Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-22 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Planning Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City H all, Council Chambers Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission, March 8, 2019 V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking, i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for consi derat i on at a future meeting. VI.Public Hearings A.Public Hearing: B-19-9 4604 Browndale Avenue B.Variance request B-19- 06 for 5053 Windsor C.Preliminary & Fina l Plat for Edina Market Street VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Sketch Plan Review - 6950 France Avenue B.Sketch Plan Review - 4404 Valley View Road C.Sketch Plan Review- 4388 France Ave. D.Commission Procedures and Devices VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments X.Sta 9 Comments XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli ;c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Adminis trative S uppo rt S p ecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommission, Marc h 8, 2019 Action 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 : P lease approve the M ay 8, 2019, P lanning C ommission M eeting M inutes I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, May 8, 2019 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 1 of 11 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 8, 2019 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Melton, Bennett, Berube, and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Olsen, Hamilton and Mangalick. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the May 8, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Chair Nemerov offered up the amendment to move Community Comment before Public Hearings, according to the new bylaws. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the April 24, 2019, meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Chair Nemerov offered up the amendment to add wording to the Restoration Hardware Conditional Use Permit minutes to add a brief statement that included the Planning Commission appreciated the comment and agreed that the odors from restaurants would be worth looking into. Motion carried as amended. V. Community Comment John Hamilton, 6125 Beard Avenue S., addressed the Planning Commission with his concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan. VI. Public Hearings Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 2 of 11 A. Variance Request- B-19-05, 6509 Indian Hills Road Planner Aaker explained that the application is for a front yard setback variance and .9 foot 1st floor height variance for a new home to be built at 6509 Indian Hills Road. Aaker explained that the subject property is approximately 42,562 square feet in area, sloping approximately 40 feet up from the northwest corner of the site and the previous one-story rambler with an attached two car garage on the property was demolished in 2017. Aaker described that the applicant is proposing to rebuild on the lot with a new two story home with an attached three car garage in approximately the same location as the original home and the former home did not meet the required front yard setback along the Indian Hills Road side of the property with a setback of 40.57 feet provided from the west/front property. Aaker explained that the required front yard setback is based on the average front yard setback of the homes located on either side of the property which is 87.535 feet and bisects 3/4ths of the proposed home and nearly the entire former home and the property owner tabled a previous request from the April 24th Planning Commission meeting for a front yard setback variance and 1st floor height variance in order to work with the adjacent neighbors on home placement. Staff recommended approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Steve Schwieters of Wooddale Builders and Jeff Lindgren of Jalin Design, introduced themselves and explained that the lot is unique. Schwieters explained that their original application had the home placed between the city’s requirements and the existing nonconforming setback of the home. Schwieters explained that the neighbors felt strongly that they wanted the home to be pushed back towards the street again due to the home encroaching too much into the hillside and there would be too much tree loss. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if the applicant had an original proposal that neighbors thought there wasn’t enough of a setback so it was tabled to what the proposal is now. Aaker explained that the application that was originally submitted had the home at a deeper setback than the older home and the neighbors didn’t like how close the home would be to the side lot lines. Aaker explained that the builder worked with the neighbors to match the existing nonconforming setback of the original house and Aaker has spoken with the neighbors on either side of the home. • Commissioners asked if the original driveway is going to be removed and if there is a change in non-impervious surface with the remodel. Aaker explained that the non-impervious surface will increase because the new home is larger and the driveway is larger. Aaker stated that building coverage of the lot is at 10 percent, and it could be at 25 percent. • Commissioners stated how important it was in this case that the neighbors had input and that those most affected by the home’s placement are not opposed to the variance request. • Commissioners said that by allowing the variance, they would be making the situation better by affecting less tree removal instead of enforcing the zoning as written. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 3 of 11 Public Hearing None. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the staff memo. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Preliminary Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development at 7075-7079 Amundson Avenue for MWF Properties Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a redevelopment proposal of 7075-9 Amundson Avenue to tear down the existing vacant dry cleaners building and build a 4-story, 62 unit affordable housing project. Teague explained that the project would contain underground and surface parking stalls and that the property is 1.2 acres in size. Teague explained that the site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which has a height limit of 5 stories and 63 feet, and a density of 50 units per acre and the applicant has revised their original plans to meet these requirements, after the approval of the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Teague pointed out that the site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District and the request would require a rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, and preliminary development plan. Teague explained that if the Planning Commission doesn’t believe the project is consistent with the Small Area Plan, there isn’t adequate public realm, doesn’t’ believe the PUD criteria is met, the parking doesn’t satisfy the needs, and that they haven’t addressed the recommendations at the sketch plan, those would be some of the findings for denial. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary rezoning, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Ed Terhaar, P.E., Wenck Associates Traffic Engineering, introduced himself and explained that the parking numbers were based on the data from the Institute of Transportation and the data was just updated in 2019. Terhaar discussed the report, explained that the site is adequately parked for its use by about 20 stalls, and responded to questions from Commissioners. Peter Worthington, MWF Properties, introduced himself and thanked the Commission. Worthington explained that they’re long time owners, have in-house management, and have never sold a property. Worthington discussed that that the site features including the building being shifted to the east a couple of feet to create more articulation and more green space, and explained all of the property features. Worthington explained that they’ve added patio entrances and elevated stepped planters to the ground floor units to activate the street level on the Amundson side of the building. Worthington explained their proposal to re-grade and landscape part of Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 4 of 11 the trail area in order to make a connection to the trail for the Amundson Flats residents and discussed the potential easement for a connection on the south side of the property. Worthington explained that at the 60 percent level, the maximum rent under the affordable housing program for a 1 bedroom would be $1,125, 2 bedroom would be $1,350 and a 3 bedroom would be $1,560. Worthington explained that MWF is charging less than the guidelines presented and that their rent for “workforce/affordable/mid-market” housing rent would be $678 for a 1 bedroom, $1,000 for a 2 bedroom, and $1,350 to $1,400 for a 3 bedroom. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if there would be street parking along the east side of Amundson and Teague replied that he was not positive, but thinks that it is allowed and added that we don’t typically count on street parking for the parking calculations that are required for the development. Commissioners also asked what was across the street from the property. Teague replied that Murphy Automotive is on the corner, directly across is a mixture of retail uses and restaurant type uses, and to the east are the overhead power lines, railroad, property owned by the City of Edina, and the Regional Bike Trail. • Commissioners asked Teague to explain and clarify the definition of affordable housing. Director Teague replied that what the applicant is proposing is for someone living in the facility that is earning 60 percent of the average median income for the Twin Cities and includes occupations such as firefighters, teachers, city workers, medical workers, retail employees, and seniors. • Commissioners asked that Teague review the process that would follow if the preliminary rezoning was approved. Teague replied that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and they will make the final decision on the preliminary rezoning. Teague explained that should City Council approve it, the applicant would come back for final approval and that is when the development agreement would be put together and acting on the final zoning ordinance that would create the zoning district. • Commissioners asked Teague what other zoning categories could fit the project, other than PUD. Teague explained that you could potentially rezone it to one of the Planned Residential Districts, but the PUD would be what requires the commitment to affordable housing for 40 years. Teague explained that without the PUD, the owner could sell the building to someone and the new owner could potentially open it up for market rate. Commissioners also asked Teague if the Small Area Plan has a FAR ratio in it and Teague responded that it does not. • Director Teague was asked how many categories of PUD the city has and Teague replied that this project would be the 18th and each one is unique. Commissioners also asked if every parcel in the 70th and Cahill area will become PUD and Teague replied not necessarily, and added that retail use on the first floor could go into the site in the future. Teague also explained that the PUD allows for flexibility with setbacks. • Commissioners asked about when the trail would be completed and Teague replied that there are a few different ways. Teague explained that if the property to the south should not develop, and the City want to make that connection, the 17 foot easement could be used. Teague also added that if the property to the south develops, the City could require the easement there and it would likely be constructed at that time. Teague commented that he sees that as being part of the responsibility of the development of that parcel in conjunction with the City of Edina. Commissioners followed up with asking about the woonerf gathering space and when that would happen. Teague replied that the area is south of the trail and it would be a CIP item. Teague added Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 5 of 11 that if the property to the south doesn’t develop, he was unsure of how the City of Edina would acquire that property. Teague also explained that the easement that the applicant is dedicating doesn’t get us all the way to the trail so the City of Edina needs to work with the property to the south. • Commissioners asked if Teague had the numbers of residents that would be affected by this development within a half mile radius and Teague replied that there are 225 apartment units, 99 townhomes, 617 single family homes, and 2 duplexes. • Commissioners asked Worthington why underground parking is included in the rent and Worthington explained that they want residents to use the underground parking so they don’t spill out onto neighboring street and not use the lack of affordability as a reason to not use it and they estimate 1.5 stalls per unit works well for most locations. Commissioners suggested the idea of offering an incentive program for residents who don’t need or want a parking space because we are trying to encourage people not to use cars. Worthington explained that there will be a hanging bike rack in every parking stall. Commissioners also commented on the number of bathrooms in the 3 bedroom apartments and suggested that MWF look into those plans further and Worthington explained that the plans are far from construction drawings. Commissioners expressed some concern regarding parking on the west side of the property by the commercial businesses because this district is going to undergo increased development and would suggest adding a recommendation to not to have on street parking on the west side. Other Commissioners explained that the Small Area Plan allows for street parking and would suggest not make a recommendation to not have on street parking because of possible future development. • Commissioners commented on the front elevation on the Amundson side with the planters and asked Worthington to consider the pedestrian experience and that the Commission would like to see some treatment addressing the pedestrian aspect. Commissioners also asked Worthington to re-assess the height of the brick wall on the bottom portion of the building on the Southeast side. • Commissioners and Worthington had a lengthy discussion regarding the potential trail connection and why an easement was included instead of being included in the project. Director Teague stated that it would have to be a complete redesign in order to make the connection, solely on this property, a connection from this site to the regional trail and it would have to go right through the parking lot or cross over the drive entrance in order to make a direct connection. Teague was asked what the Small Area Plan specifically said regarding development of a connection like this and Teague replied that the plan was for the City to put in the public improvements and this is an opportunity to get an easement to help provide at least half of the trail connection. • Commissioners commented that the materials board could be tweaked to add a buffer and screen or green wall the parking, per the Small Area Plan and a condition of the development. Commissioners pointed out that under Site Guidelines on page 49 under Parking it reads, “Visually buffer surface parking lots and install edge treatments.” • Worthington explained that because the site is contaminated with PCE, the rain water can’t be percolated through the soil because it will pick up the PCE so they are using filters for the treatment regarding some the storm water management plan. • Commissioners asked about the process for the financing and Worthington replied that they develop under the Section 42 tax credit program. Worthington explained that developers Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 6 of 11 compete for access to tax credits so Minnesota Housing has a competitive process and scored criteria that is competed on. Worthington stated that one of the key criteria for points is staying within a reasonable range of development costs and you want to be in the bottom half of the range. • Commissioners asked if the applicant reviewed the plan with Xcel Energy, because one of the conditions in the Small Area Plan said that any development proposal should be reviewed with Xcel prior to coming before submitting plans to the City. Director Teague replied that the plans were sent to Xcel and we haven’t heard back from them and added that this property is not adjacent to the rail lines. • Commissioners questioned the “village-like character” for the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. Commissioners that were on the Small Area Plan Work Group stated that the look of this building is consistent with the village and it brings the vibrancy to the street, brings the population, and brings the connection. Commissioners added that this is 1 of 8 parcels and the idea of a village is the larger buildout, and this building is an important beginning. • Commissioners stated the Eastern side is very important because it has more users taking in the views and stated that the connection on that side is very crucial because it interfaces with the public. • Director Teague explained that the property to the south is zoned Industrial. Teague stated that the Small Area Plan is suggesting that it is going to be re-guided to Neighborhood Node and they have to do a rezoning on that property within 9 months of the MET Council taking action on it. Teague explained that the City will have to meet with the property owner and informing them them that their property is going to be rezoned and it is a good time to start that discussion of making that trail connection and it could even be part of that rezoning to get that easement at that time. Public Hearing Steve Wright, 5422 Creek View Lane, stated that you can see the property from his home and participated in the neighborhood meeting. He commented that he was impressed with MWF’s commitment affordability range, the size of units, and parking availability. He stated that he was excited to have them as neighbors. Floyd Grabiel, 7510 Cahill Road, stated that he thinks it is a wonderful site and a good project. Grabiel stated that he uses the bike trail quite a bit and it would be nice to have a trail connection, but doesn’t have to happen right away and he is in full support of approving this project. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Lee moved approval of the rezoning as proposed with two additions to take a further look at the connection and try to get the connection accomplished as part of the rezoning to occur after the approval of the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage the applicant to take a Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 7 of 11 further look at the color palette and the exterior materials. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov Nay: Thorsen and Bennett. The motion carried 5-2. C. Subdivision with Front Yard Setback at 6625 Mohawk Trail Director Teague explained that Jim Seabold, on behalf of Michelle and William McQuarie, is proposing to subdivide the 5 acre property at 6625 Mohawk Trail into three lots. Teague explained that the existing home on the lot would remain, and continue to gain access off Mohawk Trail and the two new lots would be created on the east half of the property and gain access off of Dakota Trail. Teague stated that to accommodate the request a subdivision and front yard setback variance from 73.5 feet to 30 feet for each lot is required. Teague also stated that within this neighborhood, the minimum lot size is established by the median width, depth and area of all lots within 500 feet of the property and the minimum lot sizes are met for this proposed subdivision. Teague explained that the front yard setback requirement is established by taking the average setback of the 12 homes located on the west side of Dakota Trail in between Indian Hills Road and Shawnee Circle and the setback of the homes range from 21.7 feet to 180 feet and the average is 73.5 feet. Teague explained that variances are requested for the setback to Dakota Trail for two lots. Teague presented reasoning for the Planning Commission to approve or deny the request. Staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision and front yard setback for the plat, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Teague asked for the square footage of the proposed new homes and he replied that it is about a 6,000 square foot building pad for each site and you could build a very well sized home. • Commissioners asked Teague about Engineering’s thoughts on the storm water drainage. Teague replied that the runoff would come down the hill into Dakota Trail so the applicant is proposing rain gardens along the street to hold back the drainage as it goes to the street so it helps prevent some of the runoff. Teague stated that, in general, Engineering is okay with the proposal and they would get more in depth and detailed with the building permits. • Commissioners asked how the proposed lot sizes compare to neighboring lot sizes and Teague replied that they are actually larger, but it does vary. Commissioners also asked for clarification on no more than 25 percent slope disturbance on either new lot. Teague replied in the affirmative and that the code for the 25 percent number was before his time. Teague also explained that this proposal is different than the proposal 17 years ago because the older proposal had a greater than 25 percent impact on the slopes. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 8 of 11 • Commissioners asked Teague about the 2002 proposal and asked if he agreed with the distinctions between the application in 2002 and the differences with this one. Teague replied in the affirmative. Commissioners also asked Teague to comment on the 25 percent plat wide request versus lot wide. Teague replied that the only concern he would have is with the south lot having a large area outside of the 18 percent and he would caution that he wouldn’t want to see 40 percent disturbance on the North lot and 10 percent on the South lot. Teague stated that he wouldn’t want to see more than a 30 and 20 percent split. Seabold commented that 30 and 20 percent split would work. Appearing for the Applicant Michelle McQuarie, 6625 Mohawk Trail, introduced herself and stated that she has lived in Edina for 45 years. McQuarie explained that the home was put on the market for 1 year, but due to the large lot size of 5 acres it didn’t sell. Jim Seabold, Coldwell Banker Burnet at 821 Grand Avenue in St. Paul, explained that their Engineering study suggested that they could have 5 lots on the parcel and be compliant, but he stated that they thought that wasn’t the best use in the community. Seabold stated that the proposed 1 acre parcels are larger than 60 percent of the lots in the 500 foot radius. Seabold stated that they are okay with most of the Staff suggestions regarding the preservation easement and the setback requirement and to not disturb more than 25 percent. Carol Lansing, Faegre Baker Daniels at 90 South 7th Street in Minneapolis, introduced herself and thanked Director Teague for working with the team. Lansing discussed not requiring that the 25 percent disturbance on steep slopes limit be met on separate lots, but a 25 percent calculation based on the area of the plat. Lansing discussed why the 2002 subdivision proposal is different than this proposal. Lansing also stated that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and discussed Public Hearing Greg Soule, Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP at 220 South 6th Street in Minneapolis, stated that he is the attorney representing Betsy and Jay Cutcliffe who have lived at 6617 Mohawk Trail for 19 years. Soule discussed subdivisions and all of the criteria the Planning Commission is asked to consider. Soule wanted to challenge how the disturbance calculations were made. Soule stated that Staff’s proposal included vague conditions. Paul Molitor, 6725 Iroquois Circle, introduced himself and stated that he is a concerned neighbor. Molitor explained that 11 years ago he purchased his home in the neighborhood next door to the 5 acre property. Molitor stated that he is against disturbing the beautiful area because it is a special part of Edina and commented that the slope that is being discussed would affect his property and property value. Mike Carey, 6625 Dakota Trail, stated that he was speaking on behalf of himself and his neighbors, Kathy Nelson at 6621 Dakota Trail and the Goldsteins at 6629 Dakota Trail and stated that they are the 3 homes most affected by the subdivision in terms of the views out of their windows and Carey is representing his neighbors as their attorney. Carey stated that he had read the code and Comprehensive Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 9 of 11 Plan carefully and it doesn’t state that it supports speculative and saleable determinations about splitting up properties. Carey commented that there is plenty of inventory of homes for sale in Indian Hills. Carey stated there are leaves, buckthorn, and a fence that are on the Dakota Trail side of the property that need to be addressed. Carey suggested to follow the Cutcliffe’s recommendation of only subdividing into 1 lot instead of 3. Betsy Cutcliffe, 6617 Mohawk Trail, introduced herself and stated that a 1 lot subdivision would minimize the loss of trees, the steep slope disturbance, minimizes the retaining wall, drainage issues, and minimizes the setback variances. Cutcliffe expressed concern about an existing 5 foot retaining wall on her property that goes into the McQuarie’s. Cutcliffe explained that she has had two tree reports done and they explained what would happen if this property was subdivided into 2 additional lots and stated that she has a petition with neighbors against the subdivision. Tony Zeuli, 6805 Iroquois Circle, stated that he is asking the Planning Commission to deny the request. Zeuli explained that the lots in Indian Hills are larger and that is what’s appealing about the neighborhood. