The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-09-12 PLAN Packet Meeting location: Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Thursday, September 12, 2024 Participate in the meeting: Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. Provide feedback during Community Comment by calling 312-535- 8110. Enter access code 2632 058 2795. Password is 5454. Press *3 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A staff member will unmute you when it is your turn. Accessibility Support: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927- 8861 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Meeting Agenda 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes 4.1. Approve Minutes: August 28, 2014 5. Special Recognitions and Presentations 6. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. 7. Public Hearings 7.1. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2024-06; An Ordinance Amendment Concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission and Edina Heritage Landmarks and Update to the Country Club Plan of Treatment 7.2. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat with Variances for 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Avenue Page 1 of 81 8. Reports/Recommendations 8.1. 2025 Planning Commission Work Plan 9. Chair and Member Comments 10. Staff Comments 11. Adjournment Page 2 of 81 BOARD & COMMISSION ITEM REPORT Date: September 12, 2024 Item Activity: Action Meeting: Planning Commission Agenda Number: 4.1 Prepared By: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Type: Minutes Department: Community Development Item Title: Approve Minutes: August 28, 2014 Action Requested: Approve August 28, 2014 meeting minutes. Information/Background: Minutes from the August 28, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. Supporting Documentation: 1. August 28, 2024 Minutes Page 3 of 81 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers August 28, 2024 I. Call To Order Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Alkire, Bornstein, Miranda, Daye, Padilla, Smith, Hahneman, Felt, Hu, and Chair Bennett. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator, and Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Schultze. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Daye moved to approve the August 28, 2024, agenda. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, July 24, 2024 Commissioner Miranda moved to approve the July 24, 2024, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hahnemann seconded the motion. Motion carried. V. Community Comment Mr. David Frankel, 4510 Lakeview Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the pedestrian bridge built in Grand View and ADA law. VI. Public Hearings A. 45.8 Foot Setback Variance from Lake Cornelia for a Patio at 6612 Cornelia Drive Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 6612 Cornelia Drive for a 45.8-foot setback variance. Staff recommends denial of the variance, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Page 4 of 81 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Ron Rasley, 6612 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Commission. The applicant answered Commission questions. Ms. Stephanie Rasley, 6612 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Commission. Public Hearing Mr. David Frankel, 4510 Lakeview Drive, addressed the Commission and indicated DNR approval rules do not grandfather properties along lakes. He suggested the City look into this further. Commissioner Smith moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Felt seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the variance and believed the recommendation of staff for denial was appropriate. Motion Commissioner Padilla moved to deny the 45.8-foot setback variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried. The entire meeting discussion can be viewed on the official City website. B. Variance Request at 4001 Monterey Ave Community Development Coordinator Lewis presented the request of 4001 Monterey Ave for a variance. Staff recommends denial of the variance, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Rick Jacobson, owner of Jacobson Construction and applicant addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Felt moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the variance and believed the use and activity were compliant with the intent and felt the variance should be approved. Director Teague recapped the findings from the Commission and staff. Page 5 of 81 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Motion Commissioner Hahneman moved approval of the variance, based on findings identified at the meeting and compliance with the memo from the Building Official. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission further discussed the findings regarding a window. Motion carried 8 ayes, 1 nay (Bornstein). Comments by the Commission can be viewed in the official meeting video on the City website. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Cannabis-Related Uses Community Development Coordinator Lewis presented the zoning ordinance amendment for Cannabis related uses. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as presented. The Commission asked staff questions. Public Hearing Mr. David Frankel, 4510 Lakeview Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the enforcement of Cannabis in public spaces and crime-related issues. Commissioner Hahneman moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Motion Commissioner Daye moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Cannabis related uses, as outlined in the staff memo with the 500-foot buffer remaining intact for schools and residential treatment facilities and not daycare or parks and capping the number of retailers at 5. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission’s discussion can be viewed on the official City website. The Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m. and reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Member Hu left the meeting during the break. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Planning Commission Work Plan Director Teague presented the Planning Commission Work Plan. Page 6 of 81 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Staff answered Commission questions. B. Advisory Communication: Future Areas of Potential Change Commissioner Miranda presented the Advisory Communication: Future Areas of Potential Change. The Commission reviewed and discussed Advisory Communication on future areas of potential change. Motion Commissioner Hahneman moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Advisory Communication: Future Areas of Potential Change with changes as discussed. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Received. IX. Staff Comments None. X. Adjournment Commissioner Daye moved to adjourn the August 28, 2024, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 11:52 PM. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. Page 7 of 81 BOARD & COMMISSION ITEM REPORT Date: September 12, 2024 Item Activity: Action Meeting: Planning Commission Agenda Number: 7.1 Prepared By: Emily Dalrymple, Assistant City Planner Item Type: Public Hearing Department: Community Development Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2024-06; An Ordinance Amendment Concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission and Edina Heritage Landmarks and Update to the Country Club Plan of Treatment Action Requested: Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 2024-06 with the following change to Sec. 36-723 (a): (5) Demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage or addition to an existing detached garage Staff recommends implementing the proposed ordinance changes when the building department implements a new software system to verify that the appropriate permitting changes can be implemented with limited impacts to customer service. Information/Background: At the direction of City Council, the Heritage Preservation Commission subcommittee has been working with staff on updating the City’s Code as it pertains to the Heritage Preservation Commission and Edina Heritage Landmarks. With the proposed updates to the Ordinance, the HPC is also proposing updates to the Country Club Plan of Treatment, is proposing an escrow fee policy for landmark properties and properties in a landmark district and has created a supplemental architectural styles document to accompany the Country Club Plan of Treatment. Better Together Public Input Supporting Documentation: 1. Staff Report 2. DRAFT Ordinance 2024-06 3. DRAFT Escrow Fee Policy 4. DRAFT Country Club Plan of Treatment 5. DRAFT Examples of Architectural Styles in The Country Club District 6. HPC Advisory Communication 8-12-24 7. Building Official Memo Page 8 of 81 At the direction of City Council, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) subcommittee has been working with staff on updating the City’s Code as it pertains to the Heritage Preservation Commission and Edina Heritage Landmarks. With the proposed updates to the Ordinance, the HPC is also proposing updates to the Country Club Plan of Treatment, is proposing an escrow fee policy for landmark properties and properties in a landmark district and has created a supplemental architectural styles document to accompany the Country Club Plan of Treatment. The ordinance changes and proposed updates were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission at their August 12 meeting where they were unanimously recommended. The Heritage Preservation Commission has written an advisory communication that outlines the process and their recommendation (included in the packet). Summary of the attached draft Documents: Ordinance NO. 2024-06 Amending City Code concerning the HPC •added clarity to terms, including demolition and street facing facade •added definitions of demolition by neglect, character-defining features, and more •inserted a one-year time limit for Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs), during which time both a COA permit and a building permit must be procured, with reasonable extension options •clarified when a COA is required as well as what work is exempt from a COA in a landmark district September 12, 2024 Planning Commission Emily Dalrymple, Assistant City Planner Ordinance No. 2024-06; An Ordinance Amendment Concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission and Edina Heritage Landmarks and Update to the Country Club Plan of Treatment Information / Background: Page 9 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 2 •expanded the Maintenance of Heritage Resources section forbidding deterioration by neglect •added escrow requirement for permits for all Heritage Landmark Properties/Districts (more below) Edina Landmark Property and District Escrow Fee Policy •New form to be signed by contractor and property owner acknowledging responsibility to maintain the protection of historic resources throughout the construction process and to inform staff of proposed changes to approved plans. Staff may seek HPC approval if changes are significant. •Fee required based on project valuation ($3,000 fee if under $100,000 and $15,000 fee if over) that city may use if needed to keep structures weathertight and protected, to ensure compliance with other ordinances, and for reinspection fees. The balance must be maintained and will be refunded when all permits, including the COA permit, have been closed. •this form also states the ordinance language for Stop Work Orders and Enforcement Plan of Treatment for the Country Club District •added historical context, map, and explanation of the period of significance •added one-year time limit on COAs per ordinance change, with detail on required permit timing •explained the COA application requirements and review process •listed projects exempt from a COA including replacement of exterior elements with like materials •emphasized that construction must follow approved COA plans and explained COA amendments •clarified which design review elements are recommended guidelines rather than requirements •Added section on character defining features, further expanded in supplement below Examples of Architectural Styles in the Country Club District •new resource to supplement the Plan of Treatment, which provides photos and lists character-defining features for the seven most prevalent Period Revival architectural styles Page 10 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 3 in the Country Club District. This guide emphasizes that each house is a unique blend of architectural elements – and even of architectural styles – that adds embellishments of local tastes and style. Information to Know based on Proposed Changes: When is a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) needed in the Country Club District? Projects that will require a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Country Club District: (1) Removal, modification, or addition to character-defining features on street-facing facades (2) Replacement of exterior materials that are not in-kind replacement (3) The addition of and/or replacement of windows that are not the same size, shape, style of operation and or pane arrangement on street-facing facades (4) The addition of and/or replacement of doors that are not the same size and shape on street-facing facades (5) Demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage (6) An addition to a street-facing facade (7) Change in pitch or height of a roofline visible from the street (8) Demolition of a contributing resource (to designate as a non-preservation resource) structure (9) Design and construction of a new home within a historic district. What projects in Country Club District would not require a COA? Projects in the Country Club District that would not require a Certificate of Appropriateness include: (1) Ordinary maintenance, such as repainting. (2) In-kind replacement of exterior materials, such as replacement of deteriorated wood lap siding with new wood lap siding or replacement of windows and doors of the same shape, size, and type. (3) Work affecting only the interior of a structure. (4) Furnishings and moveable items, such as window boxes, light fixtures, shutters. (5) Site work, including retaining walls, fences, and pools. (6) Items that do not require a building permit. Timeline Changes for permitting: Permits that you could once get over the counter would now need to be reviewed by staff (window, siding, roofing permits, mechanical permits, etc). They would no longer be issued same day and may take up to 5 business days to be issued. A permit for these projects will need to be applied for, a plan review fee is charged, and staff would review whether or not a certificate of appropriateness is required prior to issuing the permit. If a COA is required, the applicant would then need to submit a separate and complete COA application and fee and the COA will need to be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Page 11 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 4 Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. COA applications are due to staff 30 days prior to an HPC meeting. Would a homeowner need a COA for new windows/roof/siding in the Country Club District? Windows: A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) may be required for new windows. If a property owner in the Country Club District is adding or replacing windows that are not the same size, shape, style of operation and/or pane arrangement on street facing facade, a COA would be required. A COA would not be required if a property owner is replacing existing windows that are the same size, style of operation and pane arrangement. Roof: A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) may be required for a new roof. If a property owner is changing the proposed roofing material a COA would be required. If a property owner is replacing a roof with the same material, a COA is not required. Siding/Building Materials: A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) would be required if a property owner is replacing exterior materials with materials that are not the same materials as existing. If a property owner is replacing wood siding with wood siding, a COA is not required. If a property owner is replacing stucco with brick, a COA would be required. When would an escrow fee be required? An escrow fee would be required with a building permit that is associated with the exterior of the house. For projects with a valuation of over $100,000 an escrow fee of $15,000 would be required at the time of permitting. For projects that require a Certificate of Appropriateness and have a building permit valuation under $100,000 an escrow fee of $3,000 would be required. The City would be able to draw on the cash escrow to keep the structures weather tight and protected. Once the building permit has been closed out and the work is completed per the approved building permit and plans approved with approved with a Certificate of Appropriateness, the escrow fee would be returned. This is for all Landmark Properties and all properties located within a Landmark District (Country Club District). How long would a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) be good for? A permit for a project would need to be applied for at least one year after a COA has been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The applicant may request a one time extension to the HPC prior to the original COA expiring. Once a COA expires, the applicant would be required to apply for a new COA. Page 12 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 5 When would I need a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Landmark Property (outside of Country Club District)? Landmark Properties Include: •Baird House •Browndale Bridge •Cahill School •Edina Mills Site •Edina Theatre Sign •Grange Hall •Grimes House •Oskam House •Paul Peterson House •Wooddale Avenue Bridge No changes are proposed for when a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for Landmark Property (individually designated properties). Building Department Memo: The building official has provided a memo addressing the proposed changes and the impacts to permitting, project timing and staffing (included in packet.). Staff Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 2024-06 with the following change to Sec. 36-723 (a): (5) Demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage or addition to an existing detached garage Staff recommends implementing the proposed ordinance changes when the building department implements a new software system to verify that the appropriate permitting changes can be implemented with limited impacts to customer service. Page 13 of 81 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, CHAPTER 10, AND CHAPTER 36 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 2, Article III, Division 5 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: DIVISION 5. – HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sec. 2-184. Policy and establishment. The council finds that historically significant buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts represent scarce, nonrenewable heritage resources that are critical assets for community development; that heritage preservation is an important public service and a legitimate responsibility of city government; and that the preservation, protection and enhancement of significant heritage resources for the benefit of present and future citizens is a public necessity. Therefore, pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 471.193, the council continues the heritage preservation commission as the city's heritage preservation commission. Sec. 2-185. Purpose. The commission shall assist and advise the council, manager, and other city commissions on all matters relating to heritage-resource preservation and protection. The commission shall safeguard the significant heritage resources