The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-10-16 PLAN Packet Meeting location: Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 16, 2024 7:00 PM Participate in the meeting: Watch the meeting on cable TV or at YouTube.com/EdinaTV. Provide feedback during Community Comment by calling 312-535- 8110. Enter access code 2630 098 6460. 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: September 25, 2024 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. a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance from the required 38.2 feet for a garage addition, to be 27.3 feet to the north lot line at 5409 Grove Street. The homeowners are proposing a two-story garage addition to the east side of the existing attached garage. 8. Reports/Recommendations Page 1 of 31 9. Chair and Member Comments 10. Staff Comments 11. Adjournment Page 2 of 31 d ITEM REPORT Date: October 16, 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: September 25, 2024 Action Requested: Approve September 25, 2024 meeting minutes Information/Background: Minutes from the September 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. Supporting Documentation: 1. September 25, 2024 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 31 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers September 25, 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 Bornstein, Daye, Padilla, Hahneman, Felt, Jha, Joncas and Chair Bennett. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf, and Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Alkire, Miranda, and Smith. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Daye indicated he would like to remove Item 8.1 (Resolution B-24-09; Finding that the Proposed 72nd & France #3 TIF Plan Conforms to the General Plans for Development and Redevelopment of the City as a Whole) from the agenda. He did not believe this item was within the scope of the Planning Commission. The Commission is not trained on TIF and the Planning Commission does not have the power of the purse, and he did not find this discussion relevant to the goal of the City. Chair Bennett agreed but felt that since this was on the agenda, the Commission should allow Mr. Neuendorf to explain why it was on the agenda. Commissioner Hahneman moved to approve the agenda for September 25, 2024. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 ayes, 1 nay (Daye). IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, September 12, 2024 Commissioner Padilla moved to approve the September 12, 2024, meeting minutes. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations VI. Community Comment Page 4 of 31 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Chair Bennett introduced Commissioner Ben Joncas, the new Youth Commission on the Planning Commission. Youth Commissioner Joncas introduced himself to the audience. None. VII. Public Hearings A. A 3-foot Height Variance from the Maximum Height Requirement of 6 Feet to Allow a 9-foot-tall Fence along France Avenue for Owners of 4701, 4703, 4705, and 4707 Meadow Road Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request for a 3-foot height variance at 4701, 4703, 4705, and 4707 Meadow Road. Staff indicated a case can be made for approval and denial of this project and cannot support the request given that other properties are impacted by the BRT E-Line improvement. Staff believes a case can be made for approval and denial of this project. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Ms. Karen Wille, 4701 Meadow Road, Ms. Molly Rice, 4705 Meadow Road, and Ms. Robin Harmon, 4703 Meadow Road, addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Hahneman moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the variance, and the Commission was split on the variance approval. Motion Commissioner Padilla moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval for a 3 ft fence height variance to allow a 9 ft fence spanning four properties at 4701, 4703, 4705, and 4707 Meadow Road. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The practical difficulty is caused by the Required BRT E-line improvements, including Lighting, noise, and bus stops directly across from each other on the south side of the 47th Street and France intersection as opposed to staggered (one on the north and one without south sides). 2. A unique circumstance includes the new crosswalk improvements with flashing lights and a new streetlight at that intersection. Page 5 of 31 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 3 of 4 3. The proposal would not alter the neighborhood's essential character. A 9-foot-tall fence would offer screening for neighboring properties from improvements at the intersection and help maintain neighborhood character. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to plans and survey date stamped August 21, 2024. 2. Subject to the Engineering staff’s memo dated September 13, 2024. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes, 2 nays (Bornstein, Felt). The entire meeting discussion can be viewed on the official City website. B. A Conditional Use Permit at 4208 Philbrook Lane for a Stem Wall with Fill Pad for a New Home to be Compliant with FEMA and with Zoning Variances that Include a 4.09 Foot Setback Variance from the 10 Foot Requirement for a 5.91 Foot Side Yard Setback on the West Side of the Property and for a 22.7% Variance from the 50% Maximum for Exterior Basement Walls to be 72.7% Above Grade and Therefor Counted as a 3rd Story. Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request for a conditional use permit at 4208 Philbrook Lane. Staff recommends that the Permit be approved as requested, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Ms. Heather Maanum, 2905 Saddlebrook Circle, Minnetonka, the applicant's architect, addressed the Commission and answered questions. Public Hearing Ms. Mary Engelke, 4201 Philbrook Lane, addressed the Commission and indicated she supported this proposal. Ms. Wert, 5645 Woodcrest Drive, asked questions regarding the pool and backyard of the proposed property. Commissioner Hahneman moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the proposal. Motion Commissioner Daye moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Conditional Use Permit at 4208 Philbrook Lane as outlined in the staff memo Page 6 of 31 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2024 Page 4 of 4 subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes and 2 nays (Felt, Hahneman). Comments by the Commission can be viewed in the official meeting video on the City website. VIII. Reports/Recommendations A. Resolution B-24-09; Finding that the Proposed 72nd & France #3 TIF Plan Conforms to the General Plans for Development and Redevelopment of the City as a Whole. Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf summarized the proposed 72nd and France #3 Tax Increment Financing District. He described the role of the Planning Commission in this matter and presented findings that support the Resolution. Staff recommends approval of the resolution, as requested, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Youth Commissioners Jha and Jonca left the meeting during the discussion. The Commission discussed the proposed TIF plan and what was required of the Commission pertaining to the review of this proposal. Motion Commissioner Hahneman moved that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution B-24-09, documenting that the 72nd and France #3 TIF Plan Conforms to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City as a Whole. Commissioner Felt seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 ayes, 1 nay (Padilla), 2 abstain (Bornstein, Daye) The entire meeting discussion can be viewed on the City website. IX. Chair and Member Comments None. X. Staff Comments Received. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Felt moved to adjourn the September 25, 2024, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:35 PM. Commissioner Hahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried. Page 7 of 31 BOARD & COMMISSION ITEM REPORT Date: October 16, 2024 Item Activity: Action Meeting: Planning Commission Agenda Number: 7.1 Prepared By: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Item Type: Report & Recommendation Department: Community Development Item Title: a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance from the required 38.2 feet for a garage addition, to be 27.3 feet to the north lot line at 5409 Grove Street. The homeowners are proposing a two-story garage addition to the east side of the existing attached garage. Action Requested: Approve the 10.9-foot front yard setback variance subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Information/Background: The homeowners are proposing a two-story addition to the east side of the home. The garage is undersized for today's cars and does not accommodate both of their vehicles. Additionally, the homeowners would like to create an indoor "sport court" space behind and office area above the garage addition. The request is for a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance from the required 38.2 feet, (neighbor’s front yard setback), to be 27.3 feet from the north lot line at 5409 Grove Street. This addition would be finished with the same or matching materials as the existing portion of their home, including lap siding, soffit/fascia, brick, and garage door, with the existing window proportions and roof slope will carry over onto the new addition. https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/5409-grove-street Supporting Documentation: 1. Staff Report 2. 5409 Grove Street - Variance Review Engineering Memo 3. Proposed Survey - Grove 4. Fully scanned packet 5. Rendering Page 8 of 31 The subject property is located on the south side of Grove Street at the end of a cul-de-sac consisting of a two-story home with an attached two-car garage built in 1986. The homeowners are proposing a two-story addition to the east side of their garage. The current garage is undersized to accommodate today’s cars and cannot park two vehicles. Additionally, the homeowners would like to create an indoor sport court space behind and an office area above the expansion garage. This addition would be finished with the same or matching materials as the existing portion of their home, including lap siding, soffit/fascia, brick, and garage door. The existing window proportions and roof slope will carry over into the new addition, allowing it to be seamless to the original home. The applicant is requesting relief from the front yard setback requirement to allow the new addition to overlap the required front yard setback along the curve of the cul-de-sac. The existing home is nonconforming and will be added to and remodeled to include additions while maintaining the existing nonconforming setback and increasing the nonconformity to the cul-de-sac. The applicant is requesting a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance to the N/E lot line adjacent to the cul-de-sac. The required setback is 38.2 feet based on the neighbor’s setback with the current setback to the N/E garage corner of 30 feet. Setback will be reduced to 27.3 feet at the front corner of the new garage. The unique site conditions and the presence of only one other home determining the average front yard setback make this design unfeasible without the benefit of variance. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Xcel high-lines and a railroad track; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. October 16, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-24-10, A variance at 5409 Grove Street from Sec. 36-439 of the Edina City Code to allow for a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance from the 38.2-foot requirement to be 27.3 feet from the front lot line to allow a side addition to an existing attached two car garage. Information / Background: Page 9 of 31 STAFF REPORT Page 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is a two-story home, built in 1986. The lot is 16,047 square feet in area and is located north of Grove Street, at the end of a cul-de-sac and adjacent to Xcel Energy highlines and railroad tracks to the east. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their memorandum. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North - Front Yard West Side – Side Yard South – Rear Yard East Side – Side Yard 38.2 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet *27.3feet 9 feet (existing nonconforming) 48 feet 55.2 feet Building Height 39 feet 18.5 feet proposed Building Coverage Surface coverage 25% 50% 19.19% proposed 28.93 % proposed *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue Page 10 of 31 STAFF REPORT Page 3 Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively to grant a variance. The proposed variance will: 1.The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the front yard setback requirement is to provide consistent minimum space from a structure to a lot line adjacent to a street. However, the code allows for deeper setbacks from the street than the minimum front yard setback which affects adjacent properties opportunities for expansion. A deeper front yard setback is required for the property given the front yard setback of the neighbor to the west. The ordinance does not account for the deep curve of a cul-de-sac, with setback pushed deeper in the lot and misaligned with the front of the subject home. 2.The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential Use. The principal use of the property would still be a single-family home, and the property would remain zoned R-. 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 variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, except for the proposed front yard setback. The curve of the cul-de-sac and required setback forces an addition farther south on the lot with the Xcel Energy high line easement restricting expansion opportunity to the east. The practical difficulties are caused by the existing location of the home, the required average front yard setback from the ROW based on the neighbor’s front yard setback and the impact of the cul-de-sac curvature on building placement. Page 11 of 31 STAFF REPORT Page 4 ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The property was developed with a north front yard setback closer to the lot line than currently allowed. Additions on the property are affected by the required front yard setback established by the neighbor and the existing conditions of the lot which are not self-created. iii. Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The front yard setback of the addition will allow a logical extension of the existing nonconforming garage with all other zoning requirements in compliance. The area affected to the east consists of Xcel Energy’s high line/easement and railroad tracks. There are no affected adjacent homeowners. Staff Recommendation Approval Approve the request for a 10.9-foot front yard setback variance from the 38.2-foot requirement. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) The practical difficulty is caused by the required average front yard setback requirement, cul-de-sac setback impact, and existing location of the house. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the subject property. Those unique circumstances include having street frontage with a cul-de-sac affecting the buildable area on the east side of the lot, a large highline easement affecting side and rear yard buildable area and a railroad track adjacent to the east. 3) Had this been typically with homes along a block lined up with one another, like similarly zoned property, it would not have required a variance. 4) The proposal would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The garage is of a similar design to the house and with matching materials used. The additions will provide a garage set back similar to a corner lot from the cul-de-sac. Any approval is subject to the following conditions: •Subject to plans and survey date stamped September 9, 2024. •Compliance with the Engineering memo dated October 10, 2024 •Compliance with the tree ordinance. Deadline for a City decision: November 8, 2024. Page 12 of 31 DATE: 10/9/2024 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Ben Jore, PE – Senior Project Engineer RE: 5409 Grove St. - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included an existing and proposed condition survey dated 9/17/2024, stormwater plans 8/26/2024, and floorplans dated 6/23/2024. Summary of Work The applicant proposes an addition to an existing home and driveway expansion. The request is for a setback variance. Easements No comment. Grading and Drainage Site drains to the back low area and to the street. All runoff is ultimately collected by City storm sewer and eventually to Hawks Lake. Stormwater Mitigation A stormwater management plan has been provided. Additional stormwater calculations are required. The site drains to a structural flooding issue thus volume control is required. A stormwater management plan is required. Floodplain Development No floodplain is located on the property. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was provided and no issues are anticipated. Street and Driveway Entrance No comment. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served from the water main along Grove Street. Miscellaneous A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A well onsite is unlikely due to the age of the house and age of the watermain per City records. Page 13 of 31 Page 14 of 31 M T) BUY - SELL - CREATE Clients: Abby & Brian Heidemann Project: Grove Street Addition Project Address: 5409 Grove Street, Edina, MN 55436 Variance Nai rarive/Conditions Project Description: The homeowners of the property at 5409 Grove Street wish to complete two main objectives with this proposed project which includes a two story addition to the east side of their home. Currently, their garage is undersized for their home and lot and does not accommodate both of their vehicles. Additionally, the homeowners would like to create an indoor "sport court" as a space for their two young children to play sports during the colder winter months. This addition would be finished with the same or matching materials as the existing portion of their home, including lap siding, soffit/fascia, brick, and garage door, and the existing window proportions and roof slope will carry over onto the new addition. Ensuring these upgrades are fitting for the property, neighbors, and neighborhood is our primary goal. Without the requested variance, the unique site conditions and the presence of only one other home determining the average setback would make this project unfeasible. Please see the attached application questions and answers and attached drawings and renderings which will provide additional insight into the practical difficulties and extraordinary circumstances regarding this project. Requested Variance: Reduction of the front North setback of 38.2 feet to 23.7 feet. Page 15 of 31 BUY - SELL - CREATE The Proposed Variance Will: YES NO V Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Currently, the homeowners' existing garage is undersized for the home and does not accommodate their two vehicles. Additionally, the family is in need of an indoor, temperature-controlled play space for their two young children that is separate from the family's main living space. Unfortunately, this property has some unique conditions that influence the average setback of the Heidemann's lot. There is only one other home on their side of the street to calculate the average setback from, and this home (5417 Grove) was built in 1916, seventy years prior to the Heidemann's home being built. This means our average front setback is set at 38.2' which is similar to the setback of 30' of the existing home. What creates an additional challenge for this lot is the curvature of the cul-de-sac towards the Heidemann's home. Unfortunately, the curve in the cul-de-sac exists directly in front of the proposed addition, forcing the setback much deeper into their lot. Therefore, if we were to follow the average setback, the proposed additional garage stall would be set about 12 feet behind their existing garage stall. Having the second garage stall set back this distance from the rest of the front of the home would create an awkward, non-cohesive design. YES NO Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The existing property was built very close to the setback line on the west side of the property, making the only reasonable space for a garage addition to be on the east side of the property. The homes on the cul-de-sac street are all built facing either north or south towards the street, as opposed to a typical cul-de-sac where the homes are aligned in a circular fashion around the cul-de-sac. Further, the curvature of the cul-de-sac proves to be an issue as well. The curve in the cul-de-sac exists directly in front of the proposed addition, forcing the setback much deeper into their lot. This challenge is unique to this lot as this is not typically an issue for cul-de-sac lots. Page 16 of 31 MSP BUY - SELL - CREATE YES NO V Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance The intent and purpose of the setback ordinance unique to the City of Edina is appreciated as it protects the character and cohesiveness of the neighborhood and also helps to negate a proposed structure from blocking an abutting neighbor's view. In cases like this, where the variance procedure can identify instances where the goal of the setback ordinance can still be met, while the neighbors and neighborhood remain protected and the general purpose and intent of the zoning district is still in harmony. In this case, there are no neighbor's adjacent to the east side of the property that includes the proposed addition, and the side setback of the proposed addition will be 55.2'. YES NO Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood The neighborhood and the existing homes are a unique mix of style and ages, ranging from single story ranch homes to two-story colonial-style homes, and from 100+ year old homes to new builds. Additionally, the home across the street (the only other home directly on the cul-de-sac) has a setback of only 30', which is similar to the setback we are requesting. The proposed addition will maintain the existing style and character of the facade of the existing home by simply extending the same elements with the intent of the addition to look as if it was always part of the home. This addition would be finished with the same or matching materials as the existing portion of their home, including lap siding, soffit/fascia, brick, and garage door, and the existing window proportions and roof slope will carry over onto the new addition. Ensuring these upgrades are fitting for the property, neighbors, and neighborhood, and ultimately enhancing the character of the neighborhood is our primary goal. Page 17 of 31 Page 18 of 31 Residential Tree Protection Plan Escrow Calculation Worksheet Applicant completes Blue boxes Table A: EXISTING TREES STAFF ONLY, OK Tree Species: Quantity, D/C (deciduous or conifer), Species Diameter at Breast Height (dbh) (in) or Height (ft) -Removed: Not Protected, Protected, Heritage. -Preserved. -Transplanted. Tree I.D. # (From Tree Plan) 1, C, Pine 8 in. Preserved 001 1, C, Pine 11 in. Preserved 002 1, C, Pine 8 in. Preserved 003 1, D, Maple 48 in. Preserved 004 1, D, Oak 18 in. Preserved 005 1, C, Pine 8 in. Preserved 006 1, C, Pine 8 in. Preserved 007 Total size removed (in/ft): Not Protected 0 Total size removed (in/ft): Protected 0 Total size removed (in/ft): Heritage 0 Total size Preserved (in/ft) 109 in. Total size Transplanted (in/ft) 0 