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Staff and the applicant about the reasonable expectations of neighbors when they purchased their property. Dave Kendall, City Attorney’s Office, advised the Planning Commission about their ruling on a subdivision application. Kendall stated that they are acting in a quasi-judicial function so they are trying to determine if the application complies with the subdivision ordinance, and if they think that it does, there is not a lot of discretion to deny it if you don’t’ like it. Kendall commented that if the Planning Commission think the application complies, it is fairly clear you are supposed to grant it. Kendall also commented that in terms of the economic viability of the proposed development, it is not a factor under the subdivision ordinance. Kendall stated that there is a lot of neighborhood opposition to the subdivision and that it should be taken into account, but neighborhood opposition by itself is not a reason to deny the subdivision application. Kendall stated that if the neighbors in the neighborhood had the expectation that the property in the neighborhood would never be subdivided, the Planning Commission needs to decide if that is a reasonable expectation sufficient to deny the subdivision application. • Commissioners discussed the comment regarding susceptibility to erosion and flooding and asked for a response from the applicant or Staff. Director Teague replied that they rely on the City Engineer to review the plans and he was generally okay and comfortable with what was presented with the oversize lots and he didn’t think there would be a negative impact or increased runoff on the adjacent properties. • Commissioners asked how the determinations for disturbance of the slope are calculated. Teague replied that he asked Engineering to look specifically at the 18 percent and 25 percent rule. Teague stated that they reviewed the plans and didn’t believe there was a disturbance of over 25 percent. Teague stated that the review of the detail of the retaining wall would be reviewed as part of an individual building permit and there is not an extensive review in regard to proposed Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 10 of 11 retaining walls. Teague also commented that the applicant cannot affect any retaining wall on the Cutcliffe property or do any damage to adjacent properties. • Commissioners discussed the comment of the easement having vague conditions and asked for Teague’s response to that comment. Director Teague responded that at the point in preliminary plat with the variances, the parameters have been outlined that the applicant needs to meet, and the detail would be seen as final plat. Teague added that if the Planning Commission wanted to add conditions, they can do that. • Director Teague was asked about disturbing slopes on adjacent properties and explained that the disturbance would come in off of Dakota Trail with creating the building pads. Teague was also asked about the buckthorn and fence on the 6625 Mohawk Trail property and responded that the Heath Department can inspect the site to see if there are any nuisance violations and follow up with that right away. • Commissioners asked about if character of the neighborhood is part of the variance criteria and Teague replied that it is, and Staff believes that the application is in character of the neighborhood, and stated that the proposed lots are oversized in comparison to the neighborhood. • Commissioners discussed that the character of the large lots in the neighborhood and stated that that granting the application could be harmful. Commissioners continued to have a lengthy discussion regarding the size of the proposed lots and if they fit expectations for the surrounding area. Commissioners also commented that the issue isn’t about character, but is about the environment, sustainability, and global warming. Commissioners commented that that includes evaluating the amount of trees that would be removed and meeting the Comprehensive Plan requirements. • Commissioners asked about a time limit on the development agreement. Teague replied that for the preliminary plat, the applicant goes to City Council for the preliminary plat, and then would have 1 year to apply for a final plat and goes back to the City Council. Motion Commissioner Lee moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council of the proposed preliminary plat with front yard setback variances and denial based on the findings in the staff report. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Aye: Lee, Bennett Nay: Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov The motion failed 5-2. Commissioner Thorsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the subdivision and variance subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the staff memo and adding one additional condition that neither lot shall exceed 30 percent disturbance of the 18 percent slope and an average of 25 percent. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 11 of 11 Aye: Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov Nay: Lee, Bennett The motion passed 5-2. VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments None. X. Staff Comments Director Teague gave a brief summary of the City Council meeting on May 7, 2019 which included the City Council recommending approval of the draft Comprehensive Plan and the 6 month review period has begun. Teague also commented that at the City Council meeting, Staff was authorized to move forward with the creation of a Housing Task Force. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Miranda moved to adjourn the May 8, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 11:50 PM. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:P ub lic Hearing: B-19-9 4604 Browndale Avenue Action 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 request as requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he applicant, Jean R ehkamp Larson on behalf of the property owner D iane M ulligan, received a variance allowing the back wall of an addition to 4604 Browndale Avenue to be built within the required setback of M innehaha C reek and with an alternate setback standard that exceeds the allowable 200 square feet of encroachment in 2018. T he applicant has made a few changes to the project that requires an updated variance application. G enerally, the project is similar to what was approved in 2018 with the exception of an additional 17 square feet of additional encroachment within the 50 foot ordinary high water mark and a porch that exceeds 80 square feet and is located within the required front yard setback. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Aerial Map Applicant Submittal Engineering Memo June 27, 2018 Planning Commis s ion Minutes May 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-19-9, A variance request to extend the back wall addition of 4604 Browndale Avenue to be within the 50 foot required setback of Minnehaha Creek with an alternate setback standard proposed that exceeds the allowable 200 square feet of encroachment and a front yard setback variance for a 98 square foot front porch. Background/Project Update: The property, 4604 Browndale Avenue, is located on the west side of Browndale Avenue, south of Bridge Street, north of Edgebrook Place and east of Minnehaha Creek consisting of a two story home with an attached front loading garage. The home is located within the Country Club overlay zoning district requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness through the Heritage Preservation Commission for modifications to the front façade. The home was built in 1925 and is listed as a “Pivotal” design within Country Club District. The applicant, Jean Rehkamp Larson on behalf of the property owner Diane Mulligan, received a variance allowing the back wall of an addition to 4604 Browndale Avenue to be built within the required setback of Minnehaha Creek and with an alternate setback standard that exceeds the allowable 200 square feet of encroachment in 2018. The applicant has made a few changes to the project that requires an updated variance application. Generally, the project is similar to what was approved in 2018 with the exception of an additional 17 square feet of additional encroachment within the 50 foot ordinary high water mark and a porch that exceeds 80 square feet and is located within the required front yard setback. The applicant was also required to receive an updated Certificate of Appropriateness from the Heritage Preservation Commission for changes made to the front façade. The HPC reviewed the updated COA application on Tuesday, May 14th and approved a COA for changes made to the southeast corner of the house and front elevation. Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. Generally, the proposed work would closely mimic the existing drainage paths. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Compliance Table Principal Structure (House) City Standard Proposed North Side – East Side - South– West Side – 10 feet principal structure 32.8 feet 10 feet 50 feet 21.9 feet 26.2 feet, 30.2 feet existing* ~82 feet *31.9 feet existing nonconforming- unchanged from previous variance granted Building Coverage 25% 17.54% *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. There are practical difficulties designing for the existing home in its present condition and location on a shallow lot, with a nonconforming setback from Minnehaha Creek. The owners have done an admiral job of keeping the integrity of the existing 1925 home, while adding space in a tight setback area for updates. The plan has been before the Heritage Preservation Commission who support the project. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances unique to the property are the, shallow lot and nonconforming setback to the creek. Remodeling and adding on to an existing home can be a challenge, however, given the deteriorated condition of the home, and limited expansion opportunity, the homeowner has strived to maintain the look of the historic home. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The proposed variance and home addition/remodel were specifically designed to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood. The design and materials match the original structure. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of a variance from the alternate setback standard and front yard setback to build additions to the existing home. Staff’s recommendation for of the requested variance is based on the following findings: • The proposed project is a remodel and addition to an existing home built in the 1920’s. The project is reasonable given the improvements will bring the home up to a more modern building standard. • All improvements to the property conform to the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of matching the existing nonconforming setback to Minnehaha Creek and the porch addition within the required front yard setback. • The relatively shallow lot depth given the lot size, home placement, required setbacks and location adjacent to a creek are unique conditions specific to the property making improvements and design alternatives more difficult for the site. • Plans to the historic home have been reviewed by the consultant and City Staff who recommend approval and are endorsed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Approval should be subject to the plans as presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. City of Edina, H ennepin County, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB &Associates 2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 4604 Browndale Avenue May 17, 2019 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 75 ft / PLANNING DEPARTMENT Request for Variance at 4604 Browndale Avenue APR 22 2019 Project Description: CITY OF EDINA Applicants Jean Rehkamp Larson and Sarah Nymo of Rehkamp Larson Architects, with property owner Diane Mulligan seek an addendum on a previously granted variance, granted in July 2018. The original variance requested leniency on existing zoning regulation due to the existing lot's unusual circumstances. The applicant seeks reasonable understanding of their hardship and requests a variance on Edina Zoning Code Ordinance Section 32-1270- Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots in order to: • Add more than 200 s.f. within an alternate setback • Add main and upper level living space on top of an existing basement structure within the nonconforming setback • A front porch larger than 80 s.f. (Note: new request) The large .42-acre double lot is adjacent to the Mill Pond of Minnehaha Creek. Due to the bend in the creek and the angle of Browndale Avenue the zoning setbacks constrain the "buildable" area of the lot (see site plan). The viable "buildable" area is further reduced due to the desire to restore the garage back to a side loaded garage — an original covenant of the historic Country Club District. The original 1925 home had a side loaded garage (see image 1); however, a 1950s remodel located the garage doors to the front facade of the house (see image 2). The 1950s garage addition also used a panelized stucco material that does not match the original stucco color or texture (see image 3). The proposed design reorients the garage doors to the side yard (facing north), as originally designed. However, to allow for minimal driveway access to garage, the majority of the "buildable" area of the lot needs to be allotted to the driveway. The proposed garage is a 3-car garage, an amenity that is in line with this level of home. In order to make circulation into the 3-car garage possible, a portion of the existing living space (ironically, the original garage converted to living space in the 1950s remodel) will be converted to garage space. The loss of the living space converted to garage is the basis for the request for variance to add more than 200 s.f. within the alternate setback. Current zoning ordinance allows for up to 200 s.f. to be added within an alternate setback as established by the shortest distance from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the creek to the existing house. Due to the design of the original house, two alternate setbacks exiting on the site — one to the existing 2-story house, the other to the lower level. These alternate setbacks provide the framework for the proposed addition. Diagramed in the site plan: • ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK "A" is the shortest distance from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the creek to the existing 2-story house • ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK "B" is the shortest distance from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the creek to the existing basement As stated earlier, the conversion of the garage back to a side loaded garage comes at the cost of reduction of living space. The proposed addition adds 348 s.f. to the west/ Creekside, of which 248 s.f. project into is within alternate setback. A small portion (less than 8 s.f) of this addition extends beyond the ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK "A". However, this proposed addition to the main and second level is on top of a portion of the basement that presently projects into a non-conforming setback, ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK "B". A portion of the existing basement is a walkout with an exterior patio above. The proposed design adds living space above the existing basement space. However, the proposed design removes 53 s.f. of basement foot print within the existing non-conforming setback (see site plan and image 4). Additionally, the proposed design adds a two-story addition to the south side yard; approximately 277 s.f. of the addition is within the alternate setback (original variance request asked for 260 s.f.). The proposed design also seeks approval for two sand set stone patios to be located within the alternate setback. The proposed design also adds a front porch that is 98 s.f., 18 s.f. beyond what is allowed by current zoning. However, large front porches of this nature are classic to the neighborhood, especially in Mediterranean style homes in the Country Club district. The size of the porch is reasonable and allows for a few small chairs and aligns with the exiting fireplace mass. With the proposed additions and patios outlined above, the overall groundcover is less than 17.54% of the overall site; far less than the zoning maximum 25% lot coverage. The proposed design is in keeping with the scale of the surrounding stately homes. The existing main fagade and volume is preserved, and the proposed additions are inspired by and are secondary to existing façade. Through design development and design evolution, the south-east corner of the proposed addition has evolved to include one-story window seat wrapped in windows. This addition provides articulation of the facade and is within the context of the block and size of lot. The proposed home appropriately blends into the framework of neighborhood. The materials and character of the additions will match the original home and with seamlessly blend into the historic character of the neighborhood. All proposed work simultaneously preserves the historic character of the neighborhood, while updating the home to accommodate a modern family. See attached renderings and contextual images. The homeowners have lived in the Country Club District for almost 20 years andiloVIVI/WW2actbrkToillitti their family to their new creekside home. APR 22 2019 Variance Responses: CITY OF ECIN,8 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that it is reasonable: YES As stated in the project descriptions, the geometry of the lot, bend in the creek, and angle of Browndale Avenue constrain the buildable area of the lot. The proposed design seeks to reorient the garage to the side yard (something desired by the homeowner and aligns with EHLD Plan of Treatment). Doing so, requires a portion of the existing garage to be removed, and a portion of the existing living space be converted to garage, allowing for minimal space for a vehicle to access the garage. The percentage of groundcover of proposed addition and patios is less than 17%, well below the allowable 25%. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other properties in the vicinity: YES Do to the unique geometry of the site, this hardship is unique to this site. 3. Be in harmony with general purposes and intent of zoning ordinance: YES The proposed addition to the south side yard steps back from the front facade and does not project beyond the face of the rear fagade. The south face of the addition is over 70 feet from the side property line (R1 side yard setback is 10'). Furthermore, the addition of the side loaded garage enhances the streetscape of the historic district and aligns with the guidelines of the Edina's Historic Country Club District Plan of Treatment. 4. Not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood: YES By eliminating the street facing garage doors, the proposed design works to restore the essential character of the streetscape of the historic district. The original covenants of the country club district did not allow for street facing garages. A 1950s remodel added the street facing garage that exists today. All proposed additions are subordinate to the original main volume of the house. Materials and charm of the additions are inspired by the original Spanish Colonial Revival details. Additionally, the proposed project addresses the home's dire maintenance needs, see attached images (rotted windows, cracking stucco, chipped paint, etc.). PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF ED NA tl I M bail! .71 REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: COVER Mulligan Residence 4604 Browndale Avenue Edina, MN Original Architect Liebenberg & Kaplan Built 1925 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA a a Cl) a z 1 Signed asch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Basis for bearings is assumed The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 Trrlifirate Proposed Site Plan Survey For: DIANE MULLIGAN INVOICE NO 87774 F.B.NO SCALE: 1" = 20' • Denotes Found Iron Monument 0 Denotes Iron Monument z N Denotes Existing Contours x000,0 Denotes Existing Elevation 00).0 DenotesProposed Elevation sat-- Denotes Surface Drainage Benchmark: Top of hydrant Browndale Avenue and Edgebrook Place Elevation = 906.82 Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Address: 4604 Browndale Avenue Edina, MN \ -S85°39'58" W 122.10 Concrete Wall PROPOSED Pllar WALL a 1396.3 Rise I 665.6' _ _ - - \ / .41:3\- • ' ' . Tanc:e • I , 9741 \ 24'' 64k \ \ \ . • • 96.4 \ \ .o , 9.2 pfoPo sec:I • -4 f f 8Ir • ,zz • f °cs.' \ \ . . .• • Ill • \ cs) c$7.9 \ eQ 898. • 41 .Nr • - • \ °-; , X • Co ret.-. • • 6; s:. ,..,1,. O '''\7'7 Pumphouse cs cc. AZ' Oak 8.9-5 0 V-3 \ (Pe cs3. o ss• cp \cc. e;\ 891 a2.g 014 Stone Ret.ainin4,1<all / 511" / / / 6.6.. / 24.3 gf co /: , 89.5.7‘" / , c4 / i proposed r— \ / T addition , i- / c., - % / (i _ / \ / Ti z i.w - i / , iir r1 -.Z /7 / 7/ 0 — ffe "OA <.9 n c•i/ / \ 900.7 a- ad I \ I o \.. I /\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ —› \\ -> cr• \\%ot, \\ \ \ V '''> C:A \ \ -r, -7 \\ 'Z ) o \ \ tf/AA Ls, \\ , 9,c,, \\ ,.. , .89613 Existing Frontyard Setbacks: No. 4600 Brownsdale Ave. = 33.2 No. 4602 Brownsdale Ave. = 35.4 \\ No. 4604 Brownsdale Ave. = 30.2 55 ? 6 \\ No. 4610 Brownsdale Ave. = 32.5 cm Average = 32.8 \\\ Proposed Hardcover ('‘, \ \\ Lot Area 18,184 sq ft (% \ \:\ \\ Main Building 2,161 sq ft --<" \ \\•. \ \\ Side Addition 374 sq ft \ \\ Front Stoop 98 sq ft \ \\ \ \ \\ Side Patio 295 sq ft \\ \\ Rear PaCo 307 sq ft \ \\ Patio Allowance -150 sq ft \ \\ -'45) Steps 72 sq ft Rear Sidewalk 32 sq ft 11 tip 6 Total 3,189 sq ft \ \ \ ,ak, •-•:: Percentage 17.54% \ \\\ wlL 11 Hardcover in 50' Zone 11 Rear Patio 294 sq ft \I II Patio Steps to House 72 sq ft II Steps From Patio 32 sq ft II Rear Addition 248 sq ft I I II Main Building 334 sq ft I I Side Addition 286 sq ft II Side Patio 295 sq ft II Total 1,561 sq ft II I I 11 Hardcover in 35.5 zone II Side Patio 31 sq ft Existing Hardcover I I Side Addition 8 sq ft Lot Area = 18184 sq.ft I Concrete 52 sq ft Building = 2135 sq.ft Rear Patio 14 sq ft Total 105 sq ft Total = 2135 sq.ft Percentage of Hardcover = 11.74% O vn OI O Alternate Setback 35.5 foot setback S 4 a 902.0 Fence On S 80°40'38^ E 00 00 - 902.3' Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Country Club District, Brown Section The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. -0 73 t•Z C•D rV O I certify that this plan, specification, 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 by us this 31st day of May 2018. Rev 06.01.18 proposed grades/driveway 06.04.18 setback lines/areas 06.22.18 drainage arrows 4-19-19 updates per client Drawn By F:\survey\country club district brown section - hennepin\5 - 6 -14 \ccdb-5-14inv87774siteplan.dwg (J1 Tel. 612-285-7275 PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN A01 SITE PLAN .* SHADE? AREAS DENOTES S.F. COUNTED TOWARDS BUILDING 1 .COVERAGE ZONING SUMMARY: R-1 DISTRICT , EHLD (EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DISTRICT) SETBACKS: • FRONT: 32.8' (BASED ON AVERAGE FRONTYARD SETBACKS OF NEIGHBORING HOMES) • BACKYARD/ CREEKSIDE: 50' FROM OHWM • INTERIOR SIDE: 10' MAX HEIGHT: • 35' MEASURED TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF . FOR LOTS EXISTING SITE INFORMATION EXISTING LOT AREA: 18,184 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: 2135 S.F. EXISTING PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER: 11.74% PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: EXIST. HOUSE (AFTER DEMO) 1624 S.F. +ADDITIONS 873 S.F. +PATIOS, FRONT STOOP,... e „r" 001* IxV •(,,---- \Ist‘'N del-- 804 S.F. = 3189 S.F. PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER = 3,189 S.F. / 18,184 S.F. = 17.54% < 25% ALLOW LOT COVERAGE: • LOTS GREATER THAN 9,000 S.F. BUILDING COVERAGE MAX = 25%. •• BUILDING COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS INCLUDING DECKS AND PATIOS, BALCONIES, PORCHES (THE FIRST 150 S.F. OF AN UNENCLOSED DECK OR PATIO SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WHEN COMPUTING BUILDING COVERAGE. •• EXCLUDED FROM BUILDING COVERAGE: DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, UNENCLOSED STEPS AND STOOPS LESS THAN 50 S.F., OVERHANGING EAVES OR ROOF PROJECTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY POSTS OR PILLARS. • • PER EDINA CODE OF ORDINANCES 36.438 too I I ,e,94 Cr) , CZ I Z:24 ALT. OHWM SETBACK "A" .-:\ -I Z IQ i g -TI 0 Z 1. „.------1-------, i 21/ (?)! --- 1 corprete :14 ---purrphouse SITE DIAGRAM NOTES: • .011111 /2 \ 6 P / DEV )(2:1L:ra(211761_14 __7(DASHED) CO CRETE I DEMO EXIST. BASEMENT & M.L. PATIO \ I • (DASHED) (11 (D 1\) v 54,9 ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK "A" IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF THE CREEK TO THE EXISTING 2-STORY HOUSE • ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK 'V IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF THE CREEK TO THE EXISTING BASEMENT 'NEW RETAINING WALL, STUCCO FINISH \.„ STONE PATIO elev 898.7' 2V-0" CD I EXIST. BUTTRESS TO REMAIN NEW STO4 STOOP CONC. SIDEWALK ---- DEMO EXIST — DRIVEWAY (SHOWN \ DASHED) DEir PORTION OF E ,IST. GARAGE (si-IpwN DASHED) PLANNING DEPARTMENT -IP( OF EDINA ( APR 2 2 2019 Cooer et e W I k 5ro l e A • REUSE EXIST CURB CUT SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" on 24 x 36 or 1/16" on 11 x 17 H north = EXISTING HOUSE ' = ADDITION- (JULY 2018 VARIANCE APPROVED) = ADDITION (APRIL 2019 VARIANCE REQUEST) = PATIO/ TERRACE 08°29153" E 7 9.7\ UN EX. TV EXERCISE RUBBER FLR rikJ4 <0039> *--ELEC. SAUNA - J HEATER SAUNA OD3 \--DROP CELNG TO ACCOMODATE HVAC---- • CONCRETE FLOOR I T. MASS FDN EXIST. FON CLG HT 8'.4" CLG HT T-9' vDROP CELItliG TO ACCOMODATE HVAC GAS BISERT PLANNING DEP,A117.T. APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDNA F UN EX. EGRESS FUR WALL OUT TO ACCOMODATE HVAC GUEST / BDRM ELI QUEEN 2 /H20 \ TRTMT/ TO WASTE WATER STACK 7 STOW/ MECH. 1 010 1 REUSE EXIST FLUE FOR VENTING ACTUAL LOC, SPECS, & SIZES OF UN ITS TOD GAME AREA 008 TLE2 CLG HT 7.-3' 2 UP 14R VFY HI-I 1 006 HALL DN 7R r - DN 1R <009a) ,„› LAUNDRY - m L z _ VFY CELFIGr HEIGHT I 1 I I 009 I CLG HT S.4" YOGA FUR WALL OUT TO ACCOMODATE HVAC FAMILY ROOM 1001 1 U LC F ORX LR , \ I BOLER 11 I I AR MLR L _II_ _I CD LOWER LEVEL PLAN rm plan 0 EXISTNG 118" = V-0" on 24 x 36 OR 118" = 1'4" on 11x17 north .__Inorth NEW CONSTRUCTION EXPOSED T-MASS WALLS EXPOSED DRAIN FROM GARAGE ABOVE A10 LOWER LEVEL VFY STAIR LOCATION WITH HH & HVAC WD. STARS STORAGE CHI CLG HT VA 1 112" 7JJ PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18.003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN 0 0 a) C °4- CV ▪ (%▪ ) tn -a Z c 2 2 at co 2 0 =(0 Lu 2 I I I DIS 0 hI STORAGE SHELVES 30* REF. FRZ. CL. DRIVEWA O MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/8" • 1'-0" on 24 x 36 OR Mr • VW" on 11017 plan ri EXLSTNG north north NEW CONSTRUCTION 32 FRONT YARD S TBACK PLANNING D APR 2 2 Z019 CITY OF EDINA 4 ENTRY HALL CL. (FUTURE ELEVATOR) WD.1 (1120> - FLR \1 I -i-LE 0.7' FFE= Ell STORAGE SHELVES T — DN 3R O All MAIN LEVEL PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN _. I I I 1 I I II -- _1_1 1 I I __. 