of the city by identifying significant heritage resources and nominating them for designation by the council as city heritage landmarks; by developing and maintaining a comprehensive preservation plan; by reviewing and deciding on applications for Certificates of Appropriateness in relation to properties designated as city heritage landmarks; and by encouraging the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of significant heritage resources through public education. Sec. 2-186. Definitions. Unless otherwise stated, or unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning, the words or phrases in the following list of definitions shall, for the purposes of this division, have the meanings indicated: Page 14 of 81 Addition. Any act or process which changes the exterior architectural features of a building or structure by adding to, joining with, or increasing the size or capacity of the structure. Certificate of Appropriateness. An application and certificate issued by the Heritage Preservation Commission showing the proposed work is appropriate and does not adversely affect an Edina Heritage Landmark, historic resource or property within an Edina Heritage Landmark district. Certificate of Appropriateness permit. A permit required at the time of a building permit application that is tied to the certificate of appropriateness. City planner means city staff member responsible for zoning administration. Character defining feature. The distinguishing features of a building, structure, object, site or district, which were present during the period of significance and help convey its historical significance. Examples of character-defining features are outlined in a supplemental document with the Plan of Treatment for Edina Heritage Landmarks and Landmark Districts. Construction. The act of altering an existing structure, building an addition to an existing structure, or the erection of a new principal building or accessory structure on a lot or property. Contributing. A designation applied to a building, structure or site within a historic district identifying that the resource adds to the overall character and significance of the district due to its architectural or historical merit related to the district’s significance. A contributing structure has its major character- defining features intact, although alterations may have occurred. Historic materials may have been covered, but evidence indicates they are intact. Demolition. Any act that destroys, replaces or removes more than 50% of the area of the exterior walls. The exterior wall surface shall include the following: - The existing framed exterior wall - The wood framed part of a walkout basement - Door surface area - Window surface area The exterior wall surface shall not include the following: - Roof area-if roof is being replaced with same pitch and height - Exposed foundation area - Garage exterior walls - Replacement of windows or doors within their existing framing (without enlargement) Page 15 of 81 The 50% requirement shall not include areas of the structure that are unanticipated discoveries or are determined as necessary to be removed by the city building official, after issuance of a building permit. When professional judgment deems that removal of parts of a structure is necessary to keep it structurally sound, an inspection and a report documenting the reasons by the building official is required. Exterior walls that become interior walls due to remodel/addition are counted towards the 50% when determining demolition. Demolition by Neglect. Failure to maintain, repair, or secure a historic resource that results in deterioration of the resource, the loss of structural integrity of the resource, and/or water intrusion, mold growth, pest infestation, dilapidation, or decay. Edina Heritage Landmark or city heritage landmark means any heritage resource so designated by the council as significant in history, architecture, archelogy, or culture and therefore worthy of preservation and consideration in city planning. Evaluation means the process of determining whether identified potential heritage resources meet defined criteria of historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance. Heritage Preservation Commission means the heritage preservation advisory commission appointed by the council. Heritage Resource or Historic Resource means any prehistoric or historic building, site, structure, object or district that has historical, architectural, archeological or cultural value to the citizens of the city, the state or the United States. Heritage District or Historic District. A contiguous area designated as a “Historic District” by ordinance of the City Council according to the criteria and pursuant to the procedures established within this Chapter. Historic Significance. Meeting the eligibility criteria as a heritage resource; having importance as part of the development, heritage or culture of the community as the location of an important event, or through strong association with a historically significant person or persons, or through notable architectural or engineering merit. Material Change. A change to a character defining feature as outlined in the Plan of Treatment. Page 16 of 81 New Construction. The building of a new principal building or new detached garage within the historic district or on an Edina Heritage Landmark site. Period of Significance. The length of time when a property or district was associated with important events, activities, or persons. Plan of Treatment. A document created for each heritage landmark or landmark district that includes guidelines for design review with recommendations for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Preservation means the act or process of applying treatments to sustain the existing form, structure, integrity, and material of a heritage resource. Reconstruction means the act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object as it appeared during a specific period of time. Rehabilitation means the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair or alteration while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural values. Restoration means the act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a heritage resource and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of removal of later work or by the replacement of missing historic features. Street-Facing Facade. All portions of a primary structure’s facade that directly face a public street. Survey means the physical search for a recording of heritage resources that result in an inventory of buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts identifying resources worthy of consideration in city planning and resources that do not appear to have historic significance at that time. Sec. 2-187. Duties and responsibilities. The commission shall: (1) Advise the council, manager, and other city commissions and provide leadership for implementing the heritage preservation regulations. Page 17 of 81 (2) Develop and maintain a comprehensive plan for heritage resource preservation to ensure that community development policies and decisions respect the city's heritage and promote stewardship of heritage resources. (3) Conduct an ongoing survey of historic buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts and maintain an inventory of the heritage resources in the city. (4) Conduct evaluations to determine the eligibility of heritage resources for designation as heritage landmarks and heritage landmark districts. (5) Nominate heritage resources for designation as city heritage landmarks by the city council. (6) Review and decide on certificate of appropriateness applications in relation to heritage landmarks and heritage landmark districts. (7) Review and make recommendations to the planning commission on development projects that affect properties designated as heritage landmarks or determined eligible for designation as heritage landmarks. (8) Inform and educate citizens about the city's heritage and the benefits of preservation. (9) Develop regulatory and incentive programs that facilitate heritage preservation. (10) Adopt rules of procedure, subject to council approval, to guide the commission's deliberations. Sec. 2-188. Membership. (a) Commission membership. The commission shall consist of nine regular members and two student members. Members shall have a demonstrated interest, knowledge, ability or expertise in heritage preservation. At least one member shall be a qualified professional historian, architect, architectural historian, archaeologist, planner, or the owner of a heritage landmark property. (b) City historical society membership. A member of the commission shall be a member of the city historical society. (c) County historical society membership. A member of the commission shall be a member of the county historical society. Sec. 2-189. Professional staff. The manager shall provide the commission with professional staff with expertise in heritage preservation. Sec. 2-190. Repository for documents. The office of the manager shall be the repository for all minutes, reports, studies, plans and other official documents produced by the commission. Page 18 of 81 Sec. 2-191—2-218. Reserved. Section 2. Chapter 10, Article IV of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-112. Permit Requirements for Heritage Landmark Properties or Properties within a Heritage Landmark District. For projects that require a building permit for exterior work on an Edina Heritage Landmark property or properties within an Edina Landmark District and have a building permit valuation of over one-hundred thousand ($100,000), the applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000) Dollars. This includes projects that don’t require a certificate of appropriateness. For projects that required a certificate of appropriateness and a building permit for exterior work on an Edina Heritage Landmark property or property within an Edina Landmark District and have a building permit valuation under one hundred thousand ($100,000), the applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow of three thousand ($3,000) dollars. The City may draw on the cash escrow to keep individually designated structures and resources in historic districts (contributing and non-contributing) weather tight and protected, to comply with other city ordinances, and for reinspection fees. If the City draws on the cash escrow, upon the City’s demand the permit holder must deposit in escrow additional funds to restore the escrowed amount to fifteen thousand ($15,000) or three thousand ($3,000) Dollars. The cash escrow must remain in place until the work under the permit for which the escrow was made has been completed and all associated permits have been closed. The project must be completed per the approved building permit and/or plans approved with a certificate of appropriateness. Sec. 10-113. - Stop work orders. If the building official finds any work being performed in a dangerous or unsafe manner or that is in violation of the provisions of the permits, this Code or the state building code, the building official may issue a stop work order. The stop work order must be in writing and issued to the permit holder or the person doing the work. Upon issuance of a stop work order, the cited work must immediately cease. The stop work order must state the reason for the order and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume. Sec. 10-114. - Misdemeanor. Violations of this article or of the terms of approval of a permit issued under this article may be deemed a misdemeanor. Secs. 10-115 - 10-139. - Reserved. Page 19 of 81 Section 3. Chapter 36, Article IX of the City Code is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE IX. - EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARKS Sec. 36-713. Purpose. The zoning classification of Edina Heritage Landmark is established to promote the preservation, protection, and use of significant heritage resources in the city. Heritage landmarks shall be nominated by the heritage preservation commission and designated by council resolution. Unless otherwise stated, the list of definitions in section 2-186 shall govern this article. Sec. 36-714. Eligibility criteria. The following criteria will guide the heritage preservation commission and the council in evaluating potential heritage landmark designations: (1) The quality of significance in history, architecture, archeology and culture present in buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts that reflects: a. Association with important events or patterns of events that reflect significant broad patterns in local history; b. Association with the lives of historically significant persons or groups; c. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, design, period, type or method of construction; or that possess high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. Important archaeological data or the potential to yield important archaeological data. (2) The retention of specific aspects of historical integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, that convey significance as a heritage resource worthy of preservation. Sec. 36-715. Determination of eligibility. The heritage preservation commission shall review the inventory of heritage resources and evaluate the significance of all properties identified by survey. If it determines that a surveyed heritage resource appears to meet at least one of the heritage landmark eligibility criteria and retains sufficient historic integrity, the heritage preservation commission may, by majority vote, issue a determination of eligibility for planning purposes. Sec. 36-716. Nomination of a heritage landmark. Nomination of a property to be considered for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark shall be submitted to the council by the heritage preservation commission. Each nomination shall be accompanied by a heritage landmark nomination study prepared by the city planner. This study shall: (1) Identify and describe in detail the heritage resource being nominated; Page 20 of 81 (2) Make a case for historical significance by explaining how the property meets one or more of the heritage landmark eligibility criteria; (3) Determine that the resource retains sufficient historic integrity; (4) Recommend a plan of treatment for the heritage resource, with guidelines for design review and specific recommendations for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, as appropriate; and (5) Identify the resource’s character defining features. The study shall be accompanied by a map that clearly locates the property, a detailed plan of the nominated heritage resource, and archival quality photographs that document significant features of the building, site, structure, object, or district. Sec. 36-717. State Historic Preservation Office review. The city planner shall submit all heritage landmark nominations to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and comment within 60 days. Sec. 36-718. Planning Commission review. The city planner shall submit all heritage landmark nominations to the city planning commission for review and recommendations prior to any council action. Sec. 36-719. Public hearing. On receipt of the heritage landmark nomination documents and the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office and the city planning commission, the council shall hold a public hearing to consider the proposed landmark designation. Sec. 36-720. City council designation. The council may designate a property as an Edina Heritage Landmark by resolution. Sec. 36-721. Plan of Treatment The Heritage Preservation Commission and City Council have adopted a Plan of Treatment document for each Heritage Landmark Property or District to assist in the administering of this ordinance. The Plan of Treatments are incorporated by reference into this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the Historic Preservation Ordinance shall govern. The Plan of Treatment may be amended from time to time by resolution. Page 21 of 81 Sec. 36-722. Review of Land Use Applications. To ensure compliance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive heritage preservation plan, the heritage preservation commission shall review every application for a preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance or rezoning, in relation to a designated heritage landmark; and the city planning commission shall give the heritage preservation commission a reasonable opportunity to comment on such projects before making its recommendation to the council. Sec. 36-723. – Certificate of Appropriateness – When Required in a Heritage Landmark District. (a) Certificate of Appropriateness. Except as provided herein, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to making any of the following changes to a site located within a heritage landmark district: (1) Removal, modification, or addition to character-defining features on street-facing facades as defined in Sec. 2-186 (2) Replacement of exterior materials that are not in-kind replacement (3) The addition of and/or replacement of windows that are not the same size, shape, style of operation and or pane arrangement on street-facing facades as defined in Sec. 2-186 (4) The addition of and/or replacement of doors that are not the same size and shape on street-facing facades as defined in Sec. 2-186 (5) Demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage (6) An addition to a street-facing facade as defined in Sec. 2-186 (7) Change in pitch or height of a roofline visible from the street as defined in Sec. 2- 186 (8) Demolition of a contributing resource (to designate as a non-preservation resource) structure (9) Design and construction of a new home within a historic district. This includes the demolition and new construction for properties built outside the period of significance (b) City Actions. City activities (including but not limited to activities on city property or in the city right-of-way) shall not require a Certificate of Appropriateness provided that the Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council concerning city activity that could change the historic integrity of a site located within a historic district. (c) Exempt Work. The following types of projects shall not require a Certificate of Appropriateness: Page 22 of 81 (1) Ordinary maintenance, such as repainting. (2) In-kind replacement of exterior materials, such as replacement of deteriorated wood lap siding with new wood lap siding or replacement of windows and doors of the same shape, size, and type. (3) Work affecting only the interior of a structure. (4) Furnishings and moveable items, such as window boxes, light fixtures, shutters. (5) Site work, including retaining walls, fences, and pools. (6) Items that do not require a building permit. (d) City Permits. In addition to a Certificate of Appropriateness required by section 36-723(a), applicants must also obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness permit and all other necessary permits required by City Code or other City ordinances for the proposed work. Sec. 36- 724 – Certificate of Appropriateness – When required for a Heritage Landmark Property. (a) Certificate of Appropriateness. Except as provided herein, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to making any of the following changes to a landmark property: (1) Demolition of any building or structure, as defined in 2-186. (2) Moving a building or structure to another location. (3) Excavation of archeological features, grading, earth moving in areas believed to contain significant buried heritage resources. (4) New construction as defined in 2-186. (b) City Actions. City activities (including but not limited to activities on city property or in the city right-of-way) shall not require a Certificate of Appropriateness provided that the Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council concerning city activity that could change the historic integrity of a site located within a historic district. (e) City Permits. In addition to a Certificate of Appropriateness required by section 36-723(a), applicants must also obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness permit and all other necessary permits required by City Code or other City ordinances for the proposed work. Sec. 36-725. – Certificate of Appropriateness Process and Criteria. (a) Preapplication meeting with city planner. (b) Application. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall include all information that the City Planner and the Commission determine is necessary for a complete application, including, but not limited to, photographs of the existing structure, scaled plans and written description fully describing the proposed work and information Page 23 of 81 about the building materials to be used, and drawings or photographs showing the property in the context of its surroundings. Following receipt of a complete application and all supporting documentation including fee established by resolution of the Council, the City Planner shall begin the review process. (b) Providing Notice. Notices of a review of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Heritage Preservation Commission shall be sent to properties in the same manner outlined in Sec.36- 97 a & c. (c) Commission Review. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, continue or deny in whole, or part, an application. Subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 15.99, the Commission may continue consideration of an application if it finds that additional documentation or expert technical advice from outside its membership is needed to properly evaluate the application. All findings and decisions of the Commission shall be final, subject to appeal to the City Council as specified in section 36-728. (d) Action by Commission. If the Commission approves the application, it shall direct the City Planner to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to such conditions as established by the Commission. The Commission shall notify the applicant of their right to appeal and furnish the applicant with a copy of the decision. (e) Time Limitation. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness the recipient must apply for a building permit and Certificate of Appropriateness permit within 12 months. (1) A one-time extension may be granted by the Commission for a period up to 12 months from the date of expiration provided that: a. The original Certificate of Appropriateness has not expired at the time of application for an extension is filed; and b. The site or building conditions have not changed on the subject property and adjacent properties. (2) Upon expiration or expiration of an extension, the applicant must reapply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. (f) Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria. In making a determination whether to approve or deny an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Commission shall be guided by the following criteria: (1) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. (2) Plan of Treatment documents – the design guidelines and standards listed in the Plan of Treatment. (3) Additional criteria for proposed alterations within designated historic districts. Before approving a Certificate of Appropriateness to a property within an historic district, the Commission (or City Council on appeal) shall make the following findings: Page 24 of 81 a. The alteration is compatible with and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all contributing properties in the historic district based on the period of significance for which the district was designated. b. Granting the Certificate of Appropriateness will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and will not negatively alter the essential character of the historic district or landmark property. (4) Criteria for moving and demolition is located in section 36-726 of this Chapter. (g) Changes to Approved Certificate of Appropriateness. (1) Minor changes. Minor changes to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness may be authorized by the City Planner where it is determined by the City Planner that the proposed changes are not changes to character defining features and are consistent with the approval made by the Commission. (2) Other changes. Changes to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness other than changes set forth in (1) above determined by the City Planner to be minor are considered material changes and shall require an amendment to the Certificate of Appropriateness by the Commission. The requirements for application and approval of an amended Certificate of Appropriateness shall be the same as the requirements for original approval, including a fee. Sec. 36-726. – Demolition or Relocation. (a) Purpose. The demolition or relocation of historic resources is deemed detrimental to the public interest and shall only be permitted pursuant to prescriptions of this section. (b) Concept Review. Prior to submission of a formal Certificate of Appropriateness application seeking demolition approval, a concept plan may be submitted for the purpose of obtaining the Commission’s comments and recommendations prior to the owner spending significant time and expense in the preparation of reuse plans when applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition or moving of a historic resource. (1) The property owner requesting a concept review shall submit preliminary drawings of any proposed building or addition, current photographs of the property and reasons for the requested demolition or moving of the historic resource. (2) After discussion with the owner, the Commission may provide preliminary feedback on the proposed reuse of the property and the removal or demolition of the historic resource. The Commission’s comments on such a concept plan shall not be binding on any subsequent Certificate of Appropriateness applications seeking demolition approval. Page 25 of 81 (c) Engineering study. In any case involving the demolition or relocation of a historic resource, before granting approval, the Commission may require a structural engineer, or historic preservation architect, at the owner’s expense, to provide them with a report on the state of repair and structural stability of the structure under consideration. (d) Demolition or relocation criteria. In determining the appropriateness of any application for the demolition or relocation of a landmark or contributing building in a historic district, the Commission shall use the following criteria: (1) The architectural significance of the building or structure. (2) The historical significance of the building or structure. (3) The condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by documentation prepared by a qualified professional or licensed contractor, or other information, provided to the Commission for examination. (4) Effect on surrounding historic properties. (5) Effect on the historic district if a contributing building is in a historic district. (e) Additional Matters Considered. In addition to the general criteria listed in section 36- 725(g), the applicant must also demonstrate: (1) If requesting relocation, that structure can be moved without significant damage to its integrity of design, materials, and workmanship and the applicant can show the relocation activity is the best preservation method for the retention of the structure. (2) If requesting relocation, whether the resource is on its original site. (3) If requesting relocation, that the structure will retain sufficient historic integrity in its new location to remain a historic landmark. (f) If the Commission denies application, the Commission shall notify the applicant of their right to appeal and furnish the applicant with a copy of the decision. (g) Demolition Permit. No permit to demolish a landmark, a contributing or non-contributing resource may be issued without the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Certificate of Appropriateness permit for a replacement structure or project for the property involved. Sec. 36-727. Appeals. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the heritage preservation commission, or an administrative official may appeal such decision by filing a written appeal with the city clerk no later than ten calendar days after the decision of the heritage preservation commission or the administrative official. If not so filed, the right of appeal shall be deemed waived, and the decision of the heritage preservation commission or administrative official shall be final. Upon receipt of the appeal, the city clerk shall transmit a copy of said appeal to the heritage preservation commission. The council shall hear and decide all appeals in the manner provided by section 36-100. Page 26 of 81 Sec. 36-728. – Emergency Repair. In emergency situations where immediate repair is needed to protect the safety of a building or structure and its inhabitants, the City Planner, City Building Official, Community Health Administrator or Fire Chief may approve the repair or demolition without prior Commission action. Emergencies are defined as life or health threatening conditions requiring immediate attention, as determined by the City Building Official, Fire Chief, or Community Health Administrator. In the case of an emergency repair permit issued pursuant to this section, the City Planner shall notify the Commission of its action and specify the facts or condition constituting the emergency situation. Sec. 36-729. – Maintenance of Heritage Resources. Owners of historic resources shall keep such resources in good condition and repair and not allow their buildings or structures to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary maintenance or repair.) (a) The Building Official and Community Health Administrator shall have the authority to monitor the condition of historic resources to determine if they are being allowed to deteriorate by neglect. Such conditions as broken windows, doors and openings which allow the elements to enter, the deterioration of exterior character-defining features, or the deterioration of a building’s structural system shall constitute failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair. (b) In the event the Building Official or Community Health Administrator determines that there has been a failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair, the Building Official or Community Health Administrator will notify the owner of the property and set forth the steps necessary to comply with the provisions of the Building Code and City Code Sec. 36-730. – Enforcement. (a) In case any building or structure subject to the regulation of this ordinance is to be erected or constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, maintained, moved, or subjected to demolition in violation with this ordinance, the City Planner, Building Official, or Community Health Administrator in addition to any other remedies, may: (1) Institute civil action for injunctive relief to stop, prevent, or abate a violation of this ordinance. (2) Issue a stop work order to prevent a continuing violation of this ordinance. Page 27 of 81 DRAFT EDINA LANDMARK PROPERTY& DISTRICT ESCROW FEE POLICY The construction on this site will follow normal industry and City accepted construction methods for a project of this type and, if applicable, will follow the approved Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Specific items of concern will be addressed as noted below. Any references to start date or duration of specific items are estimated and included only for reference. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for complying with the below conditions. __________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Contractor Date Site Contractor: __________________________ Address: _______________________________ Phone:_________________________________ Email Address: __________________________ The estimated construction start date is _________________________. The estimated completion date is ______________________________. Project Description: . Was a Certificate of Appropriateness Required? Yes COA#________ No Sec. 10-112. Permit Requirements for Heritage Landmark Properties or Properties within a Heritage Landmark District For projects that require a building permit that includes exterior work on a Edina Heritage Landmark property or properties within an Edina Landmark District and has a valuation of over one-hundred thousand ($100,000), the applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000) Dollars. For projects that required a Certificate of Appropriateness and a building permit for exterior work on an Edina Heritage Landmark property or property within an Edina Landmark District and have a building permit valuation under one hundred thousand ($100,000), the applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow of three thousand ($3,000) dollars. The City may draw on the cash escrow to keep structures weather tight and protected, to comply with other city ordinances, and reinspection fees. If the City draws on the cash escrow, upon the City’s demand the permit holder must deposit in escrow additional funds to restore the escrowed amount to fifteen thousand ($15,000) or three thousand ($3,000) Dollars. The cash escrow must remain in place until the work under the permit for which the escrow was made has been completed. The project must be completed per the approved building permit and/or plans submitted with a required Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Project Name & Site Address Number (For Office Use Only) Permit Number Page 28 of 81 Sec. 10-113. Stop Work Orders. If the Building Official finds any work being performed in a dangerous or unsafe manner or that is in violation of the provisions of the permit, City Code or the State Building Code, the Building Official may issue a stop work order. The stop work order must be in writing and issued to the permit holder or the person doing the work. Upon issuance of a stop work order, the cited work must immediately cease. The stop work order must state the reason for the order and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume. Sec. 36-730. – Maintenance of Historic Resources. Owners of historic resources shall not allow their buildings to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary maintenance or repair.) (a) The building official shall have the authority to monitor the condition of historic resources to determine if they are being allowed to deteriorate by neglect. Such conditions as broken windows, doors and openings which allow the elements to enter, the deterioration of exterior character defining features, or the deterioration of a building’s structural system shall constitute failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair. (b) In the event the Building Official determines that there has been a failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair, the Building Official will notify the owner of the property and set forth the steps necessary to comply with the provisions of the Building Code and City Code. Sec. 36-731. – Enforcement. (a) In case any building or structure subject to the regulation of this ordinance is to be erected or constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, maintained, moved, or subjected to demolition in violation with this ordinance, the City Planner or Building Official, in addition to any other remedies, may: (1) Institute civil action for injunctive relief to stop, prevent, or abate a violation of this ordinance. (2) Issue a stop work order to prevent a continuing violation of this ordinance. Page 29 of 81 Site Contractor:______________________________________________________________________________ Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________ Phone:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Email Address:_______________________________________________________________________________ The estimated construction start date is________________________________________________________ The estimated completion date is _______________________________________________________________ It is the responsibility of the homeowner and COA applicant to build to the plans shown and approved with the issued COA (if required). If there are proposed changes to an approved plan, it is the responsibility of the homeowner and applicant to inform staff of proposed changes to approved plans. Depending on the proposed change, it may require review by the HPC. *The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for complying with the approved COA (if applicable) and the building permit. If the elevations or plans change, you need to contact city staff prior to the change being made. Some changes may require additional review. * ___________________ Date __________________________________ __________________________________ Signature of Contractor Signature of Contractor (printed) Owners of Historic Resources shall not allow their buildings to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary maintenance and repair. Such conditions may include: broken windows, doors and openings which allow the elements to enter, the deterioration of exterior character defining features, or the deterioration of a building’s structural system. This includes the period of time during building construction. *The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for maintaining protection of historic resources throughout the construction process. * ___________________ Date __________________________________ __________________________________ Signature of Contractor Signature of Contractor (printed) Page 30 of 81 DRAFT DRAFT Plan of Treatment Country Club District Project Design Criteria Edina Heritage Preservation Commission History The County Club District was platted in 1924 by Thorpe Brothers Realty Company and the majority of the homes were constructed between 1924 and 1941. The Edina Country Club District was one of the first modern planned communities in Minnesota and the land use controls exercised by the original Country Club Association later formed the basis of Edina’s first zoning ordinance. Samuel Thorpe carefully designed every aspect of the neighborhood to include heavily tree- lined streets and parks, as well as uniform building and design restrictions. Unique to the times, Thorpe ensured that all major utilities were installed before the lots were placed on market, ensuring that the neighborhood was developed according to his plan. Additional restrictions dictated minimum home values and required that all building plans were reviewed by the Country Club Neighborhood Association, which Thorpe led. Page 31 of 81 2 DRAFT The district represents a significant, well-preserved concentration of historic architecture and related historic landscape design. Examples of English Cottage (Tudor), Colonial Revival, Mediterranean (Spanish Colonial Revival), and Italian Renaissance Revival style homes predominate. Purpose and Objective The primary objective of the Country Club Heritage Landmark District is protecting the historic integrity of the neighborhood. The preferred treatment for properties in the Country Club District is rehabilitation, which is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to property owners, architects, builders, designers, and the Edina Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) in determining appropriate exterior treatment of properties within the Country Club District. Understanding the Country Club District The district was listed on the National Register Historic Places and designated as an Edina Heritage Resource District because of its significance in community planning, zoning, and suburban residential development, as well as the distinctive architectural characteristics of the neighborhood. While there are not any properties that are designated as landmark properties individually, individual homes contribute to the overall historic character of the district. Period of significance The period of significance in the Country Club District is 1924-1944 which is the period when the developer enforced rigid architectural standards on new home construction through restrictive covenants. Homes built in this period are considered heritage preservation resources. Heritage preservation resources may not be demolished unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the district because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, or by inappropriate additions or alterations. Except in extraordinary circumstances involving threats to public health or safety, no Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) will be issued for the demolition of an existing house built between 1924-1944 in the district without an approved design plan for new construction. Houses built outside of the period of significance contribute to the overall character of the district and are still required to adhere to the Design Criteria and associated processes, including Certificate of Appropriateness applications. Page 32 of 81 3 DRAFT Character Defining Features Character defining features are the distinguishing elements of a building, structure, object, site or district, which were present during the period of significance and help convey its historical significance. A project should be developed so that the property’s character defining features on street facing facades are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Character defining features in the Country Club District may include: ● Exterior materials including siding and roofing ● Building form and massing ● Spatial relationships ● Roof shapes ● Roof details ● Windows and doors ● Projections-porches, turrets, bay windows, vestibules ● Chimneys ● Dormers *For lists of character defining features for architectural styles prevalent in the Country Club District, see the “Examples of Architectural Styles in The Country Club District” Document* Architectural Styles prevalent in the district include Colonial Revival Style, Tudor Style, French Eclectic Style, Italian Renaissance Style, Spanish Eclectic, Prairie Style, and Craftsman Style. Character defining features may vary based on the style of the home. More specific information on architectural styles can be found in the book, “A Field Guide to American Houses,” by Virginia & Lee McAlester. Copies are available for viewing in the Edina planning department. Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the following types of projects in the Country Club District: 1. Removal, modifications or additions to character defining features on street facing facades (not including moveable items such as flower boxes or ironwork details, etc.) 2. Replacement of exterior materials that are not in-kind replacement 3. The addition of and/or replacement of windows that are not the same size, shape, style of operation and or pane arrangement and kind on street-facing facades as defined in Sec. 2-186 4. The addition of and/or replacement of doors that are not the same size and shape on street-facing facades as defined in Sec. 2-186 5. Demolition of an existing garage and/or the construction of a new garage 6. An addition to a street-facing facade 7. Change in pitch or height of a roofline visible from a street-facing facade Page 33 of 81 4 DRAFT 8. Demolition of a historic resource 9. Design and construction of a new home A COA is valid for one year from the date of approval by the HPC. A building permit and Certificate of Appropriateness permit for a project that needs a COA must be applied for within 12 months of COA approval. An applicant may request, and the city may extend this period when specified with an application. The applicant may request an extension either during the COA application or after the issuance of a COA, prior to the one-year period ending. An extension to a COA is required to be requested in writing and approved by the HPC at a meeting. Examples of Projects exempt from a COA: ● Ordinary maintenance including repainting, and residing, or reroofing with like materials as reviewed and approved by city staff ● Work affecting only the interior of a structure ● Movable items such as window boxes, light fixtures, or shutters ● Replacing existing windows with windows of the same size and shape ● Site work including retaining walls, fences and pools ● Items that do not require a building permit Permits The applicant is responsible for pulling all required city permits. A Certificate of Appropriateness permit is tied to the COA approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission and is required at the time of building permit application. Application Requirements A COA application and associated materials need to be submitted to the city and must provide sufficient information for review. A preapplication meeting with city staff is required prior to a COA submittal. Proposed elevations and a proposed survey should be sent to staff prior to the pre-application meeting. Application requirements include: ● Completed COA form ● Application fee ● Narrative explaining the project and explanation of how the project meets the Project Design Criteria ● Elevations or photos of all four sides of the existing structure Page 34 of 81 5 DRAFT ● One copy of the exterior elevations of the entire facade to scale detailing the proposed work. Proposed elevations should include an inventory of proposed and existing materials ● Existing survey of subject property ● Proposed survey of subject property showing the proposed changes (see the city’s survey policy for more information on survey requirements) ● Elevation drawings showing the walls proposed to be removed or rebuilt during construction and details showing how walls will be rebuilt if necessary ● Elevation drawings to scale showing the proposed project in context with the properties on either side of the subject property ● COA escrow fee acknowledgement form signed by property owner and COA applicant Review Process Review by the HPC A COA application will be reviewed by city staff and the city’s preservation consultant. A staff recommendation will be included in the meeting packet for the review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Decisions are made by the HPC and may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the HPC decision. Request for a COA Amendment It is the responsibility of the homeowner and COA applicant to build to the plans shown and approved with the issued COA. If there are proposed changes to an approved plan, it is the responsibility of the homeowner and COA applicant to inform staff of proposed changes to approved plans. Depending on the proposed change, it may require review by the HPC. If an amendment is required, a complete application showing the proposed changes will be required- (complete application also requires an additional COA fee). *Depending on the project, a COA escrow fee may be required at the time of building permit. If the project elevations do not meet the approved COA elevations at the time of a final building inspection, the COA escrow fee will not be released to the applicant until the built elevations match the approved plans, or a COA amendment has been approved by the HPC. * Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The City and the HPC have adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as the basis for the Commission’s design review decisions. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are neither technical nor prescriptive but are intended to promote preservation best practices and are regulatory with respect to Certificate of Appropriateness review. The 10 Standards are: Page 35 of 81 6 DRAFT 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired. New Construction Guidelines GARAGES Modernistic designs for new detached garages will be discouraged. New detached garages should complement the architectural style of the house on the same lot as well as the historic character of the neighborhood. The following are guidelines to help in design and review of plans for new garages: ● The new garage should be subordinate to the house in scale and massing. The preferred placement is at the rear of the lot or set back from the front of the house to minimize the visual impact on adjacent homes and streetscapes. Page 36 of 81 7 DRAFT ● Front facing attached garages are discouraged. No new detached garage should be taller, longer, or wider than the house on the same lot. ● Undecorated exterior walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. ● New garages should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription (to be placed on an exterior surface) bearing the year of construction. NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION New home construction will be limited to existing residential lots and their design will be compatible with the original (1924-1944) Country Club District deed restrictions relating to architecture. The following guidelines generally reflect the principles of the deed restrictions and will be applied by the Heritage Preservation Commission for design review of plans for new houses: ● Size, Scale & Massing - New homes should be compatible in size, scale, massing, orientation, setback with historic buildings in the district constructed prior to 1945. ● Architectural Style- New homes should utilize the colors and exterior finishes of historic buildings in the district constructed prior to 1945. Facades should be architecturally similar to existing historic homes and visually relate to the historic facades of nearby homes; radically contrasting façade designs will not be allowed. ● Entrances, porches, and other projections should relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes and respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street. ● Roof forms should be consistent with typical roof forms of existing historic homes in terms of pitch, orientation, and complexity. ● Year Built Identification - New homes should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription (to be placed on an exterior surface) bearing the year of construction. GUIDELINES FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS Accessory Mechanical Equipment - Mechanical equipment, solar panels, air conditioners, satellite dishes, and antennae should be concealed whenever possible or placed in an inconspicuous location so as not to intrude or detract from historic facades and streetscapes. Decks & Accessory Structures - Contemporary designs are acceptable for decks and accessory structures so long as they are not visible from the street. Page 37 of 81 8 DRAFT Landscaping Elements - Landscaping such as retaining walls, planters, fences, planting beds, and walkways, should be visually compatible with the historic character of the district in size, scale, material, texture, and color. Retaining walls should follow the grade of the lot and blend with the historic streetscape. DISTRICT RE-SURVEY The City will arrange for a re-survey of the Edina Country Club District every ten years to document changes in the appearance and historic integrity of historic properties; to revise the list of heritage preservation resources and non-heritage preservation resources present within the district boundaries; and to revise the district plan of treatment as needed. Page 38 of 81 Examples of Architectural Styles in Edina’s Country Club District The Eclectic movement, also known as period revival architecture, began in the late 1800s when architects recreated old European styles for wealthy clients. This movement gave way to Modern styles such as Craftsman and Prairie at the turn of the century. But by the 1920s, when the Country Club District was created, new construction techniques for adding stone veneer made it much more affordable to mimic Old World facades and the Eclectic movement surged. The period revival architectural styles used most frequently in the District are: Colonial Revival Style Tudor Style French Eclectic Style Italian Renaissance Style Spanish Eclectic Prairie Style Craftsman Style This guide describes character defining features of these seven styles, although most of the homes in the Country Club are not “pure” specimens of any particular style, so we should not expect them to follow any of the “rules” laid out in architecture textbooks. Local builders and their clients developed their own rules of style, based on prevailing notions of taste and convenience. The typical house melds vernacular cottage dwelling forms with high-style detailing. The “style” of any given property is often expressed through applied ornamentation using decorative elements borrowed from one, two, or more architectural styles. Decorative shutters, for example, are a traditional feature of Colonial Revival architecture, but in the District we find non-functional wooden shutters on examples of Tudor and Spanish Eclectic period architecture. The one-story side sun porch is also nearly ubiquitous and, like the shutters, reflects 1920s-1930s notions of middle-class taste rather than the dictates of any particular architectural style. Each home is unique in its blend of style and details, contributing to a neighborhood that showcases the varied architecture of the Eclectic movement. Each project requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness will be evaluated on the property’s historic design, not necessarily how well it meets or does not meet the definition of a particular style. More information on architectural terms and styles can be found in “A Field Guide to American Houses,” by Virginia & Lee McAlester. Copies are available for viewing in the planning department. Page 39 of 81 Colonial Revival Style (one of the District’s dominant styles, has subtypes such as Georgian or Dutch Colonial) ● 2 to 2½ stories high ● Side-gabled roof (sometimes with abbreviated cornice returns) ● Boxed roof-wall junction (sometimes decorated with dentils) ● Horizontal boards or brick veneer wall cladding ● Symmetrical fenestration (i.e., balanced arrangement of windows and center doorway) ● Projecting entry portico (i.e., a small open porch) with a gabled or flat roof ● Accentuated front door, normally with decorative crown (pediment), sidelights, or overhead fanlights ● Gabled roof dormers (sometimes through the cornice) ● Double-hung window sash with multi-pane glazing ● 1 story side porch (sun room) 4531 Casco Ave. Page 40 of 81 Tudor Style (another prevalent style, includes categories of English Cottage and English Tudor used in the 1980 submission to the National Register of Historic Places) ● 1½ to 2½ stories high ● Multiple gable or hip roof shapes, usually steeply pitched ● Stucco (occasionally brick veneer) wall cladding, often contrasted with stone or brick trim ● Façade dominated by one or more projecting gables, often overlapping the roofs of projecting entry vestibules ● Decorative (false) half-timbering, most often on second story walls ● Massive chimneys (often attached to the front wall) ● Tall, narrow windows (double-hung and casement windows), often in multiple groups, with multi-pane glazing ● Steeply pitched gable dormers, overhanging second story roof dormers, oriel windows, and bay windows ● Stone trim around entries (usually arched) ● 1 story side porch (sun room) ● Porte-cocheres and garden gates 4610 Browndale Ave Page 41 of 81 French Eclectic Style (as used here, refers to houses categorized as “Norman” and “French Provincial” in the 1980 National Register form; occasionally hybridized with Colonial Revival, Tudor and/or Mediterranean period style elements) ● 2 stories high ● Hipped roofs ● Brick, stucco or mixed materials wall cladding (sometimes with patterned stonework, brickwork or quoins) ● Arched window openings (sometimes with hood molds) ● Arched, hipped, or gabled roof dormers (tops sometimes break the roof-line) ● Round towers or “turrets” 4513 Edina Blvd Page 42 of 81 Italian Renaissance Style (encompasses houses categorized as “Mediterranean” and “Italian Renaissance Revival” in the 1980 National Register form) ● 2 stories high (often with 1 or 2 story wing) ● Hipped roof (low pitch) with wide eaves ● Green or red tile roofing ● Arches above door and window openings ● Upper story windows smaller, less elaborate than first story ● Small projecting entry porticos or porches with flat roofs and balustrades ● Stucco or brick veneer wall cladding ● Tall, narrow windows in pairs (“French windows”) ● Wrought-iron grillwork (balconets) under windows ● Raised terrace (“patio”) with wrought-iron or concrete balustrade in front, next to entry ● Balustrades on entry and side porches (usually flat-roofed) ● 1 story side sun porch (sun room) 4513 Wooddale Ave Page 43 of 81 Spanish Eclectic (as used here, refers to houses categorized as “Mediterranean” in the 1980 National Register form; includes houses showing the influence of the Mission Style) ● 1½ or 2 stories high ● Low-pitched roof with red tile covering ● Arches above door and window openings ● Asymmetrical massing ● Stucco wall cladding ● Flat-roofed front and side porches ● Large focal windows (arched) ● Wrought-iron grillwork (porch railings, window grilles, balconets) 4626 Arden Ave Page 44 of 81 Prairie Style (often occurring in hybrid forms with details borrowed from other styles) ● 2 stories high ● Low-pitched pyramidal hipped roof with wide eaves ● Stucco or brick wall cladding ● Horizontal rows of double-hung or casement windows ● Wide (“cottage”) double-hung windows on main floor ● 1 story porches ● Dormers 4604 Wooddale Ave Page 45 of 81 Craftsman (Arts & Crafts style features and detailing found on houses of all styles throughout the District) ● Decorative (false) beams, braces, or brackets under roof eaves ● Roofs with wide, unenclosed eaves ● Exposed roof rafters (non-structural) ● Partial width entry porches (enclosed) with front-gabled or hipped roofs ● Shed-roofed dormers ● Groups of three or more double-hung windows (often with multi-pane sash over one large glass pane, sometimes with transoms) ● Trellises and pergolas 4506 Browndale Ave Page 46 of 81 Date:August 12,2024 To:Mayor &City Council From:Heritage Preservation Commission Subject:Recommended Updates and Additions to Policies and Procedures for Exterior Renovations in the Country Club Heritage Preservation District Approved Work Plan Item: X Yes No Council Charge: 1:Study &Report 2:Review &Comment 3:Review &Recommend 4:Review &Decide X Items not on the approved work plan:Council action is rarely taken mid-year for items not on the current approved work plan.Action is only taken if Council chooses to discuss the Advisory Communication at theCouncilmeetingandprovidesspecificdirectionthroughaCouncilvote.Commissions are encouraged to submit new initiative proposals through the annual work plan process. Action Requested: The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)recommends adoption of the following updated documents: -Plan of Treatment for the Country Club Heritage Landmark District -Ordinance NO.2023-******Amending City Code concerning the HPC as well as the two new documents: -Edina Landmark Property and District Escrow Fee Policy -Examples of Architectural Styles in the Country Club District These four documents will collectively address past concerns while also improving clarity for all parties. Situation: In 2020,the HPC began raising concerns with staff and Council about two major home renovation projects in the Country Club District by one developer.Both projects involved multiple violations,stop work orders, amendments to the approved plans,and appeals of HPC decisions to City Council.These projects generated significant resident complaints and consumed excessive staff resources.For context,most projects that come before the HPC require just one meeting for approval (with some also utilizing an optional review for informal feedback)and an appeal to Council for an HPC decision hadn’t occurred in a decade.In working to prevent demolition-by-neglect on these two projects and uphold the Plan of Treatment as charged,the HPC revealed inconsistencies between this guiding document and the city ordinance.In addition,staff conceded Page 47 of 81 2 that they lacked sufficient tools to effectively enforce current rules in these two situations.The resulting Advisory Communication from the HPC in 2022 made recommendations to pursue these goals: 1.Prevent the loss of contributing heritage resources in the Country Club District. 