I:\Building\SafetyPolicieslnfonnation\Edina Website Server\Docx's Website Word Doc Materials NWEBSITE SA18 RESIDENTIAL TREE PROTECTION ESCROW WORKSHEET.docx Page 19 of 31 Residential Tree Protection Plan Escrow Calculation Worksheet Applicant completes Blue boxes Table B: ESCROW CALCULATION STAFF ONLY Table cells, Ordinance 2022-10 Item. 1. In + Ft = Total to be removed, preserved, transplanted (from Table A) Required replacement percentage (%) 2. In + Ft = Amount of required replacement trees Replacement failure fee (5) 3. Total potential fee (5) Forester Final Approval Date Total size removed (in/ft): Not Protected, 2b 0 X 0.00% NONE X $0.00 NONE a. Total size removed (in/ft): Protected, 4f. 0 X 75.00% 0 X $300 $0.00 b. Total size removed (in/ft): Heritage, 5f. 0 X 100.00% 0 X $500 $0.00 c. Total size (in/ft): Preserved, 6, 7 109 in. X 0.00% NONE X $0.00 NONE d. Total size (in/ft): Transplanted, 10 0 X 100.00% 0 X $0.00 NONE e. Total Potential Fee B.3.a. + B.3.b., 4f, 5f $0.00 f. Total Escrow owed = B.3.e. X 110%, 12a. $0.00 I: \Building\ SafetyPoliciesInformation\Ed na Website Server‘Docx's\Website Word Doc Materials \WEBSITE SDI 8 RESIDENTIAL TREE PROTECTION ESCROW WORKSHEET.docx Page 20 of 31 STAFF ONLY, OK Table C: NEW REPLACEMENT TREES, ORDINANCE 2022-10 11EM 11 Y Per Table 11, Lot Size less than 1 acre, YIN Insert values from Table B: 0 0 B.2.a. B.2.b. 0 0 0 None Total replacement Protected trees (in/ft): Total replacement Heritage trees (in/ft): Total size Transplanted trees (in/ft): Tree Species: Quantity, DIC (deciduous or conifer), Species dbh (in) or Height (ft) Protected, Heritage, Transplant Residential Tree Protection Plan Escrow Calculation Worksheet Applicant completes Blue boxes I: \Building \SafetyPoliciesInfonnation \Edina Website Server\Docx's \Website Word Doc Materials \WEBSITE SD18 RESIDENTIAL TREE PROTECTION ESCROW WORKSHEET.docx Page 21 of 31 921.9 TC #001 80( 003 922 922 X 923 921.9 TC 921.7 TC 9,,, 9 i. • • ,„,',‘ . • • X920.A R=---5 82 p • ,,, '--,er'-`-'-----.........12--.......L.1....,,„ , ---.............____ ,.., .0‘ ..:. • • • 922.11444, V elma,. / • 4%111.....n..,...,- / •••• • - 4klk % 4 921.1, 2.A .-... 16.00 922.3 923 .4.,„ 0 ... Z2I.7 923.3 PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE ad 924.6 16.1 925.5 . 924.1 8 PROP. DECK c9+ 18.00 926.0 921.2 921.4921.3TC TC TC 921.0 TCCC-PV 921.1 TCCG-PV (plat=EAST) S89°59123"Vv 40.52 920.9 I /I / 921.3 / EN-SPKINCENTR• x921.1 x124.4 92 1 6 923.7 x 9 - X 923.0 922o6 FND.50PEN _DIP-IN CONC x 923.3 23.2 921.8 21.9 922.2 922.1 //PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 922.4 „ ..... 4-0 MAPLE-48 u-) 9213 5,7 922.9 ° LFE 922.7040 923.4 922.7 DECK (T1312) 922.9.. 923.7 22.29 a_ 923.6 c .1) 55.2 r g.- - - N84°5 9'4-§"W (plat=N89'59.11N of • 124.55 FND. 923 3 Ply N Z- o 0 N 0 0 4 a -g 926.4 x 922.6 g I 923.5 923.4 • 27.8 c-• ,O., .. ......... IF 923.7 I . i'il g)) EL 4 • 9.2 o c 1..0 ..7. . "1.) T0 923.8I -c .." 4924.3 1-_' o 1 o a. , ... 924.2 SHED I o co. "8 I 924.5 I o 4,- 1 924.5 925.0 1).. a 7 0 924.4 I x o P N") 1 1.1 C! ......... // <t• X924.2 1 • ..- ¨ I Fl 1 1 X X 926.0 921.3 TC 921.3 TC 0 -11 2.2 922.3 92;.5 .9„0„. ,923.8 ^ x 92:1:2 • • • 922.2 922.7 922.6 923.4 432,3.2 • x I • 's . X4 4 .‘9 \ 22.5 9210 „ Ljx 923.5 923.1 PORCH 923.2 FFE 23.4 0 922.5 X 923.6 21.6 E G X 922.8 923.7 h L X Tree Protection Plan = Deciduous Tree = Coniferous Tree = Tree Fencing = 6" of mulch over critical root zone = Root aeration after construction Tree Inventory Tree # DBH (in.) Species Keep? #001 8in. Pine Yes #002 11in. Pine Yes #003 8in. Pine Yes #004 48in. Maple Yes #005 18in. Oak Yes #006 8in. Pine Yes #007 8in Pine Yes Page 22 of 31 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5409 GROVE STREET, EDINA, MN es. r• % i r- i - is ei i‘i is V L r- r- -i- s I 1.( I-- I-- I L. I FOR: MSP HOMES 921.9 MH-WAT E\1 I .(2 tLi.' o -, I a . oo oo 920.9: / / 921.3 / TC 921.9 921.4 TC 921.3 TC 921.0 921.2 TC 921.3 TC TCCC-PV •°' L - FND.50PEN L1_ I L .LJ -J.-. I k I 33.0 ce5 /-N L- J I • I L.LJ I L.L_ 'V.- LJ. - I \ I I %.1 / r. L1_ 'BENCHMARK TNH=923.82 (NGVD29) 921.1 TCCC-PV 921.3 921.9 TC (plat=EAST) S89°5923" 40.52 TC /I 921.8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 2, WARDEN ACRES PETERSON REPLAT, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 923.8 '5'yc) CHK-CAL s 921.0 -4) FND.50PEN-SPKINCENTR 921.7 TC X921.1 O 92.82 X R=50.00 9204-1 0 114°11 921 9 921.8 921.9 • * INEX2-8-11 . . . I 22.2 922.3 PINE-8 22.2 922.1 (1, / 922.5 / t.9 C-D X 922.6 V? X920 1 AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT = ±10,047 sf Existing Hse/Porch = ±1,937 sf Existing Deck = ±327 sf Existing Sheds = ±202 sf Existing Pavers = 1,116 sf Existing Concrete = ±136 sf 922 NORTH X 922,2 922.7 X 922 .. ' 922.6 :'923.4 x x.C423.2 •..... 4 923.0 23.5 9 23.1 PORCH 92FFE 3.2 H >-x 0 20 922.5 922.1 923- OAK-118 921 . I- • • .9 2.'‘ 00 tri cr) 4 923.9 923.7 X 920.7 922.3 922.5 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. 924.3 922.7 GF X 923.6 )0,1- ¨ 922.4 23.4 21.6 X GF922.8 922.9.21.7 923.0. . ..... g 23 923.5 923.4 27.8 X*4.4 X 922.11 923.4 923.3 LEGEND DENOTES EXISTING WALL DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE DENOTES EXISTING FENCE DENOTES UTILITY POLE I 8 N EXISTING HOUSE 923.3 5.7 922.9 LFE .7 r - - 71.8 -- 923.7.... 9.10_ 924;6 d40,.x 9 925.5 923.4'. 922.7 I 924 DECK 924.0 FN) 1;1 ooN o z N II 0 15 Z , 0 8 922.9 ca) 924.6 0 0 z - 16.1 rn -- 22.8 23.2 925.5 924.1 • .•• .• DENOTES PAVERS 923.7 923.6 ;Lc. \-D - 52.0 ........ .5- 92 I • .67.6 DENOTES CONCRETE / 923.7 1923.8 " I X 924.2 923.8 .•• 924.2 924.5 924.3 • • • • • • • • • • • 923.7 923.7 NOTES 923.4 924.5 925.0 924.4 - BASIS OF BEARING: HENNEPIN COUNTY CORDS. - ELEVATION BASED ON CITY OF EDINA BENCHMARKS. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist in addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. N N ....... / / X 924.2 O MAPLE-48 N 0 922.9 X-4923.0 922. 