. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The practical difficulty is caused by the elevation change on the lot. The house needs to be raised in order to reorient the house. 2. There are circumstances that are unique to the subject property. Those unique circumstances include the elevation change on the lot and having three street frontages. 3. The proposal would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are other two- story homes with attached garages in the neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to plans and survey date stamped January 20, 2022. 2. Subject to compliance with the Engineering memo dated January 24, 2022. Staff Recommendation Staff cannot support the request given the ability to comply with the first-floor elevation requirement without reorienting the house. Staff recommends denial of the 5.02-foot first floor elevation variance request for a new house at 4716Townes Road. Variance Application Narrative 4716 Townes Road Minneapolis, MN 55424 The purpose of this application is to request a variance in order to build a replacement home that fronts Bridge Lane instead of Townes Road. The applications requests a variance to build a new home above the allowable 1' increase in elevation of a replacement dwelling above the existing dwellings first floor. With the exception of this condition the proposed single family dwelling is conforming. The applicants, Bridget & Randy Skaare, have lived in the neighborhood for the past 20 years. With a family rooted in the community, it is their plan to benefit from the same charming, friendly, supportive, strong valued feeling of community. Their proposal to build a new home re-oriented that enters from Bridge Ln (as opposed to Townes Rd today) would (1) create constinency with every other house on Bridge Ln in terms of orientation and elevation, (2) fill in the new front yard and level out drainage on the lot, (3) leverage an already level and usable back yard on the south side of the lot and (4) removes a rental property and returns a family to the neighborhood. The existing 5 bedroom residence was built in 1939. In many aspects it is below the standard of homes built today. The current home has been listed and removed from the MLS without selling atleast 3 times over the past 5 years and has now become a rental property. 4716 Townes Rd is an unusual lot with roads on three sides of it (48th, Townes Rd, and Bridge Ln) creating only one adjacent neighboring property on Bridge Ln. Every other property on Bridge Ln has the front door on Bridge Ln. The adjacent property (5 Bridge Ln) has a front setback of 51' 6" which creates a minimum side setback on Bridge Ln side of 51'6". These setbacks have forced the initial construction of 4716 Townes Rd, and subsequent construction to build an extremely narrow and deep home splitting the yard into two and minimizing its usability. In addition the property slopes quickly (888' to 882') on the north Bridge Ln side of the property and (889' to 882') on the only neighboring property (5 Bridge Ln) creating potential drainage issues into the house. The applicants solution in replacing the home to front the higher elevation on Bridge Lane requires raising the proposed main level 6.02' (5.02' above allowed) above the existing main level. If the existing residence had originally been constructed in this manner it would have been allowed and would be allowed today if a home was not already built there. The proposed residence emobodies the essential character of the neighborhood. The south facing level yard (48th side) becomes the rear yard in their proposal. If the applicant is able to build as proposed, they will be able to use the yard for recreation. As proposed they plan to manicure it accordinably with the planting of privacy trees/schrubs. The proposed grading is a huge improvement to the fabric of the property and neighborhood and is similar to what other neighbors have recently done. As you will see in application drawings including the neighborhood perspectives, the proposal has great character that fits wonderfully into the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Gennadiy Sizonenko Owner Cornerstone Homes LLC CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 Ordinance Compliance Table: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Setback Ordinance Requirements City Standard Proposed Comments Bridge Lane Front Street setback 51.6 51.6 Consistent with immediate neighbor (5 Bridge Ln) Townes Road Side Street setback 15' —29.2 48th Street Rear Yard 25' —30.2 Interior Side Yard 10' 10' Lot Coverage (25%) 4865.25 4499 25% max for ground level coverage for all structures Building Height 38,813 38.797 > 75' wide; 35' + 1" per every 1' > 75' in width First Floor Elevation 883.7 Requesting 6.02' increase (5.02' over allowed) Max Roof Height elevation 920.96 920.95 Average existing grade at front of house 882.15 Hardcoverage (50%) 9730.5 6778.0 The Proposed Variance will: 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable? YES 4716 Townes Rd is surrounded by 3 roads (48th, Townes Rd, Bridge Ln). Even though the property fronts to Townes Rd it requires a 51' 6" setback on Bridge Ln (north side setback). Therefore the initial construction, and additions since, have required the house to be constucted narrow and deep splitting the property into two, Re-orienting the house to front Bridge Ln ensures (1) much more usable yard, (2) levels out the property for more even drainage, and (3) creates a more consistent property with every other house on Bridge Ln (4) removes a rental property and returns a family to the neighborhood. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district? YES Reorienting the house to front Townes RD better aligns with the immediate neighboring houses as well as optimizes the setbacks of the lot to maximize the usable yard space. The setbacks are unique to this lot with 3 streets surrounding the lot. Furthermore, filling in the new front yard will remove the significant elevation drop both with Bridge Lane and the only neighboring home (5 Bridge Lane) where elevation drops from 889 to 882 within a few feet. The grading will not negatively impact the neighbor. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance? YES The purpose of restricting the First Floor elevation of a new construction house to 1' or less, as I understand it, is to ensure consistency in the neighborhood. The applicants request to reorient the house to front Bridge Lane and increase the First Floor elevation by 6.02' (5.02' above allowable increase) will result in a First Floor elevation of 889.72' (versus 890.9' for this property's only neighbor at 5 Bridge Ln). 4. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood? YES The new structure will fit the character of the neighborhood in height, mass, and scale. Homes of similar size, height, mass, and scale are currently located within the neighborhood. Renderings of the new home in context on the following pages illustrate the neighborhood perspective from both Bridge Lane, Townes Rd, and 48th St. The home will be made of high-quality materials and finishes, and the applicant intends to plant shrubs/trees along the South & East sides to create privacy along with other landscaping. Changing the orientation of the house allows for the flat portion of the lot along 48th St to create a usable back yard. Finally, every other property on Bridge Lane fronts to Bridge Lane • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument O Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation -.001F.--- Denotes Surface Drainage S' Basis for bearings is assumed uru-rynrs Trrlifiratr Existing Condition Survey For: CORNERSTONE HOMES Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota harcicover 19,461 sq ft Lot Area Budding 2,537 sq ft Concrete Patio 377 sq ft Deck 131 sq ft Patio Allowance - 150 sq ft Entry Allowance -50 sq ft Total 2,545 sq ft Lot Width 50l South of the North Lot Line = 1 20.76' 14.62% Percentage Sanitary Manhole rim=1313.5.71 Bridge Lane 9,,DG tcc tet If& 5.7 Storm Manhole rim=-1355.4 / tcc O tcc x 555.04 • 888.l Fflandhole X' 55/.55 557.7 aAs' 557. 1 GAS .6 , 6577 • - - - z 567. 1 ° Conc Walk ., _- 887. 1 Oekelfeace--.,-N 89°33'39" W 89.00 Plat 89.20 Meas. - 153 8136. Arborvitae tcc 886.14 \ 666.2 k 44 ", cu (dAJ GAS x 565'3 GAS 8868t56.3,, z, • \,- -`10 7 >--t387.7 I y "As-Built Elevations" wood picket fence .655.6 \ X tw5 I bw55 .7 risers Catch Basin rim-854. 13 4;1 u. Od 111 ill; (5> t , OI 9 i6E5 1••Eidii LESmt,ii h • Oh m 853 x O c\I c\i O cn 1st Floor 883.7 -< -13133.4 554 - _ _ _65 3- - 682.7_ _ 882. hili - J7 ) 58% p, 564.9 -65 -13834.-0 tcc Garage Floor 882.2 84.63 Lowest Basement Floor 875.0 1382.4 x 552,6 582.4 582.3 852.7 X 882.4 x 135 .0 X u' two 7.9 "t3 bw5 4.2 • tt.) (3) 41 tri 888.9 tw8878 bw882.9 Planter x ' z c:, ru 882.7 85 0 682.3 582.5 x 552.4 882.1 • 552.5 X 39a 882.5 0 CD 582.3 882.4 c343 552.0 582.0 110° 8 44 t.3 882.0 , 5 - 4 41,1a\\` 882.l 882.2 882.6 -ts o G 882.2 Z.) 2 2 30 562.2 Deck 882.7 '4,1 :7:9;i\ eit---------<-5132 .3 / Cant. `,._ 24' 682-3 4" 659.5 X- It 852. 850.6 1'5 88/.9 13.6 552.4 ' tw6136.7 bw13132.0 GF 55 I . 551.9 55 I .7 icket fen,- tcc 82.74 /.9 /3.7 851.-5 552.1 O. Egress Well Residence/ No. 5 / tw55 552.3 Residence No. 4716 X bw882. 1 58 w 0 i304/13) _/13 w 13 8 3 5 . 2 5 . 1 882.4 4.1 51.5. ri) 881.7 tc, 552.2 tw552.6 bwr382.-3 22.0 852.0 882: X- 852 C 882.0 04/ 881 18.0 • 4.0 :Stone tiz, TO-Ca-FiTT Shop - wo et3 55/ 36 trd sea./ 23.4 i 852.0 Cant.•ji 61.5 •.13 2 0/ 881.4 .3 882.3 881.0 58 . x 551 .0 581.2 680.7 160.8 tcc 88 74 0-3 cc) 881.8 x 4 x 881.0 / 850.4 , 880.3 41360.2 N 89°25'26" W 130.1 Plat 129.71 Meas. 550.2 x 4, 5880.0: 679,5- 850.2 -x 850. 50.0 Conc. Wa/k tcc w t379.66 -18-eTrchmark nh W Olverhead WiresW _,VrIvar tcc 879. 75 w Power Pole tcc 550 --- 553.00 x 880.36 880.05 171 Gate Valve c asin rim =879. 13 W 48th Street Sanitary Manhole rim=1380. 14 Property Zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant West of Driveway on W 48th Street. As shown hereon. Elevation = 883.00 Building Setback Requirements Front - 30 or Average of Adjacent Houses, whichever is greater** Side Interior - 10 Side Street - 15 Rear - 25 feet NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Legal Description Lot 33, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 319 Hennepin County, Minnesota Project No. 89844 Scale: 1" = 20' The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Surveyed this 6th day of December 2021. Drawn By 1122-36 F.B.No. ?WY Address: 4716 Townes Road Edina, MN revi 2. I 6.2 I average setbacks DEMARC LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 DemarcInc.com Signed _ Gregory R. Rrasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 F: \survey \auditors subdivision - hennepin\319-33\01 Surveying - 89844\01 CAD \01 Sou ce\01 Survey Base.dwg ® Sanitary Manhole rim =855.7 I torm Manhole rim =585.4 / n Bridge ,Lane tcc 886.93 tcc DG t (526 to 6 Catch Basin rim =884. 13 tcc 584.63 (3 rim= /3 or Resid No. 5 883. I I I I I -882csi / I N- / / J LU O / / z / / / / / / Sanitary r(Ichil rim =880. 14 q.) TW 886.0 BW 882.0 q" TW 888.0 2.3 BW 885.0 TW 887.2 (north) BW 881.5 (west) :BW 886.5 (south) I . • \ cv,' I tcTW 882.0 ,BW 882.0 55 2— • - Non-Replacement Tree Setback Line (TYP.) Jc — 89'2526" W 130.1Plat129. Meas. t, • a W 45th Street > > 590.7 O cc 579.06 w too 882.74 c 0 Manhole rim =879.30 , Storm Manhole rim =879.26 Sanitary Ma rim =579.3 Signed Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 S5 Basis for bearings is assumed ururwars Trrlifirate Tree Preservation Survey For: CORNERSTONE HOMES Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota • 0 0 x000.0 000.0 Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage Tree # 0 22" Oak 2 36" Maple 3 36" Maple ® 9" Maple 0 40" Maple © 30" • 36" © 9" Spruce 8" Spruce 11" Twin 8" 9" Spruce 8" Pine 7" Pine 5" Pine 7" Spruce 12 .1=,. C.._ 0 0 =-1 Z -< ro ' rsa a c= ▪ 1.1 ..7 J..› r....) ri (i s/ :9 cm ---r f-- . 1> -1 Z —1 NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. 0 43 43 4D ft) Tree Summary To be Preserved To be Removed To be Replaced r— Legal Description Lot 33, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 319 Hennepin County, Minnesota Project No. 89844A F.B.No. 1122-36 Drawn By yvici Scale: 1" = 30' I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Prepared this 3rd day of January 2022. Address: 4716 Townes Road Edina, MN DEMARC LAND SURVEYING S. ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Demarclnc.com rev F:\survey\auditors subdivision - hennepin\319-33\01 Surveying - 89844\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg PROJECT: 89844A EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN DESIGNED BY: JAP DRAWN BY: JWL CHECKED BY: GRP I HEREBY CERT FY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY R UNDER MY CT UPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSE. FESSI AL EN EE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESO JEFFR A. P SCH, P.E. DATE: 01 07 22 UC. NO.: 52706 REVISIONS DEMARC LAND SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 DemarcInc.com CORNERSTONE HOMES 5912 GRIMES AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA LOT 33, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 319 4716 TOWNES ROAD EDINA, MN SHEET NO. C1 OF C PLASTIC ZIP TIES (50 LBS TENSILE) LOCATED IN TOP 8 IN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, - \ 36 IN WIDE kesdecee No. 5 .562 . 11662.6 04662,3 MI 0 650 Pee O .o' 665.71 5.7 So, /./.1.-h* ono565.41 20 40 nn-679,3 w-er QO 64,-, 115,...c/c nno67326 SCALE IN FEET TAPER EDGES AT 1:1 EXIT WIDTH AS REQUIRED 1 IN 2 IN CRUSHED ROCK - PLACE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG IN SHALLOW TRENCH (1 IN - 2 IN DEPTH) 8 IN -10 IN EMBEDMENT DEPTH SPACE BETWEEN STAKES SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 1 FT FOR DITCH CHECKS OR 2 FT FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS. Cl NOT TO SCALE VARIES • •-•-• GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF EDINA SHALL APPLY EXCEPT WHERE MODIFIED BY THESE DOCUMENTS. 2. "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (1-800-252-1166) SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 3. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY WITH ANY CONFLICTS. 4. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. 5. EXISTING TOPSOIL SHALL BE SALVAGED TO PROVIDE 4" TOPSOIL COVERAGE OVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE REVEGETATED. 6. THE BUILDING PAD MUST BE PROVIDED WITH POSITIVE DRAINAGE. THIS WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. 7. AFTER THE SILT FENCE HAS BEEN REMOVED REMAINING SEDIMENT SHALL BE SMOOTHED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED OR SODDED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 8. NO FINISHED SLOPE SHALL EXCEED 4H : 1V UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION. METHODS OF MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKED EQUIPMENT. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S (I.E. SILT FENCE, BIO-ROLLS, ROCK CONSTRUCTION EXIT, INLET PROTECTION, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 2. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ANY INLET THAT MAY RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE DISTURBED AREAS OF THE PROJECT. INLET PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED FOR A PARTICULAR INLET IF A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (FLOODING / FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. THE PERMITTED MUST RECEIVE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY ENGINEER VERIFYING THE NEED FOR REMOVAL. 3. INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S, SUCH AS SILT FENCE, AROUND ALL STOCKPILES. 4. RETAIN AND PROTECT AS MUCH NATURAL VEGETATION AS FEASIBLE. WHEN VEGETATION IS REMOVED DURING DEVELOPMENT, THE EXPOSED CONDITION OF LAND SHALL BE KEPT TO THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOT LONGER THAN 60 DAYS. ANY EXPOSED AREAS EXCEEDING THIS TIME-FRAME SHALL BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED (STRAW MULCH, WOODCHIPS, ROCK). AREAS BEING USED FOR MATERIAL STORAGE AND AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE EXEMPT FROM TEMPORARY STABILIZATION. 5. ANY STEEP SLOPES (3H : 1V OR STEEPER) EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION, MULCHING OR BY OTHER MEANS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF CEASING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE STEEP SLOPES. STOCKPILES MAY BE PROTECTED BY AN ANCHORED TARP OR PLASTIC SHEET. 6. PROVIDE DUST CONTROL AS NECESSARY. DUST CONTROL CAN INCLUDE WATER. 7. REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS TRACKED OR OTHERWISE DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC PAVEMENT AREAS ON A DAILY BASIS OR AS NEEDED. 8. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED EVERY 7 DAYS, OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ALL RAIN EVENTS GREATER THAN 1.0" IN 24 HOURS. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 24 HOURS. 9. SILT FENCE, BIO-ROLLS AND INLET PROTECTION DEVICES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW. 10. AFTER FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, EXPOSED SOILS MUST BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL CONSIST OF 4 INCHES TOPSOIL, AND SEED, MULCH AND FERTILIZER APPLIED BY METHODS AND RATES RECOMMENDED IN MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2575 AND MN/DOT SEEDING MANUAL, OR SOD. THE SEED MIX SHALL BE MN/DOT 25-151. 11. NO CONCRETE WASHOUT ALLOWED ON SITE, TRUCK BASED SELF CONTAINMENT WASHOUT DEVICES REQUIRED. 12. OIL STAINS ON CITY STREETS SHALL BE CLEANED UP WITH FLOOR DRY, AND DISPOSED OF AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL. 13. ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE SHALL BE STORED CLEANED UP AND DISPOSED OF PER EPA STANDARDS. 14. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AFTER PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 16. TEMPORARY PUMPED DISCHARGE POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNIQUES: "DANDY DEWATERING BAG" BROCK WHITE CO. USA. 17. CONTACT PERSON FOR SITE CLEANLINESS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS: GENNADIY SIZONENKO (612) 598-5255 18. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: (952) 471-0682. FINAL GRADE MIN 4" TOPSOIL MIN 4" PEA GRAVEL, 3/4" ROCK, OR GEOTEXTILE PUBUC ROAD BOT. = 878.7 8 FEET RADIUS AS REQUIRED NOTE: BOTTOM OF FRENCH DRAIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON A LEVEL PLANE. FRENCH DRAIN NOT TO SCALE CRUSHED ROCK PER SPECIFICATION GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ,ff4W.ITt.WArit \WOWSW.' - EXISTING GROUND TEMPORARY ROCK STABILIZING EXIT NOT TO SCALE acwo44Ics 6836 ;IP- 0\i - hl " f If 14 69 ? 91.//' -16 BE41 5 5669 5.467. 0.4651 685.04 539.7 5635 6, 0 5•, 663.6 4'..° a. MI .6 662.1 5.9g, ,., . -ST WI V .5.3zZ: , , ... . ., ,,,, . I. .00 Tor 6,5,' : w e . c . k (2 12 F,' I 9.6. 03 63-. r, .2 ° g \_., wortIM=881.0 ---------66;f:..P.:hVLjl:-l'- ' ' WO' rt,TE,77FT 1. ... •eez.c 57:3". f. ea, .:72.:' 'Ti. . 2...... ,.,.., . 4: .5:1 .4 0". .6697 1.1 ,,.... 7'; :..', -o-,177:ii.1 LANDSCAPE GRATE WITH INSPECTION PORT 650.4 660.2 552.6, eae. 507.7 579.9 560.0 675 W to, to560 660.1 too 590.36 660.2 .05 16 0E0 TW 817.30 Tiv147.2frodm tiVilltf.5fre./11 SW 11.5311.99 661.9 007.1 Concrete 1013/e Porch W 413th Street Proposed Residence yr arc \ e66., 666.2 , TW SW114.0 360.2 'jr of PC2 icy 6613 co, 007 , 36 5o; 882. MI INLET CONTROL (TYP.) 03 0 79.66 PROPOSED SILT FENCE OR BIO-ROLLS CLEAN AGGREGATE (1 1/2"s RIVER ROCK), PEA GRAVEL OR SAND, (<5% FINES) ADS GEOSYNTHETIC NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE OR APPROVED EQUAL. t `.? 557., 667.1 o vitae 67 MINIMUM DOUBLE STITCHED SEAMS ALL AROUND SIDE PIECES AND ON FLAP POCKETS FRONT, BACK, AND BOTTOM TO BE MADE FROM SINGLE PIECE OF FABRIC OVERFLOW HOLES (2 IN X 4 IN HOLE SHALL BE HEAT CUT INTO ALL FOUR SIDE PANELS) 20' MINIMUM C1) cl Cl 1-- ,,- 5 FT MINIMUM LENGTH POST AT 6 FT MAXIMUM SPACING TIRE COMPACTION ZONE FLOW EXISTING GROUND MACHINE SLICE 8 IN - 121N DEPTH SILT FENCE (MACHINE SLICED) NOT TO SCALE FLOW :t D 0 F w 2 2 LLF- Proposed Hardcover ot Area 19,461 sq ft Building 3,970 sq ft Driveway 1,584 sq ft Porch 249 sq ft Porch 250 sq ft Deck 116sqlt Patio 450 sq ft Sidewalk 129 sq ft Total 6,775 sq ft Percentage 34.83% NOTE: FRENCH DRAIN DESIGNED FOR 37. 4% HARDCOVER (+450 SF HARDCOVER). too 666 9 USE REBAR OR STEEL ROD FOR REMOVAL (FOR INLETS WITH CAST CURB BOX REPLACE ROD WITH WOOD 2 IN X 4 IN). EXTEND 10 IN BEYOND GRATE WIDTH ON BOTH SIDES, LENGTH VARIES. SECURE TO GRATE WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC TIES. INLET SPECIFICATIONS AS PER THE PLAN DIMENSION LENGTH AND WIDTH TO MATCH FLAP POCKET 8 IN INLET PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE IN_Ii!'\11L'Vc:J=7:0 SNIN'tiVid NOZ 0 I NVr VNIO JO A.LIO 1l eon FRENCH DRAIN PER 5/C1 325 SQ FT. (8' X 41') HWL=881.1 Ato-1.7t \ 11N X 21N X 24 IN LONG WOODEN STAKES.- STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE BACK HALF OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG \ AT AN ANGLE OF 45 DEGREES WITH THE TOP OF THE STAKE POINTING UPSTREAM. 45' STRAW SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG FLOW EXISTING GROUND BACKFILL AND COMPACT SOIL FROM TRENCH ON UPGRADIENT SIDE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG BIOROLLS S O Costing Hardcover Lot Area Building Concrete Driveway Concrete Deck Stoop/steps 19,461 sq ft 2,537 sq ft 95 sq ft 2,249 sq ft 377 sq ft 131 sq ft 105 sq ft Total Percentage ROCK STABILIZING EXIT (USE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON W 48TH STREET AS LONG AS FEASIBLE) 5,494 sq ft 25.23% Bridge Lane • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument ID Denotes Wood Hub Setter excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation S5 Basis for bearings is assumed urtr_e4rrirs Trrlifirate Proposed Site Plan Survey For: CORNERSTONE HOMES x00aD Proposed Hardcover Lot Area 19,461 sq ft Building 3,970 sq ft Driveway 1,554 sq ft Porch 249 sq ft Porch 250 sq ft Deck 116 sq ft Patio 450 sq ft Sidewalk 129 sq ft Total 6,775 sq ft Percentage 34.53% Denotes Surface Drainage Proposed Building Coverage Lot Area 1,9,461 sq ft 889.72 889.28 888.78 877.74 Proposed First Floor Elevation Proposed Top of Foundation Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Basement Floor Type of Building Full-Basement Partial Lookout Building Porch (front) Porch (side) Deck Deck Allowance Patio (not applicable) 3,970 sq ft 24,9 sq ft 250 sq ft 116 sq ft -116 sq ft 0 sq ft Lot Width 50' South of the North Lot Line = 120.70 Average grade at front of house = 882.15 Total Percentage 4,49,9 sq ft 23,12% 13ric/ge Lane Sanitary Manhole m7=855.71 556.93 tCC tcc x od/..5.5 5.7 Storm Manhole 8138.04 - -... 73137.1 5 tc 5 c 6. /4 \,,,,, 65 , , .2 • ,,g rim=555.4 1 & ,....---= URS _ ..,--..t.7-Y7 G/;. , AS 1387,7 - ' - - - 4 / 1436 7 / e313 7.7 _ - - 866 ',conc.:, Wal I c )gad N4 1‘ ,j, kpal GAS Pr-kerfP 2-c-eN 89°33'39" W 89.00 Plat-89.20 Meas.-, ' ---------;(5>:D .77N Catch Bas ma a c .5 > 7 ';19 rirn=884. 13 PLANNINC 0.4 74. •ic5 CITY C am. Wandhole X', GAS 5835 I3 x GAS JAN 2 0 2 '1 2 ---23137.7 wood picket fence // 459.6 x tw13 .'1 12w513 .7+ i;ii, it la k o 55 .0 i >.,(,rI .503 ,so - ci-).• two 7.9 ' v>.11 Pw.5 4.21 Qts ,I, , iI /`-' °) <)I° ,16 05.5 I 82.9 5 Z tw557.8 i-X li \ 'Pi / 1,w1382.9 1 Ill c3-:•121 1. rI 1 ?Il i 889.5'i 1'10 t 1.1 /7 6 /-)14 550.6 13 2.3 hi l'- -.9 cox 'L___ 892.4 / 1 1 El I -111 tw‘5513.7,iae. 1.1 bw1352.0 6 1 1391. / qi. 1100. x __ - _887-7.7g -TVV 807.5 __ BW 887.0/ - / 5134.63 8216 x 552.4 4 x 552.3 --k O Co O 002.0 Concret<e 22'6" 307 3/4" Porch 1!8 O TW 886.0 co BW B 882.0 c•I 21'0" TW 888.0 BW 884.0 8'9" tcc TIN 888.0 i f BW 885.0 \I 8132.74 GP 882.3 7 11• 1 u / 7 Residence/ • 13545t, No. 5 x010-4- 1 tw55 .2 1' mos bw552. 1 -138 ar 86 tw 4.0 111185- w552. I 111 cvs 1353.5 NMI -4353 111‘ • •.: -tw13_132..t, - Pw582:3, 2'6' 4'0" 3'07r TW 887.2 (north) BW 881.5 (west) BW 886.5 (south) 75.6 Proposed Residence 332.3 x WO /592 CsI (is \ in 882.0 5 _BW 882.0 3411 3/4" 002. 1382.0 - 1382 x 5 1 (9 14'0" 20'0" 0 12.9" 851.7 Deck 552.0 L')( x FRENCH DRAIN PER 5/C1 45/ 5523,15 SQ FT. (8' X 41') HWL=881.1 36 t .452.0 88/.9 852.0 /-I! x\. 2.0/ I 552.3 x X, c) x 513 .5 3 551.2 x X1351.4 20'0"x/3/31,7_ 88J _O - 4 x 8\60.7 0; --- -058/ 881.0 ,X tcc 58' 74 e3..;!* • ;•*, :•.• , •• .;••••1 • • *T1 let•_ '::" `• t : ?:7)- ----- , 13 0.4 X 850.4 550.2 880.3 x N 89°25'26" W 130.1 Plat 129.71 Meas. -855: 550.2 00.0 9,9 '550.0 >c *579.9 enchmarkl n .05 cct Olverhead Wire? h 5133.00 >(880.36>(880.366 55 X a 550.2 513 tcc -aoo r 2 4 5130.2 4 el Conc. Walk Power--)Cci 14 -1 CTel pale 5 /en tcc 579.75 w 1379.66 879.9 w M Gate Valve Gatch b-asin nm=579. 13 W 48th Street Sanitary Manhole `'• rim=13130. 14 > > > Property Zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant West of Driveway on W 48th Street. As shown hereon. Elevation = 883.00 Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Building Setback Requirements Front - 30 or Average of Adjacent Houses, whichever is greater** Side Interior - 10 Side Street - 15 Rear - 25 feet NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Legal Description Lot 33, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 319 Hennepin County, Minnesota Project No. 89844A Scale: 1" = 20' The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Drawn By 1122-36 F.B.No. gwy Address: 4716 Townes Road Edina, MN Prepared this 3rd y of January 2022. I .20.22 prop grades DEMARC rev LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING Signed (763) 560-3093 Demarclnc.com 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 sch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 R. P F:\survey\auditors subdivision - hennepin\319-33 \ 01 Surveying - 89844\01 CAD \01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg 12 9.026B Lpe51. SUEFLO22 FLOORTRAMI Bffil. PLATE wg t)1161_EvEL UNDCWAVOIR MADER AM) 4,1,0 _BASEKERr SLAB (011.14) -k5- 401".C1/20111 ??, CITY OF EDINA PLANN I I\ fl 5/4x5 KARA- 1.4hEL Q LY 8 11 5 2x10 6/4•ki, 6/46 L 5 el 71- lV dl 14.0 / < `, / CAST STONE SILL / THIN STONE VENEER THIN STONE VENEER PROPOSED GRADE 1I I r • asalo 1-1-+ _ / / ._. \ / / \ \ / / \ \ ..-- •--- LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: = T.O. TCP CF ESISTSO BASEMENT FOCTET6 AFFROX. • 5145 STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES 4.12 4:12 ASPHALT 514INGLE5 12.12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 5, / / 2 / / STUCCO A‘—z. eOLFFER LEVEL ELATE 'glow (8,4 1129 - ei,UPFER LEVEL 061526120OR HEADEaELNOJ 12:12 / \ / \ / ._ \ / ,___ ASPHALT SHNGLES 6/4 10 5/4.3 5/4v10 STUCCO 5112 rSTAP:D rET., L PIG 5/4x0 LJ L L 15,12 -7, • \ MAR 6113•FLOSE (24' FLOOR .115.1M12) TO. FOMATICN (000 - 88528) EIRO_1/4 TTe._2 ,,PPGE FOCTENG (66528) AVG. EX510 FRONT GRADE - 882)51 T0•2 FCMDATICN M003E4 TOE.OF EY:15TP*15.45111710 SLAB • 5150 TOP Of E>5516E T5-1' POCKING APPOO-X73743 JAN 2 0 2022 -1-EX151 GRADE BACK • 5820 THIN store VENEER JJ FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 1/4. • r-ire SUFFER LEVEL PLATE 200211 (8'-4 VP) 00LIFFER LEVEL miDalioc__.4EADERfuNoi LEVEL 61131_00 11511S5E5) FIGN LEVJEL MATE HEISPIT (0,1 V59 c).LaIN EKEL 1l12,2cRRIE (11R0) e M hnAM ffugad3,2og (24. FLocR naiss `VTD.FouvATICN 0000 - MEW LEVEL WHOCUipoCR (FADER NROJ‘ FOOTEIG (88on) AKv EXSTG. FRONT GRADE - 0820) FM404%7101 ONE0a3L___ 5 1 E E B (011. 4) FOOltl,al_EUE TOP OF EASING BASEMENT SLAB • 0150 J 5:12 MEM B.12 12,12 rII / / / J STUCCO 9 / ( DATE 1/4 01-19-22 5,1 Q 5 e t§ Sj SHEET 1 . 0 SLO1ER LEVEL 11,00.1.100012 HEADER NNW ¨ FOOTED (885281 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AVG. EXSTG. FRONT GRADE - 88215) FONDATICN (868.18/ EXISTING GRADE .4 • E02 T.C,LLj3 FCANDAT1ON 53 AirigErtiltrAILADieni4) T.J._,F00.1:NG128) TOE OF EXISTING ISANSIENT SLAB • 8150 TOP OF DOVE INZERNT FOOTING APPROX. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 EGRESS CELL GRADE 88000 1611 16,12 12:12 612 FLAIR RIGHT (8,4 1/)'1 1$,UPFF-R LEVEL ILINDCW/DOOR FEADEENHOJ L 40LIPPER LEVE10211t (20 . 11.008 1F1855€5) 11.AINLEVELME HEIGHT (I0 11/0) • .11.404 LEL 11.611D0J.4900R1.0N,FR NILO) 1 LEVEL SLIFOGE (20 FLOOR 2:1165E6) FOUFDATTGN (109.0 - 68928) SLIPPER LEVEL PLATE NEIGRI (0-4 1119 114 PF-R LEVEL 11.85DOLle20000n0amt0j *UPPER LEVP,TOQR (10,a!201RTRLISE.E5) .2,11-EL r141E HEIGHT (10 \ II/59 4,11A54 LEVEL IRIDOUDD_GIR READER (UND-/ ..11.6141 LEVE3.,20B (20 FLOCF2M1.165E61 TO. FONDATION ((000 - 88528) LOIER L_NEL:Au.pcoegruttoi‘ FOOTED (136528) AVG. EXSTO. FRONT GRADE - 882.15) / 5:12 !ii III la U ,>. < A _J S. 5: NM EH \._ [ 5 17 N— EXIST' -AOF • BACX • 1020 71 BACK ELEVATION SCALE. I/4' • I.-0. UL. 12,12 41i1.Ai9q.5.DIENT SLAB (81114/ =- • s, 4,1t1E2011441.0112_41 TOED EXISTING SLA.13 • 8150 TOP OF EXISTIPG BASEMENT FOOTING AFFROX. • 5 RIGHT SIPE ELEVATION SCALE. IV • l'.0. Q 9 O z 2 Sj 6 6 DATE ,01-19-22 -S SHEET 1.1 aai '41 T BAF kr.o.S 0.43 I I EXERCISE / FAMILY 20,S. z 16,11. LI / LNEN SITTING 34.-0. -1,2 yr 16,10 15A6' T-10 SAW 15.-6. N EGRESS 2-CMJ35 4-P3555 RO 36 UM x 413/314 EA. 41 /21111 65 RH EA. r=i I 1m mi iii iiI MM - • 1§ - •-•• S C in N N 2•45 RAT UNEXCAVATED r — rECH CEASE TOW.. HALLWAY L _J MECHANICAL/STORAGE e • / SPORT CLOSET 14'-0. CLOSET 11x5° ix6 Yd x PLAT I- GUEST BEDROOM 1'-1'x11'-6'/ LOWER F YER x 14 x? CLOSET 2.45 FLAT N N lm ,T) 0. Ca Ln 415 N N DATE 01-10-22 SHEET 2.1 f— fk g o f cz ,c)z ty_r O tt w z I l S, 4 E F FSa BILLIARDS rc 12,10. x TI'-l. 8 2-01535 80.36 1/7111. 413/314 EA. T-2 1/2' 6'- STY-El 6'-O' AN31 OvE_R A4351 OVER A2131 OvER 0A5165 P3355 02155 RO. 36 0355 RO. 4 302/ RO. 56 x 86 1/614. x35 1/811 x55 15314_ GAMES HALL 1 lxb BRIG CF DEO< ABOVE BATH-5 10' 5•x 10'-0' 2446 FLAT SPORT COURT 33,T x 76,11' OPEN TO MAW LEVEL PLATE O • / 4.-9' N GRADE TO 355. SNOLLF_R 2x6 BRIG "a x 41 LL UNEXCAVATED NOTES: L TYPICAL UNDOLLVDOORI-EADER TO BE 1222505, UsLESS NOTED 011ERLE5E NNW. - RCUG14 MADER WEIGHT TO BE 6,1 IA' U24.0. ASSJ-E TRITER SCR 14EADER LENGIVIS LESS 114AN 5,0% CP TRitERS FOR READER LENG114,5 OR GREATER SRO. 2. DIFENSIONS AFS FR CII CENTER CF, OR FACE CE FRAHM. UR°. EXTERIOR FACE DIMENWONS ARE TO EXTEROR FACE OF 511/0, NOT TO FACE CF SNEAT1FX. DO NOT SCALE CFF TIE DR6101/4. F DPENRCNAL PECRIATICti IS MISSNG CR INCLEAR CONTACT PROTECT ORAL-IRIAN FOR CLARITICATICR 3. SEE FOLSVATTCN PLAN FOR CFFSET FRAIING LOACTICKS. 