2.Clarify the discrepancies in city documents as to when a COA is required. 3.Improve the application process. 4.Build education tools that clarify and illustrate appropriate rehabilitation. After extensive work by city staff and attorneys,in collaboration with a subcommittee of the HPC and the city’s new team of preservation consultants,the documents that will achieve these first three of these goals have been finalized.The HPC hopes that the Planning Commission and City Council approve all four documents so that it can proceed with its 2024 work plan item to achieve the final goal of public outreach. Background: The Country Club District was developed by Samuel S.Thorpe of Thorpe Brothers Realty Co.in the 1920s, following models in Kansas City and several East Coast cities.The majority of homes were built from 1924-1944,the district’s “period of significance”when deed restrictions dictated the style,color,and other aspects of the homes.In 1983,the Country Club District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its use of zoning,its cohesive design,and its well preserved concentration of homes in Period Revival (or Eclectic Movement)architectural styles.In the 1980 nomination survey,507 of the 555 homes (93%)were deemed “contributing resources”that retained sufficient integrity.In 2003 Edina designated the Country Club District a Heritage Landmark and approved a Plan of Treatment to guide local preservation. This document was revised in 2008 following a one-year moratorium on tear-downs.The city’s 2019 resurvey reported that 488 homes (88%)remained contributing resources and that the district is overall in “an excellent state of preservation.”The preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the district is rehabilitation,which updates properties through repair,alteration,and additions while preserving the portions that convey historic and architectural values. Assessment: Two multi-year construction projects in the Country Club District revealed three main areas of vulnerability disrupting the HPC’s charge of historic preservation:staff enforcement of violations,inconsistencies between the city documents,and lack of tools to avoid similar situations in the future.HPC members shared the frustration of many residents that the city’s stated preservation objectives were not being upheld fairly and consistently.That frustration has evaporated over the past year on the HPC as staff have carefully redrafted and expanded the documents they need to implement the community’s goal of historic preservation in the Country Club District.We urge the Council to adopt these four documents.The HPC is also grateful for the clarity and consistency that the new Building Official and the new preservation consultants have brought to our stated role of determining appropriate exterior renovation in this district. Page 48 of 81 3 Recommendation: The major changes and advantages are listed beneath each document we recommend Council adopt. Ordinance NO.2023-*****Amending City Code concerning the HPC -added clarity to terms,including demolition and street facing facade -added definitions of demolition by neglect,character-defining features,and more -inserted a one-year time limit for Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs),during which time both a COA permit and a building permit must be procured,with reasonable extension options -clarified when a COA is required as well as what work is exempt from a COA in a landmark district -expanded the Maintenance of Heritage Resources section forbidding deterioration by neglect -added escrow requirement for permits for all Heritage Landmark Properties/Districts (more below) Edina Landmark Property and District Escrow Fee Policy -New form to be signed by contractor and property owner acknowledging responsibility to maintain the protection of historic resources throughout the construction process and to inform staff of proposed changes to approved plans.Staff may seek HPC approval if changes are significant. -Fee required based on project valuation ($3,000 fee if under $100,000 and $15,000 fee if over)that city may use if needed to keep structures weathertight and protected,to ensure compliance with other ordinances,and for reinspection fees.The balance must be maintained and will be refunded when all permits,including the COA permit,have been closed. -this form also states the ordinance language for Stop Work Orders and Enforcement Plan of Treatment for the Country Club District -added historical context,map,and explanation of the period of significance -added one-year time limit on COAs per ordinance change,with detail on required permit timing -explained the COA application requirements and review process -listed projects exempt from a COA including replacement of exterior elements with like materials -emphasized that construction must follow approved COA plans and explained COA amendments -clarified which design review elements are recommended guidelines rather than requirements -Added section on character defining features,further expanded in supplement below Examples of Architectural Styles in the Country Club District -new resource to supplement the Plan of Treatment,which provides photos and lists character-defining features for the seven most prevalent Period Revival architectural styles in the Country Club District.This guide emphasizes that each house is a unique blend of architectural elements –and even of architectural styles –that adds embellishments of local tastes and style. Page 49 of 81 September 6, 2024 Emily Dalrymple, Assistant City Planner Nate Borwege, Chief Building Official Edina Landmark Property & District Escrow Fee Policy Information / Background: Permit Requirements for Heritage Landmark Properties or Properties within a Heritage Landmark District: While the Building Division understands and supports the importance and value of protecting the Heritage Landmark Properties there are some concerns for consideration with the escrow requirements: •Currently our building permits citywide for exterior work such as re-roofing, siding and windows do not require a plan review and are “over the counter” permits that can be purchased and issued online without staff review. To capture an escrow payment for this type of work, our permitting software would need to have property holds placed on all of the Heritage Landmark Properties. This would not allow any permits of any type, including plumbing and heating equipment repair and replacements, to be issued online via E-Permits to a Heritage Landmark Property. There will be considerable staff time designated to place property permit holds on all of the Landmark Properties. Or time will be required working with our software vendor to write a script for placing the holds. Our staff would require 6-9 months to add these holds to the properties to adequately enforce the ordinance. Once a permit hold is in place, our building permit specialists will be fielding calls and manually overriding the system to allow permits to move through and be issued. •The Building Division is on the front end of exploring a new permitting software as our current software system PIMS, will be sunsetting. We recommend that the ordinance changes for Heritage Landmark Properties would not go into effect until January 1st, 2026, after our division has time to review, purchase, implement and train on new permitting software that could support the escrow permitting requirement without affecting over the counter permits. It does not make best use of city time and resources to modify and enforce the escrow requirement under current the PIMS permit software that will be replaced. •Increased city staffing may be required to manage escrows, accept refund requests, provide inspections for verification approval of Certificate of Appropriateness and to issue escrow refunds. •The Building Division has concerns about the process following a storm creating roof, siding or window damage to homes in the Heritage Landmark District. Emergency repairs will need to be considered per Sec. 36-728, without a building material review or the formal review process by city staff. In a damaging storm event, we may have a large influx of plan reviews with a delay in permitting issuance compared to a typical over the counter permit for similar type of work. Page 50 of 81 September 12, 2024 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat with Variances for 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Avenue Information / Background: Donnay Homes, on behalf of the property owner, is proposing to subdivide the properties at 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Avenue into three lots. The existing homes on both lots would be torn down and new homes constructed on each new lot. This property was originally platted as three lots. The applicant is proposing to restore the original plat. (See applicant narrative and plans attached.) To accommodate the request, a subdivision is required. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision. 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot. 3. Lot depth variances from 135 feet to 130 feet for each lot. 4. Lot area variances from 9,000 s.f. to 6,509 s.f. for Lot 1, to 6,515 s.f. for Lot 2 and 6,520 s.f. for Lot 3. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,504 square feet, median lot depth is 130 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations.) The new lots meet the median calculations. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Page 51 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 2 Easterly: Wells Fargo Bank; zoned PCD-2, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Southerly: High Density Residential Apartment; zoned PRD-3, Planned Residential District; and guided High Density Residential. Westerly: Single-family homes; zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Existing Site Features The subject properties total 19,468 square feet in size and contain two single family homes. Planning Guide Plan designation: LD, Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling Unit District Lot Dimensions Area Lot Width Depth Required 9,000 s.f.75 feet 135 feet Median 6,504 s.f.50 feet 130 feet Lot 1 6,509 s.f.*50 feet*130 feet* Lot 2 6,515 s.f.*50 feet*130 feet* Lot 3 6,520 s.f.*50 feet*130 feet* * Variance Required Page 52 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 3 Building Coverage & Impervious Surface – Comparison Building Coverage Impervious Surface Required 25-30%50% Existing two lots – existing homes 3,053 s.f. 5,538 s.f. (29%) Existing two lots – with new homes 4,866 s.f. (30% req.) 9,771 s.f. (50%) Proposed three lots – with proposed homes 5,700 s.f. (25% req.)9,771 s.f. (50%) Note in the above table that the building coverage would be more with three new homes compared to two new homes on the lots and the two existing homes on the lots. Setbacks The required setbacks would be met. The front setback that is demonstrated on the plat (35 feet) is an average of the lots on either side of the existing lot. Side and rear setbacks would also be met. Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable at this stage, subject to conditions. (See the attached memo from the city engineer.) Drainage would generally flow to the east toward Hankerson Avenue, away from the adjacent properties to the north and south. The detailed grading plans for a specific new home would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application and would need to meet all city standards. Trees The applicant would be required to replace trees that are removed outside of the building pad and driveway areas. This would be reviewed at the time of building permit to ensure compliance. Park Dedication Because this lot was originally platted as three lots; the proposal is to restore the original plat, no park dedication is required. Page 53 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 4 History of Subdivision Requests with Variances The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this general area. (See attached area map.) The following is the history in the past 18 years: History of Recent Subdivisions with Variances 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66-foot-wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s.f. & 73 feet wide.) 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview Avenue was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50-foot lots; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 3. In 2009, a 100-foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,699 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,769 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,701 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 6. In 2012, 6120 Brookview was again proposed for subdivision. That request was denied. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 7. In 2012, 5945 Concord was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 8. In 2015, a 100-foot lot at 5825 Ashcroft Avenue was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,790 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 9 In 2015, 5945 Concord was approved for a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 10. In 2016, 5845 Kellogg Avenue was denied a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,715 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 11. In 2017, 6124 Ewing Avenue was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width and area variances. (Median = 11,500 s.f. & 80 feet wide.) 12. In 2017, 5404 Park Place was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 65 feet for each lot; and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 8,705 and 8,840 square feet. (Median = 8,107 s.f. & width was 60 feet wide.) Page 54 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 5 13. In 2019, 5841 Oaklawn was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for one lot; and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 8,793 and 6,694 square feet. 14. In 2019, 4625 Lexington was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 60 feet for both lots, and lot area variances from 9,306 square feet to 8,106 and 8,128 square feet. (Median area - 9,306 square feet, median lot depth - 135 feet, and the median lot width 68 feet) 15. In 2020, 5928 Ashcroft was denied a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for both lots, and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,813 and 6,790 square feet. (Median area – 8,841 s.f., median lot depth – 135 and median width was 66 feet.) 16. In 2020, 5928 Abbott Avenue was approved for a two-lot subdivision with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for both lots, lot area variance from 9,000 square feet to 6,391 and 6,331 square feet, and lot depth variances from 135 feet to 127 feet for both lots. (Median lot area – 6,745 square feet, median lot depth - 129.9 feet, and the median lot width – 50 feet.) In the instances when subdivisions have been denied, the area immediately surrounding the site contained a wide variety of lot sizes. In instances when subdivisions have been approved, the requesting lot was oversized (twice as large) compared to lots in the immediate area. The only other large lot on this block is the lot to the north; all other lots are 50 feet wide as are the proposed lots. Primary Issue Are the findings for a variance met? Yes, staff believes the requested variances are justified. Per Chapter 36 of the City Code, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: 1.The variances would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to establish minimum lot sizes that are similar with surrounding properties. Most of the east and north side of Edina developed with 50-foot lot Page 55 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 6 width minimums. This area is one of those that was originally platted and mostly developed with 50-foot-wide lots. (See attached original plat.) Reestablishing the original plat would be in harmony and general purpose of lot size regulations which was to have similar lot sizes within neighborhoods. 2.The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is guided for low- density residential (the single-dwelling unit areas). The proposed lots sizes are consistent with the vast majority of single-family lots in this neighborhood. 3.There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 request is reasonable in that it would allow three lots that are similar in size in the neighborhood and as the property was originally platted. The two original homes were built in 1953 and 1956 and were built on land that was previously platted as three lots. This neighborhood was platted in 1913 with all 50-foot-wide lots. (See attached original Brookside Heights Plat.) The median width in this neighborhood is 50 feet wide, the median lot area is 6,504 square feet and median lot depth is 130 feet. The proposed lots meet these medians. The proposal simply reestablishes the original plat. ii.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Yes. The unique circumstance of the oversized lot compared to other single-dwelling unit lot was not created by the existing landowner. Combining the lots to make them larger was done by a previous land owner. iii.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed improvements, three single-family homes to be built on three 50-foot lots, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new single-family homes would be constructed on lot similar in size to the lots on this block within the original Plat. Page 56 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 7 Options for Consideration As demonstrated on pages 3-4 of this report, there are options for consideration when considering a subdivision like this one. The following outlines options for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider. Denial Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed three lot subdivision of 5120 and 5124 Hankerson and lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot depth variances from 135 feet to 130 feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 9,000 s.f. to 6,509 s.f. for Lot 1, to 6,515 s.f. for Lot 2 and 6,520 s.f. for Lot 3. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The Subject Properties are conforming single-family residential lots with new single-family homes that have a taxable market value of $433,000 and $441,100. Reasonable use of the properties exists today. 2. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance standards. The requested variances to split this lot are not reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots are similar in size to the adjacent property to the north. 3. The practical difficulty alleged by the applicant’s proposal to subdivide the property is self- created. 4. The need for the variance is created only by Applicant’s desire to maximize the return on its investment. Such economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Approval Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed three lot subdivision of 5120 and 5124 Hankerson and lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot depth variances from 135 feet to 130 feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 9,000 s.f. to 6,509 s.f. for Lot 1, to 6,515 s.f. for Lot 2 and 6,520 s.f. for Lot 3. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The variance criteria is met. The request is reasonable in that it would allow three lots that are similar in size in the neighborhood and as the property was originally platted. The two original homes were built in 1953 and 1956 and were built on land that was previously platted as three lots. This neighborhood was platted in 1913 with all 50-foot-wide lots. Page 57 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 8 3. The unique circumstance of the oversized lot compared to other single-dwelling unit lot was not created by the existing landowner. Combining the lots to make them larger was done by a previous land owner. 4. The median lot width in this neighborhood is 50 feet wide, the median lot area is 6,504 square feet, and median lot depth is 130 feet. The proposed lots meet these medians for the neighborhood. 5. The proposal reestablishes the lots back to the original plat. 6. The requested variances to split this lot are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new single-family homes would be constructed on lot similar in size to the lots on this block within the original Plat. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. The lot lines in the final plat shall be straightened per the staff recommendation. 2. The new homes must be accessed from the existing alley in the rear yard. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district’s requirements. b. A curb-cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. c. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. The proposed plans shall meet all conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated September 5, 2024. d. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb-to-curb and from saw-cut to saw-cut. f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Page 58 of 81 STAFF REPORT Page 9 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed three lot subdivision of 5120 and 5124 Hankerson and lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot depth variances from 135 feet to 130 feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 9,000 s.f. to 6,509 s.f. for Lot 1, to 6,515 s.f. for Lot 2 and 6,520 s.f. for Lot; subject to the findings and conditions listed above. Deadline for a City Decision: November 6, 2024 Page 59 of 81 Site Page 60 of 81 Site Page 61 of 81 Page 62 of 81 3 I u ?, L Q----Zar:----1 litIVOSr-ria0:35- GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA R. T. DOC. NO. C. R. DOC. NO. KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That a Minnesota limited liability company. owner of the following described property: DR AFT Lot 6 and the South Half of Lot 5, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS. Md Lot 7 and the North Half of Lot 8, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use drainage and utility easements as created by ibis plat. In witness whereof said a Minnesota limited liability company has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this this day of Signed: NAME OF COMPANY By its STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was aciaxmledged before me this day of 20 by its of a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. Signature of Notary (Notary's Printed Name) Notary Public, County, Minnesota My commission expires I Gregory R. Pouch do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision: that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plot: that all monuments depicted on this plat have beea or will be correctly set within one year. that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 505.01, Sobd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 Gregory R. Pouch. Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 24992 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 20 by Gregory R Prasch Signature of Notary (Notary's Printed Name) Notary Public. County. Minnesota My commission expires CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF EDINA. MINNESOTA This plat of GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 25 , and said plat is in compliance with die provisions of Minnesota Statutes. Section 595.03. Subdivision 2. City Council. City of Edina, Minnesota By By Mayor Manager COUNTY AUDITOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the tuxes payable in and prior years have been paid Tor land described on ibis plot. doted this day of 20 . Daniel Rogan. Hennepin County Auditor By Deputy 20 . SURVEY DIVISION. Hennepin County. Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 38313.565 (1969) this plat hos been approved this _day of 20 . • DENOTES HALF INCH BY 14 INCH ROW PIPE MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY UCENSE NUAIDER 24992. Chris F. Mails, Hennepin County Surveyor By FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT THE EAST UNE OF BLOCK 9, "BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS* IS ASSUMED TO BEAR NORTH 0IP07'17“ WEST. • DENOTES FOUND OPEN END 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT UNLESS OTHERI445E NOTED. DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: REGISTRAR OF TITLES. Hennepin County. Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA was filed in this office this day of .20 at o'clock M. Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles O By Deputy 15 J SCALE IN FEET 0 BONG 10 MT IN MOTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY UNE5 AND BEING 5 FEET WIDTH AND ADJOINING 5/Df LOT LINES. UNLESS OTHER045F INDICATED ON MI5 PLAT. COUNTY RECORDER. Hennepin County. Minnesota I hereby cert f• that the within plat of GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA was recorded in this office this day of 20 o'clock NI 0 20 40 60 Amber Bougie. Hennepin County Recorder Br Deputy r-NORTI1 LINE OP 111f SOUTH HALF OF LOT 5 GO N 89°49'56" E 130.13 r , , ::: :)1 :: , , . I- tu i , 8 i 1 3 tst- tit. on L ti N 89.49' J 57. E 130.24 o '-' 0 0 u, N. F-o 0 o z g 1 _J t.11 11 :7ii i cr.. 1 ICI_ _ _t: — —1 — 4 ii , I 8 [....-----DaInage 6 I UliNyEasement-,... I it L ''- 1 / i If; AIP N 3Z 0„. 7 OR A IV D 49'5j: NORTH i E „ 46 OF LOT TOWNHOMES OF ED% 1%1 A CITY OF EDINA JUL 2 9 2024 I'LANN ING DEPARTMENT a of 60 Found capped eon monument Na. 24992 L /4 0 o W 0 0 O 14 CITY Knotty EMurveyNbrookside heights - hend15-9-9 brIcside hght - grandnew townhome 2nd \01 Surveying - 90570101 CACAO' 5ourcB07 Fula' Plat elog Page 63 of 81 c Registration No. 24992 Gregory R. cod 565.6 a000.0 Existing Contours Proposed Contours Edging Elevation Proposed Elevation Proposed Surface Drainage Sur: Current Property Owner: Dennis Bornfleth 5124 Hankerson Avenue Edina, MN 55436 Donny Homes Demers Surveying and Engineering 9655 63rd Avenue North 7601 73rd Avenue N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Attn: Steve Benke Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Attn: Greg Prasch phone: 763-560-3093 612.290.5570 e-mall: gregprasch@dernarcinc.com Area of Parcel = 19,544 sq. ft. By graphic interpretation only, this property is In Flood Zone "X' (area of minimal flooding) per FEMA panel map number 27053C0361F, dated 11/04/2016 Tine insurance commitment showing property description and any encumbrances of record not provided, survey subject to change. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. O 0 0 0 The land surveyed covers the entire parcel and there are no gaps or overlaps with adjacent parcels. Property located in Section 28, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota 0 Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at Hankerson Ave. S. and 52nd Street W. Elevation = 957.62 0 60 20 40 PROJECT: 90570A FB No: 1109-46 rAnurvmAlcrookawic height, - henM5-9-9 brkowl gmnchnow townhomc 2nd \ 0 I 5urverma - 90570t0 I CA= I Source \ 0 I Survey Bacc.dwg SURVEY FOR: DONNAY HOMES 9655 63rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 I certify that this plan, specificalion, or report was prepared by me or under my tired supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed this 14th day of December 2023. Signed: REVISION SUMMARY 01-30.24 existing amyl... DRAWN BY: BT CHECKED BY; GRP FIELD BY: SHEET NO. 1 OF 6 TYPE OF SURVEY: EXISTING CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT OF: GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I r .....- • I r 1- < 1- e' / I l 1 1 1- - I • • L L Front = 30 feet (35.0 average of abutting lots) Side Street = 15 feet Side = 5 feet Rear = 25 feet SHEET INDEX Sheet 1 - Existing Conditions Survey Sheet 2 - Site Plan Sheet 3 - Preliminary Plat Sheet 4 - Grading & Stormwater Erosion Control Plan Sheet 5 - Utility Plan Sheet 6 - Neighborhood Exhibit SCALE IN FEET Legend I A "'CV!' 564.k_ CJ 2. trx • 9 w - p 162.65 096.0 c' 963.(1(I) , 964.4 .963.5 tv.,362.5 955.95 A A /4 5651 969. 967.9 = 5610 967.0 -e N 89°49'5r E 130A *so gq.74zo"961 k „ T-,.541 ire of thNo.. o223 Residence No. 5132 = 969.1 AdyNaanct amen Ga4ge neer - 969.6 Cathy Clark Residence No. 5134 E ¨ ¨ L Lot Area 19,544 sq ft House No.5124 1,041 sq ft Garage No.5124 532 sq ft Stoops No.5124 34 sq ft Deck No.5/24 249 sq ft Concrete No.5I24 1,166 sq ft Bituminous 64 sq ft House w/ fireplace 845 sq ft No.5120 Garage No.5120 445 sq ft Stoops No.5120 54 sq ft Concrete Driveway 87.5 sq ft No.5120 Pavers No. 5/20 78 sq ft Concrete walk * 644 sq ft Patio No. 5/20 Total 6,030 sq ft Percentage 30.85% CITY OF EDINA JUL 2 9 ?f1 4 PLANNING DEfri-,HIMENI • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument Set SF Miscellaneous Notes Property Address: 5120 & 5124 Hankerson Ave., Edina, MN 55436 PID No.: 28-117-21-32-0144 & 28-117-21-32-0144 Lot 6 and the South Half of Lot 5, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And Lot 7 and the North Half of Lot 8, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. - r L ; T = - 134C967 \ , ,,..,6.6.9 6769.37 .) .:.„... 6,...,7,z0.3 1965.9 5675 167.7 966.9 567.6 9g3kre.. '.42 96 7- 1 .57 i ecso _ scao/ / // 26.b7// // ist664.3 f / / !0.963.8 / / 966.5 ! 90.3 Deck /,. O sG/. .964.1 o'A":".' ,..963.7 6 O 565.0 vV Residence 7,.., oaf 966. "7" / No. 5124 / 15,r..969.0/ Dee 1967. .967.5 • N 89°4 9'56" E96•l3o.13 .-6 4 564. , 66 65sn.:944.3 60563.7 Meter / 966.6 $47.514/26,01;// 7: • 967 967.- 6,.5 967.3 ~Eyea, .0055-- ffi,969.4 kt: Residence .i+'' ' No. 5120 2.1 .569.4 1.167.7 960 " re457707 . 565.2 6 6m5- „(i .964.3 5'5.2.663.5 b.564.2 1.9620 3-7.9 96 e of Ae South 1/1 dfot 5 • 5667 9 g 966.6,' 1.1563.6 9673 rear..,*N 967.6 9675 56 967.4 963.1 7*064.6 34.9 563.6 5. 34. .563.1 • $96251 562.0 565.4 •o r, 3.5 rr 1101629 .61.20 .61 4 962,9 .563.9 ;,114662.11, 41.72 1.563.4 60562.0 A 960.49 I.P1 A 1,0562 0 .563.4 60 RAV14Idth A\ A rn 6 III /4 I I IINI {- -I - 1 I 1- -I 1 iL-1 1 1 I 569.0 Mamma amen Kew, Hagen t AL Hagen ori fence 66 965.5 96 666 060.7 0 0 w O o 114 2z S 9649.3 TRENCH DRAIN (TYPICAL) Wood 1,evacy fence-, ' 679 967.7 867)45674 9 560.1 969. Dec. ale / 21.6. ncy_ y re-14.0-0- Residence No. 5136 CAS ut Gas Main Underground Communications Underground Electric Sander), sewer Storm Sarver Wafermaln Overhead Glee Sill Fence or Blarols 03 Bollard Light O Forger Pole • Sanitary Manhole o Storm Manhole o Water Manhole • Catch Basin Residence No. 5138 Zoning Information Property Zoned: R-1 Single Dwelling Unit Setbacks: A tnh 966.45 DEMARC LAND SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 DemarcInc.com Page 64 of 81 D rIte e a y Net 10 WU. NAL COMM MON 001.1.0e r 1101 10111 0,4003:01[ 500 clAsa • 10. M. MIMI on Or 0.1101 K1•001 00 0.3711. e row Awn rant lozormawaroarta mum mawrEw /W. /./. 41 In. ta1110200 .41 W. DM. 1/AA010.0 OWL MID. r GMro enumeees ea, o,m®I 04/11 MAY IDOI/RIE al MOM Or MLR 10121 RAW. 9 zwr.r."zrisUr.,'',,w,:togt.-,'arlalrA,71=1.7,01,I =OA (S1 1.1.IDI trEWS0 044.1. KA. IMMO 1/100431 (r allIDEL 2 ON RR 0.01:010. 4) 0.0"11 ONTO. at .101.17. • Denotes Found kon Monument O Denotes Ron Monument Set O Bogard • 0500 e Power Pole • Sanitary Manhole ID Storm Manhole e Water Manhole CO Catch Basin 7 Existing Contours Proposed Contours x000.0 Meting Elevation 000.0 Proposed Elevation Proposed Surface Drainage 1 Personnel Dennis Bornfleth 5124 Hankerson Avenue Edina, MN 55436 Donnay Homes Demarc Surveying and Engineering 9655 63rd Avenue North 7601 73rd Avenue N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Attn: Steve Benke Attn: Greg Prasch 612.290.5570 phone: 763-560-3093 e-mall: gregprasch@demercino.com A A A aA 966.45 A 60. Wedth Signed: Gregory R. PZchegistration No.24992 SURVEY FOR: DONNAY HOMES 9655 63rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 !certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direst supervision and that ter a duty licensed land Sureeyo under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Prepared this 17th day of July 2024. REVISION SUMMARY 3 0? 0$ if FIELD BY: CHECKED BY: GRP DRAWN BY: cea DEVELOPMENT OF: GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA PROJECT: 905708 FB Na: 1109-46 TYPE OF SURVEY: SITE & GRADING PLAN DEMARC LANG SURVEYING S ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 DemarcInc.com Legend efr1a1110 1 - eNeF PA/01 apt a O 6 965. 10 1120. sz.at, raj. r meow re 00F1 10 Mil. RDASEDE 2-111 STANDARD PUTE 400 am Ile 21.11112,, , Mae r.L'mrt OD SEDX/Lafoa-S 11.41131 DID. -r wso. eueuroor neaReow 10.41 COOLL103 .011 AMID Oa.. caawout e 1010/i eeo remee4 caw MOOR /IX 11111110000/111 all MATO. 22.. RM NI-4 AVID1Iat. 0...01.0 O., 0 lexcetem .11.1E10091.1.11•111 IIATIALA /10 Ira IA. PO 103. Ir. WW2.. 0.004.1.10.1001.10, la //OM .1.1. ICAS. WM; WWI NO MIS% CP 1.0001 LAMM WYK ..”011.0111/ IDIAILL ALL 1.1.11.1.1. 51.111 Ila.3 not let rer. 0 MOAT. all r POLO 022.015 114A0 MAU SIM MIMI SAW 110101 051112 2.1.22 e WPM 0101MT. 011.0[00 /00.40 .10 0011 61/10100.10.1.00 071 WM MG NII: MA0.0110 ON .1.0 MAW. .01.111107 0101011. • mo OF rr urr eicscog lemma /ou.0000 C0.0111.1 I.. •ID.aa 111.1111.1.1. MI 1001[1.16.10.1.01.0 KAM 111-31A. 0221.2,212. 2240212 2114,1411 WILLIE FARM Mtn. 2701642. KOS 2•1 TRIO Denote Full Basement Paitial Lookout Current Property Owner: Zoning & Development Information J Existing Zoning Classification - R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) Proposed Zoning Classification - R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) Building Setback Requirements per Zoning Ordinance Front - 30 feet (35.0' average of abutting Lots) Side- 5 feet Rear - 25 feet Refer to City code for additional requirements and variance information. Proposed Number of tots = 3 Area of proposed: Lot 1, Block 1 = 6,509 sq.ft Lot 2, Block 1 = 6,515 sq.ft Lot 3, Block 1 = 6,520 sq.ft Right-of-Way Dedication = 0 sq.ft Miscellaneous Notes 0 Property Address: 5120 & 5124 Hankerson Ave., Edina, MN 55436 PID No.: 28-117-21-32-0144 & 28-117-21-32-0144 0 Area of Parcel = 19,544 sq. ft. ri) By graphic interpretation only, this properly Is in Flood Zone "X" (area of minimal flooding) per FEMA panel map number 27053C0361F, dated 11/042016 O Title insurance commitment showing property description and any encumbrances of record not provided, survey subject to change. The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information provided by client O The land surveyed covers the entire parcel and there are no gaps or overlaps with adjacent parcels. O Property located In Section 28, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota 0 Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at Hankerson Ave. S. and 52nd Street W. Elevation = 957.62 ris es es r e es r -C I- el II I Li I I Ih-L/ I I le I Le L [01....01rt OVW.17 0.M-a 0181:1-AKLOMI:10 10421110 11141T (JO la; ANS / / / N / / /- -1 1- - f I--1 I • ... I _ e • • I rf-14.0,6- N 89°49'57" E 1314 9"..9 565, 5077AI,, • • r_me... fir4„,.,,5x2,166, 6 the 2661. 21.3 y4i~r """"" \‘ Residence No. 5/32 • rcPd • rm.-ea., -901 Adeovunq Owner: • „ 7kv e • 9646 coke hark '9 • Residence No. 5/34 • R E V./ TO :,•1/1,/,111,11-1E:7"; L. r I O ▪ r I -a O u-) 96816"k* • FG6.5 -IN 89 49 56" E 130.13 r'..3 le67.6 567.0 ,67.7 09.0 oad fence 6 .11 392g __ ace,ssrs 06.6 • 564.2 all 963.3 9600 967.0 2/ 2-a- • • colla,v •. • Residence No. 5136 • • \• • • • • _\ • • • • Residence No. 5135 \ • N • 4 First ROO/ - 970.3 115# - 968.4 - AA:posed GF - 968.1 Residence LF - 959.7 poem Osene, Rem Mogen * A L Mogen 5111). First Floor - 969.9 FBLO' TOF- 968.0 Proposed GF - 967.7 LF- 959.3 Residence 0 T N 89°49'57" E 130.24 9 T O L O T,•:, „ 2 Residence 967.6 FBLO" 967.7 PLANNING bEPARTME 111 34.9 50.1 e ene 5o6gV24 of lot 4, ascs" gas 111) 1(II - 563.0 1111 v41, -F r I- -7 ,; 061.20 • -4.7 C2:9 35.55 6 Fr e 31 k 966.3 .'515 a 2 CITY OF ED IL 9 I 0 O 0964-I ,`')96 4, p, ..944 WS 465.2 I.. 9 2( 959.98 NA A 24 A 61.72 060 960.46 w5-1 RS-7 A NT CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING (PUBLIC WORKS DEPTS. Area of Lot 2, Block 1 = 6,515 sq.ft Building area = 1900 sq.ft Building Coverage =29.2% Total Impervious Coverage = 3,257 sf (50.0%) Area of Lot 3, Block 1 = 6,520 sq.ft Building area = 1900 sq.ft Building Coverage =29.2% Total Impervious Coverage = 3,260 sf (59.0%) Area of Lot 1, Block 1 = 6,509 sq.ft Building area =1900 sq.ft Building Coverage =29.2% Total Impervious Coverage = 3,254 sf (59.0%) 5120 Hankerson = 969.4 5724 Hankerson = 969.0 ORIGINAL FIRST FLOOR ELEVATIONS Impervious Surface BITUMINOUS ROADWAY PATCHING (0-4 YEARS) 0,1110M0 PLATE 541 REUSED: 01-17 WADI .0011 CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING & PUBUC WORKS DEPTS. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APRONS za,./ 20Yrtolnwl 24S _ r L T -4. .9630 969.0 Drainage & Utility Easements Legal Description CITY OF EDINA ENGINEEIIING (PUBLIC WORKS DEPTS. ROADWAY REMOVAL AND SUBGRADE REPAIR 2-4/A1P11--.11.0 Dom. sTANDARO PLATE 540 RENSEDE 01-17 SHEET INDEX Sheet 1 - Existing Conditions Survey Sheet 2 - Site Plan Sheet 3 - Preliminary Plat Sheet 4 - Grading & Stormwater Erosion Control Plan Sheet 5 - Utility Plan Proposed Building Elevations Proposed Top of Foundation Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Basement Floor Type orBuiring Proposed dedicated drainage and utility easements will be thus: 10 feet along Hankerson Avenue 10 feet along the alley 5 feet along Interior lot Ines Lot 6 and the South Half of Lot 5, Black 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And Lot 7 and the North Half of Lot 8, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 60 %MOM 1 - 0111.1101F PARR Prat 0.1.0 arnot at let mum or ma MN.. MIX AIM Amman *vow an mock= al ric OM 0-1 111.t• 14010. 01 °01.1e. 0.001301 VAL le 10.1•s• Na ow maw MAW 54• ralmr.4 10101 opaw, lis•man. Am wawa nal 00, wow. rms. 13) 500.105 01.51. a 1111/2 An IMMO 0111 Yes WY 04.1010 50.10 10100 100)405. 1021. S Immo. Na AcerINAS reatel 1:110101i Mx= L WW1 111101068 0 Gas Main Underground Communications Underground Electric: Sanitary Seater Storm Sewer MN/Main Overhead Mee sat Fence or Biomes 964.60 64.30 355 967.4 5673 , 966. 966 906 /4 900 14 966.0 9679 First Floor- 970.3 3 TOF - 968.4 GF - 968.1 LF - 959.7 is 55'O FBLO' Proposed Residence r: Surveyor. 1451)0100 1 - 10.111111,P4)45 PAT/n1000100 ale I , corm r.--Ai ti ii .---1 ''''' .4 :.., x-......,..X.t.r *.•!1:-. • ,V, ..,-,...A. CAS SF ED TRENCH DRAIN L O ITYPICAS) /0 SHEET NO. 2 OF 6 Page 65 of 81 I certify that this plan, spedfication, or repod was prepared by me or under my drool supervision and that t ern a duty licensed land Surve r under the laws of the Stele of hfinnesota. 411110111:: Signed: Gregory R. sc Registration No. 24992 IL; .0 ID FIELD BY: RP 2 CHECKED BY: GRP nhame 2nd\ 0 I Surveying - 90570 01 CACAO I Source \ 0 I Survey Bunexhvg DRAWN BY: AWA, REVISION SUMMARY SURVEY FOR: DONNAY HOMES 9655 63rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 DEVELOPMENT OF: GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA PROJECT: 90570 FB No: 1109-46 DEMARC LANG SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 DemarcInc.com TYPE OF SURVEY: PRELIMINARY PLAT SHEET NO. Prepared this 17th day of July 2024. 3 OF 6 r 6\ eN / /.• I /- Ft I-6/ II /Pt /I II-- I-, I I S., ko• I '1 ••••• I I-, / / I- -I - / -• 1--I I / / I Azifonong awe, Kenna Hagen C A L Hagen esso 9 ui A A 60 RAN Width 0 20 40 60 GAS ur ua << 969. 56696 Wood Pence eats 966.5 ood p otlaeJ,.9e 967.91 66.0In 3 9 .96 .1 N 89;9'57" E 130.46 t 96.9 14. 1.... 