923.0 FNDCAPPEDIP-IN CONC X 923.3 In ND.50PEN x N84°59'4§"W (plat=N89'59'11"W) x 124.55 926.0 926.4 926.0 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. X ACRE LAND SURVEYING yQgmail.com Serving Twin Cities Metro r_ area and beyond 763-238-6278 js.acrelandsurvef7 I I P P iii Date: 9-17-2024 Reg. No. 44655 JO HUA P. SCHNEIDER JOB #24205 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 10 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Page 23 of 31 921.2 TC x TC 921.4921.3 TC 921.0 TCCC-PV LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 2, WARDEN ACRES PETERSON REPLAT, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT = ±10,047 sf Existing Hse/Porch = ±1,937 sf Existing Sheds = ±202 sf Existing Pavers = 1,116 sf Existing Concrete = ±136 sf Proposed Addition = ±791 sf Proposed Deck = ±301 sf Proposed Driveway = ±461 sf NORTH 0 20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. VARIANCE NEEDED FOR BUILDING COVERAGE LEGEND DENOTES EXISTING WALL DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE DENOTES EXISTING FENCE DENOTES UTILITY POLE DENOTES PAVERS DENOTES CONCRETE CXXx=XXX=0 • 0 x 1 0 1 1 . 2 ohw X c-0.3 921.3 TC 921.3 TC 921.0 NOTES - BASIS OF BEARING: HENNEPIN COUNTY CORDS. - ELEVATION BASED ON CITY OF EDINA BENCHMARKS. This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist in addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. HUA P. SCHNEIDER Date: 9-17-2024 Reg. No. 44655 922.9 x---- x r922.6 to 923.0 FND.50PEN FNDCAPPEDIP-IN CONC X X 1923.3 JOB #24205 ACRE LAND SURVEYING 763-238-6278 jaacrelandsurveyagmail.com Serving Twin Cities Metro r area and beyond (0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 I I I I 922.2 922.6 922.5 4-- 27.8 ---I -0 0 924 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5409 GROVE STREET, EDINA, MN FOR: MSP HOMES • r• r he 1 1 %I • I ••• V L... e• r- r- I-- I-- I I I L-. I 921.8 922.5 921.9 921.9 921.9 MH-WAT TC 0 C7\ I ill C\ is N00 0000 920.9: 921.8 / IIFIO 921.3 / FND.50PEN / Cf) EXISTING HOUSE 925.5 8 PROP. DECK CA), to 18.00 f. • ..*** 923.0 923.5 923.1 16.1 922.5 PINEX2-8--11 22.2 922- ........ Y. 922,2 922.7 922 I ..... .'923.4 X 923.6 ' V C?) I X 24.4 X 924:6 9 925.5 . 26, '923.8 I X924,2 • 21.6 922.8 GF -tt N N 923.3 5.7 922.9 „,.-,8 LFE 923.4 st- 922.7 DECK (TBR) 922.9 924.1 ik924.3 921.7 TC 92.82 ° 91 PA :921.9 PINE-8 I IM X 920.1 OAK-118 ‘4401.1- cap' Itw-x ;‘• 9z0.7 ?21.1. 922.31 I 923.0 922.11 923.3 923.4 'BENCHMARK TNH=923.82 (NGVD29) 923.8 'S'yq CHK-CAL --(1) FND.50PEN-SPKINCENTR 921.1 TCCC-PV 40.52 921.9 TC ,••••• I , I L.LJ -- e -N 5_, / IN 33.0 c <'5 922.3 x 923 923.7 x 923.4 922.1 922.3 922.1 tj, It-k. / % 4h- / // PROPOSED fit, • DRIVEWAY >r922.4 X PROPOSED ADDITION 16.00 X920.9 \ ..... 40' MAPLE-48 I 924.5 0 X924.2 923.6 .• X922.6 922.7 g23 00 cr) r-1 (plat=EAST) S89°59'23" X921.1 0 PORCH 923.2 FFE 23.4 0 923.5 923.4 23.2 925.0 924.4 I 51 • O F./ • N80°5914§"W (plat=N89'59111"W) Page 24 of 31 I, I I I BENCHMARK SEE SURVEY DOCUMENTATION N 40 Feel LEGEND: STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - SF - SILT FENCE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION RAIN GARDEN AREA CONTOUR INLET PROTECTION BITUMINOUS SURFACE CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 0:763.210.5713 I www.civllmethods.com I Magee` CERTIFY THAT THIS PtAtt, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREP.. BY ME OR LINOBY I, DIRECT SUL-9,4510N AND T., I AM A DULY LICENSED HYOFESSIOHAL ENGINEER IAD. THE LAWS OF THE STATE 0,41,1501A, 08-26-2024 KENT E. BRANDER LSO NO 44578 DES.HED KEB 01000 KEB CHECITO DMP PROJECT: 5409 GROVE ST PROD. LOCATION. 5409 GROVE ST, EDINA, MN 55439 PROD. OWNER MSP HOMES STORMWATER GRADING & EROSION CONTROL SHEET NO. CO1 DATE / REVISION: 0EL26.2024 Permit Submittal Set NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLASTIC 'ZIP' TIES (50# TENSILE) LOCATED 114 TOP 8" STEEL STUDDED 'T' POST 5f t MINIMUM LENGTH POSTS AT 6ft MAXIMUM SPACING GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, 36" WIDTH DIRECTION OF RUNOFF FLOW z MACHINE SLICE 8"-12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP) 0 SILT FENCE - MACHINE SLICED BASIN VEGETATION: INSTALL WET-TOLERANT "RAIN GARDEN" NATIVE SEED MIX (Mn/DOT MIX 33-261 OR ED) OR NATIVE "RAIN GARDEN" PLANT PLUGS (SIZE 2") SPACED PER SUPPLIER INSTRUCTIONS CURB FILTER (IF NEC.) OUTFLOW PORTS REINFORCED CORNERS (ALT. LOOPS FOR REBAR) 2' MIN. NOTE: RECTANGULAR DANDY SACK SHOWN. SIZE USED SHALL MATCH OPENING; EQUIVALENT BAG UNIT MAY BE USED (INCLUDE OVERFLOW PORTS) STORM GRATE rerea Teti= 1, sett= lassetve Dree=5 terser. it= Stetsit11 55111 11 4632 (=, ,,,„ 4,61 (VS Ste rept DX S5511 P 14511 erVera tste=reST, 5 7 A5711 D 4451 1551 Berates= P=. DUMPING STRAPS /STU 0 ,13 rm r7 . ) MTV P 1 MTV 0 451.3 /.574 D 4155 0 INLET PROTECTION - SEDIMENT SACK SEE PLAN DEPTH TO OVERFLOW VARIES PROTECT EXISTING TREE AND ROOTS; RAIN GARDEN MAY BE RELOCATED TO ANOTHER APPROVED AREA IF NEEDED TO PRESERVE TREE. Kcz--- RADIUS AS OKO REQUIRED 12" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3" TO 6" CRUSHED ROCK, CLEAR OR WASHED, OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS REQUIRED 8' MIN. 0 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REPLACE TOPSOIL (6" MIN), SOD OR SEED & MULCH IN GRADED AREAS OUTSIDE PLANTING ZONE INSTALL HYDROMULCH, [ EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT 10 (3885) OR SHREDDED MULCH PER PLAN 0 RAIN GARDEN INFILTRATION BASIN 18" ( MIN.) FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW (Mn/DOT MIX 3877.2E) =111- moi.... .< . A • '11-., il=1 IILLI-1,,1 ' ,Li - . __,r, 11--iite„--_,Hillivivrtn-frilq a ' 111-7-,71 Ill- H=.111=11 DEEPPRIOR TO MEDIAS SCARIFY BASIN BOTTOM PLACEMENT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED NEW DRIVE 140 LF SILT 0 FENCE, MS 0 230 LF SILT FENCE, MS CT GUTTERS AND NSPOUTS TO EAST TO HARGE NEW ROOF OFF TOWARD GROVE EET O RAIN GARDEN 1 BOT=922.7 OUT=923.7 VOL=119 CF Know what's below. Call before you dig. GRADING & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTES: 1. Contractor is responsible for identifying location of all utilities in field (which may not be shown), including contacting Gopher State One Call and ensuring utilities are located prior to digging. 