4. FROYIDE SPACE TO ACCDTWATE SASE AND CASS* PER SPECS. Mt DID:CATES FRAYED LOAD REARM WALL ism SVCATES FRAMED NCH-LOAD BEARIM WALL = IhDfCATES POJFED CONCRETE FONDATO4 WALL ISC4CATES TWO \R'Y VETOER r PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR FLAN (1858 SF + MECH./STORAGE 4 1001 SF. SPORT COURT) SCALE: 1/4'. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6 6 6 IT) cfl 84 DATE SHEET 2.2 -4 NOTES: TYPICAL PLATE TEIGITT TO BE W-I INLESS NO1E0 ... 20 ,0 II.O. T_2 32' 6 b'-23/4' 9 0 /4' 6'-0' V 0. 0431 OvER ARM / OVER ANN OVER 1 77 OGutl C71755 P3655 120. 36 Pea 12.0. 4 317510271. x65 0.30155 3/1119 Ra 36 vaut Veil 8 651/811. A, /4 3-786 BREAKFAST 3-786 I.e .4 7 gp •,- DECK L6.811.-6.7 STAIRS (156 SF. TOTAL/ 6.-6. :a -22. 12-27 ‘ % . -eaLnir€ red,A h AA • $ v 5 y- PETERED / RO. 4 8 36 P630 WM 1/214. RO. 4 2 36 TENFERED P363 P3 3/6111 RD. LOH • 36 TEIVERED 30 3/8111. 1/219 .• , 4-0931 08J ES 1492 11 85 cxtes 1A719 E 4,371351 • 'ER PAM n 1/819 EA o .7 W ' 190-760110 RA60684/ 1791. OYER 2 107 6/21{ 1 P P::: 27 4 A r,'" 13 AO. 0 7-786 7-286 2-U4 .n 12.0. 41 3/841.46. 7486 7-286 I I I 1 n TE. KOLL LIE ABOVE IA / a'a -1-j I-4 BACKHALLT, Iclii Ai R. 1 1 1 1 . -.. .00 • 4 , -I A i , 1 -1__I 1 i < I ./ J .-1 g __, IGt I TOF WIll i PLI 1 1 I ' ,_. r 35-1 VP ) 4-SEASON PORCH 't !VV9.01Nt ..3 • Afro, 1 pit , , i f PANTRY .... ----/ 11 I I n !'. P-T -- I a SPORT COURT BELOW r I}} , I-7 I I 1 -r ,. I__ 1 i I I I I ,. hP .2g°4 A KITCHEN I /El i Imo_ 1 _ K901 , 0 • .. eRgu - 4 I 4 -F---- mqkl' I o / 0, - I ow, 42. REF -I 7 ‘1 R./. g 1, 4-ANSI OVER R.O. 36 V2111) 07055 65 1/SH EA Atr.: H 1 2 TALL EVA' cep POWDER ex? L _____ J I 9 til T... o5 t 7-2 I/255 , , 6'-'3 I/2T g 2.8 V 0" 0 • • 1-",4 1-1-- 4 I, • = -I MER'eI La. C- 1-1 lk °I Zak I ELS 143. FLY CPT Pt 0259.042 _ _ . t ---- -7- 41 :: * 0 , - P 5-AIR 2 , 4, 7-10 62. ) I 10.-I VA FLT. cl/F tiL. SPEFLOOR P $ I 1 / ., _ MUD ROOM IN? " RI IS § e el 5-AIR I re • X le a 8 e • LING• __P 15-5T FTR tV-EA eXES° I / 3-CAR GARAGE / ell BMW ili :11 I I g... WI- e-; R OFFICE K 41 °ry- 7,,,. 11 OVER RO. 6 IMIL 8 II'-II' x 1,-11' 0 L,.. • - x61 VIM pMgR ni r n / 1.:. 1 . ;.,. ..cg A ,7/7 21 4'-W ABOVE 1 1 3.4.713 I 120.37 W. x kr, ivr / 046 leek EA. 16,1 LO. I 4.-0. 1 r 1- 9 - ". i I a I I FRONT ORt1-1 _.I,_ 'ma LINE ABOVE 1 -I- 1 i 1 0 1 L , .-, 1 F_ I 1 : 347271/31 0 (ER CX155 1 A I 9°X 3.7 Di A. R0.37918 1/311 EA. .12 A . il lext,a4 1 r, 11' I 30-3' T 3' 2. ]NSE MHO) 70 HEADER 71ETOITT 41145 LESS TITAN 9 11210. 7. EXTERIOR FACE OF SM4411...ATITTEI. DO 19 1.11 /Ma AT- 1 71-0' 15,6 VI' 4. SEE FONDATION FLAN FOR OFFSET PROMO LOCATICNS. 6. FRONDE SPACE TO ACCOMODATE BASE 1 CA526 PER SPECS. =I INDICATES FRAtIED LOAD EF.A7724 WALL mg ND:CATES FRAMEP NON-LOAD DEARKG WALL ET= INDICATES FlASCHRY VENEER PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (4505 SF., EXCLUDING 150 SF. DECK/STAIRS, TOTAL COVERAGE) SCALE: 1/4'.1'-¢0 CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7. TYPICAL 02307/PCX719 HEADER TO BE 2-214109 UND. - RW TO BE 5/8',11/40. AERIE (I) TOYER FOR EF 40FR LEN 5 ,0% (21 'MATTERS FOR READER LENGTHS 55 -0' OR GREATE 3. IME7757CT45 AM FROM CENTER CF CR FACE GE FRA/114 0211926045 ARE TO EXTERIOR FACE OF 61127, NOT TO FACE NOT SCALE GEE THE PRAENGS. F PITENSIONAL 6FOIMATIC61 UN:LEAR CONTACT PROJECT DRAFTEMAN FOR 0 4...Y4TI011 CE lu—ra in Ur 11-11 3- .14 R.O. 245/81.2 x 481.2'0 EA 6-6 3/8' 01.0. 1b. AT. A x6 2-C`455 RO. 32V.266 318.1.1. EA. 1 L J_ • 5 IR' / 2.-5 118' / 2,S 1/8' 2,5 1/8.1/ 6,10 IA6' 8 4 128' 14' 6' TI 6' EV -0' CLOSET-3 _J I6d2 • [SLOPE 4'11 O. 24 5/8311 2 48 1/24.1.5.4 6-6 3/8' K0. 1.1C. HT. 1-PEN LEAD 14 • 6.4 CFI A 6 • 1!' i § —11L 1 eti -19 A • NOTES: DRT WASH 4.13048.H DRESSER i t H H HALL , H 3.X '1° UPPER FOYER 1 7 L_ 23 /k.1 1 MECHANICAL STORAGE NAL RESOURCE 123.P 81/ELVES LAUNDRY 16,2 OFE Ri STORAGE 2'x1° 15.-0. z 11, 15.1LT-245 O e zt 6 MASTER 9 MASTER CLOSET f3CNUS ROOM 33.-2' x 25,11' (lAF22ISI.ED) MASTER I I vESTIDULE MASTER H PRESSING L 9 !rl L TTENAL HATE 1-EIGHT TO BE 0-4 In' 1.2.1-55.5 NOTED OTHERLISE 61110) 2. TTMCAL tLIRDOLVPOOR HEADER TO BE 2-2X106 UNO. ROUGH WADER VEG.14T TO SE 1'-2 3/4' LINO. asettiE 212 TRTVER FOR HEADER LQ151145 LESS THAN 5.-0`, (2) TRit-ERS FOR HEADER LENGTHS 0-0' CR GREATER URO. S.C. AND LUMBER/TRUSS El1FFLER TO VERIT ALL STRUCTURAL MENDERS REQUIRED 3. DI-010CM ARE FROM CENTER OF CR FACE GF FRAMT4 14/1.0. EXTERIOR FACE =ENVOIS ARE TO EXTEROR FACE CF STUD. NOT TO FACE OF SHEAT1.12.6 DO NOT SCALE CFF THE DRAINGS. F D11E15!C.NAL PfCRIATIGN 15 11165440 OR tliCLEAR CONTACT FROJECT DRAFTSMAN FOR CLARSHCATION. 4. PROVIDE WAGE TO ACCO•TICOATE BASE 2 CA526 FFR EEECS. MIC.ATES 5W4'ED LOAD REARM tau. EMI NOICATES FRAMED NCN-LOAD BEAR245 tau_ ROCF TRUSSES \ • 24' 0.C. DEPROoM-4 14,5' x 14,2' ENTRY ALCOVE ROOF TRUSSES \ s• • 74' 0.C. 15' S. 16'0248.1.1 DRESSER CLOSET-2 24 X1° SH'S -71 3 -CX55 RO. 311.1x613/811 EA I I 4.-5 VB. / 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (2801 SE + 911 S.F. UNFINISHED BONUS ROOM) SCALE: 1/4' =1'-0' CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT id 36. 11.15 8'-0 V1. 3-C W16 RO. 36 1.212...12 3/814. EA. 1111--Ill I I 2-2x62-206 Ic I. it:12 NOCE TFUEEES • 24' OZ. MASTER 13ATH RO. 28 1/811.22_81/814.pj 111 2-225 2-AL251 .41./6 120.36 1051.412 3/811E0. r 111-111 2-226 2-206 1 6 5,2 1/2 2-CNS RD 32 12x68 3/8'11E0. 11 44,-6. 1T-11 ,... 0 r. / CLOSET-4 ROGF TRISSE5 \ • 24' 0.C. DEPROOM-2 14.-5' x 1.3.-2. ENTRY ALCOVE -- I I - .12 SI- A 11-111)—SII I 2-CX55 5.0.32111x56 3/811 E4. 1 154 H 2 1 14—P11 SHEET 2.3 DATE 01-10-22 VNIGB JO A110 L_ Z ND ,0,1•.11141VS 1::4 -, t RESIDENCE FOR: 140 PLAN ITEM DATE s 0 I\D (i) 13 esioped ---nvironmerts 1 SCI-EIATIC DESIGN 12-01-21 °DESIGNED ENVIRONIENTS 4 RANDY BRIDGET SKAARE 2 suRver 01-02-22 INNS AilinICAML RAO AND1111 IMO= I. I • ffi —I 1.11.. re6icpIng Environmeats for Living 4116 TOWNE5 ROAD 3 SIGN-OFF 01-01-22 0011111111CIM IIIMII•401110 TM Na. APR IIMCWINS COPM11111M, 1911:Meri a. OINNOIN, I nowema7erh ro ruporm ts) 1•3 RESIXENTAL DESIGN/PLANNING EDINA, MN $5424 4 PER 0I-I0-22 ,.3 CONSTRUCTION , carmen. am 01.2aEs 195 900.. POOF PAT. PM WPM la A 22111‘1014020 A.P. Vt stole 1TR 01166. VIER MEL KAM (04 Vt. 1.1110) nworepocRisit c9-15/0 040) IL ANL= tie um 1W$440 Moi 5119. FIVE NL mpoNtroog 1111 (a-2 5/0 1.29) 111. PAL. OAR 1,1 e1119.14 5/4•11.0 AP-flOal Vt. 601611 I XX 926014 0.152 7/1/11, I.UT 21.11-P22-0 al t0e0.220 / IX/ MIR MEL 91 sFEC. 6121029 AS MOW /02/ /RUE 1124 VA MAUI% CYON0 VA MUM 9140 at 0001 006.10/ U. 1401138 (02 Ve Ut10) TO. 055ke F40116 (14 TO. 6!1•{5 FOAMY. (3100) EMIT 11100195 914 1166381195 21.0 11 00.01120 PER 220 095 0 le 00 MAIM PM att... VX 6•0'9.14 KWH aria TRT. ITO „. 1 9/ 1.0 171,11.1 .•.252150. ar 06. - maw T MO GairAYETE 6110410' WIDE a FROIT = MT. (1-OM Y HYL Papa, PM HAL MIK FlM H/ REM ..500 I,, lV 4.4 14 ri 9 CV kr) 111 •21• 4) Ll DATE ,01-10-22 1 SHEET 3.0 1ILL Par AEI, 5/0 Wan W ASIAA 01ER 1/101. 24, 9b-9/011 311 UX00112 / IX4 WHY 11001-5001/ MEL FHi SYL 20/7220 A5 1'41® 12 19541111010'1191.4091/= (-OM1 PI PQM WV. HAL MR FUN REM 00 FEW 010 94202•140/1000 WATERP1.00100 ICY9. VI &PAM 124 !KWH 91102. 249 Wax Deana H" 14 2/941211 V0 OMR 92F• 22/ Id_ MOH FrAEGFR Lf if WI Pa 1' 11059 900 /MS &AO Y 112160 raw A5,2212T 1•011. e cute nu INCI,C111 on. To, or DKr10 patletrt roorta Amok 102.5 4' WAN TIL • 0 1.411 1 Ha Ca*. Fra 7. 9/ Mr. A5 1EA. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 pi_.f.‘ININci DEPARTMENT 5/10e• 22.122 12.14-24 01511/0 12121022 214. 101.0221 PER 0/20 Vt 0E0110 PER 9E0 Sll.10 0 If 00 1111.012e 2•00 VI" WWI 5010121 110.04L011 HOCH 71091 1/0 561 cl/f5a-F 7 .-111TP. 240 HU- F2/w/ Veo Ha H. way lie X 2' 42012 0 22. 04. - 12 MEW r 0 010001E ROM 114.1290 4 0. 2/2- 156 siairga p a21 110115 (PR ti .01 rce 0 959ea parlIfr 914 - 17P Cr lalsna Farm wsiza DNS MANTLE 1 orals FER PAT PAIR MR (0 6 HAFER MIME AS Vt' 4E0120 FER • 140 000-1 1/04 OAli D 5/142 2x10' 0.11-121201 tal 1001019 / w WWI Maasarrir PN819t 51154. EUTER9 A5 F4Q0® 5/4 eV x191 7P11 9060x11111122 511.4 10.103010 M91 904. 1/1 916110 195 *EL IIP 51102 0 If 00 141051 Fax SEC VT e•TAN 211151/11 ant IM. M. HMV 5.2/ I' S• 2 20,9111O TRW 2.10 SILL 110 21" kta 0011 I DW. 020 IYAL F9t 201 IY/ FTILF. AS FE01 1-0 0/01/12/01220/ • WA1091051710 PER 91.40 4' MIN PIE 0 • 14W 3 PI Mr. Mt Fr/ Relf. 20 Ma IL 12121 OAR 5/0' 60.311 I//• 226 00-1106R 01 59111 91501R15XES 1/4 Vt' 6/1011 154 1051511 51191 NO WPM WRYER. 9/ 1-5 MIAMI MR 905 VT catiaTE 12/ I& 12/215 101/0012 L 0 WU. PrItE • 1E111. 2.0 twat (LC T000020 FLOCR 121.0220) 1.4 1190515 H9 Vol P411.85, 85211004 I/C 460151. 414 12/ 114 C 1.01/ 021 Fra W/189. A. FE0A 110011 10/01 1.122212 &eVr F.00 1// *ANSI VIAL 225 le !t TYPICAL HOUSE WALL SECTION ecaE. 2/15- a (-0' F21242(./02/9/ Par 112205 esittEs PER 2002 ROM PN2R PER %5 5.0 8 WIER 10/42220 AS FEW 1/I• 91.0100 195 21005. 12 9.026B Lpe51. SUEFLO22 FLOORTRAMI Bffil. PLATE wg t)1161_EvEL UNDCWAVOIR MADER AM) 4,1,0 _BASEKERr SLAB (011.14) -k5- 401".C1/20111 ??, CITY OF EDINA PLANN I I\ fl 5/4x5 KARA- 1.4hEL Q LY 8 11 5 2x10 6/4•ki, 6/46 L 5 el 71- lV dl 14.0 / < `, / CAST STONE SILL / THIN STONE VENEER THIN STONE VENEER PROPOSED GRADE 1I I r • asalo 1-1-+ _ / / ._. \ / / \ \ / / \ \ ..-- •--- LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: = T.O. TCP CF ESISTSO BASEMENT FOCTET6 AFFROX. • 5145 STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES 4.12 4:12 ASPHALT 514INGLE5 12.12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 5, / / 2 / / STUCCO A‘—z. eOLFFER LEVEL ELATE 'glow (8,4 1129 - ei,UPFER LEVEL 061526120OR HEADEaELNOJ 12:12 / \ / \ / ._ \ / ,___ ASPHALT SHNGLES 6/4 10 5/4.3 5/4v10 STUCCO 5112 rSTAP:D rET., L PIG 5/4x0 LJ L L 15,12 -7, • \ MAR 6113•FLOSE (24' FLOOR .115.1M12) TO. FOMATICN (000 - 88528) EIRO_1/4 TTe._2 ,,PPGE FOCTENG (66528) AVG. EX510 FRONT GRADE - 882)51 T0•2 FCMDATICN M003E4 TOE.OF EY:15TP*15.45111710 SLAB • 5150 TOP Of E>5516E T5-1' POCKING APPOO-X73743 JAN 2 0 2022 -1-EX151 GRADE BACK • 5820 THIN store VENEER JJ FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 1/4. • r-ire SUFFER LEVEL PLATE 200211 (8'-4 VP) 00LIFFER LEVEL miDalioc__.4EADERfuNoi LEVEL 61131_00 11511S5E5) FIGN LEVJEL MATE HEISPIT (0,1 V59 c).LaIN EKEL 1l12,2cRRIE (11R0) e M hnAM ffugad3,2og (24. FLocR naiss `VTD.FouvATICN 0000 - MEW LEVEL WHOCUipoCR (FADER NROJ‘ FOOTEIG (88on) AKv EXSTG. FRONT GRADE - 0820) FM404%7101 ONE0a3L___ 5 1 E E B (011. 4) FOOltl,al_EUE TOP OF EASING BASEMENT SLAB • 0150 J 5:12 MEM B.12 12,12 rII / / / J STUCCO 9 / ( DATE 1/4 01-19-22 5,1 Q 5 e t§ Sj SHEET 1 . 0 SLO1ER LEVEL 11,00.1.100012 HEADER NNW ¨ FOOTED (885281 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AVG. EXSTG. FRONT GRADE - 88215) FONDATICN (868.18/ EXISTING GRADE .4 • E02 T.C,LLj3 FCANDAT1ON 53 AirigErtiltrAILADieni4) T.J._,F00.1:NG128) TOE OF EXISTING ISANSIENT SLAB • 8150 TOP OF DOVE INZERNT FOOTING APPROX. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 EGRESS CELL GRADE 88000 1611 16,12 12:12 612 FLAIR RIGHT (8,4 1/)'1 1$,UPFF-R LEVEL ILINDCW/DOOR FEADEENHOJ L 40LIPPER LEVE10211t (20 . 11.008 1F1855€5) 11.AINLEVELME HEIGHT (I0 11/0) • .11.404 LEL 11.611D0J.4900R1.0N,FR NILO) 1 LEVEL SLIFOGE (20 FLOOR 2:1165E6) FOUFDATTGN (109.0 - 68928) SLIPPER LEVEL PLATE NEIGRI (0-4 1119 114 PF-R LEVEL 11.85DOLle20000n0amt0j *UPPER LEVP,TOQR (10,a!201RTRLISE.E5) .2,11-EL r141E HEIGHT (10 \ II/59 4,11A54 LEVEL IRIDOUDD_GIR READER (UND-/ ..11.6141 LEVE3.,20B (20 FLOCF2M1.165E61 TO. FONDATION ((000 - 88528) LOIER L_NEL:Au.pcoegruttoi‘ FOOTED (136528) AVG. EXSTO. FRONT GRADE - 882.15) / 5:12 !ii III la U ,>. < A _J S. 5: NM EH \._ [ 5 17 N— EXIST' -AOF • BACX • 1020 71 BACK ELEVATION SCALE. I/4' • I.-0. UL. 12,12 41i1.Ai9q.5.DIENT SLAB (81114/ =- • s, 4,1t1E2011441.0112_41 TOED EXISTING SLA.13 • 8150 TOP OF EXISTIPG BASEMENT FOOTING AFFROX. • 5 RIGHT SIPE ELEVATION SCALE. IV • l'.0. Q 9 O z 2 Sj 6 6 DATE ,01-19-22 -S SHEET 1.1 aai '41 T BAF kr.o.S 0.43 I I EXERCISE / FAMILY 20,S. z 16,11. LI / LNEN SITTING 34.-0. -1,2 yr 16,10 15A6' T-10 SAW 15.-6. N EGRESS 2-CMJ35 4-P3555 RO 36 UM x 413/314 EA. 41 /21111 65 RH EA. r=i I 1m mi iii iiI MM - • 1§ - •-•• S C in N N 2•45 RAT UNEXCAVATED r — rECH CEASE TOW.. HALLWAY L _J MECHANICAL/STORAGE e • / SPORT CLOSET 14'-0. CLOSET 11x5° ix6 Yd x PLAT I- GUEST BEDROOM 1'-1'x11'-6'/ LOWER F YER x 14 x? CLOSET 2.45 FLAT N N lm ,T) 0. Ca Ln 415 N N DATE 01-10-22 SHEET 2.1 f— fk g o f cz ,c)z ty_r O tt w z I l S, 4 E F FSa BILLIARDS rc 12,10. x TI'-l. 8 2-01535 80.36 1/7111. 413/314 EA. T-2 1/2' 6'- STY-El 6'-O' AN31 OvE_R A4351 OVER A2131 OvER 0A5165 P3355 02155 RO. 36 0355 RO. 4 302/ RO. 56 x 86 1/614. x35 1/811 x55 15314_ GAMES HALL 1 lxb BRIG CF DEO< ABOVE BATH-5 10' 5•x 10'-0' 2446 FLAT SPORT COURT 33,T x 76,11' OPEN TO MAW LEVEL PLATE O • / 4.-9' N GRADE TO 355. SNOLLF_R 2x6 BRIG "a x 41 LL UNEXCAVATED NOTES: L TYPICAL UNDOLLVDOORI-EADER TO BE 1222505, UsLESS NOTED 011ERLE5E NNW. - RCUG14 MADER WEIGHT TO BE 6,1 IA' U24.0. ASSJ-E TRITER SCR 14EADER LENGIVIS LESS 114AN 5,0% CP TRitERS FOR READER LENG114,5 OR GREATER SRO. 2. DIFENSIONS AFS FR CII CENTER CF, OR FACE CE FRAHM. UR°. EXTERIOR FACE DIMENWONS ARE TO EXTEROR FACE OF 511/0, NOT TO FACE CF SNEAT1FX. DO NOT SCALE CFF TIE DR6101/4. F DPENRCNAL PECRIATICti IS MISSNG CR INCLEAR CONTACT PROTECT ORAL-IRIAN FOR CLARITICATICR 3. SEE FOLSVATTCN PLAN FOR CFFSET FRAIING LOACTICKS. 4. FROYIDE SPACE TO ACCDTWATE SASE AND CASS* PER SPECS. Mt DID:CATES FRAYED LOAD REARM WALL ism SVCATES FRAMED NCH-LOAD BEARIM WALL = IhDfCATES POJFED CONCRETE FONDATO4 WALL ISC4CATES TWO \R'Y VETOER r PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR FLAN (1858 SF + MECH./STORAGE 4 1001 SF. SPORT COURT) SCALE: 1/4'. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6 6 6 IT) cfl 84 DATE SHEET 2.2 -4 NOTES: TYPICAL PLATE TEIGITT TO BE W-I INLESS NO1E0 ... 20 ,0 II.O. T_2 32' 6 b'-23/4' 9 0 /4' 6'-0' V 0. 0431 OvER ARM / OVER ANN OVER 1 77 OGutl C71755 P3655 120. 36 Pea 12.0. 4 317510271. x65 0.30155 3/1119 Ra 36 vaut Veil 8 651/811. A, /4 3-786 BREAKFAST 3-786 I.e .4 7 gp •,- DECK L6.811.-6.7 STAIRS (156 SF. TOTAL/ 6.-6. :a -22. 12-27 ‘ % . -eaLnir€ red,A h AA • $ v 5 y- PETERED / RO. 4 8 36 P630 WM 1/214. RO. 4 2 36 TENFERED P363 P3 3/6111 RD. LOH • 36 TEIVERED 30 3/8111. 1/219 .• , 4-0931 08J ES 1492 11 85 cxtes 1A719 E 4,371351 • 'ER PAM n 1/819 EA o .7 W ' 190-760110 RA60684/ 1791. OYER 2 107 6/21{ 1 P P::: 27 4 A r,'" 13 AO. 0 7-786 7-286 2-U4 .n 12.0. 41 3/841.46. 7486 7-286 I I I 1 n TE. KOLL LIE ABOVE IA / a'a -1-j I-4 BACKHALLT, Iclii Ai R. 1 1 1 1 . -.. .00 • 4 , -I A i , 1 -1__I 1 i < I ./ J .-1 g __, IGt I TOF WIll i PLI 1 1 I ' ,_. r 35-1 VP ) 4-SEASON PORCH 't !VV9.01Nt ..3 • Afro, 1 pit , , i f PANTRY .... ----/ 11 I I n !'. P-T -- I a SPORT COURT BELOW r I}} , I-7 I I 1 -r ,. I__ 1 i I I I I ,. hP .2g°4 A KITCHEN I /El i Imo_ 1 _ K901 , 0 • .. eRgu - 4 I 4 -F---- mqkl' I o / 0, - I ow, 42. REF -I 7 ‘1 R./. g 1, 4-ANSI OVER R.O. 36 V2111) 07055 65 1/SH EA Atr.: H 1 2 TALL EVA' cep POWDER ex? L _____ J I 9 til T... o5 t 7-2 I/255 , , 6'-'3 I/2T g 2.8 V 0" 0 • • 1-",4 1-1-- 4 I, • = -I MER'eI La. C- 1-1 lk °I Zak I ELS 143. FLY CPT Pt 0259.042 _ _ . t ---- -7- 41 :: * 0 , - P 5-AIR 2 , 4, 7-10 62. ) I 10.