'E,_„. st;•, • • 56'36 th, 66.2 ,966.6 966.0 967.7 Residence No. 5/32 Ter of fcvnIstarr, = 969.1 Ael,analg Donn: barge Floor = 966.6 Cathy Clark_jut 0 O O Property Address: 5120 & 5124 Hankerson Ave., Edina, MN 55436 PID No.: 28-117-21-32-0144 & 28-117-21-32-0144 Area of Parcel = 19,544 sq. ft. By graphic Interpretation only, this property Is in Flood Zone 'X' (area of minimal flooding) per FEMA panel map number 27053C0361F, dated 11/0422016 Title Insurance commitment showing property description and any encumbrances of record not provided, survey subject to change. The only easements shown are from plats of record er Information provided by dent. 969.0 13,st1 Hroos 967 a‘a /4 962. N 89'49.57"981 - 9676 V •22.0 /// O Garage g; // ri f336969.0 slap Z/2610 /// 967.3 - /4 0 Residence No. 5/34 GR,' All) VIE TO vvoii:Awiciii\F Residence No. 5136 L _ _ _ Residence No. 5135 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SHEET INDEX Sheet 1 - Existing Conditions Survey Sheet 2 Site Plan Sheet 3 Preliminary Plat Sheet 4 Grading & Stormwater Erosion Control Plan Sheet 5 Utility Plan I Zoning & Development Information ) Existing Zoning Classification - R-1 (Single [vailing Unit District) Proposed Zoning Classification - R-1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) Building Setback Requirements per Zoning Ordinance Front - 30 feet (35.0' average of abutting Lots) Side- 5 feet Rear - 25 feet Refer to City code for additional requirements and variance information. Proposed Number of Lots = 3 ken of proposed: Lot 1, Block 1 = 6,509 sq.ft Lot 2, Block 1 = 6,515 sq.ft Lot 3, Block 1 = 6,520 sq.ft Right-of-Way Dedication = 0 sq.ft Miscellaneous Notes O The land surveyed covers the entire parcel and there are no gaps or overlaps with adjacent parcels, O Property located In Section 28, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota O Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at Hankerson Ave. S. and 52nd Street W. Elevation = 957.62 O Improvements shown are the current existing conditions which will be razed. Refer to the 'Site Plan' for future improvement locations and elevations Legal Description Lot Sand the South Half of Lot 5, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And Lot 7 and the North Half of Lot B, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 966 EPARTMENiT 566. .91=964.3 • 966.5 4=963.7 9666., I %CC/ Jej. 9666' 6.40.6 ear - - - - '0 IV d a 0,1" 35.1 t2"4- - I 1.964.3 34'9 966.1 lee smacT14 9661 567.7 9,„ Core. ...al; 967.6 966.5 963.1 1•964.6 4=263.4 6. 966. 34.9 LAI '74 1Q64..• ..1963.6 J1161.5 .963.7 111 1096,3.1 5.,39241 sceo 63.5 e 9619 .962;3 961.4 965. a 61 tee 964.60 A 964.30 1,963.4 1=962.0 1:7623:40 A .963.5 .962.5 16963. yre963.4a S 66 1.969.4 - - a.,6c.as 5.967.7 65.2 • 169.5 • "5.9 .967.7 • g AZIENIENT • 35,S •,1 967.6 961 N 89'49'56' E;139.13 966 CT TRENCH DRAM O TYPICAL) ta, Wood p...evacy Fence 967.9 967.7 967. 967.6 5 -96f. Ca.) 967.5 Bee Her 6 3 .9 aria Residence T- -1 r LlJ III 965.4 961. 959.96 A A Legend Gas Male Underground Communkations Underground Electric Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Watermain Overhead Wres Denotes Existing Contours 10 feet along Hankerson Avenue 10 feet along the alley 5 feet along interior lot lines • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument Set • Bolard • D9ht O Power Pole CO Sanitary Manhole 6,3 Storm Manhole 63 Water Manhole fp Catch Basin x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Denney Homes 9655 63rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 Attn: Steve Berke 612.290.5570 Surveyor: Demarc Surveying and Engineering 7601 73rd Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Attn: Greg Prasch phone: 763-560-3093 e-mail: gregprasch@demarcinc.com 966.7 0 0 /o O 0 r -14.0 966.45 SCALE IN FEET Drainage & Utility Easements Proposed dedicated drainage and utility easements will be thus: Current Property Owner: Developer: Dennis Bomfieth 5124 Hankerson Avenue Edina, MN 55436 Page 66 of 81 SILT FENCE OR BIOROLLS PER DETAIL 1/4 R 2/4 (TYP.) FRENCH DRAIN PER DETAIL 315 (100 FTX 13.5 FT) 100-YEAR=964.0 INLET PROTECTION PER DETAIL 3/4 (TYP.) OPTIONAL CONTRUCTION FENCE (TYP.) L. 40 STABILIZING EXITS SHALL USE EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS STABILIZING EXITS SHALL USE EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS 20 GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF EDINA SHALL APPLY EXCEPT WHERE MODIFIED BY THESE DOCUMENTS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. (1-800-252-1166) 3. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS. 4. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. 5. EXISTING TOPSOIL SHALL BE SALVAGED TO PROVIDE 4" TOPSOIL COVERAGE OVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS To. BE REVEGETATED. 6. THE BUILDING PAD MUST BE PROVIDED WITH A POSITIVE OUTFLOW. THIS WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. 7. ANY SEDIMENT REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE SILT FENCE HAS BEEN REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED OR SODDED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 8. NO FINISHED SLOPE SHALL EXCEED 4H : 1V UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION. METHODS OF MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKED EQUIPMENT. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S (I.E. SILT FENCE, BIO-ROLLS, INLET PROTECTION, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 2. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ANY INLET THAT MAY RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE DISTURBED AREAS OF THE PROJECT. INLET PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED FOR A PARTICULAR INLET IF A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (FLOODING / FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. THE PERMITTED MUST RECEIVE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY ENGINEER VERIFYING THE NEED FOR REMOVAL. 3. INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S, SUCH AS SILT FENCE, AROUND ALL STOCKPILES. 4. RETAIN AND PROTECT AS MUCH NATURAL VEGETATION AS FEASIBLE. WHEN VEGETATION IS REMOVED DURING DEVELOPMENT, THE EXPOSED CONDITION OF LAND SHALL BE KEPT TO THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOT LONGER THAN 60 DAYS. ANY EXPOSED AREAS EXCEEDING THIS TIME-FRAME SHALL BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED (STRAW MULCH, WOODCHIPS, ROCK). AREAS BEING USED FOR MATERIAL STORAGE AND AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE EXEMPT FROM TEMPORARY STABILIZATION. 5. ANY STEEP SLOPES (3H : 1V OR STEEPER) EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION, MULCHING OR BY OTHER MEANS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF CEASING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE STEEP SLOPES. STOCKPILES MAY BE PROTECTED BY AN ANCHORED TARP OR PLASTIC SHEET. 6. PROVIDE DUST CONTROL AS NECESSARY. DUST CONTROL CAN INCLUDE WATER. 7. REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS TRACKED OR OTHERWISE DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC PAVEMENT AREAS ON A DAILY BASIS OR AS NEEDED. 8. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED EVERY 7 DAYS, OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ALL RAIN EVENTS GREATER THAN 1.0" IN 24 HOURS. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED SHALL BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY. 9. SILT FENCE, BIO-ROLLS AND INLET PROTECTION DEVICES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW. 10. AFTER FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, EXPOSED SOILS MUST BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL CONSIST OF 4 INCHES TOPSOIL, AND SEED, MULCH AND FERTILIZER APPLIED BY METHODS AND RATES RECOMMENDED IN MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2575 AND MN/DOT SEEDING MANUAL, OR SOD. THE SEED MIX SHALL BE MN/DOT 25-151. 11. NO CONCRETE WASHOUT ALLOWED ON SITE, TRUCK BASED SELF CONTAINMENT WASHOUT DEVICES REQUIRED. 12.OIL STAINS ON CITY STREETS SHALL BE CLEANED UP WITH FLOOR DRY, AND DISPOSED OF AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL. 13.ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE SHALL BE STORED CLEANED UP AND DISPOSED OF PER EPA STANDARDS. 14. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AFTER PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 16. TEMPORARY PUMPED DISCHARGE POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNIQUES: "DANDY DEWATERING BAG" BROCK WHITE CO. USA. 17. CONTACT PERSON FOR SITE CLEANLINESS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS: PAUL DONNAY (763) 531-0714 18.NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: (952) 835-2078 968. 560. /4 560.7 0 0 U.1 TV 11,1,), 8 Z g 96'6.3 „ 89°49'57" Ei30:0 9690 966.9 • o ' ecas 90.0 Adam.An Onne, Kew Hagen F A L Hagen 90.0 960.5 967. N 89°49'56" E .130.13 960.2 7., 967.6 :2 34.9 966.1 1 nth qf .9al.th 963.1 A 966.45 TREE PROTECTION FENCE (TYP.) Residence No. 5132 Two M,=969.1 Mpg.; Owner: Garav floor = 56.16 Cathy Clark Residence • 63 Lot Area 0010#0,41#0,01 Buildings Porches Driveways Walks Total Percentage Residence No. 5/34 AeWozAu,, FLOW EXISTING GROUND BACKFILL AND COMPACT SOIL FROM TRENCH ON UPGRADIENT SIDE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG 45' 1 IN X 2 IN X 24 IN LONG WOODEN STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE BACK HALF OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG AT AN ANGLE OF 45 DEGREES WITH THE TOP OF THE STAKE POINTING UPSTREAM. STRAW SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SCALE IN FEET SHEET INDEX Sheet 1 - Existing Conditions Survey Sheet 2 - Site Plan Sheet 3 - Preliminary Plat Sheet 4 - Grading & Stormwater Erosion Control Plan Sheet 5 - Utility Plan PLACE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG IN SHALLOW TRENCH (1 IN -21N DEPTH) 0 8 IN - 113 IN EMBEDMENT DEPTH SPACE BETWEEN STAKES SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 1 FT FOR DITCH CHECKS OR 2 FT FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS. BIOROLLS O INLET PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE MINIMUM DOUBLE STITCHED SEAMS ALL AROUND SIDE PIECES AND ON FLAP POCKETS FRONT, BACK, AND BOTTOM TO BE MADE FROM SINGLE PIECE OF FABRIC OVERFLOW HOLES (2 IN X 4 IN HOLE SHALL BE HEAT CUT INTO ALL FOUR SIDE PANELS) 19,544 se, ft 1,041 sq ft 532 sq ft 34 sq ft 249 sq ft 1,166 sq 64 sq 045 sq ft 445 sq ft 54sgft 575 sq ft 75 sq ft 644 sq it 6,030 sq ft 30.55% 5 FT MINIMUM LENGTH POST AT 6 FT MAXIMUM SPACING PLASTIC ZIP TIES (50 LBS TENSILE) LOCATED IN TOP BIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, 36 IN WIDE Lot Area House No.5124 Garage No.5124 5toops No.5124 Deck No.5124 Concrete No.5124 Bituminous House w/ Fireplace No.5120 Garage No.5120 Stoops No.5120 Concrete Driveway No.5120 Pavers No. 5120 Concrete walk et Patio No. 5120 Total Percentage Proposed Hardcover A USE REBAR OR STEEL ROD FOR REMOVAL (FOR INLETS WITH CAST CURB BOX REPLACE ROD WITH WOOD 2 IN X 4 IN). EXTEND 10 IN BEYOND GRATE WIDTH ON BOTH SIDES, LENGTH VARIES. SECURE TO GRATE WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC TIES. INLET SPECIFICATIONS AS PER THE PLAN DIMENSION LENGTH AND WIDTH TO MATCH FLAP POCKET FLOW FLOW Residence No. 5136 Residence No. 5135 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ MY-Of-EDNA JUL 2 9 2024 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TIRE COMPACTION ZONE EXISTING GROUND MACHINE SUCE 8 IN- 12 IN DEPTH SILT FENCE MACHINE SLICED) NOT TO SCALE Existing Hardcover O sP 2 9 7-t N E rn .0 "4. .5 DESIGNED BY: JAP CHECKED BY: u. GRP DRAWN BY: ABL 01.31.24 PROP. SERVICES REV S ONS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UND R MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESS! EN I EERrt7JJDFR THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. EFFREY A. P SC , P.E. DATE: 01.25.24 LIC. NO.: 52706 IDEMARC LAND SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING 7601 73RD AVENUE N, BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55428 PHONE: 763.560.3093 FAX: 763.560.3522 wvnv.DemarcInc.com DONNAY HOMES 9655 63RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLEGROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 763.531.0714 GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA 5132-5148 HANKERSON AVENUE EDINA, MINNESOTA GRADING & STORMWATER EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT: 90570A SHEET NO. 4 OF 6 Page 67 of 81 N 89°49'56" E 130.13 Wood Vence..-1 151.1.1‘..207.101„,tE AT SOMME SNOT OR ST EM SOR SITSETER IRC 5,51 are/ I/4. Po R (555) Y '0 a y 963.9 N 89°49'57" E 130.46 IN SCALE NOTES: 1. ALL SANITARY SERVICES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2.5% SLOPE. 2. ALL SERVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY STANDARD PLATE 300. SHEET INDEX Sheet 1 - Existing Conditions Survey Sheet 2 - Site Plan Sheet 3 - Preliminary Plat 40 Sheet 4- Grading & Stormwater Erosion Control Plan Sheet 5- Utility Plan FEET DESIGNED BY: JAP I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN: SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNOIR MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESS!. ENGINEER D R THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. /I, / REVISIONS 0 E 1111/11 A R C LAND SURVEYING S ENGINEERING 7601 73RD AVENUE N, BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55428 PHONE: 763.560.3093 FAX: 763.560.3522 way.Demarcinc.com DONNAY HOMES 9655 63RD AVENUE NORTH MAPLEGROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 763.531.0714 GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA 5120-5124 HANKERSON AVENUE EDINA, MINNESOTA UTILITY PLAN PROJECT: 913570A DRAWN BY: ABL SHEET NO. 5 OF 6 CHECKED BY: GRP f EFA. P SC , PE. DATE: 07.25.24 LIC. NO.: 52706 E N 05 513 05 E S MS 3 S IL CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS DEPTS. REVISF_Ik STANDARD PLATE 300 PPM MS STOP SOCATIM ILAOCOM U1 10401lIt DIRCIMY 0,1 ROME SW. KVO. be5I WM beg 1:0191 Vow A-1) SR /MOWS UM. MI ISOO1C0 NMI. It 1. 104 Me MUM MO RULL use anti glal SINPLegl SIM MOUE TITS FRT CR FM SR APPRONST MAL 01101 ROME WitCOPINSOPI WU am IMAs KM. 01111 IOU 1.015 KNTART 5,0 WET NIP. 11021 !MS SE MEM= SI UR SAW 1/(101 r 6 onsuor. ISPCIUMNE AIC SOMME SM. NW. 11151-UE OWN MIR REVUES REVUES SY TM W r I 960.-15 A CEXISTING WATER SERVICE (TYP.) 13 •1 r I E f',":: lagl.„5,0, I, of the A,. i al lig \\\,Re\o-\\\,,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1111 \ \ vc,-- . Residence No. 5132 \ \ lib, of Feb,,ber r .. \ 965.1 Ad,o.o.nq atner: \ \ G:r.r,e Frocr. = sca 6 Cathy Clark \ L -...s.- \ \. Ill! Residence No. 5134 CRINDVIEW TOWNHOMES:OF EDINA CITY OF EDINA JUL 2 9 2024 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REFERENCE NOTES: CI VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING SERVICES AND REMOVE TO THE MAIN. • INSTALL PROPOSED SERVICES WITHIN SAME TRENCH TO MINIMIZE ROADWAY DISTURBANCE. 0 PATCH ROADWAY PER CITY STANDARD PLATES 540 AND 541 ON SHEET 2. • COORDINATE LOCATION OF SERVICES WITH MECHANICAUARCHITECTURAL PLANS. Ad,..rtmq 04ne, Kenn Hagen 4 A Hagen Vorth a/150 5e,e5 I/O ion. 14 A A 555. 4,55) yo.usr mummy lo n• 16011 PIRO. RUM CMS 05 RUM. RC UPOSZR 111035S, SIDOESPUIS PATIVOI CS,R1 yray W.,WM OM M. STMX MR LSE ROI r yrknouxy no). Lsm,„ PORN OR N155:5515 POW, PM STOPS SUM TE IVA= ER 5051 HET t IMRET. ITEM WM 1.0. IETREIERT MUIR SUN. MLA STOP SILOS IC MLA 11-000) at WPM. LOOM SUN MM. MUM) ELMS TYPE 4:51T. tl ©CONNECT 4" PVC SANITARY SERVICE TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 0 WET TAP EXISTING WATERMAIN (,EXISTING SANITARY SERVICE (TYP.) °CONNECT 4" PVC SANITARY SERVICE TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ©WET TAP EXISTING WATERMAIN 0 CONNECT 4" PVC SANITARY SERVICE TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ©WET TAP EXISTING WATERMAIN SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CONNECTION /41 i 27 W e I k 14 'If a 1 k tl Hwy ( w/1) 5y VI a I k Page 68 of 81 '' to* I 1.0 R-1 LOTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION rear li C 1' 8 - tt.A. 6114. .au IN ti b L ag i I•:r. 117#C an Ajt, • .1 ' . a. r 114 1416 to l --sr I I. ;Pt Address 5037 Bedford Ave 5041 Bedford Ave 5045 Bedford Ave 5113 Bedford Ave 5117 Bedford Ave 5121 Bedford Ave 5125 Bedford Ave 5129 Bedford Ave 5133 Bedford Ave 5137 Bedford Ave 5141 Bedford Ave 5145 Bedford Ave 5028 William Ave 5032 William Ave 5036 William Ave 5040 William Ave 5044 William Ave 5104 William Ave 5108 William Ave 5112 William Ave 5128 William Ave 5132 William Ave 5136 William Ave 5140 William Ave 5144 William Ave 5029 William Ave 5033 William Ave 5105 William Ave 5109 William Ave 5113 William Ave 5117 William Ave 5121 William Ave 5125 William Ave 5129 William Ave 5133 William Ave 51.37 William Ave 5028 Hankerson Ave 5032 Hankerson Ave 5036 Hankerson Ave 5040 Hankerson Ave 5224 Hankerson Ave 5104 Hankerson Ave 5108 Hankerson Ave 5033 Hankerson Ave 5037 Hankerson Ave 5041 Hankerson Ave 5045 Hankerson Ave 5100 Hankerson Ave 5101 William Ave 5100 William Ave 5116 William Ave 5124 William Ave 5037 William Ave 5041 William Ave 5049 Hankerson Ave 5112 Hankerson Ave 5120 Hankerson Ave 5124 Hankerson Ave 5101 Bedford Ave 5109 Bedford Ave Lot Width Lot Depth Area 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50.8 51.2 51.3 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 129.28 129.38 129.57 129.97 1.30.08 130.19 130.30 130.41 130.52 130.63 130,74 130.95 129.18 129.28 129.38 129.48 129.57 129.86 329.97 130.08 130.52 130.63 1.30.74 130.85 130.95 136.08 136.18 129.75 129.86 129.97 130.08 131.19 130.30 130.41 130.52 130.63 136.00 136.28 136.38 136.48 136.57 129.86 129.97 136.28 136.38 136.48 1.36.58 129.64 129.64 129.64 130.19 130.30 136.38 136.57 136.68 130.08 130.30 130.00 129.64 129.86 129.18 129.28 129.28 129.38 129.38 129.48 129.57 129.57 129.64 129.64 129.64 129.64 129.75 129.86 129.86 129.86 129.86 129.97 129.97 129,97 129.97 130.00 130.08 130.08 130.08 130.08 130.19 130.19 130.30 130.30 130.30 130.30 130.41 130.41 130.52 130.52 130.52 130.63 130.63 130.63 130.74 130.74 130.85 130.95 130.95 131.19 136.00 136.08 136.18 136.28 136.28 136.38 136.38 136.38 136.48 136.48 136.57 136,57 136.58 136.68 6,464.0 6,469.0 6,478.5 6498.5 6,504.0 6,509.5 6,515.0 6,520.5 6,526.0 6,531.5 6,537.0 6,547.5 6,459.0 6,464.0 6,469.0 6,474.0 6,478.5 6,493.0 6,498.5 6,504.0 6,526.0 6,531.5 6,537.0 6,542.5 6,547.5 6,804.0 6,809.0 6,487.5 6,493.0 6,498.5 6,504.0 6,559.5 6,515.0 6,520.5 6,526.0 6,531.5 6,800.0 6,814.0 6,819.0 6,824.0 6,828.5 6,493.0 6,498.5 6,814.0 6,819.0 6,824.0 6,829.0 6,585.7 6,637,6 6,650,5 9,764.3 9,772.5 10,228.5 10,242.8 10,251.0 9,756.0 9,772.5 9,750.0 9,723.0 9,739.5 vi s 751r ! t . 'al it, 9. Gai 01. I o Oa t • -14 /V 1; 1 V A. .. lil i 1 (int lit • Al 17;11 a . I 1,1.11 a I la 4:. I. / .1 . 1 V I 1 0- . te` I ..a.asir, • -- I. • • , n 1 • ttil ; 4.... t% Sas Li, a I ' W I .06 1117 a (7#.17 i _ r a V I 'NI 7 -Lit a 115:, tla St • . 