1 ---, 1 I I 11 - -j 1.-I-- I - --11- 4 -- -I I '1 /GAME ---- ..— -1-1—. -- II A -AREAl.......,1--- I I I I _ 7 ?_1Purto imp 1 HI~ II - - -I- -a 1 tgg: I 15 1 pOFFE TABLf 1 F4' x 421_ _ Ii — H - NEI II 6 O SITTING AREA '1 1,03 I 1 DAM I 105-I, 111 WOOD BURNNG F REPLACE 1 FRONT STOOP 0 P w D 0 a < CNI EXTENT OF ADDITION IN ORIGINAL VARIANCE 20'.0" I2'-0' ADDITIONAL REQUEST WNDOW SEAT •I-1•1-1M1----1111-1111-111. L /PL14713 BED MASTER HALL 1204I 36'w 21'0 slIGHTSTAN MASTER CLOSET 206 I cra - STONE LNEN ED. CAB MASTER \ BATH I 209 I <209c> i-11-4 '444 tiliqd0Th Jam— ILI STONE BENCH 3 FLR TLE 4 3 <210b> BDRM A REUSED DOOR WD. FLR C L. (FUTURS -LEVAT019) CLIA WD TOP DRS!.: n :31' ST Ne- BATH A <211a REUSED DOOR <204a> DN 15R MASTER CLOSET 2071 <2070> 1 210 z 13 J riA ELE LAUNDRY I IDRYEF 40'14 L ALL DRYING RACK M▪ IELE RTLE LWASHJI 2.3_2>j QUEEN BDRM B I 203 I P-LAM REUSED <,s, DOOR — I 218a 7, WD. FLR <216a> r- I FULL • IH O REUSED 00R77 viyW SWING 213b CLOSET C I 218 I CL. B r L LINEN SINK 2 WD. FLR FULL BDRM C I 217 I I- 7 I MECH. I L 12a WD. FLR <214a> REUSE DOOR <213a> HALL I 212 I EXIST. SUILT-IN DESK NEW LOCATION J_ I I MUN< *!. TALL CAB TLE SINK AREA C 1216 I INTEGRAL 36.ve 21'cl LISHTSTAII REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. O • a) C > 42) <N U) 1-r9 „(1,) 3Z 0 41:1m C boa PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN KING 6 MASTER BDRM 0-°5 1 SITTING AREA Ell CENTER HALL Ell • 10 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/8" .1'.0" on 24x 36 OR lir v-o" on 11o17 PLANNING DEPARTMEar APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA Al2 UPPER LEVEL plan D EXISTNG 0 north north NEW CONSTRUCTION REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. L J L J J PLANNING DEPARTMENT /APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA A13 UPPER LEVEL O ROOF DIAGRAM lir -r.cr on 24 x 36 OR 1/8- = 1.4X' on 11017 plan q DOSING north north ri " NEW CONSTRUCTION FLAT ROOF PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN ORIGNAL VOLUME OF HOUSE REMODEL & ADDITION REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. P ROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY JRL, STN fi 1 T 11 III n 1 n 8 • ...--• I--, N--, L RESOLD EXIST. FRONT STOOP PLANNING DEPART.AEN-i- APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF ED!N - EXTENT OF ADDITION IN ORIGINAL VARIANCE 20'-0* 2%0 ADDITIONAL REQUEST 0 EAST ELEVATION 1'.fr on 240 36 or 118" on 11 x17 I EXTENT OF ADDITION ORI3NAL VARIANCE 16LO" i2L0' ADDRIONAL REQUEST 0 SOUTH ELEVATION on 24 x36 or lir on 11 x17 A20 ELEVATIONS n n 11 11 n 11 11 n n n 0 WEST (CREEKSIDE) ELEVATION 1/e =1'A" on 24 x 36 or 1/8" on 11 x17 REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. C) (..) C CD '''t• c\I a) z LL c 22 CV Ca 2 o) .1. LE, Q Lu '7r(t) 2 A21 ELEVATIONS PROJECT PHASE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2019 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA 7'.0" hx WA' w PAINTED GARAGE DOOR TO'hx9'.0'w T.0' h x 9' .0' w PAINTED GARAGE DOOR PANTED GARAGE DOOR WIDTH OF GARGE ORIGNAL VARIANCE SUBMITTAL NV ADDITIONAL REQUEST NORTH ELEVATION 1' 6' ADDITIONAL REQUEST 114" VA" on 24 x 36 or 1111" on 11 x17 INVOICE NO 87412 F.B.NO 742-57 SCALE: 1" = 20' • Denotes Found Iron Monument 0 Denotes Iron Monument El Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 0000 Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage 4 0 4 ,SZ) d a a a 24" Ma" gr . / / e0 • 9R12 - ElectrIcal aar -90 1- 12" fine S 80 040 ,3 8 „ E 83.00 02.0 IV <=3 "Pence On z,„., z a -a S. Signed Gregory asc Minn. Reg. No. 24992 nil 2: V Basis for bearings is assumed The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 urttr4ri-rs Existing Conditions Survey For: DIANE MULLIGAN Benchmark: Top of hydrant Browndale Avenue and Edgebrook Place Elevation = 906.82 Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Address: 4604 Browndale Avenue Edina, MN \ \\ - \\ ___ \\ • \ \ l \ 5,9,5. 6,... - _ - - - \ \ Ilk \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ r r y \ \ N \ iti , et \ \\ \ \ \ \ . \ . \ \ \\ \s\ \ \ \ 1 I x I :97.4I 24" Oak N \ \ c AW\ \ \ \ 1 I 496.4 \\ 1 ,, \\ 5ao- . - \\ 1 \\V- lik` ` „,. . , „z ....,%'z,) \\To ....„_,...,,,\\ 9717 -r \ \ \ 1 \ rl 1 . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ' 1. \\ \ I s‘ 1 3k\ \ \ \ t' _k \ \\ \\ V3 \ \ .f 11,411116 \, .... , \ \ tr--_•\ \ \\,' \\CP \‘' ( \ . S , \ `,'W, S7 .-S:- \\ k, \\\ \\ d),,-,- \\ \\ N \ \ \ v\ .0 \ . Ye, \ \ g':.- \\ \ \ . \ \‘ 1.7 \ \ .."77 -Z, \\ ' A \\\ \\..,... , \\11..\\\\\\,, , --› . \\ \ \\K. . -› ,,,,,Niz• --)\\\\.\ _ s\ ...ic „,i....„......_J, 3 r ---4 - --- c, \\ --S. -I?r. '' 71, ▪ 7... \\\t ,e7 Grate ,s, \\ -, ,.) ,,.., \\ ,„ \\ \\ \\ 25.4 \\. \\ , 1r- \\ \ , . it..., 553.6 \\ Ni \\ . i mal ,,•=1.......m (Th \ ......-., \\. \6"...' s \ C;(0\ -'\" ' \ 1 \\ 1111111.11.l \ 5p\o\ \\,,cycs, t6 (:1 \\. W N „ft. \ N\ \ VA --,?Dc-°,%-' -r" \\ , A \ \ Cpz''(3,ic'" \ \ \\I'‘4.74:)' Q'-1- \‘', CS, tZ:p %,Z \ \ \ \ kr, cs, CP \ \\ -gC. CS -'- \ \ \ \ \ '3'k' '‘ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I \ Y- ,..."Xlk `4\' 0 v (3'i I, 1 \\ \ 03.. 1 III 1 Existing Frontyard Setbacks: oAt \ ,,, \ \ I \\\ ,\ \ \ \ t ‘'.:1 I ; 't \ \ \ \, \ \ III k \ \ 00 k \ , \ \ I I ,k \ \ \ (,(.52,\ I \ I III 0 I \ 1\ \ ‘".:1-5..r.„_ 0 , \ \ .4. I I \ \t ill I \ \\ I I \ -V I I \ Average = 32.8 I I Wit, I \ \ \ \ \ \ II eg \\ .I \ , \ \ 1 ‘ It utic \ \ , \ \ 1 1 'AA \ \ \ \ , \ li \ \ \ t or, Hardcover 11 ,0 \ \ \ 1 1 rit , \ , , III 11 .4114',\\'\\ \ ' \ iii 1 Lot Area 10, 104 sq ft 1 ill i Building 2,135 sq ft il )1,4*I1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 Ill 1 Total 2,1 35 sq ft ii libb...85039158" W 122.10 •••••ffir"l• IPA TAW 4 a- 0 • / - ottonwood 99.2 F ence Neighbors wan 22 feet south of line 599.2 Concrete PurInhouse 20" Oa ▪ 12" arch -•`-' 595.4 ‘, ls, C \59 \\cP x / CP \ /NJ \ VION \ 2 .5 I 9 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ / 597.2 II I I I I I I I I I I I t II No. 4600 Brownsdale Ave. = 33.2 No. 4602 Brownsdale Ave. = 35.4 No. 4604 Brownsdale Ave. = 30.2 No. 4610 Brownsdale Ave. = 32.5 X 5 94.2 x I ttrees 93.6 I I Wing Wall 3Q.2 09- -595 a 11 / 4 596.3 8151 4 4 .596.5 X \, a a 4 (---Concrete Wall Concrete Steps \ Egress w Percentage 1 1 .74% Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Country Club District, Brown Section The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. I certify that this plan, specification, 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 by us this 1st day of March 2018. a I 4 902.3 Rev Drawn By LIU.L.1./r1O40414 F:\survey\country club district brown section - hennepin\5-14\ccdb-5-14fb74257inv87412.dwg 9%969 . noLidtki alaJouo:9, 9 .96:9 9 ,., 9 g 0.7 LI, X IIUO9I/IlO 101 AO %IMP/ .aisvcnins. 3S0OH ONLLSIX3 = VNIC13 AO A.1.10 o*o - z - ----- ---------- 08 ---------------- gals „e 4.-'2`117 LIO .§.147.-vAag-A4e*Ta 7/ CT, I ‘, ..,., . . , tt keg. I \ \ e 1 \ II \ \ A Hann ssa.J62-- sdalg 4917uo.9 I 't I - \ \ til \ \ 0 g*E6g\ c5 \ ce 0 .2_ 17 -469 ‹.- gri1 bulu1e4a guo4g pip 96 I (5 ) \ yang li a.,1 0 \ N .4 \ tA3 cp , ;61‘.9,,DE 9 V VII , '0°;0•Dt-e---2---/--- - --2:969- ------ '--515913- -§-aiictkVitinfla vs, 17.269 - -------------- - , ____ _ aougJ , a,‘ , 5 \ \ \ . \ , 7 \ \ F'669 \,c- . , 111111111- 14°."::1AP' ' 4 , s,' ii.... \ .9 .969 ----IIIIb _ _- 01:ZZL M ,,29,6£098 x Bo = 9,969 669 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN3INIUVd3C1 ONINNIfld Jew llem a4adouo7 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN vi cn C rn 0 s -1 rp PROJECT PHASE: As-Builts PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 (1) m x m (7, > Mulligan Residence REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. 4604 Browndale Ave 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 Edina, MN 55424 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 MECH/ H2O REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. oe..0 004 .0 T` 35 cti3B-01 LNt AES. I PLANNING DEPARTMENT wl APR 2 2 2019 of - -CITY OF EDINA \"-- MAY ADD UP TO 200 S.F. IV AREA OF ENCROACHMENT UP 14R' qLG. HT. 7' 31/2' Ig LAUNDRY/ MECHANICAL CLG. HT. 7-5' VFY ALL SOFFITS & MECH LOCATIONS L. CHUTE ---\\ STOR. 5,5e....--"•41'- 32.8' FRONT YARD SETBACK 0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN O (plan 118" T'Ar on 11x17 northnorth NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DN UP 1R IR BOILER RM. STOR. REC RM CLG. HT. 7'.3 STOR. STOP UN EX. I x 1 0 LOWER LEVEL EXISTING PLAN 0) c > a) < (NI -0 a) 'zr C• -c3 1-0 Z =2 ct m '2 rm f, = =mo w w z 2 PROJECT PHASE: As-Builts PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN PATIO N I, VFY WDW SH: 2325' HI-I: 80.5' SH: VFY 11'4 CLG. HT. 8%6' SUN RM. KITCHEN VFY FRONT STOOP DIMS DN 4R II D 21'41' I LIVING RM. SI-I: 30.5' HH: 83.5* 7 SH: 42.5" HH: 83' CLG. HT. 9'4' VFY HEARTH ENTRY FFE- DINING RM. UP ON 13R1 2R U I HALL 14 CLG. HT. 1.7' n _L CL. DN 3R 7 I HALL CLG. HT. 1.21/4' POWDER RM II I STOOP CL. DROPPED CLG CL. VEY L DR - 7 32.8' FRONT YARD SETBACK W I al PliANNING DEPARTMNT I APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINrx II II II OH: 31.5" HH: 86' VFY N.H. 79.5 BREAKFAST NOOK CLG. HT. T.11 1/2' y VFY ). II II VFY VFY 4, GARAGE FFE= 898.7' CLG. HT. 10'.2 1/4- vFy REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. tl) LI a) `4. cNi ▪ a) t/▪ 7 "0 3Z 0 C Ib c • co 1.11 2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION x 1 1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING PLAN PROJECT PHASE: As-Bu ills PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN CO' Ot.0 030 '0* _ MAY ADD UP TO 200 SF. t•I AREA OF ENCROACHMENT—) .---" _.....- ....--- I .----- I ED MAIN LEVEL PLAN O plan 1/8' = V-0" on 11x17 north north SIDE ENTRY j, VFY), VFY IF II BEAM DROPS 22' BEAM DROPS 101/2' r- 7 STEEL BEAM 4.5' DIA STEEL POST 32_5' FRONT YARD SETBACK VFY ALL RADIATOR SEES 8 LOCS I w1 0 I NI a T S.H., 32.5' HH: 86.5' DN 2R CLG. HT. 8'.51/2' HALL A RAD. II Il 11=U SR: 35' HH 80.5 CL. INE BDRM B ACC 1.1 ACCESS HALL B L_J DN STAIR LANDING DN 13R CLG. HT. 9'.8' CL. BDRM A S.1-1.: 31' HH: 80' 1111 1L11 H: 80' FLAT ROOF DECK RAD. 1 I RAD. I M. BDRM SP.: 76 MAX...5.5" CL. 7 LRET.1 SI+ 26' HR: 80' STUDY SH: 30.25 HH: 80' t,C43/ p,Vs MAY ADD UP TO 200 SF. IN AREA OF ENCROACHMENT-7 so I PROJECT PHASE: As-Builts PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN x12 UPPER LEVEL EXISTING PLAN 0 UPPER LEVEL PLAN plan ico" on 1 lx17 north north r 5 G PLANNING DEPART I MENT Z 0 1 APR 2 2 20191 0 1.- I I n re CITY OF EDIf\li A u) I i- I 0 I I 0 cC 1 I 0 i- I 0 I I z REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. ON°4\.4-: \--MAY ADD UP TO 200 SF. II AREA OF ENCROACHMENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION YI QI `6't w 0 L11 T ii3LANNING DEPARTN;ENT I APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA L m plan 0 north north 0 ROOF DIAGRAM vs- = V-0" on 11)07 32 b'Fk01,11 YARD SE1BACK J PROJECT PHASE: As-Buills PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN x13 EXISTING ROOF DIAGRAM 11 1 1I I P 1 leffi i iI111 .1T1111 111 1 4141 1 PLANNING DEPARTMEW APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDIt,.!A 111111111 111111111 ill Rpm!!Rep! PLANNING DEPAr.7:2-ff - APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDit !A r PLANNING DEPART;AENT APR 2 2 2019 4. CITY OF EDIr-LA =Hi th://1,0.1. 11111111111 mmimimund w 1111111 "' 111111 1 APR 2 2 2019 0 MI El MI IIII IM mi BR :AO pm7 ASP 111 E E n .fit ... - .. . _ 3iev \\WN‘ 0:* Image 1: Original 1925 home designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style NNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA :r11,P1P.7,;E••!,An eff "leeertt Imo: i coins?* aitteraly rt /nail !In ,e,nr1•7kii! Na! 5 Vatiippliteer;;Ot.444 Br° tottisla • avenue, C7110.7 • Proakej re, ,Oviiil!rie C10 ' urdi Om J is la 45pattah :type .ea 'en:Cantina sTilt Koro!,$itspred - 61. Lie bera&12 Kaplan,.areeitaotar4Theraian.110 WOOLJI0iMi.nasi 6;eiv '40 aa "Inatatur 27. Ri`ilgi'rlia4et t reqt1'17't"' ;"1 e, r 11‘. • g±}aV titd,4"iitT?I liPettin 1.1P441' 1sign-,jn*;',..Ws?W 4604 Browndale Variance Application Supporting Images Image 2: 4604 Browndale Image 3: 1950s garage addition uses panelized stucco that does not match original stucco PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA Image 4: Existing walk-out from basement establishes Alternate Setback from OHWM "B" Image 5: Patching of existing stucco does not match color or texture of original stucco, windows and shutters are in need to repair and paint PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA Image 6: Surface cracking seen throughout the existing stucco NING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA Image 7: 4604 Browndale, today Image 9: 4604 Browndale , today Image 9: 4604 Browndale , today as seen from creek PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDINA suomop pesodoid 6uuepue ac 86E1111 Image 11: 3D Rendering of proposed additions PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 2 2019 CITY OF EDI e4 g1. 1111111111 1'11 II II 1111111111.1R11111%1111111 (lell!wqnS 802 Apr leui6p0) suoR!PPe pasodoid 6upepuabi GE :31. aBewl WHIM/ JO ALIO 6IU g g adV .1.N3141.8Vd3CI DNINNY1d PLANNING DEPARTM CITY OF EDINA Image 13: 3D Rendering of proposed additions (Original July 2018 Submittal) DATE: June 22, 2018, Updated 4/30/2019 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Charles Gerk, P.E. – Graduate Engineer RE: 4604 Browndale Ave - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the site survey and SWPPP dated 06/01/18, updated 04/19/19. Summary of Review The proposed work on the subject property includes multiple additions to an existing home, landscaping and a new driveway. Proposed grading and drainage paths will closely mimic existing drainage paths. With drainage being directed to the east (street) and west (creek) of the home. Another plan review will take place at the time of building permit to verify compliance with relevant ordinances and engineering policies. Grading and Drainage Proposed grading and drainage paths will closely mimic existing drainage paths. With drainage being directed to the east (street) and west (creek) of the home. The proposed work does not require any mitigation per policy SP-003. Additionally, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has no mitigation requirements for this site, however an erosion and sediment control permit will be required. The proposed low floors and low openings are more than 2-feet above the 888.2’ floodplain elevation. The driveway will require a special inspection from the engineering department prior to construction to ensure that correct grades and drainage paths are established per the approved plans. The applicant should consider any other future home additions and landscaping projects at this time and plan appropriately for any mitigation that could be required as a result of those projects. Erosion and Sediment Control No Comments Street and Curb Cut / Public Utilities No Comments O ther Items The applicant is currently working with the City on a storm sewer pipe realignment along their north property line. The project involves both 4604 & 4602 Browndale Ave. On November 20, 2018, the City Council approved a project agreement between the City and these properties. Conditions of that agreement will continue to hold as this house addition project continues. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 1 of 10 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers June 27, 2018 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, City Planner, Kris Aaker and Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planners, Kaylin Eidsness, Communications Coordinator, Jake Omodt, Communications Assistant, Liz Olson, Support Staff Absent from the roll: Commissioners Mittal and Jones III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Nemerov offered a change to add approving a new member to the 50th & France Small Area Plan Working Group at the end of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the June 27, 2018, meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes City Planner, Teague explained that due to Jackie Hoogenakker’s retirement, the minutes from May 23, 2018 and June 13, 2018 will be completed and in the packet for the July 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting to approve. V. Public Hearings A. Variance Request. 4606 Browndale Avenue, Edina, MN. Addition to home. Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission that Jean Rehkamp Larson with Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc., the applicant, has submitted a variance request at 4606 Browndale Avenue. The proposed home is a pivotal home and landmark in the Country Club District and one of the first ones built in 1925. The two-story home is located on the west side of Browndale and it backs up to Minnehaha Creek. There has been little, if any change, to the home or maintenance done over the years. There was a garage added to the home in the 1950’s. The Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 2 of 10 original home has the garage loading sideways, which was a design standard for Country Club and most of the houses had the garages behind the home. The new home owner intends to completely renovate the home with the inside and bring the exterior up to a more modern building standard by adding on to the home. It is clear that there are some disrepair issues and deferred maintenance issues on the property. Planner Aaker explained that the property does back up to Minnehaha Creek and does sit up higher from the creek so there is an increase in elevation from the creek edge. The lot is a little over 18,000 square feet and the property is quite shallow. Because the property backs up to the creek, there is an increased setback from the creek at 50 feet, which causes the home to be non-conforming. The home does overlap into the required setback from the creek. The back of the home has a doorway and is a walkout. The patio area above used to have a screen porch with a roof and this is the side that backs up to the creek. Continuing, Aaker explained the survey of existing conditions shows that it is a shallow double lot and it’s constrictive in terms of front yard setback, required side yard setback, and the 50-foot setback from the creek. Prior to 1990, the creek’s setback was 25-foot and at that time, the home conformed to the ordinance requirements. The closest point to the home is the lower level door basement area is 31 feet away from the edge of the creek. The closest back corner of the house is on the second floor at 35.5 feet. Those two setbacks are what the property owner has tried to work within in terms of adding on to the house. Aaker noted that while it is a nice size lot, there is not a lot of buildable area opportunity. The home owner has been conscientious and trying to maintain the existing non-conforming setback and not getting any closer to the creek than any portion of the home that currently exists there now. The proposed addition would add about 489 square feet of footprint into the non-conforming setback area and the patio would be about 577 square feet. There is existing patio in that area that extends to that 31-foot setback. This proposal has already been revived by the Heritage Preservation Commission and they have supported the request. They did indicate that while the addition will change the size and massing of the existing home, it does not detract from the essential historic character of the subject property or the neighborhood. It was their opinion that the project meets the requirements of the Country Club District plan of treatment and the secretary of interior standards for the rehabilitation of historic property and recommended approval. Engineering has reviewed the proposed work and it does not require any mitigation. The Engineering department would want to make sure the driveway was pitched correctly and they would go out to look at that. Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Jean Rehkamp Larson, Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Aaker was asked if the water elevation of the creek was a factor in terms of a flood zone and responded that they are well under. The 50-foot setback mandated by the DNR that dates back to the 1990s is when we had to adopt the new setback requirements. Prior to that all of our water bodies had a 25-foot setback. It was noted that many properties you will see a lot of close structures close to our water bodies because they pre- date our current code. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 3 of 10 Applicant Presentation Jean Rehkamp Larson said that she wanted to preserve the front facade, window proportions staying the same, materials staying the same, and extruded what was there in the roof form to keep the scale appropriate. The hope was to get more room in the floor plan to have the house more in sync with neighbors and in terms of its size and livability. Rehkamp Larson was asked if she was familiar with the two properties to the south of the location and if she knew the distance from the creek to their houses. She was familiar with one and stated that the property was similar, if not closer to the creek, than the proposed property. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners were in agreement that the house and plans presented were incredible and the use was reasonable. The two houses to the south are closer to the creek than the proposed house. This variance doesn’t jump out compared to the neighbors. The documentation and drawings are clear to see the proposed addition going into the zone. The Commission stated that they were very grateful to the architect and staff for the thorough packet and the drawings. It was noted that it is a nice addition that does match the existing. Commissioners commented that it’s nice to have the Heritage Preservation Board weigh in on the presentation and was great background information and were pleased that the garage is being moved back to the original state. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to Staff conditions. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. The motion carried. B. Conditional Use Permit for Rooftop Dining, Life Time Athletic, 250 Southdale Center. Staff Presentation Planner Bodeker presented that Life Time Athletic, the applicant, is proposing rooftop dining at the building currently under construction at 250 Southdale Center, the former site of J.C. Penney at Southdale Center. A Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 4 of 10 site plan for Life Time and an adjacent multi-tenant building were reviewed and administratively approved by planning staff. A formal review of the site plan was not required due to the square footage of the new Life Time is smaller in size than the previous square footage of J.C. Penney. A footing and foundation permit was issued and a second building permit for the remainder buildout is currently under review. Life Time Athletic is a three story building plus a rooftop which includes leisure pools, lounge seating, bocce courts, and the proposed rooftop bistro/restaurant. To accommodate the restaurant request, a conditional use permit would be required for that portion. Planner Bodeker explained that the subject property is zoned PCD-3 and is located in the North East corner of Southdale Center. There would be no change in access to traffic or parking to the site. The rooftop would be utilized by Life Time Athletic members and their guests with no additional parking needs or traffic that would be generated with the approval of the rooftop restaurant. The number of parking studies has been completed with new development and redevelopment at Southdale, that latest one being the parking study completed with untights. That parking study accounted for the redevelopment of the JCPenny site with the Life Time Athletic Fitness retail and office development shown. With the building materials, there are no changes that would be made to the exterior of the approved building materials. Those approved building materials were looked at and reviewed by staff. The rooftop will general be opened seasonally from May until September. The applicant has agreed to the hours of 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. to comply with the city’s portion of the conditional use code. There are no residential properties with close proximity to the proposed rooftop. The Onyx apartments are located over 500 feet away from Life Time Athletic, 66 West is located around 600 feet away, and 1 Southdale Place is roughly 800 feet away. Bodeker concluded that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Ferguson, Life Time Athletic Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Bodeker was asked what happens if the applicant comes back and request to be open until 11 p.m. or later with special events like they originally wanted. Bodeker explained that the applicant has agreed that their hours will be posted until 10 p.m. If they wanted to expand their hours, they could come back to amend their conditional use permit. Applicant Presentation Chair Olson opened the floor for any questions that the Commission had. The applicant was asked if this design is unique or the first time it’s being used. Ferguson responded that it is unique and it would be the first rooftop amenity at Life Time Athletic in the country. The applicant was asked about the materials and the exterior expression of the building and if this would be the prototype if it is successful. Ferguson responded that this would be the first time using the cut limestone and it would be used as a prototype if successful. He also stated that this rooftop dining at Life Time Athletic is currently being proposed in a few other locations around the country. Public Hearing Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 5 of 10 Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if the 11 p.m. time of the original request could be satisfied now instead of 10 p.m. Staff recommended that the condition stay at 10 p.m. because this is the first rooftop dining request the City has received since the ordinance was amended to allow the use. Commissioners stated that this use is a great example of a conditional use permit. It was suggested that if there are no complaints in the neighborhood for the first year of operation, staff could consider extending the hours of operation based on their feedback from the neighborhood. Teague stated that staff prefers we keep it specific so it runs with the property if residential uses were to be built closer to the property. The question was asked how late other properties are open that have a liquor license at Southdale. Planner Teague answered that he believes Dave and Busters serves alcohol until 1 a.m. Commissioners expressed there might be demand for this type of rooftop dining in smaller nodes and that 10 p.m. may be a good decision for now. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to approve the conditional use permit approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. C. AUAR, Alternative Urban Areawide Review, Pentagon Park Area Update. Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that back in 2007, as part of a potential development proposal in Pentagon Park, the city undertook an alternative urban area wide review. Teague explained that it takes the place of an environmental impact statement. It looks at development scenarios and mitigation factors under certain densities that are built within that area to mitigate those environmental impacts. Teague noted that that project didn’t occur and the City updated this AUAR 5 years ago. Every 5 years if no development occurs, the City needs to update this document. It’s been 10 years since the original so we’re on our second update. Andy Moffit did the study back in 2007 from WSB & Associates, Inc. and was the lead along with Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 6 of 10 Chuck Rickert who did the traffic study portion. They are still with us on the project and are have done the update for us. Appearing for the Applicant Andi Moffatt and Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if this AUAR was part of the review when approving the development of North and South properties and if this is updating or changing anything. Teague responded that this is not changing anything and this study does not override the normal comprehensive plan or rezoning process. Some of the transportation recommendations that came from this document were implemented as part of that project so it was used in that regard. Teague was also asked if the purpose of this was so that if a future project comes along, it would not need to do its own environmental study. Teague answered yes, this is an area wide study so it doesn’t need to be done project by project. Teague was also asked what would create the need for this and if that was based on the size or district of the parcel we’re looking at. Teague answered that it was based on the size of the project that was proposed to the city back in 2007. The proposal was dense, so it triggered the need for an environmental review. They could do an EIS or the AUAR. The applicant at that time chose to do the AUAR. Commissioners asked if what we are proposing for the Southdale area does not have set off any triggers in the same way. Teague answered that it does not for any individual project like the 2007 project did. Applicant Presentation Andi Moffit thanked the Commission and Planner Teague and noted that she has been with this project since 2007. • This is the second update for the Gateway study area. • This environmental review runs outside of the specific development area. • It’s required and reduces the need to do lots of many mini environmental reviews because it covers an area. • The area is about 135 acres between Minnesota Drive, Highway 100, the former Fred Richard’s Golf Course, and Pentagon quads and towers. • The study looked at potential redevelopment scenarios within the whole 135 acre area. • An AUAR is an environmental review document that evaluates different development scenarios and includes a specific mitigation plan. • It gets updated every 5 years if no development occurs. • The AUAR 2013 update is smaller than the one from 2007 and is not as extensive because you are generally doing a check to make updates only if needed. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 7 of 10 • Per the rules, in preparing the original AUAR you need to look at the traffic, air, and noise analysis, storm water analysis, ecological analysis, wastewater analysis, water use analysis, parks and trails, historic and archeological resources, and erosion, sedimentation, and geologic hazard analysis. • This particular AUAR looked at the Comprehensive Plan, “Master Plan,” Maximum Commercial Build, and Residential Build, and with this update there was no need to change these scenarios. • When doing an update, it’s necessary to evaluate what has happened, evaluate stated mitigation measures, update environmental review, and agency and public comment period of 10 working days to state agencies and the public. • In the 2013 update, there were a number of areas that had redeveloped around the area. Within the study area, there was a 68,000 square foot medical office near France Ave. and Minnesota Drive that did happen within the study area. • There have been waste water improvements over the past 5 to 10 years to address deficiencies in the system, no water supply changes, 9 Mile Creek Water Shed has updated their rules, and updates on the traffic study. • The next steps are to review it with the Planning Commission and then go to the City Council in July. After City Council reviews it, it will be distributed for a 10 working day comment period. Comments will be reviewed and responded to. It will come back to the City Council to adopt or not adopt the AUAR update. If adopted, it will serve as the required environmental review through 2023. Discussions/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Planner Teague generally when do the conditions get applied. Teague responded they get applied with individual projects that are proposed. An example is the Pentagon Park quads and towers that had asbestos. They needed to dispose of it properly and received grants through the Met Council. Teague was also asked if the demolition or construction permit is when we would check off that all of these mitigation requirements are being met. Teague stated that it would be part of the initial development proposal that came in. • Commissioners asked Andi Moffit about the process regarding cumulative impact in regards to Edina working with Bloomington and potentially participate in a regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the Highway 100 and Highway 494 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. In context of doing a development, does that have to occur before development can happen or does stating it in this document satisfy the environmental goal so development could occur whether or not Edina actually does do these things. Moffit responded that we recognize traffic impacts and that we’re going to need to work with our neighbors on some of these issues. Highway 494 and Highway 100 area a regional item. Commissioners responded that the example required coordination with another government body outside Edina. It was asked that we don’t necessarily need to do those things per development, we need to assess per development whether or not they need to occur. Moffit responded affirmative. As redevelopment happens, at what point do we need to look at a bigger picture with some of those things. • Commissioners asked Moffit what the review process is like with the state or metro body after the City Council approves it. Moffit responded that the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is where these rules stemmed from piggybacking on the National Environmental Policy Act from many years ago. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is the state agency that oversees rules and guidance related to an environmental review, whether it’s an environmental assessment worksheet, AUAR, or EIS because Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 8 of 10 they set the rules based on the statute. In those rules and guidance, there are about 25 local state and federal agencies that would receive this. Commissioners asked if this process could take months with the state agency review and Moffit responded that the 10 working day period would stop that from happening. In rare occasions, an agency could file an official objection because of something in the document but there are specific timing within the rules that you work out the timing with the agency. • Commissioners asked Moffit for another example of where one of these may occur inside or outside of Edina and how frequent they are. It was also asked at what point do these go away or do they always get updated. Moffit responded that AUAR started as a popular tool 15 to 20 years ago giving cities flexibility to look at a study area. They aren’t as common as environmental impact statements or environmental assessment worksheets. The examples of cities that have AUARs are Minnetrista, Rosemount, and Maple Grove (large planning areas that you think are going to newly develop or redevelop). • Planner Teague was asked by Commissioners if this kind of document is something we would look at and use it to change some of our zoning or impact some of our different land uses in that area, especially in a Comprehensive Plan year. Teague replied that all the uses that are contemplated here are allowed under the current zoning, it’s a mixed development district that allows office, retail, and commercial. It was also asked by Commissioners if it would get as specific as POD-2, PCD, or PID. Planner Teague responded that and AUAR indicates land uses and does not get specific with zoning. Commissioners followed up with a question asking if everything is done under PUD and we don’t need to have land use. Teague explained that the zoning did change as a result of that project to the current mixed development district. The only change in land use was to allow residential uses, which were allowed in this district in the Comprehensive Plan. • Commissioners asked about the reported forecast under the traffic operations and the levels of service. Rickert responded that during peak hours, level E is considered an acceptable in a congested area. Level F is stop-and-go where we need to make changes. • Commissioners commented on their interest in the mitigation and the importance of improving the intersections. They would hope this information is put in front of all the right bodies of people and it seems very valuable. Rickert noted that they have had conversations with Bloomington and the 77th and Highway 100 interchange had been a subject that the city staffs have been talking about for an extended period of time. Planner Teague added a comment that they have talked to Bloomington about the sewer capacity because there are capacity issues there so they use this tool to help us convince Met Council that we needed to upsize some of those pipes to the South to handle some of these development scenarios. • Commissioners pointed out the transit section and asked when do we go beyond looking at auto traffic and talk about transit. With increased densities, at some point it was noted that not everyone might be able to have a car and asked how that is dealt with in this scenario. Ricker responded that the transportation plan would be more of a part of the Comprehensive Plan. We strictly looked at capacity and what is needed to handle that traffic on the roadway. As more development occurs, those types of things like widening the roads or looking at other forms of transportation will be discussed in more detail. • Commissioners noted the ground water mitigation at Pentagon Park problem and the desire to begin to surface and show it no matter what the use is, light industrial or housing. It’s not clear from reading the report if any of those ideas were addressed or should be. The Southdale small area plan group Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 9 of 10 previously discussed that the water is currently being buried in underground holding tanks and their idea is to express some of that water and have it turned into an appreciated feature. Planner Teague added that the idea may relate more to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to make sure we are taking care of the storm water issues or mitigating that above ground instead of below. This document is just outlining the measures that have to be taken in order to take care of the storm water. The alternatives can be said through the zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. A discussion ensued from Commissioners on how it is a difficult document to read and comment on. It is not necessarily project specific and more procedural. There is not anything specific to object to other than the great point about widening the roads and we are always looking at it in terms of cars. Planner Teague explained that the Planning Commission doesn’t need an official approve, but more for comments that can be forwarded on to the City Council. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Commissioner Thorsten introduced Mark Arnold as the new addition of the new member of the 50th and France work group be discussed. Commissioner Nemerov explained that a member of the group is unable to make the working group meetings due to the time of day. The Commission believes that an applicant would do an outstanding job. The Commission would like to propose that Arnold join the working group in place of the member who is unable to attend the meetings. Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved to approve the additional member to the 50th and France working group. Commissioner Thorsten seconded the motion. The motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: 7/25/2018 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Bennett recommended that in some of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan Update to make it clear upfront as to some of the “why.” All of the changes that come before the Planning Commission, often times the Commission doesn’t have good enough reasons, rational, or vision documents to refer to the community to say why we are accepting a change. In sections like economic growth, explain why the city needs to grow and why it’s essential for a community. There is a lot coming to the city that is greater than what the regulations allow for. Commissioner Lee noted that the documents during the Planning Commission working group should replace some of the different types of housing in Edina in the Comprehensive Plan. Lee said at this time the Commission should include why growth needs to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan because this is the shift that has occurred over the last 10 years that we need to pay attention to. Commissioner Lee further discussed the space to accommodate growth, specifically looking at spread-out and lower versus stacked dwelling units. Lee stated she would like to continue to have the working sessions because there is a lot that has surfaced over the last year that needs to be visited. Chair Olsen agreed with Lee’s statements regarding simple statements that make the talking points easier to understand. Commissioner Lee noted that there were several items the Commission would like to have put on the work plan list including the introduction of maximum impervious surface requirements, incorporating the energy environment checklist into the development proposal review process, and the traffic study summary. Lee also requested more advanced notice of proposals and work sessions to know what is on the docket. Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague when the goals for 2019 are set for the work plan. Teague responded that is takes place in the summer and submit in September. Teague also suggested that it can be discussed during the work session. Commissioner Miranda discussed the LimeBike bike share program starting soon and Clover Ride that started last week. Miranda pointed out the transportation studies that the Commission receives are quite variable and most tend to be very car focused. Miranda noted that the transportation studies need to reflect the higher densities and options other than just cars. Miranda noted the increased biking in the city and full bike racks at 50th and France. Chair Olsen discussed the open house for the greater Southdale working group on July 12th at the Public Works facility from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Nemerov discussed the 50th and France working group on July 10th at 7 p.m. at the Edina Community Lutheran Church. X. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsten moved to adjourn the June 27, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried. Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Kris Aaker As s is tant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Varianc e req uest B-19- 06 fo r 5053 Wind s o r Action 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 request as submitted. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he proposed project includes a house remodel and front addition which involves constructing an enclosed front entry and an attached two car garage. T he design requires a remodel of the existing single stall garage by adding a 2nd stall to the east and adding to the front of the home within the allowable limit of existing nonconforming front yard setback. To accommodate the proposed changes the applicant is requesting a variance due to the setback on the east property line. T he existing setback on the east side property line is 14.7 feet. T he zoning code requires a 10 foot side yard setback. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Applicant Submittal Staff Memo Engineering Memo Aerial Maps PONCHLIGHT.131Z DESIGN ; BUILD, REMODEL 35 DEER HILLS DRIVE, NORTH 05115, MN 55127 PorchLight HOMES 612.360,0286 JORDAN PORCHLIGHT.IITZ KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, MASTER SUITES, LIVING ROOMS, DIEING ROOMS, PORCHES, GARAGES, SUNROOMS, WINDOWS, DOORS, SIDING, FLOORING, ADDITIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION. The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. This Variance Request is to build a two stall garage to allow the the residents to park their cars and store other items in the garage and off the street and driveway and from along the side of the house. Their intent is to improve the appearance of the outside of the house to match the other like homes in the neighborhood. At this point the existing garage is not even large enough to park a single car. The variance is to encroach 4,8' over the existing side yard setback of 10', with an over all 54sqft building encroachment on the rear corner only. The front corner of the garage is well with-in the side yard setback, about 14' from the lot line. The ability to park two cars in a garage will improve the over all aberrance of thiem4inrbopkwilhogt affecting the character of the neighborhood. APR 1 2019 Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district TY Oh EDNA This lot has pie shape, which is wider on the front then the back. If the lot was closer to being square there wouldn't be a need for a variance, as is the case in other neighboring homes. Most hdme in this neighborhood have a two stall garage, which allows them to park and store there items out of sight. Also, most of the other homes in this neighborhood are built to the older side yard setback of 5'. The homeowners purchased this house 5+ years ago with the intent to add onto the existing garage for this purpose. Now that they have saved enough start this project they are faced with the new setback of 10'. They have made the changes to the garage to not exceed beyond 5' and have made the effort to accommodate the restrictions of this tight lot. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance The intent of the zoning is not to make the homes in this neighborhood feel to tightly packed together, to allow space between there homes, Which, as you can see, that the appearance from the street will show plenty of room on the side where the addition is proposed, giving about 14' from the lot line and over 20' from the neighbors house allowing the new addition not to feel crowed. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood Most homes in this neighborhood allow for a double stall garage to store their vehicle out of sight. This addition will give them that ability to improve the look of the neighborhood and their own house. As you can see that the appearance from the street will show plenty of room on the side where the addition is proposed and will not feel crowed, It is not there intent to create an eye sore, but to improve there community, Upper Level 811)1 IT "-Jr 15' - 10 1/2" Lower : o - f FinIsh b _ 15' - 101/2 Upper Leyel_ph 8' - 11 1/2" Lower 8 S3___ Finish Floor 0'- 0" li rt haorn ..', absoci.ites :,. r,: h le,: t•: Kurt Baum & Associates, 5100 Edina Architects Suite # 201 Edina, MN 55439 952.426.1932 ww,v.kudbaumassociates,com v..=, 1111=M3 ea . . .6,. (1) Z 0 (,) .... ,,.. 2 c o ...c -8- c co- f,- co L. LO 0 8 F co 2 Prciact /vdtvot KB Dram by TJ Checked by KB Ode 12.26.2018 Revisions Date Issued for ReNew 1226.2018 Exterior Elevations A201 Srde 1/4° = 1'-0" 6--) West `2:,/ 1/4" =1.-0" III Upper Level - 11, \-1° SII 15 - 10 1/2" _ Sof jit_A? Lower Soffit - 0" \-w Finish Floor 0' - 0" -7 ri) East 1/4" = 1.-0" PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 16 2019 CITY OF ECM'', _ Soffit 16 - 10 1/2" `r Upper Level 8' - 11yr Lower So_t_fiL6), FinIsILF1m_s, 8' - 0" V - 0" North -1,/ 1/4" = 1,-0" ,1-5•\ South vz/ 1/4" = 1'-0 DN KITCHEN 00 LP 9 ctokr FRONT ENTRANCE -0" NEW GARAGE 32 - QMain Level Plan = 1'4" 6, 24. - 0° MING ROOM _ ON DINING ROOM 16.. 0' - 00 BATH BATH PLANNING DEAiTh APR CITY OF r3-\ Upper Level Plan 1/4" = 1'-0" L lia,:n, .•*< G ,i ,:cci If es r .: b • 6 Kurt Baum & Associates, 5100 Edina Architects Suite # 201 Edina, MN 55439 952.426.1932 whmkurtbaumassociates.com a) Z 0 ..„. 0 ?..... ......._ 0 , C co 13 C CC/ r CO I-I-1 LO la5 0 LO E 0 co Prcjebt Architect KB Dr awn by TJ Checked by KB Dee 12.26.2018 Revisions Date Issued for ReVew 12.26.2018 Plans Al 01 Socde 1/4" = 1'-0" ZEKEN.0 EPI TPK9 MAUVE& EXIST/ND SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION AMMO' ARROIF - PLO, SILT FENCE/1110 ROLL 920 X 920.5 aZO agr25-' SF PROTECT ZUSIND TREA' OVSZ4L1 ORANCE COAST FENCE AROOM/ TREE 70 PROTECT) 4NOTA'• NO SIDNIFIC4NT TREES FILL BE DIS.TIIRBED* PLANNING DEPART M' APR 1 6 2019 CITY OF EDNA BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYD ELEV = 925.84 101 "—INSTALL SILT FENIX/B/0 ROLL --- PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXISTING HOUSE LOCA77GH -----SIDE YARD SETBACK (102 -----PROPOSED ADD/770N --4------BUILDING ENCROACHMENT AREA-54 SF 46. --r-----PROPOSED 70P OF FOUNDA77011=925 7 `-2--PROPOSED GU77ER SYSTEM TO DIRECT STORMWA7ER • 717 FRONT YARD (4) *9'?" 1 2 C) cz,‘96 / / / 6\ /'W1' / <00 PROPOSED-T_•-____ STOOP/STEPS \ \'2" yo b .." ......... 's '73 • 7.7 Ft` ------ `R 1"- 9- \ • * E=92Ly FFE=92344 EXISTINcv„.,%C.,4b. • HOUSE,...A4,f qf'5 6e: , /0 5.2 ,` • 0- \51 *9. \F 6 5.3•,kc., CP \ 1\. 'CP 1%) jV 't ot INSTALL SILT N B515'27" E FENCE/810 ROLL • ss I DOSING HOUSE \ 90. 45.0 z 16E`,1 '3 *1 / , to, , , Q l cE FEN ----- 1-r I IEREBY CERTFt THAT IRS BAN, SoRFICA11011 OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY NE CR VIM WY MCI SUPENSKIII AM 14AT I AY A DM IXENS9) IEER UNDER LAWS CF TRE STATE J,,' SR e 2716 LICENSE. DECEMBER 7. 2018 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN • Install silt fence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. • Sediment control measures must remain in place until final stabilization has been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short term construction activity but must be replaced before the next rain. • A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the site and a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inch rock extending at least 50 feet from the street into the site and shall be underlain with permeable geotextile fabric. The entrance shall be maintained during construction by top dressing or washing to prevent tracking or flow of sediments onto public streets, walks or alleys. Potential entrances that are not so protected shall be closed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from the site. • Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing storm sewer inlets in accordance with the city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided on all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction of the inlet. Inlet protection must be installed in a manner that will not impound water for extended periods of time or in a manner that presents a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. DURING CONSTRUCTION: • When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be placed to prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 days, they shall be seeded with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. • A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of construction debris. These dumpsters shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. • A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with I\ CA requirements. • Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as solid waste. • Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events and shall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection. • Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and if litter or soils has been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting the site in the rock entrance areas. • Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properly maintained. • If it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pump discharge shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can filter the water before it leaves the site. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 21, BLOCK 1, WESTCHESTER KNOLLS, HENNEPIN CO., MN. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. All survey data, such as elevations, building location, building dimensions, setbacks and various other information was provided to us and is based on FRANK R. CARDARELLE proposed survey, dated May 7, 2018. 2. All design aspects of this proposed site plan are based off of the provided survey. It is assumed that all provided survey data is correct. 