-I VA FLT. cl/F tiL. SPEFLOOR P $ I 1 / ., _ MUD ROOM IN? " RI IS § e el 5-AIR I re • X le a 8 e • LING• __P 15-5T FTR tV-EA eXES° I / 3-CAR GARAGE / ell BMW ili :11 I I g... WI- e-; R OFFICE K 41 °ry- 7,,,. 11 OVER RO. 6 IMIL 8 II'-II' x 1,-11' 0 L,.. • - x61 VIM pMgR ni r n / 1.:. 1 . ;.,. ..cg A ,7/7 21 4'-W ABOVE 1 1 3.4.713 I 120.37 W. x kr, ivr / 046 leek EA. 16,1 LO. I 4.-0. 1 r 1- 9 - ". i I a I I FRONT ORt1-1 _.I,_ 'ma LINE ABOVE 1 -I- 1 i 1 0 1 L , .-, 1 F_ I 1 : 347271/31 0 (ER CX155 1 A I 9°X 3.7 Di A. R0.37918 1/311 EA. .12 A . il lext,a4 1 r, 11' I 30-3' T 3' 2. ]NSE MHO) 70 HEADER 71ETOITT 41145 LESS TITAN 9 11210. 7. EXTERIOR FACE OF SM4411...ATITTEI. DO 19 1.11 /Ma AT- 1 71-0' 15,6 VI' 4. SEE FONDATION FLAN FOR OFFSET PROMO LOCATICNS. 6. FRONDE SPACE TO ACCOMODATE BASE 1 CA526 PER SPECS. =I INDICATES FRAtIED LOAD EF.A7724 WALL mg ND:CATES FRAMEP NON-LOAD DEARKG WALL ET= INDICATES FlASCHRY VENEER PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (4505 SF., EXCLUDING 150 SF. DECK/STAIRS, TOTAL COVERAGE) SCALE: 1/4'.1'-¢0 CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7. TYPICAL 02307/PCX719 HEADER TO BE 2-214109 UND. - RW TO BE 5/8',11/40. AERIE (I) TOYER FOR EF 40FR LEN 5 ,0% (21 'MATTERS FOR READER LENGTHS 55 -0' OR GREATE 3. IME7757CT45 AM FROM CENTER CF CR FACE GE FRA/114 0211926045 ARE TO EXTERIOR FACE OF 61127, NOT TO FACE NOT SCALE GEE THE PRAENGS. F PITENSIONAL 6FOIMATIC61 UN:LEAR CONTACT PROJECT DRAFTEMAN FOR 0 4...Y4TI011 CE lu—ra in Ur 11-11 3- .14 R.O. 245/81.2 x 481.2'0 EA 6-6 3/8' 01.0. 1b. AT. A x6 2-C`455 RO. 32V.266 318.1.1. EA. 1 L J_ • 5 IR' / 2.-5 118' / 2,S 1/8' 2,5 1/8.1/ 6,10 IA6' 8 4 128' 14' 6' TI 6' EV -0' CLOSET-3 _J I6d2 • [SLOPE 4'11 O. 24 5/8311 2 48 1/24.1.5.4 6-6 3/8' K0. 1.1C. HT. 1-PEN LEAD 14 • 6.4 CFI A 6 • 1!' i § —11L 1 eti -19 A • NOTES: DRT WASH 4.13048.H DRESSER i t H H HALL , H 3.X '1° UPPER FOYER 1 7 L_ 23 /k.1 1 MECHANICAL STORAGE NAL RESOURCE 123.P 81/ELVES LAUNDRY 16,2 OFE Ri STORAGE 2'x1° 15.-0. z 11, 15.1LT-245 O e zt 6 MASTER 9 MASTER CLOSET f3CNUS ROOM 33.-2' x 25,11' (lAF22ISI.ED) MASTER I I vESTIDULE MASTER H PRESSING L 9 !rl L TTENAL HATE 1-EIGHT TO BE 0-4 In' 1.2.1-55.5 NOTED OTHERLISE 61110) 2. TTMCAL tLIRDOLVPOOR HEADER TO BE 2-2X106 UNO. ROUGH WADER VEG.14T TO SE 1'-2 3/4' LINO. asettiE 212 TRTVER FOR HEADER LQ151145 LESS THAN 5.-0`, (2) TRit-ERS FOR HEADER LENGTHS 0-0' CR GREATER URO. S.C. AND LUMBER/TRUSS El1FFLER TO VERIT ALL STRUCTURAL MENDERS REQUIRED 3. DI-010CM ARE FROM CENTER OF CR FACE GF FRAMT4 14/1.0. EXTERIOR FACE =ENVOIS ARE TO EXTEROR FACE CF STUD. NOT TO FACE OF SHEAT1.12.6 DO NOT SCALE CFF THE DRAINGS. F D11E15!C.NAL PfCRIATIGN 15 11165440 OR tliCLEAR CONTACT FROJECT DRAFTSMAN FOR CLARSHCATION. 4. PROVIDE WAGE TO ACCO•TICOATE BASE 2 CA526 FFR EEECS. MIC.ATES 5W4'ED LOAD REARM tau. EMI NOICATES FRAMED NCN-LOAD BEAR245 tau_ ROCF TRUSSES \ • 24' 0.C. DEPROoM-4 14,5' x 14,2' ENTRY ALCOVE ROOF TRUSSES \ s• • 74' 0.C. 15' S. 16'0248.1.1 DRESSER CLOSET-2 24 X1° SH'S -71 3 -CX55 RO. 311.1x613/811 EA I I 4.-5 VB. / 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (2801 SE + 911 S.F. UNFINISHED BONUS ROOM) SCALE: 1/4' =1'-0' CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 PLANNING DEPARTMENT id 36. 11.15 8'-0 V1. 3-C W16 RO. 36 1.212...12 3/814. EA. 1111--Ill I I 2-2x62-206 Ic I. it:12 NOCE TFUEEES • 24' OZ. MASTER 13ATH RO. 28 1/811.22_81/814.pj 111 2-225 2-AL251 .41./6 120.36 1051.412 3/811E0. r 111-111 2-226 2-206 1 6 5,2 1/2 2-CNS RD 32 12x68 3/8'11E0. 11 44,-6. 1T-11 ,... 0 r. / CLOSET-4 ROGF TRISSE5 \ • 24' 0.C. DEPROOM-2 14.-5' x 1.3.-2. ENTRY ALCOVE -- I I - .12 SI- A 11-111)—SII I 2-CX55 5.0.32111x56 3/811 E4. 1 154 H 2 1 14—P11 SHEET 2.3 DATE 01-10-22 VNIGB JO A110 L_ Z ND ,0,1•.11141VS 1::4 -, t RESIDENCE FOR: 140 PLAN ITEM DATE s 0 I\D (i) 13 esioped ---nvironmerts 1 SCI-EIATIC DESIGN 12-01-21 °DESIGNED ENVIRONIENTS 4 RANDY BRIDGET SKAARE 2 suRver 01-02-22 INNS AilinICAML RAO AND1111 IMO= I. I • ffi —I 1.11.. re6icpIng Environmeats for Living 4116 TOWNE5 ROAD 3 SIGN-OFF 01-01-22 0011111111CIM IIIMII•401110 TM Na. APR IIMCWINS COPM11111M, 1911:Meri a. OINNOIN, I nowema7erh ro ruporm ts) 1•3 RESIXENTAL DESIGN/PLANNING EDINA, MN $5424 4 PER 0I-I0-22 ,.3 CONSTRUCTION , carmen. am 01.2aEs 195 900.. POOF PAT. PM WPM la A 22111‘1014020 A.P. Vt stole 1TR 01166. VIER MEL KAM (04 Vt. 1.1110) nworepocRisit c9-15/0 040) IL ANL= tie um 1W$440 Moi 5119. FIVE NL mpoNtroog 1111 (a-2 5/0 1.29) 111. PAL. OAR 1,1 e1119.14 5/4•11.0 AP-flOal Vt. 601611 I XX 926014 0.152 7/1/11, I.UT 21.11-P22-0 al t0e0.220 / IX/ MIR MEL 91 sFEC. 6121029 AS MOW /02/ /RUE 1124 VA MAUI% CYON0 VA MUM 9140 at 0001 006.10/ U. 1401138 (02 Ve Ut10) TO. 055ke F40116 (14 TO. 6!1•{5 FOAMY. (3100) EMIT 11100195 914 1166381195 21.0 11 00.01120 PER 220 095 0 le 00 MAIM PM att... VX 6•0'9.14 KWH aria TRT. ITO „. 1 9/ 1.0 171,11.1 .•.252150. ar 06. - maw T MO GairAYETE 6110410' WIDE a FROIT = MT. (1-OM Y HYL Papa, PM HAL MIK FlM H/ REM ..500 I,, lV 4.4 14 ri 9 CV kr) 111 •21• 4) Ll DATE ,01-10-22 1 SHEET 3.0 1ILL Par AEI, 5/0 Wan W ASIAA 01ER 1/101. 24, 9b-9/011 311 UX00112 / IX4 WHY 11001-5001/ MEL FHi SYL 20/7220 A5 1'41® 12 19541111010'1191.4091/= (-OM1 PI PQM WV. HAL MR FUN REM 00 FEW 010 94202•140/1000 WATERP1.00100 ICY9. VI &PAM 124 !KWH 91102. 249 Wax Deana H" 14 2/941211 V0 OMR 92F• 22/ Id_ MOH FrAEGFR Lf if WI Pa 1' 11059 900 /MS &AO Y 112160 raw A5,2212T 1•011. e cute nu INCI,C111 on. To, or DKr10 patletrt roorta Amok 102.5 4' WAN TIL • 0 1.411 1 Ha Ca*. Fra 7. 9/ Mr. A5 1EA. CITY OF EDINA JAN 2 0 2022 pi_.f.‘ININci DEPARTMENT 5/10e• 22.122 12.14-24 01511/0 12121022 214. 101.0221 PER 0/20 Vt 0E0110 PER 9E0 Sll.10 0 If 00 1111.012e 2•00 VI" WWI 5010121 110.04L011 HOCH 71091 1/0 561 cl/f5a-F 7 .-111TP. 240 HU- F2/w/ Veo Ha H. way lie X 2' 42012 0 22. 04. - 12 MEW r 0 010001E ROM 114.1290 4 0. 2/2- 156 siairga p a21 110115 (PR ti .01 rce 0 959ea parlIfr 914 - 17P Cr lalsna Farm wsiza DNS MANTLE 1 orals FER PAT PAIR MR (0 6 HAFER MIME AS Vt' 4E0120 FER • 140 000-1 1/04 OAli D 5/142 2x10' 0.11-121201 tal 1001019 / w WWI Maasarrir PN819t 51154. EUTER9 A5 F4Q0® 5/4 eV x191 7P11 9060x11111122 511.4 10.103010 M91 904. 1/1 916110 195 *EL IIP 51102 0 If 00 141051 Fax SEC VT e•TAN 211151/11 ant IM. M. HMV 5.2/ I' S• 2 20,9111O TRW 2.10 SILL 110 21" kta 0011 I DW. 020 IYAL F9t 201 IY/ FTILF. AS FE01 1-0 0/01/12/01220/ • WA1091051710 PER 91.40 4' MIN PIE 0 • 14W 3 PI Mr. Mt Fr/ Relf. 20 Ma IL 12121 OAR 5/0' 60.311 I//• 226 00-1106R 01 59111 91501R15XES 1/4 Vt' 6/1011 154 1051511 51191 NO WPM WRYER. 9/ 1-5 MIAMI MR 905 VT catiaTE 12/ I& 12/215 101/0012 L 0 WU. PrItE • 1E111. 2.0 twat (LC T000020 FLOCR 121.0220) 1.4 1190515 H9 Vol P411.85, 85211004 I/C 460151. 414 12/ 114 C 1.01/ 021 Fra W/189. A. FE0A 110011 10/01 1.122212 &eVr F.00 1// *ANSI VIAL 225 le !t TYPICAL HOUSE WALL SECTION ecaE. 2/15- a (-0' F21242(./02/9/ Par 112205 esittEs PER 2002 ROM PN2R PER %5 5.0 8 WIER 10/42220 AS FEW 1/I• 91.0100 195 21005. Survey Responses Public Hearing Comments- 4716 Townes Road Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 5.02-foot variance to the first floor elevation requirement allowing a new home at 4716 Townes Road be built 6.02 feet higher than the first floor of the existing house VISITORS 40 CONTRIBUTORS 30 RESPONSES 30 1 Registered 0 Unverified 29 Anonymous 1 Registered 0 Unverified 29 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 01, 2022 16:45:02 pm Last Seen:Feb 01, 2022 16:45:02 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jane Farrell Q2.Address 4801 Maple Road Q3.Comment Our home is adjacent to the south side of the property being considered for variance. Randy & Bridget Skaare reached out to us directly by mail. We emailed a response requesting information on how drainage would be addressed with the proposed elevation. We would like to understand how the proposed change in elevation will impact water flow and drainage to neighboring properties on 48th Street and Maple Road. We also shared our hope that the mature oak trees on the property could be preserved and the roots protected during the tear down process. Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 01, 2022 19:50:50 pm Last Seen:Feb 01, 2022 19:50:50 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Patty and Brooks O’Neil Q2.Address 8 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment We have lived on Bridge Lane for 29 years and we are strongly opposed to the proposed variance which would reorient the 4716 Townes Road House to Face Bridge Lane. We feel that it would change the feel/character of our small deadend street and add to the parking and traffic issues (which are already of concern). Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 05:15:38 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 05:15:38 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Bob and Ann Besinger Q2.Address 4702 White Oaks Road Q3.Comment We are against granting the variance because it would change the traffic and cause congestion at the Bridge Lane and Townes Road intersetion. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 05:17:36 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 05:17:36 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mary Pechauer Q2.Address 4 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment I oppose the variance proposal for 4716 Townes Road: *current property has always been a Townes Road address and conforms to its surroundings with front showing on the same elevation to neighbors across Townes & 48th. *Proposal will significantly increase traffic (guests, maintenance, garbage trucks, delivery vans)to already congested, narrow road with no turn around *Proposal diminishes safety for children who play and the heavy pedestrian traffic *Eliminates more of the already scarce existing, curbside space for visitors to park *Destroys 7 of the largest trees on one corner *new orientation presents the rear of a 3 story walkout to the neighboring homes on 3 different blocks, turning its backside both literally and figuratively to the front of those homes *no amount of decorative plantings will give privacy which will no doubt result in a privacy fence destroying the welcoming charm of the iconic corner Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 08:02:52 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 08:02:52 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sara Anderson Q2.Address 4807 Maple Road Q3.Comment I appreciate the desire to face Bridge Lane with new construction. My concern relates to possible negative long-term health impact on the old-growth trees that are a hallmark of the property and the neighborhood. It's my understanding that large tree root systems cannot tolerate big soil elevation changes and continue to thrive. Is there a plan to protect the trees? Secondly, how would the change affect water issues/drainage for the surrounding streets? Thank you. Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 09:26:38 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 09:26:38 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Michelle Pauley Q2.Address 9 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment We oppose the variance proposal for 4716 Townes Road, which would raise the structure and reorient the front as a new Bridge Lane address and entry. The current property has always been a Townes Road address with driveway access on 48th Street. It conforms to its surroundings with the front showing on the same elevation to neighbors across Townes and 48th, and presents a charming invitation to the entire neighborhood. It currently has a secluded and ample backyard along Townes and Bridge Lane. The proposal speaks as though the house has always been “on” (rather than adjacent to) Bridge Lane. It claims the change will simply make it conform. However, Bridge Lane has had only seven houses and six driveways for some 80 plus years. The proposal is moving heaven (7 mature trees) and earth (a lot) to add a NEW address to a unique single block cul-de-sac that has no turning circle and is extraordinarily narrow at only 18’ wide. The proposal to add a new main entrance and driveway to service a new 3-car garage (the only 3-car garage on Bridge Lane) would add significant traffic to an already congested road when you consider resident traffic, guests, maintenance and garbage trucks, and delivery vans. This change would significantly diminish the safety for children who play in and around the road, and the many walkers and bikers who traverse the street from the Bridge Road walkway. Finally, an additional doublewide driveway eliminates even more of the scarce existing curbside space for visitors to park. Snow berms from plowing in the winter exacerbate all of these challenges. The proposal also does not enhance the neighborhood generally. According to the submitted Tree Preservation Survey, the SEVEN largest trees will be removed – literally the hallmark of the property. The proposed site plan shows that the existing south yard along 48th will not be expanded (39’) and the existing east yard will be contracted by 4’ from the current 30’ offset to a distance of only 26’. Clearly, the stated goal of “optimiz[ing] the setbacks of the lot to maximize the usable yard space” refers to maximizing the structure and not expanding the yard for recreation or preserving the majestic shade trees. In their effort to create a new house that “conforms” to Bridge Lane, they are proposing a house that does NOT conform to the many homes that face it from multiple directions on the opposite sides. While the planned structure is lovely, the new orientation presents the rear of a 3-story walkout to the neighboring homes on three different blocks around the Townes and 48th intersection, turning its backside both literally and figuratively to the front of those homes and others passing through that corner. This does not “Reorient[] the house to … better align[] with the immediate neighboring houses.” No amount of decorative plantings will give that new “back yard” the privacy that the current layout provides, and the addition of a privacy fence (unstated but almost certain) would destroy the welcoming charm of that iconic corner. In sum, the applicants appear to desire a bigger house with a Bridge Lane address. The broader impact to the neighborhood is much less desirable. We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the pending variance request. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 09:27:39 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 09:27:39 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Ben Leber Q2.Address 5 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment First off, congratulations on the purchase of the home. It's an amazing property in the best neighborhood:) We are the direct neighbors connected on the West side. We went through a similar build process over 10yrs ago so I understand their situation but I do have some concerns. 