1 7A . t 1 1 , , ... . . ti •,, , t/a4., a 1.41: -ta CITY i•SC a a $ $ 1 ,PL.ANNIN e i s fw $ c.i le e I67 ttit tiol GRANO: "4. O ttIDINA I W4, TOW1' 209$20€10MESPk, I'I • NIP& r Dtrop,alioNie I.:, EDINA- a 1144 yl V 7 ill; d' • s 1.10 •t_i Gib 1ri • 1 it • .1 r 0 a • 7 a Median 5117 William Ave 50.0 130.19 6,504.0 Property Address: 5120 8 5124 Hankerson Ave., Edina, MN 55436 PID No.: 28-117-21-32-0144 8 28-117-21-32-0144 CJ • L tl sa - 0041 t17,1 I • A. 07117t 174 li at Ina AMIN • • er: Property located In Section 28, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 'It. legal Description Lot 6 and the South Half of Lot 5, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And Lot 7 and the North Half of Lot 8, Block 9, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. FA) tet SCALE IN FEET a 60 120 180 FIELD BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: GRP REVISION SUMMARY I certify that this plan, spedficalion, or report was prepared by me or under my drect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Prepared this 171h day of July 2024. Signed: Gregory R. P h gistration No, 24992 DEMARC LANG SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Demerol nc.com SURVEY FOR: DONNAY HOMES 9655 63rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 TYPE OF SURVEY: NEIGHBORHOOD STATISTICS PROJECT: 905700 FB No: 1109-46 SHEET NO. 6 OF 6 DEVELOPMENT OF: GRANDVIEW HOMES OF EDINA rAsuntcy \brootside eights - henM5-9-5 hrksIdd hght - grandvrevy townhane 2ru10 I 5uricymg - 9067001 CAD0 I 5ource‘03 adprung owners grpluo.doig Page 69 of 81 Date: July 28, 2024 Re: Hankerson Avenue Redevelopment 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Ave. PID 28-117-21-32-0144, PID 28-117-21-32-0172 Background: This project is adjacent to the previously approved, built, and fully occupied, Grandview Townhomes of Edina PUD. Proposal: The project consists of building a total of 3 new homes on the 2 subject properties. The project also includes the removal of two, older rambler homes; one built in 1956 and one built in 1953, and the redevelopment of the utility infrastructure. • The project is a subdivision request, replatting these two properties, which are each a lot and a half, into three individual, 50' lots. More than 78% of the existing neighborhood is laid out in this fashion. The zoning remains R1. • The project is also a request for variances to lot width and lot size, because the current zoning code requires 70 ft lot width, and 9,000 square foot area minimums. This area was platted back about 1916. The Zoning Cde was adopted in the early 1960’s. We are simply returning these lots to the original configuration of the neighborhood. • We will be meeting all other current R1 zoning requirements Project Specifications: • Front Setbacks match the adjacent Homes and Grandview Townhomes. • Alley loaded Garages will be utilized. A 25’ Rear Yard setback will be met. • Building to Building distance is 12’, which is the same as Current R1 Zoning, on 50’ lots, in Edina today. • Lot Areas are: Lot 1, Block 1 = 6,509 sq.ft Lot 2, Block 1 = 6,515 sq.ft Lot 3, Block 1 = 6,520 sq.ft Page 70 of 81 Variance Regulation Discussion: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. The Proposal asks to return these lots to the original sizing in the neighborhood, from when they were originally platted prior to 1916, and which is shared by 78% of the neighborhood's lots. The current Zoning Ordinance, enacted 50+ years later, outlaws that, yet the majority of the homes share this Lot size. The requested use is reasonable. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The proposal is needed due to the Zoning Code being adopted in the early 1960’s rendering the lot sizing of this area ‘legal, non-conforming, even though the area’s lots existed in this form for at least half a century. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance mandated certain ‘minimum standards’, in this case, the standards of the neighborhood were increased by the Zoning Code at least 50 years after the neighborhood was platted. This does not comport with the majority (78%) of the homes in this neighborhood meeting the standard we are asking for. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. This project matches the Character of the neighborhood. A supermajority of the homes in this neighborhood share the sizing of these lots. Page 71 of 81 Conclusion: Donnay Home believes that, like the Grandview Townhomes project, the addition of this development to the neighborhood will be a benefit to the entire Brookside neighborhood, meet the stated goals of the Grandview Small Area Plan, turn barriers into opportunities, provide additional buffer to the neighborhood from the Vernon Ave Commercial area, enhance property values in the neighborhood, improve the Vernon and Hankerson streetscape, offer a type of housing that is in short supply in the City of Edina, and compliment walkability in the Brookside neighborhood. Additional Streetscape images follow: Page 72 of 81 Page 73 of 81 Page 74 of 81 Page 75 of 81 F i v 60 I I 6 5 S¢ s4 2908 sset I h t7 4 o o 4-4 X4 S4 s4 t5 -J4 M 2/ 4 y la z .J8 A, t O ° ti 20 ..ti y 9 S rE9.0 7 29.97 4 /z9.L4 , y / z 971 4 . __ .=a-"'%-?!1 .s _ .: _ •.ar,ra:: e .. -L-_..G9c.,. 1 ...._=..125%•:l_ . OR /NAL 2328 l 6795077 'Y i 1 B R O O K S I D E H EI O H T S OFFICEHIM or' xsclsrsK or urwat2I>txnrrlx Counn, Y1x11>ro1' i HENN E P I N COUNTY MINN .+r ..J It*'4dw.ie.6rw8w0h Anou, all men ay tlue vresents 661 we ,Will,'am //Tarbo, uidovlr,ouner axd prapri.t.r ana Pe u1 Pefer.on,v=a,ver. and llarenreRf` a • A j/3•--N E. /It11 wtrsarrz ed and f, .%wept Norti andMryHalnmerJleyHerrh,m,r/ga9eer el raef,ll,,,is,y ducriaces />r<peery ritrcatr ci+ tAc SC d.e 1' loa' Ben'. A.Pratt-Surveuor .r •••i:pk •,l o[ ate a =nnere an n a ee cn u6 serx nem . .res 6 s c .eQStfM' t. .= Cou Yy f K pey ti t, > t ,l t (/ a t' x tun tyezyhf (181 Tvn,h c' one huxdr ed j •f •• rpm• ••• / res en teen 1/7J N'rftr Ranye luen t/ona 061 W, mase ca ase2 Oe ,ame Y. ae --y -7 ..1 p7.&,.1 as BIIOOHS/OE HE/!7'H TS" c r%ry %_ and we hereby and dedicate f, tje'%MZA, uref -ever a7l the Slreels, 9enu-_4lzeys and Bovlry .;, as rhsvm e>. t,it i 1sN ansresed f>lai. 'n r z:tnerr wAerr'/1 we have hereunle set our hands t.jri Z ,`tKdgy 1"1.Exa. /9/J. M'^T'r'y r ........1°!• JIj,r rrence f /r/' v to rv.[3 Z. Ar G..L Lr.arc. za r/»-,•R<w- -_ __ __ -_ Gr -ter le<rlTn)NRr Wiliam KTa-i.x ,• /,f,(1_(}jy 4a as NTERLl9CHEN BOULEV.4R•O rm, - gela 10 54 S¢ s4 s4 sset s 4 3 ta.7a 4-4 X4 S4 s4 t5 -J4 60 54 S4 J4 I 23 y 44 6 yzr.78 3 ta.7a b 2z 5 4 4 4 J4 S M 2/ 4 y 8 tizd.9B rB.9Dr ti 20 ..ti y 9 S rE9.0 4 / 2l7t 29.08 4 /z9.L4 , y / z 971 y / t>(Gf ti t4 S l!•7t yF%hr J ei t .BG y 18 23 y Z : 4 2 yL86 tlzftS!z8 N r9.zB V o 1t a z1f. ' 17 5! zlJB 2 IBJBL9.JB z :re1lJD h 16 h /3 111f4ff 4Atf,4f 0 Af llr./! bf ti 19 s7 N lzssr 60 54 S4 J4 5'4 6 w 5 4 3 2 5'4 S4 4 J4 S 2J.Lr I ,,gB 23 w 6 w k% h S tB.Be I' 3 LBDB z 14d S4 y 12/9B 4 4 rB.9D 0 20 0 9 04 les 24 ll71 4 / 2l7t z"44 y t•F Z l7f 4 /z9.L4 , y / z 971 y / t>(Gf ti t4 S l!•7t yF%hr J ei t .BG y 18 23 y Z : 4 2 yL86 tlzf y Z 29BL- 1sl.zB 2 . t .97 V o 1t a z1f. ' 17 5! zlJB 2 IBJB z :re 4 /6 e, h /3 111f4ff 4Atf,4f 0 Af llr./! J7 z! 7S7 60 s4 s4 sa 777 75- 2z4 / IBJ S 4 z 3 2 N z 14d S4 S'4 14 SX34 rayIGd r 2JG/ W S/st 2z4 / IBJ ri o 79izl y JG.7I i!)! 4 I /z98L 31 y / z9.97 M is..a z 14d L 0 20 vJa.ad les 24 ll71 4 / 2l7t z"44 y t•F Z l7f 4 /z9.L4 , y / z 971 y / t>(Gf ti t4 S l!•7t yF%hr J ei t .BG 1956 23 y Z : 4 2 yL86 Id y Z 29BL- b JL fd2 . t .97 ti /7 o 1t a z1f. ' y /1 zlJB o 3 tf9J 2l.1D e, h /3 111f4ff 4Atf,4f 0 Af llr./! o /4% z! 7 e 2 -1.1. y 67.ls> 1i`&ryNamm>„repK.ra6az67•stf 1• Paul Peterr.» / / n ro 2 N h 3 4 s!, Cl ly 6 1.6- 7J47 C s trc.zd 9 JL.JB 4 /O JC•SI 1 9 W S/st JG.7I i!)! 4 I /z98L 31 y / z9.97 M is..a Q O vJa.ad O J Q- L,44 24 ll71 4 / 2l7t z"44 y t•F Z l7f 4 /z9.L4 , y / z 971 y / t>(Gf ti t4 S l!•7t yF%hr J ei t .BG 1956 23 y Z : 4 2 yL86 y° 23 IlQBY y Z 29BL- b JL fd2 . t .97 0 3 e4 / Ze y o 1t a z1f. ' o 3 4 /r .!l ' 0 2t4 / ll.97 o 3 tf9J 0 /G 4 a h 31•J la.1! M llr./! i/1 Ji/! e Ha.3 4 0 6 Cy / a.t ' y lo.J 4 o 6 0 Jo.J 0 Al 04J..3 0 64Jeal• 0 18 Ja 4/ ti '7 Jq, 4/ a /a 111 ,41 ti 7 o 4/ y /8 tiJr4/ ff 7 1.41 xfI08040170° Ja.Sz 4 y /a<.sz e 17 oyo I ll sz e g o- lAsa 0 /74 aNA W° 8 e4 /Ilz ' JO.sz r` 04 4 94 ue. J 7io.N JsLJ l,.LS V4 13,_ m..41 iM t< e/o y . se. 4 ! i7.fJy /S 4 JeJ4 o ° e•%4 o /S jam 1x74 74 Je,7f y N,f z+ c/3a.Bf IJ Ar Ili. V Js. ti l e. V-/j. 6O N.f' 60 too e ra0 o as 5 Stale AY.n" <n JI: C „nty. g1EC.L,e: Ox th.;-ZG-ay.rn-/fo /sa !fc ¢ N.rryP at,i ra,'esa:, na/.. ,a:a Co.» ry ana sir ,Ter... a,ry 'tee=+ a WiZl:am HTarar),u.nr, oer, e. -e prroonazlykN.m» 4 Se 1W pesJ, nese .'A'.r c» ana ,.h. ted eL,1. ey,r;.y >,.,r>.,».e»t arsA he 'r' ark mvlyd7ed edrt ke aSecuted eae same ¢r As Ir. d fS +•_ Ierrar> State M,h„esola '`•. rr7, -S - On the; A4 day fs--A. D. /9i 3efrr rne, a /Y. far, Pa dlri eA.;, ana f.r .ra:a Gev,. ty ,SC¢i'£y _•r- prrs.na7ly appeared P.Z 7erS.,.,w.a r¢er, Ye m prr.naZly ,fn,- 4 de M. peer. aG•cr:"3.d rir and -;6a:er,s td_ Y7°f'f>/9' afcy eN,rra,nent and he gcknoa ledged that .3c ere, zrtd 24, same as psi er, ,free arl and drX. // = ` •1 ''- N torals'Ae nepi C. 1; AA%gIp State .fA/inne,.e. SS: CouaYy fhBnnePri. ''_r`-': On 41i Zµday f A.G. /9/4?, gel -Tat a /Y. Cory P,ahi -t46- anal -,e rpt C,<n7y ana Stat; er,ona// a eared Clarence E. /,/s'1I, t, me err.nall //N'v„a 4'ae the cr,.n ae, era7.ed cn, and zah. ere'u- in,Y•ume,et and kr ackn.v,ledyeZ that Ae eAearrred t,Te sa rave ar .lr ri ov,v free a/ YLQ/L>s eft angor c7eed. L Y.Z'.Iy alei Nen :rrpri. to,.nry ;%aa,7., rte'' ^,; vly Conemrir,. r•• erPe, e, G,.23z/ ix7'7,... ,- sf to ••/Miux CnntyfHexnrpin 1 t7 -.,= On tj sasl dqy f -/%O 19,C, arf re ane, a Nt ry P "Is s. fdsn and fee Ja ,'I Co ,e Ly and .Stt t.•4 per„Wally appeared E. fsep£ ll.rti and Mary r/amme_j.y N.rth, 7.,j ...1e,Lme perr.n¢lly krsor v 1. !e rhe .Perrone a_ a7=iAtczn' i and wh. ezecared tje f regrcng .""r-ment .zna elsy ar.Fn'-rvledfed Mee they ec_ec` er redp -the samea, e'heir o r. >., f'•_; e o :Y an.t?. 4: N.Yar P bhi // n r: rp ,. tK %`7tir ,n'. , • <- ; My e, n,mus,on er/r=ser rrfVv x`71=f :/ f/q j - •• 1 lJ .• County f//ennepzJ I aer.ay certz/y fuel.;a=e tu,•oeyer7 and ps?412W the pr,perty ewe,i Jatars ekiri alae a, BROO,YS/DE HCh. W rc5';t,i.e th.i17 t r; a -r..e se"r rnr.r::r. -/.a.az a -ey, rk¢r all d.,r.neer are e«ry 0 -ft an t.ie plat r'.,rerr and sreoma7 q/aleaf, that tie A.- are.•• eerreerly p7A1ed ,n the yr„rnd a, As- en e".Plat, tiat tAf-ts".r. aoundery 1.*n,, are c¢rrrctly dess'ynrtt.d ..the plwe, eA.r eke fiseg)rp•Ry rf th. Zan.r is e.rrectly 4,.m .,v tkr p7.t and that time ase n, nee .ne, os pualz hyzw.ys t de,.jn. eyt"e,..cy_.:r I plet OeA.r Ginn as sh.wn thereon. /'• ` 'yam l rfr • ` ` l / ' ISurutyor '-4 I nC , Me 4h1.0 eertsfi c, ti •uar ,wbaarr.'be z and ,worn G bsf ro me td e5 zs'd.y C1, tmt: /!"7 /9U My c'mmsi,r:n e,pi,cs Ua* 1/e hereby cer1.'r y that the a3'sa plat sf BROO/fS/DE HE/ejN7:t ru., apl,-'v .n.e a eyrrd ly ?kt ulllag.• r ,<,.'. s dkJ !/ills gs ./ E'drnn rota ¢ mre l,i) 4Ar sr.f .field eh,i Y7 d .+ / /; •., .-••.. vo'llaJe [sirs ide n`Y :' • `,•' .. ,,r '. . TALE! PAID ON SMt WIININ -'•rJiTIMPSVTITDE>1CIURO PWMTY Ta 191,¢1„V %lags pec,-dcr/ t JUL1D1S ' - s '> a °'' Vr Pr trAr Page 76 of 81 DATE: September 5, 2024 TO: Hankerson - Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner P.E. - Director of Engineering Ross Bintner P.E. – Engineering Services Manager Ben Jore P.E. – Senior Project Engineer Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Marisa Bayer, Sustainability Manager RE: HANKERSON – Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, flood risk, and storm water. Plans reviewed included civil utility plans dated 7/25/24. General 1. Deliver as-built records of all utilities including storm, sanitary, and watermain for both public and private post construction. Survey 2. An existing and proposed site condition survey has been provided. 3. Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Drainage & utility easements will be required. Traffic and Street 4. Construction staging and traffic control plans will be required. 5. Hankerson Ave and 52nd St W were milled and overlaid in 2019. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates 525, 542, and 544. Mill and overlay for one cohesive street repair. 6. 48 hrs notice is required for road closures related to construction operations. Complete the road closure form from the City’s website. Sanitary and Water Utilities 7. Due to individual ownership proposed, City is requiring one water and sanitary service per residential unit. Water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch. A minimum of 3’ horizontal spacing is required between water services. Applicant to make a straight connection from the curb stop/cleanout to the respective mains. 8. Remove all abandoned sanitary and water services to the main. 9. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. 10. Sewer and water connection permits required for all connections. City staff to be present to inspect, cost to be paid by developer. 11. A SAC and WAC determination will be required and Met Council and City fees will be calculated from the determination. Page 77 of 81 Storm Water Utility 26. Applicant proposes separate French drains for each property to meet the volume and rate control requirements. 27. Evidence of watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement for storm water system in favor of watershed is required for building permit. 28. Retention system engineer required to verify construction of the underground retention systems done per plan. Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 29. A SWPPP has been submitted. SWPPP to be reviewed at building permit. Sustainability 26. Edina’s Climate Action Plan commits our community to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This project is encouraged to support our Climate Action Plan goals by: a. Participating in Xcel Energy’s Efficient New Homes program to build a more energy efficient home. b. Installing high efficiency appliances and equipment, receiving rebates from Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. c. Electrifying water-heating and space-heating equipment using heat pumps, receiving rebates from Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. Other Agency Coordination 27. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit is required. Plans should be submitted to them for comment. MDH, MPCA and MCES and others as required. Page 78 of 81 History of Similar Requests EdinaMN.gov 1 2&6 3 4 7&9 8 5 1 Approved 10 11 12 15 14History of Recent Subdivisions with Variances 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66-foot wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s.f. & 73 feet wide.) 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview Avenue was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50-foot lots; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 3. In 2009, a 100-foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,699 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,769 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,701 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 6. In 2012, 6120 Brookview was again proposed for subdivision. That request was denied. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 7. In 2012, 5945 Concord was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 8. In 2015, a 100-foot lot at 5825 Ashcroft Avenue was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,790 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 9 In 2015, 5945 Concord was approved for a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 10. In 2016, 5845 Kellogg Avenue was denied a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,715 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 11. In 2017, 6124 Ewing Avenue was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width and area variances. (Median = 11,500 s.f. & 80 feet wide.) 12. In 2017, 5404 Park Place was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 65 feet for each lot; and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 8,705 and 8,840 square feet. (Median = 8,107 s.f. & width was 60 feet wide.) 13. In 2019, 5841 Oaklawn was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for one lot; and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 8,793 and 6,694 square feet. 14. In 2019, 4625 Lexington was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 60 feet for both lots, and lot area variances from 9,306 square feet to 8,106 and 8,128 square feet. (Median area - 9,306 square feet, median lot depth - 135 feet, and the median lot width 68 feet) 15. In 2020, 5928 Ashcroft was denied a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for both lots, and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,813 and 6,790 square feet. (Median area – 8,841 s.f., median lot depth – 135 and median width was 66 feet.) 16 16. In 2020, 5928 Abbott Avenue was approved for a two-lot subdivision with lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for both lots, lot area variance from 9,000 square feet to 6,391 and 6,331 square feet, and lot depth variances from 135 feet to 127 feet for both lots. (Median lot area -6,745 square feet, median lot depth -129.9 feet, and the median lot width -50 feet.) Page 79 of 81 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission 2025 Proposed Work Plan Initiative Type: Ongoing Target Completion Date: Q4 Lead(s): All Commissioners Initiative Title: Review land use applications Initiative Description: Review land use applications. Send recommendations to Council on CUP, Subdivisions, Site Plans, and Rezoning. Make final decisions on Variances. Deliverable: Recommendations to City Council for consideration, and final decisions on variances. Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☒ 3: Review & Recommend ☒ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): No. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Yes, significant staff support required. Staff meets with applicants prepares reports, public notices and Better Together. Presents recommendations to the Commission for consideration. Liaison Comments: 1City Manager Comments: Initiative Type: Project Target Completion Date: Q3 2026 Lead(s): Initiative Title: Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance Initiative Description: This is the follow-up on the 2024 Work Plan item of the audit of the Zoning Ordinance. Update would include desired planning commission consideration of changes to: 50% tear down provision; R-2 upzoning; affordable housing; missing middle, ADU. Deliverable: A revised Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the Edina City Code) Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☒ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Yes, budget would be required. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): All planning staff will be involved. Addison Lewis would be the staff lead. Liaison Comments: A planning consultant would be required to lead and draft the ordinance revisions. 2City Manager Comments: = commission = staff Page 80 of 81 Page 2 of 2 Initiative Type: Project Target Completion Date: Q4 Lead(s): Initiative Title: Review/Update the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines Initiative Description: Review and consider revisions to the existing document. Deliverable: A revised Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☒ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Yes. Would seek assistance from planning consultant AFO, who drafted the existing document. Would come out of the Community Development Department budget. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Yes. Once the document has been completed, would seek help from Communications with marketing Liaison Comments: 3City Manager Comments: Initiative Type: Project Target Completion Date: Q2 Lead(s): Daye, Felt, Miranda Initiative Title: Lincoln/Londonderry SAP Initiative Description: Small Area Plan Deliverable: Update to the Comprehensive Plan to include the small area plan for the area. Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☒ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Yes. Already in budget Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Yes, Addison Lewis and Kris Aaker Liaison Comments: 4City Manager Comments: Initiative Type: Project Target Completion Date: Q2 2026 Lead(s): Initiative Title: Evaluate the Use/Efficacy of Traffic Studies Initiative Description: Look at process, what goes into the studies, and what the studies are telling us. Work with the Transportation Commission. Deliverable: Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☒ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): No. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Yes, Communications/marketing Liaison Comments: 5City Manager Comments: Parking Lot District Plan for the Cahill Area – This can be done as part of the next Comprehensive Plan Update. Page 81 of 81