7. Contours shown were manually digitized from the provided Certificate of Survey by WILLIS L. GILLIARD. Some minor discrepancies are possible. See Certificate of Survey for additional existing conditions information. 8. All improvements, grading, and erosion control shall adhere to City standards. Grading and building elevations for the proposed driveway and house addition to be determined by others. This plan addresses the grading required for stormwater controls as well as erosion and sediment control measures to comply with City requirements. 9. Topsoil from grading areas shall be stripped, salvaged and stockpiled; subcut below final grade and replace salvaged topsoil to a minimum depth of 4". 10. Loosen compacted soils through raking, tilling or other methods to a depth of 6" (min.). 11. Unless noted otherwise, all proposed contours indicate finished grades. 12. Contractor is responsible for maintaining flow paths indicated, with runoff directed to the rain gardens as indicated. The rain garden may be installed in an alternate location as long as it provides the same storage volume AND receives runoff from sufficient site impervious area. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. BRADY JENSEN is responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls and can be reached at 651-302-3183. 2. The street will be swept clean before the end of each day of active construction, when sediment is tracked into the street. 3. Areas with slopes greater than 3 to 1 and areas next to wetlands/waterbodies graded or exposed during construction shall be protected with temporary vegetation, mulching or other means as soon as practical and double silt fence. 4. All exposed soil areas will be stabilized as soon as practical. Unworked soils that remain exposed and not in use for longer than 14 days will be covered with temporary seed (grass, oats, or wheat). 5. No concrete washout shall occur on site unless it is done with an approved Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) device or standard. 6. Stockpiles shall be surrounded with adequate perimeter control to prevent sedimentation and erosion. 7. From March 21st to November 1st, drop inlet protection with curb overflow installed in all storm sewer inlets downstream of the site within one block or as directed by the City. 8. Site shall be kept clean at all times and refuse properly controlled. 9. Temporary pumping shall not be permitted without the use of an approved Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) device or standard. 10. Soil compaction shall be minimized; areas of compacted soil will be removed or loosened via tilling to a depth of no less than 4 inches. 11. Dust control measures shall be taken. 12. The contractor shall inspect on a weekly basis and after any rainfall greater than 1" all erosion control devices and make any repairs immediately. An inspection log shall be kept on site detailing these inspections and repairs performed. PHASING TO MINIMIZE EXPOSED SOILS 1. Install perimeter silt fence/sediment logs, and prior to site disturbance. 2. Complete soil stripping and rough grading of s 3. Install pavements and other improvements. 4. Replace topsoil and establish vegetative cover. 5. Complete site restoration and final stabilization controls after construction activity has ceased construction entrance as shown ite. measures (remove temporary and vegetation is established). 312407E1_5409 Grove St Ethre008_DRAWINGS A SPECIFICATIONS \ C3DS(refB Page 25 of 31 ZVEY CERT i_ Survey -Co & B 20 F0 40 Projects \24078_5409 Grove St Edina 08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS \ C3D \ Xrcf N SITE DATA: 1. PROPERTY AREA: ±16,047 SF 2. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: ±3,589 SF 3. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: ±4,844 SF 4. NET NEW IMPERVIOUS: +1,255 SF 5. STORMWATER CATEGORY: 2 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE In both the existing and proposed condition, part of the site drains north toward Grove Street, and part drains to the southwest, ultimately arriving at Garden Avenue then also flowing toward Grove Street. No additional impervious area will discharge to private properties. The 1,255 SF of net new impervious area drains to an area of structural flooding concern. This is greater than 600 SF, so volume control must be provided in an amount equal to 1.1 IN over the net new impervious area. This is equal to 115 CF. The rain garden as shown provides a total volume of 119 CF at a maximum depth of 1 FT. In coordination with the grading, the rain garden is positioned to receive runoff from an amount of impervious area exceeding the net increase in impervious area for the site. The design therefore meets or exceeds the applicable requirements. EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 0:763.210.5713 I www.civilmethods.com I HEREBY (TANEY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFIC.ATICAA OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR DUMMY DIRK, SMERVISION ANO THAT I API A DULY LICENSED BY ONAL ENGINE. UNDER TBE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 08-26-2024 KENT E. BRANDER uc uo 44578 5409 GROVE ST PROD. LocKnoN 5409 GROVE ST, EDINA, MN 55439 PROD. OWNER MSP HOMES PROJECT: SHEET NO. CO2 H,F.T 0 tic, n leo hcrcbr ,c1-10 11121 I 2. 131oc1. 2. \\ ;H.). ( ml). Milinc,out A1,1 of th, locmion. SUNT_ hT me I. I, Al>cHl h' LU ol -inn ,hown:12.aninn 2. 