1. We invested a significant amount of money into the drainage and installation of a retaining wall between our two properties. How will their new elevation height affect that wall and drainage? It's my understanding they will not be able to back fill up against our wall. If that's true, will there be a gap between the two properties? How will the new elevation affect our drainage situation? 2. Bridge Lane is a very narrow street with minimal street parking as is right now. The new driveway will virtually eliminate any extra spots at the end of the road. It's already congested if any service trucks or guests are on the street. 3. The new South facing backyard is less than pleasing. I don't see a plan for a privacy fence or bordering hedges/bushes/landscaping to soften the appearance from 48th and Townes Road. Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. Ben Leber Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 10:51:14 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 10:51:14 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sydney Kase Q2.Address 4829 Maple Road, Edina Q3.Comment I am opposed to the variance, primarily because I do not want to see the lovely shade trees that are part of this property torn down> Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 11:34:54 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 11:34:54 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Robin Harmon Q2.Address 4703 Meadow Road, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment I am writing to oppose the proposed project. The clear cutting of century old majestic oak trees is offensive to our White Oaks neighborhood. The proposed house in no way represents the current neighborhood - it is too tall, too large and would dwarf the other homes in the neighborhood along with destroying the very trees that give our neighborhood the name “White Oaks.” I also found the letter from the builder to be factually inaccurate. The potential buyers haven’t been a part of our neighborhood, the current house was built before the home at 5 Bridge Lane so was not in any way subject to limitations based on that house. As the lot is situated, the proposed house is yet another one that attempts to put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound sack. I believe there are other lots in other neighborhoods that would accommodate the house the potential buyers wish to build - there are no other trees to replace those being lost or the green space being compromised. Thank you for your consideration. Respondent No:10 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 12:35:45 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 12:35:45 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lindsay DiLorenzo Q2.Address 6 Bridge Lane, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment As a resident of Bridge Lane, I have really come to value the fact that 6 of the 7 homes are original to the street. The two most recent home purchases on this street (myself included) were remodeled in the back without any tree removals and both kept the original house in tact as well as the original footprint. Bridge Lane is very small, very narrow dead end with no turnaround. Adding more traffic with an entirely new address on Bridge Lane would take away already limited street parking with a new 3 car garage driveway (only one on the block) and unnecessarily increase already tight garbage/recycling pick ups, deliveries, etc. The removal of SEVEN beautiful, mature trees (which were featured on the cover of Mpls St. Paul Magazine) would be devastating to this street and neighborhood. This large scale home simply does not fit in with the neighborhood aesthetic - not only on Bridge Lane, but acutely on 48th Street and Townes Road as well. Respondent No:11 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 12:51:34 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 12:51:34 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mia DiLorenzo Q2.Address 6 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment I noticed that the current proposal requires the elimination of seven trees on the lot without replacement—the neighborhood character largely depends on the preservation of natural resources, and my opposition rests on the fact that these trees will be unnecessarily removed. Respondent No:12 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 12:51:58 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 12:51:58 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Gretchen Baker Q2.Address 4800 Maple Rd, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment We're concerned about the size of the home, that is takes up quite a bit of the beautiful yard and removal of several trees. In particular, we're opposed to the new proposed view that would include a privacy fence from our front windows instead of the existing yard, trees and landscape. Respondent No:13 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 13:22:51 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 13:22:51 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Susan Wahman Q2.Address 4715 Meadow Road Q3.Comment Please consider the removal of all the Oak Trees of which the neighborhood was named 80 years ago. We moved to the neighborhood 35 years ago living in our first home as a married couple. We have been very active in the neighborhood community. White Oaks Improvement Association was put in place by the original developer to protect the wetlands owned in common. The home being developed does not fit the scale of the neighborhood or street. The city let Great Neighborhood Homes get away with the building of the home Nextdoor. This lot impacts much of the neighborhood as it is on a corner. Please consider the neighbors and neighborhood in this decision. Respondent No:14 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 14:20:19 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 14:20:19 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mary Zarling Q2.Address 4808 Townes Road Q3.Comment I think this is an unnecessary structural project that will negatively affect the community throughout construction process and beyond. The neighborhood has suffered the consequences of surrounding projects due to poor planning and there is little indication that this will be any different. (Major drainage issues, loss of habitat, traffic safety concerns, and road degradation.) More public transparency detailing the scope of the project is necessary. Respondent No:15 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 15:30:37 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 15:30:37 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kitty Kapsner Q2.Address Previous address: 4700 White Oaks Rd. Present address: 5110 Morningside Road Q3.Comment I completely oppose the variance proposal. It would diminish the charm of the neighborhood, increase traffic, and create less space for Bridge Lane. Please consider the neighborhood. Kitty Kapsner Respondent No:16 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 16:12:11 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 16:12:11 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Taige and Ann Thornton Q2.Address 4719 Townes Rd Q3.Comment Concerned about the loss of 7 mature trees to that beautiful lot. Also, given that we are directly across the street from the current front of the house, we are worried about how the new structure will change the the aesthetic of the corner. Respondent No:17 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 17:49:47 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 17:49:47 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jon Pauley Q2.Address 9 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment I am strongly opposed to this plan! We oppose the variance proposal for 4716 Townes Road, which would raise the structure and reorient the front as a new Bridge Lane address and entry. The current property has always been a Townes Road address with driveway access on 48th Street. It conforms to its surroundings with the front showing on the same elevation to neighbors across Townes and 48th, and presents a charming invitation to the entire neighborhood. It currently has a secluded and ample backyard along Townes and Bridge Lane. The proposal speaks as though the house has always been “on” (rather than adjacent to) Bridge Lane. It claims the change will simply make it conform. However, Bridge Lane has had only seven houses and six driveways for some 80 plus years. The proposal is moving heaven (7 mature trees) and earth (a lot) to add a NEW address to a unique single block cul-de-sac that has no turning circle and is extraordinarily narrow at only 18’ wide. The proposal to add a new main entrance and driveway to service a new 3-car garage (the only 3-car garage on Bridge Lane) would add significant traffic to an already congested road when you consider resident traffic, guests, maintenance and garbage trucks, and delivery vans. This change would significantly diminish the safety for children who play in and around the road, and the many walkers and bikers who traverse the street from the Bridge Road walkway. Finally, an additional doublewide driveway eliminates even more of the scarce existing curbside space for visitors to park. Snow berms from plowing in the winter exacerbate all of these challenges. The proposal also does not enhance the neighborhood generally. According to the submitted Tree Preservation Survey, the SEVEN largest trees will be removed – literally the hallmark of the property. The proposed site plan shows that the existing south yard along 48th will not be expanded (39’) and the existing east yard will be contracted by 4’ from the current 30’ offset to a distance of only 26’. Clearly, the stated goal of “optimiz[ing] the setbacks of the lot to maximize the usable yard space” refers to maximizing the structure and not expanding the yard for recreation or preserving the majestic shade trees. In their effort to create a new house that “conforms” to Bridge Lane, they are proposing a house that does NOT conform to the many homes that face it from multiple directions on the opposite sides. While the planned structure is lovely, the new orientation presents the rear of a 3-story walkout to the neighboring homes on three different blocks around the Townes and 48th intersection, turning its backside both literally and figuratively to the front of those homes and others passing through that corner. This does not “Reorient[] the house to … better align[] with the immediate neighboring houses.” No amount of decorative plantings will give that new “back yard” the privacy that the current layout provides, and the addition of a privacy fence (unstated but almost certain) would destroy the welcoming charm of that iconic corner. Finer points: - the trees are old oak trees that should be protected and are a key component and character of the white oaks neighborhood - I would add that the height on Townes is also high due to the sport court - a dramatic change from all 3 sides - the character of bridge lane is a secluded dead end and the current plan for that lot lends to that with the lower home placement that is aligned with houses on townes and across 48th street, with shrubs along bridge lane along with big oaks. - they say they are from the neighborhood and that isn’t true - they don’t live in Edina or near our neighborhood where there is a strong heritage and respect of history - if they want to tear down the house they should have proactively spoken to neighbors on all sides instead of pushing through a monstrosity with the idea that the only issue is a 5.02 foot variance. That is disingenuous or misleading at best and insincere at best. In sum, the applicants appear to desire a bigger house with a Bridge Lane address. The broader impact to the neighborhood is much less desirable. We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the pending variance request. Respondent No:18 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2022 20:38:59 pm Last Seen:Feb 02, 2022 20:38:59 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lynne Stanley Q2.Address 4107 West 48th Street, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment The desire to reorient the house on the 4716 Townes Road property to face Bridge Lane is understandable. Unfortunately, the disruption required to do so is considerable. My primary concern is the potential water effects, both short and long term, that may result from the combination of construction excavation, addition of fill, property regrading, loss of trees, and the resulting new structure. It is vital that the City of Edina assure that the removal of the existing house and the design and construction of the new house are done in ways that prevent water table and drainage changes that adversely affect neighboring properties, particularly the properties of lower elevation lying to the south of 4716 Townes Road where water increases due to new construction and climate change are already causing problems. I am also very concerned about the five signature White Oak trees located on the 4716 Townes Road property. It appears that all five of the venerable centenarians, which are by far the largest trees on the property, are slated for removal. The Tree Preservation Survey submitted as part of the project plans shows the location and measurements for the Oak trees (they are Tree Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) but identifies three of them as Maple trees and lists no identification for the other two. Among other shortcomings, the Survey notably omits entirely a large Basswood/Linden tree located on the south side of the house near the south entrance door. I hope that preservation of the existing Oak trees will be sought where feasible and that a general plan for replacement trees will be developed. Respondent No:19 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 05:20:57 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 05:20:57 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Louis DiLorenzo Q2.Address 6 Bridge Lane, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment I am not in favor of the proposed plans and reorienting of the house to Bridge Lane. The style of the house will significantly change the feel of Bridge Lane in ways that are not keeping with the neighborhood. We will lose trees that define the neighborhood, see the first 3 car garage on the block, lose more street parking and change the view significantly based on the proposed elevation. The style of the house seems more suitable to the development that is taking place on Grimes, not White Oaks. I strongly object to the proposed variance. Respondent No:20 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 06:57:08 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 06:57:08 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Trina johnsen Q2.Address 4717 Townes road Q3.Comment I oppose this because the plan includes taking down 3 oak trees in the white oaks neighborhood. Respondent No:21 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 07:25:30 