3. We did not perform any survey work related to this project and have not verified the provided survey data. 4. Elevations shown are based on the datum shown on the provided survey and relate to the benchmark listed on said survey. Use that benchmark ond check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 5. Note that all existing building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines are as shown on the provided survey by FRANK R. CARDARELLE. FLOOR ELEVATIONS EXISTING FIRST FLOOR = 923.10 EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR = 921.70 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR = 923.10 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR = 921.70 AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE FRONT OF PROP. DWELLING = 921.4 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE (PER FRANK R. CARDARELLE SURVEY) HOUSE 900 SQ. FT. DECK 340 SQ. FT. DECK CREDIT -150 SQ. FT. TOTAL EXISTING COVERAGE 1,090 SQ. FT. AREA OF LOT 6,856 SQ, FT. LOT COVERAGE 15.9% (EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE OVER 32' FRONT YARD SETBACK = 5 SQ. FT.) PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE (PER FRANK R. CARDARELLE SURVEY) HOUSE 1,363 SQ. FT. DECK 340 SQ. FT. DECK CREDIT -150 SQ. FT. TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE 1,553 SQ. FT. AREA OF LOT 6,856 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE 22.7% (PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE OVER 32' FRONT YARD SETBACK = 7 SQ. FT.) • Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days after the site is first disturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding wills Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. • Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins and additional silt fencing as deemed necessary to control erosion. SITE WORK COMPLETION: • When final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod an "as built" survey shall be done per City of Edina requirements to insure that grading was properly clone. • When any remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completed including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. • When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. • Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a minimum 2% slope away from proposed building. 0 20' 40' 17917 Highway 7 P.1innetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952)474-7964 Web: vtww.advsur.corn DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION ADDED 4-9-19 REVISED GARAGE ADD. & ADDED SIDE YARD SETBACK 5053 WINDSOR AVENUE EDINA, MN DATE DATE SURVEYED: MAY 7, 2018 SURVEYED BY: FRANK R. CARDAR ELLE DATE DRAFTED: DECEMBER 7, 2018 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHEET SIZE 17" X 22" SHEETNO. 4:3 1 SHEETI OF 1 DWG ORIENTATION SCALE CLIENT/JOB ADDRESS PORCHLIGH HOMES CO. Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. 12-14-18 DIMENSIONS & 32' SttBACK LINE: DRAMANGNUMBER 181127 JR STAFF REPORT Date: To: From: Subject: May 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B- 19-06, A 4.8 foot side yard setback variance request to allow a garage expansion from a one stall to a two stall garage at 5053 Windsor. Information / Background: Jordan Kimball with Porch Light Homes, the applicant, has submitted a 4.8 foot side yard setback variance at 5053 Windsor Avenue on behalf of the homeowners. The proposed project includes a house remodel and front addition which involves constructing an enclosed front entry and an attached two car garage. The design requires a remodel of the existing single stall garage by adding a 2nd stall to the east and adding to the front of the home within the allowable limit of existing nonconforming front yard setback. To accommodate the proposed changes the applicant is requesting a variance due to the setback on the east property line. The existing setback on the east side property line is 14.7 feet. The zoning code requires a 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant is asking for a variance to provide a 5.7 foot setback on the east side of the property at the back corner of the new garage. The house is at an angle to a pie shaped lot that narrows to the back lot line. The front corner of the new garage will conform to the 10 foot side yard setback with the side wall angling closer to the back corner that was "clipped" to maintain a 5.2 foot side yard setback. 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. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The existing 6.856 square foot lot is located south of Windsor Ave. Currently the home has a small one car garage. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum two car garage. The owners are asking for a side yard setback variance to comply with the minimum two car garage requirement. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Low-Density Residential R- I, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. Generally, the proposed work does not alter existing drainage paths and the public storm sewer utility has capacity to accept the proposed additional run-off. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side — East Side - South— West Side — 34.65 feet 10 feet 25 feet I 0 feet 3 I . I feet (existing nonconforming) *5.2 feet 27.5 feet 9.7 feet (existing nonconforming) Building Coverage 30% 22.7% Building Height 30 feet —29' *Requires a variance STAFF REPORT Page 3 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: I) 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 practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home (built in 1950), at an angle to the east side lot line. A 2 car attached garage addition to the east side of the home could not be accomplished without a variance and requires that the back corner to be clipped to fit at a 5.7 foot side yard setback. The proposed addition is reasonable as it conforms to the zoning ordinance two car garage requirement. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The pie shaped lot and the house situated at an angle to the lot line is a design challenge that cannot be addressed without the benefit of a variance to the east side. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. There are many homes with two car garages in the general area of the subject property. Recommended Action: Approve a 4.8 foot side yard setback variance for the east property line at 5053 Windsor Ave. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: • Survey dated April 16, 2019 • Elevations and building plans date stamped April 16, 2019 • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Deadline for a city decision: June 15, 2019 DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez — Graduate Engineer RE: 5053 Windsor Avenue - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the proposed survey, stormwater management, and tree preservation plan revised 4/09/18. Grading and Drainage The proposed plan includes partial redevelopment/addition to the property, specifically upsizing the garage. The applicant has proposed a swale along the northeast property line that directs water to Windsor Avenue. The south half of the site drains to the neighboring southwest property. Storm water Mitigation City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 requires a grading plan but not stormwater mitigation for this project. Erosion and Sediment Control City of Edina Building Policy SP-002 requires erosion and sediment control precautions for this project. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required if the applicant proposes to replace or relocate existing curb cut. The site plan should show the removal of the existing curb cut. Public Utilities No comments. Other Items A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved grading plan. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www,EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 35 DEER PORCHLIGHT.81Z 612.360,0286 KITCHENS, BATRRORMS, MASTER sill.TES, LIVING HILLS DRIVE, NORTH OARS, MN ROOMS, DINING ROOMS, PORCHES, GARAGES, SUNROOTAS, WINDOWS, DOORS, SIDING, FLOORING, DESIGN ; BUILD, JORDAN@ 55127 REMODEL EOREDLIGFIT,BLZ ADDITIONS. NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION. PorchLight HOMES The Proposed Variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. This Variance Request is to build a two stall garage to allow the the residents to park their cars and store other items in the garage and off the street and driveway and from along the side of the house. Their intent is to improve the appearance of the outside of the house to match the other like homes in the neighborhood. At this point the existing garage is not even large enough to park a single car. The variance is to encroach 4.8' over the existing side yard setback of 10', with an over all 54sqft building encroachment on the rear corner only. The front corner of the garage is well with-in the side yard setback, about 14' from the lot line, The ability to park two cars in a garage will improve the over all aberrance of thpLiMghlobopdmigtout affecting the character of the neighborhood. APR 1 2019 Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but nt a applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district LA '1 OF ErjmIA This lot has pie shape, which is wider on the front then the back, If the lot was closer to being square there wouldn't be a need for a variance, as is the case in other neighboring homes. Most home in this neighborhood have a two stall garage, which allows diem to park and store there items out of sight. Also, most of the other homes in this neighborhood are built to the older side yard setback of 5'. The homeowners purchased this house 5+ years ago with the intent to add onto the existing garage for this purpose. Now that they have saved enough start this project they are faced with the new setback of 10'. They .have made the changes to the garage to not exceed beyond 5' and have made the effort to accommodate the restrictions of this tight lot. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance The intent of the zoning is not to make the homes in this neighborhood feel to tightly packed together, to allow space between there homes. Which, as you can see, that the appearance from the street will show plenty of room on the side where the addition is proposed, giving about 14' from the lot line and over 20' from the neighbors house allowing the new addition not to feel crowed. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood Most homes in this neighborhood allow for a double stall garage to store their vehicle out of sight. This addition will give them that ability to improve the look of the neighborhood and their own house. As you can see that the appearance from the street will show plenty of room on the side where the addition is proposed and will not feel crowed. It is not there intent to create an eye sore, but to improve there community, Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/13/2019 PARCEL ID: 3311721210091 OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 5053 Windsor Ave, Edina MN 55436 PARCEL AREA: 0.16 acres, 6,891 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: (- MARKET VALUE: Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/13/2019 PARCEL ID: 3311721210091 OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 5053 Windsor Abe, Edina MN 55436 PARCEL AREA: 0.16 acres, 6,891 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: ' ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (i ii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY / EWING HOUSE LOCATION --SIDE YARD SMACK (00) aca---PROPOSED ADD/DON ENCROADYMENT AREAA,Sd SF agO 1 -1---AROPGLSED TOP OF I FOUNDA770NA1217 --PROPOSED SlIT7ER =MY T G TO DIRECT SIORAIWATER . ID FRONT YARD cc) PLANNING DEPARTIviEN1 APR 16 2019 CITY OF El)(!‘!!', \ • 90. ~iE FENCE \ 1NSYAU arch N 85162- 7" E 45.0 - — PENCE/RIO /5011 EM SEW HOUSE BENCHMARK •-7 TOP NUT AYE ELEV = 925,84 —INSTALL SLY PENCE/SIO ROIL. g.t PROPOSED-1r.- smaP/sn s .40 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE (PER FRANK R. CARDARELLE SURVEY) HOUSE DECK DECK CREDIT TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE AREA OF LOT LOT COVERAGE 1.063 no, FT. 340 SQ. FT. .150 as. FT. 1,5539o. FT. 6,856 30. FT. 22.71. (PROPOSED BUILD NG COVERAGE OVER 32' FROM YARD SETBACK . 7 SQ. FT.) yew tummy Min 511555.5 .5 Mons (952) 474-7964 nmate:um. Advance Surveying & Englneeting, Co. REMSIes DESCRIPTION ADDED DIMENSIONSde 32' SETBACK LINE SED OARACE ADD.. ADDED SIDE YARD SETBACIC DWG ORIENTATION SCALE. CLIENT/JON ADDRESS PORCHLIGH HOMES CO. 20' 40' !!!!TITI=1 6053 WINDSOR AVENUE EDINA, MN DATE 12-14-113 trwitME 2716 1.115[110. DECEMBER 7 2018 DATE SUM/EYED MAY 7, 2018 SURVEYED BY: FRANK R. CAROARELLE LATE DRAFTED DECEMBER 7, 2018 SHEETTITLE PROPOSED SURVEY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & TREE PRESERVATIONPLAN DRAWING NUMBER 181127 JR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 21, BLOCK 1, WESTCHESTER.KNOLLS. HENNEPIN CO., MN, SCOPE OF WORK &LIMITATIONS: 1, All survey date, such es elevations, building location, building dimensions, setbacks and various other information ins provided to us and is based on FRANK R. CARDARELLE proposed survey, doted May 7, 201 S. 2. All design aspects of this proposed site plan arc limed 010 of the provided survey. It is assumed that all provided survey dots is correct 3. We did nor perform may survey work related to this project and have not verified the provided survey date. 4. Elevations shown are based on the datum shown on the provided survey and relate to the benchmark listed on said survey. Use that bona. erk and check at least one other feature shown en the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 5. Note that all existing building dimensions and building tie dimensions to dm property lines am as shown on the provided survey by FRANK R. CARDARELLE. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN • install silt fence/bio roil around the perimeter of the construction ergo. • Sediment control measures moat remain in place until final stabilisation has been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls any be removed to accommodate short term construotion activity but must be replaced before the next rain. • A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established nt each access point to the site and a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inch rock extending at least 50 feet from the street into the site and shall be underlain with permeable geotextile fabric. The entrance shall be maintained during construction by top dressing or washing to prevent tracking or flow of sediments onto public streets, walks or alleys. Potential entrances that arc not so protected shall be closed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from the site. • Contractor shall install inlet protection on nil existing storm sewer inlets in accordonce with the city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided on all proposed storm sower inlets immediately following construction of thc inlet Inlet protection muse be installed ins manner that will not impound water for extended periods of time or in a manner that presents a %mord to vehicular or pedestrian Waffle. DURING CONSTRUCTION: • When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shell be placed to prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed trees are to remain in place for more than 14 days, troy shall be seeded with Minnesota Department of 'fronsliortntion Sand Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. • A dumpster shell be placed on the site for prompt &Rosa of construetion debris. These dumpstars shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing onto ndjneent properties, Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in eccordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. • A separate container shall ho placed far disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes shell be disposed of in accordnnee with MPCA requirements. • Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as solid waste. • Sediment control devices shot' be regularly inspected and atm major minfrdl events and shall be clenned and repared as necessary to provide downstream protection. • Streets and other public ways shell be inspected daily and if litter or soils hes been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting the site in the rock entrance areas. • Moisture shall he applied to disturbed areas to control dust ns needed. • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properly maintained. • If it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pinto discharge shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can filter the water before it Jeeves the site. • Temporary erosion contra shall be instated no later than 14 days alter [tic site is first disturbed and shell consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 IlMacre followed by covering with spiny mulch. • Erosion control measures shown on Om erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contactor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment trope orbasins and additional silt fencing as deemed necessary to control erosion. SITE WORK CONIPLETION: • When final guiding hos been completed but before placement of seed or sod an "as built.' survey shall be done per City of Edina requirements to insure that grading was properly done. • When ony remediol grading has been completed, sed or seeding shall be completed including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. • When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. • Contractor shall maintein positive drainage of e minim., 2% slope away from proposed building. FLOOR ELEVATIONS EXISTING FIRST FLOOR = 923.10 EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR = 921.70 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR = 923.10 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR = 921.70 AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE FRONT OF PROP. DWELLING = 921.4 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE (PER FRANK R. CARDARELLE SURVEY) HOUSE 900 an. FT. DECK 340 no. FT. DECK CREDIT -150 SQ. FT. TOTAL EXISTING COVERAGE 1,090 no, FT. AREA OF LOT 6,856 no, FT. LOT COVERAGE 18.54 (EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE OVER 32' FRONT YARD SETBACK = 5 SQ. FT.) LE VEN/7 1317 .37717G CONTOUR 7/VG SPOT .37E72.770N PROP0.527.8 CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEPITION PRALI:10.E ARMY - SOA PENE.4,Viii0 ROW X 920.5 —WO - SF PRO7ECT827572E0 TIM? (Bvsraz ORANGE COHSE PENCE AROUND TREE 719 PROTECT) ^NOTE, NO A9Ta.117FlaINT .7REAI5' 11JLL BE SINTORIZED. sHEETszE 17re1122" SHEETNO NYS" Wes, OF, Revisions kowit.nerievo Dots 12.26.2018 PLANNING DEPAR7.4I1 APR 1 6 2019 CITY OF ololf11.0 culs17 , r i th 1 _ 1.0 11:i Upper Lev r , La26er45,_11 _ 114 1.0 15-10 1/2 Ur i i L , 0 , ,,,p3 Lower :t. ® Eat. 1.0 rt 111.01 /1 ef.noclat,s 0 l.lt 0040 , 31 7 a rt Ed B ir : A um rch & ite A o szta e t:1 Ed, MN 554351 052.426.1432 www.kurlinnurnassosieles.corn U) 2 0 02 Z 0 0 to LU 0 E 2,6.260,00 KS 210.021 TJ Bros/21 KB as, 1026.2010 Exterior Elevations A201 Sc. / DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez – Graduate Engineer RE: 5053 Windsor Avenue - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the proposed survey, stormwater management, and tree preservation plan revised 4/09/18. Grading and Drainage The proposed plan includes partial redevelopment/addition to the property, specifically upsizing the garage. The applicant has proposed a swale along the northeast property line that directs water to Windsor Avenue. The south half of the site drains to the neighboring southwest property. Stormwater Mitigation City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 requires a grading plan but not stormwater mitigation for this project. Erosion and Sediment Control City of Edina Building Policy SP-002 requires erosion and sediment control precautions for this project. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required if the applicant proposes to replace or relocate existing curb cut. The site plan should show the removal of the existing curb cut. Public Utilities No comments. O ther Items A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved grading plan. Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.C . To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:P reliminary & F inal P lat fo r Edina Market S treet Action 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 : R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the P reliminary & F inal P lat I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Preliminary Plat Approved Plans May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Preliminary & Final Plat for Edina Market Street Information / Background: The City of Edina and Edina Market Street LLC are requesting a subdivision to create lots consistent with the constructed Market Street project on the north side of Market Street. The purpose of the request is simply to create tracts for the uses and elevations within the project for the Edina HRA to sell Tracts B & C to the developer, and retain ownership of Tract A. (See the proposed RLS Plat.) There are no changes proposed to the approved development plan. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Duplexes, and apartments; zoned R-2 Double Dwelling District and PRD-4, Planned Residential District, and guided HDR, High Density Residential, and Low Density Attached. Easterly: Retail uses; zoned PCD-2, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Southerly: Retail uses on 50th; zoned PCD-2, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Westerly: Offices and the US Post Office; zoned PCD-2, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Existing Site Features The subject property contains the north parking ramp with two retail buildings. Planning Guide Plan designation: MXC, Mixed Use Center. Zoning: PCD-2, Planned Commercial District STAFF REPORT Page 2 Park Dedication No park dedication is required. This property was originally platted as 4 lots. The proposed division is to three lots. Therefore, park dedication has already been paid. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat of the lots on Market Street that creates tracts for the retail space within the parking ramp to be sold. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The resulting uses of the project meet all zoning ordinance requirements. Deadline for a City Decision: July 16, 2019 Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:S ketc h P lan R eview - 6950 F ranc e Avenue Dis cus s ion 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 : N o action requested I N TR O D U C TI O N : P rovide the applicant with non binding comments on a potential future development proposal. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Memo Applicant Narrative Propos ed Sketch Plans Site Location & Southdale Dis trict Pages City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: May 22, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 6950 France Avenue The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the site at 6950 France Avenue. The applicant would tear down the existing 28,000 square foot office building on the site and build a new 10,000 square-foot retail building with surface parking in the rear. The building would have entrances that face both France Avenue and the other facing the parking lot to the west. The building would be set 50 feet back from the paved portion of France Avenue per the Southdale District Experience Guidelines. The applicant has demonstrated several examples of how the 50-foot area could be designed, including a boulevard style sidewalk. The site is relatively small at 1 acre. The site plan demonstrates 62 parking stalls, 11 of which would be proof-of-parking. The future west promenade (suggested in the Southdale District Plan) could be provided for in the future along the west lot line. The request would require the following: 1. Site Plan Review; and 2. Side Setback Variance (See compliance table on the following page). The Planning Commission is asked to provide informal review comments on this potential future development application. The City does not have as much discretion with this proposal compared to recent Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. This is a near code compliant project with a request for a minor setback variance. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Below is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the existing PCD-3 Standards on the lot. Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-3) Proposed Lot line Street Building Setbacks Front – France Avenue Rear – West Side – North Side – South 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 40 feet 50 feet 50+ feet 25 feet* 35 feet Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 1-2 stories & 30 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .75 .23 Parking 62 62 spaces *Variances required Highlights/Issues: The proposed site plan has been designed using the Greater Southdale Area Framework. The plans provide a pedestrian entrance to the building facing France Avenue; there would be 50 feet of green space, landscaping, boulevard style sidewalk between the building and the paved portion of France Avenue. The proposed building height meets City Code requirement. A traffic study would be required; although the size of the proposed building is much smaller than the existing office on the site. Sustainability. The applicant has been asked to respond to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire within their formally submitted plans. The future west promenade (suggested in the Southdale District Plan) could be provided for in the future along the west lot line. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 1 6950 France Av. So. Redevelopment New Retail Building May 7, 2019 Overview: The existing multi-story office building at 6950 France Av So. is at the end of its useful life. Our team is proposing redevelopment of this highly visible property with a new retail building that fits the city’s vision for an energized France Avenue experience. No rezoning is needed. Development Team: Developer/Owner: Luigi Bernardi, dba Arcadia on France, LLC Architect: Edward Farr Architects Civil / Landscape: Loucks At A Glance: Site Area: 43,594 sq ft / 1.0 acre Zoning: PCD-3 Proposed Redevelopment: New 10,000 sq ft single story retail building, 30 ft high. Proposed Parking: 51 Stalls plus 11 Proof-of-Parking stalls. Street Rooms and the Enhanced Pedestrian-Oriented Public Realm: Our small site fronts the France Av. spine on the east; and on the west it backs up to a future ‘West Promenade’, a north- south woonerf style Living Street conceived in the draft edition of the city’s Design Experience Guidelines. Those guidelines call for buildings along France Av. to be setback from the curb 50 ft to allow for an engaging pedestrian-oriented experience. We will provide a variety of urban landscape strategies in this active zone to promote pedestrian engagement; refer to our Site Concepts A, B & C along with the Site Example sheets showing pictures of different types of products and design solutions that we are choosing from. A selection of these elements will be presented during Site Plan Review. We are encouraging our tenant prospects to participate in this front yard engagement as well, by possibly providing outdoor furniture display items that could integrate with our plaza space. A future ‘West Promenade’ could offer an interesting shared circulation experience when enough adjacent redevelopment occurs to create such a public way. We have provided a voluntary rear yard parking setback to allow for such future improvement. Building Design: The building design is purposefully Modern Classic style, featuring extra-large showroom windows for the tenants on all four sides. We have followed the guidelines to have ‘four- sided’ architecture, with a suggested 75% transparent façade and 20 ft tall ceilings. The façade materials have not yet been selected; but we intend to comply with the PCD-3 district requirements for exterior materials; or substantially similar quality materials in keeping with the France Av cachet. The parapet wall of the building has been extended up vertically to screen the rooftop HVAC units. 