16' 3,589 SF IMPERVIOUS DRAINS TO STRUCTURAL FLOODING ZONE 4,844SF IMPERVIOUS DRAINS TO STRUCTURAL FLOODING ZONE LEGEND: DRAINAGE DIRECTION RAIN GARDEN AREA CONTOUR IMPERVIOUS AREA DENGNED KEB DRA,N KEB 0000 D CPAP DATE / REVISION: OS-262024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE DIAGRAMS Page 26 of 31 UTILITY in X rot LAUNDRY UP Post and beam at mid-span of stair Scale 1/4" = l'-O" SPORT ROOM Deck: - All lumber to be pressure treated pine - Use approved metal hangers and fasteners - Use tension ties to secure deck to house - Use 2x12 stringers for stairs spaced per decking manufacturers spec - Stair rough treads to be 10" or greater - Stair risers to be 7 3/4" or less - Provide blocking for guardrail/handrail system b t b I I Cu \i• - 2 3/4" - 10 1/8" /Pr Garage 1/4" = 1'-0" 2x10 Ledger anchored w/ Ledgerloks per ' manufacturers spec I 2x10 joists @ oc ! I — (3) 2x10 I ! Additional joist and ' blocking for deck border (both sides ! ! I I . I I (3) 2x10 drop beam 6x6 pos anchored to helical pier foot ng (5 thus) ...0. IL 5 - 10 1/8" - 10 1/8 0' - 2 3/4" // 18' - 0" Ad <!!„,/,:25 21' - 4" 15 - 0" - 6" 9' - 0" 3' - 6" Li Io fa 32 2x6 partition - Remove exg deck and ! stairs for addition 2x6 bearing wall (3) 2x10 header Platform above (cantilevered) ao cv z w Exg CMU wall GARAGE ADDITION 9 1/2" wood I-joists @ 16" oc above 5' - 9" 2x10's @ 16" oc above 2x6 bearing wall 20 min. fire door ! STORAGE I -r 36" 36" Ledger anchored w/ Ledgerloks per manufacturers spec GARAGE 7' tall overhead sectional door Header sized by supplier Advanced Drafting and Res. Design Inc ADRD@comcast.net 651-341-7911 Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Co Exg cantilever - 5" 7'- 10" 0 Addition Garage Plan Project number GroveSt Date 6/3/2024 Drawn by Author Print Size Checker A2 6/3/2024 3:55:32 P M 5409 Grove St Edina, MN Beam above mom 22' - 3 1/2" 1 16' - 0" in / Page 27 of 31 Advanced Drafting and Res. Design Inc ADRD@comcast.net 651-341-7911 Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail 5409 Grove St Edina, MN Addition Main Floor, Views Project number GroveSt_3b Date 6/3/2024 Drawn by sp Print Size 18"x24" Al Scale 1/4" = l'-O" 6/3/2024 3:54:37 PM 8' 0" 1 I / 32 x80' Csmnt L I ./ 1 I : 32 x60 Csmnt 1 1 ' I 1 I I I -I 111 j T 63"x53' Csmnt 3D View 1 3 3D View 2 ----------- / 1' - 6"1 Remove windows, add sliding glass door DN 6 dl 40"x28" fixed 4' - 5 3/4" ----/ 4' - 5 3/4" 6' - 8' 6' - 8" 40"x28" fixed 40"x28" fixed 22' - 3 1/2" y Pn 1 Platform 48" CLOSET z 32" 10 - 6" 1 7/8" step up 1 _ OPEN TO BELOW 1 Beam above Exg roof peak Remove window - fill in wall Hand-frame roof over exg I OFFICE 1 Roof trusses @ 24" oc above Remove sliding glass door, add single glass door, patch wall --- 3 KITCHEN Roof trusses @ 24' oc above - 6 DECK Composite decking Composite skirt and risers Aluminum guardrail system at 3' tall with no space greater than 4" 1 0 Install solid blocking in wall for beam bearing Hand-frame roof this section 18' - 0" First Floor__ 1/4" = 1'-0" Page 28 of 31 Main Level AL., 0' - 0" IF Garage Plate New AL -0' - 8 3/8" w 2x6 pt plate on sill seal anchored to foundation @ 5' oc 8 L 5 ower Level AL -' - " w Garage Agi_ - -9'- 1 1/2" w ! !— TO Footing New -12' - 9 1/2" w VIII I I _1 I 1 Section 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 4" reinforced concrete on ___compacted sand or gravel _ - Ridge vent Match exg roof 6 Asphalt shingles slope, 6/12 - Ice&water and 15 lb felt assumed - 1/2" osb Roof trusses @ 24" oc R49 insulation Vapor barrier • --5/8" gyp bd 37' - 8 - - Hand-frame this section of roof Roof 18' - 4 7/8" w First Plate du 8' -.1 1/8" 3/4" t&g subfloor 9 1/2" wood I-joists @ 16" oc (LPI 32) R30 insulation 5/8" gyp bd Add blocking between joists for wall above Heel height determined by matching exg roof Siding to match exg Tyvek WRB 7/16" osb 2x6 studs @ 16" oc R21 insulation I Vapor barrier 5/8" gyp bd Soffit and fascia to match exg Office Floor 0' - 1 7/8" w Main Level 0' - 0" W Garage Plate New Ait_ -0' - 8 3/8" w Beam (sized by supplier) 2x10 platform co Siding to match exg Tyvek WAS 7/16" osb 2x6 studs @ 16" oc F121 insulation Vapor barrier 5/8" gyp bd 2x6 pt plate on sill seal anchored to foundation @ 5' oc 11 L Concrete apron Lower Level % Insulated 2x6 wall 6/3/20243:57:18 PM Project number GroveSt=3b_ Date 6/3/2024 Drawn by sp Print Size Checker A5 Scale 1/4" = 1'-0" h III III 5 co. 12" CMU I I ' I I conc. footing i I— I I w/2 #5 cont 2 Section 2 1/4" = l'-O" I 1 i_Garage - 1 1/2" W IL Hi! TO Footing New AL III H I-12.- 91/2" W III III 1 I 1 co. 6" CMU on _ 5 co. 12" CMUI I • 8"x20" conc. footing w/2 #5 cont. I III III III III h III Advanced Drafting and Res. Design Inc ADRD@comcast.net 651-341-7911 First Plate 8' - 1 1/8" —r 3' tall guard-rail Use manufactured studs (LSL or aim.) with mid-span blocking for tall walls Siding to match exg Tyvek WRB 7/16" osb 2x6 studs @ 16" oc R21 insulation Vapor barrier 5/8" gyp bd Office Floor AL 0' - 1 7/8" w Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail 4" reinforced concrete on compacted sand or gravel II III 1 co. 6" CMU on I_ 5 co. 12" CMU j I I8"xar conc. footing w/2 #5 cont. 5409 Grove St Edina, MN Addition Sections Page 29 of 31 Driveway addition 16 Remove and re-work retaining walls and grade 0 EXISTING HOUSE o 7 l a CI LU O 0 Q. 8' - 7 1/4 lb cx 5 O South v---J 1/8" = 1'-0" DNA1114111( 124' - 6 3/4" 6/3/2024 3:56:36 PM Site Plan \-L1 1" = 20'-0" Advanced Drafting and Res. Design Inc ADRD@comcast.net 651-341-7911 Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail 5409 Grove St Edina, MN id 22' - 3 1/2" Lot area = 16,046.82 s.f. Existing house, driveway and steps = 3,589.6 s.f. Existing house = 1,900 s.f. Proposed addition = 804 s.f. Existing house + addition = 2,704 s.f. Building coverage of lot = 17% (25% allowed) Driveway addition = 450 s.f. Proposed hardsurface coverage = 4,844 s.f. Proposed hardsurface to lot = 30% Allowed coverage = 50% Addition Elevations, Site Project number GroveSt_3b Date 6/3/2024 Drawn by sp Print Size 18"x24" A4 Scale As indicated 1- _I! II !I II I _ C II ll I Roof slope to match exg O East 1/8" = 1'-0" ti Soffit and fascia to match exd Siding lo match excf Brick to -match exg--- •, • North `-l-11 1/8" = 1.-0" Page 30 of 31 Page 31 of 31