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 07:25:30 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jennifer Rewey Q2.Address 4012 West 48th Street Q3.Comment We are tired of losing our trees to builders. Unnecessary. There is no reason they cannot build a home to scale to fit the lot while saving our trees. Respondent No:22 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 07:39:25 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 07:39:25 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Anne Tofteland Q2.Address 4615 Meadow Road Q3.Comment We are concerned about the extreme loss of mature trees & the detrimental neighborhood impact of reorienting this home. Respondent No:23 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 07:45:50 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 07:45:50 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Beth Kiley Q2.Address 4801 Townes Road - Edina Q3.Comment For the Edina Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Re: 4716 Townes Road Proposal [February 9, 2022, public hearing] I am a homeowner kitty corner from 4716 Townes Road, and also live on Townes Road in the White Oaks neighborhood. I have lived in Edina for over 25 years, the last 21 years at my current address in the White Oaks neighborhood. White Oaks is a small neighborhood, and I love the meadows, hills and trees we have while being so close to 50th & France, and the city of Minneapolis. While I am sure the people wanting to move in are very nice, I am opposed to the variance proposal for 4716 Townes Road for two big reasons – 1. The impact to the neighborhood First off, I think it is misleading for the builder to contend that the family has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. They do not live in this neighborhood currently. It raises the question of what assurances associated with the plans are also misleading. Also in a letter I received directly from the family, they stated that they are working with “experts” to ensure that our plans do not negatively affect the neighborhood in any way. Who are their experts that claim this proposal won’t affect us in any way? Coming into the neighborhood titled “White Oaks” and immediately cutting them down does not give me confidence they truly understand the character of the neighborhood. Turning this massive proposed house to face Bridge Lane will change the whole look and feel of this small charming street. I can also tell you first hand the back and side view (towards 48th street and South Townes Road) what I will look at with this proposed house, looks almost like a commercial building which does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. This affects the neighborhood in a negative way. 2. Taking down so many large and majestic trees I appreciate living in Edina and how it balances many factors to maintain an attractive and sustainable community. I was thrilled to see Edina adopt a Climate Action Plan in December of 2021. How can this permit variance then allow for the destruction of so many trees, and the impact that has on the environment? How can that fit into the Climate Action Plan? How on earth does it fit with the many trees that are probably 100 years old or more!? Imagine how much carbon reduction they provide. While the White Oaks neighborhood certainly has changed while I have lived here, and there are more and larger homes, I have never heard of a plan that is so destructive to the environment. These beautiful trees are the namesake of our “White Oaks”neighborhood. I am opposed to this proposal and pray you will do the right thing and deny this from happening. Respondent No:24 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 07:46:59 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 07:46:59 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Erin Newkirk Q2.Address 2 Bridge Lane, Edina MN 55424 Q3.Comment Hi there. While I would love to see a new, beautiful home directly across the street from my house, the proposal to add a driveway/3 car garage to Bridge Lane is not in anyone's best interest. Increased service traffic, increased guest and resident traffic - the add of this driveway would greatly diminish safety and viability for my current neighbors. Much like how our home at 2 Bridge sits with a front door on Bridge Lane and a driveway on Townes - it's still a great arrangement. Other notes to pass along to the new family, from our family who honored the heritage of this gorgeous neighborhood when we did an extensive remodel in 2013/14, it is very possible to build around trees - taking down SEVEN white oaks is excessive. At the very least, if you remove those seven trees, please plant new ones to replace. Also, would be nice to see a home that is scaled appropriately for this lot. Definitely see the need for elevating the home, it sits low, but that also doesn't mean it needs to be built so tall. Thanks for listening. Obviously, this new proposed build will be something we look at and live with every day. Respondent No:25 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 08:32:09 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 08:32:09 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Elizabeth Goodman Q2.Address 4707 Meadow Rd, Edina Q3.Comment Dear Planning Commissioners, If I were not out of town, I would attend the meeting to register my objections to this proposed development. My reasons are the same as those expressed by many of my neighbors. I object to the destruction of mature white oak trees for which our neighborhood is named. I (and many other walkers) frequently walk on the Bridge street cul-de-sac as it provides pedestrian access to points west of us — the country club neighborhood and Minnehaha Creek — which makes a pleasant walking loop. It already is congested without the addition of yet another home facing it. It seems like the proposed structure is much too large for this lot. Across the meadow, I would see this structure’s backside from my house and believe it’s 3-story height would be quite unsightly. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Goodman Respondent No:26 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 08:33:27 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 08:33:27 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Scott Fischmann Q2.Address 4613 Meadow Rd. Q3.Comment There is a solid basis for elevation limits, and I haven’t seen a compelling reason for an exception to the rules in this case; a variance would clearly harm the aesthetic interests of the surrounding property owners. Respondent No:27 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 08:37:09 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 08:37:09 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Chris Newkirk Q2.Address 2 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment I agree with my wife Erin Newkirk’s comments wholeheartedly. While I generally in favor of a renovation, taking down seven trees (if they are healthy) is terrible and unnecessary. Respondent No:28 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 09:09:51 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 09:09:51 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Karin Wille and Mike Casserly Q2.Address 4701 Meadow Road, Edina Q3.Comment We are opposed to the requested variance which will allow the new home to be built on Bridge Lane instead of Townes, where the current house is situated. The reorientation of the house requires the removal of many mature trees which give that lot its charm and character, and will create something of a "wasteland" on what is now a visible and iconic corner in the neighborhood that "fronts" on 3 streets - Bridge, Townes and 48th. More important than neighborhood aesthetics, the proposed 3 car garage and ginormous driveway will significantly impact the quiet enjoyment and parking options of the current home owners on Bridge, as well as the numerous bikers and walkers who use Bridge to get to the walkway to and from Country Club. For these reasons, we request that the variance be denied. Respondent No:29 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 03, 2022 09:38:33 am Last Seen:Feb 03, 2022 09:38:33 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Thomas Undlin Q2.Address 4 Bridge Lane Q3.Comment I am opposed to the requested variance. This will add another driveway and entry on Bridge Lane, which is very narrow and already suffers from congestion from homeowner traffic, visitors, maintenance trucks, delivery vans and garbage trucks. It reduces curbside parking for guests on a narrow road that already presents an obstacle course (with no turnabout at the end) particularly for the snow plow and is further narrowed with snow berms during the winter. The increased congestion from this proposal would reduce safety for kids playing in the street and the many people who walk and bike through from the Bridge Road walkway. I also oppose the plan because it will remove most of the large trees on the lot (which is iconic to the corner) in favor of a much larger structure that presents the equivalent of a three-story walk out backside to the neighbors on Townes and West 48th. The plan provides no new green space on the south (48th) side and actually diminishes the yard on the east (Townes) side. For the Edina Planning Commission February 9, 2022 Re: 4716 Townes Road Proposal [February 9, 2022, public hearing] We oppose the variance proposal for 4716 Townes Road, which would raise the structure and reorient the front as a new Bridge Lane address and entry. The current property has always been a Townes Road address with driveway access on 48th Street. It conforms to its surroundings with the front showing on the same elevation to neighbors across Townes and 48th, and presents a charming invitation to the entire neighborhood. It currently has a secluded and ample backyard along Townes and Bridge Lane. The proposal speaks as though the house has always been “on” (rather than adjacent to) Bridge Lane. It claims the change will simply make it conform. However, Bridge Lane has had only seven houses and six driveways for some 80 plus years. The proposal is moving heaven (7 mature trees) and earth (a lot) to add a NEW address to a unique single block cul-de-sac that has no turning circle and is extraordinarily narrow at only 18’ wide. The proposal to add a new main entrance and driveway to service a new 3-car garage (the only 3-car garage on Bridge Lane) would add significant traffic to an already congested road when you consider resident traffic, guests, maintenance and garbage trucks, and delivery vans. This change would significantly diminish the safety for children who play in and around the road, and the many walkers and bikers who traverse the street from the Bridge Road walkway. Finally, an additional doublewide driveway eliminates even more of the scarce existing curbside space for visitors to park. Snow berms from plowing in the winter exacerbate all of these challenges. The proposal also does not enhance the neighborhood generally. According to the submitted Tree Preservation Survey, the SEVEN largest trees will be removed – literally the hallmark of the property. The proposed site plan shows that the existing south yard along 48th will not be expanded (39’) and the existing east yard will be contracted by 4’ from the current 30’ offset to a distance of only 26’. Clearly, the stated goal of “optimiz[ing] the setbacks of the lot to maximize the usable yard space” refers to maximizing the structure and not expanding the yard for recreation or preserving the majestic shade trees. In their effort to create a new house that “conforms” to Bridge Lane, they are proposing a house that does NOT conform to the many homes that face it from multiple directions on the opposite sides. While the planned structure is lovely, the new orientation presents the rear of a 3-story walkout to the neighboring homes on three different blocks around the Townes and 48th intersection, turning its backside both literally and figuratively to the front of those homes and others passing through that corner. This does not “Reorient[] the house to … better align[] with the immediate neighboring houses.” No amount of decorative plantings will give that new “back yard” the privacy that the current layout provides, and the addition of a privacy fence (unstated but almost certain) would destroy the welcoming charm of that iconic corner. In sum, the applicants appear to desire a bigger house with a Bridge Lane address. The broader impact to the neighborhood is much less desirable. We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the pending variance request. Tom Undlin & Mary Pechauer 4 Bridge Lane Lindsay & Lou DiLorenzo 6 Bridge Lane Patty & Brooks O’Neil 8 Bridge Lane Michelle & John Pauley 9 Bridge Lane Jenny & Michael Duggan 7 Bridge Lane DATE: 1/24/2022 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4716 Townes Rd - Variance Review, Revision 1 The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included existing and proposed surveys, erosion and sediment control plan, and stormwater management report stamped 1/20/22. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a teardown/build. The request is for a variance to increase the first-floor elevation by more than 1’. The applicant proposes to reorient the home; entrance off Bridge La instead of 48th St W. Easements Applicant to complete title research to confirm no easements encumber the property or show any easements found during research on survey. Attached easement may need to be vacated. Grading and Drainage The existing site drains north to south (Bridge La to 48th St W) with approximately 6’ of elevation change. The applicant proposes an increase in grade of about 6-7’ in the northern section of the lot where the front of the structure is proposed. The new driveway would drain to Bridge La and the remaining northern portion of the lot would drain to swales that wrap around the property and drain to 48th St W. The proposed grading provides positive drainage away from the structure on the subject property. Stormwater Mitigation The site drains to subwatershed MHN_66, which is landlocked but not a structural flooding issue. The following standards apply: • No increase in peak rate to private properties for 10% annual chance flood event (NOAA Atlas 14, 10- year) • No increase in peak flood elevations for 1% annual chance flood event (NOAA Atlas 14, 100-year), i.e. no increase in volume An infiltration trench is proposed to meet the landlocked requirement. The proposed draintile connection should be revised. More detail is needed on how surface waters are directed into the infiltration trench, minor grading change may be needed to direct water. Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development Landlocked wetland areas are located nearby, albeit outside the subject subwatershed. Suggest further investigating groundwater level and increasing the proposed lowest floor elevation. Provide geotechnical report to foundations engineer and to City. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to relocate/replace the existing curb cut. A driveway entrance permit will be required. Bridge La and Townes Rd were reconstructed in 2006, while 48th St W was reconstructed in 2003. All three roads are scheduled for mill and overlay in 2025. Refer to standard plates 540 and 543 for patching requirements prior to 2025. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served from Townes Rd. A one-inch water service line from the curb stop to the dwelling is required per the City’s policy SP-024. Sump line available for connection. If connecting to the City sump line, a permit and compliance with City of Edina Building Policy SP-006 will be required. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. Structure built 1939. Watermain install date unknown. Various wells in the area. A well may be located onsite. Private licensed well contractor to investigate site before and after demolition to confirm an unsealed well is not located onsite. The proposed fill may impact the existing retaining wall on the west property line, shared with 5 Bridge La. A retaining wall is proposed adjacent to the existing retaining wall. Additionally, based on the existing survey, the existing driveway extends over the west property line, with a basketball hoop. Work proposed on 5 Bridge La to remove encroachments, should be coordinated with the owner of 5 Bridge La. The proposed retaining wall and impacts to the existing retaining wall should be coordinated as well. If any of the proposed retaining walls are greater than 4’, the applicant will be required to submit drawings, cross-section, and calculations prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. The location of the sump pump discharge must be included on plans for review and approval. DATE: 2/3/2022 TO: Carey Teague- Planning Director FROM: Luther Overholt RE: 4716 Townes Rd- Variance Review, Revision I The Forestry Department has reviewed the subject property for adherence to the tree preservation ordinance. This review was done at the request of the Planning Department. A more detailed review including an onsite visit will be done at the time of the building permit application. Plans reviewed included existing and proposed surveys, erosion and sediment control and storm water management plan stamped 1/20/22. Tree Protection Plan Our current tree protection ordinance still allows for the removal of all trees on site. What the applicant is proposing here is completely allowed under our ordinance. The new home is large enough that most of the trees fall within 10' of the new building footprint or 5' of a hard surface and would not need to be replaced. Tree # 2,3,6,7,9,11, and 12 look like they would need to be replaced if they are removed but I would need to go onsite to measure them because they will be very close to the 5' and 10' non-replacement setbacks. The tree species for the large trees on site are mostly incorrect as well. Tree # 2,3,5,6, and 7 are large oaks not maples. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 EdinaParks.com • 952-826-0367 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, © WSB & Asso ciates 2013 4716 Townes R oad January 27, 20 22 1 in = 40 f t / Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C ahill Area Dis tric t P lan R F P Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the R F P to move forward with Consultant S ervices I N TR O D U C TI O N: C ity is requesting proposals for consultant services for the C ahill D istrict P lanning process. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Cahill RFP City of Edina, Minnesota Cahill Area District Plan Request for Proposal for Consulting Services Objective Draft an area plan for the Cahill District of Edina, MN to guide future development of the district. Based on early conversations, important guiding principles include family-friendly, sustainable, safe, and connected to neighboring communities, while also being a premier model for intentional design. The city seeks a consultant to assist in the creating of this plan. Overview The area is roughly 380 acres in size; land uses include professional offices, medical, construction, light industrial, wholesale trade, information technology, recreation, retail and restaurants, religious facilities, storage, daycare, education, and multi-family residential. It is the only commercial area within the Southwest quadrant of Edina, with restaurants and services frequented by neighborhoods directly to the west, north, and east. The site is bounded by West 70th Street to the north, Cahill Road to the west, Highway 100 to the east and the municipal boundary to the City of Bloomington directly south of the project area. The area is bounded by multi-family to the west and north with some single and double dwelling units north of 70 th Street. The buildings in this area are generally older and have experienced limited remodeling or renovation with some remodeling of existing structures over the last 10-15 years for new tenant spaces. The City completed the Small Area Plan for the 70th & Cahill Neighborhood Node in January of 2019. An outcome of that plan was identifying the need to further study the entire Cahill Area business/industrial park to determine how best to revitalize the area. The City has also received several development proposals for multi-family residential on property guided for industrial or office; however, infrastructure capacity is currently a constraint and would need to be addressed in the plan. Detailed analysis of the infrastructure will be done by city staff. Kickoff Meeting In November 2021, a community meeting with approximately 100 attendees was held to begin the process of this district plan. Ideas collected span visions, specific goals, and some open questions. Collectively, our community wants to create a first-class vision for this district. We want this to be seen as a national model for regenerating a community. Think big: Zero emissions? Self- sustainable? What about an innovation hub and small business incubator that is also family- friendly? Key attributes that residents want to see include:  Family-friendly and safe  Sustainable design, clean energy, and more greenspace (including native grasses)  Better public transportation (include sidewalks and bike lanes)  Space for small to mid-sized businesses (“green urban village”)  Strong employment center  Harmonious transitions to residential neighborhoods Specific ideas for the future include, but are not limited to, a community grocer, design changes to roadways, and a dog park. Responses gathered from the public can be viewed on the project webpage at bettertogetheredina.org/cahill-district-area-plan Cahill Area District District Area Plan Process A successful district area plan is the result of an extended effort by several parties. In Edina, key contributors to the process include the City Council, Planning Commission, District Area Working Group, staff, and the consulting organization. Consultants can expect to work extensively with the District Area Working Group which will include representatives from both the Planning Commission and neighborhood stakeholders, as well as staff liaisons. A summary of the respective roles of each party is outlined in the diagram below. Staff City Council Planning Commission District Area Working Group Call for action and provide direction on project scope Final plan approval Champion community engagement process Develop Working Group charter and recruit participants Submit draft plan for review and approval Ensure draft plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives Staff Serve as technical resource Manage consultants Coordinate meetings Coordinate marketing Ensure regulatory compliance Consultant Serve as technical resource Facilitate community meetings Synthesize data Draft plan document Consultant Scope of Work Consultants will be responsible for the following activities during the district planning process:  Developing a current area profile that includes demographics, physical conditions, land use/zoning and other pertinent information; also projecting population, demographic, economic and environmental trends for the future,  Working with the District Area Working Group to develop a community engagement plan,  Leading or assisting with the implementation of the community engagement plan,  Identifying issues or conflicts and potential options for consideration by the District Area Working Group,  Drafting the district area plan document, and  Make final edits to draft plan based on public feedback The Community Engagement Plan should generate the following district plan components: Values, Trends and Assessments A SWOT-type analysis should be done to determine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In addition, strongly-held community values should be identified. Visioning and Issue Identification Descriptive end-states or visions of what the community wants for the future. Fundamental conflicts or key challenges should also be identified and discussed. Strategy Formulation Major programs, initiatives or actions should be identified to address key issues, including land use, and to move the community towards its shared vision. The strategy should assign accountability and a timeframe for action steps. The consultant’s scope of work should include at least the following meetings:  9 Working Group meetings (1 per month for 9 months)  2 community meetings The City will host and manage a platform for online engagement. The district area plan document should follow the same general outline as Edina’s Comprehensive Plan. Content would include:  Introduction  Vision, Goals and Objectives  District Profile  Land Use and Community Design  Housing  Economic Competitiveness and Economic Development  Heritage Preservation  Transportation  Parks, Open Space, and Natural Resources  Energy and Environment  Implementation Plan Within each chapter, the following information should be summarized:  General background information, including current conditions  Trends and challenges  Specific goals and tactics to reach the goal. While the goal is to follow a common format to promote alignment with the comprehensive plan, there is flexibility to add information or topics based on specific community concerns, needs or interests. Timeline The City is anticipating an approximate 9-month timeframe for the project by the consultant. However, the project may extend if public review of the draft plan cannot be completed prior. Kickoff Meeting Identify Working Group and Consultant Develop Work Plan and Prepare for Engagement Public Input Meetings Develop and Review Draft Plan Planning Commission Review City Council Review Budget The City has budgeted a maximum of $75,000 for this project. Response Guidelines and Deadline Interested consultants should forward the following information in electronic format (no more than 10 pages) for consideration: 1) Brief description of proposed approach to the project, 2) A summary of any information or support anticipated to be needed from staff, 3) What specific skills or experiences makes the responder particularly well suited to this work? 4) Brief biographies of any staff who would directly engage with the Working Group, city staff or residents, including hourly rate and estimated percentage of total budget allocation, and identification of the person that will serve as the project lead, Nov 2021 Apr 2022 May 2022-Aug 2022 June- Dec 2022 Jan 2023 Feb 2023 Jan – Mar 2022 5) Examples of past similar projects with similar scope, land area, complexity, and fee, including references and links to final work products, this project team has created, 6) Anticipated cost and timeline of the project. If additional working group meetings need to be added beyond those stated in this RFP, please indicate the additional cost for in-person and virtual meetings, and 7) Anticipated approach to the project. If alternative frameworks would be better, please outline in your recommended approach (ie: different timeframe, number of meetings). Electronic responses and/or questions related to the RFP should be directed to Kris Aaker (KAaker@EdinaMN.gov / 952-826-0461) and Addison Lewis (ALewis@EdinaMN.gov / 952-833- 9521) with the project name in the subject line. Responses are due by 4:30pm on_______. A virtual information session for interested consultants will be held on _____. Please email Kris Aaker and Addison Lewis to be sent the virtual meeting invite. City staff will screen and select three consultants to be interviewed by select Planning Commissioners and staff based on the perceived match between the information provided and the City’s project needs. Interviews with the project team are anticipated to take place during the month of March. Date: F ebruary 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview - 4620 77th S treet West Disc ussion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he P lanning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4620 77th S treet West, which is part of the P entagon P ark office development. T he applicant, S olhem P roperties, is proposing to tear down one of the existing office buildings on the site and construct a 7-story, 276-unit apartment. (S ee attached plans.) One of the main features of the plan is the provision of new entrance to Fred R ichards P ark from 77th S treet. (See attached E ntrance Concept P lan.) T his site would be considered P hase 2 of the development from Solhem P roperties. T he site to the west will be P hase 1, which is a 408-unit Housing D evelopment that is soon to be under construction. T hat site was rezoned to P U D -23 to accommodate the development. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative Proposed New Fred Richards Park Entrance Site Location, Zoning, & Comp. Plan City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: February 9, 2022 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4620 77th Street West The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4620 77th Street West, which is part of the Pentagon Park office development. The applicant, Solhem Properties, is proposing to tear down one of the existing office buildings on the site and construct a 7-story, 276- unit apartment. (See attached plans.) One of the main features of the plan is the provision of new entrance to Fred Richards Park from 77th Street. (See attached Entrance Concept Plan.) The applicant has coordinated the location and plan for the entrance with city staff. As this parcel is considered part of the Greater Southdale District, Mic Johnson, the City’s consultant is reviewing the proposed plans. His review will be sent out to Commissioners in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. This site would be considered Phase 2 of the development from Solhem Properties. The site to the west will be Phase 1, which is a 408-unit Housing Development that is soon to be under construction. That site was rezoned to PUD-23 to accommodate the development. This request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-23. This would be an expansion of the PUD established for the adjacent property to the west at 4660 77th Street. The table on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing MDD-6 standards on the lot, as well as comply with the standards from the PUD-23 District. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Issues/considerations:  Density. The development density is in the upper middle of the density range for the site due to the existing office building that would remain. The applicant is agreeable to meeting the affordable housing policy, by including the required units within the project. They will either provide 10% of the units at 50% AMI or 20% of the units at 60% AMI.  Southdale Guidelines. The project addresses the Southdale Guidelines by dividing this parcel into two separate uses with expanded greenspace and most importantly provides vastly improved connections to Fred Richards Park. The applicant would provide a much better main access point to Fred Richards Park off 77th Street; this access would replace or supplement the existing entrance to the park, located on the north side of the Pentagon Park buildings. The Plan was designed to try and preserve parking spaces on the site for the existing office buildings.  Green Space. The proposal would nearly double the green space on the site from 22% to 44%.  Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required.  Proposed heights. The proposed height of 5-7 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. However, the heights are reasonable as they are consistent with the apartment development to the west and step back away from the park and the single-family residential neighborhood north of the park.  Sustainability Building Policy. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire and comply with the City’s Sustainable Building Policy as part of a formal application. Consider a green roof installation to reduce the impacts of the urban heat island and improve energy efficiency. Consider including EV-ready parking stalls, and at least 5% parking stalls with EV chargers. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (MDD-6) PUD-23 Standard Proposed Comp. Plan/Design Guide Building Setbacks Front – 77th Street Rear – Fred Richards Park Side – West Side – East 35 feet (measured to the curb) 35 feet 20 feet 20 feet 40-50 feet (measured to curb) 20 feet 50 feet 45 feet Code compliant 50 feet (measured to curb) 38 feet 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet (measured to the curb) Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 5-7 stories and 52-86 feet 5-7 stories & 85 feet (variance required but consistent with PUD-23 District) Density 51 units per acre 20-75 units per acre Building Coverage Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 30% 1.0% 1.5% 34% (variance req.) 1.5% Parking Housing – 1 enclosed space per unit + .75 surface spaces per unit = 483 spaces required 1.3 spaces per unit 360 spaces 1.3 per unit (variance required but consistent with PUD-23) PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II AREA & PARK ACCESS CONCEPT N PHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Fred Phase II Project Narrative: Phase I is currently under construction, 408 new apartments. Phase II resolves long-term park accessibility issues and allows for: Vehicular access (20 mph), Bicycle access (10 mph), Pedestrian access (5 mph). These access routes lay the foundation for a new neighborhood that connects directly with Fred Richards Park. Phase II brings more housing to Greater Southdale; paired with existing office uses, this creates a vibrant 24/7 neighborhood. Fred Richards Park will now extend to 77th Street and allow for further development of a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. PHASE II VEHICULAR PARK ACCESS 1 FUTURE FRED RICHARDS PARK PUBLIC ENTRY BIKE TRAIL CONNECTION Bikeway connection between Phase I & Phase II Under construction with adjacent seating gardens Designed for 10mph access PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II SITE CONCEPT PEDESTRIAN PLAZA Woonerf-type shared access between Phase II and 4600 Features could include streetscape café/seating/gathering/artwork Designed for 5mph access VEHICULAR PARK ROAD Direct access to Fred Richards Park Features could include tree-lined boulevards stormwater features Designed for 20mph access PHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) PHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED PHASE II 2 4600 BUILDING PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II PHASE I & PHASE II MASSING CONCEPT PHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) PHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) BIKEWAY CONNECTION TO 9-MILE CREEK TRAIL (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) PLAZA "WOONERF" PARK CONNECTION PHASE II PROJECT (PROPOSED) 4600 BUILDING 3 N PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II SITE CONCEPT PROPOSED PHASE II PHASE IPHASE IPHASE I (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)(UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 4 WOONERF & PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BIKE TRAIL ACESS LANDSCAPED COURTYARDS VEHICULAR PARK ROAD PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II PHASE II SITE PLAN & MASSING 5 COMMON AREAS POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL 7-STORYPOTENTIAL COMMERCIAL WITH OUTDOOR SEATING ~75'~75' MOUNDED GARDEN COURTYARDS 4-STORYMATURE LINDEN TREE PATIO COMMON AREA PATIOS SMALL DOG PARK WALK-UP TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS 4600 BUILDING GARDEN COURTYARD TERRACE EXAMPLE WOONERF EXAMPLE PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II SECTION & MASSING DATA 6 PROPOSED PENTAGON PARK NORTH APARTMENTS PHASE II UNITS 276 HEIGHT 7-Story 85', 4-story 50' AREA Housing: 260,000sf, Total 380,000sf PARKING 360 PARKING RATIO 1.3 SITE AREA (inc 4600) 5.42 acres BUILDING COVERAGE (approx.) Existing: 44,000sf Proposed: 57,000sf housing footprint, 80,000sf total footprint LANDSCAPE AREA % (approx.)Existing: 22% Proposed: 42% (inc. courtyards) PROPOSED GRADE 4600 BUILDING 77TH POTENTIAL PARKSIDE COMMERCIAL EXISTING GRADE BETWEEN 4600 & 4620 BUILDINGS (APPROXIMATE) POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL85'GARDEN COURTYARD EXAMPLE WOONERF & PEDESTRIAN PLAZA EXAMPLE PLANNED WOONERF BETWEEN PHASE II & 4600 SIMILAR WIDTH TO 50TH STREET AT FRANCE TERRACED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EXAMPLE Solhem Companies 724 N 1st St Ste 500 Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 January 24, 2022 Cary Teague Community Development Director, City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Director Teague: Please find enclosed the Project Narrative for our proposed residential development for 4620 West 77th Street Edina, and a description of the requested planned unit development. Project Narrative: 4600-4620 West 77th Street Edina, Minnesota We are proposing a 276-unit mixed use multifamily building. The building consists of seven stories and approximately 380,000 square feet. We are expecting to break ground in summer of 2023 and complete construction in 2025. The existing site: The proposed project is located at 4600 West 77th Street. The existing 5.42 acre site holds two office buildings, 4600 and 4620. The 4600 building will remain, with the proposed project replacing the 4620 building. The site is currently zoned MDD-6, is part of the greater Southdale district, and is guided to a density of 75units per acre in the comprehensive plan. The proposed project will replace the existing three-story 4620 office building, and surface parking lot. The new development will be on the western 3.7 acres of the site. The existing site has a landscaped area of approximately 22% of the site. The redevelopment, including landscaped courtyards above parking, will nearly double the landscaped area to approximately 42% of the site. The proposed building massing and zoning: The proposed building is a 7 story, 276-unit, mixed use commercial and residential building, with two stories of parking primarily tucked into mounded terrain on the site. Due to the high water-table, the parking is above the street level. However, with mounding and adjusting the sloping terrain onsite, combined with added wetland water features, the parking levels will blend with the surrounding site, and be substantially hidden by landscaping. The building will match the setbacks and height of the currently under construction Pentagon Park North Phase 1 apartment project on the adjacent 4660 site. The proposed project is requesting zoning approval under a planned unit development. The total gross proposed building square footage excluding the garage is 260,000 sf. Including the garage, the total square footage is 380,000 sf. There will be approximately 360 parking stalls in the project. The car parking ratio for the building is 1.3. The building height is approximately 85 feet to the main roof. The main building along 77th Street will be 2 and a half stories of concrete, with 5 stories of wood frame construction above. The first floor along 77th Street will be 18 ft tall, allowing for mezzanine lofts in common areas, and potential commercial spaces. This taller first floor along 77th street will create a welcoming streetscape presence similar to the adjacent 4660 project and will conceal two stories of parking behind it. The separate U-shaped rear portion of the building will be a lower height, with the project massing tapering down and opening up to the Fred Richards Park to the north. This northern U-shaped portion of the project will be 4 stories of wood frame construction above 1 to 2 stories of partially buried parking. The north portion of the Solhem Companies 724 N 1st St Ste 500 Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 project will be joined to the south portion of the project with a glass connecting walkway with open passage underneath at ground level. The rooftop holds mechanical systems, an elevator lobby area for the rooftop patio, and common areas for the building’s residents. How the building works in the neighborhood context: The proposed project complements and enlivens the work Solhem is doing on the neighboring parcel. The proposed project also actively engages the existing, fully leased office portion of Pentagon Park. Edina has a long-term goal of creating a primary access route into Fred Richards Park that comes directly off of 77th Street. Given the success that Hillcrest has had in renovating and leasing the office buildings of Pentagon Park, there is a very small and finite window for realizing the city’s long-term goal. If we don’t take advantage of this window of opportunity now, it may be another generation before the city has an opportunity to have a direct access route to Fred Richards Park. City staff has recognized this opportunity and has therefore been supportive of this redesign for the 4600 site. There are further benefits to the neighborhood. By bringing to life new residential development within this corridor, our “Phase II” project creates the critical mass for other nearby parcels to become redeveloped. Residential, office, retail, restaurant and other uses all become more viable with this new energy. We have seen this phenomenon in other areas where we have been “first in” – on the East Bank of the U of M, in the North Loop, and most recently in Northeast Minneapolis. The building mass and materials will be of similar quality to Phase I, but of contrasting design. We are confident that the building can have its own unique character and help encourage a diversity of high design standards for the neighborhood. Oversized balconies, engaging outdoor spaces, terraced courtyards, and a woonerf area will add energy to the 77th Street corridor, while creating a tranquil transition to the park lands. Proposed affordable housing, goals and benefits of the project, and pedestrian connections: The proposed new building meets 77th Street with a strong façade, echoing the neighboring Phase I. It then steps back along the sides, allowing for residential street-like passages into Fred Richards Park. On the west side, of the site a planned bike pathway will now flow between the two residential buildings of Phase I and Phase II. On the east side of the new Phase II, a woonerf will accommodate pedestrian and vehicular access into the parking areas that serve both Phase II and the existing (remaining) office building. On the far east side of the property, a new vehicular route will be opened up into the Fred Richards Park, allowing for greater ease of access to the existing (former) city-owned Clubhouse and its parking area. Solhem is working with the City of Edina to include new affordable housing units in the project, with rental rates and unit counts at either 50% or 60% of AMI, per city guidelines. The best mix of unit counts for meeting these goals are still being discussed with city staff. It is anticipated that inclusion of these units within the project will be in lieu of a buy-in into the Edina affordable housing trust fund. Similar to Phase I, it is expected that many of the new units in Phase II will be affordable i n a range of 70-85% of AMI. This is considered unsubsidized naturally occurring affordable housing and will be affordable to families with moderate incomes. Our project will allow for more affordable options for all residents of Edina in a highly sought after part of the metro. The new project will nearly double the existing permeable green space on the site, from 22% to approximately 42%. This will have a significant benefit for the surrounding flood plain. New native vegetation, plantings, and trailways will allow for a more resilient urban environment that benefits both humans and nature while accommodating much greater human density and natural diversity. An existing grove of mature trees in the Solhem Companies 724 N 1st St Ste 500 Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 northwestern corner of the site is planned to be preserved. Organics recycling and regular recycling will be available to all residents. Bike parking and EV charging stalls are part of the existing design, with an electrical design that allows for more EV stalls in the future based on demand. Our team will work with Xcel’s Energy Design Assistance Program in order to foster the most cost-effective and energy minimizing design for long term building operations. A separate branch of our company, Renew22, invests in solar energy to offset new additions to the energy grid from our development work. We share a common goal with the neighborhood and city in that we intend to create a project that is thoughtfully laid out, urban and dynamic, environmentally sustainable, and respectful of both current and future uses. The building will use high quality, long-lasting materials and add to the commercial and residential vibrancy of the Greater Southdale neighborhood. We look forward to a thoughtful discussion about this site and the potential benefits of its development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Curt Gunsbury Jason Lord EdinaMN.gov 1 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 2 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 3 S i t e EdinaMN.gov 4 Site