2 Setbacks: The redevelopment complies with all but one setback requirement. Our variance request is for the north building setback from W. 69 ½ St. ROW; where we are approx 16 ft to the building. Note that we are improving the south building setback significantly (35 ft vs 14 ft now). We are also converting the northerly row of 11 parking stalls that are partially within the W. 69 ½ St ROW, to green space with landscaping; and designating those stalls as proof-of-parking. Vehicular Access: This property is mid-block between W. 69th St and W. 70th St. The primary access and egress are from a short public way named W. 69 ½ St, which only serves southbound traffic along France Av. Northbound traffic is prohibited from turning into W. 69 ½ St due to the median separator. The property has been granted ingress and egress easements through the Kinderberry Hill Child Development Center, 3950 W. 70th St., located southwest of the subject property. Further, as part of this redevelopment project, we will establish a small ingress and egress easement through the BMO Harris Bank property, 3905 W. 69th St., located northwest of the subject property. This new ingress and egress easement will connect our parking lot entrance to the end of the W. 69 ½ St. ROW. Parking: 51 parking stalls are proposed, plus another 11 proof-of-parking stalls, to meet the 62 stall total required for Retail buildings <25,000 sq ft. A bike rack will be provided to encourage ridership. One small format loading berth is provided for deliveries as required. Site and Building Signage: We will have one freestanding monument sign along France Av, meeting the 100 sq ft size limit. Tenant wall signs will be mounted on the building with individual letters, likely backlit with LED illumination. Directional signage for internal circulation will be ground mounted signs on posts. Traffic Study: A traffic study will be conducted for the new development. By comparison, the existing use is a 28,000 sq ft office building vs the new use of 10,000 sq ft retail space. Utilities: The property is already served by water, sewer, gas and electric. Storm water management will be significantly improved by the addition of an underground storm water treatment system for water quality and rate control, in compliance with Nine Mile Creek watershed requirements. Community Benefits from the New Project 1. Re-energize this tired site with greater pedestrian participation and building transparency. 2. The old office building is outdated / obsolete. The site is ready for a fresh, new development. 3. Embraces the Street Room concepts of transitional building scale on the west side of France Av. towards the Cornelia and building mass / height appropriate for the neighborhood adjacency. 4. Promote sustainable design strategies, such as visible / creative storm water collection, energy efficient construction and lighting, possible use of solar or a green roof on top. 5. New rear yard parking setback allows for future implementation of the West Promenade woonerf-type living street, per the draft Design Experience Guidelines. 6. Brings high-end retailers with engaging storefronts to the France Av. corridor. 7. Significant improvements to storm water management. 8. The redevelopment uses existing utilities and roads in the community. Urban planning considers this good stewardship to reuse existing sites with current infrastructure. 6950 France Avenue Redevelopment 05/08/2019 Retail Building CLIENTPROJECTARCHITECTDATE SHEET NO. A 1 6950 France Avenue Redevelopment 05/08/2019 Retail Building CLIENTPROJECTARCHITECTDATE SHEET NO. A 2 N 6950 France Avenue Redevelopment 05/08/2019 Retail Building CLIENTPROJECTARCHITECTDATE SHEET NO. A 3 0 40'80' N 6950 France Avenue Redevelopment 05/08/2019 Retail Building CLIENTPROJECTARCHITECTDATE SHEET NO. A 4 France Avenue 69th-1/2 AvenueStormwater Feature Signage Pergola Seat Walls Bike Racks Specialty Paving Multi Tenant Retail Building 9,600 SF APRIL 12, 2019 France Avenue 69th-1/2 AvenueStormwater Feature Signage Steps Bollard Lighting Bike Racks Specialty Paving Fire Pit & Display Multi Tenant Retail Building 9,600 SF APRIL 12, 2019 France Avenue 69th-1/2 AvenueStormwater Feature SignageBridge Bollard Lighting Specialty Paving Seat Walls Multi Tenant Retail Building 9,600 SF APRIL 12, 2019 Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.B. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:S ketc h P lan R eview - 4404 Valley View R oad Dis cus s ion 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 : N o action necessary I N TR O D U C TI O N : P rovide the applicant nonbinding comments on a potential future development application. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Memo Propos ed Plans Applicant Narrative Approved Edina Flats Plans SAP Pages Site Location City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: May 22, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4404 Valley View Road The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to revise the approved site plan for 4404 Valley View Road, which is part of the Edina Flats project. The proposed change would be from the approved four-unit, two-story condo, to a three-story 13,620 square foot commercial building. The applicant states in their attached narrative that the construction cost of a four-unit condominium with underground parking is not financially feasible to construct on the site. The small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2 stories and 30 feet maximum. The proposal is for 3 stories and 38 feet. The applicant would tear down the existing 1,400 square foot commercial building and build the 13,620 square foot office. Parking for the building would be on the first level with 20 parking stalls. If the site were developed with entirely office uses, 68 stalls would be required. If the first level were to be retail uses with office above, 74 parking stalls would be required. The proposal would be significantly short parked. The site is currently zoned PCD-1, Planned Commercial District. Retail and office are a permitted uses. The request would require the following: Site plan review; A parking stall variance from 68-74 spaces to 20 stalls; A building height variance from 30 feet to 38 feet; and Building setback variances (See table on page 2). The following page provides a compliance table that demonstrates how the proposal would comply with the existing PCD-1 Standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Lot line Building Setbacks Front – Valley View Front – Oaklawn Side – North Side – West Drive Aisle West Drive Aisle North 38 feet 38 feet 38 feet 38 feet 10 feet 20 feet 3 feet* 11 feet* 6 feet* 20 feet* 1 foot* 6 feet* Building Height 2-stories & 30 feet 3 stories & 38 feet* Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1.2* Parking All Office - 68 ½ office/retail - 74 20 spaces proposed* *Variances required Highlights/Issues: Proposal is significantly short parked. Staff would be concerned about parking spilling out into the adjacent neighborhood. A parking and traffic study would be required. Proposed height exceeds the small area plan and city code requirement. The building does not transition to the single family homes to the north. There would be improved sidewalks and an increase in greenspace from what exists on the site today. Sustainability. The applicant will be required to respond to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire within their submitted plans. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 k 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com scale: 1/32" = 1'-0" 04.01.2019 a-5.8 Edina Flats commercial design - option 8 4404 Valley View Road Edina, MN 55424 STAIR TENANT 6,000 5F ELEv STAIR STAIR PARKING Is STANDARD I ADA SLE STAIR ENTRY 1,44 114 .1 ik,b4 GROUND LEVEL UPPER 2 LEVELS OAKLAWN AVENUE pio -pci:p-qp-o:cop,og ti.0.11.1,1.11.1J41.11 Ib ,1) kl-at p-41-0 a'0 D-E1 0-0-:0-)0.015r0 LEGEND TURF GRASS NO MOUJ NATIVE GRASSES DECORATIVE GRASSES I-IARD5CAPE 0 SCREENING SHRUBS (DS ) DECORATIVE SHRUBS 0 LARGE OVERSTORY TREE ST SMALL OVERSTORY TREE LANDSCAPE PLAN AQ :ly I" = 30' -0" Edina Flats landscape plan scale: 1/32" = 1%0" 04.19.2019 4404 Valley View Road Edina, MN 55424 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com AL-1 EDINA FLATS NEW HORIZONS (PROPOSED) 'T I it edina flats - elevation from valley view massing study k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanekcorn t Issued 4.18.2019 111111111111111M111111111 (PROPOSED) EDINA FLATS NEW HORIZONS edina flats - elevation from oaklawn ave t n k Issued 4.18.2019 massing study architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com NEW HORIZONS (PROPOSED) edina flats - elevation from kellogg ave massing study Issued 4.18.2019 architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com t k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www tanek. corn Issued 4.18.2019 edina flats massing study t k architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tenek.com Issued 4.18.2019 edina flats massing study ii architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project management 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Mpls, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com April 25, 2019 Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Edina Flats Building One at 4404 Valley View Road, Edina, MN Change to Commercial Building PROJECT NARRATIVE BACKGROUND: The Edina Flats project is a recently approved residential development of 5 buildings. Building 1 is located at 4404 Valley View Road. Buildings 2 through 5 are located at 4416 Valley View Road. Buildings 2 through 5 are currently under construction. The complex designs of buildings 1 and 2 (particularly the underground parking structures) have resulted in construction costs that are and would be significantly higher than what was expected and budgeted when the project was approved. Building 2 consists of six units with two units on each of the three levels and underground parking. The excavation and construction associated with the underground parking structure are the primary drivers of the higher-than-expected construction costs. Building 1 design is very similar to building 2; however, it has two fewer units because it has two levels with residential units rather than three levels with residential units. The additional two units make the construction and completion of building 2 financially viable. At current and expected sales prices, the cost to construct building 1 is not financially viable because the cost of the underground parking structure will be spread over four units rather than six units. The developer is committed to making the entire Edina Flats project a success and that has prompted the reevaluation of Building 1. The market response to the pricing of Edina Flats has been consistent. As a result of the market's response and the developer's belief that the higher-than-expected construction costs cannot be absorbed by raising the sales prices of the remaining units, we are now proposing to convert the development of 4404 Valley View Road back to Commercial Use. This conversion would keep with the previous commercial use of the site (formerly the Burley Site) and be consistent with other retail and commercial buildings near the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road. THE BUILDING, SITE AND LANDSCAPING: The proposed commercial building is three above ground stories that will comprise two levels of commercial space over one level of enclosed parking. Each level will be approximately 6,810 SF for a total building size of 20,430 SF. The building height will be about 38 feet, which will be below the adjacent proposed and approved New Horizon building, and similar to Building 2 of Edina Flats that is currently under construction. Design features of the proposed building will resemble those of the previously proposed and approved buildings 1 through 5 of Edina Flats. Materials will be similar, and character will be modified to accommodate a more commercial bent, primarily with more glazing and perhaps less porches. 20 enclosed parking spaces are proposed. Vehicular ingress/egress is proposed at two locations; one along Oaklawn Avenue, and one along Valley View Road. The building could be for a single tenant, or 2 to 4 tenants; the developer could potentially be one of the tenants. Landscaping design will be like the previously approved design for Building 1 — see proposed Landscape Plan. BUILDING 1 DATA COMPARISON — PROPOSED VS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED: BLDG. 1 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. 1 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL Use Residential Office/Commercial Parking Deck Partially below grade At grade Parking Spaces 12 20 Building Footprint 6,350 SF 6,810 SF Number of Stories 2 1/2 Story above grade 3 Story above grade Height @ SW Corner 29'-0 38'-0 Height @ NE Corner 24'-0 33'-0 SETBACKS East (Oaklawn) 16'-0 to 19'-0 11'-0 to 15'-0 South (Valley View) 4'-0 to 6'-0 4'-0 to 25'-0 West 31'-0 to 32'-0 North 5'-0 to 7'-0 7'-0 Building Location Required vacation of public Right- of-Way Located entirely on lot — No vacation needed LANDSCAPING Trees 10 overstory trees 11 overstory trees Shrubs 40 shrubs 55 shrubs Grass Alternating areas of turf, no mow grasses, and decorative grasses Alternating areas of turf, no mow grasses, and decorative grasses Landscape design @ City owned right-of-way property @ east side and southeast corner? Yes Yes Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.C . To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Liz O ls on, Adminis trative S uppo rt S p ecialist Item Activity: Subject:S ketc h P lan R eview- 4388 F ranc e Ave. Dis cus s ion 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 : N o action necessary. I N TR O D U C TI O N : P rovide the applicant nonbinding comments on their application. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Memo Propos ed Plans Applicant Narrative SAP Pages Site Location CITY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: May 22, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review — 4388 France Avenue The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to build a two-story 11,800 square foot addition, with 31 underground parking stalls to the existing two-story 9,350 square foot building at 4388 France Avenue. The proposed uses in the new building would be a childcare and pre-school; there would be seven staff members and 136 students. Existing uses include a children's clothing store, a salon and a co-working space. The total square footage of the building with the addition would be 21,182 square feet. The small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2-3 stories on the west side of the site. The proposal is for 2 stories and 28 feet. The site is currently zoned PCD- 1 , Planned Commercial District. Day Cares are a permitted use. The request would require the following: â Site plan review â A parking stall variance from 70 to 58 stalls; and â Building setback variances (See table on page 2). The following page provides a compliance table that demonstrates how the proposal would comply with the existing PCD-1 Standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO CITY OF EDINA Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-I) Proposed Lot line Building Setbacks 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet I 0 feet 20 feet 0 feet* 100+ feet 6 feet* 5 feet* 3 foot** 3 feet** Front — 44th Street Front — France Side — North Side — West Drive Aisle/Parking - West Drive Aisle/Parking - North Building Height 2-stories & 30 feet 2 stories & 28 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 .85 Parking Retail/Office — 56 stalls Day Care — 14 stalls 70 stalls total Required 58 spaces proposed* *Variances required **Existing condition Highlights/Issues: â Staff has concern over the configuration of the north parking lot. Without access to 44th, it would be difficult to turn around to get back out to France Avenue, especially for the first eight stalls that are diagonal parking. â Give to Get. The applicant has indicated in their narrative that the "give to get" items would be underground parking, enhance landscaping and sidewalk features. The applicant should further address the give to get to include providing a more graceful transition to adjacent properties. â A parking and traffic study would be required. The proposal is short parked. Staff would be concerned about parking spilling out into the adjacent neighborhood. â The proposal does eliminate the western surface parking lot, and creates underground parking. â Sustainability. The applicant will be required to respond to the city's Sustainability Questionnaire within their submitted plans. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO CITY OF EDINA The proposal preserves the existing building on the site. City of Edina o 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 w,f • 1 a t t Ii --Ts %r. (T. E -51 --- O - L Vis, - _La : s r :m1711r& f —Eir - OTT-21_=...2Pia prv.ty,a & .ply" tia I& ;r14‘ Arl-A froL_sciLrapt, •rairgivit*-1 7.1w rpt-r-4 irgnzirt w- JR),44i-No ,a.,•;/0- q$14-dF,0,211 !. 11‘'. r • ivirirL “._ grert, • cif clima Menttepio-OretfOGI116%i813 HN Ae. 67a1 kitikill& MD M4 E 1 . ..ii, , P-42 , fray ro--0 ''' b - 14- J. .' ,j_..,e 1 ; ,i .'r Zoning 1 in = 376 ft Zoning R-1 R-2 PRD-1 PRD-2 PRD-3 PRD-4 T1 PRD-5 PCD-1 PCD-2 PCD-3 PCD-4 POD-1 POD-2 RMD PID PUD APD PSR-4 MDD-4 MDD-5 MDD-6 W+E S March 30, 20: Map Powered by DataLink PROJECT INFO. SITE LOCATION: ADDRESS: 4388 FRANCE AVE. S / 3916 44TH STREET W. / 3918 44TH STREET W., EDINA, MN SITE REGULATION: ZONING DISTRICT: PCD-1 ZONING DEFINITION: PLANNED COMMERCIAL . lititit: ick 141mirsiras— S. .---..: ....104,,O, W "":,!':'''' 6 i 4 9 •% t .,,,,,. — n +. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 4388 France Ave CO 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 Mralirik TUSHIE MONTGOMERY A R C i l 1 T L C S 4388 FRANCE AVE 4388 FRANCE AVE. S EDINA, MN 55410 DEVELOPER: 44th At France LLC. 408 N 1st st #110 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Andrew John Commers andrew@commerspd.com John D. Gross broker@johndgross.com ARCHITECT: TUSHIE MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS 7645 LYNDALE AVE SOUTH, #100 612.861.9636 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 DAN PELLINEN, ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER: CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W. 35TH ST., #200 612.615.0060 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 PATRICK SARVER psarver@civilsitegroup.com SITE INFORMATION: SITE AREA: 24,915 SQ.FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 4,675 SQ.FT. HEIGHT ALLOWED: BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY REQUIRED SETBACKS BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED 2 STORIES OR 24 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS HEIGHT EXISTING BUILDING: 36.2 FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK: 35 FEET* SIDE YARD SETBACK: 25 FEET* REAR YARD SETBACK: 25 FEET* *OR THE BUILDING HEIGHT, IF GREATER EXISTING NEW TOTAL BASEMENT 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR -OTAL SF 4,675 SF 4,675 SF 4,675 SF 14,025 SF 13,915 SF 5,136 SF 6,696 SF 25,747 SF 18,590 SE 9,811 Sf 11,371 Sf 39,772 SI PARKING SUMMARY GARAGE PARKING: ON-SITE PARKING: TOTAL PARKING: 31 PARKING STALLS 27 PARKING STALLS 58 PARKING STALLS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING: 4D PARKING STALLS (33 STALLS REMOVED, 7 TO REMAIN) Cover Sheet //01 05/01/19 EXISTING 2 STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 STORY FRANCE AVENUE PROPERTY LINE -1,61- NNS1 44-1\-15\RO 0 20 s 40 Site Plan 05/02/19 T U I E MONTGOMERY ARCIiJTLCTS 4388 France Ave 0 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 EXISTING 2 1 JS TORY RESIDENTIAL UILDING •••••••0, GARAGE VENTING PARKING COVERED BY GREEN ROOF PROPOSED PARKING 19 STALLS cV D TRASH/ RECYCLE SCREENING GATES 1-1 EXISTING PARKING 08 STALLS TRASH/ RECYCLE 1°5 0 PROZERDLLINE 03 10 4 PR P•SED GARAGE 31 STALLS AREA = 13,915 SF /\ 09 PROPERTY LINE 24' BUILDING ABOVE 111111111 1 11111111111111 LJJ_ LIILJ 11_1 8' - 6" 04 04 E 3 STAIR 1 MEWED •••••• PROPERIY IE 02017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. TUSH1E TGO,MIE Y ARCHITECTS 4388 France Ave Level -1 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 1/18' = V-0" 05/02/19 T U S i I E ONTGOMIERY A RC 111T ECTS 63' - //04 Level 1 1/16" = 1'-0" 05/02/19 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES. INC. 4388 France Ave 4388 France Ave 5, Edina, MN 55410 RETAINING WALL STRUCTURE OVERHEAD PARKING COVERED BY GREEN ROOF PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA = 4,493 SF 108' - 0" UP D RAMP TO UNDERGROUND P z 2 0 U 'Ili' 33' - 0" GARAGE VENTALATION SHAFT .if4 HI - 4 I EXISTING RX1NG 08 STALLS it 4388 France Ave 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 Level 2 k 05 1/16' = 1'-0" 05/02/19 01 T U S Ii I E MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS 0 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGONIERY T ASSOCIATES, INC. GREEN ROOF OUTDOOR SPACE AREA = 3,950 SF PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA = 6,18? SF N I L F 1 I I L _ J. ROOF HATCH 1/4" : 1' PROPOSED ROOF 0 1/4" : 1' . PROPOSED MECHANICAL LOCATION WITH SCREENING 7- 1/4" : 1' .1., -• •..1=14 ,. G...W,m....m...:_ `111W, -: ,... ..: 4 7.7 ......-=.- • '' wm.. 'ink,' •mL---,--riMik.4k,‘WaMkIgari L-.---'_.'-It-r.-----._=,•._--.0re',_,L_----,_._.._...„zw.,.._„..__„,zij 1:1,..... ...„........„..„. _.,,,,, .....„......„.w...wm....,L,. . _...._,......„--,_„....,.........------,_ ,,_ ..._ -..._--......-. ... -....1 R ,.—.-- -E, __-m ..-. I m ,- , .21WW1 IA. WM I I Wil.lig I W ...— ‘ r ;Z.—.M.,...ZZ7j=-",. . ...... .—••=.----".w.sn-•=.•.A. ... ..-..', Z •,•. NIIIL. — ,Ltz,----,75_7_ ..„.,.,„... ....._ -., .-. ._-...... ., ...-,_.\.,.......,......=.,=ak...,-...=.,.........n.__,..._. „_„._, -._, .,.....m......,....,=..c-.___ ,„_, _...._-...„ w..1-7, 7;=====ar-II • • fitif .w.........-..m..........,,,-...11.....w...,1 , m I 6 L\ = 1.1 • , ..." u M & , 0 = k.'n -+_, ._.."-E I '..". -..--•...,''S.,•..-1!MIL.--' ,,L .'......‘' - I k I I 1'.1 ,.... 1 " 1.6\1,! m 1 : uM 2 .n,.1 i & .• ., 1...,,, , M a ..•.' 7 - ,-„... = _ 1 I 1 m . ,- ..,1.. . • .- ,.. 1 ei iii...• . . . .n- 1 ft•,..- I m . m i .....1 . m . .--1..... ,._.-, 1 ,.. mil w... _TEli a 1 I . -,•-..-.,..L.._.. .._:___—•.- i ...=,...m.....,...,AhLw _ . . . . _. _.n._ . ._ . . . ==. ....,. , l z_z m.., u r. Zz.,..w 1 , _,_, , 0. 7 -- „... _ _. = . ... , ,L ,s_.— . =2..... • .. .. .. :=1„.._ .L I ROOF 11 C .. W•" •.A..,AL ZIL% 1 - - -N .%7 r 1 rj k,N.. i O W\ ftnM 71 W I LI'm • I kiCtr ii I k. Vm .' ." • ,-'— ,m..." ,- .71 6 .G.'r -i ..•,'"M k. m.-uk. . . ." .'' .' -- .w7 I I ul G ..,,.al . L .' • q I 4 'IT ",...-.1:' ' .• . ,' ....0 —• '.-...'. ..•-.'•-• -M''-: .. ' E -...' • = .. m& ,— ..- -. W. . -- -.w.-1 k',W—Viii 1 ...74-tik ".i..7-..'...M.'. limMi....,,em,wnnNak ,mwiEgi g :a = n .'sal—m- . I .m'''i 6 .G.',Wm ." i G ..0 .. ' I G ...M LC . .. -.W. i ..--'1W..'-G a m ..N:m . ..e'i - - • -'-'' 7 C .. -..'M L .. ..`...' •••".. W`'W. "` NG...`SC.-.`.... Pl.. - "G. ......-.... .,-,' l I I I I I I J _____ L_I -- TOP OF WALL 928' 4'-0" FENCE GREEN ROOF OUTDOOR SPACE .1•••••• raiimmomi INNEN I r TIM7 I \ 4388 France Ave Roof 06 U s I iE MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S. Edina, MN 55410 1/16" = 05/02/19 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 07 Elevations / 05/01/19 PROPOSED BUILDING MASSING RETAINING WALL THIS WALL TO BE A PLANTED GREEN WALL North Elevation SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" PARAPET /924' - 2 1/4" Roof 922' - 2 1/4" 2nd Floor 01-- 911' - 4 1/8" 1st Floor 900' - 6" PARKING COVERED BY GREEN ROOF OPEN PARKING AT GRADE LEVEL East Elevation SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" PROPOSED BUILDING MASSING WOOD FENCE RETAINING WALL loll air 11111 1111i-1111111111 111111111V 1111'111,1111 11111;11 1111,i111,11 PARAPET / 924' - 2 1/4" Roof 922' - 2 1/4" 2nd Floor Au 911' - 4 1/8" 1st Floor ou 900' - 6" evel 1 EXISTING 897' - 6" 4388 France Ave I U 1-1 MONICOMERY ARCHITECTS PARAPET 0L 924' - 2 1/4" Roof 922' - 2 1/4" 1st Floor 900' - 6" 911' - 4 1/8" 2nd Fiscr_is, PROPOSED BUILDING MASSING PARAPET / 924' - 2 1/4" Roofs 922' - 2 1/4" THIS WALL WALL TO BE A PLANTED GREEN WALL /7 „,.----- 1111P1 111 1 Ili 11111-J11 MINI 111011111 E'711,-.11 West Elevation SCALE 1/16" = l'-0" 1st Floor 900' - 6" 911 - 4 1/8" 2nd Floor_s 1 South Elevation SCALE 1/16 = 1'-0" PROPOSED BUILDING MASSING 4388 France Ave Elevations //08 T U ] E moNTGomERY S 11 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 05/02/19 ©2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY &ASSOCIATES. INC. ARCHITECTS EXISTING 2 STORY RESIDENTIAL 'WILDING GARAGE VENTING D RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LI 0 PROPFRTY LIN PARKING COVERED BY GREEN ROOF 09 D \N TRASH [(5) AFD, (4) FRG: I NFILL EXISTING CURB CUT RELOCATE CURB CUT Si A SI‘ZE° PROPOSED PARKING 19 STALLS O PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2 STORY EXISTING PARKING 08 STALLS Io DO 0 FRANCE AVENUE EXISTING 2 STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING 4388 France Ave 0 2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 Planting Schedule Count ID Common Name Botanical Name Size 1 BOK Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa 3" Caliper Ball and Burlap 1 SKH Streetkeeper Gleditsia triacanthos 3" Caliper Ball Honeylocust var. inermis 'Draves' and Burlap 1. Deciduous Tree: 2 9 AFD Arctic Fire Dogwood Cornus stolonifera ' #5 Container Farrow' 3. Shrub: 9 8 FRG Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl #5 Container Foerster' 6 PMD Pardon Me Daylily Hemerocallis 'Pardon #1 Container „At,,Me' 4. Perenni 0' 10' 20' SCALE =1" =20'-0" Landscape Plan 09 MONICOMERY IJ I E ARCHITECTS 05/02/19 1 View From Southwest SCALE Context Aerial 1 4388 France Ave U 1-1 1 E MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS ©2017 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4388 France Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 05/02/19 4388 France Ave E INo NIGOMERY ARCM TECTS ©2011 TUSHIE-NIONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Context Photo / 12 05/01/19 4388 France Ave S. Edina, MN 55410 City of Edina Sketch Plan Review Building Addition Narrative 4388 France Avenue South May 1, 2019 44t h at France, LLC John Gross, Andrew Commers 4388 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55410 (612) 333-1560 Dear Commissioners and Council Members, In 2017, we purchased the 4388 France building from Ken and Donna Durr and have been so grateful to have the opportunity to carry it forward into a new era. Currently the site is a 24,915 square foot lot, on which sits a two-story building with a footprint of 4,675 square feet. The majority of the remaining space is currently an asphalt surface parking lot with 40 parking spaces. Our intended addition to this existing structure would add a two-story addition of 11,800 square feet and would have an underground parking ramp plus a covered parking ramp above which would be a green roof patio. Our finished project would have 58 parking spaces, of which 45 would be covered. The total areas above ground would be 9,811 square feet on the Main Floor, 11,371 square feet on the Second Floor, for a total of 21,182 square feet. In addition to underground parking, the basement will include the existing 4,675 square feet of storage and utility space. Current uses in the existing building are a boutique children's clothing shop, a new luxury salon, and a female-focused co-working space based out of Seattle that will open in June. The new building would be mostly occupied by a childcare and preschool Spanish Immersion Academy. It would be our intent to begin construction in the Fall of 2019, and we would offer valet parking for all tenants and their guests at existing surface parking sites in Edina and Minneapolis with which we have connections. In terms of the give to get request, please note on the plans the sidewalk landscaping, building greenery at roofs and walls. We have mostly eliminated an open surface parking lot, replacing it with a functioning new building and bringing parking underground and under covered structure. Furthermore, we are committed to the installation of sidewalk furniture and pedestrian-scale building lighting. Please see enclosed our very early, initial design including floorplans and block renderings. We look forward to discussing with you! The 44th/France Small Area Plan's standing is derived from a city's authority to regulate land use (e.g., growth and development) in order to protect the general welfare of its residents. The small area plan recognizes the authority of the City's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan to regulate various aspects of land use development. Specifically, the small area plan recognizes the height limit described in the Code of Ordinances and the limit on density that is outlined in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, analysis conducted during the small area plan study showed that the City's height and density limits have kept pace with neither current market demands nor the implications of rising property values within the study area as they bear on return on investment. These and other factors that reflect the realities of development speak loudly in favor of allowing building heights greater than two stories and densities greater than 12 dwelling units per acre. Recognizing this change in market conditions, this small area plan lays out an approach through which developers could be allowed additional height and/or greater density in exchange for specific improvements to the public realm. 44th/France Small Area Plan Guiding Principles An important element of this small area plan is its 11 guiding principles. The guiding principles were developed with input from community members at three Community Meetings and members of the 44th/France Work Group, who operated as a steering committee during the small area plan study. The guiding principles, summarized below and on the next page, reflect the community's vision for the small area and should be seriously considered by developers when his/her planning and architectural team prepares a proposal to develop property on the Edina side of the 44th/France commercial node. 44th/France Guiding Principles Guiding Principle 1: Safe and Inviting Guiding Principle 2: Community Gathering The area should be safe for people of all ages and all The small area should provide a place(s) for backgrounds and should be a visually attractive and people to gather and spend leisure time, whether diverse place that encourages regular use and in a commercial or public location, and foster a strengthens neighborhood identity community of learning. Flexible gathering space should be explored that can be programmed to accommodate a wide range of different uses. Guiding Principle 3: Circulation and Connections Guiding Principle 4: Neighborhood-Oriented The area should provide attractive and easily Business Mix identifiable infrastructure that accommodates There should be a mix of businesses that provides convenient and safe movement for a variety of goods and services to the neighborhood, including small transportation modes, including bicycling, walking, and offices and commercial uses. The amount and transit use. The area should also have safe and configuration of commercial space should be allowed to convenient non-motorized connections to nearby districts. Vehicular traffic should be managed to discourage cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. adjust in response to the market. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page vi Guiding Principle 5: Housing Housing should be provided in the study area to ensure choices for existing and future neighborhood residents. New types of housing may be provided, including multi- family dwellings (in mixed-use buildings with residential uses above ground level commercial or office space) or additional types such as courtyard housing, townhomes, and live/work housing. It is felt that the market will support the preferred housing types, which could include apartments and ownership options. Preferences should be the types that best support the city's affordable housing policy. Guiding Principle 7: Parking Parking should be hidden from view behind or beneath buildings on the west side of France Avenue. The large parking lot with multiple owners between Sunnyside and 44th Street should be reimagined as a "community parking facility" that accommodates parking for the study area (district). This community parking facility should be designed to double as gathering space and should have the flexibility to change over time, as other modes of transportation, such as ride-sharing, become more common and fewer parking spaces are needed. Guiding Principle 6: Height and Size of Buildings Building heights should be guided by the zoning ordinance. Additional height (up to four stories, at approximately 15 feet per story) may be considered, depending on their location and relationship to other buildings around them. (Building heights above the two story limit detailed in the existing zoning ordinance will be considered for approval if a developer agrees to implement study area-specific and project-specific improvements that are detailed in this small area plan. Guiding Principle 8: Streets and Sidewalks To create a gracious pedestrian environment, sidewalks should be widened as much as possible. Buildings should front onto the sidewalks, with few gaps and/or driveways breaking the street wall. Street trees and planters should be located between the curb and sidewalk. Furnishings should provide places to sit and dispose of trash and recycling. Vehicle traffic should be managed to maximize efficiency while maintaining safety for non-motorized users. Guiding Principle 9: Sustainability and Resiliency The 'urban forest' should be reestablished in the study area, and more efficient, district systems for managing storm water, harvesting energy and managing and recycling waste should be incorporated. Design for adaptability to changing needs and trends over time should be pursued. Guiding Principle 10 Visual Quality and Aesthetics in the Public Realm The public realm should include a high level of aesthetic treatments, such as enhanced sidewalk pavement, planters, and pedestrian level lighting. Utilities should not impede sidewalks and should be underground, where feasible. Property owners are expected to keep their properties economically viable and attractive until the market guides them to major changes. Guiding Principle 11 High Quality Design, High Quality Materials, Respect for Existing Aesthetics, and Innovations to Ensure Sustainability in the Private Realm High quality architecture is required in the study area, in terms of design, materials, and energy efficiency, which will contribute to sustainability. The design of remodeled and new buildings in the study area shall reflect attention given to balance, proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast and space. Materials used in the construction of remodeled and new buildings shall harmonize with materials and design features used in the area's existing structures. Innovated systems should be installed to help achieve energy efficiency. 44th/France Guiding Principles (continued) "Give to Get:" This small area plan outlines a process through which development and redevelopment proposals with heights between three and four stories and densities higher than 12 dwelling units per acre will be considered for approval. The process ("Give to Get") is based on the court-tested concept of cities' requesting dedications in exchange for development approvals. 2 A developer, in return for receiving a city's approval to develop land and realize a profit, agrees to donate to the city an amount of land or 2 Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal. 3rd 633, 644 (1971). Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page vii A. Building Height Limits Plan This plan establishes new height limits for the Neighborhood Node, shown on Figure 6. Generally: • Height Limits along France Avenue, Sunnyside Road, and 44th Street. Buildings that front on France Avenue may be allowed up to four stories high, not to exceed 60 feet. Buildings on Sunnyside Road and 44th Street may be allowed up to three stories high, not to exceed 45 feet. • Graceful Transitions to Surrounding Neighborhood. The transitions in height from a four-story maximum along France Avenue must result in a maximum height of two stories, not to exceed 30 feet, adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Likewise there must be a transition in height from a three maximum, along Sunnyside Road and/or along 44th Street, to a maximum height of two stories, not to exceed 30 feet, adjacent to the residential neighborhood. An exception to the graceful transition to a maximum of two stories along Sunnyside Road and 44th Street will be considered where the topography of a development site would place the height of a new three story building beneath the height of an adjacent residential home in the neighborhood to the west. Previously, the study area was covered by Building Height Overlay District 2 (HOD-2), which specified that "building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, whichever is less." This new guidance supersedes that previous designation. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 43 money needed to provide certain services and amenities necessitated by the anticipated influx of new residents or employees into the community as a result of such development. The rationale supporting "Give to Get" is that developers create new burdens on city services, and their developments can negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods (with increased traffic, for example). Therefore, they should offset these additional burdens through the dedication of land or the payment of fees. Cities, through the exercise of their authority to protect the welfare of their citizens, can impose these exactions, so long as they are reasonable and have a nexus to the development project. The City's standing to enter into "Give to Get" agreements with developers rests on the small area plan's Guiding Principles, Goals, and Policies, each of which was developed with input from community members during the small area plan study process. The involvement of community members in the process ensured that the principles, goals, and policies reflect community values and desires. It is the community's values and desires that demonstrate the nexus: 1) between a development or redevelopment and the impacts it creates and 2) between the development or redevelopment and the welfare of the entire Small Area and adjacent neighborhoods. What does a Developer have to Give in order to Get an Approval for Increased Height and/or Increased Density? The 44th Street/France Avenue Small Area Plan allows consideration for approval to be given to proposed developments where height exceeds the maximum stated in the Zoning Ordinance and/or where proposed density exceeds the maximum detailed in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. In such cases, consideration shall be given where: 1. Proposed heights are within a range of three to four stories along France Avenue and two to three stories along Sunnyside Road and 44th Street and/or 2. Proposed densities are above the maximum, but appropriate based on building height, lot area, and site configuration; and 3. The developer addresses and demonstrates a willingness, the means, and a commitment to invest in the public realm within the Small Area. Investment Commitment Categories Two categories of investment commitments have been identified and are outlined below: Category 1 - Required Investment Commitments and Category 2 — Discretionary Investment Commitments. A developer must contribute to (invest in) the public realm for each item listed under Category 1 in order for his/her development to be considered for additional height (up to three or four stories) and greater density (more than 12 dwelling units per acre). Category 1— Required Investment Commitments are further divided into two sub-categories: 1) Study Area-Wide Investments to the Public Realm and 2) Project-Specific Investments to the Public Realm. Category 2 —Discretionary Investment Commitments offer the developer a list of public realm improvements he/she can choose to invest in or not. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page viii Category 1— Required Investment Commitments • Study Area-Wide Improvements to the Public Realm:3 contribute to the costs of burying utility lines contribute to the costs of developing and maintaining and operating the proposed district parking facility/public gathering space contribute to the costs of constructing and maintaining small area pedestrian and bicycle amenities, access streets, and internal circulation streets serving the proposed district parking facility - contribute to the costs of treating stormwater in the small area contribute to the costs of treating surface water runoff that will result from construction of the proposed district parking facility contribute to the costs of installing and maintaining lighting and security measures at the proposed district parking facility - contribute to the costs of enhancing, installing, and maintaining pedestrian crosswalks contribute to the costs of designing and constructing recommended traffic calming devices along neighborhood streets west of France Avenue. contribute to the costs of constructing and maintaining transit shelters at bus stops on France Avenue • Project-Specific Commitments:4 improve sidewalks, install street furniture and pedestrian-scaled street lighting, and plant street trees and other vegetation adjacent and in proximity to the development - improve the transportation system immediately adjacent to the development (e.g., traffic control devices, traffic signals, constructed/reconstructed curbs and sidewalks, etc.) that will be required to mitigate impacts of traffic that is generated by a specific development implement traffic calming strategies and infrastructure immediately adjacent to the development to help ensure safety and security for motorized vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on streets in the small area - provide a graceful transition to the neighborhood - meet conditions of the City's affordable housing policy Category 2 — Discretionary Commitments implement travel demand management strategies to reduce automobile trip generation implement infrastructure and programs to encourage building users to ride the bus or ride bicycles (e.g., provide parking for bicycles) Study-Area Wide Improvements to the Public Realm are improvements that will be implemented throughout the entire Small Area. Developers within the study area will be charged a fee based on factors including but not limited to: proximity to the improvement and rough proportionality as to the use of the improvement. 4 Project-specific commitments include improvements to the public realm that are intended to: 1) mitigate the immediate impacts of a specific project on livability and/or 2) enhance livability directly adjacent to the project. They additionally include commitments to meet City of Edina goals. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page ix - implement state of the art methods and infrastructure for treating surface water runoff on the development parcel in an ecologically sound manner - implement shared parking strategies and facilities construct underground parking - provide vehicle-electric charging stations in garages where residential parking will be provided implement LEED building design standards and efforts to help ensure the City of Edina achieves its energy self-sufficiency goal provide public art - ensure high quality architecture, beyond that required in the Code of Ordinances Specific actions a developer will take and specific projects a developer will initiate and complete should be documented in a formal development agreement if a developer is allowed to exceed heights and densities stated in the Code or Ordinances and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 44th/France Small Area Plan Goals and Policies As mentioned, the community's vision for the 44th/France commercial node informed the development of the 11 guiding principles. In turn, the guiding principles informed the development of goals and policies for the small area. Goal development and policy formulation are critical steps in land use planning. Not only are goals and policies required by statute, but these two elements of the 44th/France Small Area Plan provide a basis for a community to make decisions about its future land use. In this sense, the goals and policies are bridges between the guiding principles (the community's vision) and action steps that will bring the vision to reality. Goals and policies outlined in the 44th/France Small Area Plan are described in detail in the following plan chapters. • Land Use and Urban Design Framework • Economic Vitality • Transportation Land Use and Urban Design Framework Goals and Policies Land Use and Community Design Goals: 1. Maintain and strengthen the core. 2. Ensure that buildings interact with the public realm. 3. Ensure that there are graceful transitions in building height between France Avenue and the adjacent neighborhoods 4. Promote flexible evolution of land uses 5. Minimize the impact of automobiles. Land Use and Community Design Policies: 1. The City will adopt the designation of Neighborhood Node (as shown in the Wooddale/Valley View Small Area Plan) to replace the previous designation of Neighborhood Commercial. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page x 2. The City will review development applications of all future projects within the boundaries of the 44th and France neighborhood node to ensure compliance with: • City of Edina Code of Ordinances, including Sec. 36-1214. Maximum Building Heights, • Other pertinent land use regulations, and Land Use and Design Guiding Principles outlined on pages 12 through 23 of this small area plan. 3. The City will consider new development that changes current and permitted land use scale and intensity by implement a process where a developer must invest in the public realm (both at the Small Area-wide scale and Project-specific scale) in order for the proposed development to be considered for approval. 4. The City will consider development proposals for approval where: - Proposed heights are within a range of three to four stories along France Avenue and two to three stories along Sunnyside Road and 44th Street; - Proposed densities are appropriate, based on building height and lot area; and - The developer addresses and demonstrates willingness, the means, and a commitment to invest in the public realm within the Small Area. Economic Vitality Goals and Policies Economic Vitality Goals: 1. Encourage property owners to meet to explore shared interests. 2. Explore the city's interest and capacity to participate in property acquisition and assembly. Establish city approach, goals and policies regarding potential participation in purchasing and holding property in the area. 3. Explore potential for employing a Business Improvement District or other mechanisms to support maintenance of shared parking and other public realm improvements. Be a supportive partner if business and property owners in the area choose to pursue options for shared improvements and maintenance. Economic Vitality Policies: 1. The City will support redevelopment of obsolete properties, site assembly and revitalization of the 44th and France node consistent with the small area plan and other city goals and policies including urban design, transportation, transit, housing, wellness, historic preservation, stormwater management and complete streets goals. 2. The City will use redevelopment tools to create public realm improvements including streetscape improvements, pedestrian and bicycle safety and amenities, public parking, utility and transportation improvements, storm water management and park, plaza or green spaces. 3. The City will maintain flexibility in deciding which redevelopment tools to use by considering a variety of factors including the quality of a development, its height, density and appropriateness for the market, tax base and the quality and character of public realm improvements. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page xi Transportation Goals and Policies Transportation Goals: 1. Ensure safe, convenient, and efficient movement through and within the small area for all transportation modes, including motorized vehicles (trucks and automobiles), transit buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. 2. Match transportation infrastructure and facilities to the appropriate travel purpose with intent to: improve convenience, safety and efficiency for local (External-to-Internal, Internal-to- External, and Internal-to-Internal) trips - Encourage through (External-to-External) trips to travel on France Avenue Minimize the impact of traffic on 44th Street, a local collector street - Discourage through traffic from travelling on local connector, residential streets (e.g., Sunnyside Road) 3. Ensure that the area's transportation system can accommodate redevelopment- and development-generated traffic during peak periods of the day. 4. Ensure that there are safe and secure places to park cars and bikes where parkers will have convenient access to study area destinations. 5. Enhance the small area's transit environment by providing amenities that make it easier and more comfortable to wait for and use transit for the complete range of trip purposes. 6. Enhance the small area's pedestrian system, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic control devices that operate to improve pedestrian safety. 7. Enhance the small area's bicycle system, focusing on improvements to increase safety and ensure that cyclists with a wide range of abilities and comfort levels are able to bike within the small area. Transportation Policies: 1. The City will coordinate with MnDOT, Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, and Metro Transit in order to assess and resolve transportation issues in the small area with a focus on implementing comprehensive, district-wide solutions. 2. The City will, independent of the need to address redevelopment/development proposals, periodically coordinate with other affected transportation agencies to assess and evaluate transportation and traffic operations in the study area. 3. The City will, in the event the above periodic assessments and evaluations indicate there are deficiencies in the system and/or compromises to safety and livability and independent of a development/redevelopment proposal, address the issue(s) and, either acting alone or in cooperation with other transportation agencies: a) conduct studies to clearly define issues and identify alternative solutions, b) conduct design studies, and c) implement the preferred solution(s). 4. The City will require the proposers of new development projects and significant redevelopment projects to complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports as a component of the development review process. The geographic scope of TIA reports will be defined by the City of Edina, as will the scope of transportation/traffic issues to address. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page xii 5. The City will, in the event the TIA indicates a proposer's development will generate traffic that exceeds the capacity of the street system and/or will impact adjacent residential areas, coordinate with the project proposer to identify mitigation measures that should be examined to determine which will ensure that acceptable traffic operations can achieved. Implementation An implementation plan is outlined in this small area plan on pages 77 through 80. As shown, most of the action steps can be put in place immediately; as soon as City Council adopts the 44th/France Small Area Plan. The City of Edina already has in place necessary staff, departments, and programs for carrying out the recommended implementation plan. The land use and urban design implementation steps can begin as soon as this plan is adopted. In fact adoption of the plan (and its contents) would immediately give the Planning Department authority to: 1) designate land uses in the 44th/France commercial node as Neighborhood Commercial uses, 2) adopt the guiding principles as evaluation criteria against which development proposals would be measured and assessed, and 3) apply the "Give to Get" process that is described above on pages vii through x. The economic vitality implementation steps depend to a large degree on the City's and Chamber of Commerce's involvement with property owners and business operators at the commercial node. Recommended action steps include development of a Business Improvement District and the development of a process where property owners can begin to communicate with each other and work cooperatively in the future development/redevelopment of the small area. The plan's recommended transportation-related action steps fall into two categories: 1) those that will be triggered by new development and redevelopment proposals and 2) those that should take place even if there is no development proposal before the City. The latter include initiation of a France Avenue Corridor study that would be conducted with the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and Metro Transit. This study, which would likely not begin until 2019-2020, would need to be conducted before the recommended improvements to France Avenue (convert four-lanes to three and widen sidewalk the sidewalks on the west side of France Avenue) are implemented. Also included in the second category would be improvements to the transportation system that should be addressed by the City (in coordination with Hennepin County) immediately. These improvements include analyzing the eastbound free right-turn at the intersection of Sunnyside Road/France Avenue and traffic signal timing and phasing at the intersections of Sunnyside Road/France Avenue and 44th Street/France Avenue. Conclusion Residents in the vicinity of the 44th/France small area are concerned about the future. Although there are problems at the commercial node today (mostly traffic-related problems), it was learned through the 44th/France Small Area Plan study that many of the residents are pleased with the Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page xiii Guiding Principle 1: Safe and Inviting The area should be safe for people of all ages and all backgrounds and should be a visually attractive and diverse place that encourages regular use and strengthens neighborhood identity. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 13 Guiding Principle 2: Community Gathering The small area should provide a place(s) for people to gather and spend leisure time, whether in a commercial or public location, and foster a community of learning. Flexible gathering space should be explored that can be programmed to accommodate a wide range of different uses. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 14 Guiding Principle 3: Circulation and Connections The area should provide attractive and easily identifiable infrastructure that accommodates convenient and safe movement for a variety of transportation modes, including bicycling, walking, and transit use. The area should also have safe and convenient non-motorized connections to nearby districts. Vehicle traffic should be managed to discourage cut-through traffic in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 15 Guiding Principle 4: Neighborhood-Oriented Business Mix There should be a mix of businesses that provides goods and services to the neighborhood, including small offices and commercial uses. The amount and configuration of commercial space should be allowed to adjust in response to the market. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 16 •C .1 !f _ _ _tlsgit4ct PL.E 10O9ING- - - - __ • Guiding Principle 5: Housing Housing should be provided in the study area to ensure choices for existing and future neighborhood residents. New types of housing may be provided, including multi-family dwellings (in mixed-use buildings with residential uses above ground level commercial or office space) or additional types such as courtyard housing, townhomes, and live/work housing. It is felt that the market will support the preferred housing types, which could include apartments and ownership options. Preferences should be the types that best support the city's affordable housing policy. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 17 Guiding Principle 6: Height and Size of Buildings Building heights should be guided by the zoning ordinance. Additional height (up to four stories, at approximately 15 feet per story) may be considered, depending on their location and relationship to other buildings around them. (Building heights above the two story limit detailed in the existing zoning ordinance will be considered for approval if a developer agrees to implement study area-specific and project-specific improvements that are detailed in this small area plan's guiding principles, goals, and policies.) A graceful transition should be provided between France Avenue, where the greatest heights in the study area would be permitted, to existing housing immediately adjacent to the study area where no more than two stories will be permitted. A graceful transition in building height should: a) ensure appropriate massing and scale of the highest buildings, b) ensure that the highest buildings minimize their impact on the public realm, and c) ensure a smoother transition of scale from the highest buildings to neighboring residential communities where roof tops are likely to not be as high. Graceful transitions may be achieved, but not limited to, building step-backs, building shoulders, landscape buffers and/or courtyards, etc. An exception to the above-stated two story height limitation may result from topography within the study area. This is particularly the case at the northwest corner of France Avenue and 44th Street, where the first residence on the north side of 44th Street is located on a hill that places its roof top well above those of commercial buildings that front on France Avenue. In this case, a new development immediately to the east of the first residence could be higher than two stories (but no higher than three stories), even though the building would front on 44th Street. In any case, a graceful transition must be provided between any new building and the existing residence that is located on the hill. A similar situation exists on Sunnyside Road where, on the north side of Sunnyside Road, the first single family home outside the study area sits on a hill. In this case, consideration for approval should be given to an adjacent new building if its proposed three story height is lower than the height of the single family home. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 18 1... ittliETEIEUrargiradur xlmeinfrarMill -16'.:1 • rt , Guiding Principle 7: Parking Parking should be hidden from view behind or beneath buildings on the west side of France Avenue. The large parking lot with multiple owners between Sunnyside and 44th Street should be reimagined as a "community parking facility"' that accommodates parking for the study area (district). This community parking facility should be designed to double as gathering space and should have the flexibility to change over time, as other modes of transportation, such as ride-sharing, become more common and fewer parking spaces are needed. 5 Parking facility is not necessarily defined as a parking structure. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 19 Guiding Principle 8: Streets and Sidewalks To create a gracious pedestrian environment, sidewalks should be widened as much as possible. Buildings should front onto the sidewalks, with few gaps and/or driveways breaking the street wall. Street trees and planters should be located between the curb and sidewalk. Furnishings should provide places to sit and dispose of trash and recycling. Vehicle traffic should be managed to maximize efficiency while maintaining safety for non-motorized users. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 20 Guiding Principle 11 High Quality Design, High Quality Materials, Respect for Existing Aesthetics, and Innovations to Ensure Sustainability in the Private Realm High quality architecture is required in the study area, in terms of design, materials, and energy efficiency, which will contribute to sustainability. The design of remodeled and new buildings in the study area shall reflect attention given to balance, proximity, alignment, repetition, contrast and space. Materials used in the construction of remodeled and new buildings shall harmonize with materials and design features used in the area's existing structures. Innovated systems should be installed to help achieve energy efficiency. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 23 Guiding Principle 10 Visual Quality and Aesthetics in the Public Realm The public realm should include a high level of aesthetic treatments, such as enhanced sidewalk pavement, planters, and pedestrian level lighting. Utilities should not impede sidewalks and should be underground, where feasible. Property owners are expected to keep their properties economically viable and attractive until the market guides them to major changes. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 22 • Small and constrained sites. The small scale of the parcels within the study area is not entirely a drawback as this lends itself to a relatively comfortable pedestrian scale and supports the relative ease of pedestrian circulation and walkability, although it recognized that pedestrian circulation and walkability issues do exist. The size of the sites, however, does pose a challenge in the case of redevelopment, as small sites are not always economically viable for redevelopment, particularly if there is a desire to accommodate parking on-site. While parcels can be assembled, it is often logistically complicated and expensive to do so. The newest development in the area has parking in front of businesses, which is functional, but changes the pedestrian character of the district. • Limited parking for businesses. While not strictly a land use challenge, this limits the type of uses that can be located in a commercial area. This is further complicated by the fact that much of the surface parking in the district is dedicated to specific businesses. • Lack of streetscape and greening. While the district has full sidewalks, there is a lack of greening and other public realm enhancements. This is in part due to the fairly narrow sidewalk space, which limits opportunities for additional enhancements without additional width being added to the public realm. Goals and Policies The followihg is a policy framework that provides guidance for both public and private investment in the study area. This reflects the opinions and values of stakeholders expressed during the planning and design process, previous planning contexts, and existing policies. The study area will continue to grow as a mixed use neighborhood node of housing and commercial development guided by market forces and trends, property owners' decisions, the policies and guidelines of this plan, and the Edina Comprehensive Plan. Though it is expected this node will include a larger proportion of residential than it does currently, the exact pattern of land use over time will be driven by market forces and private development decisions. Current uses of land may, of course, remain as they are until owners decide to make a change. Land Use and Community Design Goals 1. Maintain and Strengthen the Core. Continue to support the concentration of activity and neighborhood-serving businesses at the intersections of France Avenue with 44th Street and Sunnyside Road. Any new buildings introduced at corners of these intersections should include street-level retail, commercial or other active spaces that interact with the sidewalk, with windows and doors, and facilitate pedestrian activity. 2. Buildings Interact with the Public Realm. Ensure that ground-level frontages throughout the node are carefully designed with a pedestrian scale and character that interact with the public realm, encouraging beauty, safety, informal interaction, walkability, and a sense of place. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 37 Require additional investments in the public realm alongside with new and renovated development to create new or improved public spaces. 3. Graceful Transitions. Encourage the scale of buildings on France Avenue to transition from center to edge, with the largest buildings located near the intersections of France Avenue/44th Street and France Avenue/Sunnyside Road and comparatively smaller buildings between these two intersections. Moreover, require transitions in scale between buildings on France Avenue and the surrounding single-family neighborhood. Require that redevelopment adjacent to single family homes is designed with sensitivity to mitigate any impacts on neighboring properties. 4. Flexible Evolution of Land Uses. Allow existing land uses to evolve in response to the market's changing over time. (Current land uses may, of course, remain until owners decide to make a change.) Allow for flexibility in land use guidance to allow for a compatible mix of uses. Allow transitions in building scale to bring additional residents, business activity, investment, and vitality to the node. 5. Minimize Impact of Automobiles. While vehicles must be accommodated conveniently and safely, the character of this area is that of a walkable traditional neighborhood node. Discourage building types with a predominant auto orientation, such as buildings with drive- through lanes, gasoline stations, and similar uses. Likewise, require that on-site parking lots will be located to the side or rear of buildings, unless site constraints do not allow this to be the case. Policies for Land Use and Community Design 1. The City will review development applications of all future projects within the boundaries of the 44th and France neighborhood node to ensure compliance with: • City of Edina Code of Ordinances, including Sec. 36-1214. Maximum Building Heights, • Other pertinent land use regulations, and • Land Use and Design Principles outlined on pages 12 through 23 of this small area plan. 2. The City will consider new development that changes current and permitted land use scale and intensity, consistent with the process described below. As defined in the City of Edina Code of Ordinances, the 44thStreet/France Avenue Small Area Plan study area is located within a Building Height Overlay District-2. According to the Code (Sec. 36-1214. Maximum building heights), building heights within this district shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. In Table 4.3 (Future Land Use Categories), the City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan identifies the 44thStreet/France Avenue small area as a Medium Density Residential (MDR) area where the range of density is 5 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 38 The 44th Street/France Avenue Small Area Plan allows consideration for approval to be given to proposed developments where height exceeds the maximum stated in the Zoning Ordinance and where proposed density exceeds the maximum detailed in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. In such cases, consideration shall be given where: • Proposed heights are within a range of three to four stories along France Avenue and two to three stories along Sunnyside Road and 44th Street; • Proposed densities are appropriate, based on building height and lot area; and ® The developer addresses and demonstrates willingness, the means, and a commitment to invest in the public realm within the small area. Two categories of investment commitments are outlined below: Category 1 - Required Investment Commitments and Category 2 — Discretionary Investment Commitments. A developer must contribute to (invest in) the public realm for each item listed under Category 1 in order for his/her development to be considered for additional height (up to three or four stories) and greater density (more than 12 dwelling units per acre). Category 1— Required Investment Commitments are further divided into two sub-categories: 1) Study Area-Wide Investments to the Public Realm and 2) Project-Specific Investments to the Public Realm. Category 2 —Discretionary Investment Commitments offers the developer a list of public realm improvements he/she can choose to invest in or not. Category 1— Required Investment Commitments • Study Area-Wide Improvements to the Public Realm:6 - contribute to the costs of burying utility lines contribute to the costs of developing and maintaining and operating the proposed district parking facility/public gathering space contribute to the costs of constructing and maintaining the proposed woonerf, access streets, and internal circulation streets serving the proposed district parking facility contribute to the costs of treating stormwater in the northwest corner of the district parking facility contribute to the costs of treating surface water runoff that will result from construction of the proposed district parking facility contribute to the costs of installing and maintaining lighting and security measures at the proposed district parking facility contribute to the costs of enhancing, installing, and maintaining pedestrian crosswalks contribute to the costs of designing and constructing recommended traffic calming devices along neighborhood streets west of France Avenue. contribute to the costs of constructing and maintaining transit shelters at bus stops on France Avenue 6 Study-Area Wide Improvements to the Public Realm are improvements that will be implemented throughout the entire Small Area. Developers within the study area will be charged a fee based on factors including but not limited to: proximity to the improvement and rough proportionality as to the use of the improvement. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 39 • Project-Specific Commitments:7 - Improve sidewalks, install street furniture and pedestrian scaled street lighting, and plant street trees and other vegetation directly adjacent to the development Improve the transportation system immediately adjacent to the development (e.g., traffic control devices, traffic signals, constructed/reconstructed curbs and sidewalks, etc.) that will be required to mitigate impacts of traffic that is generated by a specific development implement traffic calming strategies and infrastructure immediately adjacent to the development to help ensure safety and security for motorized vehicles, bikers, and pedestrians on streets within the small area provide a graceful transition to the neighborhood meet conditions in the City's affordable housing policy Category 2 — Discretionary Commitments - implement travel demand management strategies to reduce automobile trip generation - implement infrastructure and programs to encourage building users to ride the bus or ride bicycles (e.g., provide parking for bicycles) - implement state of the art methods and infrastructure for treating surface water runoff on the development parcel in an ecologically sound manner - implement shared parking strategies and facilities - construct underground parking - provide vehicle-electric charging stations in garages where residential parking will be provided - implement LEED building design standards and efforts to help ensure the City of Edina achieves its energy self-sufficiency goal - provide public art - ensure high quality architecture Specific actions a developer will take and specific projects a developer will initiate and complete should be documented in a formal development agreement if a developer is allowed to exceed heights and densities stated in the Code or Ordinances and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use The future land use plan for the study area is shown in Figure 5. For the primary land uses, the plan is largely consistent with existing future land use guidance through the existing comprehensive plan. The one change is to adopt the designation of Neighborhood Node (as shown in the Wooddale/Valley View Small Area Plan) to replace the previous designation of Neighborhood Commercial. Project-specific commitments include improvements to the public realm that are intended to: 1) mitigate the immediate impacts of a specific project on livability and/or 2) enhance livability directly adjacent to the project. They additionally include commitments to meet City of Edina goals. Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 40 Storefront Appropriate Context: This frontage type Is for small retail or service spaces fronting public spaces in Core areas. Configuration: There may be an exterior entrance for each leasable space, spaced relatively closely along the sidewalk. Follow City of Edina guidelines for commercial storefronts for glazing, setbacks, awnings, signage, lighting and for related outdoor commercial uses such as sidewalk cafes. Doorway (At-Grade) Appropriate Context: This frontage type Is for smaller commercial spaces in commercial or mixed use buildings that front a sidewalk. This is not to be used as a substitute for Storefront, where Storefront is merited or preferred, in core areas. The Doorway has less window space because the interior use might be office rather than retail. Configuration: The at-grade doorway may serve one or multiple Interior users. If set back 0-12', a 'door-court' provides space for bike parking, seating and greenery. Stoop Appropriate Context: This frontage type Is primarily for single family row houses and multifamily buildings with units facing the street. They provide a good transitional frontage condition for buildings in between neighborhood and core areas. Configuration: Exterior stairs access a sheltered or recessed area large enough for a family to stand and wait for the door to be unlocked, and for guests to stand back after ringing the doorbell. Stairs facing the street provide a social setting. Shared Entry Appropriate Context: This frontage type is for apartment buildings. This residential frontage may be also used in a vertically mixed-use building that also features Storefront frontage. Configuration: There would be a single entrance to the building with security features. Individual apartments would have entry doors along central hallways. Buildings with this condition may also feature the Stoop frontage for first•floor units having direct access to the sidewalk. Porch & Yard Appropriate Context: This frontage is typically for residential applications but can be found on commercial buildings, especially in transitional areas between single family streets and mare commercial blocks. Configuration: 7.5' clear zone allows porch to become furnishable living space. Accessible entries should be accessed from the front to the side of central stair, which should be visible from the street. Common Lawn Appropriate Context: CO111111011 Lawn describes the predominant primary frontage condition found throughout Edina 's residential neighborhood streets. Configuration: See City of Edina's current regulations governing setbacks and lot, yard and building placement of single family homes. Figure 7: Six Frontage Types Source: Peter Musty, LLC Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 46 0 rn BOLTON & MENK Peal People. Real Solullarn. Future Land Use February 2018 44th & France Small Area Plan Edina, Minnesota o Morningside Road ----.44th-5treet VVest- - — Je \66‘ ccs MINNEAPOLIS 0_ DrevjAventie•Sauth -Glendale-Terrace- 45th St eel West 0 Legend =Study Area IIINeighborhood Commercial/ Node Low Density Residential Low Density Attached Residential Medium Density Residential 4. 4 City Limits 0 200 1 =1Feet Sows.: Ger of Edina, Hennepin County, AS elCouna, AMDOT \ \ / Figure 5: Future Land Use Plan Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 41 Building Height Limits Plan ayJ 617N U BOLTON / & MENK February 2018 ReolPeopte.RentSottsliunt 44th & France Small Area Plan Edina, Minnesota e Legend sikt MINNEAPOLIS Neighborhood Commercial/ Node Low Density Residential Low DensityAttached Residential Medium Density Residential =Study Area City Limits 0 200 IMM==I Feet Sou, Cdy oFEdi,a, Honnapin County, MetCouna, MOOT Figure 6: Maximum Building Heights within the Study Area Small Area Plan for the City of Edina's 44th & France Neighborhood Node Page 44 Date: May 22, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.D. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:C ommis s ion P roc ed ures and Devic es Info rmatio n 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 : N o action requested I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he City of E dina has been using N ovus Agenda, online agenda management tool, since 2014. To date, C ity C ouncil and all other commissions receive an electronic meeting packet for review in lieu of a paper packet. B eginning J uly 17, this practice will be followed by the P lanning C ommission. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Memo City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Administration Department Boards & Commissions Date: May 22, 2019 To: Planning Commission cc: Cary Teague, Community Development Director From: MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator Subject: Commission Procedures and Devices The City of Edina has been using Novus Agenda, online agenda management tool, since 2014. To date, City Council and all other commissions receive an electronic meeting packet for review in lieu of a paper packet. Beginning July 17, this practice will be followed by the Planning Commission. Meeting Packets • Will continue to be published on Novus Agenda for viewing through the public website or board web on any computer or device with internet access • Will not be printed and sent to commissioner’s homes Device (Optional) • A device will be issued by the City for each commission member to allow for access and review of electronic meeting packets • The City will configure and support devices to have the correct applications, features for packet access and review Next Steps • Members need to signify interest in receiving a device by contacting MJ Lamon (mlamon@edinamn.gov) • Packets will be printed until city issued devices are distributed (estimated July 17, 2019)